These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#441 - 2013-04-18 21:20:10 UTC
Sarmatiko wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
I do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent.

But threats are still there on "clarification page":
Quote:
That said, unless there is an extreme case (i.e., cache scraping combined with other EULA violations), we will not penalize players who have engaged in this practice prior to 15 April 2013. Now that we have made our intent and policy clear, we may, in our sole discretion, deliver appropriate penalties for players that engage in cache scraping after 15 April 2013 (including temporary or permanent bans).


If you wont take any actions against players, why this text still exist in initial failed form (not even mention wrong date)?


Hey, thanks for your input. The policy page needs to be updated by the web team. It'll happen ASAP.

CCP Peligro - Team Security
Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
#442 - 2013-04-18 21:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Inquisitor Kitchner
CCP Peligro wrote:
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if you're saying the EULA hasn't changed, what exactly was it the Dev Blog was supposed to achieve?

If cache scraping was always against the EULA, but you're still not going to ban "legitimate" EVE players, what purpose was the Dev Blog supposed to achieve?


The Dev blog was intended to inform players about our increased efforts towards getting rid of cheaters. We temporarily banned 2350 accounts today for verified abuse of an "autopilot to 0" hack. So, if you are using some kind of bot or hack for EVE, now is a good time to stop.

There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.



I appreciate that hindsight is 20/20, and to be honest I nearly always give CCP the benefit of the doubt as I think 90% of the time you are the most passionate and caring developers in the world.

However I think you would probably agree it may have been a mistake to release this dev blog with the message that is sends. A simple dev blog clarifying that the security team will be re-doubling efforts to catch cheaters would have been enough, and just been honest and said it has been a grey area for a long time, and it will still be a grey area but you're all going to do your best to clear it up.

I read through the Dev Blog and it definitely has the tone that "something has changed", rather then you saying "nothing has changed, you're just putting more effort in" (which is good, I just don't think your message is pretty clear).

Still, you're responding to player questions and feedback still at this time where I would have clocked out until 9am tomorrow morning, or possibly even ignored them entirely, so I think you deserve credit for intentions and effort, if not execution Roll

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#443 - 2013-04-18 21:25:30 UTC
Okay officially confused.

Yes or No, Can I continue using ISboxer to mission in my 5 man fleet?

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#444 - 2013-04-18 21:27:13 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if you're saying the EULA hasn't changed, what exactly was it the Dev Blog was supposed to achieve?

If cache scraping was always against the EULA, but you're still not going to ban "legitimate" EVE players, what purpose was the Dev Blog supposed to achieve?


The Dev blog was intended to inform players about our increased efforts towards getting rid of cheaters. We temporarily banned 2350 accounts today for verified abuse of an "autopilot to 0" hack. So, if you are using some kind of bot or hack for EVE, now is a good time to stop.

There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.



This once a year hullabaloo over a mass banning is getting really old. You guys have a performance bonus tied to the start of Fanfest or something?

Please report your ban efforts at least quarterly. Then maybe you won't have players spending a year of cheating before you bring out the ban hammer.


Alona Gene
Doomheim
#445 - 2013-04-18 21:28:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Alona Gene
Quote:
Our stance on third-party software is that we do not endorse such software as we have no control over what it does. As such, we can’t say that multiboxing software isn’t against our EULA.


So, ISBoxer charges a subscription fee to provide updates to their software.
Your marketing department should be ON THAT.

Make your own software that is specialized in eve, that you have control over, works better, AND costs say, 1 plex per 90 days of sub.

A. More subscriptions.
B. More money per subscription (adding more paid services to the game)
C. CCP makes more money, uses money to make eve an even better game / company.

Hell, if 20% of subs in eve were buying an extra plex every 3 months for access to CCP's multi-boxing software, that would be (400,000 / 5 = 80,000 accounts, x 1 plex per 90 days = 320,000 more plex bought per year =...) a $5,600,000 increase in CCP annual revenue.
It doesn't take a genus to see how that could help.

