Runes of Magic US / AU

Quoted from "Kalvan;601209"

I did specify "multiclienting", not "multiboxing". There is a difference.




My opinion, as I'm a Mentor. And, no, you may not.




Um, multiclienting has been determined to be multiple clients running on a single computer and was allowed even when RoM was run by FA. And it's still allowed by GF.




Which is why I declined to comment further on PAC. It's not in my bailiwick.




I have not multiboxed--since it was decided by FA originally to be a violation of the ToS/EUALA. Not to mention that I have just one machine capable of running RoM. However, it doesn't take much imagination to understand how easily someone can multibox. My limitations in that respect are real, even if I did have a second or third machine with the minimum capabilities. I. Do. Not. Have. The. Physical. Deftness. To. Do. It. (I am not handicapped. I simply do not have the hand/eye coordination. Age and minor infirmities do that to you, and it's why I don't play console games--too many buttons and combos to keep track of.)

For someone who does have the equipment and physical ability, it's not an issue. And with programmable rodents being available, it should be even easier to accomplish. Players of Other Games have been doing it for years.

3rd party software would be required to completely and continuously control more than one toon while multiclienting, or so I opine here. And that, sir, would be a violation of the ToS/EUALA.

You need to just say, can we use 2 clients at once while tabbing or 3 clients. I am not you and lack the ability to tab through multible clients to get objective A done and then proceed to B. As you mentioned FIRST (other games) in other games they prevent the ACTUAL process of bringing up 2 clients, that is where 3rd party or renaming come into play, although some let more than 1 client up. If you guy's want to implement a new restriction you have to prevent more than 1 client to be able to be brought up without any issue.

Bringing up the power of other people's system is like comparable to people ragging on other players for spending too much on this game, sort of a dumb way to go about that.

That said, you'll just lose more people if you guy's come out and say these words, "You can only use 1 client of RoM at once at any given time." Not everyone who is able to 2 box/multiclient is using a 3rd party.

Also get the terminolgy straight, 2boxing or multiboxing IS THE SAME as multiclienting, when you bring in 3rd party programs into the mix, you can just call it exploiting.

Quoted from "Stickingit;601216"

Also get the terminolgy straight, 2boxing or multiboxing IS THE SAME as multiclienting, when you bring in 3rd party programs into the mix, you can just call it exploiting.

As many times as difference was explained and covered in this and other recent threads, not understanding it at this point crosses from regular ignorance to aggressively self-inflicted type.

Quoted from "Nenysvor;601211"

No, I thank you , because I started later my reading in the US forum, you can say together with Dionaea. Therefore I don't know which statements FAI made in the past. But to clarify this too and again: Your ToS are the same like the EN-EU, Laghmara answered this already here: http://forum.us.runesofmagic.com/showthr…ll=1#post600087
Check Community-Guidelines and click terms & conditions.
If you have any more doubt, click on the Spanish version of the US page, click on the ToS and you see, same like EU

Nenysvor, here's the problem:

AU/EU Terms & Conditions - No mention of multiboxing.
US Terms & Conditions - "You may access the System and use it to play the Game from any single computer or game platform."

The AU/EU/UK/GR/SP links from the RoM Homepage all match. The U.S. T&C is the only one that does not.

So unless the U.S. is held to a different set of rules, whoever is responsible for the U.S. RoM Homepage (http://us.runesofmagic.com/) just needs to change the link on the T&C at the bottom to redirect to the same link that the AU/EU uses.

Quoted from "ycavan;601176"

Here's the thing...
1. DailyNotes - you still have to click on the quest giver and perform an action: attack or double-click
2. Lootomatic - you still have to click on the corpse to start the loot process
3. ComeOnIn - This one is a little bot-ish. lol ) You get a message from another user and send an invite; I think they let it go because there's very little you can exploit with a party invite
4. Pet Auto-Craft - This one, the team still waffles on; not fully accepted & not fully classified as a bot yet
5. Last Group Invite - you still have to click on a menu item to send the party invites

etc... basically, from what I've read from the various Greens & Blues is that GF doesn't consider something bottish if you have to initiate the action on your own toon.

I think most people know what bottish-ness is.. it's when the toon in question is not being operated using it's own game window.

I'm not suggesting that we wouldn't initiate it.
DailyNotes - You click NPC -> Skip dialog -> Hand in quest
Lootamatic - Click corpse -> Skip clicking loot -> Get loot
ComeOnIn - Turn Addon On -> Skip Manually Inviting -> Form Party
PAC - Turn on -> Skip changing tools -> Get Mats
LGI - Click Invite Last Party -> Skips Manually Inviting Last Party -> Form Party

What I am suggesting;

Click Action Bar on client #1 -> Skip changing screens to perform action -> Action done on client #2

Your definition is NOT accurate of what botting is. Botting is the ability to leave your computer and a program, either third party program or use of addon/macros, and actions would still be performed.

If anything COI and PAC are MORE bottish than what I am suggesting, yet still accepted by the community.

Quoted from "Kalvan;601186"

I'm just a Mentor, and can in no way be confused with a programmer of any kind. But I'm willing to take a swing at a few things here...



In my interpretation, any addon which could possibly perform such a function--and I don't know if it could be done--would be a violation of the ToS/EUALA, since it would be sending a command from one game client/toon to a second one. I'm not sure, but I think that kind of action was either disallowed or disabled quite some time ago. But I could be wrong about the latter.




Disregarding PAC for the time being, as that particular addon has been recognized (by the author!) for the possibility of it being abused...

All of the other addons you listed immediately and directly affect a single account/toon when used. None of them affect or send an action command to another toon that is automatically processed. Each one requires a/the player to manually do something--click on an NPC, click a button, click on an item, and so on. (I don't use UltimateMailMod so I've never seen how it works.)

Having one or more toons, in a multiclienting situation, following each other around is allowed. It can also be humorous to watch at times, especially if they're all dressed alike.


Regarding multiclienting vs. multiboxing: Again, this is my interpretation as to why the latter is not allowed. For example, you have two computers running separate clients, and you're deft enough to use two keyboards or programmable rodents at once. (Not me, I'm ambidextrous--I can screw up anything with either hand.)

Client #1 is running a DPS toon, client #2 is running a healer, both are in the same party. Toon #1 does all the mob or player killing (PvP or Siege) while Toon #2 heals or otherwise buffs Toon #1. It's a simple example, but there is a distinct and unfair advantage here, and that's disallowed by the ToS/EUALA.

Without using illegal 3rd party software, this cannot normally be done in a multiclienting situation (two clients on one computer), since there would be almost constant switching between the two clients. At one time or another, one of the clients loses "focus" (computer term, not game term) and becomes inactive, with the toon standing there doing nothing but looking stupid.

So, in that respect, that's a simple example as to why multiboxing isn't (or wasn't) allowed in RoM. (Yes, I know. I'm contradicting Nenysvor. I'm sure he'll punish me later on.)

I can think of three different two party programs that would accomplish client to client commands without a problem (only one may be relevant here though) and I can think of a way to make it an addon in game customed for each person (think of a DIYCE script is different for each person who uses it) as long as both clients have the addon.





What I am suggesting is that you would still manually input an action. It would NOT be automated. It would simply save time of changing screens. The input would be done the same way you do it normally on a single client, without the hassle of switching screens of a client.

That is true matty. That is why i dont like the term botter. I used the term flocker, for the exact reason that it really isnt botting but having characters flock with you and work as a flock for one goal, winning. I think both botting and flocking is a problem.

I have always seen botting as automation, in another game it was called unattended combat macroing. Combat macroing was ok, as long as you were at the keyboard. I see botting as UCMing, and this as flocking. If you played that game "the borg" guild botted and flocked

The user is also prohibited from running the online game (including all individual web pages) with programmes other than the Internet browser or the client programme that has been provided. This refers in particular to so-called bots and other tools designed to replace or supplement the Web interface. Scripts and completely or partially automated programmes that provide the user with an advantage over other users are also prohibited. These include auto-refresh-functions and other integrated mechanisms of the Internet browser, if they involve automated operations.

from section 7.3 of the supposedly "correct" t&c for all regions http://agbserver.gameforge.com/enGB-TaC-Runes-of-Magic.html
(please ignore that the officially lookin "terms of use" link for the us english region homepage and registration page, but instead refer to something else, as per laghmara post on the forums under contest and events.)

but realistically, how the heck is anyone supposed to find out?
(I know how. And if you also know, you realize just how funny it is in its simplicity.)

Quoted from "Stickingit;601216"

You need to just say, can we use 2 clients at once while tabbing or 3 clients. I am not you and lack the ability to tab through multible clients to get objective A done and then proceed to B. As you mentioned FIRST (other games) in other games they prevent the ACTUAL process of bringing up 2 clients, that is where 3rd party or renaming come into play, although some let more than 1 client up. If you guy's want to implement a new restriction you have to prevent more than 1 client to be able to be brought up without any issue.

You are able and allowed to run two or more clients on a single machine. To the best of my knowledge and memory, that has always been allowed.

I have a friend who has played That Other Game Which Is The 800 Pound MMO Gorilla for years. He multiboxes two subscription clients--two discrete computers. That Other Game Company allows this, even if they don't like it very much. Subscription money talks.

Quoted

Bringing up the power of other people's system is like comparable to people ragging on other players for spending too much on this game, sort of a dumb way to go about that.

You apparently either misread or misinterpreted what I said when I mentioned "equipment". In context, it indicated more than one computer, rather than the capability or "power" of a single computer.

Quoted

That said, you'll just lose more people if you guy's come out and say these words, "You can only use 1 client of RoM at once at any given time." Not everyone who is able to 2 box/multiclient is using a 3rd party.

Also get the terminolgy straight, 2boxing or multiboxing IS THE SAME as multiclienting, when you bring in 3rd party programs into the mix, you can just call it exploiting.

That is not the question or the issue here. As stated, you are allowed to run more than one RoM client at the same time on a single computer. You are not allowed to run and control two or more RoM clients on two or more computers at the same time. Whether or not a given player's computer has the ability to run multiple RoM clients or not is immaterial.

Multiclienting refers to running more than one game client on a single discrete computer. Multiboxing refers to multiple discrete computers. I believe I have the terminology correct.

Quoted from "CharlieBananas;601232"

I'm not suggesting that we wouldn't initiate it.
DailyNotes - You click NPC -> Skip dialog -> Hand in quest
Lootamatic - Click corpse -> Skip clicking loot -> Get loot
ComeOnIn - Turn Addon On -> Skip Manually Inviting -> Form Party
PAC - Turn on -> Skip changing tools -> Get Mats
LGI - Click Invite Last Party -> Skips Manually Inviting Last Party -> Form Party

Again, declining to discuss PAC, none of the addons in your list will give you an "unfair advantage" over another player. Neither are they classified as botting programs, since they still require that some sort of manual input be made, even in the cases of COI and LGI. Neither are automatic nor can be used while AFK. The jury is still out on PAC.

Quoted

I can think of three different two party programs that would accomplish client to client commands without a problem (only one may be relevant here though) and I can think of a way to make it an addon in game customed for each person (think of a DIYCE script is different for each person who uses it) as long as both clients have the addon.

And using such programs, which are classified by GF as 3rd-party programs, would be a violation of the TOS/EUALA. QED.

Quoted

What I am suggesting is that you would still manually input an action. It would NOT be automated. It would simply save time of changing screens. The input would be done the same way you do it normally on a single client, without the hassle of switching screens of a client.

If it requires the use of a 3rd-party program and if it would give you an unfair advantage over another player (it would, IMO), then it is a violation of the ToS/EUALA. Again, QED.

Quoted from "Kalvan;601261"

Again, declining to discuss PAC, none of the addons in your list will give you an "unfair advantage" over another player. Neither are they classified as botting programs, since they still require that some sort of manual input be made, even in the cases of COI and LGI. Neither are automatic nor can be used while AFK. The jury is still out on PAC.

And again, this wouldn't provide an unfair advantage to anyone.
It'd be fair for everyone in that anyone can do it, if permitted.
I think we're in agreement here that it's not a problem of permission though, as stated by both Neny and Laghmara that we are now allowed to multiclient. What we are discussing is an addon that would allow a human to have an output on both clients via manual inputs on one.

Quoted

And using such programs, which are classified by GF as 3rd-party programs, would be a violation of the TOS/EUALA. QED.

If it requires the use of a 3rd-party program and if it would give you an unfair advantage over another player (it would, IMO), then it is a violation of the ToS/EUALA. Again, QED.

I wasn't trying to justify third party programs by stating it is possible to do. I was simply reassuring whoever it was that it can done, regardless of legality or not.

But rather in reply to you, it IS possibly to create a single addon with a customary script (much like that of a DIYCE script; everyone's is different depending on rotation), that would allowed a player to send an output from 1 client to receive an input from a different client. No third party programs required. This is fact. I can confidently there is already little bits of such output/inputin addons that are out now. Granted, the difference is comparable to the difference of rocket science and the hypothesis that an ant will get lit on fire when under a magnifying glass.
And I'll retract what I said earlier about both clients needing the same addon. I think it is very possible to do it with only one (the "second" client, if you will) client having it installed.

Quoted from "Nenysvor;601211"

No, I thank you , because I started later my reading in the US forum, you can say together with Dionaea. Therefore I don't know which statements FAI made in the past. But to clarify this too and again: Your ToS are the same like the EN-EU, Laghmara answered this already here: http://forum.us.runesofmagic.com/showthr…ll=1#post600087
Check Community-Guidelines and click terms & conditions.
If you have any more doubt, click on the Spanish version of the US page, click on the ToS and you see, same like EU

That post you linked to says nothing about multiboxing. It only mentions multiple accounts, which is a completely separate thing.

If the US has undergone a change in policy since last year, we should have been made aware of it, or at the very least whoever is in charge of the US site should bother copy-pasting the EU ToS on the US ToS page.

Do you seriously expect people to "click on the Spanish version of the US page" just to read a ToS that should be available in english? English speakers aren't going to browse the site in spanish. They won't even think of it. Hiding the ToS on the spanish page, or on the EU site, gives the impression that the US side has different rules.

If things have changed for us, the forum mods should have been notified, at the very least (though honestly, that shouldn't be complicated - neither should updating the ToS), so they could know the new ToS rules and not have to tell us wrong information concerning multiboxing. I don't blame them at all, because they've had to tell us it's against the ToS for years now as was the policy, but not even bothering to update them is pretty sad, since they're supposed to have as much authority in communicating ToS/policy/siege etc rules as you do now.

This just makes the US playerbase feel, yet again, like the red-headed stepchild. When are we going to be given the same treatment/rules/etc that EU players get? Why are we supposed to go so far out of our way to get the correct information, when EU players can just click on their ToS from the main site in their preferred language?

Quoted from "effervescent;601268"

Do you seriously expect people to "click on the Spanish version of the US page" just to read a ToS that should be available in english? English speakers aren't going to browse the site in spanish. They won't even think of it. Hiding the ToS on the spanish page, or on the EU site, gives the impression that the US side has different rules.

qué?

I think I know what you are talking about Matty, and at one point I was actually looking to add this to DIYCE. Never got around to actually doing it, but I had the same theory. I was planning this right before my year hiatus from the game, for a pocket healer for myself.

It is really simple, no need to overcomplicate it.

I did this as a test almost two years ago. On client one, which was my stabby stabby toon, I had an ingame macro that would simply /p (keyterm). On client two, the pocket healer, it was monitoring for those (keyterm) and would do the corresponding heal when received. I canablized some code from the 800 lb gorrilla game that would automatically say hi to guildies when they would login for the monitoring. This was all pretty much internal to the game, and I still was under the one action, one input rule of thumb.

I understand that you can argue the monitoring part is botting, but the same can be said about dyice or any other addon: It can be set up to be a single action per input(non-botting), or "extras" could be (as most dyices have) included that make it multiple action per input(botting). So you should be able to see that how I executed the monitoring part was single action per input.

Once I finished it, I dumped it because this game is unappealing when tried as MSO.

Quoted from "Kalvan;601261"

Again, declining to discuss PAC, none of the addons in your list will give you an "unfair advantage" over another player. Neither are they classified as botting programs, since they still require that some sort of manual input be made, even in the cases of COI and LGI. Neither are automatic nor can be used while AFK. The jury is still out on PAC.

It may not give an unfair advantage as you say, but using COI with autoacceptinvite addon does let 1 player bypass the whole 5 minute instance reset issue. I know people who would leave up COI all night occasionally shouting in guild or private channels for anyone to use. The afk'd toon shouting the coi would be running the autoacceptinvite addon also, effectveily creating a party while afk. I'm willing to be a fairly substantial amount of players either do or have used this method in the past.

Quoted from "Kalvan;601261"

Again, declining to discuss PAC, none of the addons in your list will give you an "unfair advantage" over another player. Neither are they classified as botting programs, since they still require that some sort of manual input be made, even in the cases of COI and LGI. Neither are automatic nor can be used while AFK. The jury is still out on PAC.

How are COI and LGI not automatic? That's the whole point. You set them up and they will run forever, inviting those who input the keyword. You can leave it running all night whie you're asleep and it will continue to function. They're just as automatic as PAC is, and they do give a pretty good advantage especiallly with AAI for instance resets.

Quoted from "camagic;601345"

It is really simple, no need to overcomplicate it.

Yeah, I guess we can stop beating around the bush. I was only being light on the greens and blues because I didn't want to push to be discussing how to do something that was against the rules, but since I've come to the conclussion that the addon ComeOnIn is already doing what we are discussing, we can discuss it I suppose.

I hinted at it earlier that addons kind of already do this to a smaller sample, and it is very true.

I'll explain.
ComeOnIn is an addon that invites players to a party based on a keyword. 99.9% of the time, it is actually breaking the TOS no matter the stance on multi-clienting, since the addon is most often used for multiple people.
Example:
There are two people in this scenario. We'll them "Derp" and "Troll".
Derp and Troll live in different places, only knowing each other in game. Derp has the addon ComeOnIn. He activates the addon with the keyword "Hos". Troll wishes to join the party, thus he types "Hos". Derp automatically invites Troll to party.

In this scenario, Derp's account is "botting" (lack of better word?). He did not supply the input to the command. Troll supplied it by saying "Hos". However, Derp's account did have an output. He invited Troll. There was no manually accomplished event triggered on Derp's part. Derp could of been at the computer. He could of been in another room. He could of been on the moon. He was not at his computer when the "action" took place.

Under the current TOS/EULA/whatever, this WOULD be bannable and not allowed. Yet, it is basically allowed and no one really cares (not even I, who is making this point).

A different scenerio (#2):
Derp has two accounts and is multilogging/dual boxing. Derp has COI set up for KS farms (woot?) on account "Alternate" so that he can farm on account "Mainaccount". Mainaccount says "Ks", thus getting an invite on Alternate, allowing for reset.

With multiboxing/clienting/whatever now allowed, this should all be legal. This is true except for what we are currently discussing, which is an input/output scenerio among multiple clients. If scenerio number 1 is allowed, then this should be allowed just the same. No problem here.


Scenerio #3
Derp again has two accounts. "Alternate", his priest account, and "Mainaccount" his main account are both in the same location. Instead of inviting someone to a party, we'll use the same concept in COI to do other actions, like casting a spell. So we set it up so that everytime Mainaccount says "Grace", Alternate will cast Grace of Life on him. Mainaccount makes a macro that will say "Grace" in a channel that both Alternate and Mainaccount are in. Put the macro in an action bar and it is now the equivelent of clicking over screens and doing it on the other client.

The difference between this and COI in how it functions is null. It differs in how useful it is and how accepted it is.
If scenerios 1 and 2 are accepted under the TOS/EULA, then scenerio 3 is as well.
All you need is an addon to do such a task.

COI: Input from client 1 -> Output from client 2.
What I am suggesting: Input from client 1 -> Output frm client 2.



Scenerio #4
Derp has a guild and put "Alternate" on respawn point in siege. Everyone in Derp's guild can say "Grace" and receive Grace of Life from "Alternate". So on, and so forth.

This is in relationship to scenerio #1 very similar. Both can have multiple clients have the "input" and a desired output from a different client.
If scenerio #1 is to be accepted, then so is #4.






Hope this clears up what I am saying.
@green/blue's; I'm not suggesting breaking of rules. I am suggesting changing of the rules to make a more uniform, concrete decision on what is/isn't allowed. Please don't delete this.

Quoted from "CharlieBananas;601390"

Yeah, I guess we can stop beating around the bush. I was only being light on the greens and blues because I didn't want to push to be discussing how to do something that was against the rules, but since I've come to the conclussion that the addon ComeOnIn is already doing what we are discussing, we can discuss it I suppose.

I hinted at it earlier that addons kind of already do this to a smaller sample, and it is very true.

I'll explain.
ComeOnIn is an addon that invites players to a party based on a keyword. 99.9% of the time, it is actually breaking the TOS no matter the stance on multi-clienting, since the addon is most often used for multiple people.
Example:
There are two people in this scenario. We'll them "Derp" and "Troll".
Derp and Troll live in different places, only knowing each other in game. Derp has the addon ComeOnIn. He activates the addon with the keyword "Hos". Troll wishes to join the party, thus he types "Hos". Derp automatically invites Troll to party.

In this scenario, Derp's account is "botting" (lack of better word?). He did not supply the input to the command. Troll supplied it by saying "Hos". However, Derp's account did have an output. He invited Troll. There was no manually accomplished event triggered on Derp's part. Derp could of been at the computer. He could of been in another room. He could of been on the moon. He was not at his computer when the "action" took place.

Under the current TOS/EULA/whatever, this WOULD be bannable and not allowed. Yet, it is basically allowed and no one really cares (not even I, who is making this point).

A different scenerio (#2):
Derp has two accounts and is multilogging/dual boxing. Derp has COI set up for KS farms (woot?) on account "Alternate" so that he can farm on account "Mainaccount". Mainaccount says "Ks", thus getting an invite on Alternate, allowing for reset.

With multiboxing/clienting/whatever now allowed, this should all be legal. This is true except for what we are currently discussing, which is an input/output scenerio among multiple clients. If scenerio number 1 is allowed, then this should be allowed just the same. No problem here.


Scenerio #3
Derp again has two accounts. "Alternate", his priest account, and "Mainaccount" his main account are both in the same location. Instead of inviting someone to a party, we'll use the same concept in COI to do other actions, like casting a spell. So we set it up so that everytime Mainaccount says "Grace", Alternate will cast Grace of Life on him. Mainaccount makes a macro that will say "Grace" in a channel that both Alternate and Mainaccount are in. Put the macro in an action bar and it is now the equivelent of clicking over screens and doing it on the other client.

The difference between this and COI in how it functions is null. It differs in how useful it is and how accepted it is.
If scenerios 1 and 2 are accepted under the TOS/EULA, then scenerio 3 is as well.
All you need is an addon to do such a task.

COI: Input from client 1 -> Output from client 2.
What I am suggesting: Input from client 1 -> Output frm client 2.



Scenerio #4
Derp has a guild and put "Alternate" on respawn point in siege. Everyone in Derp's guild can say "Grace" and receive Grace of Life from "Alternate". So on, and so forth.

This is in relationship to scenerio #1 very similar. Both can have multiple clients have the "input" and a desired output from a different client.
If scenerio #1 is to be accepted, then so is #4.






Hope this clears up what I am saying.
@green/blue's; I'm not suggesting breaking of rules. I am suggesting changing of the rules to make a more uniform, concrete decision on what is/isn't allowed. Please don't delete this.

Very well put Matty. I especially like the direct comparison to COI.

(Wall of Text incoming, and no im not Fanny :p)

Neny: if someone would finally copypaste the ENEU file contents of the ToU into the USEN file the whole "whats the current version" would bet moot. Or just change the link to the ENGB version. All other regions had it updated back then Community Guidelines are properly linked on the US page, just the terms are not - and i did not look into the text on client startup, maybe there is still the old version, too.


And as for multiclienting vs multiboxing: what a blue poster says in 2013 - or if its explicitly stated in current terms of use - obviously overrules things said in 2009 by back-then Lead CM Silberfuchs
(running gag on the german forums about blue posts: "ABL will never come back" made by Silberfuchs back at the first time they ever appeared. They cannot look into the future and can only communicate down to us what they are either told to or allowed to reveal. When company policies change (or the whole company changes), things and rules obviously may change.)

When Nenysvor says its ok to either use multiple computers for multiple clients or just load them all up on a single computer, as long as you control ALL clients manually (that means no ISBoxer or similar tools known from WoW for input proxieing etc), then just take it as a given. If even he might be in doubt, he's actually working in the GF office and could go ask someone with the power to decide about it. (May that be Head of IT or Head of Support or the lawyers). But i doubt he would have posted anything explicit about the topic if he wasnt sure what goes and what not


And Charlie/camagic: i dont think its possible to send commands in that way via the addon api of ROM (anymore) . All the relevant stuff needs a click context on the actual client performing the command nowadays, dont think you still can proxy that through ROM API - it was disabled for stopping exact what you guys describes IIRC, but i'm no expert either. And with 3rd party tools its certainly not allowed

The stuff comeonin / lastgroupinvite / autoacceptinvite and other addons do explicitly do not need a click context thus work on keyword events. Any use of skills (and i assume, walking too) needs clicks on the client thats supposed to do it, you cant just api-command it from remote anymore. And its been like that for a long time.

Some stuff PAC is capable of is probably an oversight in the API f it still works like it ever did. But its in the responsibility of the player to not abuse it.
Like the endless loop of buy+process+buy+process while parking at the NPC and NOT sitting yourself in front of the pc and be in control of the client
(IIRC(!!): kinda fuzzy logic, but as long you control it yourself its allowed - you leave the pc to take a pi.., youre technically botting if you let pac buy new stuff or begin another stack of processing that you have not atleast clicked start for...if youre sitting in front of it and on the keyboard again... its ok. So its up to you to handle it according to the rules) [Thats what i remember of all that stuff, Neny might have something to add or correct, dunno]

Quoted from "YomanROM;601396"

i dont think its possible to send commands in that way via the addon api of ROM (anymore) . All the relevant stuff needs a click context on the actual client performing the command nowadays, dont think you still can proxy that through ROM API - it was disabled for stopping exact what you guys describes IIRC, but i'm no expert either. And with 3rd party tools its certainly not allowed

As of my last post, you are still capable of doing it.
Not sure if what I tested is exactly what you described, but the end product worked in what I tested (a sample size of 1 example given 1 command) just to see if it did work.



And aren't I dumb thinking to get a response from a blue on a Saturday. Derp Derp. This needs to be pushed to the top until atleast Monday..atleast...