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)
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.14 10:22:00 - [1] ok, a little while ago I posted this thread asking about the use of the goons portrait database program. for those who arnt aware it replaces the normal portrait with one that shows the alliance / corp of anyone in their database. This means you dont need to manage a buddy list of a few 1000 names erc Anyway I aked in this thread if it was an exploit or legal http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=375266&page=1 The thread was locked and I was instructed to ask via petition. I did this. I got my answer. Now I cant post actual responses from GM's without being hit with big sticks but I was told to quote the following to anyone who claims that using this program is legal Quote: Section 20, TOS: You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game. So, if you are using it you are breaking the EULA and risk the normal result of breaking the EULA.
Alliaanna Dalaii Gallente Does Not Compute	Posted - 2006.08.14 11:05:00 - [2] It is an exploit. It is however non-traceable at this point in time, However cheating is lame. Alliaanna DNC Treasure Hunt !!
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.14 11:11:00 - [3] I know its an exploit, you know its an exploit. but next time ANYONE claims its not I can officially say it is. And I do like to win my arguments
Sir Juri Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2006.08.14 11:15:00 - [4] Edited by: Sir Juri on 14/08/2006 11:15:59 yeah I know ppl that had access to it. Ppl could get it from the forum website that all goons come from. And they all use it to, as ppl from OSS when with goons had the offer to use it. And dont deny it! edit; So they can see in local who is red who is blue... damn need to make a new sig...
Rexthor Hammerfists Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 11:26:00 - [5] good job, now they need a prog tho, to detect those changes.. - Purple Conquered The World, We the Universe.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.14 11:36:00 - [6] It's not an exploit to take CCP byproducts and do with them what you wish. By this I mean the contents of the cache folder. Looking at the code itself or in any other location is a no-no. Putting content into these folders however, in an attempt to modify how the game references these byproducts, is an exploit. As the goon thing of editing character portraits. That's how I interpret it. Obviously IMHO CCP have dug themselves this hole as people have been asking for overview/standing indications in the chat channels for months now.
Sorja E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.14 11:50:00 - [7] Since local is to be removed in Kali, this is irrelevant Now, if they don't remove local, they better give this functionnality to everybody otherwise some will have it, so won't (anyone reminds of UOXtreme back in 1997?). ____________________ Darko1107 > does anything in ascn space have tech II fittings? Quillan Rage > Iron ships
James Snowscoran Caldari Coreli Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.14 11:50:00 - [8] Originally by: FireFoxx80 It's not an exploit to take CCP byproducts and do with them what you wish. By this I mean the contents of the cache folder. Looking at the code itself or in any other location is a no-no. Putting content into these folders however, in an attempt to modify how the game references these byproducts, is an exploit. As the goon thing of editing character portraits. That's how I interpret it. Obviously IMHO CCP have dug themselves this hole as people have been asking for overview/standing indications in the chat channels for months now. Ah, but then many many more people have asked for those same channels to be removed altogether because thyey offer unfair amounts of free intel and recon. And this is the direction CCP has stated they want to go afaik. Which means that standing indications in the chat channels will probably and hopefully remain a dream mister -----
Wild Rho Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.08.14 12:03:00 - [9] Edited by: Wild Rho on 14/08/2006 12:03:49 Edited by: Wild Rho on 14/08/2006 12:03:32 Originally by: Sorja Since local is to be removed in Kali, this is irrelevant YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES! \/ WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
Damien Smith Turbulent	Posted - 2006.08.14 12:59:00 - [10] Seriously?!?! I'm going to have to join in the YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So pirates will have to scan the whole system to know if there's a target or not? People mining/ratting/safespotted will have to scan to know if there's anyone hunting them? And most importantly: You mean that while we're on an op, we could be ambushed by an antipirate gank fleet without having the all seeing, all knowing local channel of doom saying "zomg local jumped by 25, run away"? That's awesome. Got a link to the official statement? ----------- Join channel 'Turby' or die! (bring pie) Mission running carebears drop good loot. Probe one out today!
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:18:00 - [11] Originally by: Damien Smith Seriously?!?! I'm going to have to join in the YYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So pirates will have to scan the whole system to know if there's a target or not? People mining/ratting/safespotted will have to scan to know if there's anyone hunting them? And most importantly: You mean that while we're on an op, we could be ambushed by an antipirate gank fleet without having the all seeing, all knowing local channel of doom saying "zomg local jumped by 25, run away"? That's awesome. Got a link to the official statement? You mean: - gankers will have login, scan through 10-15 belts in 2 mins before finding the ratters/miners, gank them, then logout again, while... - miners and ratters will have to hit a scan button every 3 seconds for 4 hours in a row every time they rat or mine to be remotely safe, even though the reaction time to someone showing up on scanner is probably too short to actually escape. Yes, great. Can't wait for such a 'balanced' change. Life for stabbabond ganksquads was already so terribly risky, it was just unfair.
Baldour Ngarr Artemis Rising	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:20:00 - [12] Originally by: Damien Smith People mining/ratting/safespotted will have to scan to know if there's anyone hunting them? What fun, having a member of the mining crew whose sole job is to click "scan" once every three seconds just in case a pirate wandered in. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:23:00 - [13] Originally by: FireFoxx80 It's not an exploit to take CCP byproducts and do with them what you wish. By this I mean the contents of the cache folder. Looking at the code itself or in any other location is a no-no. Putting content into these folders however, in an attempt to modify how the game references these byproducts, is an exploit. As the goon thing of editing character portraits. That's how I interpret it. Obviously IMHO CCP have dug themselves this hole as people have been asking for overview/standing indications in the chat channels for months now. dude, read my original post. I sent the GM's a copy of the program and asked if it was legal. They said no, its against the EULA and if anyone claimed it was legal to quote the relevent section. There are so many ways CCP could detect modified portrait caches. When you enter a new local it would be easy to check a checksum on your portrait cache
Zirator Times of Ancar R i s e	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:39:00 - [14] Nice work K Shara, now we only need the devs to stealth implement a tool to check the use of this app in the next Kali update.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:41:00 - [15] Yeah I agree with you, putting content in to Eve seems to be a no-no. However, if I wanted to look into the cache, take the portraits, and construct a tasteful collage for my wall, then that's fine. This program seems to be putting content in to Eve. Look at the old EveMap, JIDE Object Explorer, market data export (pre-RMR), tri-exporter, and a whole bunch of other things where people have taken content out of eve; all has been deemed within the EULA (albeit some with asking CCP). Anyway, I am glad that it's against the EULA, it gave an alliance a significant tactical advantage over others. Doing a right-click>show info>standings everytime a new person enters local, makes the baby jesus cry.
Gariuys Evil Strangers Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:43:00 - [16] Originally by: Zirator Nice work K Shara, now we only need the devs to stealth implement a tool to check the use of this app in the next Kali update. Bye bye goons... should have a name filter too any name not starting with Remie... should stay...
Eleis Machuron	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:47:00 - [17] Originally by: Baldour Ngarr What fun, having a member of the mining crew whose sole job is to click "scan" once every three seconds just in case a pirate wandered in. Well, you could put alt pickets on the gates, and mine in 2-gate (or 1-gate!) systems. But I'm still not sure I like no local.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 13:48:00 - [18] Originally by: EULA CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct ... 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. That was pretty much pointed to as the answer to my question about this. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Scorpyn Caldari Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2006.08.14 14:12:00 - [19] Edited by: Scorpyn on 14/08/2006 14:13:58 Originally by: Sorja Since local is to be removed in Kali, this is irrelevant I doubt that. I'm pretty sure they will change it - especially in 0.0 - but a complete removal doesn't seem very likely imo. On topic : I find it rather amazing that anyone would actually believe that this would be allowed. If that is how they fight their wars, then winning won't really mean anything.
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard	Posted - 2006.08.14 14:57:00 - [20] Originally by: Sorja Since local is to be removed in Kali, this is irrelevant Yes, remove local in 0.0, but also remove the feature on the map showing number of peeps in a system. Otherwise you will tell the pirates where the targets are, but not tell the targets where the pirates are.
Adoro Caldari Reunited	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:03:00 - [21] What is it anyway? -------- "I'll trade you my sleipnir for your sleipnirs."
Damien Smith Turbulent	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:44:00 - [22] Edited by: Damien Smith on 14/08/2006 15:50:46 Originally by: Malachon Draco You mean: - gankers will have login, scan through 10-15 belts in 2 mins before finding the ratters/miners, gank them, then logout again, while... - miners and ratters will have to hit a scan button every 3 seconds for 4 hours in a row every time they rat or mine to be remotely safe, even though the reaction time to someone showing up on scanner is probably too short to actually escape. Yes, great. Can't wait for such a 'balanced' change. Life for stabbabond ganksquads was already so terribly risky, it was just unfair. Riiiiight... For a start, that would be boring as hell. Why the hell would anyone play if it was that easy? Second of all, if this is true (which I very much doubt) then pirates would be just as much at risk of being hunted by antipirates as miners are by pirates. Most importantly though, and the sole reason I'm all for it is: It will unnerf covert ops. Let me elaborate a little. Combat gangs would have no idea where other combat gangs are, and would need competent covert pilots to locate and assess enemy combat groups. There wouldn't be this "omgz someone's in local, dock in case it's a covert" local hax warning system telling everyone how many people and who they are in local. There would actually be chance of using stealth and diversion as valid tactics in a fight. Ambushes will actually be possible, and the entire fight would be won or lost on the intel each group has on their enemy. A cloaked ship would truly be 'cloaked'. That to me would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. You're either a) A whiny carebear who's afraid of losing his favourite 'win button' intel device and is afraid to actually rely on people to patrol and recon your space without knowing the second someone enters local, or b) An equally as whiny blobber/gatecamp bubble maniac who doesn't like the idea that fast mobile strike teams can get in, hit, and get out without you knowing about it. Because to say that all pirates are going to pull lame crap like that is ridiculous. Some of us play for the exciting combat, not to farm noobs for isk. No one can really say that nerfing local is a bad thing. Even something as simple as make it opt-in only, where you only show if you speak would do wonderful things for pvp as a whole. ----------- Join channel 'Turby' or die! (bring pie) Mission running carebears drop good loot. Probe one out today!
John Munch	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:53:00 - [23] Funny. I heard goons have a GM response that says the exact opposite.
Wayback	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:57:00 - [24] No one can really say that nerfing local is a bad thing. Even something as simple as make it opt-in only, where you only show if you speak would do wonderful things for me as a whole. Fixed that up for ya
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.14 15:58:00 - [25] The goon tool is a program that conects to an external server and downloads replacement portriats as stored in your portraits folder of your cache, based upon a central DB. so all Contraband will show as a portrait with MC and conin. All Frick would be MC, frick etc
EvilNate Caldari Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:01:00 - [26] Well, it doesn't change the code of client program, not does it export or import data. -------- www.bydi.org
Elve Sorrow Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:02:00 - [27] I'd rather they incorporated this 'mod' in their code tbh. It's damn usefull, and rather ironic they did not come up with it themselves. Ofcourse, its technically against the EULA so banning its use is a good thing. Incorporate it in the client would be better.
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:03:00 - [28] well the GM's say its a sploit so its a sploit anyone using it is sploiting and shiuld be banned :)
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:03:00 - [29] Originally by: EvilNate Well, it doesn't change the code of client program, not does it export or import data. Doesn't matter. It changes the way the game appears, which is a EULA violation. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:04:00 - [30] Originally by: Elve Sorrow I'd rather they incorporated this 'mod' in their code tbh. It's damn usefull, and rather ironic they did not come up with it themselves. Ofcourse, its technically against the EULA so banning its use is a good thing. Incorporate it in the client would be better. Local should not be considered an intel tool. The intel gathering aspects of local need to be nerfed, not enhanced. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Laythun Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:05:00 - [31] Originally by: John Munch Funny. I heard goons have a GM response that says the exact opposite. I also heard that Eve was being changed to pink bunnies in space. i hear a lot fo things, but my tin foil hat blocks the voices most of the time. *See You In Space Cowboy*
Skawl GeoTech	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:09:00 - [32] Originally by: EvilNate Well, it doesn't change the code of client program, not does it export or import data. It presumably DOES import data - it's replacing the pictures in the local chat channel...
Double TaP The Establishment	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:10:00 - [33] Edited by: Double TaP on 14/08/2006 16:10:35 I'm a pirate and I kill people all the time. I imagine they see me in local, but I still get them. This includes other pirates, miners, npc'ers, random alliance drones. Theres a lot of work that goes into killing people as it is, and removing local will make it a little work to not get killed, but WAYYYY too much work to get kills. To the point where it will be too much work to be fun. We will be going backwards in combat history. Alliances will be saying "meet here" and flying towards each other in straight lines shooting 1 gun with a minute and a half reload time. Edit: sorry for derailing, but as for the OP, i agree with Elve Sorrow, I think its pretty neat, so why not just use it and be quiet?
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:11:00 - [34] Originally by: John Munch Funny. I heard goons have a GM response that says the exact opposite. I heard it was a response that says it is against the EULA, but can not currently be detected. They decided that meant it was okay to cheat because they wouldn't be caught. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
xeom Obsidian Sins	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:12:00 - [35] Edited by: xeom on 14/08/2006 16:13:37 Originally by: Avon Originally by: EvilNate Well, it doesn't change the code of client program, not does it export or import data. Doesn't matter. It changes the way the game appears, which is a EULA violation. So i can't go in and paint all the ship textures hot pink? =[ CCP where are our t2 shield power relays? \| Join[..SIN]
Elve Sorrow Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:15:00 - [36] Edited by: Elve Sorrow on 14/08/2006 16:16:00 Originally by: Avon Originally by: Elve Sorrow I'd rather they incorporated this 'mod' in their code tbh. It's damn usefull, and rather ironic they did not come up with it themselves. Ofcourse, its technically against the EULA so banning its use is a good thing. Incorporate it in the client would be better. Local should not be considered an intel tool. The intel gathering aspects of local need to be nerfed, not enhanced. Agreed in principle. Does not remove the fact that Local has been in for 3 years, the intelligent part of this community has whined about it for roughly 2 years and 11 months, and it's still here and not a damn thing has changed about it yet. Im sure if some random Goon dude is able to program this in his spare time, CCP could've done the same thing? We might aswell make it less of a pain to use, while its still in. No offence, but im not buying the rumours that Kali will remove it. It would've been plastered all over the forums by CCP because features like that are exactly what Kali lacks right now.
Baldour Ngarr Artemis Rising	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:16:00 - [37] Originally by: Avon Originally by: John Munch Funny. I heard goons have a GM response that says the exact opposite. I heard it was a response that says it is against the EULA, but can not currently be detected. They decided that meant it was okay to cheat because they wouldn't be caught. I seriously hope not. It's kinda depressing to think a GM would be that stupid. You don't tell someone who wants to cheat, that nobody will be able to catch him. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
xeom Obsidian Sins	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:26:00 - [38] Now that i think about it.This must be the reason they always block out their portraits in screen captures. CCP where are our t2 shield power relays? \| Join[..SIN]
Vincent Gaines	Posted - 2006.08.14 16:37:00 - [39] I got a similiar response when I tried to petition about it, basically that they couldn't catch the people involved and that it IS an exploit but they can't do anything about it.
Parapolizei Tactical Militia	Posted - 2006.08.14 18:13:00 - [40] If a portrait database liek this does exist, then it should be implemented into the game by CCP. I am suprised that a simple thing as that has not been.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.14 19:03:00 - [41] Originally by: K Shara The goon tool is a program that conects to an external server and downloads replacement portriats as stored in your portraits folder of your cache, based upon a central DB. so all Contraband will show as a portrait with MC and conin. All Frick would be MC, frick etc Cor, that part is pretty clever actually. Central server. Still, you would need to pull out 1000+ character IDs from the game.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.14 19:07:00 - [42] Originally by: EvilNate Well, it doesn't change the code of client program, not does it export or import data. Read my post, I have paid particular attention to all the devs responses as I develop Eve tools. Putting content back in to the game that should not be there, is the breach of the EULA. Technically it is importing data (in the form of images) into the game.
