What's Frontier's Position on Voice Attack?

[galahad2069]

… how dare you…
Its a fair point, I suppose, but it still makes sense from the perspective of gauging participation and driving the narrative forward to provide these advantageous modules- which are opportunities afforded everyone

But those opportunities were not afforded equally to everyone, that's the point.
Only those were provided with the opportunity who (1) had already had the game and (2) had enough spare time to play during that narrow time window when the CG was happening.

Trainers and other cheat software are also freely available... so anyone could download and use them to level the playing field... so that's a flawed position.

"Having a level playing field" is not the underlying consideration here. Is the same reason why afk farming could be considered problematic, even if it uses no external tools.

Trainers and botting are a totally separate issue. I was talking about macros specifically, which are not even remotely comparable. Not only don't they give you an unfair advantage, their only advantage worth mentioning is tendosynovitis prevention (in the case of pip macros).

 

[Northpin]

I was talking about macros specifically, which are not even remotely comparable. Not only don't they give you an unfair advantage,

But using PIP macros over someone that is not using them, in a competitive environment, can make for an extremely unfair advantage.

A macro can move pips in 50ms at a single button press.
You will waste much more time to actively press the same button 4 times while also maneuvering the ship, then press another button 4 times to put full pips in something else while also maneuvering the ship and/or aiming firing.

And i'm pretty sure you know this very well but you're rationalizing this based on everyone-can-use-them, but not everyone does because not everyone plays ED at a competitive level to care about macros.
And not at last, they may come under scrutiny as automation if reported (sure, i guess it will be petty revenge to report some pvp-er that puts up a video where pip macro usage is obvious, but still)

 

[Jmanis]

Trainers and botting are a totally separate issue. I was talking about macros specifically, which are not even remotely comparable. Not only don't they give you an unfair advantage, their only advantage worth mentioning is tendosynovitis prevention (in the case of pip macros).

And yet they're equally available, which is my point. Arguing Voice Attack is "OK" because everyone can access it is not a reason it's allowed.

There's only one reason Voice Attack doesn't fall foul of the ToS/EULA; because FD say it's ok (or rather, they don't say it's not OK, in the context of those agreements). FD could revoke that if they wanted. They won't.

That's it. Nothing more. Splitting hairs over "categories of external apps" is a grey area, and FD know it, which is why VA's permissibility is at FD's discretion... with the main driver being so that FD can retain sound control of expectations around it's game design.

Edit: really, the only reason EULAs and such exist in this context is because it's not sufficient for FD to say the game rules are "Whatever FD decides". That in itself is fine, but players need a point of reference to understand the possible (but not exhaustive) list of things they can and can't do.

 

[Shurimal]

The CG multis, on the other hand, are NOT available equally to all players.

As someone who owns two of these multicannons--they are fun for PvE, but they are not a gamechanger in PvP. You need a lot of time on target for them to work and any half-decent PvP player won't give you time on target. That's one of the reasons why PA-s are the king--you can pull off insane snapshots with them, even when you have just a few dozen milliseconds of ToT. Multicannons won't be able to even spin up that fast. These CG MC-s also go through ammo really fast, around 1,5...2 times faster than class 3 MC-s, and overall time-to-kill is not faster than using PA-s from my experience using both in CZ-s and Has RES-s.

 

[galahad2069]

But using PIP macros over someone that is not using them, in a competitive environment, can make for an extremely unfair advantage.

No, it's not unfair as long as the only reason why someone does not use it is their own decision. It would be unfair if not everyone had the opportunity to use it, which is not the case.

As an analogous example, the fact that some people can decide to fly an inferior ship or an otherwise handicapped build does not automatically make their meta-user opponent's advantage "unfair". If the meta builds were only available to a select few and they were totally and objectively unobtainable by others, then sure, that would be totally unfair. But that's (fortunately) not the case.

A macro can move pips in 50ms at a single button press.

