These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: EULA Changes Coming With EVE Online: Ascension

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#521 - 2016-10-14 17:51:47 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dodo Veetee wrote:
ITT: Goons and that exe dude are salty as ****


Uhhh wut...I'm not crying, I think this is an understandable move. Grath et. al. sure seem salty...


The game is 15 years old, I'll be salty every time CCP makes another dumb choice that hurts the game in anyway.

I swear to god its like they're fumbling around looking for better ways to lower the player base.



I'm going to agree with this last line, not because of this thread, but overall over the last couple of years and the changes they put in.

This change almost smells like a distraction to what's coming in November, almost sort of maybe definitley.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#522 - 2016-10-14 18:30:26 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
I'm going to agree with this last line, not because of this thread, but overall over the last couple of years and the changes they put in.

This change almost smells like a distraction to what's coming in November, almost sort of maybe definitley.
Please explain. I'm having a really hard time seeing how a response to a breach of the EULA linked to IWI and the resulting policy change could be in anyone's mind related to upcoming changes in the manner you state.

Sure, it could be in relation to the possible influx of alphas making gambling more prolific and/or leading to larger operations with new ways to hide RMT, but that doesn't seem like what you're insinuating.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#523 - 2016-10-14 18:38:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
I'm going to agree with this last line, not because of this thread, but overall over the last couple of years and the changes they put in.

This change almost smells like a distraction to what's coming in November, almost sort of maybe definitley.
Please explain. I'm having a really hard time seeing how a response to a breach of the EULA linked to IWI and the resulting policy change could be in anyone's mind related to upcoming changes in the manner you state.

Sure, it could be in relation to the possible influx of alphas making gambling more prolific and/or leading to larger operations with new ways to hide RMT, but that doesn't seem like what you're insinuating.


I think he's referencing CCP's unerring ability to lose portions of their player base to bad changes (Phoebe, Aegis, etc.)
Dodo Veetee
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#524 - 2016-10-14 19:06:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dodo Veetee wrote:
ITT: Goons and that exe dude are salty as ****


Uhhh wut...I'm not crying, I think this is an understandable move. Grath et. al. sure seem salty...


Reading through your posts, it seems like a mix of rambling at why you think CCP is right at doing this and a rage of some sort against the people who don't agree with you or CCP. You even go out as to insult people's intellect if they don't agree with your point of view. So yeah, I think that classifies it as "salt".
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#525 - 2016-10-14 19:09:14 UTC
Urziel99 wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
I'm going to agree with this last line, not because of this thread, but overall over the last couple of years and the changes they put in.

This change almost smells like a distraction to what's coming in November, almost sort of maybe definitley.
Please explain. I'm having a really hard time seeing how a response to a breach of the EULA linked to IWI and the resulting policy change could be in anyone's mind related to upcoming changes in the manner you state.

Sure, it could be in relation to the possible influx of alphas making gambling more prolific and/or leading to larger operations with new ways to hide RMT, but that doesn't seem like what you're insinuating.


I think he's referencing CCP's unerring ability to lose portions of their player base to bad changes (Phoebe, Aegis, etc.)


I am sympathetic to the notion that CCP shoots itself in the foot, maybe even often. For example, removal of the watchlist was a bad move, IMO. The continuing nerfs to HS ganking is another.

But taking Grath's statements at face value one might conclude he was opposed to the changes to the EULA regarding ISBoxer (and I don't know what his view was just speculating that since is likely cost CCP subs, it is therefore a bad move).

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mikhem
Taxisk Unlimited
#526 - 2016-10-14 19:22:00 UTC
CCP presents: Joyless life for New Eden capsuleers. Now one step closer.

Why do you want to ban everything fun (now gambling)? Introduce in EVE gambling if you ban 3rd party gambling!

Mikhem

Link library to EVE music songs.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#527 - 2016-10-14 19:25:54 UTC
Mikhem wrote:
CCP presents: Joyless life for New Eden capsuleers. Now one step closer.

Why do you want to ban everything fun (now gambling)? Introduce in EVE gambling if you ban 3rd party gambling!


There could be a problem with that too.

You gamble.
Run out of or low on ISK.
Buy PLEX from CCP for $19.95.
Keep gambling.

Very well could run afoul of the U.S. gambling laws.

