Upcoming Updates 2018

[Sage Stoner]

Ingame moderators in 3DX were before my time so I have no direct experience of them, but if they were doing what has been written here, they weren't being real moderators. 

 

 

Right. Which is probably why things did not get appreciably worse when they left, and also why no one is suggesting that they be reinstated. 

 

On the other hand, there are many of us who know the whole history of 3DX. We know that in the early days almost all transgender players were closeted. We know that there were witch hunts to identify people's alts and which players were transgender. We also know that when some of us started to come out and acknowledge that we were transgender, there was also a certain amount of homophobic backlash. And we also know that the in-game moderators worked very hard to protect us at that time.

 

So even though the moderators made many bad decisions, they also did many good things. But, again, no one is suggesting that in-game moderation is a good idea.

[Twiggy]

But no one is suggesting that the in-game moderators be brought back.

 

What was suggested was that, just as I thought that things would go from bad to worse when the in-game moderators were removed back in the day, those who think that things will go from bad to worse when the account-wide ignore is removed are probably wrong, too.  

 

Yes I know that is what you meant, I didn't say otherwise.

What I am saying is that the comparison you are making is not the same.

Loosing the moderators had as many pluses as it did minuses, maybe even more.

Loosing the full iggy, where are the pluses.

And before you say it allows Pandora to be battled, I am sure many will agree now there are other ways that can be done.

But as I did point out in my previous post, for some there will be pluses, which is what creates the minuses for the rest of us.

[Twiggy]

Hmm, witch hunts, it's funny how that is always brought up in these discussions.

Perhaps that is because it is really the main thing some are interested in stopping, even though it will mean it gives players the ability to do what ever they want on alts.

I can say there what has been said to us that do not want to see the full iggy go.

If you have been the victim of a witch hunt, can't you just report it.

Like some are saying, with getting harassed, stalked, bullies, manipulated, cheated on, crowded, or lied about by an alt we don't know and can't identify, the answer is to report it.

Wouldn't that then be the same for people who have been caught up in a witch hunt and wrongly accused.

Like it is not like they are being burnt at the stake, hell it is just a game remember.

 

Having said all that I do see there is a problem for transgenders in the game, where there are people who are constantly looking for them.

But that is going to happen no matter what.

So for those who consider it to be just a game, well that can be applied to both sides of the argument.

And for those who think that report is the answer, again that can be applied to both sides of the argument.

My opinion, for either side, it is not just a game and report does not solve the problem.

[AceXx]

Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote. So let me rephrase "because as capricious as it was, it also kept down some of the homophobia and misogyny that was rampant back in late 2013."

 

Even though the in-game moderators caused almost as much drama as they prevented, they helped make 3DX safe for people of all sexual identities, which was important back in late 2013. 

 

Frankly, reading what you wrote, you sound exactly like the kind of player who thinks that drama is always someone else's fault.

 

''That kind of player'' bro i know when i cause drama aka i know when its myself and when its others, so don't come here and tell what kind of player i am, because i'm not that kind of player you think i am right there.

 

Anyway this place aint the place to talk about who is what and such.

 

To be honest i don't know what to think of the iggy system since i barely use it anyway.

I'm just happy that something is happening content wise cause it sure as hell is getting dry like a desert in 3dx

[THX]

I think that as far as moderators go it might be best if they were not part of the community, also it sounds like they just had to much power maybe all they should be able to do is boot or ban people from WC for 24 hours and if that was all they could do I think it might help.

 

 

When you look at the oldest large worlds, the mods with power are paid company employees. They have in world volunteers who enforce the rules, but don't have ban powers. only kick and make record of the incident and let the World Ops make the ban decisions based on company policy and accumulated evidence..

[Halderim]

3dx mods in a nutshell:

 

- user with a lot of online time was chosen to get the mod status 

- user uses its own rules in the game 

- abuses his power in the opinion of many players

- user looses its power and leaves the game 

 

The situation was not better because of mods. Nearly no one did know why this one user was elected as a moderator and the thing was the user could choose other users to be mods too.

 

Does this game need mods, no it does not.

Does this game need a working support/community manager with fast reaction times, oh yes more than anything else

 

I dont know what gizmos position is in the company SexGameDevil, developer, support, ceo, cto? As a developer you never speak directly to the community. 

I know what I am talking about I was in the same position years ago.

 

Thats the job of a community manager, he speaks to the community discusses with the users supports them shows new patches and so on. He is the gateway between the devs and the rest of the company and the community.

