These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Overlays, ISK Buyer Amnesty and Account Security

First post First post
Author
CCP Peligro
C C P
C C P Alliance
#81 - 2016-02-23 20:37:54 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Team Security wrote:
As we receive questions about overlays and EVE Online every now and then we want to use this opportunity to further clarify our Third Party Policy on the topic (http://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/third-party-policies/).

The link appears to be broken.

Quote:
Policies
Can't find item

Sorry, we could not find the item you were looking for.



Sorry about that, the policies page was updated today with freshly localized policies, "/third-party-policies/" was only available in English before, but now it's translated to French, German and Russian, all available here:
https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/

Proper URL to the third party policies in English:
https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/third-party-policies-en/

Cheers!

CCP Peligro - Team Security

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#82 - 2016-02-23 20:59:30 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Interesting observation: CCP wants to remove the IGB and suggests that people should use overlay browsers systems such as Overwolf, however, browsers offer a lot of benefits and advantages that you could easily consider unfair. Kinda blurry guidelines there.

Sounds like we're gonna have to go with no browsers at all!

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

NSA Bivas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2016-02-23 21:04:52 UTC
referring to the overlays

I have 8 accounts but for the good of the game I think you should make it so you can launch only one client all this other measures that you take are useless
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#84 - 2016-02-23 21:10:35 UTC
Interesting can of Fedos here...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#85 - 2016-02-23 21:10:47 UTC  |  Edited by: elitatwo
For the last paragrph, account security, may I suggest KeePass 2.

It is freeware and yes you can google / yahoo / wiki it first and it comes with an inbuild password creator which you can customize and a bajillion plugins you can use but are not required to.

And another thing I like to "advertise" is the Yubico Yubikey, which is an USB dongle which is the password as soon as you plug it in.
Google or yahoo or wiki or whatever you like to investigate with this first and make your own, informed, decision about it.

The Yubikey is a 2-factor authorization tool that should work with EVE's 2-factor authorization, UNLESS you have a computer that has an Intel P45 chipset or earlier model.
This is no joke and I am warning everyone with said chipset to not use a Yubikey with 2-factor authorization because of a bug in the chipset that makes weird time values and invalidates all encryption key values.

ALL of them, wether it is GnuPG, PGP, RSA.

I didn't put any links here you might click "by accident" and start blaming me for things that are out of my control.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#86 - 2016-02-23 21:14:32 UTC
NSA Bivas wrote:
referring to the overlays

I have 8 accounts but for the good of the game I think you should make it so you can launch only one client all this other measures that you take are useless

I wouldn't go that far, believe it or not you'd kill a good amount of subscriptions this way.

It would be better for 3-4, but that REALLY wouldn't stop determined people. For example, using remote desktop software prevents CCP from detecting botting software.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#87 - 2016-02-23 21:28:12 UTC
Mai Khumm wrote:
NSA Bivas wrote:
you should make it so you can launch only one client all this other measures that you take are useless

I wouldn't go that far, believe it or not you'd kill a good amount of subscriptions this way.

No way... I thought this was foolproof.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Rawthorm
The Establishment
#88 - 2016-02-23 21:29:53 UTC
As a loyal customer who's been here since the beginning (Well minus the first few months!) it saddens me to have to say this, but maybe it's time you fine chaps at CCP all start to pull in the same direction?

I know CCP has never really been a professional company, and in the old days that was fine. Back then it was a small team that took pride in it's informal interactions with it's customers and as it grew took pride in it's informal way of working, but this approach clearly isn't working at scale, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Somewhere along the line it became acceptable for CCP employees to effectively troll paying customers. I wont even go into the unprofessional behavior of some CCP staff towards some of it's customers, but the recent "rule clarification" is just the latest example. I simply don't get how your own staff can use 3rd party software with impunity while leaving the sword of Damocles hanging over the rest of us paying customers heads with the effective catch all ban justification that is the 3rd party software part of the EULA. This is even more mind boggling considering that your own staff develop and promote some of this software behind Dev tags on this very forum.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that would REALLY appreciate the last 12 years not ending up a potential waste of time so if you could see your way to presenting a unified clear and professional front to us customers that would be fantastic. If that involves someone vetting your staff's actions and being nominated to be the defacto rule interpreter we can all refer to then so much the better.
A Nony Mouse
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2016-02-23 21:33:47 UTC  |  Edited by: A Nony Mouse
How will you differentiate between operating systems which allow overlay like behaviour for task switching and overlay tools. Windows 10 for example lets you see multiple windows in large enough thumbnails to read and monitor just by pressing Windows + Tab.

