Change the rules for INI edits

Cadeal - Dreamweaver

Boogiepanda - Raging Tide wrote: »

The hair is worth a crusade!

You reminded me of the squirrels from JD with that.

"I'd die to protect my hair!"

Fluxal - Dreamweaver

frankieraye wrote: »

Editing game files has always been against the rules, and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon-

Nothing personal, but I have always hated hearing this answer from anyone, related to anything. A "thats the way it's always been" attitude has never taken any company to soaring new heights.

However, in my opinion:

Firstly, it's not all the aesthetics thats the problem. If they allowed free editing of the ini files, it directly circumvents the usefulness of a makover scroll, which is a paid product, which should definately NOT be allowed. Why would anyone ever buy another makover scroll if they could freely edit the ini files at their leisure? This is not going to happen.

Secondly, there are always people who are going to take limitations and exclusions to the extreme. If they allowed editing of any ini game files, some people will claim ignorance and modify files that do affect game physics. Balance could quickly get out of control beyond the GM's ability to counteract it. The last thing you ever want in a controlled game environment is loss of control, PWI cannot afford to take that chance.


On the other hand, if this has been allowed in the China version of the game, then maybe a "We'll look into it" attitude would be more accepted by the PWI community.

_blood_rain - Sanctuary

Fluxal - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Nothing personal, but I have always hated hearing this answer from anyone, related to anything. A "thats the way it's always been" attitude has never taken any company to soaring new heights.

However, in my opinion:

Firstly, it's not all the aesthetics thats the problem. If they allowed free editing of the ini files, it directly circumvents the usefulness of a makover scroll, which is a paid product, which should definately NOT be allowed. Why would anyone ever buy another makover scroll if they could freely edit the ini files at their leisure? This is not going to happen.

Secondly, there are always people who are going to take limitations and exclusions to the extreme. If they allowed editing of any ini game files, some people will claim ignorance and modify files that do affect game physics. Balance could quickly get out of control beyond the GM's ability to counteract it. The last thing you ever want in a controlled game environment is loss of control, PWI cannot afford to take that chance.


On the other hand, if this has been allowed in the China version of the game, then maybe a "We'll look into it" attitude would be more accepted by the PWI community.

Why would editing ini files for appearance affect makeover scroll usefulness?
You still have to get one if you want to change your appearance even after you edit files.
Also by that logic, hypers wouldn't have been introduced because it can be argued that they made esotericas obsolete(count how many on your server have never heard of one).

Anyway...makeover scrolls are DQ reward items, cheap ones too. They are already free.

Secondly, what imbalancing modifications are you speaking of and why bring them up here? This issue concerns character editing for appearance, not exploitations. Loss of control? What does that mean?
Why not only ban the modifications that are used as exploitations?
Example, tiger form can be glitched with claws to make claws usable in tiger form.

Do they ban tiger form? no. because that isn't whats harmful
But they do ban using claws in tiger form, because that is the specific harmful act.
See what I'm saying?

Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973

_blood_rain - Sanctuary wrote: »

Secondly, what imbalancing modifications are you speaking of and why bring them up here? This issue concerns character editing for appearance, not exploitations. Loss of control? What does that mean?

Through INI modifications you can make a character difficult to see or difficult to click on.

_blood_rain - Sanctuary

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

Through INI modifications you can make a character difficult to see or difficult to click on.

I assumed that issue had already been covered.
Seeing how this can be abused it would make sense to not allow it specifically but as for harmless modifications...I believe they should be allowed.

It's really not that drastic of an issue anyway, we do have a T filter.
and those all class fowl pets are used for the same reason, by the logic currently implemented those should be banned too right?

Yukkuri - Heavens Tear

frankieraye wrote: »

The reasoning behind the multi-client rule change was not "to be more like China", but to account for the fact that modifying game files was no longer necessary to multi-client.

Editing game files has always been against the rules, and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon-

If I may ask, why not at least add the Advanced Makeover Scroll. Personally, the only change I'd make to my barb can be easily achieved by using such legit item. This is, if the company is so bent over on said rule. I really don't see anything wrong from doing it as long as it's completely reasonable (non reasonable examples are already on this thread).

Bellarie - Raging Tide

frankieraye wrote: »

The reasoning behind the multi-client rule change was not "to be more like China", but to account for the fact that modifying game files was no longer necessary to multi-client.

Editing game files has always been against the rules, and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon-

Then perhaps it's time for the character creation content to be reviewed and modified to allow for more customization. After all, the customization is one of PWI's biggest selling points.
You could at least suggest it to the devs for us.
b:lipcurl

Vinat - Sanctuary

frankieraye wrote: »

The reasoning behind the multi-client rule change was not "to be more like China", but to account for the fact that modifying game files was no longer necessary to multi-client.

Editing game files has always been against the rules, and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon-

The "be more like china" analogy was to the removal of the medals (and various other changes which i didn't mention, such as DQ nerf for the non-existent gold farmers in PWI). The multi-client analogy was to the arbitrary rule changes. They're two separate parallels.

As for everyone wondering "where to draw the line?" Simple: hair, eyes, and colorings. And again I'll compare this to the new multiclienting rule. You can now pretty much effortlessly open as many clients as your computer can handle, but that didn't stop the GMs from coming up with a rule limiting it to 2 clients per individual player (and not even computer). SO still, just because I can open 10 clients on each of my computers, this doesn't mean it's "allowed." If ini editing for hair or eye texture or skin/lip/hair/eye color were to be made "legal" that does not necessarily mean that making super skinny or super fat characters would or should be allowed.

And ty blood, for letting the trolls know I'm not just a jerk b:kiss For everyone's edification, my repeated ticketing of this one person was more to test the GMs to see if they'd do anything about a heavy cash shopper breaking the rules, because I know a few not so heavy cash shoppers who were contacted in-game by a GM and told essentially "get another makeover scroll and change your character or you will get banned."

The response I was repeatedly given was "that is head fashion, you can buy it in the boutique by pressing O", to which I had to reply to point out that in the screenshot I sent in, I had the person's view gear screen open, and they had no head fash equipped. Seems that the GMs don't even know the difference between boutique hair and TB or EG hair.

Bellarie - Raging Tide

Vinat - Sanctuary wrote: »

The "be more like china" analogy was to the removal of the medals (and various other changes which i didn't mention, such as DQ nerf for the non-existent gold farmers in PWI). The multi-client analogy was to the arbitrary rule changes. They're two separate parallels.

As for everyone wondering "where to draw the line?" Simple: hair, eyes, and colorings. And again I'll compare this to the new multiclienting rule. You can now pretty much effortlessly open as many clients as your computer can handle, but that didn't stop the GMs from coming up with a rule limiting it to 2 clients per individual player (and not even computer). SO still, just because I can open 10 clients on each of my computers, this doesn't mean it's "allowed." If ini editing for hair or eye texture or skin/lip/hair/eye color were to be made "legal" that does not necessarily mean that making super skinny or super fat characters would or should be allowed.

This. +666b:sin

Arhil - Heavens Tear

Fluxal - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Nothing personal, but I have always hated hearing this answer from anyone, related to anything. A "thats the way it's always been" attitude has never taken any company to soaring new heights.

This I agree with x1000.

Firstly, it's not all the aesthetics thats the problem. If they allowed free editing of the ini files, it directly circumvents the usefulness of a makover scroll, which is a paid product, which should definately NOT be allowed. Why would anyone ever buy another makover scroll if they could freely edit the ini files at their leisure? This is not going to happen.

Except that it doesn't. You can freely edit a new character for what, 3 days I think it is? After that, you must buy a makeover scroll to make any changes to it. Editing the .ini files doesn't affect this at all, as your character data is still being stored on the server. Editing the file won't do anything unless you get a makeover scroll to make the changes get stored. If anything, allowing ini edits would INCREASE the sales of makeover scrolls from all the people who've wanted to, but didn't.

Secondly, there are always people who are going to take limitations and exclusions to the extreme. If they allowed editing of any ini game files, some people will claim ignorance and modify files that do affect game physics. Balance could quickly get out of control beyond the GM's ability to counteract it. The last thing you ever want in a controlled game environment is loss of control, PWI cannot afford to take that chance.

Same thing applies here. There's a lot of checks & doublechecks going on between the server and the clients. Unless you have some magical way of editing the files on PWI's servers, there isn't a whole lot you can change on the client side that's going to affect balance, aside from the already-known issues like flyhacks/bots/etc. which PWI already deals with all the time.

On the other hand, if this has been allowed in the China version of the game, then maybe a "We'll look into it" attitude would be more accepted by the PWI community.

And this I agree with as well. It would be nice to see PWI take some initiative and start looking for ways to satisfy their playerbase HERE, rather than simply playing 'follow-the-leader' with the Chinese version.

Bottom line though, I agree with what everyone else is saying here. "Simple" edits like eyes, hair, etc should be allowed, and "extreme" modifications such as the super-skinny/large should not be.

FateMakerr - Heavens Tear

I vote no.

Why?

Because there's enough forum QQ already, and "Skinny char QQ" would just be another load to deal with..

Astraea - Raging Tide

i really don't see why they cant just add a simple option in the character creation that allows someone to input HEX codes for certain colors or to allow to a certain extent skin/eye/hair textures.

Dyskrasia - Heavens Tear

I vote yes. I don't see the harm. It would be one thing if we had advanced makeover scrolls that allowed changes that right now can only be obtained via editing the INI files... but we don't. lol

Deceptistar - Sanctuary

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

It depends on the kind of editing. The game would look pretty ugly really fast if you allow characters with extreme proportions but I don't think anyone really minds earthguard / tideborn hair or eyes.

Edit: example of what I don't want to see http://i.imgur.com/21dPZ.png

i want to see those running around =o

sleepcat

I don't believe changing character width makes them more difficult to click on. If that were the case, then clicking on a barb in true form or someone on a mount would be much easier. Of course, super skinny characters are still more difficult to see, but the point most people are making is that they're more difficult to click on.

Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973

sleepcat wrote: »

I don't believe changing character width makes them more difficult to click on. If that were the case, then clicking on a barb in true form or someone on a mount would be much easier. Of course, super skinny characters are still more difficult to see, but the point most people are making is that they're more difficult to click on.

Have you ever tried clicking on someone riding the ancient boa? A very fat character would obscure the relatively small clickable area you have to target. You wouldn't even be able to see their name if the head is too big.

Quilue - Sanctuary

Floating ****...quick Ast! Grab a pair!

Knownase - Heavens Tear

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

It depends on the kind of editing. The game would look pretty ugly really fast if you allow characters with extreme proportions but I don't think anyone really minds earthguard / tideborn hair or eyes.

Edit: example of what I don't want to see http://i.imgur.com/21dPZ.png

Thats.....disturbing. b:cry

Yukkuri - Heavens Tear

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

example of what I don't want to see http://i.imgur.com/21dPZ.png

What a lovely Eldritch Abomination. b:embarrass

Larkray - Dreamweaver

I vote yes. People who have seen me in game know how my character look. Have I been banned? Well I'm still here aren't I? b:chuckle If it really bugs you that much that you don't know how to yourself that you must report others, just message me any time Anyway, a friend of mine has literally told a GM in PM about her tideborn hairstyle on her archer, to f*** off that she was not spending money on something as trivial a fix as that, that if they banned her she'd quit. My friend still plays today (this conversation was about 2 months after tideborn release.)

_blood_rain - Sanctuary

Deceptistar - Sanctuary wrote: »

i want to see those running around =o

Is it wrong of me that I want to see These running around?

MistaBwanden - Sanctuary

_blood_rain - Sanctuary wrote: »

Is it wrong of me that I want to see These running around?

I vote yes just because I want to see those.

Woneo - Harshlands

_blood_rain - Sanctuary wrote: »

Is it wrong of me that I want to see These running around?

Epic.

Jellytoast - Sanctuary

MistaBwanden - Sanctuary wrote: »

I vote yes just because I want to see those.

Agreed. b:laugh

_blood_rain - Sanctuary

*bumps*

ViciousMinx - Dreamweaver

I can name names of faction leaders on Dreamweaver server that everyone knows has edited their ini files yet nothing has ever been done about it. Its time to start enforcing game rules GMs.

_blood_rain - Sanctuary

ViciousMinx - Dreamweaver wrote: »

I can name names of faction leaders on Dreamweaver server that everyone knows has edited their ini files yet nothing has ever been done about it. Its time to start enforcing game rules GMs.

Umm, if they do that in regards to this, there goes a good 35-40% of the player base

Psytrac - Dreamweaver

_blood_rain - Sanctuary wrote: »

Umm, if they do that in regards to this, there goes a good 35-40% of the player base

and that is why they won't

Jennalicious - Sanctuary

Psytrac - Dreamweaver wrote: »

and that is why they won't

Which sucks, because if they don't, then what's stopping the rest of us from doing it?

I agree, either enforce the rule on everyone or no one.

sleepcat

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

Have you ever tried clicking on someone riding the ancient boa? A very fat character would obscure the relatively small clickable area you have to target. You wouldn't even be able to see their name if the head is too big.

Trying to click on boa riders is so depressing.