133 replies to this topic

[Darian DelFord]

I submitted 4 video's last night to Customer Support which showed obvious use of it. But who know what the heck will happen.

[justcallme A S H]

Aidan Crenshaw, on 01 February 2019 - 04:49 AM, said:

IMO big signs mean nothing if what they say can not be enforced.

Can easily be done

[eminus]

up till now we don't hear **** from PGI about what are they going to do to fix their incompetence.

[Sjorpha]

Just chiming in that this issue must be fixed, game can't be considered playable with a widely used cheat.

Also the fix can not be to ban users of the macro, because it's become widespread to a point where it's hard to even blame someone for caving in and using it. If they wen't ahead and permabanned everyone who has used it we're probably talking about 500+ people easily, maybe more, most of which aren't the kind that would normally cheat. It's neither practical or ethical to go that route IMO.

PGI must fix the actual problem, and they should honestly make an emergency hotfix disabling RACs entirely until they are done, like yesterday.

I'm with Kuber on this, not playing the game until fixed.

[HammerMaster]

eminus, on 01 February 2019 - 05:23 AM, said:

up till now we don't hear **** from PGI about what are they going to do to fix their incompetence.

Tina actually posted a few days ago.
It's being looked at.

[Sjorpha]

HammerMaster, on 01 February 2019 - 05:39 AM, said:

Tina actually posted a few days ago.
It's being looked at.

Yeah, but they should have disabled RACs as soon as the working cheat was evidenced. If they don't fix it today the game will broke the whole weekend, that's pretty bad tbh.

[HammerMaster]

Sjorpha, on 01 February 2019 - 05:48 AM, said:

Yeah, but they should have disabled RACs as soon as the working cheat was evidenced. If they don't fix it today the game will broke the whole weekend, that's pretty bad tbh.

Agreed. But "fix their incompetence"?
Community let them know
Slow to fix? Maybe?
But many many people pointed it out.

[Dimento Graven]

mad kat, on 31 January 2019 - 02:46 PM, said:

Hate to break it to you but it does. Fact. And regularly too.

In the group queue, of course.

In the solo queue? PGI has reportedly said, "No we don't... Not even when we make you wait 5 minutes for a match..."

BUT SOMETIMES, it sure feels like you get placed on a team of 11 Tier 5's...

Honestly PGI should post the Tiers on the EOM screens, but keeping it hidden for fear of "stat shaming" (which I consider a BS reason with the ability to report people for such none sense in game) is actually doing a disservice to proving the veracity of what PGI says. We all know that they sometimes make mistakes that for months/years they swear isn't so then suddenly...

[Der Geisterbaer]

justcallme A S H, on 01 February 2019 - 05:19 AM, said:

Can easily be done

I'd like to hear your suggestions on how to "easily" enforce such a "no macro" policy ... particularly with regards to gaming peripherals that come with serious macro capabilites on driver level.

[Dimento Graven]

@Koniving - Dude, the flamer issue, you silly guy, you know the issue isn't the damage dealt by macro'ing flamers, it's the heat delivered vs. the heat received. SO, my question because I truly do not know the answer does macro'ing flamers deliver more heat than heat it inflicts than intended (in other words does a macro with flamers defeat ghost heat)?

If so I'd consider that a huge exploit.

As far as macros and PGI historically, waaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back like 3 or 4 years ago there was some other macro-gate (gauss-PPC macros for pop-tarts?, can't really remember what the gist of it was) that came up and PGI stated something along the lines of, "Many modern mice and keyboards a built to support macros as one of their primary features, and, it would be darn near impossible for us to detect macro use anyway, so as far we're concerned the use of macros is not cheating."

So Tina's post is a definite recent shift on PGI's stance on the use of macros, which is overdue in my opinion.

Also to the "white knights" or at least those defending the question of PGI's "incompetence", it is very, Very, VERY hard to NOT look "incompetent" when you're pushing out broken features (most recent and egregious probably being the Friend List sorting/refresh), and letting a LARGE list of, if not "game breaking" then, HUGELY ANNOYING bugs to exist for heck, YEARS..., OR, by "fixing" bugs by completely lobotomizing the game (ala: fixing 'mech build exploits via 'mech lab in FP/Private Lobbies by just disabling our ability to edit our 'mechs when in an FP/PL - meaning you have to LEAVE the FP group/lobby, edit your 'mech, get a reinvite).

If it's not "incompetence" then it's an demonstration of a lack of concern for 'quality'...

PGI should really address the long, LONG list of bugs that have existed for a long, LONG time...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 01 February 2019 - 06:53 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Der Geisterbaer, on 01 February 2019 - 06:28 AM, said:

I'd like to hear your suggestions on how to "easily" enforce such a "no macro" policy ... particularly with regards to gaming peripherals that come with serious macro capabilites on driver level.

Well you could probably program the client/server to detect series of rapid inputs with identical timing, say for example if there is more than 8 clicks with identical intervals in less than 1 second the player gets autobanned or something like that. If you want to get fancy it could also check if a RAC is equipped.

Manually enforcing it doesn't seem very plausible, I agree with that.

