The very flaw in your logic is this sentence, which I will graciously take out of context to prove a point -

As a whole, texture packs don't. Hacks are always used to hack, which is why they can effectively be outlawed. But how to you outlaw something that is not always used for malicious purposes? We know particles can be changed, but who determines just how "advantageous" particles have to be? What criteria would they use? If just black boxes are outlawed I guarantee someone will have something equally as advantageous in days, at most. If just "advantageous particles" are outlawed, what qualifies? Surely black boxes do, and default particles don't, but where is the line drawn in between? This isn't something that could be reliably, consistently enforced, because anyone who knows how to do it can change they way they do.

 

Okay so.

So... we're outlawing all texture packs? No. This should never, and most likely will never, happen. This would do nothing more than drive people away from ECC. Many, many people use texture packs, and they add a customisable aspect to the game. It is not logical, nor is it wise, to outlaw a major aspect of gameplay because some players use it to gain a relatively small advantage.

The only way to find this would be for staff to watch on complaints, for screenshots with texture packs. This would literally turn ECC's justice system upside-down, as people are given a rather large incentive to not complain. Less people will file complaints, and more people will get away with other crimes simply because people don't want to risk getting banned over the texture pack they use.

Again... even with default, you can still see the invisibility particles. In my opinion, they're not even particularly hard to notice if you're looking for them.

I don't see how this is relevant to my points.

That's a slipperly slope you're on. I change my gamma to see better while mining, is that hacking? It enhances my perception, and therefore my outcome.

I don't think it's without basis to say that people who figure out ways to get advantages such as this will cease to do so after just one method is outlawed. In a perfect world, yes, it would be outlawed, and people would just leave it at that. This, however, is not a perfect world, and as such, things like this will not be left alone.

Well on this, I have two points.
1. I am neutral on the aspect of black boxes, I neither support them nor condemn them.
2. My problem lies in the means you're attempting to ban them, by outlawing all texture packs, a move which I am completely and unambiguously against.

tl;dr: Just no.

 

The pack that lets people see invisible SGers is bad because
- it's unfair to people who bought the pack
- who would want to buy an spy kit that's useless because they have packs now that lets spy kit users to be seen?
That will most likely hinder donation for that kit taking away future money from ecocitycraft that can be used to make it better.
People who don't think this is bad should... Not only is it unfair like xray but it actually can hinder future donation to ecc... Who would want to take away from ecc when that money can be used to make this a better place :(

 

Well im now extreamely confused about all this I did in the start think about buying spy... now im not so sure :O

 

No, silly. ^-^ he's not dull to imply we ban all texture packs that'd be incredibly ridiculous. He's saying we should outlaw the one that lets people see invisible SG users.
In my opinion it's even more unfair than xray.
Why? Well, others paid for spy kits and now there useless & it hinders donations for that kit.
Unfair AND losing future donation money for ecc?
No thank you! ^-^ I don't think Andrewkm would like that when him and staff try so hard to make new kits for more donations and making more improvements for ecc.

 

"in a perfect world... Yes this would be outlawed"

D: then why not help this be a perfect world and agree on outlawing it
Why wouldn't people want a perfect world :(
So sad

 

I see some people are confuzed because you said texture packs = 'hacks'. I see what your trying to say -- that texture packs are an unfair advantage to the game, like hacks. I think using the word 'hacks' anywhere in this suggestion is incorrect. These texturepacks that supposably give you an advantage are sutch a slight change in the game it would be immensly hard to track, and it wouldnt really give you too much of an advantage.

 

Ah, pardon my misunderstanding.

This isn't a perfect world. The biggest problem lies in enforcing it -- in the end, it's not hard to just not take screenshots while those particles are on. I'm basically saying there's more to a rule than "BAD = NOW ILLEGAL". It's kind of like wild grief, yes, it's frowned upon, but it's too impractical to try and do anything about it. You simply can't affect the situation largely enough to justify adding a rule.

I would argue it is totally relevant. I'm changing the game to outside what it should be, externally, by changing data associated with the game. This matches your given definition of hacking earlier within the thread.

On the contrary, these wouldn't really prove anything - you can still see invisibility particles with default texture. They may be somewhat hard to see but with a bit of dumb luck or just a glance, you can pick them out fairly easily and quickly. From your posts, whether you intended this I'm unsure, you seem to be giving off the vibe that there is absolutely no way to see invisible players, which isn't true. Other particles are shown when walking over blocks, invis people may hold things... Again not sure if you mean to imply this, but, it's what I'm inferring.

I'm against it because of the issues with enforcing it. I notice you seem to have disregard my points about borderline packs --

tl;dr: I don't see how this can be reasonably and effectively enforced, so -1

I really am enjoying our discourse here, you are bringing up good points.

 

So... To put it shortly... You're disagreeing because of problems with reinforcing it even if you said in a perfect world this would be outlawed...
Well ^-^ bye bye to future spy kit donation $

 

Sooo...let me get this straight... You want the mods to ban users because they are using particle effects to see invisible user's **particles**?

