open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Words from the GM Team, a new Dev Blog
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic

DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes
Chain of Chaos
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:20:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: GM Nova
In these cases the account typically gets banned permanently.


Originally by: GM Nova
We can not proactively seek out accounts that might be shared, that would even waste more of our time.


Originally by: GM Nova
We know the purpose of cynonets and yes, sharing accounts in order to create them is a violation of our EULA. We can hardly go on a hunt after prospective EULA violators on a mere suspicion.


I hate to say it but only three words come to mind: selective witch hunt

If you are not going to look for it then don't ban accounts that cross your path; your policy could be very easy, clear and honest:
1. Original owner claims account back? He get's it back.
2. Shared account abused? Can't help em.

Fight the causes of the problems not the symptoms:
1. Make character transfer free or simply make account owner transfer system.
2. Allow training of multiple characters on one account or change skill system in such a way that all content can be accessed/enjoyed without having to have multiple accounts (lower max. skil req. for anything lvl 4).
3. Allowed queued training so that you can go on holiday.

Saying that someone needs to go post their ideas into dev null err ideas and development whilst those ideas have been posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over is not really fair either.

Ty for spending time to do a blog however, you sure managed to pick a flame baiter though.

Topic suggestion for next blog "We're unable to grant you the reimburse request due us being unable to confirm what happened in the serverlogs, and yes we dont care that you provided clear clientsided proof"?

lu kim
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:21:00 - [92]
 

how can you make sure someone shares his account all the time.

some people don't have 1 ip, or people like me log in from different locations.

btw I think it's eve gamerules force people to share accounts.
eve is bassed on playing together, but it forces people somethimes to take multiple accounts to something big, ccp should let it rest or make the game more playable on people with 1 char.

Nev Clavain
Wise Guys
Rogue Method Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:49:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Nev Clavain on 22/02/2007 18:48:20

Originally by: lu kim
how can you make sure someone shares his account all the time.

some people don't have 1 ip, or people like me log in from different locations.



Yes of course but an IP can denote a geographical location. If someone from a UK IP address logs into an account, plays for 10 hours, and logs out. Then 5 minutes later an Australian IP logs into the same account and plays for another 10 hours.

Pretty clear what is going on here. It would take 5 minutes to check. GMs saying checking this is a waste of their time means the EULA isnt worth wiping my arse on. Basically they would encourage me to waste my time petitioning account sharing, but they aren't going to even check it out because thats 'a waste of their time'. Great public relations. "Thanks for your petition about this obvious EULA breach EVE customer, we aren't going to do anything about it because it is 'a waste of our time.'"

Therefore if you play by the rules you are at a disadvantage, and if you cheat you won't get caught. More tacit endorsement of cheating and EULA breaches by CCP. Hooray.

Brian Kith
Elite Underworld Special Forces
OWN Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.22 19:22:00 - [94]
 

One of the main points I see for sharing account info is to allow "friends" to train skills for you.

A great (imo) solution to this would be to allow a program like EVEMon to switch your training for you from outside the game.

If I could use EVEMon to switch my training from outside, it would certainly take away any inclination I might have toward allowing someone else to log me on just to switch training for me.

GM Nova

Posted - 2007.02.22 23:14:00 - [95]
 

Wow, what a great bunch of replies. I so happy that none of you have taken some items from the blog out of context to serve your own agenda.

Lets get some things clear. This blog and thread is not about T20 or CynoNets. This blog is about players sharing their accounts, getting things stolen, and crying, "help me, my account has been hacked/stolen, and the villain emptied the corp wallet as well. And self destructed. Thrice."

Nice. I bang my head on the table. Most players brake the rules because they do not know the rules are there. Believe me, I know.

Bottom line;
Giving someone your account details is an invitation for trouble. You might be trying to find every possible reason for legitimizing it now, until you get shafted for it by a close "friend," and ask us to help you out. And yes, we will probably help you out, since your account might be totally ruined. It also means that other players with legitimate issues have to suffer for it.

