Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Arronicus
vintas industries Mistakes Were Made.
348
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 03:42:00 -
[151] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote: emotionless evil Caldari State corporation.
We resent this statement. Have you told your family you love them, recently? It'd be a shame if someone went on a business trip to Uitra and wasn't heard from again. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 04:09:00 -
[152] - Quote
I think botting is another issue that can best be SOLVED by PLAYERS. The CODE alliance is already moving to do so. CCP can help by allowing greater freedom of action:
(1) Remove CONCORD protection from miners who do not respond to chat or who have not moved or changed maneuvers in the last 3-5 minutes. An active miner is constantly in motion moving to better roids.
(2) insert new modules that allow taking prisoners (anchoring capsules in space) after 3-5 minutes. If no one comes to save you in 3-5 minutes you a waste of game space and quite probably a bot as well. Anchoring your capsule in place prevents profiting by botters and reduces server deadweight from people who just aren't following the CCP game vision of PVP shooter and fleet battles. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 04:29:00 -
[153] - Quote
CCP insists on taking care of botters themselves, consider these ideas.
(1) Make mining like that old game wild asteroids, barges need to CONSTANTLY MANEUVER to stay in range of target asteroids and to avoid being damaged by collisions with other asteriods.
(2) Make roids much smaller and put wider spaces between clumps of asteroids -- so that barges must constantly change targets and maneuver. Also add a ton of crap roid targets which bots can lock on and must separate from the good stuff. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2272
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 06:10:00 -
[154] - Quote
Isboxer: Using an external program to facilitate faster accumulation of ingame materials than would be possible within normal gameplay. It is the reason people use Isboxer.
The only reason it is not explicitly banned is because it also facilitates faster income generation for CCP.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
DirtySnowBunny
Cherri Bombs
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 07:05:00 -
[155] - Quote
Stray Bullets wrote: A current example is ISBoxer. As GM Nythanos answered me (can't copy the text), you can't allow that software. If this is the case, why not make a simple public statement saying that X software is simply not allowed? You end up banning paying customer who actually thought they were playing straight!
This subject has been covered multiple times by DEVs.
The only negative comment was made by CCP Sreegs about it (in his security blog). http://tinyurl.com/byebyescreegs Post #264.
Other posts: http://tinyurl.com/CCP-Eterne Post #13
GM Lelouch wrote: 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
Those proponents against programs like ISBoxer, Synergy, etc. seem to have little to no understanding of what "multiboxing" is and how exactly it is used. How many times does CCP have to answer this "dead horse" of a question?
There is a long list of games that embrace multiboxing: World of War Craft, Diablo 3, Planetside 2, SWTOR, and so on. . . |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1085
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 07:07:00 -
[156] - Quote
Udonor wrote:I think botting is another issue that can best be SOLVED by PLAYERS. The CODE alliance is already moving to do so. CCP can help by allowing greater freedom of action:
(1) Remove CONCORD protection from miners who do not respond to chat or who have not moved or changed maneuvers in the last 3-5 minutes. An active miner is constantly in motion moving to better roids.
(2) insert new modules that allow taking prisoners (anchoring capsules in space) after 3-5 minutes. If no one comes to save you in 3-5 minutes you a waste of game space and quite probably a bot as well. Anchoring your capsule in place prevents profiting by botters and reduces server deadweight from people who just aren't following the CCP game vision of PVP shooter and fleet battles.
Part of the fun of mining is ignoring ego-tripping chaps such yourself who demand that I respond to your sad attempts to get me to speak in local.
Also, deliberately not moving my ship provides me with much merriment as I read the tough guy smack talk in local. This is not a signature. |
Barzhad
EldarRiders Suddenly Spaceships.
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 08:52:00 -
[157] - Quote
Sorry, but what's "RMT"? |
Djana Libra
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
103
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 09:15:00 -
[158] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:I am happy to see that the BOT war is falling under more strict punishments. YAY!!!
