587 replies to this topic

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Repasy, on 11 May 2015 - 08:37 PM, said:

The Poseidon and Ares were 125 tons & 135 tons respectively, if that's what you're referring to. Omega was the only 150-ton mech, but it walks on two legs

I just figured as long as we're reaching into the crazy pit, might as well go full hog.

150-ton three-legged superheavy LAMs with torso cockpits, compact gyros, head turrets mounting LB10-X autocannon and ER Pulse lasers.

[Lord DeicideRavenRose]

IraqiWalker, on 11 May 2015 - 08:36 PM, said:

Ok, that was pretty funny.





Not cheating tools. PGI detecting, and banning cheaters.

Ha ha ha. Yeah, funny. He's a real character, that one.

[TheSteelRhino]

Well done.

[CMetz]

Also, I hate to break peoples' hearts, but as much as this Davion loyalist has disagreed with the ways of NKVA in the past, and as much as I disagree with much of what some of their members have proposed in this thread, the cheater was not a member of NKVA.

[Repasy Cooper]

Quickdraw Crobat, on 11 May 2015 - 08:42 PM, said:

I just figured as long as we're reaching into the crazy pit, might as well go full hog.

150-ton three-legged superheavy LAMs with torso cockpits, compact gyros, head turrets mounting LB10-X autocannon and ER Pulse lasers.

I lol'd when you slam'd LAMS into the mix! +1 Respect.

[IraqiWalker]

CMetz, on 11 May 2015 - 08:43 PM, said:

Also, I hate to break peoples' hearts, but as much as this Davion loyalist has disagreed with the ways of NKVA in the past, and as much as I disagree with much of what some of their members have proposed in this thread, the cheater was not a member of NKVA.

Look I don't know the details of the ban, and there are many like me. However, the NKVA (to be fair, like 3 or 4 people) are the ones spearheading some ill-conceived notion of a "charge for great justice", so it made sense for many of us to assume the cheater is associated with the NKVA (It also didn't help that Ataturk made SEVERAL mentions of the NKVA being "controversial" with PGI)

[GateheaD]

remember when PGI banned someone for talking on voice comms on a stream they were on

[Jakob Knight]

I must admit I am skeptical of people who want to know precisely how cheat detection works when they shouldn't have any interest in that unless it impacts them directly and personally. And, if It does, there is no reason such information would have to be made public knowledge when the very knowledge of how it works would render it ineffective.

If people really want this info, they can follow their path through private means much better than anything they could gain through the Forums. That they come here rather than take their request directly to the agency in question also makes me skeptical of their motives.

Ultimately, if you take the stance that PGI did not conduct a through investigation into the cheating when you have no evidence one way or the other, then you are assuming guilt until proven innocence, the very thing I believe some on these Forums are so adamantly against when criticizing PGI's handling of this matter. Instead, perhaps those who feel the process is incorrect could put forth their evidence of guilt, rather than expecting proof that nothing wrong was done.

Lastly, as has been highlighted by others in this thread, PGI ultimately is -not- required to provide explanation to anyone as to why they ban a person from the game that they own (yes, even in-game items purchased by players are owned by PGI still...the players are simply obtaining the use of the items while in said game, not the ownership of the items themselves). We all agreed to the EULA when we joined the game, and do so by default every time we log into it. Reading it is a responsibility that goes along with the right to agree to it.

[Damocles]

confused; NKVA does the cheats?

[Hobotorius Augustus Kerensky]

IraqiWalker, on 11 May 2015 - 08:46 PM, said:

Look I don't know the details of the ban, and there are many like me. However, the NKVA (to be fair, like 3 or 4 people) are the ones spearheading some ill-conceived notion of a "charge for great justice", so it made sense for many of us to assume the cheater is associated with the NKVA (It also didn't help that Ataturk made SEVERAL mentions of the NKVA being "controversial" with PGI)

NKVA was once a highly toxic unit who mocked people we played but thanks to the guidance from PGI and a crucial outreach of education from their community management team, we are now honorable samurai who tell our opponents we had a Good Duel.

Damocles, on 11 May 2015 - 08:50 PM, said:

confused; NKVA does the cheats?

[IraqiWalker]

Jakob Knight, on 11 May 2015 - 08:48 PM, said:

I must admit I am skeptical of people who want to know precisely how cheat detection works when they shouldn't have any interest in that unless it impacts them directly and personally. And, if It does, there is no reason such information would have to be made public knowledge when the very knowledge of how it works would render it ineffective.

If people really want this info, they can follow their path through private means much better than anything they could gain through the Forums. That they come here rather than take their request directly to the agency in question also makes me skeptical of their motives.

Ultimately, if you take the stance that PGI did not conduct a through investigation into the cheating when you have no evidence one way or the other, then you are assuming guilt until proven innocence, the very thing I believe some on these Forums are so adamantly against when criticizing PGI's handling of this matter. Instead, perhaps those who feel the process is incorrect could put forth their evidence of guilt, rather than expecting proof that nothing wrong was done.

