|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 37 post(s) |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
2293
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Stillman from Team Security has a new dev blog out where he breaks down CCP's policy on client modification and goes into details about what is and isn't allowed. So if you've ever wondered what's against the rules and what's not, check it out here.
Please utilize this thread for all feedback! New Eden Community Representative GÇ+ New Eden Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
453
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hosedna wrote:The wiki page states that cache scraping is forbidden. If I'm correct, popular services such as eve-central rely on it... Do you plan to release an API access to the market to make up for this ? Or many player developped application based on eve-central api will just ... die. And it's not going to be good for the market ! Cache scraping is against the EULA. We will enforce it at our discretion. That has always been the case. Don't expect anything to change. We merely wanted to clarify the matter.
Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hosedna wrote:CCP Stillman wrote:Hosedna wrote:The wiki page states that cache scraping is forbidden. If I'm correct, popular services such as eve-central rely on it... Do you plan to release an API access to the market to make up for this ? Or many player developped application based on eve-central api will just ... die. And it's not going to be good for the market ! Cache scraping is against the EULA. We will enforce it at our discretion. That has always been the case. Don't expect anything to change. We merely wanted to clarify the matter. It would just be clearer for anyone if a legal access to these vital market data was provided :) Can't say that I disagree. We'd like to provide more data to everybody. But that's not my department I'm afraid, but is something I'm lobbying. Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Uppsy Daisy wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:is cache scraping what evemon does when it 'sends market data from your eve installation cache to online endpoints'? Absolutely, yes. Half the player population are now breaking the EULA. Nice job CCP. This really is pathetic. How can you pop up and say half the player base are breaking the EULA and we will 'enforce at our discretion'? Please explain. Our EULA hasn't changed in this regard. This is the EULA we've always had. We have not outlawed cache scraping as of today. It has always been against our EULA. It's at our discretion as to enforcing it.
Team Security focuses on what we can do to stop macroing and RMT. That is where we will spend our time. So take that for what you want. Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:25:00 -
[5] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:is cache scraping what evemon does when it 'sends market data from your eve installation cache to online endpoints'? Yes
We are looking for cheaters, hackers, botters and the likes. We are not looking for EVEMON users. Basically, please don't worry. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
454
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mechaet wrote: The cache scraping ban was unexpected, though. How are eve-central et al going to get their market data? I've configured my EveMon to not send in the market data now (and I assume any wise player will do the same). It kind of sucks that clarifications like these result in viable, useful third-party sites finding themselves in a position of being rules-lawyered out of being viable, especially after all those folks put in such massive effort to make something all of us players can use.
You've said that you're trying to lobby for getting Eve marketeers a feed they can use to get market data; did you consider putting a halt to cache scraping bans until you knew the outcome of that effort, or is it an instance where something bad out there is doing cache scraping (or using cache scraping to control something) and you need to act on it more immediately?
I want to clarify that the cache scraping ban isn't new. If you read the EULA, this isn't a new thing. It has never been allowed by the EULA.
In regards to enforcement, we don't have plans. It's not at the top of our to-do list. It's simply a case of while it not being allowed by our EULA, it's at our discretion whether or not the effort to enforce it is worth it or not. Right now, we're focused on botting, RMT, client modification that impact other players. Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Uppsy Daisy wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:is cache scraping what evemon does when it 'sends market data from your eve installation cache to online endpoints'? Yes We are looking for cheaters, hackers, botters and the likes. We are not looking for EVEMON users. Basically, please don't worry. And how will you tell the difference between an EVEMON user that you are 'not looking for' and an evil botter? There is no difference. It is totally unenforceable. So why ban it?
I don't know where you got that from, but we can tell the difference between a bot and a legitimate player.
Cache scraping can be used for botting purposes, in which case we will action against it. EVEMon clearly isn't botting software. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ishihiro tanaka wrote:Selena Na'sharr wrote:What's the position on gaming keyboards with macro-capabilities, such as the Logitech G15? Its driver inherently supports some level of user-initiated automation. (in short, do I need to look for a new keyboard? :)) This ^^ needs an answer.
I'm typing on a G15 right now. If you turn your keyboard into a bot, we'll deal with that, but otherwise you are perfectly safe. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
460
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
Fade Toblack wrote: Hell, let's take this further. On one hand, in the devblog you state that you'll never approve any piece of 3rd party software, meanwhile individual CCP staff are stating that people won't get banned for using EveMon - surely that's an endorsement of a particular piece of 3rd party software?
Do you think people should be banned for using EveMon? Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
462
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Horatius Caul wrote:Uppsy Daisy wrote: The EULA has always been completely vague. The nearest we have had previously was that cache scraping was legal.
All EULAs are vague, on purpose. Why? Because they are written to allow the first party to cover all eventualities and do whatever they want with you. The EULA also makes it clear that CCP can ban you for whatever reasons they feel like, should it come to that. A dev saying that something is okay or another dev saying something should be okay to do doesn't actually void the agreement you've accepted which states that doing so is not okay. The EULA is written by lawyers to protect the company, and random members of staff can't alter its clauses. What they can do is opt to enforce or not enforce the clauses on a case-by-case basis, which CCP's security staff does. They could just as easily take a blanket approach to the TOS and EULA and enforce it by the letter, which wouldn't just ban everybody using EVEMON but also everybody who's ever used Triexporter to play around with EVE's 3D models, textures, or fonts. But they haven't, because they value these things in the community and don't consider you a bad person. CCP has made an effort to separate botters from other people who violate the EULA, which is more than you can expect from most companies. "Is this in violation of the EULA" and "Will I get banned for this" are two completely different questions. This gentleman is spot on.
Trust me, we have no interest in banning people unless they are doing something that hurts the game. Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
463
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Minimax Zed wrote:Two step wrote:As I have been saying to CCP Stillman since this went public (the CSM was not informed of this in advance), CCP should provide an API call to get market data before they declare cache scraping illegal. Many useful 3rd party applications depend on cache scraping, including just about every killboard out there (for market prices). This. Also, I'm disappointed in CCP Stillman's lack of understanding of the cognitive dissonance induced in people that love this game enough to never want to violate the EULA. Vague promises about "it won't be enforced" aren't really reassuring. I'm sorry that this is how it's perceived. However the intent of clarifying this is to address in all honesty what our EULA says about specific items.
Our EULA is what it is. But if we were to make arbitrary exceptions to the EULA, that makes the EULA worthless. Misleading the player base about what the EULA entails is dishonest. We'd much rather explain what the EULA states and how it applies to different things.
But you have to remember that enforcement is an entirely different beast. I know what Team Security is tasked with, as do all of you because we discuss it and details about it on a regular basis. We focus on botting and RMT, and now also client modification used by known bots. Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Big Jim Slade wrote:What about all those Overview modifications by changing the overviews .xml file? Are you also checking modified .xml files to see if players are making your game more user friendly and ban them?
Nope, no worries on that one. We are after the hackers, botters and the RMTers.
CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
466
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
Muscaat wrote:
For years, CCP have been saying "cache scraping is OK". Then out of the blue we get a dev blog and wiki page telling us exactly the opposite: cache scraping is banned and CCP can ban you for doing it. Then, in the comments thread accompanying the dev blog, we get a dev saying in effect "it's banned and we can ban you for it, but we probably won't".
That's not exactly clarifying the situation to me.
I have a personal interest here: I have both written a market cache scraper and also run a website that uses scraped market data. Now, after investing years of development effort into both having been told it's OK to do so, CCP suddenly tell me I could be banned for it? That's not pleasant.
And there are many more people out there who've invested way more time and effort into developing third-party applications than I have.
It might seem like nitpicking, but when you've made a heavy investment into a game, suddenly being threatened with a ban for it rather makes one want to seek as much clarity as one can.
Let me reiterate again. The EULA hasn't changed in this regard. This clarification is a response to the request of countless people who read a post by CCP Sreegs that claimed that it was technically against the EULA. This caused a lot of confusion, and we are here to clarify what he meant. Because he was right. Here's the post. Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
Muscaat wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Muscaat wrote:CCP Stillman wrote: Trust me, we have no interest in banning people unless they are doing something that hurts the game.
