Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The only thing BACON does is beep. YOU the human are still required to take some action.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

This is honestly not a troll. I have read quite a few arguments against BACON but they all seem fundamentally flawed to me. For one thing, this program in one form or another has been around for quite some time in the major alliances. So really there are no problems that BACON has created because any problems that might exist have already existed.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The two main complaints I have heard about BACON are as follows: 1) it takes responsibility for the pilots safety out of their hands and places it in a third party application, 2) MACRO miners/missioners will incorporate BACON into future MACROs which will allow them to evade people hunting them much more easily then currently.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

Both of these arguments are flawed for the following reasons. 1) Voice Chat can take the responsibility for a pilots safety out of their hands just as easily. Yes you can have bad intelligence but you can also have good intelligence. The fact that sometimes its bad doesn't mean that the rest of the time there is some advantage being imparted that the other side might not have. So any argument that BACON is unfair seems pretty weak to me.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

2) The idea that MACROs will eventually incorporate a BACON like device is also not a means to discourage the use of BACON. Everyone knows that MACROs use currier missions to make money. Should we then remove currier missions from the game? Just because some people can use a tool or a part of EVE to violate the EULA and mess up the game for others doesn't mean we should remove that tool or that part of EVE.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

Ki An: Your arguments seem to rely almost exclusively on the concept of human error. Essentially you are saying that because humans can mess up and report the wrong thing, having something that won't make that mistake is a game breaking addition.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

This is not something I can argue against because my beliefs are based upon the same factual information only a different interpretation. I simply do not believe people are wrong as often as you seem to think they are. I believe that large alliances without a BACON like program can already gather enough intelligence that any human error involved in missing a fleet of war targets (small gang or otherwise) is negligible at best. For BACON to work you still need people in systems waiting for enemies. You still need them to be aware enough to report immediately what they are seeing. Simply saying "War Target" is not going to be enough, they are going to need to know where they are, what they are flying, and where they are going. A beep doesn't tell you that.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

Your argument that it grants MACROs virtual immunity is just wrong however. My definition of a MACRO is something that inputs into the game itself so the player doesn't have to take an action. This is not BACON which only reads output and then creates input outside of EVE (in the form of the beep). If someone is actually not playing their character at all but letting a MACRO fly the ship then a beep isn't going to save them. If they incorporate a BACON like tool into their MACRO then that is a bad thing but its still not BACON's fault anymore then someone who makes a bat is at fault if someone assaults another individual with that bat. Its the person that committed the assault that did the wrong.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

I agree human error gets people killed all the time. My issue is that when it comes to reporting on an enemy fleets position the difference between an alliance with BACON and one without is negligible at best.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

I was posing a hypothetical. I apologize if there was confusion on that part.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

How much imagination is required to see that a blunt object can be used to hurt someone? Again the issue is not whether a tool can be manipulated in such a way as to create a wrong but whether the tool itself is wrong. I hate MACROs and I would think it a great thing if CCP implemented a mechanic, or a warden program or anything that stopped them in their tracks. In the mean time I'm not going to say a new tool that IS NOT a MACRO is bad simply because people that are already violating the EULA can use it.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

A lot of folks seem to think this is a game breaking mechanic. My point of this thread is that someone saying on voice chat "war target" does the same thing is a program that says "beep." People have argued that voice chat promotes teamwork. Has anyone here ever had someone in their corp or alliance that wasn't much into teamwork? They flew around and worked with others but just didn't talk much. Is that person breaking the game? I mean if they treat voice chat like its BACON and only listen but never respond are they breaking the game? Cause I have to say if BACON beeps at you and breaks the game and the difference between the two is player interaction then logically any player that doesn't interact with voice chat is breaking the game.

---

Originally by: Faife

---

QFMFT.

all the alts spouting hate already have it running on their alliance side, whether it's called beekeeper or whatever their localized one is.

---

Originally by: Altaree

---

Do you really believe that this is the first app of this kind to be created? Or are you just trying to protect your own private advantage?

---

Originally by: Faife

---

cheers.

programmer from Razor posted in another thread saying that since theirs uses same system it's also EULA legal for now.

---

Originally by: James Lyrus

---

EVE voice exists as in game functionalty, yet people still use ventrillo and teamspeak because it's better.

Local exists in game, but people might use BACON because it's better.

*shrug*.

Anyone who thinks that BACON is the problem is a fool. The log server, and thus log analysis has existed for ages. This only exposes the problem to the wider community, much like publishing an exploit.

The problem is, and always has been, that the information available is too good, not that there's a utility for monitoring it.

Local and ship scanning needs to go back to the drawing board, and become more 'real' - something more similar to the current probing system where you've got scan ranges, and chances to 'miss' something, and delays before you'll spot an incoming.
I don't care in the slightest if you're able to spot a hostile on the scanner using logserver. In fact, I'd hope that any such redesign would include an audible notification.

*shrug*. Problem ain't the logserver, and it isn't BACON it's the game mechanics that make perfect intel + audible alert a problem.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The point of my post was to make clear that BACON is not the only third party program actively used to play EVE. So any argument that because its third party automatically makes it a cheat is void. Currently we have EVE Voice but for years we did not. During that time Voice Chat was considered just as legitimate a tool as it is today.

The people that respond to my original post seem to dislike the comparison I made to voice chat for two reasons. 1) BACON is an automatic tool not requiring user direction, and 2) BACON reads a log file and thus interacts with the game.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The first argument is easily dismissed. While most people do actively interact with voice chat, not everyone does. There are many corporations that require people to at least have a voice chat program installed but do not require a microphone. These people do not interact over voice chat, they are simply receiving information. A person who sits in corp chat but does not talk to anyone, only receives information might be boring but they are not a cheater. They also receive an awful lot more information then BACON provides but they are receiving it in an identical manner. Yes, I acknowledge that voice chat and corp chat have the element of human error. But that also happens to be so small most of the time as to be near nonexistent.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The next issue is the interaction with the log file. This can not be disputed and it is different from Voice Chat. Some people say the reading of the log file is enough to create an exploit. I personally do not believe it, however I can understand why people might feel otherwise. I however am interested in the ultimate outcome of using the program. If I hear a beep that tells me a War Target is in the system was that really so significantly different from someone on Voice Chat telling me the same exact thing? I don't believe it is but then again when I'm on Voice Chat with folks I've never had an issue where anyone missed anything big.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

As to an earlier post by Ki An asking me whether I believed there was an advantage granted by BACON I answer: absolutely there is an advantage. The advantage however is not even close to being as big as a decent team speak or vent server would grant.

---

Originally by: James Lyrus

---

Well, then you get onto the discussion of: "Is it cheating if the final arbiter says it's ok". Whatever arguments whether it _should_ be an exploit or not, it comes down to CCP saying yes or no.

And ... I'm not sure they _can_. Because ruling it an exploit, would mean or imply some kind of monitoring and enforcement. Like logoffski, that's pretty much impossible, without substantial re-engineering of the game.

I don't think the logserver is a problem myself. I mean, even leaving aside that it's important for debugging, one can never ever rely on the 'remote client' to be fair and trusted.

If something is sent to the client, in whatever shape or form, I guarantee that _someone_ is abusing it, regardless of EULA.

I mean, I would be extremely suprised to find that your typical macrominer/ratter is doing this - it's simply far more efficient to 'go direct' and modifiy the client, if you're not caring about the rules.

*shrug*. Trusting a remote client should never be done, unless you have full control over both.

In many ways, I'm pleased about the release of BACON. I don't think the ability to do what it does is good for the game, but it's only a fairly minor escalation of the perfect intel tool that is local.

The pieces to this puzzle have been in place... well, certainly since I started playing. I remember having discussions with someone back in ... 06? about log server analysis and monitoring. We came up with some MUCH more interesting things you could do with that output, but thinking more along the automatic collection of intel and datamining, than this actually more simple route.

So it's not a new thing, it's just become higher profile.

It has now become an 'issue' and ... well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I think this just escalated a rethink of the underlying mechanics from 'at some point' to 'hey, we'd better look at this soon' on the programmer priority list.

---

Originally by: phillie blunt

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Originally by: Faife

---

cheers.

programmer from Razor posted in another thread saying that since theirs uses same system it's also EULA legal for now.

---

A Goon also posted to say that that program was basically a huge troll, that it didn't do anything and that noone even has the pw to the zip file. As I said before, IF alliances are using this program, bannings should follow.

---

you know, people lie...

---

Originally by: Wet Ferret

---

A better comparison might be cloaking at a gate.

You can sit 200kms off the gate, align your camera so the gate is right in front of it, turn on your sounds and go browse the web, play Smash Bros. or whatever. You might agree that the gate activation noise is rather obnoxious and hard to miss. And there you go. Knowing whenever someone jumps through the gate without needing to pay attention to the game. I know, not exactly the same thing. But pretty close.

Really, when it comes down to it this type of application doesn't benefit anyone who's at the computer. So, who does it benefit? What can you do in space AFK that's actually constructive? The only thing I can think of is ice mining... and god knows watching an ice roid for 30 minutes before dragging and dropping would make me want to self-destruct.

---

Originally by: James Lyrus

---

No.

* Cannot be detected = unenforcible. Therefore at best a complete waste of GM time. (e.g. logoffskis, login traps)
* remote clients cannot be trusted, therefore information supplied to client should always reflect this. Logserver isn't the problem, the information supplied to the client (e.g. local) is.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

Ki An: Your argument to me now seems to consist entirely of the concept that I don't understand how anything works at all.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

Assume for a moment that I do and respond to my arguments rationally.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

You are focusing on the robot aspect of this program. So I will pose a hypothetical to you and I would like to hear your opinion on it.

An alliance wants to try and find War Targets that enter a system. They have a Voice Chat server but they don't want just anyone talking on it. To help with their search for Yarr! they force one of their corp mates to sit in the system of choice and constantly scan local. While technically possible to error in reporting War Targets this particular individual never has. They have been doing this duty for years and not once have they made a single mistake. When they see a War Target they press a button that creates a "beep" noise over their Voice Chat system. No one ever talks to this person and this person in turn never talks to anyone else. They just sit there and press a button to make a beep. Because they have been doing this for years the time it takes for them to send out the beep after a War Target enters local is slightly under half a second.

Now I ask you, is this corporation a bunch of cheaters who should be banned?

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

Yes the situation is extreme, but I wanted a hypothetical that would address the argument you have avoided. What is the difference between a corp that uses a person who does not error in reporting War Targets and a program that does not error in reporting war targets? I'll tell you: not everyone has a person that does not error. You say that this unbalances the game. I say it introduces something that is much harder for small corps to obtain then large corps. Accurate intelligence.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

Something that doesn't take skill doesn't automatically mean it's fun to do.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

Same reason with the people that either use programs or keyboards/mice to bind multiple keys to a single key. It doesn't take skill to press f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 every time you want to pewpew something (or activating all harderners ever jump etc) but it is highly annoying.

So I really can't follow your reasoning sorry.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

G15 exists because pressing 'f1 through f8' requires skill and vigilance. The G15 replaces that skill and vigilance with a set of perfect excecuting computer to do it for you.

F1-F8 macro on a G15 = Bacon.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

My statement indicates I'm a big fan of WoW's customaziable interface (a trigger going off is something entirely different as to doing an action for you), and yes a trigger such as a hostile entering a system should be able of being set to give a noice or other visual BLING HOSTILE in the middle of the screen. Just as you should be able of creating addons that allow you to activate all your guns or harderners with a single click.

CCP's interface fails and has always failed (I've played with all post beta interfaces and they consistently SUCK (just as the basic WoW interface, it just lacks options). The game is good enough to off-set it but it doesn't negate that problem.

A game should be played for fun and should be played efficiently. Constantly looking at local is a horrible UI decision.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

It would be ok to have a program that would alert you when you actually entered the gatecamp, but then it would be rather pointless. Getting information solo from another system isn't information currently available. Hence it shouldn't be possible, what should be possible would be for example changing the icon of the gate to represent the colour of pod kills in last 30 minutes or active pilots in the last 30 minutes from the map.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

You could do something like this but it won't be as effective as you claim it would be (how many disengage addons are there for WoW for example?).

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

It would be a great addition if you could for example click your buy order in the wallet and automatically undercut the lowest buyorder (excluding the low volume ones) with a set amount.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

All of these options DON'T change the way you play the game, it just makes information that already is available better accessible and more usuable. Leaving you better able to make decisions without having to grab a bit of info from screen A then switch to screen B etc.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

I would like the ability to have this sort of help, that doesn't make them legal given the current rules. But I just wish CCP would have the desire to make this game have a decent UI, and yes the communities UI's will ALWAYS be tons better then ANY CCP can give (primarily because the community will supply ui's based on niches while CCP's UI needs to please "everyone" including first time newbs).

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

CCP doesn't disaprove the current incarnation of BACON nor the G15 keyboard (if they did they could choose to introduce a wardenlike program that scans for certain processes and just flag your account for banning).

So according to your logic they are perfectly acceptable because we aren't supposed to "second guess" they decision?

---

Originally by: cyboman

---

I use BACON and it didn't save my PHOON from jumping into a system that had several hostiles sitting on the gate waiting for me.

BACON can't replace your need to safespot and cloak up. I see no advantage here.... move along...

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

Ooooh an ZOMG do this CCP or I WILL CANCELL MY ACCOUNT AND ALL MY 300 ALTS!!! post

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

/Edit: It doesn't suprise me that the supporters the banning of BACON are failed PvP'ers who can only manage to PvP in empire.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

Eg. even goons have created their own "bacon-like" application.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

(long live broad generalizations entirely missing the point, I don't support them but appearantly you do)

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

The information is either available or it is not. Everything else is just presentation. BACON uses information already available in local. If CCP decided that providing us with information on who is in the system is part of the game then the actual presentation of the information is irrelevant.

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

I guess it is just the way I think. To me presentation is irrelevant. If the information is made available then it should be presented in a way that makes it easiest to comprehend within the confines of the game. So if the game tells me when someone enters the system I am in and I can then see if they are hostiel to me then it should not matter if I obtain the information by clicking one button or a dozen or whether the information is presented visually or through sound. That should really be a secondary concern that does not affect actual gameplay.

Giving players full access to so much information and then trying to hide it by using a bad UI is just idiotic.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

So now you are claiming players can't view every player (including the hostiles) in local?

---

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix

---

It is not a cheat.
The tool doesn't provide anything that isn't already in game.
What the tool does is providing those things automatically,think like military radar or Advanced Warning System.
Same thing.

---

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix

---

Would you say that the military is always afk while using radar?I don't think so.

---

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix

---

In addition CCP has approved that tool.
So there is no reason to continue such a debate/flaming

---

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix

---

So,to all complaining, please do take a deep breath and move on

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

Well the process should not really be prone to human error the way CCP implemented local. It's simply a UI failure which should not impact gameplay anyway.

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

A chat channel that is coded to be used as an early detection/warning system just screams 'unfinished UI'. It's a completely backwards way of doing something like this. It becomes a stupid 'mini-game' that should not have been there in a first place. Completely devoid of skill.

---

Originally by: Torki Tavitas

---

Anyway the devs at present have given their approval to this so calling for bannings is stupid.

---

Originally by: Sidewayzracer

---

Now i was doing some asking arround and general flaming people for using this program and stumbled upon a few Hydra members and users of BACON. I have a few quotes from them id like to share and i was wondering if CCP and the rest of the player base can confirm this.

Ulath Safire > u get 3 - 5 SEC warning. before local updates..

Sidewayzracer > hold u said it tells you some1 entered the system b4 u would normal c them enter the local channle?

FisherKing > when u enter a system... the logs are updated first... before u enter local..

FisherKing > so..3-5 sec warning.. depending on how much lag.. u have

PLZ Discuss this

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

They might not have gone out and said that that they want people to use it but they have most certainly not told people not to use. They have not even said that they disaprove of it.

So I should probably rephrase it say that CCP has given their consent to people using it for now.

They have not given an official position on what their feeling are about the manner. They simply told people that until further notice noone will get banned for using it.

CCP has a long history of allowing stuff they might not like in the game. It used to be perfectly OK for people to fight off Concord until they went and changed the rules on that.

---

Originally by: CCP Lingorm

---

I will find out for you.

My initial reaction is that there is nothing 'wrong' with this per say. As long as you are only reading the logserver logfiles not the raw log server output. As these files can be delayed in writing, or if you want an immediate write then it takes up more cpu and disk IO that is your call.

Please do not take this as CCP approval, but I will go ask the appropriate people and get you a definitive answer.

---

Originally by: GM Grimmi

---

There does not appear to be any violation of our EULA or TOS here so we believe this should be ok. Please be advised that we will thoroughly investigate any reports that would point to the contrary and reserve the right to change our minds if deemed appropriate.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 22/04/2008 15:40:03


This whole broohaha could be simply solved by
*drummroll*
including this feature in the EVE client.


I mean, seriously, what's wrong with say, the TITLE BAR of "local" turning red if there's a hostile in local, or turning flashing red if there's a wartarget in local ?
Alongside an audible soundbite, for those (few) of us that actually have sound enabled ?


Suuure, you can say it "dumbs down" things a bit.
But how about this... say we remove the overview, and you have to VISUALLY find ships on your screen or with your scanner, then showinfo on the pilot, THEN you find out if he's friendly or hostile.
How about that ?
I mean, you're pushing for realism and work and such, where the hell do you draw the line ?

Death to BACON ?
Well, death to standings in local portraits too !
Heck, death to local altogether!
And death to the overview too, dangnabbit !

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

That is pure hogwash. Something in this game cannot be allowed and not allowed at the same time. It's as binary as it gets. They can't officially say that it is not in violation of the ToS and then start punishing people for it. In the end it is a legal position and if they don't disallow it right away, then they have to allow it until they publish a change in official policy.

Whether CCP 'approves' of this or not is in the end irrelevant. What matter is whether they 'consent' to people using this program. CCP could have just easily said, "we consider this a ToS violation pending an investigation and we reserve the right to change our position then". They didn't.

---

Originally by: Hamfast

---

Ki An is too fast again

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

Yup. I am vindicated. CCP specificly stated that it is not a EULA violation and they will not forbid its use. Therefore any calls for bans for its use is just hot air.

As anything in this game it will remain allowed until CCP explicitly forbids it or changes game mechanics to eliminate it.

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

Actually I simply see what is really there rather then what I want to see.

People in this thread has said that those that use Bacon are cheaters and as such CPP should ban them. The latest post by CPP clearly proved that wrong. They have stated that no matter how much 'frowning' they do, it is not against the EULA. If something in this game is not against the EULA and CPP has not forbidden it after it was brought to their attention then it cannot be considered a cheat. People who do not cheat in this game should not be banned.

The fact that you want it to be a cheat does not make it so.

Whether a person uses Bacon or not is not purely a personal matter since CPP washed their hands off the issue.

---

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix

---

Bacon is not a cheat program

---