About yesterday's AMA

"

Jaerin wrote:

Can I make a version without all those features in it? Yes, I could even do that, but at this point do you want to risk getting the same ban someone using the full hack would get for just disabling the graphic effects?

"

Jaerin wrote:

It became more of a cart of nice to have features all in one place. You're right, hind-sight says that it would have been nice to strip the nefarious features out. See this an excuse, but I don't know that it would have ultimately changed anything.

Can I make a version without all those features in it? Yes, I could even do that, but at this point do you want to risk getting the same ban someone using the full hack would get for just disabling the graphic effects? We have no way of knowing for sure who will or won't get hurt by it. Maybe I will split things out and offer them up for use. Then GGG can decide to publicly speak about what they are okay with using. I mean I would say that auto-flask and auto-quit scripts are in some ways worse than many of the features, but they are seen as semi-legit and okay to use.

"

"

b15h09 wrote:

"

Is it fair? Possibly not in some cases. Do GGG have the resources to make judgements in each individual case? No, and that's not what people are supporting them to do.

Is it fair to let GGG off so easily, though? Particle effects and loot filters (or at least the ability to change drop colors) have been requested since at least when the game went OB, maybe sooner? I have a hard time believing they lacked the resources to implement something so basic over the last 2 years. Sure, it's their game, they can do what they want. But their choices have consequences, just as ours do.

I don't have a dog in that fight, I am too n00b to argue it with passion and experience.

But my point stands, regardless of culpability of parties the only group that will actively have to invest significant resources into applying 'fair' judgements are GGG, and simpy put - tying them up in huge number of individual interactions about the use of this tool in a "non-cheating" manner will very quickly scuttle resources that could be better used for achieving the changes you've identified.

"

b15h09 wrote:

My only dog is I fucking absolutely detest currency color, and that alone intrigues me about this tool. I luckily have a Potato Mk 2, so my FPS are fine in a Dom fight.

Still, had GGG been just a little proactive, they could do some clear cut banning, and have little concern about the innocents being caught in the shitstorm.

"

b15h09 wrote:

My only dog is I fucking absolutely detest currency color, and that alone intrigues me about this tool. I luckily have a Potato Mk 2, so my FPS are fine in a Dom fight.

Still, had GGG been just a little proactive, they could do some clear cut banning, and have little concern about the innocents being caught in the shitstorm.

"

Jaerin wrote:

Some would say they shouldn't have to explain their game decisions and we should all just play the game. On the hand though, we live in a world where they could use the constructive feedback of their players to improve the game and make a potentially better experience. So who's right? Some would say that one of the reasons they like PoE more than other games is, that they haven't compromised in their design decisions. That's great, but in my mind they could at least give some definitive responses on whether they are entertaining the possibilities.

That way we can at least look at a previous set of suggestions and not keep asking for the same things we wish would happen over and over.

"

Jaerin wrote:

If you don't want to read it then don't.

"

If Jaerin goes ahead with his feature splitting, and lets GGG view it, maybe there is potential for it to be ignored by whatever anti-cheat system is in place. I imagine that would be a very difficult bridge to build, though, let alone cross.

"

Jaerin wrote:

"

If Jaerin goes ahead with his feature splitting, and lets GGG view it, maybe there is potential for it to be ignored by whatever anti-cheat system is in place. I imagine that would be a very difficult bridge to build, though, let alone cross.

The last thing I want to do is intentionally put people at unneeded risk. It is one thing to blatantly come out and say this is a cheat, we do nothing to protect you, you can and will be banned for using it.

It is completely another to try and put out something that MIGHT be okay to use or makes some guarantee to safety because they think they have enough protections to prevent detection.