Terms of Service question on 3rd party Account Operation
-
I agree with cyberblast that said "cultural issue" did not need to be introduced here and is a distraction.
-
This is a complicated topic. While I find all comments in this discussion very interesting, I should highlight that we try keep our rules as non-invasive as possible to keep the game entertaining for all players at the same time. In most cases, we stick to the following logic:
1. If your code base is unique, you're safe. You can even register multiple accounts, but if they use completely different codebases, they are considered different players, since there's no way to distinguish such a case from a family member playing at the same computer.
2. If your code base is shared, we need to have clear evidence that this is you playing this code base, not the code base owner. In case of any doubts in this regard, we'll investigate your account activity and may ban your account if we have proofs that the account is used only to expand this code base influence without your participation as an individual player.
We don't restrict players collaboration and interaction of any sort, including automatic collaboration and interaction. All rules applied by ToS are related to user accounts activity, not to code base features.
-
Based on this judgement I think that I will introduce a build signature for OCS members code and will consider a strong caution about circumventing the ToS using command and control features.
-
As always, I'm late to the party
Interesting discussion.Artem: Thanks for clarification. If you ever have any issues with my code base, let me know. Didn't happen yet, so I think I should be fine. It also tells me, I shouldn't include anything which sends me resources
(never seriously planned)Even though I think the discussion is over, with an expected and highly appreciated result, still I would like to add my cents:
Multi-account is a no go. I thought about it by myself a couple of time, to be able to test my attack and defense, but this is solved with the private server. So no reason for Multi-account (tedivm your second account is fine).
Communication protocol: I wouldn't have opened a thread here, I would have expected that it is fine. Planing it anyway since a couple of month, while the authentication is in my case much more important and tricky, than sending some commands.
New players: I'm well aware that some new players are upset by my code, sometimes by the players using my code. It is not necessary a screeps question: Do I reinvent the wheel or do I just use a framework or ready made system. Reinventing the wheel and being upset that you are slower, well I'm missing the understanding for that. Btw. my autoattack is not that strong, I see it more as the minimal level you should be able to handle to survive when the newbie area times out. Just to make it clear, I fully understand the fun in writing the first thousand lines of code, I started from the scratch, there were some code pieces (not compared to today), but I wanted to do it on my own. I wouldn't do it again, today.
The Hive event: Whatever, I don't mind. - Slowly I get the messages from players using the TooAngel AI, mostly from active contributing members. And this is exactly the point where the argumentation for the Event breaks in my opinion. I think it got more tricky to attack other players, because of the alliances, without provoking a proper War. If you want to attack certain players do it (I would do it), but please don't try to reason it by something which is not true. Tbh I think it is boring to attack more then one TooAngel AI, the next one will anyway behave pretty similar
TooAngel Bot: (I distinguish between the bot for the private server, and the TooAngel AI which is the actual logic). I didn't plan to opensource my AI or let other players use it (I didn't announce that my code is opensource at anytime, except of now?;-)). I wanted to release my code as bot, so that I'm able to play against it. From the feedback I got, it is highly appreciated. So you can't have both a bit more advanced bot that the simple bot, but no fully automated code available.
Because I'm mainly developing with the bot in mind, this my most tricky part for the communication. How do I make sure that I don't friend up with the TooAngel bots on the private server, while doing it with the TooAngels and ocs on live
-
Thank you for the clarification Artem. Let me check if I got this right.
The issue is not about how similar the code base may or may not be, but whether or not there's a real, active individual behind every account.
Each account must have an active individual controlling it and one individual may not have more than one account.
Automated collaboration is fine if it is in between active players, but results in a ban if one of the accounts involved is inactive.
-
It is important that these statements are tied to the Terms of Service, but perhaps a change to the terms is required.
-
Atavus, I don't think your summary is accurate. You say-
> Each account must have an active individual controlling it and one individual may not have more than one account.
But Artem said-
> If your code base is unique, you're safe. You can even register multiple accounts, but if they use completely different codebases, they are considered different players, since there's no way to distinguish such a case from a family member playing at the same computer.
It seems to me that there is no problem with me having multiple accounts as long as they use a different code base.
-
Again, this is why it is important to tie the action to the Terms of Service.
Artem has revealed that Screeps possibly does not have the resources to preemptively investigate individuals who intentionally multibox with different codebases, but that certainly won't be their position for long if it becomes popular.
As tempting as it may be to lodge a protest against this decision using such a method I would advise against it.
-
Hm...
I feel that statement was naively permissive.
It might be acceptable to have a 10CPU code base and a regular code base.
It might be acceptable to have an additional AI with a complex non-competitive purpose like yours Tedivm.However, I find it highly unlikely that Artem would allow 1 person to simultaneously run and control a bonzAI, tooAngel AI and OCS AI.
Artem's argument that it is not feasible to identify whether that is 1 person or not, has no relevance on whether such behavior is considered acceptable or not.
-
Artem's words were that multiboxing is allowed if you have unique codebases on all of your accounts.
So that is what the rules are. It doesn't sound like he said "well, we can't possibly investigate all of these so it's just a thing that can happen". He said "If your code base is unique, you're safe. You can even register multiple accounts, but if they use completely different codebases, they are considered different players".
