A warning for a bard

Drumstix42 · Post by **Drumstix42** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:40 am

Pugs wrote:Get a druid to Dc a pet SoW/Soe and haste it then gate :) should be able to get to the bard or have the druid put spirt of scale on them that way when they go to cast next dot they lose all speed or do both and be realy evil.

Get a shammy to cast that healing spell that makes you walk really slow.

Pheph · Post by **Pheph** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:01 am

Yeah, keep Torpor on her =)

Falco72 · Post by **Falco72** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:49 am

OK, me and bard got in touch and finally explain each other. I didn't want him banned, everyone can make an error. He (or she) understand his (or her) error and stopped doing it.
I have no problem with macroing your leveling, it is the afk macro that is dungerous for the one that do it and for your all community.

Edit: BTW, you can cast Torpor only on your group members.

Gangaskan · Post by **Gangaskan** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:53 am

you can cast torpor on pets .....

duh nm, i didnt read it right

My bad

codemonkey · Post by **codemonkey** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:59 am

Great job Falco72, you handled it with class.

aChallenged1 · Post by **aChallenged1** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 5:57 pm

Virtuoso65 wrote:SoW will stick but selos will override.

Selo's and SoW or SoE will show up in buff box at same time. Selo's no longer overwrites and removes SoW or SoE.

TheUnholy · Post by **TheUnholy** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:37 pm

the buffs don't overwrite, but the run speed change does. Therefore sow will not slow her down.

aChallenged1 · Post by **aChallenged1** » Mon Jul 05, 2004 11:24 pm

Didn't say they did. Though that used to be the case, but it was only one way, Selo's (lvl 49) overwrote SoW and removed it from buffs. It was a pain in the rear and I'm glad they changed that, though it means a buff slot is lost while selo's and sow are both up.

bobpoo812 · Post by **bobpoo812** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:41 am

seen bards doing this for days on end after oow came out, i trained a couple of white armour suits in, then FDed watched him die and the best part was his rez timer expired. Did that as often as i could, figured a few unrezzed deaths would discourage him.

Ziske · Post by **Ziske** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:16 am

LOL, what a bunch of hypocrites you people are to come to this board and RATIONALIZE your particular use of MQ by comparing it to the way someone else uses it. If you're using ANY 3rd party progy that isn't spicifically sanctioned by SOE you're in the exact same boat as the AFK bard, period. There's absolutely NO distinction between you and the AFK bard.

If someone's stupid enough to put themselves in a situation where they're likely to get busted using MQ, let them get busted. They probably don't need YOUR help. No one, NO ONE who uses MQ should be ratting out someone else who uses it to a GM. That's totally and completely lame.

I use MQ in a variety of ways. It makes my gaming a hell of a lot more fun. One thing I DON'T do is try to justify the way I use it by pointing a finger at the way someone else uses it.

ScubaSki · Post by **ScubaSki** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:55 am

No, the difference is very marked.

They are upset by the use certain people put it too. MQ2 is a privilege that some of us wish wasn't so available. Making it as easy to use as we have, it's not surprising that some idiots are out there attempting to ruin it for all the rest of us.

My opinions are to make MQ2 harder than hell to compile. Make people start doing their own offsets and structure changes. That may not limit MQ2 to the mature and responsible crowd, but it will cut it back to about 10% of the people using it now. Less people = less noteriety = less chance SOE will actually worry about it.

Increasingly every day I see new(Stupid) MQ2 users who are using blatant and obvious hacks. Their actions will get SOE's attention and will make it rougher for the rest of us. The memory check in the last patch is an obvious by-product of this. SOE has taken notice. Whether or not they can do anything is yet to be seen. But they can make it more difficult for the devs here to come up with a new zip.

Don't be dumb. Use MQ2, respect the work people have put into it and KEEP A LOW PROFILE. No one cares if you use MQ2, just do it with a bit of intelligence.

Pickled · Post by **Pickled** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:40 am

Well said Ziske!

I totally agree with you 100%

We are all guilty in some shape of form at different levels and its rather sad that someone is going out there way to even bring this topic to light.

Notwithstanding the huge amounts of Chant like macros on this board, lets not kid ourselves, some even developed by the creators of this fine program.

I think if they wish to gain exp and risk getting caught, fine, what the hell harm did it do anyone?

I mean it's not like "it's being brought to Sony's attention moreso". Christ!, they can just come here and see whats going on and find ways of preventing it.

It's nothing new to them. Anything macroed - is classed as cheating in their book.

I could go onto list all the THINGS that shouldn't be done to seem more respectable! Tradeskilling, blah blah... But at the end of they day we are all guilty of abusing the way the game was meant to be played, and I get pleasure from it.

Hypocrite is the word here.

Ziske · Post by **Ziske** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:54 am

Point well taken. But petitioning to a GM calls unwanted attention as well, don't you think? The hypocricy of doing that is what prompted my gut response. In any case, thanks for making me rethink my reaction.

Do my own offsets and structure changes? Please, NNNNOOOOO! I'd much rather continue donating to the people who have the brain power (/salute MQ devs) to make those bi-monthly modifications. I can come up with the money to donate, but I'm afraid that try as I may I'm at a loss to find the brain cells and the patience needed to do it for myself.

The original poster ended up handling it best by confronting the problem one on one.

Night Hawk · Post by **Night Hawk** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:41 pm

Did we really have to bump this one back up?

ScubaSki · Post by **ScubaSki** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:06 pm

No, we didn't...