Tap? Activate Waggle

[SoulSeer]

I remember a few years back having a script that would activate when you're tap to use waggle on whoever tapped you. Anyone know the name?

[SoulSeer]

bump

Nobody knows?

[Tillmen]

This takes only a few lines of code to do, but it also makes you a bot, which may or may not mean you and anyone getting spells from the bot are violating the scripting policy even if they're not afk.

[Geijon Khyree]

^^^*******

[SoulSeer]

bump, yes I know the rule about bot spell ups, just wondering if their is a script. I have enough screens on to be monitoring 5 accounts simultaneously so they can try the whole bot check on me..... anyone have the old version of tap downloaded?

[Mogonis]

Didn't really test this, but try:



while line = get
if line =~ /taps you lightly/ then
character= line.split(" ").first;

start_script "waggle", [ "#{character}"]

end
end

[Gnomad]

bump, yes I know the rule about bot spell ups, just wondering if their is a script. I have enough screens on to be monitoring 5 accounts simultaneously so they can try the whole bot check on me..... anyone have the old version of tap downloaded?

I'm going to suggest that perhaps you do not know the rule about botting as well as you think you do.

[SoulSeer]

Ok, it's a pretty easy rule to understand.... however, I will run through it for you. Under the rule, if a character utilizes the skill set, specifically the spell set, of another character; and that character is not present and consenting to that utilization, it is in violation of the rules.

Hence.... using a tap like script in which the duration of the spell up is not watched/monitored by the original character casting the spells is in violation of the rules.

IF I am watching the spell up from the perception of the character doing the casting, I am not in violation of any rules....

thank you, I understand the rules....

[Ososis]

This may be outdated at this point but I recall reading an account of a FULLY RESPONSIVE tap bot getting a violation when the GM came in and tapped them for a spell up. The fact that the screen was watched did not make a difference. Not making any comment on if you can/should etc, just putting that out there.

[Gnomad]

Ok, it's a pretty easy rule to understand.... however, I will run through it for you. Under the rule, if a character utilizes the skill set, specifically the spell set, of another character; and that character is not present and consenting to that utilization, it is in violation of the rules.

Hence.... using a tap like script in which the duration of the spell up is not watched/monitored by the original character casting the spells is in violation of the rules.

IF I am watching the spell up from the perception of the character doing the casting, I am not in violation of any rules....

thank you, I understand the rules....

"The use of character "bots" that provide third parties an in-game advantage while being either responsive or unresponsive are strictly prohibited."

It's literally the third sentence in the scripting policy.

[Donquix]

i'm not sure why you think a tap bot, inherently, is against policy. It isn't any more than running almost any other script in the game. As long as you respond to interactions presented to you (aka script check) it is literally exactly the same as running bigshot, forgemaster or dozens of other things.

People were busted for running tap bots UNATTENDED, literally 24/7, sharing utility spellup bots/healers/etc. If you're running your owna nd respond, and just don't want to alt tab to get a spellup, that's not against policy as long as you do alt tab and respond if needed.

[BigWorm]

Anybody responsible enough to run a script like this probably already knows how to set it up.

[Donquix]

Anybody responsible enough to run a script like this probably already knows how to set it up.

I agree, but really that's their problem. Or will be.

[Viekn]

"The use of character "bots" that provide third parties an in-game advantage while being either responsive or unresponsive are strictly prohibited."

I think what the policy is meant to do is make these interactions more true to life and thus maintain immersion? If I walked up to you on the street and tapped you, should I expect that you'll tell me what time it is? No, I have to ask you. I would imagine that's probably the intent. You could though theoretically run it at a table and be responsive, but maybe GM's decided they didn't want to have to police that and just made a blanket rule against bots. Just my thoughts.

If it were meant solely to cut down on afk scripting, why include the "responsive" wording at all.

[Gnomad]

You could though theoretically run it at a table and be responsive, but maybe GM's decided they didn't want to have to police that and just made a blanket rule against bots. Just my thoughts.That is exactly what happened.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?32875-WHAT-THE-FUCK-ITZEL

[JNewhall]

The thread is from 2008. I think the GM was wrong then, but more to the point, the GMs public stance on responsive scripting has changed. For example, Wyrom has stated on the officials that they understand "Dreavenings" are a desired and good thing. It's run by a small army of bots. Hard to see them taking the same stance now.

[Viekn]

The thread is from 2008. I think the GM was wrong then, but more to the point, the GMs public stance on responsive scripting has changed. For example, Wyrom has stated on the officials that they understand "Dreavenings" are a desired and good thing. It's run by a small army of bots. Hard to see them taking the same stance now.

Yeah, I didn't read the whole 20+ pages, but it does seem like the GM was wrong based on 2008's wording of the policy being solely "unresponsive" and didn't have the "responsive verbiage". I could see how Dreavenings would come close to possible violations. But the Dreavening itself is a mass spellup organized and "actively" managed by Dreaven. He does use the "tap activator" for ancillary services like armor support, elemental edge, but he verbally tells people to tap "so and so" to get the service, so he's already made a verbal offer of the service instead of someone just going to a table or even a public room, no communication or whatever is exchanged, and you tap someone and automatically receive a service. That may be a thin line, but maybe that's where they draw it?

[Wyrom]

You don't need to be AFK. You're on Wyrom';s Naughty List now.

[Donquix]

Scripting enforcement has changed a lot since then. There was a really stupid push around at that time.

This was also about when multiple people (myself included) were issued or attempted to be issued warnings for "scripting" the forge. Because people would go afk during the 10 minute forge roundtimes on get tongs, and some GMs even mistook the passive ambient messaging that occurs as being caused by commands the "script" was issuing.

[Traelin]

I had a buddy who was berserking and was pulled into the consultation lounge because he couldn't respond when berserking.

[Wyrom]

I had a buddy who was berserking and was pulled into the consultation lounge because he couldn't respond when berserking.

Your buddy could have reported. And script checks aren't instant, they are 5 to 10 minutes long.

[Donquix]

Your buddy could have reported. And script checks aren't instant, they are 5 to 10 minutes long.

I have 100% been pulled into consultation by a staff member (no longer on staff) who sent 1 check, 5 seconds later pulled into lounge.

This was a day after I had a very vocal disagreement with them on the officials. After I called them on their bullshit it changed from "official warning" to "don't let it happen again" and they kicked me back out.

Like I said, things are better now.