These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Overlays, ISK Buyer Amnesty and Account Security

First post First post
Author
lord xavier
Rubbed Out
#261 - 2016-02-25 00:22:20 UTC  |  Edited by: lord xavier
CCP Peligro wrote:
Thanks for all your feedback and criticism so far! Please keep it coming, we're watching this thread and will post replies to serious questions in the near future.

Questions in here not serious enough for response? Well, I guess go ahead and kill first, ask questions later I suppose. We shall see how well eve functions when half the player base containing 2/3 of the accounts are banned.Lol Cause space aint empty enough.

7 more days on 90% of my accounts. Not even going to bother paying for the next subs until there is clarification on what will and wont be allowed, and the detection methods you're using.
Praal
Bearded BattleBears
#262 - 2016-02-25 00:30:32 UTC
Proxay wrote:

The second example allows multiple clients to be controlled from a single application focus, without needing to bring each individual full game client to the front of your screen.

Overlays can be input-relaying or not. It would have made more sense if they banned the former than banning anyvisual stitching together.

Proxay wrote:
You can tile the windows in the first example, but you need to very precisely sequentially click through them in that exact order to execute orders on the clients.

This falls apart in the presence of OSs that focus on hover but do not raise on click.

Proxay wrote:
They're giving a heads up to people using ISBoxer to print ISK all day in whatever way they do, for RMTing purposes. After this heads up it's ban-town folks.

Except printing ISK all day is accomplished with AFK Isktars which only need trending to every 10-15 minutes and just need to watch one local. Overlays are of minimal value there.
Chalithra Lathar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#263 - 2016-02-25 00:42:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Chalithra Lathar
Proxay wrote:

See this? This is the kind of **** that shouldn't be possible in EVE, it allows one player to control 11 Algos' in PVP simultaneously, allowing for outcomes that shouldn't be possible.

what is drone assist.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#264 - 2016-02-25 00:48:25 UTC
Praal wrote:
Proxay wrote:
They're giving a heads up to people using ISBoxer to print ISK all day in whatever way they do, for RMTing purposes. After this heads up it's ban-town folks.

Except printing ISK all day is accomplished with AFK Isktars which only need trending to every 10-15 minutes and just need to watch one local. Overlays are of minimal value there.

They just need to kill the drone autoaggro. Replace drones with drone squadrons!

Chalithra Lathar wrote:
Proxay wrote:

See this? This is the kind of **** that shouldn't be possible in EVE, it allows one player to control 11 Algos' in PVP simultaneously, allowing for outcomes that shouldn't be possible.

what is drone assist.

Mm, drone assist. Some ships are a lot better for assisting as they use less but seriously boosted drones, which makes the cap less of an issue.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Hilti Enaka
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#265 - 2016-02-25 00:51:43 UTC
You could probably allow us overcome the need for 3rd party stuff if you gave us the tools.

I mean you've killed pvp to the point that people won't fly alone and always require n+1 so you are indirectly forcing people to use tools to be able to control two characters easily.

Or because gates are choke points you are forcing people to sit there split screen providing eyes on what targets are coming through the gate. With a little love you to the game you would reduce the need for people to use such tools.
Matthew Reddy
BP Ultimate
Hard Knocks Executors
#266 - 2016-02-25 01:12:10 UTC
Can i use ISBoxer for window management as long as i do not broadcast?. Can i get a clear answer on this.
Som Boty
Super Mother Fan Club
#267 - 2016-02-25 01:12:54 UTC
Matthew Reddy wrote:
Can i use ISBoxer for window management as long as i do not broadcast?. Can i get a clear answer on this.



yea ccp, can this guy get an answer please?
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#268 - 2016-02-25 02:07:21 UTC
Dart Aurel wrote:
There are 2 questions regarding windows switching policy points:
1. Is it prohibited to have 2 clients open and visible each on its own monitor?
2. I play EVE Online under Linux + Wine. Also I have tiled WM (xmonad) which allows to switch windows really fast (<50ms delay). Is this fair use or is it an exploit?


I am in that same boat.

Here are some examples for 1.:

http://i.imgur.com/PddMsja.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MsqLlZo.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dPSFxnO.jpg

Although only one uses "overlays" (or 9000 hours of mspaint, actually), they all "allow a player to get real time intel from all those other game instances without having to switch to the other windows" so I have to assume all three are a breach of the EULA?

