Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
23
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 00:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP has always had a history of poor communication with their customers. Mind you, I'm not talking about developers talking on the forums. The devs post here all of the time. But the fact of the matter is that there is little to no official communication from CCP to the players.
This is highlighted by CCP's chosen method of informing players what is and isn't deemed "an exploit": by having each and every single individual player file a petition about it. To make matters worse, players are not even allowed to share this information with other players.
Seriously, is there even a less efficient way to do this!?!?
And to make matters worse, when game policy changes, players have no means to learn about these changes.
Yes, we have the CSM to communicate with CCP, but that only happens a few times a year, and their meetings are bound by NDAs.
What we need is a central location, such as on a locked evelopedia page, where CCP can definitively declare in a public avenue what IS and what ISN'T allowed. This way when policy changes, players can at least see when changes are made. And even better, if this happens, we can free up precious GM resources that would otherwise be wasted on redundant questions.
Here's a starter list for CCP to make definitive public statements on: 1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard 2) Loggoffski/loggonski 3) Corp hopping to evade war decs 4) Corp recycling to evade war decs 5) Alt recycling 6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs. 7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs 8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel 9) can baiting in newbie systems 10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos. 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect,collate and upload market data.
And I'm sure there are dozens of other topics that CCP should make public statements about. |
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
150
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 00:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
I remind you that it is not allowed to post exploits in the forum either. If one of the things mentioned is one, get ready for some damage control :) Forum fix for firefox and chrome Get working images and colored text Classic forum style 2.25final |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
6
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 00:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Liked for support. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
207
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 00:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yes please.
All we have now is old GM posts that may or may not have been overturned since they were made (and which may even have been somewhat inaccurate at the time they were written), and with no way of determining whether they are applicable or not.
Communication and clarity are not bad words, CCP GÇö stop treating them as such. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
54
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 00:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Some of the things the OP is whining about are already clearly defined as exploits or bannable offences. Are you seriously confused over hacking local channel and can baiting in rookie systems? *Please* tell me that you've listed those for the sake of other, clueless players, rather than yourself. |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
6
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 01:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
While we're at it, is it legal to which videos on the screen of your CQ? |
Angry Onions
NixCraft
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 01:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:CCP has always had a history of poor communication with their customers. Mind you, I'm not talking about developers talking on the forums. The devs post here all of the time. But the fact of the matter is that there is little to no official communication from CCP to the players.
This is highlighted by CCP's chosen method of informing players what is and isn't deemed "an exploit": by having each and every single individual player file a petition about it. To make matters worse, players are not even allowed to share this information with other players.
Seriously, is there even a less efficient way to do this!?!?
And to make matters worse, when game policy changes, players have no means to learn about these changes.
Yes, we have the CSM to communicate with CCP, but that only happens a few times a year, and their meetings are bound by NDAs.
What we need is a central location, such as on a locked evelopedia page, where CCP can definitively declare in a public avenue what IS and what ISN'T allowed. This way when policy changes, players can at least see when changes are made. And even better, if this happens, we can free up precious GM resources that would otherwise be wasted on redundant questions.
Here's a starter list for CCP to make definitive public statements on: 1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard 2) Loggoffski/loggonski 3) Corp hopping to evade war decs 4) Corp recycling to evade war decs 5) Alt recycling 6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs. 7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs 8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel 9) can baiting in newbie systems 10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos. 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect,collate and upload market data.
And I'm sure there are dozens of other topics that CCP should make public statements about.
1) I would guess its allowed, as it doesn't give someone else too much of an advantage 2) There is nothing in the EULA says you cant, its also a legitimate strategy, and also try prove/disprove some one logg(off/on)ski'd 3) Duh thats allowed 4) look above 5)And again, look at #3 6) Back to #3 7) Can't really prove that some one is doing that without API keys, derp. 8) Duh, that'll get you banned, dumb ass 9) Reference #8 10) Would be a local side mod, so it wouldn't be detectable by server (not sure on that) 11) Not too sure, dont care either way. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
25
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 01:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Some of the things the OP is whining about are already clearly defined as exploits or bannable offences. Are you seriously confused over hacking local channel and can baiting in rookie systems? *Please* tell me that you've listed those for the sake of other, clueless players, rather than yourself.
This isn't about whether I know something is an exploit or not. This is about CCP providing us with an easy, convenient and reliable source of information regarding what is and isn't allowed.
Hacking local, for example, is obviously an exploit. However, it was public knowledge that Monkeysphere was doing this to kill carebears in 0.0, yet as far as I know, he was never penalized for it. Was doing this REALLY a bannable offense? AFAIK, CCP never said a word about this publicly.
Everyone knows that canbaiting in a newbie system is a bannable offense, right? Of course this is just hearsay. I haven't seen any official CCP statement on the subject before, and if there ever HAS been, it was a random GM post in a random thread that I would have to spend 15 minutes tracking down to find.
Logon traps were commonly said to be an exploit back in 2005, now I hear people say that GMs respond to petitions of such activities with "you are allowed to log on and log off whenever you want"
Artificially inflating the cost of wardecs by using alt corporations was publicly declared an exploit by a GM in a random thread, yet EVE Uni has publicly stated that CCP never stated that "decshields" were exploits. Was the GM who says that decshields are exploits lying, or was the GM who told EVE Uni they WEREN'T exploits lying? Or did CCP change their policy sometime between the two statements?
So on and so on. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
25
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 01:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Angry Onions wrote: 1) I would guess its allowed, as it doesn't give someone else too much of an advantage 2) There is nothing in the EULA says you cant, its also a legitimate strategy, and also try prove/disprove some one logg(off/on)ski'd 3) Duh thats allowed 4) look above 5)And again, look at #3 6) Back to #3 7) Can't really prove that some one is doing that without API keys, derp. 8) Duh, that'll get you banned, dumb ass 9) Reference #8 10) Would be a local side mod, so it wouldn't be detectable by server (not sure on that) 11) Not too sure, dont care either way.
Everything you say is probably either based on hearsay or comes from your version of "common sense". I say this because most everything on that list which you claim isn't an exploit, has at one time or another been considered to be an exploit by CCP and the players.
The issue at hand here is official clarification/communication.
|
T'Laar Bok
26
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 01:48:00 -
[10] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard.
Allowable also G510, G13, G19 etc etc. you can even write maros using the Lua language suppled with those keyboards.
Amphetimines are your friend. |
|
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum
92
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 01:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
Using a Orca/carrier to swap ships while aggressed. Since the Orca does not get aggression. |
Gregor Palter
56
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 01:56:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP, to me, always have been headless chickens running around aimlessly picking at little problems but never having the attention span to take care of something proper. Lack of guidance, lack of direction, lack of quality control. The ineffective way of having to deal with "what is allowed and what isn't" and the total neglect to have these things communicated properly, in a structured manner, if proof of that yet again. |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 02:17:00 -
[13] - Quote
For the sake of communication... Know that we have noticed this thread. However, please forgive me that I am not answering the points that have been brought up right away, even though most of them are pretty obvious and clear cut (in my opinion at least). As the answers to those points will most certainly be quoted back to us in petitions for the time to come, I'm sure you understand that I don't just want to blurt out something real quick, as much as I'd like to
And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
Headerman
Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx
106
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 02:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
Yes... go ahead and give a detailed analysis of what you did, so we may exploit the game as well, thank you. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
28
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 02:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:For the sake of communication... Know that we have noticed this thread. However, please forgive me that I am not answering the points that have been brought up right away, even though most of them are pretty obvious and clear cut (in my opinion at least). As the answers to those points will most certainly be quoted back to us in petitions for the time to come, I'm sure you understand that I don't just want to blurt out something real quick, as much as I'd like to And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition.
Thank you very much for the response, GM Karidor.
I would just like to stress that the point of this thread isn't to discuss what is allowed and what isn't, it's to advocate for a centralized repository of "the rules" so that players don't need to waste precious GM resources asking if they are allowed to drop decloaking cans or not (answer: it is allowed so long as it is not excessive, as determined on a per-case basis by the GM at hand).
And ideally, this centralized repository (whether it is an evelopedia page or not) would be regularly updated as players continue to ask questions via petitions. And best of all, we players will finally have something we can point to and link to when telling new players what is allowed and what isn't instead of relying upon hearsay to spread this information. |
Nyio
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 02:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition.
...and WAIT ...and WAIT ...and WAIT ...and WAIT ...and WAIT Features & Ideas Discussion: Agent Finder, Black Holes Needs a banner here.. |
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
150
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 02:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Answer coming sooner than you think. Watch this space-« Forum fix for firefox and chrome Get working images and colored text Classic forum style 2.25final |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum
92
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 02:43:00 -
[18] - Quote
Nyio wrote:GM Karidor wrote:And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition. ...and WAIT
Also hes trying to say to turn yourself in. Though probably not the best idea, last guy to do that got banned. |
beor oranes
The Capitalist Protectorate Mad Scientists
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 02:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
I've always worked on the notion that if I think its dubious or I am unsure then its probably illegal and I shouldn't do it.
