Third or fourth person trying to abuse triggers during a PK. How original. Get owned.
lol
The used for a different effect is the key point here; the effect in the second case is something completely unrelated to a trigger. I believe 'trigger abuse' is a fallacy, the actual crime is using triggers to abuse other game mechanics such as travelto and quitting.
LOL Nice one Centaurion. Hirgail is the man.
Greg's beyond a top 5 list i'm afraid. I'm happy enough to leave things alone for now.
wow, she's online now :P
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Come on, this isn't hard, even for you. Both are the exact same thing, but used for a different effect. They're both causing someone's triggers to fire to make them do something they don't want to do.
And at least I'm smart enough to wear a condom so I don't end up paying child support for a kid I don't want to some chick I met online. <--Just a random example of how I'm smart and not applicable to any particular person who may or may not use the logs page.
Yep, it is the victim's job to figure out which gate is actually triggered by their would-be murderer. Poor, poor, assassins.
No, that's just his cunningly crafted RP. IRL he's a fastidious Laotian soccer mom with cerebral palsy.
Hirgail, are you that much of a moron?
If you want to differentiate between osg gates and mordor gates DO IT IN THE TRIGGER. If your 'todo' would work for either, then making it do so is not abuse.
However, using the trigger to screw up completely unrelated aspects of the game, such as a travelto, is making the todo do something completely different to what it was intended. If breeze had been hunting aryl and firing 'pounds' to stop his travelto, then yes, this would be abuse. What it really comes down to is abuse of the travelto system moreso than just making a trigger fire.
1) Bob is standing at a corpse with an item on it that poisons whoever it touches. Bill says 'has died', making Bob grab the item and get poisoned. Bill used Bob's trigger to make Bob do exactly what his trigger designated. Bill commited no crime.
2) Bob has a trigger set to knock on gates when he sees pounds. He is travelling from Edoras to Osgiliath, when Bill attacks him, hunting and saying 'pounds' every second. This causes Bob to 'knock on gates', which is an irrelevant action; what it really causes Bob to do is stop his travelto, preventing his escape and allowing Bill to kill him as a result of the mechanics of the travelto command. Bill commited a crime (at least that's what ainur decided).
Talking to me about reasoning and logic? You're a real fucking idiot Hirgail, a real fucking idiot.
But hey, who expects decent reasoning and logic skills from the leader of a joke guild with star members like Quiauh:P
No, it's exactly the same thing Myrddin. I mean they want to knock on Osgiliath gates and not the Mordor gates.
You're mistakenly equating what you WANT TO DO with your input into the MUD.
If what I want to do is knock on gates when I see pounds, then making me knock on gates is fine.
If what I want to do is get all from corpse when I see has died, then interrupting my travelto is not.
Rekkless abused a mud level trigger.
Top five...wait. nm. Don't want to encourage Tres to start listing your alts haha :p
Rauko was a prick.
I'd rather have a harsh PoL.
I would say honestly, Salmar (is it salamar?) is one of the better POL's recently. He's busy because he's logically and unbiasedly going about finding people who need punishment. Maybe he's a tad on the harsh side you guys might find, but despite everything else, if you remember Rauko, the same could be said about him but he was also a damn good PoL. (Fair).
Well, to get better information I've asked the current PoL what his position on the matter is. I haven't heard back yet, but he's a busy guy.
I don't think it is prudent to consider any decision made by Draugluin as a precedent. He often contradicted his own decisions, not to mention failing to enforce rules or enforcing rules in his own fashion.
'has died' is a stupid trigger to have.
Aeldor -- I did not agree with Draugluin's interpretation of the rule. However, Rekkless was nuked for saying 'has died' -- causing the trigger to do exactly what it was intended to do. IF his precedent is still being followed today, the emoting at the gates was illegal. (After all, looting after something has died was always a mud trigger for me *blush*)
The premise upon which I was working is that the precedent set by Draugluin and Rekkless is still being followed, as no further precedent has been set since then as far as I'm aware. If this is not the case, my entire argument is based upon a false premise and is therefore irrelevant.
According to you, Agsded, emoting a HB would be an offense - hey, he fired my trigger! Or when someone says has died on the comm - I didn't want my trigger to fire there! Or you are triggered to lock a door on enters and some orc enters and fires your trigger - nuke the goddamn orc!!!
First, this rule applies to client triggers, not to your MUD triggers.
Second, it doesn't apply to all client triggers in all cases.
