Slashdot Mirror


EverQuest/Sony Fights Code Wars With Latest Expansion

Perlmonkey has written a summary on the latest Everquest Expansion, and Sony's efforts to thwart those who might wish to to tap into the packets and do things that maybe aren't exactly fair to other players. Or they just want a map that should have been in the first place. In anycase, hit the link below to read his piece on the subject.

The most recent expansion for EverQuest (Planes of Power) adds a lot of problem-solving quests to the game, so Sony beefed up the (long-since broken) encryption that they used for the client protocol. The expansion has been a major hit, pleasing some of the most critical voices in the EverQuest world, but one week later, the anonymous development team of ShowEQ had broken the new encryption. Read on for details of the ongoing battle over keeping secrets in plain sight.

First, the skinny on the latest EverQuest expansion, Planes of Power (PoP). Because this is an expansion chock-full of content for only the highest level characters in the game, Sony added some features that everyone would want (and thus, pay for): the ability to progress to level 65 (60 was the cap before); a new zone called the Plane of Knowledge which allows characters to moved freely to all of the old game areas and a feature that allows large groups to coordinate more easily. That's the carrot for the lower-end users, but really this is the first expansion to lock out even moderately experienced players in favor of large, strong in-game guilds.

Even so, the response has been almost all positive. Some players complain about the last-minute changes (especially the changes that made monks and druids less powerful in the high-end game), but those who are taking advantage of the new game areas are happy with the reduced time required for encounters and the fact that the game rewards strategy more than ever.

Planning, attention to detail and a fanatical focus on getting past every challenge that Sony presents are important in-game, but Sony is less than pleased by programmers who are just as happy to approach those challenges from outside of the game. Using Linux and Qt, ShowEQ is a packet sniffer that watches the EverQuest client protocol and displays a map of everything that the Windows client is privy to, but may not disclose to the player. Years ago, the ShowEQ developers discovered a weakness in the encryption that the client uses, and they have been able to reliably interpret the data ever since.

With the PoP release, Sony improved the encryption so that it used a larger key which was more securely chosen. At first, the talk on the ShowEQ IRC forum was gloomy and the normally secretive developers cloistered themselves off from the the group, returning only rarely to proclaim the difficulty of breaking this new scheme. The protocol is not unlike that used by ssh or SSL. A public key is sent from Sony to the client, and the client uses that key to encrypt a random session key and send it to Sony. Theoretically, this approach is open to only a limited number of attacks, all of which run the risk of being detected by the client.

A former ShowEQ developer who was hired by Sony was reported to have said it's over, "you'll never break this"... One week later, the new version of ShowEQ was available via CVS and was working again. The new keys were vulnerable, it seems, to an even simpler form of analysis and the result was simply that ShowEQ worked significantly faster. In many ways, this seemed to simply be a "bonus quest" that Sony threw into the PoP expansion, and it had been beaten.

On Thursday, October 31 ShowEQ broke once again. The protocol now compresses key data to prevent the analysis that was limiting the keyspace that has to be searched. As of this writing, ShowEQ no longer works passively, but this escalation is not over. The latest version allows a user to input the key directly, and developers are hard at work, trying to find further weaknesses in the key generation and/or exchange. The developers are even starting to question the long-held, unwritten truce that they maintained with Sony. The idea was that if Sony did not make decryption require a Windows-side component, there would never be a Windows version, limiting the use of ShowEQ to those capable of getting ShowEQ working under Linux. Now, the party line is, "there is absolutely, positively no reason not to have a WinSEQ."

The technical details are interesting, but the social and legal details may take center-stage for a while. The seq team is trying to figure out what they could put on the client-side without being detected and that brings into question the legality of Sony scanning running processes and reporting back. There's also the matter of Sony's rather astoundingly harsh EULA that tries to preclude activities like this in every way that it can (though the legality of click-through EULAs is still a hot topic).

One problem with this escalation is that, like another product (TiVo, which is partially backed by Sony) the very people subverting the product and making it more than the creator wants it to be are the best customers. In terms of EverQuest, they are often the ones maintaining several accounts and/or spending extra money for the "Legends" service. How does a company contend with a market where your best customers are also your most resourceful? With the TiVo, there was an uneasy understanding between the company and its modders. Sony has broken that balance with EverQuest.

Now that Sony has crossed this Rubicon, it is quite likely that ShowEQ will be ported to Windows and hundreds if not thousands of new users will be introduced to it. Was that Sony's goal? Certainly Prof. Felton showed us that such a battle is ultimately futile. Why does Sony want to fight it again on yet another front (remember that they are an RIAA member)? Is there any financial justification, here? Does mapping software really threaten the game more than the many in-game exploits that the high-end encounters suffer from?

PoP is a finely crafted fantasy gaming experience, but Sony has once again chosen to spend extra time and money hurting themselves and their market. Perhaps their competition will not make the same mistakes.

419 comments

  1. Re:I know I was under a rock. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a big MMORPG. IIRC someone killed themselves a while ago because of losing something on it, so I'm guessing it's pretty addictive.

  2. Re:What up What up? by andrewlong · · Score: 1

    No ofensive, but get a life. I have to tell that to my brother every day too, I checked how long he's on every month, an average about 250 hrs every month...DAMN...get a life.

  3. I guess by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the saying It's just a game isn't valid anymore, I wonder what would happen if Sony just shut off Everquest, the hardcore players would once again have to have a life.

    1. Re:I guess by ActiveSX · · Score: 2

      Nope, they'd go BNETD style. Never underestimate the power of a junkie who needs a fix.

    2. Re:I guess by Dillon2112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, more to the point, the thing *Sony* fears is a weapon to be held against them. If you suddenly have every EQ idiot using SEQ on their 'doze box, and they ban them (as Sony said they would) then they lose money. Or, they have people cheating rampantly. Either way, Sony loses. Bad move for them, I say. Leave well enough alone.
      Nice quote. I would guess that you're a Rush fan, but then I noticed your name. OK, so I *know* you're a Rush fan. =)

    3. Re:I guess by LostCluster · · Score: 2

      One problem I have with almost all of the massively multiplayer games out there is that there is defintely a point at which no new players can reasonably expect to join the game, because the long time players have gotten so many advantages over the newbies that the newbies can never expect to make up the difference. Everquest's "solution" to this problem is the concept of death. If you are killed, you get thrown to be back of the bus with the newbies. Since nobody is immune, eventionally even the top players will die eventually so Joe Newbie should eventually have a chance to earn their way to the top. But these kinds of "cheats", discovering that a misstep will lead to an encounter with a likely-to-be-fatal situation, lessens this possiblity and can make players practically immortal. This is damaging to the game, in that it leads to a situation where a newbie who starts today can never pass the leaders of today since those leaders will keep earning their way upward. EverQuest is practically closed to new admissions, and that's gotta be scary from the business office's view.

    4. Re:I guess by Nkwe · · Score: 5, Funny
      I wonder what would happen if Sony just shut off Everquest, the hardcore players would once again have to have a life.
      Probably the same thing that would happen if the someone just shut off slashdot.
    5. Re:I guess by Kierthos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You might be thinking of old MUDs like DartMUD, where when you died, you had to start completely over from 1st level again. EQ (and DAOC, and most, if not all, other MMORPGs) are not like this. Nothing kills a player-base faster then that kind of system. Trust me, I've seen it happen in some MUDs.

      Now, what offsets the "newbie" syndrome in EQ, DAOC and other MMORPGs is that not every "high level" character is going to be played forever, as people retire characters all the time. Also, a lot of players with high level characters give away a lot of stuff.

      And EQ seems (alas) to be doing just fine.

      Kierthos
      (Okay, I'm biased. I hate EQ. But they aren't in danger of drying up and blowing away any time soon.)

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    6. Re:I guess by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Don't even joke about that!!! Besides slashdot is actually an informative site. It's only those who post to the forums that have no life.

    7. Re:I guess by the+unbeliever · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's already a server emulator out, it doesn't do everything that the current SOE/UbiSoft (Euro) servers do yet, but it's close. Easy to install/configure, etc.

      Of course, no one I know has the bandwidth to host more than a six person group or so, but.. eh.

    8. Re:I guess by jsse · · Score: 1

      It's just like shutting one off of Matrix, and find out what a naked slimy creature oneself is.

    9. Re:I guess by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Well, there's option 3: Some people start using Win Show EQ. Sony bans them. People decide that they want to play EQ and don't use Win EQ. Sony wins.

      Seems like the most likely outcome.

    10. Re:I guess by murdocj · · Score: 1
      This is wrong on all counts:
      One problem I have with almost all of the massively multiplayer games out there is that there is defintely a point at which no new players can reasonably expect to join the game, because the long time players have gotten so many advantages over the newbies that the newbies can never expect to make up the difference

      Since almost all EQ servers are "player vs. environment" the fact that older players are more experienced or have better gear is irrelevant to new players. You aren't competing against other players.

      If you are killed, you get thrown to be back of the bus with the newbies.

      When you die, you only lose a small amount of your experience. You certainly don't become level 1 again. In the worst case, if you had just "levelled", you would lose your level.

      a newbie who starts today can never pass the leaders of today since those leaders will keep earning their way upward.

      Again, the "newbies" aren't competing with other players. Everquest doesn't have anything to do with "passing the leader".

    11. Re:I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is assuming that Everquest junkies had a life at one point...

  4. Re:What up What up? by ardiri · · Score: 2, Informative

    > I checked how long he's on every month, an average about 250 hrs every month

    with everquest now on the pocket pc - he'll be able to clock that record i bet :) mobile everquest!

  5. Ha ha ha. by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Raph Koster's rule of "the client is in the hands of the enemy" seems to have been forgotten by EQ's developers- if ShowEQ is such a problem, it's time, perhaps, that they stopped telling the client all these nasty things they didn't want it to know. I mean, I first remember ShowEQ coming 'round *3 years ago*. Why they haven't simply made the client ignorant of things it shouldn't know in all this time is beyond me.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

    1. Re:Ha ha ha. by lastninja · · Score: 1

      bandwidth limitations?

      --
      John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
    2. Re:Ha ha ha. by Dillon2112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The client has to know certain things to run. To alter what it knows would to make a thin client game even thinner, and would alter the balance of the client/server load. If the servers are picking up slack for the clients (or the sole purpose of players not sniffing that info), then the servers have to be redesigned and beefed up. Not likely, I say.

    3. Re:Ha ha ha. by Echnin · · Score: 1

      His rule was actually "If it's in the client, it's going to be exploited."

      --
      Lalala
    4. Re:Ha ha ha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because 3 years ago they decided how much information they were going to allow the client to see of the world. There solution, break the whole world up into zones and only let the client see what is happening in that zone. To change this would require more effort than they are willing to do.

    5. Re:Ha ha ha. by Echnin · · Score: 2, Informative
      ... Or maybe not.

      Please, no! I'm too young to be modded down. :-(

      --
      Lalala
    6. Re:Ha ha ha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      (Anon because I use SEQ)

      SOE (or Verant previously) *has* removed lots of data from the client-side. For example, a long time ago, the client used to be aware of every "mob's" (monster's) loot. Today, the loot table for a monster is not transferred to the client until the monster has been killed and somebody is trying to loot it. So, before, you used to be able to pick-and-choose which monsters to kill to get maximal loot, but today, you cannot do this.

      Various other bits of data have been moved to the server-side (IMO, due to the much faster CPU's they have today vs. 3+ years ago) such as spawn points, times, etc.

      These days, SEQ is primarily a mapping (GPS) system. It allows you to see where you are in a particular zone and if you are willing to run the client key-sniffer, you can also see where the monsters are in the zone (and their names). This allows you to navigate a zone without getting gang-banged by (possibly unfairly) high-level monsters and to also locate certain "named" monsters.

      It should be noted that SEQ ***does NOT*** modify the game data in any way. It only allows the user to view the datastream.

    7. Re:Ha ha ha. by tmortn · · Score: 1

      AMEN

      NEVER trust the client, and NEVER trust the server. The gall of SOE to try and police your knowledge of the information they send you is absolutly amazing to me. The problem of an unfair advantage aside I just don't see what grounds SOE has to stand on for attempting to legaly deny someone the right to know what information is comming or going into their machine from the outside world.

      As for them actively scanning processes in the attempt to catch this activity I have to cry double foul. How would they respond if the same was done to their system ? That would obviously be a 'Hack' with serious legal ramifications yet they can do it without the same repercussions ? I don't think so!

      If SOE dosn't want EQ to go up in flames Diablo style they better make peace with showeq or make double damn sure they can keep it broken in the event of a windows port.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    8. Re:Ha ha ha. by Saxerman · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the servers have to be redesigned and beefed up. Not likely, I say.

      For games that have already been around for awhile, you're right that they're not going to be making large changes to the server and client to hide those things they shouldn't have been sending to the client anyways.

      I have great hope that the next generation of Massively Multi-player games will incorporate the idea of 'the client can not be trusted' into the game design early on. I agree that it requires a lot more work server side to process things it would be much easier to have the client work on. But the only real way to prevent people from accessing things you don't want them to see, is to NOT SEND IT.

      I also think games like Everquest should keep the server closed, but open the client so third party groups can create them and add features. There only real way to allow this is to only send information to the client that you want them to have.

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    9. Re:Ha ha ha. by ajs · · Score: 2

      It's even worse. They worked so hard at the encryption and the net result is that the client will now be ported to windows so that EVERYONE can run it. Their encryption doesn't stop anyone of course, since as soon as the key is generated it can be read from memory :)

    10. Re:Ha ha ha. by phriedom · · Score: 1

      "The problem of an unfair advantage aside I just don't see what grounds SOE has to stand on for attempting to legaly deny someone the right to know what information is comming or going into their machine from the outside world."

      Well, I'll play devil's advocate for a moment here: they aren't denying the users oversight of their connection to the "outside world", only to the Sony EQ servers. And the grounds in this case is a real contract. This isn't the same as the EULAs companies try to impose on your use of software after you have purchased it. In this case you have purchased the client, and THEN you enter a contract where you pay a monthy fee for access to EQ servers under limited conditions which you are informed of when you enter the contract. So they DO have a right to tell you how you can connect to their server and to stipulate that you cannot monitor or manipulate the traffic between you.

      IINAL and I am not saying that Sony should or shouldn't do anything, or how. I don't even play EQ.

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    11. Re:Ha ha ha. by WNight · · Score: 2

      Actually, the contract you sign for monthly service is limited by the fact that you purchased the game and weren't informed of any limitations.

      If the game was a commodity (telephone) that wasn't controlled by the service provider, this is different. The service provider's first contact with you is the contract.

      In the EQ case, the only use of the game is to play online. They spell out the 'monthly fee required' clause, but if they don't spell out the limitations (we get to snoop, etc, etc) they very well might not apply because the deal is finalized when you buy the game, not when you sign up, because the only use of the game is to use with their service, so if you buy the game, you're buying the service. They can't impose after-sale restrictions any more than the usual EULA could.

      If they want to get around this they should give the client away, thus not forming a contract at this time, and spelling out all limitations online pre-registration.

    12. Re:Ha ha ha. by cerberusti · · Score: 2, Informative

      They can and do enforce this. The monthly contract is seperate from the purchase. It is not an "after-sale restriction" since you still have what you purchased, namely a box and a silver coaster, and can even get this price refunded if you are not willing to agree to their terms. You licenced the software and, they can revoke this, in addition, to connect to their servers you have to agree to another contract (which you explicitly do every time you sign on) telling you what you can and cannot do. If you modify something on your client or, view anything they send to you outside the client, you are in violation of this contract, they can and will cancel your account and, are perfectly within their rights to do so. If you send packets to them that are not from the client they additionally have the option of pressing charges against you, as this is unautorized use of a computer system. You may think this sucks but, in order for them to survive they have to take as tough a stance on this as they can. Keep in mind that if Sony wanted to really press the issue, they could probably sue the developers of ShowEQ, on the basis that they violated the contract they agreed to when they opened an account and, there are real damages to award. If they do not have an account (which is unlkely) then whomever allowed them use of their account is in violation (as is clearly specified in the agreement.) It would be wise for ShowEQ to keep off Windows, as it is probably not worth the effort to go after them as long as they do. Otherwise, I hope they have decent lawyers. I checked into all of this (and actually got legal advice) a while ago while I was thinking about writing something similar to ShowEQ. Believe me guys, you really want to think about this one before you do it, Sony is a large corporation with a lot of money, and Everquest is very profitable. If you interfere with this, they will not be happy. Even if you do not think you can be found, remember that if they choose to sue, sourceforge will be required to give any information they have about you, and I seriously doubt they would violate a court order.

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    13. Re:Ha ha ha. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After a certain point, this isn't feasible. Right now, all that SEQ can do is show you the locations of monsters that are out of your line of sight.

      Calculating whether or not a monster is in your line of sight requires a bunch of logic. You need to know about the terrain, obstacles, locations. And the calculations are different for every person, etc. Iduno. Seems prohibitive to me.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    14. Re:Ha ha ha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine that there would be some data that would be difficult not to send. For example, in a 3D game you'd need to send various coordinates that could be used to write an auto-aim hack, or enough read-ahead data that the game won't slow to a crawl because it has to retrieve data every time you enter a new room.

    15. Re:Ha ha ha. by Saxerman · · Score: 3, Insightful
      After a certain point, this isn't feasible.

      After a certain point, Moore's Law makes this feasible. Right now, you're right. 3D line of sight for every player on large servers requires some seriously big iron. The question is, should we stay in an encryption arms race against the hackers to try and make it too tedious to decrypt, or spend the extra money on severs that can handle the increased load.

      This is going to be one of those business decisions which will have long term impact over the life of a business. It is my hope that as computers grow more powerful and available bandwidth increases that we will have increased choices in available clients for future multi-player games. If they choose to fight the hackers, it means they're going to try and maintain control of the client, which means we're going to be stuck with the one they provide. (Which doesn't have to be bad, but I still like having options.)

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    16. Re:Ha ha ha. by Kpau · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is the main reason I stopped playing EQ in favor of Camelot. EQ is a packet spewing monster delivering all sorts of crap "I don't need to know". Living on a 26.4kbps connection (thanks to Verizon), I can get 3 sessions of Camelot running smoothly (for myself and 2 offspring). ONE session of EQ chokes in heavily populated areas.
      (no, Verizon will not upgrade my circuit to 56k, much less IDSN, IDSL, xDSL, frame-relay, or mutant chipmunks --- they are jerks).

      Then, of course, there's Microsoft's AC and AC2 which STILL can't deal with more than one session over a firewall/NAT or ICS (their own freaking product)... multiple ports over one IP is too hard I guess.

    17. Re:Ha ha ha. by cwebster · · Score: 5, Informative

      (not anon, and i am a seq dev)

      >SOE (or Verant previously) *has* removed lots of data from the client-side. For example, a long time ago, the client used to be aware of every "mob's" (monster's) loot.

      ShowEQ has never been able to tell you a monsters loot. Ever.

      You could deduce what they might drop from things hey have on them (the old favorite was telling which wisps had lightstones, not because we could tell thier loot, but because you could tell what level of light they gave off).

      ShowEQ has never known loot.

    18. Re:Ha ha ha. by cwebster · · Score: 2

      Sony has taken steps to remove info from the client. Some of the things they have changed include

      1) mob hit points are sent as a percent rather than absolute value (though they still use a 16 bit int to send this value).

      2) experience value is sent as a fraction of 330 now, instead of actual values for each kill. The fraction of 330 directly corresponds to the drawing of the experience bar (in case 330 sounds like an odd number to use, thats why)

      3) mob faction numbers are now sent as an index of what faction text to use, instead of actual faction numbers. This went in not long after people were realizing just how many velious mobs they needed to kill to raise faction adequatly for quests.

      4) player positioning. This has always been bad, but they've optimised to to be a little worse for showeq somewhere down the line. Basically, if you've ever played a class that can track, and you've tracked some random player, you'll know what im talking about. Player positions are only sent if they are moving and in the radius of update (not very big). If they are outside this radius, you never get an update, and you record them as at thier last known spot. If you use track or showeq to find them, you'll go to this spot, and not them.

      5) the session cipher key. They've made it bigger over time and moved to a PKI system to exchange it, so it cannot be discovered by sniffing it (passive discovery anyway).

      there are more im forgetting, but its been a long time since played.

      --
      casey

    19. Re:Ha ha ha. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      The main concern that non-ShowEQ users have about the program, anonymous friend, is that the program allows you to find the locations of certain (very rare) creatures without the normal in-game methods of finding them (i.e., using the Track ability or just wandering around until you find them). Among other uses for this are things like knowing exactly when the iron oxide ground spawns in Steamfont have popped.

      The end result is that a non-ShowEQ player has no chance to compete against someone using the program for this purpose.

      Honestly, the uses you've mentioned in your post (mapping/GPS) are not objectionable to me at all, since I can get most of the same information by referring to various sites (EQAtlas, EQMaps) and by using /loc and a little bit of personal skill. I'd even suggest that for some things (like pharming low-level tradeskill components such as spiderling silks and cat pelts), using ShowEQ (or Track for that matter) slows down your rate of return versus running around and killing stuff as you see it.

      Still, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's better to draw it as conservatively as possible, so that no sticky questions arise when players are banned for the use of other forbidden third-party utilities (like macroing tools, which I simply *cannot stand*). Since ShowEQ does indeed have functionality which allows one player to make the game more difficult for those who play the game normally, it would have to go on the "bannable" side of that line. Sorry.

    20. Re:Ha ha ha. by Barny · · Score: 0

      Currently Dark age of Camelot is fairly non trusting of client machines.
      Things such as cloaked people are not even made aware to the client untill they come out of hideing unless the person has the abillity to see them.
      I think clients need to be made aware of whats about them (in terms of draw distance and what is just beyond it) but to send the client info on whats in the zone and its health, level etc is a bit much.

      I think this is a case for security through obscurity.

      What you can't see CAN hurt you ;)

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    21. Re:Ha ha ha. by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      Cerberusti... what kind of crack are you smoking? What on earth makes you think that Sony has any legal grounds to sue the SEQ developers?

      Because they broke a EULA? Heh, show me one EULA that's ever held up in a court of law in relation to "damages." The only thing Sony can do is ban the given user who's using the program. ShowEQ is nothing more than a graphical packet sniffer. If you think Sony can sue people for using a packet sniffer, and NOT DIRECTLY INTERFERING WITH THE GAME IN ANY WAY, you need to go back to law school, or check with your sources, or whatever.

    22. Re:Ha ha ha. by DrTentacle · · Score: 1
      Then, of course, there's Microsoft's AC and AC2 which STILL can't deal with more than one session over a firewall/NAT or ICS (their own freaking product)... multiple ports over one IP is too hard I guess.


      On AC, go to the setup program -> Advanced options -> Specify port. Enter a different port for each client. Voila.

      Also, as I'm sure you are aware, both games were in fact developed by Turbine Games and not MS. MS merely operate the service.
    23. Re:Ha ha ha. by Fugly · · Score: 2

      Then, of course, there's Microsoft's AC and AC2 which STILL can't deal with more than one session over a firewall/NAT or ICS (their own freaking product)... multiple ports over one IP is too hard I gues.

      1) While AC is published by Microsoft, it is created by Turbine Games in Massachusets. They are a completely separate entity from MS.

      2) AC worked fine over NAT, you just had to tell each client to use a separate port. It was right there on the main setup screen.

      3) AC2 is still beta. I'm sure you can find far more important features that are still missing. NAT support will be there.

    24. Re:Ha ha ha. by DrTentacle · · Score: 1
      3) AC2 is still beta. I'm sure you can find far more important features that are still missing. NAT support will be there.


      AC2 was actually released in the US a couple of weeks ago. No idea about NAT support, as it hasn't been released over here yet.
    25. Re:Ha ha ha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the weapon(s) they are using

    26. Re:Ha ha ha. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course reading a location in memory requires running something on the same computer as Everquest that would be easily detectable, unlike a packet sniffer running on a separate computer...

    27. Re:Ha ha ha. by cerberusti · · Score: 1

      I am unsure if a click through EULA will hold up in court, as there is not much case law on this but, it has not been struck down either. I am referring to the agreement when they sign up for an account. Congress did pass a bill a while ago to allow this type of agreement and, if I remember correctly providing a valid credit card number was a legal way to agree (this was primarily for adult services but, the law should apply here as well.) Damages come in the form of loss of sales due to ShowEQ (if Sony can give numbers that sound plausible to a judge), they are definitely in breach of contract if the judge upholds this agreement, which has a MUCH better chance than a normal EULA. I am not a lawyer, but I did consult one on this very issue (actually about everquest and, the creation of a program to do just this and, this lawyer was a specialist in this area who came very highly recommended). They might win, they might lose but, it really could go either way. At the very least Sony can ask a judge to order that the names of developers be turned over so that there can be a case (which he would be extremely likely to grant), at which point Sony can simply cancel the accounts, stopping further development (rinse and repeat if it happens again.) Using a different account is then VERY clearly outside the law and, they will almost certainly lose that case (that is also a criminal case, as at that point they knowingly accessed a computer system without authorization.) If this fails, the people who wrote the decryption part (and this covers reading out of that memory address as well) are in violation of the DMCA. ShowEQ would be effectively useless without this component. And by the way, I did grow up with two lawyer parents, so this was dinner table discussion for the first 18 years of my life. I would like to think I have a pretty good grasp on United States law and, more importantly, when to seek professional advice. The point here is not that they will certainly lose, they may win, but Sony can almost certainly shut them down and, can probably make their lives miserable in the process. And to answer your packet sniffing question, there are cases in which using a packet sniffer is not legal, just FYI.

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    28. Re:Ha ha ha. by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      Show me any sources where packet sniffing on your own network is illegal.

      The lawyer you consulted over this is a poor lawyer indeed if he advised you of these things. Regardless of whether your parents are lawyers or not, I highly doubt they are familiar with this particular topic... and a lawyer that isn't familiar with a topic is as good as any other armchair lawyer out of their area of speciality.

      I think the least of the SEQ devs worries are a legal suit. There is simply no grounds to stand on there.

    29. Re:Ha ha ha. by WNight · · Score: 2

      > It is not an "after-sale restriction" since you still have what you purchased, namely a box and a silver coaster [...]

      Do they advertise it this way (just a coaster), or do they show pictures of fantasy characters killing monsters, with actual in-game screenshots? If they advertise it as a $30 coaster, you're right. If they advertise it as an online game that you need their software to play, then it becomes an after-sale restriction. They imply that by buying the box and paying a monthly fee that you can do what you see on the box.

      > [...] to connect to their servers you have to agree to another contract (which you explicitly do every time you sign on) telling you what you can and cannot do.

      Click-throughs are irrelevant. Unless they're pre-sale. Only one (USA) case has ever upheld click-throughs and it was a copyright case where click-through licensing was only tangentially related.

      They'd be free and clear if they gave the game discs away (or for S&H only) and did the whole transaction after making you read a license. Until they go to something like this, they have no case.

      > [...] in order for them to survive they have to take as tough a stance on this as they can.

      Wah. Life is tough. Bad business models (which this is, if they can't do it profitably and legally) don't deserve corporate welfare.

      > I checked into all of this (and actually got legal advice)

      Then you did explain the circumstances, or the lawyer wasn't compotent, or you didn't catch it when they said "Well, they have no case, but they can make your life miserable, don't piss off people with money."

      They don't, and can't, have a case. The DMCA doesn't even apply because ShowEQ doesn't involve the game software at all and they can't claim copyright on information they're sending to you, based on your actions in the game.

      > If you interfere with this, they will not be happy. [and you will be made unhappy if they want]

      That is true.

    30. Re:Ha ha ha. by cerberusti · · Score: 1

      Packet sniffing on your own network is illegal if it is part of a process to circumvent encryption protecting a product (per the DMCA, which I may not agree with, but is still law.) You did not specify that it was your own network in the above post though, there are many cases where it is not legal if it is not your network. The grounds to stand on for a legal suit short of this are the contract they agreed to when they signed up for eq. You may argue the validity of this but, the fact remains that EULAs in general are not well tested in court. The fact remains that there is absolutely no way to determine which way a judge would rule in this case, which would mean a suit would at least proceed, as there is no reason a judge would be likely to dismiss it without a trial. The laywer I consulted was indeed an expert in this field and, was not one of my parents. What he told me seems consistent with what I know about the legal system which, while it may not be as much as most lawyers, is still signifigant. Furthermore if the breech of contract suit fails, there is always the DMCA. A suit under the DMCA would not be against the ShowEQ developers (since they wisely do not include the stream decryption in ShowEQ) but instead against the developers of the component which decrypts EQ traffic. In this case, an injuntion barring ShowEQ from including the ability to use this component is extremely likely (almost certain.) You are also forgetting that all Sony has to do to get the names of developers is bring a suit, as long as it goes to trial they will get the names of developers, they can then cancel any account they wish, and further access would be a criminal offense (unauthorized use of a computer system) once their accounts have been canceled. Sony simply has too many options on how to deal with ShowEQ for it to be likely to survive a concerted effort on their part to do away with it. Whether Sony will go the legal route is a much better question than if they could, which is why it would be wise not to irritate them too much (which a Windows port of ShowEQ would likely do.)

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    31. Re:Ha ha ha. by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      Your suppositions are pure fallcy when it comes to "doing away with SEQ." Did severe legal actions do away with DeCSS? No? What makes you think SEQ would be any different.

      In addition to that, how exactly do you propose to find the creator(s) of the decryption libraries? No email addresses exist, certainly no real names. Only a puff of a pseudonym and a few IRC logs perhaps. You'd have about as much luck tracking down Osama Bin Laden as you would tracking down the authors if they don't want to be found. To add insult to that injury, who says they are United States citizens? Heh... once again, the mighty US trying to reach out and control the rest of the sane world with insane laws (Yes, I am a US citizen).

      Regardless though, there is no possible way to enforce anything you have stated here, therefore, you can't uphold and unenforcable law, and hence, it is then not a law, but merely a suggestion. Like I said, as much as you might like to believe the US jurisdiction holds outside our borders, reality is very different, and many countries could give a flying pigs butt what the US wants in terms of censorship.

    32. Re:Ha ha ha. by Maggot75 · · Score: 1

      No, most probably not. It is more probably too expensive CPU-wise for the server to work out who can see what.

  6. Linux servers a new purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just a secure server anymore but a secure server that able to hack into Windows, the possiblities are ever so endless.

  7. Re:I know I was under a rock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, every couple of months there will be a story where some 20-something year old virgin offed himself cause of EverQuest. Lusers, all of them.

  8. Sympathic view of cheating? by Hubert+Q.+Gruntley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This article paints the ShowEQ developers with a rather sympathetic brush. If these were aimbot developers for q3 or ut or cs, wouldn't we totally revile them? What is the difference?

    Maybe there should be two sets of servers, one for all the ppl who want to play fair and play against ppl who are playing fair; and one for cheaters, and those who want to reverse engineer the protocol, etc.

    --
    Laugh at my Lisp and I keeell you.
    1. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by UberOogie · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Exactly.

      I have never understood online gamers whining about their right to cheat. This article is talking about this as though it is some brave stand against a corporation doing something bad. This is about people cheating at a game. It ruins it for everyone playing fair. I fail to see why this should be applauded or supported, and I'm fairly shocked Michael wasn't the one posting this story.

      Sadly, this is why consoles are going to take over for a while: The majority of players are simply sick with the cheaters. It was amazing to watch people immediately start to whine when MS disabled modded X-Boxes from Live. Sure you can say there were "legitimate" reasons to mod the boxes, but come on.

      Of course, this only lasts until some "worthy" individual hooks up a box between the cable and the X-Box to start parsing out material.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    2. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by moonbender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that Q3, UT and CS are (team-based) deathmatch, or PvP (ie player versus player) games. EverQuest, on the other hand, is mostly a PvM, ie co-operative player versus monster, game.
      That's not to say there isn't any player competition - obviously there's a whole lot of it, both directly in the form of duels and PvP servers and more importantly indirectly in the form of who's got the better char or which guild is more uber than another.

      If another player cheats in EQ, he gets a better battle axe than you faster, if an enemy cheats in CS, you're in a world of pain.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    3. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Dillon2112 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you *ever* played EQ? Do you even know what you're talking about?
      SEQ was used primarily in the beginning to aid people in finding out how your odds of hitting changed with certain gear, and how much mana you had (something EQ never told you). It quantified all kinds of things that players really needed to know, but were never published anywhere with the game or from any official source.
      Ever.
      SEQ allowed players to critically evaluate how the game was calculating things, and you know what? That started huge dicussions on Verant's OFFICAL message boards between Verant and customers on what changes the customers wanted. There are mana calculators everywhere online, but they were all developed from info gathered from SEQ. Players use them all time.
      The most recent changes to meditation, spell behavior, and damage checks were all a result of the community gathering info using SEQ and bringing the data to Verant and saying "This isn't right!". And Verant listened and changed it.
      Cheating?? I think not. It was the community stepping in and filling a gap for the better of the players and the developers.
      None of this can be said of Aimbots, or wallhacks in Q3, UT, or CS.

