Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2162
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 18:41:00 -
[61] - Quote
I'm sure I'll be banned for GM correspondence despite this being public record since 2010, but whatever, here's the last statement about it:
Quote:Hello there,
To make a long story short, automation of gameplay is not permitted; players must be manually issuing the commands to control their character(s) at all times.
Our stance on programs such as Synergy and hardware/software combination such as the G15 keyboard is that they can be legitimately used as long as gameplay isn't automated. Synergy allows you to move your mouse cursor to multiple different monitors which are hooked up to different computers and we do not have any qualms with players using the program for this purpose. If Synergy was used in some way to control your accounts for you without a need for you to be at your keyboard, then that would not be allowed, but I am not aware of such a functionality with this program. If Synergy is used in conjunction with some other program to automate gameplay, it would not be permitted. G15 "macros" which allow you to group different commands into one keypress are allowed. For example, setting your G1 key to press F1, F2, F3 and so on for you with one key press is allowed (although this specific command is not as useful as it was before now that we have weapon grouping).
An exceedingly complex G15 macro which would effectively automate gameplay, such as mining, without a need for the player to be present at his keyboard would be against the EULA, regardless of whether the player utilizing said macro is sitting at his keyboard at the time!
Lastly, multiboxing is allowed, and programs designed for multiboxing in mind which allow a player to manually issue the same command to multiple game clients at the same time are allowed. In the same vein as what has been stated above, the player must be manually sending the commands; if a program is automating those commands for you, then it would be considered a breach of our EULA.
I hope this clears up this matter.
Best regards, Senior GM Lelouch EVE Online Customer Support "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3829
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 18:42:00 -
[62] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Anyway since this thread is now a thing, it would be really nice if we could get a clear statement from CCP about this & not some random CCP person saying yes/no. I would like to know in particular as when my new PC is done I'm planning on making 15 new accounts for suicide ganking & would hate to get banned for it. Of course that also means CCP loses a bunch of money, but they'll lose more in the longterm if I get banned, so get to it CCP. Nice flip flop...I am sure you will follow up with a sincere apology to FatBear.
I stand by my ealier posts. RIP Scamming; CCP has finally acknowledged that the average gamer is too stupid to avoid being scammed & has decided to protect them from themselves with TOS changes that effectively ban the practice. |
Murk Paradox
Duty. The Cursed Few
508
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 18:45:00 -
[63] - Quote
Yes, that 2010 post is great and all, but as the TOS and other services specifically justify CCP staff being able to change policy as they see fit, and a GM publicizing his opinion (an opinion that matters as he has account power) it becomes a matter of believing in a grandfather policy, or an ever changing policy.
In short, it makes it worse =(. This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Khanh'rhh
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2163
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 18:49:00 -
[64] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Yes, that 2010 post is great and all, but as the TOS and other services specifically justify CCP staff being able to change policy as they see fit, and a GM publicizing his opinion (an opinion that matters as he has account power) it becomes a matter of believing in a grandfather policy, or an ever changing policy.
In short, it makes it worse =(.
EDIT- Is GM Lelouch still around btw? Yeah, and is editing posts from 2010 in line with CCP's policy on revisionist policy enforcement. "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930 |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3830
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 18:49:00 -
[65] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Yes, that 2010 post is great and all, but as the TOS and other services specifically justify CCP staff being able to change policy as they see fit, and a GM publicizing his opinion (an opinion that matters as he has account power) it becomes a matter of believing in a grandfather policy, or an ever changing policy.
In short, it makes it worse =(.
EDIT- Is GM Lelouch still around btw?
Yeah, he doesn't post very much though. Interestingly enough, he posted this in May. RIP Scamming; CCP has finally acknowledged that the average gamer is too stupid to avoid being scammed & has decided to protect them from themselves with TOS changes that effectively ban the practice. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16503
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 18:52:00 -
[66] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Yes, that 2010 post is great and all, but as the TOS and other services specifically justify CCP staff being able to change policy as they see fit, and a GM publicizing his opinion (an opinion that matters as he has account power) it becomes a matter of believing in a grandfather policy, or an ever changing policy.
In short, it makes it worse =(.
EDIT- Is GM Lelouch still around btw? He was around 7 months ago when that old post was updated with reference to the new 3d-party policy.