Sovy Kurosei Amarr Therianthropic Technologies	Posted - 2006.08.14 19:19:00 - [43] EULA vs Mass bookmarks Quote: 1. You may not take any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on the System. Excessive bookmarks and bookmark copying put an unreasonable load on the system. ToS vs Instas Quote: 22. You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. It is obviouslly a bug since it is intended for people to arrive at stargates fifteen kilometres away, not zero metres. EULA vs G15 keyboard Quote: 3. You may not use 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. G15 keyboards can use macros and are allowed. It is like the Loyalty Level Six fiasco, CCP enforces their EULA or ToS depending on how loudly the player base ***** against or for the idea. But at all the people thinking that changing some portraits break the game to the point where the offender deserves to get instabanned but use an insta found in their ten thousand bookmark folder to get past a gatecamp. ___________________
Kaliesin Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.14 19:27:00 - [44] Originally by: FireFoxx80 Originally by: EvilNate Well, it doesn't change the code of client program, not does it export or import data. Read my post, I have paid particular attention to all the devs responses as I develop Eve tools. Putting content back in to the game that should not be there, is the breach of the EULA. Technically it is importing data (in the form of images) into the game. Lets see they pull images out of game folder to a central server, cross reference them and upload new ones, there are 2 things wrong with this firstly as said its an unfair advantage, secondly the lag issue, omg we goons are being slaughtered, lets lag the game, refresh all portraits of known enemies.......... Mooooooooo
Inanna Sumer The Greater Goon	Posted - 2006.08.14 19:41:00 - [45] Originally by: Kaliesin secondly the lag issue, omg we goons are being slaughtered, lets lag the game, refresh all portraits of known enemies.......... portraits are generated locally by the client, aside from a transfer of a few bytes of data for face features (which is cached clientside anyway after the first showinfo) the only lag would be clientside. -------------------------------------------- My views and opinions in this post are my own and in no way reflect those of my corporation.
Captain Jew	Posted - 2006.08.14 19:43:00 - [46] um all that would do is make the goonies server work harder...?
Peter Armstrong Caldari ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.14 20:54:00 - [47] mmm i dont think they should remove it! I think u just need to change it to like other channels That u dont type in local then u dont show up. Soon u typed hi u show in Local! Removing not a good idea just changing how it work better. I mean if u did get a good fight u like to talk as groups to say gf right? or just talk to local and for some people smack away in local u know? That will be a great thing in that idea and the covo op would be a special skill to have u know?
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:04:00 - [48] Originally by: Avon Originally by: EULA CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct ... 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. That was pretty much pointed to as the answer to my question about this. Do bear in mind that TS overlays also do this. And yes, we KNOW you want to drive anyone not in a massive alliance out of 0.0. Elve Sorrow, "the intelligent part of this community has whined about it for roughly 2 years and 11 months" Yes, it not showing standings is kinda silly, I agree. Sovy Kurosei, BM copying is low priority and only done when the node is not busy. No load issue. And instas are not a bug, and have never been called so by the devs. Origionally unintended, yes. But not a bug.
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:06:00 - [49] arrggg!!!! I would love to be able to paste the official response i got but is not allowed However the GM has reffered it to a senior GM for the same answer its a sploit there are no shades of gray here. if you use it you are a cheat and should be banned simple. what ccp should do is blank all portraits so that the game shows only a blank image no matter what portrait you have loaded, that way they can work on a detector for it.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:19:00 - [50] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Avon Originally by: EULA CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct ... 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. That was pretty much pointed to as the answer to my question about this. Do bear in mind that TS overlays also do this. No they don't. TSDisp is a window that is always on top - it no-way changes the content appearing within the game enviroment. It is no different to having your browser window open over Eve to post useless inaccurate drivel on the forums. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Too Kind	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:22:00 - [51] Edited by: Too Kind on 14/08/2006 21:24:44 I'm also the opinion that it's disturbing that they say, it's an exploit, but we can't detect it (currently). They don't even state if they would ban someone for using it or if they want to implement a detection. So in the end, many people don't use it, because they think they might get banned for it. Others use it and are happy. If CCP doesn't care about it and tolerates it, I feel cheated, because I follow the rules and don't risk my account to get an 'extra feature'. If they made a detection and punished people for using it, the players, who 'cheated' will start to cry big times, because they thought it's tolerated, because CCP didn't seem to have any intention to care about that specific thing, besides just repeating that EULA passage in case someone asks. -------------------------- Post with your main !!!111
Peter Armstrong Caldari ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:26:00 - [52] oops wrong post lol
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:32:00 - [53] goons 4tl Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:41:00 - [54] Originally by: Too Kind Edited by: Too Kind on 14/08/2006 21:24:44 I'm also the opinion that it's disturbing that they say, it's an exploit, but we can't detect it (currently). They don't even state if they would ban someone for using it or if they want to implement a detection. So in the end, many people don't use it, because they think they might get banned for it. Others use it and are happy. If CCP doesn't care about it and tolerates it, I feel cheated, because I follow the rules and don't risk my account to get an 'extra feature'. If they made a detection and punished people for using it, the players, who 'cheated' will start to cry big times, because they thought it's tolerated, because CCP didn't seem to have any intention to care about that specific thing, besides just repeating that EULA passage in case someone asks. If they could detect it they would ban them. Because there are probably several hundred people doing it... perma bans would be out of the question imo. 3 day bans would most likely ensue for anyone using it. Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Rafein Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:42:00 - [55] Heh, I since I heard about the new scanning abilities in Kali, I figured Local's "Show All" was numbered.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:46:00 - [56] Avon, right, it is content allways appearing within the game window. That is precisely what the EULA refers to. It is allways there even in full screen (which should exclude all other apps). I'm not saying that CCP is in any way wrong, I sm saying the wording of the rule is clumsy and needs fixing.
Galk Gallente Autumn Tactics	Posted - 2006.08.14 21:55:00 - [57] Originally by: K Shara its a sploit there are no shades of gray here. if you use it you are a cheat and should be banned I doubt very much there going to ban 2000 odd accounts, it's like timecodes.... ccp's greatest recourse is to say/do nothing while letting you argue it out till you get bored. Ofc there cheating, it's an advantage that appears on the ingame client that i do not have. Because i do not have it on my client, it is cheating.... Against one person (me) is no different than all the rest combined. Expect silence and no action, they won't even bother with excuses ______ Long ago one gorgeous night, we let the stars grow free. We let Zhuge do that once, he came back carrying a traffic cone, a forsale sign and three empty bottles of dutch lager. He also lost his Zimmer Frame... - Imaran
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.14 22:07:00 - [58] thing is those of us who dont cheat (the 99% of us) need to let the dev's / GM's know that we would like this stopped. simple as that.
rodgerd Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2006.08.14 22:48:00 - [59] Originally by: Damien Smith Edited by: Damien Smith on 14/08/2006 15:50:46 No one can really say that nerfing local is a bad thing. Even something as simple as make it opt-in only, where you only show if you speak would do wonderful things for pvp as a whole. I can, but then I like, you know, chatting to people in local in stuff. Meeting people. That whole "multi-player" part of the game.
rodgerd Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2006.08.14 22:51:00 - [60] Originally by: K Shara if you use it you are a cheat and should be banned simple. I guess if you can't beat the goons in PvP...
Haks'he Lirky Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.14 23:04:00 - [61] BTW just my take on this the g15 keyboard macro is alowd according to CCP many months back :P
Baldour Ngarr Artemis Rising	Posted - 2006.08.14 23:07:00 - [62] Originally by: Haks'he Lirky BTW just my take on this the g15 keyboard macro is alowd according to CCP many months back :P Thus proving that the allowed/not allowed issue is not simply black and white. Here we have a macro which is not against the EULA. In Teamspeak, we have a non-game application which gives its users an advantage, also not against the EULA. Who's to say we can't have something altering the game files, not against the EULA? The gods of CCP have already broken their own rules on at least those two occasions, why not a third time? ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Macdeth Ephemeral Misgivings	Posted - 2006.08.14 23:10:00 - [63] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Avon Originally by: EULA CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct ... 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. That was pretty much pointed to as the answer to my question about this. Do bear in mind that TS overlays also do this. No they don't. TSDisp is a window that is always on top - it no-way changes the content appearing within the game enviroment. It is no different to having your browser window open over Eve to post useless inaccurate drivel on the forums. That's one of the silliest technicalities I've ever seen someone argue. It would be completely feasible to program a similar overlay that intercepts the eve network data to identify every pilot in local, queries a (cached) killboard database, and tells you their most common ships flown & fittings. If you think that's overboard, how about instead merely a precise count of the pilots in local who are friendly, hostile, and unknown? With 200,000 players, I bet someone out there already does it.
Rawthorm Gallente The Establishment	Posted - 2006.08.14 23:19:00 - [64] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Elve Sorrow I'd rather they incorporated this 'mod' in their code tbh. It's damn usefull, and rather ironic they did not come up with it themselves. Ofcourse, its technically against the EULA so banning its use is a good thing. Incorporate it in the client would be better. Local should not be considered an intel tool. The intel gathering aspects of local need to be nerfed, not enhanced. Does it not make sense the gates would log entry and exit to the system? There is your reason for local existing in its current form. Because you, I or anyone else wish to kill more isnt justification to remove local.
Molten Platypii Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.08.14 23:58:00 - [65] Originally by: Rawthorm Does it not make sense the gates would log entry and exit to the system? There is your reason for local existing in its current form. Because you, I or anyone else wish to kill more isnt justification to remove local. Change it so you only get notified of people entering and exiting. Or have it just say how many people are in a given system without providing names. However if it is left the way it is please show standings because I'm tired of Right Clicky->Show Info (or Right Clicky->Start Convo which I hit from time to time).
Lord Frost Minmatar The Crystal Method	Posted - 2006.08.15 00:25:00 - [66] As I'm just finding this out now about the Goons... I cant help but yet again feel disheartened that people have to find cheap tactics and new ways to cheat in order to gain an advantage and "win" at this game. And its not just this game, its MANY online games... and its beginning to be very annoying. Play like we all do, play with what is given, play the game... it is a game... dont ***** be a ***.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.15 00:56:00 - [67] Originally by: Macdeth That's one of the silliest technicalities I've ever seen someone argue. It would be completely feasible to program a similar overlay that intercepts the eve network data to identify every pilot in local, queries a (cached) killboard database, and tells you their most common ships flown & fittings. If you think that's overboard, how about instead merely a precise count of the pilots in local who are friendly, hostile, and unknown? With 200,000 players, I bet someone out there already does it. Hardly the same, is it? TSDisp shows you who is talking on teamspeak, it tells you absolutely nothing about Eve. It is in no way related to Eve, or in anyway integrated with anything happening in the game. It is no different to running in Eve windowed and having the teamspeak window open too .. or on a second monitor. It does not modify the game content, or how that content is displayed - it has nothing to do with Eve at all. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Infinity Ziona Space Elves of Ragnoroth	Posted - 2006.08.15 01:40:00 - [68] Originally by: Rawthorm Originally by: Avon Originally by: Elve Sorrow I'd rather they incorporated this 'mod' in their code tbh. It's damn usefull, and rather ironic they did not come up with it themselves. Ofcourse, its technically against the EULA so banning its use is a good thing. Incorporate it in the client would be better. Local should not be considered an intel tool. The intel gathering aspects of local need to be nerfed, not enhanced. Does it not make sense the gates would log entry and exit to the system? There is your reason for local existing in its current form. Because you, I or anyone else wish to kill more isnt justification to remove local. And what about people logging into a system? Why do they automatically show up in local? I could make up a something too: 'Due to the Euclidean Sphagoceptormometa intersecting the Goblowobbly Scanning Helix the person shows up in local' There. Just as reasonable as your idea considering you show up in local even if you havent used a gate. Who cares how it 'could' happen, the issue is that it stymies spontaneous and sudden combat in a game that already has a very limited area of interaction for combat. 'The alliance should not be a solo contentmobile' - Albert Einstein
Skawl GeoTech	Posted - 2006.08.15 01:55:00 - [69] Edited by: Skawl on 15/08/2006 02:00:59 Originally by: Macdeth Originally by: Avon Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Avon Originally by: EULA CONDUCT A. Specifically Restricted Conduct ... 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. That was pretty much pointed to as the answer to my question about this. Do bear in mind that TS overlays also do this. No they don't. TSDisp is a window that is always on top - it no-way changes the content appearing within the game enviroment. It is no different to having your browser window open over Eve to post useless inaccurate drivel on the forums. That's one of the silliest technicalities I've ever seen someone argue. It would be completely feasible to program a similar overlay that *intercepts the eve network data* to identify every pilot in local, queries a (cached) killboard database, and tells you their most common ships flown & fittings. If you think that's overboard, how about instead merely a precise count of the pilots in local who are friendly, hostile, and unknown? With 200,000 players, I bet someone out there already does it. The bit in bold is the reason that would be against the rules whereas teamspeak overlay isn't - the TS mod in no way interfers with data to or from the eve server. Thats not to say the wording of the EULA doesn't need tightening up but, since goonmod is undetectable, it's kind of a moot point. *The below is a guess!* Goonmod is probably not intercepting network traffic, in fact, I'm guessing all it's doing is replacing the inages that are already stored in your cache folder with new ones. You could do the same yourself if you could be bothered figureing out which face belongs to who. Thats bad enough but in order for it to be effective on a scale sufficient for a whole corp, especially the size of Goonfleet, I assume they will have modded the eve client to look for these in a different location (someones server) rather than the cache folder.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.15 02:06:00 - [70] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 15/08/2006 02:07:02 Infinity Ziona, yea, "spontanious" combat right. And without it, you know what happens? The vast majority of players who don't want RSI from hitting the scanner every 3 seconds abandon lowsec/0.0, and you're left fighting a few other PvPers. Skawl, to be clear, the goons mod in NO way interacts with the server either, so that cannot be the test. (And no, it just runs the checksums of the pictures through a checker and replaces appropriately, apparently) Avon, it gives you an advantage, in Eve, which you would otherwise not have via a display modification. Technically neither is the goon mod any different from having a list of players in the IGB and typing them in and getting shown status and corpmates for reference. If TS Overlay has nothing to do with Eve, why does it use the DirectX wrapper? Oh, it DOES operate in the memory process. Again, this isn't against TS Overlay, it's pointing out that the wording of the EULA is poor. We shouldn't HAVE to rely on GM interpretation for clearcut issues.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.15 02:13:00 - [71] Originally by: Galk Originally by: K Shara its a sploit there are no shades of gray here. if you use it you are a cheat and should be banned I doubt very much there going to ban 2000 odd accounts, it's like timecodes.... ccp's greatest recourse is to say/do nothing while letting you argue it out till you get bored. It would be funny if they banned them all for a day for the exploit --[23] Member-- Originally by: DB Preacher The only time BoB's backs are to the wall is when Backdoor Bandit is in local.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.15 02:16:00 - [72] ... BLATENT breach of the EULA. Permaban em all. CCP should demonstrate a scorched earth policy on it.
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.15 02:40:00 - [73] Edited by: Aeina Caeraen on 15/08/2006 02:43:04 What proof, Maya, do you have that every last one of the people that CCP would ban under the GoonSwarm banner had used this exploit? Besides a few odd screenshots showing modified images that could have been modified by a third party to discredit GS, (and yes, I realize this is incredibly unlikely) there is no incontrovertible evidence to support such a claim. I doubt you would find it just it you were banned if someone else you knew had used such a program.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.15 02:44:00 - [74] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 15/08/2006 02:45:14 ..of course they need a way to detect it first. But if it can be done server side, it should be put in with zero warning. If someone isn't using it, of course they're not breaching the EULA. I never said that it should be done on hearsay.