    4. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAPSD (i am a proxy/sniffer developer)

      like any acceptance matters to ppl like me. people will cheat if they can or have to offset other people cheating.
      quake series and clones, mmporgs.. it just comes down to how much you like to win or have fun playing.
      take a guess what happens if i start the fireworks and bash other players. "cheater ! lamer ! ill kill you ! (and more profanity, curses, threats).
      then later so much noobs beg me to send them my hacks (most cant run them anyway cos they dont know what this "linux" is) its just not funny anymore.

      im happy with this high profile EQ hack, gives sony some focus, my stuff isnt blocked yet.

    5. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the weird things is, maybe they didnt "want" you to know how much damage things did, and not from a balance standpoint either. I have created modifications for the game medal of honor, allied assault spearhead. and I do not want people to know all the exact values i have set for my weapons. to those who are curious and know what they are doing it is a relatively simple matter, but i feel it takes away some of my intent for everyone to know that the smg does 45 damage or such. imbalance is not a practically "bad" thing, even in a mmorpg. No you wouldnt know your singing steel boots or whatever didnt work well until you wore them for a long time, and realized that they arent purhaps as strong as your lambent whatevers. But that would be part of the interesting part of it. When you get into finding out direct stats you get to having players that are, sadly, like me. who will statisically approach the game, and quite possibly ruining the intent of the creators of the game and how the game is played. I am not decrying the fact that many things have been fixed because of SEQ, not at all, I am just saying that if it had not been around the game would be entirely different, the only way you would know things is from relative tested heresay. which might even be more interesting.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    6. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by UberOogie · · Score: 2
      So you're saying that the program isn't widely used for cheating and is not designed to be uniquely helpful in doing so?

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    7. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is that the entire commuity has used the data gotten from ShowEQ. How can you call people who run it cheaters, when you're not calling the guy who goes to eqatlas.com a cheater? eqatlas gets a lot fo their data from ShowEQ and it is a widely recognized site that gives data on all kinds of things, hit values, damage, spawn times, monster location, maps, etc. But anyone in the communnity can use it, not just the people you would call "cheaters" that run ShowEQ. I don't see the difference - one who obtains the information is no more a cheater than one who uses it. And *everyone* uses that information.

    8. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by phocuz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is just the small problem that you can also use ShowEQ to see your immediate surroundings, giving you an advantage when it comes to finding 'rare' monsters before others if they spawn, say, one a day.

      Lots of people will be tempted to use cheats if they have them, even though they from the beginning only wanted to see their mana.

    9. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Catiline · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This article is talking about this as though it is some brave stand against a corporation doing something bad. This is about people cheating at a game.
      To me, this issue is about a brave stand... not against a particular corporation or act, but a general class of fallacy. To me, the right to cheat exists (although it is socially despicable to do so outside of single player games, unless every player agrees beforehand to cheat) and opposition to this right generally takes the same form as the opposition of my right to media shift (ie rip CDs to portable MP3 player).

      I, personally, do not care much about the forum in which I speak: issues generally resolve to only a few different categories, and I treat all items in a category the same. A social problem cannot be eradicated with technological measures. Personally, I feel it my "duty" to reiterate this point as often, and as loudly, as possible -- mostly due to a copious lack of counter examples. This issue seems to be better than CD ripping for making my point, though: the fact that I oppose cheating (vehemently!) and yet seem to support the cheaters strengthens my point. (My solution, if you care, is to play only with friends -- even on consoles.)

    10. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a subtle difference in that Sony is cashing in on changing the rules. You could say that Everquest needs to be kept alive and that it is just maintenance which has to be paid for. On the other hand you could remember which role Sony plays in the "Evercrack" analogy. That said, anticheat-measures are quickly becomming the prime reason for the success or failure of an online game and therefore a certain percentage of the price of the game is expected to go into sensible and effective maintenance of the game universe. That means anti-cheat activity on one hand, but it also means not changing the rules just to collect more money.

    11. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Hobbex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have never understood online gamers whining about their right to cheat.

      People are not claiming the right to cheat: I have never heard anybody complain that online chess servers don't allow them to log in and remove the other guys queen while he is taking a bathroom break. Nor have I ever heard anybody claiming that this is their right.

      This is not about a right to cheat, it is about the right to hack and modify your own computer and any software that runs on it. And that is a right that people do have - no matter how sinister or anti-social their motivations for doing so.

      Let us hope that gamers that want to use platforms that control them rather than lie within their control do move to consoles and proprietary gaming services - better that then have the computers of those of us who use them for real things invaded your hideous user hostile technology (ie, palladium).

    12. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Umm.. The developers of Quake didn't code into their software an ability for me to auto-headshot other players.. But it's REALLY helpful! And everyone is using it. How can you call auto-aim a cheat when everyone has access to it?

    13. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Dillon2112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its not that everything that ShowEQ does is cheating per-se, but some of what it does is, and that is to be avoided. In other words, use the tool responsibly.
      Which is the exact reason the ShowEQ team wanted to keep it on Linux and (therefore) away from most of the EQ masses. But now...with a windows client, all that goes out the window.
      You make a vaild point, but that doesn't mean every person who used ShowEQ is a cheater, at least not in the despicable sense of wallhack cheaters, or aimbot cheaters.

    14. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by UberOogie · · Score: 5, Insightful
      To me, the right to cheat exists (although it is socially despicable to do so outside of single player games, unless every player agrees beforehand to cheat) and opposition to this right generally takes the same form as the opposition of my right to media shift (ie rip CDs to portable MP3 player).

      Yes, the right to cheat exists. Yes, the right to make and run programs that lets you cheat at games exists. All Sony is doing is preventing people who are running known cheating tools from playing on their world servers. They are not disabling the software. They are not modifying your computer in any way.

      Your mp3 analogy is thought-provoking, but I think not valid. They are not taking the same forms. No one at Sony is legally going after users using the cheat tools. No cops are breaking down doors. No nastygrams are being sent to schools where the cheat tools are being run. The users right to make and use cheat tools are not being infringed. What Sony is doing is preventing people using cheating tools from playing on their servers. Seems well within their rights to me.

      Your solution of playing only with friends makes sense in other online games, but not MMP games. You can't just play with your friends because there are only official servers to play on. But as a moral question, is it really okay for a minority of cheating players to ruin the entire online play experience for everyone else who doesn't want to cheat, and paid exactly the same amoun t of money for the game? That doesn't seem to add up to me.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    15. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      You're missing my point. I'm defending people that run ShowEQ by explaining that they helped shape the game into what it is today. Their feedback changed the way Verant chose to run the game rules. It was important for development, and not only that, it benefited all players because the data was made available to them on numerious (well known and respected) websites. Oh, and did I mention that its not a PvP game like UT or CS, its an adventure game?
      Quake doesn't have headshots.

    16. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by EdMack · · Score: 1

      Is multiplayer games, the only real objective is to kill people, and auto-aims do that... thus killing the point to the game Knowing useful statistics allow the player to play better... but they must still tackle the problems

      --
      puts ("Python r0cks\n");
    17. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      But people do not have the right to connect to a server using any software they choose...

    18. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In real life, do you have the ability to put on armor and instantly know a unique quantifier that is a perfect measure of that armour's efficacy? No. In real life, you apply your wisdom gained through the many years to determine a qualitative estimate. To hide such quantitative values from the player is necessary in order to force players to adopt their roles. To make those values visible removes the need to adopt the most basic elements of the role the player is supposed to be playing, and turns the game into nothing more than a game of hack and slash. Some of the paying members of EQ prefer that the game not become one gigastic cluster-fuck of mayhem.

      I prefer a game to be an extension of real-life. I want realism, and it's twinks like these coders that ruin it for me. This is why I abandoned the world of MMORPGs and have joined the SCA.

    19. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by locust · · Score: 2

      In general keeping game mechanics from the players is a bad idea. There is a certain set of people with undying curiosity who will go after and find your secret. In a population as large as the one which plays EQ, its in evitable. The problem then becomes that these people, some of whom inevitably use that knowledge, have a marked advantage when playing the game. This is exactly the same problem that happens in the pen&paper world. If you have one GM and a group of players, then as long as the GM can keep his mouth shut he may be ok on game mechanics he makes up. But I have yet to meet a gamer who hasn't read the "GM's only" section of a book, or didn't wonder in his off hours what the hell was up with the last game, or whats going to happen in the future in the game, or how the game world must work. The only way around this is to keep everything focused on the story. Otherwise games like this tend to boil down to who can do the most damage to whom, and in that case every player wants the biggest statisitcal advantage he can get. Game designers should take a page from the crypto world. I should be able to know all the game mechanics, yet still find the game engaging.

    20. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      Umm, ok. In real life, when I put on armor...oh, wait, I don't put on armor in real life, that's why I play games.

      Oh, and by the way, EQ (without any cheats) gives me a perfect measure of the armor's protection. Its called "AC". Maybe you've heard of it...its in most roleplaying games.

      But I digress. Your stated thesis is false. I roleplay all the time in games that give me all the stats. Neverwinter Nights, for one. Oh, and wait, there was one before that that I recall being the father of all roleplaying games where I had to calculate everything...what was that called? Oh, thats right, Dungeons and Dragons.

      No, I think that there is no coorolation between knowing the numbers behind the game and your ability to roleplay. I don't think it makes it a "gigastic cluster-fuck of mayhem" to know how much mana I have, either.

    21. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      Sadly lame folks who feel they have to cheat to be able to compete with others are everywhere. It would be one of the most attractive features of a MMORPG to know that there were no effective cheats and that when I got beaten in the game it was because the other guy was better than me, not because he was able to load up a frickin cheat program.

      While it might be nice to know all the stats on items, it is not a sufficient justification for using cheat software. Ever. If the playerbase feels the game should provide more information, then you lambast the developers with requests to add it as a feature, but you don't use and encourage the development of cheat software to further that goal. You might have honorable intentions but the 10,000 folks coming after you and using the same software are simply too lame to win a game on their own, and are there for the unfair advantage it offers.

      Not so relevant in EQ per se,where players are not in direct combat (unless on the Zeks I know), but very relevant to Dark Age of Camelot (and also see Camelot Herald for Statistics on the scoring and state of the game etc )- the game I play a lot at the moment - where players are regularly in direct conflict with each other. Programs such as Odin's Eye have threatened that game heavily.


      Phrogman
      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    22. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by tuxracer · · Score: 1

      The difference is this, in an MMORPG your having an avantage over other players is FAR less a burden to other players (except on the PvP, player vs. player servers). There are thousands of players, a static world (regardless of what sony claims), millions of things to hunt, etc... There is little you can do to change the gaming expirience of other players. Yes there are things you can see that others cannot and get to those things faster unfairly, and in that instant it does become a burden to other players. But for the most part it doesn't affect the gameplay of other players (again, on non-pvp servers).

      With a game like Quake or Unreal Tournament you are playing with a dozen people or so, or less, and the gaming expirience you have is directly affected by those players. Someone having an unfair advantage over the other players is a HUGE burden to other players and drasticaly affects their gameplay.

      The main reason people bitch in MMORPGs about other players having an unfair advantage over them is jealousy. Jealousy disguised as concern for other players.

      If anything the ShowEQ developers should prevent the program from working on PvP servers, because that is one case where it does drastically affect other players' gaming expirience in a negitive way.

      And Sony should be warned to stop thinking with their ego. Because if they don't like a few hundred or so people using it, I don't think thousands upon thousands of new users are going to please them to say in the least.

    23. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Catiline · · Score: 1
      Your mp3 analogy is thought-provoking, but I think not valid. They are not taking the same forms.
      On the contrary, they are exactly the same thing. When I said "MP3" you heard "P2P" -- and there you are correct. But companies like BMG are trying to publish CDs that can't be ripped -- and that exactly is what I'm arguing against. (P2P, in my mind, is a different kettle of fish altogether.)

      With the DeCSS cases, American courts accepted the argument that code==speech. My point of view makes sense when you start thinking that code==law, too. The design and limitations of program code carry the same weight as the legal, contractual, or whatever other limits are placed on my ability to alter that code.

    24. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by ajs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ShowEQ is not cheating.

      Sony thinks of it as cheating because they think of EverQuest as a game. However, there are thousands of people who play EverQuest to whom it is not a game, but a social venue. Now, EQ breaks the local laws of that venue, but to call it cheating is like calling MP3-swapping cheating.

      Now on to the impact. There are several kinds of ShowEQ users. One is the "I just want a damn map" sort. For them, even post-new-encryption, ShowEQ works just as well as it always has. If Sony would add a map to the game, most of them would probably stop using ShowEQ. But the last thing Sony wants is after-market tools for EQ (they've banned people for using MP3 players that cat attach to DirectX for the controls).

      There are also the people who use ShowEQ as an edge. IMHO, when the people who play that game spend cumulative weeks of their lives playing, I don't see running a program that tells you where the nearest creature of your level is as a terribly bad thing. The fact that it's available to all and not horded by a select few is a bonus, since most information in the game *is* horded.

      Then there are the people who use ShowEQ for things like guild raids and the like. These people are just a different kind of mage, IMHO. You have your warriors, your damage-mages, your healers and the clairsentient who can tell when your target has spawned. Some people get very upset about this latter class of player because they give an engtire guild an edge. Me, I'm neutral. I'd be upset if that guild pushed it too far, but honestly when Sony comes out with an entire expansion and 90% of it is beyond the capabilities of 99% of the player-base I have to ask who THEY are trying to convince that the game is good enough as delivered....

    25. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by archeopterix · · Score: 2

      I don't think the whole affair is about "the right to cheat". To me it is about poorly implemented anti-cheating measures. It's simply impossible to create a waterproof client.

      Process table scanning? I can rename the cheating program, change its size, whatever. Memory scanning? A bit tougher to beat - but I can run the client under VMWare, Bochs or any other virtualization software, this way it only sees what's inside the virtual box. Another option is using a mutation engine (virus writers use them to fool virus scanners). Besides, the client can only scan for known popular cheating software, not for any custom code. Code obfuscation? I don't know of any successful attempt at deterring hackers by obfuscating code.

      To put it short (for the 1000-th time in this thread) - if you don't want the user to know it, don't send it to the client. So my sympathetic view of the cheaters comes not from my sympathetic view of cheating, but from my attitude towards client-side security.

    26. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Catiline · · Score: 2
      People are not claiming the right to cheat: I have never heard anybody complain that online chess servers don't allow them to log in and remove the other guys queen while he is taking a bathroom break.
      I hate playing chess over Yahoo or any other public server! Why? It restricts me to the classical rules of chess when I want to play cooler games like Knightmare Chess or perhaps just other, tamer, variants on chess! Most of these rules require "cheating" as you so sladerously phrased it! Until this severe lack of client functionality has been remedied, I refuse to play online chess!

      (<sarcasm> tags omitted as I'm not really sure I'm 100% joking....)

    27. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by JebusIsLord · · Score: 2

      And they aren't taking away the right to hack your own computer, they are just taking away your right to play EQ if you choose to do so. EQ, btw, isn't a constitutional right.

      --
      Jeremy
    28. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

      Is EQ beatable yet?

      --
      sig?
    29. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by JDAustin · · Score: 1

      Whats the point of the rangers Track skill when a non-ranger has seq? They can know where every mob in a zone is and track down a named mob easily. That's cheating.

    30. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      uh uh. When two people play chess by agreed upon rules it's not cheating at all. You're just limited in the fact that your client only plays traditional rules.

      When I join a Day of Defeat server, it is expected that everyone plays by the rules. If I have no cheats, and you have an aimbot or runfast and I don't know about it that upsets the balance. If you want to cheat, play on a cheating server.

    31. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1, Troll

      I agree. The bit near the end where he compares this to Tivo development is really galling. If you modify a Tivo, you are hacking, and should be respected and encouraged. If you use seq, you are cheating, and should be shot.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    32. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If Sony would add a map to the game, most of them would probably stop using ShowEQ.

      Yes, and if Sony would just send me dvds for nothing, I would stop using Kazaa too.

    33. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I have yet to meet a gamer who hasn't read the "GM's only" section of a book

      My god what a bunch of pathetic players you must hang with. Back in the day I ran a D&D game for over 10 years and my players would never read a module before playing, and very rarely after. It was unthinkable. Why ruin the game for yourself and everyone else?

    34. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Game designers should take a page from the crypto world. I should be able to know all the game mechanics, yet still find the game engaging."

      If we followed your advice then third parties would not even have to break the code since we would be giving you the plaintext.

      "The only way around this is to keep everything focused on the story."

      The problem with this approach is the hack and slash masses do not want the story, they want to hack and slash to gain XP and level level level.

      Finally if we kept everything focussed on the story we would not be letting you know the mechanics. Unless you are saying pen and paper and mmorpgs are fundamentally different. In which case your argument is pointless. So either way you shot your own argument in the foot.

      Thanks for playing though.

      pm

    35. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      If we followed your advice then third parties would not even have to break the code since we would be giving you the plaintext.

      I think that by "know all the game mechanics" the poster was referring to the fact that generally the encryption mechanisms are not kept secret.
      All the little details of DES, and SHA, and MD5, are well known, and available to anyone who picks up a book on crypto. But that doesn't mean that using those algorithms is equivalent to plain-text.

    36. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 2

      And yet, no one is forced to serve you. That is a freedom enjoyed by just about anyone. So if, for instance, I run a game server, and I believe you are a cheating bastard, I have every right to disallow you from playing there. I also have the right to protect data packets coming from and going to my server with whatever means I see fit, if I believes it keeps cheaters from being able to operate inappropriately on there.

      What if I ran a restaurant with a dress code, and you came shabbily dressed, but instead of turning you away, I gave you a jacket and tie and allowed you inside? That would be Sony, allowing the cheaters to play, but without their cheating software. See? No one's rights have been infringed at all.

    37. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what? Sony, so far hasn't gone after people for hacking or modifying software. They've simply made your mods not function correctly.

      Let me ask you this: Do you believe that you have the right to make any modifications you want to software you own, but that Sony does NOT have the right to make modifications to software THEY own? Are you advocating rights for everyone, or only for you?

    38. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

      I think that creating a totally thin game client is not as easy as you think it is. In the case of a game like Everquest, with several hundred thousand subscribers, I would be more likely to use a word such as "impossible".

    39. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you define beatable. You can reach your level cap, and the hardcore players have done so within a week or two of release of the expansion, but after that there of course remains loads to do, quests to finish and items to acquire. Development is really, really slow in the high levels, you often need dozens of people in your guild to play for days along with you to advance one guild member a little bit. It's really quite mad.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    40. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Znork · · Score: 2

      No. Aimbot developers are entirely within their rights to create whatever they want and shoot the crap out of the other poor players. The q3, UT or CS developers are just as umm... 'security challenged' in designing 'hack safe' games as the EverQuest team is. I dont play such games online for just that reason. If it turns other players off the game too, then _good_. Maybe anti-cheating security will actually reach the agenda for implementing a game if nobody wants to play CheaterStrike anymore.

      The blame for cheating should be assigned to exactly the one place where it belongs: To the designers who lacked the skills to do the job right, or to the management who decided to do things the wrong way.

      There is one way, and _only_ one way to prevent cheating and that is _do not ever trust the client_.

    41. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by saurik · · Score: 1

      When you go to a casino, do you have the "right to cheat"? They watch you with video cameras, keep track of game play with statistics analysers (to better allocate resources to watching unlikely winning streaks), rotate their cards when at all possible, and reserve the right to throw you out, ban you from the casino, and if neccessary prosecute you for your _crime_ against their casino. I don't see why things should be any different for an online game.

      Some people have been making arguments about being able to do anything you want on your own computer, and I will somewhat agree with those (I think some of them go to far...). However, those arguments have no place here. Whether or not you get to do something on your computer doesn't mean you can use that to connect up to someone else's systems and use it.

      Just because I can hack together my own telephone out of parts in my apartment, that doesn't mean that I'm allowed to plug just anything I want onto my phone wire... I could break things for the phone company or other people living near me.

      And whether or not the problem _can_ be solved doesn't mean anything either. Just because someone _will_ be able to cheat at the casino doesn't mean that the casino should just give up, lay down their arms and restrictions, and just prepare to lose a lot of money. Nor does this mean that they have no right to do anything because their games could be constructed better so maybe you _can't_ cheat (or at least, not as much). The points people are making that the server shouldn't be sending information to the client is much akin to saying that games at casinos shouldn't use cards... I mean... 52 different possibilities for a draw? There just aren't enough variables there to keep people using assistance technology from cheating by card counting. Even with multiple decks it's too easy to keep track of all the possibilities. There are lots of better ways to construct games that people can bet at where technological assistance won't help much. Example: base something around a game of Go.

    42. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Spruce+Moose · · Score: 1
      Sure you can say there were "legitimate" reasons to mod the boxes, but come on.



      In Australia it's still an open legal question whether modchips are actually illegal. See this
      and this

      However pirates should get what they deserve - walk the plank perhaps.

    43. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by OpenGLFan · · Score: 1

      FICS has had a few chess variants for a while, like suicide and bughouse. It also uses timeseal, which some (unnamed) online game playing systems STILL don't use to combat lag. They also have live broadcast of chess events (Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, with comments by grandmasters and analysis by chess computers) and a new "teaching ladder". Good stuff.
      http://www.freechess.org.

    44. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by taverngeek · · Score: 1

      > if you don't want the user to know it, don't send it to the client.

      Nice principle, but not always practical. There have been /. articles on cheating with modified graphics cards. A multiplayer game is not going to make the server responsible for rendering graphics. Too much computational work is needed for the servers to not rely upon the clients or the clients not to rely upon the graphics cards.

      It will always be a cat and mouse game between the game's programmers and the cheaters. The cheaters may find a way to reveal enough info that it negatively affects gameplay for the noncheaters. If the game is to survive then it's programmers need to find a way to minimize the advantages gained by the cheaters without moving too much load to their game's servers.

    45. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Your second and third categories of ShowEQ use most definitely unbalance the game toward people who use ShowEQ. It violates the spirit of the game (read: is cheating). I don't understand how making a semantic argument about whether EQ is a game or a social venue has anything to do with whether using ShowEQ is cheating or not.
      Simply put, Verant/SOE defined the rules of the game, and among those rules was "no third-party programs". People who can't fit within those rules, but choose to play anyway, are cheating, to the detriment of everyone else who plays by the rules.

      As an aside: you can get maps by using UI mods. Granted, they aren't interactive, but they're still maps, and by using your brain you can figure out where you are.

    46. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by ajs · · Score: 2

      1) you assume there is a universal "spirit of the game". There is not. There are quests in this game that are nearly unsolvable (even given detailed descriptions) without ShowEQ. There are players who simply would not play if they couldn't tell where the group that just invited them was (I'm paraphrasing another poster).

      2) I'm not playing semantic games. If you're playing chess with another person, you two agree on rules and violating those is cheating. If you and I take part in a larger social group and we things that the people who organized the group do not want, that's just how humans work in large groups. Not everyone follows the same code, and much as Sony wants to think of EQ as subscription donkey-kong, they're dead wrong. They've created a world, and catch-phrases asside, it's not theirs anymore, it belongs to the nebies and the ubers, the ebayers and the showeqers, the guides and the pvpers. They can shut off the servers and refund everyone's money, but that's about the extent of the "ownership" that they have over what people do. Beyond that, there's enforcement. Notice that in the real world we have enforcement too. *That* is the key. The guides and GMs will arbitrate what is and isn't an abuse, and since I know that many guides use ShowEQ, I'm confident that *that* arbitration will be somewhat even-handed. The only way it could get better is if we elected the guides in the first place.

      As for UI-mod mapping. I can get a map on a piece of paper too, and it's about as useful (read: not). Real games have maps. So does EQ, Sony just dosn't like it. Tough nuts, I guess.

    47. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Hobbex · · Score: 2

      As long as they keep the DMCA etc in their pants, Sony can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. My comment was in regards to trying to equate claiming the right to hack your software to claiming the right to cheat.

      Sony can of course write software that does anything they want it to, although, personally, I find it highly disturbing that people are willing to accept user hostile software running on their systems. PCs are communication devices, and in many ways they serve as extensions of ourselves into cyberspace, that they should even attempt to control us terifies me beyond words. But then, even here, most people seem to think that is a splendid idea when it suits them (and they can't all be MS astroturfers).

    48. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Chasuk · · Score: 2

      This:

      I don't think the whole affair is about "the right to cheat". To me it is about poorly implemented anti-cheating measures.

      Contradicts this:

      It's simply impossible to create a waterproof client. ... which appears in the same paragraph. If a waterproof client in impossible to create, then "poorly implemented anti-cheating measures" have nothing to do with the failure of the programmers to keep out the cheaters.

      However, your argument doesn't work, at any rate. Why should I have to spend thousands of dollars on a lock (or thousands of dollars developing a lock) to keep out scum? A lock should only be required to keep out casual thieves - the "accidental" thieves. Those thieves who some flaw in their nature can't resist the theft if it is too easy. If the keys are left in the car, etc. No, I'm not excusing that behavior, but it is moderately understandable.

      But the hardcore thieves, and the hardcore cheaters, are human excrement. No excuse exists for their behavior.

      It is because of these fuckheads that we will one day live in a totalitarian state: the powers that be will deprive all of us of our basic rights because talented and bored assholes exercise their "rights" to snoop on other peoples servers.

      I guess we will all get what they deserve.

    49. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more time, because you apparently didn't read it the first time:

      Sony is doing nothing to prevent you from modifying the game. Modify the hell out of it, if that's your thing. They ARE preventing you from shitting up their servers with your modified game, which seems perfectly fine to me.

    50. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Back in the day I ran a D&D game for over 10 years and my players would never read a module before playing, and very rarely after."

      This is not what the previous poster said, nor do I imagine meant.

      Take, for example, AD&D. There are separate players guides and GM's guides. How many of your players had not read the GM's guide, or the monster manual? These cover the mechanics of the game. The previous poster made no mention of adventure modules or the like.

    51. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by archeopterix · · Score: 2
      This:
      I don't think the whole affair is about "the right to cheat". To me it is about poorly implemented anti-cheating measures.
      Contradicts this:
      It's simply impossible to create a waterproof client. ... which appears in the same paragraph. If a waterproof client in impossible to create, then "poorly implemented anti-cheating measures" have nothing to do with the failure of the programmers to keep out the cheaters.
      I don't see a contradiction here. I am just saying that client-side security is wrong. If you want a secure solution - sorry, you have to implement it on the server side or just trust your users not to use cheating software.
      Why should I have to spend thousands of dollars on a lock (or thousands of dollars developing a lock) to keep out scum? A lock should only be required to keep out casual thieves - the "accidental" thieves.
      Why you should? Because scum exists. But this is not the point - EQ creators are doing something different - they had a simple lock that probably worked for the casual cheaters. Now they are creating a very complicated lock that's still in the wrong place - on the client side.
      But the hardcore thieves, and the hardcore cheaters, are human excrement. No excuse exists for their behavior.
      OK. I might have sounded like I am excusing their behavior. I am not. But there's a reason to separate cheating from publishing cheating programs. I view the later as pointing out: "Your security does not work. It will not work this way, ever.". If the EQ creators get this clue (and move their security to the server side) it will ultimately work against cheaters. I am aware that moving everything to the server might be impossible - if this is so, then EQ should be honest with their users and admit it instead of sustaining the illusion that they can stop cheaters.
    52. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by kalimar · · Score: 1
      If you and I take part in a larger social group and we things that the people who organized the group do not want, that's just how humans work in large groups.

      And the people who organized the group will ostracize you and remove you from the group if there is sufficient support within the group to do so. If not, the people who ogranized the group will be the ones to leave and start their group anew. Your argument fails because in the case of EQ, Sony/Verant are the organizers and they have sufficient support to do what they please (they write the code for the game and that gives them all the support they need).

      They've created a world, and catch-phrases asside, it's not theirs anymore, it belongs to the nebies and the ubers, the ebayers and the showeqers, the guides and the pvpers. They can shut off the servers and refund everyone's money, but that's about the extent of the "ownership" that they have over what people do.
      Funny that. We don't hear about other people than Sony/Verant developing new additions to the official game. Nor do we hear about other people running servers for the game. So it sounds like Sony/Verant still own the world. The ability to shut off the game (and they don't need to refund any money if they do), gives them full ownership of the world.

      Yes. They've used the data gathered by these third-party tools to make changes to 'better' the game, but doesn't make those tools any more official, sanctioned, or approved. The use of these tools by guides and GMs, doesn't make those tools any more official, sanctioned, or approved either.

      Beyond that, there's enforcement. Notice that in the real world we have enforcement too. *That* is the key.
      Exactly. And if the form of enforcement that Sony/Verant wants to use is to change the data that the client gets, or ban third-party software from accessing the data from the game, then that's their perogative. And if they feel that guides or GMs aren't performing their functions correctly, then those guides and GMs will no longer be guides or GMs.

      If people are using EQ as a social venue rather than a game, then you know what, it won't matter if SEQ or other packet analyzers are banned or allowed. Why? Because people who are using EQ as a social venue, won't/don't care about the exact weapon ratings, location of mobs, health of mobs, etc.

      Lastly,

      you assume there is a universal "spirit of the game". There is not. There are quests in this game that are nearly unsolvable (even given detailed descriptions) without ShowEQ.
      This is a nice non-sequitor. "Spirit of the Game" has nothing to do with whether or not there are some very hard and complicated quests. There is a universal "spirit of the game". It's defined in the agreements that you click-through and agree to before entering the game. It probably says something along the lines of:
      • You shall not cheat (as defined by what the game developers decide is cheating)
      • You shall respect other players and not use foul, obscene, or otherwise distasteful language
      • You shall not infringe upon the right of others to enjoy the game within the above

      Not obeying that is violating the 'universal spirit of the game' that you claim doesn't exist.

      Now to deal with your statement that there are things that can't be done "without ShowEQ". Please. Come on. That's possible the most ridiculous reason to use to try to legitimize the use of something. Have you considered that there are some things that are in the game that can not be done? Have you considered that some things need a lot more thought and effort than "Go to place A, pick up item B, kill monster C, talk to NPC D, go to place E, and give item B and loot C to object F"? Not everything is straight-forward.
      After you 'solve' a quest with ShowEQ, do you ever try every combination of things without ShowEQ to try see if you jumped the gun on using SEQ to solve the quest? Or do you just tuck that bit of information away as a crutch?

    53. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by ajs · · Score: 2

      Wow, you obviously feel very strongly about this, and I'm glad. People should feel strongly about this sort of thing, because EQ is just the start. In 20-30 years, online societies will be the norm, and we should be discussing now what that means to us.

      As for your comments, well, I disagree but you knew that :-)

      Specifically, you say, "You shall not cheat (as defined by what the game developers decide is cheating)" and much of your comments are shades of this statement. If you are happy with that, then I invite you to go play the game that way. I'm not taking a stand either way, I'm just saying that the people who use ShowEQ will continue to do so, and Sony can never stop that. They don't "own" the world in the sense that they cannot take their ball and go home with it. If they do, they have no players and there is no "ball". They must negotiate the behavior of the world with the players, and they do. If they simply banned all users of ShowEQ (assuming they could tell who they were) their profits would take a huge hit (some estimates put ShowEQ use at 10% of the user-base).

      So, in the end your notions of a dictatorship of the developers falls flat. ShowEQ is not cheating because nothing is cheating in a complex society.

      Let's take another angle and see if that becomes more clear.

      Sony has introduced a very poor pathing model into the game. Mobs behave stupidly with respect to following other mobs (including players), and this leads to all manner of problems. One of those problems is that there are places where certain tactics become more favorable. One example: on the sixth floor of ToFS, there is a place where the mobs will get lost, running back-and forth. If you don't know about it, it can lead to trains that can wipe out your party. If you do know about it, it can be used to great advantage. According to Verant, you're supposed to suffer the first run-in with this bug and get wiped out, but while you may wish to avoid that wipe-out a second time you cannot use this new knowledge to your advantage. You must simply ignore it, and fight elsewhere.

      Of course, this is not what people do. Necromancers fear-kite there all the time because it's easy. I have not done this, so I feel fairly safe in pointing it out, but I play a high-level necro, so I've come across it in a number of forums and discussions in-game.

      Is this cheating? According to Verant, yes. But according to necromancers, no. Gaining an understanding of a zone and how it will interact with your primary soloing strategy is one of the most important things for a necro to do. Why on earth would you NOT do that? And when you discover a mob that you can kill and a place that is safe for you to do it, why would you not? Because Verant/Sony says you should not? Why does creating a bad pathing system give you the right to tell people how to use it? This is not a competition between Sony and I. I just want to kill the mob so I can gain a level and try out new abilities. Sony can bite my shiny new spell-slots.