There's only one reason Voice Attack doesn't fall foul of the ToS/EULA; because FD say it's ok (or rather, they don't say it's not OK, in the context of those agreements). FD could revoke that if they wanted. They won't.

Voice Attack is not the only macro capable software in existence. Most gaming peripherals like keypads, some keyboards, joysticks and gaming mice come with their own software that readily support macros.

While it's absolutely understandable why trainers and bots (modification of game files and network information) are banned, it would be pretty stupid if fdev could dictate what kind of (otherwise totally supported) peripherals you can use. Where's the limit? It quite clearly gives you a significant advantage if you have a very fast 32-threads CPU and a 240 Hz 32 inch 4K display connected to a high-end GPU via GSYNC (better visibility of fine details, way lower input lag). Should they ban them? Should everyone play on a i3 CPU + pre-Pascal architecture GPU using a 14" 720p monitor at 30 fps?

 

[galahad2069]

As someone who owns two of these multicannons--they are fun for PvE, but they are not a gamechanger in PvP. You need a lot of time on target for them to work and any half-decent PvP player won't give you time on target. That's one of the reasons why PA-s are the king--you can pull off insane snapshots with them, even when you have just a few dozen milliseconds of ToT. Multicannons won't be able to even spin up that fast. These CG MC-s also go through ammo really fast, around 1,5...2 times faster than class 3 MC-s, and overall time-to-kill is not faster than using PA-s from my experience using both in CZ-s and Has RES-s.

I know how multicannons work, and while the 5x fixed multi FDL is off-meta, it's a fun build and it's at least somewhat competitive (provided you have 2 CG multis - much less so otherwise).

 

[Jmanis]

Voice Attack is not the only macro capable software in existence. Most gaming peripherals like keypads, some keyboards, joysticks and gaming mice come with their own software that readily support macros.

While it's absolutely understandable why trainers and bots (modification of game files and network information) are banned, it would be pretty stupid if fdev could dictate what kind of (otherwise totally supported) peripherals you can use.

Trying to distinguish between trainers and bots, and macros/macro-capable peripherals is a philosophical debate at most. They all automate the game. Using the same logic you could argue it's pretty stupid for FD to dictate what kind of software you can run on your machine. But it's an irrelevant argument; things that automate the game at all are bannable, and whether they get banned or not are discretionary.

Yes, it would be stupid if FD banned what sort of peripherals you can connect. And yet it's with precedent, at least, in the linked thread's case. Why? Because it's discretionary.

You say it's "Absolutely understandable" why trainers and bots are banned. Ask yourself why. Don't stop at "because it automates part of the game in an unfair way"... ask why that's bad for the game.

Where's the limit? It quite clearly gives you a significant advantage if you have a very fast 32-threads CPU and a 240 Hz 32 inch 4K display connected to a high-end GPU's via GSYNC (better visibility of fine details, way lower input lag). Should they ban them? Should everyone play on a i3 CPU + pre-Pascal architecture GPU using a 14" 720p monitor at 30 fps?

The limit is wherever FD decide it is. It doesn't need to be software or peripheral, it can be procedural, like banning multi-accounts and multiboxing (got stung by that a few times...). Again, it's discretionary, because the fundamental case is this: It's FD's call to ban and allow whatever they like, as it's their game design and experience they're ultimately trying to protect.

 

[galahad2069]

Trying to distinguish between trainers and bots, and macros/macro-capable peripherals is a philosophical debate at most. They all automate the game. Using the same logic you could argue it's pretty stupid for FD to dictate what kind of software you can run on your machine. But it's an irrelevant argument; things that automate the game at all are bannable, and whether they get banned or not are discretionary.

You need to use a very broad and therefore nearly meaningless definition of 'automation' if you want all the above to fit in the same category.

If AFK hauling bots or anything else that uses some kind of a basic closed loop control are automation because they can react automatically to their surroundings and are capable of taking off / landing without human input, much like the docking computer, then neither macros nor trainers will qualify as they are doing no such thing.

