These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
X047
Nero Fazione
#661 - 2013-04-20 02:07:07 UTC
Octoven wrote:
Over 2,000 players banned for using a script in their client? Good to know CCP has detection software sent from God, in my experience all technology is imperfect and at some point someone will get banned for a mis-interpreted detection. You cant tell me that every single account you banned this week had a hack software on their computer with 100% certainty, why? Inherently the more accounts you put into the mix, the greater the chance that the imperfection in the detection methods I spoke of will bleed through.


I can confirm this. I got hit with this carpet ban, and I have no hacks or client modifications. I petitioned it 2 days ago, and its still not fixed.... Very aggravating Evil
Skaz
Skazmanian Industries
#662 - 2013-04-20 02:10:57 UTC

The matter is that this simply needs to be clarified in the EULA if CCP does not intend to kill of third party app development.

Having and axe hanging over your head without knowing how strong the rope holding it is, probably isn't a pleasant experience.


To be brutally honest, this was probably the most hamfisted way of clarifying the EULA and it's selective enforcement. Because it simply does not set the line clearly in the sand.

What is cheating in EVE? Basically whatever CCP thinks it is. And could the situation rise when someone cheats using the same or similar methods as the "tolerated" programs of EVEmon and EVE-HQ do?


This has to be remedied so that this risk of being technically in breach of the EULA but not falling under the selective enforcement isn't a factor in every 3rd party dev and player using their programs, fearing that the interpretation of that enforcement doesn't suddenly change.

I know CCP can ban anyone they want to for anything, but it's stupid and bad for business, hence the EULA. And when they are basically saying "it's ok to break some portions of the EULA, we won't bite you, unless X". It kinda defeats the purpose...

-... ..- -.-- / -- -.-- / ... - ..- ..-. ..-. / --- -. / - .... . / -- .- .-. -.- . - / - .... .. ... / ... .. --. -. .- - ..- .-. . / .. -.. . .- / .. ... / ... .... .- -- . .-.. . ... ... .-.. -.-- / ... - --- .-.. . -.

Octoven
Noir Holdings
#663 - 2013-04-20 02:15:44 UTC
Skaz wrote:

The matter is that this simply needs to be clarified in the EULA if CCP does not intend to kill of third party app development.

Having and axe hanging over your head without knowing how strong the rope holding it is, probably isn't a pleasant experience.


To be brutally honest, this was probably the most hamfisted way of clarifying the EULA and it's selective enforcement. Because it simply does not set the line clearly in the sand.

What is cheating in EVE? Basically whatever CCP thinks it is. And could the situation rise when someone cheats using the same or similar methods as the "tolerated" programs of EVEmon and EVE-HQ do?


This has to be remedied so that this risk of being technically in breach of the EULA but not falling under the selective enforcement isn't a factor in every 3rd party dev and player using their programs, fearing that the interpretation of that enforcement doesn't suddenly change.

I know CCP can ban anyone they want to for anything, but it's stupid and bad for business, hence the EULA. And when they are basically saying "it's ok to break some portions of the EULA, we won't bite you, unless X". It kinda defeats the purpose...


Which is why it was a mistake to get rid of the ban warning in favor of a 2 step approach. You get a 30 ban for doing something that until CCP decided was illegal was perfectly ok with them. You just never know, having the warning at least gives the player the ability to say ok....since you just recently decided to enforce that, then I can change my play style without having to lose 30 days.
dr mineral
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#664 - 2013-04-20 02:15:58 UTC  |  Edited by: dr mineral
hmmmmmmmm
BFE
Disciples of Progress
United Progress
#665 - 2013-04-20 02:16:13 UTC
Skaz wrote:

.....

This has to be remedied so that this risk of being technically in breach of the EULA but not falling under the selective enforcement isn't a factor in every 3rd party dev and player using their programs, fearing that the interpretation of that enforcement doesn't suddenly change.

I know CCP can ban anyone they want to for anything, but it's stupid and bad for business, hence the EULA. And when they are basically saying "it's ok to break some portions of the EULA, we won't bite you, unless X". It kinda defeats the purpose...



See my above post. They have explained it.