**As the security team, has this idea come up before?

Maybe you could hire more people for the Art Department that you're always blaming as the bottleneck?
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#446 - 2013-04-18 21:32:21 UTC
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
Oh well. Much of the infrastructure that players have built up over the years comes tumbling down...

This is a very sad day IMO.

Sorry Steve, I know you have put in a lot of work for the community on it.


The new apps department needed to get a leg up over the "third party" community.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#447 - 2013-04-18 21:32:33 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
I genuinely do not know how to be any clearer than this: We will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.

I would've thought any and all terms forbidding illegal activities (i.e., botting) would take care of whatever punishment needs to be dealt out, well before "cache scraping" is even a talking point.

I guess the terms forbidding illegal activities (i.e., botting) doesn't take care of whatever punishment needs to be dealt out. This strikes me as odd, since I'm having a bit of an issue thinking up ways to do anything automatically in the game which doesn't break any rule in and of itself.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Michal Jita
Lords Of The Universe
#448 - 2013-04-18 21:39:47 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
Just out of curiosity, if you're saying the EULA hasn't changed, what exactly was it the Dev Blog was supposed to achieve?

If cache scraping was always against the EULA, but you're still not going to ban "legitimate" EVE players, what purpose was the Dev Blog supposed to achieve?


The Dev blog was intended to inform players about our increased efforts towards getting rid of cheaters. We temporarily banned 2350 accounts today for verified abuse of an "autopilot to 0" hack. So, if you are using some kind of bot or hack for EVE, now is a good time to stop.

There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document.


So basicaly any one else using any 'dodgy' software is OK for now and gets a warning on forums, but the guys caught using AP to 0 gets 30days ban, sound fair?

Did any one in CCP actually had a thought about: lets post this dav blog, warn again everyone, and after that anyone gets banned?
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#449 - 2013-04-18 21:51:43 UTC
Michal Jita wrote:
So basicaly any one else using any 'dodgy' software is OK for now and gets a warning on forums, but the guys caught using AP to 0 gets 30days ban, sound fair?


Well considering there isn't a single interpretation of rules, EULA, anything that would make AP to 0 software legal at all, yes, it's very fair.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#450 - 2013-04-18 21:57:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Tardbar
I have to say that the sites like eve-central and other cache scrapings sites used for mineral and production profits very useful.

It is very useful to have tools like that in order to profitably manufacture, mine, and trade.

It would be sad to see them all go the way of the dinosaurs just because of a few bad eggs.

I would agree that using cache scraping to bot market buy and sell orders should be banned, but to just look up multi-region prices is very useful for those of us who like to trade and haul.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#451 - 2013-04-18 22:01:29 UTC
Alona Gene wrote:
So, ISBoxer charges a subscription fee to provide updates to their software.
Your marketing department should be ON THAT.

Make your own software that is specialized in eve, that you have control over, works better, AND costs say, 1 plex per 90 days of sub.

A. More subscriptions.
B. More money per subscription (adding more paid services to the game)
C. CCP makes more money, uses money to make eve an even better game / company.

Hell, if 20% of subs in eve were buying an extra plex every 3 months for access to CCP's multi-boxing software, that would be (400,000 / 5 = 80,000 accounts, x 1 plex per 90 days = 320,000 more plex bought per year =...) a $5,600,000 increase in CCP annual revenue.
It doesn't take a genus to see how that could help.

**As the security team, has this idea come up before?

Maybe you could hire more people for the Art Department that you're always blaming as the bottleneck?


