These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mouse Macro Clarification

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#21 - 2014-12-19 22:27:04 UTC
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
CCP Logibro wrote:
If you want clarification for anything like this, the best thing to do is to file a support ticket and ask the GMs. Any other answer will be non-authoritative.


Then we get in trouble if we post that answer on the forums.

We are asking for official clarification from CCP in a dev blog, sticky thread, something public.


If you read the rules closely, it also states that petitions are dealt with on a case by case situation.

Hence no fixed answer to it...

As it does matter under which circumstances stuff happens.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
J'Poll
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#22 - 2014-12-19 22:28:06 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
I have petitioned a similar question asking for clarification and the answer I was given was basically if you are unsure do not do it.


In my opinion that is a very poor response and it has led me to letting 1 account expire with a 2nd due to expire in the next few days.

My other accounts will expire in due time.

I am not going to pay to play a game where you can not get clarification on a rule that could lead you to getting banned.

I have never come across any other game where customer support was unable to clarify a rule via petition.


Dibs on your stuff. Make sure to contract before your accounts lapse.

Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy

Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded

Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#23 - 2014-12-19 22:38:55 UTC
Caviar Liberta wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
I have the exact same setup and my reading of the eula is inline with the op.

Hotkeys are fine provided they aren't triggering an automated sequence (which those bits of kit are easily capable of).
I would advise against that functionality as I understand they breach the rules.
I have not run into any issues or warnings over the keyboard or mouse usage in the last year of use but I wouldn't because I just have hotkeys for individual commands as per normal keyboard and mouse use.

Obviously file a support ticket for clarification on exactly what constitutes a breach and get the word from ccp themselves.


As per the rules everyone will have to submit the same question.

Then everybody should. With every question related to this that CCP does not answer, we should all file support tickets. Eventually they will get the message: It costs far less time from support personnel to just answer the question than dealing with thousands of tickets.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers
#24 - 2014-12-19 22:43:36 UTC
CCP Logibro wrote:
If you want clarification for anything like this, the best thing to do is to file a support ticket and ask the GMs. Any other answer will be non-authoritative.


Why not clarify publicly? It's against the rules to post GM communication for others to see, so should everybody in EVE petition it to find what the rules are?

Surely a clear, public statement of the rules against input automation would be better.

--
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#25 - 2014-12-19 22:48:33 UTC
Ydnari wrote:
CCP Logibro wrote:
If you want clarification for anything like this, the best thing to do is to file a support ticket and ask the GMs. Any other answer will be non-authoritative.


Why not clarify publicly? It's against the rules to post GM communication for others to see, so should everybody in EVE petition it to find what the rules are?

Surely a clear, public statement of the rules against input automation would be better.

It's already clear enough for those who are capable of reading and understanding.

Wanting to avoid a pointless discussion on the forums on a workday is a completely different matter.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#26 - 2014-12-19 23:04:29 UTC
Ydnari wrote:


Why not clarify publicly? It's against the rules to post GM communication for others to see, so should everybody in EVE petition it to find what the rules are?

Surely a clear, public statement of the rules against input automation would be better.

I hear the EULA is the best public statement for such things.
If you can't understand the EULA then you should ask privately as you are asking for legal advice.
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers
#27 - 2014-12-19 23:08:29 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ydnari wrote:


Why not clarify publicly? It's against the rules to post GM communication for others to see, so should everybody in EVE petition it to find what the rules are?

Surely a clear, public statement of the rules against input automation would be better.

I hear the EULA is the best public statement for such things.
If you can't understand the EULA then you should ask privately as you are asking for legal advice.


And it says no, you can't. So why not just say no instead of the wishy-washy statements.

--
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#28 - 2014-12-19 23:08:31 UTC
Now, let's not knock on the guy for asking for clarification. This game's EULA isn't exactly the most transparent.

I have four words for you.

"You can impersonate yourself".

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#29 - 2014-12-20 01:30:04 UTC
Ydnari wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ydnari wrote:


Why not clarify publicly? It's against the rules to post GM communication for others to see, so should everybody in EVE petition it to find what the rules are?

Surely a clear, public statement of the rules against input automation would be better.

I hear the EULA is the best public statement for such things.
If you can't understand the EULA then you should ask privately as you are asking for legal advice.


And it says no, you can't. So why not just say no instead of the wishy-washy statements.


It's obvious that CCP has learned from past mistakes and is no longer going to post answers on the forums that players can go back to and use as justification for actions that actually break the EULA. The best example of that is cache scraping.

Perhaps when CCP runs metrics on their customer support tickets and find out the most commonly asked questions, we will see them put up a EULA FAQ that people can refer to. But don't expect answers on the forums.

Oh yeah, I should add one more thing. All those posts from CCP with answers everyone keeps referring to will be outdated on 1 January 2015.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#30 - 2014-12-20 02:28:22 UTC
J'Poll wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Cry.


Dibs on your stuff. Make sure to contract before your accounts lapse.


... You wouldn't be doing.. what I think it appears that you are doing... would you...

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#31 - 2014-12-20 02:32:55 UTC
Ydnari wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Ydnari wrote:


Why not clarify publicly? It's against the rules to post GM communication for others to see, so should everybody in EVE petition it to find what the rules are?

Surely a clear, public statement of the rules against input automation would be better.

I hear the EULA is the best public statement for such things.
If you can't understand the EULA then you should ask privately as you are asking for legal advice.


And it says no, you can't. So why not just say no instead of the wishy-washy statements.

Because it's written in the EULA and you have to accept it.

If you have issues with the EULA, then don't and leave.

Asking the devs to talk with you about what's written in it is nonsense,
especially because it is pretty obvious that you do not understand the EULA in the first place.


This thread should be locked,
because you are a pest.


Because you are unwilling or unable to accept that you are in no way or form entitled to know more,
not entitled to a response, nothing. You accepted the EULA and if you do not want to, then leave.


If you have questions about the EULA, file a petition.



A case by case basis means exactly that. If you lost your arms and ask for them to allow you to use
your special software that allows you to control the computer using your eyes and that leads to
small amounts of automation (imagine F1-F8) ... then I am certain that they will allow it!

Why? Because it's a case where it makes sense!


To understand the EULA you have to use your brain. You, though, have a very good reason why you
want to know in the first place. Whatever it is ... I doubt you have good intentions.



This thread should be locked, because the OPs question already got answered by people who
are able to read and understand the EULA. The fact that devs tell you to submit a ticket,
means that they do not and will not start a pointless discussion about something beyond reach.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2014-12-20 06:41:40 UTC
According to a strict reading of the EULA, just about every 3rd party program and website that uses the EVE cache in one way or another is in violation. The EULA's been ignored, dismissed, and even been contradicted by CCP employees (Devs and GMs) in the past with often no warning between "It's ok, you're fine" and "It's banned, and so are you!". Asking for CCP to put a tiny one paragraph statement somewhere where you can reference it when you petition a GM for wrongful ban is not asking too much.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#33 - 2014-12-20 06:42:33 UTC
J'Poll wrote:
Altirius Saldiaro wrote:
CCP Logibro wrote:
If you want clarification for anything like this, the best thing to do is to file a support ticket and ask the GMs. Any other answer will be non-authoritative.


Then we get in trouble if we post that answer on the forums.

We are asking for official clarification from CCP in a dev blog, sticky thread, something public.


If you read the rules closely, it also states that petitions are dealt with on a case by case situation.

Hence no fixed answer to it...

As it does matter under which circumstances stuff happens.


What part of macro buttons on a mouse do you not understand? Its not a case by case issue. Its a part of many gaming mice used by many gamers. Either CCP allows them to be used or not. Its not a jigsaw puzzle. Yes or No is all they have to say. Plain and simple.
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#34 - 2014-12-20 07:35:52 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
According to a strict reading of the EULA, just about every 3rd party program and website that uses the EVE cache in one way or another is in violation. The EULA's been ignored, dismissed, and even been contradicted by CCP employees (Devs and GMs) in the past with often no warning between "It's ok, you're fine" and "It's banned, and so are you!". Asking for CCP to put a tiny one paragraph statement somewhere where you can reference it when you petition a GM for wrongful ban is not asking too much.