      Now, if I was using ShowEQ to gain an edge in PvP, *that* is cheating. Why? Because there is a direct competition between you and me, and I'm violating the rules of our competition. THIS is what cheating is. Cheating is not violating some tyrant's decree, it's violating the rules of a competition.

      ShowEQ is a tool. It can be used for good (I've seen people help others get their corpses when no necros would stop to help, and I know they're using ShowEQ); it can be used in ways that no one should care about (locating groups, etc); and it can be used to cheat (as above). Does it give you an edge? Sure. So does having a fast machine, a fast connection and a guide on initial character creation. So does using pathing to your advantage. So does tracking. So does using fear in PvP (which Sony finally got around to disallowing).

      Everyone has access to that edge, and IMHO, everyone should use it. Sony says no now, but what happens when EVERY SINGLE PLAYER uses it? Then it's a non-issue. They'll fix the protocol so that the stuff they don't want to get out won't and ShowEQ will just be another sort of UI-mod.

    54. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by kalimar · · Score: 1
      First: I agree that if Sony/Verant simply and outright banned all ShowEQ users (if they could determine who they were), then they would lose tons of money.
      Second: I agree that Sony/Verant are doing the right thing by negotiating with it's users.
      Third: I agree that if they take their ball and go home, then there is no ball. <Matrix>There is no spoon</Matrix>
      Fourth: I agree that ShowEQ is a tool (and like other tools) and not inherently bad.
      Fifth: I agree that having an edge is important. It feels good to know that you have one up against whatever you are competing against.
      Now is where I think we start to diverge in opinion. Sixth: A bad pathing system does not mean that it is ok to abuse that pathing system for your own gain. Likewise, a bad pathing system does not mean that the creator of it shouldn't improve it.
      Your statement: "Why does creating a bad pathing system give you the right to tell people how to use it?" illustrates one of the big differences of opinion that shake the software market, not just EQ. Just replace "pathing system" with just about anything else. On the one hand, you have the developers and creators of the software along with the people who maintain the server/game. On the other, you have the users who are trying to get the most for their money. The developers/creators/maintainer only want you to use the software within the bounds that they've specified (not abusing poorly designed parts of their software, etc). The users see the fact that part of the software is poorly designed as an opportunity to exploit the poor design to get 'an edge'.
      The big question is "Who is in the right?" The answer? Your guess is as good as mine. I tend towards the ambiguous "Both and neither".
      Developers/creators/maintainers shouldn't allow poor design to last very long on the one hand. By doing so, they are implicitly allowing the abuse of those poor designs.
      Users, though, shouldn't abuse those poor designs if they know that doing so violates the spirit of the game. (ie, just because the folks running the game aren't enforcing the rules completely, doesn't mean that you can abuse the rules that aren't being enforced). [ You can draw this analogy with speeding laws in the U.S. Are they vigorously enforced? No. You can be going 20 mph over the speed limit and as long as you aren't being reckless, chances are you won't be pulled over. ]
      Is it reasonable to expect users to not get the most from their software? No.
      Is it unreasonable for the folks running the game to expect users to follow the letter of the rules as well as the spirit? No.
      You need to find a happy median. Those that can't live with it will leave. If the developers/etc can't live with it, the software dies. If a major percentage of the user base can't live with it, the software dies.

      Lastly, "ShowEQ is not cheating because nothing is cheating in a complex society." is a fallacy. Cheating does exist in complex society. See the posts about measures that casinos take to prevent cheating. Also, see all the news stories to see all the trouble that corporations and individuals get in when they are caught cheating. And check the law books to see all the laws that define what cheating is in terms of business and individual practices. Seriously.
      I think what you wanted to say is that ShowEQ should not be considered cheating because all it does is display information available to everyone's client. Everyone's client gets the data. ShowEQ just shows it to the folks that use it. If ShowEQ connected to the EQ server and got information that isn't sent to the client, then ShowEQ would definitely be cheating. But as you said, and I agree with, ShowEQ is a tool. And as with all tools, it should be certain uses of those tools that are 'cheating' or 'illegal', not the tools themselves.

    55. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ran a game, it would suck. Idiots and any kind of online game just plain don't mix. Universally, it's the idiots that foul up the various games for everybody else.

    56. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by ajs · · Score: 2

      Wow, good stuff. I think you've nailed down most of what we're talking about and summarized it well. Just one thing:

      The big question is "Who is in the right?"

      I don't agree that this is even a question worth asking in this context. Everyone comes to the table with their own morals and ethics and new ethics will be developed in-game (e.g. KSing is bad, but we all have a general "sense" for when it's just one of those things that happens, and you walk away).

      The real question is how do we, as a player base, feel about ShowEQ? Do we approve of its use always? Are we ok with its use in certain circumstances? It's kind of like The Matrix. ShowEQ, in some respects, lets you be Neo. You can step behind the illusion and see what's really going on. I have no problem with the idea that someone in the zone with me is "a Neo", as long as they obey Crowley's 8 little words ("An it harm none, do what thou will").

      The word "cheating" may be a red herring in this case, and you and I will simply have different takes on it.

      I think Sony's real problem here is that they're thinking of this as a video game. They're absolutely stunned that people don't play it for the reasons that they want them to. You do want to get to the "end-game" right? You are playing this to see what's around the next corner, right?

      Nope. Lots of people play to socialize. Lots play to get a sense of being helpful (e.g. the vast majority of clerics). Lots play the game specifically to find bugs and play with them (I know I've had fun running along the walls in Cabilis, looking at the mazes). There are even a huge number of people who play the game to make real-world money. All of the above I have no problem with, and would even encourage as long as it's not harming anyone. But, Sony is stuck on this idea of the traditional video game.

      Oh well.

    57. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 2

      You're right about idiots, but your comment lacks any meaning or actual relevance to its own context, and it fails to address any of my argument.

      I'm generous, so I'll give it a D+. Thanks for playing.

    58. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRT the pathing code:I think you're missing an important fact. According to ajs, Verant's attitude to the pathing bug is "you'll learn your lesson the first time you come here, by dying". It's not "oh, sorry, let us fix that". If they ignore an aspect of their pathing code that causes players problems, then players should be able to take advantage of any situations that arise due to that pathing code.

      The situation would be different if that area was specifically designed to be a near-deathtrap. Of course, in that case, if they don't want players using a legit skill in a legit way (e.g. here's a bunch of monsters, but they can only do bad things to you, you aren't allowed to use them beneficially), then they should make it obvious and disable certain skills in that area.

    59. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      To your 8 little words, I counter with four... "My house, my rules." Irrespective of whether or not ShowEQ is used for legitimate purposes or not, Sony has the right to decide whether or not you can play on their servers or not. They're not stopping you from making any modifications to their product after purachse... merely setting rules and conditions for play on their servers... which to me is no more unreasonable than a restaurant bearing a "No shirt, no shoes, no service" placard.

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    60. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by crawdaddy · · Score: 1

      Not all "user hostile software" is equally hostile. And I'm very reluctant to call a game that at all.

      All this boils down to is the fact that this is a GAME. There are set rules and guidelines. These rules and guidelines are dictated by Sony, the owners of the game. They may also enforce the rules of the game since the players, unlike board games, cannot enforce the rules upon each other. By deciding to play this game, you are expected to play by the rules of the game. If you don't, then you aren't allowed to play. Is it really that terrible if Sony somehow checks your machine to see if you're cheating, even if it means looking at the processes and programs running? Yes and no. It depends on what they do with this information. If they only take the pertinent infomation (what this may be, I do not know), and do not store it, then no, this is not a bad thing. If they store any information, I think it wouldn't reflect well upon them. But they're not, so it doesn't.

      Do you feel violated/terrified at the idea that someone might try to keep you from taking money out of the bank when playing Monopoly? What about the fact that you can't see the letters you're picking in Scrabble until after you've drawn them...does that thought disturb you in someway? Do you play poker with people and demand they stop trying to control what you can and cannot see by not showing you their hands?

    61. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by ajs · · Score: 2

      Sony has the right to decide whether or not you can play on their servers or not. They're not stopping you from making any modifications to their product after purachse... merely setting rules and conditions for play on their servers.

      They have that right. They can ban each an every one of us at a moment's notice. In fact, that trigger-happy attitude is likely the reason I'll stop playing EQ some day.

      But the question still remains, what will we, the players make of ShowEQ. I don't really care about what Sony thinks. If they ban me, I'm free at last. If they don't I'll do what I want.

      But I respect the opinions of many of my fellow players. Let's say for sake of argument that I don't use ShowEQ, but I'm thinking about it. How will my guild-mates feel? How will my RL friends who play feel? Will the benefits to myself and my friends be outweighed by the social pressure? Will I be a paraih?

      Those are the issues that concern me, not Sony's silly rules.

    62. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by locust · · Score: 2
      If we followed your advice then third parties would not even have to break the code since we would be giving you the plaintext.


      No, game mechanics like crypt algorithm should all be in the open. If a sword does 10 points of damage against fuzzy armor and 5 points against furry armor, everyone should know it. Just like everyone can know how AES works.


      if we kept everything focussed on the story we would not be letting you know the mechanics.


      Game mechanics model the world and define the posible actions that a player can take. So you can't have a game with out mechanics, even the simplest games where you only get to answer questsion (i.e. go left/go right) have them. You have to let the player know some part of the mechanics or else they can't play the game.


      One way in which a massively multiplayer online rpg can use a story driven approach is to have some set of events which most characters find compelling and thus participate in, or are effected by. The players should be able to effect the outcome of the events and face the consequences of thier actions.


      --locust

    63. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by kalimar · · Score: 1

      Oh I understand that. However, as ajs pointed out, the best way to resolve this is for the two sides (Verant and the players) to come to an understanding or agreement on the issue.
      The understanding might be that Verant isn't going to change this 'feature' and the players are going to use it to their full advantage.
      Or, the players might feel so strong about it that they do something to highlight how strongly they feel about it (by using the 'feature' to their full advantage, by boycotting the area, etc etc etc).
      A decree by one side or the other isn't going to change the poor pathing.

    64. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 2

      Everquest IS a game and using ShowEQ IS cheating. It damages the balance by giving users an unfair advantage. Take tracking for example. In Sony's view Rangers should have that ability and druids and bards have it to a lesser extent. SEQ gives it to anyone.

      but to call it cheating is like calling MP3-swapping cheating. No, this is called theft in some cases.

      --

      'Same speed C but faster'
    65. Re:Sympathic view of cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So what? Sony, so far hasn't gone after people for hacking or modifying software. They've simply made your mods not function correctly."

      And on what universe does this hold true? Sony has gone on many a banning raid.

  9. better key. by Niadh · · Score: 0

    With the PoP release, Sony improved the encryption so that it used a larger key which was more securely chosen.

    So i guess the old key of '12345' is out and the new key of '[r@k d1z 0n3 u wh0r3z' will be used.

    I almost want to get this thing just to try my hat at cracking it.

  10. Well written! by Buran · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A very well written and informative article. I'm intrigued by the story of ShowEQ -- and the fact that Sony seems to want to protect their system by deciding what users can and can't run on their computers. It reminds me of the video player that uninstalled Ad-aware automatically, claiming that running it wasn't allowed under its license. I don't believe that such things are really legal -- are they not an invasion of privacy and an illegal search? (Alas, the Constitution's protections against this in the US are only applicable to the government itself, but such practices, I feel, are going too far) Sooner or later, I think, Sony will be dragged into court over this and sued. What if, for example, they use their little spy applet to suck data off someone's computer that gives them an advantage (a competitor's computer that had confidential information, for example?).

    I am, though, a little surprised to see that the ShowEQ people haven't been sued under the DMCA. And I'm glad they haven't, because what they are doing is reverse engineering and they are not actually hacking into the client or the server, so it is legal. They are not trying to pirate the game. They are merely trying to see what exactly their computer is saying to the server and what it is receiving from it. A perfectly fair thing to do, I think, because it IS their own property and the owner of it has the right to know what exactly is happening, so they can choose whether or not to run a given application instead of having to trust the programmers. Checks and balances.

    Note: I don't play Everquest. I call it EverCrack, actually. I don't play games that I have to pay a monthly fee for. I prefer to play single-player games, or sometimes multiplayer, offnetwork, with people I already know.

    1. Re:Well written! by bryanp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm intrigued by the story of ShowEQ -- and the fact that Sony seems to want to protect their system by deciding what users can and can't run on their computers.

      Uh, no. What Sony is saying is that they don't want users cheating in their online game and therefore having an unfair advantage over the rest of the people who don't cheat.

      What's the big deal here people? If you wish to use someone's service you have to abide by their rules. If you don't like it you can leave, you can try to convince them to change their system, or you can cheat. If you get caught cheating, don't be surprised if you get slapped around.

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    2. Re:Well written! by styxlord · · Score: 1

      Cheating in online games may be legal but there's no doubting that it costs Sony money when users get pissed off and stop playing. I don't see how encrypting the client-server communications helps anyway, even if it was "unbreakable", since the haxors will just hook the client executable after it decrypts it and read it from there.

    3. Re:Well written! by UberOogie · · Score: 5, Insightful
      A perfectly fair thing to do, I think, because it IS their own property and the owner of it has the right to know what exactly is happening, so they can choose whether or not to run a given application instead of having to trust the programmers. Checks and balances.

      Surely you kid, right? ShowEQ isn't used as a security program. It is a cheating tool. Even in its most beneficent uses, it is for cheating. Period. This has got to be the most sad apologies for cheating I've ever seen.

      Sony made a game. Someone made a cheat program that unbalances the playing field. Sony has every right to try and disable this cheating program. However, their rights end where ours begin. But if they want to change the encryption in their program or make a client that monitors game traffic or the use of a specific cheat program manditory for using the game, guess what? That's their right. You don't have to play the game.

      And your analogy with ad programs that uninstall Ad-Aware is both faulty and inflamatory. Those programs are unistalling a security program from your computer so that their spyware will work. Sony is just not letting you play their game if you have a known cheat tool running on your computer. Huge difference.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    4. Re:Well written! by Buran · · Score: 2

      The comment was intended as a general thought on whether users should have to trust the programmers of any application, whether it be a game or a browser or a specialized net/Internet application. I use Mozilla, for example, because it's open source and in part because that way the authors can't hide anything sneaky in it.

      These are my personal feelings, but: if Microsoft et al think the user is untrustable and thus needs to be walled out from the system, then why should users trust Microsoft et al in return?

    5. Re:Well written! by Buran · · Score: 2

      I can understand the position of wanting to lock out cheaters, and of course measures are going to be needed to prevent that from happening. However, there are, to me at least, ways to do it that I don't think are acceptable. Sniffing around on the user's system is an invasion of privacy. It may supposedly help accomplish that goal, but it, in my eyes, goes too far. What I run on my computer while using your application is none of your business, no matter why I'm running it. If you think I'm cheating, then find another way to figure that out. (Heck, applications that don't need the Internet at all that try to phone home anyway are going too far in my eyes.)

    6. Re:Well written! by EulerX07 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm probably gonna get karma burned for this, but I'll answer to your post. I call this reply : "A word of sanity".

      Your association of this story with the video player that removed Ad-Aware is a gross misassociation and an inexcusable exageration. You then proceed to linking Sony with that situation and advancing that they will be sued. A fine example of poor logic. What Sony is doing is simply trying to level the playing field by making it harder for cheaters to gain an advantage through outside means. They OWE it to the other 99% of ALSO PAYING CUSTOMERS that do not want others to have unfair advantage. The customers paid for the right to access the online world, not to try and break the rules.

      There's a reason the client gets a lot of info about thing the player cannot see. For instance the tracking skill needs the info of all the mobs in the area to work properly. Sony is not uploading your e-mails to the CIA. And of all things, what people using ShowEQ are doing is anything but fair. Your post is seriously delusionnal.

    7. Re:Well written! by UberOogie · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The comment was intended as a general thought on whether users should have to trust the programmers of any application, whether it be a game or a browser or a specialized net/Internet application.

      It is a client/server game. By watching the information that goes to and from the server and decyphering it, you are cheating. Period. You have a choice if you choose to play the game: You can play the game and cheat, or you can play the game and not cheat. If you chose to cheat, you have to accept that Sony will try and stop you.

      That is all this boils down to. MS is just a straw man that has nothing to do with this. Apples, oranges.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
    8. Re:Well written! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think people are using ShowEQ for, eh? Just to "see" what's being sent to their computer? They could use any packet sniffer for that, why have one specialized for Everquest in particular?

      Well, for one, it makes it easier to cheat. And in games that haven't switched off the dreary hack and slash model yet, having better numbers than the other player is what you want. To be the best, you have to have the better numbers. ShowEQ gives them the information that they need to get those better numbers, however they can. Even if it is "perfectly legal" (which evidently you even doubt yourself, what with the DMCA reference), it's immoral, and it's cheating the people who are paying to play the game FAIRLY.

      I suppose you can't expect much from someone who's so mature he's still haw-hawing at "Evercrack" like he invented the term.

    9. Re:Well written! by jmauro · · Score: 1

      There was no sniffing on people's computers by sony. They just implemented a stronger protocol for their encryption. The sniffing was done by the cheaters on the packets going from the program you installed to sony's computers. Sony isn't invading your property, just making cheating harder.

    10. Re:Well written! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to read the post above. ShowEQ was primarily used because people who used the software (paying a monthly fee mind you!) couldn't get the information about their characters they needed to properly strategize. (mana, equipment effects..) That EQ never included this is lame in my mind, and they should at least make some concessions to the users, and include strategic information. Now, it may be that the developers of EQ thought that not having such information added to the "real" aspect of the game (i.e. in real life who the hell knows how much damage their plate mail deflects?? who uses platemail anyway) so in that case it would be justified...It would be nice if the users were made aware of that. Also, maybe EQ should rethink how they manage the elements that ShowEQ is capable of hacking, since encryption is something that is just a fix...It seems to me there's a fundamental flaw in their software design. ah well.

    11. Re:Well written! by Buran · · Score: 2

      The invasion part occurs when they scan your computer to see what other processes are running. It is fairly well known that EQ does this. They're looking to make sure You Aren't Running Anything The Big Megacorp Doesn't Want You To Be Running When You Use Their Stuff. For anti-cheating purposes, supposedly.

      It's a slippery slope. If they start doing it with a game, which most people are going to write off as "it's just a game" -- how long before it starts happening with truly important software? Someone said that my mention of Microsoft was apples and oranges, but is it? As far as anyone knows, they don't do this sort of sniffing -- yet -- but I wouldn't be surprised if they start doing it to, say, find out if people are actually using OpenOffice as opposed to their own Office, and trying to disable OO if so with scary enigmatic "error" messages.

      THAT is what I'm talking about...

    12. Re:Well written! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone actually followed EQ for the 1st 4 years they would remember Verant originally put in software to detect ShowEQ on Windows. It would scan your filesystem and memory space. That lasted about 3 days before a lawsuit was placed on their front step. Charges were dropped, scanning code was removed and we're exactly where we were since that day.

    13. Re:Well written! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about one of the other posts above that talks about detecting nearby enemies? What about the ARTICLE stating that it could generate maps? What about all that stuff, huh? Sounds like cheating to me.

    14. Re:Well written! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony is NOT losing money because people are using Showeq.

      People playing Everquest have NO CLUE that someone else may be using Showeq. NONE. Unless the person using Showeq says something, which would be really stupid.

    15. Re:Well written! by UncleFluffy · · Score: 2
      The invasion part occurs when they scan your computer to see what other processes are running. It is fairly well known that EQ does this.

      IIRC, they stopped doing this a while back and "promised" never to do it again. However, anyone who trusts that promise may be interested in a bridge I have to sell.

      I still have copies of the packet logs containing parts of the directory structure of my hard disc that were being sent out from my PC in cleartext, without my informed consent. Very dubious legal ground, Sony, as you were reminded at the time.

      As far as MS goes, anyone remember the mysterious - and apparently deliberate - incompatibility between Win 3.1 and DR-DOS ?

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

    16. Re:Well written! by mabinogi · · Score: 2

      The number one rule when developing ANY client / server application, in which security matters at all, is DO NOT TRUST THE CLIENT. And that most certainly goes for the user using the client too.

      Microsoft (and Sony for that matter) not trusting the user is just good practice.

      Not trusting Sony in return is also good practice, so take your own security measures...and run the game as an untrusted user on your system..
      That way you know it can't kill anything not running as that user.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    17. Re:Well written! by duggy_92127 · · Score: 1
      Those programs are unistalling a security program from your computer so that their spyware will work. Sony is just not letting you play their game if you have a known cheat tool running on your computer. Huge difference.

      Two things.

      One, it is different, but not because of why you seem to think it's different. The difference is the spyware programs uninstall things on your system, and EQ might just refuse to run if it detects ShowEQ running. The first is badness, the second is Sony's right to design the game as they choose. The fact that in one case it's a "security program" and the other is a "cheating program" makes no difference at all.

      Two, after I buy it, the client isn't really theirs anymore, it's mine. If I want to hex dump it or sniff packets or RAM, it's completely my business. If they want their servers to behave one way or another (ala the Xbox Live situation), that's completely their right. But what happens on my computer and my network is not up to Sony to approve or disapprove.

      They can sell me whatever they want, and I can modify it however I want, and their servers can do whatever they want to allow me to connect or not. That's how it lies.

      Doug

    18. Re:Well written! by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      Surely you kid, right? ShowEQ isn't used as a security program. It is a cheating tool. Even in its most beneficent uses, it is for cheating. Period. This has got to be the most sad apologies for cheating I've ever seen

      It's pretty sad that a statement like this is modded 5, Insightful. Heh... it's a joke actually. The fact of the matter is, ShowEQ was/is responsible for the state of EverQuest today. If not for ShowEQ, most of the major bugs/problems in the game would never have been fixed (or identified). ShowEQ has been and continues to be the single most useful development tool for EverQuest ever designed.

      Every major "problem" Verant has come across has been reported to them, identified and investigated with ShowEQ. EQ wouldn't be half the game it is today without it.

    19. Re:Well written! by Quixadhal · · Score: 2

      Soooo, by your analysis, we all cheated like fiends back in the days of "The Bard's Tale" by making paper maps as we played the game?

      Likewise, obviously we're all cheaters by drawing maps of an area based on the DM's description when playing live role-playing games.

      IF the maps on EverQuest were randomly generated, I might agree that it's a bit of a cheat to show you the entire map without exploring... but since they are static and unchanging, doesn't it really just level the field for people who DON'T have photographic memories or spend 8 hours a day playing?

      Having said that, I don't know if ShowEQ also does other kinds of things like display hostile mobs or other players... that is certainly cheating. Displaying the map is just a way to avoid spending the $40 for a printed "EQ Atlas" and having to use room lighting to read it.

      All you people who cry "cheat" every time someone does anything outside the normal game... try playing a game of cards with the corners removed. Those little numbers up there used to be considered cheating by some, as you could obviously tell what the card was by counting the pips, or by the picture on the face.

      If Sony is really serious about stopping cheaters, then they need to do some real analysis of their protocol and both find a better encryption system AND reduce the amount of client-side data. If it's running under windoze, people can and will scan memory for soemthing that looks like map data, even if they don't snoop the packets. Maybe what they ought to do is either introduce randomness into the maps (not easy, as they are all hand-designed), or give people what they obviously want... a map which you can choose to not use.

      PS: I used to play EQ around the second expansion. I'm an explorer type, so I DO enjoy wandering around and learning where things are. Once you've wandered an area a few times though, it's just tedium to try and remember exactly where things are, and so I used paper maps after I was done exploring and just wanted to get to somewhere specific. An in-game map would have been nice, or just the ability to alt-tab to a web browser for that matter.

    20. Re:Well written! by writertype · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, with regards to just the writing itself, many of the comments attached to the article were better written than the article. Just a stylistic comment :)

    21. Re:Well written! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still have my original DR-DOS 6.0 purchase receipt. Alas, the media and box have long since vanished. But I was *quite* mad about switching to MS-DOS, just to get Windows. Which was the hottest technology at the time ... not counting X-Windows.

      Ever since then, I've disliked Bill Gates ... but admired his ruthlessness as it resulted in where he is today.

  11. Re:What up What up? by KILNA · · Score: 1

    That's over $18,000 if you were paid minimum wage. I imagine you have at least a minimum of marketable skills above your average burger-flipper, seeing as you can operate a computer and read slashdot, you would likely be making much more than that. You could build your own beowulf cluster, or a really decent car. You could take a few months off and travel. Heck, you could put a down payment on a house.

    --
    Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
  12. Clickthrough License by man_ls · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In EverQuest, the license agreement must be accepted each time you start up the game.

    No auto-yes option. No "I understand and agree, don't tell me again" option. You [b]must[/b] click "I Accept" every time the game EXE is called.

    If you've accumulated any significant level or /played time, you've seen that license hundreds of times. Whether or not you've read it is illrelevant, but you've willingly clicked yes to it hundreds, if not thousands of times.

    I'd say that makes it pretty binding.

    1. Re:Clickthrough License by Flamerule · · Score: 4, Informative
      In EverQuest, the license agreement must be accepted each time you start up the game.

      [...]

      I'd say that makes it pretty binding.

      Well, no. A contract forced on one party by another, with no negotiation whatsoever, is never a real legally-binding contract, no matter how many times the powerless party is forced to click "I Agree".

      Also, I'd just like to say that having to click through an EULA every time one uses EverQuest is, ah... extremely fucked-up.

    2. Re:Clickthrough License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It isn't running the client that would bind you to the agreement, but connecting to EQ's servers. Most EULAs are legal bullshit no matter how many times you click on them, but this is more of a service contract, like with your cable or phone company.

      Still, I don't see what's stopping one person from playing the game while another runs a packet sniffer on a second machine on the same network. The second person can't possibly be said to have agreed to anything, so he can reverse-engineer to his heart's content.

    3. Re:Clickthrough License by dizco · · Score: 1

      If clickthrough licenses are tested in court and found to NOT be binding, it doesn't matter if you click "yes" one time or one million times, it doesn't magically become binding at some point.

      Conversly, if they are found to be binding, they're binding. You don't sign your checks a half dozen times "just to be sure" .. once is enough.

    4. Re:Clickthrough License by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. That's like saying "Well, it wasn't illegal to steal one loaf of bread, but it's illegal to steal 1000 loaves." The legality of the action (or in this case, the agreement) doesn't change with repetition, it just makes it more annoying.
      The flip side of this is that it becomes a less credible defense for someone to say "I didn't see it." or "I didn't read that."
      I played EQ for two years (stopped about a year ago) and clicked through that agreement 1000s of times, but I don't think I ever read it. Maybe I did once, but I can't remember what it said. =P

    5. Re:Clickthrough License by anonymous+loser · · Score: 2
      A contract forced on one party by another, with no negotiation whatsoever, is never a real legally-binding contract, no matter how many times the powerless party is forced to click "I Agree".


      It's not forced on anyone. There are two buttons: "agree" and "disagree" (or something like that). If you disagree with the license, you don't have to play the game. The whole point of a contract is to manage the exchange of X for Y. With EQ, you are giving up your rights to reverse engineer, sell your character, and God knows what else, in exchange for being able to play in a really big chatroom where you also get to kill giant spiders.

    6. Re:Clickthrough License by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no forced contract with EverQuest. You don't want to agree to the contract? Fine. Then you don't get to play the game. No one is putting a gun to your head and telling you to click the Yes button. You make a concious decision to agree to the contract each time you play the game. Its a VIDEO GAME, how you could even arrive at the concept of a "forced contract" in order to play is simply amazing.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    7. Re:Clickthrough License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even know where to stand there is so much wrong with both sides of this argument. First I agree with pretty much everyone that plays any online game that is not secure at all in saying "the cheats being used degrade the game to a level of unplayability unless everyone is using such cheats." In most cases I take the unpopular side to the hacking world. I do believe that game companies lose out every time you copy something and pass it off, or you hack it/crack it and hand out those cracks. I am afraid though in this case Sony has created a massive money making machine, that is funding their research of new games. Just in sales alone of the expansions and the game they have more than made the money they deserve. To take that a step further look at this computation. 400,000 subscribers paying $10.00(i know they are now charging $13.00 a month) a month equals 4 million dollars now take that to number of months EverQuest has been around 44 months as of this writing an you can see a result of 176 millions dollars in monthly revenue not including 400,000 sales of the game at $40.00(when it came out) and $25.00 an expansion(4 expansions) making a total of $140 per subscriber just to be able to play the game. This total of 5,600,000 dollars of plain sales is more than enough to run the game alone for the 44 months that it has been up. So I must say that Sony would be crazy not to try to protect the game in anyway possible, but to be so greedy is sad. The original EULA was changed after about the first year and a half of the game because intelligent gamers were using the machine Sony built to print their own version of money. The sales if items and game platinum made many games quit jobs to play nonstop. These same gamers were more than happy to have 5 or 6 accounts to maximize their profits. The advent of showEQ was a god send for these players, but many casual players and powergamers alike didn't even try it. Then to flex the muscles of the Sony money machine Sony stepped in and shut down the base of sales for these items, Ebay. Sony moved in with threats of lawsuits in hand and Ebay of course only looking out for their customers quickly pulled any posts about EQ. So now you have an edge qith showEQ, well lets see how far that edge will get you. The word exploit is boo-hoo all over the world of online games. EQ is no different. A new encounter with a strong bad guy and you come up withsomething crafty(ie hiding behind a rock so as not to be seen and casting area effect spells, or under a bridge where you cant be hit by the bad guy to cast healing spells on your compatriots) this craftiness is rewarded with a warning or a banning from the Game operators(Sony). The smallest idea of doing something strategic is frowned upon if it was not thought of by the designers(overpaid guys with a maptool). I can not find a side to be on, becuase I know that if I found a way to get rich(sony money machine) I would do anything to make sure no one could copy it or dilute it's greatness in anyway. Short of making all the fansites and strategy guides on the net go away Sony is just going to have to live witht he community being stronger than they are. Furthermore if you find offense to what Sony is doing you have the power to make their subscriber numbers go down by unsubscribing yourself. Take the fight to them where it hurts the most. Oh and by the way there are plenty of other online communities that have full mod-ability and cheats and hacks galore find one if the one you are in now does not meet your approval. Better yet create one that does. Become active in your gaming experience.

    8. Re:Clickthrough License by Izeickl · · Score: 2

      "Well, no. A contract forced on one party by another, with no negotiation whatsoever, is never a real legally-binding contract"

      Does this include the GPL license agreement with all open source software?? Yay, im gonna go steal me some code.

    9. Re:Clickthrough License by Surt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The force involved is that they already have your money, and aren't willing to return your money if you don't agree to the EULA.

      Since you can't negotiate the return of your funds for the return of all services, the EULA is void as a contract.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    10. Re:Clickthrough License by borum · · Score: 1

      And what if you only get to see the license AFTER you bought your EQ CDR?

      That pretty much nulls it (morally, probably not legally) :)

      And what if the license is changed by a patch? Don't install the patch!
      Then what if unpatched clients can't play? Well, don't play then!
      If i can't play, can i at least get my money back? No! /K

    11. Re:Clickthrough License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *All* open source software? Cockmonger.

    12. Re:Clickthrough License by canadian_right · · Score: 2

      the GPl gives you extra rights when you agree to it. If you disagree it reverts to standard copyright law where you have no rights at all.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    13. Re:Clickthrough License by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

      Your wrong, when you first purchase the game, you get the first month free. You are still required to click through the license a few dozen (if not more) times during your trial period, once that is up, you pay or move on, if you pay, that is implying you have agreed to the license which you agreed to so many times before hand during your free trial. Just because said people have not read it, does not make it any less legally binding.

      Everything inside EQ belongs to Sony, they can dictate to you what they want.

      On the otherside (yes I play eq, no I dont use showeq), the seq peeps can do whatever they like as well.. what it comes down to is, both parties need to obey the law, whether or not they do is irrelavent, they just need to follow one simple rule... "Don't get caught"

      Sony scanning machines etc, and the seq peeps reverse eng. the encryption, are technically both illegal according to current US law, but if neither party gets caught, who cares :)

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    14. Re:Clickthrough License by batkiwi · · Score: 2

      The sony EQ EULA gives you EXTRA rights when you agree to it: the right to connect to their server.

      As we all know, it's illegal to attempt to connect to a non-public system that you don't have permission to access. The EULA gives you permission to play the game on their server.

      You can RUN eq on YOUR computer all you want. In fact, sony hasn't tried to shut down the "run your own crappy eq server" projects, mainly b/c it'd take a huge company with a ton of $$$ to run servers on the scale sony/verant does.

    15. Re:Clickthrough License by ajs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every patch can change the license. How often am I expected to read it all. No, I click a button that for all intents and purposes reads "get me the f**k into EverQuest".

    16. Re:Clickthrough License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a concious decision to agree to the contract each time you play the game. Its a VIDEO GAME, how you could even arrive at the concept of a "forced contract" in order to play is simply amazing.

      I'd say its pretty easy to arrive at the concept seeing as how they shove it down your throat every single time you want to play. If you agree with this click-thru concept then you've essentially validated all the click thru EULAs you've ever encountered. You don't really want to do that do you?

      The only truly effective means of limiting cheating (you'll never get rid of cheating completely) is through better technical design (make the clients thinner) and better in game social design. Give the players an incentive to spot and stamp out cheating themselves. Game admins hired by the company can never be everywhere at once but your players can be. I agree that cheaters need to be punished but having the game company trying to fill that roll is the wrong approach. Validating Verant's misguided approach just because they're trying to catch cheaters is wrong minded IMO.

      My two cents...

    17. Re:Clickthrough License by swv3752 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no license on the outside of the box. I buy a piece of property- game cds and install it on my computer and after the seal has been broken and who knows what is now on my computer they say I have to accept this license to play the game. And they do it again after I pay ten bucks a month?

      For any normal contract you are told the terms before you pay. This was the case with my apartment, car loan, and ISP. Why should any software be subject to a different set of rules?

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    18. Re:Clickthrough License by swv3752 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You payed money for the game. You were not told the conditions of the contract before you paid for the game. Failure to agree is like throwing away money. Any eula is extorting you to agree.

      Go get a clue before you give away your rights.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    19. Re:Clickthrough License by swv3752 · · Score: 2

      You are never forced to accept the GPL. Of course, nothing else grants you the right to redistribute Copyrighted materials. Hence the difference between EULA's and the GPL, EULA's take away your rights, and the GPL grants you additional rights.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    20. Re:Clickthrough License by gimpboy · · Score: 1

      Your wrong, when you first purchase the game, you get the first month free.

      i believe the parent was referring to the initial purchase of the game, which i presume is not free. i believe he was trying to convey something along the lines of:

      when he purchased the game, he made no agreements other than i give you $n and you give me this game. once he got home, put the game in the computer, and started playing it placed a set of terms in front of him. at this point he can indeed click i disagree, but then he's pretty much up the creek since the store wont take the opened game back.

      if the eula was given to the guy at the store, and he was allowed to inspect it, then he signed his name on a piece of paper saying that he accepted the terms in the eula, then i could see your point.

      he could of course not sign up for the online service. i dont play evercrack, but as i understand it there is no offline play, except at ebay of course ;).

      since the game is sold exclusively for online play and the terms are not stated at the time of purchase, i really dont think this guy has any further obligations than those he agreed to during the initial purchase.

      of course i'm not a lawyer, and i dont suspect you are either.

      --
      -- john
    21. Re:Clickthrough License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you don't like it. Don't play the game.

      If I were you, I'd call my lawyer now and start arranging the class action lawsuit for that day about five years or so from now when Sony finally shuts down EQ and you and the last three or four people playing it get all pissed off.

    22. Re:Clickthrough License by cerberusti · · Score: 1

      Because the copy of the client and, the online service are two completely different contracts. Yes, you have a somewhat useless item if you do not sign up for the service but, nobody is forcing you to do this (they are actually two different companies as well, one is Verant, the other is Sony Station, both owned by Sony.) I also believe they will refund the purchase price if you do not agree and, do not play even a single time. I am not sure about that though. And one more thing, if sony bans the accounts of the people who do this (which they can do), and those people simply get another account OR, use someone elses account, they have now commited a criminal offense (unauthorized use of a computer system), it would be up to sony to decide if they want to go after them. If they do not, new developers will have to do each version, since the old ones will no longer be legally allowed to use everquest. Sony will win this.

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    23. Re:Clickthrough License by gandalf23atwork · · Score: 1

      You must not. Someone or something has to click I agree, but it does _not_ have to be the player. I could be the players young child, the dog, one of those birds that always bobs up and down, it could be anything. That is why it is _not_ binding, they have no proof what so ever that you, the player, actually agreed to anything. This is why in the real world things have to be signed. Then you can prove that someone has agreed to something. With a click through you have no idea who is agreeing.

    24. Re:Clickthrough License by Spruce+Moose · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not forced on anyone. There are two buttons: "agree" and "disagree" (or something like that).

      It's called a unilateral contract where one party dictates the entire terms of the agreement.

    25. Re:Clickthrough License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought the game. It's mine to do with as I please. Now, I don't own any copyrights, so I can't reproduce it. But I'm free to use it however I wish. I can use the cds for wheels on a toy car. I can use the binaries, appropriately converted, as wallpaper. Or pipe it through /dev/audio to annoy the cat.

      Why would I agree to a one-sided contract? Hey, I don't like it, I dig out the big red pen. Why don't you? A few alterations, the standard addition of reasonable fees for gracing their software with my presence, beta testing, etc....

      I have never agreed to any "standard" "boilerplate" contracts. They don't like my additions, they are free to say no. If they want to take me to court, well, they chose not to decline my changes...

    26. Re:Clickthrough License by phriedom · · Score: 1

      "The force involved is that they already have your money, and aren't willing to return your money if you don't agree to the EULA. Since you can't negotiate the return of your funds for the return of all services, the EULA is void as a contract."

      You can only use this justification: (1) if you really contacted Sony and tried to get them to refund your money and they refused AND (2) for the first 30 days that were included with your original purchase. After the first 30 days, you know what the terms and restrictions are and you are choosing to pay them a monthly fee for access to their servers. That looks like a valid contract to me.

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    27. Re:Clickthrough License by nugneant · · Score: 1

      And what if you only get to see the license AFTER you bought your EQ CDR ?

      Well, if you're buying Everquest on CD-R, then I get the feeling you don't care much about EULA's. ;)

    28. Re:Clickthrough License by Daytona955i · · Score: 1

      Actually a lot of people manage to get out of written signed contracts that weren't read all the way through. What makes you think anything I haven't signed is leagally binding? I just click a lot of buttons to play the game... I never really pay attention to what I click.
      -Chris

    29. Re:Clickthrough License by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm ... Sean Wooley DID put a gun to his head. His mom believes the EULA screen is worthless, and so do I, because it IS an addictive game.

      It should be noted, purchasing the game is not the same thing as subscribing to the game. I don't recall anything on the box that says I agree to the terms by using the CD's enclosed (though I'm sure they are there). But I do know that I had to agree to the EULA before I could finish the subscription process. So, oooo, it's a contract without negotiation prior to purchase. Great, you can contest the $50 you spent on the game. But actually PLAYING the game...

    30. Re:Clickthrough License by yerricde · · Score: 1

      Section 10 of the GNU General Public License provides for negotiation of the license agreement.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    31. Re:Clickthrough License by Surt · · Score: 2

      The problem is they try to force a license change on you after you pay during the course of a month, with no provision to refund that month's fee.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  13. Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Jerrith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The big advantage people get from decoding the zone information is the name, and to some extent, the position of monsters all over the zone. If Sony changed EQ to only send data about monsters that are near you (within a reasonable distance) there would no longer be a big reason to decode the zone data. 99% of what you'd be seeing you could also see by turning in place, and clicking on each monster.

    Due to how the servers are setup however, it seems to be more efficient for them to send out all the monsters, rather than do the range calculations and just send the nearby ones.

    My prediction, if a Windows version is released and becomes widespread (and I consider the latter likely if the former occurs), is that Sony will, finally, bite the bullet and change the code. It's not quite as straight forward as I may have made it sound, as there are some other systems (such as tracking) that will have to be significantly rewritten as well. However, if they really want to stop people getting at this data, really the only way to do it is to stop sending the parts that aren't needed. :)

    1. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

      I can see Sony sending the entire map for performance reasons, however. While it's true, it might be more secure for the client to only receive the information currently revealed to the player (thus no extra information available via packet-sniffing), there's a lot to be said for the aspect of running around an area and not needing to access the server for every new square foot revealed to the user. Accessing the CPU and memory is much faster than querying the server for each square foot. On top of all this, I'm okay with the aspect of hacking the protocol, cause you have a right to. What you don't have a right to do, at least morally, is to use this information to reduce the challenges in the game. People pay hard earned money for a subscription to Everquest, and while I avoid it like the plague, they should not be put at an unfair advantage. Everyone should be given the same advantages/disadvantages that Sony intended to put in the game, the game that people bought and carried out of the store, not the "game" that's a mutation of the store-bought version, afflicted with hacks available from cryptography experts.

    2. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      High level Rangers in the game (and druids for that matter) have the ability (in-game) to see every monster in the zone, sorted by how difficult it would be to fight them. Sony *has* to send this data to the client. Its called "Tracking".

    3. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Sony *has* to send this data to the client ... when that client is a high level ranger or druid.

      All other clients can get diddlysquat.

    4. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

      High level Rangers in the game (and druids for that matter) have the ability (in-game) to see every monster in the zone, sorted by how difficult it would be to fight them. Sony *has* to send this data to the client. Its called "Tracking".

      There's a general rule here that applies. The data can be queried over a network, or from the local computer memory. If it's queried from the memory, it's much faster, but a packet sniffer combined with client-reverse engineering can see it. If it's queried from a remote server, it can be secure, but there would be added delay for this druid's tracking ability to work. Perhaps if Sony coded things cleverly, they could keep everything on the remote side, adding in delays for walking over terrain (allowing time for new terrain info to be retrieved), and making druids take time to sense the extra monster location information. But no, you're mistaken when you imply that this tracking ability is some sort of exception to the general problem.
    5. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      Its a good idea to trade in client side computation for server side, except that EQ is the only game I have ever played online where I was as comfortable playing over modem as ethernet (cable/dsl/whatever). They have done masterful work putting key elements on client side and keeping the bandwidth necessary to a minimum. As I understand it, the monster list is sent when someone zones in, and then only changes are sent (i.e. when a monster is killed). The pathing is done locally as well (in sync with server) so that all the location data doesn't have to be sent every tick.
      Low bandwidth and security are pulling in opposite directions in this case. Sony chose low-bandwidth. I wise decision, if you ask me.

    6. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sony *has* to send this data to the client. Its called "Tracking".

      Yeah, but the "right" way to do it is for the client to request the tracking info, then the server checks the ability, and if successful, the info is sent. There's no reason to just send it to everyone.

    7. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by cerberusti · · Score: 1

      And just imagine how popular the ShowEQ guys will be when Sony announces another fee increase to support the costs of moving more of the game to the servers, which people will pay of course, since they enjoy playing the game.

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    8. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by p_trinli · · Score: 1

      Due to how the servers are setup however, it seems to be more efficient for them to send out all the monsters, rather than do the range calculations and just send the nearby ones.

      I don't know how EQ sets up its servers, but it sounds like they should have a cluster of servers, each dedicated to a small task. One computer's sole purpose could be to crunch "nearest monster location" data. This box could then send it to the server (via gigabit CAT5 or whatever) that is the last-in-line to serve up data over the network.

    9. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Znork · · Score: 2

      So, can you tell me why Sony has to send that data to a player not logged in with a tracker? Can you tell my why Sony has to send that data to a ranger who does not have his tracking window up? Can you tell me why Sony has to send the exact xyz position of the mob rather than the con level and the direction _which is what the ranger sees_?

      It's not called "Tracking". It's called "laziness" (if you're kind) or "incompetence" (if you're less kind).

    10. Re:Sony just needs to fix what they send... by Jerrith · · Score: 1

      You've got it exactly Znork. Send the con level / color instead of the actual level, and send the direction instead of the xyz position. :)

      Also noteworthy, while rangers can track everything in some zones, in some of the larger ones, they cannot. Don't send the details of mobs that are too far away in these zones to trackers even.

  14. More information on the story... by Valen0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the Sony developer that everyone talked to, the changes that Sony makes to the encryption only takes 20 minutes or so. I believe that part of that time included remaking about 5 different binaries with the new code. Sony just has to change the 5 or so #define's on the encryption and everything breaks. Also, according to the same developer, Sony will not spend much time on breaking ShowEQ until management decides otherwise.

    How ShowEQ is fighting back is very interesting. Encryption information is stored at a preset offset in the client. About a month ago, SOE changed it so that, on NT/2000/XP boxes (this didn't effect Win 9x), other programs (even on accounts with "Administrator Access") couldn't read that memory space. However, ShowEQ developers eventually got around the limitation by making the key reader run as a service on the NT LocalSystem account. This service can then send the key information to the decoding system.

    As for WinShowEQ, I have sources that have told me that WinShowEQ is an easy port to make. If they are serious about making it and releasing it, expect to see it sometime soon.

    --
    -Valen
    1. Re:More information on the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      About a month ago, SOE changed it so that, on NT/2000/XP boxes (this didn't effect Win 9x), other programs (even on accounts with "Administrator Access") couldn't read that memory space. However, ShowEQ developers eventually got around the limitation by making the key reader run as a service on the NT LocalSystem account. This service can then send the key information to the decoding system.
      Actually accounts with "Administrator Access" can read the memory space just fine. All they have to do is enable SE_DEBUG_NAME privilege. (This is what many versions of the SEQ Key Sniffer use.) The NT LocalSystem account is not required.
  15. What if we don't want to? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hear all of your posts, about how they should get a life, blah blah blah.
    I myself played everquerst for about 18 months on and off. I averaged 15-40 hours a month, depending on the month and how I felt.
    Everquest "zoned" me, to another world. In our(Non-eq) reality, it left me behind a computer, with closed curtains, fighting and sweating while in battle.
    When I was 17, I robbed a firestation, got a drinking and driving minor, and sold adderol (Meds for ADHD) to my school peers.
    By the time I was caught I had 30 felonies(Possession with intent to distribute in a drug free (school) zone.), and 50 years in prison staring me straight in the face.
    I lost my license and was on house arrest for over 4 months.
    About a year later, I was accepted and attended one of the top engineering schools in the nation.

    Now, my question to you, is: If I can't spend my time playing EQ, and raising my daughter, do you want me selling a perscription legal meth to your brothers and sisters?
    Don't get me wrong, I'm well past that stage, but I'm sure if I did not have habits that keep me home, or somewhat entertained, I'm sure I could find something to do outside in a city of ~3 million people.
    I have not done drugs in 6 years, and have drank about 24 beers since I was 16.
    I save TONS of money, $15 a month is a lot for EQ sure.
    But consider what it saves you.
    If I'm spending 40 hours of afterwork/weekend time on this game, I'm not eating with my friends, I'm not buying gas driving around.
    I'm not doing anything that will harm you.

    Sure some people will kill themselves over this game, just like some willl spend $9000 on a character on ebay. But that's evolution. If they killed themselves prior to reproduction, we won't have to worry about those genes surfacing for at least a little while, but hopefully they will be rid of just as fast.
    I'd rather have joe schmo killing himself(maybe a few others) because of distress from the game, than driving with his drunk buddies at 1:00 at night while I am on my way to drop off my daughter at her mother's house.
    It is more probable Joe kills me while driving drunk than if I was an innocent bystander near his EQ game.

    1. Re:What if we don't want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weirdest. Troll. Ever.

    2. Re:What if we don't want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I was like, "What the fuck?" I mean, it was obviously a troll, but still... "What the fuck?"

    3. Re:What if we don't want to? by bryanp · · Score: 1, Funny

      When I was 17, I robbed a firestation, got a drinking and driving minor, and sold adderol (Meds for ADHD) to my school peers.
      By the time I was caught I had 30 felonies(Possession with intent to distribute in a drug free (school) zone.), and 50 years in prison staring me straight in the face.
      I lost my license and was on house arrest for over 4 months.
      About a year later, I was accepted and attended one of the top engineering schools in the nation.

      Now, my question to you, is: If I can't spend my time playing EQ, and raising my daughter, do you want me selling a perscription legal meth to your brothers and sisters?


      Uh, no. I want you sitting in a prison cell being sodomized daily by an amorous cellmate, eating bad food and thinking about what an idiot you are. But then I'm a vindictive sonofabitch who has a real problem with drug dealers and drunk drivers.

      But, since that didn't happen I congratulate you on reclaiming your life. Besides, you have created your own punishment. You'll live in fear of your daughter one day meeting and dating young version of yourself. :)

      --
      "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
    4. Re:What if we don't want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no shit. I completly got lost in that.

      I have to recomend this as some sort of mystical art or something.

    5. Re:What if we don't want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, you have created your own punishment. You'll live in fear of your daughter one day meeting and dating young version of yourself. :) I must congragulate you on bringing my fear out into the open. But then again, I would speculate that (almost) any father would fear this. How could you not? There's nothing wrong with being a vindictive sonofabitch, I normally find it to be one of my best qualities.

    6. Re:What if we don't want to? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Sure some people will kill themselves over this game, just like some willl spend $9000 on a character on ebay.

      There is nothing inherently wrong with Everquest. It is, as I am told, a fine game that's a lot of fun, and if you've got the time to spare well worth the monthly fee.

      Now, that said, it IS dangerous--as dangerous as any other internet-only social relationship. If my only contacts were through e-mails and IMs, no one would be able to tell if I was getting sickly, acting overly errattically, etc, etc. It's like having friends, without all of the benefits of having friends.

      want to play EQ? Go right ahead. Just don't think that its a substitute for real interaction. (Real tabletop RPGs, or wargames, or chess, or LAN parties, ARE real interaction.)

    7. Re:What if we don't want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like having friends, without all of the benefits of having friends. But you can meet so many friends! Quantity is always better than quality. Sex, beer, friends, women, stocks, brain cells, armies, cigars, etc.

    8. Re:What if we don't want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man's got a point... Keep America beautiful. Keep EQ players indoors.

    9. Re:What if we don't want to? by gdulli · · Score: 1

      Now, my question to you, is: If I can't spend my time playing EQ, and raising my daughter, do you want me selling a perscription legal meth to your brothers and sisters?

      Those are our only choices? Asshole.

    10. Re:What if we don't want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, lets have more of these trolls - i actually read it twice :)

    11. Re:What if we don't want to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, No, NO!

      Dear Troll.
      You were doing such i fine job. Had me wondering what had happened to the world.
      Then you start responing to that other troll-guy ruining a perfect impression.

      Sincerely,
      AC

    12. Re:What if we don't want to? by antistuff · · Score: 1

      What the hell did you steal from a firestation?

  16. Emulators by cjunky · · Score: 2, Informative

    EQEmu (An Everquest Emulator) was also having a problem with the encryption until our master coder (Go Quagmire!) Found out that it uses a default key if sent the right packets to the client. Since then, we are able to run with the latest client.

    I have watched EQEmu grow over the last year, and this Wednesday, we should have our best release yet! We are going on 1 year of releases on Dec 4th, so why dont you download EQEMu and see what it is like to run your own server.

    1. Re:Emulators by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      I'm glad the emu crowd has fun with EQEmu, since it doesn't affect the paying EQ player in the slightest (unlike ShowEQ and the macro programs).

      It does bear mentioning that a person (or a small group of people) would be hard-pressed to arrive at the staggering amount of content which Verant/SOE has designed for EQ in the past several years.

  17. Cheaters, Online gaming and Click through EULAs by Tseran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Firstly, no matter how you paint it as creative coding and a good hacking & cracking job at the code, it still is cheating. What the article failed to mention is what else the ShowEQ program does. It doesn't just show a map, it also shows all the monsters in that zone. So, someone who has that can walk through a very dangerous zone, unhindered by evil beasties should they desire. Or perhaps they are hunting the elusive Gobbleygook dragon, and they can find it within minutes. If Player A uses it and starts gaining levels and platinum faster then Player B, who elects to do it normally, what happens when Player A decides to attack Player B? (assuming this is on a PvP [Player versus Player] server) It is cheating, plain and simple. Like Microsoft's closing out of modders of the X-box (And as much as I am loathe to agree with MS on anything, I must on this), Sony is trying to keep the game fair for everyone. I wouldn't want to play a game where people could cheat like that. Who knows, now they can see the map and monsters....what's next?

    As to the Click-thru EULA, I think that with the way that they force you to think about clicking on the button, it is legally binding. However, I still don't like the idea of companies attatching unreasonable things to their EULAs. Next thing you know, MS will be asking for the soul of your first-born in the Windows EULA, and a sacrifice of your spouse in the Office one. But the question is, would a clause against cheating be a fair addition to a game where dozens of others are paying to play? Your cheating makes it a worst deal for those others who pay and play nicely.

    And no, I don't play EverCrack...I just know lots of people who do.

    --
    .sig: It's what's for dinner.
    1. Re:Cheaters, Online gaming and Click through EULAs by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      You imply that cheating is bad... Some of the most successful people(*cough* bill gates) in the world cheated, how can you expect to get anywhere if you have morals?

    2. Re:Cheaters, Online gaming and Click through EULAs by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      And it shows that you've never played EQ. What you can do by yourself in the game becomes irrelevant by level 30 anyway. For reference, I've seen a character get powerleveled to 25 in one night. In anycase, all those "cheats" you mentioned are already in game. Get a level 50 Ranger. He'll tell you exactly where all the monsters are in the zone. Where is the dragon going to show up? Are you joking? All that data, plus maps, spawn times, and everything else you would wish for is published online. And its not even gotten from ShowEQ, its gotten from 100s of 1000s of people experimenting. ShowEQ doesn't change any of that. Don't make this out like stealing money in Monopoly, or like wallhacking in CounterStrike. Its not the same thing, and anyone who has played to any decent level will say the same.
      My primary was a 55 Cleric when I stopped playing a year ago. No amount of information would have made the high level raids my guild did any easier. We always knew the maps and the monsters, we knew everything before we did a raid. But it was still fun. And we didn't even use ShowEQ. The game does the same thing, every time. So you learn how it goes, and learn to play so you don't die.
      Cheating? Hardly.

    3. Re:Cheaters, Online gaming and Click through EULAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose it was also okay for the people using Diablo hacks to be able to see where people were hiding on the maps too, since all that information was being sent to their computer anyway. Is that how you cheating fuckers justify your actions in these games to get ahead? Once it gets to your computer you can do whatever you want, at the expense of anyone else?

    4. Re:Cheaters, Online gaming and Click through EULAs by Mike+A. · · Score: 1
      I don't think you were reading closely. It sounded to me like Dillon2112 was claiming that all that information is available within the rules of the game, if you have the right character class at a high enough level.


      Of course, I never played EverQuest, so I couldn't say myself.

      --

      --
      Do I look like I speak for my employer?
    5. Re:Cheaters, Online gaming and Click through EULAs by cjunky · · Score: 1

      As I remember, Sony is breaking a EULA themself. I read somewhere in the Microsoft EULA for software development tools (I believe it was for DirectX), you are NOT allowed to hinder the multitasking (ALT-TAB) of Windows with any program you make with Microsoft's tools. I might be wrong, but this is how I read it.

      So with such a big company breaking a EULA, why should the end-user be held to it?

    6. Re:Cheaters, Online gaming and Click through EULAs by cerberusti · · Score: 1

      multitasking is the ability to run more than one task simultaneously, Microsoft actually provides specific ways to disable alt-tab, which is simply switching between the tasks, on XP ctrl-alt-del cannot be disabled but, EQ closes if you hit it.

      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    7. Re:Cheaters, Online gaming and Click through EULAs by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 2

      within the rules of the game, if you have the right character class at a high enough level

      But if you don't, and you use the powers of that class and level anyway, then aren't you in fact... a cheater?

      Hint: Yes.

  18. *sigh* by kasek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although I have played EQ off and on for the last 3 years or so, and have heard of ShowEQ, i never really knew what it was used for. I dont have a Linux box, so it didnt make much difference for me. What does concern me about this is that with a windows version, the program can and will become far more widespread. I would compare it to the recent developments in the diablo II community.

    There has always been trade hacks, and this hack, and that hack, but to execute them, you usually need packet sniffers, have to understand how the program works, and basically know what you are doing. Every once in awhile, one would come along that was easy to use with some fancy UI and mass chaos would ensue.

    Anymore, most players use Pindlebots or Mephisto bots, to just endlessly kill those bosses over and over for hours on end, hoping for some uber item to drop, and in the meantime racking up exp. They are extremely easy to use, just run the executable, configure the config for your character, and it does everything else for you with zero interaction. Now, you can't create a game without having to wait in line on the USEast Realm, and you can get just about any item you want in the trading channels.

    I ran pindlebot for two weeks, and in that time, i got alot of the best equipment in the game. It seemed nice, to have this great character, but ultimately it ruins the game, because you have the best equipment, theres no challenge, theres no point in playing the game anymore.

    If ShowEQ does get ported to Windows, I can only imagine similiar situations like this arising. The masses start using the program, and ultimately the legitimate players become too frustrated and leave, and the players with the cheat / hack / dupe / whatever ultimately become bored with the game, and a game that was once a great way for people to pass time becomes the playground for the people have ruined the game.

    1. Re:*sigh* by StarTux · · Score: 2

      Not likely in this case as showeq will not give you items, or help you make some items through macro's, or other forms of cheating.

      Most useful function for showeq was actually getting around without getting lost, its not used for duping at all thankfully.

      this was an issue a few months ago, massive amounts of coin was being "macroed" (someone at a trader running macro's that used bugs in the code to get very rich). Sony seriously cut down on those exploiters awhile ago as it was ruining the game economy like you mention, but showeq did not have this function.

      Showeq is good utility that can be used to assist players who routinely get lost in large zones (and then killed, who then create more work for the Game Masters who have tell them tough shit that they got lost and killed by a bunch of creatures...). But, in the wrong hands it can be used for players for doing worse things, like finding that elusive mob from way across the zone.

    2. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Just before I stopped playing EQ I fired up ShowEQ for about 2 months. The only thing it was really good for was a nice map. That is if you went to any dungeons that weren't in the most recent expansions. Sure it could tell you when a Epic mob or Boss had popped but typically you knew it anyways because people on the server talk, and you know when the next pop will happen.

      Other than that there is no use for EQ. There were many dupe bugs, 1 which took THREE years to fix. You could duel someone in an Arena and just before they died (and it autosaved) you ripped out your network cable. You would come back in the game with all your equipment and a corpse on the ground with the same.

      The same thing used to be done in a trade window, person hits accept and rips their cable out, free item. All that shit is fixed now and still has no relation to ShowEQ.

      Think of it as an Advanced Ranger + free map, that's all it is. A good ranger could track mobs for you much better than this program and you wouldn't have to juggle a second box.

  19. DMCA upgrade? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2

    Maybe the DMCA should be updated to also include interfering with the IT centric business process of a corporation. That would make things like what ShowEQ and BNETD do illegal and leave no doubt as to their activities.

    Then the folks who pay to play these games can get back to their fun without having to worry about as many cheaters as there are now.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:DMCA upgrade? by medeii · · Score: 2

      Y'know, it really makes me sick to watch people giving up their rights for really stupid reasons.

      First off, BnetD is NOT a cheating tool. It is a program that allows the user to run their own Battle.net server, and connect to it with the standard clients. It violates no portion of any existing software license, and besides, reverse engineering is a perfectly legitimate reason to make such a program. Don't forget that Sony sued Connectix for basically doing the same thing -- allowing gamers to use their PCs rather than a PlayStation console -- and lost, miserably. Your association of it with ShowEQ, and your last sentence's insinuation, are both fallacious and totally incorrect (not to mention misguided.) I use BnetD so that I can play on my own server, with my friends, and not have to deal with the pathetic losers that clog Battle.net with Pindabots and other hacks.

      Your suggestion that the DMCA be 'upgraded' is totally off base for something of this magnitude. So there are cheaters. So what? Do we really need another law to explicitly define (for the umpteenth time) that cheating is wrong? Let the companies deal with the cheaters on their own time, with their own money, and according to their own rules. It is not the government's responsibility to play mediator for every dispute, especially when it's about a simple breach of contract.

      --
      got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
  20. OT newbie question by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I was reading the FAQ about the port they are doing for Mac OSX. They are going to have the Mac users using a different server than the PC users because they don't believe that having all the new players in the game with verteran PC users is fair. I have never played EQ but I was thinking of giving it a try. Is it going to be insanely difficult to start a new character with all the long-time players on the server? Or is there still opportunity for new players to get started. Doesn't sound like it based on the reasoning behind putting OSX user on a different server.

    1. Re:OT newbie question by darthCodex · · Score: 1

      I've played EQ for a couple of months a few years ago, and I've always had great benefit from the more experienced players who often took the time to help newbies get started or help out when you're in (ORC!) trouble.

      I bet they're unsure about the stability of the new OSX client and expect strange results when mixed with Windows clients on one server...

      --
      Supplies!
    2. Re:OT newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will probably never be a new pc server (the population is slowly declining) but getting started as a newbie is no different than it was 5 years ago.

      If you really want to be uber though your going to need a very strict playschedule though, because breaking into the uber guilds isn't nearly as easy as it was in my days. I remember keeping players we had already voted on in status for several months to validate their loyalty, stuff like that would have never happened back when the most uber thing you could do was holding plane of fear for a week.

    3. Re:OT newbie question by slide-rule · · Score: 1

      I can say this with personal experience: starting a new player (or really, a new account, as you're meaning) on an existing, been-around-a-while server can be pretty hard. The thing that chapped my hide (and is why I stopped playing EQ ... personal opinion follows) is that the people who have been around long enough to have a moderately high level (40+ - ish) character can "buy" their new character completely out of the newbie stage. The most annoying thing was playing honest, not having enough game-cash to self-twink a new character, and seeing similar characters at my level running around with rare, powerful items that drop in very high level zones/encounters. That my character's gear was honestly level-appropriate put me at a disadvantage as a player. Not that I'm whining about it... the game's design lets that happen to some extent, so it will happen. With a mid-level character that I worked hard for, I finally got frustrated enough that I just left the game and have spent my time elsewhere. For this consideration, it might be arguable that it would only be fair to a huge influx of new characters(accounts) to all start on their own servers where, for at least a little while, startup issues are balanced.

      Now, I haven't been or around EQ in a while, but the biggest thing that would counteract the above problem is for uber-strong items to not be useable *at all* (except in the most mundane way) by any character whose level is lower than X. (Somewhat the way Diablo seemed to handle things.) As I was leaving, they were addressing whether a monster would drop an item to a overly high leveled character to keep people/guilds from "camping out" on the monsters, collecting the items, and selling them for straight cash: only thing this accomplished in the long term was devaluation of said item and one less place for appropriately levelled people to hunt. The fix for this seems a positive step, but it still doesn't address the possibility of someone starting a new character and buying common items to effectively max-out their primary attributes with an immediate effect.

    4. Re:OT newbie question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they have an excellent server now, (the role-playing preferred one), that only allows one character per account. So the only ones who do much twinking are people who actually pay the 12 bucks a month to get two accounts. Really lowers the number of twinks.

      Also on this server, they have implemented a TLC (trivial loot code), so that if you don't get experience from killing the monster, it won't drop any "special" items for you. This really cuts down on people "farming" items for their low-level twinks or just to sell them...

      This all leads to one of the most mature, well-played servers in the game. I wouldnt play on any of the regular servers now...

  21. Re:What up What up? by entrylevel · · Score: 2

    Except that EQ for PocketPC is single player only.

    --
    Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
  22. Re:What up What up? by anarchima · · Score: 1

    Then again, if he's working the burger-flipping place instead of playing EQ, he's no longer a "tr00 g33k". Therefore, he would have no interest in a "Beowulf cluster" (anyone else notice the fanatic obsession Slashdot readers have with these things?).

  23. Man in the Middle attack? by kakos · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As I understand it, ShowEQ is usually run on a different computer on the same network as the EQ box. It sniffs packets and then does its thing accordingly. Why not use that ShowEQ box to block the initial key exchange and generate and send its own key. The EQ server will then encrypt the key and send it to the ShowEQ. ShowEQ can then just decrypt it. It would only be a matter of figuring out the protocol and type of encryption that the servers use.

    The Man in the Middle attack is one of the oldest and still most effective attack on public key encryption.

    I don't know all the details, unfortunately. They may very well have tried this already.

    1. Re:Man in the Middle attack? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 2

      What I never understood is why they don't use the cd key + your account password as a private key or something really tedious like that. 99.999% of casual hackers would give up if they had to do that, and I can bet almost no one would type their EQ password into a "hacking" program (EQ account piracy is big money, remember those accounts sell for a few hundred each).

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    2. Re:Man in the Middle attack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why not use that ShowEQ box to block the initial key exchange and generate and send its own key. The EQ server will then encrypt the key and send it to the ShowEQ. ShowEQ can then just decrypt it. It would only be a matter of figuring out the protocol and type of encryption that the servers use.

      The Man in the Middle attack is one of the oldest and still most effective attack on public key encryption.