Now being able to watch your own legally bought movies (not downloaded illegally) on your CQ TV, would be sick. Or even if they allowed you to connect to Eve-files and only watch things from there. Though without being able to invite your mates over and giving them a virtual beer out of the virtual fridge it would be a bit lonely. |
beor oranes
The Capitalist Protectorate Mad Scientists
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 02:45:00 -
[20] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:Nyio wrote:GM Karidor wrote:And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition. ...and WAIT Also hes trying to say to turn yourself in. Though probably not the best idea, last guy to do that got banned.
He did but however his conscience was clear and he felt good about himself.
|
|
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
28
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 03:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:Nyio wrote:GM Karidor wrote:And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition. ...and WAIT Also hes trying to say to turn yourself in. Though probably not the best idea, last guy to do that got banned.
Source? You don't get banned for asking a question about the rules through the petition system. You might, however, get banned for asking a question, and then doing it anyways while you wait for a response. Or for doing the activity and then asking a question about it after the fact. |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum
92
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 03:03:00 -
[22] - Quote
It was in reference to the guy who reported the issues with these forums. Sorry I don't have a source only because I believe they deleted it. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
28
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 03:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:It was in reference to the guy who reported the issues with these forums. Sorry I don't have a source only because I believe they deleted it.
I don't think that is the same thing that the GM was talking about. The GM was talking about players being allowed to ask questions regarding the rules via the petition system.
The guy who you are talking about most likely did more than privately tell CCP about an issue with these forums. I am not exactly familiar with the issue because I wasn't really using the new forums when they first came out. But I expect that what happened was either this guy used the bug himself, or he told the public how to use the bug. |
Nyio
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 03:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
My little contribution to this thread was only to point out that if you file a petition you'll have to WAIT... and... nvm. Features & Ideas Discussion: Agent Finder, Black Holes Needs a banner here.. |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 03:26:00 -
[25] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:GM Karidor wrote:And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition. Also hes trying to say to turn yourself in. Though probably not the best idea, last guy to do that got banned.
Taedrin is quite correct, as in-game issues are the field of Customer Support, not the Forums.
In that regard, even if the deed has been done already and you realize that you may have violated a rule, turning yourself in (and most importantly, stopping to do it) before you get reported by others or get caught by us is something we will respect and always hold in your favour. For good and bad examples in this regard I can only point you to Sreegs Dev Blog, the philosophy on how to report something "exploity" in the game you may have run into accidentally is somewhat similar. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 04:00:00 -
[26] - Quote
Nyio wrote:My little contribution to this thread was only to point out that if you file a petition you'll have to WAIT... and... nvm.
Did you count the minutes or seconds? (sorry, could not resist )
In all seriousness, though, on average it's not as bad as some want to make it out to be. Far from it actually, though there have been extreme cases that are of course and understandably rather annoying for the according petitioner. But well, if I am not mistaken you have been reading the rather long thread in that regard already, and it's not really the point of this one here, so lets leave it at that and stop the derailing GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
Lithalnas
Privateers Privateer Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 04:45:00 -
[27] - Quote
This is what is commonly known about your list o stuff that you want to know about. The GMs can chime in it things have been changed or have always been a bit fuzzy.
1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard A long time ago there was a thread about this and the feeling i got from that thread was that as long as it does not automate something like mining or give you an advantage its ok. Mostly the thread way back when was to use the G15 LCD screen to display other data and people wanted to group keys such as guns together. However I suspect someone could modify the key-binds to do some sort of turbo button function for locking. This would give the advantage to tacklers and thus would be against the rules.
2) Loggoffski/loggonski Much to my chagrin this is legal in all forms.
3) Corp hopping to evade war decs Legal to most extents. Corp hoping has been petitioned to death and has been found to be legal in almost all cases. I have not seen the exception rule be enforced in ages so I guess it no longer is a rule. The only other instance of rule breaking with wars is the Imune Alliance. One alliance which sheds the wars of incoming corps.
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs This was the rumored exception but I have not seen an example of it
5) Alt recycling You can recycle alts, you cant recycle alts for suicideing when their sec gets too bad.
6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs. Legal, or at lease leaving an alliance to avoid a dec. Useing the Imune tactic of joining an alliance and then leaving to shed a dec is considered illegal.
7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs Considered legal as far as PRVTR knows
8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel The monkeysphere hack is considered an exploit
9) can baiting in newbie systems considered a bannable offence
10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos. Technically illegal, but people still do it. I do not think CCP cares much for such decorative tweaking of the captains quarters. Messing with space stuff however may get you banned.
11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect,collate and upload market data. CCP wants to use the API for this, they may also want 99$ I would say this would be illegal but CCP wont catch you. |
Nyio
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 04:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Nyio wrote:My little contribution to this thread was only to point out that if you file a petition you'll have to WAIT... and... nvm. Did you count the minutes or seconds? (sorry, could not resist ) In all seriousness, though, on average it's not as bad as some want to make it out to be. Far from it actually, though there have been extreme cases that are of course and understandably rather annoying for the according petitioner. But well, if I am not mistaken you have been reading the rather long thread in that regard already, and it's not really the point of this one here, so lets leave it at that and stop the derailing
Fair enough.. *Still mad though* Features & Ideas Discussion: Agent Finder, Black Holes Needs a banner here.. |
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum
92
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 05:56:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lithalnas wrote:
2) Loggoffski/loggonski Much to my chagrin this is legal in all forms.
3) Corp hopping to evade war decs Legal to most extents. Corp hoping has been petitioned to death and has been found to be legal in almost all cases. I have not seen the exception rule be enforced in ages so I guess it no longer is a rule. The only other instance of rule breaking with wars is the Imune Alliance. One alliance which sheds the wars of incoming corps.
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs This was the rumored exception but I have not seen an example of it
7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs Considered legal as far as PRVTR knows
See this is where there are discrepancies.
2. -Logoffskis "are" considered legal because CCP can't prove it was a log off or a D/C. However there are many cases where a fleet will logoffski and its pretty obvious they all didn't d/c at once.
-Log on traps USE to be considered illegal however not sure if this has changed.
3. While leaving a corp during a war dec is acceptable however it use to be that if done repeatedly it was considered a exploit. Again not sure if these rules have changed.
4. Same as #3 where recycling a corp to avoid decs is a no no.
7. This was considered a exploit as pointed out in the Eve Uni thread. However it seems they have stopped doing this.
It seems like it depends on what GM you happen to talk to on whether or not its a exploit or not. When you bring it to the forums it usually gets deleted(since talking about exploits is a no no), and your told to file a petition. Which starts the cycle all over again. Thats why CCP should be more official and clear about whats legit and whats not especially when it comes to common issues, such as the ones in the OP. This is where communication has always been lacking with CCP, you hear multiple things from multiple people(sometimes GMs/Devs) and yet you never get confirmation. |
Torfin Sigsonn
Ghost Recon Squad Trinova
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 09:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:9) can baiting in newbie systems .
Answer in Evelopedia
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Grief_play
|
|
malaire
50
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 11:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:3. While leaving a corp during a war dec is acceptable however it use to be that if done repeatedly it was considered a exploit. Again not sure if these rules have changed.
4. Same as #3 where recycling a corp to avoid decs is a no no. In this summer GM Homonoia said that corp hopping to avoid wardec is NOT exploit even when done repeatedly. Original thread about this.
Lithalnas wrote:11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect,collate and upload market data. CCP wants to use the API for this, they may also want 99$ I would say this would be illegal but CCP wont catch you. I got answer to this one recently (after waiting 30 days) but unfortunately I can't tell you what the answer was. (My thread about this, which doesn't say much.) Carebear -á* -áTrader -á* -áPerfect Music-á-á* -áNever Scamming -á* -áNever Pirating |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
37
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 12:30:00 -
[32] - Quote
The issue is not that we do not know what exploits are... The issue is we get contradictory information from our petitions.
Can Baiting: You can do it in rookie systems but not at the undock of rookie stations. At the same time you cannot rename said can to anything like "take me" but "The Giant Screwdriver" seems to be acceptable
Logoffski: Used to be deemed an exploit but is no longer.
Keyboard Macros: Botting is not a problem in eve so I don't know what you are talking about!
Corp hopping to evade wardecs: since ccp has a 24 hour stasis, you can drop and join every 24 hours because it's "in the mechanics"
Alliance Hopping: How many alliances do you think are going to let you do that? So have a party!
Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs: Technically an exploit, but at the same time see Red Vs Blue. So it is not always an exploit if you can give a reason why you have a permanent wardec or wardecs sanctioned internally.
"Hacking" local chat: CCP has stated that the only person who can get away with this is The Monkeysphere, all other players attempting it will get banned if caught.
Modifying non-executable EVE data: Any changes to the eve client is bad Mkay? Alt tab to **** instead of making it appear in game on your screen.
Alt recycling: Only bad if said alt has the following 1. Negative sec status and 2. some really pissed carebears keeping track of it in their buddy list because you violence them repeatedly. The combination may get you a warning.
These are the answers that I have gotten over the years... Ofc they may change depending on who the GM is that you talk to. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 12:40:00 -
[33] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:Here's a starter list for CCP to make definitive public statements on: 1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard 2) Loggoffski/loggonski 3) Corp hopping to evade war decs 4) Corp recycling to evade war decs 5) Alt recycling 6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs. 7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs 8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel 9) can baiting in newbie systems 10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos. 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect,collate and upload market data.
Here's a stab at some of that - mainly from old forums :
1) No for G15, mentioned specifically as "OK" although I don't see how myself; 2) No; 3) No; 4) Yes; 5) Yes but only if you've been aggressing/scamming; 6) Yes; 7) Yes; 8) heh :) 9) Yes; 10) heh :) 11) heh:) |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 13:16:00 -
[34] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:For the sake of communication... Know that we have noticed this thread. However, please forgive me that I am not answering the points that have been brought up right away, even though most of them are pretty obvious and clear cut (in my opinion at least). As the answers to those points will most certainly be quoted back to us in petitions for the time to come, I'm sure you understand that I don't just want to blurt out something real quick, as much as I'd like to And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition.
So what you're saying is that having a centralized listing of known exploits and other nefarious activities which are not allowed and any other definitive communication to that extent would tie CCP's hands, from a PR standpoint, so that you wouldn't be able to apply your rules with the bias that CCP does without having the rest of the player base cry foul while pointing out the specific violations to which you could no longer legitimately deny or ignore? We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor The Seventh Day
37
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 13:22:00 -
[35] - Quote
Oh snap! |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 13:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:So what you're saying is that having a centralized listing of known exploits and other nefarious activities which are not allowed and any other definitive communication to that extent would tie CCP's hands, from a PR standpoint, so that you wouldn't be able to apply your rules with the bias that CCP does without having the rest of the player base cry foul while pointing out the specific violations to which you could no longer legitimately deny or ignore?
No, he's saying it'd cost money to fix and that's not happening anytime soon.
Therefore a list of exploits (not dealt with - no devs available) would make matters worse for GMs.
tl;dr emogoths and dusties get the resources |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 13:49:00 -
[37] - Quote
Keeping us in the dark is corporate policy. Blame the various department heads inability to play the "guess what I am thinking" game with prospective girlfriends and the resulting failed relationships ..
If they shall suffer, so must everyone else!
PS: The above is merely a theory, but find it to be eerily accurate in far too many cases similar to this. |
Zey Nadar
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 14:28:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP doesnt seem to have a clear opinion about these things, hence GMs will give contradictory info, and hence they cant put up for example locked wiki page telling what that opinion is.
Just another example of CCP being directionless really. |
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
157
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 14:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
There is same problem with "allowed applications"-list... Shreegs mentioned something about it during last fanfest, but that was pretty much left there. Forum fix for firefox and chrome Get working images and colored text Classic forum style 2.25final |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
212
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 15:07:00 -
[40] - Quote
Zey Nadar wrote:CCP doesnt seem to have a clear opinion about these things, hence GMs will give contradictory info, and hence they cant put up for example locked wiki page telling what that opinion is.
Just another example of CCP being directionless really. GǪand funnily enough, a central repository (whether open or notGǪ but preferably open) would provide them with the same direction and clarity that we as players would enjoy.
I'd envision it going something along the lines of CCP creating a largely empty wiki page and making it one of those GÇ£officially moderatedGÇ¥ ones; the players filling it up with FAQs and hypotheticals and about common grey areas (and some GÇ£knownGÇ¥ no-nos); and then locking the page. The GMs can then work down that list and fill in the official answers. The page is then only updated by the GMs (or some poor guy who gets tricked into being the collector/updater of recent new questions). GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
|
Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
24
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 15:10:00 -
[41] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:However, please forgive me that I am not answering the points that have been brought up right away, even though most of them are pretty obvious and clear cut ( in my opinion at least). As the answers to those points will most certainly be quoted back to us in petitions for the time to come, I'm sure you understand that I don't just want to blurt out something real quick, as much as I'd like to THIS is the problem. In your opinion? Really? All this things need to be known and clear beyond doubt, not only by us but by you as well. Rules must not be guided by opinion, there must be an equal treatment for everyone. That's why support on this matters is often a bad joke.
|
Niko Takahashi
Percone Outcasts
5
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 15:21:00 -
[42] - Quote
The Usual amount of trolling aside.
A centralized depository of bannable and against the rules FAQ's from the petition in a prominent location on the site is really overdue.
This should be also linked in the client at the file petition window IN BIG LETTERS
Seriously this will limit the wasted work effort on the GM's side as well and should be addressed and adhered to.
If you GM's want to answer the same things over and over again sure do not do this. |
Satav
Latinum Exports
19
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 15:45:00 -
[43] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote: please forgive me that I am not answering the points that have been brought up right away, even though most of them are pretty obvious and clear cut (in my opinion at least).
HEHEHE.
I'm sry dude, but he's right. Anyone who spends a moderate amount of time reading the Eula and forums/evesearch will know the answers to all these questions.
If you don't know the answers, may i suggest you research your topics thoroughly before you rant and rave on the forums.
And if you still don't get your answer, petition and I'm sure a GM will answer your question.
Thank you for wasting my time. Have a nice day.
|
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 16:19:00 -
[44] - Quote
Krathos Morpheus wrote:GM Karidor wrote:However, please forgive me that I am not answering the points that have been brought up right away, even though most of them are pretty obvious and clear cut ( in my opinion at least). As the answers to those points will most certainly be quoted back to us in petitions for the time to come, I'm sure you understand that I don't just want to blurt out something real quick, as much as I'd like to THIS is the problem. In your opinion? Really? All this things need to be known and clear beyond doubt, not only by us but by you as well. Rules must not be guided by opinion, there must be an equal treatment for everyone. That's why support on this matters is often a bad joke.
You are correct, but I was referring more to wording the replies to each point. The situations as described are quite clear, but GM Statements etc. on them are spread around a variety of places (and in fact sometimes even contradicting due to the time that has passed between them), and this thread seemed like an opportunity to react to this and eventually even revise some of the policies on the matters that were brought up to clear them up and state the current situation as of now. But this is something I will not do on my own whim in a quick reply due to the implications of making such statements.
Also, if all of those points would be black and white and clear cut, then this thread would not exist, would it?
On a side note, point 10 (putting your own videos onto the Screen in the Captains Quarters) just has been addressed in a new dev blog.
As for the rest, working on it. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
AFKCloaked AltSpy
MasterMined Technologies
13
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 16:28:00 -
[45] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:CCP has always had a history of poor communication with their customers. Mind you, I'm not talking about developers talking on the forums. The devs post here all of the time. But the fact of the matter is that there is little to no official communication from CCP to the players.
This is highlighted by CCP's chosen method of informing players what is and isn't deemed "an exploit": by having each and every single individual player file a petition about it. To make matters worse, players are not even allowed to share this information with other players.
Seriously, is there even a less efficient way to do this!?!?
And to make matters worse, when game policy changes, players have no means to learn about these changes.
Yes, we have the CSM to communicate with CCP, but that only happens a few times a year, and their meetings are bound by NDAs.
What we need is a central location, such as on a locked evelopedia page, where CCP can definitively declare in a public avenue what IS and what ISN'T allowed. This way when policy changes, players can at least see when changes are made. And even better, if this happens, we can free up precious GM resources that would otherwise be wasted on redundant questions.
Here's a starter list for CCP to make definitive public statements on: 1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard 2) Loggoffski/loggonski 3) Corp hopping to evade war decs 4) Corp recycling to evade war decs 5) Alt recycling 6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs. 7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs 8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel 9) can baiting in newbie systems 10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos. 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect,collate and upload market data.
And I'm sure there are dozens of other topics that CCP should make public statements about.
1. Every single item you have listed has been answered by a dev or GM on either the old or these forums. 2. If its an exploit, making it public knowledge is absolutely bad.
|
Armtoe
One.