I doubt they'd ever do that. They'd have to develop a solution that is just as good as ISBoxer while having enough EVE-specific features to justify the 20-33% price difference. Otherwise they'd be telling players "hey use our horribly inferior multiboxing software which isn't anywhere as good as ISBoxer" and nobody would switch, or worse, they'd only allow multiboxers to use the CCP software, which would probably cause a good number of multiboxers who do anything more complicated than ice mining to reduce their number of accounts.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#452 - 2013-04-18 22:05:07 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Big Jim Slade wrote:
What about all those Overview modifications by changing the overviews .xml file? Are you also checking modified .xml files to see if players are making your game more user friendly and ban them?


Nope, no worries on that one. We are after the hackers, botters and the RMTers.


wait, there's a program I can use that makes overview settings make sense?!?!?! HOLY SHITE! And I've wasted all these years hammering into my head over and over how the hell to use the damned thing! lol, seriously, though, someone mail me the link to this thing, I want to link it in my corp's MOTD along with links to other things that help make eve easier to understand. :)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#453 - 2013-04-18 22:09:58 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
virm pasuul wrote:
If this thread is good for one thing - it's good for letting me know who I should avoid having any contact ( apart from non consesual pvp ) with in game.

All effing sense has gone out of the window, and all we are left with is board lawyering and nit picking.

CCP have bent over backwards trying to make it as clear as possible - even highlighting posts when players "get it" - that although certain things might be technically against the ELUA they don't intend to enforce them - because they they aren't against the spirit of the rules.

Try and use a little common sense, it works wonders.
If after 19 pages you don't get it - you never will, enjoy your worry time.

You're lucky it's CCP who are in charge, if it was me, I would just switch the server off for 30 days and go down the pub to toast your tears.

No, it's you who doesn't "get it". CCP is notoriously unreliable, GMs and devs contradict each other all the time. One dev says something is allowed, two months later another dev can and will say that something is a bannable offense, and furthermore they can retroactively ban you for it so even if you're modifying your behavior whenever they come out with some cute new interpretation of the EULA that says what you previously were doing that you were told was okay isn't now, you can be banned for it.

Never take anyone from the CCP security team at their word. It's not that they're dishonest, it's that they're so damn careful to word things such that if you're actually reading carefully enough, they're not making any promises about anything, so they can at any time decide to ban someone for using EVEMon's cache scraper, for example. And you won't be able to do a damn thing about it because nothing in this thread explicitly said that it was okay.

I don't care what the devs say in this thread. I don't care what some dev blog says. I turned off the cache scraping feature months ago when CCP Sreegs indicated that he thought it should be illegal (which of course implied that it wasn't, but that could change at any time). I'm not turning it back on until the EULA specifically says it's okay.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#454 - 2013-04-18 22:11:30 UTC
Selena Na'sharr wrote:

I've got no intentions of turning my keyboard into a bot. (why'd I pay a monthly fee just for my keyboard to have all the fun. ;))

Cute ';..;'
Arcaus Rotrau Romali
Empyrean Enterprise Conglomerate
#455 - 2013-04-18 22:12:52 UTC
Quote:
We recognize that some players have engaged in cache scraping in the past, and we want to be clear this practice is not permitted. That said, unless there is an extreme case (i.e., cache scraping combined with other EULA violations), we will not penalize players who have engaged in this practice prior to 15 April 2013. Now that we have made our intent and policy clear, we may, in our sole discretion, deliver appropriate penalties for players that engage in cache scraping after 15 April 2013 (including temporary or permanent bans). In addition, we also may consider eliminating the cache to eliminate this practice and for performance reasons.


Fwiw I'll post my interpretation.

CCP says all cache scraping is against their rules.
They know it can be used for good or bad.
When it's part of an investigation of rule-breaking they'll determine any punishments based on the way it's used.
They might take it all away in the future.

It does require trust in the powers that be and there is apparently some history on that subject but I haven't been around long enough to address that.
CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#456 - 2013-04-18 22:14:11 UTC
Michal Jita wrote:

So basicaly any one else using any 'dodgy' software is OK for now and gets a warning on forums, but the guys caught using AP to 0 gets 30days ban, sound fair?


