UOG: Demise

Cunnana wrote: ↑July 10th, 2021, 1:08 am Players notice every time about scam on discord channels.....Any updates on rules to avoid this?

Sorry I'm not sure I understand what you ae asking here. Although we understand being scammed is not a nice experience, It's always been the player's responsibility to avoid finding themselves in this situation.

Alvin wrote: ↑July 10th, 2021, 3:53 am Additionally you gave the examples of "artefact spawns", and IDOCs... where is watching champion-spawns with a bot ??

The lists of examples are not exhaustive as we could never include every possible infringement. They are examples of some of the things that could get you in to trouble and are there to illustrate on what grounds the aforementioned point will be enforced. If you are watching a spawn with the intention of gathering information about it then you may find yourself being attendance checked.

DG wrote: ↑July 10th, 2021, 5:44 am Things like multi clients to kill different mobs in different areas should be allowed. It gives no advantage in combat,just speeds up resource gathering. It is essentially not different from multi clients macroing hw runics. Both of them are already subject to afk resource gathering rules.

I can see your point, but the main reason there is a difference is that things like hw quests are not limited, whereas monster spawns are finite. There are often incidences where players have a disagreement about how to share a spawn and these would become a much bigger problem if we allowed multi clienting in this form.

Calvin wrote: ↑July 10th, 2021, 1:01 pm .. i mean they barely even class as in combat really.. they're not running any macros... just things attack my dragon and it kills them
and things attack my warrior and he kills them ;P

like, i dunno, would i get jailed for this?

... i think probably. tbh.

You could have been jailed for this had we observed you doing it. Of course then I'm sure you would have argued that you did not choose to engage in any combat, but it was an "accident". Therefore we have felt the need to clarify this, hopefully encouraging a fairer playing field.

could have larson really why not should have

Mr Nobody wrote: ↑July 10th, 2021, 4:35 pm could have larson really why not should have

cos was an accident

tbh i knew i was chancing it a bit, but only for a warning in my case cos it'd be a first offence

just happy to get the rules clear at the end of the day

YOU SIR SHOULD BE BANNED 1 DAY

LMFAO

Mr Nobody wrote: ↑July 11th, 2021, 5:44 am YOU SIR SHOULD BE BANNED 1 DAY

psh, said nobody!

and anyway, there were no rules on day 1.

Thank you for this! Transparency has always been one of Silvertiger's favorite things to harp on. Love y'all! WIth the inclusion of CUO you may see a rising player base as "once you go CUO you don't go UOC..." Amish said his eyes were bleeding...