Account sharing is rampart, we know that. We simply can not go on a hunt for those who share their accounts when there are so many players waiting in line to have their issues solved. This only becomes a problem when trust is abused. What we are asking is that we all shoulder some responsibility for the wellbeing of the greatest game ever made. So that in the future, you can say to your grandchild, "Yes I was there, and I did my part."

I am a hottie. Trust me on that one.

Silvion
Kodan Industries
Posted - 2007.02.23 06:52:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Silvion on 23/02/2007 06:49:53
Nova,

I understand your frustration. The fundamental issue here is that sharing account information leads inevitably to theft of ISK and assets. Is there any way to stop this from happening? Not entirely. Removing some of the causes of it will remove most sharing, but people will always share account information. And I'd like to point out that most of the fixes suggested (especially the skill training que) are already in the works.

The PROBLEM is that when people do something stupid and give their buddy their password and pay the price for it, they often will LIE to the GMs in order to get their stuff back. How to stop it? Punish the LIARS. Make it so costly to lie in a petition (oh no my buddy took all my stuff I'll say I was hacked!) that the risk of getting caught outweighs the potential benefits. Enforce bans on accounts who are found to have not been hacked.

We as players do have some improving to do as well. All too often players instantaneously petition anything that doesn't go our way. As was said above,

WE AS PLAYERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS, FOR GOOD OR ILL.

Petitions should be reserved for when something goes severely wrong due to a glitch (rare for me but does happen) or for technical support. Period. End of story.

CCP isn't responsible for a player's stupidity. So in other words my fellow players, it is time for us as a community to step up. You know what you are doing when you give your buddy your password. You know the risk. If you choose to take the risk and get burned don't cry. Its no different than giving that person access to corp assets and then he takes those assets. This is a grown-up game (and thank you CCP for that!), so act like a grown-up.

Jaggeh
The Order of Odin
Posted - 2007.02.23 12:20:00 - [97]
 

I have 1 account but up until recently i was paying for 5 as my friends dont have credit cards. one of them is a housemate and doesnt have a working pc so he plays on his account,from my pc, while im in work. would this be considered account sharing as we both use the same pc?

Jonas O'Fall
SPIRAL ENTERPRISES
Posted - 2007.02.23 13:18:00 - [98]
 

Why not just write a script that examines the last five IP addresses and log-in/log-out times of an account at every log-in?

If they're from vastly different ranges with extremely short transit times then flag for GM examination and follow-up.

For example, Player X logged out 4 hours ago in the UK, but is now logging in from Australia. That's obviously very improbable and would warrant further investigation/the banhammer.

Or, Player Y logged off 5hrs ago from the East Coast of the US and is now logging in from the West Coast. True, he could be logged in via free airport wi-fi, so let that one slide or send an email to the account holder.

Maybe take it a step further and assign a unique number/code to each installation of EVE. If an account has been accessed by more than 3-4 different installations of EVE in a set period of time then something definitely needs to be investigated. Especially if this data is also examined with the login/logout and IP address data, since that would help filter out a frequent traveler taking a laptop with him/her.

Jaggeh
The Order of Odin
Posted - 2007.02.23 13:38:00 - [99]
 

that wouldnt really work, as i said a lot of my friends have eve. if im in my mates house having a beer and playing some console games should i be penalized for accessing my own account on his pc, to check on sales or switch skills?

Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
Posted - 2007.02.23 14:26:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Silvion
Petitions should be reserved for when something goes severely wrong due to a glitch (rare for me but does happen) or for technical support. Period. End of story.


I agree, but CCP don't give us any other way of contacting them. I tried emailing Kieron, but got no response. At least with a petition you will get a response, even if it is, "Duh, I donna understand, nuthin in the logs".

Vidar Kentoran
Minmatar
Eighty Joule Brewery
Posted - 2007.02.23 15:01:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Vidar Kentoran on 23/02/2007 15:08:56
Originally by: GM Nova
Most players brake the rules because they do not know the rules are there. Believe me, I know.



