Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 27 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 37 post(s) |
virm pasuul
Viziam Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 11:47:00 -
[571] - Quote
To answer your question directly multiboxing is OK when it does not break the ELUA. Does the software you want to use to multibox break the ELUA?
|
culo duro
Next Level Alcoholics
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 11:51:00 -
[572] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:How can CCP give a definative answer on something like multiboxing when the software tools used to multibox are outside of their control?
If CCP looks at ISBoxer ( just as an example ) and comes to the conclusion that it's OK - Then they say "Yes it's OK to use ISBoxer" What happens when the day after CCP said it's Ok ,the ISBoxer devs update the software and add a feature that CCP are very much against? CCP just said it was OK to use it, but now it does different things to when CCP reviewed it. CCP can't ban people for using something they said was OK to use. But it now breaks the rules, ELUA, spirit of the rules in a way that is definitely cheating. CCP are now stuck.
CCP deals with this by problem defining as best they can what is cheating. They then say you can't use software that falls into their definition of cheating. ITS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE IF THE SOFTWARE YOU WANT TO USE MEETS THIS DEFINITION OF CHEATING OR NOT. If you are unsure then the simplest way to avoid problems is not to use the software. It's not up to CCP to YES/NO every bit of software that they have no control over.
In that case it's up to CCP to contact the developer of the software, and tell him what extend he's allowed to go and what he's not, there's alot of gray areas currently. Gray areas are not good. |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 11:52:00 -
[573] - Quote
Bloody Wench wrote: Someone getting 30 jumps 15 minutes quicker I don't give a ****.
For pvp perspective - it does - also in higsec. And from my perspective 1 person commanding ( from build in interface 30 miners in fleet what to mine) is also thing that i
Bloody Wench wrote: I don't give a ****. |
virm pasuul
Viziam Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 11:53:00 -
[574] - Quote
Bloody Wench wrote:
Warp to 0 AP is not a game breaking hack / exploit. It doesn't impact gameplay negatively for the vast majority of players. With the exception of suiciders and gate camps, and clearly improves gameplay for over 2000 users. I realise at this point I sound like I'm in favour of it, and possibly I am, however my personal stance is irrelevant.
Ratting bots, mission running bots, courier bots, market bots and mining bots....these things adversely impact my game play.
Someone getting 30 jumps 15 minutes quicker I don't give a ****.
That's purely opinion, and it's wrong. It is an exploit as decided by CCP and the ELUA. The bans are proof that CCP consider it an exploit. That it negatively impacts a single player is enough. That fact you want to be able to do it is irrelevant. It provides imbalance. Piracy is a valid deliberate play style in Eve - auto to zero interferes with that game play style in a matter that the game manufacturer considers serious enough to ban people for. You can petition CCP to change their stance on this as is your right - but right now it is a bannable exploit.
|
culo duro
Next Level Alcoholics
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 11:55:00 -
[575] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:Bloody Wench wrote:
Warp to 0 AP is not a game breaking hack / exploit. It doesn't impact gameplay negatively for the vast majority of players. With the exception of suiciders and gate camps, and clearly improves gameplay for over 2000 users. I realise at this point I sound like I'm in favour of it, and possibly I am, however my personal stance is irrelevant.
Ratting bots, mission running bots, courier bots, market bots and mining bots....these things adversely impact my game play.
Someone getting 30 jumps 15 minutes quicker I don't give a ****.
That's purely opinion, and it's wrong. It is an exploit as decided by CCP and the ELUA. The bans are proof that CCP consider it an exploit. That it negatively impacts a single player is enough. That fact you want to be able to do it is irrelevant. It provides imbalance. Piracy is a valid deliberate play style in Eve - auto to zero interferes with that game play style in a matter that the game manufacturer considers serious enough to ban people for. You can petition CCP to change their stance on this as is your right - but right now it is a bannable exploit.
The reason Warp to Zero is banned is because you modify the client, not because of how it impacts the game, that's only a small part of it, if any. |
Artctura
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
210
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 11:57:00 -
[576] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:This thread needs to be closed. It's a clusterf*****k of self inflicted fear uncertainty doubt and what must be deliberate mis interpretation and wilful lack of understanding. It servers no purpose other than to increase tinfoil hat sales - I suspect the goons, don't they own the tinfoil moons?
