Goblin Squad Member
|
Apparently EVE is now banning people who use alts to spy, sabotage, and deceive.
Is our TOS going to be written this way? Is the TOS been made available yet?
I honestly, will be upset if this is true for our game...
I mean I am running three alts in the forums actively and this is just fun chatter....
Link for the EVE forums on this topic....80+ pages already....
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As one of your alts, I mostly disagree. The main reason to allow alts as sockpuppets, spies, etc., is mostly that they're really hard to catch.
But a person playing two (or ten) characters that have instantaneous and perfect knowledge from the other - this is role-playing? It's meta-gaming with sockpuppets is all. If EVE chooses to ban them, good for EVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we have have to roll play all our characters the same? While I will be an assassin, my destinies twin will be a TN or even NG crafter/gatherer. So, lets say that the two settlements they are both involved in enter conflict. I continue to play both with just as much devotion; my Assassin taking out targets, and my crafter supplying gear for my assassins enemies. After the war is over, it is discovered that the 2 characters are in fact both mine. Cries of espionage and deception will be heard. Maybe even enough that GW hears of it, and they ban my account. I have done nothing wrong though, i truly tried to win the war from both sides. My crafter vs my assassin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt GW would intervene in that scenario, Tigari, unless there is more involved that entails either 'gaming the system' or 'griefing'. We haven't seen the actual ToS (as far as I know) but it seems unlikely to me that a hue and cry of spying by the losing settlement would lead to a ban for you. In fact if your crafter were actually spying wouldn't that be player generated content?
Now, this is not to suggest that your crafter might fully avoid repercussions from the members of the former settlement... they will respawn after all, and if they believe you were responsible they would probably recognize at least your crafting alt.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This seems like it should only be enforceable in extreme situations. I wouldn't mind to see some bans handed out for clear cut cases of internal sabotage (Such as the act that lead to BoB's downfall) bank looting, etc.
If someone is afraid to join another company on their alt because the GM's might ban them though... that's taking it to a different extreme. And you're never going to catch all the players doing this even if we do want that to happen.
I say make the rule that you aren't allowed to use alts as spies, but generally just keep it as one of those rules on the books, so that you can throw the book at the most extreme abusers. The rest of the time just ignore it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt GW would intervene in that scenario, Tigari, unless there is more involved that entails either 'gaming the system' or 'griefing'. We haven't seen the actual ToS (as far as I know) but it seems unlikely to me that a hue and cry of spying by the losing settlement would lead to a ban for you. In fact if your crafter were actually spying wouldn't that be player generated content?
Now, this is not to suggest that your crafter might fully avoid repercussions from the members of the former settlement... they will respawn after all, and if they believe you were responsible they would probably recognize at least your crafting alt.
The problem is, he was not a spy. In this case, I did everything I could to assist my crafter to win. We can say I even used some of my best materials I had saved away to create better armor or weapons for this war, instead of profit for myself. Yes, true, GW would probably not interfere in this case, but it was just a quick example of an innocent actoin of a player truly roll playig being caught in a rough spot. And was the main point of this that EVE was banning ppl for just this? Or more of what was being accuse? Even the proof is against me. My main character, the assassin, won a war against my crafters settlement. Even if i didn't take advantage of possible secret intel I may know from my crafter, there's no proof other then my word I didn't.
Trying to keep these posts from being walls of text but still getting my thoughts across can be difficult for me sometimes, so sorry for the walls of text.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan posted some thoughts on this subject for reference:
Pathfinder Online User Accounts: Against Multiple Account Cheating
There's a couple of comments there, including incentive for multiple alts (and or a/c's) being good for business model... and not joking about security routines.
He did post elsewhere, that things like as Andius said, disbanding being too easy (click of a button by x1 player etc) are definitely things they want to avoid where it's exploit > game play iirc.
To add, probably less of a big deal in the early days, but when assets become bigger and more valuable... ?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan posted some thoughts on this subject for reference:
Pathfinder Online User Accounts: Against Multiple Account Cheating
There's a couple of comments there, including incentive for multiple alts (and or a/c's) being good for business model... and not joking about security routines.
He did post elsewhere, that things like as Andius said, disbanding being too easy (click of a button by x1 player etc) are definitely things they want to avoid where it's exploit > game play iirc.
To add, probably less of a big deal in the early days, but when assets become bigger and more valuable... ?
Wow... If Ryan's post is what we really have to look forward to, then I fear for the game itself. I am certainly not up for giving out account passwords and SSN. I would be willing to jump on a Skype call or Teamspeak voice chat. But there are lines that are not worth crossing for a video game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt all Settlements will follow that procedure. I have no idea whether all successful Settlements will follow that procedure.