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.15 03:07:00 - [75] Edited by: Aeina Caeraen on 15/08/2006 03:09:52 I agree, but then you'd get massive issues with people complaining about privacy issues. I assume you're familiar with Blizzard's WoW "Warden" program, and how you would actually need a more invasive program than that for the current situation. Since the GS "program" is done completely clientside (and doesn't even involve an active system process, to boot), you'd actually need to see if individual image files had been altered, and doing so, even uncommon random checking, would involve either wasting GM time, or getting a slow, and incredibly error-prone server program to check the integrity of your cache folder every time you started the game. Until it becomes feasible to actually detect something like this, I guess we'll have to deal with it. (or think of alternate solutions, such as having the server recache images every once in a while, while you're logged on :P)
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.15 03:17:00 - [76] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 15/08/2006 03:18:29 Originally by: Aeina Caeraen I agree, but then you'd get massive issues with people complaining about privacy issues. I assume you're familiar with Blizzard's WoW "Warden" program, and how you would actually need a more invasive program than that for the current situation. Since the GS "program" is done completely clientside (and doesn't even involve an active system process, to boot), you'd actually need to see if individual image files had been altered, and doing so, even uncommon random checking, would involve either wasting GM time, or getting a slow, and incredibly error-prone server program to check the integrity of your cache folder every time you started the game. EVE already parses the entire cache folder when you log in, which is why a huge portraits folder makes your game client lag on login. The solution is simple. Tag every single portrait with an info tag (in the info fields of the image header). Do this without warning, and without telling anyone, and clear the portraits folder of everyone automatically when the patch goes out. Then, have the client silently report back who has images in their folder that don't have the proper header on them. Better yet, have the header code be a salted hash of 10 specific pixels from the image. Then it would be impossible to fake. This would introduce zero lag and would actually be very easy to code. --[23] Member-- Originally by: DB Preacher The only time BoB's backs are to the wall is when Backdoor Bandit is in local.
Willis Drummond Lordless Unbrella Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.15 03:24:00 - [77] Well since goon is pretty much dead now anyways does it matter? Awesome Post# 548031
Testicular Testes	Posted - 2006.08.15 03:32:00 - [78] Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 15/08/2006 02:07:02 Infinity Ziona, yea, "spontanious" combat right. And without it, you know what happens? The vast majority of players who don't want RSI from hitting the scanner every 3 seconds abandon lowsec/0.0, and you're left fighting a few other PvPers. Autoscanner to be honest. If my ship can scan out to 14 AU, it can also damn well be set to alert me if something new shows up ;)
Inanna Sumer The Greater Goon	Posted - 2006.08.15 03:45:00 - [79] Originally by: Dark Shikari Better yet, have the header code be a salted hash of 10 specific pixels from the image. Then it would be impossible to fake. Due to some wonderful bugs on some systems, portraits are not always rendered exactly as intended (for example my laptop at work doesn't display hair for asian bloodlines characters) so this would hardly be a foolproof method of detection. -------------------------------------------- My views and opinions in this post are my own and in no way reflect those of my corporation.
Eeyore Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.08.15 05:10:00 - [80] Originally by: K Shara When you enter a new local it would be easy to check a checksum on your portrait cache Great Idea ! Lets defrag the disk's while you at it .... or maybe copy eve cache folder from place to place Originally by: php script did md5 for 713 files, time took: 15.071492910385 seconds ------------- Gloomy Domesticated Ass
Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest	Posted - 2006.08.15 05:15:00 - [81] Originally by: K Shara thing is those of us who dont cheat (the 99% of us) need to let the dev's / GM's know that we would like this stopped. simple as that. QFT Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Lienzo Minmatar	Posted - 2006.08.15 05:43:00 - [82] Why not just have dynamic tags for matching stored portraits with that of the server? Then you just windup with errors, errors sent to server, or incorrect intel. Similar software has been around since long before goonfleet, and more than one player has been caught for it to my recollection. Republic Fleet phases out obsolete Vigils.
Wild Rho Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.08.15 07:24:00 - [83] Originally by: Rawthorm Originally by: Avon Originally by: Elve Sorrow I'd rather they incorporated this 'mod' in their code tbh. It's damn usefull, and rather ironic they did not come up with it themselves. Ofcourse, its technically against the EULA so banning its use is a good thing. Incorporate it in the client would be better. Local should not be considered an intel tool. The intel gathering aspects of local need to be nerfed, not enhanced. Does it not make sense the gates would log entry and exit to the system? There is your reason for local existing in its current form. Because you, I or anyone else wish to kill more isnt justification to remove local. And yet when you log out you disappear from local and when you log in you reappear, how do the gates "log" that change then? (If you want to start using rp based arguments). WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.15 07:46:00 - [84] Thoughts: 1) TSOverlay - Not sure on this one, personally I could never get it working. TSDisp on the other hand does nothing to the game, it is simply a tiny app that you can set to 'always on top', that will sit over Eve window and display names. 2) Goon image server/proggie. I am assuming such a program works thus: - Pilot logs into portrait server through IGB, hence we can check the pilot's corp/alliance/characterID. - CharacterID is used on the portrait filename. - All client/server need to do is to download a set of image files, and rename them to the character IDs of friendly pilots. Then dump them all into the portrait cache. Technically the only 'breach' is that of putting stuff back in to the cache. A similar system of entirely IGB based, caching the pilot/system, and comparing it to your own. Would be legal. As it;s not putting anything into the cache.
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.15 08:25:00 - [85] The goon program replaces yje portraits that exist in /portraits folder with different images.
Sovy Kurosei Amarr Therianthropic Technologies	Posted - 2006.08.15 08:57:00 - [86] Originally by: K Shara The goon program replaces yje portraits that exist in /portraits folder with different images. Hypothetical, what if I put my portraits in the folder in a fresh install of Eve-Online, before I even booted into the game? ___________________
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.15 09:25:00 - [87] Originally by: Sovy Kurosei Originally by: K Shara The goon program replaces yje portraits that exist in /portraits folder with different images. Hypothetical, what if I put my portraits in the folder in a fresh install of Eve-Online, before I even booted into the game? If you put unmodified images in (the way Eve intended), then I can't see a problem.
Ghitza Backup Squad	Posted - 2006.08.15 09:32:00 - [88] Originally by: K Shara thing is those of us who dont cheat (the 99% of us) need to let the dev's / GM's know that we would like this stopped. simple as that. signed Can someone kick stupid ppl from this topic? Some answers are at poor level. Thank you
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.15 09:53:00 - [89] 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.
Sovy Kurosei Amarr Therianthropic Technologies	Posted - 2006.08.15 10:12:00 - [90] Originally by: FireFoxx80 If you put unmodified images in (the way Eve intended), then I can't see a problem. Alright, lets say I log onto Eve then. It does a cache check on my portraits but finds that a portrait on my client does not match with the one on the server? Why? Because the user changed his portrait during the two week wait. I get permabanned. What if I did use an unmodified image of an angry Brutor lacking Aviators with a red background but have him copy & pasted on avatar IDs that are my known enemy? Actually, that is a very good question. What do you do when a user changes his portrait? What if the portrait incorrectly renders on my end or gets corrupted somehow? Tough cookies, you're permabanned because we cannot risk the thought of having somebody tampering with their cache for whatever reason, benign or malign? Then there is the inconvience of having your cache scanned everytime you log in, sending that MD5 checksum or whatever to the server, have it processed, have it OK'd. Bob Barker help us if they ever found a work around that and you cry for more invasive monitoring of my computer. I think CCP called this one right though. They said it was an exploit but aren't going to do anything about it. If they said yes than that just opens a whole can of worms of editting other files in the Eve-Online directory. Kinda funny how you guys demand permabans without warning though. Couldn't you guys come up with something a bit more reasonable than that? Like not being able to log into Eve because the cache appears to be corrupted and asks you to delete the offending folder? Or clearing your portraits folder if it detects an altered portrait? Nope, you guys just wanna ban, ban, ban. Good game. ___________________
Zaphod Jones Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2006.08.15 10:30:00 - [91] So have ISSN stopped using it as well now ? pics of Eris without her pink bits Sig Removed. Please keep it within the 400*120 pixel and 24000 byte limit. -ReverendM ([email protected])
Mason Sledge Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2006.08.15 10:34:00 - [92] Add these options: Would you like to remain hidden in Local Chat? [_]YES [_]NO Would you like to announce you entering/departure of a system? [_]YES [_]NO Problem solved.
nahtoh Caldari Bull Industries	Posted - 2006.08.15 10:52:00 - [93] Originally by: Sovy Kurosei Edited by: Sovy Kurosei on 15/08/2006 10:20:19 Originally by: FireFoxx80 If you put unmodified images in (the way Eve intended), then I can't see a problem. Alright, lets say I log onto Eve then, but the portraits I used are two weeks old. It does a cache check on my portraits but finds that a portrait on my client does not match with the one on the server? Why? Because the user changed his portrait during the two week wait. I get permabanned. What if I did use an unmodified image of an angry Brutor lacking Aviators with a red background but have him copy & pasted on avatar IDs that are my known enemy? Actually, that is a very good question. What do you do when a user changes his portrait? What if the portrait incorrectly renders on my end or gets corrupted somehow? Tough cookies, you're permabanned because we cannot risk the thought of having somebody tampering with their cache for whatever reason, benign or malign? Nope, you guys just wanna ban, ban, ban. Good game. Whats the chances of you running into a number of people in the same corp/allaince that have changed their portrait? Why would GMs not check to see if a portrait change had taken place with that onecharacter beore the banstick is used? ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Zaphod Jones Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:05:00 - [94] direct quotes from ISSN "The Portrait Cache is love and will help you pwn your enemies with 100% more pwnage and jobbie." "I did not come up with this idea myself. ISSN cribbed it from Goonfleet and Goonwaffe, the biggest corp / two corps in the game. They live in Syndicate and have collected a gazillion character numbers (ok, 3100) to put on their list. " So are ISSN still using this tool ?
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:23:00 - [95] So if GS and ISSN are using it, can we see two major alliances (well, 2 alliances and a corporation) slapped on the wrist? Or are CCP just going to allow every web developer who has a brain to go off and create their own version, due to the seeming inaction to do anything about this EULA breaching act? I mean, there is no way of tracing it (yes, I can see corruption and backsup issues here), but there are now 4 pages and several threads discussing just how it is done.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:33:00 - [96] Originally by: Inanna Sumer Originally by: Dark Shikari Better yet, have the header code be a salted hash of 10 specific pixels from the image. Then it would be impossible to fake. Due to some wonderful bugs on some systems, portraits are not always rendered exactly as intended (for example my laptop at work doesn't display hair for asian bloodlines characters) so this would hardly be a foolproof method of detection. This is the main problem with checking of portraits, as I understand it. They are not just an image file downloaded from the server. Instead, the server sends you the "pose" data for the character (hair type, eye colour, angle of eyes etc), and your client then uses that to render you an image. It's probably done this way because the pose information is smaller than the images themselves, which helps bandwidth and server storage space. Unfortunately, this means that there is no guarantee that two PC's will generate the exact same portrait image, due to differences in the way different hardware performs the render. Hence any sort of hashing on the rendered images is going to be useless for verification. Either they'd have to move to making the rendered portraits stored and sent server-side, or they need to find a way to encrypt the cache. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Vargrh Gallente Stupid People Always Need Killing	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:37:00 - [97] So what is being said? Any large alliance can carte blanch exploit as they please as CCP wouldnt ban 2000+ players knowing its $$$$$$ flow would be hit? Goonfleet cheat and exploit, duh, wasnt that the whole point of their origin via something awful. They're here purely to do so.
Tachy	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:42:00 - [98] ccp has currently no way to check the portraits and obviously doesn't even warn or ban people found posting client screenshots with changed portraits. This discussion is moot. --==*-- Even with nougat, you can have a perfect moment.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:44:00 - [99] Originally by: Matthew Either they'd have to move to making the rendered portraits stored and sent server-side, or they need to find a way to encrypt the cache. Or just cache the pose data, or store the rendered image in a custom format which includes digital watermarking. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Zaphod Jones Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:45:00 - [100] IF YOU FIND A NEW HOSTILE, please add them to your address book so you can keep track of them so you can add them to the cache later. Q4. This is stupid, there aren't any icons for most of the people in my address book. A4. I only had about 150 hostiles in my address book. All of them have been added to the cache. Gaul has 500 in his address book, so he's probably not impressed. The reason this tool shines is that if one ISSN has caught a hostile's name, everyone that synchs against the cache will be updated almost immediately.
Zaphod Jones Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:45:00 - [101] Edited by: Zaphod Jones on 15/08/2006 11:46:57 ISSN certainly did use this a while ago, if they use it still, I don't know. I'm waiting for some feedback from them on this thread, For the devs, this is how it was done with URLs and file names removed so that it cant be done again. One. Download and install Python 2.4. Get it from this link: http://www.python.org/ftp/python/2.4.3/python-2.4.3.msi Two. Make sure that c:\python24\python.exe is in your path. Right click on My Computer, hit Properties. Click the Advanced tab, then click on the Environment Variables button toward the bottom. Under System Variables, find Path, click on it to highlight it, and click Edit. Put the string: C:\Python24\; At the front of your path (not deleting what you already have in it) and press OK. Press OK to close out of the Environment Variables window, then press OK again to close out of the Properties window. Three. Download and install the tool. Get it from URL Removed. Unzip the contents of this folder into the C:\Program Files\CCP\EVE\cache\Pictures\Portraits directory, assuming you installed EVE in the default location. (Make sure that you unzip the files directly into that directory rather than unzip them into a folder.) Four. Run the update program. Run Filename removed in your Portraits directory to run the update program. It should run for less than 30 seconds. Update your portrait cache each time you run EVE to ensure that you have the latest portraits, because war intelligence will be integrated into the portrait cache. Q3. I see a hostile that doesn't have an icon! How do I make sure you add them to the cache? A3. It's easy, just follow these steps. One: Open EVE and Notepad. Two: Open a file manager window to the C:\Program Files\CCP\EVE\cache\Pictures\Portraits folder. Select to view the contents of that directory as a list. Sort the contents of that folder by date descending (so you always see the newest files on top of the list). Three: Back in EVE, hit the ESC key and go to the Graphics tab. Under Portraits, click the option by "Generate Portraits when Clicked". Four: Here's the fun part. Open your address book (which presumably has a huge long list of hostiles). Right-click on a hostile and hit "Show Info". Verify that the player in question is actually in a hostile corp. If he is, go back to your file manager window in the Portraits directory. Hit the F5 key to refresh the directory listing. After a few seconds, you should have two new files in this directory: <characterNumber>_256 <characterNumber>_64 These should both be at the top of the directory -- this is because they were just generated by your EVE client. Note: the <characterNumber>_128 pictures are created by address book notifications. You don't want to get these. Five: Copy the Character Number (everything leading up to the _256 or the _64) and paste it in Notepad. Beside this number, put the corp ticker and the character name like this: 123412341 ISSN (Jacob Majestic) Be sure to mention with each corp ticker whether that corp is Friendly, Neutral, or Hostile. Six: Repeat this for everyone in your address book. It will only take 30 minutes or so to do 100 names, so even if you have a lot of people in your address book it won't take very long. Seven: Once you're done, post the contents of your Notepad to this thread. the person involved constantly trolls the ISSN forums, so they'll see it almost immediately, update the cache, and post that the cache is updated. Eight: Once the cache is updated, delete the contents of your Portraits directory (except for the Filename removed, UFilename removed, and the two config files) and rerun Filename removed to reupdate your cache. You'll see the new entries show up immediately. Nine: Delete all the hostiles in your address book, cause you don't want them lagging you anymore.
Vargrh Gallente Stupid People Always Need Killing	Posted - 2006.08.15 11:47:00 - [102] Edited by: Vargrh on 15/08/2006 11:47:21 Originally by: FireFoxx80 It's not an exploit to take CCP byproducts and do with them what you wish. By this I mean the contents of the cache folder. Looking at the code itself or in any other location is a no-no. Putting content into these folders however, in an attempt to modify how the game references these byproducts, is an exploit. As the goon thing of editing character portraits. That's how I interpret it. Obviously IMHO CCP have dug themselves this hole as people have been asking for overview/standing indications in the chat channels for months now. Thats all very well if its implemented via a patch so its accessible to everyone in game equally. For example where you could asign coloured tabs to each person in your address book for a quick 'friends, enemies' list etc. The problem stems from people making these things and only distributing them within one alliance, giving people an unfair advantage in game based on running something out of game. To be honest the current 'risk' of being caught by hostiles or catching hostiles in a new system adds to the spice of the game, if we had sa*uard after sa*uard telling everyone where all other pilots are and who they are, it would weaken pvp encounters and be a bad thing. I like the idea of having 0.4 systems and below not showing who is in local unless they are in your corp or alliance. you can only see people in local outside of high sec empire who are in a relationship to your character via corp/alliance. This would improve pvp significantly.
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.15 12:15:00 - [103] basically what he said Thing is guys, if we dont let the powers that be know that we are unhappy with this issue then it wont get fixed. There are a few fixes that are possible including checksums and encrypted files etc However teh best would be a short term fix that prevents the use of this exploit until they can fix it. Release a client micro patch that blocks the display of portraits. so everyone is blank. and even cached portraits wont work.
Itzena Amarr OtakuDyne Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.15 12:25:00 - [104] Edited by: Itzena on 15/08/2006 12:24:58 The problem for the 'zomg banz0r it!!' crowd: If CCP starts tracking client modification like you demand, all it will do is shift the actual identification from a client mod to a third party 'packet sniffer' mod...which are very difficult to track outside of CCP adding spyware to the game. -- I want my people to reclaim their rightful place in the galaxy... I want a rebirth of glory, a renaissance of power... I want us to be what we used to be.
Dukath	Posted - 2006.08.15 12:30:00 - [105] This is yet another excellent reason why local should be changed from a free overpowered intel system to a chat only system where you are announced only when you talk.
TheBelgarion Caldari Kinetic Vector Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.15 12:44:00 - [106] Originally by: Dukath This is yet another excellent reason why local should be changed from a free overpowered intel system to a chat only system where you are announced only when you talk. as said be4 it all depends on which side you are ... it definitly works for the pirates ... as it works against any body else mining,ratting whatever and its not only about jumping in through a gate .. same applies for login/logoff in system ... so even watching gate doesnt work too much ... so removing local ... priates can just jump into a system .. using a covo to sneak on miners .. and than jump the rest off the fleet onto em ... NO BALANCED !!
Antetma University of Caille	Posted - 2006.08.15 12:56:00 - [107] I'd imagine if the goons are using something like this, and CCP decides to punish them for it, then you could always just do the addressbook trick. You can add everyone in your alliance or friendly to your alliance to your addressbook, allowing you to notice if local is friendly or not in 0.0 space. I'm pretty sure BoB does something like this. However, this would fall under the insta category, as in using an in game mechanic for something completely outside its purpose and tying up the server way more (imagine 3000 players each adding 3000 players to their addressbook and having the server check that all the time for each person). As much as it sounds like a cheat, I think something that changes the portraits is a pretty good idea, assuming it's entirely client side. However, CCP should offer something like this to everyone so that it's fair.
Omegamale	Posted - 2006.08.15 12:57:00 - [108] How about info in the top left of the screen which would update live when people jumped in, showing number of people in system, Make local only show which char it is when they speak/type?
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.15 12:58:00 - [109] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 15/08/2006 12:57:51 Originally by: Inanna Sumer Originally by: Dark Shikari Better yet, have the header code be a salted hash of 10 specific pixels from the image. Then it would be impossible to fake. Due to some wonderful bugs on some systems, portraits are not always rendered exactly as intended (for example my laptop at work doesn't display hair for asian bloodlines characters) so this would hardly be a foolproof method of detection. That has nothing to do with it. It would be a hash of 10 pixels after the computer has rendered them. The purpose of the hash would not be to ensure the image is exactly how it should be, but to prevent people from creating their own images. That's why its a SALTED hash, where nobody outside of CCP knows the salt. --[23] Member-- Originally by: DB Preacher The only time BoB's backs are to the wall is when Backdoor Bandit is in local.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2006.08.15 13:21:00 - [110] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Matthew Either they'd have to move to making the rendered portraits stored and sent server-side, or they need to find a way to encrypt the cache. Or just cache the pose data, or store the rendered image in a custom format which includes digital watermarking. If you cached the pose data rather than the image, you would then have to re-render the portrait. Go to jita, clear your cache, and try generating every portrait in local. See why this is a bad idea. Watermarking the image could work though. Originally by: Dark Shikari That has nothing to do with it. It would be a hash of 10 pixels after the computer has rendered them. The purpose of the hash would not be to ensure the image is exactly how it should be, but to prevent people from creating their own images. That's why its a SALTED hash, where nobody outside of CCP knows the salt. I'm not entirely familiar with the properties of a salted hash. Are you suggesting that instead of checking "Is this the correct image for this char?", you instead check "Is this an Eve Character portrait?". The question then is how similar a hacked image would need to be to get through such a check. If it's flexible enough to tolerate mis-rendered hair, would it then also miss a small icon inserted in the top left corner? Would probably be enough to stop the current goon's full-pic replacement though. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Vargrh Gallente Stupid People Always Need Killing	Posted - 2006.08.15 13:32:00 - [111] Originally by: TheBelgarion Originally by: Dukath This is yet another excellent reason why local should be changed from a free overpowered intel system to a chat only system where you are announced only when you talk. as said be4 it all depends on which side you are ... it definitly works for the pirates ... as it works against any body else mining,ratting whatever and its not only about jumping in through a gate .. same applies for login/logoff in system ... so even watching gate doesnt work too much ... so removing local ... priates can just jump into a system .. using a covo to sneak on miners .. and than jump the rest off the fleet onto em ... NO BALANCED !! Again, if you have a mining op in local, why not have a scout that checks for incoming hostiles.... the reason. GREED. I've seen 10 barges mining in a 0.1 with 1 bs for defence before, which warped out when a cruiser engaged it, leaving the barges to be killed. 2 or 3 ships in defence and less mining would have resulted in a differant outcome. There is balance, its just peoples own greed to maximise isk profits as fast as possible negates it.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.08.15 13:44:00 - [112] Originally by: Matthew This is the main problem with checking of portraits, as I understand it. They are not just an image file downloaded from the server. Instead, the server sends you the "pose" data for the character (hair type, eye colour, angle of eyes etc), and your client then uses that to render you an image. It's probably done this way because the pose information is smaller than the images themselves, which helps bandwidth and server storage space. Unfortunately, this means that there is no guarantee that two PC's will generate the exact same portrait image, due to differences in the way different hardware performs the render. Hence any sort of hashing on the rendered images is going to be useless for verification. Either they'd have to move to making the rendered portraits stored and sent server-side, or they need to find a way to encrypt the cache. I don't really see this as being too difficult, technically. Have the each client digitally sign (watermark) the portraits with a client-specific key (generated at install time, or something). When it loads the portraits from disk, check that the watermark matches. If not, quietly send report to CCP. Pretty simple, and not that trivial to get around, assuming the watermark is hidden in some spare bits here and there. Someone using a cheat tool like the ones described will generate a lot of reports, and makes banning people very, very easy. Give them a bit of rope to hang themselves with, and then permaban the whole alliance, if needs be. It that's what it takes to make people not cheat, fine. I think EVE can get along just fine without the Goons and ISSN, and I think most people want to pvp versus people who don't win by cheating.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.15 13:54:00 - [113] Ok, playing devil's advocate here for a moment, and speculating if someone were to make such a tool public (and indeed open source): If there was a central server, which people could register with using the IGB (currently the only method to link Character IDs to Corporation/Alliance). Then a simple client which modified (note, not replace) the portrait images to have a red/white/blue banner, based upon standings defined by each corporation. Only to be as granular as Alliance-vs-Alliance standings. Would people still use it? Despite it being against EULA?
Halafian Eve University	Posted - 2006.08.15 14:27:00 - [114] If they can't enforce this, they should just offer the functionality to everyone. Honestly that'd be better anyway, since the current mechanisms are kludgy, slow, and stupid. There's no skill or anything interesting involved. The Goonfleet solution is a better solution for the game in general. Either enforce the rule or make it a general feature, which would be my preference.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.08.15 14:30:00 - [115] Originally by: Matthew I'm not entirely familiar with the properties of a salted hash. Are you suggesting that instead of checking "Is this the correct image for this char?", you instead check "Is this an Eve Character portrait?". The question then is how similar a hacked image would need to be to get through such a check. If it's flexible enough to tolerate mis-rendered hair, would it then also miss a small icon inserted in the top left corner? What happens is that the EVE client hashes the image itself (not the header that's being written to). It uses a salt added to the hash, which means that one cannot reproduce the hash unless one knows the salt. This is a very common practice to prevent people from using pre-calculated tables to *** hashed passwords. Thus, no image can be used in EVE except one that was processed by the EVE client in this manner. The processing itself would be extremely fast, and would hardly use any processor power. --[23] Member-- Originally by:** DB Preacher The only time BoB's backs are to the wall is when Backdoor Bandit is in local.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.15 15:20:00 - [116] Aeina Caeraen, not at all. I'm perfectly happy to allow, and there are very few implications, of a program scanning inside its own directory, which is all that would be needed to check against this sort of hack. And you can work on image hashes, which is far quicker. Wild Rho, because logging and vanishing is RP-friendly! Oh wait, it's not, it's a way for people to have a life AND play Eve! FireFoxx80, yea, the IGB thing IS fine. I know of at least one corp who had a IGB system which could check corp names/tickers against a standings database. And they checked with the GM's on it. Sovy Kurosei, ONE picture, or even a few? np. ALL of them, or a deacent and persistant percentage across several server-forced cache clearences? There is NO benign reason to "tamper" with their cache itself. Using a deacent (NOT the MD5, that's SO to break) checksumming program solves it. Mason Sledge, sure. And if you pick "no", then you drop to -10, concord headhunters attack you at random intervals, your picture flashes red in the entire constellation's "local" when anyone NOT using that gets a visual on you, etc...and you're MAYVE to 25% of the disadvantages you'd need on it. Dukath, this is nothing to do with that, and I'm disgusted that you are using hacks and exploits in order to further your agenda.
Sir Juri Caldari Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2006.08.15 15:59:00 - [117] Everyone using it is a cheater and should be banned, local is allready to good and by cheating your making it freakin' uber. Blah bla all you want about local and try all you want justifying your right to exploit and cheat. You are still a bunch of cheaters. What?, your so lazy you cant bother rightclicking a person's name? damn need to make a new sig...
Ghen Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2006.08.15 20:09:00 - [118] Well, if the game already generates the portrait images on the client side, instead of whining about people modifying the cached portraits, why not ask for an update to the generation procedure wherein any personal, corp or alliance standings will imprinted on the 64 pixel image for example?
Sovy Kurosei Amarr Therianthropic Technologies	Posted - 2006.08.15 20:13:00 - [119] Originally by: Maya Rkell Sovy Kurosei, ONE picture, or even a few? np. ALL of them, or a deacent and persistant percentage across several server-forced cache clearences? So there would be no problem if Joe tampers with a couple of them? Originally by: Maya Rkell There is NO benign reason to "tamper" with their cache itself. Sure there is. I'm pretty sure it has gone through some peoples minds just how neat it would be to have their own avatar instead of the silly one that is provided by Eve. Quality of life and that shinazz. ___________________
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.15 23:35:00 - [120] I wish we could have a nice official post from the powers the same way they posted about the drone sploit at pos's
Selena 001	Posted - 2006.08.15 23:53:00 - [121] So if I were to goto my cache folder, and replace every enemy portrait with a big red X, I could be banned? runs away to remove the customised U.I. she created That sucks ___________ NATIONAL SARCASM DAY!!
Mistress Suffering Einherjar Rising Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.16 00:19:00 - [122] I find it lame that someone had to actually code what should already be part of the game itself. You can currently check the standings of every single pilot in local at all times. It is just a hideously boring chore. Right now, most people already do what the goons are going, we just do it in a less efficient but non-exploit fashion - we add hostiles to the friends list. You pop local and see greens in the list and you know you have targets. Eve local should already show standings by every pilot listed. That's a flaw in the game. Let's have CCP fix that.
Taaketa Frist The Praxis Initiative Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.16 01:11:00 - [123] Constellation or Region chat only plz. KK thxs. -------------- Dang nabit
Verone	Posted - 2006.08.16 02:30:00 - [124] Originally by: Sorja Since local is to be removed in Kali, this is irrelevant Originally by: Wild Rho YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES! \/ <3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3 BACKSTORY AND FAN FICTION
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.16 04:28:00 - [125] You've obviously missed the other thread, verone :P Also, yes, if the program found multiple instances where the 10 pixel has at say, the top left of an image wasn't correct or was missing, then it may become suspicious, grounds for an investigation or a ban, even. Where, however, would you tell the program to stop considering a missing has to be "a program error or file corruption" and tell it that "these files have obviously been tampered with and the user deserves a ban?" What if, hypothetically, I was at war with Random Corp A, a corp with 5 members, and I decide to replace their cache portraits with 5 images with static, or a solid black color? Could I not make an argument that these were legitimate image corruptions? What if the corp I was at war with had only 4 members? 20? 100? a single alt noob? I'm still of the opinion that in such a situation, the far better solution, if one is available, is to simply try and design a system that is less easily manipulated. I remember hearing about when it used to be possible to spoof bookmarks because they were stored locally. (Forgive me if I'm incorrect, as this is hearsay) If I remember correctly, a group found a way to farm the data and create bookmarks off scanner scans, which allowed nearly instantaneous safespot breaking. CCP then changed the system so BMs were stored serverside and organized locally. As far as I'm concerned, it's something the devs should try to brainstorm about, and if, in the end, they can't think of anything, then they should come to the forums and say that, as if it's something that cannot be fixed, then it's simply something that should be declared legitimate, and the decision should be given to the playerbase as to if using it constitutes a morally objectionable way of playing the game. (Wow, that's a long sentence, I should probably break it up, but I'm on some sort of tirade and I'm lazy)
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.16 07:52:00 - [126] thing is I dont care if you have 5 wrong images or something. its when close to 3000 players have 8000 images
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2006.08.16 08:19:00 - [127] Originally by: Dark Shikari Thus, no image can be used in EVE except one that was processed by the EVE client in this manner. The processing itself would be extremely fast, and would hardly use any processor power. Thanks for the explanation, get where you're coming from now. Sounds like a good solution to me. Originally by: Aeina Caeraen What if, hypothetically, I was at war with Random Corp A, a corp with 5 members, and I decide to replace their cache portraits with 5 images with static, or a solid black color? Could I not make an argument that these were legitimate image corruptions? What if the corp I was at war with had only 4 members? 20? 100? a single alt noob? Well, if the corruption was supposed to be due to an error in rendering the portrait (no hair etc), the hash as Dark shikari has explained would still be present and useful as a check. They would be able to tell the difference between a portrait generated with no hair, and one that you photoshopped the hair out of. If you're claiming corruption of the stored file, then yes, it's possible for the hash to get corrupted along with that. But there are known patterns and ways that corruption can affect these images, which would severely limit the modifications that could be passed off as that. If there were a large number of such "corrupted" portraits, or the same portraits were seen to become "corrupted" multiple times, it would quickly raise the question how such a supposedly unreliable hard drive is managing to only corrupt portraits, and not any more vital game files. Of course, even if you do judge it so that they can't be sure enough to ban you, the client will still be able to use the hash to recognise "corrupted" images, and could be set to clear them out of the cache and regenerate them anytime the portrait is loaded. All you'd then achieve is give yourself lag as it re-renders all the portraits. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.16 08:27:00 - [128] bump
Twilight Moon Minmatar eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.16 08:47:00 - [129] How is the goons DB thing any different from me adding enemies to my buddies list? Both do exactly the same thing, ie, clearly denote an emeny in local without having to Show Info. Do the Goons just download a set of character portraits from the SA forums that have all hostiles already marked, without them ever having to meet, or be linked to, the hostile? That would be a bit much imho. ...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.16 09:20:00 - [130] Originally by: Twilight Moon Do the Goons just download a set of character portraits from the SA forums that have all hostiles already marked, without them ever having to meet, or be linked to, the hostile? That would be a bit much imho. Yes, that is exactly what they do. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
MysticNZ Brutor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.16 09:30:00 - [131] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 15/08/2006 03:18:29 Originally by: Aeina Caeraen I agree, but then you'd get massive issues with people complaining about privacy issues. I assume you're familiar with Blizzard's WoW "Warden" program, and how you would actually need a more invasive program than that for the current situation. Since the GS "program" is done completely clientside (and doesn't even involve an active system process, to boot), you'd actually need to see if individual image files had been altered, and doing so, even uncommon random checking, would involve either wasting GM time, or getting a slow, and incredibly error-prone server program to check the integrity of your cache folder every time you started the game. EVE already parses the entire cache folder when you log in, which is why a huge portraits folder makes your game client lag on login. The solution is simple. Tag every single portrait with an info tag (in the info fields of the image header). Do this without warning, and without telling anyone, and clear the portraits folder of everyone automatically when the patch goes out. Then, have the client silently report back who has images in their folder that don't have the proper header on them. Better yet, have the header code be a salted hash of 10 specific pixels from the image. Then it would be impossible to fake. This would introduce zero lag and would actually be very easy to code. It would be far easier making a hash table and get the crc for every image when it's downloaded. Wrong crc it requests another image from the server. Simple... Anyway, stop crying about it. -=====-
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.16 09:34:00 - [132] Originally by: MysticNZ It would be far easier making a hash table and get the crc for every image when it's downloaded. Wrong crc it requests another image from the server. Simple... Anyway, stop crying about it. Yeah, but as was already pointed out, the images are created clientside from server data, so CRC checking wouldn't work. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.16 12:41:00 - [133] This is all stemmed from wanting standings in local chat. To be honest this is something that has been requested a few times. I know people say to just right-click and show info, but there is a good 1-2 second delay whilst your client generates a portrait, and just try doing that when your standings change and you warp into a system of 50 new pilots.
