re: Using the combat log

redricky

Dear Bran, et al.

What is Cryptic's policy on using a parser to make sense of the existing game code?

Given that they have been used by the STO community to find bugs and and inform discussions (discussions which have included devs) I would think that it is allowable.

Is there some specific policy on using such a parser in real time, i.e. during combat?

Thanks,
RicardoRojo

P.S. Before you move this thread, be real. You know the lion's share of ACT/STOICS users are PvPers, and using parsers for PvP.

pwebranflakes

What do you mean by "existing game code"? If you are pulling out game code, this violates the EULA/ ToS and is strictly forbidden.

I'm going to assume you meant your combat log, though. If it's real time, that sounds like it is a plugin or a 3rd party program attached to the actual game. This also is strictly not allowed and violates the EULA/ ToS.

As for using a combat log parser program, where you import a combat log containing data from the past and is NOT connected to the game in any way shape, or form, this may be acceptable. Also, using 3rd party programs should be done at your own risk and only after consulting the ToS/ EULA.

For more information, please read our ToS here.

Cheers,

Brandon =/\=

roshido

From what I know of the combat log program (never used it), it uses an in-game command to output the combat log to a file. It then reads that file after the fact. So honestly, I can't imagine that breaking any TOS.

themarie

Expand the functionality of the in-game chat window. As it stands now I can sift through the combat log in the window, but I need filters. I need to know exactly what the gateway is shooting at me. I need to know how much damage I put into a HYT to kill it totally. (BTW: I know beyond any shadow of a doubt what causes invisible-smite shots).

Filters. I don't want to know every shot fired by ever thing on the screen in a match. That's overwhelming. I should be able to click bring up ENEMIES. Click up again and select GATEWAY, and see every shot the gateway took at ME, OTHER PLAYERS or MISC.


This way I could keep the window open while playing and watch what is going on in real-time rather than using the /log command to generate a log file and have to struggle with some rather poorly designed parsing tools.

phantomeight

I use ACT along with a plugin that filters the log, the two combined are excellent and I keep ACT running on my second monitor. This is a guide on Reddit (r/sto) which respects wishes of Cryptic and would remove it if it violated the TOS of STO: http://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comments/yoc4e/how_to_act_a_semicomprehensive_guide/

Using a combat log parser such as this one is just fine. Combat log parsers are mentioned fairly often when communicating bugs or potential issues to devs via threads.

Don't be confused about the entering of a command in the game, the program does not do this, the user must type /combatlog 1 to turn on the log. This is done because the log can grow to immense sizes if not actively managed by a combat log parser or the user this is probably why the log is not on by default. All ACT does is read the log and split off and delete the old sections of the log file to keep your hard drive from filling up. As BranFlakes said, this level of interaction is acceptable.

twam

Also, am I the only one who can't stop the autoscroll on the combat log? Makes it impossible to read the log while anything is shooting at anybody...

If just me: any hints?
If not just me: potential worthwhile addition?

redricky

So if it's done in exactly the same manner as as parser, but in real time, it's not allowed?

What if it's something that simply provides a data point that could be argued should be part of the game's UI?

Why wouldn't Cryptic approve and encourage these things? If resources are stretched, what is there to lose from creating a collection of user generated resources which have been vetted by the devs as tools which do not negatively impact performance, the game code, etc?

renimalt

pwebranflakes wrote: »

...I'm going to assume you meant your combat log, though. If it's real time, that sounds like it is a plugin or a 3rd party program attached to the actual game. This also is strictly not allowed and violates the EULA/ ToS.

Hey Brandon, could you provide input about the particular case I'll describe below?

STO currently has the /CombatLog command set up so that it prints real-time log data to the combat log file. That is, if I shoot at something and do damage, a few milliseconds later it appears in the combat log file and can be read by other programs. (Literally, I can just open the log as a text file, scroll to the bottom, and the information is there.) Would a parser that _only_ monitors the combat log and reports "real-time" information based on what's being output to the log be considered a plugin or 3rd party program attached to the actual game? I don't think so, because the parser is only examining something that STO _explicitly outputs in real time_, and doesn't hook into the game client executable or scan memory; in addition, I'd like to note that many popular combat log parsers (ACT included) have the option to display some "real-time" data based on what's being output to the combat log. I'm interested to hear Cryptic's official position on this matter. I couldn't find anything in the TOS about this particular situation...

This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~BranFlakes

pwebranflakes

For more information, or further clarification, you'll have to read the ToS/ EULA I've provided the information I know and am able to.

