I would add Netflix to the list then
What Constitutes as Cheating
- Thread starter Deaf Space
- Start date
Hmmm...well that depends on how good a programmer you are and what, exactly is considered as cheating, on a case by case basis by FD.
Example 1: TARGET script can be used in much the same way as a keyboard macro generator. As someone else posted about their biowaste example, you can get TARGET to do the same thing. Or, similarly, load up your Cutter with 750 Powerplay āthingiesā...10 at a time ... for 75 iterations of a loop whilst cooking dinner, or pouring another couple or 3 glasses of wine. Cheating?
Example 2: How about scripting an autopilot function to get you to Long-Lat on a planet, cheating? I think most people would probably say āyesā. You can (I believe) do this in TARGET...and I would not consider myself a āgood programmerā.
(No, Iāve not done this, but believe sincerely that it could without too much trouble).
Clicker
Except that's not what I was saying at all. You just put abunch of words in my mouth.yes , solo mode the answer to everything , "Dont like ____? , Play in solo. Bad at the game? Play in solo. Good at the game? play in solo. Like hideing from problems instead of fixing them? play in SOLO!" im sorry but this way of thinking is alien to me
Is there a place where is written by FDev, black and white, that it is? I mean, a good place to have it would be on the terms and conditions as an exception. The language used, as it is, catches that as well.
How complex can the macro be then? Can one be where it basically flies the ship from A to B without any other input than the initial command? It's a macro, and it's nothing we couldn't do otherwise.
So the requirement is to be at my desk? One can start the bot, be at the desk watching netflix, and would fulfil your requirement of being at the desk and making the decision to execute the macro.
From my watching many Judge Judy and Judge Rinder episodes, if there is a written contract, everything else doesn't mater. So unless is specified in the EULA, in a court, has 0 relevance.
One-sided compliance with obligations constitutes unfair contract terms, and that can have legal consequences.
Oh, but you do have to worry about cheaters, even in solo mode.
I think he is referring to the BGS and power Play effects.
Last edited:
By influencing the BGS.
Oh sorry. I thought you were saying that there was still a way for cheaters to affect me directly.
When a game's story and ambient development is influenced by player actions, cheaters can bake a big dent in the game overall. Hell, player groups can do that without even cheating.
I remember Eve online. They had this in-game/out-game currency; a card that gave 1 month playing time. These could be bought in-game, but since the market was influenced by players, a serious group of them started pressuring the game's market in such a way that these monthly-visas became too valuable, and completely useless in their original purpose. Whomever wanted to extend their game time, had to pay real money in the eve store, because no player could earn enough money in-game to pay for the monthly-visa cards.
Now this was done with game mechanics, no cheats. But it still resulted in a kind of cheat and unfair game-play.
I remember Eve online. They had this in-game/out-game currency; a card that gave 1 month playing time. These could be bought in-game, but since the market was influenced by players, a serious group of them started pressuring the game's market in such a way that these monthly-visas became too valuable, and completely useless in their original purpose. Whomever wanted to extend their game time, had to pay real money in the eve store, because no player could earn enough money in-game to pay for the monthly-visa cards.
Now this was done with game mechanics, no cheats. But it still resulted in a kind of cheat and unfair game-play.
I'd love to see that: someone taking a game company to court for "unfair Terms of Service" after they've been banned for cheating. The Magistrates will just laugh in their face.
Sorry Stuart, I didn't say anything about being banned for cheating. You put those words in my mouth.I'd love to see that: someone taking a game company to court for "unfair Terms of Service" after they've been banned for cheating. The Magistrates will just laugh in their face.
I see the following hypothetical scenario as problematic: Before buying the game I do my due diligence and read the EULA. After I see that the licensor has firm stance on automating and cheating, I decide to buy the game. But after some time I discover that the licensor not only tolerates, but also endorses automation software. Being an avid PvP player, I feel disadvantaged by not using it and I refuse to buy it, since it was a hidden cost that was nowhere stated and it influenced my buying decision.
I ask FD for a complete reimbursement of my expenses, they refuse and I take them to court, because they didn't comply with their own EULA.
Personally I think I have big chances to win.
Good luck with that lol
Last edited:
I am a European citizen and FD is still a European company. I don't care about the States. In Europe at least one company was brought to court because of its EULA and it lost.
That was a completely different situation and you know it. Your imaginary example has no resemblance to the real life court case you are mentioning. Your argument and the logic behind it is flawed. Not to mention ridiculous.
Thank you for you positive and creative contribution to the discussion.
You are sitting here talking about suing a game company over third party software that they have no control over. You are just complaining that other people are using third party tools that you refuse to use despite the fact that you have equal access to those tools. If you wanna use the third party program that FD says is okay then do it. If you don't wanna use it then don't use it. FD is not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spend money on a product they have no control over. Its not on FD if you decide you don't wish to use it. And they certainly are not legally responsible for your refusal to do so. The fact you even think that they are is patently ridiculous.
You just have this pipe dream of an example where you can take the big meanie company to court because they are totes forcing you into a corner that only exists in your imagination. There is no real discussion here. You are either just playing devil's advocate to an imaginary problem or you are being intentionally ridiculous.