      The Man in the Middle attack assumes that the Man in the Middle understands the protocol that is being attacked. This form of attack can be detected by having the endpoints subtlety changing the protocol without the Man in the Middle being aware of the change. The Man in the Middle continues to respond and emulate the old version of the protocol and gets detected.
    3. Re:Man in the Middle attack? by hansendc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sigh... A Man in the Middle attack only applies to key exchange where neither of the parties has any way to previously authenticate each other.

      The easiest way around this (that Sony probably uses) is using a "shared secret" which was communicated using "out-of-band communication". Your web browser uses this to make sure that websites are secure. Your browser came with some public keys which can verify a web site's own encryption keys. These make sure that https://www.buyme.com really is who you think they are.

      The out-of-band part is because these verification keys came with your web browser when you downloaded it and weren't part of the transaction with https://www.buyme.com where you bought something.

      Everquest can simply come with a set of keys to verify that traffic which appears to come from the EQ servers really did come from there. Without modifying the Everquest binary, you're probably SOL for being able to fake these on the client side, and I'm pretty sure they check for binary modification at this point.

  24. If it no longer works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what's the point of a Windows port? New users won't have any idea what their key is.

    1. Re:If it no longer works... by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      If ShowEQ runs locally on the windows box, it doesn't sniff the packets, it sniffs the memory address where EQ has stored the unencrypted key. Problem solved. Before now, this wasn't necessary.
      I expect they could create a small utility on the windows box to feed the key to the old ShowEQ running on the Linux machine next door, and the process would be just like old times. =)

    2. Re:If it no longer works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats exactly what they are doing.
      http://seq.sourceforge.net/

  25. I am a ShowEQ user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pardon me for posting anonymously, but at this point I don't QUITE feel like losing my account... which wouldn't be so bad if I could give the character to someone else. But, I digress.

    I use ShowEQ. Does this make me a cheater? Yes, in the strict sense of the definition, it does. Here's comes the more important question: would I still play if I didn't have ShowEQ? No, but not for the reasons you might think.

    I do not use ShowEQ to benefit myself at the expense of others. If I was playing on a PvP (Player vs. Player) server, that might be one thing, but I do not. When the packet decryption was working, I would use ShowEQ to avoid monsters that would assuredly kill me (I'm not a melee class.) I also used it to track down the location of groups that invited me, track how much experience I have left to level (as an iidle curiorsity), and find friends' corpses. None of these helped me at the expense of others; in fact, one might argue they helped in others' benefit.

    Much more important, and this function still works without packet decryption, is that I use ShowEQ as a GPS. I have a horrible sense of direction in these games, and a lot of the time EQ's terrain in a zone is uniform. I could never get the hang of the /loc system, and Sense Heading never told me much except where I was facing. Without a map to tell me where the hell I was, I was lost and useless. This game is absolutely worthless to me if I can't figure out where the hell I am. Other games such as World of Warcraft come with a built-in map function, so I really wouldn't need a packet sniffer for it. But for me, in EQ, I need it to play. Otherwise, I'd just cancel my account, and Verant/Sony would be the ones to lose, because they would not get my money.

    In the end, yes, you could say I cheat. But maybe, just maybe, if Verant made the game a bit easier for me to figure out where the heck I was, I wouldn't need ShowEQ. I can't be the only one with this problem; there are a LOT of us ShowEQ users out there. (We may not admit it, but we're out there.) As it stands, I really enjoy playing EQ, and helping out my friends. If Verant wants to lose me as a customer over this, that's their loss, not mine. (Friends of mine will tell you that while I like the game, I'm not addicted.) And for those of you who condemn me for being a cheater... well, go right ahead. But I still say that I need the tools Verant provides... not for my own score and glorification, but as a basic aid to help myself and others.

    1. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by KalenDarrie · · Score: 1

      Acknowledged. But it would be better to petition to the designers for features you'd like. You have emailed your concerns to them already, haven't you? asked your friends to do so as well to add more than just one voice?

      In any case, the majority of this ire is focused at nastier people than you. I can sympathize with your problems, I have a friend who is terrible at navigating in diablo 2. To fix that, she plays with friends that can nav better than she can. That also helps the anger factor. safety in numbers. You might find that much more enjoyable than using the ShowEQ thing.

      --
      Kalen D'arrie
    2. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acknowledged. But it would be better to petition to the designers for features you'd like. You have emailed your concerns to them already, haven't you? asked your friends to do so as well to add more than just one voice?

      In any case, the majority of this ire is focused at nastier people than you. I can sympathize with your problems, I have a friend who is terrible at navigating in diablo 2. To fix that, she plays with friends that can nav better than she can. That also helps the anger factor. safety in numbers. You might find that much more enjoyable than using the ShowEQ thing.


      Point taken. The problem, however, is two-fold. For one, Groups in Diablo II are handled kind of differently than in EQ. Groups tend to congregate around a particular camp spot, and then recruit members. Getting people who don't know how to reach you is troublesome, because the people are more interested in getting exp and loot than they are bringing in a new member, especially if there's someone easier to get. The usual practice is to send one person to find the lost prospect while the others keep the camp. It's not "nice", per se, but that's how it is.

      The other problem is petitioning the designers for issues you'd like. While they can be generous to some issues or classes they care about, God forbid you're not someone they like. Necromancers in particular know the pain of constantly having issues ignored and/or having beneficial spells nerfed because the designers decided to make things more difficult. In fact, a friend of mine who's a necro went to an EQ Fan Faire in Minneapolis, and he overheard someone from Verant literally telling someone that if someone approaches him in game or at a faire and says he's a necro, he immediately tunes the guy out. See the http://necro.eqclasses.com forums for some more examples. The in-game map is surely an issue that's come up before (especially seeing as how many people have said they'd use ShowEQ for GPS in the ShowEQ forums), but do you see it implemented?

      The point is, while both of the issues you raise would normally be good ones... observation of the EQ world from the past couple of years (both in-game and out) show that it really isn't that simple. :(
    3. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waaaa I suck so I need cheats in game to help me out, waaaaaaa. waaaaaa.

      Dude, I have played for 2 years, am only level 55, but I did it without cheats, and without a uber guild.

      I think I sleep better at night with my accomplishments.

      I hope you have a ShowEQ for work when that get's too tough, too. :)

    4. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always nice to be a ranger that gets lost when he passes by a tree.

      Not everyone is gifted with a sense of direction.

    5. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by GooberToo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Total junk!

      I use ShowEQ. Does this make me a cheater?

      YES! You just as bad as any other cheater! That robber only steals from the rich. Is he any less of a robber? Shouldn't he be jailed just the same? YES! You should be banned from playing!

      I do not use ShowEQ to benefit myself at the expense of others.

      But you are! You are cheating other player's gaming experience. An experience they paid for. Just because you're paying for it does not mean you have the right to cheat. If you wanna cheat, run your own server.

      When the packet decryption was working, I would use ShowEQ to avoid monsters that would assuredly kill me (I'm not a melee class.)

      One of the worst kinds of cheats. If the monster would easily kill you, common sense dictates you're in a place your experience wouldn't otherwise allow (thus further ruining the experience for non-cheating players) or you should learn how to socialize and travel with friends (a social objective of the game). Either way, you're anti-social, selfish and a cheater.

      [...]is that I use ShowEQ as a GPS

      Learn hwo to play the game or game with people that can. Wow...a social skill. That's one of the lamest excusive I've heard.

      This game is absolutely worthless to me if I can't figure out where the hell I am.

      If you can't figure out how to play with other people, they don't need your business. You're selfish and deluded. You're a cheater.

      [...]if Verant made the game a bit easier for me to figure out where the heck I was, I wouldn't need ShowEQ.

      Or, you could play with other people. Wow, that fixed pretty much all of your problems. So why are you still using SEQ? Oh, that's right, you're a cheating loser that's deluded your self into believing that SEQ is a required evil. Fact of the matter is, YOU'RE the only evil and the scum of all online games. Don't kid your self, either you're a cheater like any other or you're not. If you use SEQ, you are a cheater.

      If Verant wants to lose me as a customer[...]

      For every loser like you that they lose, they'll gain even more legit users that actually want to have a FAIR and fun gaming experience. In the mean time, you're just as guilty as any member of a linch-mob, even if you didn't actually "string him up."

      [...]not for my own score and glorification, but as a basic aid to help myself and others.

      So now you're evil is suddenly made better because you help others cheat too. Wow. He's not a thrief! He stole that so he could give it to me. Wow. Sure that gets used a lot on court.

      Get a life. Stop playing or stop using SEQ.

      Shesh....what a loser.

      [Shatner's voice]
      It's only a game...get a life!

    6. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, mod me as flamebait now, but my short response to you can consist of six words:

      You have obviously never played EverQuest.

      I say this because each of your points is an answer that really doesn't apply to the EQ world. For example:

      You are cheating other player's gaming experience. An experience they paid for.

      How? As I said, I never use the tool to attack others or go for uber loots. If I did, I'd have my Journeymen's Boots already... heh. In fact, you need to remember: the game is Player vs. World, not Player vs Player, except on specific servers I said I don't play on. I don't use the tool to cheat others out of their spoils... unless you considering my not being able to get to the players cheating them. Actually, I don't even use it to track monsters while in a group... got too much to do looking at the game screen itself.

      If the monster would easily kill you, common sense dictates you're in a place your experience wouldn't otherwise allow (thus further ruining the experience for non-cheating players) or you should learn how to socialize and travel with friends (a social objective of the game).

      When you get higher in level, you quickly find that what a MONSTER'S level means and what YOUR level means are vastly different. For a lot of classes, when you get into the 50's, taking on a monster of equal level to you is suicide. That's when you need hunting groups. The problem is, most hunting groups don't form, find a camp, and then go to town. (Those are generally referred to as raids and are preplanned events.) Most of the time some people find a camp, grab it first, and it's your problem to get there. If not, well, they can replace you with someone else unless they desperately need you.

      (Oh, and as far as the friends category goes, I AM in a guild and I DO have friends who play. The friends know I use SEQ and don't judge me on that because they know how I use it.)

      It's nice that your world is all black and white and that people who fall under the category must be hated immediately, but you need to learn that the world is shades of grey, and while as I said before, I'm not lily-white here... this IS a shade of grey. This is a tool I need. Otherwise, the game ceases being fun, because it becomes too difficult to play. I don't have 12 hours a day I can play... I have a life too. I'm sorry you feel such hatred for me, but maybe you should try the game sometime and see what the world is like before you judge me. If you don't like me after having played the game (like another person did, and I respect his opinion), then that's fine. I have no problem with that. Don't attack me with your ignorance.
    7. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Why was this modded "overrated?"

      Guess some SEQ cheaters had some mod points today and didn't like being told the truth. How very sad.

    8. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Sounds like you need to re-read the original message. I don't think you comprehended what was being said.

    9. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 2

      It was probably modded overrated because of your rant. You can say everything you were trying to say without being personally insulting to another poster and still get your point across.

      If I had mod points at the moment, I would've modded it flamebait myself...

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    10. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think I sleep better at night with my accomplishments."

      What accomplishments? You have bigger imaginary numbers than some other people? You've tossed more money into a hole than other people? Doing well in a game is a really dumb-shit thing to be proud of.

    11. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I thought World of Warcraft was still a ways out...

    12. Re:I am a ShowEQ user. by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Actually, as rants go, it was very mellow. To top it off, most everyone is tired of these idiots that say things like, "gosh, I didn't kill him...I only loaded the gun. See, I'm not nearly as bad as the other guy." This back-assward logic is ruining most online gaming experiences and all of the people that modded me down are the lazy people whom do nothing, thus allowing it to continue. After all, it was "that guy " that shot him, not the other one!

      After it's all said and done, it's pretty sad when a truthful opinion is marked as flamebait or overated (especially when it hadn't been marked up in the first place). I have to believe it was done so by SEQ users that didn't appreciate someone pointing out the type of people they really are. After all, on too many occations I've seen far too many rants that were completely offtopic left alone or even modded up. Modding this down was like saying, "there, there, leave the robber alone...he just didn't know that wasn't his house. Oh, poor baby. He only broke in and looked around...he didn't really steal anything." My heart really goes out to him for being so wacky.

      If you bothered to read his reply you'll see that his only comment was that I obviously didn't play. Not once did he bother to address any of the issues that point out what a cheater he really is. Notice that he completely ignored all of the points that explain how he can play without using SEQ. But nope...why would he when there are so many ready to people like this do as they please while ruining the experience and joy for everyone else.

      After all, it's easier to shoot the messenger than it is to fix the problem. Those that modded me down and agree with that action deserve to have their online experience completely ruined. And yes, it really is that black and white.

      Also notice, I had the guts to use my own name...he couldn't even do so...If he's so justisfied, how is it he has to hide in the shadows like any other cheater?

  26. Cheaters = Wankers by Czernobog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Flame me all you want. Mod me down.
    But anyone who doesn't condemn the actions of this group is no better than them.
    This game belongs to Sony. They make the rules, so either play the game as its creators intended the game to be played or don't play it at all.
    If you think that this app is a valuable addition to the game, convince Sony to accept it and help those wankers develop it. If they say no, then just go away. It's their game.
    Otherwise, you're no better than the people who exploit the in-game weaknesses. A cheater.

    --
    /. Where the truth
    1. Re:Cheaters = Wankers by Dillon2112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm, right. Because all those Doom mods that we didn't convince id to help us develop were cheating too. And the quake mods. Oh wait, they were the birth of the concept of the mod community.

      Don't sit back in your armchair and dictate in 24 words the entire world of cheating as you see it, with no evidence.

      ShowEQ has done a lot to make the players and developers understand how the game world works, and a lot of official changes to the game have resulted from the data players collected using ShowEQ. For this, it is good. But for finding monsters that are supposed to be hidden, or for gaining an unfair advantage over other players, it is bad.

      Research what you make declarations on, and speak responsibly.

    2. Re:Cheaters = Wankers by Znork · · Score: 2

      Exactly, Sony makes the rules. They made the rule that says 'anyone who wants to can cheat' simply by sending data to the client that doesnt have to be sent. They intend the game to be played by using ShowEQ. They've written the entire support for it into the architecture. If they didnt want ShowEQ they could easily remove the extra data (and lessen the load on peoples internet connections at the same time). Since they dont, they obviously support and endores the use of ShowEQ.

    3. Re:Cheaters = Wankers by ajs · · Score: 2

      Sony can accept ShowEQ or not. It will impact *how much* but not *if* it is used.

      You can jump up and down until you are red in the face, but EVERY GAME will have this kind of program written for it. In the end, what is the real harm of ShowEQ? To my eyes it seems to have improved the game. I honestly think that ring events were a direct result of ShowEQ, and they're one of the things players have enjoyed most about EQ in the past year or so.

      If Verant was willing to add the features the players ask for like mapping and better tracking for the classes that get it, then I'd feel that there was some doubt as to the validity of ShowEQ, but that's not the case.

    4. Re:Cheaters = Wankers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow...you are a pretty impressive wanker yourself!

    5. Re:Cheaters = Wankers by Fizzol · · Score: 1

      >Umm, right. Because all those Doom mods that we didn't convince id to help us develop were cheating too. And the quake mods. Oh wait, they were the birth of the concept of the mod community.

      There's no logical connection at all between Doom mods and ShowEQ. Totally different beasts.

      >Don't sit back in your armchair and dictate in 24 words the entire world of cheating as you see it, with no evidence.

      ShowEQ gives those who run it an unfair and unearned advantage over those who don't. It's cheating. That should be supremely self-evident.

      >But for finding monsters that are supposed to be hidden, or for gaining an unfair advantage over other players, it is bad.

      As a guess that's at least 90% of the useage of ShowEQ.

      >Research what you make declarations on, and speak responsibly.

      Here's a declarartion needing no research what so ever. ShowEQ is cheating.

  27. Games have to be the thinnest of all by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every MMORPG I have played has started out not nearly as thin as it had to be, and nearly all have had to undergo significant redevelopment to rectify this matter.

    EQ can be forgiven for not knowing this at its start (it was one of the earliest MMORPGs) but it's had a long time to learn from its own experiences and those of its competitors.

    Assuming that everything known by the client will be known and exploited by the players using it would seem to be the safest rule.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  28. Asheron's Call Was Broken Long Ago by The+boojum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Asheron's Call has been like this for years. There's a program called Decal that intercepts and can forge packets between the client and the server. It exposes them through COM to a plugin architecture, allowing people to easily create plugins that interact with the game.

    On the one hand it could considered cheating, but at this point, most people seem to run it and it's made some fantastic things possible. For one thing there's a plugin called ACArm which allows figures out how to switch between armor profiles at the touch of a key, much more easily than figuring out the right order and dragging and dropping manually. There's another called Robochef that automatically does crafting. And one of the oldest and best known, Sixth Sense which can scan for items/monsters/players etc. is almost required for some challenges in the game. (Find random spawn monster somewhere out in the wilderness.) It takes much of the tedium out of a game that's supposed to be fun.

    The down side, though, is that people have come up with money making trade skill macros where you just load up your character with enough starting cash and some of the ingredients, and it crafts a bunch of items, sells them at a profit, buys more ingredients and continues. That inflates the economy a bit, though not much it seems. Worse, some people have made combat macros that automatically camp a spot and kill all the monsters. It's very annoying to be running around in a dungeon and finding a mage perched in a corner stealing your kills. (Combat macros are now a bannable offense under the CoC, however. Also, the Decal devs are very anti-combat macros.)

    Anyway, I know that's AC and not EQ, but I just thought I'd mention that as an existing example of where this can lead. It's got its down sides, but it's mostly been a good thing for the game.

    1. Re:Asheron's Call Was Broken Long Ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a long time AC player as well and have seen this same argument as discussed above.

      I was able to make an AC plugin for the visually impared that have a hard time reading the tiny and fast scrolling chat text. My plugin uses the Decal COM interface to monitor chat from other players and pass it on to the MS Text2Speech converter so the message are read aloud to the user.

      Now I've had many people email me with thanks that they can now enjoy the game because they aren't spending all their time trying to read text while getting beaten to death.

      I dare ANYONE to call that a cheat.

      It's not the devices or programs that are responsible for rampant cheating, it's the lack of moral fiber in those that misuse them for personal gain.

      Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And no, I am not pro-gun.

    2. Re:Asheron's Call Was Broken Long Ago by mcjulio · · Score: 1

      Decal does NOT forge packets, it just listens and interprets, and manipulates the client in response to whatever. It's a spectacular good to the game.

  29. Client cheating can be stopped by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 2

    The answer is simple: DO NOT LET THE CLIENT KNOW MORE THAN IT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO, and be willing to CHANGE THAT DEFINITION on an ongoing basis.

    Serverside cheating is the real bitch of the matter in MMORPGs, and no law will save you there. Only long term vigilance and quick response will protect a MMORPG population from serverside exploits.

    In a related note, BNETD is not even the same thing as ShowEQ. BNETD is a server emulator, and in fact is more conducive to lower cheating rates simply because one can create "walled gardens" wherein only trusted users can play, and the player population can be more appropriately vetted for fair play- mechanics-related, sportsmanship, and otherwise! ShowEQ is akin to a EQ debugging program, showing data known by the client but not revealed normally.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  30. Boy, that's silly by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 2

    I always thought the point of new client architectures was to enable players who'd like to play but don't have the right gear to enter the game at the moment.

    Making new servers for them seems rather redundant If they want newbie servers, they ought to make new servers and limit them to accounts under their first 90 days of play time for the first 90 days of the server's existence (UO did a similar thing with the Lake Austin server for new accounts when it opened.)

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  31. Locking out min/maxers is ridiculous by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 2

    Min/maxers are some of the most serious players of any game. The fact of the matter is that we all engage in min/maxer style behavior when we play, regardless of style, because we want to succeed in the game to be able to enjoy it.

    Accomodating min/maxers makes them into your unofficial debugging force, as well- if a game's based on numbers, you ought to be able to see the numbers. Other people want to see them, even if you don't- and trying to legislate your form of "immersion" on players is pretty silly. We all find our own level.

    Remember, also, it's your friendly neighborhood explorer that teaches you all those nifty tricks that you use every day :)

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

    1. Re:Locking out min/maxers is ridiculous by crandall · · Score: 1

      Min/maxers and powergamers are a minority. Perhaps not as much in MMORPGs, but compared to the mainstream, they are a drop in an ocean. As long as these games continue to cater to the power gamers, they'll never come in to their own as a widespread gaming experience.

    2. Re:Locking out min/maxers is ridiculous by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If you're going to appeal to power gamers, then your game becomes set up so that only a power gamer can win the game, and anyone who wants to play casually just has to go find something else.

  32. Same thing, different words :)

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  33. Re:What up What up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    homo

  34. Speaking of the RIAA... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Has anyone noted that Palladium could be used to completely secure the game's protocol, and make it practically unbreakable?

    1. Re:Speaking of the RIAA... by NineBall · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think that it would be a lot more secure if they were to write the entire code in Brainfuck, since it would be very difficult to hack a program consisting almost entirely of angle brackets.

      --
      You may not agree with what I'm saying but I'll kill you for my right to say it
    2. Re:Speaking of the RIAA... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the only factor that prevents a Palladium-based security model from being applied here is the fact that if they did that, they would have to make Palladium the only platform on which the game is available. Microsoft has quite a lot of skeptical people to sell on that concept before that becomes a viable business decision.

  35. That's the proper solution by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Years ago, Ultima Online had a pretty egregious cheating application called UOExtreme. It let you do all kinds of special stuff- run faster than normal, see hidden people, get an automatic readout of damage you did to players, and have general interface improvements that allowed you to play the game more efficiently.

    Well, people got banned for UOE use for quite a while, but the thing that killed it was that the UO dev team simply emasculated it and made it no more than a device for the delivery of trojans.

    How did they do this? Clever engineering and greater awareness of the needs of their playerbase.

    Fastwalk was fixed by making walk packets require a response from the server before moving the player.

    See hidden was fixed by just not telling non-GM clients where hidden players were, and disallowing attacks and other operations on hidden characters. Invisibility was handled in a pretty slipshod way beforehand- the server just told the client, "hey don't show this guy."

    The automatic damage readout was just integrated into the client, with the addition of Starcraft-style health bars showing the damage level of your current target.

    The interface improvement issue was solved by the legalization of a similar program called UOAssist. Many operations in UO rely on an extremely clumsy interface requiring many mouse clicks and movements for actions that should be far simpler. UOAssist changes this, offering somewhat of an "expert interface" for the game. UOAssist's author sends all program changes to UO's developers to be examined before release.

    Come to think of it, you probably know all this stuff already...

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

    1. Re:That's the proper solution by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Every MMORPG has it's own client side cheating applications. It's simply a given that some people would rather have the option to maximize their online time, possibly to the detrement of other players, rather then suffer with the rest of us and actually play the game without using these kind of things.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:That's the proper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just make a game where you can pick whatever level of character you want then? Spending weeks building up a character is really boring IMHO. I just want to go out and smash shit up and kill demons. I want to make a character custom made to my liking (usually a big ass level 50 barbarian guy with an enchanted warhammer) and play with that instead of walking through killing goblins with a club. That's BOOOOORRRRRING. Some of us DO have lives and spending weeks building up characters means we don't buy the game. I have 2, maybe 3 hours tops a weekend for playing around and I'm sure as hell not going to spend them parked in front of my computer playing an RPG. I want to spend 15-20 minutes playing and then go do something else. I rarely play any game for more than an hour.

    3. Re:That's the proper solution by the+unbeliever · · Score: 1

      Sony has banned people from EverQuest for similar things. GM command hacking (allowing people to use commands normally reserved for "Guides" and Game Masters), spell hacks (giving certain spells better effects than they should have), etc.

    4. Re:That's the proper solution by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 2

      Sounds like you need to buy a level 50 barbarian on ebay ;-)

    5. Re:That's the proper solution by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      For you, I suggest solitaire.

      Part of the fun of the game, for many people, is getting to that high point, not starting there.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  36. ShowEq by Char+Lander · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just have to say this. If cheating was meant tob e part of the game then Sony would have added it themselves. They would have added special commands or buttons or what have you, to allow you to cheat.

    They did not and they are trying to fight the battle understandably. Is it going to hurt their market? I doubt it, but who is to say. If it is going to make a series of high end multi-account gamers quit then so be it. I am sure that is minor to the 400,000 subscribed users. (That is what I heard at last read on an EQ article)

    It is in my opinion that Sony is in the right to fight this. It is also in their ability to do whatever they please to keep ShowEq from working as I am sure breaking the encryption is violation of the DMCA.

    Frankly I think this whole topic of debate on whether ShowEq is okay or not is a waste. If you can't tell right from wrong now, then you never will be able too.

    Play the game as it was intended. Without 3rd party software.

    --
    ~Char Lander
    Brothers and sisters I have none, but this mans father is my fathers son
    1. Re:ShowEq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Have you ever played EQ? If so then you would know that Sony/Verant themselves cheat.


      Yes, that's right, every player that has ever gone to South Karana and fought at the Aviak tree city knows, EQ mobs are specifically allowed to cheat. For those who don't know what I'm speaking of, I'll describe:


      There is an area in EQ called South Karana, and within it a tree-house styled structure inhabited by Aviak's (bird-like creatures). The very top of this tree-house is referred to as the Penthouse. Several of the most powerful of these creatures are located there. If you are fighting up there, and you were to fall off the platform, you'd be injured from falling, and you would no longer be able to hit the creature up top that you were fighting. Makes perfect sense, right? However, although you cannot hit it - it can still hit you! Even though you're on the ground and it's 40 feet up a tree-house! If it's the Aviak that falls off the platform, it's not injured by the fall as you would be. You still would be unable to hit it - but it would still be able to hit you!


      The same is true in lower levelled zones where an occasional high-level creature may roam through. If you are in an Inn purchasing/selling items with a merchant, a roaming giant can hit and kill you from outside the Inn without you even knowing it was anywhere around. You, however can't hit it back because of course, you're inside a building and it's outside.


      The benefit of allowing you to avoid creatures that would likely kill you is not a matter of being someplace too high for your character. A location designed for players levelled 5 to 15 may have a handful of level 35+ creatures that roam around taking advantage of these EQ cheats. Being hit through a wall, from floors below/above you, around corners where you have no line-of-sight with the creature, etc is what makes that map with spawn location so important. It's a cheat to allow a level 35 giant kill me while inside a building dealing with a merchant if I cannot defend myself in any way. That's what EQ does. Is it really a cheat to give me the ability to see that giant coming? If I was safe inside, and had a way to look out a window to see if it's safe to emerge, then yes it would be a cheat and unecessary. But EQ likes to bend the rules when it suits them, players are constantly looking for ways to equalize the game.


      So, as always, there are two sides to every coin. This issue is not as black and white as some may assume or expect.

  37. o so what is holding back the "masses" is linux by qurk · · Score: 1

    I was reading some of the sourceforge forums on their little toy and the egotism and gloat of some of the developers of their little cheaters toy astounds me. For one thing, every time they asserted that keeping their program linux only was holding off the masses, my stomach turned over a little more. That is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. Also, who has the right to cheat to play a game which they are already stupid enough to pay a monthly fee with mommy and daddy's credit card. Third, Everquest SUCKS and these people are IDIOTS. Anyways I dont usually comment but this annoyed me.

    1. Re:o so what is holding back the "masses" is linux by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      The masses *are* held back by Linux. Its not mainstream in the desktop market. I use it, sure, but honestly, what percentage of people have two computers they can dedicate to EQ and one of them is running linux? Yeah, it absolutely limits the masses.

      I'm 25, and I used my own credit card to play EQ for 2 years. What was that, about $240? Totally worth it. My total time played was just under 50 days, so about 1000 hours over two years. How much does normal entertainment cost per hour? I bet its more than $0.25. A movie is about 4.50 an hour, but those people aren't "stupid enough to pay" are they? Hmmm...

      Oh, and I liked Everquest (just didn't have time for it anymore), and so do about 400,000 other people.

    2. Re:o so what is holding back the "masses" is linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen the hackersquest forums? Look at all the people who cannot compile showeq. You think it is silly, but it is not, most people are afraid of linux, and the challenge is often too overwhelming for most to pursue installing it. Plus, its not showeq that is a bitch, it is actually QT. I think it took 8 hours for it to compile on my celeron, not to mention the 2 hours of dicking with it trying to get it to ./configure

    3. Re:o so what is holding back the "masses" is linux by qurk · · Score: 1
      Well as I see it it isn't too difficult to get an old 486 or pentium and stick it up to run your little cheat server so you can feel all important and talk gloom and doom on how SOE's actions will cause the bannings of countless numbers of peoples who absolutely have to cheat to play that crackhead game. Granted you can run win98 on your little 486 or pentium 1 computer but linux is easy too and frankly I don't think it limits the masses. How many people who absolutely need to cheat to enjoy everquest aren't already running a stupid little packet sniffer.

      I've logged over 10,000 hours on my mud, and while I dont pay a monthly fee (in fact you can't pay with a credit card, unlike everquest where you must have a credit card), I gladly donate 100 or 200 bucks every few months. I see where you are coming from on your defense of paying your monthly fee, I mean if you don't buy a bunch of $50 nintendo or playstation games every month whats wrong with putting your money where you spend your entertainment time? Well I do defend my "stupid enough to pay" statement in the regard that you just have to pay to play this game so you can cheat and have an unfair advantage over other people. Hi if you absolutely are addicted to this stupid game (Ya I think it's retarded compared to muds) then dont cheat retard.

      I dont know, you have the right to enjoy everquest, but I still think it's a retarded game and I bet about 400,000 people could find better things to do with their time (like combing their hair, picking lint out of their belly button, masterbating, etc.).

    4. Re:o so what is holding back the "masses" is linux by qurk · · Score: 1
      hehe. That's about right. On my old box I used to download all the new beta versions of KDE and compile everything from scratch, and your right QT can take a long time to compile, but everything will on a slow kind of computer. I was using a p2 300 and it took 2-4 days to compile KDE sometimes. But what is this boohoo it takes forever to compile land, it is evil and inferior to windows? Personally I enjoy compiling everything to the optimization of the features of my processor, not just some generic 386. BTW with gentoo it's painless you just type emerge qt and voila it downloads the source, verifies it's authenticity, unpacks it, ./configures it, and compiles it, then moves it to the location the developers intended, and deletes the source. That is hard :P

      So what it is these guy's responsibility to introduce cheating software to the masses to ruin 400,000 people's enjoyment of a game just so they can have big ego's and feel like they can fight the big evil Sony ???? Hi I have news for you guys. This is the 21'st century. Hacking is considered terroism and can get you life in jail.

    5. Re:o so what is holding back the "masses" is linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because ShowEQ is actually quite a pain in the ass to setup. You need a gcc3 compiled version of QT that doesn't ship with any distro I'm aware of, you need to get the encryption library which is not provided by the ShowEQ people (simply scattered around the net), you need to get numerious other libraries that most distros don't ship with (or don't ship with the right versions), finally you can get it off the CVS.

      Try getting it setup and working before letting your stomic turn. I'm pretty familure with Linux and it took me ages.

    6. Re:o so what is holding back the "masses" is linux by Dillon2112 · · Score: 1

      I never ran ShowEQ in the 2 years I played EQ. I stopped playing EQ a year ago.

      "Granted you can run win98 on your little 486 or pentium 1 computer but linux is easy too and frankly I don't think it limits the masses."
      Linux limits the spread of ShowEQ. I'm not asking if it does, I'm not saying it should, I'm not rating the difficulty of installing and running linux. I'm stating the simple fact that Linux is not run by 95% of desktop users. That limits the use of software programmed for it.

      "Well I do defend my "stupid enough to pay" statement in the regard that you just have to pay to play this game so you can cheat and have an unfair advantage over other people."
      The fact that people have to pay for the game is in no way related to the fact that they run ShowEQ, as you make it seem.

      "I bet about 400,000 people could find better things to do with their time"
      I couldn't agree more. That's why I stopped playing. It was fun, though. =)

  38. What's the problem with more secure servers? by Arcturax · · Score: 2

    Honestly, why would you want to hack in? To cheat of course! One reason I avoid online massive games is because of the rampant cheating. It drives away good customers and players and leaves the cheating scum behind who are generally people you don't like to associate with anyway (their personalities are distinctly lacking...)