I am curious on this as other folks in Eve have been curious as well. There is a software called ISBOXER that runs client side where it managed your clients with single key activation. Will this also be addressed in some fashion? Some folks feel that this is wrong. Will there be a new stance on t his where some of these ISBOXER users control anywhere from 4 to 20 some odd toons only to farm isk. Not talking about mining but making ISK from farming in null sec anomalies to empire mission running of some type.
Please I like to hear your thoughts on this
there have been at least 20 topics on this in general discussion.... google it the answers won' t change... |
Djana Libra
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
103
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 09:20:00 -
[159] - Quote
Udonor wrote:I think botting is another issue that can best be SOLVED by PLAYERS. The CODE alliance is already moving to do so. CCP can help by allowing greater freedom of action:
(1) Remove CONCORD protection from miners who do not respond to chat or who have not moved or changed maneuvers in the last 3-5 minutes. An active miner is constantly in motion moving to better roids.
(2) insert new modules that allow taking prisoners (anchoring capsules in space) after 3-5 minutes. If no one comes to save you in 3-5 minutes you a waste of game space and quite probably a bot as well. Anchoring your capsule in place prevents profiting by botters and reduces server deadweight from people who just aren't following the CCP game vision of PVP shooter and fleet battles.
so basically if someone goes to the toilet taking a dump, makes a coffee and smokes a cig while he is mining you want to be able to get a free pass to kill him....
botting should never ever be handled by the players since they have no means to actually determin if someone is really botting.
anyways if you suspect someone botting and dislike him just blow him up. |
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
258
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 10:18:00 -
[160] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:CCP Stillman wrote: But client modification right now are anything that injects/touches the running EVE process. That is, reads or writes memory into it, injects and executes code. Basically anything that modifies the client to change the client or extract information that's not normally accessible. That includes bots of course.
that description also applies to widely used tool such as the Mumble/Teamspeak overlay and fraps
Wrong.
Barzhad wrote:Sorry, but what's "RMT"?
Real Money Trading. Buying and Selling ISK (or ingame items) for real world currency (EUR / USD / etc.) not using the official method called "PLEX".
www.facebook.com/RazorAlliance |
|
Dathan Arturis
Central Nomad Mining Engineering Enterprise 9th Company
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 11:26:00 -
[161] - Quote
I think a TRAITOR status should be introduced and replace the "WANTED" for 30 days also should be applied with NO Concord intervention in high sec and let the players punish them as well. |
Dalmont Delantee
Dropbears with Kebabs SpaceMonkey's Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 12:33:00 -
[162] - Quote
Henry Haphorn wrote:Ta'liq Browson wrote:I apologize for being ignorant - but what is RMT? I know if I don't know what it is then I am probably not doing it, but I like to ask anyways to be sure. Real-Money Trading An illegal activity (to CCP at least) in which a player sells in-game currency for real-world cash.
Otherwise known as total c**ts who do such things. I don't give a crap how much money someone has use the correct method of getting isk/items: work for it (make isk) or sell plex (sell to people who make isk). Anyone else who does it differently I personally don't look on kindly. |
Stray Bullets
Perkone Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 13:13:00 -
[163] - Quote
DirtySnowBunny wrote:Stray Bullets wrote: A current example is ISBoxer. As GM Nythanos answered me (can't copy the text), you can't allow that software. If this is the case, why not make a simple public statement saying that X software is simply not allowed? You end up banning paying customer who actually thought they were playing straight!
This subject has been covered multiple times by DEVs. The only negative comment was made by CCP Sreegs about it (in his security blog). http://tinyurl.com/byebyescreegs Post #264. Other posts:http://tinyurl.com/CCP-Eterne Post #13 GM Lelouch wrote: 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
Those proponents against programs like ISBoxer, Synergy, etc. seem to have little to no understanding of what "multiboxing" is and how exactly it is used. How many times does CCP have to answer this "dead horse" of a question? There is a long list of games that embrace multiboxing: World of War Craft, Diablo 3, Planetside 2, SWTOR, and so on. . .