Edited by Sjorpha, 01 February 2019 - 06:51 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

@Koniving - Dude, the flamer issue, you silly guy, you know the issue isn't the damage dealt by macro'ing flamers, it's the heat delivered vs. the heat received. SO, my question because I truly do not know the answer does macro'ing flamers deliver more heat than heat it inflicts than intended (in other words does a macro with flamers defeat ghost heat)?

If so I'd consider that a huge exploit.

There was a period when you could macro around the flamer heat buildup, it was later fixed and doesn't work anymore.

[Dimento Graven]

Sjorpha, on 01 February 2019 - 06:55 AM, said:

There was a period when you could macro around the flamer heat buildup, it was later fixed and doesn't work anymore.

Ok cool, thanks for the info, so nothing to worry about there, never should it be mentioned again.

[HammerMaster]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

@Koniving - Dude, the flamer issue, you silly guy, you know the issue isn't the damage dealt by macro'ing flamers, it's the heat delivered vs. the heat received. SO, my question because I truly do not know the answer does macro'ing flamers deliver more heat than heat it inflicts than intended (in other words does a macro with flamers defeat ghost heat)?

If so I'd consider that a huge exploit.

As far as macros and PGI historically, waaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back like 3 or 4 years ago there was some other macro-gate (gauss-PPC macros for pop-tarts?, can't really remember what the gist of it was) that came up and PGI stated something along the lines of, "Many modern mice and keyboards a built to support macros as one of their primary features, and, it would be darn near impossible for us to detect macro use anyway, so as far we're concerned the use of macros is not cheating."

So Tina's post is a definite recent shift on PGI's stance on the use of macros, which is overdue in my opinion.

Also to the "white knights" or at least those defending the question of PGI's "incompetence", it is very, Very, VERY hard to NOT look "incompetent" when you're pushing out broken features (most recent and egregious probably being the Friend List sorting/refresh), and letting a LARGE list of, if not "game breaking" then, HUGELY ANNOYING bugs to exist for heck, YEARS..., OR, by "fixing" bugs by completely lobotomizing the game (ala: fixing 'mech build exploits via 'mech lab in FP/Private Lobbies by just disabling our ability to edit our 'mechs when in an FP/PL - meaning you have to LEAVE the FP group/lobby, edit your 'mech, get a reinvite).

If it's not "incompetence" then it's an demonstration of a lack of concern for 'quality'...

PGI should really address the long, LONG list of bugs that have existed for a long, LONG time...

White Knight!?
Where!?

[Luminis]

Sjorpha, on 01 February 2019 - 06:49 AM, said:

Well you could probably program the client/server to detect series of rapid inputs with identical timing, say for example if there is more than 8 clicks with identical intervals in less than 1 second the player gets autobanned or something like that. If you want to get fancy it could also check if a RAC is equipped.

Manually enforcing it doesn't seem very plausible, I agree with that.

I don't even think that's necessary.

All PGI needs is an overflow condition so the client doesn't send more than X amount of input in Y period of time. That way, you can sure that there is simply no merit in using such spam macros, beyond fixing stone of MWO's design aspects.

[Dimento Graven]

Luminis, on 01 February 2019 - 07:10 AM, said:

I don't even think that's necessary.

All PGI needs is an overflow condition so the client doesn't send more than X amount of input in Y period of time. That way, you can sure that there is simply no merit in using such spam macros, beyond fixing stone of MWO's design aspects.

The question is, is it possible to design a 'mech, and play a 'mech in such a way that would legitimately require "lot of input" that would inadvertently trigger this 'overflow condition' you're proposing?

Something like this would have to be done carefully for fear of accidentally getting an unintended 'nerf'...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 01 February 2019 - 07:20 AM.

[Luminis]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 07:20 AM, said:

The question is, is it possible to design a 'mech, and play a 'mech in such a way that would legitimately require "lot of input" that would inadvertently trigger this 'overflow condition' you're proposing?

No. Quite simply no. There's no case where being artificially limited to the approx. 600 APM pro StarCraft players can achieve could potentially interfere with your ability to pilot a Mech as intended.

[Appogee]

Post-patch, be on the lookout for floating bridges.

#PepperidgeFarmRemembers

[Dimento Graven]

Luminis, on 01 February 2019 - 07:37 AM, said:

No. Quite simply no. There's no case where being artificially limited to the approx. 600 APM pro StarCraft players can achieve could potentially interfere with your ability to pilot a Mech as intended.

I know of a player who plays a 6 AC2 KGC/6 CUAC2 Night Gyr and he sets up each weapon on its on weapon group then sits there and spams his 1-6 keys getting damn good firing rates for 'em.

I see that sort of thing potentially being seen as an "overflow condition"...

Edited by Dimento Graven, 01 February 2019 - 07:51 AM.

[Maddermax]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2019 - 07:20 AM, said:

The question is, is it possible to design a 'mech, and play a 'mech in such a way that would legitimately require "lot of input" that would inadvertently trigger this 'overflow condition' you're proposing?

Something like this would have to be done carefully for fear of accidentally getting an unintended 'nerf'...

Make it on a per Weapon basis rather than just a general overflow thing.

Or just give continuous firing weapons a short “cool down” where they cannot be instantly triggered again after the trigger has been released for 0.05 seconds (or whatever the longest cycle time is), which won’t interfere with a normal player holding down a button, but will stop macros from retriggering an already firing weapon.

Edited by Maddermax, 01 February 2019 - 07:58 AM.