|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
170
   |
Posted - 2013.04.03 09:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
0Lona 0ltor wrote:CCP Eterne wrote:Any tool which automates gameplay for you is currently considered against the rules. If you see what you suspect to be a market bot, please report it. Hard Question was Hard. I'll ask it again with out breaking any forum rules. A) Is a market tool that provides warning outside of eve of outdated market orders via API and provides a copy and pastable value to be entered manually into eve EULA legal? B) Are tools which allow duplication of commands such as those used by infamous multi boxers EULA legal? C) Does CCP have any plans to implement bans on botting and macro's which duplicate actions across multiple accounts that are not RMT related? D) If automation is against EULA why are lottery sites allowed to operate with complete automation while trading in EVE ISK?
As you can't really expect average CCP employees to be well informed about their product, you are really asking the wrong person.
I'll give you what assistance I can, as a nerd who spends more time with the product than an average CCP employee.
A) That is EULA legal. However, it's pushing the envelope and probably shouldn't be EULA legal. CCP reserves the right to change it's mind on EULA legality at whim, so it's entirely possible that they may change their stance on this one in the future and there is some justification and some public support for that.
B) That is EULA legal. ISboxer and other broadcast tools have been specificially confirmed as EULA legal by CCP in recent forum posts. CCP reserves the right to change it's mind on EULA legality at whim, so it's entirely possible that they may change their stance on this one in the future and there is some justification and some public support for that.
C) That is already banned. Broadcasting human keypresses is EULA legal, broadcasting macro or code-generated keypresses is EULA illegal. It does not need to involve RMT for it to be EULA illegal, but if it does involve RMT it is still EULA illegal.
D) Lottery sites automate the capture of wallet transactions via the API. That is fully EULA legal and actively encouraged by CCP. The isk that is sent back to your wallet cannot be done with the API (at this time) and has to be manually transacted by a human in order for it not to be EULA illegal. Generally this is done manually but it is possible that some lottery and other services have decided to cross the EULA on this aspect and fully automate that process too. If they were to do so that would also be EULA illegal. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
170
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 09:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
I could get you citations from CCP or quote and rules-lawyer the EULA text at you to support what I've said above, but I don't think that is really needed. If you are really interested in the subject you should probably read the EULA and spend a little time with a search engine to get yourself fully informed. If you are just asking idle questions then you may want to just accept my answers as reasonably accurate and leave it at that. If you are asking the questions to poke at CCP, then I suggest you get a longer stick. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
170
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 09:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Some will even open the correct wallet order for you to do this. It's totally EULA legal bzzt, wrong. Putting the right price in your clipboard? legit. it's not touching the client. Opening the wallet order, that's client manipulation, not legit. There's no IGB function to do this, so you'd have to have the software manipulate eve directly. And that in no way is legit.
You might want to consider not feeding the Brewlar. It may only seem like an unwanted scrap from your table at this point, but keep feeding him and soom he'll be on the table and licking your face. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
170
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 15:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
The 'missus quotes that one to me frequently.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
173
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 10:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Just blatantly assuming greed and bias from ccp is very simplistic thinking.
Indeed.
You can choose to assign evil designs and dark conspiracies to CCP if you wish, but the fact is they are a bunch of drunks in Iceland that create games for the enjoyment of others and need to earn money from that activity in order to remain drunk.
I for one identify with and fully approve of that. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
179
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 11:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
0Lona 0ltor wrote:Why is there no 3 strikes for RMT if that is the case?
Because different offences require different responses.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the only thing that prevents me from RMTing my isk fortune for some portion of the -ú42,000 that Wired claims I have scammed is that I will get perma-banned by CCP under their current policy.
Change that to a 3 strikes rule and I can happily RMT it all for what would amount to a temporary slap on the wrist and then continue playing the game.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
179
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 13:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
0Lona 0ltor wrote:and that is exactly why botting is viable and some may argue pretty much mandatory untill you get to your second warning on each account. Botting should just equal an insta ban on all accounts.
Will never happen as botting effects honest players real life income unlike CCP's which is effected by RMT. CCP does not give 2 craps about it's player base and gladly throws them in front of train wrecks when ever it can to save some real life money for itself.
Could you explain to me what the source of your rage against botters is? Because although I fully agree that it should be stopped for the sake of fair play, I've never felt even vaguely impacted by it.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
185
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 14:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
0Lona 0ltor wrote:Let me ask that awkward question in a forum legal way.
Why does CCP feel it's OK to provide a botter with 3 written warnings before taking any action against a single account where a RMT ISK seller does not get a single warning before having multiple accounts banned?
I put it to the forum it is becaise the Botter harms the player base where as the RMT dude supports the player base but harms CCP by providing cheap ISK.
Because different offenses require different responses.
Botters harm CCP too, because a botter will consume more resources than a normal player while paying the same subscription.
RMTers harm the players too, because with real money comes real crimes such as hacking. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
186
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 16:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
0Lona 0ltor wrote:The only answer to that is CPP finds small scale botting within the rules
That is clearly not the only answer, that's just the only one you've written.
They could be working with limited resources and therefore they may have to prioritise some things over others. This is not an uncommon feature of running a business. Maybe this is an answer?
Maybe they genuinely feel that botting is a less serious offence than RMT and are therefore giving a proportionate response. This is not an uncommon feature of rules enforcement. Maybe this is an answer?
Given that both of those are more likely, more logical, more reasonable and more in line with CCP's public statements on these matters, I have to wonder why you would choose an unlikely, illogical, unreasonable and inflamatory interpretation instead. |
|
|
| |
|