Other operating systems (especially the wild variety of Linux windows managers) could offer a cascading flick book program selection, which if stacking windows so the right edge is visible would allow you to monitor multiple overviews on the same screen at once, switching to the interesting window rapidly when needed.

Certainly it would be relatively easy to make the window overlaying part of a custom Linux window manager, and thus provide a considerable advantage in a fashion undetectable by CCP, especially as banning people for a specific flavour of OS they use is pretty draconian (especially as Windows could easily be suspect).
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#90 - 2016-02-23 21:34:11 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Thanks for all your feedback and criticism so far! Please keep it coming, we're watching this thread and will post replies to serious questions in the near future.



>Posts vague things that now are bannable.

>Posts vaguer timescale on when, if ever, clarification will be given.

This is a very uncool topic to let people guess on dudes...
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#91 - 2016-02-23 21:46:49 UTC
Say I have eight screens next to each other in a 2x4 grid, and several of them are scouts in neighboring systems, or cloaked on every hole in a wormhole chain. I don't use any client overlays because they're all side by side and I can see them just fine. Am I breaking rules about unfair advantages?

What's missing from the announcement is intent. If it's purely to reduce unfair advantage, it's odd to think the problem is overlays and not the playability of multiple clients and a bit of hardware.

What are you really getting at?
Shadoroth
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#92 - 2016-02-23 21:47:07 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:



>Posts vague things that now are bannable.

>Posts vaguer timescale on when, if ever, clarification will be given.

This is a very uncool topic to let people guess on dudes...


Time to go multi-box shoot a monument in Jita.
stg slate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#93 - 2016-02-23 21:54:19 UTC
ITT: People saying all these random programs don't give an unfair advantage and they are no big deal while loosing their **** about the idea of not being able to use them anymore.
Tristan Agion
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#94 - 2016-02-23 21:57:17 UTC
Quote:
2. We may, in our discretion, tolerate the use of applications or other software that simply enhance player enjoyment in a way that maintains fair gameplay.

AS LONG AS it’s fair to everybody - neither you nor anybody else gets any unfair advantage – we are fine with it.

What's missing here is some kind of definition what might count as a fair advantage. Each and every third party tool I might use while playing EVE is of course aimed at giving me an advantage in the game. That's the very point of using said tool!

For example, Tripwire keeps track of my wormhole connections and the signatures I encountered. It would be more tedious, slower, and much less useful to do this by other means (e.g., pen and paper, or perhaps the built-in notepad). So compared with someone who does not use Tripwire I clearly have an advantage when exploring wormholes.

But is this an "unfair advantage"? Are you going to outlaw Tripwire? I really would like to know, since that's software I like to use in game.

And if you say that Tripwire is fine, then what about say the "Dscan Locator" tool in Pirate's Little Helper? Is that kind of "computer assisted" dscan analysis also fine?

And if you say that the "Dscan Locator" is indeed fine as well, then I really have no idea what you are talking about concerning "unfair advantage". Unless perhaps somebody has built an EVE PVP bot, or the like...

Please clarify. Seriously, you need to give us a much better idea where the line is with 3rd party tools.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#95 - 2016-02-23 21:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
stg slate wrote:
ITT: People saying all these random programs don't give an unfair advantage and they are no big deal while loosing their **** about the idea of not being able to use them anymore.



No, in this thread people are understandably upset over the vagueness of the wording and the "**** you if you weren't guilty but the algorithm picked you anyway" attitude to said vagueness.

>>If you get banned, then this is because the results of what you did and how you potentially gained from it manifested in our server-side logs.

So, if you do $NON_SPECIFIC_ACTION and the system flags you no matter what the hell you were doing, GTFO, do not pass GM, do not collect a ticket pile.


Oh these tool funtionality people are using I can replicate for funsies via my 3 monitors alone and I'm 100% ok. Or am I.....? We don't know because it's vague as hell.

So in the meantime, mooooar displays #NOPOORS...right?
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
#96 - 2016-02-23 22:06:41 UTC
This makes no sense, even on the scale of CCP things making no sense. If I use *some* software to view additional EVE overviews than just the one on the client I'm actually playing at a given point in time, then that's unfair and I should be banned? Yet if I use *other* software to do exactly the same thing, I get exactly the same information but it's suddenly not unfair and I don't get banned? Whilst I sort of understand the initial intent, regarding this point in particular just about any attempt to even pretend to implement rules is not only utterly insane but entirely unworkable. There is literally no way possible to enforce anything about this and bothering to try and write a devblog using it as an example of what's not allowed is laughable at best, and deeply indicative of how far from reality some people seem to live.

As a seperate point the brief mention in there about ending in-client logins was snuck in quietly, are you actually reworking how login mechanics work in any way or just dumping this to force people to use a launcher for the sake of doing so? If as I expect the latter then why? We do not need to **** about starting an additional program to start the program we want to run then closing the additional program to avoid useless crap running all the time. Maybe someone else can explain to me this trend for forcing players to load up additional needless layers of junk to play anything these days, other than a additional spot for companies to spam ads at me I see zero purpose.
Rawthorm
The Establishment
#97 - 2016-02-23 22:10:03 UTC
stg slate wrote:
ITT: People saying all these random programs don't give an unfair advantage and they are no big deal while loosing their **** about the idea of not being able to use them anymore.


It's more the totally random way the rules are applied. I'm also perplexed at how something like multi monitors which are effectively a paywalled advantage are ok but free software that does the same thing may or may not get you banned.
stg slate
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#98 - 2016-02-23 22:19:47 UTC  |  Edited by: stg slate
Rawthorm wrote:
stg slate wrote:
ITT: People saying all these random programs don't give an unfair advantage and they are no big deal while loosing their **** about the idea of not being able to use them anymore.


It's more the totally random way the rules are applied. I'm also perplexed at how something like multi monitors which are effectively a paywalled advantage are ok but free software that does the same thing may or may not get you banned.


I think I can get a second monitor cheaper than a subscription for the supporting software for ISBoxer.

EDIT: I Forgot people used some of the free software solutions. Regardless, its not exactly a high pay-wall, more of a pay-curb.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#99 - 2016-02-23 22:23:11 UTC
stg slate wrote:
Rawthorm wrote:
stg slate wrote:
ITT: People saying all these random programs don't give an unfair advantage and they are no big deal while loosing their **** about the idea of not being able to use them anymore.


It's more the totally random way the rules are applied. I'm also perplexed at how something like multi monitors which are effectively a paywalled advantage are ok but free software that does the same thing may or may not get you banned.


I think I can get a second monitor cheaper than a subscription for the supporting software for ISBoxer.


They don't come cheaper than eve-o preview mate. You know, the one ccp devs use and contribute to.

Why should a guy with one monitor and preview be banned yet I can do the same thing on multiscreen and be totally ok?

It is inconsistent and most ironically of all *unfair*.

Rawthorm
The Establishment
#100 - 2016-02-23 22:26:44 UTC
stg slate wrote:
Rawthorm wrote:
stg slate wrote:
ITT: People saying all these random programs don't give an unfair advantage and they are no big deal while loosing their **** about the idea of not being able to use them anymore.


It's more the totally random way the rules are applied. I'm also perplexed at how something like multi monitors which are effectively a paywalled advantage are ok but free software that does the same thing may or may not get you banned.


I think I can get a second monitor cheaper than a subscription for the supporting software for ISBoxer.

EDIT: I Forgot people used some of the free software solutions. Regardless, its not exactly a high pay-wall, more of a pay-curb.


A paywall is a paywall, and going beyond 2 monitors requires substantial investment of hardware beyond just the monitors. Of course CCP could always do the graphics cards for plex deal again P