No, they don't. I'm sure lots and lots of them claim that they don't know the rules when they have a GM asking them, though. I'm glad that GMs for this game are so deluded. Players break this particular rule because it's a laughably absurd rule that is out of touch with reality.

You will never be able to stop the majority of people from account sharing. You can't do it. Stop thinking of ways you can, because you can't. It makes me very sad that the people who run this game like to stick their head in the sand so much.

The correct, reasonable way to deal with this is to make an authorized, regulated way for people to share their accounts, because that's what they want to do, instead of wasting your time and our time trying to enforce absurdities that you just wrote you are completely unable and unwilling to stop!

Originally by: GM Nova
Bottom line;
Giving someone your account details is an invitation for trouble.


Sorry, which game are you playing? Logging into EVE is an invitation for trouble.

Jonas O'Fall
SPIRAL ENTERPRISES
Posted - 2007.02.23 16:40:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Jaggeh
that wouldnt really work, as i said a lot of my friends have eve. if im in my mates house having a beer and playing some console games should i be penalized for accessing my own account on his pc, to check on sales or switch skills?
Do your friends live thousands of miles away, which you travel regularly? Its when the account moves faster than a vehicle could carry a player that the script would be looking for.

Almarez
Setenta Corp
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.02.23 16:53:00 - [103]
 

This is from a post I made not knowing that this one existed.

Okay I understand the idea behind the rule preventing this but I would have to say that making it a black and white issue is somewhat irresponsible (for lack of a better word). I have several real life friends that play Eve and I would trust them to baby sit my 7 month old son so I think sharing a password in the case where something needed to get done with one of those guys is really quite harmless. In addition to this, one of these friends is in the military and he regularly goes on long trips. He has never asked me to change skills for him but I can't see how this would be harmful. Again, these are long time real life friends who I knew well before Eve.

If you insist that password sharing, even if it's for skill changes, is against the rules then how about implementing a skill training queue where you can set up at least one more skill after your current skill is done? This way, someone could get maybe 1.5-2.5 months worth of training done without ever having to log in if they set up the right skills. How about people who leave longer than that you might ask. Well I understand that you probably have reasons to limit queue size so if that's the case then there has to be a limit and that is tough for people who travel longer times than that but at least it helps.

Crazy Nell
Caldari
Posted - 2007.02.24 02:10:00 - [104]
 

As a relatively new player to EVE, this is my first post on the forums and this subject in particular as it seems that the issues pertaining to Nova's blog and the T20/BoB scandal are inextricably linked. I'd like to preface my post with the disclaimer that although I hold no animousity towards BoB in general as I have had no prior experience concerning them, it is clear from the huge numbers of posts regarding the cheating that has occurred and been verified by CCP themselves that the subject must be addressed.

I've read the EULA many times... it's pretty easy to understand and addresses the subject of "Account Sharing" to my satisfaction. It's clearly a case of "Buyer Beware"... if your foolish enough to share your account with another individual or corporation and get ripped off...tough ! The responsibility rests solely upon your shoulders, not CCP. If you get caught and banned... again, you asked for it. I'm sure that CCP could benefit greatly by expanding their workforce; but with a limited cashflow due to EVE not having hundreds of thousands of paying accounts like some other MMOG's, it has proven difficult for them to address all of the issues in the game in a timely manner. Do not misconstrue the proceeding statement as I am not "Cheer-Leading" for CCP. But from my observations, CCP's business model at the moment does not appear to support an employee expansion.

As for the "T20/BoB" debacle; that clearly illustrates that CCP needs to restructure their employee's rules and come clean with all of the evidence in that matter as we, the paying customers of CCP deserve better. Perhaps CCP employees should be banned from either creating a corporation of their own, and be banned from joining a corporation and any alliance. Taking this approach, it would go far in addressing such abuses in the future. I'm sure there will be those who would argue that the CCP employees need to be able to be in corporations, etc. to test game functions and mechanics. I thought the "Test Server" was for that ? Then again, we the player base may be unwitting participants in a "Viral Marketing Campaign" instituted by CCP themselves. "BoB" for all we know may be run by CCP employees to present a potential enemy for the player base to hate and give us possible goals. We do not know for sure...

