Guild of Writers

As much as many people (me included) may dislike it, Cyan's stance on this is (and has always been) very clear: they will not publicly endorse hacking of Uru:CC. MOULa is ok; CC is not.

But this is still insane. All this could only happen because people DID hack CC and still do so. So even if we had some way to test MOUL ages without the need for CC hacking, it would still be neglecting the whole history that brought us here by *forbidding people to speak about it*. In the current situation, it's even more awkward of course. You can't have the present without the past, even if you do not like it. Every attempt to break this rule is rewriting history, and that's one of the worst things to do.

EDIT: Oh, I like the new forum header, thanks for it

Quoted from here.

Mystdee wrote:The new policies do not say that you can't link to the GoW or GoM or other website in general

the linking rule
VI. LINKS - Linking to webpages that break these forum policies for the purposes of getting around the forum policies is not allowed.

states that you should not link to a webpage, this basically means that you should not link to a specific post or topic in another forum or a blog entry on someone's site that specifically breaks the MOUL forum rules.

Ian Atrus wrote:What MystDee said: the rule is about single pages, not whole websites.

Note that the rule also specifies "for the purposes of getting around the forum policies", so there is also a matter of intention ("I know this topic is off limits here, but I made a post about it on my blog and I would like your opinion: [link]" "I can't link you to that page directly because it's against the rules, but follow this [link] then click the second link on the left, and then the second on the right to get there").

edit: and also, as others have said, Cyan never made explicit how much of the code will be made open source, but they *did* say the game assets would not be among it. Some game assets will be made available under a different license, for the purpose of making fan content.

RAWA wrote:Yeah, what Mystdee and Ian said.

Note: The mods and I have been in discussion about the new forum policies while they were being developed, and we're on the same page. If there is a question about the interpretations of the new policies, and a mod answers the question, please consider their answer to be the answer that I would give, because we're continuing to discuss these issues and others behind the scenes. That way, if there is a problem, I can post a clarification rather than posting "Yeah, that..." every time a question is answered.

Thanks!

I suspected people were blowing this way out of proportion.

So the question then is... If people ask "How can I test my age?", and we link them here, is that a violation of the terms?

Because the only way to test currently is using CC, I would say: "Yes, that link is bad according to those rules." As long as that's the case, we have an issue.

I’m thinking the answer Cyan is looking for is something like “There is no way to test your stuff right now till Cyan gives permission for a test server.”

Jamey wrote:Quoted from here.

<Several quotes ensue>

I suspected people were blowing this way out of proportion.

The specification that linking to the website in general had already been observed earlier in the thread. While Cyan's amendment to the rules will eventually be useful (and necessary), the effort to get the community to that step is still taboo. Saying that nothing has really changed yet doesn't seem so out of proportion given that the community's new "freedoms" are as-yet unusable.

If the effort to create a fully functional fan-run Uru is a deep well and the community is a person drowning in that well, Cyan's amendment is the installation of a few ladder rungs at the top of that well and a statement of "come on, reach!"

It's still not clear why URU hacking discussions are not allowed.

MOULa and URU are intertwined. URU begat MOUL, and MOUL/MOULa contains all the content of URU. Discussions about the internal workings of MOULa are nearly identical to that of URU, save for a few areas (e.g. URU used Havok, and MOULa uses PhysX).

As for the argument that mystonline.com can only be about MOULa, then why do they have an iMyst section?

I would prefer that Cyan relents on the issue of URU hacking and permits discussion - especially since that's currently the only way to test fan-created ages with the MAX plugin. Once they provide us a means to test ages in MOULa (either through a standalone client or providing us with server binaries so that we can host our ages), then I'll consider the issue to be moot, and I'll revert my avatar back to normal.

kaelisebonrai wrote: (this is based on the GoW Ki-Poster used in MOULagain) =D

GoW KI poster?

This is what I mean, Deledarius. =)

PaladinOfKaos wrote:So the question then is... If people ask "How can I test my age?", and we link them here, is that a violation of the terms?

No, as long as it only links to the site and not to a specific post.

Because the only way to test currently is using CC, I would say: "Yes, that link is bad according to those rules." As long as that's the case, we have an issue.

Robert The Rebuiler wrote:It's still not clear why URU hacking discussions are not allowed.

MOULa and URU are intertwined. URU begat MOUL, and MOUL/MOULa contains all the content of URU. Discussions about the internal workings of MOULa are nearly identical to that of URU, save for a few areas (e.g. URU used Havok, and MOULa uses PhysX).

Legalese. UBISoft has sole publishing rights to URU:CC, ABM, TPoTs. Cyan Cannot give the OK to hack those games. The only way around this is for Cyan to publish their own game. They have; MO:UL(+). They've also given permission to hack on THAT publication which is all they can do. All the whinging in the world is not going to get them to sanction hacks on URU:et.al. They'd be overstepping their bounds/authority in a big way. Legal suicide.

The only answer we have is to wait for test servers or modify Alcugs servers to be compatible with the MOUL client. Almost like starting from scratch, but probably easier than making a binary patch to make it stand-alone.

Except ubisoft does not.

the GoG.com version of Uru:CC does not mention Ubisoft as a publisher, and I shall assume its video's inclusion in the files is just due to not changing the files in the install.