[Ban Wave] Zoomhacks

Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

  • Shadari schrieb:

    Zandos schrieb:

    As much as I love this game and think the Albion team is doing a good job.... I'm calling bullsh1t on these bans!

    I don't think anyone has been banned for Zoom Hacking at all.
    if you accuse some someone then it is your job to prove it, not their job to prove themselves innocence. Please provide the facts you are basing this accusation on
    Firstly I said "think", which imply's I may not have any evidence to provide why I believe people haven't been banned.

    I mean look at it from a players point of view... Zoom hacks are painful for any player who happens to roam the BZ at any point of their time in Albion. Chances are a good proportion of players have been killed using Zoom Hacks at some point and many may not have even realised.
    The amount of times I have had some wunderlust PKer running at me on 8 stacks well before I've seen his name tag or had any player on my screen is laughable.
    Its clearly an issue for Albion (maybe not a priority, but an issue), to which they need to address. Now, if you google these said Zoom Hacks and read up about them. They state they are undetectable... with some detailed explanation why (to which I'm not really going to post all over their forums).

    Your statement to me is that they shouldn't need to prove themselves innocent... to which i completely disagree!

    For a company which has developed a game with a monthly subscription, that has potentially undetectable "hacks"... To then throw out an update that 250 players have already been banned with no proof of who these players are?
    Some people could interpret this as a way of deceiving players into thinking that something is being done about a situation to ease players minds.

    Now I'm not saying these 250 players being banned is a lie... no more then wondering why Albion are having a hard time telling us who these players were?

    Get my jist?
    Send nudes...

    Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Zandos ()

  • So lets fire topic a bit.

    Devs dont want to show us names and guilds, so we can post some rumors here.

    The only rules are: u should say who is a source.

    For example:
    I have info that some ppl from Prets and NoLife were banned, sourced by new recruits that applying to NF.

    Also i can say that didnt hear from our members from different const groups about bans in Nilfgaard.
    AKe1a - AKi | Nilfgaard
    youtube.com/c/nilfgaardguild
  • I am constantly amazed how *anyone* who is not a company shareholder or employee (management perhaps) would demand to know specifics on how any business is done or run by said company. Yeah, we purchased a product. But we have no right to demand anything of the company that sold us that product. Until or unless, we were caused personal injury in some way (no, having a hissy fit because your game is broken or temporarily not available does not cause personal injury) by using that product or service.

    If you do not like, or agree with, information you have been provided you can:
    • ask for a refund based on the game/company's TOS
    • stop playing the game
    Demanding any kind of proof on how many "actual" accounts were banned, let alone naming players, is laughable. The company has no legal obligation to provide any of that information. In fact, legally, they are prevented from doing just that very thing, providing specifics. Privacy laws exist for a reason people. They even protect YOU.

    SBI may wish to provide some limited details for customer service reasons. Sure, to promote community and customer good will, or to appease some concerns of said customers. But they don't owe their customers a damn thing beyond what was set out in their TOS. In fact, as you continue to use their product, you are constantly agreeing to said TOS. lol

    /flame retardant panties on :P
  • Larke schrieb:

    In fact, legally, they are prevented from doing just that very thing, providing specifics. Privacy laws exist for a reason people. They even protect YOU.
    Companies and government agencies are legally required to protect against the release of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) which is information that can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in context. An anonymous alias by itself does not qualify as PII.
  • Barkken schrieb:

    Larke schrieb:

    In fact, legally, they are prevented from doing just that very thing, providing specifics. Privacy laws exist for a reason people. They even protect YOU.
    Companies and government agencies are legally required to protect against the release of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) which is information that can be used on its own or with other information to identify, contact, or locate a single person, or to identify an individual in context. An anonymous alias by itself does not qualify as PII.
    "with other information" - so you where with this guy in discord. and he told you his real name there. Or maybe he is a known streamer. or ... . Now, if they publish his ingame name, can you identify this person in context?
  • I just take a screenshot of a player's stats that I report, and check back later on their stats...