Cache scraping is bannable, as it can be used for cheating: hacking, botting, etc. However, they stated that legitimate 3rd party programs, USED FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS, will not be their main focus. You most llikely (again nothing is certain) will not be banned.
Agent Trask
Doomheim
#666 - 2013-04-20 02:25:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Agent Trask
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:



No, but you'll have to pay CCP Stillman a 10M playing permit, else you will be banned indeed Pirate


I could live with that.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

Agent Trask
Doomheim
#667 - 2013-04-20 02:35:26 UTC
How about a simple flat statement from CCP?

Something like: "EvEMon is allowed.", or some such.


If you are going to pick and choose what third party cache scraping tools are bannable or not, then you will need to give us a list of what is allowable.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

Max Khaos
Un-protected Plex
#668 - 2013-04-20 03:15:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Khaos
I'm more than happy for you to monitor your install files and my in game activity ...

Anything else you better get legal advice ... because if Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have been warned about monitoring
people systems then you haven't got a chance in hell.

Ps ... Hiding behind a Click-Wrapped EULA is no defence either
_______________________________________________
Ritsum
Perkone
Caldari State
#669 - 2013-04-20 03:20:33 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
is cache scraping what evemon does when it 'sends market data from your eve installation cache to online endpoints'?


Yes


We are looking for cheaters, hackers, botters and the likes. We are not looking for EVEMON users. Basically, please don't worry.


You are telling us not to worry at the same time telling us we can be perma banned for using such tools we have always used and thought to be legit.

I for one am stopping use of these just because I now know they are against the rules., even though you say not to worry.

Back to doing things the long and hard way I guess.

Play EvE how you want to play it and do not let others dictate how you play. Evolve your playstyle to protect yourself from others! Even in "PVE", "PVP" is there, lurking in the shadows.

XyberPunk
State War Academy
Caldari State
#670 - 2013-04-20 05:56:50 UTC
Selena Na'sharr wrote:
What's the position on gaming keyboards with macro-capabilities, such as the Logitech G15? Its driver inherently supports some level of user-initiated automation. (in short, do I need to look for a new keyboard? :))



Has this been directly addressed yet?
Coras Aldeland
K32 Industries
#671 - 2013-04-20 06:02:27 UTC
"We are looking for cheaters, hackers, botters and the likes. We are not looking for EVEMON users. Basically, please don't worry."

Add my name to the very long and growing list on concerned citizens. You guys need to make up your minds and write the rules so they are clear, concise, and above all accurate. Saying that cache scraping violates the EULA but we aren't going to enforce our own rules when it comes to Evemon is counter-productive, not to mention confusing as hell.
Coras Aldeland
K32 Industries
#672 - 2013-04-20 06:10:25 UTC
And while your at it...

I started looking into modifying the overview and looking into the .xml file. I found an old tutorial about modifying it by hand to change colors, make labels multi-line, etc. I decided to poke a bit to make sure it was kosher before I started modifications myself and I was told no. Why in the heck would you build tools to import and export settings in a standard .xml file format if you didn't want it tweaked?!?
On a similar note, my old eyes have trouble distinguishing between the standard white icon color and the pale yellow used to indicate a gate/station/etc. indicated by the auto-pilot in the overview. Again I asked about changing it and was threatened with a ban hammer. Come on guys - there's a huge difference between minor aesthetic tweaks and running a bot!
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#673 - 2013-04-20 07:10:09 UTC
BFE wrote:
Skaz wrote:

.....

This has to be remedied so that this risk of being technically in breach of the EULA but not falling under the selective enforcement isn't a factor in every 3rd party dev and player using their programs, fearing that the interpretation of that enforcement doesn't suddenly change.

I know CCP can ban anyone they want to for anything, but it's stupid and bad for business, hence the EULA. And when they are basically saying "it's ok to break some portions of the EULA, we won't bite you, unless X". It kinda defeats the purpose...



See my above post. They have explained it.

Cache scraping is bannable, as it can be used for cheating: hacking, botting, etc. However, they stated that legitimate 3rd party programs, USED FOR LEGITIMATE REASONS, will not be their main focus. You most llikely (again nothing is certain) will not be banned.