You seem to have missed the addendum that GM Lelouch made to that very same post. It can be found in page 7 of this thread, in one of my previous posts, or in the original thread below.
http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1291641&page=10#274
I know ISBoxer was cool. I used it once before, about a year ago. Not using it now, but it bothers me that there isn't a clear definition of what's ok and what's not ok. In the original post from GM Lelouch he said that for broadcasting it was cool, as long as it wasn't automated. Now he's saying he can't "say".
What changed? And why are there DEVs saying nothing has changed when they clearly changed something in their view of ISBoxer?
I can read and understand what Lelouch is saying about software evolving and they not being able to keep up. But saying X software is ok in a specific context is not a blanket response. I don't understand why can't they say what's so different that made then go around editing posts that are 3 years old instead of issuing a new statement with a new ruling. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
96
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 14:09:00 -
[164] - Quote
OK. I love this game. I think it is the best thing ever. Really I do.
It must be fundamentally OK for someone to run lots of accounts.
I now don't care if CCP harvests system information from my PCs - please take my processes and threads - the list of services - the installed programs - the contents of device manager. Please just bundle Hijackthis and run it periodically and parse the results. . . It all might even help you profile what people have on their PCs to help you design better solutions.
There seems to be a sort of opinion developing here that only those who desire privacy have something to hide. I'd forefit that for greater security - after all every internet search hemorrhages personal information these days.
CCP - please give me a scenario that is acceptable for someone to use more than two accounts? Or tell me I shouldn't do it. leaving Synergy, (or the thing synergy does - the design specification - the design intent of it - the concept of an edge-of-screen operation KVM like thing), as a grey area is upsetting. Tell me how to do this or to not do it. Because I know people can't get unbanned - I won't risk it - but I also won't play just one or two of my accounts at a time.
Or - Better still. . .You are currently upgrading the Launcher. Why not use the open-source Synergy stuff and build your own one into the launcher? Then there could be no question? And it would fix the issue of multiboxing permenantly.
|
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
82
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 15:01:00 -
[165] - Quote
Ban the multiboxing. Recently digging the net for some information about IGB i found next? generation of eve bots. They don't touch EVE at all - just connect them self to the multi boxing programs.
As if this didn't changed - multiboxing is allowed.
|
Symbiotes
Genesis Nation Gentlemen's Agreement
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 15:42:00 -
[166] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Ban the multiboxing. Recently digging the net for some information about IGB i found next? generation of eve bots. They don't touch EVE at all - just connect them self to the multi boxing programs.
As if this didn't changed - multiboxing is allowed.
I get the distinct impression some of you might not actually understand what multiboxing means. Are you seriously suggesting that CCP should start trying to enforce a limit of 1 account per person?
For those ignorant: multiboxing in context with eve is the control/use of two or more accounts at the same time. Every miner that uses an alt to haul, every pvper that uses a second account to provide boost, every null dweller that uses an alt to scout. While obviously some folks take this to the extreme, there is really no way artificial limits like # of account restrictions will work. You'd only play into the hands of the 'bad guys' who would/could use software and tricks to hide having multiple accounts. At the same time, you'd be trying to get rid of extra income that CCP receives from all these players with their multiple accounts... Is that really what some of you are advocating?
(Queue trolls and morons) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
1713
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 17:07:00 -
[167] - Quote
Aye, alot of the comments seem to have a terminology slip from "Keystroke rebroadcast software" to "multiboxing software" to "multiboxing" as though they are all the same thing. They are not. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
TheButcherPete
The James Gang R O G U E
234
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 18:07:00 -
[168] - Quote
I will miss you CCP Sreegs.
bonne chance to you, upon the world of deceit. Bzzt.