That is not the case at all, our bot detection services run 24/7, 365, and bad guys are dealt with on a daily basis.
We recently announced changes in our policies against botting, so if that interests you, please have a look: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/74632

This was a case of us targeting a specific application, as we have done in the past. I am very much pleased with the results of this particular operation, this version of the AP0 hack is now being detected. You will get caught if you use it, and we will continue to add to this list.

CCP Peligro - Team Security
Ereilian
Doomheim
#457 - 2013-04-18 22:17:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ereilian
Arcaus Rotrau Romali wrote:
Quote:
We recognize that some players have engaged in cache scraping in the past, and we want to be clear this practice is not permitted. That said, unless there is an extreme case (i.e., cache scraping combined with other EULA violations), we will not penalize players who have engaged in this practice prior to 15 April 2013. Now that we have made our intent and policy clear, we may, in our sole discretion, deliver appropriate penalties for players that engage in cache scraping after 15 April 2013 (including temporary or permanent bans). In addition, we also may consider eliminating the cache to eliminate this practice and for performance reasons.


Fwiw I'll post my interpretation.

CCP says all cache scraping is against their rules.
They know it can be used for good or bad.
When it's part of an investigation of rule-breaking they'll determine any punishments based on the way it's used.
They might take it all away in the future.

It does require trust in the powers that be and there is apparently some history on that subject but I haven't been around long enough to address that.


Trust and consistency. It has also yet to be made clear why cache mining (scraping sounds like something you do to an itch) is oh so bad, it is simply retrieving information that should be freely available if CCP had the arse to do it. The "crime" is not the mining, it is what the application does with the information it has mined, and yet again CCP security show their incompetence and inability to make the game secure without resorting to short cuts.

So please CCP tell me why mining data from the cache is bad? Forget the applications, why is getting that information a bannable offense?

edit ... OH and its Fanfest time again, no surprise Team Insecurity are crapping up the forums again.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#458 - 2013-04-18 22:20:15 UTC
Sirane Elrek wrote:
Andski wrote:
I have MSVS 2010 on my PC, I guess I should get rid of it before CCP deems it a EULA violation because it can be used to not just design, but compile, debug and test botting software!

upgrade to 2012, its C++ intellisense is a lot better than 2010's

Hahaha, so true. I'm using 2010 and it keeps telling me that private class members accessed by friend classes and functions are inaccessible. It's irritating having all that red covering your code even though you know it's fine.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#459 - 2013-04-18 22:20:36 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Cal Stantson wrote:

Then it shouldn't be cache scraping that's considered illegal, it should be the things people are doing with it to cheat that's considered illegal.


Its not guns that kill people nor the finger that pulls the guns trigger that kills people... its the bullet that goes thru peoples heads that kills people Shocked

Wouldn't it be more precise to say the brain that triggered the neurons to fire to enable the purchase of the bullet... etc.
Daquaris
Aegis Victorium
The Initiative.
#460 - 2013-04-18 22:21:34 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Artctura wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
Thank you for all your comments and concerns regarding cache scraping, we are listening and we truly appreciate your feedback.

After consulting with CCP Legal and Team Security, we are not prepared to amend the EULA at this time to address your concerns. However, your comments are good ones, and we will consider incorporating them with the next scheduled update to the EULA (expected this fall, 2013).

In the meantime, CCP confirms that we will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.



Can we *ALSO* get this from CCP Stillman? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd really prefer it to come from the person in charge of the people with the ban button.


Stillman is not in charge of the people with the ban button, he is CCPs Security Analyst.
Our boss is GM Solomon, VP of Customer Relationship Management.

The word comes from Team Security as well as CCPs Legal department. It is official and you can quote me on it! Big smile


Unfortunately, someone from CCP saying "you can quote me on it" is generally understood to be appended with "for this week - maybe next, until someone flip-flops on it again".

I'm sorry - but this is how you appear in the eyes of your customers - especially long-term customers..