These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Dev blog: Holidays Greetings From Team Security! - 2014 In Numbers

First post First post
Author
CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#21 - 2014-12-19 16:27:52 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
Curious about one thing. Are you going to put the important parts of CCP Falcon's 25 November post in the Third Party Policies, ToS, or other official page connected to the EVE Online Rules of Conduct? Because I'm tired of all the space lawyers digging up posts for 2010 to justify their behavior. I'd love to just be able to say that all of the forum posts from before 1 January 2015 are outdated and no longer apply.


Yes absolutely. Reviewing our policy pages and providing a central location for all of these policies on our to-do list. No ETA, but we are working on it. I'd like an eveonline.com/security page, personally!

CCP Peligro - Team Security

CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#22 - 2014-12-19 16:29:04 UTC
Chribba wrote:
Woohooo!!! Good job!


Cheers, Chribba! Right back at you! Cool

CCP Peligro - Team Security

CCP Peligro
Doomheim
#23 - 2014-12-19 16:31:08 UTC
Bariolage wrote:
Only 42 isk in August?


"Six by nine. Forty two."
"That's it. That's all there is."
"I always thought something was fundamentally wrong with the universe."

CCP Peligro - Team Security

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#24 - 2014-12-19 17:02:27 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
bah! I want to see scales on both Axis of graphs!

Agreed. How can this be a "by the numbers" blog without numbers?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#25 - 2014-12-19 17:04:30 UTC
since macro use is such a large part of the pie it would be interested to see a further breakdown. I guess input replication is not part of it since it is still legal till january?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2014-12-19 17:14:27 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
1. It was quite an eventful month. We may delve deeper into this at next years fanfest. No spoilers, sorry!
2. There are a few different ban types grouped into "other" here - I'll mention some: CC Fraud, account sharing, account hacking and "repeated warnings or in-game violations" not covered under any of the other types of bans.

Bah! Tease! Lol

And ok, that makes sense. It seemed like a pretty huge chunk to be the kind of normal “minor issue” trashbin category, but if it includes all the silly things that can be done to an account and multi-violations, it would explain a lot.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#27 - 2014-12-19 17:33:57 UTC
I notice that, in the plots of bans and ISK confiscation, there is no general trend, either increasing or decreasing. That is, your efforts are keeping up with the violators, but nothing is happening to drive down the amount of rule breaking players do.

I have a feeling that most violators are new players that do not realize that what they are about to do will have consequences, that they will be caught. Many may not even know their actions are a violation. After all, how does a new player know it's illegal to bot? Read the EULA? Yeah, right, not many do that. Look at Dev blogs? In a month this one will be buried below several new ones.

Many other violators are players who know the rules, but think Team Security has stopped doing their job, so they can get away with it.

What you need to ask yourself: What are you doing to stop players from doing their first offense?

What is needed is deterrence. Deterrence not only reduces the amount of rule breaking, but also reduces the amount of business done by ISK sellers and bot writers. Reduce their income from Eve, and they may go elsewhere.

To be effective, deterrence needs to be overt, continuous, and persistent. I suggest that, on the launcher, there is always a little notice that says something like:

"Team Security report: Last month we handed out xx bans and confiscated yy trillion ISK for EULA violations."

No need to additional details, just give sufficient information that the players will always see you guys are on the job catching the bad guys.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#28 - 2014-12-19 18:01:05 UTC
Where it says:
"There is not much more to say about this matter than is already stated in the post and we trust we'll not have any trouble with this after January 1st 2015."
Does that mean the legitimate questions around the use of things like round robin/VFX which are still outstanding will simply not be answered?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#29 - 2014-12-19 18:12:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Where it says:
"There is not much more to say about this matter than is already stated in the post and we trust we'll not have any trouble with this after January 1st 2015."
Does that mean the legitimate questions around the use of things like round robin/VFX which are still outstanding will simply not be answered?


According to this, if 2 or more actions are performed by 1 keystroke/mouseclick, that is considered stored keystrokes and violates the EULA. Like pressing an ISBoxer hotkey and having the software execute F1 plus whatever command is required to cycle to the next client. ISBoxer users will need to input 2 commands, not 1.

Don't ask me how CCP plans to enforce it; that's just what I got from CCP Random on Twitter.

Oh, and if anyone tries to use an old post from the forums saying that's okay, don't bother. Looks like any of those old responses will be considered "outdated" on 1 January 2015. Which quite frankly, I'm okay with. I've always hated having to reference old forum posts. I thought that was pretty stupid. In a couple of weeks, they are all outdated and we just need to go to the EULA, ToS, and policy pages.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#30 - 2014-12-19 18:34:39 UTC
Thanks Team Security for your continuous efforts at keeping the game fair for all, and happy holidays!
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#31 - 2014-12-19 21:44:09 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Where it says:
"There is not much more to say about this matter than is already stated in the post and we trust we'll not have any trouble with this after January 1st 2015."
Does that mean the legitimate questions around the use of things like round robin/VFX which are still outstanding will simply not be answered?


According to this, if 2 or more actions are performed by 1 keystroke/mouseclick, that is considered stored keystrokes and violates the EULA. Like pressing an ISBoxer hotkey and having the software execute F1 plus whatever command is required to cycle to the next client. ISBoxer users will need to input 2 commands, not 1.

Don't ask me how CCP plans to enforce it; that's just what I got from CCP Random on Twitter.