GÖÑ Punkturis GÖÑ |
Rythm
Shadow Monolith The Gorgon Spawn
35
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 22:47:00 -
[169] - Quote
CCP Stillman wrote:Vera Algaert wrote:CCP Stillman wrote: But client modification right now are anything that injects/touches the running EVE process. That is, reads or writes memory into it, injects and executes code. Basically anything that modifies the client to change the client or extract information that's not normally accessible. That includes bots of course.
that description also applies to widely used tool such as the Mumble/Teamspeak overlay and fraps To some degree, it does. But in some ways, it also doesn't. But do you really think we want to ban people using fraps or mumble/teamspeak? That'd be silly
Probably you should clarify the EULA then. For instance process explorer on my notebook shows that a bunch of firmware dlls with some random stuff like touchpad support is attached to every process in the system. While technically it constitutes a "client modification" and i am using "modified client" when i am using the touchpad, i do hope that i would not be permanently banned from eve =) |
NEONOVUS
Saablast Followers
403
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 03:37:00 -
[170] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:NEONOVUS wrote:So basically the way it works is that if I can provide proof of human capability, then use software to duplicate that, it is probably ok?
IE how isoboxer got shown after the genius guy with the hot glue and sticks.
And that anything which plays with EVE files while the client is running is a banning offense?
IE every bot since ever or more particuarly the usage of python injection to find the wh local list. What if they told you "If you want to multi box safely, do the hot glue and stick trick". I would troll them by forging the components out of rhodium then studding them with emeralds, carnadons, and lazis lupai. And then proceed to play the game on diamond heatsinked computers. All slaved to my Vuzix wearable display. |
|
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
96
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 12:38:00 -
[171] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Ban the multiboxing. Recently digging the net for some information about IGB i found next? generation of eve bots. They don't touch EVE at all - just connect them self to the multi boxing programs.
As if this didn't changed - multiboxing is allowed.
Then as per my post above - CCP must start harvesting system information. And also why not build something akin to Synergy into the Launcher. That way CCP can move past this with all the information needed to identify problems, to deal with them, whilst leaving people like me to safely carry on doing what I'm doing - and I know there are a lot of us, (The Power Of Two promotion activly encourages us - it did me).
I have the feeling this thread is now dead - no more CCP posts.
This isn't a question of the EULA - the EULA is maybe fine - but with a question hanging over the facilities we use to operate across multiple desktops, (in and out of game), being interpreted now as "at your own risk" I'm left feeling like rather than any clarification I've just had the carpet pulled right out from under me. |
Claire Raynor
NovaGear Limitless Inc.
96
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 12:47:00 -
[172] - Quote
Symbiotes wrote: -/- At the same time, you'd be trying to get rid of extra income that CCP receives from all these players with their multiple accounts... Is that really what some of you are advocating?
This's my last post in this thread because it's depressing. But as per Symbiotes post - This uncertainty alone is affecting at least me and it is affecting me right now. |
Stray Bullets
Perkone Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 13:09:00 -
[173] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:I have the feeling this thread is now dead - no more CCP posts.
This isn't a question of the EULA - the EULA is maybe fine - but with a question hanging over the facilities we use to operate across multiple desktops, (in and out of game), being interpreted now as "at your own risk" I'm left feeling like rather than any clarification I've just had the carpet pulled right out from under me.
This is CCP at it's best. Do a half ass job, try to sneak the changes in without anyone noticing.
I have one last sugestion. Remove the EULA section from the petition system. What point is there to it? If anything you get asked you just tell us to read the EULA. I can ******* read. I know what my interpretation is but that is obviously not the interpretation that matters.
When we open up a petition under the EULA section it's probably to try to get CCPs interpretation, as you know, it's the one that matters but it's all cloak and dagger, stuff that's true today gets ninja edited tomorrow instead of a clear announcement of changes to policy regarding third party software! This is a clear example of how NOT to handle security issues, at least regarding the clarification of your own rules.
If even you can't answer your users if it's ok or not, how in the hell do you expect them to respect the rules? |
Bubbleboylol
Militia Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 15:57:00 -
[174] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Our fantastic Team Security has great news for all good people in New Eden regarding the ongoing war on bots (for the bad people it is tough news though). Read all about the war on bots in 2012 and future changes (such as moving from a 3 strike policy to a 2 strike policy from effectively today on) in the latest dev blog of CCP Stillman here.
Awesome news! Looks great! Is it really that hard to click one button then warp when it's done? those are the ones asking to rebalance EvE and make it easier to play. lol ;) Asking to have more then one ( Option From CCP is like asking a chicken to cook it-self. ) |
Deranged FleX
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 20:56:00 -
[175] - Quote
Deranged FleX wrote:virm pasuul wrote:Vincent Athena wrote: Oh most likely that's not what happened. What happened is he did RMT then tried to hide it with various transactions and character transfers. When CCP caught him he came here to the forums to whine about it and proclaim his innocence. Well, as CCP Sreegs was fond of saying: People who do bad things have been known to lie.
Its my experience of online gaming that a significant portion of exploiters and cheaters like to spread fear uncertainty and doubt about the methods that companies use to defeat them. Exploiters like to introduce doubt within the larger player base that the company is acting fairly or transparently in order to undermine player confidence in the system. If this player confidence in the company's good faith can be undermined sufficiently then the player base starts calling the company out. That was not my intention nor is my concern based upon your "feelings". My concern is what is the security team doing to insure less or no false positives on the character bazaar. Thanks to the help of CCP after my post, I know it wasn't an issue with the security team. My concern here was related to their DevBlog. I don't think CCP acts unfair but I do know that sometimes there are false positives. There is a petition system to correct it, but it is a slow moving cog of guilty until logs prove you're innocent. I am here as a paying customer asking a question. My question was partially answered with an EveMail with CCP Peligro about my specific concerns. I am not happy waiting a month now and probably longer, but at least I have some answers on what took place. I am content to know this will be cleared up.
Thanks to CCP, and I suspect maybe my questions, my accounts have been fixed and the 13billion isk returned. There are false positives and not everyone is an exploiter or cheating the system in Eve Online. The cogs of CCP ground slow in this case, but fair.
However, my question still remains. What will CCP do in the future to prevent false positives?
|
Yvonne Paaltomo
Eve Engineering Logistics Eve Engineering
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 08:49:00 -
[176] - Quote
Apperently you get hit by the ban hammer if you loan isk to a friend/corp mate who's involved in RMT. Doesn't matter if you know about it or not. And if that person holds multiple billions of legitimate stuff, you can wait almost 2 months and counting on a petition reply. |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
Homowners
49
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 21:25:00 -
[177] - Quote
Jason Xado wrote:I think people need to get a grip a little. . . CCP is not an emotionless evil Caldari State corporation. They are not going to just suddenly start banning people out of the blue for using software that they have been OK with for a long time. Why not, exactly?
Jason Xado wrote:Can we just take off the tinfoil hats a bit here and assume CCP is a rational level-headed company and has no intention of just screwing people over for the lewls? Far better to act as a rational, level-headed consumer yourself, wouldn't you think? CCP seems to think it's fine to write a EULA that casts a net that is both broad and wide enough to catch damn near every player in the game, and then leave it up the sole discretion of some random employee at some random point in the future to determine how to apply that policy. "I'll just trust them!" is a pretty dumb way to act as a consumer when you're talking about multi-year investments in a role playing character(s).
Jason Xado wrote:I am using ISBoxer to multibox. I will continue to use ISBoxer to multibox until CCP tells me otherwise. I do not think CCP is hiding behind a bush waiting to jump out and say "boo". I assume that as a rational corporation they would give us some advance warning if they were to suddenly have an issue with ISBoxer. You know what they say about assuming.
Jason Xado wrote:CCP cannot just blanket white list 3rd party software that they have no control over, which is why they have stated things the way they have. No . . . they actually can. Or, they could rewrite the EULA in a way to ensure that things like TeamSpeak aren't completely and utterly violating the EULA (because right now, it is in total violation of the EULA to use an overlay).
