"xxx has fled!
xxx leaves east.

--> your trigger does e "

Is this kind of trigger illegal? Why or why not?

Generally we're against them and have intervened where we've seen them; that being said, they're nontrivial to police, and usually when players pray complaining about them we can see that they're mistaken.

I have to admit, I've toyed with the idea of setting up a trigger to record the flee direction in order to use it in an alias. Thus far I've abstained. And yet, I've had people both directly and indirectly accuse me in-game of using chase triggers.

Edit: I do use triggers for near-zero-lag things like detect hidden, acute vision, etc. I've also used them to practice things like hide and sneak.

... people think you're using triggers.

As mace or whip spec you can be real nasty, since (at least with whips) your oponent only gets 1 command before you get your next. And because of dash you get two commands in a row right after.

So, when he gets his flee command you get dash east cranial @target or dash east lash @target.

Making it virtually impossible to escape. I made great use of that as Iegob and people were SO pissed and were certain I had chase triggers. (Against sneakers I always just took a chance and dashed in one direction, which payed off a few times.)

TRIGGERS
A trigger is a function of a MUD client that provides an automatic response to
a specific text input you receive on your screen. An example of a trigger
would be receiving the line "You are hungry." from the MUD, and your client
*** YOU ARE HUNGRY! ***
immediately, without input from you, returns "get bread sack;eat bread".
Since a trigger fires with no input from the player, using one can be
dangerous if it goes off at an inopportune time. Using the above example,
were that to go off while you were in the middle of a fight or running
desperately from a gang of enemies, it could very well cause your death.

Using triggers is up to you, however using groups of triggers to automate all
or a part of your character is called botting, and can be against the rules.
See the helpfiles on 'rules' and 'botting' for more information. Since
triggers are not handled by the MUD itself, you will need to refer to the
documentation that came with your client to learn more.

See also: RULES
BOTTING
MACRO

AND


* Do not exploit Out-of-Character (OOC) mechanisms to create an advantage in
the game. This includes cutting link or quitting to avoid consequences.


* Using automation to play for you is not permitted. See BOTTING.


I'd say that that trigger CAN give you an OOC advantage, AND it is automation.
All though having tested them on different MUDs and CF I'd say that they're very rarely an advantage.

But my take on it is that they are forbidden.

Well, they aren't all forbidden. It explicitly says "Using triggers is up to you, however using groups of triggers to automate all
or a part of your character is called botting, and can be against the rules. "

It's a judgement call the staff will make, pretty obviously.

Imho, that chase trigger is not illegal at all according to the letter of the rule.

You're not going to be able to get a hard and fast rule about what is or is not legal as a chase triggers, considering that at some point you'll reach a question where it's just not clear. Here's a few example of things that might be considered illegal (all of them are assumed to trigger off of target fleeing east) :

Here's the most illegal, imho

if (in-depth logic) go in chase direction
if (complex logic) initiate combat with specific attack

This is basically the most complex they can get, and is almost certainly considered botting. People who think triggers will get you in trouble are assuming the triggers are basically dumb, but there's no reason to think that. A trigger can have access to all the information you have, possibly more. It can be location aware and chase only if it's safe, it can be situationly aware and not chase if the outcome of the last chase was bad. There's no reason whatsoever the trigger should be at all stupid. Will most people make a trigger like this? No, but it's not even hard if you're a programmer, which some of us are.

Here's the least illegal:
HIGHLIGHT direction

It takes no action at all, just points the way. Nobody would say this is illegal.

A step up from that:
set variable to that direction

Still takes no action, but now you can use that variable to automatically go in the right direction.

A step up from that:
Set a variable and put the text in your prompt

Now all you have to do is press enter to chase

A step up from that:
sets a variable and start a time to go in that direction unless it's cancell, and puts a cancel text into your prompt

Now if you *don't* press enter before some short time elapses, you will move. This may actually have a longer lagtime than the one that wouldn't go automatically.

Etc...

Most people think chase triggers are unfair, but it's very hard to pinpoint the moment when it goes from being a fair advantage (a highlight) to an unfair advantage (fully intelligent chasing).

And it's foolish to say "let them bot" because the fact is that bots are better at complex action games than people much of the time. I guarantee I can write a bot that is better at PK tactics than I am, but I'm not that good. Can I write a bot better than nep's tactics? I dunno... maybe not, because I don't know the game as well. But any knowledge I have about the game I could put into a bot. Also remember that on CF PK is more than tactics. There's also strategy, gearing, etc (though a bot could be perfectly good at that too). The only thing a bot can't do better is roleplay, imho.

You go on to say "I guarantee I can write a bot that is better at PK tactics than I am, but I'm not that good."

This looks like a serious contradiction. Since you haven't done it, you can only assume but instead of assuming you 'guarantee'. Let me just say
that you have a fairly naive view of the whole process. Writing bots for imperfect information games lke CF where it is hard to come up with a Nash equilibrium (google it) is a LONG way from trivial or easy and a huge undertaking taking into account the vast number of class/race/abilities/strategy combinations that are in the game.

You could create a fairly basic bot pretty quick that could do basic PK,
but as soon as ppl figured it out (and they would after fighting it lots of times) they'd tear it to pieces.

>This looks like a serious contradiction. Since you haven't
>done it, you can only assume but instead of assuming you
>'guarantee'.

There's a lot of what makes me not-so-great at PK that a bot would inherently be better at. Reaction times, navigation, noticing things (spells dropping or about to drop, etc). Then there's a set of stuff that I could never do that a bot could, like determining within a narrow range someone's hit points. Or calculator exactly how much I have to drop someone's str given their current eq in order to make them drop a weapon.

Would it take a long time to create a really good CF bot? Sure. Especially a finesse build. But I would bet that if I could spend a year developing a bot it would be much better than me. There may be a huge number of combinations, but that stuff is easy to enter, and there's broad similarities you're looking for.

And yeah, some people would be able to ream it by capitalizing on its predictability, but like I said, I'm not particularly good at pk anyhow, so the bot doesn't have that far to go to be better.

...that in Splintrd's example (the example that caused the ####storm on Dio's), having your client follow your target in a given direction actually turns your character into a bot for that instant?

It is illegal. Anyone who uses triggers to chase is allowing their character to temporarily bot so that they can gain a PK advantage (likely because their skills suck to much to do otherwise.)

I think it would be perfectly appropriate for the Imms, when they spot these people, to deny their character. Or they could be particularly evil and code up something that echoes them false messages to trigger their crap in the midst of combat. Now THAT would be funny.

nt