Oh, and if anyone tries to use an old post from the forums saying that's okay, don't bother. Looks like any of those old responses will be considered "outdated" on 1 January 2015. Which quite frankly, I'm okay with. I've always hated having to reference old forum posts. I thought that was pretty stupid. In a couple of weeks, they are all outdated and we just need to go to the EULA, ToS, and policy pages.

Hmm, it does seem like a CCP statement would be good here. I've thought of the new rules as "One keystroke sends one command to one client". If that keystroke also tells your computer to switch to another client, that's OK, as it is not a command sent to the client, but to your computer.

But I'm not CCP.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Thanneus Ikkala
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#32 - 2014-12-19 22:08:10 UTC
Where does this put users of EVE Mentat for the IGB market cache skimmer? This may be considered a macro.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#33 - 2014-12-19 22:19:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rosewalker
Thanneus Ikkala wrote:
Where does this put users of EVE Mentat for the IGB market cache skimmer? This may be considered a macro.


It should be if the cache scraper is continuously running with no user input. Hopefully the dev for EVE Mentat will do what the dev for EVE Central is doing and move to getting the market data from authCREST. That would eliminate the EULA violation beginning on 1 January 2015.

UPDATE: I was informed that EVE Central is completely on CREST and most of the others are on track to be on CREST by the end of the year Big smile

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#34 - 2014-12-19 22:38:29 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
According to this, if 2 or more actions are performed by 1 keystroke/mouseclick, that is considered stored keystrokes and violates the EULA. Like pressing an ISBoxer hotkey and having the software execute F1 plus whatever command is required to cycle to the next client. ISBoxer users will need to input 2 commands, not 1.


Hard to argue with, unless you're a Logitech rep. P

+1 for the integrity of the game, though. Nice, simple, clear and fair.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Hoeveer Parmala
Astral Enforcers
#35 - 2014-12-20 02:56:46 UTC
Another statistic that might be interesting to see month to month is the mean time between first warning and perm-ban.

Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#36 - 2014-12-20 05:13:51 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Rosewalker wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Where it says:
"There is not much more to say about this matter than is already stated in the post and we trust we'll not have any trouble with this after January 1st 2015."
Does that mean the legitimate questions around the use of things like round robin/VFX which are still outstanding will simply not be answered?


According to this, if 2 or more actions are performed by 1 keystroke/mouseclick, that is considered stored keystrokes and violates the EULA. Like pressing an ISBoxer hotkey and having the software execute F1 plus whatever command is required to cycle to the next client. ISBoxer users will need to input 2 commands, not 1.

Don't ask me how CCP plans to enforce it; that's just what I got from CCP Random on Twitter.

Oh, and if anyone tries to use an old post from the forums saying that's okay, don't bother. Looks like any of those old responses will be considered "outdated" on 1 January 2015. Which quite frankly, I'm okay with. I've always hated having to reference old forum posts. I thought that was pretty stupid. In a couple of weeks, they are all outdated and we just need to go to the EULA, ToS, and policy pages.

Hmm, it does seem like a CCP statement would be good here. I've thought of the new rules as "One keystroke sends one command to one client". If that keystroke also tells your computer to switch to another client, that's OK, as it is not a command sent to the client, but to your computer.

But I'm not CCP.


The 1 keystroke = 1 command to 1 client fits what CCP Falcon posted, but Team Security also is clarifying that Section 6A3 goes beyond that. Between the dev blog and a couple of tweets, it sounds like it really is 1 keystroke/mouse click = 1 action in 1 client, which is a bit more restrictive.

Honestly, that's what I've always believed the EULA stated anyway.

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Sturmwolke
#37 - 2014-12-20 11:49:32 UTC
Good to see the tightening of the policies.
Scale of the graph looks to be a deliberate obsfuscation?
I'd assume trillions, but assumptions is the mother of all FU ... left open to interpretation by the masses.

1/10 on graph-fu. Fail.
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#38 - 2014-12-20 14:34:05 UTC
Sturmwolke wrote:
Good to see the tightening of the policies.
Scale of the graph looks to be a deliberate obsfuscation?
I'd assume trillions, but assumptions is the mother of all FU ... left open to interpretation by the masses.

1/10 on graph-fu. Fail.


We're assuming trillions because the scale on the graph in the April Team Security dev blog read trillions. But it would be nice if the graph was labeled Smile

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Memphis Baas
#39 - 2014-12-20 14:59:59 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
What you need to ask yourself: What are you doing to stop players from doing their first offense?


For newbies, my suggestion would be to put a warning against macro use, certain portions of the EULA, and maybe a pointer to the full EULA or to the very eye-opening charts in this blog into the New Player Tutorial in-game. Players can view it from the in-game browser, and the tutorial can point it out to them, and make them aware that certain things are illegal and will have serious consequences.
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#40 - 2014-12-20 20:21:01 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:

I have a feeling that most violators are new players that do not realize that what they are about to do will have consequences, that they will be caught. Many may not even know their actions are a violation. After all, how does a new player know it's illegal to bot? Read the EULA? Yeah, right, not many do that. Look at Dev blogs? In a month this one will be buried below several new ones.

.



Unless they are completely new to computer games in general, and MMOs specifically, "How does a new player know it is illegal to bot" is a strange statement to make.

Name me one MMO where botting is allowed under the EULA
Previous page123Next page