Lastly, as has been highlighted by others in this thread, PGI ultimately is -not- required to provide explanation to anyone as to why they ban a person from the game that they own (yes, even in-game items purchased by players are owned by PGI still...the players are simply obtaining the use of the items while in said game, not the ownership of the items themselves). We all agreed to the EULA when we joined the game, and do so by default every time we log into it. Reading it is a responsibility that goes along with the right to agree to it.

[Repasy Cooper]

Hobotorius Augustus Kerensky, on 11 May 2015 - 08:51 PM, said:

NKVA was once a highly toxic unit who mocked people we played but thanks to the guidance from PGI and a crucial outreach of education from their community management team, we are now honorable samurai who tell our opponents we had a Good Duel.

It's gonna take more than ONE outreach to some of your "honorable samurai" to wipe the taint off your tag.

Jus' sayin' what we're all thinkin'! Redemption ain't CHEAP!

Edited by Repasy, 11 May 2015 - 08:54 PM.

[Damocles]

Hobotorius Augustus Kerensky, on 11 May 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

Ah, maybe that should be a unit sig so every self-righteous "controversial" post is more understandable.

[IraqiWalker]

Hobotorius Augustus Kerensky, on 11 May 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

NKVA was once a highly toxic unit who mocked people we played but thanks to the guidance from PGI and a crucial outreach of education from their community management team, we are now honorable samurai who tell our opponents we had a Good Duel.

See, I did not know any of that. Thank you for the explanation.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 11 May 2015 - 08:56 PM.

[GateheaD]

Hobotorius Augustus Kerensky, on 11 May 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

who you calling a clanner?

[S204STi]

Kiiyor, on 11 May 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:

Also looks like he may (or may not) have been genuinely blindsided by the results, and lied to by the banned individual.

They seemed to be quite close as friends, so even if there was something suspicious going on, erring on the side of friendship is completely understandable, though unfortunate.

Guilt by association is quite nasty. I think we should err on the side of not brutalizing someone who might also be quite gutted by the whole thing.

Yup, and yet the trainwreck ensues.

[Whatzituyah]

GateheaD, on 11 May 2015 - 08:57 PM, said:

who you calling a clanner?

Don't confuse the real term for Clan for the Battletech clan

http://dictionary.re...com/browse/clan

I don't know if you were joking so here you go.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Hobotorius Augustus Kerensky, on 11 May 2015 - 08:26 PM, said:

actually, you will see the burden of proof lies on those who say the state executed this person for suspicious reasons and not on the state to provide evidence of guilt

bout that...

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, on 11 May 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that if you were a member of a successful, controversial unit like NKVA, you would be doing the same when repeated abuses against your guildmates happened.

And never explaining that or providing proof

[Coordinator Toxic Kerensky]

Jakob Knight, on 11 May 2015 - 08:48 PM, said:

I must admit I am skeptical of people who want to know precisely how cheat detection works when they shouldn't have any interest in that unless it impacts them directly and personally. And, if It does, there is no reason such information would have to be made public knowledge when the very knowledge of how it works would render it ineffective.

If people really want this info, they can follow their path through private means much better than anything they could gain through the Forums. That they come here rather than take their request directly to the agency in question also makes me skeptical of their motives.

Ultimately, if you take the stance that PGI did not conduct a through investigation into the cheating when you have no evidence one way or the other, then you are assuming guilt until proven innocence, the very thing I believe some on these Forums are so adamantly against when criticizing PGI's handling of this matter. Instead, perhaps those who feel the process is incorrect could put forth their evidence of guilt, rather than expecting proof that nothing wrong was done.

Lastly, as has been highlighted by others in this thread, PGI ultimately is -not- required to provide explanation to anyone as to why they ban a person from the game that they own (yes, even in-game items purchased by players are owned by PGI still...the players are simply obtaining the use of the items while in said game, not the ownership of the items themselves). We all agreed to the EULA when we joined the game, and do so by default every time we log into it. Reading it is a responsibility that goes along with the right to agree to it.

Given CryEngine's long, distinguished history of being extremely vulnerable to hacks, CryTek's OWN GAMES included and, with MWO opened, the lack of any third party anticheat software running, the alternative is that PGI, with its (understandably) rather limited resources, the same company that bungles calculating something as simple as how multiplying a percent by a percent works while implementing UAC jam quirks, somehow managed to come up with their own anticheat where CryTek, a company employing approximately 700 people, could not, as far as I know. This seems rather, uh, unlikely to me.

Edited by Coordinator Aigis Kurita, 11 May 2015 - 09:11 PM.

[Kiiyor]

Hobotorius Augustus Kerensky, on 11 May 2015 - 08:52 PM, said:

I FEEL IMMEDIATELY AT EASE

and i'm yoinking that gif