331 replies to this topic

[reluctanttheist]

For you SPUDders that want to coordinate your countdowns...

 

I have TS on my iPhone and play on the iPad; so no problem jumping to another room for the game after the countdown goes down.  Once the battle screen loads, you see who's on what team, and enter the appropriate room.  What you can do is for those people who only have one device, put them on separate platoons and have them pre-enter different rooms.  The platoon leaders with two devices listen to the countdown in the lobby, then once the battle begins, join their toonmate in whatever room they're in.  The only limitation then is if two platoons end up on the same team, they'll be in two separate rooms so they can't coordinate their gameplay.

Edited by reluctanttheist, 11 September 2015 - 08:11 PM.

[WriterDude]

MSixteen, on 11 September 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

You guys do realize that preventing the game from being ran on jail broken/rooted devices will make it so nobody can make videos anymore, right?

 

And for WriterDude: apparently calling somebody a liar and a cheat isn't insulting. Go back and read Viper's comments

 

Well first, it's not accurate that "nobody" could make videos. I make videos, and I'm not jailbroken (or as talented, but that's a different topic).

 

Second, the easiest way to address someone calling you a liar is to demonstrate that you're telling the truth. That's not a personal attack. If someone says Obama lied when he said "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," they're not saying Obama is a bad person; they're saying what he said was untrue. The effective response is to demonstrate how Obama's statement is true. The ineffective response is to say "don't call him a liar," because it changes the topic from keeping doctors to not calling someone a liar.

 

If someone calls you a cheat, that's harder to disprove (it's impossible to prove a negative). But again, it's not a personal attack. No doubt, they're not saying you cheat on your taxes, or cheat on relationships, or cheat storekeepers when you buy bread. They're claiming you did something that's cheating in this tank shooting game we play. The effective response to that claim is to say "no, it's not cheating, because of this reason" or "yeah, it's cheating, and I'm never doing it again." (see Bushka) The ineffective response is to say "don't call me a cheat." Make sense?

 

It's important to point out that your circumstances (not having a computer where you can record the videos) isn't an answer to whether it's appropriate to jailbreak your device and record videos. You're making a claim that your convenience or circumstances outweigh doing the right thing. That's a whole other ball of wax. 

[WriterDude]

BR1XT0N, on 11 September 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

I think people would get a lot more accomplished by submitting tickets to WG questioning their policy on 3rd party add ons than they will by personally attacking M16s character. I don't see the point in calling him names like cheater beyond personal gratification. I'd like to remind everyone that according to the conversation Alo had with M16, he wasn't cheating. Your anger and frustration would be more usefully directed at the cause of the disease, rather than at its symptoms.

 

Already submitted the ticket. See, this is one of those situations where the forum conversation has taken place in parallel with WG's decision-making process. I wouldn't propose that we stop talking about it here, because regardless of what they decide, we're entitled to our opinions.

 

At the same time, I dunno. It's hard to get too aggravated about it, because I don't know how widespread it is. However, I also don't know how anyone suffering repeated module damage doesn't have that thought creep into the back of their minds. I got gang-rushed in my E50 by a couple of unicorns in a T-54 platoon yesterday. I did okay with return fire, but even though my team was right there, they weren't able to react fast enough to keep me alive. Every shot from the unicorn platoon did module damage, and my whole indicator light string was lit at one point - engine, view port, ammo rack light, fuel tanks, driver. I have the standard repair and the multi-tool on that tank, but I ran out, so I eventually had to sit there and take the ninja-fu.

 

Now, surely they could have just been that good, but...? In that context, claiming the module damage is suspicious is not like claiming I've seen sasquatch or been probed by aliens.

[ahredstealth]

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

 

If someone calls you a cheat, that's harder to disprove (it's impossible to prove a negative). 

 

Actually in this case, it's pretty easy.  Official Wargaming communication said that at this time it's not cheating.  Also, someone calling you a cheater is pretty insulting in my book.

 

BR1XT0N, on 11 September 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

I think people would get a lot more accomplished by submitting tickets to WG questioning their policy on 3rd party add ons than they will by personally attacking M16s character. I don't see the point in calling him names like cheater beyond personal gratification. I'd like to remind everyone that according to the conversation Alo had with M16, he wasn't cheating. Your anger and frustration would be more usefully directed at the cause of the disease, rather than at its symptoms.