86
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 16:39:00 -
[46] - Quote
Lithalnas wrote:
9) can baiting in newbie systems considered a bannable offence
I think you are overstating this one. As I understand it, the prohibited activity in a newbee system is jetting a can and labeling it something like "free ore." However, you can go into a newbee system and bait mine into a can (without labeling the can in such a way that it is deceptive) in the hopes that some budding new pirate will flip it. IMO both are "can baiting," but only one is prohibited. |
Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus S I L E N T.
16
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 16:47:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zey Nadar wrote:CCP doesnt seem to have a clear opinion about these things, hence GMs will give contradictory info, and hence they cant put up for example locked wiki page telling what that opinion is.
Just another example of CCP being directionless really. GǪand funnily enough, a central repository (whether open or notGǪ but preferably open) would provide them with the same direction and clarity that we as players would enjoy. I'd envision it going something along the lines of CCP creating a largely empty wiki page and making it one of those Gǣofficially moderatedGǥ ones; the players filling it up with FAQs and hypotheticals and about common grey areas (and some GǣknownGǥ no-nos); and then locking the page. The GMs can then work down that list and fill in the official answers. The page is then only updated by the GMs (or some poor guy who gets tricked into being the collector/updater of recent new questions).
You must be confused. This is not a place to make sense. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
213
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 16:55:00 -
[48] - Quote
Armtoe wrote:Lithalnas wrote:9) can baiting in newbie systems considered a bannable offence I think you are overstating this one. As I understand itGǪ GǪand that is the whole problem. This is something where we actually have an official statement on the matter, but it is done in briefly, in passing and it is rather incomplete. It is also hidden away in a place where you might not think to look.
Plastering the answers to these kinds of questions, in full, on a single page with e big glowing neon sign hanging on it is just plain old good sense.
GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Malkuth Delapounti
Bulldog Industries. Two Zero One One
0
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 17:08:00 -
[49] - Quote
Ya on that whole bannable if you can bait in rookie system... Well My 3rd day I was can baited by a guy named evepirate in a rookie system. In fact that day he killed lots of rookies that did not udderstand much of anything like me in those days. Or what can baiting was even.
So if its bannable. I have not seen it in the 2 or so weeks I spent in rookie space. Sorry. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
49
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 17:08:00 -
[50] - Quote
AFKCloaked AltSpy wrote:
1. Every single item you have listed has been answered by a dev or GM on either the old or these forums. 2. If its an exploit, making it public knowledge is absolutely bad.
1. Yet you do not provide links to each of these answers. Why? Because it would take you 5-10 minutes (or longer) to hunt down each GM/dev response. Furthermore, for old responses, we do not know if and/or when CCP has changed their policy. This is a problem which should have been rectified a LONG time ago.
2. I should probably clarify, I do not want CCP to publicly reveal exploitable bugs - we can all agree that it would be a terrible idea for CCP to tell us how to duplicate moon goo. What I want is for CCP to definitively and publicly declare which activities which are within the intended game mechanics are prohibited. |
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
1
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 17:12:00 -
[51] - Quote
It is quite worrying that the last, very clear, exploit announcement I can recall was the "Yes, even if you use a Black Ops jump drive, avoiding destruction by CONCORD is an exploit."... And the one before that was the Wasp drone ban prior to RMR.
The POS dupe exploit was (as I recall) very much announced as a fait accompli - which is why I'm not counting it...
To add another one for clarification (as I first heard of the concept as an exploit but it has become pretty much a given over the past few years):
Webbing slow warping ships (particularly freighters and so forth) after they start their warp to reduce their maximum speed and therefore their align time. |
AFKCloaked AltSpy
MasterMined Technologies
13
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 17:26:00 -
[52] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:AFKCloaked AltSpy wrote:
1. Every single item you have listed has been answered by a dev or GM on either the old or these forums. 2. If its an exploit, making it public knowledge is absolutely bad.
1. Yet you do not provide links to each of these answers. Why? Because it would take you 5-10 minutes (or longer) to hunt down each GM/dev response. Furthermore, for old responses, we do not know if and/or when CCP has changed their policy. This is a problem which should have been rectified a LONG time ago. 2. I should probably clarify, I do not want CCP to publicly reveal exploitable bugs - we can all agree that it would be a terrible idea for CCP to tell us how to duplicate moon goo. What I want is for CCP to definitively and publicly declare which activities which are within the intended game mechanics are prohibited.
Why? Because I read it when it was hot. If its not enough of a concern to spend 5 minutes researching its probably not a big deal.
|
malaire
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 17:31:00 -
[53] - Quote
AFKCloaked AltSpy wrote:Why? Because I read it when it was hot. If its not enough of a concern to spend 5 minutes researching its probably not a big deal.
OK, can you show GM answer to question 11. I have never seen one (except in my personal petition), only players saying they have got answer from GM. Carebear -á* -áTrader -á* -áPerfect Music-á-á* -áNever Scamming -á* -áNever Pirating |
Nick Bete
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 17:52:00 -
[54] - Quote
I know that CCP bashing is the new forum sport but, how about using a little common sense (and reading the TOS that you had to read and agree to before connecting to Tranquility for the first time) here folks? What you're asking is for CCP to look for any and every possible scenario and to make a statement as to whether it's allowable or not? Really?
Logically and logistically that would be an impossible task.
As to the questions posed by the OP, they're covered in the TOS, Knowledge Base and Wiki (with the exception of logoffs which were addressed by multiple dev posts--there is no way for the server to distinguish between a network outage, power outage, if someone blew up a data center, or if someone clicked 'quit', therefore this "issue" cannot be addressed).
I will say that having the information in a centralized location with appropriate links and citations would make things simpler, however. |
malaire
51
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 18:00:00 -
[55] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:As to the questions posed by the OP, they're covered in the TOS, Knowledge Base and Wiki (with the exception of logoffs which were addressed by multiple dev posts--there is no way for the server to distinguish between a network outage, power outage, if someone blew up a data center, or if someone clicked 'quit', therefore this "issue" cannot be addressed). It's not that simple. For example EULA says "You may not use macros or other stored rapid keystrokes ..." but GMs have approved using G15's programmable buttons to execute several keypresses with just one button, which is exactly what I understand with phrase "stored rapid keystrokes".
Carebear -á* -áTrader -á* -áPerfect Music-á-á* -áNever Scamming -á* -áNever Pirating |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
214
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 18:00:00 -
[56] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:I know that CCP bashing is the new forum sport but, how about using a little common sense (and reading the TOS that you had to read and agree to before connecting to Tranquility for the first time) here folks? What you're asking is for CCP to look for any and every possible scenario and to make a statement as to whether it's allowable or not? Really? No. That is not what we're asking for.
We're asking for a place where they collect commonly asked questions (and their official answers) such as the ones presented in the OP, and on an on-going basis add answers as they come up in petitions.
Quote:As to the questions posed by the OP, they're covered in the TOS, Knowledge Base and Wiki Actually, no, they're not. In fact, at least one of the official answers to the OP's question directly contradicts the TOS. The one thing that is covered is the can baiting question, and that answer is rather fuzzy.
That's the whole point: to not chase around all those places (and thereby receive contradictory, false, or outdated information), but to have one place where the final answer on some specific detail that has come up throughout the years is posted. Hell, it even helps the GMs do their job. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
38
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 18:06:00 -
[57] - Quote
Not to mention the complete reversals that happen frequently. The latest is the Orca trick going from perfectly legitimate for 2+ years to exploity enough to warrant a code change.
Hell, it is possible to get completely different answers from the GMs on the same question by changing the tone/format of a petition .. it is in CCPs own best interest to at least have an internal list of these things which they most definitely do not. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
50
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 18:08:00 -
[58] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:I know that CCP bashing is the new forum sport but, how about using a little common sense (and reading the TOS that you had to read and agree to before connecting to Tranquility for the first time) here folks? What you're asking is for CCP to look for any and every possible scenario and to make a statement as to whether it's allowable or not? Really?
Logically and logistically that would be an impossible task.
As to the questions posed by the OP, they're covered in the TOS, Knowledge Base and Wiki (with the exception of logoffs which were addressed by multiple dev posts--there is no way for the server to distinguish between a network outage, power outage, if someone blew up a data center, or if someone clicked 'quit', therefore this "issue" cannot be addressed).
I will say that having the information in a centralized location with appropriate links and citations would make things simpler, however.
Reading the TOS is all well and good, except for a few tiny little problems:
Quote: 25. CCP reserves the right to close, temporarily or permanently, any userGÇÖs account without advance notice as we deem necessary. Furthermore, we reserve the right to delete all user accounts or inventory of characters as warranted.
26. We reserve the right to ban any user from the game without refund or compensation.
OR IN OTHER WORDS, what this means is that the TOS is not a comprehensive list of "the rules".
