EVE Search - Got an official answer about the portrait Db thing the goons use

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Got an official answer about the portrait Db thing the goons use

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.11 15:11:00 - [241] Originally by: Charcoal Looked pretty clear to me that it was directed at Laendra. I don't even truly understand what there is to be discussed here... the EULA is clear in prohibiting any modification of the client, and several people have posted to say that the responses they got to petitions they had sent in indicated that it was an exploit. What do you people need? A dedicated dev post saying "DON'T DO IT" in 96-pt crimson type? What needs to be discussed (actually, it's been discussed to death...it needs to be fecking answered), for those that are too dimwitted or ignorant to be able to read, is the fact that we have 2 different sets of "responses" from GMs, one set stating that the application if fine to use, and the other stating that it is an exploit, and we need to get a definitive, explicit, answer from CCP regarding the use of this application, since the GMs seem to have little ability to provide consistent answers. And, instead of players saying "yes, we need a definitive answer on this", we get people that want to try and prove that they KNOW CCP's thoughts on the matter (whether they happen to end up being right or wrong is irrelevant), and that everyone else should shut the feck up. So, who is more ignorant? I vote the one that says "I KNOW what they are thinking". -------------------
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.11 19:00:00 - [242] I'll tell you what. The person who said a GM told them it's ok, EVE-mail me the name of the GM who said it was ok. The person who said a GM told them it was NOT ok, EVE-mail me that GM's name. I'll petition the damn situation, list which GM said it was ok and which said it wasn't, along with the names of the players who were answered. Then I'll stick this thread link in the petition as well, with the request that they answer me by posting their answer in here instead of replying directly to me. Ok? Sorry you can't afford a dev so you get me instead ^^ - Xorus I hear Xorus is only 50 isk an hour - Immy Oooh that could get Suvetar for the day! - Cathath
Apsa1ar	Posted - 2006.09.11 19:19:00 - [243] Originally by: DropZone 187 Anyhow, run it by an IP Lawyer and you will get another interesting interpretation that is probably more correct. That part about altering the client is mainly in regards to distributing a non-official client for which CCP is completely entitled to protect it's own interests. This however would not extend to an individual who modified a client for their own purposes, i.e. they have poor vision and use zoom in utilities, color changers, etc. I'm an IP lawyer, but I'm not sure why my skill-set is particularly relevant. The EULA says "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" (emphasis added). Does the Goon program "modify any content appearing within the Game environment"? I think the answer is pretty clearly "yes." Ergo, Goons who use this software are violating the EULA. It ain't rocket surgery.
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.11 19:55:00 - [244] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia I'll tell you what. The person who said a GM told them it's ok, EVE-mail me the name of the GM who said it was ok. The person who said a GM told them it was NOT ok, EVE-mail me that GM's name. I'll petition the damn situation, list which GM said it was ok and which said it wasn't, along with the names of the players who were answered. Then I'll stick this thread link in the petition as well, with the request that they answer me by posting their answer in here instead of replying directly to me. Ok? That'd be perfectly okay ....although I don't think the goons much care if this resolved, so I don't think they'll cooperate much on that fact. -------------------
Tas Devil JUDGE DREAD Inc. Forces of Freedom	Posted - 2006.09.11 20:02:00 - [245] Originally by: Apsa1ar Originally by: DropZone 187 Anyhow, run it by an IP Lawyer and you will get another interesting interpretation that is probably more correct. That part about altering the client is mainly in regards to distributing a non-official client for which CCP is completely entitled to protect it's own interests. This however would not extend to an individual who modified a client for their own purposes, i.e. they have poor vision and use zoom in utilities, color changers, etc. I'm an IP lawyer, but I'm not sure why my skill-set is particularly relevant. The EULA says "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" (emphasis added). Does the Goon program "modify any content appearing within the Game environment"? I think the answer is pretty clearly "yes." Ergo, Goons who use this software are violating the EULA. It ain't rocket surgery. You attempt surgery with rockets ? The best Laugh ever ... Credit goes to Killer8 for this ! Oh and apparently the mods tell me there is ba
