StarryKnight

Out of curiosity, why has it been like 6 hours plus, and still no official news or announcement by Nexon? Even a simple message on the webforum would be sufficient to quell a notable portion additional inquiries, let people know you're at least investigating the issue.

Are they just all gone on the weekend with no on-call person to deal with public relations or IT issues after hours? Not saying it should be fixed already, but people should at least be informed that you're aware of and investigating the problem.

HHG1 wrote: »

iirc the suicide autoban predates reboot kanna farming meta because bots used it way before they did. Suicide abuse by other players to fit a made-up meta isn't a legitimate reason to get rid of a bot deterrent. Do it slower to avoid detection or don't do it at all.
Removing the exp loss entirely would in a way solve both those problems, but should they really have to tweak the game more for people to play it as intended?

But that's just it. Bots are far more sophisticated than they were four plus years ago when this 'deterrent' was implemented. It's highly unlikely that modern bots do not account for this and will simply delay the auto-death process to avoid detection, meaning that Nexon still using this as a method of bot detection is, well, obsolete. Especially when confronted with the fact that the meta changed, and Nexon did not adjust to the new meta or develop their own more sophisticated methods of bot detection. Its a simple matter of Nexon not changing with the times. Nexon knowingly left a mechanism that it clearly accepts will and does ban legitimate players without just reason or cause, leading to a poor customer experience for those players, who are simply trying to make efficient use of their time and maximize their farming throughput.

Further, the entire idea that the game is "intended" to be played a certain way is a flawed argument. Did Nexon intend for EXP to be lost upon death? Yes, therefore someone dying and losing exp is an outcome that Nexon intended to happen. There is no rule saying that one cannot die intentionally, thus no valid arguement to claim that dying purposely contradicts the games "intended" gameplay. At worst you can argue that it exploits an intended outcome to ones own benefit, but then that is true for every trick that makes playing the game easier. An example, if you suicide in chaos pierre to get rid of the colored hat allowing you to hit both red and blue hat Pierre in order to solo... technically "not the intended method of defeating that boss", but its the current meta when you fail to no-split. There's countless examples like this, and none of them are against the rules, so the argument that it doesnt follow the "intended method of gameplay" is a vague and nebulous way of avoiding responsibility and failing to addressing the problem.

If they are going to tell us that the solution is to wait a minimum amount of time before dying again, then what's that minimum time? Should we count to three, five, ten, thirty? Not telling us is the same as saying "I know you can't see or hear it coming, but if you cross this road too soon, one of my drivers will come out of nowhere and hit you, but I refuse to tell you how long to wait before you cross it, even though I know precisely how long you should wait before crossing... "

You could claim that they can't tell us because then the botters would know too, but they already know, even if its by a consequence of trial and error. Its the legitimate players who are suffering from these 'deterrents'. Botters will just make another account and increase the auto-death delay timer, they don't lose anything when they get banned, just a few hours of their computers time. Legitimate players, on the other hand, stand to lose thousands of hours of time invested in a single character.

Would you also claim that a certain number of innocent people getting the death penalty is acceptable because the death penalty is a "deterrent" for violent crime? Exactly how many innocent people getting the death penalty is an "acceptable margin of error"?

I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong) a familiars duration is in some way linked to how often they attack, in that every time they attack their vitality goes down ever so slightly. Monsters that attack more often will 'drain' their vitality faster than ones who attack less often.

For example, a common familiar to use when meso farming is Leprechaun, Big Spider or Eye of Time. However, the leprechaun will only last about 30min, starting with max vitality, where the spider or eye of time will easily last an hour.

If this is not the case, meaning the familiar's attacking does not play a role in the draining of vitality, I can at least assure you that the orbs do not represent a consistent amount of time across all familiars. The above example is evidence for this.

It would be nice if the censorship filter could be improved for name creation as well. I tried to make a character named Cassius, but can't because it contains ass. This is a bit frustrating because if someone really wanted to use 'ass' in a sexual or derogatory manner in a character name, they could just make it âss or áss, etc, because those combinations do not trigger the censorship filter. All the current filter does is prevent people from having clean looking names that happen to contain combinations of letters that could in certain circumstances be derogatory.

I expect the programmers do something along the lines of the following: They take an input string, change all the characters to lower case, remove all the spaces, then search through the string for combinations of letters, this leads to censorship of things that should not be censored, for example if I said "the gorilla is the stronger ape". It would censor "stronge* ***" because it thinks I typed rape, this is because it doesn't see that these are separate words, all it see's is a string 'thegorillaisthestrongerape'. In fact, if you type "aosdaisojdrapetheoerwe" you would get "aosdaisojd****theoerwe", because the programmers are lazy and use an instr function to search for censored words, instead of parsing the input string properly and examining each word independently.

Personally, i'd probably parse the string into a dynamic array using the space character as a delimiter, and run a 'for' loop that scans each string in the array (each word of the sentence) independently, it's more elegant, efficient and prevents unnecessary censorship.