Missions & Complexes

No they're not, they're AFK. How can an AFK cloaker be of any danger to anybody? If he's AFK he can't do anything to you. Your paranoia is your own.

Why not use the CCP definition instead of blindly parroting some irrelevant Wikipedia definition? Here, I'll do the leg work for you.



Source.

Like I said, AFK cloaking isn't a problem, nor is it griefing. I suggest if you want to whine about something that is not a problem, you either keep it to yourself or find one of the dozens of terrible AFK cloaking threads that are buried in these forums. For now, try to keep this thread on-topic. Thanks.

If you're blowing up NPC ships with your "weapons manually" you aren't AFK and thus are not a problem. If you are blowing up ships with your drones while AFK for 23/7, which is the entire point of Sreegs announcement and this thread, then you are the problem. It's really, really, really NOT that hard to understand.

And you're wrong about this behavior violating the EULA. Based on the CCP definition of botting:

And botting, as you should well know, is a direct violation of the EULA. Please consider educating yourself or, at the very least, re-reading the CCP posts in this thread.

Now waiting for the ban on AFK traders that use bots to adjust prices by 0.1 isk a second after someone put up a better order.

I've read all 19 pages of this post as well as almost all of the EULA, and I would suggest that you read more carefully. What I said was that this BOT-like behavior DOES NOT produce any faster than non-bot behavior, not that guns blazing was the problem. As to your final point, Sreegs made the connection between this behavior and botting, NOT the EULA (Sec 6.A.3). As a seller of software and services I take license agreements VERY SERIOUSLY, and the EULA for the game I am paying for (EVE) DOES NOT prohibit bot-like human behavior. NOR does it define the distinction between the two. This is tantamount to changing a contract after everyone has signed it. That's particually onerous in light of the no-refund clause: Section 5.C.1.

Before belittling others, make certain you understand what they're saying and have all your facts straight. Sreegs may speak for CCP, but that of itself does NOT change the EULA, and as it is written now the EULA does not outlaw this behavior:
1. It is not any other software, device or replay method, AND
2. it is NOT a pattern that produces more than could otherwise be acquired (the point of my guns blazing example)

If it is not the desired program behavior, FIX the PROGRAM. If is not desired bahavior to use the game the way it works, CHANGE the EULA outright, describe the conditions to which it applies specifically, and then start giving the necessary refunds as per section 5.C.3

Hmmm, better ban the autopilot feature too, and market orders, blueprint research, manufacturing, PI bases....oh, and skill training too.

All those can be done AFK too.



Yes, stupid idea.

Suqq, quit insulting people and name calling just because we don't agree with you. You see only what you want to see. You read only what you want to read. Post with your main or just go away. You've already rendered your arguments invalid by your contradictions and insults.

The only one that I see crying and whining around here is you.

Edit: Suqq, I'm tired, I've had my fun, had a long day at work and now I'm going to bed. Have a good night.

After wading through the tears I've come to the conclusion, most of the whiners either make their isk through shady mechanics.. or they're just stupid.

And 8 hours later, ignorance still reigns supreme! My valiant efforts from last night were obviously not enough.

I have to ask though – after you did all this reading, you still don’t realize where the problem is? Remarkable… Well, I have run out of “simple” examples to present you with, so I am gonna try a different approach.

You are very much correct – on case by case and hour by hour basis, a bot does not generate more funds than a human player would. A botting tengu in 0.0 runs cosmic anomalies. If a neutral/hostile player enters the system, the bot immediately warps to a safe PoS and stays there until the system is clear again. That’s usually what the average carebear does. Yet over a period of time, say 1 month, a bot would almost always generate more isk than the average player.

So with all that said, why do you think that the EULA prohibits the use of bots?

Slightly offtopic – why are multiplayer games called “multiplayer”? What is the allure of MMO games? Online multiplayer games often keep players longer than offline singleplayer games – why do you think that is?

I hope all those questions are not going to overwhelm you. They are clear and simple, aren’t they? I am very much looking forward to your response.

Oh, I regarding the “change to the EULA” as you describe it – I don’t think it’s possible to always cover all possible exploits in an evolving game world with a creative playerbase. From time to time you just have to make changes on the fly. The way I understand it, CCP is asking – “Please don’t abuse that particular game mechanic, until we get a chance to fix it”. The players who got hit for doing that, got their bans lifted, so this can be considered an advanced warning – not a post-factor casualty report.