+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: I was under the impression that..... (/showthread.php?tid=99950)
I was under the impression that..... - Mickk - 06-06-2013
Well, for starters, this is a post about some recent decisions I've seen in the Sanction forum.
Before this thread gets invisibled/deleted or whatever, I'm not specifying any particular sanction.
I'm just wondering when cheating/hacking started to NOT be an instant ship delete and/or a ban of whatever length, if not a permaban on the account in question.
Please, don't discuss any specific sanctions in this thread.
Also, kudos to one of the Admins for a very creative punishment seen recently, the admin in question will know who I'm talking about.
RE: I was under the impression that..... - GTB - 06-06-2013
Anyone found 100% cheating their ship flying stats, giving them an advantage in PVP should be perm banned in my view.
RE: I was under the impression that..... - n00bl3t - 06-06-2013
When Freelancer started dying?
RE: I was under the impression that..... - sindroms - 06-06-2013
It is simple. Let me try and explain the situation.
Bans can be circumvented and the result are people like Doj and Jetblack. These people will return either way, permabanned or not, so it is only logical to not give them a reason to return like Doj and Jet. Better let the community deal with them via the obvious consequences of trustworthiness, rather than a flawed punishment system, which does not work on the server anyway, not to mention allows the people to throw arguments about abuse and conspiracies, thus returning only to cause deliberate server instability.
RE: I was under the impression that..... - Jack_Henderson - 06-06-2013
I am pretty sure that these sanctions were for "FPS > 180" after disabling V-sync. This makes you "jitter". Jittering is considered cheating. But as many people do not know that you have to limit your frame rate to < 160 (via dxtory), they got off lightly.
But that's only my guess.
RE: I was under the impression that..... - sindroms - 06-06-2013
No, I think it is about the upcoming mass deletion of people who have been using SUR cheats.
RE: I was under the impression that..... - Epic Miner - 06-06-2013
(06-06-2013, 02:17 PM)Mickk Wrote: kudos to one of the Admins for a very creative punishment seen recently, the admin in question will know who I'm talking about.
Kudos for losing any sense of professionalism in order to pretty much make fun of someone by putting them in a position like that, simply because you're bored or because you can? Yeah, great work Blodo. Really shows what a good administrator you are.
RE: I was under the impression that..... - belarusich - 06-06-2013
(06-06-2013, 02:51 PM)sindroms Wrote: No, I think it is about the upcoming mass deletion of people who have been using SUR cheats.
No.
Video of "jittering" in one of threads. Sanction of 4 people, all with SAME(as admin wrote) cheat. And one of people which was sanctioned indeed was with 180 FPS
P.S. SUR cheats - changing of textures of ships?
RE: I was under the impression that..... - Epic Miner - 06-06-2013
(06-06-2013, 03:07 PM)belarusich Wrote: P.S. SUR cheats - changing of textures of ships?
As far as I know, alteration of hitboxes is one defined SUR cheat. For example, enlarging the hitbox of a fighter to one of a battleship.
RE: I was under the impression that..... - belarusich - 06-06-2013
Hitboxes - size of texture, which considered as... erm... "can receive damage"?