Runes of Magic US / AU

Quoted from "zidlef;601838"

Well i would like to know how we can prove it?
Can we get them ban?
Especially annoying in siege ;-(
Are we allowed to do it?

Quoted from "CharlieBananas;602092"

Another weekend about to arrive. Dat blue text not acknowledging our existance yet.

Quoted from "ghostwolf82;602093"

...

Quoted from "Cike;602113"

Got a siege legitimacy question, and didn't want to start a whole new thread, but is taking out the throne with mage t-storm from the back wall without taking down the inner gate an exploit?

Quoted from "CharlieBananas;602092"

Another weekend about to arrive. Dat blue text not acknowledging our existance yet.

Quoted from "CharlieBananas;602122"

More important stuff to be answered on page 6 for the blue people who are concerned with answering our very important questions.
edit; important being the variable adjective dependant on the p.o.v.

Quoted from "Cike;602113"

Got a siege legitimacy question, and didn't want to start a whole new thread, but is taking out the throne with mage t-storm from the back wall without taking down the inner gate an exploit?

Quoted from "Kalvan;602153"

...but it also doesn't quite pass the "smell test".

Quoted from "Kroagnon;602156"

I now have images of Kalvan smelling his monitor screen while playing.

Quoted from "zidlef;602158"

Well it doesn't pass the smell test, so they can use it. Why always a grey area? i am as sad as the rain outside ;-((

Quoted from "Kalvan;602153"

No, it's not an exploit, per se. (Proper use of the term there, pay attention, grammar/spelling slackers. ) It's similar to someone planting one or more Flame Towers behind your castle, or an S/Wd using Chiron to target and kill the Throne, or any other castle building. Also similar to a Mage using T-Storm to hit people or Towers on the castle roof. Line of Sight issue. It's not an exploit, but it also doesn't quite pass the "smell test".

I now return you to our regularly-scheduled topic.

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.