These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#461 - 2013-04-18 22:23:02 UTC
KIller Wabbit wrote:
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.




Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.

We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.

CCP Peligro - Team Security
Ereilian
Doomheim
#462 - 2013-04-18 22:25:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Ereilian
CCP Peligro wrote:



Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.

We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.
Arcaus Rotrau Romali
Empyrean Enterprise Conglomerate
#463 - 2013-04-18 22:26:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Arcaus Rotrau Romali
Pelea Ming wrote:
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.


Pretty sure it's when the body no longer metabolizes oxygen and distributes it to the cells that kills people.


to add content:

Ereilian wrote:
[snip]

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.


I'm not in IT or anything, didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I think the problem is it's a gateway to the things they DO want to eliminate, but for now they'll tolerate it when it's not abused until another solution is found or it's not worth the headache.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#464 - 2013-04-18 22:27:22 UTC
Ereilian wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:



Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.

We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.


2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent?

Comparing accounts banned to the amount of the active subscriptions is kind of useless, don't you think?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ereilian
Doomheim
#465 - 2013-04-18 22:30:32 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Ereilian wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:



Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.

We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.


2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent?

Comparing accounts banned to the amount of the active subscriptions is kind of useless, don't you think?


With the amount of backslapping going on, its a pretty fair assesment of the time invested compared to the results. Especially when the resources used by Team Security could be redeployed into making the game better.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#466 - 2013-04-18 22:34:09 UTC
I'm just waiting for the day you guys decide multiboxing programs are the new "bad guy." After all, technically, they are an automation of the game, in that they allow you to automatically perform the same action at the same time across multiple accounts, where as those without such a program must take the time to manually do so across all said accounts. :P

Sorry, I do realize I'm being abit of the "devil's advocate" here with this one... however, it might be a good idea, not to reply to this post about it, though your more then welcome to do so, but instead to take some time to seriously think about this. And for a specific example, I have a friend who uses a multibox program to run his own entire Incursion Vanguard fleet, which consists of it's own Off Grid Boosters, 2 Scimitar Pilots, 3 Vindicator Pilots, and 6 Nightmare Pilots (all ships fully faction fitted, clones max implanted, etc). Quite the little isk making venture he has going on their. Oh, wait, he uses a program to actively acquire isk... at least a second violation of TOS/EULA! :P
CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#467 - 2013-04-18 22:35:32 UTC
Ereilian wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:



Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.

We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.


2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent?


Ereilian, I won't humor you with any further replies, but the banned users are not the only ones affected by this operation. The vast majority of our players are lovely legitimate individuals who don't cheat, hack or bot, and I am sure that they appreciate our efforts in this area.

As for the amount of time spent on this operation, I've spent more time replying to this thread. Smile

CCP Peligro - Team Security
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#468 - 2013-04-18 22:41:13 UTC
Minimax Zed wrote:
why not have a discussion with CCP Legal to change the EULA to address something that the vast majority of the playerbase does? If it won't be enforced anyway, why have it in the EULA at all?

I'd rather see a way to access this information outside the legal implications. (I.e. a local PUSH server running by EVE client, that a 3'rd party application can connect to and feed some data.)

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
sashamoreeeeeeeeeee
XENOMORPH KILLER SQUAD
#469 - 2013-04-18 22:43:31 UTC
i think ccp should be investigated and fined or prosecuted installing spy software on peoples computers me personally have nothing too hide come check me out but I am considering weather I want too play this game when u installing spy wear on my computer
CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#470 - 2013-04-18 22:43:49 UTC
Ereilian wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Ereilian wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:



Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.

We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.


2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent?

Comparing accounts banned to the amount of the active subscriptions is kind of useless, don't you think?


With the amount of backslapping going on, its a pretty fair assesment of the time invested compared to the results. Especially when the resources used by Team Security could be redeployed into making the game better.


I did not say anything about the time invested at all. I said that this particular operation started as an idea two months ago, and was finished today. You are of course free to make assumptions.

As for Team Security, we make the game better by dealing with cheaters and botters. This is actually my main concern; the general well being of the game, and the ability for the players to enjoy our product. Nobody wants to play a game where cheating is rampant.

CCP Peligro - Team Security
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#471 - 2013-04-18 22:47:19 UTC
Sebastian Hoch wrote:
This reminds me of the Obama administration stupidly dancing around the question if they can kill US citizens with Drones. "yes we can, but we won't".


You can kill people with bare hands. Should you be put in jail or have your hands cut?

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Ereilian
Doomheim
#472 - 2013-04-18 22:49:06 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Ereilian wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:



Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.

We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.


2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent?


Ereilian, I won't humor you with any further replies, but the banned users are not the only ones affected by this operation. The vast majority of our players are lovely legitimate individuals who don't cheat, hack or bot, and I am sure that they appreciate our efforts in this area.

As for the amount of time spent on this operation, I've spent more time replying to this thread. Smile


Thank you for at least replying, and yet the penny has yet to drop that thinking prior to announcing tend to lead to simple and easy discussion and congratulations rather than inflaming the community with ill thought out, worded and implemented changes to established understandings.

Your time here is your own fault I am afraid, a direct result of your own actions.
Boris Borison
Perkone
Caldari State
#473 - 2013-04-18 22:50:10 UTC
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 do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent.