CCP have made themselves clear. If you are capable of understanding the CCP message then continue cache scraping for purposes not against the spirit of the ELUA.
If you are all in a woeful tizzy maelstorm of sky falling down, and quitting eve. Then just uninstall whatever 3dd party software you are using, and get yerself off down to see the nurse for some meds before a nice peaceful nap. Amd stop worrying.
I swear some people get off on worrying - and board lawyering mixed with a supersized dose of lack of comprehension .
Except it took 16 pages to get to the point that CCP said that, and prior to that involved several third party developers who were scratching their heads at what CCP stated on page 1. Artctura for CSM 2013 |
virm pasuul
Viziam Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 11:58:00 -
[577] - Quote
culo duro wrote:
In that case it's up to CCP to contact the developer of the software, and tell him what extend he's allowed to go and what he's not, there's alot of gray areas currently. Gray areas are not good.
Nope absolutely not. It's up to you to abide by the Eve ELUA - it's that simple. Abide or be banned.
What you propose is a practical impossibility for soooo sooo many reasons I couldn't list them all here. Basically it all boils down to CCP has no control over 3rd party developers. e.g. anonymously written software, how could CCP possibly control that? Pure fantasy.
As a player of Eve you must abide by the ELUA of face the consequences, it's that simple. |
culo duro
Next Level Alcoholics
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:00:00 -
[578] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:culo duro wrote:
In that case it's up to CCP to contact the developer of the software, and tell him what extend he's allowed to go and what he's not, there's alot of gray areas currently. Gray areas are not good.
Nope absolutely not. It's up to you to abide by the Eve ELUA - it's that simple. Abide or be banned. What you propose is a practical impossibility for soooo sooo many reasons I couldn't list them all here. Basically it all boils down to CCP has no control over 3rd party developers. e.g. anonymously written software, how could CCP possibly control that? Pure fantasy. As a player of Eve you must abide by the ELUA of face the consequences, it's that simple.
You didn't watch the last stream did you? CCP Works along with thirdparty developers to improve their game. Please go somewhere else unless you got something constructive to say. |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:00:00 -
[579] - Quote
CCP prepare a topic: - automation wish-list in eve.
Take 20 things people are requesting most often.
Create a voting on each ( people can say YES/NO)
And after this decide what things have to be changed in eve.
|
culo duro
Next Level Alcoholics
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:02:00 -
[580] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:CCP prepare a topic: - automation wish-list in eve.
Take 20 things people are requesting most often.
Create a voting on each ( people can say YES/NO)
And after this decide what things have to be changed in eve.
There's never going to be allowed Automation in eve, there have to be a player doing it. |
|
virm pasuul
Viziam Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:04:00 -
[581] - Quote
culo duro wrote:
You didn't watch the last stream did you? CCP Works along with thirdparty developers to improve their game. Please go somewhere else unless you got something constructive to say.
And the 3rd party devs who don't work with CCP or abide by CCP rules? It's not the ones who play fair that are the problem. Soime 3rd party tools - the botting software for exaple is clearly against CCP rules - those devs are hardly cooperating with CCP are they? CCP cannot control all 3rd party external software developers. That's a fact.
and it's not for you to decide who does and doesn't post here thank you - it's not my fault you are trying to build a straw man out of thin air |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:12:00 -
[582] - Quote
culo duro wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:CCP prepare a topic: - automation wish-list in eve.
Take 20 things people are requesting most often.
Create a voting on each ( people can say YES/NO)
And after this decide what things have to be changed in eve.
There's never going to be allowed Automation in eve, there have to be a player doing it.
Only what type of automation we are talking about? Im talking abut of automation level already present in eve. For example auto reloading weapons - this is automation level that im thinking about. |
culo duro
Next Level Alcoholics
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:13:00 -
[583] - Quote
virm pasuul wrote:culo duro wrote:
You didn't watch the last stream did you? CCP Works along with thirdparty developers to improve their game. Please go somewhere else unless you got something constructive to say.
