These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#261 - 2013-04-18 17:28:18 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:
We can't green-list third party tools. For one thing, doing so could make us legally liable for the actions done by third parties. So I'm afraid it's not just feasible, even if it would make things easier.


Can you at least consider 'this data is fine to scrape, this data is not'? or 'It's fine to use the data way, this way is not'? Saying nobody can use it with a *wink*evemon is just fine!*wink*, that's just no way to run a business.
vidax
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#262 - 2013-04-18 17:29:17 UTC
So what you are saying, CCP, its now against your rules for me to read the data I have on my PC that you voluntarily put there?

...

Was gonna write a longer post explaining how this is a bad idea but then I realized, just like arguing with religious fanatics, there is no point arguing with someone who can not present a logical argument.

Enjoy your broken game
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#263 - 2013-04-18 17:29:18 UTC
Crybabies

Don't bot, modify the client and leave the cache alone and you'll be fine.

If you feel that you must cheat in a computer game, it's time to turn off the computer and get outside.


.
Kazanir
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#264 - 2013-04-18 17:29:28 UTC
I still don't understand what CCP hopes to accomplish here.

If third-party tools are using cache-scraping to do Bad Things, why can't CCP just ban those users for doing the Bad Things? Why does cache scraping need to be against the EULA at all?

I also echo the points of everyone else about how selective enforcement makes the written word totally meaningless.
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#265 - 2013-04-18 17:29:52 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:

The language of the third party policies post does not change the EULA. It simply explains the EULA more in depth.


Your consistent reasoning for the cache scraping ban is that it is sometimes used to assist in botting or other 'bad things' which are not allowed by the EULA. This raises the question, why is a ban on cache scraping needed at all? If the other things are already against the EULA, and you're investigating/banning those things, what does cache scraping have to do with it? You don't NEED cache scraping to be against the EULA to ban people doing bad things, which also happen to involve cache scraping.

analogy: "drinking water is against the EULA, but we're not gonna ban you for it so don't worry."
solution: make drinking water explicitly allowed by the EULA
result: doing bad things WHILE drinking water still gets you banned, because the bad things are against the EULA and nobody cares that you happened to be drinking water while doing it.

I don't know if you have any input into the language of the EULA or its official CCP interpretation, but this whole issue needs to be kicked up to someone who does, and fast.

I look forward to discussing this in person at fanfest.

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Chia Mulholland
Perkone
Caldari State
#266 - 2013-04-18 17:31:09 UTC
Starting the Eve client is also required for botting. You should totally make that against the EULA.
Richard Bong
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#267 - 2013-04-18 17:32:59 UTC
I really don't like that I am now breaking the EULA by using harmless tools like EVEmon. I understand what you are trying to do but maybe take another swing at it. There has to be a way that you can still ban people who are cheating without making the average user an E- criminal.

[ASK] Me about drive by thread shitting!
Vedrea
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#268 - 2013-04-18 17:33:00 UTC
If this news and EULA clarification (wiki article aside) had been mentioned to CSM members, I'm pretty sure they would have waved a load of red flags about how this might have been received.

Leaving the grey area over the cache-scraping is irresponsible. No good will come of it. You will alienate 3rd party application developers and, as you can see, you will confuse a whole bunch of people who require -exact-, straight lines in their world.

You're doing it wrong.


We are game players. Games have rules. They do not generally have fuzziness and a lot of us play games for the rules sake. Extrapolating out a little bit and you can perhaps see that presenting what could be interpreted as contradictory rules will -upset- some people. You should be abundantly, completely clear about rules.

I recommend that you take feedback on board (and announce this) and then prepare a full and complete response addressing the distinctions between how the EULA will be interpreted in a set of example cases. Be prepared to define your policy exactly, especially with how it relates to the use of 3rd party applications.

And please, sort out the disconnect between what you have said in this thread and the wiki article. That's *really* awful.
Tergerom Loregeron
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#269 - 2013-04-18 17:34:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tergerom Loregeron
Chia Mulholland wrote:
Starting the Eve client is also required for botting. You should totally make that against the EULA.


