Rule(s) Reguarding the use of automated pvp macro(s)

[Pro]

New thread asking if it should be legal/illegal to use automated attack macros in pvp and pvm.


By automated I'm talking about macros which attack/heal/anything without input from the player (press of a button) For example(s);

1. An archer which has a macro to attack any other players/monsters in the vicinity on loop.
2. A macro which heals self and chugs pots without the player actually doing it.


Imo it should be illegal/jailable before it gets out of hand, the big shards generally don't allow it so I'm just going on that.

[Hemperor]

As said earlier, how do we police it? I completely agree that it shouldn't be allowed, but how can it be monitored? I know of TG archer bots but I also know of quite a few tamers that farm with hidden archer bots that will attack reds instantly while they recall out.

Maybe UO is just dead forever

[Derrick]

This question would be limited to a character that does not actually have a person at the helm, or any character in the world even if primarily controlled by a real person, but running a looping macro of some sort that drank a pot if health got too low?

The primary question I have is this really a net benefit to a player in the field. Using razor macros for PvP is something I've never witnessed to be a viable strategy.

[Faust]

How should one determine what is legal or not?

For example, the common purple potion macro that people use to continously lob them at your combatant. Would this macro fall into this categorization and how would you confirm that someone is using an automated script?

It would probably be easier to make 'afk automated pvp macros' a bannable offense even though it would be nice if all pvp scripts was illegal but detectable(which it isn't unfortunately). The rule would be very much similar to afk resource gathering.

[marmalade]

its a net benefit when you can be playing one character, and be killing/making money on another one while not actually looking at the client screen.

i do agree that player skill will never be outdone by macros for certain actions in pvp such as throwing explosion potions, autocure/heal and gheal scripts. however, this doesnt mean that it should be allowed. automation of any action that involves risk and player ability should not be legal.

[Alex21]

This question would be limited to a character that does not actually have a person at the helm, or any character in the world even if primarily controlled by a real person, but running a looping macro of some sort that drank a pot if health got too low?

The primary question I have is this really a net benefit to a player in the field. Using razor macros for PvP is something I've never witnessed to be a viable strategy.

How do you know it is razor? There are people breaking that rule as well.

[Hemperor]

You will never be able to police people using hally or pot macros. Ever.

That simple, however multi-cliented archer bots are another story.

[MatronDeWinter]

I think you guys should be able to run any razor macro you want, (Just watch some of these hally macros at the events for reference), provided you are not using the macros to control more than 1 character at a time. Auto-cure, heal, hally, really does not make a huge difference, and sometimes can even mess them up, but I agree about the archer-bot issue. While I have only seen it a handfull of times (TG and ASC) come to mind, it is pretty silly.

Edited Name once showed me a program (i guess it was for wow) that made your inputs (mouse and keys ect) work across multiple applications. He used it to Sync me with 3 mages, while moving around without a hitch. We can all agree that this is pretty lame, archer-bots are no different.

I would actually be for no-pvp macros (including potions/curing/poisoning et al.), but as faust stated, how can you tell anyway?

[Alex21]

You will never be able to police people using hally or pot macros.

There would be plenty of ways to do this, none of them easy or 100% hack proof. Probably best way is having a client side process for monitoring system processes, or even a custom secondage client that dosn't work with the current avaiable third party tools and can only use a third party tool created by second age for second age.

[Hemperor]

You will never be able to police people using hally or pot macros.

There would be plenty of ways to do this, none of them easy or 100% hack proof. Probably best way is having a client side process for monitoring system processes, or even a custom secondage client that dosn't work with the current avaiable third party tools and can only use a third party tool created by second age for second age.

Number one, that would never happen on this shard... Number two, there are numerous ways around that.

However, there are ways to limit and even disable the opportunity to be exploited such as limiting Razor (big one), client connections per IP (big one) and removing guild and party chat (accurate).

[MatronDeWinter]

You will never be able to police people using hally or pot macros.

There would be plenty of ways to do this, none of them easy or 100% hack proof. Probably best way is having a client side process for monitoring system processes, or even a custom secondage client that dosn't work with the current avaiable third party tools and can only use a third party tool created by second age for second age.

This was discussed previously and met the same acclaim as the "disable razor" argument. It would limit the ways in which players can connect to the shard, hurting the population. While I would like to see razor limited, I recognize this as a valid point. As far as the idle process running to monitor the client and third party applications, absolutely not?

However, there are ways to limit and even disable the opportunity to be exploited such as limiting Razor (big one), client connections per IP (big one) and removing guild and party chat (accurate).

[Derrick]

How do you know it is razor? There are people breaking that rule as well.

A rule against the breaking of existing shard rules shall be enacted immediately.




I'm kidding here of course; but the idea that we should enact rules which prohibit people from doing things that are already against the rules is often posted although not in such direct language.

When asking if this this is a net benefit above, I did not mean can someone create an super powerful AI bot using software prohibited on UOSA and reap benefits. I mean within the restriction of allowed software which is Razor, and nothing else.

We don't need to address using prohibited software to bot PvP; this is already prohibited.

[marmalade]

using allowed software to bot pvp should be prohibited aswell in that case.

[Derrick]

using allowed software to bot pvp should be prohibited aswell in that case.

My initial question of what the poll is actually pertaining to hasn't been answered. We cannot discuss "botting" PvP without defining it.

Use of software other than Razor to cut bandages is prohibited, this does not naturally extend to prohibiting using Razor to cut bandages.

[marmalade]

using allowed software to bot pvp should be prohibited aswell in that case.

My initial question of what the poll is actually pertaining to hasn't been answered. We cannot discuss "botting" PvP without defining it.

Use of software other than Razor to cut bandages is prohibited, this does not naturally extend to prohibiting using Razor to cut bandages.

using a script or macro (any program) to attain full or partial kills (to deal damage) without actually actively playing.

i think that defines it pretty well.