And given the RICO statues, asset forfeiture laws...I would not risk it without checking with my legal team and making triple damn sure.

So, don't hold your breath.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
PsychoBitch
Playboy Enterprises
Dark Taboo
#528 - 2016-10-14 19:31:08 UTC
When does eve-bet get shut down?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#529 - 2016-10-14 19:31:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Grath Telkin wrote:
The game is 15 years old, I'll be salty every time CCP makes another choice that I even remotely dislike or disagree with.
FTFY

Grath Telkin wrote:
I swear to god its like they're fumbling around looking for better ways to lower the player base.
The good news is you can make it better today! Quit.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#530 - 2016-10-14 19:34:49 UTC
PsychoBitch wrote:
When does eve-bet get shut down?



These third party services are free to finalize these wagers over the course of the weekend given that they have not broken our rules, but must wind down operations in an orderly fashion before 11:00 UTC on Tuesday November 8th, 2016.

It's in the dev blog, near the top
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#531 - 2016-10-14 21:00:54 UTC
I have removed a disrespectful post that was personal in nature. Those quoting it were also removed.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Sweetiepie Sugartits
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#532 - 2016-10-14 21:54:11 UTC
Dodo Veetee wrote:
ITT: Goons and that exe dude are salty as ****


I'm salty as heck from rolling around in the tears in this thread
Munted Happenstance
Panamanian Tax Evaders
#533 - 2016-10-14 22:34:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Munted Happenstance
Querns wrote:
Munted Happenstance wrote:
I'd like to get some clarification on what exactly is meant by a "third party" and specifically how this relates to groups like EOH Poker.

"You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance operated by third parties"

From my understanding of this, a "game of chance" run in-game by a group of players, is perfectly acceptable, meaning gambling or betting per say has not been banned.

So in practice, if me and my group of friends wanted to bet or gamble on something, it's usually better to transfer the isk to another person to hold the "betting pool" in escrow to pay out to the winner, that could either be an individual player or a corp - let's assume it's a corp - I still don't think that would be classified as a "third party" as it's still within the game and is not a "third party" to CCP.

So I have my money held by the corp or trusted person, now our group wishes to play a game of chance. This is were it gets tricky. Let's use a basic example - we decide to bet on the number of players to warp through the Jita gate in 10 minutes. This is all completely within the game so I can't see why that would be banned.

Now our group decides that we want our game of chance to be poker, we decide that using a browser based poker game is the best option, we go onto the site and play our game, the winner is determined and the isk sent to the winner from the corp. Again, I do not see a "third party" in this situation, no isk was transferred out of game and no assets were created on another site. Simply that we used an out of game tool or service to play our "game of chance".

If none of this violates the rules, I cannot see why EOH Poker needs to shut down.

One area where they may fall foul of in the new rules is their "ring games". In this case, isk transferred to the corp gets converted into "chips" which players then can use to play poker against other players. These chips do have an in-game value and I understand banning that as in theory is possible for someone to make a RMT transfer to someone associated with EOH for the chips themselves to use on the site.

However, the majority of the games were tournaments, the difference being that the chips used in a tournament had no in-game value - they simply were "tournament chips" that when all used up decided if you won or lost that particular tournament, just like tournament chips in real life poker games having no value in the casino itself.

If you disagree and think of an out of game tool as a "third party" then what if we switched the example to a coin-flip, same setup, assets held in escrow by a corp awaiting outcome of the game of chance. In this case all I do is flip a coin in my house, decide the winner and pay out, surely it wouldn't be right to consider the coin the third party?

Before someone argues that the corp itself is the third party, well what if we ran the exact same setup, but did not make escrow transfers before the game started and simply individually transferred the money to the winner at the end. There would be no third party in this case.

Apologies for the wall of text but can't think of any easier way to explain what I mean. Cheers.

Honestly, I'd save your brain muscles for more useful tasks. Trying to rules lawyer your way through this isn't happening; CCP is responding to the industry-wide freight train, not any particular desire for game change. All casualties from this change are incurred without prejudice or preference; all must burn to have any hope of evading the oncoming storm.


I'm not trying to be a "rules lawyer" about this as you say, but if CCP had intended to ban all forms of gambling/betting outright then their EULA would have said:

"You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance."

Rather than:

"You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance operated by third parties."