They are working on that as we speak. THERE SHALL BE NO BOTTERS IN EVE, EVEN IF IT MEANS WE MUST BURN DOWN THE TREES AND SALT THE LAND.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#270 - 2013-04-18 17:34:12 UTC
Ntrails wrote:
I can use autohotkey to automate certain timing for smartbombing battleships. This maximises the number of smartbomb cycles I can get off whilst neuted.

Is this against the EULA?
Quite obviously falls afoul of the “no macros” paragraph.

Kazanir wrote:
I still don't understand what CCP hopes to accomplish here.

If third-party tools are using cache-scraping to do Bad Things, why can't CCP just ban those users for doing the Bad Things? Why does cache scraping need to be against the EULA at all?
Redundancy. They may not have thought of all Bad Things players can imagine, so if a new one pops up and they want to nix it immediately, then maybe the no-scraping rule will be the perfect tool for the job.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#271 - 2013-04-18 17:34:16 UTC
All only regarding multiboxingsoftware.

[...] You may not use your own or third-party software to modify any content appearing within the Game environment or change how the Game is played.


[...] You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play
[...] As such, we can’t say that multiboxing software isn’t against our EULA. But the same goes in this case, that unless we determine that people are doing things beyond “multiboxing”, we will not be taking any action.


So... As long as they dont use it to archieve results beyond what you could manually manage, it's all ok?

WHAT IS THIS BAND-AID ARGUMENTATION? Honestly, I love CCP and the stuff they are doing right now, I love the war against botting. BUT WHAT IS THIS?

You basically say, 'you must not do that, but as long as you don't use it to multibox more efficiently than usual, nothing wrong with it' --- Honest, logical question. If that software wouldn't enhance your performance, why pay real money for it?
So you have a pay-to-win-button (hyperbel) that you are absolutely fine with? (It kind of is pay-to-win, even the biggest dork has to admit that 10 vexors are arguably better than 1 vexor, ALWAYS) Please enlighten me, why this is NOT to ban!
eddict
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#272 - 2013-04-18 17:35:07 UTC
if they ban market data scraping without a live market data API the economy is dead .. simple as that.
iskflakes
#273 - 2013-04-18 17:35:10 UTC
This policy is ridiculous.

Cache scraping is used to build up market databases such as eve-central. Without it we won't have any up to date searchable market information. Are you going to provide us a market data API? I didn't think so.

As the maintainer of a 3rd party fansite that makes extensive use of market data provided by eve-central, what should I do when the data vanishes? I may only have 400 regular users of my site, but that's 400 people who are going to lose access to a service they use regularly.

-
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2013-04-18 17:36:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadl
CCP Stillman wrote:
The language of the third party policies post does not change the EULA. It simply explains the EULA more in depth.


I believe the third party polices makes things less clear. Based on the various back and forth here, I think a reasonable person would conclude the same as I have.

CCP Stillman wrote:
We can't green-list third party tools. For one thing, doing so could make us legally liable for the actions done by third parties. So I'm afraid it's not just feasible, even if it would make things easier.


But, you, personally, were able to write a much better explanation of multiboxing in your Dev Blog.
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#275 - 2013-04-18 17:36:18 UTC
So much stupid is contained within this thread...

So many people who've apparently never read any EULA ever, and can't understand it even if they do...

So much whine....








Hold me ='(
Frogs
ONTAP
Goonswarm Federation
#276 - 2013-04-18 17:36:39 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
If your department doesn't have the capacity to evaluate and green-list third party tools then you need to avoid language that makes using any tool an EULA violation.

The language of the third party policies post does not change the EULA. It simply explains the EULA more in depth.

We can't green-list third party tools. For one thing, doing so could make us legally liable for the actions done by third parties. So I'm afraid it's not just feasible, even if it would make things easier.