Multiboxing (be it mechanical or through software) was still allowed GÇö they just couldn't give any kind of official endorsement to any specific programs as they had no control over how those programs might change over time.
Either way, the GM claim (okGǪ opinion) that it's been disallowed for a year and a half is 100% incorrect since the Lead GM has unequivocally said that multiboxing does not violate the EULA GÇö not even the new and updated one. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3830
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 18:57:00 -
[67] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Yes, that 2010 post is great and all, but as the TOS and other services specifically justify CCP staff being able to change policy as they see fit, and a GM publicizing his opinion (an opinion that matters as he has account power) it becomes a matter of believing in a grandfather policy, or an ever changing policy.
In short, it makes it worse =(.
EDIT- Is GM Lelouch still around btw? He was around 7 months ago when that old post was updated with reference to the new 3d-party policy. Multiboxing (be it mechanical or through software) was still allowed GÇö they just couldn't give any kind of official endorsement to any specific programs as they had no control over how those programs might change over time. Either way, the GM claim (okGǪ opinion) that it's been disallowed for a year and a half is 100% incorrect, as is the nonsense that it qualifies as some kind of automation, since the Lead GM has unequivocally said that multiboxing does not violate the EULA GÇö not even the new and updated one.
If I recall correctly (probably not), this is the same GM that told us a few days ago that pretending to be your own alt is bannable.
EDIT: Yep, GM Karidor. Same person. RIP Scamming; CCP has finally acknowledged that the average gamer is too stupid to avoid being scammed & has decided to protect them from themselves with TOS changes that effectively ban the practice. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16505
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:04:00 -
[68] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:If I recall correctly (probably not), this is the same GM that told us a few days ago that pretending to be your own alt is bannable. No, that was GM Karidor. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3830
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:05:00 -
[69] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:If I recall correctly (probably not), this is the same GM that told us a few days ago that pretending to be your own alt is bannable. No, that was GM Karidor.
Yeah I was referring to Karidor, I probably should have mentioned that. RIP Scamming; CCP has finally acknowledged that the average gamer is too stupid to avoid being scammed & has decided to protect them from themselves with TOS changes that effectively ban the practice. |
Lady Areola Fappington
New Order Logistics CODE.
569
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:08:00 -
[70] - Quote
You'll never get CCP to confirm/deny if a 3rd party program is EULA compliant, simply because it's 3rd party. CCP has no control over the code, so there's no way to verify yes/no.
Example: Our totally legal program IXBOXER operates fully within CCP guidelines, simply replicating keystrokes. CCP approves it. IXBOXER devs decide to include a Python injection into EVE, to "improve IXBOXER response" (hypotheticals all round) IXBOXER neglects to mention it's a python injection. CCP security does a sweep, and bans folks with a modified client...including our IXBOXER users. Hue and cry on the forums, with fingers pointing back at CCP going "YOU TOLD US IT WAS OK!"
The best answer you'll get from the devs will always be "Use 3rd party tools at your own risk, we reserve the right to cut them off whenever we choose." Don't worry miners, I'm here to help!
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16505
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:09:00 -
[71] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Yeah I was referring to Karidor, I probably should have mentioned that. Oh, ok. Yeah, I assumed it was Lelouch because he was the one mentioned in my and Murk's post.
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:You'll never get CCP to confirm/deny if a 3rd party program is EULA compliant, simply because it's 3rd party. CCP has no control over the code, so there's no way to verify yes/no.
Example: Our totally legal program IXBOXER operates fully within CCP guidelines, simply replicating keystrokes. CCP approves it. IXBOXER devs decide to include a Python injection into EVE, to "improve IXBOXER response" (hypotheticals all round) IXBOXER neglects to mention it's a python injection. CCP security does a sweep, and bans folks with a modified client...including our IXBOXER users. Hue and cry on the forums, with fingers pointing back at CCP going "YOU TOLD US IT WAS OK!"
The best answer you'll get from the devs will always be "Use 3rd party tools at your own risk, we reserve the right to cut them off whenever we choose." GǪand that's all fine. They said as much when the 3pSW policy was updated. What they can do (and effectively have done) is to say that certain functionality is or isn't ok. Broadcasting has been fine since roughly forever. Automation has been against the rules since the early Devonian era. Non-timed Gǥmash-the-keyboardGǥ-style macros have been fine (ye olde G15 keyboard rule); conditional macros with timers have not. Doing it that way makes it very clear what's allowed without having to specify any kind of software.