And the 3rd party devs who don't work with CCP or abide by CCP rules? It's not the ones who play fair that are the problem. Soime 3rd party tools - the botting software for exaple is clearly against CCP rules - those devs are hardly cooperating with CCP are they? CCP cannot control all 3rd party external software developers. That's a fact. and it's not for you to decide who does and doesn't post here thank you - it's not my fault you are trying to build a straw man out of thin air
This is completely regarding the Thirdparty software which is borderline crossing the EULA, not the Thirdparty apps which have clearly crossed that line...
Bots are automated which is clearly against the EULA, however CCP is saying stuff like Macros is disallowed... Macros in itself is a huge word.
It can be me pressing Numpad1 on my keyboard broadcasting to 1 other client, or it can be me broadcasting to 27 other clients. That's what we need a stance on.
However you chose to come here to the forum and use internet logic: "You don't have the same opinion as me therefore you're wrong." That's not how opinions work.
If CCP wanted to communicate with a guy like Joe that's masking ISBoxer, they could easily do so. I've spoken to Joe and according to him his software doesn't break the EULA, but as he told me, it depends on how CCP looks at it. CCP left a huge gray area, which they need to close. That's what people are talking about.... Silly NPC Alt. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling
149
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:14:00 -
[584] - Quote
As I've explained to the incursion community I'm a senior FC for, in the long run, CCP doesn't need the EULA to ban anyone. Hell, as has been pointed out, in some countries you could print the EULA out and use it for toilet paper for all the validity it has. In the long run, the EULA and the TOS are simply there for a convenient excuse for CCP to point to when they do ban someone, for the inevitable QQ that will follow, they can simply point to it and say "That's why, now go away."
In short, don't go doing anything drastic in regards to the game unless your already doing something they have made abundantly clear they are head hunting for to ban people over. And if you are doing so, you should stop doing so, as if you don't, as they will catch you when they figure out how to detect it, it's just a matter of time and coding, after all. And at that point, you only have yourself to blame for the ban.
Now, I'm done with this thread. Those of you who are intelligent and friendly, (and enjoy my posting style or whatever) feel free to follow my continueing forum posts, atm I am primarily focused on the Amarr BS, L Laser, and Resist Nerf threads, but I keep an eye out for other dev posts in case it's anything I want to know about changes to our beloved game :) . |
culo duro
Next Level Alcoholics
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:17:00 -
[585] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:culo duro wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:CCP prepare a topic: - automation wish-list in eve.
Take 20 things people are requesting most often.
Create a voting on each ( people can say YES/NO)
And after this decide what things have to be changed in eve.
There's never going to be allowed Automation in eve, there have to be a player doing it. Only what type of automation we are talking about? Im talking abut of automation level already present in eve. For example auto reloading weapons - this is automation level that im thinking about.
Stuff which this thread is about. When you're reloading your guns automatically you're probably present, which doesn't break the EULA. If you do Automation like Botting or that's what CCP seems to be after, but it definently needs to be presented. |
Evora Chili
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:54:00 -
[586] - Quote
Maybe it's just a language barrier, but there are a few questions that are still not answered. I know that CCP is primarily aiming against botters and that I won't get a statement on specific multiboxing tools, but it would be really nice to actually get a GM response on the following questions:
1. are tools that repeat / broadcast mouse-movement and keyboard strokes from one client (that's controlled by a human) to multiple clients, bannable? 2. some tools can be set up to use video overlays that can show information from other clients (shield/armor/hull HUD, weapons, overview, etc) on your main monitor. is that allowed? it doesn't change any game files afaik 3. what about a launcher that starts multiple clients? |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 12:56:00 -
[587] - Quote
raylu D wrote:Now that we're on page 20, is it a good time to point out that cache scraping is completely undetectable? At best, you can try to check access time but you're somewhat hosed when dealing with multiple EVE clients, hour delays (but hey, CCP's API just does the same thing but much worse), and the fact that it can be trivially spoofed with SetFileTime. To reiterate: there is no way to tell when something else is reading a file. What is the point of this rule?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx
If they want to keep the cache files from being read, they need to come up with a secure encryption system, generally speaking however, they can (if they so desire) likely see what program is viewing the files. With little effort you could hide it, but it is still possible. |
Bloody Wench
313
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:02:00 -
[588] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:culo duro wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:CCP prepare a topic: - automation wish-list in eve.
Take 20 things people are requesting most often.
Create a voting on each ( people can say YES/NO)
And after this decide what things have to be changed in eve.
