Bringing back a discussion on .ini editing

genotypist · October 2011

Cytte - Harshlands wrote: »

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.

This isn't an accurate comparison at all, because jaywalking and.... *ahem* murder, are not spectrums of the same activity. Our stance on ini editing is closer to a country banning alcohol consumption because it simply does not want to spend law enforcement time, energy and attention to arresting those who go over the legal limit (whatever alcohol point level threshold that might be) while filtering out those who imbibed yet did not cross the legal limit.

Just simply deciding a threshold can take time and research, which comes at an opportunity cost -- nevermind the ensuing opportunity cost of permanently enforcing these rules. During your discussions, please don't belabor the finer points of this comparison, as it was only used as an illustration of this minor niche point.

_blood_rain - Sanctuary · October 2011

genotypist wrote: »

This isn't an accurate comparison at all, because jaywalking and.... *ahem* murder, are not spectrums of the same activity. Our stance on ini editing is closer to a country banning alcohol consumption because it simply does not want to spend law enforcement time, energy and attention to arresting those who go over the legal limit (whatever alcohol point level threshold that might be) while filtering out those who imbibed yet did not cross the legal limit.
.

In that case, even more time and resources would be wasted implementing this theoretical ban on alcohol. It is ironic that I would hear this used as a comparison for this situation when we all know how well alcohol prohibition worked out IRL. Which overall, still means this policy is counterproductive. They'd waste more time taking all the tickets and banning everyone with INI edits, which is why they are lazy about it, giving us this inconsistent enforcement that we all cherish dearly.

Sarrafeline - Sanctuary · October 2011

genotypist wrote: »

This isn't an accurate comparison at all, because jaywalking and.... *ahem* murder, are not spectrums of the same activity. Our stance on ini editing is closer to a country banning alcohol consumption because it simply does not want to spend law enforcement time, energy and attention to arresting those who go over the legal limit (whatever alcohol point level threshold that might be) while filtering out those who imbibed yet did not cross the legal limit.

Just simply deciding a threshold can take time and research, which comes at an opportunity cost -- nevermind the ensuing opportunity cost of permanently enforcing these rules. During your discussions, please don't belabor the finer points of this comparison, as it was only used as an illustration of this minor niche point.

I'm gonna Jaywalk in a SCHOOLZONE! *GASP!*

Seriously.

You've had 3 years of people asking, making points, and doing it anyway. How much more time are you going to need to 'decide a threshold', another three years? Six? Twelve? The world is gonna end on 12/12/12 so let us have our fun now or something like that (whatever).

It's also kind of stupid to be the ONLY version of PW where .ini edits aren't allowed at all.

Personally, seeing bobblehead barbs, stupid looking ultra fat venos/clerics, or whatever other disturbing creations people are going to come up with (someone copied the preset values for the bobblehead barb over to their Sin, bobblehead sin = pure and unabashed FUGLY) isn't something I want, but guess what, people freaking do it anyway, and are given minor taps on the back of the hand for punishment.

This is ridiculous...

Cytte - Harshlands · October 2011

genotypist wrote: »

This isn't an accurate comparison at all, because jaywalking and.... *ahem* murder, are not spectrums of the same activity. Our stance on ini editing is closer to a country banning alcohol consumption because it simply does not want to spend law enforcement time, energy and attention to arresting those who go over the legal limit (whatever alcohol point level threshold that might be) while filtering out those who imbibed yet did not cross the legal limit.

Just simply deciding a threshold can take time and research, which comes at an opportunity cost -- nevermind the ensuing opportunity cost of permanently enforcing these rules. During your discussions, please don't belabor the finer points of this comparison, as it was only used as an illustration of this minor niche point.

Tbh my comparison was gonna be something more benign than murder but I didn't want to retype something I had found that conveyed my meaning. And I'll try to be more general about replying to posts. when I get into a rant mode I go about trying to cover every nuance of an argument....bad habit b:surrender

Though about the law enforcement's time, energy, and attention...I and a lot of players I know of doubt even that the "law enforcement" uses its time & energy for any purpose other than to sit in a coffee shop and eat donuts in our little country, In the last 3 months I've heard of 5 Gm sightings, one was (it seems) a friend of Mokeyshatter, 2 were of Bearclaw apearing before a guild's TW and in front of the arch elder, someone who posted that that a GM actually appeared when they used the report hacking button, and 1 of that same gm just popping up and running around arch, and disappearing shortly after. Though back in the day you'd get a GM popping all over the place if something so much as smelled off, the messages on WC and even them hanging out with people in places like West arch.

Deciding a threshold should't even take much time or effort, most of it has been done here, and they've even come up with a proposed bill. Should you and your team not have sufficient time to do most of legwork for whatever reasons, many people here who would like to see ini edits probably would help out however they could with that endeavor and save your team much time, should you ask for the help, I mean yall have asked us to report gold scams that surface on chats, and from what I can tell the community has been very helpful about posting pics of those scammers.

proposed Bill of INI Editing Rights, written by _blood_rain

As the current rules stand, harmless INI edits are not handled justly. Some people are banned for benign modifications, while others are left alone after repeatedly being reported. GMs themselves can use advanced modifications. There is obviously no harm in the modifications we want to be able to do, and thus no necessity for this unjust, unequal, and inconsistent enforcement that is in practice today.

If, hypothetically, the GMs were to start equally banning every player who used an INI edit on their game characters, then quite a large percentage of the game's population(paying customers) would be banned. The current rules against INI edits are simply inappropriate, outdated,and unenforceable.

Other versions of this game have allowed INI edits; and as far as we know, which in this subject is pretty far, there is no reason why the moderate edits listed shouldn't be allowed here.

1. We want to be able to put any race's hairstyles and facial hair, such as that of EG's and TB's, onto any other classes/races.

2. We want to be able to modify our eye textures.

3. We want to be able to freely modify our skin, eye, eyebrow, hair, facial hair, lip, and eye makeup colors using any dimensions of the colors given on the full spectrum.

4. In accordance with the common idea, body size INI edits would not be allowed as they have the potential to be abusive.

Off topic:
Geno, I like you, you elaborate more than the other higher ups and I thank you for that. b:shy

Yuna_Sama - Heavens Tear · October 2011

genotypist wrote: »

This isn't an accurate comparison at all, because jaywalking and.... *ahem* murder, are not spectrums of the same activity. Our stance on ini editing is closer to a country banning alcohol consumption because it simply does not want to spend law enforcement time, energy and attention to arresting those who go over the legal limit (whatever alcohol point level threshold that might be) while filtering out those who imbibed yet did not cross the legal limit.

Just simply deciding a threshold can take time and research, which comes at an opportunity cost -- nevermind the ensuing opportunity cost of permanently enforcing these rules. During your discussions, please don't belabor the finer points of this comparison, as it was only used as an illustration of this minor niche point.

So basicly it's just lazyness... b:chuckle Just out of curiosity... What would you considder to be a legal limit on ini editing? And is there a possibilty that the staff can pre-render some presets for us and release them in a patch? There's no need to do something illigal if the presets are already there right? This is something even PWI in US should be able to do (and don't forget about the diffirent veno types either)... b:pleased

FoxRunning - Heavens Tear · October 2011

i know someone, a veno, who has had a blood red tail and hair from the beginning of the game, and no one has said a thing to her about it, even when she has been chatting up a GM in person. so that indicates to me that GMs dont consider appearance hacking to be worth bothering with, unless its major and really obvious looking. red hair and tail tip arent that noticable enough to be any kind of problem to anyone. i would like to have the option to do some minor tinkering like that myself

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 ._."

Cytte - Harshlands · October 2011

Yuna_Sama - Heavens Tear wrote: »

So basicly it's just lazyness... b:chuckle Just out of curiosity... What would you considder to be a legal limit on ini editing? And is there a possibilty that the staff can pre-render some presets for us and release them in a patch? There's no need to do something illigal if the presets are already there right? This is something even PWI in US should be able to do (and don't forget about the diffirent veno types either)... b:pleased

I'd be willing to help edit some of the ini filed so that they're within _bloody_rain 's bill of Ini edit rights and give them to PWI as presets. Maybe even have a community vote on which should go to what class (or allow em for all classes). b:mischievous

Sarrafeline - Sanctuary · October 2011

Yuna_Sama - Heavens Tear wrote: »

So basicly it's just lazyness... b:chuckle Just out of curiosity... What would you considder to be a legal limit on ini editing? And is there a possibilty that the staff can pre-render some presets for us and release them in a patch? There's no need to do something illigal if the presets are already there right? This is something even PWI in US should be able to do (and don't forget about the diffirent veno types either)... b:pleased

Are you joking? When the bobblehead barb preset came out, it took these people like 6 years to figure out how to 'remove' them. It would take eons for them to figure out some 'cute' or even half decent presets of their own to release to us, and even if they did, when you go into customize, it reverts to the class' default stuff anyway.

Strife_son - Sanctuary · October 2011

LOL

Vinat sure does spend a lot of her time taking pictures of others to try and report them. I see two pictures of my char in one of the initial links by the OP.

What a damn waste of time :P
People need to find hobbies or get laid. Spending your time collecting pictures of .ini modifications has to be one of the saddest things you can do with your time in PWI.

Alsiadorra - Sanctuary · October 2011

*shrugs* I support it because just about everyone does it =/, people even really bold with it, having EG hairstyles on venos and stuff.

Really, who cares? It's harmless.

Cytte - Harshlands · October 2011

Strife_son - Sanctuary wrote: »

LOL

Vinat sure does spend a lot of her time taking pictures of others to try and report them. I see two pictures of my char in one of the initial links by the OP.

What a damn waste of time :P
People need to find hobbies or get laid. Spending your time collecting pictures of .ini modifications has to be one of the saddest things you can do with your time in PWI.

It'd be funny if you had a point but really?
google ini edits Perfect world, and browse Ecatomb, that's how I got all my links, took me what 7 minutes? Or screenshoting someone walking past, takes what less than 10 seconds?

-cool bear wave-

Chadric - Heavens Tear · October 2011

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

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.

mostly cause little things like that MOST people won't even freaking notice...... but if agm actually SEES u with it, buh bye.

Strife_son - Sanctuary · October 2011

Cytte - Harshlands wrote: »

It'd be funny if you had a point but really?
google ini edits Perfect world, and browse Ecatomb, that's how I got all my links, took me what 7 minutes? Or screenshoting someone walking past, takes what less than 10 seconds?

-cool bear wave-

My point is people wasting their time in anyway to collect .ini modified screenshots of players is a complete waste of time. If the majority of the time PWI's staff can't be bothered to enforce the rules, why should players waste their time trying to show that others are "breaking" the rules. What kind of person in their right mind would spend their time doing such things... oh I know!

Is someone with an .ini modified character hampering your gaming experience in anyway? 99% of the time I am going to say no. If "no" to the first question, why waste time trying to get people "in trouble" when their actions in no way effect your own gaming experience?

Sarunya - Sanctuary · October 2011

It spices up things and makes characters look so much more pretty/scary/intense/awesome/fat! Also fun for halloween parties 8D

Yay for freedom to edit your character! -no real freedom as we're all pwi slaves but w/e-
Tenenenenuutttt. lol

Cocobelle - Sanctuary · October 2011

Sarunya - Sanctuary wrote: »

It spices up things and makes characters look so much more pretty/scary/intense/awesome/fat! Also fun for halloween parties 8D

Yay for freedom to edit your character! -no real freedom as we're all pwi slaves but w/e-
Tenenenenuutttt. lol

Way to go, Saru! b:kiss

Anyways, in regards to this topic, I'd say it's a matter of personal preference. Some of us likes keeping our characters up-to-date with the updated graphics textures of TBs, Earthguards and wants to move on with it.

Unfortunately, we have people abusing the system but guess what? Does it affect you all the time? I don't think so.

I think if a ban is enforced, I'd say a ban for abusive powerlevelling, abusing glitches (goons), etc. shouldn't be taken lightly as well. b:surrender

NiightmareXz - Harshlands · October 2011

Cocobelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

I think if a ban in enforced, I'd say a ban for abusive powerlevelling, abusing glitches (goons), etc. shouldn't be taken lightly as well. b:surrender

^ this. you can't just go around saying things are banned then only banning certain things. i haven't seen EG eyes on a cleric hurt anyone yet. b:lipcurl

Amoreaux - Heavens Tear · October 2011

1. I've never seen anyone that has an ini edit that actually causes a problem.

2. Char customization is my favorite part of the game, without it I wouldn't play. I don't want to play a char that looks like a blank-eyed preset.

3. It's a lot easier to allow ini editing and catch the fools using it as a real abuse than disallowing it and having very unhappy player base. Just saying. Pretty sure those of us that really want it changed are more than willing to help report them.

VenusArmani - Dreamweaver · October 2011

genotypist wrote: »

This isn't an accurate comparison at all, because jaywalking and.... *ahem* murder, are not spectrums of the same activity. Our stance on ini editing is closer to a country banning alcohol consumption because it simply does not want to spend law enforcement time, energy and attention to arresting those who go over the legal limit (whatever alcohol point level threshold that might be) while filtering out those who imbibed yet did not cross the legal limit.

Just simply deciding a threshold can take time and research, which comes at an opportunity cost -- nevermind the ensuing opportunity cost of permanently enforcing these rules. During your discussions, please don't belabor the finer points of this comparison, as it was only used as an illustration of this minor niche point.

Thank You for the response.

Now about the idea for allowing another ini file contest? I know that you guys had this before, and it didn't cause any problems. Additionally it allowed one class to get the blood red hair everyone was begging for without causing problems. Most people claim they want EG hairs and tideborn hairs, but in reality it's only one or two haircuts the majority uses from those classes.

Here is the contest you held the last time. As others have said before, can we have it again?
http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=48961

OIdpop - Heavens Tear · October 2011

yeah i see no prob withthe eg eyes either...but i would like to wear a damn zorro hat on my babr or something..sheesh..why not make different types of headwear for barbs like lets see...bulls,dragon head lol..whatever..we tired of being the cookie cutter class yo!

TolanSky - Heavens Tear · October 2011

OIdpop - Heavens Tear wrote: »

yeah i see no prob withthe eg eyes either...but i would like to wear a damn zorro hat on my babr or something..sheesh..why not make different types of headwear for barbs like lets see...bulls,dragon head lol..whatever..we tired of being the cookie cutter class yo!

technically wouldn't the cookie cutter class be able to do what every other class is capable of doing by default seeing as how it is by definition the mold by which all others are drawn? I mean thats typically why the Sorcerer of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 is considered the Cookie Cutter, because it can do darn near anything.

OIdpop - Heavens Tear · October 2011

cookie cutter as in looks fool lol..there is nothing much to change in a barb..u either a panda,a green lion,or tiger....lame.

TolanSky - Heavens Tear · October 2011

OIdpop - Heavens Tear wrote: »

cookie cutter as in looks fool lol..there is nothing much to change in a barb..u either a panda,a green lion,or tiger....lame.

well you could um... change those looks to those of a wolf :P

OIdpop - Heavens Tear · October 2011

i knew i was forgetting something..yeah a wolf..that looks dumb as hell..k tyb:laugh

i want a rabbithead

TolanSky - Heavens Tear · October 2011

OIdpop - Heavens Tear wrote: »

i want a rabbithead

Play a Veno?

/hijacked :P

OIdpop - Heavens Tear · October 2011

cookie cutter gender locked

/rejacked

TolanSky - Heavens Tear · October 2011

OIdpop - Heavens Tear wrote: »

cookie cutter gender locked

/rejacked

whoever's idea it was to make the untamed Gender locked needs to be dropped in a pit of molten chocolate.

OIdpop - Heavens Tear · October 2011

ok we have some agreement now

Bellarie - Raging Tide · October 2011

knightsdarksoul wrote: »

+1
Is it really that much of an issue not being able to have EG hair on an Elf ?

Yes, it actually is very much an issue not being able to give a Male Tideborn facial hair. The poor fishdudes are already trannified enough as it is with their preset hairstyles, Tide Form and Meditation form.

TolanSky - Heavens Tear · October 2011

Bellarie - Raging Tide wrote: »

Yes, it actually is very much an issue not being able to give a Male Tideborn facial hair. The poor fishdudes are already trannified enough as it is with their preset hairstyles, Tide Form and Meditation form.

actually about that. I am very surprised that Winged Elf males can actually have Facial Hair to begin with. That flies in the face of years of Elf lore. Elves in most modern folk lore do not have facial hair. Though I suppose going back into older folk lore back to the years of the unseelie sidhe, as well as the Nordic Elves, there is in fact a very high probility that those Fair Folk did in fact have Facial Hair.

That said there is a long standing tradition of mythological creatures in ancient times that did not have facial hair, and merfolks would be among those. For one thing Hair of any type would actually impede the streamlined nature of underwater travel for merfolk. Though I suppose lack of hair on the top of one's head would kind of make them even more unhuman like than they currently are.

peacefulsilence · October 2011

They say they care but the overwhelming level of ini edited characters out there suggests otherwise.

I could wander around Arch and 1k on HT for half an hour and come back with screens of like 50 people with obvious and not so obvious ini edited toons.

Edit: I've actually reported a few obvious ones just to see if they'd do anything. They never did.

I suppose as long as its not horribly offensive like over/under sized **** or head they don't care.

PPS: The female veno on eca is on pwi HT server for sure. Seen her before.

Bringing back a discussion on .ini editing

Comments

Categories