Zothike Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.16 12:55:00 - [134] Sorry to be 'half' off topic, but where did you read that local will be removed??
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.16 12:59:00 - [135] Originally by: FireFoxx80 This is all stemmed from wanting standings in local chat. Just because some people want it does not make it a good idea, and certainly does not justify cheating to get it. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Linerra Tedora Avarice Industries	Posted - 2006.08.16 14:01:00 - [136] one solution could also be that instead of all pictures showing character portraits, it could be set to only show the persons corp. EvE-CCG Spoiler Database
Twilight Moon Minmatar eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.16 15:00:00 - [137] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Twilight Moon Do the Goons just download a set of character portraits from the SA forums that have all hostiles already marked, without them ever having to meet, or be linked to, the hostile? That would be a bit much imho. Yes, that is exactly what they do. Oh, well yeah, thats a bit much really. Basically all their pilots know who's going to shoot at them, right from the point where they start playing the game? ...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative.
Kowaii Hitori Eve Defence Force Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.16 19:07:00 - [138] Originally by: Sorja Since local is to be removed in Kali, this is irrelevant Now, if they don't remove local, they better give this functionnality to everybody otherwise some will have it, so won't (anyone reminds of UOXtreme back in 1997?). This is wonderful, add's to the realism that is this game. Now if they could modify scanners to cross reference data given by corp mates so that I don't have to scan and ask who is who if by some chance they have some odd name.
Baldour Ngarr Artemis Rising	Posted - 2006.08.16 19:52:00 - [139] Originally by: Avon Originally by: FireFoxx80 This is all stemmed from wanting standings in local chat. Just because some people want it does not make it a good idea, and certainly does not justify cheating to get it. Granted. BUT; it's already there. It's not that people want it added; they just want it to be faster. If it was removed altogether (kill local) or made quicker (have icons in chat show an overview mark, cross, star, or whatever) then this wouldn't be an issue either way. Which of those you support is, of course, up to you; but for crying out loud, let's have one or the other, instead of everyone having to frantically show info on everyone else in local to see who the hell they are. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.16 20:00:00 - [140] yea, gosh forbid you habe to work to identify your enemies at the start of a campaign.
Baldour Ngarr Artemis Rising	Posted - 2006.08.16 20:09:00 - [141] I thought of a third option. Keep local, but don't show portraits; just the names of who's there. Probably someone already suggested this. I can't be bothered to check. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Aeina Caeraen Caldari Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2006.08.16 22:05:00 - [142] Originally by: K Shara thing is I dont care if you have 5 wrong images or something. its when close to 3000 players have 8000 images Where do you draw the line between "don't care" and "omgwtfhaxsploit!" ? That's the point I was getting at, and a key reason why active GM moderation of exploiting will never work, and why modifying the game to disallow something is a far better solution. Also, maya, that's an interesting point, but doing that currently to get the "green square" of hostile identification +10 is massive work for everyone who wants it, as well as massive lag on your end, especially if you're lazy and don't purge your buddylist from time to time :P
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.16 22:09:00 - [143] Well yes... changes might be necessary, but I'd like to still make people work for their intel, within the current local system. "Where do you draw the line between "don't care" and "omgwtfhaxsploit!" ?" That's a detail which it's up to CCP to code, with biases they decide, etc.
arbitrary Bad luck Clover Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.16 22:13:00 - [144] for me the current situation is unlogical and removes immersion, also I hate adding people to my adress book, now filled with enemies, but no friends at all. So agree with those that want to see this exploit/hack a feature in game, that is unless they nuke local ___ Arbi all I want is for you to smile.
Ozmodan Minmatar Storm Industries	Posted - 2006.08.16 22:37:00 - [145] There has been no official announcement that local is being removed in Kali. If such does happen and ccp does not provide a method of scanning or probes to alert players of entry into the system of disreputable people, then you can kiss this game goodbye. Players will leave in droves, gives the gankers all the advantages. I don't think ccp is that dumb to lose half the playerbase. Can't believe some of you think this will be good, basically makes low sec a no fly zone for most players. Some of you need to think about what happens through out the game before you go spouting off on what you are familiar with. Learners permit still current
GrumpyCat	Posted - 2006.08.16 22:43:00 - [146] I replaced all the MC portrait pictures with BOB portrait pictures in my cache folder.
Akira Kaneshiro Caldari Associated Press	Posted - 2006.08.16 23:02:00 - [147] the protrait database is exploit: YES CCP will do something against 3000 paid customers: NO
Ghoest	Posted - 2006.08.16 23:13:00 - [148] No one is considering just how stupid it would be for CCP to punish(or even ban) all the goons. Wherever you went - here you are.
Baldour Ngarr Artemis Rising	Posted - 2006.08.16 23:18:00 - [149] Originally by: Ghoest No one is considering just how stupid it would be for CCP to punish(or even ban) all the goons. depends on two things: One, do they really believe this is a bannable exploit. I dunno. We know it's an exploit, but how bad? Two, do they care more about taking in money, or more about their game. It's already been proven, MANY times, that they care about the game a lot more than they care about the profit margin. If they decide it should be punished, they WILL do so. So 3,000 subscriptions are removed? Who cares. ________________________________________________ "I tried strip mining, but I lost, and it's cold flying around in space naked."
Tribunal Darkblade Technologies Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.08.16 23:20:00 - [150] Local is not being removed. Some tard took a quote seriously which led to all the "local is going to be nerfed" nonsense. The address book does the exact same thing as what people are complaining about the goons doing, so I really do not see why CCP should invest any time into "fixing" this. "We can't all be heroes, because somebody has to sit on the curb and applaud when they go by." - Will Rogers
Nyxus GALAXIAN	Posted - 2006.08.17 01:05:00 - [151] So if someone made an application that basically showed people in local in a seperate window like TS with the Red/Blue/Neutral background with name/corp/alliance in it would that be ok? Because I would definitely use something like that if it was ok. It seems the violation of the EULA occurs when the info was is put back in the Eve Client. If I had a little positionable scrolly window that worked like a mini local I would just stick it "always on top" and seems like it would be VERY usefull. I have to agree with Elve though. CCP should be putting this in Kali since we have been asking for something like this since right after the game started. Either that or nerfing the intel ability of local completely. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.17 07:39:00 - [152] Originally by: Nyxus So if someone made an application that basically showed people in local in a seperate window like TS with the Red/Blue/Neutral background with name/corp/alliance in it would that be ok? Potentially. The problem is twofold: - You cannot easily link Character IDs/Names/Corporations/Alliances, unless you got everyone to log into an IGB site which logged them. - You cannot easily link Characters to a System. Saying that though, and at risk of this being a sploit, so mods please delete beyond this point: You could work with the logserver and the machonet cache to establish exactly which cache file is responsible for 'current people in local'. Sc*****that every 30s, grab all the above info, display in your own app. You're not putting any data back into eve, but you are looking into files and gaining a tactical advantage. Oh, and I don;t know how this would be done, so don;t ask.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 08:02:00 - [153] Originally by: FireFoxx80 Originally by: Nyxus So if someone made an application that basically showed people in local in a seperate window like TS with the Red/Blue/Neutral background with name/corp/alliance in it would that be ok? Potentially. Originally by: Terms of Service 20. You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game. That should be pretty clear. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.17 08:12:00 - [154] this is different to adding people to your address book because it uses out of game stuff. Your address book will give a person who is in it a little green square on their portrait if they are online. this EXPLOIT shows a customer portrait based on your alliance and corp. its up to 8000 portraits or so, that at least 3000 players are using to cheat.
Infinity II	Posted - 2006.08.17 08:30:00 - [155] The difference between TS is that TS doesnt tap into EvE at all. Its completely separate. Think of it as a free long distance conference call while your playing EvE. On the other hand directly modifying data that EvE loads and displays on the client and tapping into the datastream etc are directly interfacing with the EvE game and are exploits.
DropZone 187	Posted - 2006.08.17 12:55:00 - [156] I think you people are taking this just a tad bit too far. The EULA is not an all encompassing legal document (in fact I doubt it would hold any merit legally - ask Microsoft) with what people have assumed to be all wide reaching powers of enforcement. Obviously it didn't go through an internationally experienced legal team prior to being implemented as there are quite a few wordings that violate existing rights and freedoms guaranteed in most countries. In saying that however, there is the 'spirit' or intent of the wording, and thankfully it is none of you who do the interpretation. If it was, I doubt anyone would be playing Eve as you do not have the capability to understand the business impacts of your 'potential' rulings based on certain wording the EULA contains. So let me enlighten you as to what CCP has to take into consideration. As you are aware, CCP accepts credit card payment which means they must maintan a merchant account with each of the accepted credit card companies or use a bill processor. In order to maintain a merchant account, a hefty deposit and 'acceptance' of the credit card companies rules by CCP is established. The biggest rule to be concerned with is in regards to 'the customer is always right' which is backed up with 'you don't get your money for <insert time period here> to make sure the charges are correct' thus creating a nice form of protection for the consumer. In more common terms, it is referred to as a 'chargeback' where a customer files a complaint in regards to the charges. The complaint can be for any reason - no service, poor service, stupidity, etc, which makes it quite easy for the credit card companies to protect its clients - you, the credit card holder. You see, credit card companies love to make 5-29% interest off of the individual and really couldn't care less about the merchant, who if was recieving complaints is probably bad for business anyhow. To put it further into perspective, CCP generating their revenue from an Internet based service is no different in the credit card companies eyes than adult entertainment sites. So if CCP tends to go with what most of you interpret as 'violations' and started banning accounts on those basis, not only would they lose future revenue but their credit card charge holdbacks would put them in a serious financial bind. That is just the tip of the iceberg. In some jurisdictions (such as the one I live in), I am entitled to chargeback up to a one year as well as go after potential damages for lost time, emotional distress, etc by suing the merchant account through the credit card company. Once again they will be more than willing to co-operate as they have already agreed to do so in order to appease Government protection regulations. Now for one or two people, not a big deal. Hundreds on the other hand will swamp CCP thus costing them even more in employee time through accounting. And why stop there? In the U.S., you can find out who is backing CCP (I think Vivendi is iirc) and file a suit against their directors. In the very least it will shake them up and quite possibly bring out the nerf bat. Possible, yes, probable, no. Why? Because CCP makes their own interpretations at their discretion based on risk. If the individual has the means (knowledge, resources, motivation) to go through with action, then it isn't in CCP's best interest to stir up the hornets nest. The possibility exists as there are a large number of lawyers, doctors, dentists, judges and other professionals that play Eve and know how the system works. That group wouldn't hesitate to make the few phone calls necessary if irritated enough by a silly ruling that cost them many hours of entertainment. Then again we don't often get ourselves into such situations, but have the knowledge to deal with them. So, I hope that put some context into light. Afterall, from the sounds of it most of you would consider renaming the Eve shortcut icon an EULA violation.....
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 13:09:00 - [157] Originally by: DropZone 187 Stuff The EULA doesn't have to be a legal document for CCP to enforce it. It states the circumstances in which it may suspend your access to their system. If you break the EULA, and CCP ban you, your credit card company will do nothing for you (unless CCP continue to charge). You knew the access conditions, and you chose to ignore them. The CC company are not going to take CCP to court for following their own guidelines when you break them. If you feel that paying CCP for access to their system gives you right above those granted (and limited) by the EULA and the TOS, then you can take them to court. That is your only option. The EULA may not be legally binding, but unless it directly infringes on rights you have where you live, or you challenge it in court, it is the set of rules which governs what CCP can do ... and you have agreed to be subject to those rules. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Antetma University of Caille	Posted - 2006.08.17 13:42:00 - [158] Edited by: Antetma on 17/08/2006 13:43:00 Originally by: "Terms of Service" 20. You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game. The TOS is a very fuzzy document. It's worded such that everything that could even be considered an exploit will fall under it, but after it comes down to what they choose to get rid of or not. The above quote is from the TOS: "nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game." I'm pretty sure that EVEmon and Quickfit both fall under this category, yet CCP not only ignores the fact that these programs exist with regards to the TOS, they are quite interested in them and endorse their usage.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 13:46:00 - [159] Originally by: Antetma Edited by: Antetma on 17/08/2006 13:43:00 Originally by: "Terms of Service" 20. You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game. The TOS is a very fuzzy document. It's worded such that everything that could even be considered an exploit will fall under it, but after it comes down to what they choose to get rid of or not. The above quote is from the TOS: "nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game." I'm pretty sure that EVEmon and Quickfit both fall under this category, yet CCP not only ignores the fact that these programs exist with regards to the TOS, they are quite interested in them and endorse their usage. If CCP choose to explicitly allow something, then that is fine. However, unless that endorsement is given, the EULA and the TOS apply. CCP are perfectly within their rights to choose what they feel is acceptable. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
DropZone 187	Posted - 2006.08.17 13:50:00 - [160] Originally by: Avon Originally by: DropZone 187 Stuff The EULA doesn't have to be a legal document for CCP to enforce it. It states the circumstances in which it may suspend your access to their system. If you break the EULA, and CCP ban you, your credit card company will do nothing for you (unless CCP continue to charge). You knew the access conditions, and you chose to ignore them. The CC company are not going to take CCP to court for following their own guidelines when you break them. If you feel that paying CCP for access to their system gives you right above those granted (and limited) by the EULA and the TOS, then you can take them to court. That is your only option. The EULA may not be legally binding, but unless it directly infringes on rights you have where you live, or you challenge it in court, it is the set of rules which governs what CCP can do ... and you have agreed to be subject to those rules. Avon, you might be good at what you do in BoB/Eve, but please stick to what you know. You aren't as knowledgeable about merchant accounts and how the credit card companies operate. In summary, credit cards are simply transaction agents. There is a reason behind the protection measures - the credit card companies are obligated to provide protection from a liability perspective. Especially in these types of cases where an agreement for terms of service(s) violate(s) principle charters for fair usage with the final determination at the sole discretion of the vendor.... No courts involved. The agreement stipulations in the merchant account are quite clear. As I said in my first post, CCP has agreed to them, and those supercede their EULA. Yes, they can still ban you account for any reason, but as a consumer you still have solid recourse. One that the credit card companies will enforce for you on your behalf irregardless of what agreement CCP has with you. If you need an example, go look at paypal. I will leave it at that with the recommendation that you should look into it before contradicting someone who deals with it on a regular basis.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 13:54:00 - [161] Edited by: Avon on 17/08/2006 13:56:56 Originally by: DropZone 187 Avon, you might be good at what you do in BoB/Eve, but please stick to what you know. You aren't as knowledgeable about merchant accounts and how the credit card companies operate. You do know what I do for a living, right? Trust me, no CC company in the UK would try and obtain a refund for you if you had your account banned for failing to comply with CCP's rules. The only thing they would consider is reclaiming payments which took place after the service was suspended. ** Added: Actually, I don't know what AMEX would do - only MasterCard and VISA. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
DropZone 187	Posted - 2006.08.17 14:17:00 - [162] Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 17/08/2006 13:56:56 Originally by: DropZone 187 Avon, you might be good at what you do in BoB/Eve, but please stick to what you know. You aren't as knowledgeable about merchant accounts and how the credit card companies operate. You do know what I do for a living, right? Trust me, no CC company in the UK would try and obtain a refund for you if you had your account banned for failing to comply with CCP's rules. The only thing they would consider is reclaiming payments which took place after the service was suspended. ** Added: Actually, I don't know what AMEX would do - only MasterCard and VISA. No I don't know what you do for a living, but I would initially say it isn't in this industry. Or if it is, you are definitely not on a policy development or legislative compliance level. You have yet to make reference to acknowledgement of the merchant account (or anything about it) which is a fundamental aspect of the credit card system. VISA, AMEX and MASTERCARD are all U.S. based for policy decisions. Even though they are registered out of various countries for tax advantages and their ownership is strictly privately held by banks, their worldwide policies are driven out of the U.S. to ensure that the bare minimum requirements of the highest Government legislative consumer protection measures are implemented throughout the world. Anyhow, we can spatter back and forth all day but I know I am right having had to deal with clients in the situation on a much larger scale. Unless you are consulting to CCP, I can't see why you would be disagreeing with it anyhow - the simplest solution is to just have everyone contact their credit card company and ask about the protection/their rights as a consumer? Besides, I was done being a 'cool kid' a number of years ago when it was time to make some good mulla....and this discussion doesn't make me any mulla....
