What's Frontier's Position on Voice Attack?

[Northpin]

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 specific systems, or you think a specific user is using automation, please report that to us here. We can then forward on your report to our anti cheating for them to look into.

Alternatively if you know the commander name of the account you suspect, you can submit an in game report and that will go straight to the anti cheating team.

IMO HCS and Voice Attack definitely fall under the above definition, no ifs, no buts. It is an automation tool
One can easily create a Request Docking Permission - command, without even having a bind key (and a bind key was required for a long time for Dock permission and also for SCA).

However, FDev's TOS is really flexible so they basically can allow certain stuff even if it definitely falls over definitions related to forbidden stuff, while they can ban people even if they dont use any explicit forbidden stuff but falls under "it's against the spirit of the game"

So yea, all is good, nothing to see here, move along

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Indeed - Frontier's EULA gives them the claim to be able to ban you for literally anything, especially including logging into Elite Dangerous:

3. Licence Restrictions
You are not permitted:
[...]
(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;

Source, emphasis mine

So, let's be clear, you aren't allowed under the terms of the license agreement to "use ... manual means to access the Game", and you're really taking a risk if you enter their screenshot competitions and copy information from the game where they can see you.

There's also (again, emphasis mine)

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.

which given the interconnectedness of the BGS means you're probably safest playing in Solo as a deep space explorer who never sells their data or disembarks on foot. And definitely don't try to jump a Fleet Carrier!

Frontier will obviously generally let all this slide if you don't actually cause trouble (section 12.4 allows them to arbitrarily ignore breaches indefinitely at their discretion) but the simple answer to "is X allowed by the EULA" is "No", and if it turns out that somehow you find something it allows the third paragraph of the preface lets them completely rewrite the EULA without notice or notification at any time until it bans that too.

(Is this overbroad and almost certainly legally unenforcable? I'm not a lawyer, neither are you, and we couldn't afford to hire one over the tiny material loss suffered if Frontier did enforce the EULA strictly, so the answer to that for all practical purposes is also "No, it's all perfectly fine")

 

[Jmanis]

Indeed - Frontier's EULA gives them the claim to be able to ban you for literally anything, especially including logging into Elite Dangerous:

Source, emphasis mine

So, let's be clear, you aren't allowed under the terms of the license agreement to "use ... manual means to access the Game", and you're really taking a risk if you enter their screenshot competitions and copy information from the game where they can see you.

It definitely sounds insane to have "manual" in they're, but you can imagine the excuses that would exist if if didn't

which given the interconnectedness of the BGS means you're probably safest playing in Solo as a deep space explorer who never sells their data or disembarks on foot. And definitely don't try to jump a Fleet Carrier!

I'm reminded of my "gentleman's agreement" when 1t trading was at its peak, which could be surmised as, where N is the same in both cases....

• selling 1t of a single good N times in a single station visit to achieve the effect; yeah not cool
• selling all tonnes of N goods in a single station visit to achieve the same effect; fine

The distinction being, if you punished both even though they had the same effect, the implication is:

- selling goods in a particular way that has an amplified effect compared to undertaking the same activity as a single transaction is bad, vs

- trading multiple commodity types is bad

That was just my opinion, but i think it is a good example of the discretion FD needs to apply to these things. Intent matters a lot too, but it's impossible for FD to accurately assess that in any case (particularly relevant to griefing).

The corollary is from that is where do oversight cases like Robigo runs or massacre stacking exist. 1t trading was a similar oversight... using those is probably equally in breach, but there's no sane value proposition you can make to justify punishment.

(Is this overbroad and almost certainly legally unenforcable? I'm not a lawyer, neither are you, and we couldn't afford to hire one over the tiny material loss suffered if Frontier did enforce the EULA strictly, so the answer to that for all practical purposes is also "No, it's all perfectly fine")

As i understand, also not a lawyer, EULAs tend not to hold water against local laws, esp consumer laws, and I've definitely (and successfully) pulled that card before.

Companies don't like you quoting consumer law in the area they distribute their games

 

[Northpin]

So, let's be clear, you aren't allowed under the terms of the license agreement to "use ... manual means to access the Game", and you're really taking a risk if you enter their screenshot competitions and copy information from the game where they can see you.