There's never going to be allowed Automation in eve, there have to be a player doing it. Only what type of automation we are talking about? Im talking abut of automation level already present in eve. For example auto reloading weapons - this is automation level that im thinking about.
There's a fundamental difference between a macro and 'automation'. A macro might press a key at some interval and do it forever. for loops as an example But the moment you introduce if else statements or other types of logic that will respond to changing input it becomes a bot.
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:08:00 -
[589] - Quote
Sweet Jesus you guys are asking questions, and I am not going to say a Frekkin thing...
Yea, that looks like he has "addressed" it in full CCP style....
|
Terminator 2
Omega Boost
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:09:00 -
[590] - Quote
I'd like to have clarification from CCP on the following grey area:
Suppose that i have RSI on my mousehand and experience a disadvantage compared to unimpaired players.
Now i use the onboard windows tools for disabled people to put doubleclick on a keyboard key.
Have i used forbidden automatisation to gain an advantage over other people?
Will CCP detect this incorrectly and ban me due to a supposed automatisation tool which is a windows onboard functionality? |
|
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
14
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:17:00 -
[591] - Quote
CCP Stillman wrote: Team Security focuses on what we can do to stop macroing and RMT. That is where we will spend our time. So take that for what you want.
To remove RMT all you need to do is remove the Market, player isk transfers, and isk generated through player interactions, and asset transfers from char to char. If you want to focus on everything that causes RMT then it is having isk and assets, so you must remove isk and assets from the equasion.
You could rename the game too... WorldOfEve, or even have lots of games! WorldOfEveShips, WorldOfDust, WorldOfEvePlanets.
If ccp would have given what they promised YEARS ago (A single universal market system) then market sites would be useless. make orders buyable and sellable on a global level ingame and that would kill that type of cache scraping.
|
Natalia Abre-Kai
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:40:00 -
[592] - Quote
DeODokktor wrote: make orders buyable and sellable on a global level ingame
Please never do this! |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:42:00 -
[593] - Quote
Sorry - im reading this eula again , again, and again.
Quote:HereGÇÖs what the EULA considers bad in 6.A:
2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
3. You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play. You may not rewrite or modify the user interface or otherwise manipulate data in any way to acquire items, currency, objects, character attributes or beneficial actions not actually acquired or achieved in the Game.
Isboxer, or any other multiboxing software.
Quote:2. You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.
Logitech G15
Quote:"macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns"
Eve-Central & market uploading
Quote: manipulate data in any way to acquire items
You say no? Autopilot Warp to zero ( apart from client modification - for sure you can achieve this in different ways): - Isboxer : 100 ships warp after you - so you gain unfair advantage over other players. - Logitech G15 - (i don't have one) but from what other people say - you can program one to warp gate to gate - so macros - etc , etc.
For me - any multiboxing / scriptable ( object or software) falls under this point.
|
celebro
Perpetuum Industries
67
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:44:00 -
[594] - Quote
I noticed someone got the banhammer
Perpetuum help Chat:
[15:14:36] G1antJack: i got 30 day ban in eve online :( but i think this game is good for 30 days ^^ [15:15:05] G1antJack: i googled a bit and found laser is best dps here or? [15:15:15] Z3ck> lol for more than that but that's my opinion ^^ [15:15:23] G1antJack: hehe [15:16:30] Z3ck: not really ^^ [15:16:55] G1antJack: whats best weapons then? [15:17:59] Z3ck: each have advantage [15:18:24] G1antJack: what is best for noobs like me? laser has high range and good dps or i think thats good for me [15:18:43] Z3ck: missile launcher [15:19:29] Z3ck: bad dps but the hit rate is good [15:19:38] Z3ck: hight distance [15:20:33] G1antJack: hmm ok i check it out and google a bit more thx
Link for offline chat : http://sequer.nl/chat-monitor/Help |
Tiberius Murderhorne
CONTRATTO Tribal Band
68
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:46:00 -
[595] - Quote
most good gaming keyboards on the market have programmable hot keys??
is your software looking for these too?? I have a G19 and a G700 mouse, I dont use macros but i do have keyboard keys mapped to mouse buttons, am I now breaking the EULA???
I cannot believe you skipped past the CSM on this one.....
Disclaimer : My posting does not always reflect my Corps views or my allience views.... Infact sometimes it does not even reflect my views! |
Atum
Apex Scientific Brothers of Tangra
75
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:57:00 -
[596] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:In case of multiboxing CCP is in very bad position. Why? Let's say there is a single IP address running nine(!) clients. A human multiboxer (like myself) can only interact with one client at a time, while a software-assisted multiboxer (and let's just go ahead and use ISBoxer as an example) can issue commands to multiple clients simultaneously. I should think that would be incredibly easy for CCP to detect. Even in the case of three roomies each running three clients, CCP should be able to detect (via MAC addresses, hardware signatures, or some other gadget) that if three mouse clicks came in during the same game "tick," that they came from three different physical machines. Further, the odds of three separate machines running three clients each, having coordinated clicking is so close to nil that CCP could again say "Yeah, these are different people playing behind NAT, not one person botting." |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 13:59:00 -
[597] - Quote
Tiberius Murderhorne wrote:most good gaming keyboards on the market have programmable hot keys??
is your software looking for these too?? I have a G19 and a G700 mouse, I dont use macros but i do have keyboard keys mapped to mouse buttons, am I now breaking the EULA???
I cannot believe you skipped past the CSM on this one.....
Apparently you are braking EULA. Because you do something - that others - cannot - you use a repetable macro I don't say this is good/bad - simply brakes EULA.
"You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play "
|
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 14:06:00 -
[598] - Quote
Atum wrote:Anthar Thebess wrote:In case of multiboxing CCP is in very bad position. Why? Let's say there is a single IP address running nine(!) clients. A human multiboxer (like myself) can only interact with one client at a time, while a software-assisted multiboxer (and let's just go ahead and use ISBoxer as an example) can issue commands to multiple clients simultaneously. I should think that would be incredibly easy for CCP to detect. Even in the case of three roomies each running three clients, CCP should be able to detect (via MAC addresses, hardware signatures, or some other gadget) that if three mouse clicks came in during the same game "tick," that they came from three different physical machines. Further, the odds of three separate machines running three clients each, having coordinated clicking is so close to nil that CCP could again say "Yeah, these are different people playing behind NAT, not one person botting."
CCP have eve for making money - not for fun. Without ability to use multiboxing software - many people will discontinue some of the accounts - and this means less income for CCP.
Good example? While i was flying my raiden char in higsec i noticed something strange on local. The same nic 74! times the only different was numbers at the end of the nick. I warped belt by belt and finally found this guy ( yep it was one - i was talking with him on local ). 70 coventors on one belt + orca and freighters moving belt <> station.
Simply i don't see any other possibility than semi-Boting/ Multiboxing to maintain this kind of operation.
70x19.95= 1396.5 $ less/month if this guy decide to discontinue most of his accounts. Thats why :
Atum wrote:[quote=Anthar Thebess]In case of multiboxing CCP is in very bad position.
|
Terminator 2
Omega Boost
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 14:08:00 -
[599] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Tiberius Murderhorne wrote:most good gaming keyboards on the market have programmable hot keys??
is your software looking for these too?? I have a G19 and a G700 mouse, I dont use macros but i do have keyboard keys mapped to mouse buttons, am I now breaking the EULA???
I cannot believe you skipped past the CSM on this one.....
Apparently you are braking EULA. Because you do something - that others - cannot - you use a repetable macro I don't say this is good/bad - simply brakes EULA. "You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play "
That is the problem exactly what i have written a few posts above.
EVERYONE CAN DO THIS. IT IS BUILT INTO EVERY WINDOWS SYSTEM. RAPID MOUSECLICKS, DOUBLECLICKS AND SO ON ARE STANDARD WINDOWS FEATURES FOR IMPAIRED PEOPLE.
I want clarification from CCP on this one, as it is stupid if you get the hammer for using windows. |
Atum
Apex Scientific Brothers of Tangra
75
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 14:10:00 -
[600] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Simply i don't see any other possibility than semi-Boting/ Multiboxing to maintain this kind of operation.
70x19.95= 1396.5 $ less/month if this guy decide to discontinue most of his accounts. I see two things.... 1. A perfect target for kill mails 2. A way to make human-driven (as opposed to bot-subsidized) industry at least a little more viable
YARRR!!! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 27 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |