These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Client modification, the EULA and you

First post First post
Author
culo duro
Masonic Guard
Evictus.
#421 - 2013-04-18 20:33:50 UTC
I've got a question regarding ISBoxer.

As i'm a frequent user of ISBoxer and pretty much does everything myself to control my clients. What's the stance? Can i use keymaps? Repeater Regions? Put a videofeed up of a my client on a 'blank' background?

CCP Never said wether they were against Multiboxing or not as far as i've heard... With this coming up, we need an answer... yay or nay to multiboxing? if nay which program? if yay which? we need a list.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 

CCP Peligro
C C P
C C P Alliance
#422 - 2013-04-18 20:35:51 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if you're saying the EULA hasn't changed, what exactly was it the Dev Blog was supposed to achieve?

If cache scraping was always against the EULA, but you're still not going to ban "legitimate" EVE players, what purpose was the Dev Blog supposed to achieve?


The Dev blog was intended to inform players about our increased efforts towards getting rid of cheaters. We temporarily banned 2350 accounts today for verified abuse of an "autopilot to 0" hack. So, if you are using some kind of bot or hack for EVE, now is a good time to stop.

There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.

CCP Peligro - Team Security

Yuki Kasumi
Some names are just stupid
#423 - 2013-04-18 20:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuki Kasumi
I have read a lot of these posts and I'm still concerned.

Say hypothetically that I would be doing the following:

1. Fire up an eve client
2. Load a web page that uses CCP provided javascript api to go through market pages for items
3. Use a scraper to move said data gathered to a database / market data collecting service of choice

This is how most people would use a cache scraper. From what I gather this is now and has always been illegal? But from previous posts most likely not a ban reason on its own?

Turning this around you are now making the client do things for you (that it was not originally intended to do) AND using a cache scraper to directly read the data (which has been and now is illegal). Would this get a player banned?

I also find the precedence this sets interesting. You have now banned 2000 players for something, that was considered not a terrible offence in the past. In that it was never banned / prosecuted to this extent. Is there anything, anything at all, stopping you from turning around tomorrow, in a week or next month saying that cache scraping as mentioned above is bad bad bad and on the top of your list (and ban all the players doing it)?

My guess would be no, which effectively means that even though you state that you will not currently take actions against people cache scraping this might not be the case tomorrow. Granted common sense implies that you would not ban half your player base over night (hopefully?).

For me there would be two clarifications which could give me personally some peace of mind:

1. Does the combination of javascript webpage + scraper classify as worse than just a scraper on your "naughty list"?

2. Will you warn people, in advance, to stop their actions should you ever consider cache scraping (+ javascript page if no to question above) something you would want to prosecute?

I must say I much enjoy this game and would like to continue playing this (excellent) game, but even the suggestion of a 30 day ban gives me the creeps.
Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
#424 - 2013-04-18 20:40:24 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if you're saying the EULA hasn't changed, what exactly was it the Dev Blog was supposed to achieve?

If cache scraping was always against the EULA, but you're still not going to ban "legitimate" EVE players, what purpose was the Dev Blog supposed to achieve?


I can think of a few things!

- Causing fear and confusion that hits mostly just the good guys and not the bad guys (who really don't give a hoot about all this).

- Show the playerbase they are allegedly still "on the ball" when it comes to cheaters by posting figures on banning accounts of people who use a fairly low impact hack (WarpToZero) instead of the ones that actually severely degrade the game experience (market bots, mining bots, etc). I mean, yay, congratulations, you succesfully banned people that used a hack that was literally one line of code. *golfclap*

- Reminder cheating is bad (it is!)


(Not saying the WarpToZero ones shouldn't be banned, but you know, wooptidoo, etc).

I apologize for the sarcasm laden post, but I'm really not amused by how this was all done.

╦......║...╔╗.║.║.╔╗.╦║.╔╗╔╦╗╔╗

║.╔╗╔╗╔╣.╔╗╠..╠ ╠╗╠╝.║╠ ╠╝║║║╚╗

╩═╚╝║.╚╝.╚╝║..╚╝║║╚╝.╩╚╝╚╝║.║╚╝

Got Item?

iskflakes
#425 - 2013-04-18 20:41:16 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Also, is CCP officially going to introduce some crappy file system hook / Guardian / Punkbuster heavy weight, nightmare compatibility software?
Because that's the one way to detect offline client cache scrapping.