Macdeth Ephemeral Misgivings	Posted - 2006.09.11 20:43:00 - [246] I've certainly read a GM response on one of these threads many months ago that lasted maybe half an hour before getting censored that most definitely said what they were doing, they way they were doing it, was not a EULA violation, though obviously these responses are at the GM's discretion until CCP makes official rulings on a particular topic which then become the new policy. Some people are saying "It's not fair that these people have this when we don't", but there's nothing stopping sufficiently organized and competent groups from duplicating the effort at will... I've personally duplicated theintelproject.net's functionality and data collection as descibed earlier in this thread as a fun side project. Some of those crying the loudest do make use of an in-game service from them which aggregates the exact same corp & character intel this thread is about, where on the outbreak of new hostilities, every player in the corp goes to a special IGB page that has nothing but the portraits of every known player in that corporation for them to right click and say 'add to address book'. The character/corporation database on intel-project is very thorough, and includes the ships pilots have been sighted in too, I can infer even without 'member' access. In the event that the GOON tool was ever officially declared illegal, I harbour few doubts that an organization of thousands of players has a programmer or two who can write a couple SQL queries for a database they already possess to generate a webpage, losing precious little of their supposed 'unfair advantage' over enemies who already get the exact same information with a little bit more risk of RSI injuries. By the descriptions of both tools we see in this thread, one method involves no server-side load whatsoever. The other which everyone posting here accepts as legitimate involves a great deal of server side load upon everyone's entry and exit from the game, and is very widespread by evidence of the frequent 'Obvious login trap!' type of forum posts or messages we see in-game. Both use local as an intel tool for how many hostiles and friendlies are present. Instas are a good parallel. I spent a couple weeks just a speck ago picking up instas for every single region I lacked on multiple characters, and I rather doubt I'm the only one. I'd have been a little miffed if the patch introduced a 'warp at zero' rendering all the tedious effort I went to a complete waste of time, but the time lag as the folder settings get parsed/written to disk every time I right click in space or try to make a new safespot continues to make me wish they had. I personally think many of you guys who have buddylisted thousands of enemy players manually are envious that the goons get that same intel for little individual effort much more than you think what they do breaks the game, since clearly your buddy lists are actually breaking the game (by tying up server resources) more than cache icon replacements do, just like everyone's many thousands of instas incline them toward saying "I had to do it, so should you".
Dred 'Morte Sabre Inc Center for Disease Creation	Posted - 2006.09.11 21:32:00 - [247] Originally by: K Shara I just ignore the nubs TBH, I wouldnt care if this thing was being used by my closest friends its an exploit, and as such anyone who uses it should be banned. And "TBH" your an 455. Signature made by Mr Floppykickners
sr blackout Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.11 21:54:00 - [248] isnt there a big difference between static out of game, free info... and the fact of dynamic data, esp if those details about the portraits is taken from cache and then placed back into the game to display who is foe or friend is clearly modifying eve at the present state, any form of real time data displayed like that is a cheat, its almost like wall hack in fps games, removing or showing data from the server in places of the game when it should not be there or was not indented and gives an advantage to that player or players is exploit/cheat.
DropZone 187	Posted - 2006.09.12 00:10:00 - [249] Originally by: Apsa1ar Originally by: DropZone 187 Anyhow, run it by an IP Lawyer and you will get another interesting interpretation that is probably more correct. That part about altering the client is mainly in regards to distributing a non-official client for which CCP is completely entitled to protect it's own interests. This however would not extend to an individual who modified a client for their own purposes, i.e. they have poor vision and use zoom in utilities, color changers, etc. I'm an IP lawyer, but I'm not sure why my skill-set is particularly relevant. The EULA says "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" (emphasis added). Does the Goon program "modify any content appearing within the Game environment"? I think the answer is pretty clearly "yes." Ergo, Goons who use this software are violating the EULA. It ain't rocket surgery. Well that is probably why some IP lawyer get paid the 'big bucks' :) You yourself should know that the definition of 'game environment' can only be that for which CCP has the right to control - in particular their own server hardware. They have no right whatsoever to control the machine of individual playing the game. If you remember correctly a few years back a slightly bigger company got their wrist slapped for the same type of approach by the name of Microsoft.... Once again, getting back to the point is individual client modification is still outside the control of CCP. They could still ban you as they see fit, but once again the consumer is still protected by their credit card company policies. BTW, I have no affiliation with the goons (in fact, I quite dislike them) but I am just pointing out the extreme people are going to here which is beyond the intent of the EULA. Anyhow enough is enough and it is pointless to discuss/debate with forum trolls who for some strange reason think they know all and have the right to make binding decisions...
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.12 00:43:00 - [250] Originally by: Macdeth I've certainly read a GM response on one of these threads many months ago that lasted maybe half an hour before getting censored that most definitely said what they were doing, they way they were doing it, was not a EULA violation, though obviously these responses are at the GM's discretion until CCP makes official rulings on a particular topic which then become the new policy. If that was true the post would be available on eve-search, which it is not. The only official thing I have read on the subject went along the lines of "It is an exploit, but we can't currently detect it." It is worth noting that was said before the dragon patch, which went a long way to securing the client (as can be seen by those people moaning they can't change the font anymore), and it may be that the situation has changed. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Hllaxiu Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.09.12 00:46:00 - [251] Originally by: Avon If that was true the post would be available on eve-search, which it is not. Not necessarily. Since EVE-Search only polls every so often, a post can be made and deleted by the mod squad before its indexed. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Apsa1ar	Posted - 2006.09.12 00:58:00 - [252] Edited by: Apsa1ar on 12/09/2006 00:58:23 Originally by: DropZone 187 Well that is probably why some IP lawyer get paid the 'big bucks' :) You yourself should know that the definition of 'game environment' can only be that for which CCP has the right to control - in particular their own server hardware. They have no right whatsoever to control the machine of individual playing the game. If you remember correctly a few years back a slightly bigger company got their wrist slapped for the same type of approach by the name of Microsoft.... Once again, getting back to the point is individual client modification is still outside the control of CCP. They could still ban you as they see fit, but once again the consumer is still protected by their credit card company policies. BTW, I have no affiliation with the goons (in fact, I quite dislike them) but I am just pointing out the extreme people are going to here which is beyond the intent of the EULA. Are you arguing, with a straight face, that, under the EULA, CCP has no right to ban players for running a modified client? And seriously, don't bring up Microsoft. That was an antitrust decision, and completely irrelevant here. CCP doesn't quite have a monopoly in the [insert relevant market] market. And the credit card thing is a red herring. Whether a player may get reimbursed by their credit card company has no bearing on whether an activity is prohibited by the EULA.
Macdeth Ephemeral Misgivings	Posted - 2006.09.12 01:08:00 - [253] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Macdeth I've certainly read a GM response on one of these threads many months ago that lasted maybe half an hour before getting censored that most definitely said what they were doing, they way they were doing it, was not a EULA violation, though obviously these responses are at the GM's discretion until CCP makes official rulings on a particular topic which then become the new policy. If that was true the post would be available on eve-search, which it is not. The only official thing I have read on the subject went along the lines of "It is an exploit, but we can't currently detect it." It is worth noting that was said before the dragon patch, which went a long way to securing the client (as can be seen by those people moaning they can't change the font anymore), and it may be that the situation has changed. I do know I read it. (It was an alleged petition response copied and pasted, not a dev/GM post.) I really think that people put too much stock in what random GMs say in response to petitions, anyway. They're generally not the ones who make final decisions, so when something new comes up you'll get inconsistent responses depending on who the GM answering the petition is until a policy decision is made by someone much more senior than the front-line customer service reps. If the "We can't detect it anyway" remains in effect, there's little sense in saying "You are bad bad bad people!" when you can't back it up with anything. I think that CCP is just letting it slide, because as I just said, it apparently barely gives more intel in local (and gives less regarding enemies' online status) than things which are unarguably legal, and actually saves server resources compared to the legal way. In this case, they'd probably be doing everyone a favour by just saying "It's allowed, period", while continuing to work out a way to eliminate the use of local as an intel tool altogether.
sr blackout Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.12 03:33:00 - [254] if ccp didnt care and thought it was fine then we would have third party mods like other games have to GUI and what not... and we would have such options as this... but they do not... so saying they let it slide is not true... either they ban it or let ppl make third party GUI mods and make some specific plugs to use for eve. But such things have been talked about since beta days and they didnÆt pass then and I doubt they would now.
sr blackout Minmatar	Posted - 2006.09.12 03:36:00 - [255] also this idea was far far brought up in this thread as a quickInfo but i guess ppl thought they would do this theme selves... though by the EULA it states that you can not make any modifications...
Jessica Love	Posted - 2006.09.12 09:51:00 - [256] Edited by: Jessica Love on 12/09/2006 09:51:51 Originally by: Avon Originally by: Laughlyn Vaughns whatever area of space they stomp around in, cant imagine them not trying to claim any area of space as their own sicne mojarity of other alliances all have Er, we evicted them. Avon, They are still in s-u mate, right after you left they just returned
CelticKnight Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.13 03:29:00 - [257] I look at the argument from a different perspective, remove local, and the Pirates/gankers wouldnt know if there were people waiting for them, so they wouldnt be able to go 'oooh looksie! noes there is a 50man blob somewhere in local.. lets LOG!' :) ofc.. we would know INSTANTLY they entered local, thanks to the covops sitting on the gate :D they go from gate to gate, to get stuck in our 12 bubble gatecamp :) and blasted by a 50BS squadron :) BUT! this would be terrible disadvantage to the pirates, so CCP would never allow it..... lol. If the ratters want to work unguarded thats thier own fault.. get a covops alt.. I think it would be a great idea, would get us plenty of ganks of random pirates that think just cause thier in a vagabond is going to deliver them from anything... would stop the logging off at least... Im dont have a sig.
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.13 12:44:00 - [258] Originally by: CelticKnight I look at the argument from a different perspective, remove local, and the Pirates/gankers wouldnt know if there were people waiting for them, so they wouldnt be able to go 'oooh looksie! noes there is a 50man blob somewhere in local.. lets LOG!' :) ofc.. we would know INSTANTLY they entered local, thanks to the covops sitting on the gate :D they go from gate to gate, to get stuck in our 12 bubble gatecamp :) and blasted by a 50BS squadron :) BUT! this would be terrible disadvantage to the pirates, so CCP would never allow it..... lol. If the ratters want to work unguarded thats thier own fault.. get a covops alt.. I think it would be a great idea, would get us plenty of ganks of random pirates that think just cause thier in a vagabond is going to deliver them from anything... would stop the logging off at least... I'd support that (removal of Local), only if we were still allowed local info when we maintain sovereign status, and/or positive standing with the sovereign owner of the system. Can you imagine the empire people losing local if they had neutral or lower standing with the empire they choose to fly through? Would be great if it was across the board like that. Would minimize the amount of code changes needed and/or broken to make it happen if it worked like that. Would definately change the way the game is played, and I think it would be for the better. Then, Local really could have tactical information (such as overview appearance on the portrait backgrounds, etc.) as it would be a valid tactical tool. And, there could definately be a roleplaying reason for this...stargate control would be in contact with the sovereign owners of the system and let them know when people jump into/out of the system. If you aren't friendly with the sovereign owner, stargate control wouldn't be obliged to inform you of anything....at which point Local would only indicate who communicates in local. -------------------
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.10.31 12:35:00 - [259] A necro. But seeing as a Goonfleet member just posted that they still use the Cube Polygon portrait pack (thread now deleted). I ask CCP this: Why still, has nothing been done? Thankyou. What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass!
Lucre STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.31 12:44:00 - [260] Originally by: FireFoxx80 A necro. But seeing as a Goonfleet member just posted that they still use the Cube Polygon portrait pack (thread now deleted). I ask CCP this: Why still, has nothing been done? Because Kali will add standing display to local and so render the whole issue moot? - It's great flying Amarr, aint it?
Algey ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.10.31 13:13:00 - [261] The thing I love is that on this thread the screenshot shows that the client has been modified in the goonies way, and a Dev has posted in the thread (page 2) saying nothing like "YOU'RE BANNED DAMN YOU." I honestly think they don't care. I just wish everyone were using it, or noone at all. ISSN has decided not to use it until we get an answer saying it is definately legal. ISSN Recruitment Slave
Valan	Posted - 2006.10.31 13:16:00 - [262] Originally by: FireFoxx80 A necro. But seeing as a Goonfleet member just posted that they still use the Cube Polygon portrait pack (thread now deleted). I ask CCP this: Why still, has nothing been done? Thankyou. Because if an entire alliance exploits you don't get banned. Buying power! I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game three years' when I know their account has been sold on.

Xorus Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2006.10.31 13:21:00 - [263] Necro is bad mmmkay, discussing exploits is also bad mmmmkay clickeh :) --- Wanna Buy a Goat??- Tirg Member of the 'Kaemonn is My Hero' club Member of the "Immy's Bald Head Appreciation Society" Xorus is currenly off duty counting trees in Siberia. -Ivan K How much is that goaty in the window, baaa baaaa - Cortes (Secretary, Bald Head Appreciation Society) All your sig are belong to me - Tanis


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.