General / Off-Topic Hacking or cheating in Elite Dangerous

[AJW]

I truly believe it can be done, what we got now are a system where you simply don't know if you're on the right side of the TOS. You could be using something and truly be in good faith that this is ok to use, however FDEV could suddenly change their mind and ban you from accessing the game

Ok, you think it could be done. In which case, give an example of the sort of statement regarding this issue that you think a game developer should put out. Either a real one, if you know of such a thing, or a hypothetical one of your own. Because I can't see how one could possibly come up with wording that would unambiguously lay down in advance everything that would be permitted (or everything that wouldn't be permitted, if that was simpler). You can 'legislate' for things you know about, but hard and fast rules regarding things you don't know about are rather more difficult.

And as for Frontier banning people because they 'change their mind', they are a business, and they are unlikely to want to lose customers arbitrarily. Give them credit for a bit of common sense.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Like I said, FD could put people in charge to test and validate 3rd party apps (like the Apple store).
But it's really labour intensive. Reading other people's code and trying to see what they did there or simply testing all the functionality of any given software takes longer than writing your own code.
So the most efficient way is to condone it while keeping the right to remove that condonation once questionable functionalities are discovered.

 

[lysan]

Ok, you think it could be done. In which case, give an example of the sort of statement regarding this issue that you think a game developer should put out. Either a real one, if you know of such a thing, or a hypothetical one of your own. Because I can't see how one could possibly come up with wording that would unambiguously lay down in advance everything that would be permitted (or everything that wouldn't be permitted, if that was simpler). You can 'legislate' for things you know about, but hard and fast rules regarding things you don't know about are rather more difficult.

And as for Frontier banning people because they 'change their mind', they are a business, and they are unlikely to want to lose customers arbitrarily. Give them credit for a bit of common sense.

I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you the wording as it should be, however it could contain words like, accessing codes from memory, altering the code of the game, manipulating whatever goes on in the engine room

Now using what information that is on the screen is not considerate a violation as along as it doesn't change any information to and from the application.

Probably a lawyer would use 20 pages and charge you 10.000 USD to write the same, but hey that is how things work

 

[Boomer Kay]

(c) use cheats, automation software, hacks, mods, or any other unauthorized software designed to modify or defeat the purpose or experience of the Game;
(d) use any unauthorized software that harvests or otherwise collections information about others or the Game, including about a character or the game environment;
(e) use any robot, spider, scraper, or other automated or manual means to access the Game or any Online Features or copy any content or information from the Game or any Online Features;
(f) probe, scan, test the vulnerability of or breach the authentication measures of the Game or any Online Features;

(C) is the interesting section. "Purpose or experience of the game".
So you can use voice attack or a macro program that sends comes to their players, but can't use something like a full bot that plays the game for you.

 

[lysan]

Like I said, FD could put people in charge to test and validate 3rd party apps (like the Apple store).
But it's really labour intensive. Reading other people's code and trying to see what they did there or simply testing all the functionality of any given software takes longer than writing your own code.
So the most efficient way is to condone it while keeping the right to remove that condonation once questionable functionalities are discovered.

Lets take an example MKAY, lets say I'm a genius with a computer (don't worry I'm not) and I could write an app that could. lets say use the information on the screen without accessing any code from memory, only use what is going on the screen. And lets say i could use that information do make my program do whatever my intention was? would that be cheating, illegal violation of the TOS?

[FONT="](c) use cheats, automation software, hacks, mods, or any other unauthorized software designed to modify or defeat the purpose or experience of the Game;[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="](d) use any unauthorized software that harvests or otherwise collections information about others or the Game, including about a character or the game environment;[/FONT]
[FONT="](e) use any robot, spider, scraper, or other automated or manual means to access the Game or any Online Features or copy any content or information from the Game or any Online Features;[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="](f) probe, scan, test the vulnerability of or breach the authentication measures of the Game or any Online Features;[/FONT][/QUOT

Many of the 3rd party apps already does some of these things....

 

[Boomer Kay]

Lets take an example MKAY, lets say I'm a genius with a computer (don't worry I'm not) and I could write an app that could. lets say use the information on the screen without accessing any code from memory, only use what is going on the screen. And lets say i could use that information do make my program do whatever my intention was? would that be cheating, illegal violation of the ...

Aimbots? Yes.

"Purpose or experience of the game" is very vague, though.
Almost true "don't test me in court" lawyerbabble.

 

[Arry]

So in Elite Dangerous we now have a lot of 3rd party apps, some helps you with trading, some can assist you with navigating and everything else in between.