Cheers,

Brandon =/\=

renimalt

pwebranflakes wrote: »

For more information, or further clarification, you'll have to read the ToS/ EULA I've provided the information I know and am able to.

Unfortunately, I've read the ToS that you linked to, and I'm still confused. (You mentioned an EULA; is there a link to the EULA or is the ToS also functioning as the EULA?)

Relevant sections seem to be 16) and 21a), but they mostly end up reading that PWE has the final say and that only PWE can authorize programs. The given prohibitiions are that one cannot run a program that:
- "ENABLES OR FACILITATES CHEATING OF ANY TYPE" - the parser I described doesn't allow "cheating" in that the player is able to do something that he wasn't able to do prevoiusly, but cheating's really up to be defined by PWE...
- "ALLOWS USERS TO MODIFY OR HACK THE SOFTWARE INTERFACE, ENVIRONMENT, AND/OR EXPERIENCE IN ANY WAY NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY PWE" - the parser that I described doesn't change the software interface or environment. "Experience" is the tricky point here; if they mean "what the program outputs in any form" then no, but if they mean "what the user experiences" then anything could be considered an unallowed third-party program, like a music player that I listen to instead of STO's in-game music.
- "INTERCEPTS, "MINES," OR OTHERWISE COLLECTS INFORMATION FROM OR THROUGH THE SOFTWARE" - if the interpretation is that "examining the executable's code/scanning memory isn't allowed", then the parser I described doesn't do that; but if the interpretation is that "collecting basic information about damage isn't allowed", then practically all combat log parsers are in violation of this section. (Why have a combat log then? You're not allowed to read it...)
- "in any way influence or give you an advantage in the use of the Services which is not authorized by PWE" - again, PWE has to make the ruling here, but I'm rather curious if other combat log parsers like ACT and STOICS were/are authorized by PWE...

Do you know if there's some way that I could ask Cryptic for their position? Should I open a ticket to a particular team, perhaps?

Thanks!

meurik

I believe a better question is (and i'm paraphrasing the OP);

Dear Bran, et al.

What (if any) intention does Cryptic have, on the possibility of improving the existing "Combat Log" functionality? Such improvements include the ability to filter the log in terms of damage type, incoming healing/damage, outgoing healing/damage, and above all make the Combat Log a bit more understandable.

If nothing else, i'd love it if the Combat Log stops "spitting out" information after I have died, so I can read what killed me without having to scroll through the log several dozen lines (if I reach to at all, before the text disappears in the spam)

chivalrybean

In short, using the ACT after the fact is fine, using it while in combat isn't. Trying to scroll through the combat chat in game is silly, why would you do that when the ACT exists?

antovaras

redricky wrote: »

So if it's done in exactly the same manner as as parser, but in real time, it's not allowed?

What if it's something that simply provides a data point that could be argued should be part of the game's UI?

Why wouldn't Cryptic approve and encourage these things? If resources are stretched, what is there to lose from creating a collection of user generated resources which have been vetted by the devs as tools which do not negatively impact performance, the game code, etc?

Whether or not someone believes it should be part of the UI is irrelevant, it's not...


And if resources are stretched do you honestly think the devs will have time to trawl through 3rd party code testing it for compatibility with their own proprietary code?

bareel

Being that it is infact a 3rd party program I highly doubt Cryptic will ever endorse such a thing as it is a PR and potentially Legal minefield. Simply put a bad idea.

That said my interpretation of the issue would be that there is nothing wrong with it provided it does not directly interact with the STO interface.

Think of it like using a browser to look up information while in-game. That is allowed as there is no direct interaction between the two programs or their code. Similarly a log parser that acted in real time in a window separate from the STO program say on another monitor perhaps would also be unlikely to be a problem. However if said program did directly interact say by creating a new UI window in the game client and it's code that would be a problem.

Granted that it just my opinion.

virusdancer

It seemed pretty clear what he was saying.

Any 3rd party program/app that interacts with STO in realtime...bad. Something reading from the combatlog in realtime is interacting with STO in realtime...thus bad.

Something that reads a static combatlog - not in realtime - is not the same...thus "not bad" in that sense...

sudoku7

virusdancer wrote: »

It seemed pretty clear what he was saying.

Any 3rd party program/app that interacts with STO in realtime...bad. Something reading from the combatlog in realtime is interacting with STO in realtime...thus bad.

Something that reads a static combatlog - not in realtime - is not the same...thus "not bad" in that sense...

My take on it is simply that he didn't realize that that the built in combatlog text file was written real time, and was assuming that if the program was real-time, it was probably real-time by means of memory scanning or injection into the STO Client executable, which is a problem.

redricky

antovaras wrote: »

Whether or not someone believes it should be part of the UI is irrelevant, it's not...