That way, the Q&A would be: GÇ£Is [ ISBoxer | Synergy | short-circuited KVM switch |-ámy wood-shop project ] fine? If it only broadcasts, yes. If it automates, no.GÇ¥ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Tesco Ergo Sum
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:16:00 -
[72] - Quote
Simple rules to play EVE by:
Don't trust anything CCP say about EULA/TOS/the magical "emergent gameplay"/0.01 ISK/etc Don't trust anything forums trolls write
Either do it yourself and find out the hard way,
Or don't do it at all... |
Murk Paradox
Duty. The Cursed Few
508
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:19:00 -
[73] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Yes, that 2010 post is great and all, but as the TOS and other services specifically justify CCP staff being able to change policy as they see fit, and a GM publicizing his opinion (an opinion that matters as he has account power) it becomes a matter of believing in a grandfather policy, or an ever changing policy.
In short, it makes it worse =(.
EDIT- Is GM Lelouch still around btw? Yeah, and is editing posts from 2010 in line with CCP's policy on revisionist policy enforcement.
Nice, that is what I was wanting to see.
Responsibility is going to a major thing within the next few weeks. That and accountability lol.
Save those bookmarks! This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Murk Paradox
Duty. The Cursed Few
508
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:31:00 -
[74] - Quote
Of course now I came back from a break and read the changes to that edited 2010 post...
This game is ****** up.
LOL
Now I get that multiboxing is fine (I use multiple accounts) but now they are saying isboxer is NOT condoned.
But they aren't saying it's forbidden.
Yay dice rolling! This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Cierra Royce
Ganque's Squad
35
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:32:00 -
[75] - Quote
Camper101 wrote:GM Karidor wrote: Fazit: ob eine EULA-Verletzung nun per Roboterarm, Dritt-Software, St+ñbchen oder was auch immer passiert ist nicht relevant f++r den EULA-Versto+ƒ selbst. Und wenn ein Klick auf mehrere Clients verteilt wird, f+ñllt diese Parallelisierung ebenfalls unter "Automatisierung", oder um die Formulierung der EULA zu verwenden: (...)
Summary: wether an EULA violation happens through a robotic arm, third-party software, sticks or whatever is not relevant for the EULA violation itself. And when a click is distributed to multiple clients this parallelization falls under "automation" - or to use the phrasing of the EULA... --- By that sort of reasoning it is probably a Eula Violation for me to control two clients with two hands. |
Murk Paradox
Duty. The Cursed Few
508
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:46:00 -
[76] - Quote
Cierra Royce wrote:Camper101 wrote:GM Karidor wrote: Fazit: ob eine EULA-Verletzung nun per Roboterarm, Dritt-Software, St+ñbchen oder was auch immer passiert ist nicht relevant f++r den EULA-Versto+ƒ selbst. Und wenn ein Klick auf mehrere Clients verteilt wird, f+ñllt diese Parallelisierung ebenfalls unter "Automatisierung", oder um die Formulierung der EULA zu verwenden: (...)
Summary: wether an EULA violation happens through a robotic arm, third-party software, sticks or whatever is not relevant for the EULA violation itself. And when a click is distributed to multiple clients this parallelization falls under "automation" - or to use the phrasing of the EULA... --- By that sort of reasoning it is probably a Eula Violation for me to control two clients, one with my left hand one with my right, if I somehow manage to click the same modules on in parallel.
I am starting to read it as "ban the calculators and bust out your fingers and toes folks!".
But I'm starting to get weary of all these changes. This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4575
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:57:00 -
[77] - Quote
Tesco Ergo Sum wrote:Simple rules to play EVE by:
Don't trust anything CCP say about EULA/TOS/the magical "emergent gameplay"/0.01 ISK/etc Don't trust anything forums trolls write
Either do it yourself and find out the hard way,
Or don't do it at all... Find out when... you get banned? There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
109
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 19:58:00 -
[78] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:You'll never get CCP to confirm/deny if a 3rd party program is EULA compliant, simply because it's 3rd party. CCP has no control over the code, so there's no way to verify yes/no.
Example: Our totally legal program IXBOXER operates fully within CCP guidelines, simply replicating keystrokes. CCP approves it. IXBOXER devs decide to include a Python injection into EVE, to "improve IXBOXER response" (hypotheticals all round) IXBOXER neglects to mention it's a python injection. CCP security does a sweep, and bans folks with a modified client...including our IXBOXER users. Hue and cry on the forums, with fingers pointing back at CCP going "YOU TOLD US IT WAS OK!"
The best answer you'll get from the devs will always be "Use 3rd party tools at your own risk, we reserve the right to cut them off whenever we choose."
Most people here are aware of that particular problem. However, the german GM heavily suggested that any method of broadcasting/replicating is a EULA violation, no matter if the replication is achieved by a tool that modifies the client, operates completely outside of the client, is mechanical in nature or relies on using extraordinarily well trained hamsters. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4575
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 20:14:00 -
[79] - Quote
Barzai Mekhar wrote:Lady Areola Fappington wrote:You'll never get CCP to confirm/deny if a 3rd party program is EULA compliant, simply because it's 3rd party. CCP has no control over the code, so there's no way to verify yes/no.
Example: Our totally legal program IXBOXER operates fully within CCP guidelines, simply replicating keystrokes. CCP approves it. IXBOXER devs decide to include a Python injection into EVE, to "improve IXBOXER response" (hypotheticals all round) IXBOXER neglects to mention it's a python injection. CCP security does a sweep, and bans folks with a modified client...including our IXBOXER users. Hue and cry on the forums, with fingers pointing back at CCP going "YOU TOLD US IT WAS OK!"
The best answer you'll get from the devs will always be "Use 3rd party tools at your own risk, we reserve the right to cut them off whenever we choose." Most people here are aware of that particular problem. However, the german GM heavily suggested that any method of broadcasting/replicating is a EULA violation, no matter if the replication is achieved by a tool that modifies the client, operates completely outside of the client, is mechanical in nature or relies on using extraordinarily well trained hamsters. Well then, i see how we might need a clarification to let us know how evil we are There are no goons. The goons' 0.0 dream is over.
"Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action." ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
E-2C Hawkeye
State War Academy Caldari State
278
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 21:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
The problem isnGÇÖt in the wording but in the MONIES. By definition and application isboxer should be bannable. CCP chooses to make the loop hole because they understand should they come right out and say it is bannable instead of the grey area they deliberately now have then they would lose subs.
Should they make isboxer bannable so the average goonie wouldnGÇÖt be able to SOLO pvp with their 8 accounts or mine with their 20 accounts then there would be no reason to have all those subs and that would result in loss of revenue.
I would love to see isboxer banned and make pvp and game better all around.
All these people love to say eve isint pay to win but thats a lie as this is a prime example of how it is. |
|
Fatbear
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
44
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 21:14:00 -
[81] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:so the average goonie wouldnGÇÖt be able to SOLO pvp with their 8 accounts
There's absolutely no reason to bring politics into this thread, nor such trolling. Save it for CAOD or Failheap where it belongs, and leave this thread as a valid query please.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
16505
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 21:17:00 -
[82] - Quote
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:By definition and application isboxer should be bannable. Why, and how so? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
110
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 21:26:00 -
[83] - Quote
Tippia wrote:E-2C Hawkeye wrote:By definition and application isboxer should be bannable. Why, and how so?
Haven't there been enough threadnoughts that discussed this issue to death? Some people get the distinction between "automatization" and "broadcasting" and some dont.... |
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
27
|
Posted - 2013.09.17 23:10:00 -
[84] - Quote
Posting in a stealth ISBoxer advertising thread.
I was going to accuse Tippia of trolling and not just posting a link to one of the posts from CCP that states that they will not ban for ISBoxer use and that if CCP decides that they will start banning that they will inform everyone first. But I've searched and can't find any of them, even with Chribba's tools. The Nosy Gamer - Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength - Eric Hoffer |
|
ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
233
|
Posted - 2013.09.18 03:24:00 -
[85] - Quote
There is a GM reply here regarding it.
And then there is the "search" function that works well: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=search&search=isboxer&devbadge=1&gmbadge=1
That's probably the best you will get.
This thread is going to be locked now, as this topic has been beaten to death and no new policy has come out regarding it. ISD Cura Ursus Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |