|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.20 15:08:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Cori4n on 20/04/2008 15:14:34 I think this mass outcry is pretty funny considering that this stuff has been discussed for a long time in the EVE Technology Lab forum.
Besides, I don't think it breaks any "spirit of the game". On the contrary, I think that as long as an app can't perform any actions and just gets information from the client, then it ought to be fine and in fact encouraged.
In fact, I would say that there should be a "client side API" to allow this + more.
But you can flame me for that.
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.21 22:04:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Cori4n on 21/04/2008 22:04:26
Originally by: Miki Fin 29. You will not encourage others to break these rules or any rules set forth in relation to EVE OnlineÆs game service or web site.
As you noted this would ban every EVE-related tool in existence.
But I don't really understand why everyone likes to quote the EULA here. As it is, CCP has stated clearly that BACON is presently to be treated as EULA-compliant. Neither its author nor its users will get banned for it. If CCP decides to outlaw it (I do hope they don't), they will either claim it now counts as breaking one of the EULA's terms, or, if it doesn't, they will modify the EULA so that it does. The EULA's actual text is, to be honest, irrelevant...
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 04:00:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Cori4n on 22/04/2008 04:02:01 Edited by: Cori4n on 22/04/2008 03:59:48
Originally by: Orion Eridanus I went looking through all the other BACON posts and did not see one Dev reply to it, and for all we know the OP is talking out his ass saying CCP approved it for the time being. One can only assume at this point that they are discussing the legality of it.
Why don't you look in the EVE Technology Lab then
EDIT: 512th |
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 17:42:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Orion Eridanus Nah Ki An, they'll just ignore that GM post and keep saying its CCP approved because the OP said CCP said it was approved.
The GM post specifically said it did not presently violate the EULA. Although, unfortunately, the post also said that CCP is going to break this method, it made it quite clear that for the time being BACON is (although frowned upon) allowed. |
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 17:46:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Cori4n The GM post specifically said it did not presently violate the EULA. Although, unfortunately, the post also said that CCP is going to break this method, it made it quite clear that for the time being BACON is (although frowned upon) allowed.
Cheaters will cling to any defense c/d?
I haven't even used the thing |
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 18:25:00 -
[6]
In the meantime...
I can't actually get BACON to work on this computer () but...
Anyone who can, try pasting this into some chat channel you're in ScatterEvent( OnLSC ,*args= ((('solarsystemid2', 0),), 0, 'JoinChannel', (0, 0, [0, u'x', 0], 0, 0), ()) ,**kw= {} )
If I'm right (just from looking at the source), BACON will match this and incorrectly report a neutral entering...
I could be wrong though, seeing as BACON won't work at all for me |
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 19:06:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ki Anna Until you make whatever changes you will be making, are tools that read realtime data from the LogServer allowed or disallowed?
Quote: While BACON, and the many similar tools currently used by a large number of players, may technically not be in violation of our EULA/TOS
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 21:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist The EULA/TS are a series of enforcement guidelines and nothing more. They're not there to describe, in detail, every possible situation. They're not taking any action because they can't prove you're using this tool, not because they don't want to, or because the EULA says not to. Otherwise, why would they be frowning upon this tool?
Oh yeah, cause you just modified gampelay with a completely new mechanic. Damn cheaters. I would punish you in the name of the Moon, if it didn't involve stepping off my gloriously high horse.
Well, CCP could easily declare BACON and exploit and delete/lock this thread. However, it remains open. Do you think that because in many cases you can't prove that someone's not using a macro, CCP will allow a topic with a link to download a macro, and discussion of the same?
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix Personally I see this as a double standard which doesn't promise much for fairness
Who said this game is fair?
Seriously. If some alliances have sufficiently competent members to create EVE tools, why should they not thereby gain an advantge? |
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.22 21:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sekhen If you want to play a game that has lots of "mods" that help you in your gameplay, one of our competitors (Blizzard/Vivendi) offer exactly that product (Worlf of Warcraft).
Here we play the game as it is and on equal terms.
And what the heck is this? Does WoW have static data dumps? An API? A dev blog titled "Third Party Development"? Tools like evemon and EFT which are made possible by the former?
Since when was the spirit of EVE ultraconservative with respect to development? |
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 00:27:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Cori4n on 23/04/2008 00:29:23
Originally by: Maliber I also encourage ppl to find security holes in bacon so i can post code in local and crash/freeze bacon using ppl and gank em while they are ratting. Maybe inject some kind of malicous code or something. As local is for chat only and the logserver wont be affected i would technicaly not break any eula or tos rules.....
I posted earlier how it might be possible to cause BACON to incorrectly log an arrival/exit. I would really appreciate if someone who can actually get BACON to work would try it out.
And no, Ki An, despite having read every post in the thread, I cannot understand why it would not be possible for CCP (if this is what they wanted) to announce that using BACON is now an exploit.
I do not agree with RebelWithACause's statement regarding "eula compliant or not". The information is available if you are willing to violate the EULA (assuming they encrypt the logserver, I can think of 3 ways offhand) and there is nothing anyone can do about that. However, most people, like me, would not use a eula violating application.
P.S. Don't drag MachoNet into this, it is CCP approved like the logserver had been, however unlike the logserver it is delayed. The only information it has (aside from a version of what we already get from the static data dump) is some misc not very useful things like market orders (but only for items that you looked at) and corp standings (should be in the API anyway).
|
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 01:44:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Cori4n on 23/04/2008 01:44:32
Originally by: RebelWithACause I will concede this point - the only reason I included it was for the 'unintended' clause. If there were a way to use MachoNet cache info to do something that gave someone an advantage in ANY way that is yet undiscovered, you know the fervor would be just as strong.
I'm just a bit worried that if CCP amends the EULA to deal with BACON, they will also prohibit access to the cachefiles; since there are a few apps like RDB that make use of them, it would be a shame if they were included in a blanket prohibition. |
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 01:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Ikki Phoenix Last I checked BACON doesn't modify skills nor fit your ship for you.
This :D
Just from a utility perspective, Evemon and EFT change the game much more drastically than BACON ever could. Certainly, I am too lazy to use evemon, and I am punished for it by missing days' worth of training.
I suspect that the fervor about BACON is not due to the advantage it gives to those who use it, but rather that if everyone used it, some groups (carebears) would benefit more than others. Which, I suppose, is fair, since it could then disrupt the balance of the game...
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.23 01:59:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Tommy TenKreds If BACON doesn't automate a thing, why did you advertise it with the slogan "Never be surprised again"?
ITT: My web browser is a cheat because it automates the mundane task of waiting for rats to come in range by loading my home page, whereas otherwise I would have to type in a url manually
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:39:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ki An
As has been shown in several posts in several threads, the "BACON doesn't automate anything" defense isn't going to hold, as it does indeed automate something. Providing an audio warning automates the "watch local" activity so important to Eve.
Strawman. Proponents of BACON who refer to its not automating anything are obviously referring to taking tangible actions in-game, like a macro does.
Quote:
It is valid in the perspective of the open source release of BACON. Not only does it give people ideas. It also provides an excellent platform for further mods.
The ideas have been in the technology lab forum for god knows how long. BACON is also a terrible platform for macros.
Quote: CCP has already stated that they will put BACON and any other such programs out of comission. It's in this thread. That you use it shows your lack of respect for CCP.
That you describe people who use it as cheaters shows your lack of respect for CCP: that is, if it is not against CCP's rules, who are you to overrule them and declare it is cheating?
I'm sorry to reply to a troll, though
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:35:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Cori4n on 29/04/2008 22:36:51 Edited by: Cori4n on 29/04/2008 22:35:40
Originally by: Ki An Ahh, so it does automate stuff, just not the stuff that's bad to automate? Gotcha!
Yes, exactly. There are plenty of things that are not bad to automate, consider IGB systems. Would you argue that I'm not allowed to create an IGB app that automates FC duties?
Quote: And now it'll get worse because of the open source being around. BACON is a great platform for macros. Look around to see people already having modified it to do stuff far beyond watching local.
I do not see any such modifications. Be specific, lest you make another strawman argument.
Quote: That CCP can't say it's cheating, and have to stay with the "frowning" response doesn't mean that I and the BACON critics won't openly say it's cheating to use something like this, especially when it's been denounced by CCP.
I don't think anyone in this thread has told me why CCP can't say it's an exploit, as a temporary measure before technical fixes are put through (as is done for every exploit). I am still waiting.*
*EDIT: I'm not saying that this would prevent every user from using it, of course it wouldn't. I am asking why CCP cannot say this to prevent its honest users (most of them!) from using it, and to justify calling those who do cheaters.
Quote: Ahh, the "you're a troll" defense.
I think that if you are going to use strawman arguments, such as (just from your last two posts) weirdly defining automation, and pointing to macros and expansions that do not exist, as well as arguing ad hominem by calling proponents of BACON cheaters, then you probably are a troll. But this is just my best guess: I invite you to prove me wrong with rational arguments.
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.29 23:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ki An
Yes, exactly. There are plenty of things that are not bad to automate, consider IGB systems. Would you argue that I'm not allowed to create an IGB app that automates FC duties?
Be more specific. I would say that any 3rd party software that automates anything in Eve is tantamount to a macro.
Then I wonder why there is an in-game browser in this game
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 01:50:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Thorradin If the logserver gave info that allowed me to make a program to warn you that your drones are taking damage, it'd be no different than BACON, just in a different area.
And I do not personally think this would be a bad thing at all, I think it should be encouraged. I differ from CCP in this view, but it is a matter of opinion. Given the current EULA situation, I would have no qualms about making such an app if it were possible (it might be).
|
Cori4n
Caldari principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 01:52:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Cori4n on 30/04/2008 01:52:28
Originally by: Ki An Good question. To be able to post on killboards and use corporate forums while in game?
Why does it contain tools such as reloading on session change that are only useful for what you would consider automation?
Not to beat a dead horse, but why do we have an API again?
Spreadsheets for industrialists, skill trainers!?
Surely this could only be used for automation!?
|
|
|
|