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.17 14:32:00 - [163] Edited by: K Shara on 17/08/2006 14:33:36 Dropzone you are wrong. Think of it this way. You pay to enter a cinema but you are loud and disruptive. You can be expelled eeven though you have paid for entry. Another example. You are on public transport and choose to smoke. As its no smoking you can be expelled even if you havn't reached the destination you have paid for. Also. POST WITH YOUR MAIN And yes I do work for an international online retailer and service provider, and yes I checked before I posted.
Simon Illian Caldari Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2006.08.17 15:02:00 - [164] Edited by: Simon Illian on 17/08/2006 15:03:03 is this an exploit : 1¦ I set an IGB website will a link to all my ennemi, now i give the adress to all my mate (corp/alliance), and they can add they own know ennemies. 2¦ The chain the right click -> Add to adress book from the IGB Website. 3¦ Now they have massive lag (trust me when the server crash, lot of ppl log in/out, it's laggy), the same advantage as the ppl who have use the program (they know who are they ennemies, before seeing them), and it's an exploit or not ? Replacing/creating image of the cache : => you knwow you'r ennemi => can allow the PROPER usage of the BUDDYlist, and not the OWNZ'exploit to know when they connect, and they are ennemis cause they are in you'r buddylist. Apparently using the Goon program is less an exploit (exploit in the sense of : used not in the way it's build) cause you can't know when they go online/offline. And i suppose far lesser charge to the server (a goon have probably less buddy, so less information to have.) Maybe providing an easy/ accesible program to do that can make all teh ppl easy. i've see a program who overlay a number of circle for allwing faster scan time, it's an exploit too ?
Double TaP The Establishment	Posted - 2006.08.17 15:26:00 - [165] I guess I should uninstall quickfit because I shouldn't be able to see how I can fit a ship and what its stats would be without doing the full page of math or being in-game with the ship because that gives me an unfair advantage to people that arnt in game and wonder how their ship should be fitted. This thread is officially silly.
DropZone 187	Posted - 2006.08.17 15:28:00 - [166] Originally by: K Shara Edited by: K Shara on 17/08/2006 14:33:36 Dropzone you are wrong. Think of it this way. You pay to enter a cinema but you are loud and disruptive. You can be expelled eeven though you have paid for entry. Another example. You are on public transport and choose to smoke. As its no smoking you can be expelled even if you havn't reached the destination you have paid for. Also. POST WITH YOUR MAIN And yes I do work for an international online retailer and service provider, and yes I checked before I posted. 1. I am posting with a main. 2. Loud and disruptive. I don't think CCP can make a claim of you interfering with others enjoyment of the game by modifying your own client/computer settings. As well, it all depends on the scenario in the movie theatre. If I paid by VISA and got kicked out, if it was worth my while, I would make the call. But normally that would have been precipitated by some other action such as a) the movie was really bad, b) usher didn't like me c) allergic reaction to some ungodly food. Actually, the realistic corelation to your example would be someone null routing level 3's backbone for a day which is quite a bit more extreme than altering a client. *** ok, I just thought of another flaw in your example. What if the person suffered from Down's syndrome (sp) or some other affliction that caused the behaviour? Ejecting the person on those grounds without renumeration can end up with some hefty fines and massive bad publicity. 3. Smoking would get you nailed under another piece of legislation. And these days probably get you sued civilly by those around you for second hand smoke damage. 4. You can work for whoever doing whatever. If you are in a position that deals with the financials and have access, then go read your merchant agreement. Alternatively if you use a processor such as ibillz or verisign, read that agreement. It should provide some insight. Anyhow, the whole point that I did bring up is that there is recourse whether you agree with it or not. People have to find out for themselves, I was just pointing them out. CCP/Eve does not have all encompassing power; they are not a religion nor are they a Government. They are subject to rules and stipulations of their own agreements with external entities that govern how they run their business. It is subject to risk management just as every other business operating in a capitalist model is forced to do so. But the more interesting and important point that I brought up is the extreme that you people interpret the EULA as if were words from some higher being......I have yet to see anyone from CCP lay down a hammer so hard as many of the fear mongers in these forums have prescribed. For one I think it retracts from the credit CCP deserves and secondly it makes this community generally look ignorant, even though that would be considered a generalization. Bah, political correctness.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.17 15:39:00 - [167] Originally by: Avon Originally by: FireFoxx80 Originally by: Nyxus So if someone made an application that basically showed people in local in a seperate window like TS with the Red/Blue/Neutral background with name/corp/alliance in it would that be ok? Potentially. Originally by: Terms of Service 20. You will not attempt to decipher, hack into or interfere with any transmissions to or from the EVE Online servers, nor will you try to create or use any third party add-ons, extras or tools for the game. That should be pretty clear.
Haks'he Lirky Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 15:42:00 - [168] "2. Loud and disruptive. I don't think CCP can make a claim of you interfering with others enjoyment of the game by modifying your own client/computer settings. As well, it all depends on the scenario in the movie theatre. If I paid by VISA and got kicked out, if it was worth my while, I would make the call. But normally that would have been precipitated by some other action such as a) the movie was really bad, b) usher didn't like me c) allergic reaction to some ungodly food. Actually, the realistic corelation to your example would be someone null routing level 3's backbone for a day which is quite a bit more extreme than altering a client." One second, they are altering things which have not been authorised by CCP. Also you say it doesn't interfer with others enjoyment, although they do gain a clear advantage over the other side by the changes which in-turn disrupts others enjoyment. I dont care to comment on the legal implications because I know nothing of it, but they are gaining a clear advantage which then effects others game play and enjoyment. With all the above babble I could file a law suite for feeling inferior to the goons hacks and that some how they have affected me in real life and i now have manic depression and a infirotrity complex.
spurious signal Caldari Brainiacs	Posted - 2006.08.17 15:47:00 - [169] Talking about legality of enforcing TOS's and EULA's in this discussion is pointless and irrelevant. Dropzone 187 do you honestly think that the entire corp using this addon to EVE shouldn;t be banned for it? You know as well as everyone else that what these clowns were doing is CHEATING. Do you want to play a game where that kind of client manipulation is allowed? What's next, auto-scanner addons? Hacks that see through cloaks? ISK-duping? Honestly, sometimes reading these forums I despair of the human race. What a bunch of tards sometimes.
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.17 15:52:00 - [170] Edited by: K Shara on 17/08/2006 15:56:03 arrgggg you dont get it do you. And over here in the UK its not illegal to smoke on public transport just not allowed by the T&C's of using the transport :) My examples have flaws yes, but take them in the spirit they are meant basically what I was saying is that if your breach the conditions under which they (ccp) offer you a service and whch you agreed to abide. By registering and accepting the EULA. They can terminate your account and refuse to offer the service to you. At most all they would need to do is refund the balence of any outstanding subscription.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 15:55:00 - [171] Originally by: Double TaP I guess I should uninstall quickfit because I shouldn't be able to see how I can fit a ship and what its stats would be without doing the full page of math or being in-game with the ship because that gives me an unfair advantage to people that arnt in game and wonder how their ship should be fitted. This thread is officially silly. No, because CCP have said it is okay. CCP have decided that changing character portraits is not okay. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.17 16:00:00 - [172] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Double TaP I guess I should uninstall quickfit No, because CCP have said it is okay. CCP have decided that changing character portraits is not okay. It'd be good to see an official list. What I do the rest of the time.
Kalaan Oratay The Imperial Commonwealth	Posted - 2006.08.17 16:06:00 - [173] Module name: Comsys Hot Wire (low/mid/hi?) Passive. Equiping this module removes you from local, but doesn't allow you to view the local channel either. This poorly thought out idea has been brought to you by Kal hides --- Originally by: Archilies Ignore what others say: Fit what you want, with what you have, whenever you want.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 16:07:00 - [174] Originally by: FireFoxx80 goodbye TriExporter (which rules out the BoB CGI film), We don't use TriExporter to extract the models. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.17 16:08:00 - [175] Originally by: Avon Originally by: FireFoxx80 goodbye TriExporter (which rules out the BoB CGI film), We don't use TriExporter to extract the models. Actually I suspect you create your own hi-poly models. But that ruins my argument somewhat. However, triexporter has been used by others. What I do the rest of the time.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 16:11:00 - [176] Originally by: FireFoxx80 Originally by: Avon Originally by: FireFoxx80 goodbye TriExporter (which rules out the BoB CGI film), We don't use TriExporter to extract the models. Actually I suspect you create your own hi-poly models. But that ruins my argument somewhat. However, triexporter has been used by others. Well, I make my own models, and export models from the client. I still don't use TriExporter though. Also, TriExporter is allowed by CCP, so you still don't have a case. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.17 16:19:00 - [177] Edited by: FireFoxx80 on 17/08/2006 16:20:12 Edited by: FireFoxx80 on 17/08/2006 16:18:48 Hence the need for an offical supported list then eh Avon? Edit: I cannot spell. Edit2: I've used TriExporter in the past too. What I do the rest of the time.
DropZone 187	Posted - 2006.08.17 16:27:00 - [178] Originally by: K Shara Edited by: K Shara on 17/08/2006 15:56:03 arrgggg you dont get it do you. And over here in the UK its not illegal to smoke on public transport just not allowed by the T&C's of using the transport :) My examples have flaws yes, but take them in the spirit they are meant basically what I was saying is that if your breach the conditions under which they (ccp) offer you a service and whch you agreed to abide. By registering and accepting the EULA. They can terminate your account and refuse to offer the service to you. At most all they would need to do is refund the balence of any outstanding subscription. Yeah, I do get it, that is why lawyers get paid oodles amounts of mulla sitting around contemplating ways of explaining things that should never have to be explained in the first place :) Does it amount to anything? Generally, no it doesn't. All it does is act as a preventative measure to reduce the risk of getting sued by oodles and oodles of more mulla, but even that isn't a guarantee. Hak, I wasn't supporting goonies in anyway shape or form, I just got tired of the same old cry "ITS AGAINST THE EULA #@#@@# BAN THAM ALL AND EAT THEIR YOUNG" threads without even reading what it was about. But didn't you guys eat the goonies and run them off anyhow? So what is the big deal? Back to K - But I didn't know about the smoking thing being allowed. I thought it was banned everywhere. On the otherhand, you did pick up the spirit or in context part. Progress I say. Honestly, I think the EULA was just quickly put together or is facing the results of a language conversion. Microsoft didn't even get half of what CCP has for imposing restrictions and it (MS EULA) has been generally tossed (New York City) on the avoidance of liability stipulations. The rest of it, like I said, talk ot your credit card company for chargebacks. I also think CCP might want to consider opening up the client for modifications. First, look at other software titles that have had their games expand - CounterStrike, Quakes, Total Annihilation, etc. It also promotes a stronger community, and as we all know CCP is short staffed so it couldn't hurt to have additional resources floating around. It is all for a better game.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:10:00 - [179] Originally by: DropZone 187 I also think CCP might want to consider opening up the client for modifications. First, look at other software titles that have had their games expand - CounterStrike, Quakes, Total Annihilation, etc. It also promotes a stronger community, and as we all know CCP is short staffed so it couldn't hurt to have additional resources floating around. It is all for a better game. That boat just won't float on a single server sea. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:20:00 - [180] Originally by: Avon Originally by: DropZone 187 I also think CCP might want to consider opening up the client for modifications. First, look at other software titles that have had their games expand - CounterStrike, Quakes, Total Annihilation, etc. It also promotes a stronger community, and as we all know CCP is short staffed so it couldn't hurt to have additional resources floating around. It is all for a better game. That boat just won't float on a single server sea. I feel a shanty coming on. What I do the rest of the time.
Zaphod Jones Celtic Anarchy Black Reign Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:28:00 - [181] So, has anyone from ISS come forward and said we don't use that software anymore ? or did I miss it in all the kerfuffle about credit cards ?
Mistress Suffering Einherjar Rising Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:47:00 - [182] I believe ISSN stated that they use an equivelent, but are not widely hated and thus basically slipped under the radar. This whole conversation is pointless. The goons could eat babies (like Iron does, but I like them) and CCP wouldn't punt thousands of their paid subscribers. My hope is that they will instead make this sort of functionality part of the actual client, so the rest of us can benefit from it too. Constant show-info is cumbersome and not fun. Please make my game experience more enjoyable, thanks.
Damfoose FISKL GUARDS Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2006.08.17 18:43:00 - [183] Intresting thread some very good points also the usual bad ones, CCP intergrate something like this into the game im getting sick of going to hit show info only so see oops start convo !!!!!!!!!!!!
CCP HOSTILE	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:04:00 - [184] Wooot! You really believe that they will succumb to our pleas for a better game ? No, they just add co called untested "Addons & Features" to keep the steady bug flow in the game. And please, let those $$ roll into their already fat wallets. Originally by: CCP doesn't care! FUN...remember that module CCP? Urgent CCP Attention! Or do you just opress with Sinister Bans for Criticizing you?
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.18 07:40:00 - [185] if ISSN use it they should be banned as well. lets hope the coming patch fixes this
Alex Tremayne Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.18 08:17:00 - [186] Originally by: K Shara if ISSN use it they should be banned as well. lets hope the coming patch fixes this This concerns me. I'd like confirmation from ISSN that they aren't using this mod.
Count TaSessine ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.18 09:21:00 - [187] Official word: ISS Navy does not use this application or whatever it is. Chairman, ISS
Dracolich North Star Networks Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.18 09:46:00 - [188] I look forward to the many banned accounts. _______________________________________ Does killing the weak, make you feel strong?
Zaphod Jones Celtic Anarchy Black Reign Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.18 09:58:00 - [189] Originally by: Count TaSessine Official word: ISS Navy does not use this application or whatever it is. Thank you for the verification on ISSN's present stance.
Laudicia	Posted - 2006.08.18 10:02:00 - [190] lol they should do a scan and BAN them all ^^
StarStryder Wise Guys	Posted - 2006.08.18 11:53:00 - [191] Originally by: Wild Rho And yet when you log out you disappear from local and when you log in you reappear, how do the gates "log" that change then? (If you want to start using rp based arguments). Simple. Your ship informs the gate network when you turn your bedside lamp on and off. :D
StarStryder Wise Guys	Posted - 2006.08.18 14:18:00 - [192] Originally by: Dropzone 187 I also think CCP might want to consider opening up the client for modifications. First, look at other software titles that have had their games expand - CounterStrike, Quakes, Total Annihilation, etc. It also promotes a stronger community, and as we all know CCP is short staffed so it couldn't hurt to have additional resources floating around. It is all for a better game. Last time I played CS on a public server it was unplayable due to all the cheats. This is the price of opening clients up external developers and quite frankly I'd rather have a client that is free from cheats (I know, a fanciful dream!) than one which is easy for third party devs to extend. As Avon said, it doesn't work so well on a single server environment anyway.
K Shara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.19 14:43:00 - [193] what he said. no to 3rd party mods everyone on the same playing field with teh same kit
Katya Ishenka	Posted - 2006.08.20 12:40:00 - [194] so is anything been donew about this ?
Rose Kolodny Gallente Space Invaders	Posted - 2006.08.21 13:30:00 - [195] Originally by: K Shara well the GM's say its a sploit so its a sploit anyone using it is sploiting and shiuld be banned :) Yeah, right. I remeber Pann saying all m0o should get banned and I remeber CCP saying using sensor dampeners is a bannable offence cause they were too lazy to fix the bugs. GMs never give free ships away either, they are gods that never fail. What's next? -- Recruiting Video - Recruiting Thread
Twilight Moon Minmatar eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.21 13:32:00 - [196] Originally by: Zaphod Jones Originally by: Count TaSessine Official word: ISS Navy does not use this application or whatever it is. Thank you for the verification on ISSN's present stance. Do you know that your sig isn't working? You might still be seeing it due to it being cached. ...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative.
Kylania Gallente	Posted - 2006.08.21 13:39:00 - [197] Originally by: Twilight Moon Do you know that your sig isn't working? Read it carefully, it's working. -- Lil Miner Newbie Skills Roadmap \| CCG Card Lookup
Ifni Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2006.08.21 14:42:00 - [198] Edited by: Ifni on 21/08/2006 14:45:06 There are several things that are crossing the line between legitimate and not. Whilst looking at these images you can see what is meant about the Goonfleet setup, BOB uses a similar thing, albeit, not one that is active ingame, as far as I know. The Goonfleet one uses harvested character ID's and replaces the downloaded character portrait with one that denotes standings, corp/alliance etc, in a quick and easy to read manner. The BOB one is also known as The Intel Project and uses harvested charactr ID's aswell. The difference here, is that, as far as I know, the Intel Project one uses it to gather data on a player and their corps, etc, as can be seen here. Note the corp ticker displayed. This is done by leaving an alt parked in a highway system, with the logserver running. Everytime someone appears on your grid, the server relays information between clients and subsequently stores it in a log. You have several items displayed on the overview, so this data has to come to your pc. Whilst they are both using, I would imagine, the logs generated by CCP's own logserver, and using the data within them, both cross that line into a grey area that isn't clearly enough defined by tha EULA. With many people obviously interested in a resolution to this, maybe CCP can come up wiht some method to prevent a user reading the logserver data, and extracting character ID's from it, and from altering the character portraits. In my defence, I may be wrong about some of what I have said, and they may be similar to the methods employed by Chribba and EVE-Search It's your turn to die.
Blacklight Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.21 15:25:00 - [199] Originally by: Ifni Edited by: Ifni on 21/08/2006 14:45:06 There are several things that are crossing the line between legitimate and not. Whilst looking at these images you can see what is meant about the Goonfleet setup, BOB uses a similar thing, albeit, not one that is active ingame, as far as I know. The Goonfleet one uses harvested character ID's and replaces the downloaded character portrait with one that denotes standings, corp/alliance etc, in a quick and easy to read manner. The BOB one is also known as The Intel Project and uses harvested charactr ID's aswell. The difference here, is that, as far as I know, the Intel Project one uses it to gather data on a player and their corps, etc, as can be seen here. Note the corp ticker displayed. This is done by leaving an alt parked in a highway system, with the logserver running. Everytime someone appears on your grid, the server relays information between clients and subsequently stores it in a log. You have several items displayed on the overview, so this data has to come to your pc. Whilst they are both using, I would imagine, the logs generated by CCP's own logserver, and using the data within them, both cross that line into a grey area that isn't clearly enough defined by tha EULA. With many people obviously interested in a resolution to this, maybe CCP can come up wiht some method to prevent a user reading the logserver data, and extracting character ID's from it, and from altering the character portraits. In my defence, I may be wrong about some of what I have said, and they may be similar to the methods employed by Chribba and EVE-Search Comparing the fact that we auto-populate a corp ticker on our forums with Goons replacing client files is pretty out of whack Ifni. BoB have no tools whatsoever that alter any client or server related data in any way shape or form. Using data made publically available by CCP & 'right click, export to excel' does not equal altering the client and to be honest I resent being associated by implication, you're out of order in the way you present this argument. We do not, either through our forums or otherwise breach the EULA by altering the in-game environment in any way. I think you need to apologise or clarify what your point is by dragging us into this argument because you are way out of line comparing us to Goons little client hacking activities. Eve Blacklight Style
spurious signal Caldari Brainiacs	Posted - 2006.08.21 15:34:00 - [200] Originally by: Count TaSessine Official word: ISS Navy does not use this application or whatever it is. Has anyone asked if you or the ISSN ever used it, or any client-altering tools, in the past?
Deja Thoris Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.21 15:56:00 - [201] Meh, If this is an exploit then please ban the people who posted SS's of themselves using it. Whats that you say? You don't accept their submissions as evidence to wield the banstick and you cant detect it yourself? So... It's an exploit but you cant detect or punish it...
Ifni Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2006.08.21 16:07:00 - [202] Originally by: Blacklight Originally by: Ifni In my defence, I may be wrong about some of what I have said, and they may be similar to the methods employed by Chribba and EVE-Search Comparing the fact that we auto-populate a corp ticker on our forums with Goons replacing client files is pretty out of whack Ifni. BoB have no tools whatsoever that alter any client or server related data in any way shape or form. Using data made publically available by CCP & 'right click, export to excel' does not equal altering the client and to be honest I resent being associated by implication, you're out of order in the way you present this argument. We do not, either through our forums or otherwise breach the EULA by altering the in-game environment in any way. I think you need to apologise or clarify what your point is by dragging us into this argument because you are way out of line comparing us to Goons little client hacking activities. i wasn't using it as an anti-BOB platform, and I did say that I might be wrong. What I am getting at is taking data used ingame that hasn't been necessarily been marked for use, by the player, outside of game in the same way the "export to excel" for market data has. I understand that my argument doesn't sound that clearly defined and I apologise for insulting you by association, but I'm trying to show that without clear cut guidelines on what can, and can not be used, by the player, outside of the EVE environment, things such as Goonfleets actions, occur. Whilst It would be excellent and would please almost all those present in this thread, if CCP were to introduce some hash checking or similar for character portraits, I am proposing extending it to clarify the uses that data generated by the game has outside of the EVE client. As far as I know, the EULA hasn't been modified in its original text since the inception of EVE all those years ago. Maybe it is time to clarify what is allowed in light of modern advances and technology that exists today... It's your turn to die.
Turiya Flesharrower Beagle Corp	Posted - 2006.08.21 16:08:00 - [203] Edited by: Turiya Flesharrower on 21/08/2006 16:10:42 Originally by: Blacklight Comparing the fact that we auto-populate a corp ticker on our forums with Goons replacing client files is pretty out of whack Ifni. BoB have no tools whatsoever that alter any client or server related data in any way shape or form. Using data made publically available by CCP & 'right click, export to excel' does not equal altering the client and to be honest I resent being associated by implication, you're out of order in the way you present this argument. We do not, either through our forums or otherwise breach the EULA by altering the in-game environment in any way. I think you need to apologise or clarify what your point is by dragging us into this argument because you are way out of line comparing us to Goons little client hacking activities. Direct from the EULA: 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. BoB's information gathering system doesn't actually modify the game environment or how the game is played so the comparison to GoonSwarm's system is pushing it I think. On the other hand, I don't think this is worth getting into a hissy fit over; the difference is plain to see in Ifni's post thanks to screenshots. I think the main point of conjecture is the legitimacy of information harvesting in any form and BoB's system is just being cited as an example of what's possible. -----
Shaemell Buttleson Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.08.21 17:12:00 - [204] Mining macros are sh1tty and wrong is clearly banned by ccp but doesn't in anyway interfere with the server etc. They give players and unfair advantage over others who choose to play the game as intended. Logicly (to my twisted mind) allthough these portrait programs don't interfere as such with the server, they do change the gameplay in an unfair way that the majority of the playerbase don't stoop to use and give a tactical advantage to the users. On this alone they should be banned just like the mining macros!
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.08.21 17:27:00 - [205] That BoB thing is pretty smart. And yes, certainly in a grey area of the EULA. I might have to investigate something similar myself What I do the rest of the time.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.21 17:35:00 - [206] Originally by: Turiya Flesharrower I think the main point of conjecture is the legitimacy of information harvesting in any form and BoB's system is just being cited as an example of what's possible. Oh, like for example, killmails? Would you argue that killboards violate the EULA? There is a huge difference between taking stuff out of the game and putting stuff in to the game. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Laughlyn Vaughns Gallente Lagos-Vaughn Industries	Posted - 2006.08.21 17:43:00 - [207] i cant imagine too much being done if/when they find a tracin method of who is using it, sure maybe if it was a corp of about 30. Imagine if they ban 70% goonfleet for a week, their enemies would go in and take over their territory and am sure when they got back wouldnt be too impressed about it and a lot of whining causing a bit of an uproar as well as plenty of petitions. Yer they shudnt use it but i imagine a bit more favor between the devs and large alliances like Goon and BoB, afterall they do supply devs with a good amount of their monthly pay check.
Deja Thoris Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.21 17:48:00 - [208] Originally by: Laughlyn Vaughns Imagine if they ban 70% goonfleet for a week, their enemies would go in and take over their territory What territory?
Laughlyn Vaughns Gallente Lagos-Vaughn Industries	Posted - 2006.08.21 18:07:00 - [209] Originally by: Deja Thoris Originally by: Laughlyn Vaughns Imagine if they ban 70% goonfleet for a week, their enemies would go in and take over their territory What territory? 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
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.08.21 18:09:00 - [210] 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. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.09 18:09:00 - [211] Originally by: Avon CCP have decided that changing character portraits is not okay. Can you link to the dev post that said that? I can't find it in all this mess... -------------------
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.09 22:29:00 - [212] Edited by: Malthros Zenobia on 09/09/2006 22:29:41 Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Avon CCP have decided that changing character portraits is not okay. Can you link to the dev post that said that? I can't find it in all this mess... Just look at the EULA. Doesn modifying portraits violate the EULA? Yes, yes it doesn, because you are modifying the client. Should everyone using such a thing, even if it's every last member of Goonswarm, be banned for using it? You're goddamn right they should be. I couldn't care less what kind of 'backlash' it would have. If All of BoB and ASCN were cheating, I'd expect to see them banned (even though it wouldn't happen, and probably won't happen if goonswarm do all use a modified client). EVE would move on without the cheating parties. 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
DeODokktor Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium	Posted - 2006.09.09 22:52:00 - [213] Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Avon CCP have decided that changing character portraits is not okay. Can you link to the dev post that said that? I can't find it in all this mess... It's just a picture.. A real simple neat trick tbh.. :) Of course.. I seen tons of char pictures incorrectly generated.. so if I use mspaint to scribble some hair on I'll get banzor'd ;(.... I guess it's time to change the image format to something not so user friendly.
Siigari Kitawa Gallente HelpCorp United	Posted - 2006.09.09 23:59:00 - [214] Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 10/09/2006 00:01:32 I'm gonna knock this up for everyone and post a bit of common sense: In today's world, it's unfortunate but true... if it's not spelled out for you, then it must be okay. So, sure the EULA states don't modify the game. But to what extent is that taken? Client-side modifications to files that are on our computer? We're allowed to edit the init.ini or whatever it is until we're blue in the face and CCP doesn't care. FFS, there was a hidden menu called "advancedDevice=1" for a long time, and it's still hidden afaik. So, until we see CCP come straight out and say something about it, I think everyone should stop bickering over semantics. It's like a bunch of kids all wanting to be right. Seriously, when CCP comes out and says it, we'll all know. Until then, it's all speculation and interperative reading. Further, I don't know about using a program to do it, but for the uninformed, it's as easy as showinfo then hovering over the link and extracting the number. So, what about if you did it manually?! At any rate, don't answer that last question. This thread should die and be locked with CCP saying if this is allowable or not.
Tia Kohi	Posted - 2006.09.10 00:40:00 - [215] So I guess this means those who use EveMon need to be banned too? After all it talks directly with eve.
Franky B Mentally Unstable Enterprises	Posted - 2006.09.10 00:48:00 - [216] it takes an OUT OF GAME XML file that is generated and freely available for DOWNLOAD on the eve website and parses that file to display in a program. it in no way modifies or "communicates" with the eve client.
Patch86	Posted - 2006.09.10 00:50:00 - [217] One final time, for the hard of thinking: EULA forbids modifying the client. Goon's clever little toy modifies the client; that is to say, the the content generated by the EVE client is altered by someone, so in game graphics (the portrait) appear completely different. This isn't allowed, clever as it may be. As its an exploit, even so far as a cheat (albeit a mild one), it is against the rules and you should not do it. EVE-Mon, Future Falcon's various tools, EVE Explorer and god know what else do not alter what appears in game. They do not alter what your character does, everything in the window entitled "EVE" is exactly as CCP intended. All they do is read data, and that is allowed, with CCPs consent. Afterall, you read the data with your eyes, don't you?
Siigari Kitawa Gallente HelpCorp United	Posted - 2006.09.10 02:05:00 - [218] Originally by: Patch86 One final time, for the hard of thinking: EULA forbids modifying the client. Goon's clever little toy modifies the client; that is to say, the the content generated by the EVE client is altered by someone, so in game graphics (the portrait) appear completely different. This isn't allowed, clever as it may be. As its an exploit, even so far as a cheat (albeit a mild one), it is against the rules and you should not do it. EVE-Mon, Future Falcon's various tools, EVE Explorer and god know what else do not alter what appears in game. They do not alter what your character does, everything in the window entitled "EVE" is exactly as CCP intended. All they do is read data, and that is allowed, with CCPs consent. Afterall, you read the data with your eyes, don't you? What's a cache? Something that is STORED LOCALLY. We can delete stuff in our cache and CCP doesn't have a fit. So get over it, I'm not posting anymore, but you're wrong. And again, if CCP was losing sleep over it, they'd have said something by now.
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.10 06:18:00 - [219] No, clearly this does not "modify the client" as said so many times. This does not change the way the client side of the game operates (the client still displays a portrait when requested), and does not change the mechanics of the game, which is the intent of the EULA....otherwise, programs such as EVEMON and ShipFit would be disallowed. AFAIK, GMs (regardless of what they say) do NOT decide what is, and what isn't an exploit, only the DEV team can decide that, as they know what is and isn't intended for how the game is supposed to work...and, as there hasn't been an official announcement from the GMs (which would imply DEV support of the decision to call this an exploit)...it isn't an exploit. Having said that, I do believe that it gives the people that use the program an unfair advantage in the game, as they know at a glance at local, who is enemy and who is friendly. However, that feature should be ingame anyway (and there wouldn't need to be an external program to create the effect). I know it has been asked for many times in the Feature Request forum (an indicator to show standings that are similar to overview settings.)..and I would very much like to have that program running on my system so I wouldn't have to depend on lag-generating buddy lists, or (lack of) portraits to indicate who is hostile and who isn't. Sorry if I mis-spelled or have improper grammar...split a 1700 ml bottle of tequila between 4 people tonight.....plus shots from several different types of liquor. -------------------
Louisa Torres Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.10 09:02:00 - [220] Guys, it IS against EULA. You may not modify THE GAME ENVIRONMENT. In-game portraits = game environment. it's a no-no.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.10 10:11:00 - [221] Originally by: Laendra Having said that, I do believe that it gives the people that use the program an unfair advantage in the game, as they know at a glance at local, who is enemy and who is friendly. However, that feature should be ingame anyway (and there wouldn't need to be an external program to create the effect). I know it has been asked for many times in the Feature Request forum (an indicator to show standings that are similar to overview settings.)..and I would very much like to have that program running on my system so I wouldn't have to depend on lag-generating buddy lists, or (lack of) portraits to indicate who is hostile and who isn't. It doesn't matter if you think it is a feature that should be part of the game, because CCP disagree. They have repeatedly stated that the local channel should not be an intel gathering tool, and even went so far as trying to remove it in the past. Just because you think it should be part of the game DOES NOT give you the right to modify the client AGAINST CCPs WISHES to add a feature YOU want and CCP DO NOT. How difficult is that to understand? The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
eLLioTT wave Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2006.09.10 11:16:00 - [222] It's time to bring out the big guns on this issue... drumroll PUNKBUSTER! time to bust those punks (goons and anyone else using it) 2 week account ban for exploiters should do it.
