Nope, sorry, I’ve never done that. I’ve been incredibly explicit (and downright repetitive) with my stance, which is in line with FS’s modding policy. That policy is built around the idea of punishing abusers of mods, not making modding more difficult by implementing EAC.
EAC is, once again, the only way FS will ever be able to gain more control over modding. Adding the vague language that gpk has suggested (“don’t do things a human can’t do”) is a non-starter that is totally unenforceable and would put a totally unreasonable burden on support to police every individual person’s interpretation of “things a human can’t do.” Here are a couple things a human can’t do without mods: see exact ammo counts of other players and remove distracting visual effects.
This topic isn’t even about a mod, and yet gpk is in here continuing to misrepresent the arguments of others in an attempt to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with his extremely strict (but somehow also, completely hypocritical, since his own mod does a “thing a human can’t do” by removing distracting visual effects). I’m just not comfortable with one stinker trying to reduce valid counterarguments into hyperbolic nonsense and potentially jeopardizing the absolutely excellent and healthy modding policy we have now.
I’ve already agreed that the things a human can’t do, in relation to this non-mod (quell cancel rapid fire), should be fixed by FS at the core of the issue.
I think it reasonably falls under a similar set of logic. For example, the shirtless mod was also fixed on Fatsharks end. It wasn’t the players that complained there, to be fair (at least I don’t think so, more likely to have been GW) but the same logic applies to different mods.
For an example of earlier complaints OP made and I basically agree with, let’s say the scanhelper mod or the mod that shows you outlines of all enemies permanently on. These could be fixed from Fatsharks end by changing/locking down the way they achieve their outcome, just like shirtless.
I strongly agree that using macros to achieve higher firerates than intended should obviously be acted on though, it should go without saying.
I’m not sure where the relation to EAC comes in at all here. It’s not even a mod as you correctly point out.
I wrote my post based on this post of yours:
They can, just like saying slurs in game can be policed. Either via fixing the mechanic that allows it (so a regex filter implementation basically) or by manually acting on reports. Which is what this thread is: A manual report. OP is taking exactly the only step he can take to address his issue.
Shirtless is only able to affect other players directly because it interacted with FS’s servers. Scan helper and permanent-ExStance are both client-side mods that do not directly affect other players (which is the highly-deliberate language in the modding policy) and there is nothing that FS can do to police those except to enable EAC and go back to a sanctioning system.
Macros will always be possible, and FS has a long history of allowing them. Macros that abuse mechanics to the point of being game-breakingly OP are indeed, and absolutely should be, addressed by FS.
These two statements are not in conflict with one another.
Ah… sad, I asked that on this mod page if the author could introduce just a reduction of the effects and not a total removal…
I guess I won’t get an answer then…
I agree with that… however, it is easy to point it, harder to fix it.
No, they have seperately fixed the latest iteration of the shirtless mod in a recent update. You’re correct that the “old” method of achieving it remains unchanged, but they could technically also just force update everyones equipment slots and nip that in the bud too. It’s not a thing of impossibility or anything.
I’ll just refer back to Fatsharks statement on it:
We concider hacks/cheats like these to mostly be ruining the person’s own experience of the game but if we find them reported for ruining other players experience of the game they are in clear violation of the modding rules
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea from that it must be a DIRECT impact, as in a model change that shows up in their game. They explicitly say that if it’s reported as disruptive, it could be actioned. And as such, these threads report these things because the posters find them disruptive. It’s a completely valid way to provide exactly the feedback Fatshark wants.
Right, and I quoted a clarification of said specific topic we are talking about. I’ll put it again since it seems you missed it:
We concider hacks/cheats like these to mostly be ruining the person’s own experience of the game but if we find them reported for ruining other players experience of the game they are in clear violation of the modding rules
Again: Fatshark themselves says “yes, it doesn’t affect others directly, but if it still affects other people they may report it and we’ll decide”. There is no reason to try and invalidate these reports because it doesn’t affect others directly. Fatshark already asked for feedback and reports even if it doesn’t.
How do you know it “simply broke” and the devs didn’t intentionally change it to fix it? Even if it was accidental, it proves they can do it. That was my entire point really. They could totally make scanhelper etc impossible if they tried.
Apparently nothing then, as we appear to be in agreement that when OP makes a thread complaining that the scanhelper mod or the increased firerate from this macro affects him negatively, he is justified in doing so and Fatshark specifically wants to hear these reports even if it’s not having a direct effect on him, since it still affects him in indirect ways and they will potentially action such mods. It’s my bad for misreading your angle, in this case.
i know that it broke after update, because an user trying to ask for the mod because wasn’t working anymore. and one of the staff (against these mods, putting also some measures to counter people asking for these mods in the discord) mentioned that it got broke after update.
(note that in the modding discord server, this mod is against the rules, because they don’t support mods that are against modding policy.) they just explained when some user tried to ask about it.
also by logic, if the mod is broken because of the update and then after update you still see people being shirtless, means that they simply fixed that mod etc. so FS didn’t fix.
FS could easily fix permanently this by on their end for sure anyway.
It’s a public forum, people are justified in posting whatever they want within the rules of the forum!
But, no I don’t think Decode Helper breaks FS’s modding policy. And I don’t think someone solving that puzzle optimally (they literally can’t solve it faster than optimally) negatively affects anyone, although I do think it’s cheesy. And I’d never use it.
Be funny to see someone report that though…I guess if they were playing with some Twitch streamer they might be able to do that.
I understand you’re trying to be cheeky and conflate Decode Helper with abuse of mechanics to achieve OP results, but I just don’t agree that they’re the same thing.
Thank you for your opinion on wether scanhelper and decode helper affect someone else negatively. I’ll be sure to weigh it against the reports of players who do actually feel affected by it. (As will Fatshark, who in the first place designed these minigames to take time. It’s no coincidence that the latest minigame does not allow for any sort of cheating)