You don’t have any either, do you? Also, personal attacks and all that, please. Until now all your replies have been as though you know exactly what the issue is, and have zero backing whatsoever. Please do provide some (as I have). We discuss ideas, with evidence. As much as I love bickering back and forth, at least do provide SOME external information. You’ve not provided anything since the beginning of this thread.
Depends on implementation. Right now the webUI does not use steam openID. (Different forum email/manual linkage).
You can, which will, again, involve steam’s own openID and additional activation/authentication on IMC’s end (through OID - aka Login Through Steam). It will involve the person having to visit the official site and login with OID, then providing verification.
No one is disputing that.
Aka reduce the differences within the code repository. Please at least understand what we’re talking about before arguing…
No Backseat Moderating
Let the operators do the moderating. Backseat moderating is when people who are not operators try to enforce the forum rules. If you see a person breaking the rules, report it or simply ignore the offensive post(s), thread, or review.
Yeah, definitely possible (i’m just thinking of what kind of / how hard the backend implementation will be, despite what someone else keeps thinking).
It’ll add an additional step to the account creation process, having to hop onto the official site to auth (This is the additional information logged with IMC portion). Depending on the type of authentication required…i’m not too sure about Phone auths, that would require a third-party (sending of the code through phone messaging).
IP tracking on account logins should already be present in the GM tools, which wouldn’t be difficult to link.
How much work would it take for the authentication process to be implemented would be the question, I figure.
After the implementation of our new RMT policies, we have received multiple inquiries about accounts that have been banned with no prior warning, despite the 3-strike system described in this announcement.
We would like to clarify that the 3-strike system was put in place to avoid taking unfair action against players who may not be using the Market to conduct RMT transactions. In cases where the accounts involved are proven to be taking part in RMT, those accounts will be immediately suspended without prior warning.
This is glorious. Pure gold. No, wait. This is 4D, multidimensional, tesseract-tier bait.
My sides are being obliterated at the atomic level by watching all the RMT shitters trying to feign ignorance after being banned. Damn those mexican police officers.
I don’t even remember the last time I bought TP, but you deserve it this time, Mr. Kim.
Thank you. I love my popcorn with lots of salt, so keep up with the good work.
@STAFF_Yuri
A question that gets in the air: How do the new IMC policies like you can, for example, pass on silver to help a friend?
In the case of an aid to buy attribute points?
Do you always have to tell GM first?
You could buy (or you have a nice spare) something like a Nuaele Card (or anything in the price range you want to trade), trade it to you friend, and he can sell it.
Problem solved.
Maybe you can launch your addon manager and check addons I had there or other things I did. I never do big things but where I most spent my time was low level and backend stuff which includes both of the cases we’re discussing.
And forum can still be external. It has nothing to do with in-game. The game can do any form of authentication without e-mail and without leaving Steam as long it’s within Steam’s terms of usage and doesn’t push players away.
Big issue here is mostly a design process, so you make it effective and usable. Implementing does not require excessive revamp. The actual hours/code required to add something like this isn’t huge once you have the process well defined.
Which includes, unless you can provide prove otherwise with data from their repository:
Again, backend implementation isn’t very hard once you define the process.
Yes, you need a 3rd-party for phone validation. For authentication it’s possible to use Apps but that breaks the purpose. Keep in mind that you also need to watch for those online/virtual numbers.
Which we go back again to designing the process: “What service will we use?”, “Which type of numbers will we use?”, “Will this reduce the number of honest players as well?”, “Will this be more of an annoyance rather than a solution?”, “Will this affect gaining new players?”
Again, implementation isn’t the biggest issue. Designing the process is. After that, if anything, you have ready-to-use APIs from the services or similar tools for most use cases - which you should actually be using whenever possible instead of reinventing the wheel.
So I’ll kindly ask again, can you please stop spreading misinformation about the implementation?
You’re effectively limiting suggestions making people focus on the implementation rather than suggestions about the process. You’re really not helping anyone here, for more than half of your posts in the thread.
As to why you’re trying to feign ignorance like you did in any discussions after your 3rd-4th posts in the thread, I don’t know why. But since your discussions with @Csiko back in the start of the thread you have been changing the meaning of what people say and replying something far off that tries to changes the flow of the discussion into something meaningless.
If you want to troll, continue doing so, but, like, please, let good suggestions flow, don’t go changing their focus for whatever reason you have for discussions to not go to certain directions.
Maybe you can just list them and state your experience, and/or supporting for once, instead of ‘hey err here, and maybe there, perhaps this and that and some other post’
Just list them. Link them. Since you did work on them, it shouldn’t be hard, would it?
Right. Clarify this. Without leaving Steam. What do you mean. The Steam client?
Did you know you just did another one of your all-encompassing vague replies again?
Let me lay it out for you…
Question: Didnt IMC make some changes last year (or longer ago?) to make clients more similar for faster KR - > steam patching…
Answer: Doubt it has anything blah blah
Your reply “IMC clearly said it was their code repository”
Yeeeessssss, we were just talking about the code repository, specifically what portions of it.
To use a fruity explanation
Qn: Didn’t IMC talk about swapping some bananas for apples?
Ans: Yeah, not as much pears, mainly apples.
Your reply “IMC clearly said it was fruits”
“So far, iTOS updates like new costumes and such were done through a partial application of contents, rather than a full-sized merging process.”
Content does not have that much to do with your login process (which is mainly static). Which is why I said I doubt that any sort of repository (code base, framework) actually tinkered with the login code. On top of which, the login system between KTOS and ITOS is different.
Oh top of which, asking others to provide evidence when you never do in your replies? Come on.
I threw this at someone who actually deals with these for a living.
“If, and that is a very big /IF/, the previous backend was set up to allow for more stuff to be added, its not bad.”
He also provided some further examples, which you either forgot, or didn’t know how to explain your answer. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
“Think about like… a laptop and a desktop - its /possible/ to add more stuff to a laptop - though you might have to hack the ■■■■ out of the internals to do it; but a desktop you can slot stuff in there easy. But with the laptop, if you know /exactly/ what needs to be done, it’s not a horrible process, just time consuming”
So it seems that it still depends on how their backend is set up. Since you don’t work there…
Sure, discussion about related matters is limiting suggestion. Alright
Like… let me see…
Telling you that “You’re limiting access to items from average players just because you’re a whale, and that’s bad.” “So are you implying that all whales should have exclusive access to the exceptions and normal players should never have access to those?” this falls under scarcity pricing, and yes (I don’t have to imply, it is how things work) exclusive access to those who can afford the rare, limited, stuff.
(PS: “So in practice you go and have exclusive access by RMT’ing it.” That’s assuming others actually RMT. Don’t jump to conclusions)
Trying to get you to understand that this “And we’re playing a game. Inside the game economy we’re not a lawyer, engineer or musician etc. We’re archers, wizards, clerics or swordies.” is wrong.
As long as humans (that is you, me, and everyone else - unless there is a hidden alien somewhere) are playing the game, economic theory applies. Whether you’re playing as a cow, pig, bird, swordsman, knight, fruit salad, attack copter, doesn’t matter.
“And from where does the seller bases the price? From the economy. And what’s in the economy? The RMTers.”
Again, telling you that the above is wrong is not feigning ignorance. On items for which scarcity value applies, the seller sets the price, and he/she CAN ignore the economy. That is the reason why we have a separate grouping for these items in economic theory.
Telling you that you got your timezones wrong. (Did I really get reported for telling someone they got their timezones wrong?) That’s cute. By the way, jumping to conclusions that he did that to try and bypass whatever deadline is not very nice. (The SA guys did try, though, and admitted it as well).
“So you are just going to break the game rules to profit then?” You need to stop jumping to conclusions when someone is trying to correct your understanding of economics. Not lowering the price does not mean an instant jump to zomgRMT.
I didn’t even point this out. “Also some whales are buying these high-end items with cash from other players.”
High-end items which are trans-locked to the silver market. If you disagree, give me a list of what you consider high-end and are NOT trans-locked. Because to my understanding, high-end items are +21/T10 315s, Primus and above.
Whole bunch of stuff about how 1:1 RMT affects economy. Yeah it does, not high-end high-value items though. Previous system you lost the item or all your gems when you took it out from trans. New system, it is locked to the market. Can’t 1:1 RMT that.
I’d like to add - Your ‘average player’ is already participating in the high-end market. Who do you think is running Velcoffer? And before Velcoffer, who do you think was running Solm/farming primus?.
I mean, really now. I am the one feigning ignorance when i’m also the one providing links, quotes, and further details?
Its nice that you realized arguing about silver value of items was incorrect, at least, after that whole pile of numbers.
Perhaps you should actually start providing detailed explanations and analogies/examples/values instead of using vague answers, jumping to conclusions, and accusing people of trolling / RMT / what have you.
This already confirmed my point where all other examples tried to picture. Thanks.
So 1:1 RMT affects economy. Period. No special treatment. Should be punished just like any other form of RMT.
For others I won’t bother quoting:
The repositories that manage the servers, clients, graphic data, etc. for kTOS and iTOS are currently separate.
Without leaving Steam: As in, IMC not abandoning creating accounts via Steam but simply adding other steps.
I doubt your “backend question” was a proper one though. Different questions has different answers. It’s easy to make a problem more complicated than it is if you don’t understand it.
Example of one way of achieving so:
a) Assume account is created directly.
b) Accounts have a “protection mode flag” (which can be banned or another things).
c) Add a new authorization system on top of current one.
d) Make new accounts get into “protection mode” by default.
e) Unset “protection mode flag” after authorization process is completed.
ToS already have the codebase for this.
Because that’s what you’re doing at this point. Like here:
E-mail login was never part of the suggestion at any point. You introduced it as a mean to distort the discussion into:
Even though we actually have a SteamID mapped to users AID (Account ID), in the same way kToS have something else that maps to your AID.
You could possibly just don’t know what you’re talking about but I honestly doubt it since it seems to be otherwise.
And now I already did:
Give an example of how it’s possible and not a huge amount of work to get a validation process into the account creation system.
Earlier, already gave example how this is mostly a decision problem rather than implementation.
Gave an example on how the game works with AID (known to any addon dev/anyone that looked into the lua code) and how your account data is linked to this ID, rather than SteamID.
So, I’m done here. Have fun. Not going to stop others from having better discussions just because you are trolling, no point feeding you any more.
We need good suggestions without wall of texts between them and now people already know that suggestions such as Nekorin’s and others are viable to implement.
So it’s a good point to leave since readers can know the problem is “What to do”, rather than “How to” or “Is it possible to”.
No backing, whatsoever, again. What is your experience?
“I did work on this, this, and that”
Literally. One sentence. Don’t avoid clarification.
Do…you even understand what a repository merge to make content pushing easier involves?
(Hint. It is also the reason I replied ‘doubt so’)
There we go, answering a question. And here is the issue that I was talking about. (Also linked to this)
We have the following:
SteamID, AccountID (the numbers that are required in support ticket)
Now. The problem is ensuring that the entity verifying the SteamID with IMC is legitimate, on IMC’s end.
We cannot modify the Steam client (obviously). Other devs use Steam OpenID, you log in through their site with OID, and you can modify the details you have stored with the devs (you have to log on their sites in using the ‘Log-in-through-Steam’) - This ensures that the person logged in with that particular SteamID is authenticated. You could do a hack-job and just make everyone link their account to a forum login (which is what we do to access support), then proceed with the verification (whatever 3rd party, etc, as required).
The absolute easiest way would just be for you to key your SteamID in (the one they ask for with support), and go through the verif process for that number (Literally 2-3 text boxes). This method is silly and a waste of time. It does not prevent anything, and is easily automated. (By the way, this is what I meant by example.)
Reason being that we do not actually have an ‘account’ created at IMC
When you want to ensure that modification of details for a particular steamID is authorized by the user, you have to ensure that there is at least a tiny bit of security.
a) assume car is working normally
b) cars have a ‘modified’ yes/no flag c) add a second engine to car in the boot, and link it to the first engine
d) make all new cars get into ‘unmodified’ by default
e) unset ‘modified’ flag after addition of engine is completed.
Just a decision problem, guys.
Which isn’t even the issue here.
Bye.
Apparently disagreeing with someone makes you a troll.
“Do you support BLM?”
“Not fully, there may be potenti-”
“RACIST”
Because ‘what to do’ is in no way related to ‘how to do’ and whether it is ‘possible to’ /s
Edit: Oh…I forgot
No one was disputing the treatment.
I was disputing the fact that you kept claiming there was 1:1 RMT trade in high-end equipment.
I just flagged your post as off-topic since it’s not related to the Policy Update Regarding RMT.
Also, I like the contradiction:
Made me remember the guy who was liking your posts and agreeing with you that 1:1 RMT does not affect economy just to have a screenshot of his market RMT from bots posted later.
Entire point was about 1:1 RMT affecting economy as whole, starting here:
Silver Economy
Using this, we refer to the amount of silver circulating within the population, which is also the purchasing power of silver through the market. (Covered some of these in my previous posts - if you need a link Policy Update Regarding RMT? - For those who refuse to believe anything I say - Policy Update Regarding RMT by @Remiri)
The current crackdowns on silver-based RMT is to shut down the silver faucet from the botters. This also prevents too much excess silver being introduced to the market.
Basically the same as a country’s central bank printing too much money (causes the devaluation of silver)
Economy in general
Everything affects the economy, even % chances of drop rates, and the success chance of anvils. Your playing the game affects the economy.
1:1 RMT trades do not affect the silver economy, and 1:1 RMT affects the global economy are not contradictory statements. See @Remiri 's post.
Someone else being ignorant does not mean you aren’t, as your own ‘i like the contradiction’ shows.
Trading in RL currency does not affect the silver economy (of which inflation is the main issue). Items are constantly created, regardless of trade method.
If your problem here is your average player being able to take part in ‘high-end’ trades (+16/T10 and above), they are already market locked, which solves one issue of any 1:1 trade.
For your ‘average’ players to participate in buying/selling, we need to look at absolute values, which (shock!) involves the silver economy, and the shutting down of excess silver faucets (See silver bots).
1:1 RMT has as much effect on the amount of silver as 'hey dude, i’m quitting, want my shiz?'
For some reason you’re discussing a whole different thing which I’m not.
1:1 RMT is an illegal trading method that affects economy. Just the fact that you affect, or even, simply can affect, any small bit of the economy by using an illegal method should issue you a sanction and removal of illicit gains.
I would like to request that @Veldt and @Seiran continue this discussion over PM.
I would like to keep this post open for others to continue to share their ideas/concerns about the new policy however, your continuous back-and-forth may force me to close this thread.