Then why post all this crap about suddenly deciding that cache scraping has always been against the EULA and threaten to ban those who do it? This attempt to clarify the situation seems to have done anything but. Only if you are incredibly obtuse. For years, CCP have been saying "cache scraping is OK". Then out of the blue we get a dev blog and wiki page telling us exactly the opposite: cache scraping is banned and CCP can ban you for doing it. Then, in the comments thread accompanying the dev blog, we get a dev saying in effect "it's banned and we can ban you for it, but we probably won't". That's not exactly clarifying the situation to me. I have a personal interest here: I have both written a market cache scraper and also run a website that uses scraped market data. Now, after investing years of development effort into both having been told it's OK to do so, CCP suddenly tell me I could be banned for it? That's not pleasant. And there are many more people out there who've invested way more time and effort into developing third-party applications than I have. It might seem like nitpicking, but when you've made a heavy investment into a game, suddenly being threatened with a ban for it rather makes one want to seek as much clarity as one can.
I absolutely understand your frustration. This was not intended as a threat in any way.
Please, consider the fact that cache scraping can be used for illegitimate purposes which are damaging to the overall health of the game, such as for example market bots. The policy is in place to protect the game and our players ability to enjoy the game.
A blanket yes or no is not possible in this case. With our statement of intent, I sincerely hope that our legitimate players don't worry about catching the ban hammer for something we genuinely aren't concerned about.
CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lallante wrote: Here's a summary: 1. If you do something dodgy to gain an unfair advantage, its almost certainly against the EULA and you may get banned if caught; 2. If you do something reasonable that is TECHNICALLY against the EULA but doesnt harm Eve or qualify as "cheating" in any meaningful sense, you wont get banned and they wont be trying to catch you.
This is spot on, thank you. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 15:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Entity wrote:CCP Peligro wrote: Please, consider the fact that cache scraping can be used for illegitimate purposes which are damaging to the overall health of the game,
Cars can be used to run over people. I don't see the government issuing blanket threats to car drivers.
Hi Entity! There are no blanket threats here, I'm sorry you see it that way.
We've stated our intent numerous times, and I'll do it again; the policies are in place to protect the well being of the game. We'll use these policies to get rid of cheaters, and I'm sure you don't want them around any more than we do. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
478
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 17:00:00 -
[17] - Quote
Zeph Bowra wrote: Please give us a CCP-sanctioned way of accessing arbitrary data about the sandbox, beef up your API functionality and capacity, maybe even make it compatible with other real-world systems, and let us continue our relationship with you as it's been: we make the tools and toys to fill in the blanks you and your development team don't have time or resources to produce. It's been a functional relationship up until now. There is absolutely no reason any of us are aware of that would keep this relationship from continuing, other than the current EULA interpretation.
Thanks for your consideration.
This is something I would love to see. However it's not my department I'm afraid. I will however suggest this to Soundwave and Seagull. But I can't promise anything.
We're not trying to make people that aren't hurting the game out to be bad people. A lot of cool things come out of third party tools. But I also don't want the misconception that has been, admittedly as a result of a mistake on our end, believed to be allowed by the EULA. Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Stillman
C C P C C P Alliance
486
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 17:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:If your department doesn't have the capacity to evaluate and green-list third party tools then you need to avoid language that makes using any tool an EULA violation. The language of the third party policies post does not change the EULA. It simply explains the EULA more in depth.
We can't green-list third party tools. For one thing, doing so could make us legally liable for the actions done by third parties. So I'm afraid it's not just feasible, even if it would make things easier. Just a random dude in Team Security. |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 18:04:00 -
[19] - Quote
Thank you for all your comments and concerns regarding cache scraping, we are listening and we truly appreciate your feedback.
After consulting with CCP Legal and Team Security, we are not prepared to amend the EULA at this time to address your concerns. However, your comments are good ones, and we will consider incorporating them with the next scheduled update to the EULA (expected this fall, 2013).
In the meantime, CCP confirms that we will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.
CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
64
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 18:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
Esmilis99 wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:Thank you for all your comments and concerns regarding cache scraping, we are listening and we truly appreciate your feedback.
After consulting with CCP Legal and Team Security, we are not prepared to amend the EULA at this time to address your concerns. However, your comments are good ones, and we will consider incorporating them with the next scheduled update to the EULA (expected this fall, 2013).
In the meantime, CCP confirms that we will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.
Now put it in the dev blog, or somewhere else visible. Page 16 of a random feedback thread is not a credible place
Yep, thanks, we are working on that. I just edited the OP, and the dev blog will be updated shortly. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
71
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 18:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
Artctura wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:Thank you for all your comments and concerns regarding cache scraping, we are listening and we truly appreciate your feedback.
After consulting with CCP Legal and Team Security, we are not prepared to amend the EULA at this time to address your concerns. However, your comments are good ones, and we will consider incorporating them with the next scheduled update to the EULA (expected this fall, 2013).
In the meantime, CCP confirms that we will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.
Can we *ALSO* get this from CCP Stillman? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd really prefer it to come from the person in charge of the people with the ban button.
Stillman is not in charge of the people with the ban button, he is CCPs Security Analyst. Our boss is GM Solomon, VP of Customer Relationship Management.
The word comes from Team Security as well as CCPs Legal department. It is official and you can quote me on it!
CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
78
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 18:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
Innominate wrote:Tippia wrote: Remeber the EVE-Uni market bot that got someone banned a while back? People tried to defend that on the grounds that it was GÇ£only cache scrapingGÇ¥.
This change puts a solid slug through both knees of that argument.
Except it was market bot. "Only cache scraping" was a dumb argument then, it remains a dumb argument now. Market bots should be banned and the cache scraping side is irrelevant.
There is a difference between a keyboard macro which achieves automation, and a complex bot which relies on injecting code into the EVE process. When you get detected as using a particularly nasty bot, I can say: "You are permanently banned" as opposed to "You are temporarily banned".
Code injection bots place additional strain on our systems. They are detrimental to you, the legitimate players ability to enjoy EVE Online. That is why we have these rules in place. We'll further elaborate on this topic during the EVE Security presentation at FanFest, but honestly, this rule is there to help our legitimate players, not to get rid of them.
CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 20:12:00 -
[23] - Quote
Andski wrote:I have MSVS 2010 on my PC, I guess I should get rid of it before CCP deems it a EULA violation because it can be used to not just design, but compile, debug and test botting software!
Are you perhaps creating a GUI using Visual Basic? CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 20:24:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ereilian wrote:Quality input there Pel, thanks for that. seriously CCP makes a blanket announcement that affects nearly everyone who uses 3rd party software that is NOT in breach of the EULA and this is the qulaity of your input? How about ... "Hey guys, we ****** up, we dont really need to monitor cache scraping but it is an easy way to detect certain bots and .. well hell we cant prove you botted but if you access the cache like this you must be botting, but as we cant prove it we are gonna ban you for cache scrapping.".
I'm fairly sure Andski can take a little joke. If you didn't already see my clarification post, please feel free to check it out here. Thanks for your input! CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
91
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 20:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:Just out of curiosity, if you're saying the EULA hasn't changed, what exactly was it the Dev Blog was supposed to achieve?
If cache scraping was always against the EULA, but you're still not going to ban "legitimate" EVE players, what purpose was the Dev Blog supposed to achieve?
The Dev blog was intended to inform players about our increased efforts towards getting rid of cheaters. We temporarily banned 2350 accounts today for verified abuse of an "autopilot to 0" hack. So, if you are using some kind of bot or hack for EVE, now is a good time to stop.
There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 20:48:00 -
[26] - Quote
Kleesama wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:[quote=Inquisitor Kitchner] There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document. I'm pretty sure you failed miserably at your attempt to clarify anything. It seems most of us are getting "Hey guys, this is against the EULA but if you're using a popular program that already does it we probably won't ban you. probably. maybe."
I genuinely do not know how to be any clearer than this: We will only impose penalties on cache scraping if used in connection with other illegal activities in the game (i.e., botting). We will not take action against cache scraping for other uses.