If pip macros are automation simply because they reduce the required human input, then so is CapsLock - while at the same time a trainer that gives you an extra 100 m/s or 1000 HP, gives you Thargoid shutdown field generator or spawns Thargoid interceptors on top of your opponents is not automating anything as it won't change number of button presses required to operate your ship.

If your definition hinges on the end result only, then basically everything that can increase the reward/effort ratio will qualify as 'automation', including a better computer.

At the end of the day, it's a much better approach to look at what serves or harms the game experience than trying to twist the definitions for 'automation' until it includes everything you (generic you, not you personally) don't like, because 'everything that's automation is bannable'. By the way, this is exactly what fdev seem to be doing (I mean the better approach).

You say it's "Absolutely understandable" why trainers and bots are banned. Ask yourself why. Don't stop at "because it automates part of the game in an unfair way"... ask why that's bad for the game.

I did exactly that in my previous posts. Cheating is clearly a bannable act, especially in a competitive environment like a multiplayer game.
And pip macros are clearly not bad for the game, unlike cheating - and the presence of some powerful, but not generally accessible modules. That was my point.

The limit is wherever FD decide it is. It doesn't need to be software or peripheral, it can be procedural, like banning multi-accounts and multiboxing (got stung by that a few times...). Again, it's discretionary, because the fundamental case is this: It's FD's call to ban and allow whatever they like, as it's their game design and experience they're ultimately trying to protect.

True, they could choose to ban everybody and then shut down the servers any moment for any reason or no reason at all.
But luckily they seem to agree with me on this, which pretty much answers the question in the title of the thread. They've had all the time in the world to hand out bans for pip macros since 2014, which they never did. But afaik they banned a lot of accounts for using trainers, which is exactly how it should be.

 

[Jmanis]

You need to use a very broad and therefore nearly meaningless definition of 'automation' if you want all the above to fit in the same category.

Which is exactly what FD do, and is notated on numerous occasions in this thread:

What's Frontier's Position on Voice Attack?

Hey does the use of Voice Attack fall under the “Bots and Third Party” policy? As per FDev Automation is not permitted in Elite, we class automation as more than one action in game per button press, this includes fleet carrier automation. If you suspect that automation is being utilised in...

forums.frontier.co.uk

What's Frontier's Position on Voice Attack?

Hey does the use of Voice Attack fall under the “Bots and Third Party” policy? As per FDev Automation is not permitted in Elite, we class automation as more than one action in game per button press, this includes fleet carrier automation. If you suspect that automation is being utilised in...

forums.frontier.co.uk

At the end of the day, it's a much better approach to look at what serves or harms the game experience...

Yes... but...

...than trying to twist the definitions for 'automation' until it includes everything you (generic you, not you personally) don't like, because 'everything that's automation is bannable'. By the way, this is exactly what fdev seem to be doing (I mean the better approach).

I disagree on both fronts. Nobody is trying to "twist" definitions at all. VA would fall automation, it's as simple as that.

Just because something falls afoul of the TOS doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing though. It's at FD's discretion to enforce that, and for VA, they don't, in fact, they encourage it's use.

This is a common concept not just for TOS/EULAs, but many legal frameworks where it's usually referred to as "the decision to prosecute/charge"... which is can be surmised as "just because someone commits a crime doesn't mean they should be charged/punished as such"

I did exactly that in my previous posts. Cheating is clearly a bannable act, especially in a competitive environment like a multiplayer game.
And pip macros are clearly not bad for the game, unlike cheating - and the presence of some powerful, but not generally accessible modules. That was my point.

And what's a competitive environment? It's a design decision. What are exclusive modules? Design decision. What is accepting VA as something OK to use? Design decision.

Enforcing the TOS is all about preserving FD's intended game design and experience. Cheating is not "clearly bad" because there's no clear definition of what "cheating" is.