In that case I am done with EvE, I am never going to accept that privacy sniffing garbage on my computer.


They have recently started targeted scanning for specific bots, so I assume this is the direction they are headed in. In the dev blog they state the scanning is restricted to the EVE process for now.

I'm with you though, if this stuff gets any more invasive I might just quit too. Why should I spend hours writing legitimate third party services if all I get is threats that all my 11 accounts might get permanently banned, with no notice, if CCP decide in the future they don't like my service. I also have to put up with a new "developer license" getting rammed down my throat, which says CCP own my soul and my source code. I'm not even sure why I bother really...

-

I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#426 - 2013-04-18 20:42:26 UTC
I'd like to pick Comprehension Should Be An Eve Online Skill for 2000 Alex.
Kleesama
Tradewars2002
#427 - 2013-04-18 20:43:09 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
[quote=Inquisitor Kitchner]
There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.


I'm pretty sure you failed miserably at your attempt to clarify anything.

It seems most of us are getting "Hey guys, this is against the EULA but if you're using a popular program that already does it we probably won't ban you. probably. maybe."
CCP Peligro
C C P
C C P Alliance
#428 - 2013-04-18 20:48:06 UTC
Kleesama wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
[quote=Inquisitor Kitchner]
There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.


I'm pretty sure you failed miserably at your attempt to clarify anything.

It seems most of us are getting "Hey guys, this is against the EULA but if you're using a popular program that already does it we probably won't ban you. probably. maybe."


I genuinely do not know how to be any clearer than this: We will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.

I do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent.

CCP Peligro - Team Security

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#429 - 2013-04-18 20:52:38 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
I also have to put up with a new "developer license" getting rammed down my throat, which says CCP own my soul and my source code. I'm not even sure why I bother really...


It isn't that ridiculous. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/73971

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2013-04-18 20:52:46 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
I genuinely do not know how to be any clearer than this: We will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.

I would've thought any and all terms forbidding illegal activities (i.e., botting) would take care of whatever punishment needs to be dealt out, well before "cache scraping" is even a talking point.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#431 - 2013-04-18 20:54:35 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Kleesama wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
[quote=Inquisitor Kitchner]
There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.


I'm pretty sure you failed miserably at your attempt to clarify anything.

It seems most of us are getting "Hey guys, this is against the EULA but if you're using a popular program that already does it we probably won't ban you. probably. maybe."


I genuinely do not know how to be any clearer than this: We will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.

I do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent.


Can't I just send you my softwares' source code and you certify if it's OK or not?

Otherwise all we get is the "I should be fine but since it's not clear I am not going to install it" syndrome, and that'll be BAD for the accuracy of data.
iskflakes
#432 - 2013-04-18 20:56:41 UTC  |  Edited by: iskflakes
Andski wrote:
iskflakes wrote:
I also have to put up with a new "developer license" getting rammed down my throat, which says CCP own my soul and my source code. I'm not even sure why I bother really...


It isn't that ridiculous. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/73971


Did you read the bit that requires me to disclose source code if CCP asks for it?

Edit: In case you missed it: "upon written request of CCP delivered to Developer, to inspect the workings of the Application, including but not limited to its source code. "

-

Shellac Brookdale
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
#433 - 2013-04-18 20:58:40 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:

I genuinely do not know how to be any clearer than this: We will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.


Ok, so you'll take actions against illegal activities in connection with cache scraping, fair enough. But obviously you do for illegal activities without any connection with cache scraping as well. So yes, I daresay its not really perfectly clear how cache scraping plays into this at all.
Sentinel Eeex
Perkone
Caldari State
#434 - 2013-04-18 21:02:25 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Kleesama wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
[quote=Inquisitor Kitchner]
There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.


I'm pretty sure you failed miserably at your attempt to clarify anything.

It seems most of us are getting "Hey guys, this is against the EULA but if you're using a popular program that already does it we probably won't ban you. probably. maybe."


I genuinely do not know how to be any clearer than this: We will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.

I do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent.


Yeah, but do I still need to "hereby expressly waive any legal rights I may have"?

I mean, your ****** EULA is obviously more important than any legal rights I have.

Right?
Sarmatiko
#435 - 2013-04-18 21:09:30 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
I do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent.

But threats are still there on "clarification page":
Quote:
That said, unless there is an extreme case (i.e., cache scraping combined with other EULA violations), we will not penalize players who have engaged in this practice prior to 15 April 2013. Now that we have made our intent and policy clear, we may, in our sole discretion, deliver appropriate penalties for players that engage in cache scraping after 15 April 2013 (including temporary or permanent bans).


If you wont take any actions against players, why this text still exist in initial failed form (not even mention wrong date)?
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#436 - 2013-04-18 21:10:15 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
Did you read the bit that requires me to disclose source code if CCP asks for it?

Edit: In case you missed it: "upon written request of CCP delivered to Developer, to inspect the workings of the Application, including but not limited to its source code. "


Guess you missed this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2464800#post2464800

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Sirane Elrek
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#437 - 2013-04-18 21:10:59 UTC
Andski wrote:
I have MSVS 2010 on my PC, I guess I should get rid of it before CCP deems it a EULA violation because it can be used to not just design, but compile, debug and test botting software!

upgrade to 2012, its C++ intellisense is a lot better than 2010's
Ereilian
Doomheim
#438 - 2013-04-18 21:13:27 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Kleesama wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
[quote=Inquisitor Kitchner]
There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.


I'm pretty sure you failed miserably at your attempt to clarify anything.

It seems most of us are getting "Hey guys, this is against the EULA but if you're using a popular program that already does it we probably won't ban you. probably. maybe."


I genuinely do not know how to be any clearer than this: We will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.

I do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent.


No you failed to understand that we, the community, are not mindless zerg drones that think you guys sit on gold plated thrones up in the Ivory Tower of Trustworthy (IE your average WOW player).

Your statement is clear and obscure at the same time, a usual fudge when you know there is no real reason to have this in the EULA, hell you can still cover monitoring the cache access in the other sections of the EULA but you persist in leaving the vast majority of players hanging.

While you are not punishing or enforcing a section of the EULA at this time, that section is still in force and therefore a breach is happening by fact (tangentially you can change the damn eula/tos at any time it just takes a little work so don't try to hide behind the next update crap ... hell just do a hotfix for this stupidity). That the current policy is non enforcement, future policy cannot be assumed. You even set an amnesty date for crying out loud, that stinks of future action against cache scrapping.

It matters not how many times you try to answer with the fudge, we are not buying it. Give us a reason why scraping needs to be explicitly banned and then we will have something to work on. As it stands this policy of non enforcement at the moment(tm) makes no sense to anyone who has lived with CCP's schizophrenic approach to CS.
Harry Saq
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#439 - 2013-04-18 21:15:03 UTC
The bigger point here is that CCP is so bad at game development over time that it requires an entire industry of player based third party apps to "complete" the game, and make it tolerable due to all the massive in-game deficiencies...just sayin, CCP's logic for EULAs is on about the same level as their game development.

If it were my product, I would see every massively popular third party app (that apparently I don't see as bannable, since it is hilarious that this conversation is even required, and speaks to just how terrible the in-game interfaces are) as an indictment of my ability to react to the evolution of my product. I could say that they are genius for letting people develop the game for them, but sometimes genius is simply incompetence given too much credit.

Also, the whole "Power of Two" thing (while undoubtedly a good idea financially for CCP) also speaks to a general, hilarious, blindness to the fact that their game is so screwed up it literally requires multiple accounts to get the most benefit...as indicated by the developer encouraging the behavior through a promotion...suppose I could call it genius...but once again, I would hate to give that much credit.

The fact that this policy requires such hot debate and is even necessary demonstrates that genius is not part of the equation, and if so, dishonest is the word that would more accurately describe the behavior and intent behind the policy and overall game development...so I prefer incompetence, or rather screwed up vision on CCPs part, as I do think they are trying, but are just not particularly good at it.
iskflakes
#440 - 2013-04-18 21:16:46 UTC
Andski wrote:
iskflakes wrote:
Did you read the bit that requires me to disclose source code if CCP asks for it?

Edit: In case you missed it: "upon written request of CCP delivered to Developer, to inspect the workings of the Application, including but not limited to its source code. "


Guess you missed this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2464800#post2464800


Indeed this is good, but there are many other problems with that license, the source code is only the worst example.

-