Jump to content


WG Support: "SafeShot is illegal"


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

Kaeptn #1 Posted 17 November 2016 - 08:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 39389 battles
  • 1,437
  • Member since:
    01-08-2011


View PostGepard_PH, on 21 November 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

Hello everyone,

at the moment SafeShot does not provide any functionality that would be considered not allowed by the Fair Play Policy.


TL;DR

Statements from WG EU support are meaningless as always.


Edited by Kaeptn, 22 November 2016 - 05:14 AM.


Massive_Ghost #2 Posted 18 November 2016 - 08:52 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2863 battles
  • 72
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013
Too bad that WG doesn´t allow this awesome mod any longer. Now i have to observe my own team mates again. :bush:

Gremlin182 #3 Posted 18 November 2016 - 09:01 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37614 battles
  • 5,911
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

Well at least you got an intelligently phrased reply that was clear.

 

I am a little surprised wargaming don't embrace the concept and have their own version of safeshot as it completely prevents someone firing at a friendly tank other than by pure chance.

It could prevent the majority of ff incidents and the retaliation the steady whines on the forum over team killers.

 

You can fire and then someone moves and catches your shell and you can fire just as they move in front of you but you can never point your gun deliberately at a friendly tank and then fire.

I haven't used it for some time

 



Aslain #4 Posted 18 November 2016 - 09:23 AM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 14599 battles
  • 9,887
  • [FEAR] FEAR
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010
You may want to clarify this, WG support is not the same like WG staff on forums.

Edited by Aslain, 18 November 2016 - 09:23 AM.


MetalMicky #5 Posted 18 November 2016 - 09:57 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9052 battles
  • 160
  • [-AWF-] -AWF-
  • Member since:
    05-14-2016

View PostAslain, on 18 November 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

You may want to clarify this, WG support is not the same like WG staff on forums.

 

​I just cant understand WG answer to this. After all, isn't in our best interest in having some type of protection when it comes to players learning about there new tanks and [edited]Heads just been themselves. Accidentally getting friendly fire is one thing, having the option to stop the Trigger Happy Yanks is another. (respect to all the British troops).  

Kaeptn #6 Posted 18 November 2016 - 11:24 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 39389 battles
  • 1,437
  • Member since:
    01-08-2011

View PostAslain, on 18 November 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

You may want to clarify this, WG support is not the same like WG staff on forums.

 

​Thats why the header says "WG Support". WG "Staff" on forums is even worse than support at times. Best you can get on EU is an opinion or educated guess. And to be honest, if you think about it twice - he/she/it is correct: SafeShot actually does subvert the game rules since it almost completely disables a core mechanic of the game: friendly fire.

theSwedishTankDriver #7 Posted 18 November 2016 - 03:02 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19715 battles
  • 681
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    03-04-2013
[Edited]

Edited by FireflyDivision, 20 November 2016 - 10:54 AM.
This post has been edited by a member of the moderation team, due to inappropriate content. An official notification has been sent. -FireflyDivision


Aslain #8 Posted 18 November 2016 - 03:16 PM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 14599 battles
  • 9,887
  • [FEAR] FEAR
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010

View PostKaeptn, on 18 November 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

 

​Thats why the header says "WG Support". WG "Staff" on forums is even worse than support at times. Best you can get on EU is an opinion or educated guess. And to be honest, if you think about it twice - he/she/it is correct: SafeShot actually does subvert the game rules since it almost completely disables a core mechanic of the game: friendly fire.

 

I've had the opposite experience with "WG support", in example I've meet WG Support with wierd Polish names (probably made up names since I cannot imagine a polish person can be named like that) that felt like a copy pasta bots :) The only time they actualy helped to me was when I wanted to change my email. 

janmb #9 Posted 18 November 2016 - 05:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19647 battles
  • 1,597
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    08-08-2014

This sounds very weird and probably boils down to some misunderstanding.