 

If you want to make a customer happy keep them informed and react quickly to their needs!

 

This thread shows it very well why. Sure we all have different opinions on this but there is one thing we all miss, we don't know why! 

 

Why will the iggy be back to ava only? What changed on the server side at all? What is the roadmap for this game? And so on. 

Response times are so slow on all those questions and gizmo has for sure better things to do then keep this forum up to date.

 

I am a paying customer for a product that is for my entertainment only sure but I pay for it because I like it but in the past year so many things didn't happen. 

 

To the staff of this game, please work on your communication to this community. That should be your main priority right now.

 

IMHO

[JessicaX]

One thing people are forgetting is the likelihood of people wanting to let go of an account to create another one in order to harass people. if someone has an AVI with 800 gifts and a big friend list, that person will be much less likely to delete an account altogether and move to a new account. Yes they can still create another account and if they are caught again harassing people and get iggied, then there goes that and they must open a new account and try again. 

Of course it can never be taken care of completely, but removing account wide ignore technically makes ignore useless. It is very easy to just keep making new avis to harass someone who has made very clear they no longer want any sort of contact with a certain person. This is especially true with the example above. Not only will the problem be worse, it will in effect, tempt others do use alts in ways they wouldn't have before in fear of people finding out.

 

It is possible to keep account-wide ignore and also block Pandora and that is what the devs should be focusing on.  Not taking the easiest route, because removing account-wide ignore to block Pandora only solves one problem while creating a different problem.

 

If we were faced with a choice to get rid of both or keep both, I would vote to keep both. I don't really mind them blocking Pandora, in fact I do think it should be taken care of,  but I don't think it's worth the cost of losing account-wide ignore for many obvious reasons. I still have yet to see 1 single argument in how single avi ignore is better than account wide ignore, and It's also quite telling that more people aren't pushing for the option of keeping account-wide ignore and blocking Pandora. 

[llTonyll]

Gizmo! Where's the update!! XD

[Halderim]

One thing people are forgetting is the likelihood of people wanting to let go of an account to create another one in order to harass people. if someone has an AVI with 800 gifts and a big friend list, that person will be much less likely to delete an account altogether and move to a new account. Yes they can still create another account and if they are caught again harassing people and get iggied, then there goes that and they must open a new account and try again. 

 

Of course it can never be taken care of completely, but removing account wide ignore technically makes ignore useless. It is very easy to just keep making new avis to harass someone who has made very clear they no longer want any sort of contact with a certain person. This is especially true with the example above. Not only will the problem be worse, it will in effect, tempt others do use alts in ways they wouldn't have before in fear of people finding out.

 

It is possible to keep account-wide ignore and also block Pandora and that is what the devs should be focusing on.  Not taking the easiest route, because removing account-wide ignore to block Pandora only solves one problem while creating a different problem.

 

If we were faced with a choice to get rid of both or keep both, I would vote to keep both. I don't really mind them blocking Pandora, in fact I do think it should be taken care of,  but I don't think it's worth the cost of losing account-wide ignore for many obvious reasons. I still have yet to see 1 single argument in how single avi ignore is better than account wide ignore, and It's also quite telling that more people aren't pushing for the option of keeping account-wide ignore and blocking Pandora. 

 

The thing is you dont know how the server works ... you dont know what is is doing in the background to provide all the functions. The thing is you can read the data that is send from the server to the client and the other way round. That is normal in any multiplayer game out there. Thats why modding and hacking even works because the client is doing all the stuff and sends it to the server. 

 

As soon as you block a account instead of a single ava your client needs to know which account and which avatars are blocked. The client decides if the avatar then is shown to you or not. This information can be seen in the memory of the client or on the communication between server and client. Its not possible to hide that info. Sure you can encrypt the communication but as soon as the client decrypts the data its in the memory and then readable.

 

As long as there is a connection between the account and the avatar in this way you can collect the needed data to provide a service like Pandora. 

 

If you only block the ava with is unique ID there is no reference needed to the account and you can't see what other avas are behind this account.

[Niblette]

Exactly people think that the server is doing much more then it really is in 3DX. From what I have heard from people who have looked at the code is it works closer to peer to peer then client server. Its not even clear the server is involved at all in somethings, which is likely why they can't detect Pandora right now.

[chloe]

The thing is you dont know how the server works ... you dont know what is is doing in the background to provide all the functions. The thing is you can read the data that is send from the server to the client and the other way round. That is normal in any multiplayer game out there. Thats why modding and hacking even works because the client is doing all the stuff and sends it to the server. 

 

As soon as you block a account instead of a single ava your client needs to know which account and which avatars are blocked. The client decides if the avatar then is shown to you or not. This information can be seen in the memory of the client or on the communication between server and client. Its not possible to hide that info. Sure you can encrypt the communication but as soon as the client decrypts the data its in the memory and then readable.

 

As long as there is a connection between the account and the avatar in this way you can collect the needed data to provide a service like Pandora. 

 

If you only block the ava with is unique ID there is no reference needed to the account and you can't see what other avas are behind this account.

 

Exactly people think that the server is doing much more then it really is in 3DX. From what I have heard from people who have looked at the code is it works closer to peer to peer then client server. Its not even clear the server is involved at all in somethings, which is likely why they can't detect Pandora right now.

 

 

Right now the client is doing the filtering that's why the Account ID gets send with every action another avatar is doing. But the server already does some filtering too. They needed to do so to disable older hacks, like placing flower bombs and so on. It is possible to do the account wide blocking server side. The question is if the developer want to do it or not.

 

 

Edit: I did looked into the code ^^

[Halderim]

The codebase for client is as old as 2013 or 2014 same goes for the server and the database behind this. Sure you can change all this but it will take some time to do so. And that is happening right now with the new server. 

 

That's the reason why I said we don't know what the server is doing at the moment. Is it really filtering in any way or is this just an assumption? I looked into the code myself and that's why I know that the client gets everything and does most of this stuff. 

 

Again this is normal in nearly all big games today ... look at those big AAA games like Battlefield. All the stuff is happening on the client not the server so you don't need a big server for hosting a game. The more you do on the server the bigger the hardware needs to be under the hood and you need to constantly upgrade the hardware.

 

We did see what happens when the amount of users in the game grows larger after the streaming on Plexstorm started. 

 

More server side functions means more load on the hardware there are pros and cons for anything. Doing the blocking on the client has one big pro. You send once all the data needed to the client and the server is done. The downside is you can manipulate the Client and with no cheat protection on the client side there is no way to do something about it.

 

And we all don't want any cheat protection because all the DLL modding would be gone instantly with this and I don't know anyone who would really like that after all. 

 

PS: What the server needs is some kind of protection against request from outside of the game. 

[Twiggy]

If they do it this way, where all the avis have a different ID, then they have to send the info on each avi that is blocked, I understand that, and each avi willhave a different ID.

Doing that stops Pandora from being able to link them together.

But, as I explained in my thread, if the work is done at the server end to find which avis are to be blocked, keeping a full account iggy is still possible, even if the IDs are made different for every avi.

Somewhere, my guess would be at the server end, accounts will still need to clarify which avis belong to which account, even if all the avis have a different ID.

So give them all a different ID, never send the account ID between the server and the clients.

But it is still very possible to link all the avis on an account at the server and still only send back the new avi IDs for each avi only.

So full account blocks are still very possible.

I think it was Niblette that pointed that out in my thread, that it doesn't matter if they assign different IDs for each avi, it is still possible to have the full account iggy and keep that info from getting to Pandora.

[Twiggy]

If they must do this, then something needs to be done to at least slow the amount of alts people will create.

It also needs to be that when a report is made on an alt, the punishment still goes to the account and not just the one avi.

Something needs to be put in so as people don't go nuts making alts to do things that can inflict on other peoples games.

Because if it is known that it is very unlikely you can be caught out, then lots will do it.

If they make it so when you create an alt you cannot delete it for say 30 days, that would help.

If they also make it so if you report an alt and it is found guilty as charged, then the reporter gets a list of the other avis on that account, that would also help.

We most definitely need more protection than only being able to iggy a single avi that can then be deleted and replaced.

[THX]

Full account blocks are indeed possible. We know this because most if not all of the big game companies like Valve/Steam, EA, Epic, etc. have them and they can be extremely effective.

 

Not sure of any major Unity based games offhand along those levels.

[Wizard]

Maybe you don't need to live your nolifer life and give sensual info in a computer game then the whole ignore system development would not needed that much development time and development time could be used to something more useful stuff. It's funny that the top thing discussed in this game is the ignore system drama all the time.

 

I miss the old times when 3 avis were a free stuff, but thanks to nolifer dramaqueens it's not possible now.

[Halderim]

If they do it this way, where all the avis have a different ID, then they have to send the info on each avi that is blocked, I understand that, and each avi willhave a different ID.

Doing that stops Pandora from being able to link them together.

But, as I explained in my thread, if the work is done at the server end to find which avis are to be blocked, keeping a full account iggy is still possible, even if the IDs are made different for every avi.

Somewhere, my guess would be at the server end, accounts will still need to clarify which avis belong to which account, even if all the avis have a different ID.

So give them all a different ID, never send the account ID between the server and the clients.

But it is still very possible to link all the avis on an account at the server and still only send back the new avi IDs for each avi only.

So full account blocks are still very possible.

I think it was Niblette that pointed that out in my thread, that it doesn't matter if they assign different IDs for each avi, it is still possible to have the full account iggy and keep that info from getting to Pandora.

Yes it is possible to provide a account wide block when you switch from a client side block to a full server side block. We don't know what is the functionality of the new server. And it is something that needs time to be implemented into the game. Time we would like to see spend on new function like pose editor and more.

 

If they must do this, then something needs to be done to at least slow the amount of alts people will create.

It also needs to be that when a report is made on an alt, the punishment still goes to the account and not just the one avi.

Something needs to be put in so as people don't go nuts making alts to do things that can inflict on other peoples games.

Because if it is known that it is very unlikely you can be caught out, then lots will do it.

If they make it so when you create an alt you cannot delete it for say 30 days, that would help.

If they also make it so if you report an alt and it is found guilty as charged, then the reporter gets a list of the other avis on that account, that would also help.

We most definitely need more protection than only being able to iggy a single avi that can then be deleted and replaced.

 

That's what I said in a post too. We need a fast and working support or community manager that does this things. Providing a list of alts this user has won't even help in any way. 

 

If the provider of this service sends out any personal data and my account data, avatars are part of my account, is more or less personal data and I as a citizen of EU could claim a strike on him for not following the rules of the GDPR. 

 

Sure this won't happen it would be way over the top at all but I could and I bet if something like this would ever happen in a game they could shut down after a while because no one will trust them. 

 

I am on your side when it comes to harassment, this is nothing that belongs to a game, any game. And someone who is doing this should be banned completely from the game. 

 

 

Full account blocks are indeed possible. We know this because most if not all of the big game companies like Valve/Steam, EA, Epic, etc. have them and they can be extremely effective.

 

Not sure of any major Unity based games offhand along those levels.

 

All this is done by the companies not the user. If a game provides a block/ignore function its most likely a single avatar ignore not a account block. Games where you can have more then one avatar like mmorpgs you cant even block a avatar you can just mute or ignore chat massages from this avatar. And the provider of the game gives you only one tool to do something about a account you can report them. 

 

In online FPS games you cant even mute the chat messages of a user you can only report that person and if he really did something against the rules the account is banned from the service. 

[THX]

Actually that isn't correct.

 

There are tools that create account bans under the company level also.

 

Some of these serverside account bans have existed since Unreal 2004.

 

Edit: in addition, it is possible to create not only account based ignores, it is also possible to create ignores/bans that get additional created accounts - not just profiles, with a high level of efficacy.

 

The real question here is desire to do so and ability.

[Halderim]

You are talking about a single server ban in a multi server environment.

 

If a user could block another user in a FPS that would be ... silly. 

 

If you host a game server in Battlefield/Counter Strike for example I can ban a person from my server sure. I could provide tools as the admin so users could vote for a ban or kick of a user sure but I can't ban or kick a user as a simple user and you can't ban a player from the whole game(every server) that's only something the company behind the game can provide when they use for example something like VAC (Valve Anti-Cheat)

[THX]

You are talking about a single server ban in a multi server environment.

 

If a user could block another user in a FPS that would be ... silly.

 

If you host a game server in Battlefield/Counter Strike for example I can ban a person from my server sure. I could provide tools as the admin so users could vote for a ban or kick of a user sure but I can't ban or kick a user as a simple user and you can't ban a player from the whole game(every server) that's only something the company behind the game can provide when they use for example something like VAC (Valve Anti-Cheat)

No I am not.

 

They work below that level and are game specific. Not company wide effecting every game a person may have.

 

I think I should add, there are ways to ban/Iggy with an account ID - like VAC for example, that if I had multiple servers connected to steam, I can ban specifically you from all my servers, but you could join someone elses.

 

Additionally, there is a level above that but below the company across platform ban where I can use a mod that I and other server owners band together. If one of us bans you, then you are banned from all participating hosts.