Ciphero KIA Corp	Posted - 2006.09.10 12:04:00 - [223] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa What's a cache? Something that is STORED LOCALLY. We can delete stuff in our cache and CCP doesn't have a fit. So get over it, I'm not posting anymore, but you're wrong. And again, if CCP was losing sleep over it, they'd have said something by now. Unless the OP is seriously trying to cloud the issue, a GM has said the portrait-replacement tool is illegal. What more do you want? CCP/GMs decide what's allowed in their game and what isn't. Your opinion is worth less than a penny on this, as is mine. Get over it.
Too Kind	Posted - 2006.09.10 12:11:00 - [224] Edited by: Too Kind on 10/09/2006 12:38:10 Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Originally by: Patch86 One final time, for the hard of thinking: EULA forbids modifying the client. Goon's clever little toy modifies the client; that is to say, the the content generated by the EVE client is altered by someone, so in game graphics (the portrait) appear completely different. This isn't allowed, clever as it may be. As its an exploit, even so far as a cheat (albeit a mild one), it is against the rules and you should not do it. EVE-Mon, Future Falcon's various tools, EVE Explorer and god know what else do not alter what appears in game. They do not alter what your character does, everything in the window entitled "EVE" is exactly as CCP intended. All they do is read data, and that is allowed, with CCPs consent. Afterall, you read the data with your eyes, don't you? What's a cache? Something that is STORED LOCALLY. We can delete stuff in our cache and CCP doesn't have a fit. So get over it, I'm not posting anymore, but you're wrong. And again, if CCP was losing sleep over it, they'd have said something by now. If you replace textures of other players in a shooter to see them more easily, it's also cheating. And deleting stuff or changing it makes a difference. I can delete the eve executable, if I want, but I'm not allowed to change it. If I delete a portrait and the client needs it again, it generates a new version, which doesn't give me more information than the old one and it's generated by my client from the dataset that describes the character of another player. If you change portraits with a 3rd party tool or manually, doesn't matter, then then the client uses a picture that it didn't generate itself, so you have even manipulated an intermediate result of the client that only gets stored in cache for later use. And the portrait gives you more information than you are supposed to get. Cheating, because it's an unfair advantage. They should just use a checksum, change the format, watermark them etc. The portraits are rendered on the client from the dataset that describes, how the char was created and then 'cached' in the client for later use ( and not expected to be modified !) You can easily see, that they are rendered on the client, because they look weird, if you disable your z-buffer, before you 'retrieve 'a new portrait. Then the result of the broken rendering is cached and that char appears broken, until you delete that pic and 'retrieve' it new with z-buffer enabled. The client should just check, if it has generated the picture itself and if it has been modified. edit: P.S.: Why I want that to be done ? If my territory gets invaded by thousand of players that I don't have seen before and I don't want to put them all in my adressbook, then I have no way to decide later, if someone with a portrait was enemy or friend, except to study his info again and again. Which is extremely time consuming. 80 people in local, no clue how many hostiles and friendlies, except I check them all. And if I put them into my adressbook, it gets messed up, I get lag and I have to study each new guy in local at least once. And I have to put every new hostile in my adressbook to be sure, that char portrait without addressbook entry usually means 'not hostile' and that's nearly impossible with thousands of hostiles. If the enemy shares all these modified portraits on their server, they get a huge advantage. You see who's enemy and who's friend immediately for hundreds of people, without having to click them once and you don't have to deal with the addressbook drawbacks, the time delay with getting the char info, the client lag, when the client renders a new portrait for the first time etc. I want it fair and it's only fair, if it's the same playground and rules for everyone ! -------------------------- Post with your main !!!111
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.10 18:14:00 - [225] Originally by: Avon It doesn't matter if you think it is a feature that should be part of the game, because CCP disagree. They have repeatedly stated that the local channel should not be an intel gathering tool, and even went so far as trying to remove it in the past. Just because you think it should be part of the game DOES NOT give you the right to modify the client AGAINST CCPs WISHES to add a feature YOU want and CCP DO NOT. How difficult is that to understand? It doesn't matter if you think you are the only one that can be right, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion on the topic...so just accept the fact that a lot of people have opinions that are different than yours. Just because you say something is/isn't so, doesn't make it such. I haven't seen any official word on this from CCP about this specific issue. And, the last time I checked, YOU didn't have gold dev bars on YOUR forum posts, so how can YOU even begin to try to state what "CCP WISHES" and what THEY don't wish???? Are you one of those people with that ESP thingy, and can read the Dev's minds? If not, kindly quit trying to answer for them. How difficult is that for YOU to understand? -------------------
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.10 18:53:00 - [226] The OP is a quote from a CCP employee on the subject, no? Thats official word on the issue for me. I would like to stress that, as far as I'm concerned, this really isn't all that important. I'm not going to get into a forum war over it, and all I'm saying is that it does appear to be directly against the EULA. So are a lot of things, though, I'm sure, so if it gets fixed then yay, if it doesn't I'm not going to shed any tears over it.
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.10 19:09:00 - [227] Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Avon It doesn't matter if you think it is a feature that should be part of the game, because CCP disagree. They have repeatedly stated that the local channel should not be an intel gathering tool, and even went so far as trying to remove it in the past. Just because you think it should be part of the game DOES NOT give you the right to modify the client AGAINST CCPs WISHES to add a feature YOU want and CCP DO NOT. How difficult is that to understand? It doesn't matter if you think you are the only one that can be right, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion on the topic...so just accept the fact that a lot of people have opinions that are different than yours. Just because you say something is/isn't so, doesn't make it such. I haven't seen any official word on this from CCP about this specific issue. And, the last time I checked, YOU didn't have gold dev bars on YOUR forum posts, so how can YOU even begin to try to state what "CCP WISHES" and what THEY don't wish???? Are you one of those people with that ESP thingy, and can read the Dev's minds? If not, kindly quit trying to answer for them. How difficult is that for YOU to understand? You can have whatever opinion you want Laendra, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, and it has been said modifying the game is against the EULA. The setup goons are being alleged to use, does exactly that. And what are you blabbering about with saying Avon has ESP to know their wishes? If you've read the EULA, you'd know that CCP does NOT want people editing the EVE client. If you use a program that replaces your in-game portraits, that's modifiying the client, and EULA-breaking. If you're using an XML sheet which you're allowed to export for your own use, in another program (EVEmon), that does not affect game play, or modify the clinet, that's something entirely different. 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
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.10 19:17:00 - [228] Originally by: Patch86 The OP is a quote from a CCP employee on the subject, no? Thats official word on the issue for me. I would like to stress that, as far as I'm concerned, this really isn't all that important. I'm not going to get into a forum war over it, and all I'm saying is that it does appear to be directly against the EULA. So are a lot of things, though, I'm sure, so if it gets fixed then yay, if it doesn't I'm not going to shed any tears over it. No, the OP didn't quote a CCP employee, as in that particular case, it would be against the forum rules. All the OP posted was a quote from the EULA, which we all know has had quite a few exceptions given (EVE Character Manager, EVEMon, etc.), so a player quoting a section of the EULA does not constitute an official CCP reply. An official CCP reply would be from an official CCP employee stating that the particular issue in question is officially termed an exploit...nothing else will do. How hard it it for either a GM or Dev to officilly post on the topic???? And, for the record, I am against the use of this program unless we can all use it, or an ingame option is given, as it does indeed give an unfair advantage to those that use it....however this issue has been officially ignored for far too long, and the lack of response has left too much ambiguity. I just want it put to rest so that we can either get the people that use it banned, or we can all start using it (as I refuse to use something that could suddenly be termed an exploit). -------------------
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.10 19:23:00 - [229] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia You can have whatever opinion you want Laendra, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, and it has been said modifying the game is against the EULA. The setup goons are being alleged to use, does exactly that. And what are you blabbering about with saying Avon has ESP to know their wishes? If you've read the EULA, you'd know that CCP does NOT want people editing the EVE client. If you use a program that replaces your in-game portraits, that's modifiying the client, and EULA-breaking. If you're using an XML sheet which you're allowed to export for your own use, in another program (EVEmon), that does not affect game play, or modify the clinet, that's something entirely different. I've read the EULA, and I also know that there are exceptions given out (I was given an exception for reading client generated data)....we haven't gotten an official response from CCP on THIS ISSUE, which leaves this issue ambiguous at best. As I have said in previous posts, I do not agree with use of this program unless it is officially allowed, which will allow everyone to be on common ground, because I refuse to use anything that could suddenly be termed an exploit. I just want this issue to be officially put to rest....how hard is that for everyone to understand? -------------------
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.09.10 19:33:00 - [230] Where are we on this then? What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass!
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.10 19:48:00 - [231] Originally by: FireFoxx80 Where are we on this then? Still no official response. -------------------
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.10 21:45:00 - [232] Edited by: Avon on 10/09/2006 21:45:20 Originally by: Laendra Originally by: FireFoxx80 Where are we on this then? Still no official response. The OP petitioned, and the response was "EXPLOIT". Other people have had the same response. As you can not quote GMs on these forums, that is as good as you are going to get. Now, you don't have to accept that, but just because they Devs haven't posted you a letter confirming it, does not make you right. You are wrong, and every post is making you look increasingly ignorant. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.10 23:03:00 - [233] Of course, I guess you could just send a petiton yourself. Presumably the GM response would be the same as the OP got (or not, as the case may be) and we can all be happpy. Hell, if GMs were suddenly bombarded with 5000 petitions asking this question we might actually get one to post on the forums just to shut us up
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.09.10 23:24:00 - [234] Originally by: Laendra Originally by: Malthros Zenobia You can have whatever opinion you want Laendra, it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, and it has been said modifying the game is against the EULA. The setup goons are being alleged to use, does exactly that. And what are you blabbering about with saying Avon has ESP to know their wishes? If you've read the EULA, you'd know that CCP does NOT want people editing the EVE client. If you use a program that replaces your in-game portraits, that's modifiying the client, and EULA-breaking. If you're using an XML sheet which you're allowed to export for your own use, in another program (EVEmon), that does not affect game play, or modify the clinet, that's something entirely different. I've read the EULA, and I also know that there are exceptions given out (I was given an exception for reading client generated data)....we haven't gotten an official response from CCP on THIS ISSUE, which leaves this issue ambiguous at best. As I have said in previous posts, I do not agree with use of this program unless it is officially allowed, which will allow everyone to be on common ground, because I refuse to use anything that could suddenly be termed an exploit. I just want this issue to be officially put to rest....how hard is that for everyone to understand? Lack of an 'offical response' makes the clinet hack a violation by default, which you are completely failing to realize. No response doesn't make the program a maybe, it makes it a NO, because it obviously modifies the client, which is against the EULA. Even if Hellmar, Ovuer, Kieron, and TomB post in here saying it's not allowed, some people will still use it, and some will still say it's legit. I suggest those using it stop. CCP clearly isn't marketing to get as many players as humanly possible, and while some people think that an MMO won't ban even a few thousand players, the amount of good press that would generate for CCP could easily cover it. In a game of 150k or so player, if they ban 2-3k for cheating, even if only temp bans, that will add to CCP's image and show people that they do not **** around with cheating. But if a single goldbar post would put this issue to rest, then perhaps you should email one of the CCP staff? I think both kieron and wrangler have their emails in their sigs. 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
Laendra	Posted - 2006.09.11 00:57:00 - [235] Originally by: Avon every post is making you look increasingly ignorant. Haha, I was thinking the exact same thing about you. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this point. It's amazing, to me, that we're just asking for an official, verifiable response that we can then refer to when we petition those goonie cheaters about using a hack that is not approved. And, fyi, one player saying "GM XYZ told me it was an exploit" doesn't prove anything. I happen to have heard that another GM said it was okay...so, who is right???? I hope the OP is right. I hope you are right. Hell, I wish CCP would fix the overview so that it doesn't show war targets as friends and friends as war targets. But, until CCP gets off their arses and answers, nothing is going to be done. My guess, is they aren't going to post anything official until they can implement a way to validate the portrait files and enforce the policy....until then, those cheating goons are going to continue to get away with using their tactical information....but, then of course, it really doesn't help them too much...they still get their arses handed to them in droves. I wonder, if the GM said to post "XYZ" on the forum, why didn't he just post in this topic to confirm??? -------------------
DropZone 187	Posted - 2006.09.11 01:52:00 - [236] Bleh, you guys are all broken. A few things to consider: 1. Players don't interpret the EULA. Pretty simple little fact. If they did it would be all out chaos and anarchy. So all those who chimed in with their 'expertise' on the matter should just realize that you are no better than the crazy heretic that rambles on about stuff outside your local courthouse. 2. The EULA was written a long time ago when it was probably capable to be policed through enforcement. Now that EVE has 'grown' up, the capability to enforce many of what is deemed questionable is not technologically feasible. So the question becomes not only is the EULA legitimate but are interpretations actually enforceable? 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. However there is the part about CCP banning you for whatever reason they feel like it, which in all essence trumps everything previously mentioned. That part does allow you take action against them through your credit card company. Others might take even more drastic measures - afterall CCP is using their Internet to provide the service :) So, pick your poison but don't think that you have any say in the matter unless you are on CCP's payroll and have been given the proper authority/responsibility as part of your job.
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.09.11 11:33:00 - [237] Edited by: FireFoxx80 on 11/09/2006 11:35:01 Originally by: Avon You are wrong, and every post is making you look increasingly ignorant. Was that aimed at me? Avon, I think we all just want to know three things: 1) An official response from the Dev team or GMs that this is indeed an exploit, as currently all we can go on are mis-quotes from people who have claimed to contact GMs. Look, I'll do one now: Originally by: A GM told me that the goonswam app is fine to use, I just can't quote them directly. I'm going to use it as much as I like. 2) That something is being done either to punish the people using the app, or at least preventing them from using it. As aside the mis-quoted GMs "this is a 'sploit, and against the EULA", there are also quotes stating "there is nothing that can be done to track/trace people using this particular sploit". How do we know that people aren't continuing to use this app/'sploit to gain a tactical advantage? After all, it's a shockingly simply idea. 3) That there should be a published list of approved/banned 3rd party applications/implementations somewhere. To prevent this exact style of witch hunting. What's to stop someone finding the source code for an application six months from now, not knowing the history, believing it's an approved app, and then indirectly breaching the EULA? ([GM]Dave theories aside). What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass!
Charcoal Gallente The Garden	Posted - 2006.09.11 12:46:00 - [238] Originally by: FireFoxx80 Edited by: FireFoxx80 on 11/09/2006 11:35:01 Originally by: Avon You are wrong, and every post is making you look increasingly ignorant. Was that aimed at me? 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?
FireFoxx80 Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2006.09.11 13:06:00 - [239] Originally by: Charcoal What do you people need? A dedicated dev post saying "DON'T DO IT" in 96-pt crimson type? It'd be nice. All I want, is assurance from CCP, that they are looking into this exploit and ways of preventing people from using it. What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass!
Dammar Enigma Enterprises Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2006.09.11 13:07:00 - [240] Originally by: eLLioTT wave It's time to bring out the big guns on this issue... drumroll PUNKBUSTER! time to bust those punks (goons and anyone else using it) 2 week account ban for exploiters should do it. Screw that, if they did that, it should perma ban on first offence. There is no reason whatsoever to show ANY mercy to those that choose to cheat. This is why it's a problem, or at the least, it is half the problem with the other half being detection.
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]

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.