 

I think BR1XTON hit the nail on the head right here.  Why isn't it just blatantly illegal?  Should be pretty easy to type up a quick post about it.

 

I can proof one right now:

 

WARGAMING CONTACT PERSON COULD SIMPLY STATE:

Hey, it's come to our attention that people have been using "Hit Skins" or a game mod that allows the modules of tanks to be painted on the outside of the tank.  This is not allowed.

 

Thank you.

[WriterDude]

ahredstealth, on 11 September 2015 - 01:28 PM, said:

Actually in this case, it's pretty easy.  Official Wargaming communication said that at this time it's not cheating.  Also, someone calling you a cheater is pretty insulting in my book.

 

Now this is flat wrong. The official WG communication (the EULA) says that it's not allowed. The informal WG communication (a Mod comment on the Forums) says that they're not enforcing it. 

 

In exactly the same way, they set the speed limit at a fixed number, say 65. At the same time, most police say that as a practical matter, they won't ticket you unless you're rolling more than 5 MPH faster than the limit.

 

Did I get this wrong somehow? Did they change the EULA to allow modifications to the game experience? Could you link to that, please? If not, you're using misplaced authority.

 

In other news, regardless of what the police say about tickets, let's say you get a ticket for driving 68. What do you think the law says?

[MSixteen]

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 02:08 PM, said:

 

Well first, it's not accurate that "nobody" could make videos. I make videos, and I'm not jailbroken (or as talented, but that's a different topic).

 

Second, the easiest way to address someone calling you a liar is to demonstrate that you're telling the truth. That's not a personal attack. If someone says Obama lied when he said "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," they're not saying Obama is a bad person; they're saying what he said was untrue. The effective response is to demonstrate how Obama's statement is true. The ineffective response is to say "don't call him a liar," because it changes the topic from keeping doctors to not calling someone a liar.

 

If someone calls you a cheat, that's harder to disprove (it's impossible to prove a negative). But again, it's not a personal attack. No doubt, they're not saying you cheat on your taxes, or cheat on relationships, or cheat storekeepers when you buy bread. They're claiming you did something that's cheating in this tank shooting game we play. The effective response to that claim is to say "no, it's not cheating, because of this reason" or "yeah, it's cheating, and I'm never doing it again." (see Bushka) The ineffective response is to say "don't call me a cheat." Make sense?

 

It's important to point out that your circumstances (not having a computer where you can record the videos) isn't an answer to whether it's appropriate to jailbreak your device and record videos. You're making a claim that your convenience or circumstances outweigh doing the right thing. That's a whole other ball of wax. 

 

when i told them why i'm not a liar, people responded with things like "Msixteen believes the [edited]he's feeding us" or a meme with "it's not a lie if you believe it" and [edited]like that. there's no way to get the narrow minded to believe that i'm not lying just because they are tunnel visioned on the fact that i'm a statistically superior player who had a mod for 2 weeks so somehow i'm not good anymore.

 

the green light from Alo should be clear enough that what i'm doing is, at least for now, OK by WG. yet people still call me a cheat even though the benefit the hit skins gives is, in my case, negligible because i don't even use it because i 1.) snapshot and 2.) aim for the center mass of a target area that i can penetrate. if a module happens to be there, great. if not, idc because i'd rather do consistent damage than some damage with a possible module hit.

 

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

 

Already submitted the ticket. See, this is one of those situations where the forum conversation has taken place in parallel with WG's decision-making process. I wouldn't propose that we stop talking about it here, because regardless of what they decide, we're entitled to our opinions.

 

At the same time, I dunno. It's hard to get too aggravated about it, because I don't know how widespread it is. However, I also don't know how anyone suffering repeated module damage doesn't have that thought creep into the back of their minds. I got gang-rushed in my E50 by a couple of unicorns in a T-54 platoon yesterday. I did okay with return fire, but even though my team was right there, they weren't able to react fast enough to keep me alive. Every shot from the unicorn platoon did module damage, and my whole indicator light string was lit at one point - engine, view port, ammo rack light, fuel tanks, driver. I have the standard repair and the multi-tool on that tank, but I ran out, so I eventually had to sit there and take the ninja-fu.

 

Now, surely they could have just been that good, but...? In that context, claiming the module damage is suspicious is not like claiming I've seen sasquatch or been probed by aliens.

 

engines in german tanks are damaged when you shoot through the lower plate (weakspot) crew will get injured when you shoot through the turret (weakspot) if they were firing HEAT they can derp it through your upper plate (driver) and the ammo rack is just about center mass (where i'd aim anyways) and fuel tanks are a bit to the left/right depending on what side of your tank they were on.

 

the fact that you ran into a unicum platoon that were seal clubbing in their T-54s and you took massive module damage in a tank where the weak spots/center mass of your tank is where the modules are means nothing.

[MSixteen]

BR1XT0N, on 11 September 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

I think people would get a lot more accomplished by submitting tickets to WG questioning their policy on 3rd party add ons than they will by personally attacking M16s character. I don't see the point in calling him names like cheater beyond personal gratification. I'd like to remind everyone that according to the conversation Alo had with M16, he wasn't cheating. Your anger and frustration would be more usefully directed at the cause of the disease, rather than at its symptoms.

 

I'm also not the only person who has said they use the mod on this thread, yet i'm the only one getting attacked just because i'm better. it's purely a 'personal gratification' thing for most of them.

[reluctanttheist]

This is not about personal gratification - the reason this mod is getting attention is that if this mod is given tacit approval, it's a slippery slope downwards in terms of the ethics of gameplay.  It creates an uneven playing field, and gives most users a significant advantage (even if not for you, MSixteen).  There has been no guidance from WG on where the line in the sand is being drawn, so we are left in limbo on this issue, and the game is left tilted in favour of those who use the mod.

[ahredstealth]

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 02:41 PM, said:

 

Now this is flat wrong. The official WG communication (the EULA) says that it's not allowed. The informal WG communication (a Mod comment on the Forums) says that they're not enforcing it. 

 

In exactly the same way, they set the speed limit at a fixed number, say 65. At the same time, most police say that as a practical matter, they won't ticket you unless you're rolling more than 5 MPH faster than the limit.

 

Did I get this wrong somehow? Did they change the EULA to allow modifications to the game experience? Could you link to that, please? If not, you're using misplaced authority.

 

In other news, regardless of what the police say about tickets, let's say you get a ticket for driving 68. What do you think the law says?

 

So, when this thread first popped up, I was all like, "This is probably an issue for Wargaming to decide..."  In my own head.  True story, the "in my head voice" sounds just like Morgan Freeman even though in real life I sound more like Gilbert Gottfriet.  So I did what any rational person would to and sent a PM to the Mods, because I kinda figured this thread might get out of hand with name calling, and flames and what not, and thought at minimum it may help them to watch it.

 

Now, the funny thing is, I didn't know then what I submitted might have a sort of impact on this conversation, and I wasn't going to post it because quite frankly M16 already posted his, and I thought that was pretty sufficient.  However, people in this thread have copied and pasted the user agreement, and taken their own interpretation of the user agreement to decide it is illegal.

 

Here is my question:

AHREDSTEALTH PM to CC_Sly

Sent: 04 September 2015 - 02:34 PM

Are hit skin mods legal or against the user agreement?

http://forum.wotblit...in-mod/#topmost

Here is the reply:

CC_Sly's Reply to above comment directly asking about the mod being against the user agreement

Sent: 08 September 2015 - 04:34 PM

We are in talks with HQ right now on what we are going to say about these.

 

-Sly

 

So, now, are you going to tell me that you have more authority to dictate what is or is not against the user agreement then a Wargaming employee?

 

Because from what I can see, he is saying they are still deciding if it is or is not against the user agreement.

 

I humbly disagree with your "being flat out wrong."

 

 

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

At the same time, I dunno. It's hard to get too aggravated about it, because I don't know how widespread it is. However, I also don't know how anyone suffering repeated module damage doesn't have that thought creep into the back of their minds. I got gang-rushed in my E50 by a couple of unicorns in a T-54 platoon yesterday. I did okay with return fire, but even though my team was right there, they weren't able to react fast enough to keep me alive. Every shot from the unicorn platoon did module damage, and my whole indicator light string was lit at one point - engine, view port, ammo rack light, fuel tanks, driver. I have the standard repair and the multi-tool on that tank, but I ran out, so I eventually had to sit there and take the ninja-fu.

 

C'mon now man.  You over exposed yourself to two unicums in T-54s... of course you're going to get lit up like a christmas tree.  It has nothing to do with a "hit mod."  If you used your multi pack, plus your repair kit, and were still lit up, you were over exposed.  Plain and simple.

 

 

 

 

And lastly, I would also like to point out that base ball, speeding tickets, the NFL, and steroid use all have something very much not in common with this.

 

They are all in real life where there can be safety and large sums of money at stake.  Here, all that is at stake is how well you do in a video game that as far as I know none of us get paid to play.  It's for the glory of showing off on the internet to a bunch of other people that also play the game.

[Ookla_the_Mok]

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 02:41 PM, said:

 

Now this is flat wrong. The official WG communication (the EULA) says that it's not allowed. The informal WG communication (a Mod comment on the Forums) says that they're not enforcing it. 

 

 

That looks like the issue in a nutshell to me. Honestly, very foolish for a moderator to comment informally on this without a corresponding change in the EULA. WG appears to take a hardline on rules in some cases and in others it exists as a bague guideline.

 

The modules being essentially hitskinned is a clear advantage. That cannot be argued.

 

I think MSixteen would agree that I am not one to defend him nor his clan, but does anyone really think MSixteen is gaining much if he uses the mod? I don't. Sure, it might help with new tanks, etc but nominal gains at most.

 

Bottom line is that WG has tacitly approved use of the mod. Otherwise everyone posting vids using it would have faced some form of sanction.

​

[MSixteen]

Ookla_the_Mok, on 11 September 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

 Sure, it might help with new tanks, etc but nominal gains at most.

every single tank in the game thus far i've played hundreds of games against on PC

[WriterDude]

MSixteen, on 11 September 2015 - 02:00 PM, said:

 

when i told them why i'm not a liar, people responded with things like "Msixteen believes the [edited]he's feeding us" or a meme with "it's not a lie if you believe it" and [edited]like that. there's no way to get the narrow minded to believe that i'm not lying just because they are tunnel visioned on the fact that i'm a statistically superior player who had a mod for 2 weeks so somehow i'm not good anymore.

 

the green light from Alo should be clear enough that what i'm doing is, at least for now, OK by WG. yet people still call me a cheat even though the benefit the hit skins gives is, in my case, negligible because i don't even use it because i 1.) snapshot and 2.) aim for the center mass of a target area that i can penetrate. if a module happens to be there, great. if not, idc because i'd rather do consistent damage than some damage with a possible module hit.

 

the fact that you ran into a unicum platoon that were seal clubbing in their T-54s and you took massive module damage in a tank where the weak spots/center mass of your tank is where the modules are means nothing.

 

Well, from my perspective, you left yourself wide open for that accusation. You offered up weak excuses for why you needed to install the skins in the first place, and you delayed your response when people asked whether you had uninstalled them after taking your videos.

 

For what it's worth, I think you lost a lot of credibility when you ignored that question. If you'd been able to say "oh, I uninstalled that right after I saw the Bushka video where he said they weren't fair," that would have been a significant thing.

 

If you punch your sister and say that you were just trying to kill a mosquito, you should be aware that people are going to be skeptical. Of course, if you can show a dead mosquito, you make your case. If the mosquito flies away, it doesn't make it any less true what you were doing, but you're going to be surrounded by skepticism, because all people see is the bruise on your sister.  

 

For what it's worth, Alo's comment wasn't a green light. A green light means it's safe and legal to go. The way I read it, Alo's comment was about the equivalent of "drive on, we're working on a more formal response here." Of course, he could help a lot here by explaining which translation is more accurate, but that's my take on his comment.

 

LOL - and regarding the module damage? I point it out solely because it happened. I can't prove that it means anything at all. Unfortunately, because WG has left this hole in their game, neither of us can prove it means nothing, either. 

[mike82198]

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

However, I also don't know how anyone suffering repeated module damage doesn't have that thought creep into the back of their minds. I got gang-rushed in my E50 by a couple of unicorns in a T-54 platoon yesterday. I did okay with return fire, but even though my team was right there, they weren't able to react fast enough to keep me alive. Every shot from the unicorn platoon did module damage, and my whole indicator light string was lit at one point - engine, view port, ammo rack light, fuel tanks, driver. I have the standard repair and the multi-tool on that tank, but I ran out, so I eventually had to sit there and take the ninja-fu.

 

Now, surely they could have just been that good, but...? In that context, claiming the module damage is suspicious is not like claiming I've seen sasquatch or been probed by aliens.

1)

gogo_gadget_arms, on 08 September 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

Finally, to those opposed to the module skins, please stop saying 'I'm 100% sure I'm taking more module damage after this mod came out', as you're undermining the credibility of our side of the argument.  You're not 100% sure.  There are at least two module skins, they probably came out at different times, and their adoption is gradual.  There are a number of biases, as well as factors like running different tanks over time, that render this statement meaningless.

2) Your E50 has perhaps the most intuitive module layout to shoot at in the game and it is not unique to it either. A "unicorn" possesses the mental capacity and game curiosity to memorize the locations of your modules - or, alternatively, to shoot at the center of your aside to guarantee a hit (which in the case of an E50 is where the ammo rack is located). 

With the exception of rarely encountered tanks I would speculate that such hit-skins function as more of an educational tool than a practical daily cheat, not unlike the gray/red areas on the WG-issued hit-skins. A lot of the better players want those removed because they don't need them anymore. I would argue that the same happens with these mods: does anyone need to see some marking on an E100's ammo rack after having shot it 5 times? 

Personally, I'm too lazy to watch videos or look at the armor inspector for every tank. My play-style doesn't permit me to sit there and aim for the driver of every tank. I know what sets an E75 on fire and what ammo-racks a T-44, and I accomplish these regularly - but not because I'm trying for it. If those T-54s are so good that they can hit your modules with such precision and consistency, the only persons they could possibly ever need such a mod against is each other and half a dozen others.

 

[Ookla_the_Mok]

MSixteen, on 11 September 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

every single tank in the game thus far i've played hundreds of games against on PC

 

I believe you. However, if you insist that having the modules highlighted is of absolutely no advantage then I would disagree. This is a minor thing, but if we are talking openly about what the mod does you have to yield a bit of ground here. For clarity, this mod would benefit me much more than you because I do not have all module locations memorized. 

[WriterDude]

ahredstealth, on 11 September 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

So, now, are you going to tell me that you have more authority to dictate what is or is not against the user agreement then a Wargaming employee?

 

Because from what I can see, he is saying they are still deciding if it is or is not against the user agreement.

 

I humbly disagree with your "being flat out wrong."

 

C'mon now man.  You over exposed yourself to two unicums in T-54s... of course you're going to get lit up like a christmas tree.  It has nothing to do with a "hit mod."  If you used your multi pack, plus your repair kit, and were still lit up, you were over exposed.  Plain and simple.

 

They are all in real life where there can be safety and large sums of money at stake.  Here, all that is at stake is how well you do in a video game that as far as I know none of us get paid to play.  It's for the glory of showing off on the internet to a bunch of other people that also play the game.

 

Oh, what I was talking about was the difference between a policy statement and a practical statement. It's interesting that your approach was to send a PM to a mod. My response was to create a ticket through the support page.

 

My support ticket was closed without comment. (It actually disappeared, and left my "Support" tab in game with a red number that I can't get rid of.) You got a response that essentially said "we're working on a response."

 

The comment about being flat wrong is entirely focused on that distinction. It literally doesn't matter what someone says informally. If WG posts a comment through in-game news or modifies the EULA to make mods acceptable, that's a policy change. 

 

Your interpretation is that a mod saying "we're in talks about what we're going to say" means "it's completely okay." My interpretation is that a mod saying "we're in talks about what we're going to say" means "we're in talks about what we're going to say." I suppose it's true that your interpretation is more accurate, but from where I'm sitting, I don't see it that way.

 

LOL - what was funny was that it was on Middleburg, and I was up high, less than 100 yards from the spawn, so I was pretty sure I hadn't overexposed myself, because my team was literally RIGHT THERE... then the T-54s came charging in a gang tackle. And boom, and ugh.

[MSixteen]

Ookla_the_Mok, on 11 September 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

 

I believe you. However, if you insist that having the modules highlighted is of absolutely no advantage then I would disagree. This is a minor thing, but if we are talking openly about what the mod does you have to yield a bit of ground here. For clarity, this mod would benefit me much more than you because I do not have all module locations memorized. 

 

I said it of course would give anybody at the very least some advantage, but it's negligible at best in at least my case.

[ahredstealth]

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

 

Oh, what I was talking about was the difference between a policy statement and a practical statement. It's interesting that your approach was to send a PM to a mod. My response was to create a ticket through the support page.

 

My support ticket was closed without comment. (It actually disappeared, and left my "Support" tab in game with a red number that I can't get rid of.) You got a response that essentially said "we're working on a response."

 

The comment about being flat wrong is entirely focused on that distinction. It literally doesn't matter what someone says informally. If WG posts a comment through in-game news or modifies the EULA to make mods acceptable, that's a policy change. 

 

Your interpretation is that a mod saying "we're in talks about what we're going to say" means "it's completely okay." My interpretation is that a mod saying "we're in talks about what we're going to say" means "we're in talks about what we're going to say." I suppose it's true that your interpretation is more accurate, but from where I'm sitting, I don't see it that way.

 

I said at this time it's not cheating because that's what my response has been from an official Wargaming employee.  That means that in the future, it may be cheating... or it may be completely and 101% okay to do.

 

Right now we don't know.  So I'm not going to go around trumpeting out "CHEATER!" when I quite frankly don't know.  I'm also not going to do my own interpretation of the user agreement and staunchly defend it because I've got 1337 copy and paste skillz, YO!

 

But yes, right now I believe it is not "ban-able cheating."  If it was clear, cut, and dry, then that response would have been completely different.  That tells me there is some sort of grey area here.

 

I would also like to point out that it absolutely matters what employees say.  Especially when those employees are the contact on the Official forum for the game between the company and the players.  If you honestly feel that employees for a company can say whatever they want and it's all hunky-dory because it doesn't effect that company until they produce an "official statement" then we will just have to agree to disagree.  I can't imagine just spouting off random promises/statements in my company, especially to a customer, and not having that matter.

[MSixteen]

WriterDude, on 11 September 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

 

Well, from my perspective, you left yourself wide open for that accusation. You offered up weak excuses for why you needed to install the skins in the first place, and you delayed your response when people asked whether you had uninstalled them after taking your videos.

 

For what it's worth, I think you lost a lot of credibility when you ignored that question. If you'd been able to say "oh, I uninstalled that right after I saw the Bushka video where he said they weren't fair," that would have been a significant thing.

 

If you punch your sister and say that you were just trying to kill a mosquito, you should be aware that people are going to be skeptical. Of course, if you can show a dead mosquito, you make your case. If the mosquito flies away, it doesn't make it any less true what you were doing, but you're going to be surrounded by skepticism, because all people see is the bruise on your sister.  

 

For what it's worth, Alo's comment wasn't a green light. A green light means it's safe and legal to go. The way I read it, Alo's comment was about the equivalent of "drive on, we're working on a more formal response here." Of course, he could help a lot here by explaining which translation is more accurate, but that's my take on his comment.

 

LOL - and regarding the module damage? I point it out solely because it happened. I can't prove that it means anything at all. Unfortunately, because WG has left this hole in their game, neither of us can prove it means nothing, either. 

The thing is with this there is literally NO way for me to prove what I'm saying is the truth besides when I actually say it's the truth. I can't SHOW you what my game looks like when I'm not recording, and if I showed a screenshot with no mods, I'd be accused of uninstalling the mods then taking the screenshot.

[mehliveat]

MSixteen, on 12 September 2015 - 07:56 AM, said:

The thing is with this there is literally NO way for me to prove what I'm saying is the truth besides when I actually say it's the truth. I can't SHOW you what my game looks like when I'm not recording, and if I showed a screenshot with no mods, I'd be accused of uninstalling the mods then taking the screenshot.

 

MSixteen, on 08 September 2015 - 05:18 AM, said:

If you do not believe me, I don't really care. I know why I installed the mod, and it wasn't to give myself an 'edge'.

 

Now, lets move on from M16 and to actual discussions on the mod itself.

[_TheBull_]

Well.  Isn't this thread just a ball of fun.  Can we pause to call out the true cheaters?  I mean really... Spending time reading the forums, learning strategy, understanding the significance of the hill on Mines....  all unfair advantages that are not available to everyone.  I know you're saying.... 'Where the [edited] are you going with this, Bull???'  Well.  Be patient, I'll get to that.  First, you're all on notice that I've submitted my formal protest against each of you by name.  WG is sure to take appropriate action.

 

If you are still reading and don't understand why I'm calling you cheaters out..... My experience suggests that half (and I'm being generous) the people on WOTB are illiterate and uneducated imbeciles with newly learned gross motor skills only.  Your ability just to post in this forum identifies you as having an advantage 'not available to everyone'.  Look in the mirror... And you will see a cheater.

 

Just trying to inject some levity.  Carry on.

 

**H O R N S**