It definitely sounds insane to have "manual" in they're, but you can imagine the excuses that would exist if if didn't

that paragraph seem to cover the alternate login, using the 3rd party launcher.
If they want, they can ban anyone using that launcher.


Edit: IMO what matters most is the context / intent.
If you are a cmdr with motility issues or maybe a vr player, then using HCS/VA for playing the game (while not affecting the spirit of the game) then it's all nice
However, if you use HCS/VA (or any other automation script) to automate your carrier to jump to Colonia overnight - that's a no-no, since it literally falls under the broad category of botting.

 

[Jmanis]

that paragraph seem to cover the alternate login, using the 3rd party launcher.
If they want, they can ban anyone using that launcher.


Edit: IMO what matters most is the context / intent.
If you are a cmdr with motility issues or maybe a vr player, then using HCS/VA for playing the game (while not affecting the spirit of the game) then it's all nice
However, if you use HCS/VA (or any other automation script) to automate your carrier to jump to Colonia overnight - that's a no-no, since it literally falls under the broad category of botting.

Yeah I think your edit covers what is meant, which is why manual is explicitly mentioned... it's to catch crazies (like me) who have no concerns manually undertaking an otherwise automatable task to achieve a highly edge-case situation which is, under any other lens, exploitative.

It's there to stop someone saying "I did this all manually, therefore it's ok that I completely busted the thing"...

Also...

If you are a cmdr with motility issues...

Thanks for giving me my daily chuckle

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

The point is, if you use voice attack with the official hcs voice pack’s, fdev won’t consider that your breaking the EULA. If you create your own profile to which just replicates the controls, that will be fine too.

However, if you create macros which would give you an advantage in combat, then that’s where other players could have cause for complaint. I don’t think you can program VA to the extent where you can create a bot but if you did, then you then that will get you a shadow ban, or permanent ban.

 

[Northpin]

well... too late to correct it now

 

[Jmanis]

However, if you create macros which would give you an advantage in combat, then that’s where other players could have cause for complaint. I don’t think you can program VA to the extent where you can create a bot but if you did, then you then that will get you a shadow ban, or permanent ban.

There was a video where someone had two accounts playing voice attack into each other, so the announcement would trigger an action in the other ship, and the announcement would cause a subsequent response in the other ship.

Autonomous, yes, useful, absolutely not

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

It's a legal way to gain an unfair advantage over other players.

nonsense...... its a way of injecting more immersion into the game, it takes longer to say, for instance, deploy shield cell than it does to press a key on your (insert control method of choice)................... but the voice command is just more fun (for those who like that sort of thing.

 

[Northpin]

nonsense...... its a way of injecting more immersion into the game, it takes longer to say, for instance, deploy shield cell than it does to press a key on your (insert control method of choice)................... but the voice command is just more fun (for those who like that sort of thing.

Not nonsense.
You can request docking permission with a single word (of you can bind VA' script to a single key) I need to press multiple keys to do that
That's the definition of automation.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Not nonsense.
You can request docking permission with a single word (of you can bind VA' script to a single key) I need to press multiple keys to do that
That's the definition of automation.

No method to request docking via Voice Attack I have tried is anywhere near as fast as doing it manually. And while it may fulfill the definition of automation, it seems to be tolerated; at the very least when products like HCS do it.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Not nonsense.
You can request docking permission with a single word (of you can bind VA' script to a single key) I need to press multiple keys to do that
That's the definition of automation.

and how am i getting a legal unfair advantage over other players?

by that definition multiple screens or a decent flight stick are also gaining an unfair advantage.

i didnt comment on it not being automation...... my disagreement is with the argument that it is unfair.

 

[HansAcker]

Indeed - Frontier's EULA gives them the claim to be able to ban you for literally anything, especially including logging into Elite Dangerous:

Oh. OH!
I probably should clear this evidence of blatant manual scraping:
Distances submitted: 1,210
(Copy system name from list, paste into Galmap, look at distance, type value into field, repeat)

 

[Northpin]

No method to request docking via Voice Attack I have tried is anywhere near as fast as doing it manually. And while it may fulfill the definition of automation, it seems to be tolerated; at the very least when products like HCS do it.

and how am i getting a legal unfair advantage over other players?

I dont see any mentioning of unfair advantage.
Most HCS/VA scripts do more than one action in-game per VA command (or button press)

Automation is not permitted in Elite, we class automation as more than one action in game per button press, this includes fleet carrier automation.

So it's automation.
Now, about unfair or not... it depends on how fast (timings between actions performed) the script can run - i guess it can be faster than most players.


I'm not a HCS/VA user and not an automation user not a VR user, I dont leave the game running overnight, i'm not an afk player.
So nothing in this non-automation policy is affecting me in any way whatsoever.

But i really dislike the harsh, blanket, binary statements (even tho i understand that it's very hard to differentiate against all the possible nuances), when it's obvious that there are well established exceptions (like HCS/VA)

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I dont see any mentioning of unfair advantage.

it was in the post i quoted.
As for the EULA etc, that is so broad and contradictory I am not going to argue that either way because as already noted, if you take it 100% literally then we arguably should not even play the game

 

[Shadowsnog]

arent you guys taking this discussion absolutely unnecessarily too far perchance? we all know what kind of automation is forbidden and we all know what kind of voice commands are 'allowed'.

 

[Factabulous]

arent you guys taking this discussion absolutely unnecessarily too far perchance? we all know what kind of automation is forbidden and we all know what kind of voice commands are 'allowed'.

you new here?

 

[Jmanis]

it was in the post i quoted.
As for the EULA etc, that is so broad and contradictory I am not going to argue that either way because as already noted, if you take it 100% literally then we arguably should not even play the game

But i really dislike the harsh, blanket, binary statements (even tho i understand that it's very hard to differentiate against all the possible nuances), when it's obvious that there are well established exceptions (like HCS/VA)

Unfortunately it's always kinda necessary for any sort of rules-based play, because of things like the Rockforth Fertilizer incident.... because that was indistinct mechanically from normal gameplay, and was argued as such by some players, except for the fact that buying and selling without leaving the station is clearly not the intended mechanic and so players involved were "punished" by having those credits removed. The only saving grace is these broad statements because ultimately, it's up to FD how they want to run the game.

In a reverse comparison... most legal frameworks and policing methods involve "the decision to prosecute[1]", where even though someone has committed a crime, that doesn't mean a crime will always be prosecuted against a person. It's discretionary.

[1] YMMV in your own country.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

except for the fact that buying and selling without leaving the station is clearly not the intended mechanic

And even then, could be done quite legitimately; see a BGS state change coming, buy some cargo, log out for the night, sell it for a quick profit in the morning. The rate-limiting on that stops it being an exploit; if you use a FC as an intermediate store to increase the cargo capacity, you're saving no time at all over using the FC to ship it to another station instead.

Still, I feel most places handle this by simply banning "cheating, hacking, and other abuse of the service" and focusing on the outcomes or intended outcomes of actions, rather than attempting to exhaustively enumerate every possible way you might achieve those ends, some of which you'd also do in the course of doing things Frontier staff have explicitly encouraged.
(Amusingly, for all the things it bans, cheating isn't one of them provided you don't use unauthorised software to do so, except insofar as you'd have to play the game to cheat at it and they'd get you that way if they needed to)

In a reverse comparison... most legal frameworks and policing methods involve "the decision to prosecute[1]", where even though someone has committed a crime, that doesn't mean a crime will always be prosecuted against a person. It's discretionary.

Oh, yes, "everyone is guilty of something but we'll usually ignore it" is certainly useful to governments as well.

(Which to go wildly off topic, but your mention of Rockforth made me think of it: is that Rackham's plan? - be elected, change Federal law so that he can't be prosecuted later)

 

[Vingtetun]

There seems to be a misconception here.
Voiceattack is a controller, a peripheral (albeit digital) . Like your mouse or keyboard or game glass or xbox controller.
It sends key press inputs to a computer based on your voice instead of mashing a button or clicking a key or pushing the trigger.

Just like the x52, or my keyboard, or my swift point mouse or my foot pedals, it can be programmed.

It quite simply converts your voice commands into actions. Ps this is invariably slower than clicking a button as it has to listen to you speak.

As with ALL THE OTHER peripherals you use, if you misuse it, that's the problem..