This rule means: Do not gain improper control over the character of another person. It could be interpreted as: don't use more power on the character of another player than you have been consciously given by them. I.e, don't do the @pw thing. In this case this rule is totally inapplicable because it is a MUD trigger but even if it was a client trigger, you have given your client the power to knock on a door when it sees 'pounds' - that's a totally MUD feature and nothing out of the rules. You have agreed to the possible negative effects. But isn't this the case with the @pw thing - 'I agreed to have my password revealed by using zmud.' No, it's not the same case. Here comes common sense. No law is perfect. No law can be perfect. The human relations, regulated by laws are a very flexible thing. The law is there to guide the people who have the power and to provide equity for all (in most countries, presumably in our MUD too). Human relations are not software.
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
'because they're using the trigger to interrupt the characters actions, not to make them do exactly what they wanted the trigger to do. '
I seriously doubt knocking on Mordor gates is what they wanted the trigger to do.
What if blocks of wood are secretly geniuses plotting the downfall of mankind
The Rekkless/Armath incidents aren't really comparable (to this), because they're using the trigger to interrupt the characters actions, not to make them do exactly what they wanted the trigger to do. Also anybody who took more than a minute to figure out how to differentiate between those gates is about as smart as a block of wood.
and Breeze should've at least just done... do 2emote pounds, 2knock on gates :/
heh, no shit that wasn't trigger abuse. That's some retard going afk with a mud trigger on to attack someone :P
http://logs.dyndns.dk/viewer.php/9886
Draug said it wasn't trigger abuse.
what was dropped in grimscar's trick?
MELS or Whip? =P
it was funny anyway.
What i tried to point is that Breeze didnt try to break, but to kill Aryl.
Killing someone by abusing their triggers was legal June '05 (Armath gets banged) and illegal Dec '05 (Rekkless gets nuked), and as far as I know nobody has said anything on the subject since.
Without warning ;suicide;%pw;, stabs you from behind
was funnier :)
(or something along those lines, my zmud is rusty)
And it was actually a little trickier than that what Grimscar did. All attack emotes (there were a few rare exceptions but they hve been mostly fixed) would not prefix the emote with the persons name specifically so noone could pretend to attack you with an emote. (I think the pepper dust was one of the rare exceptions but since the 'You are attacked by' change even thats sorted).
What Grimscar did was get around this limitation by placing the 'hack' in his character description, which meant that it prefixed the line so even 'slightly' clever triggers would be caught off guard.
Obviously they were still silly triggers and since all character names were one word (or the exact string 'Anonymous Figure) it was better to have a match trigger only fire like so
^Without warning, (\w+|Anonymous Figure) , stabs you from behind.
The \w means that only word characters (a-z and capitals) would count in the match of the trigger. The '^' means the line has to start with the 'W'.
Basically people who were smart enough to set up their own clients would normally be smart enough to cover all of this kind of thing, or at the very worst they'd get caught out once, then figure it out.
To be honest, Brubaker was far from the first to use it. I'd seen that log before and I cringe every time I read his syntax in that log, neither of the emotes was even close to correct. Picking the easiest and most well known break emote in the entire game as an example (ie, the default):
: fades in shadow -> : fades into the shadows.
I wont give details of the Osgiliath one but even the small part he set up was wrong.
Pallasch was basically at fault himself for (what I'd guess was) 'trigger pounds todo <counter>'.
It can't be client takeover since the trigger is on the mud, not the client.
Client takeover is something like what Grimscar used to do.
Grimscar says: Without warning ;drop all ;, stabs you from behind!
Or something like that.
http://logs.dyndns.dk/viewer.php/10289
Gawen, there are ways to set up your triggers such that that particular trick (the mordor gate / Osgiliath gate) will not work. It all boils down to the possible syntaxes for each gate (this may have changed).
That particular trick is also very old (at least as old as both gates existed) quite a few oldschool player were caught there until the solution was found and involves no client side triggering or anything stupid like that.
Maybe Breeze should have been smarter and emoted the actual break instead.
Breeze didnt try to emote break.
He tried to kill aryl using his own triggers
that could be considered client takeover i guess
yeah
Emoting a break isn't trigger abuse and never has been.
It's been said (and confirmed by multiple Ainur and PoL) that if you are using a trigger to hunt someone through a huntbreak (arguably also against the rules as it's using a trigger to hunt someone, but perfectly allowed by the Ainur and PoL of the past) they are perfectly allowed to use that trigger to their advantage to try and escape.
I believe the trigger rule may have been updated to client triggers only (been a while since a read the help files) and was originally designed to prevent non hunting classes from hunting people with 3rd party methods.
Lol, people have been doing that for 10+ years, quit being a baby.
The only acceptable response to '-> Breeze pounds' is ':gives Breeze respect knucks'. Fo' sho.
Ok, that attempt at trying to get you to go in was pathetic, if he was smart he would have knocked then chilled with the squads/ran to priest quickly :P
Isn't it legal to do that if you're being attempted?
that's what i talked about in the previous log's comment section: hanging with herkies. =/