• 2961 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 11306 Players Online
  • 8345 Players on Bedrock
  • pe.mineplex.com
!
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

Mount skins violate the EULA

Discussion in 'Clans' started by LordOfTeeth, Apr 9, 2020.

  1. As we all know, Mineplex 100% respects Mojangs EULA *cough*Immortal rank*cough*. However, some of the mount skins available in the clans shop (Cow, sheep, rainbow sheep, cake, and melon) violate the EULA. While the mount skins are cosmetic, their hitboxes aren't. Due to mounts being so overpowered in the tank meta, being able to stay on your mount to pvp is a huge advantage. Being hit can cause you to be kicked off of you mount, so being able to avoid getting hit is therefore an advantage. The smaller hitboxes given by certain mounts allow for players to avoid getting hit, and while it's a small advantage, it's an advantage. A simple fix would be to just change the hitboxes of the smaller mounts to that of a horse.
     
    Posted Apr 9, 2020
    kznny likes this.
  2. I mean they are paying for the mount skin, so I think they should have the advantage, to be honest. I have the rainbow sheep mount and I love the perks of having maxed jump when clicking space once. Also, about the hitbox, people usually hit the body and not the mount.
     
    Posted Apr 10, 2020
  3. So sheep mount gives the user maxed jump? That also seems kinda against the EULA.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Apr 10, 2020
    tamman and kznny like this.
  4. It's an icky situation, to be honest. Mineplex did not try to violate the EULA when they made mounts, though. They were actually very careful not to. The idea behind mount skins was adding a line of cosmetics to Clans that don't affect the gameplay. Whereas the rest of Mineplex has prefixes, gadgets, mounts, cosmetics, etc. Mineplex Clans had nothin' but banners and rune amps going for it (at the time). Skins were a great idea, and still are. But yes, those dreadful hitboxes. The problem is, Mineplex is in an icky stituation in the present too. They can't simply remove those cosmetics. People paid for them.

    That's why your suggestion is the best (in theory). Changing the hitboxes to match solves the problem. +1
    Comparitively to the horse, a sheep is shorter, but gets the same jump amount, so it technically does jump higher, but not really.

    Regards,
    Isaac.
     
    Posted Apr 10, 2020
    ShipshapeMC likes this.
  5. Sadly, the EULA breakers mean almost nothing to Mojang. Making rules is one thing, enforcing them is another. Not something Mojang feels fit to do, unless it is a really big problem. Many other servers violate the EULA, but again, Mojang doesn't see fit to fix it.
     
    Posted Apr 11, 2020
    LordOfTeeth and tamman like this.
  6. I'm pretty sure pay-to-win is against the EULA.
     
    Posted Apr 11, 2020
  7. I mean very careful isn't that careful. All someone had to do was realize a cake is not the same size as a horse. And the fact that you have to say that this violation is accidental implies that some other additions to the game were *cough*I m m o r t a l R a n k*cough*.
    (also supply drop)
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Apr 11, 2020
    tamman likes this.
  8. Not necessarily; doesn’t imply that, and supply drops do not break the Eula :)
     
    Posted Apr 11, 2020
  9. While "all players" are technically able to get the loot from it, it's easy to abuse and buy tons of supply drops and use them when no one's online. You shouldn't be able to buy legends and rares (or anything) for IRL money without doing anything in-game to deserve them.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Apr 11, 2020
    Fallen™ likes this.
  10. You aren't really winning by getting a mount skin. Plus, if you played other prison, factions, or skyblock servers before, it's totally pay to win.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2020
    tamman likes this.
  11. Yes but since Minplex is an official Mojang partner, it could reflect worsely on them then other servers.
     
    Posted Apr 12, 2020
  12. While it's not technically "pay to win", you are paying to get an advantage over other players, which isn't allowed in the EULA. Just because other servers do it, doesn't mean that mineplex should. If people assume that the EULA doesn't have to be followed, who can say where mineplex will stop, clans could end up being 100% pay to win.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Apr 13, 2020
  13. I hope you realize that Mojang probably already knows about this and probably knows about immortal. Mineplex is a big server and partnered with Mojang, so I'm sure that if Mojang believes something is wrong, they'd do something about it. Mount skins have been a thing for soon to be 3 years.
     
    Posted Apr 13, 2020
  14. Mojang has not said that they're no longer enforcing the EULA, meaning it's still in effect. Even if they don't enforce it, the main principle of the EULA is that people can't pay IRL money to gain an advantage, something that mount skins technically have been doing, along with the Immortal rank and supply drops.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Apr 13, 2020
  15. Considering how many complaints immortal got when it first came out, you can assume Mojang already knows about it and has done nothing so far. Supply drops are not close to pay to win since it isn't a guaranteed legend. I don't really get how mount skins are a huge advantage that you came to complain besides the hitbox when the hitbox is really huge since hitting the person on the mount affects the mount at the same time.
     
    Posted Apr 13, 2020
  16. The fact that Mojang knows or doesn't know about Immortal rank doesn't matter, it'd violates the EULA. Supply drops are pay to win, it doesn't matter if they drop legends, rares, or even normal armor. You pay to have in game items summoned to fields, and since there's no cool down, online player requirement, or time constraints its very easy to farm rares and even legends late at night putting in next to no work. The fact that legends aren't guaranteed, drop chances aren't anywhere, and that there's not even any difference stated between normal and guilded is somewhat sketchy.
    Mount skins as of now violate the EULA, it doesn't matter that the violation is small. You can pay to have a mount with a smaller hitbox, which effects whether players can hit you and knock you off your mount. It would be like paying to decrease your hitbox, or increase your reach, or your damage.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Apr 13, 2020
  17. So what's your point with this forum post saying that mount skins violate the EULA? lol
     
    Posted Apr 14, 2020
  18. Make it so they don't?
    That's kinda what I'm going for here, I noticed a little problem and made a forum post so people would know to take the few minutes to fix it.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Apr 14, 2020

Share This Page