Our plans at The Seventh Veil allow for the presence of spies and saboteurs. I don't expect we'll spend much effort on stopping them unless they're trying to get into leadership. At that point, we'll gather enough information to have a pretty good chance at identifying them if they burn us then try to infiltrate again to a position of leadership. I'm hoping we can standardize those identification procedures and share the results with our allies, so that if a player burns any of us, he'll have a really hard time getting into leadership with any of us afterwards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt all Settlements will follow that procedure. I have no idea whether all successful Settlements will follow that procedure.
Our plans at The Seventh Veil allow for the presence of spies and saboteurs. I don't expect we'll spend much effort on stopping them unless they're trying to get into leadership. At that point, we'll gather enough information to have a pretty good chance at identifying them if they burn us then try to infiltrate again to a position of leadership. I'm hoping we can standardize those identification procedures and share the results with our allies, so that if a player burns any of us, he'll have a really hard time getting into leadership with any of us afterwards.
I can understand a degree of this if you are talking about leadership roles as opposed to normal membership. Particularly for larger, successful organizations. But still maybe not as far as enough information for identify theft. Phone numbers/phone call verification, heck maybe even a postal mail application I could understand in leadership positions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So we have have to roll play all our characters the same? While I will be an assassin, my destinies twin will be a TN or even NG crafter/gatherer. So, lets say that the two settlements they are both involved in enter conflict. I continue to play both with just as much devotion; my Assassin taking out targets, and my crafter supplying gear for my assassins enemies. After the war is over, it is discovered that the 2 characters are in fact both mine. Cries of espionage and deception will be heard. Maybe even enough that GW hears of it, and they ban my account. I have done nothing wrong though, i truly tried to win the war from both sides. My crafter vs my assassin.
I don't see anything reasonable there. I'd love a policy that did outlaw meta information of accounts, but I just can't imagine it being enforcable.
In the scenerio you mention I do not consider anything wrong... Unless your assasain clearly launches an attack against your crafter's supply chain, specifically at the timing that because of your crafter's knowledge, you were able to make a big jump foward.
Of course the issue lies in this is completely un-provable. Just like in P&P when the DM leaves a map with a symbol drawn on it where a trap is, and the player reaches the spot... and calls "I'm going to look very hard for traps here". the DM has no ability to discern whether, A. the player is cheating and using symbol to know there is a trap, or B. The character would have looked for a trap there. The presense of the symbol makes it imposible to determine whether, your assasain launched the attack because his gut feeling was it was a good time, or because as a crafter, he knew every detail of what armor his opponents were wearing, and planned his own gear as the perfect counter.
Of course all of that is moot, there is no definition that can work. We cannot differentiate between Joe the guy with 5 characters, or Joe the guy with 4 brothers who live in the same house, all being paid with the same father's credit card.
I personally would be a huge fan of multiple alts etc... for spying being banned... It would give way to the potential for actual spying mechanics being plausible.
but it just isn't feasable, and too many innocents would be shot down in the crossfire.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hardin posted a link over in the PFO fan website that may go a ways toward explaining what I think Eve is acting to eliminate: The example shown is not EvE, but Darkfall, yet is demonstrates how impersonation can be used as a scam.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm fairly certain that what happened to BOB, although well deserved, could not happen in PFO.
I'm hoping that no one settlement manager can disolve or alter settlement permissions single-handedly.
I'm also hoping that GW comes up with a way to deal with Settlement Managers who's accounts go inactive for an extended period of time. Perhaps allowing for settlement vote to depose an absent leader.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently EVE is now banning people who use alts to spy, sabotage, and deceive.
Is our TOS going to be written this way? Is the TOS been made available yet?
I honestly, will be upset if this is true for our game...
I mean I am running three alts in the forums actively and this is just fun chatter....
Link for the EVE forums on this topic....80+ pages already....
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=276984
They are only banning people who impersonate other people, then spy and etc... nothing new
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really don't mind this. I was never fond of putting alts in other guilds and in our SWTOR guild we have a small rule, saying if you want to be part of intelligence. You must convince or find someone willing to spy for you. It leads to more RP, it makes more sense and it is far more rewarding and intense (not knowing if you can truely trust the informant), all around a better way of doing things. I agree 100% with Urman.
But a person playing two (or ten) characters that have instantaneous and perfect knowledge from the other - this is role-playing? It's meta-gaming with sockpuppets is all. If EVE chooses to ban them, good for EVE.
If Pathfinder does decide to mirror this action I support it 100%
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They are only banning people who impersonate other people, then spy and etc... nothing new
Yes, this.
The GM who started the thread uses the word "impersonation" several times, but never once uses the word "spy" nor a synonym thereof.
And then the players discuss example after example of how people convince someone they are in a company they do not actually belong to at all to scam them out of in game or real life money.
And then someone starts a thread over on the Paizo forums saying it's all about spying.
And then some guy on the PFO forums who's been taking a lot of flack recently, who has had posts directed at him questioning his reading comprehension, is sharp as a razor at spotting the break in this silly little game of broken telephone.
+1 Xeen
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The EVE move is a good thing.
Its actually very hard in EVE to donate money to a corp that helps new players for example as there will often be dozens of fake corps with almost identical names. You also regularly come across individuals pretending to be game devs or mods of some type also trying to scam.
It really doesn't seem to be anything at all to do with the practice of creating alts to infiltrate opposing corps. AFAIK there is no issue with doing that.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I thnk we'll take a much harder edge than CCP with regard to scamming. In EVE scamming is ok. In Pathfinder Online, it will not be ok. By scamming I mean using the system to create a false impression with another player. EVE has all sorts of ways to do this that could be managed, but aren't (like deceptively named corporations and characters, manipulating trades with misplaced decimal points, etc.)
EVE has always said "buyer beware" and then heaped scorn on people who got scammed. That flies in the face of an objective to maximize meaningful human interaction - people worried about being scammed are less likely to interact.
We won't limit your ability to run alts. It cannot be limited by any reasonable expenditure of effort anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is role-playing? It's meta-gaming with sockpuppets is all.
Expecting consistent roleplay in an MMO is a road to disappointment.
Also:
Enforcing roleplaying
A roleplay-mandated world is essentially going to have to be a fascist state. Whether or not this accords with your goals in making such a world is a decision you yourself will have to make.
...
Identity
You will NEVER have a solid unique identity for your problematic players. They essentially have complete anonymity because of the Internet. Even addresses, credit cards, and so on can be faked--and will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Expecting consistent roleplay in an MMO is a road to disappointment.
Oh, I'm not a die hard believer in all things role-playing, not by any stretch. I rarely roleplay - I play my characters to fill a role and don't put much more thought into it than that. I don't expect consistent roleplay from others, either - any amount of bad behavior is badly hidden behind a thin gauze of "rpg". I just think that when such incidences become public, the people should be mocked by other players and dealt with by management.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They are only banning people who impersonate other people, then spy and etc... nothing newYes, this.
The GM who started the thread uses the word "impersonation" several times, but never once uses the word "spy" nor a synonym thereof.
And then the players discuss example after example of how people convince someone they are in a company they do not actually belong to at all to scam them out of in game or real life money.
And then someone starts a thread over on the Paizo forums saying it's all about spying.
And then some guy on the PFO forums who's been taking a lot of flack recently, who has had posts directed at him questioning his reading comprehension, is sharp as a razor at spotting the break in this silly little game of broken telephone.
+1 Xeen
Thanks
As a note, to add to my own firing solution... Some of what I read above (not Blaeringr) makes me want to puke.
Banning alt accounts? Stupidity at its worse
Banning Spys? Thats just as bad, and takes away from a massive portion of the game
Banning Scammers? Go ahead, not game intended (although if I was GW, I would ban the character and see if the person sticks around to play his others)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I thnk we'll take a much harder edge than CCP with regard to scamming. In EVE scamming is ok. In Pathfinder Online, it will not be ok. By scamming I mean using the system to create a false impression with another player. EVE has all sorts of ways to do this that could be managed, but aren't (like deceptively named corporations and characters, manipulating trades with misplaced decimal points, etc.)
EVE has always said "buyer beware" and then heaped scorn on people who got scammed. That flies in the face of an objective to maximize meaningful human interaction - people worried about being scammed are less likely to interact.
We won't limit your ability to run alts. It cannot be limited by any reasonable expenditure of effort anyway.
What about in-character Ponzi schemes and investment banks?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This issue in the ToS from EVE is the equivalent of a prison warden finally banning the shanking of other inmates. CCP has allowed the unsavory elements to co-opt an otherwise beautiful and truly deep sandbox game. The players that wanted to build, explore and interact openly with all the other similar players were told (not in words, but in CCPs complacency) they were not welcome there.
I think Ryan understands this and while there will be elements in PFO that do unsavory things, there will be a cost...in many cases a large cost. And in the case of true griefing, scamming and impersonating other players, they will be asked in no uncertain terms to leave. And if the don't leave, they will get the boot, as they should.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This issue in the ToS from EVE is the equivalent of a prison warden finally banning the shanking of other inmates. CCP has allowed the unsavory elements to co-opt an otherwise beautiful and truly deep sandbox game. The players that wanted to build, explore and interact openly with all the other similar players were told (not in words, but in CCPs complacency) they were not welcome there.