And the problem with "a little common sense" is that one person's common sense is not the same as another person's common sense. To one person, it is common sense that when 100+ people logging off at a gate, then all logging on when a rival fleet enters the system is a log-on trap and is exploiting. To another person, it is common sense that you can log on and log off whenever you want. CCP has gone BOTH ways, so your argument that all you need is a "little common sense" is meaningless.
Continuing with the Log on trap example, BOTH the knowledge base and evelopedia have no information about them.
Therefore, the only thing left to do is to manually search through thousands of threads on the topic (time consuming), or file a petition (wastes precious GM resources).
I am arguing that having a central location is MORE than just a convenience - it is something that we should have had a LOOOOONNNNNGGGG time ago. |
Something Random
The Barrow Boys
4
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 18:28:00 -
[59] - Quote
So..... CeeCeePee is so bad for not engaging in communicae with there player base, even though they openly state that they wish you to engage upon the personal petition method to find all this out.
Wanna buy a bridge ? anybody in this thread..... cheap.....
|
Prince Kobol
44
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 19:02:00 -
[60] - Quote
As far as I am aware no other MMO Developer has a defined list of was is or isn't considered an exploit.
I know many players (myseld included) ask both Codemasters (when they were supporting EU players) and Turbine of a defined list of exploits as during a certain period there was a lot of ambiguity regarding certain things yet they stated that they would not and never will do this.
Effectively when there was any ambiguity regarding if something was an exploit they only to know for sure was to do it and then see if you were caught and if so how you were punished.
|
|
Brooks Puuntai
Nomadic Asylum
96
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 19:10:00 -
[61] - Quote
Nick Bete wrote:I know that CCP bashing is the new forum sport but, how about using a little common sense
You must be new to the internet if you think that people will have a homogeneous consensus on what is right and wrong. Common sense doesn't apply on the internet and therefor somethings need to clearly defined for most.
What CCP has done in the past is leave "grey areas" that coarse of action is taken at a case to case basis. While this has "somewhat" worked in the past, primarily due to Eve's smallish player base, this really won't work now. Considering the fact that some exploits could have wide spread implications due to Eve being single sharded. |
Barakkus
731
|
Posted - 2011.09.26 19:22:00 -
[62] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:On a side note, point 10 (putting your own videos onto the Screen in the Captains Quarters) just has been addressed in a new dev blog. As for the rest, working on it.
NICE.
p/r0nz fpr everyonez! |
Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
12
|
Posted - 2011.09.27 01:26:00 -
[63] - Quote
Quote:As for the rest, working on it.
Thanks for the update. Looking forward to the next bit |
Ildryn
X Inc.
14
|
Posted - 2011.09.27 01:57:00 -
[64] - Quote
Lithalnas wrote: This is what is commonly known about your list o stuff that you want to know about. The GMs can chime in it things have been changed or have always been a bit fuzzy.
8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel The monkeysphere hack is considered an exploit
Unless of course you are Monkeysphere....then you are not banned and released. |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2011.09.27 02:56:00 -
[65] - Quote
Othran wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:So what you're saying is that having a centralized listing of known exploits and other nefarious activities which are not allowed and any other definitive communication to that extent would tie CCP's hands, from a PR standpoint, so that you wouldn't be able to apply your rules with the bias that CCP does without having the rest of the player base cry foul while pointing out the specific violations to which you could no longer legitimately deny or ignore? No, he's saying it'd cost money to fix and that's not happening anytime soon. Therefore a list of exploits (not dealt with - no devs available) would make matters worse for GMs. tl;dr emogoths and dusties get the resources
No, I'm fairly certain he said, and I'll paraphrase, that he didn't want to tie his hands with rules. This, of course, leaves the status quo intact. Honestly, who wants to do tie their own hands with fairness? It's always nice to tell one person that they were banned due to a clear case of abuse or exploitation and then later tell the masses why "so and so" wasn't banned for the same offense by stating that there are not black and white definitions of such an abuse or exploit....especially when the offender is a friend of a GM. We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
sukmanobov
The Priesthood The 0rphanage
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.27 03:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
Quote:8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel 9) can baiting in newbie systems 10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos. 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect,collate and upload market data.
8 - I for one would love to know how to do this!
9 - Who cares? just ban naming of cans
10 - Well i'd love to watch BBC-iPlayer on my CQ its about the only that might make uncheck the "don't show CQ" botton First thing i did when i got CQ was look at at how hot my female chars were once i got past that. I never used it again
11 - Market cache? lol if i makes eve lag then get rid of it.
12 - Kill jita / amarr / rens local chats pls
13 - Can you please give a 7day timer on Secure Cargo containers im sick of "happy new year" can in hek and its surrounding brothers. that place really is the Junk yard for useless Dead Cans. either that or im gonna go global on that thing one day. |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2011.09.27 11:40:00 -
[67] - Quote
[quote=sukmanobov]Quote:8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel 13 - Can you please give a 7day timer on Secure Cargo containers im sick of "happy new year" can in hek and its surrounding brothers. that place really is the Junk yard for useless Dead Cans. either that or im gonna go global on that thing one day.
If a Secure Cargo Container stays around for more than 30 days, then someone is taking care of it by accessing it regularly. Any Secure Container that has not been accessed in the past 30 days and is not nearby an active POS will be removed, and that's been the case for quite a long time already. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
Zey Nadar
Aliastra Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.09.27 14:44:00 -
[68] - Quote
AFKCloaked AltSpy wrote: 2. If its an exploit, making it public knowledge is absolutely bad.
I guess that is why people want to know whether something is an exploit or not. |
sukmanobov
The Priesthood The 0rphanage
3
|
Posted - 2011.09.28 02:41:00 -
[69] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:[quote=sukmanobov] Quote:8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel 13 - Can you please give a 7day timer on Secure Cargo containers im sick of "happy new year" can in hek and its surrounding brothers. that place really is the Junk yard for useless Dead Cans. either that or im gonna go global on that thing one day. If a Secure Cargo Container stays around for more than 30 days, then someone is taking care of it by accessing it regularly. Any Secure Container that has not been accessed in the past 30 days and is not nearby an active POS will be removed, and that's been the case for quite a long time already.
thanks for the reply Karidor
13. Either that of ban the use of "Secure cans" at NPC based stations. Normal jet cans disapear in a hour or so. The other ones serve no purpose except to advertise corp recruitment "Some silly mining corp, crapy pvp corp is recruiting player made bunnie wabbits - http://insertstupidlinkhere.com". Tbh thats what the forums are for or if you wish to pay for it - thats what the news boards are for. Secure cans will have to loaded when you reboot TQ and are a waste resource on the server unless there doing what they were intended for i.e. Sticking your ore in it at belts storing stuff at POS's etc.. |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 14:30:00 -
[70] - Quote
Thank you all for the patience, this took a tad bit longer than I anticipated. But with no further ado, here is the current situation in regards to the points brought up in the original post:
1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboard This really depends on the exact useof those keyboard macros. General guideline: Automating gameplay: bad. Turning on all your hardeners with one key press: fine
The essence of the EULA is to prevent cheating. Cheating is defined currently by the EULA as automating gameplay to an extent that is not achievable by a human being. A player usinga macro to achieve (or sustain) automated gameplay will be at risk for warning or more severe actions.
2) Loggoffski/loggonski Not an exploit at all, and never has been. We wonGÇÖt punish people for logging out of and into the game (even if they happen to log in all at about the same time and location that happens to be inconvenient for you).
3) Corp hopping to evade war decs No longer an exploit, with the exception of pilots changing corps while in space AND online (i.e. to"surprise" war targets).
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one.
5) Alt recycling While players are free to delete characters as they see fit, excessive recycling of characters not permitted and disciplinary actions will be decided on a case by case basis. General guideline: donGÇÖt do it to avoid consequences within game mechanics.
6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs. Not an exploit per se, but excessively doing so will result in a warning. DonGÇÖt want the risk of wars being declared on you? Stay in NPC corps. Also see the link in point 7.
7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs Not an exploit due to cost involved and lack of other means to shield one self from constant war decs. That is, if you do apply the wars directly to the entity you want to drive up the war costs for. Declaring cheap wars on a corp that then joins up the alliance you want to GÇ£shieldGÇ¥ is considered an exploit as per the this notification (which still is the case), and you will get in trouble for doing that.
8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel Definite Exploit, but should be fixed. Please report any new occurrences immediately.
9) Can baiting in newbie systems This is explicitly listed here. Also see this list of what we consider "Rookie Systems".
10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos. Modifying any client files is considered a EULA violation. However, adding Videos to play in the CQ is possible without modifying anything, as described in CCP Optimals Dev Blog.