And if resources are stretched do you honestly think the devs will have time to trawl through 3rd party code testing it for compatibility with their own proprietary code?

It's actually pretty relevant because those are the things that will be created. And no, they won't be testing it in that manner because anything that actually interacts with the code is not allowed.

Members of this community have proven themselves to be adept at coding. Consider:

1. Hypothetical Feature A is on the developer's list, prioritized at number 1493/7400 in the list of things to do.

2. Hypothetical community member @codewarrior69 comes up with a user generated program to do Hypothetical Feature A. This program does not violate the ToS or EULA. This imaginary program does not interact with the game code itself but operates external to STO, not even requiring an interaction with the game client.

3. Devs check it out, confirm that it does not, in fact, violate ToS or EULA or actually interact with STO.

4. Devs can now re-prioritize Feature A because if somebody really wants it they can use external program. It stays on the list but drops to 2681/7400, right above PvP maps and Klingon content.

5. Devs create a process by which things get evaluated. Nothing ever gets better than a "use at your own risk" rating, but things also get a "no you can't do that and we'll ban you if we catch you" rating.

What takes more time, developing something or vetting something brought to you by a community member?

Check out renimalt's post. They can point at the ToS all day but it doesn't address the specific situation. They've provided a combat log function, it can provide data in real time to a file outside of STO which can be acted upon seemingly without violating the ToS.

So somehow when you do it makes it unacceptable? Even though it interacts with neither the game code nor the client?

UGC (and I ain't talking Foundry) happens. Don't take a draconian CYA across the board policy. Be progressive, work with the talented community members that STO has drawn to it in an open manner. Critically examine each community authored offering on its own merit.

pwebranflakes

A friendly reminder that 3rd party programs may not be posted on these forums without the direct consent of Perfect World Entertainment, and doing so without said consent violates the ToS of these forums which could result in warnings or infractions, up to, and including, a permanent ban. Thanks for your cooperation

Cheers,

Brandon =/\=

redricky

pwebranflakes wrote: »

A friendly reminder that 3rd party programs may not be posted on these forums without the direct consent of Perfect World Entertainment, and doing so without said consent violates the ToS of these forums which could result in warnings or infractions, up to, and including, a permanent ban. Thanks for your cooperation

Cheers,

Brandon =/\=

So Bran, can we talk about a way to get consent of PWE? UGC is clearly supported in game, how do we create a place where community members can bring a tool to the developers in broad daylight?

pwebranflakes

redricky wrote: »

So Bran, can we talk about a way to get consent of PWE? UGC is clearly supported in game, how do we create a place where community members can bring a tool to the developers in broad daylight?

You'd have to reach out to our GM team at support.perfectworld.com

Cheers,

Brandon =/\=

antovaras

redricky wrote: »

It's actually pretty relevant because those are the things that will be created. And no, they won't be testing it in that manner because anything that actually interacts with the code is not allowed.

Members of this community have proven themselves to be adept at coding. Consider:

1. Hypothetical Feature A is on the developer's list, prioritized at number 1493/7400 in the list of things to do.

2. Hypothetical community member @codewarrior69 comes up with a user generated program to do Hypothetical Feature A. This program does not violate the ToS or EULA. This imaginary program does not interact with the game code itself but operates external to STO, not even requiring an interaction with the game client.

3. Devs check it out, confirm that it does not, in fact, violate ToS or EULA or actually interact with STO.

4. Devs can now re-prioritize Feature A because if somebody really wants it they can use external program. It stays on the list but drops to 2681/7400, right above PvP maps and Klingon content.

5. Devs create a process by which things get evaluated. Nothing ever gets better than a "use at your own risk" rating, but things also get a "no you can't do that and we'll ban you if we catch you" rating.

What takes more time, developing something or vetting something brought to you by a community member?

Check out renimalt's post. They can point at the ToS all day but it doesn't address the specific situation. They've provided a combat log function, it can provide data in real time to a file outside of STO which can be acted upon seemingly without violating the ToS.

So somehow when you do it makes it unacceptable? Even though it interacts with neither the game code nor the client?

UGC (and I ain't talking Foundry) happens. Don't take a draconian CYA across the board policy. Be progressive, work with the talented community members that STO has drawn to it in an open manner. Critically examine each community authored offering on its own merit.