 

[Edit] this was suppose to quote austin____manese


Wait a minute.. Your not going to buy the feature for the sole purpose of particle texturepacks? I am sorry to judge you, as it is totally your desition. But i feel that it is not the correct thing to let something so small interfere with your desitions. These texturepacks don't make the user visible, don't make the users make noise, don't make more particles, etc.. They only make them a different color. Its not like you die instantly, because you definatly don't. When i play with spy, i win all of the time in full games. Everytime i attack someone, they look like an idiot randomy swinging in the air. Sure, maybe someusers have these texture packs, but its very few and it doesnt affect your win/lose rate. That is my insite on your situation.

 

The main purpose people would buy spy is so that they'll be unseen. How useless would it be for me to buy that kit if I'm still seen. I'm aware I won't be completely visible but it still defeats the purpose of buying that kit. The sales of that kit will decrease due to the fact that the purpose of it is simply defeated with a free pack. I don't think Andrew or anyone would like to lose money.

 

Just some random points I'd like to make:

1) All texture packs can - and often do - have modified particles. Some are easier to see, some are harder. There are ones made for easier invisibility seeing, and there are new ones always being made. It is absolutely illogical to ban texture packs that modify particles, as most texture packs modify particles. Therefore, yes, all texture packs and resource packs would have to be banned and illegal.

Don't even get me started on colors, shapes, and human psychology. It is just purely illogical to ban texture packs that have modified particles. Period. There are way too many variables and it would just be a mess. There is too much subjectivity on what is easy/obvious to see.

2) Changing a particle texture is not changing a game mechanic - it's not even a mechanic, it's a piece of art being shown visually. Hacking changes game mechanics, not art that displays a mechanic. The mechanic itself isn't changing whatsoever.

3) "Add-ons" would be mods. Mods add on to the game. They are coding that changes or modifies a mechanic, or even adds a mechanic, like a radar or tracers. Using a texture pack or resource pack is not an "add-on." And, if for some reason it is, that would mean sounds changed for advantages should also be banned. That is a crap ton harder to track and moderate than particles.

4) Anyone can change the default texture pack without "adding on" anything in addition. It only takes a couple of minutes to change your current, already installed and "added" default texture pack particles to giant, obnoxious red pixels that are easy to see. Therefore, the argument that "anything already in the game/provided is fine and not banned or illegal" is not a good argument, or an argument at all (look at cactus, tnt, enchanting tables, bedrock, limitations on dispensers and lava) . Everyone already has a texture pack, therefore no "add-ons" are needed. Changing a color or size on something already added =/= add-on.

I'm still -1 on this suggestion.

Many people have - and probably still do - use modified particles, and Spy users have yet to make a fuss or cause huge drama over it. They already deal with serious and good SGers - you know, record of being good, high score on the board, etc - who can see default particles with ease, simply because they have learned how to spot them instantly. Users who use textures that make particles more obvious just don't have the patience or will to learn to see the default particles, which can just as easily be seen with some time put forth. There is no reason to ban something that simply makes a "skill" easier. It just makes the person look bad, which in itself can be enough "punishment."

By no means are modified particles a huge game changer nor a reason for people to stop donating. Big changers are tracers and radars, which are true "add-ons." Heck, when people learned about hitboxes, entities, and particles amount tracking in F3, that was a giant game changer - far larger than any modified particles, which had been around long before.

Most serious SGers already know there are hackers, tracers, radar, entities, and modified particles everywhere - before and after they donated. It is what it is. It's hard to track, it's hard to punish, and it impossible to stop. SGers simply learn new methods and skills to better handle the users who play unfairly or fully use the resources available by default (F3, particles, etc) to their advantage.

If you are losing to modified particle users (which is nearly impossible to prove), then you simply need to practice more. Same goes for losing to kit users or F3 users - practice, practice, practice. I know multiple users who don't even own kits and can pretty much win games against users who use kits, F3, /and/ unfair mods and hacks. It takes a lot of practice and skill, but it is possible. SG is a "sport" - not so much a casual game, unless you really don't care if you lose or not.

 

Well... no. That's not true. Players always have the option to not respond to these accusations, and that is what I personally consider the wisest course of action whether or not they are hacking, using textures in question, etc. People who are hacking can be caught by people detecting/collecting evidence on the person doing the hack-ey this. However, as (as far as I am currently aware, kukelekuuk00 please correct me if I'm wrong) texture packs cannot be seen by the server, the only way you could convict people for this is self-incrimination, via chat, forums, or uploaded screenshots. You would only catch the people who are trying to help the server by filing complaints or those, for lack of better phrasing, dumb enough to talk about it.

Well... again, not exactly. Changing my gamma will only affect/give me an advantage mining, and this advantage in profits does not extend beyond mining. People use Force-field for PvP, but as a side affect it works on mobs, etc (I believe anyway). I change my gamma to mine easier, as a side effect everything is brighter.

The difference is, hacking will give you a legitimate advantage to see other players, whereas these texture packs just make it easier to see what's already there. The particles do not appear on-screen any sooner with a texture pack like this, therefore they just make it more reliable to see the same particles anyone in default can. Hacking will be noticeable by players seeing you from distances at which minecraft does not load particles (tracer, etc).

My point is, simply put... what is an advantageous texture pack defined as? What is advantageous enough to be worthy of punishment, what is simply "the way the texture pack is". Not all texture packs used to have better particles will use black squares, it's just the *easiest/most common.


Formatting wasn't an issue, I think I fixed that up. Gonna tag you in case these quotes don't work, Turtwiginator95.