11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect, collate and upload market data. As long as the IGB-specific procedure to open the market window for a specific item (and thus having the client creating cache data for that item) exists, you can use it. Keep in mind, though, that changes to this may happen and this procedure may stop working at any time. Also, reading and evaluating the clients cache data with third party tools is permitted, however modifying cache files used by the client is not and falls under modification of client files.
Those policies are, at this point, unlikely to change anytime soon, but yes, we may revise them should we deem it necessary.
GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
|
Nyio
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 14:35:00 -
[71] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote: 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect, collate and upload market data. As long as the IGB-specific procedure to open the market window for a specific item (and thus having the client creating cache data for that item) exists, you can use it. Keep in mind, though, that changes to this may happen and this procedure may stop working at any time. Also, reading and evaluating the clients cache data with third party tools is permitted, however modifying cache files used by the client is not and falls under modification of client files.
So this means that we have a clear answer that using programs like EVE Mentat is ok then?
Features & Ideas Discussion: Agent Finder, Black Holes Needs a banner here.. |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 14:58:00 -
[72] - Quote
sukmanobov wrote:13. Either that of ban the use of "Secure cans" at NPC based stations. Normal jet cans disapear in a hour or so. The other ones serve no purpose except to advertise corp recruitment "Some silly mining corp, crapy pvp corp is recruiting player made bunnie wabbits - http://insertstupidlinkhere.com". Tbh thats what the forums are for or if you wish to pay for it - thats what the news boards are for. Secure cans will have to loaded when you reboot TQ and are a waste resource on the server unless there doing what they were intended for i.e. Sticking your ore in it at belts storing stuff at POS's etc..
One could always declare war on the owners and remove the containers forcefully.
However, if there are so many around that they majorly affect client loading, feel free to report that and we will have a look. If the number of containers is indeed to high, then we may remove them. Keep in mind, though, that there is no "X amount of containers" for this and it is highly dependent on the situation, so don't be disappointed if we don't act when we disagree with you in reagards to the effect the containers have on the area. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 15:02:00 -
[73] - Quote
Nyio wrote:GM Karidor wrote: 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect, collate and upload market data. As long as the IGB-specific procedure to open the market window for a specific item (and thus having the client creating cache data for that item) exists, you can use it. Keep in mind, though, that changes to this may happen and this procedure may stop working at any time. Also, reading and evaluating the clients cache data with third party tools is permitted, however modifying cache files used by the client is not and falls under modification of client files.
So this means that we have a clear answer that using programs like EVE Mentat is ok then?
Not exactly familiar with EVE Mentat at this point, so I can't comment on this specific program, really. But if it does nothing more than what's been said in reply to point 11 and doesn't feed back into the client (such as changing orders for you automatically in response to this data), then it should be fine. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
176
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 15:05:00 -
[74] - Quote
Thanks for the dedication and very informative post. Forum fix for firefox and chrome Get working images and colored text Classic forum style 2.25final |
Nyio
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2011.09.29 15:07:00 -
[75] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Nyio wrote:GM Karidor wrote: 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect, collate and upload market data. As long as the IGB-specific procedure to open the market window for a specific item (and thus having the client creating cache data for that item) exists, you can use it. Keep in mind, though, that changes to this may happen and this procedure may stop working at any time. Also, reading and evaluating the clients cache data with third party tools is permitted, however modifying cache files used by the client is not and falls under modification of client files.
So this means that we have a clear answer that using programs like EVE Mentat is ok then? Not exactly familiar with EVE Mentat at this point, so I can't comment on this specific program, really. But if it does nothing more than what's been said in reply to point 11 and doesn't feed back into the client (such as changing orders for you automatically in response to this data), then it should be fine.
Well I know there was some "yahoo" about EVE Mentat on the old forums, but from what I understand it should be ok to use.. On a side note about EVE Mentat: I've tried it but then felt it was almost more work with all market orders, so I ended up going old style. Features & Ideas Discussion: Agent Finder, Black Holes Needs a banner here.. |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
65
|
Posted - 2011.09.30 04:17:00 -
[76] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Thank you all for the patience, this took a tad bit longer than I anticipated. But with no further ado, here is the current situation in regards to the points brought up in the original post: 1) Keyboard macros a'la the G15 Logitech keyboardThis really depends on the exact useof those keyboard macros. General guideline: Automating gameplay: bad. Turning on all your hardeners with one key press: fine The essence of the EULA is to prevent cheating. Cheating is defined currently by the EULA as automating gameplay to an extent that is not achievable by a human being. A player usinga macro to achieve (or sustain) automated gameplay will be at risk for warning or more severe actions. 2) Loggoffski/loggonskiNot an exploit at all, and never has been. We wonGÇÖt punish people for logging out of and into the game (even if they happen to log in all at about the same time and location that happens to be inconvenient for you). 3) Corp hopping to evade war decsNo longer an exploit, with the exception of pilots changing corps while in space AND online (i.e. to"surprise" war targets). 4) Corp recycling to evade war decsNot an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one. 5) Alt recyclingWhile players are free to delete characters as they see fit, excessive recycling of characters not permitted and disciplinary actions will be decided on a case by case basis. General guideline: donGÇÖt do it to avoid consequences within game mechanics. 6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs.Not an exploit per se, but excessively doing so will result in a warning. DonGÇÖt want the risk of wars being declared on you? Stay in NPC corps. Also see the link in point 7. 7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decsNot an exploit due to cost involved and lack of other means to shield one self from constant war decs. That is, if you do apply the wars directly to the entity you want to drive up the war costs for. Declaring cheap wars on a corp that then joins up the alliance you want to GÇ£shieldGÇ¥ is considered an exploit as per the this notification (which still is the case), and you will get in trouble for doing that. 8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channelDefinite Exploit, but should be fixed. Please report any new occurrences immediately. 9) Can baiting in newbie systemsThis is explicitly listed here. Also see this list of what we consider "Rookie Systems". 10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos.Modifying any client files is considered a EULA violation. However, adding Videos to play in the CQ is possible without modifying anything, as described in CCP Optimals Dev Blog. 11) Market cache scraping to automatically collect, collate and upload market data.As long as the IGB-specific procedure to open the market window for a specific item (and thus having the client creating cache data for that item) exists, you can use it. Keep in mind, though, that changes to this may happen and this procedure may stop working at any time. Also, reading and evaluating the clients cache data with third party tools is permitted, however modifying cache files used by the client is not and falls under modification of client files. Those policies are, at this point, unlikely to change anytime soon, but yes, we may revise them should we deem it necessary.
Thank you for the answers GM Karidor. However, I would like to reiterate the purpose of my OP: to consolidate this information in some sort of official manner so that this information stays readily available for the future generations of EVE Players. |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 17:51:00 -
[77] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:...
Those policies are, at this point, unlikely to change anytime soon, but yes, we may revise them should we deem it necessary.
And so goes live and things change. After a bit of back and forth and internal discussions, Customer Support will change to a "hands off" approach in regards to War mechanics effective immediately, meaning if you can do it within the current game mechanics, you are free to do so (until the actual mechanic eventually changes). This affects mainly Point 6 and 7, and they will be change as follows:
6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs. Corporations are free to change alliances as they see fit at any time. This officially nullifies this notification.
7) Using alt corps to artificially inflate the cost of war decs Not an exploit.
I will update the original post with the answers accordingly as well.
We are aware that this change will affect (and probably annoy) some corporations that make a living of declaring war on other corporations and may make it harder to follow through with attacking a certain entity in high sec space, but feel that any issues arising should be addressed by changes in the game mechanics rather than artificial rules enforced by Customer Support after the fact. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 19:22:00 -
[78] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:
Thank you for the answers GM Karidor. However, I would like to reiterate the purpose of my OP: to consolidate this information in some sort of official manner so that this information stays readily available for the future generations of EVE Players.
Something like this?
Honestly, it's a wiki and any EVE player could have created such a page to try and keep track of it, that's why the EVElopedia is a wiki in the first place
But yeah, I locked this one to give it that "Official" stamp, so I'll try to keep that page up to date with any new public announcements that the Customer Support team makes. I won't promise adding past announcements as I don't know if I can make time for that, but should you feel anything to be missing and have the link and all, then let us know through the discussion page there. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
90
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 19:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Taedrin wrote:
Thank you for the answers GM Karidor. However, I would like to reiterate the purpose of my OP: to consolidate this information in some sort of official manner so that this information stays readily available for the future generations of EVE Players.
Something like this? Honestly, it's a wiki and any EVE player could have created such a page to try and keep track of it, that's why the EVElopedia is a wiki in the first place But yeah, I locked this one to give it that "Official" stamp, so I'll try to keep that page up to date with any new public announcements that the Customer Support team makes. I won't promise adding past announcements as I don't know if I can make time for that, but should you feel anything to be missing and have the link and all, then let us know through the discussion page there.