I do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
99
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 21:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:I do apologize, though! I'm well aware that the original wording was not well received, and did not appropriately relay our intent. But threats are still there on " clarification page": Quote:That said, unless there is an extreme case (i.e., cache scraping combined with other EULA violations), we will not penalize players who have engaged in this practice prior to 15 April 2013. Now that we have made our intent and policy clear, we may, in our sole discretion, deliver appropriate penalties for players that engage in cache scraping after 15 April 2013 (including temporary or permanent bans). If you wont take any actions against players, why this text still exist in initial failed form (not even mention wrong date)?
Hey, thanks for your input. The policy page needs to be updated by the web team. It'll happen ASAP.
CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
101
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:14:00 -
[28] - Quote
Michal Jita wrote: So basicaly any one else using any 'dodgy' software is OK for now and gets a warning on forums, but the guys caught using AP to 0 gets 30days ban, sound fair?
That is not the case at all, our bot detection services run 24/7, 365, and bad guys are dealt with on a daily basis. We recently announced changes in our policies against botting, so if that interests you, please have a look: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/74632
This was a case of us targeting a specific application, as we have done in the past. I am very much pleased with the results of this particular operation, this version of the AP0 hack is now being detected. You will get caught if you use it, and we will continue to add to this list. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
105
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:23:00 -
[29] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:Just out of curiosity, if you're saying the EULA hasn't changed, what exactly was it the Dev Blog was supposed to achieve?
If cache scraping was always against the EULA, but you're still not going to ban "legitimate" EVE players, what purpose was the Dev Blog supposed to achieve? The Dev blog was intended to inform players about our increased efforts towards getting rid of cheaters. We temporarily banned 2350 accounts today for verified abuse of an "autopilot to 0" hack. So, if you are using some kind of bot or hack for EVE, now is a good time to stop. There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document. This once a year hullabaloo over a mass banning is getting really old. You guys have a performance bonus tied to the start of Fanfest or something? Please report your ban efforts at least quarterly. Then maybe you won't have players spending a year of cheating before you bring out the ban hammer.
Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.
We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
106
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:35:00 -
[30] - Quote
Ereilian wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:
Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.
We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.
2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent?
Ereilian, I won't humor you with any further replies, but the banned users are not the only ones affected by this operation. The vast majority of our players are lovely legitimate individuals who don't cheat, hack or bot, and I am sure that they appreciate our efforts in this area.
As for the amount of time spent on this operation, I've spent more time replying to this thread. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
106
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:43:00 -
[31] - Quote
Ereilian wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ereilian wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:
Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.
We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.
2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent? Comparing accounts banned to the amount of the active subscriptions is kind of useless, don't you think? With the amount of backslapping going on, its a pretty fair assesment of the time invested compared to the results. Especially when the resources used by Team Security could be redeployed into making the game better.
I did not say anything about the time invested at all. I said that this particular operation started as an idea two months ago, and was finished today. You are of course free to make assumptions.
As for Team Security, we make the game better by dealing with cheaters and botters. This is actually my main concern; the general well being of the game, and the ability for the players to enjoy our product. Nobody wants to play a game where cheating is rampant. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:58:00 -
[32] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:Just out of curiosity, if you're saying the EULA hasn't changed, what exactly was it the Dev Blog was supposed to achieve?
If cache scraping was always against the EULA, but you're still not going to ban "legitimate" EVE players, what purpose was the Dev Blog supposed to achieve? The Dev blog was intended to inform players about our increased efforts towards getting rid of cheaters. We temporarily banned 2350 accounts today for verified abuse of an "autopilot to 0" hack. So, if you are using some kind of bot or hack for EVE, now is a good time to stop. There has also been a lot of talk lately concerning various third party applications, and we intended to clarify our stance on some of those issues with the policy document. I appreciate that hindsight is 20/20, and to be honest I nearly always give CCP the benefit of the doubt as I think 90% of the time you are the most passionate and caring developers in the world. However I think you would probably agree it may have been a mistake to release this dev blog with the message that is sends. A simple dev blog clarifying that the security team will be re-doubling efforts to catch cheaters would have been enough, and just been honest and said it has been a grey area for a long time, and it will still be a grey area but you're all going to do your best to clear it up. I read through the Dev Blog and it definitely has the tone that "something has changed", rather then you saying "nothing has changed, you're just putting more effort in" (which is good, I just don't think your message is pretty clear). Still, you're responding to player questions and feedback still at this time where I would have clocked out until 9am tomorrow morning, or possibly even ignored them entirely, so I think you deserve credit for intentions and effort, if not execution
Thanks, I appreciate it! It's 7pm here in Atlanta so I will sign off after this one, but I will be back tomorrow.