 

Now if that isnt kewl enough, you could add scanners that look for hacks on the client side that can be set to scan at random times to catch those who try and turn cheats on and off. I believe, one mod from back in 2007 took some of your puters hardware into consideration.

 

As I said, it's not a question of 'can it be done,' it's more a question of ability and will to do it.

[Halderim]

No I am not.

 

They work below that level and are game specific. Not company wide effecting every game a person may have.

 

I am not talking about a company wide ban that would mean I was banned from Steam/Origin or Uplay or whatever the service the company uses is called. 

I am saying you as server admin of a single server in a single game like Battlefield or Counter Strike for example can not ban a player from every server in this single game. 

 

If we had that feature you could say I can kick/ban you from my room but I cant ban you from 3dx. 

 

There was never a game where a server admin had such power. As long as you are not a member of the game company you cant do such things.

 

in response to your addition: 

How can you ban a single person with multi accounts? I buy the game again create a new account and then you can go on playing. Banning an IP does not help because after 24 hours I get a new one. Ban an email well no the old one is already in use I cant create a new account with the same email. You can't ban a person completely from a game. That's what all those hackers in AAA Games do.

[THX]

I am not talking about a company wide ban that would mean I was banned from Steam/Origin or Uplay or whatever the service the company uses is called.

I am saying you as server admin of a single server in a single game like Battlefield or Counter Strike for example can not ban a player from every server in this single game.

 

If we had that feature you could say I can kick/ban you from my room but I cant ban you from 3dx.

 

There was never a game where a server admin had such power. As long as you are not a member of the game company you cant do such things.

 

in response to your addition:

How can you ban a single person with multi accounts? I buy the game again create a new account and then you can go on playing. Banning an IP does not help because after 24 hours I get a new one. Ban an email well no the old one is already in use I cant create a new account with the same email. You can't ban a person completely from a game. That's what all those hackers in AAA Games do.

 

 

See above. I added this to my last message.

 

And yes, these have existed since around at least 2007.

[Halderim]

You say there are account ban made possible by tools ... what tools are you talking about? 

 

Do you mean those anti cheat networks that are 3rd party software you can install on a gameserver with some database in the background and as soon as you are banned from the server you cant connect to any server that uses this network too?

[Aliviax]

If they do it this way, where all the avis have a different ID, then they have to send the info on each avi that is blocked, I understand that, and each avi willhave a different ID.

Doing that stops Pandora from being able to link them together.

But, as I explained in my thread, if the work is done at the server end to find which avis are to be blocked, keeping a full account iggy is still possible, even if the IDs are made different for every avi.

Somewhere, my guess would be at the server end, accounts will still need to clarify which avis belong to which account, even if all the avis have a different ID.

So give them all a different ID, never send the account ID between the server and the clients.

But it is still very possible to link all the avis on an account at the server and still only send back the new avi IDs for each avi only.

So full account blocks are still very possible.

I think it was Niblette that pointed that out in my thread, that it doesn't matter if they assign different IDs for each avi, it is still possible to have the full account iggy and keep that info from getting to Pandora.

maybe they cant we dont know how game is build n what can or cant do 

[SamanthaSweetheart]

Maybe you don't need to live your nolifer life and give sensual info in a computer game then the whole ignore system development would not needed that much development time and development time could be used to something more useful stuff. It's funny that the top thing discussed in this game is the ignore system drama all the time.

 

I miss the old times when 3 avis were a free stuff, but thanks to nolifer dramaqueens it's not possible now.

I liked your comment Wizard because it makes a lot of sense when you really boil things down to the real issue here. People gave out sensitive material when they know they shouldn't have, and now, they're all up in arms about it.

 

Watch how they react after they read this, and there you will have, in a glaring spotlight, your 3DXChat drama queens. Watch how they quote this and try to reason, beyond a *shadow* of a doubt, why account wide ignore should be left in, and Pandora be left in as well. It's almost as if the people who are being extremely vocal about Pandora not being gone, have something to do with how it was created.

 

The more select individuals defend Pandora, the more I start to suspect these individuals either having created it or *having* been involved in its creation somehow; or these people having a large claim staked to the program as far as money is concerned. Why else would you champion that cause unless you had something to do with it?

 

And really, three avatars is possible again without people spying on you with Paranoi-ra anymore. It's sucks avatars can't be free anymore, but I guess you have to give a little bit away in order to have some form of stability when it comes to two or three people abusing the avatar change system.

 

I'm glad Pandora is gone. Those who aren't, are suspect.

Edited August 4, 2018 by SamanthaSweetheart