And none of those individuals work for cryptic thus any idea they have is a third party creation subject to all manner of legal problems... Remember STO is not open source. People can suggest ideas in the forums, but until the devs decide to implement that suggestion using their code and methodolgy that's as far as things go. So no, whether or not a feature should be part of the UI, it's not relevant. The only aspect which is relevant is how any 3rd party tool interacts with Cryptic's proprietary code. Your example is fine up to step 2, then it completely falls over both due to resource and legal issues.

And Cryptic is extremely unlikely to answer in the specifics on the forums as the TOS is essentially a legal document. They'll tell you, rightly, what the rules are but not how they'll react in any specific scenario.

The foundry is an entirely different discussion as it's a tool provided by cryptic using and interacting with Cryptic assets in a manner 100% controlled by Cryptic.

reximuz

If the Combat Log is a text file and isn't locked (meaning a program like notepad can open it while the client is still logging), and the parser doesn't do anything but access the text file, then it shouldn't be against the rules. Reading a locked file in real time would certainly be bypassing an intentional design decision and would be against the eula/tos.

Combat Log is just a user requested data output file like a screenshot or perhaps demorecord (I'm not familiar enough to know how that works) If looking at the combat log in a 3rd party program that doesn't interface with STO is against the rules, then opening a screenshot or demorecord file in a 3rd party tool while STO is open is also against the eula/tos, and screen recording via FRAPS would also be against the eula/tos.

zeuxidemus001

I just do not see why someone would risk their account on such a third party program which does not even calculate a true product.

Edit: There are so many game mechanics in question with the combat log that are not tracked that it will never give a true product to the user of said illegal program. In space distance from target matters on the damage you are doing and same goes for a few ground weapons like pulsewaves, pistols, sniper rifles, etc. I wouldn't shed a tear though if PWE put their foot down on this because not only are these programs not accurate but I don't feel like getting all these random tells or messages about DPS when I know what I am doing and some below average intelligence person who cannot even comprehend what they are saying gets themselves put on ignore.

redricky

Never mind.

snoge00f

lulz, just distro it outside of the STO forums.

Everyone is making such a big deal out of their enforcement of their rules.

renimalt

snoge00f wrote: »

lulz, just distro it outside of the STO forums.

Everyone is making such a big deal out of their enforcement of their rules.

There are two main problems to that suggestion that I see.

1) The STO forums are pretty much the place to distribute anything related to Star Trek Online. As they should be. The forums were (I hope) set up with the intention to provide a single unified place to discuss and post anything STO-related; anybody distributing something outside of the forums would reach a much smaller audience, and many STOers would be missing out on something perhaps particularly neat.

2) Even if the question of whether distribution on the forums is allowed is ignored, what still remains is whether Cryptic believes these types of programs to violate their EULA/ToS. Without knowing that, as a responsible person I (and I hope, most other people on this forum) cannot, in good conscience, distribute something that could be later declared a hack/cheat and have people's accounts sanctioned for using it. Furthermore, if they do declare that it's unallowed, then I can't, in good conscience, continue to advocate for it's availability and use. However, if they do allow it, then that would resolve all the problems of where it should be distributed and whether I (or anybody else) could talk about it on the STO forums.

In short, the entire thing is about their rules, and it's quite important to know what their stance on the issues is before proceeding with any sort of action.

deadshepherd

Hey guys, I've started development on a promising combatlog tracker + GUI and already realeased it, check it out here:

Deleted because I just read that it's forbidden to post links here...

BR, Deads

darkfader1988

deadshepherd wrote: »

Hey guys, I've started development on a promising combatlog tracker + GUI and already realeased it, check it out here:

Deleted because I just read that it's forbidden to post links here...

BR, Deads

Is it the same junk as ACT? Or the java one? They all suck.

Make sure its a 64-bit version, multi-threaded and doesnt crash if log is bigger then 400/500MB

If thats the case, I would say it wasnt in vain, and i would be happy to test it out.

dontdrunkimshoot

deadshepherd wrote: »

Hey guys, I've started development on a promising combatlog tracker + GUI and already realeased it, check it out here:

Deleted because I just read that it's forbidden to post links here...

BR, Deads

looks like theres room in my mail box if anyone wants to send me any mail. just sayin

johnharrisonlol

darkfader1988 wrote: »

Is it the same junk as ACT? Or the java one? They all suck.

Make sure its a 64-bit version, multi-threaded and doesnt crash if log is bigger then 400/500MB

If thats the case, I would say it wasnt in vain, and i would be happy to test it out.

Finally a Panda chimes in on a thread that contains the words "third party programs" LOL

maicake716

johnharrisonlol wrote: »

Finally a Panda chimes in on a thread that contains the words "third party programs" LOL

and whats that supposed to mean?

knowledge is power.