True, they could choose to ban everybody and then shut down the servers any moment for any reason or no reason at all.
But luckily they seem to agree with me on this, which pretty much answers the question in the title of the thread. They've had all the time in the world to hand out bans for pip macros since 2014, which they never did. But afaik they banned a lot of accounts for using trainers, which is exactly how it should be.

I don't understand what you mean by "they agree with you". Agree on what? FD choose to punish people using trainers, and not people who use VA? This is fine, because it's all discretionary.

Again, VA very clearly falls afoul of the rules, which are overly broad as discussed at length in this thread. FD's discretion on this topic is what makes VA acceptable use.

In short: That VA is accepted by FD does not imply it doesn't fall afoul of bots and automation policy (because it's so broad)

Note: FD's "get out of jail free" card on this is the following:

12.4 If we fail to insist that you perform any of your obligations under this EULA, or if we do not enforce our rights against you, or if we delay in doing so, that will not mean that we have waived our rights against you and will not mean that you do not have to comply with those obligations.

This prevents someone creating a functionally identical version of VA which takes automation that one step too far and gets banned, then claiming "But it works no different to VA and you allow that!", and enables FD's discretionary action.

 

[galahad2069]

It would of course be covered by "use any [...] manual means to access the Game" which is the bit which bans Voice Attack (and keyboards, mice, joysticks, controllers, pedals, trackpads, play-by-post, and any other methods people might come up with)

I cannot check the full paragraph atm, but based on the few words you quoted, it seems to depend on what "accessing the game" means here. It can easily happen to mean nothing more than "(being able to) log in" (having access to the game because you have a legit account not some shady hacked one), which has nothing to do with the types of controllers you are allowed or forbidden to use.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The full section is

3. Licence restrictions
You are not permitted:

(a) to load the Game on to a network server for the purposes of distribution to one or more other device(s) on that network or to effect such distribution;
(b) except as expressly permitted by this EULA and to the extent expressly permitted by applicable law, to rent, lease, sub-license, loan, exploit for profit or gain, copy, modify, adapt, merge, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or create derivative works based on the whole or any part of the Game or use, reproduce, distribute, translate, broadcast, publicly perform, store in a retrieval system or otherwise deal in the Game or any part thereof in any way;
(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;
(g) violate any technology control or export laws and regulations that apply to the technology used or supported by the Game or any Online Features.

The point is not that certain types of controllers are allowed or forbidden, the point is that all ways of accessing the game are forbidden, and if you aren't allowed to log in, then using Voice Attack or a keyboard to fly your ship is de facto banned because you'd have to log in to do that.

Note that they're so worried about people translating the game that 3b bans it twice, as well as banning forum discussions, youtubers, streamers, fanfic writers, and any other sort of creation or distribution of evidence that people play or care about the game at all. Except to the extent expressely permitted by applicable law, of course, but I'm not an IP lawyer so I don't know exactly what extent that is, and to be honest leaving public evidence that you're accessing the game under 3e would be pretty silly even if legislation explicitly allows it.

It is not a serious document.

 

[Jmanis]

It is not a serious document.

Game EULA and TOS rarely have any legal bearing, because they're so badly written.

 

[Hellrider]

Ah yes, I seen argument "all people can use it"
technically, all people can use bots, so...
All people can use voice attack.
All people can use macros
All people can use bots.
So instead arguing better follow road "if fdev says that X is ok, then X is ok".

 

[Alec Turner]

Ah yes, I seen argument "all people can use it"
technically, all people can use bots, so...
All people can use voice attack.
All people can use macros
All people can use bots.
So instead arguing better follow road "if fdev says that X is ok, then X is ok".

I think I tend to go further and think, if X has been around so long and so prominently that FD MUST know about it and haven't banned it then X is probably OK to use. Whenever I see 3rd party application developers complaining that they've been trying to contact FD for approval and FD have ignored them ... that's FD doing them a favour, basically saying "don't force us to make a stamement and we won't be forced to say no".

 

[Fnord Velkor]

I think all the argument discussion is pretty much overridden by the fact that HCS Voicpacks are officially licenced and thus VA must be acceptable 'cos HCS needs it for its functionality.

 

[Jmanis]

I think all the argument discussion is pretty much overridden by the fact that HCS Voicpacks are officially licenced and thus VA must be acceptable 'cos HCS needs it for its functionality.

Sure, but it being "Acceptable" by FD and it falling afoul of FD's botting & automation policy are not mutually exclusive. It's completely discretionary.

 

[galahad2069]

The point is not that certain types of controllers are allowed or forbidden, the point is that all ways of accessing the game are forbidden, and if you aren't allowed to log in, then using Voice Attack or a keyboard to fly your ship is de facto banned because you'd have to log in to do that.

Its not being a 'serious' or legally correct document might be true, but the restrictions themselves listed in section 3 in cannot logically mean that you are not allowed to log in under any circumstances.

The document should be interpreted as a whole, and there must be a section somewhere in the doc saying something about the conditions under which you are allowed to play the game. Something along the lines of "ok buddy you pay us a certain amount of money in exchange for which we allow you to play the game with the following restrictions [see section 3]". The very existence of such a statement would prove that the restrictions set out in section 3 cannot be interpreted as something that precludes every conceivable way of logging in. Otherwise it would have been pointless to write such a lengthy document and a single line ("Terms of service: we provide no service whatsoever, you are not allowed to play the game, kthx") would have been sufficient.

 

[Jmanis]

The document should be interpreted as a whole, and there must be a section somewhere in the doc saying something about the conditions under which you are allowed to play the game. Something along the lines of "ok buddy you pay us a certain amount of money in exchange for which we allow you to play the game with the following restrictions [see section 3]". The very existence of such a statement would prove that the restrictions set out in section 3 cannot be interpreted as something that precludes every conceivable way of logging in. Otherwise it would have been pointless to write such a lengthy document and a single line ("Terms of service: we provide no service whatsoever, you are not allowed to play the game, kthx") would have been sufficient.

Yep. That's section 2.

2. Grant and Scope of Licence

2.1 Subject to your compliance with the terms of this EULA, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, revocable, limited licence to use the Game. You are permitted to:
(a) load the Game into and Use it on a single device which is under your custody and control and which meets the specifications referred to in the manual for your own private and domestic Use;
(b) transfer the Game from one such device to another; provided the Game is Used on only one device at any one time and any device on which it is Used is under your custody and control at the time of Use.

2.2 All rights not expressly granted hereunder are, to the extent permitted by law, reserved to Frontier and its licensors. Your rights of use under this EULA are strictly conditional upon your observance of the terms and conditions contained in this EULA at all times.

You can load it onto a single device (so... hope nobody has steam on more than one device with the game loaded on both!) and "Use" it, where "Use" is not really defined anywhere, except that it's "Subject to the EULA".

So hooray! We can install it, and that's about all the clarity there is.

But again, loosely defined EULAs are done as such so that discretion of enforcement is reserved for it's owner. That's important, because if you have a permissive EULA, you need to update it every time someone does something under such a permission that you don't like, and that's not trivial. So better to word it in a way that disallows virtually everything, and make enforcement discretionary.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Its not being a 'serious' or legally correct document might be true, but the restrictions themselves listed in section 3 in cannot logically mean that you are not allowed to log in under any circumstances.

They cannot reasonably mean that, no. But see above "not a serious document". As it's not intended or required to stand up in court, it doesn't actually have to make any sense whatsoever. The point is to throw up a bunch of legal-sounding junk, have something they can point to as "you didn't / did do that" when issuing a ban, and if they get anything resembling a plausible challenge back, they can grant a refund as a gesture of goodwill rather than bother trying to work out which bits might actually be legally enforceable.

