Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

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

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

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

---

Are you really not understanding the problems that this program unleashes, or are you just trolling?

---

Originally by: DroneBay Diva

---

And it's already been mentioned: Voice chat promotes TEAMWORK, while bacon rewards an afk style gameplay

/thread

---

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

---

The title asks the question.

---

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

---

The only thing BACON does is beep.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Human error is the single biggest cause of ship loss in Eve. It's a skill based game where you have to be on your toes at all times, and if you mess up, you die. Bacon goes against all that, removing human fallability, or at least diminishing it gravely.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

You where the one who said major alliances have been using this for a long time. Why do you think they bother using it if it is as you say? If the program doesn't grant any advantage, why use it at all? Your argument is based on a logical fallacy.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

How much imagination do you need to see how Bacon can be modded into a tool that auto-warps a ship away? This is the main problem I have with this program. Allow something like this, and the line is pushed. Next time it will be even worse.

---

Originally by: Tommy TenKreds

---

Edited by: Tommy TenKreds on 21/04/2008 17:25:40

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The only thing BACON does is beep.

---

NO!

It filters the data provided by "local" and presents only the data that is pertinent to the player, in real time.

That is a change to existing game mechanics, facilitated by a third party program. It removes player responsibility.

Voice software does nothing that isn't already possible in Eve.

---

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: Tommy TenKreds

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The only thing BACON does is beep.

---

NO!

It filters the data provided by "local" and presents only the data that is pertinent to the player, in real time.

That is a change to existing game mechanics, facilitated by a third party program. It removes player responsibility.

Voice software does nothing that isn't already possible in Eve.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

If you are going to go as far as to say that it filters local then I have to point out that the little red star next to a players name filters local as well.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

I can do a visual scan of local and pick up that little red star just fine.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

This program makes a beep. What it does is remove my visual scan of local and replaces it with that beep.

---

Originally by: Paulo Damarr

---

That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.

---

Originally by: Orion Eridanus

---

Give it time, Once he can't find any of his targets because they are alerted to his presence by BACON and press alt tab to bring eve back up and then press ctrl-Q the OP will change his tune. Or maybe it'll be when all the low sec gates truly are camped because actually hunting targets is near impossible because of BACON's alarm.

At least prior to BACON he might get a few kills from people not being alert, with BACON that goes out the window.

It's not the kill, its the thrill of the chase. Shame there won't be a chase with BACON.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Don't be naive for 90% of EVE PvP lovers it is because of the kill, the chase or a semi balanced fight is the last thing they want.

The first to use it will be the pirates camping a gate, so they can be semi AFK while camping.

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Don't be naive for 90% of EVE PvP lovers it is because of the kill, the chase or a semi balanced fight is the last thing they want.

The first to use it will be the pirates camping a gate, so they can be semi AFK while camping.

---

Originally by: Paulo Damarr

---

That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

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

---

Are you really not understanding the problems that this program unleashes, or are you just trolling?

---

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: Orion Eridanus

---

Originally by: Venkul Mul

---

Don't be naive for 90% of EVE PvP lovers it is because of the kill, the chase or a semi balanced fight is the last thing they want.

The first to use it will be the pirates camping a gate, so they can be semi AFK while camping.

---

You must not realize that the pirates would have to compile a list of practically every single player in eve for that to work.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

First, I have seen NO proof that any alliances are using this. All the alliance higher-ups that have posted have said they aren't.

---

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: 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

---

Here's how I imagine using BACON: Folks I'm flying with are in various systems in high sec with many dozens of players in each system. We are all looking for war targets. War targets tend to want to hide from us. We are all also in corp chat since we are getting updates from each other. There are only so many things you can concentrate on at once so a war target can slip through while you are looking at something else. If BACON is up you can hear the beep, tell your corp mates and close in on the War Target.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The title asks the question. Seriously though there are more similarities between the two then differences when speaking of strategic importance.

Anyone can use both voice chat and/or BACON. A large advantage is given to those that use voice chat compared to those that don't. And certainly an advantage is given to those that use BACON compared to those that don't. Until EVE Voice, voice chat could only be run through a third party program. And there are certainly quite a few people that would still say voice chat can only be run through a third party program since EVE Voice is not that great. Likewise BACON requires a third party program.

The only thing BACON does is beep when someone is in local. But voice chat allows fleets of any size supported by game mechanics and server structure to respond near instantly to complex instructions.

My response to BACON seems quite clear, adapt or die.

For the record I haven't configured BACON yet but I plan to when I have some time.

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

It's an automated system. That's the difference. My response to you seems to be quite clear, f*ck off and die.

---

Originally by: Faife

---

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

---

It's an automated system. That's the difference. My response to you seems to be quite clear, f*ck off and die.

---

can i have your stuff?

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

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.

---

Yes, the underlying problem is the logserver. That does in no way excuse it's abuse by cheaters though.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

So any argument that because its third party automatically makes it a cheat is void.

---

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: 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.

---

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: Ki An

---

Edited by: Ki An on 21/04/2008 20:44:36

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.

---

So, what you are saying basically is, as long as CCP can't detect it it's fine, because CCP can't do anything about it anyway? I'm sorry, but that's completely ********. You are basically giving a cart blanche to every macro program out there with this attitude. I am glad you don't work for CCP.

---

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: Ki An

---

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.

---

Just so I understand you correctly: You ackowledge that there is a huge problem here, but you don't think programs such as this should be outlawed, and instead that CCP should remove client information?

If that is the case, I agree and disagree. I think they should ban outright all programs such as these, and any player caught using them. This is practically unenforcable as I see it, but CCP might find a way. In addition, I think CCP should seriously look at how to change the game to prevent leaks such as this from occuring.

---

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

So you think the people giving you intel are robots?

---

Originally by: Brainless Bimbo

---

Just had a thought about a possible implication of the thin slice of preserved pork.... it could be a step on the way for CCP to do away with local. They could kill local as an effective intelligence tool and limit the effect of the non kosher meat product by making it part of the CCP eve sandwich as they did with the goonies avatar tagging.

Heres my thinking on it; With an audable signal to alert ppl to an additional ship in the system all they have to do is nerf the log file data so it just says "unidentified player ship entered system" instead of the usefull stuff. They could/should add a sound for ship leaving system, not knowing if that fleet was just passing thru or staying would lead to much player stress, if you want to know exactly who and how many are in in system you have scan it. It keeps some level of warning for everyone system wide but provides no intel, sort of makes it like being in a darkened room, no idea whats in there, you only know when someone enters or leaves, your scans are your flash light.


Thats just a stoned thought btw, i have no idea of the current data that appears in the logs, but you never know it could kick start a larger change.

---

Originally by: James Lyrus

---

Unfortunately what the logserver does, is prints out all the information that the EVE client gets.

The information of ship/pilot, is therefore exposed, and can be read out the log. There is no way to fix this, aside from stopping the actual client getting that information.

---

Originally by: James Lyrus

---

Unfortunately what the logserver does, is prints out all the information that the EVE client gets.

The information of ship/pilot, is therefore exposed, and can be read out the log. There is no way to fix this, aside from stopping the actual client getting that information.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

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

---

Originally by: Rawr Cristina

---

So you think the people giving you intel are robots?

---

Originally by: deathatlaby

---

Edited by: deathatlaby on 22/04/2008 05:39:03
Was not able to resist this:

- I am a programmer by profession. Lets say I take this Bacon, extend it - hook up a central server like vent, which will assimilate information from ALL its users to provide a region wide map in a client program, of who is where, <Which can be filtered using your regular blue/neut/red settings>, Would you be ****ed?

- Let me say I sell this as a service for ISK - would you be ****ed then?

- People continue to support this - and I might just end up doing this. I am actually thinking of a prototype where in I capture whoever is in The Forge region <or any other region with less number of systems>, Do you really want to try this one out? <Give me some support - and I will do it:)>

my problem with this BACON tool <and hence the extensions> is that it invalidates a bunch of things in game - like locator agents, actually playing the game instead of being AFK, Ice mining and so on. <Believe me - Ice product prices would be the first one to drop if this is not banned by ccp.>

Call it for what it is - its a macro. May be it doesn't alter the game state, but it does provide you an edge, a service for free which used to cost at one point.

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

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?

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: Trix Rabbit

---

1) Voice Chat can take the responsibility for a pilots safety out of their hands just as easily.

---

Quote:

---

And likewise there are no means in which Voice Chat could be used to promote AFK style gameplay?

---

Quote:

---

Voice chat provides about 16 times the advantage BACON does.

Bacon doesn't do anything a halfway alert pilot wouldn't/couldn't do already.

Voice chat opens up shining new vistas of communication in the heat of battle.

---

Quote:

---

[...] The only thing BACON does is beep when someone is in local.[...]

---

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: Dianabolic

---

Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

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

---

Are you really not understanding the problems that this program unleashes, or are you just trolling?

---

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.

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.

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. 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: Stratten

---

people seem to miss the issue, bacon can store and map every movement of every person in a given area. In a server setup, it can be used as a database to show every movement live or stored, provide a real time map of where people are by name, thier past routes, times and much much more.