Why am I writing this post? because it's not very clear to me what is considered a hack/cheating, and what is considered ok to use. Especially in ED.

VA - In Voice Attack you can set up the computer to do a lot of commands, it can activate many functions as a macro and the most skilled programmers can make it do things you simply can't do with the vanilla game.

Would this be considered hacking or cheating?

I believe it's time for developers like Frontier Development to clarify in details what they see as cheating, because hacking is pretty simple. When you alter the original code, you hack the software. So the question here is all the apps that runs as an overlay on the original software. This is not hacking, as you do not change the original code, but it could be cheating.

Instead of the usual silence, FDEV should engage in a positive debate, what they consider cheating and what actions they what to take to prevent it from happening.

This is a list of many of the tools and apps you can download and use with ED.

http://edcodex.info/?m=tools

Interesting discussion and the farther I go down the page, the more my mind is going numb with the details; but then, I still have not got my head around how to change my HUD colours. This is not my field at all.

However: I think what you are generally talking about here is; exploitation. I don't think it matters what tools, sites etc. F.D. publicly approves of: Although a recognised list of what they do and don't approve of, would be very helpful to all players; I still feel that the 'exploiters' will exploit, what ever they can. Approved or not. As you said: What you can do with voice attack, is almost unlimited and so I would say that F.D. would need to publish a list of 'exploits, that will get you banned', no matter whether, you use approved tools, or not.

 

[znôrt]

Would this be considered hacking or cheating?

I believe it's time for developers like Frontier Development to clarify in details what they see as cheating, because hacking is pretty simple. When you alter the original code, you hack the software. So the question here is all the apps that runs as an overlay on the original software. This is not hacking, as you do not change the original code, but it could be cheating.

it's not that simple at all. you can hack a program without altering the code in several ways, for instance by intercepting i/o or user input, or in general reading or writing to data (which could be argued to be ownership of the user, not the developer). there are no clear boundaries. heck, not even the term 'hack' has specific universal meaning (and is probably in the top 25 list of words thrown around nonsensically). it's actually a quite complex matter and lawmakers (i'm not one) go into considerable trouble catching up with technology, describing scenarios and classifying processes in what are mostly safeguards for corporate ip, liability or interest, more than something in the interest of the general public. it is a political matter. politics are never simple

that srv navigation mod is a nice example. dunno its current status but at the time (iirc) it was struck down on the basis of reading memory directly. however, i doubt frontier would have any (legal) problem with eddiscovery doing the same, they would even probably never have known or cared. the difference (imo) is that while eddiscovery is a side-app, the srv mod integrated way too much into the ui (much more than a simple overlay), blurring the difference between the game and the external tool. this can be seen either as intrusion or 'derivative work' and was understandably a concern for frontier, and the fact that memory was being read directly just provided a convenient way to rule it out. any case it's something in their complete power, they could as well have silently randomized the memory layout to break the mod.

so while fdev doesn't provide a detailed list of supported apps or criteria, they do speak out when they spot something they deem fishy, but it can't be said they are harsh on this matter (on anything, actually), quite the contrary. i doubt you ever face consequences for using any mod or third party app in good faith, except it being forbidden at some point, and from then on it will be 'public knowledge' (as is too much of the game actually, but that's another issue). i you're a developer and in doubt, just ask them.

 

[lysan]

it's not that simple at all. you can hack a program without altering the code in several ways, for instance by intercepting i/o or user input, or in general reading or writing to data (which could be argued to be ownership of the user, not the developer). there are no clear boundaries. heck, not even the term 'hack' has specific universal meaning (and is probably in the top 25 list of words thrown around nonsensically). it's actually a quite complex matter and lawmakers (i'm not one) go into considerable trouble catching up with technology, describing scenarios and classifying processes in what are mostly safeguards for corporate ip, liability or interest, more than something in the interest of the general public. it is a political matter. politics are never simple

that srv navigation mod is a nice example. dunno its current status but at the time (iirc) it was struck down on the basis of reading memory directly. however, i doubt frontier would have any (legal) problem with eddiscovery doing the same, they would even probably never known or cared. the difference (imo) is that while eddiscovery is a side-app, the srv mod integrated way too much into the ui (much more than a simple overlay), blurring the difference between the game and the external tool. this can be seen either as intrusion or 'derivative work' and was understandably a concern for frontier, and the fact that memory was being read directly just provided a convenient way to rule it out. any case it's something in their complete power, they could as well have silently randomized the memory layout to break the mod.

so while fdev doesn't provide a detailed list of supported apps or criteria, they do speak out when they spot something they deem fishy, but it can't be said they are harsh on this matter (on anything, actually), quite the contrary. i doubt you ever face consequences for using any mod or third party app in good faith, except it being forbidden at some point, and from then on it will be 'public knowledge' (as is too much of the game actually, but that's another issue). i you're a developer and in doubt, just ask them.