 

WG clearly has no problem with allowing people better chances to not shoot dead tanks since they already allow white skins (which they ironically banned people for before).

 

And helping people avoid team damage should be exclusively a good thing, right?

 

I completely fail to see any cheating aspect of this mod in any shape or form. Personally I never used it since I strongly dislike the spam and want the ability to shoot where I please, but it is definitely a good mod to help people avoid team damage if they want to.



janmb #10 Posted 18 November 2016 - 05:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 19647 battles
  • 1,597
  • [RDDT] RDDT
  • Member since:
    08-08-2014

View PostKaeptn, on 18 November 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

 

​Thats why the header says "WG Support". WG "Staff" on forums is even worse than support at times. Best you can get on EU is an opinion or educated guess. And to be honest, if you think about it twice - he/she/it is correct: SafeShot actually does subvert the game rules since it almost completely disables a core mechanic of the game: friendly fire.

 

While this is strictly speaking true, it is also highly ironic, as friendly fire is a very undesired behaviour from WGs point of view, and ultimately a bannable offense.

Stig_Stigma #11 Posted 20 November 2016 - 02:08 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5025 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    09-16-2015
Lol. I started using that mod some days ago. It really helped me because sometimes I get angry with other players and sometimes i play arty and I cant avoid splash damage...

Elkano #12 Posted 20 November 2016 - 11:25 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 17993 battles
  • 174
  • [P0T] P0T
  • Member since:
    03-25-2011

Well there is an obvious difference between a "white dead tanks" mod and a mod that prevents you from shooting at such tanks and team mates.

The first one only provides a clearer visual in order to help you make a decision on where to shoot, the second one messes with a decision you made and actively alters the input you made.

I may be missing some mod, but usually anything that actively creates or alters user input would be considered a cheat, unless part of the vanilla client and thus intended by the developer.



Arkhorse_eu #13 Posted 20 November 2016 - 01:38 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 161 battles
  • 8
  • [W_F_T] W_F_T
  • Member since:
    11-16-2014
So, WG wants you to shot allies? That is what I get from this.

Aslain #14 Posted 20 November 2016 - 01:51 PM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 14599 battles
  • 9,887
  • [FEAR] FEAR
  • Member since:
    07-20-2010

View PostArkhorse_eu, on 20 November 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

So, WG wants you to shot allies? That is what I get from this.

 

I am still waiting for clarification, it's a weekend, so I guess I will receive it tomorrow. I somehow cannot belive it. It's stupid.

Edited by Aslain, 20 November 2016 - 03:29 PM.


Cobra6 #15 Posted 20 November 2016 - 02:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 14323 battles
  • 12,213
  • [BRAH] BRAH
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

On a purely objective base this is indeed right of them to not allow this mod, since it alters game behaviour and gives you an advantage technically speaking.

 

That being said it's of course idiotic as this specific mod (blocking shots if allies are in the way) are only contributing positively to gameplay in general. However if they start making exceptions for this, where does it end?

 

Cobra 6



CmdRatScabies #16 Posted 20 November 2016 - 03:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23835 battles
  • 1,427
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostCobra6, on 20 November 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

On a purely objective base this is indeed right of them to not allow this mod, since it alters game behaviour and gives you an advantage technically speaking.

 

That being said it's of course idiotic as this specific mod (blocking shots if allies are in the way) are only contributing positively to gameplay in general. However if they start making exceptions for this, where does it end?

 

Cobra 6

 

For me whether Safeshot is banned or not isn't the issue.  The issue for me is how difficult it is to predict whether WG view a mod as legal or not based on the rules which they've published.

 

If you can't reliably know what's ok or not ok from reading the rules then it does not bode well for the rules actually being implementable - after all they are proposing two strikes and a perma ban so it will be a problem for WG as much as players if the rules are not straight forward.



Stig_Stigma #17 Posted 20 November 2016 - 03:41 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5025 battles
  • 348
  • Member since:
    09-16-2015

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 20 November 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

 

For me whether Safeshot is banned or not isn't the issue.  The issue for me is how difficult it is to predict whether WG view a mod as legal or not based on the rules which they've published.

 

If you can't reliably know what's ok or not ok from reading the rules then it does not bode well for the rules actually being implementable - after all they are proposing two strikes and a perma ban so it will be a problem for WG as much as players if the rules are not straight forward.

 

I agree, even though I'm one of those guys who in these last months has pushed WG to take action towards cheats.

It would be better to add another 1-2 layers in the ban procedure. First 1 week. Second 1 month. Third 6 months. Fourth permanent ban. 

 

Cobra6 #18 Posted 20 November 2016 - 04:33 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 14323 battles
  • 12,213
  • [BRAH] BRAH
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostStig_Stigma, on 20 November 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

 

I agree, even though I'm one of those guys who in these last months has pushed WG to take action towards cheats.

It would be better to add another 1-2 layers in the ban procedure. First 1 week. Second 1 month. Third 6 months. Fourth permanent ban. 

 

 

That would give legitimate cheaters 4 occasions to completely screw over teams they play against in term of time-frames. Cheaters are not banned after one match so they might use these mods 1 week, two weeks heck maybe even 2 months as we don't know how fast WG reacts.

 

Just for the sake of argument lets pretend it takes WG 2 weeks to detect and ban a cheater, then that cheater could wreck the games for enemies for ~8 weeks before he was permabanned. And that is just for 1 cheater, imagine if it are 100 cheaters, maybe 1000.

 

With all of the latest vanilla clients getting more and more mod-functions in them the need for mods at the moment, a part from if you want a clock in the garage or in-game xvm scores is pretty much 0. All other useful mods (to use in matches) are already in the game pretty much.

 

Cobra 6



CmdRatScabies #19 Posted 20 November 2016 - 04:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23835 battles
  • 1,427
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

View PostCobra6, on 20 November 2016 - 04:33 PM, said:

 

That would give legitimate cheaters 4 occasions to completely screw over teams they play against in term of time-frames. Cheaters are not banned after one match so they might use these mods 1 week, two weeks heck maybe even 2 months as we don't know how fast WG reacts.

 

Just for the sake of argument lets pretend it takes WG 2 weeks to detect and ban a cheater, then that cheater could wreck the games for enemies for ~8 weeks before he was permabanned. And that is just for 1 cheater, imagine if it are 100 cheaters, maybe 1000.

 

With all of the latest vanilla clients getting more and more mod-functions in them the need for mods at the moment, a part from if you want a clock in the garage or in-game xvm scores is pretty much 0. All other useful mods (to use in matches) are already in the game pretty much.

 

Cobra 6

 

Well putting aside whether cheats are "wrecking" games.  You can only go zero tolerance if the rules are super clear.  At the moment some of the ban/no ban mod decisions are a mystery to me and I don't see how they will be able to operate their proposed zero tolerance - they can't have lots of players on a final warning, which never expires, as it will impact on their willingness to spend real money on the game.

Cobra6 #20 Posted 20 November 2016 - 04:48 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 14323 battles
  • 12,213
  • [BRAH] BRAH
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostCmdRatScabies, on 20 November 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

 

Well putting aside whether cheats are "wrecking" games.  You can only go zero tolerance if the rules are super clear.  At the moment some of the ban/no ban mod decisions are a mystery to me and I don't see how they will be able to operate their proposed zero tolerance - they can't have lots of players on a final warning, which never expires, as it will impact on their willingness to spend real money on the game.

 

Support can always remove these strikes if they wish if you can prove you were not using a mid which can be concluded as illegal under the rules.

 

And when installing mods you need to simply interpret the existing rules in the broadest sense possible and if you can park the mod you want to use under one of the rules simply don't use them. It's not rocket science and as I pointed out in my previous post, with the latest additions there is really very little use in using mod packs nowadays.

 

Cobra 6






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users