Monthly Development Update - 2nd April 2014

[DigitalBath]

You do understand that the EULA defines the terms of the contract between FunCom and its customers?

Legally, there is a fine line between "catch-all phrasing" and "too broad" or "too vague".
Your interpretation would be too vague in detail and too broad in scope to be legally enforceable.

I stand by what I said earlier:
FC simply doesn't have the resources to enforce anything at all!

You're nitpicking parts of posts that suit you and that gets us nowhere.
Read everything I've written, both the part specific to you and the non-specific part at the end.

Also, I fully understand the EULA's scope but, as previously stated, not all 3rd party software falls under the EULA's "manipulation" category. Ironically, a lot of multiboxing software doesn't (if done right they're basically non-automated input devices) while the more vastly used aoia/clicksaver do because they access the game client's memory and one of them even automates clicks.

And again, until this is taken to court and decided upon there is no interpretation of "manipulation" that is actually legally binding so until then.. what FC says goes. And they say it's not bannable.

[Leetlover]

can't compare clicksaver to multiboxing. The latter greatly impact an entire boosterpack and a obviously parge part of the paying customers feels offended by this partiqular eula-violation to the point they see no value in what they paid for anymore.

[DigitalBath]

can't compare clicksaver to multiboxing. The latter greatly impact an entire boosterpack and a obviously parge part of the paying customers feels offended by this partiqular eula-violation to the point they see no value in what they paid for anymore.

They can be compared as the eula doesn't mention "affecting a large/small/medium-sized part of the population" as a clause. Read it.

Keep in mind I've compared 3rd party applications and their game client memory space access and manipulation, which is actually a valid point to the eula's terminology and it may favor *some forms* of multi-boxing against the more intrusive clicksaver/aoia apps.

What is/isn't a violation of the EULA as it is currently written is something between FC, FC's lawyers.. and whatever is decided in a court of law should anyone sue FC.

Get to court if it really matters to you or otherwise understand FC's policy on it and respect it. Those are, realistically, your options. (as apparently protesting by not paying for the game has no impact on decisions which, despite sad, is the present reality.)

[Leetlover]

Get to court if it really matters to you or otherwise understand FC's policy on it and respect it. Those are, realistically, your options. (as apparently protesting by not paying for the game has no impact on decisions which, despite sad, is the present reality.)

I don't personally care and have been more intrested for fc to nerf teambuffs and instant specials. Still has a valid point tho.

[Grandpa]

You're nitpicking parts of posts that suit you and that gets us nowhere.
Read everything I've written, both the part specific to you and the non-specific part at the end.

Also, I fully understand the EULA's scope but, as previously stated, not all 3rd party software falls under the EULA's "manipulation" category. Ironically, a lot of multiboxing software doesn't (if done right they're basically non-automated input devices) while the more vastly used aoia/clicksaver do because they access the game client's memory and one of them even automates clicks.

And again, until this is taken to court and decided upon there is no interpretation of "manipulation" that is actually legally binding so until then.. what FC says goes. And they say it's not bannable.

I'm not nitpicking at all.

While contract law isn't my specialty, I've learned enough about it to know that the terms of a contract cannot be interpreted too broadly or arbitrarily by either side for the contract to remain intact. So you are mistaken if you think that "what FC says goes".
The EULA is not unilateral - FunCom has to abide by the terms just as much as the customer.

So, if people object to 3rd party multi-boxing on the grounds that it violates the EULA, they make a good case here.

From what I recall years ago, FunCom exempted certain programs, such as clicksaver or chatbots from the EULA because of:
a) their great popularity and value to the game and,
b) the small risk of damage or abuse that they pose.

Now, I have no idea how broad (all types of these programs) or how narrow (only specifically named programs) these exemption were.
That knowledge would be crucial for any further discussion. If anyone knows more about it, that would be a great help!

Generally speaking:

If the exemptions were very specific, the EULA remains intact and could be enforced against anything not specifically covered by the exemptions.
Alternatively, new exemptions could be made to include software not covered in the past.

If the exemptions were so broad that the EULA was voided or partially voided, then FC has no grounds to enforce anything at all.
This, of course, would open the door for a slew of new headaches.

Having watched FunCom fumble through the last decade, I'm afraid to ask anything further...

[Encyros]

apparently protesting by not paying for the game has no impact on decisions which, despite sad, is the present reality.

The nerfing of fixer meeps and this 'You decide" initiative may well have come about as a result of the recent feedback on the Notum Wars. Since the largest vote went to fixing the phenomenon of the inf grind, it seems that significant tower war dynamic changes are on hold for now.

Having given a public policy statement that multiboxing is okay, it's not feasible for FC to fulfil the wishes of those who left in protest and ex post facto ban meeping multiboxers. Then they would get sued.

They could declare that multiboxing isn't okay anymore, but they have made it clear that they do not want to do that, nor would a ban be enforceable.

I would say that the departure and protest has been given as positive a response as could be expected.

[DigitalBath]

I'm not nitpicking at all.