Incursions ey?

Botters.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Jessica Lanson
Port Hercules
#35 - 2014-12-20 10:24:36 UTC
J'Poll wrote:

If you read the rules closely, it also states that petitions are dealt with on a case by case situation.

Hence no fixed answer to it...

As it does matter under which circumstances stuff happens.


Then they need to publish the (anonymised) decisions. It's completely ridiculous that the laws of the land are not publically available. If the circumstances of the case are similar to an existing case, then the GM decision should be the same.

I should not need to ask a policeman or judge if I can do XYZ. I should be able to determine this beforehand using public materials. The only reason to keep it secret is to allow the application of different rules based on who you are.
Serene Repose
#36 - 2014-12-20 10:26:38 UTC
Sol Project wrote:

Automation is when the computer initiates a unit all by himself.
Why not HERself, HUH? How do YOU know computers are guys, HUH HUH HUH??
Cars are girls. Airplanes are girls. So...ODDS ARE!!! Twisted

We must accommodate the idiocracy.
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#37 - 2014-12-20 10:35:02 UTC
Serene Repose wrote:
Sol Project wrote:

Automation is when the computer initiates a unit all by himself.
Why not HERself, HUH? How do YOU know computers are guys, HUH HUH HUH??
Cars are girls. Airplanes are girls. So...ODDS ARE!!! Twisted
:D

I love you too, honey. :)

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#38 - 2014-12-20 10:43:11 UTC
Jessica Lanson wrote:
J'Poll wrote:

If you read the rules closely, it also states that petitions are dealt with on a case by case situation.

Hence no fixed answer to it...

As it does matter under which circumstances stuff happens.


Then they need to publish the (anonymised) decisions. It's completely ridiculous that the laws of the land are not publically available. If the circumstances of the case are similar to an existing case, then the GM decision should be the same.

I should not need to ask a policeman or judge if I can do XYZ. I should be able to determine this beforehand using public materials. The only reason to keep it secret is to allow the application of different rules based on who you are.

And that bothers you ... why?

See my former post for an example of "case by case". If you feel that you could somehow be left out,
or be at a disadvantage compared to others, then the issue is with you and not the EULA.

I doubt you have sincere intentions. I also doubt that you are incapable of understanding why
there is a case by case ruling. You know it makes sense, because it allows the GMs to adapt to
varying situations, like the case I mentioned for example.

There is no possible way to deal with this otherwise ...
... and there is no need to "clarify" something that's clear enough already.

No multiplexing, no automatation.

That's all there is to it. If you feel like having a special case,
you too are free to file a petition.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Josef Djugashvilis
#39 - 2014-12-20 10:58:54 UTC
I understand that CCP do not provide definitive answers to player behaviour issues, but surely 'mechanical' rules should be clearly defined and made public for all to see.

To the best of my knowledge none of this would ever affect me. I use a R.A.T. 5 mouse and I do not even know if it can be configured to break the rules of the game.

This is not a signature.
Jessica Lanson
Port Hercules
#40 - 2014-12-20 11:24:51 UTC
Sol Project wrote:

See my former post for an example of "case by case".

There is no possible way to deal with this otherwise ...
... and there is no need to "clarify" something that's clear enough already.

No multiplexing, no automatation.

That's all there is to it. If you feel like having a special case,
you too are free to file a petition.



I have two questions for you, Mr Sol Project.

1) Case by case is necessary. My issue is with them not publishing the results. Why do you not want them published wtith names redacted? Someone, sometime, will have an identical situation.

2) Your examples and statements are not clear at all. Why, if there is a policy of "no automation", are you allowed to activate all your hardeners with a single click from a fancy mouse? That would be multiple presses with a regular device yet it's OK.