Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-37632463-20190814072548/@comment-38518555-20190825073200

SeedSpeed wrote: DrestinBlack wrote:

MatteoPRR3 wrote: HULK7WG wrote: SeedSpeed wrote: User MatteoPRR3 is using a game function of cloud and save as given within the game. I don't think it's fair to accuse and point as exploiter just out of the bag like this. 3 words mate. "not as intended" No. If it was so, then Drives would not be restored. Restoring Drives on Cloud Restore is not a glitch, nor something the programmers simply forgot: it is a precise choice. If it was not, then there would also be no point in keeping Drives recharge timer alive: also recharge timer should be "restored" (down to zero, for example) when cloud restoring. It is kept going on, instead. Therefore restoring Drives must be a choice, and then there is no exploitation in my behaviour. Think about it: if you can avoid the limitations of drive just by doing cloud restores - why bother with it at all. What is the purpose of drive if you can just ignore it? Do you think they create something, something that costs money to early recharage, something with a count down to restore function, omething so important it's on the main screen - that no one cares about whatsoever because it does absolutely nothing. Drive becomes an utter waste of time and space and programming because you can just ignore it. THAT is what you believe their precise choice was? Let's make something that can effortlessly be worked around and therefore does absolutely nothing. ... rrriiiggghhhtttt.... This is a great example how everyone has it's own logic about things. And what else to expect of users trying to figure "the intended" was meant for?

Some points I consider relevant:

1. It's in - game function of cloud and save basically.

2. You loose your fame after you restore, not only gain drive and service

3. It is present in the game long time, never heard anybody got punished, never heard anything official... Make any and all considerations you like mate. I've read the UA and TOS numerous times(has it changed of late?). "Not as intended" is a boiler plate caveat EA/FM use and apply ad hoc. It's basic exit clause strategy of shifting goal posts as required for and by the vested interest (EA) that always favors the company shareholders regardless.

Whilst I do not practive law of the land in other lands, I have more than a decent grasp of "contractual law". "Not as Inended" is boiler plate protectionsit rhetoric that is found universally in UA/contracts in some form across the board

For instance. I get offered a heavily discounted car. I take the offer and am then(within minutes) offered yet another car discounted but with the discount applying to all U/G's. I decide that I made a rushed call on the first offer. So I then restore to the point prior to the first offer and take up the second offer instead. I am then within hours BANNED FOR CHEATING under the auspice of I used 'restore' in a way that was "not as intended".

So, EA/FM offer me a rubbish car, then offer me a good car after that. They didnt offer me the better /more productive car in the first instance. They wanted me to buy both cars. Its a clear cut case of bait and switch. But yet, me using restore to undo a purchase(a poopy one) is then deemed not as intended and I subsequently get banned(HA ha ha...yeah...riiiiiight).

EA are as SLIMEY as they come in gaming. They earned their reputation. I would love nothing more than for RR3 to move to another company. Simply because EA are slimey, greedy pigs that dont care a scintilla about RR3 or its possible longevity. Let alone the very people that keep them in business.... YOU and everyone else that play the game

I fell sorry for Matt