Max Tesla
Posted - 2007.02.24 02:25:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Max Tesla on 24/02/2007 03:21:20
Edited by: Max Tesla on 24/02/2007 02:22:49
Originally by: Kylania
Originally by: Max Tesla
The solution is simple

LEAGALLY BIND ACCOUNTS TO PEOPLE

For example for a small fee you can bind your account and character/s to your self.

So the creator of the account and character must then of curse either pay via a credit card or auto giro, then for a one time fee he/she can bind the account and character to himself so that no matter what happens in the future the creator will always own his account.

If the options was avalible I would bind my account, because I do worry that someday someone will hack my account and steal what I have spent years on building


This is already how it works. The creator of the account is the owner for now and always. That's what causes some of these "hacked" issues when someone gives away an account then later says "Oh, it's mine, it was stolen". Or someone used that to deliberately scam someone.

You do still have to worry and take steps on your own to prevent your account from being hacked. That'll never change.



NO! that is not how it works

I mean legally bind the character as well so that there can never can be any transfer ever.

You legally bind the account AND THE CHARACTER so that no matter what happens in the future the character is always yours and can never be taken away. The chracter will become your property for all time no matter what. For a small fee of course.

Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2007.02.24 17:42:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: Richard Aiel on 24/02/2007 17:59:35
Originally by: GM Nova

Nice. I bang my head on the table. Most players brake the rules because they do not know the rules are there. Believe me, I know.


So, if you dont know about the rule, you dont get in trouble for breaking it? Sorry fer being fecetious (Bah cant spell it).
Most people now a days are breaking the rules cause CCP GMs arent stepping up and enforcing EULA violations like they should be
Node crashes for example. I had pointed to section 7, paragraph 1 in the EULA that essentially (paraphrase) says "Thou shalt not put undue or excessive pressure or load on the System", but according to SEVERAL players in the thread I created, this doesnt pertain to node crashing because the EULA says "you" and not "your gang" or "your fleet". That even though there may be 4k people in one node, "you" arent doing anything wrong.
This is usually followed by the arguments of: "Oh noes ban everyone in Jita" and "oh noes everyone with a fleet higher than 50 will be banned"...
Or how the buggy POS shields are being screwey but people who exploit these bugs to their own use, the bugs are then called "undocumented features"
Theres more stuff out there but i cant remember it all off hand lol
Its just that the less and less the EULA and general rules are applied, the more chaotic and anarchic the game is going to become.
Cheap kills, cheap tactics, and the blurring of oog/ig are getting worse and worse in the game, but nothing is apparently being done about it.
Scan the General Forums and you will see post after post about people having been cheated but when they send in a petition, they are told that the GMs wont do anything about what happened.
Sorry about taking part of yer post out of context to further my cause but i had to.
Oh and if I can, direct your attention to this gem:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=480483


Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2007.02.24 18:27:00 - [107]
 



"News | Help | New Player Guide | Dev Blog | Patch Notes |
Support

News

Due to the enormous numbers of pilots, the stargates into JV1V-0 overloaded, blocking further reinforcement and causing mayhem in the system itself. The jump engines of the arriving capital ships caused a massive system-wide disruption, with spatial distortions affecting many pilots on both sides. The end result was that a large majority of ship navigations systems overloaded, rendering the Lotka defenders practically impotent against the equally troubled defenders. Due to their overwhelming numbers however, and their ability to slip past the imposing defences placed on entry into the system, the attackers managed to eventually bring the Starbase down."

Wow GMs giving a RP explanation for someone crashing the node to take advantage of the fact that the defenders cant log in.
Thats rediculous.
Thats essentially saying that this was fine by CCP, in essence, condoning not only a possible (depending on yer take on the "you" issue) EULA breach but exploiting the weak node system in the game.

This makes me very concerned about the future of this game.