    So I can see why Sony wants to stop people from doing this kind of thing. Cheating ruins online gaming, so why is /. so upset when they try to stop it? Worry more about Sony and their backing of the RIAA/MPAA and DMCA. Don't waste energy worrying becuase you can't be unfair in Everquest anymore.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  39. Re:I know I was under a rock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    In the begining there were games like Nethack
    and they were good. But not everyone was satisfied.
    and so the uncontent masses set about hacking Zork (a popular commercial Single hack&slash text game)into a game called 'dungeon' and thus the MUDs were born. So now we have MUDs MUSH MUCK MOO Diku etc... etal... but alas, the masses craved flashy graphics, and oh yeah, very few MUDs can demand users pay for accounts, because few people are that addicted, in part due to the text based nature. So along came Sony with it's plan, to make a Graphical MUD that people could have the Privaledge of paying $30 or more upfront for, plus a monthly subscription fee. And there you have it, EQ is a graphical MUD. Although, to keep people from associating it with the old text-gen games Someone coined the term MMORPG (massively multi-player online RPG.) The fact of the matter is, if you don't like MUDs you're very unlikely to like EQ, just because it has flashy graphics to play with. OTOH, if you've liked MUDs, and always wanted something graphical, and you've got money burning a hole on your pocket, then EQ is probably just right for you. and honestly, even many MUD servers consider it 'cheating' to use mapgen tools(which generally reveal flaws in the layout of the MUD, like rooms that overlap, etc), and moreso scripting and triggering events to make it less monotonous.
    These people even have an issue with you trying to sell equipment or accounts over e-bay, even though the sale of such items probably leads to more people playing, since they don't get so frustrated at not being able to find X that they cancel the account.

  40. Sony Just Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony wants to play both sides of the fence as usual
    They absolutely suffocated their own technology of
    MD (Mini Disc) players by refusing under any conditions to allow using an MD as a straight recorder for mp3's instead using a proprietary sony only protocol (windoze only) that only allows
    writing never reading back once written to. But yet
    whoa they jumped right on the band wagon making mp3 players and mp3 cdrw players since they didnt own
    that technology exclusively and saw money laying on the table. So Stupid!!!

  41. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The comparison to TiVo is an interesting one. TiVo's policy is that they will gladly look the other way for some hacks, and in fact even make some of the hacks as easy as possible to pull off, in exchange for being able to declare certain hacks off-limits.

    Specifically, they make it easy to upgrade a TiVo with a large hard disk by designing their single-disk designs to have a place where the second disk can fit nicely in the box. They also it possible for users who want to accomplish their "daily call" over the Internet rather than a phone line by just happening to leave the server that handles those sessions at an Internet-accessable location rather than requiring that the only way into their network is through their chosen dial-up providers. The company sponsors (but does not actually run) message boards at TivoCommunity.com where hacking discussion is encuraged, and people can compare notes and share experiences.

    The tradeoff is that there are certain hacks that the company does not want to see made, and will not allow the TivoCommunity.com boards to discuss. There are the hacks that would either harm the company, like any hack that would provide another source of listings, which would eliminate the need to subscribe to TiVo's listing services, or any hack that would allow content to be extracted from the device which would surely bring down the wrath of the MPAA and friends.

    By allowing wide open back doors into their system, TiVo has been able to direct hacking efforts into the areas the company wants to see them go. Yes, there are a few people trying to drill through the concrete and get the "forbidden hacks" to work, but their numbers are few and they operate in obscurity compared to the company-sponsored forums.

    It's a total 180 from Everquest's "Thou shalt not hack us!" perspective. TiVo's offering carrots, Everquest is using rather ineffective sticks.

  42. Re:What up What up? by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    "I checked how long [my brother is] on every month, an average about 250 hrs every month...DAMN..."

    DAMN is right. If he doesn't leave the house during daylight, doesn't go to school, doesn't work, even on the weekends, as your numbers suggest, then he is in trouble. Your values work out to over 8 hours a day EVERY day of a 30 day month. Hmm...

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Re:WHERE ARE THE AIDS LINKS? by NineBall · · Score: 1

    And how exactly is this relevant?

    --
    You may not agree with what I'm saying but I'll kill you for my right to say it
  45. Re:YOU DID IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    • ROFL
  46. cheaters are still cheaters no matter the OS by eagl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The phrase "most resourceful" in the article is a rather thin disguise. The author is trying to say "Sony's best customers are also the ones most capable of becoming cheating bastards with the potential to ruin the game for the wider and less technically adept player pool."

    Hacking the protocol is great, nothing wrong with that. Actually USING the hack during public gameplay is cheating, plain and simple. I personally don't think it's something the courts should have to deal with, but it's still a game exploit and rampant cheating has ruined more than one online game in the past. Sony has every right AND THE OBLIGATION TO IT'S NON-CHEATING USERS to do whatever it can to hamper efforts to use game cracks/hacks/whatever to gain an unfair advantage over other players.

    That said, Sony better come up with something other than legal action in their efforts or they will suffer an amazingly embarassing loss. Short of pulling the game off the shelves, it's unlikely they'll actually succeed in "winning" this battle.

    1. Re:cheaters are still cheaters no matter the OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question...how are they ruining the game?

      Hell, these people could have been playing years before they arrived, thus they would be insanely more powerful. The players aren't in direct competition...it doesn't matter if someone has a level 100 and some other guy has a level 15...

      Ok, so they can say that they earned it, but then they would be lying. But people who don't cheat have something that the cheaters don't...the knowledge that what they have was actually earned.

      Isn't that enough? When players are not in direct competition with each other, what does it matter?

  47. In the end, Sony has themselves to blame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Raph said, "The client is in the hands of the enemy".

    The only reason SEQ works so well, is because the server exposes so much unnecessary information to the client. In Dark Age of Camelot, the game that I play now, the server only sends info on players and monsters within "visible" range, and doesn't even send info on stealthed (invisible) characters. In Everquest, however, every single player and monster in the zone has their location, level, etc sent to the client.

    If Sony were to limit the amount of information sent to the client to what the client will present to the user, they would be able to greatly limit the effects of cheating due to this tool while preserving the benefits such as mapping that others use it for.

  48. WHAT!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you not seen the news in... oh, I don't know.... the past 5 YEARS? The users DON'T trust Microsoft!

  49. hack eula by NSupremo · · Score: 1

    Seems pretty easy to me. What on Earth could legally bind you if you EULA says "Click OK"

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
  50. Monsters? Cripes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people are cliched geeks.

    I think:

    a) You should be allowed to decode these packets
    b) Sony should be allowed to try and stop you
    c) Most importantly: GET A FUCKING LIFE!!!!

  51. Not Quite True by The+Raven · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are many things that the client MUST know, for performance and usability reasons.

    Every request the client makes for information means another round trip access to the server. Another complex decision by the server whether the client should be allowed that information. When you have 100K users online, making requests like that dozens of times a second, it can get JUST A TINY BIT LAGGY.

    To alleviate these issues, the server sends some information to every client. The game map. The nearby creatures that the client may need to render at any moment. The current statistics of all the players equipment. All this information the client NEEDS to know.

    Here is an example of one thing people often think the client does NOT need to know... creatures that are behind a hill, or not in the players cone of view. However, what if the player whips around to look behind them? How disorienting and unplayable would it be if every time you turned it took half a second before you saw ANYTHING other than terrain? As for obstructed creatures, would you want to go around a corner in a dungeon and not see anything for half a second until the server caught up? Not to mention the exhaustively difficult math required to accurately determine whether you have line of sight to something or not.

    Thin clients DON'T WORK. At least, not in MMORPG's. Works for MUDs though. If you don't mind, I'll be going back to my DikuMUD now. :-)

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    1. Re:Not Quite True by Znork · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The game map is not sent. The game map is the zone files which are already local to the client (and which can be looked over using several means). The nearby creatures _and_ every other creature in the zone were sent last time I checked. To filter out which mobs position info to send to the client does not require communications with the client. It's trivial to fix that.

      Creatures behind a hill or not in the players cone of view? Umm... maybe press the camera button to switch views could help you? This is already visible in the game.

      LOS code is already in the game. As in 'you cannot see your target' - darn.

      If a mob is around the corner you start sending info on that mob to the client when it gets into such a range that it is concievable that the player will see it in a second or five. Not as soon as they zone into the same area.

      Thin clients ARE THE ONLY THING THAT WORKS or YOU WILL HAVE CHEATERS. Period. The client tells the player anything you send it. Period. The client tells your server any bullshit the player wants it to. Period.

      The client is the enemys foothold in your fortress, not your foothold in the enemys fortress.

      A moderately competent programming team and a reasonably smart architecture designer can code around the disadvantages of thin clients with things like path prediction and server-side components of player response time. But nobody, can _ever_ stop the players from reading anything you send them or sending you whatever they want.

    2. Re:Not Quite True by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      >> Here is an example of one thing people often think the client does NOT need to know... creatures that are behind a hill...

      Incorrect. If my client doesn't know it's there, I can't sic my pet on it or cast non-los DD spells. I would hate for the game to not send me creatures it doesn't think I have Line Of Sight on, because bolt spells commonly miss if you or the mob or even NEAR a hill. I've also seen my rain spells miss many times in ToV ("You cannot see that target!") when I was near a corner but could still see 100% of the mob.

      Creatures can attack you through walls too (because the servers aren't powerful enough to actually compute LoS and just use agro radius). Under your suggestion, I couldn't target them back, until they came through the wall. Which, if they're casters, could be very very bad.

      In addition, a lot of clients needs to know where ALL creatures in the zone are:

      Druids need it for tracking, Rangers need it for tracking, Bards need it for tracking, Magicians need it for sense summoned, sense undead, sense animal... etc...

      Now, that said, they could change it so that the info only gets sent when these abilities are used. BUT, all you would have to do is use the ability while you had ShowEQ up to refresh it. It would cripple it's usefulness, but not disable it completely. The side effect is that it would cripple the servers completely, computing LoS for every client.

    3. Re:Not Quite True by The+Raven · · Score: 2
      LOS code is already in the game. As in 'you cannot see your target'
      Yes, it is already in the game. And the server calculates it when it has to... which is ONLY when you select that creature as your combat target, and try to fire. Every time you shoot at a creature, the server calculates LOS (a very cpu intensive task).

      The server does NOT calculate LOS 10 times a second for every creature, object, and character within 100 yards of the player. Can you see the difference there? The two or THREE orders of magnitude extra CPU that would require?
      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    4. Re:Not Quite True by The+Raven · · Score: 2

      Hmm. Maybe you did not read my comment, or got confused... I was agreeing with you. Nearly everything you said was a repeat of my comment.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    5. Re:Not Quite True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that mob positions etc are sent to the client is more likely to be for class specialities.
      ie a number of classes in eq can 'track'. This lets them tell what mobs are around them, even if they cant see them. It can also tell them basic information about the mob that you could usually only tell me actually seeing them ..sorry about the anon post but i couldnt be bothered making an account

      Chris Watts

  52. I was a showEQ user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like other ShowEQ users, I'll happily admit I used it. And I knew a LOT other people who used it too.

    Using ShowEQ is cheating, I'll admit that much as well. But the truth is, ShowEQ IS a benefit to Sony/Verant and they know it. Most of the ShowEQ users like myself would have quit EQ LONG ago if not for ShowEQ. It's kind of hard to explain, but I played EQ RABIDLY for about two years. I mean it was a total obsession. I had a level 60 Shaman, and level 57 Rogue...played both characters at the same time, and was pretty bored with the game. When I installed ShowEQ, I ended up playing at least 8 months longer, because EQ became FUN again.

    And you'd be suprised how many ShowEQ users are out there... I'd guess nearly 20-30 percent of the current EQ users use it. I know for a fact that ALL of the high level guilds use it. It's just too powerful of a tool. Here is an example, and excuse me for not remembering the names, but there is a super rare giant turtle in EQ, that spawns in an very large and usually devoid of users zone. If he did spawn, he'd usually wipe out any players in the zone that wandered to close, and then he'd despawn. Well I happen to be passing through the zone with my two characters, when this guy spawned right next to me, way out in the water. I check my ShowEQ map and see that there is only 20 people in the zone. most of them lower levels like 30-45. The funny thing was though, all of the higher level players in the zone, anyone level 59 or 60 where running on a BEELINE to my location. I'm talking level 60 warriors with NO TRACKING ABILITY, for some reason running RIGHT AT THE turtle, from accrossed the zone. Obviously all of the high level players where using ShowEQ, because there would be NO other reason to be running way out over the water for no reason, unless you KNEW the turtled had spawned.

    In the end, the "elite" guild on our server (Cazic Thule) got the kill, and I could tell all of them were using ShowEQ.

    Sony is definitely in a tough spot because they know as well as I do that ALL of the elite EQ guilds use ShowEQ. If Sony ever did find a way to block ShowEQ users I'd be willing to bet 20 percent of their user base would quit EQ, because once you've used it, you'd never play EQ without it.

    1. Re:I was a showEQ user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because once you've used it, you'd never play EQ without it

      Sorry, but I used it a while back, and whilst it would be useful in some situations (rare spawns); I find much more pleasure in my online friendships than in cheating.

  53. Re:What up What up? by deaddrunk · · Score: 0

    I tried to get a life, I failed, so now I play an MMORPG. Any suggestions on how to get one would be gratefully received, although I've got no doubt that I've already tried most of them.

    --
    Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
  54. Re:What up What up? by TechnoVooDooDaddy · · Score: 2

    8 hours a day easily.... it was common for me to come home friday night from work, 5-6pm, and not log off until monday morning at 2-3am, continuously... 50-60 hours was the norm for my guild on the weekend..

    weeknights were hit and miss, but usually you were on for 4-6 hours a night...

  55. Will someone please remember... by Delwin · · Score: 1

    That Sony Online Entertainment, while owned by Sony, is not Sony. The connection there is not a very strong one, and while they get broad orders from Sony, they are not micromanaged from Sony.

  56. Uh, by Skreech · · Score: 2, Informative

    You don't start over when you die in EQ. The best scenario is you have a cleric raise you and you get 96% of your lost experience back, and you're out maybe 5 minutes. The worst is that you could lose your corpse and everything you owned was on it, but even an admin will help you out if you're honestly trying to get your stuff back and truely can not.

    But start over? Not at all. You're still the same level unless you were unfortunate to lose enough experience to go back a level, but you wouldn't expect to go from level 60 to level 1.

  57. A new game... by failrate · · Score: 1

    I was thinking about making a fps called Godmode/PK. Basically, it would be the biggest, ugliest cheat zone in the world. I'd even open-source the code and let everyone behind the Magic Curtain to write whatever hacks and bots they wanted. The idea would be that the hackers would ultimately get bored with the hacking and might actually try besting their opponents with "skill" and "coordination." But then again, I know people who write scripts to play MUDs for them, because all they want is the biggest, most powerful character in the whole darn MUD . So, I've realized there are always going to be dirty cheaters out there who just can't seem to get their jollies beating each other fairly.

    My online game of choice? Classic Mac's Tank Bolo. I wonder if anyone has made any cheat proggies for that, yet.

    --
    Voodoo Girl is the bomb!
    1. Re:A new game... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      I was thinking about making a fps called Godmode/PK. ... I'd even open-source the code and let everyone behind the Magic Curtain to write whatever hacks and bots they wanted.

      Oh, you mean this little open-source FPS that, if I'm not completely mistaken, got a "few" more cheats after it was open-sourced? =)

      I remember playing Team Fortress some time after the source release and for some reason one thing in the game seemed to have a ridiculous amount of frags. Must have been a lousy day to play =)

      My online game of choice? Classic Mac's Tank Bolo. I wonder if anyone has made any cheat proggies for that, yet.

      Hrmm, wonder if anyone's been lifeless enough to write cheats for bzflag... =)

  58. Planes of Power Is The *BEST* Expandsion To Date.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..but the reason why ShowEQ works is because of core design decisions. Core issues are pervasive and will never be solved trivally. They will probably be in the game till it dies....

    Planes of Power in general is the smoothest, best release of an Everquest expandsion yet. It does some things that render ShowEQ weaker. They've removed as much client side monekying as they could. "Cheating" now is more about information wars than gaining a tactical engagement advantage.

    Information is power in EQ (there is a huge stink about the players who were allowed to close Beta POP had a HUGE advantage over those who did not). If you know what drops to look for, what monsters are key, what pitsfalls to avoid then you'll be spending more time advancing than picking up the pieces. With POP the barries for entry are quite high. Power Players who feel the crunch now more than ever are relying on external ways to farm information.

    So the things Sony/Verant are fighting are the non-obvious shortcuts. They want players to hunt high and low for the 4 monsters (out of the 1,000) that live in hidden caves. ShowEQ is used as a valuable short cut. ShowEQ can show you where the 4 monsters in the zone that you need to progress but only lightly helps you kill them.

    Any competent guild can survive without ShowEQ. With that being said, its something that most competent guilds use because it lets them focus on solving problems instead of farming information. How much of this is cheating and how much of it is getting around annoying RP-isms that don't work well in games is still up to debate.

    One thing that is being touched on in the debate is the idea of 3rd Party programs. Every game including EQ has shown that the developer does not have enough time and energy to extend the game's functionality exactly the way the players want it. However the players do. The spiffy UI is extensible and a great boon to players. If Verant/Sony is unwilling to extend the game to match Player's requirements then why not let them? If one wants to create a bot that hooks up a character to an irc channel then why not? If one wants to create a bot that emails people who aren't online then why not? This kind of extensibility I really love and all game makers should do more to promote.

  59. Everquest is actually very cheat-robust by merigold77 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been playing Everquest for nearly 2 years, my husband for nearly 4 years. It is a remarkably cheat-proof game. Nothing that ShowEQ does for people really impacts us. In fact even though we have never used it and never will, it's helped us because it supplies information to the people who supply it to the sites that we go to for information.

    The creators of Everquest have not allowed item duplication cheats, item stealing cheats, run speed cheats, etc. such as those described in the article referenced. In fact everquest "cheats" are things that you can do in game anyway: tracking (get a ranger of any level, or a sufficient level bard or druid), see invisible (a spell that takes hardly any mana, that casters all get at fairly low levels) etc. And things that everyone benefits from, not some unfairly (knowing what spells are available, what each spell does).

    Unlike other online games that I've played, Everquest hasn't been ruined by cheating. It's also fun for all levels, and though its true that those starting today may never catch up with the uberest players, that doesn't matter: it's fun at all levels. It's fun from beginning to end. It isn't about winning, it's -- like a tabletop rpg -- about playing and having fun.

    I don't think ShowEQ or its like applications (EQWin, that lets people play everquest in a window) cause any harm or help really. They are nice for people who like that kind of thing, but they are not cheats that ruin the game for everyone else.

    Maps are nice, but there's maps all over the web and freely available to anyone who cares to look for them; there are maps for sale by Sony in an official EQ Atlas as well.

    Basically, it's an excellent game that was well designed from the beginning to make sure the server took care of all important information exchanges. When there are occasional client side cheats allowed by new bugs introduced by a patch, they're always fixed super-fast.

    There are things Sony has done not that well with Everquest, but allowing cheaters to ruin the game for the rest of us isn't one of them.

    --
    Writing is the only socially acceptable form of schizophrenia. (E. L. Doctorow)
    1. Re:Everquest is actually very cheat-robust by yuzow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hmmm, you must not peruse the various EQ related boards very often, as cheating as how you described (run speed, duping, etc) has occurred quite often over the course of EQ's lifetime.

      Granted, most dupe methods are found out after a time, but those that were able to take advantage of them while they lasted (and avoided getting caught) contributed to damaging the game economy by introducing many rare drops that generally wouldn't have been in the game.

      Most of what you say about ShowEQ's benefits not being that great are true. Tracking, See Invisible, and a map program like Xylobot will get you most of the functionality that ShowEQ gives.

      Personally, I wish Sony Online wouldn't spend so much time fighting ShowEQ. What I believe is _truly_ hurting the game is the use of automated macroing programs to gain money at a ludicrous rate.

      Currently there's a program called Macroquest on sourceforge which allows you to control most everquest actions via scripts. Industrious folks have been able to find special tradeskill recipes that, when automated, can generated 6000-35000 platinum pieces an hour. For those that don't play the game, I belive 10k pp goes for $100 or so on playerauctions.com (check the web site for real numbers).

      So what happens is you get these asshats that have 10-15 computers & accounts all running macros generating hundreds of thousand of plat an hour, and then they go to playerauctions.com and sell it to other people for big $$$.

      This _huge_ influx of money into the game economy KILLS it for everyone else. When someone spends $250 to get a massive amount of platinum and can overpay for uber-item #10123 in the bazaar, those of us who don't cheat and only have 2k in the bank are screwed.

      Sony Online needs to spend the couple of days it takes to remove/modify the tradeskill recipes that sell for more than the component cost. This only has to be done for vendor buyable items, since those are the only ones that can be macro'd easily.

      The reason you see the spells you need for 10's of thousands of plat (C3 for 35k?!) is because people will pay for it.

      Yw

    2. Re:Everquest is actually very cheat-robust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'll be the voice of smiling acceptance and agree with you.

      Compared to many other games, EverCrack is quite cheat-robust. You don't hear about it much unless you troll on message boards, and in reality, it doesn't affect the average player.

      It's far from cheat proof, of course. But if anyone remembers Sega's attempt at entering the multiplayer adventure genre, it met with dismal failure. Why? Everyone was a bloody cheater. You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting rare items that only 1% of the playing population should've ever seen. You couldn't walk five steps without fearing for your character's life, thanks to the ability of cheaters to corrupt your character's data. You want a top level character? Just a few minutes, a switched disk, and your there.

      Compared to that, EverQuest is remarkably cheat proof. The cheating that does happen doesn't affect other players that much. Sure, you see people with top-level gear on their level 5 n00b, but no one complains when they're grouped with that guy. *chuckle* The reason is, that guy, possibly legitimate (depending on if you view twinking yer alts legit) and possibly not, can't harm your character. He can't corrupt your data. He can't steal your equipment. Thus, it's a null issue for the greater part of the playerbase.

      But now for a slight disagreement. Fun?

      Paul H. Muad'dib, if I ever see another Sarnak again in my lifetime, I'll probably storm the headquarters of Verant Inc., guns blazing. But maybe I'm just burnt out from nearly a decade of mudding. ;)

    3. Re:Everquest is actually very cheat-robust by AcidReflux · · Score: 1

      As I said in one of my other posts, in a relatively short amount of time, the various bot programs have caused more problems for the game than ShowEQ could ever cause. The design, philosophy, and intent of these programs is completely different than ShowEQ.

  60. Let me get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " I averaged 15-40 hours a month, "
    [...]
    "I robbed a firestation, got a drinking and driving minor, and sold adderol (Meds for ADHD) to my school peers.
    By the time I was caught I had 30 felonies(Possession with intent to distribute in a drug free (school) zone.), and 50 years in prison staring me straight in the face.
    I lost my license and was on house arrest for over 4 months."

    And playing everyquest saved your life.

    Sheesh.

    I played everquest and I (a) found a cure for cancer (b) solved the problems of the middle east (c) Finally got laid (d) Learned the secret of inner strength and beauty.

    Its a fucking miracle. Just a fucking miracle.

    Too bad something bad didn't happen when you were knocking off liquor stores.

    Now *that* would be funny.

  61. At the end of the day though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who can really work themselves into a lather about this?

    Sure, its cheating, but cheating is fun.

    Unless you want to play it straight, then its a PITA because you can't really play straight against cheaters.

    I don't find that offensive, simply a statement of fact.

    But at the end of the day, these online games are such a geekly stupid thing that I find myself laughing at all of you.

    Really. Just a 15 year old thing to do.

  62. Re:Just to let you know... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2

    Getting information from someone who got their information only through ShowEQ is using show EQ. You can't benifit from something and not use it. Just because it isnt running in your RAM

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  63. Consoles aren't the cure... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...Phantasy Star Online for Dreamcast was all hacked up within months of release. I think hacking will probably put a serious dent in the number of people that play MMORPGS...and Sony knows it, hence their efforts to stop it. It's really sad that some miscreants get power trips off cheating in online games. It pretty much limits players to playing with people they know, which greatly limits the pool of available people to play with, thus stealing from us the internets greatest promise...a vast number of people from all over the world to interact with.

  64. The Original SEQ Developers by Ashran · · Score: 2

    www.hackersquest.org

    --

    Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
  65. No, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Has anyone even mentioned the fact that game cheaters are pussies?"

    No, but there has been a lot of talk that anyone who playing these games is a flaming faggot.

    What do you think, Francine?

  66. security vs. cost by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CPU time costs money, the more CPU time they burn on the server, the more money it costs them in terms of CPU time.

    OTOH, client machines have tons of CPU cycles that they aren't using or don't really need. The more you can offload to them the better.

    Cheaters can ruin a game for a lot of people, and people upset at cheaters leave and cost sony money.

    So it becomes an optimization problem, (in the statistical sense, not the computational one).

    Do enough to prevent cheating so that you wont lose more customers' income then the cost of the server load that's caused by your anti-cheating software.

    Throwing monkey wrenches into the cheater-coder's work is a very cheap way to prevent cheating that changes the equations around.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:security vs. cost by Stauf · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmm... so why not do a bunch of operations on client machines that would be useless to the client? Like calculate line of sight on client A for client B?

      I realise that a distributed model would suck up a significant bit of bandwidth, but it would work reasonably well with a few optimisations (i.e. only users from the same geographic area process each others data, etc.; and there'd have to be some way to deal with faster and slower machines and connections)

  67. You're so typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been online for over 30 years.

    Your type is the most interesting personality online. You always will knee-jerk defend some viewpoint that you think gives you the moral high ground.

    Me personally, I think its silly to play with the cheats...why bother? But you seem to view it as a moral imperitive to stop it.

    I'm curious why people like you exist, but not curiuos enough to put any effort into asking. After all, there are all kinds of people in the world.

  68. For more background, you might want to read this by dnaxe · · Score: 2, Informative
  69. Don't compare SEQ to aimbots... by pigeon768 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Because they're entirely different things.

    The main difference between them is that 99.5% of players in EverQuest don't give a crap if someone else is using ShowEQ. There isn't a huge and overwhelming advantage vs. other players if someone's using ShowEQ. (There is on PvP servers. However, no one plays on the PvP servers because Everquest's PvP system sucks. And it has nothing to do with cheaters.)

    I used SEQ when I still played Everquest. All of my friends knew I used ShowEQ. My entire guild knew I used ShowEQ. About 2/3 of the people I got experience with knew I used ShowEQ. No one ever said to me, "Dude, that's fucked up. You're ruining the game for other people." Know why? Because I wasn't.

    I hate cheaters in half-life and its mods, and in quake and it's sequels and mods, but that's because the act of cheating ruins other peoples' enjoyment of the game which is an enormous difference IMO.

    It was amazing to watch people immediately start to whine when MS disabled modded X-Boxes from Live. Sure you can say there were "legitimate" reasons to mod the boxes, but come on.

    iirc, the "Big Deal" wasn't that you couldn't use your modchip while playing on Live, it's that MS banned you for life if your X-Box had a modchip in it, even if it's not enabled while playing on Live. It also did not discriminate between legitimate uses of modchips (playing imports, linux on X-Box- though that's not really legitimate in MS's eyes. ;)) and the ones who used it for cheating.

    There is also the little issue about unscrupulous modders changing the codes on their X-Boxes and banning codes that could very well that of a customer with a non-modded box.

    1. Re:Don't compare SEQ to aimbots... by UberOogie · · Score: 2
      I used SEQ when I still played Everquest. All of my friends knew I used ShowEQ. My entire guild knew I used ShowEQ. About 2/3 of the people I got experience with knew I used ShowEQ. No one ever said to me, "Dude, that's fucked up. You're ruining the game for other people." Know why? Because I wasn't.

      Forgive me for being cynical, but just because your friends and everyone directly benefiting from your cheating didn't see a problem with your cheating doesn't mean that it is okay.

      When you are playing a game, you are agreeing to play a game by a set of rules. When you break the rules to give yourself an unfair advantage without the conscent of everyone else playing, you are cheating and ruining the game for those playing by the rules. If people want to have an open cheat server, fine, as long as everyone knows what the deal is.

      But all you were doing is cheating.

      --
      "Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
  70. Kinda happy its not working by SnapperHead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I used to play on normal blueservers, I would use it all day long and it didn't bother me. There was many places where I just got lost running through it. No matter what I did, I got lost, so seq was my guide.

    Well, 4 months ago, I got bored of the blue servers, and headed towards PvP. (Sullon Zek) I was using seq as a basic idea of where PKs where and such, or knowing someones level when I zoned it, to know if I am gonna be screawed. But, right before PoP was released it started getting insaine. PKs would zone in, they knew where you where, how your HPs was (if there kinda close to you, around the corner, where you can't see em) Suddenly, you didn't know what hit ya.

    Each zone has some nice hidding spots, which can only be found by a druid, ranger or bard. (Those with a tracking skill) Its kinda funny how a wizard comes running from across the zone to that spot where you are. Durring which time, I shout hey, hows seq working for ya ?

    Since its more or less broken now, requires you to run some programs on your windows box that are very risky, very few people are using it. People have to use there real game skill. Honestly, its much nicer that way. Belive it or not, I really hope they find an even tougher form of encryption for it.

    Those who flame me from carebear servers, go try PvP before you open your mouth. You will soon learn how harsh of an enviorment it is. Things like seq make it really suck.

    --
    until (succeed) try { again(); }
    1. Re:Kinda happy its not working by ajs · · Score: 2

      The problem is not the users of ShowEQ, here. It's the game. Sony should not be sending your location and health to everyone in the zone and then saying "please, please, please don't read this yet". Don't blame the kiddies who abuse ShowEQ for stupid reasons like this any more than those who used to (ab)use the spells that are now banned in pvp. It's Sony's fault for making the game so easily abused and then placing no checks in the game for such abuse.

    2. Re:Kinda happy its not working by SnapperHead · · Score: 2

      Yes, I agree with this as well. Your location information should only be sent out when you are within close range. This in it self would be quite difficault. Rangers, druids and bards have a tracking skill. Ranger are the only ones who can sort there tracking by range and what not. So, adding a check to give just those classes a slightly longer range update would be fine. Tracking is done client side, it should be server side imo. Which is another thing that can be done.

      HP updates need to happen when you target someone within a very close range. Which it already does for the most part. Ok, so Sony does send a little too much data sometimes, but remeber, it needs to be sent. If you on the other side of the zone, very far away from someone. It doesn't (anymore) send updates on someone elses where abouts.

      Character levels shouldn't be sent either. Unless they don't have anon or roleplay on. (Mobs should never show there true level) Character classes shouldn't be sent either unless the same reasons above. There race has to be sent, becuase if you are close to them, you need to see what they look like and what kinda armor they have. Lots of the good armor all have different looks to them.

      Sony should make a little more effort into securing what they send and don't send. But, remeber, the ShowEQ / SEQ developers or users are no angels either.

      --
      until (succeed) try { again(); }
    3. Re:Kinda happy its not working by ajs · · Score: 2

      incorrect on one point. All the same information is still sent except for one thing. The game is now smarter about not sending updates when nothing changes. This means that your location and health are sent once (along with other details like visible armor and weapons) but it's not updated if you just sit still, so how much you heal may not get shown unless someone is right next to you.

  71. Re:This is fascinating by merigold77 · · Score: 1

    That's just wrong. However, my husband cracked up laughing when he read it.

    --
    Writing is the only socially acceptable form of schizophrenia. (E. L. Doctorow)
  72. You're not taking responsibility. by Erpo · · Score: 2

    What I got from your post was that you use ShowEQ as a real-time map to let you:
    -Avoid challenges your in-game character was not ready to meet.
    -Find people and things that would enhance the position of your in-game character or others.

    You purchased a product for a fixed sum (the price of the game and whatever expansion packs were added) and are now paying for a service on a monthly basis (the maintenance of servers that allow you to play the game with others and access to those servers). What must be recognized is that you have decided that the product you purchased is inadequate, and that those who provide you with the service you are paying for are trying to stop you from changing your everquest experience.

    Your use of ShowEQ is just as bad as a consumer's use of DeCSS to decrypt a dvd for backup purposes, but not for the reasons you think.

    In principle, there is nothing wrong with getting full access to data that is sent to you or to a program being run on hardware that you own. In fact, it's impossible to prevent you from doing so. It's a terrible idea because the company that is providing the good or service is trying to stop you. The MPAA doesn't want you to be able to decrypt DVDs because that allows you to copy them at possible financial detriment to the MPAA. Sony doesn't want you to be able to decrypt (and read and use) everquest data...well...I can't know exactly what they're thinking, but I would guess it's either because:

    1. It makes the game easier by eliminating artificial challenges they've introduced (which is all any game boils down to, artificial challenges) and thus possibly causing you to get bored and stop paying.

    OR

    2. It allows players to abuse the game and make it so difficult for other players that they become frustrated and stop playing (and so stop paying).

    Anyway, for whatever reasons, Sony doesn't want you to do it and they're taking technological steps to make it harder. When you use any means to circumvent a limitation placed on a product or service rather than putting consumer pressure on the company to remove the limitation, you are anesthetizing yourself to the process that keeps companies from hurting consumers. The very idea that everquest should encrypt its data packets or the MPAA should encrypt dvds is totally unacceptable! The MPAA must understand that selling and renting plastic discs containing valuable data is not a valid business model in an environment that obeys the simple laws of the physics of information (i.e. if you can see it you can copy it). Sony should know that if it sends information to someone, that person can use it whatever way they choose. So what's the proper course of action in these situations, meaning the one that holds up the system that, when employed, keeps big corporations from virtually raping consumers and taking their rights?

    DVDs:
    The MPAA _must_ find a new way of making money - this isn't as hard as it sounds. People are _very_ willing to pay for the movie experience of sitting in a huge theater with a big screen they could never hope to own themselves and a sound system that blows them away in an acoustically managed environment for two hours while they are told an amazing audio/visual story they've never heard before, at least not in that form. In other words, it's a glorified form of equipment rental. Sure, movies can be recorded with a crappy camcorder and put on the net, but a blurry, washed out, 320x240 picture with tinny sound and the occasional crunch of popcorn as the pirate enjoys the flick can't compare to the theater experience. As for post-theater revenue, video rental stores could be converted into high-speed online digital movie wherehouses. No DRM is necessary, as high quality movies take up quite a bit of space and consumers would be forced to delete old movies to make room for freshly downloaded ones. I would imagine a modest fee per download, and perhaps a monthly membership fee. For the technophobic or those not willing to wait for the download, the current model works fine. Media to hold copies still costs money.

    EQ:
    Two very simple courses of action:

    1. If it's not in the player's viewing frustum, don't send them information about it. That way there's no extra "EQ" information in the datastream to "Show". Perhaps characters with a special ability ("Sense Danger" maybe?) could be sent special precaching hints to make monster loads faster (it makes sense that those with a sense for danger would be able to more quickly react to it when it does become directly visable). I.e., "Game engine: preload huge_ugly_beatdown_montster.mdl, and tell the user that there's a huge_ugly_beatdown_monster 'somewhere close by'". This allows for the benefits of preloading still without giving away any extra information to a datastream tapping program. Also, since the datastream would not need to be encrypted, that's less work for the client and server cpus, possibly delaying an expensive server upgrade for verant.

    2. Don't change the protocol and add the map feature you want.

    Either way, it's a better solution than what they're doing now. No matter how good ShowEQ gets, if Sony goes with solution 1 there's absolutely nothing you can do - you can't see information that isn't being sent to you. If they go with solution 2, you'll get exactly what you want.

    Please. Write to Sony. Organize a protest. Do whatever you can. I can't stop you from using ShowEQ, but I can guarantee you that you'll work harder for a progressive solution without it.

  73. actually, MS/Turbine non-publicly support Decal by Fo0eY · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the asheron's call developers LIKE decal, and quietly communicate with each other
    and hey, they even let you use alt-tab and windowed mode, and don't just hijack your computer! personally, i refuse to play a game that disables alt-tab

    decal provides player run vendors and portal summoning bots, spam filtering, streamlined combat messaging, afk tell recording, tradelist generation, etc
    plus several plugins were incorporated into the game client after they became widely popular

    like he said, Decal is com based, so you can do a plugin in nearly any language you want
    AND Decal is opensource with the Devs always looking for contributors

    http://decaldev.sourceforge.net/

    1. Re:actually, MS/Turbine non-publicly support Decal by The+boojum · · Score: 1

      I've often thought that when I create my MMORPG (someday... sigh...) that I'd do the same thing. I'd want to quietly support the third-party developers in exchange for certain concessions on their part. Time and again people have proven how ingenious and resourceful they are about developing third-party hacks. History makes it pretty clear that trying to stop them is a pointless exercise. I think a better approach is to quietly give them the hooks in exchange for them agreeing to play nice. (e.g. don't make combat macros.) Good will on both sides can be a powerful thing. And then those that you catch not playing nicely you simply ban.

      And regarding Alt-Tab, I've agree that that's just stupid. All I'd have to do to get around it is to run a second machine alongside the first. Instead disabling Alt-Tab just irritates me, especially when all I want is to do something non-game related. Often's been the time when I'm playing and nothing is happening or when I'm waiting for a friend to log or a quest to start and I just pop out for a moment to check e-mail or websurf while I wait.

  74. I'm sorry, what? by crandall · · Score: 1

    Or they just want a map that should have been in the first place.

    Umm, what? I'm sorry, but gamers don't know what they want, and half of what they do want, they won't like once they get. The developers choose to make things certain ways for certain reasons, regardless of if you understand it or not.

    Let us dissect this argument a bit. The map should have been there in the first place. Why? So you know where things are. Therefore, you shouldn't have to search for things. If you shouldn't have to search for things, things should just be given to you. In fact, you shouldn't have to explore at all, you should be able to click a button and be teleported to where something is.

    And while we are at it, lets make all monsters die in one hit, make all monsters raise you a level when you kill them, make a big pile of weapons so you can just go take what you want.

    If gamers got exactly what they wanted, they'd have nothing but flavor of the week. And like flavor of the week, by next week, it will have changed.

  75. Cringely Just Covered This by bozoman42 · · Score: 1
    Amusingly, the outline of this article is practically identical to Cringely's coverage just a few weeks ago:

    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20021114. html

  76. Re:What up What up? by KILNA · · Score: 1

    But my point is that a true geek wouldn't end up flipping burgers anyway, and would most likely end up getting paid far better to do a job that actually challenges him technically. As far as beowulf goes, are you not paying attention? It's tantamount to sacriledge to talk about large quantities of disposable income without at least mentioning making a beowulf cluster. If it were quantities in the millions, I would be forced to mention a trip to the ISS. :)

    --
    Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
  77. this can be circumvented a lot easier by HaPpY42 · · Score: 1

    having done this with other games like diablo2 trying to figure out how to decrypt this is the hard way. if you're already handy with a debugger you can: 1. throw a hook in at the point of execution where the data has been decrypted. 2. if, for example, you wish to make some sort of everquest server emulator, you can locate the encrypt/decrypt routines, dump the eq.exe or eq.dll or whatever into memory (on any os), and call those from your code. the idea is not to obscure the security but improve the security itself as many still dont seem to understand. this can be done with a less revealing protocol of items and player locations, etc.

    1. Re:this can be circumvented a lot easier by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      The whole point of ShowEQ was to do this passively. The restriction is artificial but please respect what they were trying to do.

  78. It's not as though it's a new problem by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Netrek figured this out about fifteen years ago. The source is open, so it was assumed from day 1 that clients couldn't be trusted. Attempts at client authentication were added later, but those were add ons (and could be and were subverted), they weren't the prime means of preventing cheating.

    The strength of the Netrek model is that the game was designed from its infancy to send exactly and only the information that each client needs to display what it's supposed to be displaying. For example, cloaked units are supposed to be shown as unidentified contacts and on the galactic window only, with erratic position and irregular updates. One of the first things a hacked client developer will do is to display them on the tactical window as well, and there's nothing that the design can do to stop that. Also, it's not perfect; an ID is sent for the cloaked units, so the client can show what they really are. However, the server does only send irregular updates, and it flat out lies about the position, heading and speed of the unit, so the client can only show so much.

    One of the most controversial design decisions involved torpedo weapons. The servers sends "start" and "end" packets, but instead of sending speed and heading and letting the client handle movement of the weapon, it sends regular "position" updates, with a jitter built in. This increases the bandwidth requirement significantly, but it means that the client doesn't know the exact speed and heading of the weapon, so can't make an easy calculation about how to dodge it.

    The Netrek model is replete with decisions like this. There are a few snafus (like the cloaked ship ID), but in general there is very little that a client can display that it's not supposed to. And believe me, I tried.

    The reason for this tight design is simple if you think about it. Netrek, like XPilot and Xfire, was originally an X-display game. The server handled both mechanics and display. When Netrek moved to a TCP(later UDP)/IP based model, that model was preserved and the server took on a lot of responsibility for culling information that each client shouldn't know.

    It never fails to amaze me that commercial games developers never seem to learn the lessons that open source projects can teach them. I know (from bitter experience) that there's a huge rush to get results on screen, but hey, guys, do it right, don't do it twice.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:It's not as though it's a new problem by useofweps · · Score: 1

      The Netrek model, while good, still suffered from hacked clients sitting between the client and server, as you well know since you wrote one. And even though I was in the same lab, I never used it. ;) That's the trouble with online gaming, if the game is successful enough, sooner or later there will be a smart guy who spends all his time trying to cheat. The games companies have to walk a thin line between putting in enough cheat prevention measures to disuade casual crackers, while not making the game suffer for the honest players.

    2. Re:It's not as though it's a new problem by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      But my point is that even with hacked client, the client/server model was paranoid enough to prevent it from being a game-wrecker. There was only so much that a hacked client could do, i.e. some info-borg features like showing cloakers (but still with very limited information and use) and auto-aiming of weapons which was often counterproductive. Who am I talking to, BTW? I can be contacted at postmaster@&.org for chats and reminiscing.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:It's not as though it's a new problem by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Whoops, I meant mailto:postmaster@< my name>.org, and see also http://www.< my name>.org

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  79. Bolo hacked years ago by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

    Cyber [Cybolo] was a hack - had autoaim, invis, map stuff, etc etc. Heaps of different cheats. And the name made sense if you'd read the Bolo [Keith Laumer] books.

    --

    Yay me!

  80. On a related note: Diablo 2 maphack by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

    Funny thing, D2 also has a 3rd party show map util called, coincidently, 'maphack'. There was a big uproar in the community last year when it got released, since it would let you do meph runs faster. (Killing a boos monster Mephisto over and over again with high magic find gear, would let you "win" the item lottery easier.) Lots of people were complaing about how it was wrecking the game. I never follwed that logic since if you're in a different game then the person using it, how is it spoiling your enjoyment of the game?

    What I did agree on, was that technically it's a cheat, since you are not playing the game the same way the designers intendend. Muddying the issue was that it had an one long-term advantage:
    - Players would find their uber gear, and quite playing on bnet. Good riddance as that's one less person taking up bandwidth.
    Sounds a little impersonal, but the reality is that everyone gets bored of the game eventually. Knowing how laggy bnet has been lately, having fewer players would mean less disconnects for everyone.

    Nowadays, everyone is arguing over 'pindlebot' - an 3rd party util that will play the game for you, repeatedly killing PindleSkin, since he can drop any item in the game. Is it cheating, when you're using another program to play the game for you?

    Will be intersting to see what Blizzard and Sony do ...

  81. What a load. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    One problem with this escalation is that, like another product (TiVo, which is partially backed by Sony) the very people subverting the product and making it more than the creator wants it to be are the best customers. In terms of EverQuest, they are often the ones maintaining several accounts and/or spending extra money for the "Legends" service. How does a company contend with a market where your best customers are also your most resourceful? With the TiVo, there was an uneasy understanding between the company and its modders. Sony has broken that balance with EverQuest.

    -and-

    PoP is a finely crafted fantasy gaming experience, but Sony has once again chosen to spend extra time and money hurting themselves and their market. Perhaps their competition will not make the same mistakes.

    This is not "modding," this is cheating. Sony is trying to prevent cheating. Cheaters are *not* good customers, because they ruin the experience for other players. If 1% of your game population is cheating, yet that 1% each maintains 2 accounts, they still alienate the 99% of the legit players. It's the 99% that Sony wants, not the 1% of assholes who don't understand what the point of a game is.

    And Sony's efforts are only wasted because they are, ultimately, in vain. Cheaters will find a way. However, I still applaud their efforts, and hope they continue to do so. I do not play EQ (I got bored of it after about 2 weeks), but cheating was one of the things that absolutely destroyed UO for me. Even if you're only given 1- to 2-week windows of no cheater activity, I say it's money well spent.

    This whole article basically became a troll towards the end. As far as I'm concerned, he can keep playing with his cheat utilities, and I'll stay away from games with players like this in them.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
    1. Re:What a load. by Znork · · Score: 2

      Sony is not trying to prevent cheating. You encrypt the data to prevent others from listening in on what a player does. That's the purpose of encryption. Since the player has to have the encryption key you'd have to be rather 'logically challanged' to use encryption as a way to prevent cheating.

      If Sony were trying to prevent cheating they'd stop sending any data the player shouldnt see. That would be an effective way to prevent cheating.

      Now, if you want Sony and/or other game companies to prevent cheaters you should contact them and tell them to hire someone who actually has a clue about how to prevent cheating or you'll refuse to play their games.

      This isnt rocket science. Writing (close to, as in the cheater wont get any significant advantage) uncheatable client-server games is possible and it isnt even that hard. It's been done since the beginning of online gaming in opensource online games (kinda hard to implement security in the client when the player has the source). Place one of the system architects in front of a screen and tell him to read through project development mailing list archives and actually learn something about software design for once in his life and you've solved the problem.

      The blame lies squarely with the companies who spend maybe 10 minutes total considering the issue during the design phase. The failure to implement a secure design is just as bad as if inventory suddenly disappeared or characters just went poof. Complain about it and maybe they'll actually do something about it. But _they_ are the ones who decide wether to make cheating possible or not, and encryption is not one of the ways to prevent cheating.

    2. Re:What a load. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Place one of the system architects in front of a screen and tell him to read through project development mailing list archives and actually learn something about software design for once in his life and you've solved the problem.


      And what exactly would the system architect learn from reading project development mailing list archives? How to write cheat-proof code for small scale systems with unlimited bandwidth? Open source online games are different from Everquest in several MAJOR aspects: scale and bandwidth. No open source game I know of has to support 400,000+ users nor are they usually committed to supporting dialup users. The reality is that there are real economic and structural constraints on what paths Sony can take to solve the cheating problem. Ignoring those constraints isn't an effective way of overcoming them.
  82. They require clickthru everytime to avoid social e by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they make the clickthru happen everytime someone logs onto the server, they prevent legal engineering, by having someone else clickthru once, then give the game up (or the computer up) to someone else to use. They catch every instance of a person using a client, regardless of whether they stole an account, borrowed, etc.

    -- Ender, Duke_of_URL

  83. I shall qoute Eric's Theorem by Indy1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "For every technology, there is equal and opposite hacker technology".

    The funny thing is, the orginator of the qoute is a PS2 and Xbox game developer in San Jose.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    1. Re:I shall qoute Eric's Theorem by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Just because something is a quote doesn't mean that the quote is proclaiming the virtues of the thing mentioned.

      If, during the transients between patch and hack, cheating tools are made broken, that's good enough for me. Just keep those transients coming.

  84. I gotta ask..who gives a damn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been playing EQ for over 4 years now since the last phase of beta, and personnaly, I have never given two damns if someone has been using ShowEQ.

    I have no desire to use it, but I honestly dont care one bit if the guy next to me has it running or not.

    I honestly wonder how many EQ players actully care if someone else is running ShowEQ (PvP servers aside).

  85. Another (former) EQ lackie chimes in.... by KillerBob · · Score: 2

    SEQ doesn't really harm the game, as long as you don't play on a PvP server. On the blue servers, the main uses for SEQ are mapping, and knowing how many hitpoints a MOB has/where they are. Most of those feats can easily be accomplished using resources that are online.

    The reason SEQ is "cheating" is that in PvP, it can also be used to tell player stats, which works as a major advantage over players without this information. That doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to beat the wizard you're duelling, it just means that you know where they're coming from. I can definitely see why people don't like it in PvP: my main tactic when I was duelling was to shadow step (think "Blink" in D&D/GURPS), nuke, repeat. It kept people questioning where I was, which was basically all the time I needed to nuke them without retribution. On the PvP servers, when you kill somebody, you can take one of their items.

    It's for the better if they can prevent SEQ from working. The problem, though, is that this may ultimately lead to their downfall. They can't treat SEQ one way, while programs like EQWindows (which allow the user to play EQ in a window instead of fullscreen) get different treatment. Programs like EQWindows allow players to do things like play multiple accounts at the same time, which can't hurt their pocketbooks. SOE would do themselves a world of good if they just accepted that this exists, and satisfied themselves that it's on the fringe at the moment.

    Incidentally, PoP was the reason I quit EQ. I couldn't stomach levelling my wizard from 60 to 65, so I parked her in her hometown, and cancelled billing the day that PoP launched.

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    1. Re:Another (former) EQ lackie chimes in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it absolutely does harm the game on blue servers, in a number of ways.

      First off, I'm posting anonymously because I don't usually read slashdot and I've never posted to the forums, I don't plan on ever doing it again and I don't feel like signing up for an account to make this post.

      Now:

      Here's how SEQ can and *is* currently hurting blue servers right now:

      1) Players are constantly competing over rare spawns. Specifically mobs with random spawn locations such as Quilmane... Players are using SEQ to find mobs like this much faster than the legitimate players, making it much much harder for the legitimate players to find these mobs in time to kill them before the cheaters do.

      2) Players are using SEQ to locate Guides and other Customer Service personnel that are deliberately hiding. While I agree this information should be kept server side it is not, and the use of SEQ is allowing players to view these hidden CSRs.

      This has the following effects on the game:

      2a) Players that are using hacks/exploits/macros/etc. detect that a CSR is in the area, immediately logs out and/or stops using them to avoid detection and consequences for their actions.
      2b) Players that are committing abuse/disruption against other players (camp stealing, intentional training, kill stealing) know that if a CSR was watching, they would know. That allows them to be safe in committing their abuses because they know they cannot be caught doing it.

      Legitimate players *ARE* being wronged by these cheaters. I know that not all SEQers are using it in this manner, but the fact that the ability to abuse it exists makes the program an offense against me, a legitimate player; against the CSRs that are trying to keep the game fair and fun; against SOE, who is losing valuable customers to the frustration that this causes; and lastly against the player base as a whole.

      I wholly applaud SOE for continuing to fight this threat against the integrity of the EverQuest universe.

  86. timesinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to slow progression in eq, certain bosses take several days to respawn after they have been killed. Many guilds use seq to avoid wasting a tons of time. Nobody wants to waste 5 hours working their way to an encounter only to find out that boss isnt up.

  87. hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll have no users, with few->no users you won't have much of an incentive for hackers to come play.

    If you let them hack the server code, you'll be down more than you are up. If you need examples of this happening in the real world, read about AnarchyMOO or AnarchyMUD. It gave all the users wiz powers, and all they did was crash the damn thing.

    -- Ender, Duke_of_URL

  88. When is sony going to learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You cannot use encryption to hide data from its intended recipient.

  89. Good article, too bads it practically plagarism. by nemesisj · · Score: 2

    This article was a good one, but its eerily similar to an article that appeared on November 14 written by Robert X. Cringely.

    Isn't it ironic that everyone was disputing Cringely's point this week that his column is ripped off just a day or two ago then this shows up?

  90. Just cheating by deanj · · Score: 1

    I remember when this first came up, and the main guy heading up ShowEQ declared "war" on Sony. Well, you know what? Too damn bad. EQ is a lot better off without a bunch of people cheating in the game. I've been playing for quite a while now, never had to cheat, and I'm doing fine. I say put more encryption in. Let the ShowEQ team pound their head into the ground. Who cares? I'll be enjoying the game.

    1. Re:Just cheating by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Scroll down a couple of posts. Your 'cheatless' play wouldnt be nearly as fun if it wasnt for us ShowEQ users exposing Verant/SOE's blatant lies about the game as well as provoking them to include "every game should have this" features that they ignored for so long (can you say COMPASS).

  91. This reminds me a great deal of dish hacking... by zonker · · Score: 1, Informative

    i dunno if any of you old skool wired readers remember this article about paradise island home of some of the world's most famous satellite and cable hackers. a constant cat and mouse game between the hackers and satellite and cable box developers/content distributors. and the interesting thing is that both sides seem to enjoy the battle of wits.

  92. oh shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er, who gives a shit wether you robbed a fire station or not. First you say that EQ is good because it keeps your stupid ass at home with your daughter, then you talk about people killing themselves prior to reproduction. Looks like you failed on that one too, loser.

  93. Information vs. Misinformation on ShowEQ by AcidReflux · · Score: 2, Informative

    After sorting through a plethora of comments, I just had to comment. It appears that the majority of people out there don't have a CLUE about what ShowEQ is and what ShowEQ isn't.

    Verant, and now SOE, have had a burr in their britches about ShowEQ from the beginning. They continue to view ShowEQ as the "dark side of the force" while completely ignoring the FAR more egregious cheating tools out there.

    On the "cheating index," I rate ShowEQ only slightly above EQWindows. In fact, I don't consider EQWindows cheating at all. That, however, is not SOE's opinion. An entire thread could be devoted to SOE's blatent disregard for Microsoft's development guidelines regarding Control-Alt-Delete and task-switching... Rather ironic. But I digress. More on the "cheating index" in a little bit.

    MacroQuest, Xylobot, and a few others, active ALTER the client. They are the tools that have done FAR more damage to the game than ShowEQ could EVER do. People have used these other tools to flood the EQ economy with game money (plat) earned by automating the exploitation of various tradeskills. Heck, there are even macros out there that allow people to multi-box drastically easier than would normally be the case. Players can alter their run speed, have the client ignore rain in a zone to improve vision, and a whole lot more. Rumor even has it that people are able to dupe items using some of these tools. These are things ShowEQ simply can't and never will do. For those who are concerned about the integrity of the game, THESE tools are your real enemies -- not ShowEQ, not EQWin.

    As a side note, even our beloved Magelo is more invasive than ShowEQ. Magelo sits on the client side and rips the character data out of EQ's process space. Of all the programs mentioned, Magelo is by far the most harmless in terms of game play.

    EqWindows (EQWin) is also harmless in my opinion. It allows the user to run EQ in a window (scandal!!). What in the world is so bad about this, Sony? Ah! The argument has always been, "the player could use their computer to look up our secrets on the internet, or launch cheat tools in the background." Guess what? It is already happening and has been happening long before EQWin existed. By extrapolation, web sites like Everlore and CastersRealm are cheating.

    So why are EQWin (which would be utterly trivial for SOE to discover without resorting to tasklist or disk scanning) and Magelo allowed to continue? Simple. SOE has concluded that these applications keep people playing (thus PAYING). ShowEQ, Macroquest, and the rest have a relatively high barrier to entry. Of these, ShowEQ has traditionally had the highest barrier simply because it runs solely on Linux. The fact that many people continue to play because of ShowEQ is conveniently ignored because of the relatively small number of people who use it. It doesn't matter if a few disgruntled SEQ users quit. Not enough revenue for Sony to care about.

    Is ShowEQ cheating. Sure it is. It gives its user the advantage of knowing where in the zone you are, what critters are in the zone, and some basic information about the critters (notably position, movement direction, level, and class). Can it be used to give a player an advantage? Sure. However, the player using SEQ still has to have sufficient skill to actually leverage that advantage. You still have to be able to play the game with skill. To get "Mad Platz" using ShowEQ is limited to being able to find and kill rare spawns, etc. ShowEQ only helps with the find part. The player still must be able to do all the work. Ohhh look, Lord Nagafen is up -- I'm running ShowEQ, I can solo him. Don't think so. The various posts in this thread, along with the recent Cringley article show that this point is not well understood.

    Heck, the in-game exploits that many players do give the player more of an advantage than ShowEQ. These exploits are typically pathing bugs that allow a player to wail away at an opponent without ever being hit. Some players have claimed being able to go from level 3 to 20 in a matter of a few hours using these exploits. In fairness, SOE does a decent job of trying to track down and clean up these exploitable bugs. However, the same pathing problems are perpetually ignored when it is to the advantage of the NPC...

    This next point will cause some people to say, "look! A cheater trying to justify himself." Perhaps, but I want this angle of the story to be told.

    * ShowEQ has exposed COUNTLESS lies and half-truths from Verant/SOE about the game. Many of the changes for the better that have been made to the game over the years are due to the persistence and vigilance of ShowEQ users (who, ironically, seem to care a great deal about the game.)

    * ShowEQ has helped expose the incredible inequity that exists between the rules that NPCs follow and the rules that govern Player Characters. In essence, we've gotten a better window on the way the NPCs "cheat" us.

    * ShowEQ and its users have been responsible for identifying and reporting countless bugs.

    * ShowEQ users have done countless favors for their fellow players; leading hopelessly lost and frustrated players out of confusing, perpetually foggy and rainy zones, and assisting with the recovery of corpses that otherwise would have been lost.

    * Directly or indirectly, ShowEQ has made Everquest more enjoyable in some way to *thousands* of players.

    Bottom line is this: ShowEQ is FAR from the "Ultimate Evil" many have portrayed it to be.

    I think a lot of ShowEQ users would abandon the use of the tool altogether if EQ included a mapping function, "heads-up radar", and an opponent assessment system that was actually worth something. I've played other Online RPG's that had these basic features, and the thought of writing a ShowEQ equivalent for these games never crossed my mind. It simply wasn't necessary.

  94. Incredible Hubris by Performer+Guy · · Score: 2

    I don't know what's more arrogant, that you think you are in the right doing this or that you assume others will naturally align with your position. You're disruptive activities are not noble, you're no better than virus writers who get a kick from releasing their products in the wild. Your windows version threat demonstrates this.

  95. Interesting tunnel-vision by ajs · · Score: 2

    All of this discussion of ShowEQ, but I'm amazed that on Slashdot we're not discussing things like the difficulties with the encryption, the ability to create and hold a long-term playerbase, etc. Oh well, I guess debating the morality of ShowEQ sounds more fun :)

  96. Re: ALL COMMENTS by MegaFur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    bitch, bitch, bitch.
    Geez!

    To the "It's ok to cheat!" group (Group One):
    No it isn't. If it were, it wouldn't be called "cheating".

    To the "cheating is bad" group (Group Two):
    no shit. But someone will always cheat. This isn't the simple, clear cut right-and-wrong thing that some people make it out to be though. It would be if everyone was Dudly Do-Right, but they're not and they never will be.

    If it were automatic for everyone to do-the-right-thing, banks would not need safes and locks and guards and all else. There is always, in human nature, the struggle between what society says you should do and what you actually want to do. Note that things get even more confused because certain elements in society will say that it's okay to do what you want to (i.e. Group One). For some people, some of the time, there is a temptation to cheat.

    Suppose, for example, that you and I are playing a game of cards. Now suppose you've got to get up and leave the room for a bit. I stare at your hand lying face down on the table. Do I look at it and see what cards you've got? In my case, no I don't because I have a certain ethic about cheating in games (that have human opponents--when the opponent is a computer, whether I cheat depends on how much respect I have for the game and other factors) and I'm pedantic and I want to try to play by all the rules. So no, I don't look at the cards.

    But another person might look at the other guy's cards and rationalize it as being a "more technically advanced style of play". Note that it becomes easier to rationalize cheating when you don't actually see the person that you're screwing over. It also becomes more tempting when there's money on the line. Don't people still pay big bucks on eBay for high-power EQ chars?

    When you look at it that way, it's easy (for me anyway) to start to see the EQ "cheaters" as "power users", even though I know they're not. It becomes easier to lie to myself, because it becomes increasingly tempting to become on of them so I can set myself up a nice little business on eBay and make money (this is human nature in action, folks) out of little bits of data and other people's gulibility. :-) But making money off of people's gulibility always leaves a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak). That's why I'll never be a politician or a lawyer.

    But the point, Group Two, is that there is no need to let Group One get away with so much in this situation. The server could, perhaps, be better written to give away less information. That would be a perfect example of doing the Right Thing. (But also note "deserves to lose". I suppose this is where some of the Group One people are coming from.) Yes, unfortunatetly, that might require some rewrites and it might increase the required bandwidth, but... Think of the Children!! (sorry, couldn't resist. ;-) )

    So how can we get to that point? What would get Sony to rewrite the code some more so that the client has less info to go on? Simple. Release WinSEQ. Then they won't have much choice.

    This is not a new battle. It's just the age-old war of access to information being played out AGAIN . Other examples include: illegally copying mp3s, application programs, games programs, ALL programs. Where do YOU draw the line? What level of information access do you think is okay, and what do you think is wrong? Does your philosophy have any contradictions? Are you aware that arguing for illegalization of spam whilst also arguing for legalization of file trading implies that your right to privacy is greater than the right of copyright? But copyright is explictiy referred to and defined in the Constitution and, AFAIK, the right to privacy is not. Have you ever thought about the implications of that? How many more times will we have to go through this, I wonder? A hundred times? A million?

    I think fifty years from now, people will look back on this age of poorly defined/handled information access rights and laugh. Heck, I live in this time and I already laugh at it!

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  97. Please god, yes. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    :)

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  98. Attention all morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allow me to make a couple of points, if I may.

    "It's Sony's fault, they should have designed their system better."

    Tomorrow night I will break into your house, rape your sister/wife, chop off your dog's head and shoot out both your knees...but it will be your fault for not having better security! Why didn't you design your house with a voice activated door?

    The idea that it is Sony's fault is so amazingly stupid...anyone saying that must have an IQ of 5 or below. If I choke you to death is it your fault your neck is too soft? Use your brains, those that have them.

    "They should have had a map anyway!"

    Well, go play a game with a map then. Are you the game designer for EQ? Maybe what game companies should do is include every feature that every idiot requests...brilliant!

    Yeah, I think it would be cool if EQ allowed you to rape monsters rather than fight them...so I'm introducing "showMonsterRapeEQ." Hey, it should have been there to begin with!

    ---

    If you are going to make some arguments, rack your brains for a few more seconds and borrow some brain cells from your friends. Most of the arguments being made are plain idiotic.

    Furthermore, by threatening a Windows port the ShowEQ people are just illustrating what petty thugs they are. Not only would it annoy Sony, but it would ruin the game for a lot of legitimate players. How easily people forget that. If someone intentionally ruins the game for a bunch of paying customers they aren't any better than lame worm writers...it isn't about creativity, it's about the "right" be an asshole.

    And that's something *really* worth crusading for.

    1. Re:Attention all morons by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      >Allow me to make a couple of points, if I may.
      >"It's Sony's fault, they should have designed their system better."

      Who said this?

      >Tomorrow night I will break into your house, >rape your sister/wife, chop off your dog's head >and shoot out both your knees...but it will be >your fault for not having better security! Why >didn't you design your house with a voice >activated door?

      All of the said above is illegal. Running a packet sniffer is not. You can't possibly be this retarded...

      >The idea that it is Sony's fault is so amazingly >stupid...anyone saying that must have an IQ of 5 >or below. If I choke you to death is it your >fault your neck is too soft? Use your brains, >those that have them. ...but I see that you are.

      >"They should have had a map anyway!"

      Who said this? What are you reading? You just making this up as you go along?

      >Well, go play a game with a map then. Are you >the game designer for EQ? Maybe what game >companies should do is include every feature >that every idiot requests...brilliant!
      >Yeah, I think it would be cool if EQ allowed you >to rape monsters rather than fight them...so I'm >introducing "showMonsterRapeEQ." Hey, it should >have been there to begin with!

      You have some serious problems, equating rape, killing animals and shooting people to.... running a packet sniffer on a game to show a map. Do yourself and everyone here a favor, tuyrn off the computer. Step outside, that bright thing in the sky is the sun.

    2. Re:Attention all morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Who said this?

      Um..about 1/3 of the people in the thread...did you READ the thread?

      >Who said this? What are you reading? You just >making this up as you go along?

      [about a map]

      The ORIGINAL OPSTING said this! Try *reading*! You know, sounding out the words and such. If you haven't read the initial posting or the threads, why are you talking?

      >You have some serious problems, equating rape, >killing animals and shooting people to....

      Obviously one is much worse than the other. The legality is not relevant though. It is stupid logic to say that someone deserves what happened to them if they could have tried harder to stop it. Yes, Sony cuold re-engineer their client - that might be an interesting technical discussion but that's all it is.

      The fact that you *can* cheat doesn't give you the right to cheat, or make it Sony's fault that you choose to cheat. The legality isn't relevant, unless you are a prick who will do anything as long as it doesn't end up with you in jail.

  99. Turbine handles their games better by ZarkDav · · Score: 1

    Verant and Mythic just need to look at Turbine handling of Asheron's Call and Asheron's Call 2.

    Integrating the map and the radar into the client answers most of SEQ and Excalibur users needs.

    Moreover, Turbine handling of plugins clearly shows that they consider their player base mature enough to participate in the development of their world.

    Too bad that Turbine is part of MS, eh?

    1. Re:Turbine handles their games better by AcidReflux · · Score: 1

      Great point! I played AC2 during beta, as well as AC for a while. The thought of writing ShowAC or something like it never crossed my mind.

      Why?

      Because the game included the basic functionality of radar and a map...

      Beyond that, it also had an opponent assessment system that actually meant something and provided useful information. I've always contended that as a player character progresses, their ability to determine an opponent's relative strength and characteristics would improve. Not in EQ! You get a simple level comparison your entire life. After a few levels, the comparison is meaningless because NPCs and PCs follow an entirely different ruleset.

    2. Re:Turbine handles their games better by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      The Decal project for AC is phenominonally successful. There are hundreds of plugins for decal that take care of all the interface customization you could want.

      The AC team takes the "the client is in the hands of the enemy" approach and therefore doesn't need to worry about packet sniffers. If someone comes out with something that damages gameplay that function is put back on the server in the next patch. Period.

  100. copyright vs. privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    But copyright is explictiy referred to and defined in the Constitution and, AFAIK, the right to privacy is not.

    The fact that privacy is not referred to in the Constitution does not strike me as a particularly convincing argument that we have no right to privacy. In fact, it seems much more likely that the Constitution omits privacy because the Founding Fathers did not in their wildest dreams imagine that privacy could be taken away.

    There is simply no way the Founding Fathers could have conceived of satellite photography, long range directional microphones, thermal imaging sensors that work through walls, or any of the incredible array of privacy-violating devices that society has at their disposal today.

  101. Whats the point of cheating??? by lightweave · · Score: 1

    I always wonder about cheaters in general. I'm playing most of the time single player games and only shooters online, but still I don't really understand why people cheat.
    I used cheats myself but I only use them in certain circumstances. I mostly use cheats when there is a feature that should have been in the game all along and improves gameplay. i.E. in Baldurs Gate 2 I activated the console to be able to teleport from one point on the map to another. I never used it for anything else and the only reason I use it is because it is boring, once you have explored a map, to wait for your characters to crossing it. I never use the cheat to explore the map itself. When I look at all the cheats available for games I always wonder what poeple do with it? Why paying for a game when you let automated scripts play it while you are not there? I play a game because I want to play and enjoy it. If I don't like a game I don't play it, but then why bothering with scripts? I see a point for people who sell characters or items for real money, but again, why buying that stuff? If I don't want to play a game why even waste my time with loading it and in case of online games why paying for it. The game is about collecting items, killing monsters, solving riddles and all that and cheating defeats the core point of the game. This will always be a mystery to me...

    1. Re:Whats the point of cheating??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game is very VERY booring without a cheat... it is an online chat room not a game.

    2. Re:Whats the point of cheating??? by CountZer0 · · Score: 1
      i.E. in Baldurs Gate 2 I activated the console to be able to teleport from one point on the map to another. I never used it for anything else and the only reason I use it is because it is boring, once you have explored a map, to wait for your characters to crossing it.

      You answered your own question. Why spend hours sitting at my keyboard clicking my mouse to move two blocks of ore and a flask of water into the forge and hitting "combine" to make metal bits? I already have explored this recipe, and manualy doing it is boring after the first few attempts.

      However, the only way to increase tradeskills in EQ is to repeat this boring process for hours on end.

      Note: I am not advocating cheating or macro'ing. I am simply trying to help Lightweave understand the simelarities between his "acceptable" cheating, and those who may endulge in other forms of cheating.
    3. Re:Whats the point of cheating??? by lightweave · · Score: 1

      Then this is a flaw in the game design which should be corrected. I can understand that in this case one wants to cheat. But my question aimed more on cheating that spoils the game entirely. I don't condem cheating per se, because the game should be entertaining. If the designer forgot to include features that keep gameplay interesting then it is ok for me to cheat around this and I don't consider this cheating. Upping levels by editing a save file is cheating though (only as an example) because you are supposed to play the game to gain levels. If you do things like that you take the fun out of the game for yourself (and for others probably as well). I never understood people who used aimbots in games like counterstrike or similar. To cheat the core game components that actually make up ther game is plain stupid for me. Basically I don't mind cheats that help you avoid situtations that don't add to the game experience. Travvling for hours through a map just to get from one point to another without anything happening is boring and doesn't add to the game experience. I remember playing Elite on the C64 and the most boring part was when you were travelling. You simply sat there waiting ... waiting ... waiting ... and somtimes you were hit by bandits. The trading stuff was fun, though.

  102. Hiding info in plain sight by joaobranco · · Score: 1
    Could it be possible to send MORE information from the server to the client but doing so that with the valid information would also be sent non-existent details (to be weeded out by the client?). That would mean that the task of the decoders would be harder, since they would need to find the useful info after decoding the protocol...

    I'm not sure it would be easy (and don't know how to stop the spy to using the same information that the game has to invalidate the erroneous data), but I believe it could be an aditional layer of protection.

  103. The courts? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    But nobody, can _ever_ stop the players from reading anything you send them or sending you whatever they want.

    Not even the judicial branch of the real-world or game-world government?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:The courts? by Znork · · Score: 2

      No, not even the judicial branch of the real-world or game-world government. They can punish the players if the are able to detect it, but that still does not prevent them from doing it.

  104. What you can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have seen a version of ShowEq running,and what you can see is amazing. when you go into a new zone, you see the entire zone. You see a circle that gives you your line of sight and the distance your carachter can see. It tells the speed of each creature by giving each creature a tail. The tail is a different color for different speeds. It is possible to filter for specific creatures or items that a creature is carying so that those creatures are alerted to you audibly or visually. You know you and your party's position/motion/strength you know all mob's position/motion/strength/items/alignment you know all available items and routes.

  105. Sorry... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2

    ... but the "right" to screw with another company's hard work, sweat and tears, i.e. their "software, intellectual property..etc" is one right I am absolutely sure I am not going to miss.

    MMORPGS are set to become an extremely large segment of the video game industry. That means a lot of jobs, not only from the company that makes the game but from all the mom and pop companies that will pop up to sell guides, start web forums supporting the game, merchandise...etc. It would really be sad to have all of that put in jepordy for some little teenaged pissant who wants to mess with the "code" and be able to play for free, or with unfair abilities that turns others off to the game and causes the company and the MMORPG industry as a whole to lose money.

    And about rights, you really demean the value of the word when you use it on stuff as triffling as this. Rights are things like the freedom to speak, the freedom to assmble peaceably, to be free from random searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial. The "right" to screw with a company's products pales in comparison.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  106. Haves/Have-Nots by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Everything I've seen about Everquest seems to indicate that SOE caters to the "Haves" while screwing over the "Have-Nots" - For example, at one point raising the level cap from 50 to 60, and now to 65, something that only benefits the most hardcore. Also, the EQ economy is riddled with holes and massively inflated so that only macroers and hardcord players can afford anything.

    DAoC (which I play), on the other hand, has a level cap of 50. Period. Mythic has repeatedly stated that this will never change. (You can progress a bit beyond 50 with "Realm abilities", obtained in realm vs. realm combat rather than player vs. monster, but it isn't THAT much of a difference.)

    Also, in DAoC, except for jewelry items, there is no such thing as rare armor/weapons anymore. Players can now craft the best items in the game. Yes, it'll cost you, but it's a fixed price (the materials needed from merchants) that will never change.

    To combat inflation, Mythic has always kept the money supply tight in DAoC (and in fact recently made it tighter by removing the closest thing to an exploit the economy had - Certain items could be salvaged for a pretty good profit, and now are only worth 75% as much. You still had to work for them though...), and also has plenty of cash sinks in DAoC (Both crafting, which is VERY expensive, and keeping your realm's keeps in good repair - Probably 50-75% of the money in the economy is used to buy wood for keep doors that just gets bashed down by a ram in a day or two.)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  107. Clients are still untrusted by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Like calculate line of sight on client A for client B?

    That would be even worse, as it would become possible for a modified client to affect other users' experiences even more negatively than the current cheats do.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  108. The problem is unique to MMORPGs by yerricde · · Score: 1

    They ARE preventing you from shitting up their servers with your modified game, which seems perfectly fine to me.

    Then why not provide the ability to run a server that players can choose to shit up? This is a problem unique to massively-multiplayer real-time gaming, that there is only one game world to play in.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  109. Double-edged sword by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    As I see this, this is a double-edged sword:

    a) It means that lowbies can be warned about threats such as that uber mob. I would love to be warned by a "radar" user than be ganked out of the blue.

    b) It gives guilds using ShowEQ an advantage in killing "uber" mobs. That's the bad thing. Of course, if ShowEQ is as rampant as it sounds, overall it benefits people since no guild is really getting that much of an advantage, since they all have access to it.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  110. Punishments such as banning or injunction by yerricde · · Score: 1

    They can punish the players if the are able to detect it, but that still does not prevent them from doing it.

    What if the punishment includes not being able to do it again, such as a network-wide ban (from a game-world court) or an injunction (from a real-world court)? Then the court has prevented future cheating from happening. If you can no longer access your account nor sign up for a new account, you can't cheat.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Punishments such as banning or injunction by Znork · · Score: 2

      It still wont stop cheating. They are probably not able to detect it, especially not passive cheats that just use the info sent to the client. Most of the active cheats are also hard to detect, and it can be hard to tell them apart from natural actions from the players.

      Further, the cost to society to manage such a thing in courts would be huge. It's like having a video monitor in your house and leaving the front door wide open. You might maybe perhaps be able to catch the burglars if you can identify them but you're still going to end up having been robbed.

      For something that could be solved in a week or two of competent engineering it sounds like an extremely costly and inefficient way to attempt to deal with the problem.

  111. life without SEQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    IMHO, EQ is not worth playing without SEQ. Verant is notorious for time wasteing bugs, days long camps for necessary quest items, and just plain poor user interface (the newest of which is this spiffy mp3 player built into the game ... which allows you to add exactly 1 song to the play list at a time & doesn't like playlists that even IT creates).

    SEQ is a means of expediating the game and taking back some of the time that Verant has taken from the players. YES, it gives you the ability to see mobs throughout the zone. YES, it tells you what items the mob is visibally carrying (at least what the items look like ... many items look the same, so this can be deceiving). YES, it cheapens the abilities of some classes (rangers & druids tracking comes to mind).

    The mapping interface is wonderful. While the maps in SEQ may not be complete, at least they give you a good idea of where you are and what is around you. For navigation purposes, this is a MUST have unless you really like dieing stupidly to mobs that haven't had the time to update on your EQ client. SEQ gives you a nice directional and speed indicator for each mob in the zone so you can guesstimate about where mobs should be while traveling.

    It simplifies hunts by providing an easy way to tell where other players are hunting (saving literally hours of planning when raiding).

    Lets bring it back into perspective tho ... some of Verant's classic blunders:
    • when EQ was introduced, food and drink had to be bought 1 at a time. while not a huge timesink clicking the buy button 20 times to get a stack of food, and another 20 times to get a stack of water, it was frustrating. 1.5 years after release, they finally got around to interface changes that allowed buying whole stacks of items from vendors.
    • when released, EQ required casters under 35th lvl to "meditate" by opening their spellbook in order to recover mana ... this blocked the ENTIRE interface, so casters had NO way of knowing what was around them. wtf?
    • on the release of their previous upgrade (Luclin), the major city (Shadowhaven) had it's major entrance surrounded by a pool with small walkways over it ... any unfortunate player whose client lagged even slightly was prone to end up in the pool ... and depending on the size of your character, you may not be able to get OUT of that pool. i've personally been trapped in that pool once for 30 minutes because of their poor design. Anybody know when Luclin was released? Verant just got around to fixing this last month. Guesstimation of 6-9 month turnaround on that bug.
    • Verant patches routinely break previously functional things. A great example is the teleporter system in Paineel (another city in EQ). the only means of traveling between sections of the city is thru teleporters ... about 2 months ago, a patch broke some of the teleporters causing players to get stuck deep in the city with no means of egress.
    • Customer support on non-premium servers is non-existant at best. I've had petitions in for 4-5 hours with no response ... not even a GM or Guide online. Premium servers are the ones which Verant charges much more for (is it $35 / month?) and to which they feel some obligation to customer support on. Sadly, I hear similar stories from them.

    Hopefully Verant will learn from their mistakes & make their new releases (SWG Online, EQ2) better and more stable. I realize this is a futile hope, but as long as they produce crap and treat their customers like scum, I will have NO qualms about using external sniffers like SEQ as a play aid.
  112. SEQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok I read something about being able to see a players stats etc on PvP servers. False! This has never been possible. Earlier you could track a player from the opposite side of the zone, this however has changed in a way, If the player stays at that spot while you move towards him he will be there.. If he however has moved you will find that he suddenly "warps" up in another location in the zone. Player tracking is not what it used to be and has not been for a long time.

    I use SEQ. I am a cheater. I do not however intentionally try to use it to screw non cheating ppl over. I use it for the GPS to run thru large aereas and avoid mobs that would kill me in 1 second. I allso use it to beat the huge timesinks that SOE has in this game. Travel, Exping, and mob finding. If a mob is not up I wont have to waste my time fighting to the place wich it is located at. If i want to xp I will go to the place with the mob that gives the most xp for my level thus not wasting time on inferior mobs.

    This is cheating by all means but damn I have played this game for 3 years now and only actually used SEQ for 1,5 years. Remember tho that this game is supposed to be a group experience and for me who play as a lone wolf SEQ has made me able to lvl up find good xp spots etc that would make me enjoy the game alot more then running around like a clueless n00bie and not to forget how mutch SOE looks down on soloing classes and players. Infact they make it harder and harder for us with each patch and upgrade.
    Their view on soloing is that it's an evil and you should be playing in a group with other ppl.

    I will continue to use SEQ and if SOE bans me thats ok. I have already wasted too mutch time and money on this game.

  113. The point is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Sony's game. It's their rules. If you want to play, play by their rules. If not -- don't play the game. End of story. You have no rights -- to cheat, to play, or to know what data is being sent to your machine. If you don't want to abide by their rules, stop whining and stop playing.

    Oh wait -- most people can't. They're addicted.

  114. seq is almost a feature in EQ by mcguyver · · Score: 0

    Someone should do an article on how seq is an integral part of EQ. Most high level guilds would not exist if it were not for seq. The reason for seq is because competition for spawns is fierce. For those non-eq people I will explain. The important mobs spawn once every few days or week. If you are a high level guild then you need these mobs for gear, keys, spells, etc. One way to get the jump on another guild is to use seq and constantly scout for these mobs. It's pretty common for people to have one account with half a dozen characters that are scattered all over the game. You log onto the characters one by one checking for high level spawns. Soon as a spawn appears, you notify your guild and a few minutes later there are 30-60 people there to kill the mob. With mobs like Ragefire or Tormax I have seen a zone go from a dozen people to 200-300 people in a matter of minutes. It's pretty crazy and all possible due to seq. Seq has been around for several years now and can almost be considered a feature in EQ - it would be hard to imagine EQ without seq. The high level guilds would certainly suffer substantially if seq could not exist.

  115. EQ *does* have terms before money. by yerricde · · Score: 2

    For any normal contract you are told the terms before you pay.

    I agree that most EULAs are on shaky ground because they break the "terms before money" rule, but aren't you shown the terms before you sign up for a monthly EverQuest account?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:EQ *does* have terms before money. by swv3752 · · Score: 2

      You are told on the box that there is a monthly fee. You are not told the terms of the EULA though.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    2. Re:EQ *does* have terms before money. by yerricde · · Score: 1

      You are told on the box that there is a monthly fee. You are not told the terms of the EULA though.

      But you are told the TOS before it comes time to pay the monthly fee.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    3. Re:EQ *does* have terms before money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not before you've shelled out $50 for the game (set, expansion, whatever) and installed it on your computer. Most places don't take back opened software, so you could be out whatever cash it cost you. That's not fair. The fact that you can read them before you shell out another 10-15 or whatever it costs, is not the point.

    4. Re:EQ *does* have terms before money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most places don't take back opened software

      Yerricde addressed this.

  116. Take action against the store by yerricde · · Score: 1

    at this point he can indeed click i disagree, but then he's pretty much up the creek since the store wont take the opened game back.

    Then, if EULAs are enforceable, the store is in violation of the EULA for not giving you the full refund. Report the store to the software publisher's legal department.

    If the store won't exchange the title for a different title, then exchange one copy for another of the same title until you've gone through the store's stock of that title. Rinse and repeat, return and deplete. It's the same as with not-CD audio discs.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  117. How to spin this in court by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Every patch can change the license. How often am I expected to read it all.

    I am not a lawyer, but I see how this could potentially be used in court: A user agreed to a contract under the reasonable expectation that Sony did not materially change its spirit.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  118. Disabling Alt+Tab does not conform by yerricde · · Score: 2

    Instead disabling Alt-Tab just irritates me

    In fact, any game that disables standard Windows shortcuts such as Alt+Tab and Ctrl+Esc is not a conforming Windows application and may not carry the "Compatible with Microsoft Windows" logo.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  119. Not mentioned in Constitution != not a right by yerricde · · Score: 2

    But copyright is explictiy referred to and defined in the Constitution and, AFAIK, the right to privacy is not.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV).

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX).

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Not mentioned in Constitution != not a right by MegaFur · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Why do people insist on using `!=' in such a way? It's a very strong, declarative thing. It makes it look like what you're saying is hugely important. I guess that's why. It seems to work well, posts like this frequently get modded up.

      Anyway, thank you for your post. You make a good point. In my orignal post, I wasn't trying to say that we *don't* have right to privacy, I was just trying to point out that the argument for it is harder.

      Yes, yes, yes you're right that just because something is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, that doesn't mean we don't have it. *But*, when it comes down to the actual legal wrangling, it really *does* make a difference. It will always be *easier* for people to make the copyright argument than the privacy one. (You point out the `unlawful search and seaz

      Btw, how come all this DRM junk seems to be for corporations only? What about us? Do we get to have *our personal* digital rights managed by ourselves?

      Anyway, thanks for taking an interest and replying. :-)

      I apologize for not sticking to just one topic. sOMetimes I cHANeL Delerium. ;-)

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
  120. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never used showEQ, but from the threads here it does the following.

    1) Show's you a map of the zone you are in.
    hey! wow! When I started playing eq, i got out some graph paper and, using /loc which is a command in the game that gives you your X,Y and Z co-ordinates, I made a map of the 3 "newbie" zones where I started in, Greater Faydark, Butcher Block and Crushbone. Just as I did when I played MUDs. But then I found a site, eqatlas.com, where some person had already done this for many zones, and had even printed out, dyed and then scanned in the maps. Damn I said, I'd just wasted a week making my maps...So now I just go download these maps (and from other sites too when not available from eqatlas).

    2) Tells you where you are in the zone.
    Hmmm, I already have the in-game command /loc, which gives me my X,Y,Z co-ordinates. And I have a map I either made myself or got from eqatlas or similiar site, which has the X,Y co-ordinates marked on it. So now I know exactly where I am in the zone.

    3) Shows all the mobs and players in the zone.
    Hey, I'm a 63 ranger. Click on track, /tracksort distance. I now know where every mob and player in the zone is (approximately). I select a player or mob in the track list, the track ability leads me straight to that person.
    I click on the uber named_01 mob that drops phat lewt that only just spawned this second in my track list, and i get led (or more likely lead a group or an entire raid force) to it.

    4) shows the level of the mobs in the zone.
    I can use /con that will give me some information on level. If mob cons green its under about lvl 40 (forget exact numbers, just guessing here on what it would return for a level 63, it would be different for another level person), light blue its about 42-44, blue its 45-62, white it is 63, yellow its 64 or 65, red its greater than 65. Well, lets go to eqbeastiary.allakhazam.com that has lists of mobs by zone and their level or level ranges, where people have sent in their /con of monsters and its been collated. Oh wow, that's right, as well as listing all players and mobs in a zone, track also gives me their /con as well. /tracksort con, now lists all PCs/NPCs by what they consider to me. Many sites also list approximate hitpoints of a monster. Just kill it and get the logs, add up all the damage done to the mob, that's about how many hitpoints it has (there are other factors too of course, such as regeneration etc)

    5) lets u avoid mobs that would rape u and helps u navigate the zone.
    Well, with the maps I already have, the /loc command, the compass which gives you your direction (it uses the sense heading skill), track with /tracksort distance that also shows me what the mobs con as, the bestiary list so I know exactly what levels monsters are, casting invis on myself and using other features such as spells that stop the monser from attacking me, I can, with a bit of effort and being careful, navigate most zones as well as if I was using showEQ.

    Perhaps in PvP it may give some extra advantages, but on the non-PvP server, I can't see it giving any particular advantages.

    There are things in the game that give certain people way bigger advantages, that cause more angst than people using showEQ.

    For example, the new spells require a monster to be killed and drop the spell as loot (they actually drop parchemnts and runes that need to be turned in to an NPC to get the spell, but lets just keep it simple). The spells, epsecially the highest level ones, only drop off certain monsters, or there are monsters that drop them more frequently than other monsters, and they only drop in certain zones.

    To get to that zone you need to accomplish quests etc to get 'flagged' (a key by another name), and in the early stages of a new release like PoP, only the 'uber' guilds, those guilds with lots of high level players who play for large amounts of time, who have the best equipment, are capable of getting those flags. So, the uber guilds get to this zone where these spells drop, and start getting drops. Of course, they get these drops until everyone in their guild has all of their spells, then they start selling the leftovers. Then the developers decide that the spells are dropping way too often. e.g. every 2nd time mob X is killed it drops one of these high level spells. So, the developers 'nerf' the droprate, making it drop once in every 15 kills instead. So, we now have a situation where all the uber guilds have outfitted their people with all their spells (this also applies to other equipment, like armour or weapons). Now we get smaller guilds and unguilded people filtering into these zones and killing these mobs, but now they only get these spells or equipment once every 15 kills instead of once every 2 kills like the uber guilds got. So the gap between uber guilds and smaller guilds gets wider, as its going to take a small guild 2 months to get this stuff that the uber guild got in 1 week. Not because they were uber, but because the drop rate was much higher. And now, since the uber guild is so well equipped, and the smaller guilds are trying to get that equipment, the uber guild again has a head start on other new zones that no-one has been to and that requires good equipment to get to, and the same thing happens...uber guild gets high drop rates...developers nerf drop rates AFTER uber guild has fully equipped...etc etc.

    IMO THAT is a much greater threat to the playability and 'fun' aspect of the game than people using showEQ, who can do most of what showEQ does with some palnning and preparation. It gives the appearance (whether true or not is irrelevant, appearance is what usually matters in the masses eyes) of the developers purposely favouring the uber guilds.

    Don't get me wrong, if I had the chance to join an uber guild i'd jump at it. And I'd use these sorts of situations to my fullest advantage. But it still sucks.

  121. "!="; affordable DRM by yerricde · · Score: 2

    Why do people insist on using `!=' in such a way?

    The expression "!=" is derived from the C language. Slashdot users use "!=" instead of "isn't the same as" to save fifteen bytes because Slashdot limits comment subjects to 50 bytes.

    (You point out the `unlawful search and seaz

    Your comment got cut off right where it got interesting. Please continue.

    Btw, how come all this DRM junk seems to be for corporations only?

    Because you need to buy the encoder. The major publishers (RIAA, MPAA, etc) are rich enough to afford to pay the digital restrictions management companies for the research and development of DRM technologies. Once the R&D has been paid off, the price will fall to where anybody can buy a one-seat license for the encoder software off the shelf at a local computer store.

    Open DRM tools are in development as well. Creative Commons is creating an open digital format for restrictions description.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:"!="; affordable DRM by MegaFur · · Score: 1

      On relational operators...
      I know what `!=' means. It means `does not equal' or `is not equal to'. Now I know it's a small hair, but it's my opinion that `is not equal to' is not the same as `is not the same as' (at least that's what they told me in geometry class). I realize that the subject line allowed is short. I'm sure that one reason people use `!=' is to make their subject fit, but if they really wanted to, they could use a different subject. I think a lot of people prefer flashy, sensationalist, or intentionally cliche subjects because they know it's more likely to get modded up. Hey, it's worked for me! I had this comment a long time ago, it wasn't worth much but it had a subject of "Life imitates art..." and bang, it got modded up. To me, when I read someone say, `those aren't the same', it's not *nearly* as forceful a statement as `Thing1 != Thing2'. The second form is absolute (so it's easy to oversimplify which is bad), while the first is just a statement. Perhaps it would be better if we had fuzzy relational operators instead. Then we could have fuzzy-equal and fuzzy-not-equal. How about prepending a question mark? Like this: `?=', `?!='. :-) Yeah, I know it looks stupid. Anyway, sensationalism is what slashdot is all about, so I'll probably use the `!=' construction myself sometime, if I feel all fired up about something.

      On the chopped off portion of my comment:
      It's too bad it got cut off since now I'm not exactly sure what I was going to say myself. Nothing too extraordinary, I imagine. I think all I was going to do was point out the that unlawful search and seizure clause does not explicity refer to privacy. Of course, when you go to argue in favor of right to privacy that's exactly what you should point out--the unlawful search and seizure thing. That's really all I had to say about that. In my original post, I wasn't trying to come up with any actual conclusions. :-D That's *way* too hard. I was just hoping some people out there might read that comment and be forced to sit back and think for a bit, rather than just parrotting the party line (so to speak). You are obviously already thinking.

      On the DRM thing:
      It's nice to know that some people that aren't huge corporations are also working on it. Here again, the only reason I even mentioned it is that, in the past I have noticed that, on the one hand a lot of people here are in favor of privacy and using encryption to further that end, but on the other hand, they seem to be automatically *against* *anything* named `DRM'. It's like a biohazard warning for them, I guess.

      I realize where this mentality comes from--from the various attempts by large corporations to get evil/bad/nasty/icky DRM legislation passed. But a more productive alternative to simply automatically hating anything with the letters `DRM' attatched to it would be to re-define it into something that can help us. (Why not, salesman and lawyers play the game this way *all* the time.) So it's like: Sure, you bet I'm in favor of DRM--for the *citizens* of the U.S., *not* the corporations. Let them chew on that for a while.

      --
      Furry cows moo and decompress.
  122. SOE will win no matter which way........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at the possibilites which will come out of this SOE will win at all cases.

    If ShowEQ keeps working Sony will ban those using it when they find out....which means a couple 1000 accounts which out of those 1000, 500 might go buy the game again cause they need to get the fix and War3 or D2 just not working...which ends up making up the money for the other 500 that did not go buy it cause now the game is up to what 60 bucks just to get all the expansions including POP with the new gold edition...plus 13 extra a month

    Or the ShowEQ 12 year olds could get smart make a Windows version give it to like 80% of the servers populations and get all of the cheaters banned and again about half of those will go out and buy the game and all expansions again cause they need the fix. Which I would like this cause it would reset all the servers...Get rid of 80% of all the items and money and items become cheap again. And what some of you dont realize is when one of your accounts get banned ALL of the accounts on that same credit card get banned also.

    SoE is not worried about EQ everyone could quit tommor and they would still be there making the 200 mil + prophets yearly....And it funny how most of you trying to find a cause to make the game easier....I guess they made the game to hard for you...Which is suprising cause EQ is one of the simplist games out there....

    Another possible solution to all this is SOE permantly shuts down ShowEQ and it goes back to how eQ was before.....Ohhh and it really easy to wipe the macroers out....check the cities trade vendors and just levi/move the peps away from spawn and get next to them if they run through the whole sell/buy process with you just call a gm and send logs/screenshots....banned in a week....They start looking for me in zone now so....and Sony actually made more money from it cause I got a tell from a couple of them with some hate words and how they had to go out and buy all the expansions again....So all you guys doing is helping them out....

    So think long and hard what ever you guys/girls will do or not do Sony comes out in the end so I am all up for the windows version clean the servers of the fefs and make people start playing nice again once they fork out 70 to 80 bucks to get there lvl 1 newb back with no gear...

    So L8er peps

  123. ShowEQ vs. EQWin and machine control by tul · · Score: 1
    Any thoughts on EQWindows, which is also against the EULA? It lets you run EQ in a window, allowing you to alt-tab out and search the web,chat, play music, etc. Unlike ShowEQ, EQW doesn't help you cheat at all, except in the sense that you can look up information on websites while you play, which you could do with a second computer anyway.

    (Normally EQ takes total control of your box, and you can't do anything else while it is running. If you alt-tab out (or the system forces you out) then you can't get back in. Many people find this horribly restrictive, and so run EQW even though it violates the EULA)

    1. Re:ShowEQ vs. EQWin and machine control by Maggot75 · · Score: 1

      I think being able to alt-tab is a human right, and taking over a player's computer is just fascistic.
      I have emails that need to be answered, etc., and what if the boss walks in? The "whoops, looks like I have to reboot my computer, manually" only works the first three times or so.

  124. Aviaks, Giants and one huge game by Char+Lander · · Score: 1

    Alright I usually dont' reply but I had to in this case. I have played EQ and am still playing EQ. Ever since its release when you had to buy one stackable item at a time... before Kunark. I played. Now this is my assumption and I could be totally wrong about this. I am under the impression EQ is one huge game with many many lines of code.

    With that in mind. Verant doesn't cheat, Sony doesn't cheat. However there are a series of features in the game that make certain operations happen that are less than desirable. Whether it be Aviaks pounding on you from 40 feet or Giants hitting you through a house. These things happen as there were probably a few thousand lines of code that weren't thought about that could have dealth with these issues. However with player demand and expansion after expansion, what could have been fixed became unfixable. That is one theory.

    The other could be simply to force the player to group or force the player to take strategic command instead of the standard hack and slash without care. (Casting too)

    However there is a few important things one must remember when playing EQ, that it is merely a game. That and EQ is not democratic. You don't get the option to force equalization as you are playing Sony's game. In playing their game you must play by their rules just like any other game. Even if the rules seem a bit unfair to the player they are Sony's rules and you chose to play the game. The way you view EQ would be the same as if we were playing Monopoly and I got to put 20 hotels on Boardwalk because I could exploit the rules. So when you landed on it, you went bankrupt immediately. That and I could avoid all your plots of land so I didn't lose money for renting.

    Frankly Sony has been quite nice to players in my whole experience playing regardless if NPC Wizards can backstab for over 150 and NPC snakes can bash. In fact they are the ones who added many player demanded features when they didn't have to. In return all they ask is not to cheat and obey the EULA. Not hard. Just for arguements sake, Druids didn't deserve the 75% heal they received. It was due to all the senseless Druid complaining that they got it because lvl 60 Druids couldn't get a group because in reality Druids have no place in any group. They are a solo class. But since they got a nice 75% back up heal, they have been revitalized. Sony didn't have to do this, they did. Because they wnated to be accomidating.

    I think a little respect should be shown for playing a game you are not forced to play. Which is not democratic anyway in a individual/corporate relationship. And has many well known bugs because of its size and architecture.

    --
    ~Char Lander
    Brothers and sisters I have none, but this mans father is my fathers son
  125. cheating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the mobs can see through walls, for fucks sake. they dont care if you are about 400 feet below them, or flying an airplane, they hit you just as accurately. they can walk through mountains and buildings with no effort. they NEVER go oom, and their casters can melee. they disregard any obstacles when casting

    now, im not critcizing mobs like lady vox and other uber mobs-thats fair enough, your a level 60 human, but THEY are a level 60 DRAGON, their race is uber yours is not. players overcome this by using their superior numbers and organisation to get bands of people to gang up on uber mobs and smoke em out.

    but when the engine is so bad and poorly coded, the mobs are given an unfair advantage. although a lot of the NEW quests (im thinking stuff like qeynos badge quests and the POP quests) have new and INTERESTING quests, verants old way of making quests hard was to do the old formula "go and wait for some mob in a particular spot for 7 days, kill it, and bring it to me". now people, that is BORING. to get an uber item you should show skill, resourcefulness, preparation and intelluigence-not the patience or desire to stay up for 24 hours. now, obviously FUN quests are harder to design then the standard dumbass quests, but iam telling you that camping a rare spawn IS NOT FUN WHATSOEVER. this tool doesnt offer an insane advantage to people (although on PvP, it does suck a lot of ass) it just eliminates some of the boredom due to verants craply coded engine and craply made quests.

  126. WinShowEQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    According to the Sony developer that everyone talked to, the changes that Sony makes to the encryption only takes 20 minutes or so.


    This is true. However, they very rarely create new encryption schemes anymore. Instead, they just cycle through the hundreds (thousands?) that they have created to date.

    As for WinShowEQ, I have sources that have told me that WinShowEQ is an easy port to make. If they are serious about making it and releasing it, expect to see it sometime soon.


    Firstly, "porting" ShowEQ to win32 would require you to have access to the source for libeq.a (the decryption library used by ShowEQ), and would require a lot of time. (an application doesn't completely rewrite itself)
    Secondly, I can tell you that there already is a WinShowEQ that was released to some of the top ShowEQ developers.
    Lastly, the developers of ShowEQ told me that if I (or anyone else) were to create and release a windows port of ShowEQ, they would be stopping development on ShowEQ, breaking the port.

    Just some further info for you.
  127. No MMORPG player are you by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 2

    The only way to win a MMORPG is to quit. ("winning" being defined as "the point beyond which one cannot play any longer") All other actions simply lead to increased play.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey