Pip Macros - TOS Violation?

[Oh Seven Commander]

What is Frontier's official and documented stance on using software like AHK or Voice Attack to manage pips? Based on what I've seen, it looks like the stance is similar to going 1-4 over the speed limit in a lot of places. Technically, it's breaking the rules, but is basically ignored because why bother?

Is there any actual document / post / official clarification from Frontier that can be provided or linked that shows them saying pip macros are within the bounds of the rules? Something that extrapolates this from lack of enforcement, or using the usual examples of Voice Attack's packs doesn't actually pass muster for question I'm asking.

See further down the thread for what I found out https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/pip-macros-tos-violation.623667/post-10335608

 

[Kailoren]

Section 3 clause C of the Elite Dangerous EULA states:

You are not permitted to:
(c) use cheats, automation software, hacks, mods, or any other unauthorized software designed to modify or defeat the purpose or experience of the Game;

I certainly don't speak for Frontier on this but I can imagine that Voice Attack (and similar pip macro management functions such as using AHK or even a Stream Deck) gets a pass on this because it is can be argued as an accessibility feature, allowing those with disabilities to still be able to play the game and enjoy it. It just so happens that anyone is free to use them and make macros, and it would be illegal for FDev to request "proof" of a disability in order for you to use it.

However, as with any mod to any game, its more a case of "we don't care as long as you don't abuse it". A perfect example of this is Final Fantasy XIV, where mods are explicitly forbidden in any form and you will get banned if caught, but if you don't talk about them or don't use them on stream then how will they know you use them? As long as you are not exploiting the game or using them to gain an unfair advantage over others then realistically they wont bother.

If they took an official stance and said "anyone using VoiceAttack is going to get permanently banned" then 90% of VR players would uninstall immediately, and that is worse for them than just letting it slide imo.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I think the rule of thumb is that anything that does more than one action in a single key press is bad. So pip macros, carrier automation, setting up automated trade runs are all likely to end up with warnings or bans for the same rule breach.

Technically voice attack breaking the rule, but "Defeat the purpose or experience of the game" is probably the key phrase here. Don't use it myself but I can see how if anything, it adds to it.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Is there any actual document / post / official clarification from Frontier that can be provided or linked that shows them saying pip macros are within the bounds of the rules?

No, and there won't be. Even if there was, clause 12.6 would mean that such clarification ceased to be valid instantly on being issued.


The EULA is written very clearly to state that Frontier considers you playing Elite Dangerous to be at their sole discretion and they can ban you for pretty much anything at any time.
For example, "4.4 You may not use the Game or any Online Features in a manner that could damage, disable, impair, overburden or compromise our systems or security or interfere with the experience of other users of the Game or any Online Feature" pretty clearly in terms of literal wording forbids trying to jump a Fleet Carrier at busy times. It's not so much "being 1-4 over the speed limit" (which you can at least avoid doing) as it is your local jurisdiction's favourite "we could arrest anyone for this" law.

 

[Jack Winter]

So the EULA actually forbids ganking?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

So the EULA actually forbids ganking?

Only to the same extent it forbids selling cargo to a station in Solo, or stepping out onto the surface of a previously-undiscovered planet?

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Remember the first rule of fight club?

 

[William J Smith]

What is Frontier's official and documented stance on using software like AHK or Voice Attack to manage pips? Based on what I've seen, it looks like the stance is similar to going 1-4 over the speed limit in a lot of places. Technically, it's breaking the rules, but is basically ignored because why bother?

Is there any actual document / post / official clarification from Frontier that can be provided or linked that shows them saying pip macros are within the bounds of the rules? Something that extrapolates this from lack of enforcement, or using the usual examples of Voice Attack's packs doesn't actually pass muster for question I'm asking.

I imagine the same as for us X-56 guys who bind pips managment to a hat on the flight stick.*
"Ship : Max engine power" is slower than my 3 upward pushes on my hat... should I be penalised?

Bill

* or write macros in the logitich programming software to set pips (or any other number of ship flight configurations)

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

On a more serious note, everything is at Frontier's discretion.HCS is a big box full of automation, but it is with Frontier's blessing. Also the HCS automation is much slower than doing stuff manually, so it is of no competitive advantage.

PIP macros are probably harmless and fine. What's not fine anymore is stuff like function to automatically raise your on foot shields as soon as you take damage (something I believe exists in a certain 3rd party software).

 

[SteveWW57]

Remember the first rule of fight club?

Snatch was better.

Regarding "aids", some have suggested that using a different colour schemes via EDHM should not be allowed as some colours can male things easier.

Steve

 

[Shurimal]

I think the rule of thumb is that anything that dies more than one action in a single key press is bad.

Technically that could make the two-stage trigger on my VKB flight stick also "illegal", since it allows me to fire both primary and secondary weapons with one button. In reality, though, it doesn't give any advantage over eg a mouse user who can press left and right mouse buttons at the same time. In fact, the pinky button on my flight stick gives more advantage since mouse users generally don't have one As always, such matters boil down to "good sportsmanship" and discretion of the referees (devs, moderators etc).

 

[Jmanis]

Ah this old chestnut... they really need to make a Hotel California-style thread for these topics.

If you ignore FD's discretion on the issue, yes, it falls afoul of the quote above.

But FD have discretion. Just because they don't punish anyone for using it doesn't mean it's ok... it's up to them whether they enforce something or not, and may very well choose not to if, for example:

• The consequence is very minor
• Enforcing is too hard/resource-intensive
• Enforcing would have a very negative impact on the game
• The "thing" which is in violation actually benefits the game, or FD have actually endorsed it.

So yes, it's pretty clearly in violation of aspects of the agreement, but it's up to FD to enforce, and for these they don't, because of the above (probably point 4 for VA, probably point 1 and 2 for keyboard macros). In that way, if, say, VA introduced an (advertised) feature that was very bad for the game[1], FD might flip and punish anyone using it.

[1] As unrealistic as that is.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Technically that could make the two-stage trigger on my VKB flight stick also "illegal", since it allows me to fire both primary and secondary weapons with one button. In reality, though, it doesn't give any advantage over eg a mouse user who can press left and right mouse buttons at the same time. In fact, the pinky button on my flight stick gives more advantage since mouse users generally don't have one As always, such matters boil down to "good sportsmanship" and discretion of the referees (devs, moderators etc).

Yeah, there's always going to be caveats to this sort of thing. Guessing why they put that damaging the experience line in there. Nice and vague so they can apply it to anything they don't like but give themselves a get out to allow anything that is either impractical to ban or not actually being used for the purpose of cheating.

 

[Jmanis]

It's not so much "being 1-4 over the speed limit" (which you can at least avoid doing) as it is your local jurisdiction's favourite "we could arrest anyone for this" law.

Incidentally, a nearby state gov had a pretty decent campaign which was ultimately for road safety, with a law enforcement bent.

In a 110 zone, there was a regulatory-ish speed sign saying "113? Over is over" coupled with other messaging... targeting habitual "just slightly over" speeding which almost never results in a fine, by making you feel guilty about the safety aspect. Key point of the campaign being if the limit is 110, 111 is still speeding, even if you don't get fined.

 

[Jmanis]

Yeah, there's always going to be caveats to this sort of thing. Guessing why they put that damaging the experience line in there. Nice and vague so they can apply it to anything they don't like but give themselves a get out to allow anything that is either impractical to ban or not actually being used for the purpose of cheating.

Yeh, and it's reinforced by the line in there somewhere which basically reads "absence of enforcement is not endorsement or acceptance"

 

[Greasetrap42]

While its a really good question I did a quick search on these forums and similar threads were closed but not deleted. I think that's the answer.

 

[Oh Seven Commander]

I have written support and if I remember will update with information once it arrives.

 

[Shurimal]

Incidentally, a nearby state gov had a pretty decent campaign which was ultimately for road safety, with a law enforcement bent.

In a 110 zone, there was a regulatory-ish speed sign saying "113? Over is over" coupled with other messaging... targeting habitual "just slightly over" speeding which almost never results in a fine, by making you feel guilty about the safety aspect. Key point of the campaign being if the limit is 110, 111 is still speeding, even if you don't get fined.

All such enforcement should have some margin for error--speedometers are not accurate (typically they show more than the actual speed is, but exceptions can happen), measuring radars have built in error, human foot on the gas pedal might not be 100% steady, gusts of wind or inclines can affect speed etc. In Elite the speed limit (that no-one follows) is precisely 100.00000 m/s. Even if you're slightly over (100.1 m/s that gets rounded to 100 on the speed display), you'll be held at full fault if someone else flies into you at 99.999 m/s going wrong way in the mailslot. That would be absurd IRL, but your example of IRL shaming of someone detected to go 111 in 110 zone because of inherent margins of error is getting close to this absurdity. Whatever the rules are, there has to be some discretion in enforcing them; not all rulebreaking is malice and some rules are impossible to follow to the letter or written so vaguely as to be impossible not to break in some interpretation of them.

 

[Rat Catcher]

In fact, the pinky button on my flight stick gives more advantage

Mine would if my fingers were long enough to operate both hats and still reach the pinky button...

 

[Jmanis]

All such enforcement should have some margin for error--speedometers are not accurate (typically they show more than the actual speed is, but exceptions can happen), measuring radars have built in error, human foot on the gas pedal might not be 100% steady, gusts of wind or inclines can affect speed etc. In Elite the speed limit (that no-one follows) is precisely 100.00000 m/s. Even if you're slightly over (100.1 m/s that gets rounded to 100 on the speed display), you'll be held at full fault if someone else flies into you at 99.999 m/s going wrong way in the mailslot. That would be absurd IRL, but your example of IRL shaming of someone detected to go 111 in 110 zone because of inherent margins of error is getting close to this absurdity. Whatever the rules are, there has to be some discretion in enforcing them; not all rulebreaking is malice and some rules are impossible to follow to the letter or written so vaguely as to be impossible not to break in some interpretation of them.

Yup. Discretion is absolutely key, but context and impact matter. As absurd as the 1km over scenario would be, if it was provably the difference between a fatality and not (as unrealistic as that is), it would be a very different story. I'd note the campaign never used the 111 example, as that would be quite ridiculous and ineffective. But nonetheless the messaging was "over is over".

As an actual example, my friend had an accident... they turned right on a red light and got t-boned by the oncoming car which had a green light. It came to light that the oncoming car was speeding (58 in a 50 zone) prior to the accident. But for the cops, they didn't really care; nobody was injured , cars were repairable, no infrastructure damaged... it was my friend who was at fault for running the red light and no foul put on the oncoming car. But again, if the other party speeding was provably the difference between it just being a minor accident and a fatality... that would be a very different case.

More relevant, there's countless examples of people using bespoke devices to play games due to some impairment being banned from games, until those reasons come to light. It's a prime example of "yes, actually against the rules, but application is discretionary". Discretion is king.