While contract law isn't my specialty, I've learned enough about it to know that the terms of a contract cannot be interpreted too broadly or arbitrarily by either side for the contract to remain intact. So you are mistaken if you think that "what FC says goes".
The EULA is not unilateral - FunCom has to abide by the terms just as much as the customer.

So, if people object to 3rd party multi-boxing on the grounds that it violates the EULA, they make a good case here.

From what I recall years ago, FunCom exempted certain programs, such as clicksaver or chatbots from the EULA because of:
a) their great popularity and value to the game and,
b) the small risk of damage or abuse that they pose.

Now, I have no idea how broad (all types of these programs) or how narrow (only specifically named programs) these exemption were.
That knowledge would be crucial for any further discussion. If anyone knows more about it, that would be a great help!

Generally speaking:

If the exemptions were very specific, the EULA remains intact and could be enforced against anything not specifically covered by the exemptions.
Alternatively, new exemptions could be made to include software not covered in the past.

If the exemptions were so broad that the EULA was voided or partially voided, then FC has no grounds to enforce anything at all.
This, of course, would open the door for a slew of new headaches.

Having watched FunCom fumble through the last decade, I'm afraid to ask anything further...

I get your point and it's not too far from what I've been saying.. and that's why it seemed to me you were nitpicking/not reading my posts in full.

The only thing differing is, I think, that I noticed the terminology used in the EULA doesn't warrant a ban to people who use ANY 3rd party application.

"You may not use any third party software to modify the client in order to change Game play or manipulate the client."

This can be interpreted in many different ways and, as I have said before, until someone takes this to court and a "final" interpretation is given as a decision.. FC's word on what is "manipulation/game changing" is what goes. By "what goes" I mean "what they ban because they feel breaks the EULA".

Also, a legal decision wouldn't necessarily have FC ban / unban accounts. They could simply pay the awarded damages and change the EULA's terms afterwards to better suit/describe their policy, which currently would favor clicksaver/aoia/chat bots/chat clients/some multi-boxing applications.

Maybe I explained myself better now?

The nerfing of fixer meeps and this 'You decide" initiative may well have come about as a result of the recent feedback on the Notum Wars. Since the largest vote went to fixing the phenomenon of the inf grind, it seems that significant tower war dynamic changes are on hold for now.

Having given a public policy statement that multiboxing is okay, it's not feasible for FC to fulfil the wishes of those who left in protest and ex post facto ban meeping multiboxers. Then they would get sued.

They could declare that multiboxing isn't okay anymore, but they have made it clear that they do not want to do that, nor would a ban be enforceable.

I would say that the departure and protest has been given as positive a response as could be expected.

It could be said that the departure / cancellation of accounts as protest had near-zero effect, though.

By this, I mean that the poll itself recognizes issues raised in protest regardless of the person paying or not and the voters aren't filtered by paid/unpaid account either. The idea of the poll also may be unrelated to recognizing those who stopped paying.

I'm not saying anything in absolute terms as I lack the full information to do so, even though Macrosun made it fairly clear that quitting as protest didn't really affect any decisions made by FC/AO's Devs.

[Lheann]

more intrusive clicksaver/aoia apps.

Unless something has changed drastically since I last looked at the these two they don't actually access the AO client memory space. clicksaver and aoia both capture network traffic. clicksaver specifically captures the packets that identify rolled missions. aoia captures the packets that result from opening a backpack or inventory window. clicksaver sends mouse commands to the OS input device stack to cause clicks to happen. So while clicksaver does make the client do work I have not seen any version of aoia that reads your inventory without you opening and closing inventory and backpacks.

and yes for argument MB software does send kb and mouse input via the OS the same as clicksaver. The windows api for doing so has been around officially since windows 95 and made accessible via 3rd party dll in windows 3.11. (oh the days when I wrote AoL helper apps and used it extensively)

as for the network packet capturing, the specific library being used captures off the windows network stack and not from within the AO client memory space. again I have not looked in depth into these apps in the last year or two so if they have been changed such that they do access the ao client memory space, someone please point me to a reference and/or released source code.

Anyway got way off topic and techy on this but clicksaver and aoia are not that intrusive in terms of accessing the client. they just do what they do very smartly. And that is what makes MB software nearly impossible to detect btw. It uses OS provided api's to send data to multiple clients. Macrosun is correct that detecting it would be such an effort that it is for all intent purposes impossible.

[DigitalBath]

Unless something has changed drastically since I last looked at the these two they don't actually access the AO client memory space. clicksaver and aoia both capture network traffic. clicksaver specifically captures the packets that identify rolled missions. aoia captures the packets that result from opening a backpack or inventory window. clicksaver sends mouse commands to the OS input device stack to cause clicks to happen. So while clicksaver does make the client do work I have not seen any version of aoia that reads your inventory without you opening and closing inventory and backpacks.

and yes for argument MB software does send kb and mouse input via the OS the same as clicksaver. The windows api for doing so has been around officially since windows 95 and made accessible via 3rd party dll in windows 3.11. (oh the days when I wrote AoL helper apps and used it extensively)

as for the network packet capturing, the specific library being used captures off the windows network stack and not from within the AO client memory space. again I have not looked in depth into these apps in the last year or two so if they have been changed such that they do access the ao client memory space, someone please point me to a reference and/or released source code.