As for 2. - All things GNU Linux are probably 3rd party software most of you don't know a lot about. The X Server, open source graphics drivers and window managers all influence how the eve client looks and where it shows up on my screen(s). So ... danger zone as well?
Proxay
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#269 - 2016-02-25 02:08:48 UTC
Chalithra Lathar wrote:
Proxay wrote:

See this? This is the kind of **** that shouldn't be possible in EVE, it allows one player to control 11 Algos' in PVP simultaneously, allowing for outcomes that shouldn't be possible.

what is drone assist.

He wasn't assisting drones.

Loading signature...

Proxay
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#270 - 2016-02-25 02:10:58 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
Dart Aurel wrote:
There are 2 questions regarding windows switching policy points:
1. Is it prohibited to have 2 clients open and visible each on its own monitor?
2. I play EVE Online under Linux + Wine. Also I have tiled WM (xmonad) which allows to switch windows really fast (<50ms delay). Is this fair use or is it an exploit?


I am in that same boat.

Here are some examples for 1.:

http://i.imgur.com/PddMsja.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MsqLlZo.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/dPSFxnO.jpg

Although only one uses "overlays" (or 9000 hours of mspaint, actually), they all "allow a player to get real time intel from all those other game instances without having to switch to the other windows" so I have to assume all three are a breach of the EULA?

As for 2. - All things GNU Linux are probably 3rd party software most of you don't know a lot about. The X Server, open source graphics drivers and window managers all influence how the eve client looks and where it shows up on my screen(s). So ... danger zone as well?


I hope CCP can have someone just say outright:
"1 is not okay, 2 and 3 are fine".
Because 1 is utilising overlaying **** to make it so you can click through without changing clients, whereas 2 and 3 are separate clients that you're interacting with.

Loading signature...

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#271 - 2016-02-25 02:52:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Neuntausend
Proxay wrote:
I hope CCP can have someone just say outright:
"1 is not okay, 2 and 3 are fine".
Because 1 is utilising overlaying **** to make it so you can click through without changing clients, whereas 2 and 3 are separate clients that you're interacting with.
I'd be fine with this, except for one thing: If that is what they mean, why don't they put that into their effing rules the way they mean it? If they were to ban me just now for running two client windows next to each other, I couldn't even ***** about it, because I accepted their rules, and the rules state that getting intel from multiple clients without switching windows is a no-no.

If you lawyer the **** out of the EULA the way it is written now, basically everything you can do in Eve is technically a bannable offense, which is downright stupid. Actually, there's not even much lawyering required on some parts. One of my favourites is this one:

"You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above."

If that is so, what the deuce is the market, the trade window and the contract system for?

If I were to give one of you a stack of Mining Laser I through a trade window, I think we can all agree that would be a transfer of items, right? Well ****, we just violated the EULA. I did because I offered to transfer an item, and you did because you accepted it. Tough luck!
Proxay
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#272 - 2016-02-25 03:05:51 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
Proxay wrote:
I hope CCP can have someone just say outright:
"1 is not okay, 2 and 3 are fine".
Because 1 is utilising overlaying **** to make it so you can click through without changing clients, whereas 2 and 3 are separate clients that you're interacting with.
I'd be fine with this, except for one thing: If that is what they mean, why don't they put that into their effing rules the way they mean it?

Because, if you lawyer the **** out of the EULA the way it is written now, basically everything you can do in Eve is technically a bannable offense, which is downright stupid. One of my favourites is this one:

"You may not transfer, sell or auction, or buy or accept any offer to transfer, sell or auction (or offer to do any of the foregoing), any content appearing within the Game environment, including without limitation characters, character attributes, items, currency, and objects, other than via a permitted Character Transfer as described in section 3 above."

If that is so, what the deuce is the market, the trade window and the contract system for?


You'd love the non-compete agreements I signed for work if you think the EULA is broad.

This is legal ****, legal **** is meant to mean "WE WIN EVERY TIME EVERYWHERE", selective enforcement is what counts, how they use it, etc.
They're going to have a big toolbox, they just need to get down here, into this damn thread and off Reddit, and post a reply!

Why are we all sitting here trying to reinterpret the bible when the author can just write a quick post going "Yes", "No", "Whatever, quit". Seriously CCP, where the hell are your community liaisons.

Loading signature...

Alundil
Rolled Out
#273 - 2016-02-25 03:12:34 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Say I have eight screens next to each other in a 2x4 grid, and several of them are scouts in neighboring systems, or cloaked on every hole in a wormhole chain. I don't use any client overlays because they're all side by side and I can see them just fine. Am I breaking rules about unfair advantages?

What's missing from the announcement is intent. If it's purely to reduce unfair advantage, it's odd to think the problem is overlays and not the playability of multiple clients and a bit of hardware.

What are you really getting at?

I'll refrain from expecting any meaningful response to this abortion of a devblog. It offers zero clarification.
In other news, going to try and make it out to the meetup this weekend.

I'm right behind you

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#274 - 2016-02-25 03:17:46 UTC
Proxay wrote:
This is legal ****, legal **** is meant to mean "WE WIN EVERY TIME EVERYWHERE", selective enforcement is what counts, how they use it, etc.


Welp - I just got triggered, I guess.

You are completely right of course. I just can't stand obvious hypocrisy. If you are going to be insincere, at least try to not be so obvious about it. As it currently stands they could write "Whatever you do we may or may not tolerate. We can ban you at any point for any reason we pull out of our ass" into the EULA and not change the content.

Memphis Baas
#275 - 2016-02-25 03:28:15 UTC
Alundil wrote:
I'll refrain from expecting any meaningful response to this abortion of a devblog. It offers zero clarification.


Also the graph, it's not just useless, it's wrong. Their ban and EULA enforcement policies are clearly designed to achieve a log reduction in RMT, but they only predict a gradual linear reduction? A linear reduction is the result you get when the RMT'ers get bored of how much they're making and gradually move to other games.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#276 - 2016-02-25 03:30:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Neuntausend
Memphis Baas wrote:
Also the graph, it's not just useless, it's wrong. Their ban and EULA enforcement policies are clearly designed to achieve a log reduction in RMT, but they only predict a gradual linear reduction? A linear reduction is the result you get when the RMT'ers get bored of how much they're making and gradually move to other games.
It's meant as a joke.

At least, I hope it's meant as a joke

Oh god, please let it be meant as a joke!
Proxay
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#277 - 2016-02-25 03:31:07 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
Proxay wrote:
This is legal ****, legal **** is meant to mean "WE WIN EVERY TIME EVERYWHERE", selective enforcement is what counts, how they use it, etc.


Welp - I just got triggered, I guess.

You are completely right of course. I just can't stand obvious hypocrisy. If you are going to be insincere, at least try to not be so obvious about it. As it currently stands they could write "Whatever you do we may or may not tolerate. We can ban you at any point for any reason we pull out of our ass" into the EULA and not change the content.



Doesn't it say that already?

The good thing is, CCP is a business that makes games for profit. They follow money and love customers. We're customers, and right/wrong they're gonna wanna keep getting those dank RL bucks.

Loading signature...

Proxay
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#278 - 2016-02-25 03:31:54 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Alundil wrote:
I'll refrain from expecting any meaningful response to this abortion of a devblog. It offers zero clarification.


Also the graph, it's not just useless, it's wrong. Their ban and EULA enforcement policies are clearly designed to achieve a log reduction in RMT, but they only predict a gradual linear reduction? A linear reduction is the result you get when the RMT'ers get bored of how much they're making and gradually move to other games.


ayo it's a joke bro

Loading signature...

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#279 - 2016-02-25 03:35:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Neuntausend
Proxay wrote:
The good thing is, CCP is a business that makes games for profit. They follow money and love customers. We're customers, and right/wrong they're gonna wanna keep getting those dank RL bucks.
I bet they do. I'll just keep believing then.


Fake Edit: CCP is a company that made ONE game they mysteriously turned into a profit.There, FTFY
Actual Edit: Nope! Not gonna stop believing again!
Alundil
Rolled Out
#280 - 2016-02-25 03:40:07 UTC
War Kitten wrote:


Pirate's Little Helper doesn't interface at all with Eve. It doesn't overlay the client, modify the client or interact with the client.

Actually, PLH CAN ovelay the client.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrPBLM8GF0s

The browser-baed version does not. But the installed version can be used to overlay.

I'm right behind you