The problem here is that we can't always access the information, the request for a closer interaction with FDEV regarding 3rd apps is very limited as I understand it. The navigation tool is excellent I love it, however there was another navigation tool that could navigate you ship, and that tool was somehow, without much explanation judged as a violation of the TOS.

Was it considered a violation because it could automated your travels or because it accessed parts of the game that is a nogo zone? I don't know and we can't get much information in this matter.

 

[znôrt]

Was it considered a violation because it could automated your travels or because it accessed parts of the game that is a nogo zone? I don't know and we can't get much information in this matter.

frankly, i have no idea and i guess this was your whole point

let's see if there's some feedback on this.

 

[lysan]

frankly, i have no idea and i guess this was your whole point

let's see if there's some feedback on this.

yes and no, my point is that i would like to know the rules before i start a project, i'm not a programmer, however I'm not without means, and could in theory easily fund a person to write what I wanted.
Again it would be foolish to do it if the rules was, "no matter how yo do it, we will not allow it, because cheating." that brings us back to the surface navigator. As long as it's manual it's ok, the moment you automated it, it's not. (we don't know if that is the case, just an example)

 

[SMcA]

yes and no, my point is that i would like to know the rules before i start a project, i'm not a programmer, however I'm not without means, and could in theory easily fund a person to write what I wanted.
Again it would be foolish to do it if the rules was, "no matter how yo do it, we will not allow it, because cheating." that brings us back to the surface navigator. As long as it's manual it's ok, the moment you automated it, it's not. (we don't know if that is the case, just an example)

Why don't you contact FD directly? There is the community manager and there is customer support.

 

[lysan]

Why don't you contact FD directly? There is the community manager and there is customer support.

To be honest, it was not until recently i even considerate it, however you're right that would be the way to do it.

 

[SMcA]

To be honest, it was not until recently i even considerate it, however you're right that would be the way to do it.

There is no point messing about if you are serious. Why ask us. Ve know nofink! [My age is showing.]

 

[lysan]

There is no point messing about if you are serious. Why ask us. Ve know nofink! [My age is showing.]

It's a discussion FD need to take with the community, my issue is just one out of many, in general people need to know if they can freely use whatever they are using. You could have apps running that are not known and only a few players know about them, and they honestly don't know if they are on the right side of the TOS.

A simple validation could be a helpful hand to the developers of those apps. Anyway, we won't get any information, because FD like to keep people in the dark, and only trial and error will give you a straight answer.

At least they should give a explanation if they decide X app is not within the TOS instead of just shutting it down without explanation why they consider it a violation.

ex.

We consider app X a violation due to accessing codes from the game, or because this function is cheating in how the game was/is intended/designed to be played.

 

[Boomer Kay]

It's a discussion FD need to take with the community, my issue is just one out of many, in general people need to know if they can freely use whatever they are using. You could have apps running that are not known and only a few players know about them, and they honestly don't know if they are on the right side of the TOS.

A simple validation could be a helpful hand to the developers of those apps. Anyway, we won't get any information, because FD like to keep people in the dark, and only trial and error will give you a straight answer.

At least they should give a explanation if they decide X app is not within the TOS instead of just shutting it down without explanation why they consider it a violation.

ex.

We consider app X a violation due to accessing codes from the game, or because this function is cheating in how the game was/is intended/designed to be played.

The only thing you can freely use is mouse and keyboard.

For FD it's quite simple, they don't support 3rd party apps, just condone the use of some of them.

Again, a licensing program might be nice to have, but probably does not provide any benefit for FD while requiring them to commit ressources.

If you have an app running that's accessing any parts of the game that are not available trough UI/API, that's "not widely known" and used "by just a small number of people", you're most definitely on the wrong side of the TOS. (Ask Volkswagen )

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

Okay so I just read through this thread.

Like I've said in the E.D.I.S.O.N. thread, Frontier will generally only have a problem with a 3rd party application, if it is hooking directly into game memory.

That's to say, if your program has kicked down the doors and is reading directly from in-game memory things like your altitiude, speed, direction, etc. etc. , then Frontier will punch you with a fist of an angry god.

