Page 2 of 7
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:05 am
by Lestat
No offence meant here, but isn't dual logging same as AFK BEHAVIOR ? After all most focus will be on one account. If fishing/chatting on one account while seige/grind on another one will be slightly ignored. I know many do this and isn't meant to Target any one individual. But if AFK/autoclickers is a big subject(as it gives an advantage) wouldn't dual logging be the same? This would be more so if used in PVP( ie using a mage to heal your account while you kill with another ?) Just wondering as this is a common practice anymore
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:07 am
by Lestat
Also adding this little snip...if seeing" are u there" message on one device lets u know to click second device, that is AFK behavior on second device
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:09 am
by proto_nuke
I like Lestat bringing this point up but oh you poked the bear on this one ha ha ha.
I agree with you Lestat on this absolutely.
Let the back lash begin HA HA HA
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:12 am
by Lestat
Lol...I'm not overly popular anyway...what's another handful of enemies ????
HAHAHA
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:18 am
by proto_nuke
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:26 am
by Cashew
None taken, as I can see all of my accounts all the time whilst they're logged in. Big difference (IMO) between manually controlling several accounts and auto-clicking / afk even just one.
I'm doing things on all pretty much constantly, giving more attention to each individually than if I was just watching 1 alone simply because I'm not getting "bored" and letting my attention wander to something else. That + having to constantly re-start doing whatever action I'm doing, chatting, etc I actually can't look away for longer than ~20-30 seconds before one of them(or multiple) needs some sort of input.
So I dunno, to me it seems I'm paying more attention needing to input commands every 20-30 seconds VS 2 mins, but that's just me meow <3
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:37 am
by Lestat
I play on multiple instances and when the check pops up it usually pops up on all of them so I do have that benefit if I'm in a message I have a better chance of acknowledging the check and not missing it.
This is from your post cashew. This means you will know your second device needs checked while focused on your one in hand...making device #2 AFK...not autoclicking, as I don't think you would, but still AFK as u aren't looking at it.
For autoclickers using multiple devices this just gives them a heads up to check all devices..and it appears randomly giving the pop-up probably won't occur
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:47 am
by terminator
Cashew wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 3:26 am
So I dunno, to me it seems I'm paying more attention needing to input commands every 20-30 seconds VS 2 mins, but that's just me meow <3
And your still monitering both if they are on the same map etc. The definition of being afk is not montering it at all, but if you can see the character and still are controlling it and watching it through another screen, YOU ARE still watching it. Does it matter what device? If we define it as constistent input, then we all are afking. I might just look at my screen and count the number of tiles i see (I got up to 500 is my record), and input to attack and fire while i auto grind, am i being afk by just looking at my screen and doing nothing? So then if input doesnt define it, then why should it matter what device?
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:02 am
by Lestat
Hmm, I guess I've hit a nerve with many people..
Question here, if device #1 is chatting at spawn while device #2 is killing mobs at a different map, which device is the user more attuned to ? His conversation or his pets killing mobs ? After all if u can autospawn 200 mobs per hour, how much attention are u paying if u know your pets can kill while you sell,chat,or whatever with your other device(s). If you set up a place where u know your pets can kill the mobs without much risk, this might as well be considered the same as autoclickers leveling..
Since autoclickers supposedly get an unfair advantage, dual logging can also be considered an unfair advantage. But again, we make a rule only to enforce it where it seems to take away money not take away from game
Re: New AFK checker concerns.
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:08 am
by SellSword
- Rule 13: Show
Playing "AFK" (Away From Keyboard, i.e. not paying attention to the game and its events, even if for a short time) has generally not been against the rules, but the game has improved enough that playing AFK can be abusive towards the game and other players. Many players purchase pets that are much more powerful than certain spawn on various maps. These players will then park their pets, create an auto spawn, and then go AFK. This type of play is considered abuse of the game for several reasons. Therefore, playing AFK in this manner will result in punishment.
Repeated violations of this rule will result in jail time as well as loss of levels (5% level loss on the second offense, 10% loss of levels on the third offense), and possibly even permanent jail. Using siege weapons while AFK will result in very similar punishments including jail and reduction of siege trade/skill level.
NOTE :: If a GM suspects a player is AFK, the GM will say something to that player. The player must respond to a GM. If the player does not respond, the GM will assume the player is AFK, and punishment will result.
Someone is sure free to tell me that I'm wrong, but Rule 13 starts by stating AFK has "generally not been against the rules" and then proceeds to carve out exceptions that "can be" (note the lack of mandatory wording) considered as abusive.
There are very different categories of being "AFK" under the plain language of the rules. (This is also not a term that can always be used interchangeably with using a clicker, though that could be a sub-part.)
