Dev blog on overlays.

[EaTCarbS]

On the plus side it seems a lot of people are rustled by this, because it is so vague that it applies to pretty much any 3rd party utility. The response from CCP will be interesting.

[PhoghornLeghorn]

On the plus side it seems a lot of people are rustled by this, because it is so vague that it applies to pretty much any 3rd party utility. The response from CCP will be interesting.

It's vague enough that anyone using a video overlay for broadcasting live streams also theoretically qualifies as a bannable offense, despite that by very definition no overlay function actually is a modification of ANY part of CCP code due to it being a graphics card related function.

I have a workstation graphics card that is pretty juiced and if i were to do some sort overlay for broadcasting live of the game, that sounds to me like CCP could just arbitrarily ban me.

[thedevilyouknow]

Not to be cynical, but that is if we get a response, either way it still won't help us

[bugme143]

CCP response: https://forums.eveonline.com/default...36#post6362936

Of particular note: "We do not necessarily need to differentiate between different systems. If the logs show activity that should not be possible through normal means, we will take action."

Guess ISBoxer's VideoFX is back on the allowed list!

[Mosg2]

CCP response: https://forums.eveonline.com/default...36#post6362936

Of particular note: "We do not necessarily need to differentiate between different systems. If the logs show activity that should not be possible through normal means, we will take action."

Guess ISBoxer's VideoFX is back on the allowed list!

[Inigo voice] Mmmm, I don't think that means what you think it means.

I mean, sure, do whatever you want! ...but they'll ban you if you do it faster than they think you should be able to do it.

[bugme143]

[Inigo voice] Mmmm, I don't think that means what you think it means.

I mean, sure, do whatever you want! ...but they'll ban you if you do it faster than they think you should be able to do it.

I'm fairly sure at this point that CCP Falcon/Peligro's idea of "faster than [one] should be able to do it" is very similar to "slower than (drunk) me [Falcon/Peligro]".

[EaTCarbS]

perhaps Lax could comment on this, but i'm fairly certain that vidfx click thru bring the game client to the foreground when used (indistinguishable from alt-tab) using features build into windows. No client modification whatsoever.

[Lax]

perhaps Lax could comment on this, but i'm fairly certain that vidfx click thru bring the game client to the foreground when used (indistinguishable from alt-tab) using features build into windows. No client modification whatsoever.

It would put a click in the input stream, ISBoxer does not bring a window to foreground just to send a click; this is also why it can click in more than one window at the same time, as opposed to something like keyclone which would bring each to foreground and click one at a time.

Overlays which contain a full, unchanged, EVE Client instance in a view only mode, no matter how large or small they are scaled, like it is done by EVE-O Preview as of today, are fine with us

The DWM thumbnail API allows partial views, this still sounds silly.

But they are saying that VFX are fine, without click-thru. You can focus the clients with the VFX Focus Hotkey and interact with them, but apparently they don't want interaction as per "view only mode"

[bugme143]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comment...3diu?context=3


CCP Falcon just inadvertently agreed that multiple monitors provide an unfair advantage over those without.

[EaTCarbS]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comment...3diu?context=3


CCP Falcon just inadvertently agreed that multiple monitors provide an unfair advantage over those without.

ofc its an advantage, I don't think anyone is going to argue against that.