Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

To auto-click, or not to auto-click...

Status
raeky said:
I recommend English for Dummies. The two words are SCANNING and DOWNLOADING that are in question. If scanning was illegal to round up all those virus scanner companies and throw them in jail. They look at every single file on your computer in detail. OMG!
Click to expand...


That recommendation isn't from personal experience is it? The amount of spelling mistakes.... tsk tsk

Raeky said:
Sure, makes it worth it to develop an advanced automation program and keep it to just yourself. ;-)

But yea, if someone did make one themselves and never gave it to anyone else they'd probably not get caught. ;-)
Click to expand...

Something is worth it if somebody thinks it is. If I wished to use an autoclicker (I dont btw just for your info) I'd manage the ludicrously simple job of writing one in about an hour - I enjoy programming, and code many small apps to help my day to day PC activities

Raeky said:
MindArk isn't going to risk going into detail here. In these subjects being detailed could hurt mindark, because the support personell may make a mistake and say the wrong thing. So its just best to be non-specific.

Dosn't take a rocket scientist to know if they program they're useing influences PE. ;-)
Click to expand...

Detail? There was less detail in that than your post about windows memory access...

Raeky said:
People who autoclick are cheaters. They're greedy because of that. Cheating begets greed. They're interconnected. If you wasn't greedy you wouldn't have a desire to cheat. Quite simply.
Click to expand...

Ummm...? I don't see a connection. Maybe you're a cheater and greedy, and cannot tell them apart? I dunno. I'm neither and so can see them as 2 different entities

Raeky said:
Then go ahead and use them. Noone gives a flying rats ass. So why do you keep trying to justify yourself here? NOONE CARES HERE! We have already made up our minds. We've already drawn the lines. We've already got on the side of the fence we want to be on. No more discussion is going to influence that. If you want to violate the COU because there is a remote chance of being banned go for it. But if/when you get banned, don't expect us to care. Don't expect mindark to care. Because noone will.
Click to expand...

And your point is? We have a different opinion. That is what forums are all about. Discussion and debate expand the mind

Raeky said:
Really? Cite me some references.



Really? Cite me some references.
Click to expand...

Go do your own research ;o)

Raeky said:
Poor support, etc.. ? Why are you still playing PE. You seem to hate it. Quite frankly you should quit.
Click to expand...

No. I enjoy PE. It's the best game I've played in quite a while actually. I also enjoy interaction between differing ideas, so I'll often play Devil's Advocate

Raeky said:
It's a frank, honest and true response. Noone will care. But if you do get banned I bet money we will hear about it. "MINDARK IS SO UNFAIR! WAHHHHHHHHHHH!!" But just to let you know beforehad noone is going to care.
Click to expand...

There you go again - is your eye twitching yet? Have you started to slobber?
 
raeky said:
Well excuse me, I've just learned about memory modification from my previous work with past projects (like d2jsp) which SPECIFICLY changes and modifies the memory of a running game. So I know its possible. I know you can modify the active memory of a running program and make it behave however you want. Inject a new dll, redirect functions and actions, change values, etc.. So long as you do it within the legal restrictions of the program it won't crash.

So... I don't have a clue what your talking about, is it even relevent? I think not. Because I *KNOW* you can read and write to another program's memory. Windows isn't exactly that secure memory wise, unline *nix which has protected memory locations..

So... anyway. It is possible to read what programs are in memory. Half-Life from Valve actively scans memory for cheats. Diablo II actively scans memory for cheats. Warcraft 3 actively scans memory for cheats, the list goes on and on.. Every online game has some form of memory scan to detect cheats. Even PE would have a few checks to prevent it, although people are not actively releaseing hacks that tinker with PE's memory since there is far more to risk in getting banned on PE.
Click to expand...

And like I said - easily gotten around by using different levels of user accounts, but I don't need to repeat. It's very clear. Maybe you didn't learn about accounts? They were introduced in Windows back in NT4
 
I recommend English for Dummies. The two words are SCANNING and DOWNLOADING that are in question. If scanning was illegal to round up all those virus scanner companies and throw them in jail. They look at every single file on your computer in detail. OMG!
Click to expand...

I will quote this! what are you talking about? LOL

AV companies DO NOT actively scan your files and report any info back to base...that is ludicrous...

they update the latest builds, AV images etc and then the LOCAL software scans your machine

i really think before you post essay's claiming to be PE god you should at least validate the very basics of your arguments....
 
Kalashi said:
No chance in hell im gonna quote ALL that :rofl:
Click to expand...

Why not quoteing is fun! :D

But Reaky i think you need to chill a bit...you take this WAY to seriously, as many others here do...
Click to expand...

I take cheating SERIOUSLY. Specificly since it hurts the community far more in PE then other games.

And you keep using the 'WE' as in every other person in this forum has to and does agree and nods at your opinions...

Well sorry, but they dont ;)
Click to expand...

By "we" I mean the vast majority of players who refrain from cheating. Not the minority who do.

And Like everyone else you question You somehow relate pointing out that bad support or bugs or disagreeing with MA's actions = that person doesnt like PE?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, yes. If you just make a blanket response saying "support sucks" then yes you have a negitive view of support thus of PE in general. If your cheating you have a very low view of the game and community, because you do not care how your actions effect it. If you loved the game and communiity you wouldn't be posting negitively and wouldn't be cheating. Quite simply.

Well i constantly point out flaws, complain about the lack of support etc but i still love PE and many others also
Click to expand...

From my expereince support is very prompt. Has been so for many months. Sometimes they're less then accurate/correct and probably in their haste misread your question, but that is to be expected if they're answering hundreds of cases a day.

Learn to live with others, stop getting so irate and HAVE FUN! :girl:
Click to expand...

I will not tollerate cheating, since I belive all cheaters should be banned, regardless of how minor their infraction was.
 
FireW0lf said:
That recommendation isn't from personal experience is it? The amount of spelling mistakes.... tsk tsk
Click to expand...

Spelling is a minor infraction to the english code. ;-) Typeing fast usualy contributes to bad spelling.

Something is worth it if somebody thinks it is. If I wished to use an autoclicker (I dont btw just for your info) I'd manage the ludicrously simple job of writing one in about an hour - I enjoy programming, and code many small apps to help my day to day PC activities
Click to expand...

And what % of the people playing PE are able to code their own autoclicker? ;-)

Detail? There was less detail in that than your post about windows memory access...
Click to expand...

MindArk can't speciifcly state a specific program violates their COU or not without investigating the program in question. They're not going to do that in a support case, therefore it is ultimiately up to the user to determine if a program interacts, changes or influences PE in anyway. I don't see how this is a hard thing to grasp.

Ummm...? I don't see a connection. Maybe you're a cheater and greedy, and cannot tell them apart? I dunno. I'm neither and so can see them as 2 different entities
Click to expand...

Maybe get a dictionary and look up greed. ;-) Without greed you'd have little modivation to cheat.

And your point is? We have a different opinion. That is what forums are all about. Discussion and debate expand the mind
Click to expand...

And we are discussing it.. ;-) Not like this discussion will sway many into the others court.

Go do your own research ;o)
Click to expand...

Your the one claiming that the EULA isn't a legal contract. ;-)

http://www.google.com/search?q=blizzard+legal+eula+contract

But thats where alot of resources can be found stateing that on an online gamming service that the EULA is legal and valid. For some non-online game the legal protections a company has are much fewer. But since we're dealing with an online game, mmorpg, only court cases dealing with online services would apply.

No. I enjoy PE. It's the best game I've played in quite a while actually. I also enjoy interaction between differing ideas, so I'll often play Devil's Advocate
Click to expand...

Well maybe you are trying to just play "devil's advocate" here and take the opposeing side for the sake of argument. But people who constently complain (not neccessarly refering to anyone speicifc) should quit PE. ;-) Mostly you find these people on EP, thats why i like EF.

There you go again - is your eye twitching yet? Have you started to slobber?
Click to expand...

I just await for mindark to start wacking people up side the head with the big ban stick. That will be a fun day on the forums, trust me. :D
 
FireW0lf said:
And like I said - easily gotten around by using different levels of user accounts, but I don't need to repeat. It's very clear. Maybe you didn't learn about accounts? They were introduced in Windows back in NT4
Click to expand...

Of course windows has logins, but not everyone uses XP or 2000 or whatever. And 98 and ME have no such protection. But I fail to see how this is relevent to the issue of cheats. You wouldn't be running your cheats on a seperate restricted account from the game they're supost to interact with. So if the game could detect them or not is irellevent. They'd have to be running on the same account for it to matter, and if they are then well.. They'd be detectable.
 
Kalashi said:
I will quote this! what are you talking about? LOL

AV companies DO NOT actively scan your files and report any info back to base...that is ludicrous...

they update the latest builds, AV images etc and then the LOCAL software scans your machine

i really think before you post essay's claiming to be PE god you should at least validate the very basics of your arguments....
Click to expand...

A virus scanner is legally allowed to report back home if it finds a virus or not on your computer. And I belive many do this, thats how they track how serious a virus is by how many machines are reporting it. Not all do this of course, but the good ones would.

Either way, scanning would be legal, since no personal information is transmitted back to the company. Its just reporting what it found, not speciifc chunks of data. Downloading would be different, in wich the comapny downloads speciifc programs and info from your computer.

Scanning for example couldn't release your credit card info or anything else that may be in memory or on your hard drive. Since its only looking for speciifc things and reporting if it found those or not.

There is a big legal differnece here. Plus by agreeing to the EULA/COU of a program you do release some rights and privledges to the company. But anyway.. scanning and reporting home the results is legal, downloading data from someone's computer is ilegal.
 
OMG OMG OMG!
*Sveta is pulling her hair out! :silly2:

Argh- ok, personally I think every1 has good, solid ideas on either side of the issue. Let's be done with the little arguments though.... I love debating myself and thoroughly enjoy well-written debates, but it's going on for 3 pages already ffs! :D

Anyway, I opened this thread to hear other's opinions. This is obviously a HUGE issue (btw ppl rate this thread and other threads that you love or despise!) Regardless of one's stance on AC's, it is evident that there is little common ground and MA NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING ASAP

:twocents:
 
AGREED!

Raeky gimme me a big kiss you sex machine! :silly2:


Come one MA give us something solid....or a work around!

8Maybe time for LOCK of thread?
 
Kalashi said:
Maybe time for LOCK of thread?
Click to expand...

No, because this is the only AC thread there's gonna be here, every other AC thread will be locked with direction to this thread :wise:

:laugh:
 
raeky said:
Of course windows has logins, but not everyone uses XP or 2000 or whatever. And 98 and ME have no such protection. But I fail to see how this is relevent to the issue of cheats. You wouldn't be running your cheats on a seperate restricted account from the game they're supost to interact with. So if the game could detect them or not is irellevent. They'd have to be running on the same account for it to matter, and if they are then well.. They'd be detectable.
Click to expand...

It is very relevant:

Have a program running as a service with admin rights.
Restricted user programs cannot see it
The admin service would periodically OpenProcess() programs running on the machine (and yes, because it has admin rights, it *can* read and write to all processes and memory locations (apart from the kernel space memory) regardless of who owns them)
When the admin service detects the relevant program running, it can then inject into the running dll

Undetectable from the user Program

But that would be "a bad thing" and I wouldn't recommend anybody do that ;)

And I think that over 1/2 the PE users would be running an account-based OS (W2k, WXP) by now, don't you? It is 2005 after all
 
Last edited:
come on dont be silly and start argueing over spelling errors :p

well raeky has my backup anyhow.....

though i think u can both stop giving links to dictionaries lol :wise:


i think i need to serve her a tea :)


just because you are not good in windows programming
doesnt mean your a bad programmer..

kinda most ppl i respect for their computer knowledge
dont use or work on windows anyhow .P

..
Quote - Originally Posted by FireW0lf
And like I said - easily gotten around by using different levels of user accounts, but I don't need to repeat. It's very clear. Maybe you didn't learn about accounts? They were introduced in Windows back in NT4

Of course windows has logins, but not everyone uses XP or 2000 or whatever. And 98 and ME have no such protection. But I fail to see how this is relevent to the issue of cheats. You wouldn't be running your cheats on a seperate restricted account from the game they're supost to interact with. So if the game could detect them or not is irellevent. They'd have to be running on the same account for it to matter, and if they are then well.. They'd be detectable.
Click to expand...

exactly what i thought.. firewolf plainly refers to 2k/xp

i can see it as a general satement/arguement...

bahh im far from done reading the whole 'raeky' :p
 
Last edited:
il said:
come on dont be silly and start argueing over spelling errors :p

well raeky has my backup anyhow.....

though i think u can both stop giving links to dictionaries lol :wise:


i think i need to serve her a tea :)


just because you are not good in windows programming
doesnt mean your a bad programmer..

kinda most ppl i respect for their computer knowledge
dont use or work on windows anyhow .P

..


exactly what i thought.. firewolf plainly refers to 2k/xp

i can see it as a general satement/arguement...

bahh im far from done reading the whole 'raeky' :p
Click to expand...

We're not arguing, we're discussing ;)

I pointed out windows specific programming as that is what is being discussed. Firstly, PE only runs on top of Windows (a 3rd party app!) and secondly Raeky was referring specifically to Windows

Raeky may be an amazing programmer, but information she gave was incorrect

And if ppl are still running 98/ME, they have a whole lot of different issues to worry about than a simple thing of whether one app can see or change another...
 
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhh :rolleyes:

Let's get back to the auto-clicking discussion, pretty pretty pls? :girl:
 
FireW0lf said:
When the admin service detects the relevant program running, it can then inject into the running dll
Click to expand...

HAHA.. yea I definitely don't recommend that. ;-)

Injecting code into PE's dlls will set off alarms and definitely lead to a ban. ;-)

But the admin proccess would still have to spawn a new proccess to the user-level rights to interact with the user's proccesses right? And that would be detectable, I belive. :p

Plus 99% of people useing XP use the admin right account 100% of the time.. heh
 
FireW0lf said:
We're not arguing, we're discussing ;)

I pointed out windows specific programming as that is what is being discussed. Firstly, PE only runs on top of Windows (a 3rd party app!) and secondly Raeky was referring specifically to Windows

Raeky may be an amazing programmer, but information she gave was incorrect

And if ppl are still running 98/ME, they have a whole lot of different issues to worry about than a simple thing of whether one app can see or change another...
Click to expand...

Windows isn't considered 3rd party software since it is the core requirement to run the program, therefore it is allowed. ;-)

By definition 3rd party is software made by an outside party (not mindark) that is designed to specificly modify the game interface/client to do additional tasks, or to eliminate specific tasks of the PE client code. This would mean something that interacts on the core level, memory level, file level or even device level. Any code or device that makes PE do something its not intended to do is 3rd party, if it wasn't specificly created and licensed by MindArk.

You can beat this bush all you want, but the facts remain the same. ;-)

MindArk has clearly stated autoclickers violates the COU. Wether you want to belive it or not, or want to test mindark's resolve, is up to you. :D

I for one wouldn't cheat even if I was sure I wouldn't be punished. Its a matter of principle.
 
raeky said:
But the admin proccess would still have to spawn a new proccess to the user-level rights to interact with the user's proccesses right? And that would be detectable, I belive. :p
Click to expand...

Nope. An admin owned Process will spawn..... guess what? Another admin owned process. So no - still no detection there

Raeky said:
Plus 99% of people useing XP use the admin right account 100% of the time.. heh
Click to expand...

I already said that

Personally I feel that the way MS package their product leads to sloppy usage. Like most linuxes, the admin account should only be used for config. Users should have a restricted account for day to day usage

MS should set it up to install that way, unfortunately they don't, and its upto savvy people like me to educate them:


General users: NEVER NEVER NEVER use an account with admin rights!!!
Oh by the way - NEVER!

You already have an "administrator" account that has full admin rights (means it has full and complete access to your system)

In XP set your regular account to "Limited"

If you need admin rights to install/uninstall/modify a program, use "Run As" (right click on the file - it's there in the popup menu). Run as administrator and enter password

You're now 100x more secure than you were before you read this :D

There are other things, but imho this is the easiest most effective way to reduce security issues
 
FireW0lf said:
Nope. An admin owned Process will spawn..... guess what? Another admin owned process. So no - still no detection there
Click to expand...

MindArk could always make it so PE won't run without admin rights if this was to become a problem. But can a background login influence the keyboard/mouse of a forground login? ;-)

Windows security is a touchy subject and not relevent to this thread. ;-)
 
raeky said:
MindArk could always make it so PE won't run without admin rights if this was to become a problem.
Click to expand...

Damn why did I bother to write that last helpful little instruction then? :mad:

Creating a *game* that will only run with admin is a ludicrous idea - as a programmer you should know better than to even suggest it

Raeky said:
But can a background login influence the keyboard/mouse of a forground login? ;-)

Windows security is a touchy subject and not relevent to this thread. ;-)
Click to expand...

Yup - easily. If it's a service, it'll sit there listening, and since it has admin rights, it can jump in when it wants
 
GUYS!!!! Take it somewhere else. You are wildly off-topic....

DD
:evilking:
 
Yeah, back on topic Devil Doll..

I dont Auto Click myself, but I dont see anything wrong with it.
 
ultimababe said:
Yeah, back on topic Devil Doll..

I dont Auto Click myself, but I dont see anything wrong with it.
Click to expand...

You don't? I guess mindark's COU is meaningless to you. Is there anything wrong with stealing someone elses account? Impersonating a MindArk rep? Scamming?

Once you toss one of the rules/laws out the window, why not all of them? Where do you draw the line? If the law/rule is rarely punished does it make it ok to break?

I think your logic is flawed.
 
Raeky... no, I dont see anything wrong in using an Auto Clicker. I just stated that, did I not? :rolleyes:

I also do not break any rules, and dont care for what others do either. IMO, if someone gets caught breaking the rules, then tough shit for them. :handjob:

And Raeky, my logic is far from flawed.
 
Devil Doll said:
GUYS!!!! Take it somewhere else. You are wildly off-topic....

DD
:evilking:
Click to expand...

I was ridiculously off-topic, but I felt that it was important information. Maybe I should start a new thread solely related to safe PC usage...
 
raeky said:
You don't? I guess mindark's COU is meaningless to you. Is there anything wrong with stealing someone elses account? Impersonating a MindArk rep? Scamming?

Once you toss one of the rules/laws out the window, why not all of them? Where do you draw the line? If the law/rule is rarely punished does it make it ok to break?

I think your logic is flawed.
Click to expand...

You really have no concept of logic, but simply generalize

-----
Disliking bad support ~= Disliking PE the game
WRONG - 2 Different things. I really like my car. I don't like the monthly payments and the poor customer service I get (that was a comparison btw)
-----
Cheating ~= Greed
Already did that one
-----
AutoClicking ~= Account stealing/scamming
WRONG - 1 puts more money IN to PE, the other take it OUT
 
FireW0lf said:
I was ridiculously off-topic, but I felt that it was important information. Maybe I should start a new thread solely related to safe PC usage...
Click to expand...

That would be very usefull :D

DD
:evilking:
 
ultimababe said:
Raeky... no, I dont see anything wrong in using an Auto Clicker. I just stated that, did I not? :rolleyes:

I also do not break any rules, and dont care for what others do either. IMO, if someone gets caught breaking the rules, then tough shit for them. :handjob:

And Raeky, my logic is far from flawed.
Click to expand...

Your logic is definitely flawed, by my standards. By stating you see nothing wrong with breaking the rules/laws MindArk has setup to govern fair play within the PE universe. Your logic/character comes into question when other laws/rules are broken. Where do you draw the line?

It’s a black and white issue now. No gray array. Auto clickers *ARE* in violation of the COU. MindArk has stated it endlessly. If you see nothing wrong with them then you’re diametrically opposed to the set of rules MindArk has setup to govern PE. Therefore it’s a flawed logic. ;-)
 
No... I think what you are referring to, Raeky, is 'Moral Values', nothing to do with logic. :wise:
 
raeky said:
It’s a black and white issue now. No gray array. Auto clickers *ARE* in violation of the COU. MindArk has stated it endlessly. If you see nothing wrong with them then you’re diametrically opposed to the set of rules MindArk has setup to govern PE. Therefore it’s a flawed logic. ;-)
Click to expand...

OK Raek- you know I do not flat out disagree with you here. BUT..... the problem is that MA has NOT laid down the law :wise: Ppl are interpretting the EULA in different ways.... but here's how I see it...

A law is a law. But, de facto, a law can mean nothing if it is not enforced
 
Status
Back
Top