Thank you very, VERY much GM Karidor. I am very appreciative of CCP's new resolve to improve communication with its playerbase. |
Muul Udonii
THORN Syndicate BricK sQuAD.
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.10 20:17:00 -
[80] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:And don't forget, if you're in doubt about something you intend to do might be skirting the rules on the wrong side of the rules, file a petition.
I'm about to suicide gank a hulk. Is this allowed?
Oh wait, too late, he left system.
The OP is correct, a list of FAQs easily accessible from the help page in the GUI would be a great idea. Especially if it is regularly maintained and updating it is a part of the release of a new rule. |
|
Ildryn
X Inc.
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 00:28:00 -
[81] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:
8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel Definite Exploit, but should be fixed. Please report any new occurrences immediately.
Those policies are, at this point, unlikely to change anytime soon, but yes, we may revise them should we deem it necessary.
And those who have and known to have definitely exploited this are still playing.... Are we to take this to mean it is now okay to "hack" local. Contradictory rule is contradictory.
|
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 00:45:00 -
[82] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote: 2) Loggoffski/loggonski Not an exploit at all, and never has been. We wonGÇÖt punish people for logging out of and into the game (even if they happen to log in all at about the same time and location that happens to be inconvenient for you).
lol that ones funny
Quote: 5) Alt recycling While players are free to delete characters as they see fit, excessive recycling of characters not permitted and disciplinary actions will be decided on a case by case basis. General guideline: donGÇÖt do it to avoid consequences within game mechanics.
Yeah I dont think they have the people to watch the thousands and thousands of alts recycled in a day after the 20% cut O.o
GM Karidor wrote:9) Can baiting in newbie systemsThis is explicitly listed http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Griefing here. Also see url=http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems this list of what we consider "Rookie Systems".
ok this doesnt make sense.... all thats gonna do is increase the number of petitions filed the first time it happens outside the newbie system... Is ganking in the newbie systems prohibited too? They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
102
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 00:51:00 -
[83] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:6) Alliance hopping to evade war decs. (edited Oct. 10th) Corporations are free to change alliances as they see fit at any time. This officially nullifies this notification. [...] ( Declaring cheap wars on a corp that then joins up the alliance you want to GÇ£shieldGÇ¥ is considered an exploit as per the this notification (which still is the case), and you will get in trouble for doing that.)
Wait, both links point to the same notification. So is it in effect or not? |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 00:53:00 -
[84] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:GM Karidor wrote:
8) "Hacking" local chat to make you not appear on other people's local channel Definite Exploit, but should be fixed. Please report any new occurrences immediately.
Those policies are, at this point, unlikely to change anytime soon, but yes, we may revise them should we deem it necessary.
And those who have and known to have definitely exploited this are still playing.... Are we to take this to mean it is now okay to "hack" local. Contradictory rule is contradictory.
Yeah it depends on what corp they were in They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
ACY GTMI
Veerhouven Group The Veerhouven Group
23
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:12:00 -
[85] - Quote
A quote from GM Karidor
"9) Can baiting in newbie systems This is explicitly listed here. Also see this list of what we consider "Rookie Systems"."
Maintaining the links is beyond my competence, but this is a lie.
The reason why I say that is that I started a new character on 03/16/2011. While going through tutorials I petitioned a player for rookie baiting. He thought that was funny. So do I now.
No tears of rage here. I knew better than to do anything except look inside the can.
Maybe tears of frustration, though.
The response to the petition was that I should stop petitioning this kind of incident. I thought then that it might not have been a real 'rookie system' so I asked for a definition. It was 6 months ago, so I don't remember the exact response, but it was something along the lines of "That information is not available to you."
Sorry for the negativism, but this has been eating at me for . . . 6 months.
I can't think of a better way to antagonize a playerbase than invisible rules.
|
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:27:00 -
[86] - Quote
I think no baiting in rookie systems is stupid (an I dont can bait lol)
like I said earlier: can you not gank in those systems too?
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
188
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:36:00 -
[87] - Quote
just ask the question about the one thing that list you actually care about
is it corp hopping?
nice approach hiding your beef in a list, but it doesn't always work, just like hiding high value cargo in a load of junk The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
ACY GTMI
Veerhouven Group The Veerhouven Group
23
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:39:00 -
[88] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:I think no baiting in rookie systems is stupid (an I dont can bait lol)
like I said earlier: can you not gank in those systems too?
Why do you think it's stupid? Can't you remember the day you took your first flight out of a station, expecting an environment where only 'aliens' were harmful, and then lost that ship to someone who has been playing for several years, but has never had the ********* to go beyond rookie baiting?
IMHO, rookie baiters do what they do because they are incapable of doing anything more constructive. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
188
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:44:00 -
[89] - Quote
wtf... wrong thread The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
29
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:45:00 -
[90] - Quote
In case anybody hasn't mentioned it, the rules on corp hopping to avoid war decs changed quite recently. *POINTS up to the sticky at this top of the general discussion forums* |
|
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
29
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:52:00 -
[91] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:I think no baiting in rookie systems is stupid (an I dont can bait lol)
like I said earlier: can you not gank in those systems too?
Yeah but that rule has been in place for as long as I can remember.
It's pretty much the only thing CCP explicitly considers griefing. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 01:57:00 -
[92] - Quote
ACY GTMI wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:I think no baiting in rookie systems is stupid (an I dont can bait lol)
like I said earlier: can you not gank in those systems too?
Why do you think it's stupid? Can't you remember the day you took your first flight out of a station, expecting an environment where only 'aliens' were harmful,
Bullllllshit, the thing that DREW me to this game was nonconsentual PVP. ****, I thought EVERYWHERE was scary and dangerous (not knowing how it actually works), expecting anyone at any time to lock me up an kill me. My first few weeks in this game were thrilling. Fun. Going back to games (as the other two friends I play with left EVE and I knew noone here) where this wasnt the case was boring. This game should be MORE dangerous imo
Again: can you not gank in those systems?
Also, if you wanna coddle them in the newbie systems why dont you make it so noone that isnt missioning there can even enter the friggin gate.
I think its damn stupid to coddle them in those systems cause theyre just gonna get in the REST OF THE GAME an get jacked up. They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
30
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 02:02:00 -
[93] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:
Bullllllshit, the thing that DREW me to this game was nonconsentual PVP. ****, I thought EVERYWHERE was scary and dangerous (not knowing how it actually works), expecting anyone at any time to lock me up an kill me. My first few weeks in this game were thrilling. Fun. Going back to games (as the other two friends I play with left EVE and I knew noone here) where this wasnt the case was boring. This game should be MORE dangerous imo
Again: can you not gank in those systems?
Also, if you wanna coddle them in the newbie systems why dont you make it so noone that isnt missioning there can even enter the friggin gate.
Yeah but at the same time they want people to at least be able to do their tutorials in peace and not just leave the game because they can't even learn the basics without being harassed. This game like any other needs subscribers too.
On rookie can baiting from the EULA, (Last paragraph) from http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336 No mention of ganking, but I'm curious about that as well in all honesty.
Grief play What is grief play? Griefing A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account.
This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.
An example of grief play would be the so called "Can baiting" in starter systems. An experienced player drops a cargo container with some items in front of a station in a starter system and waits for a new player to take from it. The new player is flagged and promptly attacked and killed by the owner of the container. Doing the same in starter tutorial complexes is also considered grief play and will not be tolerated. |
Vrykolakasis
Trinity Operations Aurora Irae
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 02:08:00 -
[94] - Quote
Just noting that I am also curious about ganking in starter systems. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
142
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 02:39:00 -
[95] - Quote
My understanding is that only can baiting is out of bounds.
And really, I don't see the harm in letting them at least learn the rules of the game before you start proving how superior you are.
Now if they ignore the tutorials and/or skip the parts about what gives you a criminal flag and head out into the vast unknown to "max out their level in record time just like all those other games he's an ace at" then more power to you. To kill the enemy and break their toys!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 03:48:00 -
[96] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:
Bullllllshit, the thing that DREW me to this game was nonconsentual PVP. ****, I thought EVERYWHERE was scary and dangerous (not knowing how it actually works), expecting anyone at any time to lock me up an kill me. My first few weeks in this game were thrilling. Fun. Going back to games (as the other two friends I play with left EVE and I knew noone here) where this wasnt the case was boring. This game should be MORE dangerous imo
Again: can you not gank in those systems?
Also, if you wanna coddle them in the newbie systems why dont you make it so noone that isnt missioning there can even enter the friggin gate.