CCP Wrangler

Posted - 2007.02.24 23:41:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Richard Aiel


"News | Help | New Player Guide | Dev Blog | Patch Notes |
Support

News

Due to the enormous numbers of pilots, the stargates into JV1V-0 overloaded, blocking further reinforcement and causing mayhem in the system itself. The jump engines of the arriving capital ships caused a massive system-wide disruption, with spatial distortions affecting many pilots on both sides. The end result was that a large majority of ship navigations systems overloaded, rendering the Lotka defenders practically impotent against the equally troubled defenders. Due to their overwhelming numbers however, and their ability to slip past the imposing defences placed on entry into the system, the attackers managed to eventually bring the Starbase down."

Wow GMs giving a RP explanation for someone crashing the node to take advantage of the fact that the defenders cant log in.
Thats rediculous.
Thats essentially saying that this was fine by CCP, in essence, condoning not only a possible (depending on yer take on the "you" issue) EULA breach but exploiting the weak node system in the game.

This makes me very concerned about the future of this game.
IC reporters are members of the EVE Volunteer Program (ISD) and not GMs, and they don't come close to having GM powers. Further, they definately have no control over the server. The IC are tasked to create role playing news of events in EVE, and they do that well, role playing any form of malfunction is acceptable according to our standards and have been done before and will be done again. That does not mean we "condone" any problems with the server and we will of course do our best to fix whats broken and improve whats working, as we always have.

If you believe there is an exploit, please submit a petition as that is something our Customer Support will handle, it is not something that anyone can help you with if you just post on the forums.

Don Temujin
Mothers of EVE
Posted - 2007.02.25 00:09:00 - [109]
 

Nova: I feel your pain, really.
The point I've made earlier in this thread, along with many others, is that the current rules are confusing for many people, and are doing you, the CSR and the community as a whole a disservice.

Fuzzy rules are harder to enforce, and unenforceable rules undermine the credibility of the ruleset and those in charge of upholding it.

Both direct experience and your posts point in the same direction, ie you (GM/CSR) try (and generally succeed) to apply common sense to the way you interpret/enforce a "law" that is largely disconnected from the reality of the "land".
Props to you guys for that, but really, wouldn't things be better for everybody if the law was formalized clearly and understandably to be in synch with practices ?

Account sharing is risky, and players do it at their own risk: have them sign a waiver stating clearly if they want to go that way, they shoulder the burden of responsibility.

On the other hand, GM/CSR are committed to protect users from abuse, and should be protected themselves from ill-formed accusations of holding double standards.
A clear rule showing the distinction between legit and non-legit account sharing could help tremendously in reducing the grudges over GM/CSR arbitrations.

The recent integration of GTC transfer in the 'Account Management' tools is a great step in the direction of making easier to deal with the sometimes blurry borders between IG and OOG rules.
Adding the same sort of tools to support responsible and accountable character/account sharing would be another decisive move showing CCP not only is committed to impartiality in the way rules are enforced, but also to fairness in the rules themselves.

Cheers,
Don T.

PS: Can Wrangler get a warning for feeding the trolls by replying at length to off-topic stuff ? Twisted Evil
j/k

Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2007.02.25 01:41:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Don Temujin
Nova: I feel your pain, really.
The point I've made earlier in this thread, along with many others, is that the current rules are confusing for many people, and are doing you, the CSR and the community as a whole a disservice.

Fuzzy rules are harder to enforce, and unenforceable rules undermine the credibility of the ruleset and those in charge of upholding it.

Both direct experience and your posts point in the same direction, ie you (GM/CSR) try (and generally succeed) to apply common sense to the way you interpret/enforce a "law" that is largely disconnected from the reality of the "land".
Props to you guys for that, but really, wouldn't things be better for everybody if the law was formalized clearly and understandably to be in synch with practices ?

Account sharing is risky, and players do it at their own risk: have them sign a waiver stating clearly if they want to go that way, they shoulder the burden of responsibility.