As long as your program does not in any way try to access the game code's internal memory addresses you shouldn't have a problem.

You mention VoiceAttack. It's my understanding that VoiceAttack merely listens to your voice input, and converts that into actions such as keystrokes - for example, a voice command of "engines" might trigger VoiceAttack to simulate the keystrokes required to put full power to ENG. Frontier cannot in any seriousness have any complaint about that, as all that's involved, as far the as game code is concerned, is the pressing of the key on the player's keyboard to put pips into ENG.

EDDiscovery and my Captain's Log : both originally used the game's netlogs - text logs generated by the game intended for debugging purposes but had a single-but-useful entry in it which was produced when a player jumped into a new system. Again, only utilising an available 'resource' which was external to the game and the game's code, and perfectly legal. Not only that, but Frontier have very awesomely spent the time money and effort to formally produce the Player Journal - which took the idea of the netlog's single "FSD Jump" line and expanded that into providing tons of very useful information, exactly for use with 3rd party application developers.

Let's go back to Khelder's application, which was stomped all over by Frontier. The reasons for that were, as far as I can tell, two-fold :

1) The program hooked into the game and read directly from game memory in RAM

This obviously was a huge no-no for Frontier

2) Khelder was intending to sell this program as a commercial product.

I think Khelder was making many approaches to Frontier, with the hope of getting Frontier's approval for this. Frontier refused for whatever reasons they had.

Bottom line is : Frontier recognises that 3rd party applications and websites help to augment the game, and they are perfectly happy to have its player base developing and using them, as long as the software being developed does not directly hook into game memory in RAM. The main reason for that one stipulation, is because 3 years ago in the very early days of the game, there were one or two applications made which again accessed in-game memory structures, which appeared to cause some game crashes. Obviously, Frontier does not want to have to deal with game crashes which might be caused by some 3rd party application which nabs in-game memory structures.

Another factor to consider is that if you write a program which directly accesses in-game memory structures, you're going to be in for a world of hurt, because it's a certainty that the location of these in-game memory structures will change every time there is a major game patch/update.

Lysander, why don't you pop onto the EDCD Discord where you can discuss this with the majority of 3rd-party application and website developers, as most of them hang out there?

 

[Boomer Kay]

1) The program hooked into the game and read directly from game memory in RAM

This obviously was a huge no-no for Frontier

2) Khelder was intending to sell this program as a commercial product.

I think Khelder was making many approaches to Frontier, with the hope of getting Frontier's approval for this. Frontier refused for whatever reasons they had.

There's a discussion in regards to that:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=241252

Looked pretty impressive, but to my understanding it was the reading from the ED memory which disqualified it: "Frontier made it very clear to me that they believe that memory reading violates the EULA and is not allowed."

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

There's a discussion in regards to that:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=241252

Looked pretty impressive, but to my understanding it was the reading from the ED memory which disqualified it: "Frontier made it very clear to me that they believe that memory reading violates the EULA and is not allowed."

Indeed, the main sticking point was hooking into game memory structures.

I'll reiterate to Lysander though to come over to the EDCD Discord and have a chat.

 

[Esvandiary]

1) The program hooked into the game and read directly from game memory in RAM

This obviously was a huge no-no for Frontier

2) Khelder was intending to sell this program as a commercial product.

I think Khelder was making many approaches to Frontier, with the hope of getting Frontier's approval for this. Frontier refused for whatever reasons they had.

This is an excellent summary. I looked at the sneak peek video, thought "huh, very cool, but how is he getting hold of all that."

Then I saw that it was using memory-scraping, and thought "OK, buddy you are on very thin ice and don't seem to realise it."

Then I saw that he was planning to charge money for it, gave a small chuckle, and abandoned thread because there was only one way that was ever going to go.

With all that said, I think the rest of Genar's post is also pretty accurate - if you're not interfering with the game process or data files, Frontier are generally very permissive. Things like macros are widely known and used (and realistically couldn't be stopped anyway), there's obviously the journal, screen-scraping has been around since the dawn of the game - and hell we're even reading/writing some of the useful cache files the game creates (e.g. the Visited Stars Cache).

Most importantly, though, Frontier have previously shown that intent matters to them - if you make something cool and non-harmful for the community that it turns out is against the ToS, but you do so without that being clear, I have seen no indication over the previous few years that you would face any significant action against you.

As Genar has already said, the EDCD Discord server is a good place to discuss development and see what other people are doing.