Yeah but at the same time they want people to at least be able to do their tutorials in peace and not just leave the game because they can't even learn the basics without being harassed. This game like any other needs subscribers too. On rookie can baiting from the EULA, (Last paragraph) from http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336No mention of ganking, but I'm curious about that as well in all honesty. Grief play What is grief play? Griefing A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition. An example of grief play would be the so called "Can baiting" in starter systems. An experienced player drops a cargo container with some items in front of a station in a starter system and waits for a new player to take from it. The new player is flagged and promptly attacked and killed by the owner of the container. Doing the same in starter tutorial complexes is also considered grief play and will not be tolerated.
the grief play thing is basically suspended in the real game - See Goons rofl Funny how its actually enforced in the noob systems :p I think like I said; if theyre gonna coddle em, phase the damn system out for ppl past those missions lol
an I wanna know the answer to the gank question lol
If you think about it, if the Goonies really wanted to break the game, sit in the noob areas and gank the **** outta noobs lol Not everyone's gonna take getting blown up over an over without leaving They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
132
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 03:57:00 -
[97] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:JC Anderson wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:
Bullllllshit, the thing that DREW me to this game was nonconsentual PVP. ****, I thought EVERYWHERE was scary and dangerous (not knowing how it actually works), expecting anyone at any time to lock me up an kill me. My first few weeks in this game were thrilling. Fun. Going back to games (as the other two friends I play with left EVE and I knew noone here) where this wasnt the case was boring. This game should be MORE dangerous imo
Again: can you not gank in those systems?
Also, if you wanna coddle them in the newbie systems why dont you make it so noone that isnt missioning there can even enter the friggin gate.
Yeah but at the same time they want people to at least be able to do their tutorials in peace and not just leave the game because they can't even learn the basics without being harassed. This game like any other needs subscribers too. On rookie can baiting from the EULA, (Last paragraph) from http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336No mention of ganking, but I'm curious about that as well in all honesty. Grief play What is grief play? Griefing A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition. An example of grief play would be the so called "Can baiting" in starter systems. An experienced player drops a cargo container with some items in front of a station in a starter system and waits for a new player to take from it. The new player is flagged and promptly attacked and killed by the owner of the container. Doing the same in starter tutorial complexes is also considered grief play and will not be tolerated. the grief play thing is basically suspended in the real game - See Goons rofl Funny how its actually enforced in the noob systems :p I think like I said; if theyre gonna coddle em, phase the damn system out for ppl past those missions lol an I wanna know the answer to the gank question lol If you think about it, if the Goonies really wanted to break the game, sit in the noob areas and gank the **** outta noobs lol Not everyone's gonna take getting blown up over an over without leaving
Grief play is defined differently in EVE than in other games. Basically it means singling out a specific character without justification and without giving any means of relief. I.E. if you don't give him any terms of surrender and just want to blow him up over and over again for no reason.
Goons target RANDOMLY, so does not constitute "grief play". Also, war decs do not constitute "grief play" because they generally give you a means of relief - pay the ransom and the war goes away. Likewise if you annoy someone, they may decide to attack you as part of a vendetta - this is ALSO not considered grief play, because it is not done without cause. |
Cheekything
Black Lance Executive Outcomes
67
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 04:29:00 -
[98] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:10) Modifying non-executable EVE data to make decorative changes to EVE, such as getting the TV to play customized videos.Modifying any client files is considered a EULA violation. However, adding Videos to play in the CQ is possible without modifying anything, as described in CCP Optimals Dev Blog.
Since you make the video thing possible do you think you can bug them to make something so we can add personal skins and themes to ships.
I really want to have hello kitty ships in eve, even if no one else can see them... pretty please with a cheery on top.
Hello Kitty Apoc
Hello Kitty Kezzy
Stuff like that :P |
Richard Hammond II
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 05:22:00 -
[99] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:
Goons target RANDOMLY, so does not constitute "grief play".
as I understand it youre only griefing in the regular game if you target one guy over an over. The Goons dont do this unless theyre a bot (but Mittens says every ice miner is...) anyhoo... its just funny that you can grief someone in a starter area that if the person said ANYTHING about it later on n the game they'd get ripped a new one for saying anything lol
They hired actual clothing designers for WiS clothes "no wonder the monocle cost $80, they had to pay royalties" Screw "FiS" its called EVE CCP |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
44
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 08:13:00 -
[100] - Quote
You mean like this? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Exploit_Notifications Or this one http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Category:Rules_and_Policies
But i agree, they need to make it much more obvious. Simply updating a wiki isnt enough ether. When we login, there should be a notification area listing all the recent rule changes / decisions in the past 6 months. Not every player reads every topic on the forums. And you cant expect them to re-read the wiki every few days to see if its changed ether. |
|
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
136
|
Posted - 2011.10.29 14:47:00 -
[101] - Quote
Yes, something exactly like that wiki page - except maintained and up to date. That page has not been updated since 2008. This is exactly what I fear will happen to GM Karidor's page: it will be maintained for awhile, then forgotten and we are back to square #1. Another issue that I have with GM Karidor's page is that it is the efforts of a single GM - it lacks the officialness that other important documents like the EULA or TOS have, which are certain to be continually updated. On top of that, it lacks visibility - but at least players can search for it
It highlights the issue at hand: that CCP employee's are GREAT at communication with the players. But CCP as a corporation is absolutely terrible at it. |
Kengutsi Akira
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
144
|
Posted - 2011.11.03 05:22:00 -
[102] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote: like I said earlier: can you not gank in those systems too?
this, please
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=255722#post255722
My stance on WiS |
Terminal Insanity
Convex Enterprises
56
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 09:28:00 -
[103] - Quote
bump
Because i run a channel for neer-do-wells and constantly see people breaking rules. Its strange to be both a pirate AND the guy enforcing the 'law' and telling them to knock it off... Most cases they honestly DONT know the rules |
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
416
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:58:00 -
[104] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote: like I said earlier: can you not gank in those systems too?
this, please
30 billion systems in this game and all I see are the brave soldiers and mighty warriors getting their codpieces bent because they can't grief in 12 of those systems.
Any of you ever actually fight?
Mr Epeen If you can read this, you haven't blocked me yet. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
265
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 19:13:00 -
[105] - Quote
I honestly can't remember what systems are the n00b systems anymore its been so long.... The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Richard Aiel
Point of No Return Waterboard
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:30:00 -
[106] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Kengutsi Akira wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote: like I said earlier: can you not gank in those systems too?
this, please 30 billion systems in this game and all I see are the brave soldiers and mighty warriors getting their codpieces bent because they can't grief in 12 of those systems. Any of you ever actually fight? Mr Epeen
you are aware you CAN
right? You just cant canflip there. It doesnt say a damn thing about suicide ganking or anything else.
And I was under the understanding it was like 5000 systems... "If the unfaithful would rage-quit, let them do so. And let not the gates of New Eden strike them 'pon the ass ere they leave." Quoth the Hillmar |
Kmelx
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 09:54:00 -
[107] - Quote
What about low sec/null sec gate campers all initiating conversations with you after you've jumped a gate?
You get conversation requests from 10-15 + players as soon as you jump through.
They're obviously doing it to cause lag on your client and exploit in game mechanics to gain an unfair advantage over you, does CCP consider this an exploit? |
Valei Khurelem
Khurelem Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 10:05:00 -
[108] - Quote
This is a problem that isn't limited to EVE Online unfortunately, I've seen all sorts of communities completely bugger up the idea of having clearly defined rules, hell you look at our governments in real life and the same problem is there as well.
The people who do this from my experience either:
. Deliberately want the rules to be vague so they can ban/arrest anyone they like by using their own interpretations of what the rules are
. Have absolutely no idea how to make clear and defined rules or the people who have done it before them knew what they were about and they can't interpret them
The obvious solution to this would be to just simply get rid of all these rules and start over with something simple and easy to understand for anyone, but unfortunately society doesn't seem to work like that and people in charge in particular seem to like keeping things the way they are.
Kmelx if you're having problems with that sort of thing, before you go and tackle the gate camp that's using that tactic, enable auto-reject invitations in the options, that should probably fix it. |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
935
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 13:07:00 -
[109] - Quote
keep alive bump for the thread
Get |
Zimmy Zeta
Battle Force Industries Tactical Invader Syndicate
850
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 13:27:00 -
[110] - Quote
Grey Stormshadow wrote:keep alive bump for the thread
Congratulation, your necromancy skill has improved, you are now an expert conjurer....
-.- |
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
358
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 17:49:00 -
[111] - Quote
Since it has not been mentioned here I feel obligated as a pirate to point out another interesting policy regarding using corpses, cans, and other materials littered in a drag bubble or around a gate for the purpose of decloaking ships. It's totally legit (as long as it doesn't cause lag) and has been since this game was made. I get questions or objections to this all the time. The GM response was posted here:
http://eve-search.com/thread/1555366#4
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |