TheLawRich

Also, I forgot to say - sorry about this. It’s corrected now but I’m sorry it was so disruptive.

No problem. It seems often mistaken elsewhere, so I wanted to clarify.

No, it’s not. We don’t ban automatically on reports (this has been said before, but repeating for emphasis).

Hi -

I’m releasing your ban. There were many people who reported you (with your gold seller line), so it seems you’re very popular on your server. With your explanation there is enough context to say you weren’t actually trying to sell - although many people on your server apparently thought you were. This was not an automatic ban.

We actually have a lengthy discussion on this, but haven’t posted it yet. We’ll clear up things with that post, hopefully tomorrow.

But I can tell you no one has been banned for an Overwolf minimap unless a mistake was made. This is not a promise that all existing minimaps will forever be ok, because their functionality could change over time in ways we can’t even anticipate right now. We’ll describe (hopefully with full clarity) what is ok in that upcoming post. Sorry, I know I’m running the risk of sounding like passing the buck, but it’s important to be precise about such things and we worked to make that post precise, so it’s better than any off the cuff response I would make.

But if we considered a minimap bannable, we would warn first before taking any account actions.

We have banned no one that I know of (barring a mistake, there are humans involved, please let me know if you think this happened to you) for using Overwolf with minimaps that are currently available and use only position of the character.

There have been suspensions the last few days around macro use, but those don’t come from Overwolf. And bans for many other things, not related to Overwolf.

If we found a need to disable Overwolf, we have that option via EAC. We’d do that first.

Also it’s creepy that you folks can see me typing.

I’m not going to go through all the math because I would probably be fabulously wrong on some of the modifiers - but I can say resilience needs some further adjustment against crits and we’re not done with changes there.

Of course - it’s easy to find on Steam for those curious, so not a secret.

The potential issue here is being whitelisted by EAC - we have a choice to do that or not, so we COULD turn it off. And what we have to determine is whether a significant number of people would think this was an unfair advantage over them.

And yes, there are monitors that do simple reticles in the center of the frame, but it’s pretty easy to say those can’t be enhanced for a specific game, since they are in the firmware of the monitor and know nothing about the game they are running. If you were really dedicated I suppose you could just draw on your screen - I dont think we can disallow sharpies =).

It’s a good point, we should message that particular issue further. Will look into ways to do that (one of the intro tiles maybe). We’re very aware the forums audience is a small but really passionate group of people, as you say. On the other hand anything we say here tends to be amplified by that passionate group to other venues.

It’s definitely client. The server really knows nothing about textures for instance (which isn’t unusual). Somehow your clients are convinced they are either constrained (on load time, memory, availability of GPU resources) or they feel they are further away from objects than they actually are. Given some of the machines mentioned in the thread, it doesn’t make sense they would be constrained - so that’s likely the bug.

Thanks for asking. Can you show me the reticle app you are looking at? This is a tricky subject and some people in the audience might consider it an advantage. So the idea on this kind of thing is it’s easily available to everybody or it shouldn’t happen.

But again, thank you for thinking ahead and being open about it, I appreciate that.

Hey folks - I apologize, but this change did not actually make it into the 1.05 patch. My mistake in thinking it was in, we were testing it at the time and I didn’t realize we weren’t done. So it’s aimed at an upcoming patch, once I know for sure it’s coming out i’ll update this thread or post.

To be clear, people were hard at work on this the entire time (that weren’t me). I just stumbled in at the end and apparently ended up with the credit

Yes, it’s a good suggestion - will add it to our set of things to do here.

No, sorry - apparently my wording was poor. We aren’t lowering the yield in game for an actual player. We’re changing the pace of acquiring gold early to lower yield for quick cycle bots. The net gain to a player will be the same. And this is just one step of many.

Lots going on with this behind the scenes. We’ve actually banned a large number of them, I can’t be very specific because that would indicate some of what we are doing. The upcoming patch has many more steps here, and we’ll ban them in the meantime. Our goal is to make it unrewarding/low yield. Bans are just a temporary thing along that path.

The first thing I would say is I would like to understand the circumstances of a 50 meter displacement please, I’d want that fixed. But, I can tell you the server wanted you there, possibly in error, but it wasn’t the client saying so. The client predicts where it might go, but then asks the server and the server does the movement, not trusting the client.

As for the falling issue, I’ve described elsewhere in this thread why that was happening, and the (server only) patch f...

For the people experiencing this, if you are on “very high” graphical settings, can you please try “high” instead and see if it makes a positive difference. There is a change in the next patch that should help the people who see this problem, but in the meantime changing the setting to high might also help - our high textures are actually “high” btw, and our very high are really very high, so high can still look good on 4K screen even.

Ok, that’s interesting and useful information. It’s consistent with the distance compute itself being wrong (or measured against the wrong value) instead of some blocking issue like lack of memory or time to load. But should help us look at it, thanks.

I mean that the people who were affected by having contracts complete while they were offline, were fixed - although there are questions here whether everyone got the right amount of gold, so we’ll look into that to see.

A large number of people had this problem, so we did an emergency patch to resolve it and enable them to transfer as well. There are a smaller number of people that still have a similar issue, but those were not resolved with this patch - we knew that would be the case and continue to work on the best resolution for them that doesn’t risk loss/broken trades.