Unix

What about them are horrible? What can be improved upon them?

Hey, just wanted to let people know about a new arena that's testing out some new settings for the zone. Feel free to go try them out and comment about them in here. The arena name is "#unix" so to get in there just type in "?go #unix" and you'll see the current baseduel map, but the settings will be pretty different, but have a real familiar feel to them. We'll be testing out the new settings with baseduel matches whenever possible, so you'll definitely be able to test them out in a base setting and also in the open. Post your comments, suggestions and questions!

From my own experiences, if you are going to have a narrow base, it narrow throughout the entire thing, only in small sections so that it creates choke points. A wide area would be ok, as long as it's about 2 lanc lengths (give or take) and it was followed by a choke point. The previous base seven probably is the best example of this.

We've seen what happens if a base is too tight, I dont think many care for going back to those type of bases. On the other hand, having bases too open allow rush wb/shark leaks too easily. Need to find a nice balance so that way a lanc doesnt die from a so so coffin placement because it's so tight the burst pieces just touch the lanc so quickly and easily, and you dont have leaks happening every time someone rushes.

So scamming should never be done? Players and bots have always scammed throughout the history of hyperspace. What I did was no different than a player finding an exploit on a bot, which I did, then using that exploit on the bot to their advantage, which I did. It was my fault for taking the money, but it was preventable if spidernl chose to make precautions.

You messed with a bot... ZB bot or not, was bad to do so. You still digging a hole with a stick with bad arguments. My arguments are perfectly sound. Doing what I did has proven time and time again to not be illegal and have had zero staff interference in the past. What is the difference now? "Messing" with a bot is perfectly legal. There you go. Being lame and doing something immoral are two different things. I admit what I did wasnt the most moral thing to do, far from it actually, but at the same time it wasnt being lame. According to your logic, anyone scamming is being lame and thus should have some form of staff interference with their transactions. This also is true for people who do not pay up in cash duels, etc. No its not. Read it again. They determine what is considered lame and what is considered immoral. Anyone scamming CAN be considered being lame, but if the mod decides to determine that it isn't lame, then it isn't. Just because they choose to say that some scams are lame and some aren't is immoral, but not necessarily an abuse of power. They are allowed to do that by this rule. That was your point, wasn't it? They technically aren't breaking any rules by saying some scams are lame and some aren't, they are only being immoral. There is obviously a limit as to how far a mod can go with this rule, but that is determined by Brain or other higher ups. however, it is obvious that Brain supports spider's judgement on this, and even says that he himself would have been even more harsh. So if a staffer is in a duel and isnt paid up, they can themselves determine if its lame or not to not pay up? Scamming has never ever been enforced as being lame. And all I did was scam a bot. From this point on and any other previous scams, staff should intervene then? According to your logic, yes.

You gave all that money away to random people and most of it to oid. Obviously you don't have the money. YOU GAVE IT ALL AWAY TO AVOID PUNISHMENT! I gave away money because I could. I dont have to keep everything with me on hand. Obviously it's not to just avoid punishment, but to avoid spidernl from taking it through unauthorized force. You're still being far too biased about this, and being blinded by your anger. Just because you put all your money in the bot and dont have access to it currently isnt my fault, it's partially your fault and mostly spider's fault, seeing as how you put it in a risky bot and spider chooses not to bring the bot back online.

There you go. Being lame and doing something immoral are two different things. I admit what I did wasnt the most moral thing to do, far from it actually, but at the same time it wasnt being lame. According to your logic, anyone scamming is being lame and thus should have some form of staff interference with their transactions. This also is true for people who do not pay up in cash duels, etc.

Whether he was aware or not, which he could had been fully aware of seeing as how this has been a known exploit for a very long time the exploit goes back since the introduction of bots and staffers having done this before. Whether or not I did take money from the bot isnt being questioned, it's whether if how I went about it is legal or not, and everything I did was 100% legal. As of right now, spidernl has all your money, not me. He already has the 1m that was lost from other sources and still has not put the bot back online. It's been well over a week since he's received the additional capital, but still no bot in sight. I dont have your money, spidernl has your money. He chooses not to bring the bot back online until he is able to fix the, according to him, unfixable exploit.