This is not limited to a simple local sound, if you want to allow others to know where you are coming from or going to and have that information stored for easy reference including real time maps, everytime you move or have moved, then by all means support it. I for one don't. (and of course this is only that type of information...log files contain other things too.)

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

To all people claiming bacon is horrible what do you think about for example keyboards or mouses that can bind multiple keys to a single key?

It takes as much skill to press f1 through f8 as it does watching local.

---

Originally by: Ridley Tree

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

To all people claiming bacon is horrible what do you think about for example keyboards or mouses that can bind multiple keys to a single key?

It takes as much skill to press f1 through f8 as it does watching local.

---

If that were true then there would have been no need to ever create BACON in the first place. Its very existence disproves your statement.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

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

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

---

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: Ridley Tree

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

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

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.

---

You can't follow it, because your initial statement doesn't contain any amount reasoning whatsoever. BACON exists because 'keeping track of local' requires skill and vigilance. BACON replaces that skill and vigilance with a set of computer eyes to do it for you.

F1-F8 macro on a G15 =! Bacon.

---

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: Ki An

---

Personally I want a program that tells me if there's a gate camp on the other side of a gate.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

giving me opinions on what to do and when it's time to disengage. Of course, I could just get better at fighting and make those evaluations myself, but why bother if there's an automated tool for it.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Or how about a beeping noise when someone has undercut me on the market somewhere. I would sure like that.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Go on programmers, get to work. All these are ok. Shevar said so.

---

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: Rachel Vend

---

... with 100% reliability in most cases ...

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

CCP develops this game. The design decisions they take shouldn't be second guessed by players. We should have a level playing field, free of 'required' mods. Before you say EveMon or EFT, neither is required. Nor is TS or Vent. These programs either functions as spread sheets, alarm clocks or facilitated means of communication requiring human input. Bacon is a bot.

---

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: Ki An

---

Edited by: Ki An on 22/04/2008 12:28:26

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?

---

Ffs, don't make yourself look more stupid than you actually are. As we have already explained to you, your G15 comparison is full of fail. And just FYI, CCP hasn't approved nor disapproved of BACON yet. That's because they are investigating it right now. The ONLY comments they have made is that the program doesn't APPEAR to violate the current EULA, but that we SHOULD NOT TAKE THIS AS CCP APPROVAL!

If CCP approves of this program (Allah forbid), I won't be around to second guess them.

/Edit: It doesn't surprise me that the supporters of BACON are exclusively made up of people from failed/carebear alliances and alts.

---

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: Ki An

---

It DOES change the way you play the game BECAUSE it makes the information more available. Bacon is a HUGE change in the game as people who normally aren't aware will now be watched over by an automated bot telling them when they are in danger. It REMOVES the human element, and diminishes us to mere users and no longer participants. It will also be REQUIRED by anyone wishing to compete in Eve. Just that last part tells me this is very wrong.

---

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

---

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

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

It DOES change the way you play the game BECAUSE it makes the information more available. Bacon is a HUGE change in the game as people who normally aren't aware will now be watched over by an automated bot telling them when they are in danger. It REMOVES the human element, and diminishes us to mere users and no longer participants. It will also be REQUIRED by anyone wishing to compete in Eve. Just that last part tells me this is very wrong.

---

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: Ki An

---

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.

---

First, there is a clear difference here. If this information is already easily available, then Bacon wouldn't be needed. The fact that the program even exists tells me that it does facilitate the parsing of said information, parsing that a human mind, with all it's pros and cons, would have to do otherwise.

Second, I agree that it is the availability of the information that is the real problem. CCP has to rethink what goes into logs and how these can be abused. I would give props to Hydra for bringing this to the public eye for review and rejection, but then it's fairly obvious they actually think this should be allowed, so fsck them.

---

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: Ki An

---

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.

---

The "full access" you speak of is actually a log file written to your hard drive to fascilitate bug hunting. It is, in short, not supposed to be a part of the UI, which is why it can only be found in your game's installation folder.

The UI presents the information that is and should be available to you during game play.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

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

---

Originally by: 5pinDizzy

---

Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 22/04/2008 13:10:29

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

It DOES change the way you play the game BECAUSE it makes the information more available. Bacon is a HUGE change in the game as people who normally aren't aware will now be watched over by an automated bot telling them when they are in danger. It REMOVES the human element, and diminishes us to mere users and no longer participants. It will also be REQUIRED by anyone wishing to compete in Eve. Just that last part tells me this is very wrong.

---

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.

---

Stop trying to sidestep the issue with clever wording or delude yourself that there's nothing wrong with using this.

I also think their should be a program that sounds an alarm if someone has just warped into the belt behind you, so if you're alligned you can get the hell out of there before they lock and scramble you, especially lowsec. Obviously this information is available already ingame, you'd just have to keep rotating your camera, but why leave yourself open to risk via an imperfect interface?

---

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: Ki An

---

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix

---

It automates a process that normally would be subject to human error. This alters game play in more ways than you can imagine.

---

Well the process should not really be prone to human error the way CCP implemented local. People have been taking advantage of a flaw in the UI for too long anyway.

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: Ki An

---

Moral of the story: Let the Devs alter the game. That's why they are devs and you are a player. If you alter it on your own you deserve to be banned.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

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.

---

What in the whole wide world of sports makes you come to that conclusion? I think the UI is fine and that local should be very prone to human failure, as, paraphrasing Oveur, it's not meant to be used as an intel tool anyway.

See now what has happened. Someone got the bright idea to 'improve' the game on their own accord, and now all hell is breaking loose. CCP will have to contain this issue very soon, or all forms of 'versions' of this cheat bot will start to appear.

Moral of the story: Let the Devs alter the game. That's why they are devs and you are a player. If you alter it on your own you deserve to be banned.

---

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: 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: Sidewayzracer

---

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

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Originally by: Torki Tavitas

---

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

---

I didn't know you could get this stupid...

NO THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN THEIR APPROVAL!

---

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: 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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

/Edit: It doesn't surprise me that the supporters of BACON are exclusively made up of people from failed/carebear alliances and alts.

---

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: Ki An

---

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.

---

Explicitly, here is what CCP has said on this issue:

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.

---

I have bolded the important parts here. A Dev has said he has to check to see if it's ok, and that we shouldn't take his gut reaction as CCP approval. A GM said that he can't find any specific violation of the EULA or the TOS, and as such will not ban people for using it now. Both say that CCP is going to investigate and make a decision at a later time.

This means the program is not disallowed, but it's not allowed either. It's being judged right now. I wouldn't take that as a blanket approval to use it as much as you like until CCP cranks down, but go ahead if you want. We both know that this program will be banned or the code will be changed very soon.

---

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: GM Grimmi

---

Greetings,

The LogServer output is solely intended by CCP as information for developers to help identify and fix bugs. 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, we frown upon the use of this information for any other purpose and we are currently working on changes to prevent this sort of unintended use of information provided by the LogServer.

Regards,

GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master

---

Originally by: Hamfast

---

Ki An is too fast again

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

Originally by: Hamfast

---

Ki An is too fast again

---

I'm sorta like Superman actually.

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

The matter is being resolved.

I hope this puts a damper in the "It's CCP approved" crowd.

---

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: Hysteresis

---

I am not for or against BACON, I could honestly care less, however it does give room for some fun ideas

Since BACON is open source, let's make it even better!

On the event trigger for the sound, add your own code in to do the following:

1. Send the information about who came in, name, corp, alliance, etc to another program that we'll call comcom.

2. comcom has the e-mail and adds the information into it's database.

3. comcom continually compiles the information fed to it and creates a set of views of information about who is in what systems and the gates that they took to get there (i.e. their path).

4. comcom's database is exposed to a webserver where players of alliance/corp XYZ can watch the travels and path's of anyone.

5. Sit back and watch as you have created (the first?) artificial (minus the 14 trial accounts/alts) listening posts in Eve.

6. Add trial accounts/alts to the network as you need (cloaked or sitting in station of course!).


I say let's get into some superior data warfare! Know where your enemies are and guess their movements by following the trails of their fleets! Hell, you can add in e-mail response alerts to e-mail your blackberry while you're at work so you can notify the home guard fleet that enemy are taking a direct path to your systems!

Real time traffic updates, see who's in the systems while you're out somewhere else, plan attacks on completely up-to-date information, so many things, so little time!

---

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.

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

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?

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: Ki An

---

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.

---

You're pretty stupid if that's what you get from reading that post.

---

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: Ki An

---

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.

---

How cute, you're worried you might get banned.

Well, you won't, don't worry. But what you should really get from reading that GM's post is that CCP doesn't want you to use this program. They are powerless to stop you until they have changed the game, but they still don't want you to do it. Does that make you a cheater if you, knowing this, still use the program? In my eyes it does.

You won't get banned though.

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

Originally by: Ridley Tree

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

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

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.

---

You can't follow it, because your initial statement doesn't contain any amount reasoning whatsoever. BACON exists because 'keeping track of local' requires skill and vigilance. BACON replaces that skill and vigilance with a set of computer eyes to do it for you.

F1-F8 macro on a G15 =! Bacon.

---

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.


I know you're only trolling, but please explain the skill and viligance needed to press f1-f8 after something dies, unless you're saying you need to watch for a target to die, which isn't true because if I'm clearing NPCs from a belt so I can mine, I hit the F keys without looking at the keyboard, just wait to hear the sounds of an NPC going poof.

If you can show me a way to watch local without actually looking at it, that isn't a cheat program like bacon, I'd love to know.

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

Originally by: Ki An

---

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.

---

How cute, you're worried you might get banned.

Well, you won't, don't worry. But what you should really get from reading that GM's post is that CCP doesn't want you to use this program. They are powerless to stop you until they have changed the game, but they still don't want you to do it. Does that make you a cheater if you, knowing this, still use the program? In my eyes it does.

You won't get banned though.

---

You make me chuckle. You are once again seeing what you want to see rather than what the facts show.

Nowhere in my posts have I said that I use, used or ever intend to use Bacon or any programs of that nature. This is because personally I do not believe that these types of programs should be used to compensate for flaws in the game's UI. I believe that CPP should fix their flawed system themselves.

However, my personal feelings on this issue are irrelevant because only the official position of CPP matters in this. If they say something is a cheat then it is a cheat. If they refuse to disallow the action in question then by definition it cannot be a cheat. Even if CPP wusses out in telling the truth to us straight.

Players wishing that something were a cheat cannot make it so. Otherwise every pirate and high sec suicide ganker would already by banned for cheating.:)

---

Originally by: NightF0x

---

Will you stop jumping the fence every 2 seconds? CCP didn't declare it a cheat because they have no means to detect it so they must allow it until they have something in place to stop it. How hard is that concept for you to understand? I'll say it slower...

T H E Y C A N ' T D E T E C T I T S O T H E Y C A N ' T B A N S O M E O N E F O R U S I N G I T

There, now was it that hard for you to get through your thick skull? CCP doesn't want us to use it but they are powerless to stop it until something can be developed. They already said that it is an unintended use of the log servers and that they would rather players not utilize it because its function will be gone very very soon.

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

Why are you attacking me when you say the same thing I did?

CPP did not declare this a cheat therefore it is not a cheat. Wishing otherwise is not gonna change CPP's position at this time.

---

Originally by: Maliber

---

Originally by: Torik Tavitas

---

Why are you attacking me when you say the same thing I did?

CPP did not declare this a cheat therefore it is not a cheat. Wishing otherwise is not gonna change CPP's position at this time.

---

It doesnt change the fact that I still think its a cheat.....

---

Originally by: NightF0x

---

T H E Y C A N ' T D E T E C T I T S O T H E Y C A N ' T B A N S O M E O N E F O R U S I N G I T

---

Originally by: Kvirie

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

Originally by: Ridley Tree

---

Originally by: Shevar

---

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

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.

---

You can't follow it, because your initial statement doesn't contain any amount reasoning whatsoever. BACON exists because 'keeping track of local' requires skill and vigilance. BACON replaces that skill and vigilance with a set of computer eyes to do it for you.

F1-F8 macro on a G15 =! Bacon.

---

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.


I know you're only trolling, but please explain the skill and viligance needed to press f1-f8 after something dies, unless you're saying you need to watch for a target to die, which isn't true because if I'm clearing NPCs from a belt so I can mine, I hit the F keys without looking at the keyboard, just wait to hear the sounds of an NPC going poof.

If you can show me a way to watch local without actually looking at it, that isn't a cheat program like bacon, I'd love to know.

---

Bacon is not a cheat program
EveMag:Download Location 2
EveMag:Download Location 3

Originally by: Ikki Phoenix

---

Bacon is not a cheat program

---

Originally by: Trix Rabbit

---

The title asks the question. Seriously though there are more similarities between the two then differences when speaking of strategic importance.

Anyone can use both voice chat and/or BACON. A large advantage is given to those that use voice chat compared to those that don't. And certainly an advantage is given to those that use BACON compared to those that don't. Until EVE Voice, voice chat could only be run through a third party program. And there are certainly quite a few people that would still say voice chat can only be run through a third party program since EVE Voice is not that great. Likewise BACON requires a third party program.

The only thing BACON does is beep when someone is in local. But voice chat allows fleets of any size supported by game mechanics and server structure to respond near instantly to complex instructions.

My response to BACON seems quite clear, adapt or die.

For the record I haven't configured BACON yet but I plan to when I have some time.

---