Look at it in a developer perspective:

"Hey guys I am writing a payware Aura app that lets you change skills etc.".
It's nice, it's cool, you'll have to pay for it...



... and maybe CCP won't ban you one day, just because the next CCP Sreegs woke up with the wrong foot that day.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#674 - 2013-04-20 07:12:02 UTC
Agent Trask wrote:
How about a simple flat statement from CCP?

Something like: "EvEMon is allowed.", or some such.


If you are going to pick and choose what third party cache scraping tools are bannable or not, then you will need to give us a list of what is allowable.



No, CCP just dug their own grave.

From now on, every single bot and cheat will mimick EvEMon to stay "legit enough" till CCP will break down and will have to ban EvEMon and other legit scrappers too.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#675 - 2013-04-20 08:33:31 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Agent Trask wrote:
How about a simple flat statement from CCP?

Something like: "EvEMon is allowed.", or some such.


If you are going to pick and choose what third party cache scraping tools are bannable or not, then you will need to give us a list of what is allowable.



No, CCP just dug their own grave.

From now on, every single bot and cheat will mimick EvEMon to stay "legit enough" till CCP will break down and will have to ban EvEMon and other legit scrappers too.


Look I agree that this blanket ban (with exceptions wink wink hurrrrr) on character scraping is dumb as hell but I don't think that "Hey guys look at this character monitor I made that also automates your market orders for you" is going to be legitimate like EVEMon, like at all

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

DeODokktor
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
#676 - 2013-04-20 08:57:50 UTC
CCP Peligro wrote:

"It doesn't impact gameplay negatively for the vast majority of players."
Oh really? What is this based on?
Modified clients place additional load on the servers, they are therefore detrimental to the ability of our legitimate players to enjoy EVE Online.



I am with you on this one.
I am sure a freighter going 35 jumps through empire, passing through gank systems, getting bumped by hundreds of ships, and taking several hours for it to happen causes a LOT less load than the trip happening in half an hour, with no players scanning the ship, with no other ships bumping into it, and no other ships having to constantly update cords of that freighter.

Of course WTZ uses more system resources....


Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#677 - 2013-04-20 09:11:51 UTC
DeODokktor wrote:
I am with you on this one.
I am sure a freighter going 35 jumps through empire, passing through gank systems, getting bumped by hundreds of ships, and taking several hours for it to happen causes a LOT less load than the trip happening in half an hour, with no players scanning the ship, with no other ships bumping into it, and no other ships having to constantly update cords of that freighter.

Of course WTZ uses more system resources....


And it's still a cheat. Stop trying to justify it, the players who used it were only temporarily banned for 30 days instead of the permanent ban that you normally get for code injection. If you got a 30 day on an account, take it in stride and stop cheating your way around limitations that the developers set for a reason.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Barzhad
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#678 - 2013-04-20 10:07:38 UTC
Quote:
or anything incorporated therein, or analyze, decipher, "sniff" or derive code (or attempt to do any of the foregoing) from any packet stream transmitted to or from the System, whether encrypted or not, or permit any third party to do any of the same, and you hereby expressly waive any legal rights you may have to do so.


so yeah, some of us are behind a firewall, and some of us will do whatever they want with their traffic analysis.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#679 - 2013-04-20 11:41:26 UTC
I have a feeling that most of this angst will evaporate once we get a status update from Fanfest concerning the state of Crest. It wouldn't surprise me if the ultimate goal is to have Crest quickly remove the need for cache scraping of any kind for 3rd party utility software.

This would readily explain their reluctance to remove the "cache scraping is not allowed" verbage in the EULA, because soon the only software that will be doing it will be software that is attempting to do unauthorized things in EvE.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Bloody Wench
#680 - 2013-04-20 12:11:22 UTC
Octoven wrote:


Which is why it was a mistake to get rid of the ban warning in favor of a 2 step approach. You get a 30 ban for doing something that until CCP decided was illegal was perfectly ok with them. You just never know, having the warning at least gives the player the ability to say ok....since you just recently decided to enforce that, then I can change my play style without having to lose 30 days.



No. The bans were for client injection. Modifying python code inside the client. If you don't know exactly what went on then you don't have to worry about it.

[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