"Disposable" Blue PKers

[SighelmofWyrmgard]

I have been aware of this for quite a while: I was informed of the first incident (of the incidents of which I have been informed, that is, lol) almost 5 months ago; how much had been going on before my return, I have no idea.

There are players who generate "suicide-attacker" characters with the sole purpose of attacking and killing AFK newbies; in my opinion, vis-à-vis the play-environment originally presented by OSI in-era, this exploits UOSA's multiclienting policies, to the extent that it constitutes abuse.

Off-and-on, I have conducted some investigation (lapsed a bit, I must confess, the last month, or so ...), and I can provide names (of the obvious "controllers") to the Administration, should they wish to investigate this matter on their own.

I wish to present this position here, first, rather than submit any formal complaint to staff.

SS

[Mens Rea]

You know it's possible to avoid putting yourself in a vulnerable position, which allows you to avoid being killed, right?

Just saying.

[SighelmofWyrmgard]

Just saying.

"Just saying" what?

You've said nothing (relevant).

SS

[Drunk'n Disorder]

There are players who generate "suicide-attacker" characters with the sole purpose of attacking and killing AFK newbies; in my opinion, vis-à-vis the play-environment originally presented by OSI in-era, this exploits UOSA's multiclienting policies, to the extent that it constitutes abuse.
SS

In what way does this constitute abuse? I used to townkill newbs on OSI all the time. In fact it was great because they usually macroed with a bag full of stuff. Here you townkill someone and might get a count from it. I don't agree that it's even a problem as I left two chars afk at WBB for the entire day without dieing...

[Soma]

This is not abuse of multi clienting.

This is not abuse of game mechanics.

This is players going afk at the bank and coming back dead, only to complain on the forums.

[Mens Rea]

For once Soma is right.

Even more so given that I offered the original poster a perfectly good alternative to dying. For those that missed it: don't leave your chars afk in stupid places.

[SighelmofWyrmgard]

For clarity's sake, I have not been speaking in my own behalf: I don't have any dead macroing newbs; false assumptions father defective arguments.

In what way does this constitute abuse? I used to townkill newbs on OSI all the time. In fact it was great because they usually macroed with a bag full of stuff. Here you townkill someone and might get a count from it. I don't agree that it's even a problem as I left two chars afk at WBB for the entire day without dieing...

I do not refer to townkilling: I refer to yet another exploitation of UOSA's multiclienting policies to bypass game mechanics.

There do exist potentially-valid counterpoints to my stance on the issue, which could enjoin debate; hence, why I've posted. Naturally, none of these potentially-valid counterpoints have yet appeared here; thanks, though, to D'nD for providing additional clarity on the actual issue.

SS

[Drunk'n Disorder]

For clarity's sake, I have not been speaking in my own behalf: I don't have any dead macroing newbs; false assumptions father defective arguments.

I never claimed you had been macroing any newbs.

I do not refer to townkilling: I refer to yet another exploitation of UOSA's multiclienting policies to bypass game mechanics.

And yet you still fail to clarify what the fuck you mean here. What game mechanics have been bypassed? Are people being killed without getting counts? Are players called "guards" yet the guards fail to come? So far you have not presented an argument at all, let alone a good one.

[SighelmofWyrmgard]

For clarity's sake, I have not been speaking in my own behalf: I don't have any dead macroing newbs; false assumptions father defective arguments.

I never claimed you had been macroing any newbs.

Nor did I claim that you had claimed such: that statement, directed not at you, naturally preceded my answer to you. Please, refrain from manufacturing cause for offense where no offense can be perceived.

What game mechanics have been bypassed? Are people being killed without getting counts?

Using multiple clients, the "offending" players bypass these mechanics:

1. Kill an Innocent, earn a murder count;
2. Loot an Innocent's corpse, become criminal.

I am not going to provide more details, here, regarding any of the procedures involved: I'm sure most people can figure out how one would replicate the behaviour.

If anyone IRL used an inflatable doll to murder the security guards and rob the bank, "but the dummy did it!" would not constitute any defense; nor would the convicted murderer be permitted to keep the money.

As the concerted actions to exploit-policy-to-bypass-mechanics are obviously deliberate, and with the obvious deliberation being to cause grief to other players, I contend that here are at least two identifiable infractions against UOSA's CoC.

However, there are matters of interpretation, and of severity: opinions come from players who have devised argumentation; dispositions come from staff.

SS

[Boomland Jenkins]

Using multiple clients, the "offending" players bypass these mechanics:

1. Kill an Innocent, earn a murder count;
2. Loot an Innocent's corpse, become criminal.

If someone is abusing a bug to murder without receiving counts, or looting a blue corpse without flagging, please report those actions to us. However, from the sounds of this thread, it seems you're referencing people who are using a churn and burn system to have a "town PK" that they simply delete and re-create every week or so. Assuming the player/PK is within their account ownership/access limits (players may have 3 accounts on UOSA), then there's nothing directly rule breaking about the situation you've described so far.

If you actually feel a bug is being abused, please report it to Staff (in-game page, a private message on IRC, or a private message on the forums)

[Drunk'n Disorder]

Using multiple clients, the "offending" players bypass these mechanics:

1. Kill an Innocent, earn a murder count;
2. Loot an Innocent's corpse, become criminal.

I get what you're saying here. Player uses character A to kill and loot AFK player, while character B collects the items either through trade window or looting player A's dead (and grey) corpse. Character A takes all the counts and can be deleted without regret after going red.

[Malaikat]

Using multiple clients, the "offending" players bypass these mechanics:

1. Kill an Innocent, earn a murder count;
2. Loot an Innocent's corpse, become criminal.

1. They still earn a murder count. It just isn't on their main. Even with a single client, it's easy enough to have a "town killer" toon and just macro counts overnight or simply delete once a week.

2. They still crim flag and get guard whacked. Multi-client just allows you to employ a second toon to loot the first. If there are other people around, they have the same opportunity and - again - it's something that could be easily accomplished with a single client and a friend. No mechanics are broken or bypassed.

If anyone IRL used an inflatable doll to murder the security guards and rob the bank, "but the dummy did it!" would not constitute any defense; nor would the convicted murderer be permitted to keep the money.

Parallels between UO and real-world morals/laws are usually pretty flawed. This would actually be closer to cloning...if my clone committed a murder I'd hope that I wouldn't be charged if I could prove my innocence.

As the concerted actions to exploit-policy-to-bypass-mechanics are obviously deliberate, and with the obvious deliberation being to cause grief to other players, I contend that here are at least two identifiable infractions against UOSA's CoC.

Since obviously no policy or mechanics have been broken...I see nothing wrong here.

[SighelmofWyrmgard]

I get what you're saying here. Player uses character A to kill and loot AFK player, while character B collects the items either through trade window or looting player A's dead (and grey) corpse. Character A takes all the counts and can be deleted without regret after going red.

Yes, and thank you for your opinion. To be a little more precise, the player uses account A and account B, which is why I've described the practice as, "using policy to bypass mechanics", and styling that behaviour as an abuse against UOSA's TOS/CoC; incidentally, using only the same account would also demand log-out/in, so there is a third mechanic being bypassed.

Does this "bypassing" constitute exploitation and/or abuse of policy ... ? So far, player-interpretation-and-opinion is saying, "no"; Boomland asks precisely for mechanical bugs/exploits and, so, has cast the appropriate, nice, distinction of the issue, as the administration presently observes/interprets it.

For those who have presented discussion and opinion (D'nD, Boomland, Malaikat), thank you.

SS

[Vega/Delo]

Read like three posts but..... dont afk in stupid spots.

Theres towns that are deadzones and areas no one ever goes. Yea we have more disposable chars, but they could do the same with 2 slots on one account. Deal wit it. No abuse here just whiny sluts.

Delo

[azheman]

umadbro