Bringing back a discussion on .ini editing

Cytte - Harshlands

Because we've had about 5 topics made discussing it (and I don't want Shelly locking them because its off topic), Lets talk about .ini editing. (Be warned a lot of these quotes are 3 years old)

Now first off, This is PWE's official response about .ini editing.
Edit: Frankie's post on the matter: http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12958711&postcount=58
Basically it says don't do it its like a gateway drug, if you do it who says you wont move on to even worse things.

I say something along the lines of this

You really don't have to ban ini-editing because it might be viewed as opening a door wide for allowing hacking the game client. It's totally not comparable to (real) hacking in any way. The borderline is still clear and obvious. I am sorry, but it's ridiculous saying that people who'd edit ini files would go **** the game client next. That's like saying if you'd let people get away with jaywalking, they would start murdering little children next.

Now from my messing around with the files (on a private server), a large part of the important data is encrypted and held serverside, and required a large portion of time to encrypt, edit and put into motion to whatever "hacking" you intend it to do. Not only that in most cases it involves a third party of some form.
Ini edits take only minutes (or hours depending on how custom ya want it) to do and are stored in a simple text file which is easily found, moved and rearranged.

Now I do see problems in completely allowing .ini editing, you can get characters to appear almost invisible (whether just the head or the entire body), or make the f-ugly, but the game has 2 different methods of reporting such actions, with the obvious being sending a ticket and the report hacking button when you right click a players profile. and thus they can be banned for abusing .ini edits because it can give players an advantage.

But should the few could abuse this ruin it for the many of us that enjoy having say, EG eyes on our chars, or TB hairs on non TB-chars, (cause its a dam shame keeping those eyes on a silly race like the EG). And those things people deem "hacking" or "cheating" are nothing more than changing one value on a clearly defined list of them. (Have you seen one of the ini files, it tells you which does what) If they weren't there to be messed with, why are they not encrypted or better yet, not held on our side of the game?

Which brings me to another point. PWI, if I'm not mistaken, is the ONLY official PW server to have this rule, even China (where all our patch data comes from) allows .ini edits. I'm sure anyone whose browsed the pictures on ecatomb knows this by now, cause I believe 1 in 7 photos has an ini edit somewhere.

Now onto Ugly chars.

2. You can make very ugly and very out of place looking chars using the in-game char creation screen. So if the main point of banning ini-editing is to prevent characters from disturbing other people's gameplay, I must say you'd need to disable 80% of the existing allowed values of the in-game editor, too. To make the irony complete, several winning entries for the "Design a char contest" are looking in a way that probably would earn them 10 reports for ini-editing per hour, despite they are completely legal. Eyeballs as large as footballs? Legal! Ears that would break at the first gust of wind? Legal! Lips that you could use as a sofa? Legal! But red spikes on a Barbarian! Oh noes!!! Using a hairdo for elves that's available only for humans in the in-game editor (for no obvious reason)?: Get the firing squad now!
The GMs are saying "Play the game how it's meant to be played!". Fair enough, but this still doesn't explain why making a char that looks like they're an immigrant from Mars would fall within the "meaning" of the game and a few red dots on a Barbarian's fur would not. The borderline of the "true meaning" of the game is looking rather arbitrary to me, at least. I have no problems with rules (as I said, I wasn't even aware that I was breaking one, until now), but shouldn't we sometimes question if our rules are actually making good sense? And alter them, if they don't?

To further add to that, especially the part about "playing the game how its meant to played" Who's to say having a demonically red character or a chubby barb isn't how this game is meant to be played? (some would say the Chinese since they built the game, and they've allowed edits within reasonable limits). Even so some people feel it adds more immersion since it gives them a character to portray, there could be a fragile teen behind the screen that would want to play a strong and chubby barb, or a 25 year old that wants to play a demonic wiz, why deny them that? Its within limits and doesn't hamper anyone's game play ability, so why not?

Discuss

In my personal opinion, having ini edits ban-able it ridiculous, unless its the almost invisible characters, or the so fat you cant see players around it, it should be allowed.

So here goes the plea: Dear GMs, please call off the witch hunt. Because that's honestly what seems to be happening lately. Make a rule saying "Go edit the .ini files in the character sub-folder if you must, but don't make stick figures or overly wide characters". That would be a more satisfying approach for everyone involved, instead of spending valuable time in support to enforce a rule that doesn't make too much sense in the first place.

Quotes from This thread (Please do not Necro it)
And if you must lock this Shelly, can you ask Panda to do it, not that I dun like you as a mod cause you can be funny, but Panda has a way of making locks feel less harsh.