Anyway got way off topic and techy on this but clicksaver and aoia are not that intrusive in terms of accessing the client. they just do what they do very smartly. And that is what makes MB software nearly impossible to detect btw. It uses OS provided api's to send data to multiple clients. Macrosun is correct that detecting it would be such an effort that it is for all intent purposes impossible.

I'm not sure regarding AOIA's method.. and I may be wrong since it's been ages but Clicksaver's use of AOHook.dll to inject a new DataBlockToMessage into AO's process is what I'd call intrusive and the origin of my statement about it.
I'm not sure it actually still does that or what's the current way it does it's job.

This may shed some light into what I meant:
http://sourceforge.net/p/clicksaver/...essage/205601/

EDIT: Had to check.. AOIA uses the same method and goes for AO's MessageProtocol.dll

[Vhab]

For those above that seem to be taking my earlier statements as official replies by a Community Representative, I encourage you to read my signature.

Unless something has changed drastically since I last looked at the these two they don't actually access the AO client memory space. clicksaver and aoia both capture network traffic. clicksaver specifically captures the packets that identify rolled missions. aoia captures the packets that result from opening a backpack or inventory window. clicksaver sends mouse commands to the OS input device stack to cause clicks to happen. So while clicksaver does make the client do work I have not seen any version of aoia that reads your inventory without you opening and closing inventory and backpacks.

Actually, that is not the case.

Clicksaver and Item Assistant obtain these packets by injecting themselves into AO's process.
After injecting themselves, they hijack a particular callback in AO to get these network packets as the client receives them. Through this method these applications are even able to modify these packets if they wanted to.
They don't simply read network traffic on a machine. In order to get the hook working they have to manipulate AO at runtime.

To take an even more intrusive example: Demoder's PMV. Not only does this application inject itself into AO. It regularly calls internal functions of AO to obtain certain data.

[Leetlover]

Even adding 3rd-party maps can be defined as hacking.

A big point here is that so many feels offended by the usage mb-software. Wars are often lost due to people not assisting.

They could declare that multiboxing isn't okay anymore, but they have made it clear that they do not want to do that, nor would a ban be enforceable.

More precicely; Genelle has recognized that MB is not ok in pvp. What FC said, with sadness, is that they currently can't enforce anything.

[Dumonde]

Where is my popcorn ?

[Lheann]

Actually, that is not the case.

Clicksaver and Item Assistant obtain these packets by injecting themselves into AO's process.
After injecting themselves, they hijack a particular callback in AO to get these network packets as the client receives them. Through this method these applications are even able to modify these packets if they wanted to.
They don't simply read network traffic on a machine. In order to get the hook working they have to manipulate AO at runtime.

To take an even more intrusive example: Demoder's PMV. Not only does this application inject itself into AO. It regularly calls internal functions of AO to obtain certain data.

Thanks Vhab. As I said it had been a while since I looked at these. So they do violate the memory space of AO. Nice to know. Now I am going to read on AOHooks.dll.

[Psikie]

Where is my popcorn ?

Hilarious, quoting and re-quoting excerpts from the eula like some jail house lawyers. They don't seem to get it that FC can do what ever they dern well please. The eula just gives them justification to cancel a subscription when they want. If they want to give the first 10 players a free month or charge more for certain euro customers they can. They can give you infractions on the forums or ban you from AO all together. If they want to allow MB or clicksaver they can. If they turn a blind eye to credit sellers they can. You can't fight the system...well you can try but resistance is futile.

[Pafpuf]

Can't even throw rocks at 'em like they do in ukraine.

[Grandpa]

Hilarious, quoting and re-quoting excerpts from the eula like some jail house lawyers. They don't seem to get it that FC can do what ever they dern well please. The eula just gives them justification to cancel a subscription when they want. If they want to give the first 10 players a free month or charge more for certain euro customers they can. They can give you infractions on the forums or ban you from AO all together. If they want to allow MB or clicksaver they can. If they turn a blind eye to credit sellers they can. You can't fight the system...well you can try but resistance is futile.

Yes and no.
By all means, fight the system - but do it for a worthy cause, not a video game.

I found it hilarious that in some other thread, one FC guy claimed that "FunCom doesn't care if you quit".

It's a business - unless they have already filed for bankruptcy, they must care!
So if you want to protest, your best option is still to walk away and take your money with you.

[fixedsys212m]

Won't somebody think of the children?!?!

[Snakebite]

Ok, well...

Since FC has made it's stance on multiboxing clear, even when looking at what's happening to the side xp% currently, I figure the only real last questions to ask are:

1/ Where do I get this software?
2/ What's it called?

[nanoforcer]

http://www.hotkeynet.com/

[Snakebite]

Thanks, if you can't beat them, cheat...
After all, FC did say it was ok...