Originally by: Avon

---

Edited by: Avon on 20/04/2008 16:13:49

Originally by: Goumindong

---

I am quite surprised that most people in large alliances haven't heard about using this information.

---

They have, the difference is that they see a line and try not to cross it.

There is a big difference between tools that automate aspects of the game and directly aid gameplay, and other tools.

Voice comms automate nothing. People need to talk.
(Also, CCP's offering is free, so I don't see how you think the alternatives are cheaper).

EFT does aid the fitting ships, but it does not directly effect gameplay.

It is easy to judge applications by those critera, however, it is not easy to detect them all (portrait hacks, for example).

And no, Bacon and the concept is not new.
I certainly know of one widespread implementation of something similar, which was brought to an early end because it was felt to be a cheat, even though technically it was within the rules in the same way that Bacon is.

If client logs are going to be used in an undetectable way to gain an ingame advantage, they need to be removed or encrypted (although encryption is not ideal). It must always be assumed that the client is hostile, and provide only vital information to it.

Logging needs to be in place on test builds only.
If there is a bug there is no real reason why logs from test builds (even of the current client) could not be used to trap it, rather than risking insecure clients machines giving an in-game advantage.

If you can not see the difference between fair and unfair Goumindong, I hope you do not get a seat on the CSM.

---