On the other hand, GM/CSR are committed to protect users from abuse, and should be protected themselves from ill-formed accusations of holding double standards.
A clear rule showing the distinction between legit and non-legit account sharing could help tremendously in reducing the grudges over GM/CSR arbitrations.

The recent integration of GTC transfer in the 'Account Management' tools is a great step in the direction of making easier to deal with the sometimes blurry borders between IG and OOG rules.
Adding the same sort of tools to support responsible and accountable character/account sharing would be another decisive move showing CCP not only is committed to impartiality in the way rules are enforced, but also to fairness in the rules themselves.

Cheers,
Don T.

PS: Can Wrangler get a warning for feeding the trolls by replying at length to off-topic stuff ? Twisted Evil
j/k


I dont agree with you so Im a troll? Rolling Eyes

Don Temujin
Mothers of EVE
Posted - 2007.02.25 01:56:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Richard Aiel
I dont agree with you so Im a troll? Rolling Eyes


I don't see us disagreeing on anything since we're apparently discussing different topics to begin with.
Unless I got it wrong, this thread is intended to comment/discuss the Dev Blog about EULA as it applies to'account sharing'.
I barely can see the connection with intentional crashing of nodes and ISDs roleplaying server technical issues, but to each his own.

BTW, this was only meant as a harmless pun directed at Wrangler, not you, sorry if I hurt your feelings.

ScreamingLord Sutch
Hand in Mouth
Posted - 2007.02.27 00:30:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: GM Nova
Wow, what a great bunch of replies. I so happy that none of you have taken some items from the blog out of context to serve your own agenda.





I feel your painConfused

Rumbaar
Solitary Forsaken
Posted - 2007.02.27 00:35:00 - [113]
 

I'll have to find the part in my EULA which allows me to use my DEVELOPER account and create some BPO's for my corp/alliance. Because if that's not in my EULA I'm sure that's far worse than getting a friend change a skill than can't be scheduled properly due to poor game mechanics.

Dizirgee
Amarr
UnaLaLuna Inc.
Posted - 2007.02.28 20:08:00 - [114]
 

Nice blog Nova but to be honest, as many other ppl said, majority of petitions related to this can be solved by going to devs responsible for that area and told them to implement skill queue. Plain and simple. (not saying this is only problem, also cynonets, POS/capital players etc..)
But IMHO this is the most simple of all already mentioned problems here to solve. How hard it can be to implement this? 3 lines of code?
I know that other solutions wont be that easy, but its 1st step in showing that you mean it serious.

So I appreciate your effort to bring this to mind of us players but as many other said this can be solved by implementing new feuteres into eve by you(CCP).
So why you guys wont make your life easier? Very Happy


Quote:
Players ask an ingame friend to train skills for them. Friend keeps the login details. Friendship ends, the account is accessed and damaged.

To be honest that person should space himself. I mean if i know that somebody that has my login info and i made him ****ed i`ll change it right away.

Plus IF i would ask someone to change skill I change for temporary password and after that change i would switch it to my secret password again. Simple


I bet that if major of situation when account sharing is "needed" will be addressed there will only left petitions like "I went to that nice site that guy proposed on local and it did look like official eve site so i logged in..."

Andrus Delai
M. Corp Engineering
Daisho Syndicate
Posted - 2007.02.28 22:09:00 - [115]
 

If CCP is not going to investigate and eliminate major account sharing violations (cynonets, POS maint, Capital ships, etc.), then it makes no sense having an account sharing ban in the EULA. All you are doing by having that ban and not enforing it, is punishing the players how play by the rules.

If you want account sharing to go away, routinely check for it and ban shared accounts. If you did that, the number of shared accounts would be vastly reduced and the load on CS would be reduced as a result. This would not be difficult for you to implement since you have already done the hard part of tracking and storing the login IP address. All that would be required is a few saved database queries and a small amount of time to analyze the results.

If you don't want to police the EULA, then change it. State that if you share your account, you are SOL if anything happens to your characters or assets. This would even include character transfers to another account.

A rule that is not enforced only punishes those who follow the rules.

I refuse to be punished any longer.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only