Given that it says "third parties" I think the points I raised above still need to be clarified, many people are under the impression that not even corp run raffles can be held anymore.
Ruddger
Vande-lay Industries
#534 - 2016-10-15 01:31:31 UTC
Munted Happenstance wrote:
Querns wrote:
Munted Happenstance wrote:
I'd like to get some clarification on what exactly is meant by a "third party" and specifically how this relates to groups like EOH Poker.

"You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance operated by third parties"

From my understanding of this, a "game of chance" run in-game by a group of players, is perfectly acceptable, meaning gambling or betting per say has not been banned.

So in practice, if me and my group of friends wanted to bet or gamble on something, it's usually better to transfer the isk to another person to hold the "betting pool" in escrow to pay out to the winner, that could either be an individual player or a corp - let's assume it's a corp - I still don't think that would be classified as a "third party" as it's still within the game and is not a "third party" to CCP.

So I have my money held by the corp or trusted person, now our group wishes to play a game of chance. This is were it gets tricky. Let's use a basic example - we decide to bet on the number of players to warp through the Jita gate in 10 minutes. This is all completely within the game so I can't see why that would be banned.

Now our group decides that we want our game of chance to be poker, we decide that using a browser based poker game is the best option, we go onto the site and play our game, the winner is determined and the isk sent to the winner from the corp. Again, I do not see a "third party" in this situation, no isk was transferred out of game and no assets were created on another site. Simply that we used an out of game tool or service to play our "game of chance".

If none of this violates the rules, I cannot see why EOH Poker needs to shut down.

One area where they may fall foul of in the new rules is their "ring games". In this case, isk transferred to the corp gets converted into "chips" which players then can use to play poker against other players. These chips do have an in-game value and I understand banning that as in theory is possible for someone to make a RMT transfer to someone associated with EOH for the chips themselves to use on the site.

However, the majority of the games were tournaments, the difference being that the chips used in a tournament had no in-game value - they simply were "tournament chips" that when all used up decided if you won or lost that particular tournament, just like tournament chips in real life poker games having no value in the casino itself.

If you disagree and think of an out of game tool as a "third party" then what if we switched the example to a coin-flip, same setup, assets held in escrow by a corp awaiting outcome of the game of chance. In this case all I do is flip a coin in my house, decide the winner and pay out, surely it wouldn't be right to consider the coin the third party?

Before someone argues that the corp itself is the third party, well what if we ran the exact same setup, but did not make escrow transfers before the game started and simply individually transferred the money to the winner at the end. There would be no third party in this case.

Apologies for the wall of text but can't think of any easier way to explain what I mean. Cheers.

Honestly, I'd save your brain muscles for more useful tasks. Trying to rules lawyer your way through this isn't happening; CCP is responding to the industry-wide freight train, not any particular desire for game change. All casualties from this change are incurred without prejudice or preference; all must burn to have any hope of evading the oncoming storm.


I'm not trying to be a "rules lawyer" about this as you say, but if CCP had intended to ban all forms of gambling/betting outright then their EULA would have said:

"You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance."

Rather than:

"You may not use, transfer or assign any game assets for games of chance operated by third parties."

Given that it says "third parties" I think the points I raised above still need to be clarified, many people are under the impression that not even corp run raffles can be held anymore.


How could they be run though? If they use any out of game metric at all to decide winner. Say a roll of dice or a RNG it's a third party.... CCP ****** up.
Alicia Dnari
Dnari Mining and Manufacturing
#535 - 2016-10-15 03:32:36 UTC
I didn't read all 27 pages of this thread, but...

"You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above."

First, I think I found the bit about "permitted Character Transfer", though it is not labelled "section 3" and I couldn't find any such label at all.

Second, I'm pretty sure CCP didn't intend this, but what that sentence I quoted above says is that, other than character transfers, a character in the game may not transfer isk or items to another character in the game. Which precludes "give money" or in station trading or even selling on the market or via contract. I don't want to start a thread of "you're ridiculous" and "it doesn't say that" so don't bother. It does say that, and CCP needs to fix it.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#536 - 2016-10-15 03:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Alicia Dnari wrote:
I didn't read all 27 pages of this thread, but...

"You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above."

First, I think I found the bit about "permitted Character Transfer", though it is not labelled "section 3" and I couldn't find any such label at all.