There isn't a lot of interpretation space there. He gives one of the reasons he came to that decision, that being "it's hard to distinguish between people playing from the same machine", but those are the rules he gave us, in the thread specifically asking for a clarification of the rules.
If you want to "lodge a protest" by registering five accounts and loading up five unique codebases, I imagine that he would be happy to take your $50 a month.
-
Huh, it seemed pretty clear to me that he was saying multiple accounts are okay as long as the code base is unique enough. I don't see anything in his statement to contradict that, and while I can understand your feelings about it I think we should shy away from making moral judgments unless backed up by concrete facts and analysis.
-
Interesting.
You're right, that is indeed Artem's statement.
I find that the attitude against multi-boxing should be significantly harsher and should not be provided any public backing. Multi accounts are a plague on the majority of persistent MMOs and the devs should certainly not be voicing any support on the subject.
This statement effectively authorizes the "utility" use of secondary accounts.
Lost a base in a remote part of the world? No problem, just respawn your secondary AI which only has 100 lines of code and whose only effect is to reconstruct your spawn.
Wiped out? No problem, your little friend will prop a few of your bases right up.
Wanna create a secondary simple account whose only purpose is to mine and ship you minerals? Write it in a completely separate fashion and go.The argument that it is difficult to distinguish whether this is a single person or not is irrelevant on whether this should be allowed or not.
-
> Lost a base in a remote part of the world? No problem, just respawn your secondary AI which only has 100 lines of code and whose only effect is to reconstruct your spawn.
> Wiped out? No problem, your little friend will prop a few of your bases right up.These are literally the same thing written two slightly different ways. What if I ask my friend who previously hasn't played Screeps before to help me out by spawning in and rebuilding me? Is that okay, because I was able to convince another human to write the 100 lines of code? What if I give them the 100 lines of code?
> Wanna create a secondary simple account whose only purpose is to mine and ship you minerals? Write it in a completely separate fashion and go.
Your secondary account has to be able to defend its territory, and you have to pay for it, so it's not quite so simple, is it? And again, what if I pay for my friend's account, and they mine minerals and ship them to me because they're my friend, but they get bored with the game and don't develop beyond that?
Rules have to be enforceable. In games, especially in this game, rules have to be very clear about what is and isn't allowed. Hence the origin of this thread! Have you read the OP? Where is the line? That's what this thread was about. Artem gave his answer: if you have very similar codebases, cooperation is curtailed, because you look a lot like the same person. If you have unique codebases, do whatever you want, they're separate people.
If you think about it, it fits the game as well. Why shouldn't I be able to buy another copy of the game and build a 10 CPU account? It's an interesting challenge that I previously was unable to participate in, because I subscribe to the game on my primary account. Now as long as I write a different codebase to run in 10 CPU, I'm good.
In game, the only unique identifier of a player is the uniqueness of their codebase. As TooAngel stated, once you've fought one TooAngel, you've fought them all. OCS is different because it's not full-auto, but the canned strategies the codebase provides are still going to be pretty similar among all OCS users and push those pilots into particular tactics. So to me it makes complete sense that that is the key to whether multi-accounting is allowed or not.
Making moralistic arguments or appeals to the authority of "the majority of MMOs" doesn't make sense in this case. Another thing that plagues the majority of MMOs is bots, i.e. automated scripts playing the game, i.e. literally the founding concept of this game. The established "rules" of the MMO genre do not apply here, and I think we'd do well to avoid assuming that they do.
-
FYI anisoptera my interpretation is that the last to bullets in the main part are still not allowed. No multiboxing, no multi registration.
Artem's statements are information and not directly connected to the ToS except where he literally said "we don't have any rules about command and control".He also gave us too much information about how they detect multiboxing and so we should wait for an update.
-
> FYI anisoptera my interpretation is that the last to bullets in the main part are still not allowed. No multiboxing, no multi registration.
But Artem said:
> You can even register multiple accounts
Clarification on whether he was just talking about an internal process is probably a good thing to get, but, it sure sounds to me like multi registration is allowed.
-
"In most cases, we stick to the following logic"
This is the basis for the 2 bullet points being not-relevant to the ToS. This includes the quote you, anisoptera, provided.
-
* I want to be clear that at this point I’m mostly questioning things to make sure we are all clear about things, not to push a specific agenda. My biggest concern is that if different people have different interpretations of the rules than someone is going to get upset because they get banned for doing something that’s against the rules or because someone else did something that they perceived to be against the rules and got away with it. The only way to avoid this is to know what the rules are.
* Respawning a secondary account to rebuild the spawns of a first account seem like it should be cheating to me, but it seems hard to enforce and does not appear to be against the guidelines given. That being said how hard is it to kill off the creeps coming from this extremely low level room? Safe mode makes things more complicated of course.
* Arguing over what Artem said is useless, so please stop. Obviously what he was said was unclear (well, it seemed clear to me, but the fact that we aren’t agreeing on it shows I’m wrong with that). There is only one thing that will resolve this issue- another comment from Artem.
-
Artem, in case you don't have time to wade thru this the open question is: may we register a second account to play the game if we use a second code base, or is this considered evading the Terms of Service?
-
After some debate let me make a statement to leave no room for ambiguity:
According to http://docs.screeps.com/tos.htmlUnder LIMITATIONS
- Register more than one account to play the Game.
So a maximum of 1 account per player.
I’ve discussed this matter with Artem and this is the final decision
