EVE Information Portal

If you were that curious, you'd read the thread.
hint: keep clicking the blue dev arrow

Which are not going to come into effect for a non-essential service like a game.

Except of course that they point blank explained that they won't, and why.

You choose to ignore that.

Except they won't give a list of approved applications. Only this one. And even that is an informal post by a dev in a thread, not in their posted policies and procedures. And no way to get on that approved applications.

And who says they won't change their minds?

Yeah, because policy made in a forum post that will get buried in time by many other posts and threads is so assuring, right?

Oh wait!

Edit: this post editor sucks so bad for reverting to old drafts randomly.

what the heck? is this a joke?

So, you're *NOT* making an exception to the EULA re: cache scraping, so EVEMON *IS* a violation and thus a perma-bannable offence?!?!

....but you're not going to enforce it? "for now" because it isn't a priority?

Since I want to play by the rules I have to stop using EVEMON and looking up prices on web sites like eve-central.


Also, what the heck does that paragraph about multi-boxing mean?? It could not be less clear.
You seem to be saying you can't/won't say if any particular tool is a violation. So, uh, what am I supposed to do?
Do you really think that "you'll find out if it is a violation when we ban you." is a reasonable approach?

Actually it doesn't matter how essential the service is. The aim of consumer protection laws are simply to offset the advantage that corporate interests with deep pockets have.

Whilst we still somewhat get screwed over by the large corporates over here in the EU. It's a hell of a lot better than in the US.

Thank you and your team for doing so much to kill botting. Botting needed to go. Everyone knows/agrees with that because it's an automatic ISK generator that requires almost zero input from the player, and thus unfair to everyone.

However, by making the use of market analysis & aggregation tools and overview packs potentially bannable offenses, you have effectively curb-stomped some basic gameplay options enjoyed by the vast majority of your player base. Those tools do not give an easy-mode ISK button to anyone, and are therefore not in the same spirit as botting.

Those tools were created as a response to what's lacking in the Eve Online client. CCP doesn't offer any comprehensive in-game methods for sharing and processing market information with realistic tools. I'm assuming better market analysis tools than MetaTrader and ThinkOrSwim would exist in YC114. But they aren't in the client, so your players are forced to look to outside help for dealing with the realities of Eve's incredibly engaging "realistic economy".

When it comes to PvP, I, for one, don't have the time to make my own overview tabs and packs, let alone for all of my accounts. I rely on others to do that work for me so I can focus on what my gameplay specializations are. I simply don't understand how sharing little XML files that represent overview tabs and filters could be used to gain an unfair advantage over other players. We all have access to essentially the same overview packs, if one bothers to spam google for five minutes. Because, again, there is no in-game way to share and process this information.

Eve is so much about the meta-game. I'd go so far to say the only reason I play Eve Online is for the metagame. So my request to you is simple: Don't just permit the metagame, enable the metagame to reach its potential, within limits. You wanted to build a sandbox game, and you have, exceedingly well in fact.

Please give us a CCP-sanctioned way of accessing arbitrary data about the sandbox, beef up your API functionality and capacity, maybe even make it compatible with other real-world systems, and let us continue our relationship with you as it's been: we make the tools and toys to fill in the blanks you and your development team don't have time or resources to produce. It's been a functional relationship up until now. There is absolutely no reason any of us are aware of that would keep this relationship from continuing, other than the current EULA interpretation.

Thanks for your consideration.

A question came to mind, and maybe I missed it due to the # of posts. Was this vetted through CSM 7? If so, was their opposition? If they weren't consulted, then why have a CSM? Is CSM 7 successful? I read the CSM rep who said he gave input after the decision was made.

This is something I would love to see. However it's not my department I'm afraid. I will however suggest this to Soundwave and Seagull. But I can't promise anything.

We're not trying to make people that aren't hurting the game out to be bad people. A lot of cool things come out of third party tools. But I also don't want the misconception that has been, admittedly as a result of a mistake on our end, believed to be allowed by the EULA.