Second, I'm pretty sure CCP didn't intend this, but what that sentence I quoted above says is that, other than character transfers, a character in the game may not transfer isk or items to another character in the game. Which precludes "give money" or in station trading or even selling on the market or via contract. I don't want to start a thread of "you're ridiculous" and "it doesn't say that" so don't bother. It does say that, and CCP needs to fix it.


Roll

That section is quite clearly saying you cannot RMT characters or in game items, including ISK.

Edit:

And yes, it was section 3...

Quote:
3. ACCOUNT TRANSFER / CHARACTER TRANSFER
You are not permitted to transfer your Account to another person. If you wish to discontinue your Account please refer to section 6. of this EULA. You may transfer a character from your Account to another account, either belonging to you or another person. This transfer option is available from the EVE Online Account Management web site https://secure.eveonline.com/ and is subject to fees and the following limitations: You may not offer to transfer characters except your own, or act as a "broker" or intermediary (for compensation or otherwise) for anyone wishing to transfer or obtain characters. The transferee will obtain all rights to your character in a single transaction, and you will retain absolutely no control or rights over the characters, items or attributes of that character. You may not transfer any characters whose attributes are, in whole or in part, developed, or which own items, objects or currency obtained or acquired, in violation of the EULA.

Any character transfers or attempted transfers not in accordance with the foregoing terms is prohibited and void, and shall not be binding on CCP. A transfer or attempted transfer of a character is entirely at the risk of the parties to such transaction. CCP is not liable to any person (whether transferor, transferee or otherwise) for any acts, omissions, statements, representations, defaults or liabilities of the parties in connection with such a transaction.


Edit II: To be clear your extremely literal reading of that would mean all of Jita is one giant permaban fest waiting to happen. After all what is happening in Jita if not "transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects". Most people in Jita are buying, selling, auctioning, transferring ISK and or in game items. Every day CCP should simply ban everyone in Jita, Dodixie, Amarr and Rens. Am I right?

Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Munted Happenstance
Panamanian Tax Evaders
#537 - 2016-10-15 04:45:38 UTC
Ruddger wrote:

How could they be run though? If they use any out of game metric at all to decide winner. Say a roll of dice or a RNG it's a third party.... CCP ****** up.


Well that's one of the things I want clarified, as I really don't think a dice role qualifies as a third party. That's just a method by which players use to have their game of chance. A "third party" to CCP would be another organization or individual, like McDonald's or Mike Tyson, that is not beholden to any of the rules laid out in the EULA.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#538 - 2016-10-15 05:05:31 UTC
Munted Happenstance wrote:
Ruddger wrote:

How could they be run though? If they use any out of game metric at all to decide winner. Say a roll of dice or a RNG it's a third party.... CCP ****** up.


Well that's one of the things I want clarified, as I really don't think a dice role qualifies as a third party. That's just a method by which players use to have their game of chance. A "third party" to CCP would be another organization or individual, like McDonald's or Mike Tyson, that is not beholden to any of the rules laid out in the EULA.


If I roll a die at my desk...is the die the third party...or the desk?

Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Toobo
Project Fruit House
#539 - 2016-10-15 05:16:41 UTC
I'll shut up about IWI for now. But if I understand correctly, EVE Bet is not 'banned' at the moment, as no RMT problem found there yet. Does this mean ALL gambling activities in EVE Bet is ok until Nov 8th? Or is EVE Bet only allowed to pay out existing wagers on AT and cannot accept any more deposits or pay out for their other sports betting and games such as roulette and black jack? Not looking for argument, just clarification. Thanks.

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!
Lucas Quaan
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#540 - 2016-10-15 08:19:47 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Quaan wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Are you 100% absolutely positive that Eve-Bet has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT? If the answer is no, then there is risk associated with keeping them around.

With that logic we should probably remove all rats and anomalies from space too.


No that is not logic, but a fallacy you are using there called reductio ad absurdum. Take a statement to an absurd conclusion. Because the next logical step is to just shut down the game, am I right?

Roll

Which was perfectly acceptable in this case since your original statement is just as absurd.

"Are you 100% absolutely positive that {insert activity here} has NOT and NEVER will engage in RMT" is not something you can decide would only apply where it fits your narrative.