These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#541 - 2013-04-19 09:17:15 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
This is not about cache scratching - this is because CCP is going in the wrong way.
Ok i know bots are bad - and you have to brake this - but instead of making them unusable on game level - CCP is monitoring our PC.

To be honest - if you put some indexing software running on your PC - it could try to index also content of eve cache.

Will THIS get you banned?

I'm kind of programmer - i don't have education in this direction - every thing i know i learned by myself , mostly by mistakes - and hours spent on fixing them.

I know that most of software i use interacts one with other running aps - sometimes on level most of the people are not aware of.
For almost 2 years i was able to hold myself from "creating" something that will interact with a game - because i know - that this will kill all the pleasure of playing it.
( the reason i stopped playing Ultima Online )

And now someone could ban me because i have some strange software running on my PC?

OMG - I HAVE SOMETHING THAT interacts directly with EVE.
After running EVE clients i run my own app that rearranges/ resizes windows that they fit on my screen.
I use it for my all apps .....


Indexing is by default part of (at least) the last three released Windows operating systems. I seriously doubt CCP cares about indexing either as part of your OS or by a third party program.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#542 - 2013-04-19 09:22:39 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:
why do people still insist that eve-mon is doing cache scrapes?

Because it is.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Anthar Thebess
#543 - 2013-04-19 09:29:49 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

To be honest - if you put some indexing software running on your PC - it could try to index also content of eve cache.

Indexing is by default part of (at least) the last three released Windows operating systems. I seriously doubt CCP cares about indexing either as part of your OS or by a third party program.


Ok.
Im homemade programmer still - what is the difference of using cache directly or "indexed" version?.
I never looked on those files, still why not just make something that will make a copy of them - and use this copy?
CCP MUST monitor all operations on those files.

On the other hand if i want to be safe - i make windows to backup specific file ( eve cache ) every minute - to a network location.
( second PC) - and there evil stuff it is going on.
2 pc? then 1 pc version.
I use as simple as some VM software running shell linux that will do all the evil stuff on those backup files.


This is what i mean.
if something is sitting on my drive me / my system / tons of different apps can do strange stuff with it.

CCP should not focus on the stuff going on in the client PC - but block it on the Server level.
Nagnor
The Happy Shooters
#544 - 2013-04-19 09:50:55 UTC
seth Hendar wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
seth Hendar wrote:
Lallante wrote:
seth Hendar wrote:
as a RL lawyer, you should be aware that this is dependent of the countrys, and in france, if CCP ban someone with no reason, said person can fill a lawsuit and will win, because of customer protective laws (btw, EULA are of no value at all in France).


Incorrect. While a EULA might not be legally enforceable as a contract, that doesn't prevent CCP from refusing access to its services to whoever it likes for whatever reason it likes. At best consumer protection law might get you a refund of unused, pre-purchased subscription time (doesnt apply if you use ISK bought plexs), which will be vastly less than any legal fees incurred, so good luck with that.

enlighten me. EULA is of no value at all in france


Just reread his paragraph. How would France force an unban?

they wouldn't, but CCP will have to pay many RL money, and i mean big time


Absolutely right. The EULA has never been tested legally (in court), but the there have been numerous cases where EULAs (and the customer's accepting to it) have been invalidated, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. or other law. It is interesting to know that the right of reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability in included in laws in different countries/regions and just claiming that as a customer you waive those legal right doesn't cut it.

Strictly speaking CCP makes the use of their product/service unusable because of their EULA. Your OS meets the criteria of 6.3 "3rd party software ... that facilitate acquisition of items... " and therefore may not be used. That in fact as a good customer you are not actually using those particular facilities does not invalidate the applicability of that article

Regarding sanctions/actions against CCP, that can range from refunding of unused GameTime, refunding of past and future GameTime( given the cummulative nature of the game), compensation of damages (very favored in US), enforcing to stop service customers in a particular country (if found to be intentionally misleading) to being forced to relocate their servers (which afaik are in UK) back to Iceland and only allow Icelandic customers (which is a very small market).

But you are right it depends on how far you as a customer and CCP are willing to push it. Both you and CCP will have to do a cost-benefit analysis for such a legal conflict. In some cases legal aid insurrances pay some compensations to their clients for not pushing the matter futher.
whaynethepain
#545 - 2013-04-19 09:57:17 UTC
CCP

I accept your terms, thankyou.

Would it also be possible to ban the 'spam bots' in Jita local chat. I can't get a word in

Getting you on your feet.

So you've further to fall.

Wanderer Unknown
Trust N1
#546 - 2013-04-19 10:01:03 UTC
I think there is a confusion cache scraping is not the same as reading the market exports. Many tools I know use the latter.
W.r.t. multi-boxing - I haven't had a chance to use one yet (requires a lot of capital and time) but I'm very interested in an officially supported way of multi-boxing as a way to enable solo players (who just don't like flying in fleets) to participate in PVP and nullsec wars. E.g. that fleet of 18 Nagas swimming together I've just seen in Jita is totally awesome... :)
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#547 - 2013-04-19 10:17:05 UTC
I have deleted some trolling in this thread.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents

quiki1
Jack Daniels Elite Squadron
Fraternity.
#548 - 2013-04-19 10:20:18 UTC
I have 2 banned accaunt , will judge you for it! I pay regularly for 3 accounts! A lot of money for such an attitude !
Tnx CCP but its chame ! u must banned bots who macking iskis every min and spamers ....
looking for a lawyer noу and will judge u !
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#549 - 2013-04-19 10:24:57 UTC
virm pasuul wrote:


CCP have made themselves clear. . . . . the spirit of the ELUA.



Please will everyone carry on with their legitimate EVE things. Things that aren't against the spirit of the EULA. The security team have made a real effort here to show their motivation in the blog and their subsequent posts. I feel they've made it clear that, although they can't talk in absolutes about specifics, their intention is to facilitate things in the spirit of the EULA, in the spirit of EVE, but to allow themselves scope to impact activities that are blatant exploitations.

The security team have made real efforts here to shed the aura of officiousness that usually accompanies people in "Security" type roles. I strongly believe that they are reaching out to us as a community and want to be seen as on our side, and I think we owe it to them to let them in. After their efforts to be open with us, (and they've taken a kicking on this thread, and their responses have been amongst the most freindly and non-confrontational blue posts I've ever seen on a forum), after these efforts I think decency demands we let them in.

Statements of the rules from someone or something in authority will always come across as threatening to some extent. We all have to put up with unwanted interference and restrictions from authority in our real lives. EVE is our escapism, (what we choose to invest our free time and imagination in), so there is going to be a reaction against perceived "threats" from authority in our escape from the same thing IRL.

To keep EVE strong any competative advantage has to come from real player skill. Everything in the game is PVP - Economics and fighting - Even PVE and Mining in the context of the economy is PVP in EVE's capitalist markets. To keep the game real and meaningful we expect to compete inside the envelope of the spirit of the game. And we need that to be policed.

Security want to keep the game meaningful - for us. To do this they need to be able to act against abuses of the system. We react angrily about invasions of authority into our EVE world - but we only react because EVE has meaning to us - we need to let Security have the tools they need to keep EVE meaningful. And we should be freindly to them and thank them for it. If we snub them and turn them away please consider how much we could lose.
eXeler0n
Shark Coalition
#550 - 2013-04-19 10:28:07 UTC
Whats with IS Boxer?

eXeler0n

============================

Quafe:  http://quafe.de

Blogpack:  http://eveblogs.de

quiki1
Jack Daniels Elite Squadron
Fraternity.
#551 - 2013-04-19 10:29:22 UTC
8 years i paying and saport you CCP for what ?
with that you repay us ?
pfff
Anthar Thebess
#552 - 2013-04-19 10:37:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Anthar Thebess
eXeler0n wrote:
Whats with IS Boxer?

http://isboxer.com/

You click in one place - and this is transferred to a 5 other running eve clients.
So 6 accounts are doing the same thing.

Now guess what - few minutes in web and i found EVE Bots running on ... IsBoxer.
Instead connecting to eve client they connect them self to IsBoxer - then isBoxer ( as accepted software ) do the rest.


So CCP - this means that IsBoxer is now forbidden?
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#553 - 2013-04-19 10:54:11 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
eXeler0n wrote:
Whats with IS Boxer?

http://isboxer.com/

You click in one place - and this is transferred to a 5 other running eve clients.
So 6 accounts are doing the same thing.

Now guess what - few minutes in web and i found EVE Bots running on ... IsBoxer.
Instead connecting to eve client they connect them self to IsBoxer - then isBoxer ( as accepted software ) do the rest.


So CCP - this means that IsBoxer is now forbidden?


Since it's a player doing it, i don't think there's an issue.

I would like an official statement from CCP, i made a pettition and got a link to this thread, however no CCP guy have answered it yet.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 

Anthar Thebess
#554 - 2013-04-19 10:59:24 UTC
Not in this cases - instead player providing input for isboxer - bot is doing this.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#555 - 2013-04-19 11:02:26 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Not in this cases - instead player providing input for isboxer - bot is doing this.


That argument is vague, i don't see how you could setup a complete bot using ISBoxer, you must have some thirdparty software involved.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 

Abditus Cularius
Clancularius Industries
#556 - 2013-04-19 11:16:17 UTC
Ban em hard and ban em often, CCP. There's plenty of us who are applauding from the non-botter seats that don't need to roleplay lawyer over every word.
Bloody Wench
#557 - 2013-04-19 11:16:35 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.


Autopilot to 0 is injection, so therefore is client modification, already a bannable offence and nothing to do with the cache.

You want to talk about something that's been the same way FOREVER?
You can directly insert and execute arbitrary code into the eve client.....even today.

All you're doing with this bullshit is taking a giant crap on the people that make your game better, FOR FREE BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE GAME.

You're just cocking your leg on the people that provide OOG content that you do not.

[u]**Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: **[/u]  CCP should not only make local delayed in highsec, but they should also require one be undocked to use it. Then, even the local spammers have some skin in the game. Support a High Resolution Texture Pack

virm pasuul
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#558 - 2013-04-19 11:25:44 UTC
Autopilot to 0 does not make Eve a better game. It makes Eve a worse game. Hence the ( temporary ) bans.
Consider it a warning if you are using other cheats - now is a really great time to stop cheating if you want to continue playing.
Expect other bans for other forms of cheating once CCP thinks the warning has had enough time to sink in.
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#559 - 2013-04-19 11:29:14 UTC
virm pasuul wrote:
Autopilot to 0 does not make Eve a better game. It makes Eve a worse game. Hence the ( temporary ) bans.
Consider it a warning if you are using other cheats - now is a really great time to stop cheating if you want to continue playing.
Expect other bans for other forms of cheating once CCP thinks the warning has had enough time to sink in.


Which is why alot of people would like to know the stance on multiboxing.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 

virm pasuul
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#560 - 2013-04-19 11:44:32 UTC  |  Edited by: virm pasuul
How can CCP give a definative answer on something like multiboxing when the software tools used to multibox are outside of their control?

If CCP looks at ISBoxer ( just as an example ) and comes to the conclusion that it's OK - Then they say "Yes it's OK to use ISBoxer"
What happens when the day after CCP said it's Ok ,the ISBoxer devs update the software and add a feature that CCP are very much against?
CCP just said it was OK to use it, but now it does different things to when CCP reviewed it.
CCP can't ban people for using something they said was OK to use. But it now breaks the rules, ELUA, spirit of the rules in a way that is definitely cheating. CCP are now stuck.


CCP deals with this by problem defining as best they can what is cheating.
They then say you can't use software that falls into their definition of cheating.
ITS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE IF THE SOFTWARE YOU WANT TO USE MEETS THIS DEFINITION OF CHEATING OR NOT.
If you are unsure then the simplest way to avoid problems is not to use the software.
It's not up to CCP to YES/NO every bit of software that they have no control over.