EVE General Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

Hide your ISK, Team Security is out of control. (Allegedly)

Jump to first DEV post
Author
#481 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:45
Shamon Hussad wrote:
Karbowiak wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Dante Uisen wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
I'm very sure that you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.


You can use the in-game browser to display market data, which makes it a trivial task to write software that detects when you need to update you orders. All you need to do is use javascript to cycle trough the item you want to sell, this updates the local cache which you can parse to get the items sell prices. From there on all you need to do is verify the weather or not you have the lowest price.

You can list the correct price need to undercut by .1 isk, or maybe even manipulate the copy/paste buffer directly to contain the correct value. In the end all you need to do is find the correct order, edit and paste the value. It probably takes more then 2 sec for reach order, but you can do a lot of orders each minute.

This is a public know and legal way of managing market orders.



I would not recommend anyone do this and I'd ask that you not tell our players what you consider to be legal. The EULA does a decent enough job of that and is contrary to your statement.


Did you just outlaw:

1. using the cache files to get information
2. using javascript to alter the paste buffer
3. regular use of the IGB javascript functions

Cause it sure as hell sounds like it.

Doing any of these things aren't illegal according to the EULA, but i guess using your own tools to give ourselves an advantage in these kind of situations, is botting. Roll

Yip sounds like it, since I'm pretty sure that's what John was doing, but nope must be botting ban.


It will not enable you to modify 30 orders each minute, that was what got him banned.
Blackguard Mercenaries
#482 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:45
Novel Idea:

Don't automate things with the client. At all.

You have 30 trade alts and can't handle the workload? Get rid of a couple.

Revolutionary idea, I know...

;)
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
#483 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:45
Judas Lonestar wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Wescro wrote:
Maybe my impression is incorrect here, but I was imagining his "in-game browser script" to not be very different from how EVE-Central calculates profitable trade items for haulers. The reason I say that is arbitrary is because if you stretch it, simply opening a notepad and writing down "buy x units of y" could be considered

Quote:
...patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency...


Now if he was automating keypresses and clicks, then I guess we can all agree it was wrong. But simply using a third party script that doesn't interact with the client, aka doesn't play the game for him, that should be ok.


It was allowing him to update 30 market order per minute for up to 20 minutes per day. No person can do that unassisted. His ban was justified as he was basically botting.


You cant, therefore no one can.

Gotchya.

For the record, I dont have a dog in this fight. Banned or not....Wont change what or how I fly.

The person you responded to can't update a market order every 2 seconds for 20 minutes straight, I can't do it, neither can you... nobody can.

That he was using a bot to accomplish this is not in question.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,  out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set as the rest of the player base.
Free 2 Play
#484 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:49
CCP Sreegs wrote:
I'm going to go drink a bunch of beer now you can all go back to fighting.

cheers
3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications
#485 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:52
I'm glad to see some market bots getting banned.

I don't see what the issue is. Guy uses software to update orders faster than normally possible, guy gets banned, isk he gained from the illegitimate means gets removed. Why is there a thread about this? Because he was a nice guy? Whatever.
I plan on living forever.......so far, so good.
Mordus Angels
#486 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:53
@Dante Uisen

Pretty sure it will, you can modify orders with about 2-3 seconds between each, and if you automate it to the point where the IGB handles putting most of the workload into computing form, and just has you pasting info into fields and hitting ok + next.

Then it's entirely possible to get about 30 orders a minute.
#487 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:54
Callie Cross wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

If illegal isk were deposited in your or my wallet, we would have gotten the same breif response and the isk would have still be removed.


And you and I (as well as Kelduum or anyone else) would still have a right and reasonable expectation to ask "is all 300b illegal, can some still be saved?" and not be shut out of the process entirely.


Ranger 1 wrote:

Kelduum was not satisfied with that because of his "connections".



That's speculation and your personal opinion, and you seem a bit tilted. Show me the parts of the post that support this claim.

Ranger 1 wrote:


Being the recipient of illegally obtained isk does not entitle you to full disclosure, nor should it ever.



Again... I'm not asking for full disclosure. I just believe that amount of ISK deserves more than a one liner or canned response. The response that was provided in this thread was more than enough, and did not in any way disclose how he was botting, how they caught him etc.

Kelduum posted as much as he could and said that he wasn't receiving much information back. I don't think it's "entitlement" to ask simple questions in this matter. We are not "entitled" by having read CCP Sreegs responses in this thread. He replied to my statements saying that he said all this to Kelduum. Kelduum says in his original post that he didn't get that information.

In the end it seems that it's word against word. Did CCP Sreegs just say "we don't discuss this with 3rd parties"? Instead of taking the time to mention the few lines he said here? (Which doesn't give away any priveldged info) Or did Kelduum get the full story then go through all of this just to stir up drama?

I know who I believe... You make your choice.


