Double standard? On 3rd party software etc.

There you go again. Approaching this passive aggressively doesn't justify the actions of what is going on here. This is no perception. Like I said, there is no grey matter. This is hacking, or cheating, or whatever you want to call it. It's wrong, people don't like it, there is no middle ground.

Sorry, I didn't intend for it to come off as "passive aggressive". Let me fix that for you and drop the passive part.

Your opinions aren't shared by the people that matter (developers). You're wrong. It's not hacking. Deal with it.

Why are you always advocating for cheating? Whenever I see some thread like this one I recently created, you are always there to defend this type of gameplay. Is there anyone else that feels the same way I do, or are we going to let people like this dictate the way we play games?

Stop oppressing me.

How do you know this? Do you have some anecdotal evidence? And no, it's not ''fundamentally' not feasible.''

Nice to know that after my long absence, people are still making boxer hate threads

Because anyone with basic understanding of operating system topological systems who's even glanced at M-Q finds it obvious. At least I would hope so.

The Everquest client is so old, it's been poked and prodded into oblivion. That's why M-Q is so prominent. The client is so old that unless you want to rework it from the ground up (not feasible). It's going to remain vulnerable. It's the same reason why your antivirus would suck D if you never updated/upgraded it for 16 years.

So yes, it's fundamentally not feasible.

Not a 'boxer hate thread'. Please don't try to derail what I am advocating. This is a 3rd party program thread, if you want boxer hate there are many other places you can find that. I think boxing is classic, within reason, but it is obviously and openly out of control. The reason behind this, like I said, is 3rd party programs. (The type you use, and I am not speculating, I have seen you running around with mage boxes obviously utilizing said program)

just a small aspect of the hacking program.... the EQ servers actually send you a lot of data when you are in a zone. all of the npcs that are in the zone along with their location. the server is constantly sending you this data. your client is what limits how much of that data you can actually see by render distance and/or track. this hacking program lets you access ALL off that data, this is how you can see all mobs currently in a zone. this is why it is hard to detect. the client is not doing anything suspicious. the server sends you all of the data anyways.

now imagine trying to go back and completely change how a program/server share data for coding that is near 20 years old.

Frenzic stop being famous.

What is the point of a development team if not to make raid encounters more balanced? Gameplay in general more balanced? Itemization? Abilities? So people can play the game as it was designed, within it's sandbox, without the help of 3rd party workarounds. But instead, we have 2 people advocating for this here, which blows my mind, to make gameplay even more trivial and easy. I know you guys aren't the only ones. Mind you, this is in an era where voicechat, better computers, and connections exist.

You're specifically targeting a program that has been allowed by DBG and is used by a large percentage of boxers. If you were to target the hacking program, I'd say sure, power to you! That program has been a thorn in EQ's side for far too long and needs to be destroyed. The boxing program is legit and needs to be left alone.

The fact that the OP says the program is allowed, means you are directly talking about the boxing program and not the hacking program. Stop hating boxers!

Finally inspired me to hunt down that other thread with the EULA addition Greg:
https://forums.station.sony.com/eq/index.php?threads/recent-eula-clickie.220381/

EULA text quotes:

So yea, they could spyware at any point should they choose.

Talking about both... I thought I made that pretty clear. Boxing 3rd party program=wrong. Packet sniffing software that cracks encryption to give me server data=wrong. Anything that trivializes gameplay outside of said design bounds=wrong.

Wow very nice! Thank you!

That's all scare tactic though, just a tertiary investigation into the everquest client reveals that it doesn't actually snoop. I'm willing to bet that was added & forgotten within the eula along the same time Activision tried it (and actually monitored). Then Everquest was like.... maybe we shouldn't, getting sued sucks. lol.

It's also likely there, such that when the EQ client detects something injected, there's no argumentative 'grey area' where someone could be like. "It's my physical RAM what gives you the right to sample it!?"

All speculation though.

It's easy to test if something snoops if you use a vacuum state virtual machine. Everquest in it's current state, does not snoop. At least I cannot get the client to attempt to snoop in the screwing around I did when we last spoke about this.

No you're using a quote from Smed to further your view point. Smed is talking about HACKING programs, which DBG has never allowed and continue to crack down on. Boxing programs, Smed did not mention and thus your post is inaccurate. You're using a quote about something unrelated to bring false evidence to your personal view.

Stop boxer hating!

If you read the thread it was added the same time they added the Daybreak logos into the client. (It's covered in the linked thread as such) So no, its not ancient. In fact similarly timed to the P99 agreement - which you'll remember has Spyware of its own to deal with hacking nonsense.

If I was a betting man, I'd say they're working on incorporating such into the Campaign patch. Normally things like that go into the EULA when they start programming them to be used - so they'd just be waiting for a nice easy time when people are more careless like an expansion release.

Does anyone have a screenshot or evidence of activision at this time getting sued and have a relative EULA to back this claim?

Otherwise, it seems you already picked.

Wouldn't shock me either. But people typically get upset when you take something that hasn't snooped for years, then make it snoop. Activision tried this then completely backed down when they realized the backlash of attempting it.

But I mean, really does it matter? If they do it sloppily it's still able to be beat. Look at Punkbuster and how amazing that isn't. And that's some pretty heavy snooping software.