The document should be interpreted as a whole, and there must be a section somewhere in the doc saying something about the conditions under which you are allowed to play the game. Something along the lines of "ok buddy you pay us a certain amount of money in exchange for which we allow you to play the game with the following restrictions [see section 3]". The very existence of such a statement would prove that the restrictions set out in section 3 cannot be interpreted as something that precludes every conceivable way of logging in.

Sure, the previous section says

2. Grant and Scope of Licence

2.1 Subject to your compliance with the terms of this EULA, we grant you a non-transferable, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, revocable, limited licence to use the Game. You are permitted to:
(a) load the Game into and Use it on a single device which is under your custody and control and which meets the specifications referred to in the manual for your own private and domestic Use;
(b) transfer the Game from one such device to another; provided the Game is Used on only one device at any one time and any device on which it is Used is under your custody and control at the time of Use.

2.2 All rights not expressly granted hereunder are, to the extent permitted by law, reserved to Frontier and its licensors. Your rights of use under this EULA are strictly conditional upon your observance of the terms and conditions contained in this EULA at all times.

Emphasis mine.

It's very clear that the restrictions then placed in the following section 3 set out ways of "using the game" or taking actions related to that which are - despite being use of the game in the broader sense - not considered acceptable.

It's unfortunate that due to the quality of the subsequent writing, all possible ways you could have of playing the game are excluded, and indeed it is illogical for Frontier to do so or to claim to want to do so.

As far as "a certain amount of money" goes, let's see Section 6

6. Fees and Payment

6.1 To Use the Game you are required to pay a fee. You may also be able to purchase items within the Game or through the Online Features in return for specific charges.

6.2 You will be informed of the applicable fee for Use of the Game immediately prior to purchase. The current fees for the Game may be viewed at https://frontierstore.net/. Failure to pay any fees or charges will constitute a material breach of this EULA. We may amend the fees and payment terms at any time at our sole and complete discretion.

6.3 We may, in our sole discretion, waive any and all fees associated with the download of the Game in connection with special offers or promotions.

Again, emphasis mine. They can decide tomorrow that you, personally and no other player, are required to pay a £100 Extortion Fee, and if you don't pay it you are in breach of the EULA and can be banned.

Otherwise it would have been pointless to write such a lengthy document and a single line ("Terms of service: we provide no service whatsoever, you are not allowed to play the game, kthx") would have been sufficient.

And this is indeed almost the correct interpretation for the document as a whole (it just needs an "except at our discretion" after "game" and maybe "guaranteed" before "service").

Legality, logicality or internal consistency is irrelevant. Indeed, it's not even possible to determine if the EULA on the site is actually the one you'd be required to follow:

Frontier Developments (“Frontier”, “we”, or “us”) reserves the right to modify, alter, amend, or update this EULA at any time in its sole discretion by posting an amended version at https://frontierstore.net/ed-eula. Any continued Use of the Game after Frontier posts such modifications, alterations, amendments, or updates constitutes your acceptance of such modifications, alterations, amendments, and updates.

[and then later]

12.6 This EULA constitutes the entire agreement between Frontier and you with respect to the license and use of the Game and the Online Features and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous understandings. No amendment or modification of this EULA will be binding unless made in writing and signed by a duly authorised representative of Frontier.

So near the top, they say that changes can be made at any time with no notice or notification just by posting the amended version.

But at the bottom, they say that no amendments or modifications are binding unless in writing and signed by an authorised representative.

The EULA on the website is in writing, but it isn't signed

So ... if you read a previous version of it, is the current version a binding modification to it or not?

 

[galahad2069]

We can install it, and that's about all the clarity there is.

Not only can you install, you can also run it:

(a) load the Game into and Use it on a single device

Which means you are allowed to log in and therefore the restrictions listed thereafter cannot preclude all concievable ways to do so.
Otherwise there would be no service the terms of which the document called Terms of Service could specify.