Learn to English, please

You've repeated it a couple of times and it's still making my head hurtSad

You'll impose penalties for cache scraping, but only if there's other illegal activities too. Care to explain how cache scraping is even relevant in such a case?

"Oh no I've been perma banned for botting/client modding, but as I also scrapped the cache CCP sent me strongly worded letter"

If you want to make cache scrapping illegal, just encrypt it, or am I missing something here?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#474 - 2013-04-18 22:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Tonto Auri wrote:
Minimax Zed wrote:
why not have a discussion with CCP Legal to change the EULA to address something that the vast majority of the playerbase does? If it won't be enforced anyway, why have it in the EULA at all?

I'd rather see a way to access this information outside the legal implications. (I.e. a local PUSH server running by EVE client, that a 3'rd party application can connect to and feed some data.)

Minimax, I think you missed the update that said the EULA is due for renewal and updates this fall and they will look into doing just that.

Tonto, you will probably find the sessions coming up at Fanfest on how Crest is coming along very informative.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#475 - 2013-04-18 22:52:08 UTC
Ereilian wrote:
With the amount of backslapping going on, its a pretty fair assesment of the time invested compared to the results. Especially when the resources used by Team Security could be redeployed into making the game better.

Nobody in this thread is against CCP enforcing rules against cheating, whether it's through botting, client modification, or RMT. What we are against is CCP flip-flopping about things which are used by a majority of players and previously said to be perfectly legitimate.

It's like if they came out tomorrow and said scamming was against the EULA but you won't be banned for it.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#476 - 2013-04-18 22:52:49 UTC
Boris Borison 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 do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent.


Learn to English, please

You've repeated it a couple of times and it's still making my head hurtSad

You'll impose penalties for cache scraping, but only if there's other illegal activities too. Care to explain how cache scraping is even relevant in such a case?

"Oh no I've been perma banned for botting/client modding, but as I also scrapped the cache CCP sent me strongly worded letter"

If you want to make cache scrapping illegal, just encrypt it, or am I missing something here?




Yes.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#477 - 2013-04-18 22:54:13 UTC
Ereilian wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:
Ereilian wrote:
CCP Peligro wrote:



Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.

We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.


2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent?


Ereilian, I won't humor you with any further replies, but the banned users are not the only ones affected by this operation. The vast majority of our players are lovely legitimate individuals who don't cheat, hack or bot, and I am sure that they appreciate our efforts in this area.

As for the amount of time spent on this operation, I've spent more time replying to this thread. Smile


Thank you for at least replying, and yet the penny has yet to drop that thinking prior to announcing tend to lead to simple and easy discussion and congratulations rather than inflaming the community with ill thought out, worded and implemented changes to established understandings.

Your time here is your own fault I am afraid, a direct result of your own actions.


It's very easy to over estimate the intelligence of the EvE community.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
#478 - 2013-04-18 22:54:56 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
Minimax Zed wrote:
why not have a discussion with CCP Legal to change the EULA to address something that the vast majority of the playerbase does? If it won't be enforced anyway, why have it in the EULA at all?

I'd rather see a way to access this information outside the legal implications. (I.e. a local PUSH server running by EVE client, that a 3'rd party application can connect to and feed some data.)

Minimax, I think you missed the update that said the EULA is due for renewal and updates this fall and they will look into doing just that.

Updates to EULA have nothing to do to data availability.

Quote:
Tonto, you will probably find the sessions coming up at Fanfest on how Crest is coming along very informative.

Unfortunately, I won't. I don't understand english from listening. It's just not a "language" for me.

Two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. -- Harlan Ellison
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#479 - 2013-04-18 22:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Tonto Auri wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Tonto Auri wrote:
Minimax Zed wrote:
why not have a discussion with CCP Legal to change the EULA to address something that the vast majority of the playerbase does? If it won't be enforced anyway, why have it in the EULA at all?

I'd rather see a way to access this information outside the legal implications. (I.e. a local PUSH server running by EVE client, that a 3'rd party application can connect to and feed some data.)

Minimax, I think you missed the update that said the EULA is due for renewal and updates this fall and they will look into doing just that.

Updates to EULA have nothing to do to data availability.

Quote:
Tonto, you will probably find the sessions coming up at Fanfest on how Crest is coming along very informative.

Unfortunately, I won't. I don't understand english from listening. It's just not a "language" for me.

1: I never said it did. You'll notice that part was directed at Minimax, whom you quoted.
2: That explains a lot. Smile On a more serious note, I have little doubt there will be a blog devoted to it again at some point.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#480 - 2013-04-18 22:58:51 UTC
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:
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


Thanks, I appreciate it! It's 7pm here in Atlanta so I will sign off after this one, but I will be back tomorrow.

The message is absolutely that something has changed. We have never been more capable to deal with hackers, botters and the likes.
The dev blog touches on this subject, as one of the reasons why we opted for a temporary 30 day ban for the AP0 offenders, as opposed to the normal permanent ban for client modification.
I believe that the AP0 hack is (read: was) widespread partly due to CCPs inability to enforce the EULA/TOS properly in this regard in the past, and this is what I told Unifex in our discussions.

CCP Peligro - Team Security