It's not about whether or not I scammed the bot, the question is what I did illegal and if it was or wasnt. What I did was perfectly legal. I did not force Masaru or any other staffer to do the ?aa message, they did it on their own accord. I would also like to add that you do not have to register with spider's bot to get money from the bot. That is another exploit which no one is seeing, at least not right now. Any staffer who isnt registered with the bot could still easily get money from spider's bot the way it was, for all we know Namp who does do the ?aa message and knowingly gets money from ub-a_bot could had gotten money from the bank bot, but because it wasnt as large of an amount as 1m, it didnt go noticed. We've been through this over and over again though, what I did was perfectly legal. Name something I did that goes against the rules of Hyperspace. Asking a staffer to do a command, since when is that ever illegal? Getting money from a bot that took something the wrong way because the owner of the bot didnt code the bot to be foolproof, how is that my mistake and how is it illegal to take money from a bot or player when that happens? Nothing I did was illegal or warrants any form of action by staff. According to your logic, then Namp should also be punished, and more heavily than myself for his actions, seeing as how he did it more than once, and also was fully aware of the benefits of the actions that were directly given to him and him alone.

I think some of the posters here still don't get that I discussed this with Masaru before I did anything. Calling me abusive for discussing matters with my superiors before acting is a creative way of looking at things, of course. I am not calling what you did to allow your actions abusive, I am calling the act of taking money by force abusive. There are a few issues with your analogy. It'd be more along the lines of a government official walking into a bank and using his status to have the bank give the first person who asks for it $1,000,000 USD in cash. Even in your analogy, I did nothing wrong. If there is a hole in the accounting system and someone uses it, it's perfectly legal. Using tax deferred tax shelters in your retirement funds to attempt and save money and avoid paying taxes is probably the best example of this. If a person were to do this, it's perfectly legal. Many players in my position to get 1m would had done the exact same thing. What I had done might be considered morally wrong, but I would like to add that I did not do anything illegal to procure the 1m, so what is there to ban for? Isnt it your own fault that you put so much faith in something that you know has flaws and exploits? Whether or not you're mad doesnt mean you should abuse your powers and forcefully take what was taken from you when it occurred as a bot to player transaction. Why shouldnt I try to scam a bot? Bots scam players all the time, and players scam players all the time. Time and time again though, staff does not get involved when one party is scammed of their money. A bot is at the owners risk, using a bot is at the users risk, giving money to another player is at the givers risk. We all know these principles. Many know about this exploit, even spidernl was fully aware. Actually right now, the only person holding back the bank is spidernl. Spidernl has the 1m in capital from two other sources. He's trying to "now" make remedies for the exploit, when before he's said there was no fool proof way to solve so he ignored the issue and hoped for the best. So there's two ways to look at it, either he does know a way to solve it and he will fix it eventually, so he let a known exploit go or he just took everyone's money because he can just say it's not fixable.

There are a few issues with your analogy. It'd be more along the lines of taking money from a non-government bank that isnt FDIC insured because of a hole in their accounting system. Which is 100% legal. I didnt do anything illegal to receive the money from the bank bot, and it was a bot to player transaction, which staff has no authority to step in and moderate. Whether staff should or shouldnt do ?aa messages like those is a different topic though.

Hardly a point to transfering the money ever single time I take it from you. It's better we find a way to make this not show up in the 'grant' portion of the ?money -d, and instead as 'give' money, to keep the statistics correct. I can wait for now. So far you've now taken 17k from me. Are you saying you want to wait to transfer it all or wait until I'm going to give back the money? Either way, it'll be a long time for you to wait. In the way it is generally used, it is almost exclusive used as a punishment in Hyperspace. The way you are using it is also a form of punishment, you are just simply using a different label though and titling it as "corrective measures". If I want to sell my ships and give away my money that was given to me by a bot, I can do so. As a player, I have the right to do with whatever money I have in my account. If you feel you were in the right to degrant me in the beginning, you should had. Especially seeing as how I didnt start "moving the money" until several days after the incident occurred. If you want to take extreme measures to try and retrieve money that isnt rightfully yours because your bot gave it to me, that would be an even greater abuse of powers than what is already occurring. Yes, I figured it would be safer to hope staff could keep themselves from 'abusing' ?aa than to risk issues that could be much harder to spot in the logs, and which could mean I could not pay back - which as a bank is bad, no? The thing is, you knew already that staff do do that already. It's not news that the staff here do that. So you're hoping for what exactly? Just admit you were lazy and you didnt know how to solve a known problem. Are you really this dumb or are you acting it? You just gave me the ultimate words to use: staff interference. The problem in this whole case is that there was staff interference, and we're now going to try and fix that. There wasnt staff interference. Your bot took it the wrong way, which isnt anyone one staff's fault. If your bot takes it the wrong way, it's your own fault for making a bot that doesnt have any precautions or safety measures to even try and prevent that. Staff has never interfered in any post money transfers. If staff says something and your bot takes it the wrong way and for some reason gives out tons of cash, staff should not step in, but according to you, since they're trying to make up for your mistake, they should interfere. Imagine if a player with $2,000,000 in their account got the arena message "Player Unix gave you $1000000" and, out of the kindness of their heart, would immediately give that money 'back', without checking their money (who expects that kind of message to be fake?)? Same situation, and I imagine staff would do something about it, but mainly because the player would notice as soon as they did their next ?money - the money wasn't actually received! "Staff, please help!" So why cant a bot do that too? Why cant your bot check to see if it had the money before it says you deposited the money? You were just too lazy to even try and code it. My case revolves around you not having the authority to take my money period. Whether or not I have 10m or 0 is not the point, the point is you have no authority to do so.

espo, I actually dont have any ships other than one weasel that barely has anything on it. And also, the 1m I dont have, otherwise spidernl would had already taken it already. If I exploited a bot, that's perfectly legal.

If the money wasnt transferred to your account, or at least one of your accounts, all you're simply doing then is degranting me and not reverting this "mistake" that you are now labeling as what Masaru did. If you are simply degranting me, then it is a punishment. Seeing as how there was nothing illegal I had done, that is an abuse of powers. Even if you do transfer the money to your accounts now, it still is a form of punishment, seeing as how you are forcing me to pay back something that I cannot pay back. By degranting me 10k you had me at a zero balance, knowingly so, which causes a player the inability to play without disruption. If this was a simply "correction" as you're labeling it, you need to make sure that the player you degrant doesnt have any disruption of their game play, otherwise you are punishing them for mistakes they did not do. There was a nearly two week lag delay between the loss of your 1m and you and Masaru deciding to do this action. It would be unreasonable to believe that a player would not spend money that they received, whether it was by mistake or not. I have attempted to talk to Masaru about this, but he is afk when I speak to him. So I do not have any verification that you actually did talk to him. Even if that is the case, I will have a near zero balance at all times then, I shall make my ships and make sure to keep a zero balance so that you cannot collect/degrant me for something that is not my fault. You did however threaten me with more extreme measures if I do not pay, but that would be a clear punishment for something illegal that I did not do. So you made sure there was a foreseen security flaw instead? The point P Nut is trying to make is that staff policies have long dictated that transactions between player to player, or bot to player, has zero staff interference should a player be scammed or a bot have an exploit. All bots are at the owners risk, and all players do not have to ?give. The thing is, the money is rightfully mine, since your bot willingly did give it to me. And I am worried about the money because I no longer have it. It's not about having the authority to fix mistakes, it's about how your fix the mistakes. Fix the mistake another way obviously. You can just suck it up, seeing as how it was your fault that the money was lost because your bot had an exploit which you not only knew about, but ignored and simply hoped for the best. If this had happened to another player in your shoes, nothing would had been done, and also you do have the 1m in capital from two separate players who willingly gave you that money. You actually dont need the 1m you're attempting to recover from me.

I was recently degranted a little over 10k by spidernl claiming that he was "fixing a staff mistake". The funds then being transferred to the bot owner of the bank bot, spidernl. This however is an abuse of staff powers. So right now we have a staffer abusing their powers trying to get money back that was taken from a "UB" and not a "ZB". Dr Brain has said over and over again, user bots are to be treated like normal players, should a player to player transaction occur, it is up to the players if they wish to or not, no one is twisting their arm to make the transaction. Should you get scammed for one reason or another and give to another player, that is your fault. The Bank Bot was not forced to give the money, it did give me the money, but because of spidernl's incompetent coding, there were zero countermeasures against a staffer potentially doing an ?aa message to fake a ?give. Because of spidernl's unwillingness to even attempt to remedy the potential of a staffer doing a fake ?give, which he was fully aware of, he instead chose to ignore the problem and hope for the best. His laziness is what caused the problem to occur. UB-A_Bot has had countless of thousands stolen by Namp because of his fake ?aa messages, however, no one has stepped to intervene in the ub-a_bot's interests. If anything this is an even more heinous act than what occurred with the bank bot due to Namp directly benefiting, knowingly doing so, and continuing the action. His actions were made aware to the upper staff, but still no action has been taken. A staffer has zero authority when it comes to returning/refunding/etc money to and from bot/player transactions that occurred. This has been proven in the past when players finally realized they were being scammed by bots, staff never intervened except once in a very extreme circumstance. Even then, the owner of the bot chose to give back the money. This is the first known instance in which a bot owner is crying foul because of a glitch that he was well aware of and chose to ignore and is now attempting to abuse their power to gain back money they rightfully lost due to their own fault.

It's not an entirely different kind of league. In fact what I'm suggesting keeps the core of what Arctic is trying to do, and that is basing. Without a doubt, I would prefer to have a league in which flags and bases could be as similar to pub itself, but realistically I dont see it happening, especially due to the fact that there are other issues that arent addressed just yet. Namely run win attempts, what qualifies as someone trying to run win, one flag can easily be abused, teams themselves are a question mark, potential that you could have 14 players show up to have a decent league match. However, having a base duel style base along with keeping the rules virtually the same will allow basing to be done, and at the same time allow staff to be needed as little as possible. In a base duel there is no flags. (You could have one if you really did, but that would require some more rules). With that, there's zero chance of someone run winning, so there's no need to question if someone is even run winning. You can have smaller teams, generally a 5v5 would be the bare minimum, and at the same time you can have teams raise from 5v5 to 8v8 or even more if enough players show up. The potential that a base duel match with HS settings lasting more than 45 mins is rather unrealistic, if they're even fast enough, having a base duel to five might even be possible. There are plenty of reasons to be in favor of a base duel style league, seeing as how it's a tad more feasible as of now than a pub style basing league.

Involving higher ups and having them take care of a problem tends to take a lot of time, besides there are other issues also besides the settings things that can be addressed at the same time. If we have it this way, there will be no question about flanking, which base to use in terms of run winning etc etc.

After a certain point, experience becomes meaningless. Around 10-13k is my own opinion.

I think there are some problems happening with the base arena. Namely any effects that the arena has, effects the public arena too. So I was wondering if it'd be possible to alter it just a tad, and go along the lines of a base dueling kind of thing. This could be easily implemented, and also the rules would be pretty much the same, and the number of flag issues would cease, as well as a time limit, seeing as how I dont see it lasting more than 45 mins if it's similar to a base duel league. With this, we can limit teams to 5-6, possibly do squads or keep the team formations the same, and you can have larger bases as well, it doesnt have to be a small base. If we keep it like this, all that would be needed is to keep center locked, make sure the ?flag module is taken out, and then have a bot keep track of everything, since modules seem to be annoying to do. So a ZB could be done to help automate this, and if that's the case an actual base duel arena could be automated when a league match isnt in progress.

Award more exp to losing team. 10 exp at most for losing isnt that big, considering the money not gained compared to the winners could be 10-15k on average in good games.

Unless Arctic said somewhere about December start date, I dont wanna bother reading the entire thing. Meant as a general question about anything, such as rule updates or miniteam things, etc.

So what's going on with this now ?

Congrats

Limiting one field is pretty easy to see/keep watch in comparison to other things, like lag attaching. Just look at F2 to see if there's more than one field active. The brick thing would be harder to do, but at the same time it's easier to see a blue/yellow brick, as long as you have one player ticked to determine that. Lag attaches could happen anywhere though, fields are easy to spot because of F2, bricks could be kinda hard to keep track of, but not nearly as bad as lag attaches. Number of dropped flags determining the winner after 45 mins? Honestly, I'd rather have it where most pnts determine the actual winner. More like a DSB style, at least there you know that the last 5-10 mins matter most. In theory a team could completely overwhelm another team, then take control of flags and start dropping. That's kinda ludicrous, as long as a team just prevents a team from dropping all flags, they could technically win in the end. Which is sorta like how a player who partakes in 10 games, wins the first three and loses the next seven is ranked A LOT higher than someone who lost the first three and won the last seven.