I think Ryan understands this and while there will be elements in PFO that do unsavory things, there will be a cost...in many cases a large cost. And in the case of true griefing, scamming and impersonating other players, they will be asked in no uncertain terms to leave. And if the don't leave, they will get the boot, as they should.
They have been banning people over this for years. It has been no secret either. The fact it was brought up here as some new event is a joke.
The unsavory elements have not co-opted the game. Maybe 1% scam, grief, and trick people. Scams are easy to see. The ones that are not will cause the return of your ISK and the banning of the other guy.
Players build, explore, and interact openly throughout the entire game unhindered. To say otherwise is nonsense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They have been banning people over this for years. It has been no secret either. The fact it was brought up here as some new event is a joke.
.
The policy up till last week:
You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer.
.
The new policy after the change last week:
You may not impersonate or present yourself to be a representative of CCP or an EVE Online volunteer. You may not impersonate or falsely present yourself to be a representative of another player, group of players, character or NPC entity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They have been following that policy for years.
I remember a couple years ago, before the new avatars, a guy made up a character named Chribbba... He impersonated Chribba, who was a big named middle man for secure trades.
The picture made for Chribbba was exactly like Chribba's. The character was in game maybe a week before being banned. He may not have even made it that long.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you intentionally scam another player, we'll take action. Just don't do it. EVE is a simulation of unregulated capitalism. Pathfinder Online isn't.
I'm curious about some examples of what these scams would be?
You mentioned the decimal point "scam". Ultimately, that should be a "Buyer Beware" situation. If someone can't be bothered with reading the cost of what they are buying accurately, well at least they'll probably only make that mistake once.
Will the Settlement Management structure prevent one person from having total control?
What happens if a settlement founder goes inactive, but does not pass on the torch?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or, what if it was not intended as a scam. The decimal point "scam" was never really a scam to me in Eve unless it was done under the contract system.
For instance on the scam side...
A guy in Hek local was giving away "free" frigates. He put them up on contract for 7,777 ISK and link them in local. He did about 10 of these at this price, then came the scam part. Everyone was clicking very fast to try and get cheap frigates... The last one he put up for 777 million ISK... Guess what, he got his 777 mill
Now, if your not paying attention to what you are buying... its your own fault.
If someone places a sale on the market for a higher amount then the rest of the sales, I wouldnt consider it a scam.
The frigate one above, was a scam, but how much of that falls on the idiot who didnt pay attention? I dont expect to see this allowed in game, and is fine with me.
Although If I sell something on the market at a high price, then I would not expect to have problems with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will the Settlement Management structure prevent one person from having total control?
It will allow a group to easily safeguard the controls from being abused by a single characters. EVE doesn't allow that, for comparison.
What happens if a settlement founder goes inactive, but does not pass on the torch?
It will be spelled out in the Charter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really, really like Goblinworks to remove every valid reason to use alt accounts. I've been pushing for that for a very long time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will the Settlement Management structure prevent one person from having total control?What happens if a settlement founder goes inactive, but does not pass on the torch?
From my understanding there will be multiple options of government. I would imagine a one man holds all the power dictatorship, would be unpopular for precisely this reason. Though I'm sure they will also offer some sort of either option or automatic requirement to pass the torch after a certain amount of time of inactivity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really, really like Goblinworks to remove every valid reason to use alt accounts. I've been pushing for that for a very long time.
If GW allows for unlimited character slots and can still offer discounts for multiple training subscriptions (ie Eve Online's Power of Two), then it would be fine to have one account for all characters.
Without that, the idea of limiting accounts is limiting revenue, and I would think the point if PFO is to make money for GW / Paizo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really, really like Goblinworks to remove every valid reason to use alt accounts. I've been pushing for that for a very long time.If GW allows for unlimited character slots and can still offer discounts for multiple training subscriptions (ie Eve Online's Power of Two), then it would be fine to have one account for all characters.
Without that, the idea of limiting accounts is limiting revenue, and I would think the point if PFO is to make money for GW / Paizo.
I have been pointed to multiple posts by Ryan that state the ban hammer will come done swiftly and in some cases unexpectedly. Further discussion to regain your account will come after.
So, some may do something to get themselves banned and not know the reason till its too late. I can give examples...
So they in turn would cut off their noses to spite their face if they do not allow multiple accounts. Regardless of multiple characters per account.
If thats what they want ok then.