This is so awesome. I'm going to get all of Test banned. I'll just sit in Delve and petition anyone that logs in changes a skill, then logs out as an obvious cheater. Clearly they used EVEmon (an evil third party tool that uses cache scraping and explicitly against the EULA) to know it was time to log in and make the in game change.

Thanks for this CCP.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#277 - 2013-04-18 17:36:46 UTC
Isphirel wrote:
What is even the point of having an EULA if your official stance is that most players are in violation of it, but benevolent as you are you won't ban most of them? Either have the EULA explicitly allow things that you don't intend to enforce (eg. things that are not botting) so that players who aren't botting can feel safe, or just throw it out completely and say you'll ban anybody whenever.

If your official policy is selective enforcement, then any written rule set is completely meaningless.

Actually, they DO say that they can ban you for any reason at their discretion, and you have been at the mercy of this policy since day one. You rely on them to not do so unless you are doing specific things (cheating/botting/hacking). That hasn't changed.

Yet we have not seen people panicing that technically they "could" be banned for any reason, at any time. That would be because people sometimes actually DO employ common sense, and have at least a modicum of faith that CCP does as well.

... and then this happened.

They clarified their common sense stance on the enforcement of their policies, and true to form many EvE players immediately devolve to the most ridiculous worst case "what if" scenario's that they can dream up.

Hang in there Stillman, eventually the more spastic members of the community will move on to the next "sky is falling" scenario.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2013-04-18 17:37:18 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Muscaat wrote:
CCP Stillman wrote:

Trust me, we have no interest in banning people unless they are doing something that hurts the game.

Then why post all this crap about suddenly deciding that cache scraping has always been against the EULA and threaten to ban those who do it?

This attempt to clarify the situation seems to have done anything but.

Only if you are incredibly obtuse.

Jesus, it's like a bunch of little kids nitpicking their parents...

"but you said I can have desert"
"I said you could have desert if you didin't get in trouble at school"
"but you said I can have desert".


Its more in the lines of being told to rules about getting a desert when you are 5 but 1 of the rules says if you are caught running you get no desert.

The fine line being when does skipping become running.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2013-04-18 17:38:27 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
Half the player population are now breaking the EULA. Nice job CCP.

This really is pathetic. How can you pop up and say half the player base are breaking the EULA and we will 'enforce at our discretion'? Please explain.

Our EULA hasn't changed in this regard. This is the EULA we've always had. We have not outlawed cache scraping as of today. It has always been against our EULA. It's at our discretion as to enforcing it.

What has been said previously is, and I quote (from http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=734561):
CCP Lingorm wrote:
As long as you do not modify the file in question it is technically not against the EULA or TOS. It is only a cached version of a database method call.

If you do try to change it it will not actually effect the corp standings only the data YOU see in your client (which could cause problems for you).

In short : Yes you can do it, please don't change the file.

and
CCP Lingorm wrote:
As long as you do not modify the cache files then you are free to read them and write tools for them. Of course we do not support these tools (*grin*) and if we change the cache file structure of methods they may break, not that I see this happening but it is possible.

And to make perfectly clear. If you modify them then your client may break.


Which part of technically not against the EULA or TOS is suddenly transformed into against the EULA/TOS?

CCP Stillman wrote:
Team Security focuses on what we can do to stop macroing and RMT. That is where we will spend our time. So take that for what you want.

So which is it, am I on the EULA/TOS-breaking list or am I not?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
#280 - 2013-04-18 17:38:50 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
If your department doesn't have the capacity to evaluate and green-list third party tools then you need to avoid language that makes using any tool an EULA violation.

The language of the third party policies post does not change the EULA. It simply explains the EULA more in depth.

We can't green-list third party tools. For one thing, doing so could make us legally liable for the actions done by third parties. So I'm afraid it's not just feasible, even if it would make things easier.

Then ban everyone who uses them.

You can't operate with a policy where literally all your customers are breaking the EULA and you're merely deciding not to ban at this point in time.