|
|
On April 28 2014 02:14 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 02:07 Ketara wrote:
The actual number is not visible.
If you took the wording of Sargonas's post literally, Curse Voice would be banned because of these cooldown timers. It gives you information you couldn't otherwise obtain strictly with the information given to you in the game because you can't know if teammates have CDR on runes/masteries.
But again, taking the post literally is stupid because it's not an official statement. And the most recent Riot statement appears to be that they are leaning towards banning it but haven't made a final decision. This Riot Sargonas is a "Developer Relations Manager". It sounds to me from his title that he directly oversees the aspect over third party programs at Riot. His words mean much, much more than what LAN says.
The LAN guy doesn't contradict him at all though.
Again, based on google translate 
|
On April 28 2014 02:09 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 02:04 Ketara wrote:
So that's probably a reason why they are apparently leaning towards banning it then. Even so, merely timers themselves are NOT OK. The nature of Curse's hack is no different from the 0 CD summoners hack or the 0 CD botrk proc hack or maphacks for other games. You make a program which reads the game client's memory. If Curse's program only look at exactly what you see on your screen, then do some sort of text recognition to find the dragon timestamp, so be it - because such programs cannot be be stopped even on a theoretical level. This is clearly not the case here. Any program that reads the game client's memory is NOT OK and SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. Show nested quote +On April 28 2014 02:05 wei2coolman wrote:
Isn't that what the green orb thingy is? it's visible timer (although a super buggy one, I for one am ok with Curse Voice's ult timers, cuz Riot's one that is provided in game is buggy pos). No it's not like that. I actually have Curse Voice right now so I think I can describe what it does. In regards to timers, it puts a box beside each champion's box on the left side, with EXACTLY HOW MANY SECONDS LEFT ON THEIR R. The box also changes colour depending on how many seconds left: >10 seconds remaining: red <10 seconds remaining: orange/yellow 0 seconds remaining: green
Yeah, I'm aware it shows exact seconds, but considering how bad Riot's ult timer thingy is...
I'm just surprised how badly Riot cocked this up by having conflicting statements regarding it so far.
|
On April 28 2014 02:13 Ketara wrote:I mean, I share your concerns that programs like that would do a lot to ruin the game. But I don't see any indication from the Riot statements that they're going to be allowing programs like that. It's understanding to be concerned, but shit like Show nested quote +"imo somebody at riot NA took a lot of money said its ok without checking public opinion or even knowing about the timers, now they cant back out of the deal and we have things like riot LA saying its illegal and not allowing it in LCS" bothers me.
I am not sure if you have used Curse Voice before, but their timer overlay is very good and carefully crafted. This is not something some random guy in a basement whipped up in a week - this is professionally developed software which contains a feature that is easily seen a "hack" by the community.
Like I said before, Curse faces two issues with the timers:
1. Development cost. Extra features cost extra money to develop. Curse is a big company with a lot of money, but they don't run charities. If they are to develop a feature which can be deemed illegal, it is too risky to be implemented - unless Riot already told them it's OK.
2. PR cost. If Curse does develop this feature and it does deem to be illegal by Riot - then Curse developed a hack that has its official logo on it. This will be a huge PR disaster for Curse.
Assuming Curse is not absolutely retarded, they must have already gotten an "OK" from Riot regarding their features already. The question is really how Riot even came up with this absolutely stupid decision, and who made this decision?
|
Yes, one would assume that Curse would get an official OK from Riot before making such an application.
Then you see things like this:
Riot Sargonas 03-13-2014: "Currently we've not taken an official stance on the use of Curse Voice, but we do find it an interesting application."
Riot Sargonas 04-22-2014: " Curse Voice and other related 3rd party mods are something we are actively looking into"
Followed by it being banned on the LA servers.
As well as absolutely nothing on the Curse website about it, makes it sound like they didn't get such an OK. If they did, why would Riot later on say they haven't made a decision?
Basically what you're assuming is that Curse is a sensible company and Riot is not a sensible company at the same time, which is not only a double standard, but also rather illogical based on the actual evidence.
|
On April 28 2014 02:30 Ketara wrote:
Yes, one would assume that Curse would get an official OK from Riot before making such an application.
Then you see things like this:
Riot Sargonas 03-13-2014: "Currently we've not taken an official stance on the use of Curse Voice, but we do find it an interesting application."
Riot Sargonas 04-22-2014: " Curse Voice and other related 3rd party mods are something we are actively looking into"
Followed by it being banned on the LA servers.
As well as absolutely nothing on the Curse website about it, makes it sound like they didn't get such an OK. If they did, why would Riot later on say they haven't made a decision?
Riot did not give an official OK, but Riot most likely gave Curse an unofficial OK under the table.
Think about it. Someone at Curse has to manage this Curse Voice project. Do you honestly think they would just go ahead and do it without any kind of communication with Riot? I guarantee you, Curse and Riot must have talked about this, possibly with only Sargonas or with some other Rioters too, and Riot gave them OK. The fact that Sargonas said this thing about "information already earned" shows that they already drew the line to make Curse Voice legal.
I am not saying Riot is not a sensible company. I am saying Curse and Riot formed a deal or partnership on Curse Voice.
|
Then why is it banned on Latin America?
|
On April 28 2014 02:38 Ketara wrote:
Then why is it banned on Latin America?
Because Riot communicated poorly regarding this matter, and LAN simply was not informed.
Or Sargonas made the deal under the table himself, so very few at Riot knows.
|
On April 28 2014 02:38 Ketara wrote:
Then why is it banned on Latin America?
Because there was a flaw in the plan. It was all going too smoothly. It couldn't possibly fail. But someone on the inside found out and betrayed them.
|
So, again, your assumption is that Curse did everything they were supposed to do and behaved like a sensible company regarding this, and then Riot miscommunicated and screwed up.
When the actual evidence suggests 100% the opposite.
If Curse already got the okay from Riot, why can't I find anything on the internet from a Curse official saying so? Wouldn't you think they'd make some sort of a statement to that effect to rebuttal all the people harping on how evil it is, or it being banned on LA, or something like that?
If the LAN policy was based on miscommunication, don't you think the main office would have corrected them by now? It's been several days.
Saying that Riot Sargonas is doing this as some sort of under the table deal is extremely conspiracy theory, especially when you don't actually know how much power he has to do such a thing.
|
On April 28 2014 02:42 Ketara wrote:
So, again, your assumption is that Curse did everything they were supposed to do and behaved like a sensible company regarding this, and then Riot miscommunicated and screwed up.
When the actual evidence suggests 100% the opposite.
If Curse already got the okay from Riot, why can't I find anything on the internet from a Curse official saying so? Wouldn't you think they'd make some sort of a statement to that effect to rebuttal all the people harping on how evil it is, or it being banned on LA, or something like that?
If the LAN policy was based on miscommunication, don't you think the main office would have corrected them by now? It's been several days.
Saying that Riot Sargonas is doing this as some sort of under the table deal is extremely conspiracy theory, especially when you don't actually know how much power he has to do such a thing.
Because Curse cannot say their program is officially endorsed by Riot. This is written explicitly on Riot's fair use guidelines (no Riot, League of Legends, etc. logos on community projects).
Sargonas gave out a lot of information regarding Curse Voice, including a plan on changing how third party software is judged. Furthermore, he is the "developer relation manager". I think it's pretty obviously who is drawing the plans here.
|
Basically, there's two assumptions here.
Assumption A: Curse got under the table approval from Riot to make this program. Riot knew it wouldn't be popular so they then tried to sell it to the public by saying they were thinking about it, their Latin American office screwed up and made a decision to ban it, and Curse is staying quiet because they know that the final decision will be in their favor and they don't want to look evil with the community.
Assumption B: Curse just made the program based off of the current Riot ToS, and after it came out Riot realized that said ToS could be worded better and allows gray area programs, and have decided to word it better so this isn't an issue.
Assumption B is much simpler than Assumption A, matches up with the evidence better, and is therefor more likely.
|
On April 28 2014 02:48 Ketara wrote:
Basically, there's two assumptions here.
Assumption A: Curse got under the table approval from Riot to make this program. Riot knew it wouldn't be popular so they then tried to sell it to the public by saying they were thinking about it, their Latin American office screwed up and made a decision to ban it, and Curse is staying quiet because they know that the final decision will be in their favor and they don't want to look evil with the community.
Assumption B: Curse just made the program based off of the current Riot ToS, and after it came out Riot realized that said ToS could be worded better and allows gray area programs, and have decided to word it better so this isn't an issue.
Assumption B is much simpler than Assumption A, matches up with the evidence better, and is therefor more likely.
I think it's very possible that Curse and Riot talked about this. Then Sargonas drew a plan that would consider Curse Voice as legal - using the logic he said about "information earned". But his logic is obviously flawed since it will open doors to a lot of hacks.
The question really has to do with if Sargonas's mistake was an hoenst mistake or was he "convinced" by Curse by other means.
|
Sure, based on your assumptions that
A - Curse and Riot talked about it.
B - Sargonas decided unilaterally to draft up a scheme to make this plan legal.
C - Sargonas has the power in his position to do such a thing.
D - He's smart enough to make this big scheme and simultaneously dumb enough for it to be flawed and open doors to a lot of hacks.
E - He didn't then communicate this decision to other branch offices like LAN.
It takes an awful lot of faith that Riot has no fucking clue what it's doing to make your standpoint seem like what's happening.
|
On April 28 2014 02:54 Ketara wrote:
Sure, based on your assumptions that
A - Curse and Riot talked about it.
B - Sargonas decided unilaterally to draft up a scheme to make this plan legal.
C - Sargonas has the power in his position to do such a thing.
D - He's smart enough to make this big scheme and simultaneously dumb enough for it to be flawed and open doors to a lot of hacks.
E - He didn't then communicate this decision to other branch offices like LAN.
It takes an awful lot of faith that Riot has no fucking clue what it's doing to make your standpoint seem like what's happening.
You are giving Riot too much credit. Riot has made a tons of bad decisions to only get reverted by community outrage.
|
I am just basing my standpoint on the actual evidence, rather than an assumption that said evidence is a lie.
|
Isn't one problem with the under the table assumption is that the program makes riot look bad?
Like, the second curse asks about it, they say "joint venture" because, like I said, this just makes then look like they know less about their own game than another company.
|
I'm with Ketara here. It seems more believable to me that Riot screwed up by not anticipating third party applications properly than that Riot did some backdoor deal and *then* managed to screw up their corporate conspiracy.
Riot has total control over their TOS. If you are considering the position of third party applications in your game it's not that hard to change the policy *before* the guy you gave super special backroom permission announces and releases their app. It's some crazy deal after all. You might still get backlash from the community but it's less when it's pre-announced. While Riot has made bad decisions in the past they do generally announce them beforehand.
|
On April 28 2014 02:38 Ketara wrote:
Then why is it banned on Latin America?
Riot allows regional management a small amount of autonomy. Managing the entire world from HQ would be very taxing.
|
when you need to have a 2 months discussion wether or not a program is ok and also have your community being up in flames about it with a few people rather stop playing than to use this "doping"....maybe you should just ban this shit.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 28 2014 02:09 Sufficiency wrote:
The nature of Curse's hack is no different from the 0 CD summoners hack or the 0 CD botrk proc hack or maphacks for other games. You make a program which reads the game client's memory.
If Curse's program only look at exactly what you see on your screen, then do some sort of text recognition to find the dragon timestamp, so be it - because such programs cannot be be stopped even on a theoretical level. This is clearly not the case here.
Any program that reads the game client's memory is NOT OK and SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
The discussion simply doesn't need to go past this point, and I'm surprised it has.
You don't even need a policy discussion about this. From a purely enforcement standpoint if you make reading out of the game's memory a gray area, enforcement becomes a nightmare and very hard to do sensibly, because you have to start discriminating what the program is actually reading from the game client's memory. You're opening up a huge can of worms over what is and isn't ok logistically.
It's simply a much more practical to ban things across the board that do this, because there's no feasible way they could enforce this "gray area" policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
