GGG.. youre giving out a warning to hackers... why?

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

"

Even if there's 40,000 unique players that's still 10%. Yes I agree that my assumptions could be wrong, and the claims have not as much merit as I'd like them to have. The likelihood of this game having more then 50,000 players a month would be rather low imo, I don't know anyone that plays it other then my brother.

"

Chris wrote:

"

Hemmingfish wrote:

That's over half the average online players (from steam at least). Must have been quite a shock for GGG.

A little less than 3.5% of players appear to be running cheats (prior to the warning).

There you go.

3912 people were warned. The math I leave to you.

3,5% of all the accouts I assume. Which includes mules and players who dont play for months

"

RelmXz wrote:

"

torturo wrote:

What I'm curious about, is how some random guys managed to deal with screen clutter and particles, but GGG themselves were never able to implemented such options. Or never wanted? And if that, why?
There's something weird.

Exactly! How is it that someone is able to disable the particles effect so easily through programming but GGG just doesn't want to implement this as an option to other players around?

B-but muh immersion!

"

The_Great_Alex wrote:

3,5% of all the accouts I assume. Which includes mules and players who dont play for months

On reddit:

_christ_in_e:^) 14 points 10 hours ago

If less than 3.5% of players used cheats before the warning (assuming these are the people that were warned) you can calculate the total sample of people used in this observation. 100/3.5% = 28.57*3912 = 111765 players. That's pretty interesting in terms of population.


[–]chris_wilsonLead Developer 14 points 5 hours ago

Right, that's the number of people who logged in during the period we sampled from.

btw if anyone is wondering and scared of using ahk. it seemes to be save. i used it the past few days and ran that script which shows you alot of info about prefixes and suffixes on gear and if they are multi mods or not and all is fine no warning here.

that however makes me wonder can they distinguish between auto pot/flask scripts and those that are ok to use. and if not will they in the future just not allow ahk and ban everyone who runs it.

"

Esto wrote:

btw if anyone is wondering and scared of using ahk. it seemes to be save. i used it the past few days and ran that script which shows you alot of info about prefixes and suffixes on gear and if they are multi mods or not and all is fine no warning here.

that however makes me wonder can they distinguish between auto pot/flask scripts and those that are ok to use. and if not will they in the future just not allow ahk and ban everyone who runs it.

They can't unless someone tells them 'yo go look at this guy's logs I suspect him to be using chicken scripts'. You're 100% safe as long as nobody cares about what you're doing. Yeah it's sad.

"

Esto wrote:

that however makes me wonder can they distinguish between auto pot/flask scripts and those that are ok to use

They are not able to detect auto pot/chicken scrips. Probably 90% of HC (and not only) population uses such.

"

They need to add mappable key shortcuts into their game for the ones they deem acceptable. Alt/f4, /oos, /itemlevel, etc.

Then make using any external macro functions interacting with PoE an insta-ban.

Wouldn't you rather have a MTX-chicken??


Nah, you're right. But I guess it won't happen.

"

They need to add mappable key shortcuts into their game for the ones they deem acceptable. Alt/f4, /oos, /itemlevel, etc.

The mind boggles as to why this has never been done.

They'd rather, for some unimaginable reason, have this grey area with rules and exceptions to rules for macros with AHK, advise people to use AHK and have literally nobody exactly sure about what is and what isn't OK or why and why not they are or are not OK.

What is the reason?
Beats me. But it does go very well with their almost blank refusal to ban people in so many cases (not least the most recent 4k cheaters thing).

Perhaps the obvious solution would give them clear non-mitigated reasons to ban, which they don't want?