There is a partial precedence for these buff bots: Potions. They implemented a lot of potions a long time ago that people can buy and buff on a whim. My lower level characters use potion buffs all the time for that extra boost without ever wading thru the lag pile or begging for buffs. Potions were never a full blown spectrum of buffs, nor as powerful as player buffs, but they did establish a baseline. This baseline created a ramping pricing structure as well. Based on the trajectory of pricing increases vs. levels, I would not be surprised if most high end people skip bot buffs due to the expense involved (due to cost per each and the sheer potential number of buffs), even if they matched player buffs (which is another discussion). If they are being skipped, the lag pile remains. However, for those with oodles of platinum, this could be a means for creating a purely optional platinum sink. If the devs wanted a means to drain some cash from the servers, this might help.
My question was could that software be used. "Is the software called allowed to be used in playing Everquest?"
So let me get this straight. When a GM says "No, we don't condone or support Macroquesting and it is subject to disciplinary action if reported or seen by a GM" and that's interpreted to mean the program is not allowed, that's confirmation bias. But when Daybreak doesn't specifically mention it as prohibited we can all assume it's allowed? Cause that isn't confirmation bias at all. This thread though
Well, that and the person who created the program posted earlier in this thread and will also post again to confirm what I have already been saying. and I have seen holly openly admit to talking to eqmule(got a SS of it too on my site in my boxing guides). I've also personally talked to Holly about it myself as well as I have asked the devs about it as well... So there's that too. Y'kno the usual. Then when all else fails you also have the fact that Daybreak did say it in the Phinigel FAQ. If people are incapable of understanding that it's not something I can personally help with. I believe anyone whose intelligent enough can read the Phinigel FAQ and understand what it means. Obviously, a lot of people have because there has been an influx in new users over the last 3 years since the Phinigel FAQ was released. My job as a guide writer is to help those who want to be helped and educate those who wish to be educated. I can not help those who purposefully blind themselves to truths that would be too difficult to accept.
Corwhyn, I don't want to argue if a third party tool is grounds for a ban just based on its name and I certainly don't want to get into internal office politics about nacroquest, suffice to say I know there are people at dbg who draw the line at UNATTENDED gameplay regardless of how that's achieved as long as we don't use any active hacks or disrupt others gameplay, monopolizing content etc. If a GM really told you, that pure usage while attending is grounds for a ban, that's on him and that's something customer support has to address on a case by case basis, My experience with CS is that they are reasonable and professional. I have talked to GM's as well when I camped hierophant in seb and someone reported me for afk play even though I was at the keyboard... I was told to not use nacroquest afk and that was it. "Good hunting to you adventurer, stay out of trouble" If CS wants to get in the middle of this and post in this thread and say attended third party tool usage is ok and risk players like yourself getting upset or just stay out of it, then that's their call I guess, but politically speaking it's probably a good idea to just keep a neutral ground and refer people to the phinigel FAQ for now and deal with questionable gameplay as it happens on an individual basis. I am against UNATTENDED gameplay, no matter which tool is used to achieve it.
You do realize the term dev on the forums is often used to describe anyone with an official capacity to comment on things. The fact that you are going to nitpick their official title when obviously they have an official capacity to comment on behalf of the company and game is silly. If the company did not believe his comments fell in line with their beliefs or policies they would have either removed his comments or someone higher up the food chain would have chimed in and corrected him. Since neither happened your comment is irrelevant but nice try.