It's all about the fact that they EULA casts a net that is too wide, and the fact that it wouldn't be an impossibly huge or dangerous task to tighten it up some. ****, if you're going to keep the EULA this loosy-goosy, at least generate a regularly updated list of programs that are certified "exceptions" to the EULA like Teamspeak, your precious ISKBoxer, etc. And if someone, somehow, someway, manages to transform one of those programs into a trueblue botting program, you strike it from the list as soon as you can and chalk it up to a relatively cheap lesson learned.
Or you do . . . what exactly,? Just wait (and assume) that an overly vague policy that specifically treats many common programs as in violation of the EULA will always work in your favor and never be arbitrarily or discriminatorily used?
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
618
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 11:09:00 -
[178] - Quote
Someone is making a decent living out of EVE on eBay, he/she has collected -ú25k+ in the past 12 months from a quick look of the 1000+ successful transactions. Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
251
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 13:24:00 -
[179] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:CCP Stillman wrote:Our policy is that we do not make any guarantees about any tools being allowed and safe to use. We can't feasibly do that.
But client modification right now are anything that injects/touches the running EVE process. That is, reads or writes memory into it, injects and executes code. Basically anything that modifies the client to change the client or extract information that's not normally accessible. That includes bots of course. You should clarify that JavaScript code executed in the IGB is fine. Also that cache scraping is still ok as per the previous GM/Dev ruling. Bump. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 10:58:00 -
[180] - Quote
Lets be honest - CCP is mainly fighting RMT.
Non-combat botting is easy to stop. Just issue CAPTCHA every 5 minutes. Suspend CAPTCHA during combat. Since it hasn't happened I think we can see what level of botting in mining CCP thinks is really going on.
True BOTing is unnecessary for farming EVE mining -- new commands are seldom needed. In EVE the term BOTing often means AFK mining or split attention mining. RMT farming EVE mining uses EXTREME MULTI-BOXing NOT BOTTING.
I saw a video interview once showing actual Chinese farmers exploiting EVE mining. They had KVM (keyboard-Video-Mouse) that automatic flipped "channel" every 3 seconds unless user stopped it. Users just watched screens for occasional need for new command. They said each farmer-player controlled 8-12 ships and the farmer shop had shifts of 8-12 people working 24x7 . So 64-144 ships going 24x365. Lots of ore - no unique software just KVMs. Labor is pretty cheap in the Western Pacific Rim. Frankly botting software would be an unnecessary complication and possible expense to maintain.
Its quite easy to run 3-5 mining ships off single computer with just alt-Tab. I have done it before myself though not for purposes of RMT. Even James 315 will occasionally slip up and admit that AFK ming and multi-boxing (and not true botting) is what he seeks to exploit in return.
Combat is where true botting or at least macros could be truly useful in EVE. Lots of fast automatic actions. Maybe some fancy calculations and comparisons. Turning shield boost off and on so - no reps or cap is wasted. Ammo choice based on range and damage being done and is it worth time to switch. To overload or not. Etc.
I suspect some of the truly elaborate single player split second 2-3-4 destroyer ganks with multiple preceding CONCORD diversion attacks MIGHT be using at least macros - yet you seldom hear about BOT investigations into Combat side macros and bots. I will give some EVE pilot fast experienced reactions...but sometimes I wonder about pilots able make 5-6 distinct and precise actions including maneuver in less that 5 seconds.
LOL - I can remember back when CRIMEWATCH, bad drone behavior, and target back allowed gankers to easily disrupt high sec missioning. Gee funny how there were constant claims that lots of those PVE players were bots and thus legitimate targets.
But OK a lot of miners must be botting because they aren't socializing in a proper FPS way: (1) they often don't react to idle chat, (2) their ships aren't doing combat maneuvers -- and worst of all (3) they are not ready to play bump the miner as fun mini-game sport.. If this lack of contribution to the EVE community atmosphere is really harmful -- change mining from low interaction (AFK possible) to constant interaction. CAPTCHA and maybe tiny ore stealing rogue drones (mini-game console). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |