[Official] Statement about Arenas and Battlegrounds

This is so true...

 

Agreed.

On top of that. "Pieces of code that are either remnants of functionality or possible future features that may or may not be implemented." Is complete joke.

When you code something you outline what you want it to do and you create function for that purpose. There is no in between. It shows there was intent for arena and it wasn't removed in 4 years.


Singular supported Arena. All you had to do was close HB and open when you joined the Arena so it wouldn't have issues targeting your same faction.

Instead of fixing the targeting logic and adding interrupt settings the PVE author just stuck to PVE. No interrupt support, shity movement etc.


That's where more authors we brought in to make money.


So on every level you are wrong.

Me and Xarian agree to your fanboyism.

 

You TL;DR his post, yet you post a wall of text of your own. If you want others to read your wall of text, read the others too

 

tldr

 

Way to be about 35 minutes too late, Poptarts. 36 minutes sooner, and you would've been clever. Alas.

 

While I'm not really bothered by honorbuddy automation being disabled for arenas (though it would be nice to see skirmishes allowed, since they're arguably non-competitive and are a decent way to grind honor) I do find the intellectual dishonesty in this thread to be extremely disturbing. People convincing themselves that they're "not really cheating" if it's for PvE, or claims that the site never advocated arena botting when it clearly harboured combat routines explicitly tailored for that purpose. It's just silly.

 

I thought the combat routines were explicitly tailored for PVP? PVP is still supported.

 

Yeah, that's why they were called "Gladiator Suite" and advertised ranking potential in arenas. Like I said, the intellectual dishonesty is ridiculous. I understand that it's important for some to always "win" arguments on the internet, but explicitly attempting to misrepresent the situation does not make you look good. It just informs anyone paying attention that you're either dishonest or incredibly obtuse.

 

Which of the Honorbuddy developers makes Gladiator Suite?

 

Do you habitually post meaningless rhetoric, or am I just lucky? This is the Internet. If you knowingly harbour content, then you are advocating its use.

 

Its a very good point ?

 

Are you asking me if it's a good point? Because if so, it's not. If you knowingly harbour content, then you are advocating its use. It's really that simple. Support and advocacy are not exclusive to development. I could maybe see the merit in this argument if the Honorbuddy team was somehow unaware of the Gladiator Suite CRs on their store, but given the developer vetting and 40% sales cut that would be effectively impossible. I'm not contesting the right of Bossland and the Honorbuddy developers to alter their program and website as they see fit, but to claim that they never supported it to begin with is demonstrably false.

To loosely reference Goshinki's analogy from earlier, this is paramount to arguing that drug dealers are not supporting or facilitating drug use, on the grounds that they are not manufacturing the drugs themselves.

[SUB][SUB]Disclaimer: The above analogy should not be regarded as a comparison of ethicacy. Botting and drug dealing are greatly divorced in that context.[/SUB][/SUB]

 

>2015
>being this dumb

 

i only used honorbuddy for BG botting and arenas, and i only bought the CRs for it.

i hope some other bot is being released then..

 

So, your strongest argument is that because Honorbuddy allowed a PVP CR to be sold on their store whom advertises as part of their offering Arena support and did not remove said CR from the store or take the liberty of editing or censoring the CR developer's offering that they support it? Even despite refusing to support the functionality, at every single reported onset of technical issue?

Allow != support. Nothing is stopping GS from developing their own bot.

 

Translation "When someone makes a point I can't possibly refute, it hurts so bad."

 

What is there to refute? You didn't "make a point", you asked a question that you should be able to answer on your own. He's pointing out that you apparently don't know how to use 'Search' on a website in 2015.

Good luck!

XtO

 

I wasn't able to read between the lines. I concede to that. I wasn't really sure what he meant to say, but I got from context that it wasn't particularly positive toward me.

My post wasn't me genuinely asking which Honorbuddy developer develops Gladiator Suite. It was facetiously stating that Honorbuddy doesn't develop Gladiator Suite. It was actually very clever, and the point I was making was made with the right people. It was simply over tomcruise's head, apparently. And his statement didn't make any sense to me whatsoever. So... I guess we both have egg on our face. lol

And since the only thing constructive he could come up with was 'Search Tool, nub'...

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

That's all I got for ya, so grab your torches and head back to camp.

 

Oh. Oh, man. Really? I totally had no idea. This changes everything.

Sorry, but it wasn't clever. This is why I asked if you habitually post meaningless rhetoric. Evidently, you do. You're still ignoring the fact that they knowingly distributed it and even profited directly from it. To reiterate, this is paramount to arguing that a drug dealer doesn't support drug use, because he didn't manufacture the drugs. It's nonsense, plain and simple. Whether you want to accept it or not, the Honorbuddy team advocated the use of the software they distributed and profited from. Knowingly harbouring content means that one advocates its use. The only one with egg on his (or her) face is the one who wants to deny this basic reality because it harms his completely polarized stance. Which is odd, because I actually support developer control over their own software and by all rights we should be in agreement.

Ultimately, the best way to respond to meaningless flippancy is to treat it as genuine, and expose it for the absurdity it is. Pity that I overlooked that opportunity.

 

TLDR

PS. You seem angry. Are you? I pride myself on reading people.