The message is absolutely that something has changed. We have never been more capable to deal with hackers, botters and the likes. The dev blog touches on this subject, as one of the reasons why we opted for a temporary 30 day ban for the AP0 offenders, as opposed to the normal permanent ban for client modification. I believe that the AP0 hack is (read: was) widespread partly due to CCPs inability to enforce the EULA/TOS properly in this regard in the past, and this is what I told Unifex in our discussions.
CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
119
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 01:21:00 -
[33] - Quote
Hi there! I answered this one earlier.
CCP Peligro wrote:Nope, no worries on that one. We are after the hackers, botters and the RMTers. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
2298
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 10:17:00 -
[34] - Quote
I have deleted some trolling in this thread. New Eden Community Representative GÇ+ New Eden Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
157
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:38:00 -
[35] - Quote
Bloody Wench wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:Ereilian wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ereilian wrote:CCP Peligro wrote:
Ha! I wish... On a more serious note, this operation is around 2 months in the making, and the total number of accounts involved in this one (2350) is a small fraction of the number of accounts we have banned in the past year.
We are presenting a bunch of numbers and graphs at fanfest, this will be recorded. I'll put them up in a dev blog afterwards as well.
2 months for 0.005% of the player base ... time well spent? Comparing accounts banned to the amount of the active subscriptions is kind of useless, don't you think? With the amount of backslapping going on, its a pretty fair assesment of the time invested compared to the results. Especially when the resources used by Team Security could be redeployed into making the game better. I did not say anything about the time invested at all. I said that this particular operation started as an idea two months ago, and was finished today. You are of course free to make assumptions. As for Team Security, we make the game better by dealing with cheaters and botters. This is actually my main concern; the general well being of the game, and the ability for the players to enjoy our product. Nobody wants to play a game where cheating is rampant. Warp to 0 AP is not a game breaking hack / exploit. It doesn't impact gameplay negatively for the vast majority of players. With the exception of suiciders and gate camps, and clearly improves gameplay for over 2000 users. I realise at this point I sound like I'm in favour of it, and possibly I am, however my personal stance is irrelevant. Ratting bots, mission running bots, courier bots, market bots and mining bots....these things adversely impact my game play. Someone getting 30 jumps 15 minutes quicker I don't give a ****.
"It doesn't impact gameplay negatively for the vast majority of players." Oh really? What is this based on? Modified clients place additional load on the servers, they are therefore detrimental to the ability of our legitimate players to enjoy EVE Online. CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
158
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 17:56:00 -
[36] - Quote
Muul Udonii wrote:Salpun wrote:Selena Na'sharr wrote:Selena Na'sharr wrote:What's the position on gaming keyboards with macro-capabilities, such as the Logitech G15? Its driver inherently supports some level of user-initiated automation. (in short, do I need to look for a new keyboard? :)) Sorry for quoting myself, but since the heated debate on cache scraping I figure it'd be overlooked. :) He answered that on the second page. He uses one so you are safe Actually, that doesn't mean anything. He said he was using one to post to the forums, he didn't even hint that he even plays eve, let alone that he uses a G15 while playing eve.
CCP is not concerned with what gaming peripheral our players use at all. If you program it to achieve automation of game play, it is another story - and we will take action against that in accordance with our policies on the matter.
Side note, I have played EVE for over 7 years! CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
CCP Peligro
C C P C C P Alliance
158
|
Posted - 2013.04.19 18:00:00 -
[37] - Quote
Muul Udonii wrote:CCP Stillman wrote:In addition, we also may consider eliminating the cache to eliminate this practice and for performance reasons. But then what will you ask us to clear every time we report a problem with your game?
Nice burn! CCP Peligro - Team Security |
|
|
|
|