    I can gladly confirm that 2 people have been banned for sure, as their stats have not changed for over a month :)

    Do your own homework, and stop asking for handouts... SI will never release names, as its is bad taste (and potentially against some law as well)... EVE Online never released names of banned players, but thousands have been banned over 14 years (almost no more bots remain)...

    TLDR: do your own homework (if you did report), and you won't get names if you did not. Deal with it.
    DarthMagus - T8 Stone;
    Mining T8 in enemy WT solo
  • Midgard schrieb:

    Raithe schrieb:

    Just because I am seeing this requested alot.........why exactly would they show us this info. It seems a private affair. What justifies releasing this information?
    Absolutely right. They have no obligation whatsoever to release names or guilds. Nor should they simply to pander to the lunatic conspiracy theorists. SBI are not in trial here and have nothing to prove.
    But why then would they at all post something like this? Why at all post and bullshit community over and over again? They said "lags are fixed", yet yesterday there was a fight at a warcamp that was the usual lagfest - ok. They said - we dealt with gold/silver sellers - and yet if you stand by Carleon auction long enough you will get a PM suggesting to buy silver.They said they were developing a truly cross-platform game - and then it doesn't work on Linux, Android port is broken, iOS is going to be available later and Windows client is crashing, giving black screens. I mean certainly SBI don't owe us anything - at the end of the day we are just paying customers, but if you post something you might be expecting some feedback on that - in this case response is - we would like more details - certainly SBI is free to ignore the feedback and again shit on the community - and it's fine - it's their game and their rules, just again highlights their attitude.
    [b][u]Ownage[/u][/b] (n): 1. Noun form of the verb [[i][u]own[/u][/i]]. 2. An instance in which someone or something is [u][i]owned[/i][/u].
  • BloodyOwnage schrieb:

    if you post something you might be expecting some feedback on that - in this case response is - we would like more details
    What you would like and what you are entitled to are two completely different things. Theyve made a statement which basically says cheating will not be tolerated and we are banning accounts that we identify as cheats. Thats all they need to say. You do not need, nor are you entitled to the finer detail, despite what you would "like".
  • Midgard schrieb:

    What you would like and what you are entitled to are two completely different things. Theyve made a statement which basically says cheating will not be tolerated and we are banning accounts that we identify as cheats. Thats all they need to say. You do not need, nor are you entitled to the finer detail, despite what you would "like".
    I absolutely agree that what I (and fair amount of community) would like means nothing to SBI - they showed multiple times that people are only entitled to pay for their attempt at game development, nothing more and nothing less.

    On the other statement though I have to disagree - they made yet another empty, generic statement - if that is enough for you - good for you - be happy; community might still want to see more details despite what YOU would "like".
    [b][u]Ownage[/u][/b] (n): 1. Noun form of the verb [[i][u]own[/u][/i]]. 2. An instance in which someone or something is [u][i]owned[/i][/u].
  • BloodyOwnage schrieb:

    On the other statement though I have to disagree - they made yet another empty, generic statement - if that is enough for you - good for you - be happy; community might still want to see more details despite what YOU would "like".
    I wouldnt "like" anything. I couldnt give a shit how much detail they give us ... my only expectation on this subject as a non cheating paying customer is that they police their game properly. Ive left games that didnt.
  • Midgard schrieb:

    BloodyOwnage schrieb:

    On the other statement though I have to disagree - they made yet another empty, generic statement - if that is enough for you - good for you - be happy; community might still want to see more details despite what YOU would "like".
    I wouldnt "like" anything. I couldnt give a shit how much detail they give us ... my only expectation on this subject as a non cheating paying customer is that they police their game properly. Ive left games that didnt.
    Lol, this is an extremely popular position from the perspective of the community with a tiny minority opposing it. I can only think of one reason why anybody would oppose the publishing of names and that is because your friends are on it.