-random ini edits-
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu282/vinat/inippl.jpg
http://i54.tinypic.com/2dhicnr.png
http://www.ecatomb.net/cash%20shop/fashion/femme/f99.jpg
http://www.ecatomb.net/cash%20shop/fashion/homme/f94.jpg
http://www.ecatomb.net/cash%20shop/fashion/femme/h89.jpg
http://www.ecatomb.net/cash%20shop/fashion/femme/f79.jpg

Deteriorate - Harshlands

I fully support this posts points.

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary

Funny how you didn't link the official responce from Frankie in the .ini edit thread in the suggestion box, but a response from a mod b:surrender
I support being allowed to use .ini edits. Not only the Chinese servers are allowed to edit but also our European servers are allowed to do so.

EDIT: http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12958711&postcount=58
This has been the only official responce by frankie ._."

Deteriorate - Harshlands

Frankie doesnt even manage to forsee patches till 2 weeks after they do something, so dont hold yer breath on the rules being static just cos he said so.

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary

Deteriorate - Harshlands wrote: »

Frankie doesnt even manage to forsee patches till 2 weeks after they do something, so dont hold yer breath on the rules being static just cos he said so.

That topic has been open now and still running for over half a year... ._."
But we won't give up... >.>"

Deteriorate - Harshlands

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary wrote: »

That topic has been open now and still running for over half a year... ._."
But we won't give up... >.>"

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt that thread in the suggestion box? Otherwise known as Lower Depths B2?

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary

Deteriorate - Harshlands wrote: »

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt that thread in the suggestion box? Otherwise known as Lower Depths B2?

You don't actually think it was posted there right... @_@
and you don't actually think this topic will stay here long right... @_@

Deteriorate - Harshlands

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary wrote: »

You don't actually think it was posted there right... @_@
and you don't actually think this topic will stay here long right... @_@

It was sent there, like things are sent to LD.

Power to the posters yo, if we keep brining it up, they cant ignore it. Especially since this is actually in their hands for once.

Cytte - Harshlands

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary wrote: »

Funny how you didn't link the official responce from Frankie in the .ini edit thread in the suggestion box, but a response from a mod b:surrender
I support being allowed to use .ini edits. Not only the Chinese servers are allowed to edit but also our European servers are allowed to do so.

EDIT: http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=12958711&postcount=58
This has been the only official responce by frankie ._."

b:surrender figured it was good enough from a mod, also couldn't find frankie dearest's post about it

thanks for it though ill edit mine

Angel_Spawn - Sanctuary

I support ini. editing since it`s not game-breaking but I`m sure as hell don`t want to see anything like THIS

http://www.ecatomb.net/cash%20shop/fashion/femme/f99.jpg or other similar alien-insect-anime-whatever-types, it`s true horror b:sad

Yuna_Sama - Heavens Tear

Simple solution: GM's should make pre-rendered presets for ppl to use and release them in a patch or they should give codes we are allowed to use (for those who want the eyes or hair on existing characters)... b:surrender

Olbaze - Sanctuary

The thing is, right now the rule is absolute.

If you'd allow ini edits, you'd end up with either having to allow them all, or to ban some of them. If you allow all of them, then you end up with characters that are hard to target because of their physical dimensions, or characters that make other characters hard to target for the same reason.

So, you'd pretty much have to make it so that some things would be bannable. In that case, you'd end up questioning "where is the borderline?" Which is exactly the problem: if you allowed ini edits, the rule wouldn't be absolute and thus it would break more than it would fix, as people who would get banned would start demanding "re-trials" for their banning because the values they used weren't ALL maxed out or ALL minimized, or that they think they were treated with bias. And that's just not what you'd want to happen.

And personally, I already find the skinnier-than-possible or larger-than-possible characters to be creepy, I really don't want those things running around all over the place.

ApocaIypto - Dreamweaver

Olbaze - Sanctuary wrote: »

The thing is, right now the rule is absolute.

If you'd allow ini edits, you'd end up with either having to allow them all, or to ban some of them. If you allow all of them, then you end up with characters that are hard to target because of their physical dimensions, or characters that make other characters hard to target for the same reason.

So, you'd pretty much have to make it so that some things would be bannable. In that case, you'd end up questioning "where is the borderline?" Which is exactly the problem: if you allowed ini edits, the rule wouldn't be absolute and thus it would break more than it would fix, as people who would get banned would start demanding "re-trials" for their banning because the values they used weren't ALL maxed out or ALL minimized, or that they think they were treated with bias. And that's just not what you'd want to happen.

And personally, I already find the skinnier-than-possible or larger-than-possible characters to be creepy, I really don't want those things running around all over the place.

there is almost no character like this on CN, cause there is a good ticket system there. ppl report the characters u described, and gms deal with it. yay i know, working gms is hard to believe here >.>

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary

Olbaze - Sanctuary wrote: »

The thing is, right now the rule is absolute.

If you'd allow ini edits, you'd end up with either having to allow them all, or to ban some of them. If you allow all of them, then you end up with characters that are hard to target because of their physical dimensions, or characters that make other characters hard to target for the same reason.

So, you'd pretty much have to make it so that some things would be bannable. In that case, you'd end up questioning "where is the borderline?" Which is exactly the problem: if you allowed ini edits, the rule wouldn't be absolute and thus it would break more than it would fix, as people who would get banned would start demanding "re-trials" for their banning because the values they used weren't ALL maxed out or ALL minimized, or that they think they were treated with bias. And that's just not what you'd want to happen.

And personally, I already find the skinnier-than-possible or larger-than-possible characters to be creepy, I really don't want those things running around all over the place.

Actually it's quite easy to make rules on that...
You are allowed to put in a number between x and y for proportion z. b:surrender

knightsdarksoul

Olbaze - Sanctuary wrote: »

The thing is, right now the rule is absolute.

If you'd allow ini edits, you'd end up with either having to allow them all, or to ban some of them. If you allow all of them, then you end up with characters that are hard to target because of their physical dimensions, or characters that make other characters hard to target for the same reason.

So, you'd pretty much have to make it so that some things would be bannable. In that case, you'd end up questioning "where is the borderline?" Which is exactly the problem: if you allowed ini edits, the rule wouldn't be absolute and thus it would break more than it would fix, as people who would get banned would start demanding "re-trials" for their banning because the values they used weren't ALL maxed out or ALL minimized, or that they think they were treated with bias. And that's just not what you'd want to happen.

And personally, I already find the skinnier-than-possible or larger-than-possible characters to be creepy, I really don't want those things running around all over the place.

+1

Give people an inch and they will want a mile, Allow TB eyes on veno's next it will be " well you alow ini editing so why can't I make my char X thin " etc .
It's much safer to have a clear defined " it's not allowed " than confusing grey area's or a huge list of some ini allowed and some are not.

Is it really that much of an issue not being able to have EG hair on an Elf ? No it's not.
And TBH how bad the ticket system is here the last thing you want is to overload it with wanting people to submit more tickets

Olbaze - Sanctuary

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary wrote: »

Actually it's quite easy to make rules on that...
You are allowed to put in a number between x and y for proportion z. b:surrender

... And then what?

For one, even if you take a screenshot, you can't really punish people for it, as they can change it. So you'd just end up giving the GMs the extra task of telling people to change the values in their .ini files.

And then there's the question of who decides what is "too much". Unless it's the devs, it'll be a purely subjective, arbitrary number. And if it is the devs, then that'll just be silly, as they surely have much better things to do. Especially if ini edits are allowed in PW-CH, they'd most likely go "Meh whatever".

Yuna_Sama - Heavens Tear

knightsdarksoul wrote: »

+1

Give people an inch and they will want a mile, Allow TB eyes on veno's next it will be " well you alow ini editing so why can't I make my char X thin " etc .
It's much safer to have a clear defined " it's not allowed " than confusing grey area's or a huge list of some ini allowed and some are not.

Is it really that much of an issue not being able to have EG hair on an Elf ? No it's not.
And TBH how bad the ticket system is here the last thing you want is to overload it with wanting people to submit more tickets

Actualy it's more about the eyes for me... They don't sell lovely or manga-like eyes in the boutique now do they... I understand that the hair is ment to be unique to the races but old classes look ugly now because they have boring eyes... And I don't feel like putting on an ugly mask to hide it... At least we can hide our hair under wigs... Something simple as implanting presets could solve it though... Or just a graphical upgrade for older races would be even better... b:surrender

_blood_rain - Sanctuary

all concerns from naysayers on this thread have been addressed on the 1/2 year long thread
>_>

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary

_blood_rain - Sanctuary wrote: »

all concerns from naysayers on this thread have been addressed on the 1/2 year long thread
>_>

this ._."

AnimaBlanc - Sanctuary

I say, either allow .ini editting or revamp the old classes.

humans, untamed, winged elves = 1949 volkswagon beetle

Tideborn, Earthguard = 2010 Lamborghini Embolado

b:avoid ( personal preferance, i'd prolly lable the latter a Dodge charger, *drool*, but that would surpass my point, he he he )

Olbaze - Sanctuary

AnimaBlanc - Sanctuary wrote: »

I say, either allow .ini editting or revamp the old classes.

humans, untamed, winged elves = 1949 volkswagon beetle

But those would get a nice, retro appeal?

b:cute

AnimaBlanc - Sanctuary

Olbaze - Sanctuary wrote: »

But those would get a nice, retro appeal?

b:cute

a dodge is retro, a beetle is just ancient.b:cute

RainbowVidel - Sanctuary

Cytte - Harshlands wrote: »

Lets talk about .ini editing

Here's a better idea.... talk about it in the already existing main thread on this subject.

http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=1064101

Olbaze - Sanctuary

AnimaBlanc - Sanctuary wrote: »

a dodge is retro, a beetle is just ancient.b:cute

Well, some people appreciate the appeal of old age.

b:cute

Yuna_Sama - Heavens Tear

Olbaze - Sanctuary wrote: »

Well, some people appreciate the appeal of old age.

b:cute

I also like old but I have my limmits... Too old is never good and same goes for the old graphics for older clases... Examples: I'd never volenteerly upgrade from Windows Exp to Vista but I also wouldn't go back to 98... Also I wouldn't buy a super pc unless absolutely needed but I don't feel like working with an old Pentium 2 again either... I'm not getting a PS3 or PSVita unless some realy good games come out for it but I'm not going back to PS1 or GBA... Get the point? b:chuckle

Michalko - Heavens Tear

if its edited for purely cosmetic purpose like making your char pretty, getting colour you cant get by putting cursor while customize your char, get several hairstyle from other Race,

^ all of that should be allowed.

if you edited to make your char thin, making it harder to click, then it shouldnt be allowed.
making your char fat, making it can cover other player, then no.
editing the body so it doesnt looks like it has a good proporsional size, then no.

Chadric - Heavens Tear

Look it's this simple, we barely have any GM's apparently and they're too busy already to answer anythign in time...... lolol You think they want to probably double the # of tickets allowing "this" edit but not "that" one cause people are on the borderline of going to far (e.g. too skinnny to target or something)? IT"S NOT ALLOWED, PERIOD. get over it already.....

WarrenWolfy - Sanctuary

Chadric - Heavens Tear wrote: »

Look it's this simple, we barely have any GM's apparently and they're too busy already to answer anythign in time......

Unfortunately, this is the simple truth.

When I first started, I made a blue wizard named Djinni. I got lots of compliments, because he looked similar to the Djinni from Aladdin.

But then I discovered the forums, found out it wasn't allowed, and so I deleted him. I didn't want to do it, and I would have loved to have been allowed to keep him, but I can understand that the GMs have to decide on the rules, and then decide how they're going to enforce them, and while I might personally disagree than .ini editing is bad it's not unreasonable for them to decide it's not allowed.

Asterelle - Sanctuary_1381265973

Really the current ban is in-place so GMs have an excuse to ban abusive ini-edits. Edits like pure black skin, stick figure body, overly large bodies are unfair because they make a player harder to see or harder to click on.

If you are doing benign edits like more colorful eyes or different hair you won't get banned from what I've seen.

Deteriorate - Harshlands

The irony is that the few people who abuse .ini edits in the ways you mention, do it anyway despite it "being illegal".

So why cant the rest of us do it again?

~Additionlly, PWE "Reserves the right to ban you for w/e the **** they feel like at that moment" so if its legit they can still ban idiots who abuse it.

And on top of THAT one, the stick figure thing is stupid. Can you stop everyone from ever using mounts please? It makes them damn hard to click on because it rearranges the boundbox and it tends to be illogical where its moved to. Unlike stick / fat figures who have the same box no matter what they bloody do.

Cytte - Harshlands

Hazumi_chan - Sanctuary wrote: »

Actually it's quite easy to make rules on that...
You are allowed to put in a number between x and y for proportion z. b:surrender

It really is that easy too, keep it within say 40 and 260 (I'm not actually sure of the numbers that make a character too thin or too fat so those were just 2 random numbers)

knightsdarksoul wrote: »

+1

Give people an inch and they will want a mile, Allow TB eyes on veno's next it will be " well you alow ini editing so why can't I make my char X thin " etc .
It's much safer to have a clear defined " it's not allowed " than confusing grey area's or a huge list of some ini allowed and some are not.

Is it really that much of an issue not being able to have EG hair on an Elf ? No it's not.
And TBH how bad the ticket system is here the last thing you want is to overload it with wanting people to submit more tickets

Yes but I'm saying have a clearly defined line on size editing. Thus no character should be under or over the two numbers (respectively)

I do make a deal out of it, have you seen the difference in the two graphicaly? Its like they came from two completely separate games, and some of the EG hairs I like and would like to have them on my char. The problem with our ticketing system is there's barely anyone behind it, PWE should get more people to deal with tickets, as well as GMing games.

AnimaBlanc - Sanctuary wrote: »

I say, either allow .ini editting or revamp the old classes.

humans, untamed, winged elves = 1949 volkswagon beetle

Tideborn, Earthguard = 2010 Lamborghini Embolado

b:avoid ( personal preferance, i'd prolly lable the latter a Dodge charger, *drool*, but that would surpass my point, he he he )

^ QFT

Me and my long posts b:shocked