I don't believe you should have to be told more than once. It's pointless to pose the same question several different ways and then complain when you get the same brief (yet to the point) answer... the same holds true for people that continue to escalate or submit new petitions because they didn't get the answer they wanted to hear the first few times.

When the line is bluntly drawn (more than once in this case), stop stepping over it. That basic rule of common courtesy applies to everyone... he should know that by now.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,  out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set as the rest of the player base.
Amarr Empire
#488 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:58
Karbowiak wrote:
@Dante Uisen

Pretty sure it will, you can modify orders with about 2-3 seconds between each, and if you automate it to the point where the IGB handles putting most of the workload into computing form, and just has you pasting info into fields and hitting ok + next.

Then it's entirely possible to get about 30 orders a minute.


Maybe, but I doubt they ban on that alone.
One would imagine they would be looking at time deviation between events to determine if it's human or computer actions being undertaken.
#489 Posted: 2013.02.12 20:59
Karbowiak wrote:
@Dante Uisen

Pretty sure it will, you can modify orders with about 2-3 seconds between each, and if you automate it to the point where the IGB handles putting most of the workload into computing form, and just has you pasting info into fields and hitting ok + next.

Then it's entirely possible to get about 30 orders a minute.

I think I'll believe CCP when they say the automation involved went beyond acceptable bounds, mostly because they actually know what was done and how it was done.

Your personal opinion on the matter is... just that.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,  out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set as the rest of the player base.
#490 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:00
Karbowiak wrote:
@Dante Uisen

Pretty sure it will, you can modify orders with about 2-3 seconds between each, and if you automate it to the point where the IGB handles putting most of the workload into computing form, and just has you pasting info into fields and hitting ok + next.

Then it's entirely possible to get about 30 orders a minute.


Even if you have some way of writing directly to the cut/paste clipboard buffer, and all you need to do is edit the order and paste in the value, you would still not be able to do it with 2 second intervals. You need to manually find the order and open the window to modify the order, the process can probably be very optimized but not to the point where you can modify order in 2 seconds.

NightSong Directorate
#491 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:12
CCP Screegs comments in this thread are awesome and highly amusing. And everyone arguing against him are just wasting their time.
Synthetic Existence
#492 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:14  |  Edited by: Entity
Karbowiak wrote:

(21:45:35) (@PeterPowers) and, tbh, we all know that cache reading is a greyzone at best
(21:45:41) (+Karbowiak) but it's allowed
(21:45:44) (~Entity) cache reading is perfectly legal
(21:45:46) (+Karbowiak) and they said so themselves
(21:45:52) (~Entity) or my library wouldn't be out there


Just for sake of completeness:

[21:57:13] (Entity) that's not to say
[21:57:22] (Entity) that you can use cache readers for everything
[21:57:28] (Entity) it's entirely possible to break the eula with it

But yeah, cache reading has already been explicitly allowed by CCP, so backpedaling on that one now, many years later, would be a questionable policy change at best.
╦░░░░░░║░░░╔╗░║░║░╔╗░╦║░╔╗╔╦╗╔╗
║░╔╗╔╗╔╣░╔╗╠░░╠░╠╗╠╝░║╠░╠╝║║║╚╗
╩═╚╝║░╚╝░╚╝║░░╚╝║║╚╝░╩╚╝╚╝║░║╚╝
Got Item?
#493 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:14
My concerns were (and at time of writing, some are) that:

1. This is a significant amount of ISK to remove from the economy, and as such could be dangerous to the based on where and how it happened - for example, the player in question could have ‘dumped’ a large volume of stock of some item for very little.
2. That the whole balance was removed and this only appeared to happen a week after we brought it to CCPs attention, which suggested that it had been cleared and would have remained on the account of the person in question otherwise.
3. That no explanation other than “its a security matter” and “the ISK was obtained illegally” was provided even though the ISK was removed from EVE University itself, where previous occurrences of similar events resulted in a mail from a GM explaining what had happened (bot/RMT/hacked account).
4. That as a number of corp members were aware of the donation, and due to the amount of ISK involved, to avoid any allegations I would need to make the results of the petitions (including an outline of those petitions) public, and without a response this could look bad on CCP.
5. That I received no response as to the above concerns and instead was told that, in no uncertain terms, that I would receive no further information and that I was free to escalate this or make it as public as I wanted.
6. The responses to my petitions stated that there was no escalation path available for security matters, which was backed up by various sources, and that all attempts to locate one and deal with this quietly resulted in the path looping back on itself.


CCP Sreegs wrote:
Disagreement I don't mind.

In which case, I disagree with your statement that the concerns and questions were previously explained either via the petition system or in private, and as such I give you full permission to post all relevant material publicly in its entirety.

Whether or not “John” was using a macro/botting or any other illegal activity, the process of addressing the petition and the nature of the responses may have highlighted a flaw in CCPs procedures, which is simply bad customer relations.

The issue is that the manner in which CCP Security deals with these issues, the stated lack of reporting (such as the CSM has with EVE Central Bank) combined with the lack of an appeals process (Judge, Jury and Executioner) is a recipe for distrust.
Kelduum Revaan
CEO, EVE University (Retired)
Minmatar Republic
#494 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:14
Dante Uisen wrote:
Karbowiak wrote:
@Dante Uisen

Pretty sure it will, you can modify orders with about 2-3 seconds between each, and if you automate it to the point where the IGB handles putting most of the workload into computing form, and just has you pasting info into fields and hitting ok + next.

Then it's entirely possible to get about 30 orders a minute.


Even if you have some way of writing directly to the cut/paste clipboard buffer, and all you need to do is edit the order and paste in the value, you would still not be able to do it with 2 second intervals. You need to manually find the order and open the window to modify the order, the process can probably be very optimized but not to the point where you can modify order in 2 seconds.


Can orders be sorted? if they can,then can IGB data be sorted ? if all they can, is it still impossible modify orders in 2 seconds?
Goonswarm Federation
#495 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:16
I like the part where Eve Uni sent a petition because they weren't sure if the ISK was legit, and then whan the response was "you were correct to be suspicious, the ISK is not legit", they shrieked and yelled all over their forums about how unfair it was that their suspicions turned out to be correct.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
Caldari State
#496 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:18
After reading this, I feel bad for EVE-Uni being denied some money that would help out new players. I've started a collection to help them out. Anyone who wants to donate to the cause should send the money to me, and I'll send it to them with the names of everyone who donated.
Proud member of the New Order of HighSec
Goonswarm Federation
#497 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:18
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
My concerns were (and at time of writing, some are) that:

1. This is a significant amount of ISK to remove from the economy, and as such could be dangerous to the based on where and how it happened - for example, the player in question could have ‘dumped’ a large volume of stock of some item for very little.
2. That the whole balance was removed and this only appeared to happen a week after we brought it to CCPs attention, which suggested that it had been cleared and would have remained on the account of the person in question otherwise.
3. That no explanation other than “its a security matter” and “the ISK was obtained illegally” was provided even though the ISK was Pemoved from EVE University itself, where previous occurrences of similar events resulted in a mail from a GM explaining what had happened (bot/RMT/hacked account).
4. That as a number of corp members were aware of the donation, and due to the amount of ISK involved, to avoid any allegations I would need to make the results of the petitions (including an outline of those petitions) public, and without a response this could look bad on CCP.
5. That I received no response as to the above concerns and instead was told that, in no uncertain terms, that I would receive no further information and that I was free to escalate this or make it as public as I wanted.
6. The responses to my petitions stated that there was no escalation path available for security matters, which was backed up by various sources, and that all attempts to locate one and deal with this quietly resulted in the path looping back on itself.


CCP Sreegs wrote:
Disagreement I don't mind.

In which case, I disagree with your statement that the concerns and questions were previously explained either via the petition system or in private, and as such I give you full permission to post all relevant material publicly in its entirety.

Whether or not “John” was using a macro/botting or any other illegal activity, the process of addressing the petition and the nature of the responses may have highlighted a flaw in CCPs procedures, which is simply bad customer relations.

The issue is that the manner in which CCP Security deals with these issues, the stated lack of reporting (such as the CSM has with EVE Central Bank) combined with the lack of an appeals process (Judge, Jury and Executioner) is a recipe for distrust.

Please stop embarrassing yourself further.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
Gallente Federation
#498 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:20
300b is a significant amount to the economy now? When did that happen?
My siren's name is Brick and she is the prettiest.
Free 2 Play
#499 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:20
Kelduum Revaan wrote:

Whether or not “John” was using a macro/botting or any other illegal activity, the process of addressing the petition and the nature of the responses may have highlighted a flaw in CCPs procedures, which is simply bad customer relations.

The issue is that the manner in which CCP Security deals with these issues, the stated lack of reporting (such as the CSM has with EVE Central Bank) combined with the lack of an appeals process (Judge, Jury and Executioner) is a recipe for distrust.

starting such an outrage over a banned botter, and then complaining about "bad customer relations" about the guys that are responsible to protect the game from botters and other cheats who break the game - honestly, thats stupidity...

guess you jumped on the whine-train so you get voters for the next elections, cause for whatever reason whine seems to be the communities favorite since quite a while now.
3rdPartyEve.net - your catalogue for 3rd party applications
Goonswarm Federation
#500 Posted: 2013.02.12 21:21
Beckie DeLey wrote:
300b is a significant amount to the economy now? When did that happen?

When Kelduum needed to try and excuse his actions but couldn't think of anything more convincing.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
Forum Jump