These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

How is this an exploit when insurance fruad was not?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-06-23 21:00:18 UTC
Montmazar wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Montmazar wrote:


Do you think it was the intention of the game designers for activating a microwarpdrive for one pulse to be able to make larger ships be able to warp within 10 seconds?



Maybe it was.


Yes clearly no doubt.

Listen, exploiter, I'm not messing with ANY kind of prop mod until this gets fairly and reasonably petitioned. Exploiters like you are RUINING this game.


If you have any reasonable argument why you think that using a microwarpdrive to warp away quickly was not intended by the game designers, you are free to make a post about it.
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-06-23 21:04:50 UTC
MagicAcid wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
MagicAcid wrote:


What I did is not that far from designing your fleets around insurance so the losses are minimal.


Did you purposely blow up ships to make a profit from NPC's from insurance? Do you think it was the intention of the game designers for you to make a PROFIT off insurance, or do you think maybe they thought it would PARTIALLY pay for your ship and help ease the burden of the loss?


I shared your belief until I specifically asked CCP and they told me it was 100% allowed.


Answer the questions. Don't tell me what you heard from some customer service representative, that's avoiding the questions.

Do you think that it was the INTENTION of the GAME DESIGNERS for you to make a PROFIT off insurance? Or do you think maybe they thought it would partially pay for your ship and help ease the burden of the loss? Do you think you were following the intention of the game designers regarding insurance?
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2012-06-23 21:05:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
hey CCP remember when AHARM found out how if they applied tracking disruptors to to their own blaster boats in specific C6 wormholes they could go into negative turret tracking numbers, which flipped over into infinite tracking? And then proceeded to farm sleeper NPCs with point blank blasters from hundreds of k off for like almost a year until they started using it in PVP too and someone blew the whistle?

Did they have to give any of the isk back for that? Who got banned for that exactly, btw?
Innywuhne
Doomheim
#64 - 2012-06-23 21:07:30 UTC
so was the other posters comment about GCC and undocking the way it was done? like on the first undock, lock and fire on someone's can, then docking, reboarding, repeat?
Montmazar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2012-06-23 21:21:56 UTC
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Montmazar wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Montmazar wrote:


Do you think it was the intention of the game designers for activating a microwarpdrive for one pulse to be able to make larger ships be able to warp within 10 seconds?



Maybe it was.


Yes clearly no doubt.

Listen, exploiter, I'm not messing with ANY kind of prop mod until this gets fairly and reasonably petitioned. Exploiters like you are RUINING this game.


If you have any reasonable argument why you think that using a microwarpdrive to warp away quickly was not intended by the game designers, you are free to make a post about it.


It doesn't appear anywhere in the item description. This use of prop mods is done by conniving players who looked at what the numbers actually do. I.e. EXPLOITING. That's what exploiting is, right? Anything the game designers didn't say "HELLO THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE INTEND" is an exploit.

And way to not deny using it yourself, you exploiting cheat.
MagicAcid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
Hostile Intervention
#66 - 2012-06-23 21:34:19 UTC
Innywuhne wrote:
so was the other posters comment about GCC and undocking the way it was done? like on the first undock, lock and fire on someone's can, then docking, reboarding, repeat?


I would undock and then shoot the concord station I was using to get GCC.

After than I would merely lock the station which would cause an immediate concord response instead of waiting 30 seconds.
MagicAcid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
Hostile Intervention
#67 - 2012-06-23 21:35:54 UTC
Also, feel free to hang out in my chat room, "Fluoro's chat room" where I keep all my alts.
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-06-23 21:36:01 UTC
Montmazar wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Montmazar wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Montmazar wrote:


Do you think it was the intention of the game designers for activating a microwarpdrive for one pulse to be able to make larger ships be able to warp within 10 seconds?



Maybe it was.


Yes clearly no doubt.

Listen, exploiter, I'm not messing with ANY kind of prop mod until this gets fairly and reasonably petitioned. Exploiters like you are RUINING this game.


If you have any reasonable argument why you think that using a microwarpdrive to warp away quickly was not intended by the game designers, you are free to make a post about it.


It doesn't appear anywhere in the item description. This use of prop mods is done by conniving players who looked at what the numbers actually do. I.e. EXPLOITING. That's what exploiting is, right? Anything the game designers didn't say "HELLO THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE INTEND" is an exploit.

And way to not deny using it yourself, you exploiting cheat.


Yes, I use a microwarpdrive to enter warp faster on some large ships. No, I do not think it goes against what the game designers intended. If I ever hear from them that it goes against what they intended I will stop doing it. As long as I believe it is not going against what they intended, I will keep doing it.
Montmazar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-06-23 21:42:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Montmazar
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:



Yes, I use a microwarpdrive to enter warp faster on some large ships. No, I do not think it goes against what the game designers intended. If I ever hear from them that it goes against what they intended I will stop doing it. As long as I believe it is not going against what they intended, I will keep doing it.


So it's just down to individual interpretation then? You believe it is okay so it is?

In that case, what's the problem? Clearly the guys behind the loyalty points generation believed it was okay too. They even helpfully told CCP about it. Which is more than you have probably even done about your microwarpdrive "trick" (i.e. exploit) you dirty cheating exploiter, you.

It's like this: either you need to ask "mother may I" on every single off book game decision that is not borne out exactly like what the item description and dev blog says, or the players are allowed to use their own imaginations given the game mechanics as they are.

Then again on a previous post, you tell someone who actually did ask "mother may I" that it wasn't good enough, so clearly you are deep into crazyville anyway.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#70 - 2012-06-23 21:43:08 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
You have to separate the act from consequences of the act. The act was an exploit. There is no question about that.
I didn't know CCP had ruled on the matter. Could you point me to it please.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
MagicAcid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
Hostile Intervention
#71 - 2012-06-23 21:43:13 UTC

If the requirement to warp is to be going fast... and a MWD makes you go fast... Also it has the frigging word warp in the name.

The mechanic is you can enter warp at 75% of max speed and webs are designed to lower max speed without changing current speed.
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-06-23 22:05:26 UTC
Montmazar wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:



Yes, I use a microwarpdrive to enter warp faster on some large ships. No, I do not think it goes against what the game designers intended. If I ever hear from them that it goes against what they intended I will stop doing it. As long as I believe it is not going against what they intended, I will keep doing it.


So it's just down to individual interpretation then? You believe it is okay so it is?

In that case, what's the problem? Clearly the guys behind the loyalty points generation believed it was okay too. They even helpfully told CCP about it. Which is more than you have probably even done about your microwarpdrive "trick" (i.e. exploit) you dirty cheating exploiter, you.

It's like this: either you need to ask "mother may I" on every single off book game decision that is not borne out exactly like what the item description and dev blog says, or the players are allowed to use their own imaginations given the game mechanics as they are.

Then again on a previous post, you tell someone who actually did ask "mother may I" that it wasn't good enough, so clearly you are deep into crazyville anyway.


I did no such thing. I asked that person what they thought the game designers intended. I still haven't heard back.

And no, it is not interpretation, it is intention.

Let's try it like this. In a small town, a local bar owner sets up a roulette wheel. We all know what a roulette wheel is, and that it is intended to have slots all with an equal chance of the ball falling in it.

One guy in town watches as people play and notes how often each number gets called and starts to notice number 12 is getting called far too often. One night when it starts to get to be not so crowded he goes to inspect the wheel and sees that it has a defect that will make it fall in 12 more often. He tells the bartender, who says he's looked at it and it's fine, stop worrying. You tell him you're going to come use it and make a bunch of money, he says go ahead, give it a try. He thinks you'll lose.

You come in the next day, play the number all day and walk away with a huge profit. That's an exploit. You knew about a flaw that was against the intention of what a roulette wheel is for, and used that flaw.

Another guy comes in every Friday and puts $20 on number 12 because it's his lucky number. At the end of the year he finds that he's a lot richer than he expected. That's not an exploit. There was a flaw, it was used, but without intention.

It's all about intention. Are you trying to use a flaw for personal gain.

That somewhat sums up my definition of 'exploit' and I will stick by it. And since I also believe that they do not intend for me to make a bunch of ISK from NPC's with minimal effort, I would not have used this latest LP exploit.
Montmazar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-06-23 22:24:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Montmazar
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/23/eve-online-developers-on-the-importance-of-harnessing-player-creativity/

Quote:
Apart from that, I don’t like solving specific problems with modules. A module should be something that adds player value, that they will somehow put into some framework in the sandbox, rather than me saying, “I don’t like this ship doing something, let’s make a module to change that.” I think that’s a bad way of expanding your library of modules.


Quote:
And if you’re going to allow people that degree of freedom, you’ve got to give them tools that they can use in a number of different situations and combinations. So for us to go through the permutations of all those various things is just completely unrealistic. And actually, some of the great moments in EVE have come about when a player has found a new use for a module that makes us all sit around and look at each other and say, “Wow, I never would have thought of doing that.”

Some of these have been bugs in the past, some of these have been something that’s not in the module. And then we have great conversations about, “Well, should we fix it? Because it’s actually enabling a player to do this particular role and live out this part of the story that they want to live out.”

It’s hard to be that prescriptive–to say, “We know exactly what this module is and exactly what it’ll do and we know exactly how it will be used,” because our players are just cleverer than us basically. There are a lot of them and they try a lot of things and they’ve got weird enough brains that they’ll always find a unique use of something that we would never have thought of.


Huh. It seems like the design philosophy of EVE is that CCP puts out tools out there, and relies on creative players to come up with novel ways to use those tools.


No, that can't be right. Instead we should just try to figure out their specific "intent" and then only do that. That must be it.


You are basically arguing against the entire design philosophy of EVE. And that's what makes CCPs response to the LP thing so funny - they're going back on everything they've hyped about this universe.
MagicAcid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
Hostile Intervention
#74 - 2012-06-23 22:24:58 UTC
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Montmazar wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:



Yes, I use a microwarpdrive to enter warp faster on some large ships. No, I do not think it goes against what the game designers intended. If I ever hear from them that it goes against what they intended I will stop doing it. As long as I believe it is not going against what they intended, I will keep doing it.


So it's just down to individual interpretation then? You believe it is okay so it is?

In that case, what's the problem? Clearly the guys behind the loyalty points generation believed it was okay too. They even helpfully told CCP about it. Which is more than you have probably even done about your microwarpdrive "trick" (i.e. exploit) you dirty cheating exploiter, you.

It's like this: either you need to ask "mother may I" on every single off book game decision that is not borne out exactly like what the item description and dev blog says, or the players are allowed to use their own imaginations given the game mechanics as they are.

Then again on a previous post, you tell someone who actually did ask "mother may I" that it wasn't good enough, so clearly you are deep into crazyville anyway.


I did no such thing. I asked that person what they thought the game designers intended. I still haven't heard back.

And no, it is not interpretation, it is intention.

Let's try it like this. In a small town, a local bar owner sets up a roulette wheel. We all know what a roulette wheel is, and that it is intended to have slots all with an equal chance of the ball falling in it.

One guy in town watches as people play and notes how often each number gets called and starts to notice number 12 is getting called far too often. One night when it starts to get to be not so crowded he goes to inspect the wheel and sees that it has a defect that will make it fall in 12 more often. He tells the bartender, who says he's looked at it and it's fine, stop worrying. You tell him you're going to come use it and make a bunch of money, he says go ahead, give it a try. He thinks you'll lose.

You come in the next day, play the number all day and walk away with a huge profit. That's an exploit. You knew about a flaw that was against the intention of what a roulette wheel is for, and used that flaw.

Another guy comes in every Friday and puts $20 on number 12 because it's his lucky number. At the end of the year he finds that he's a lot richer than he expected. That's not an exploit. There was a flaw, it was used, but without intention.

It's all about intention. Are you trying to use a flaw for personal gain.

That somewhat sums up my definition of 'exploit' and I will stick by it. And since I also believe that they do not intend for me to make a bunch of ISK from NPC's with minimal effort, I would not have used this latest LP exploit.



I would hope that a bar owner that knowingly tricks people into thinking his roulette wheel is unbiased ends up with a visit from the gambling police.

Also how is this an exploit if it is expressly allowed by the bar owner?
MagicAcid
Nullbear Tear Extractors
Hostile Intervention
#75 - 2012-06-23 22:25:27 UTC
Montmazar wrote:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/23/eve-online-developers-on-the-importance-of-harnessing-player-creativity/

Quote:
Apart from that, I don’t like solving specific problems with modules. A module should be something that adds player value, that they will somehow put into some framework in the sandbox, rather than me saying, “I don’t like this ship doing something, let’s make a module to change that.” I think that’s a bad way of expanding your library of modules.


Huh. It seems like the design philosophy of EVE is that CCP puts out tools out there, and relies on creative players to come up with novel ways to use those tools.


No, that can't be right. Instead we should just try to figure out their specific "intent" and then only do that. That must be it.


+1
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#76 - 2012-06-23 22:44:00 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
I know. It is difficult. You have to see the whole picture and not everybody can do it.

But this is the exploit they used (I actually thought you knew but ... hell I will explain it for you). 1.) They manipulated the price of an item in order to 2) cash in LP on that item based on the manipulated price in 1). The two are not an exploit in isolation. The two of them combined with the intention to make an unfair shitload amount of LP is an exploit.

The perpetrators themselves knew it was an exploit. Or why do you think they reported it to CCP?


Well, I am still reading up and learning the whole story on what happened.

1. Personally market manipulation by stockpiling and flooding the market, even by calculation etc isn't that bad

2. manipulating market to increase payout, now I seem to get a clearer picture.

They drove up the prices to get lp to payout more than initial investment. Even that I wouldn't consider a complete exploit. If that is all it was, I doubt there wouldn't be any exploitation issue about it. That is good meta gaming. More it was specifically how they cashed in the payout that probably was the issue. Using alts to essentially farm was the problem.

Had the same situation been done to increase the cost of the other faction stuff so you earned more LP on actual pvp kills, I doubt it would have mattered. IE stockpiling minmatar stuff so killing their ships netted the more lp on the amarr faction side. The number crunching, etc. Is unfortunate. As a base idea, it was effective. The recycling of the loot drops I feel was sort of the proverbial straw on camel back. The rewards for kills is needed, wonder how it is going to change more in the future.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#77 - 2012-06-23 22:45:16 UTC
The insurance mechanic was modified to address insurance fraud. I think that action speaks volumes about CCPs attitude towards whether insurance fraud was being used in an unintended manner.

No doubt we will see changes to FW to address the unintended use of the market value determination system to profit from FW. In fact we already have: a modification to the market value system, and a modification to the LP reward calculation. Thus CCP's actions speak volumes about their opinion about whether the abuse of the FW LP system was expected or exploitative.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#78 - 2012-06-23 22:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Smohq Anmirorz
Montmazar wrote:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/23/eve-online-developers-on-the-importance-of-harnessing-player-creativity/

Quote:
Apart from that, I don’t like solving specific problems with modules. A module should be something that adds player value, that they will somehow put into some framework in the sandbox, rather than me saying, “I don’t like this ship doing something, let’s make a module to change that.” I think that’s a bad way of expanding your library of modules.


Quote:
And if you’re going to allow people that degree of freedom, you’ve got to give them tools that they can use in a number of different situations and combinations. So for us to go through the permutations of all those various things is just completely unrealistic. And actually, some of the great moments in EVE have come about when a player has found a new use for a module that makes us all sit around and look at each other and say, “Wow, I never would have thought of doing that.”

Some of these have been bugs in the past, some of these have been something that’s not in the module. And then we have great conversations about, “Well, should we fix it? Because it’s actually enabling a player to do this particular role and live out this part of the story that they want to live out.”

It’s hard to be that prescriptive–to say, “We know exactly what this module is and exactly what it’ll do and we know exactly how it will be used,” because our players are just cleverer than us basically. There are a lot of them and they try a lot of things and they’ve got weird enough brains that they’ll always find a unique use of something that we would never have thought of.


Huh. It seems like the design philosophy of EVE is that CCP puts out tools out there, and relies on creative players to come up with novel ways to use those tools.


No, that can't be right. Instead we should just try to figure out their specific "intent" and then only do that. That must be it.


You are basically arguing against the entire design philosophy of EVE. And that's what makes CCPs response to the LP thing so funny - they're going back on everything they've hyped about this universe.


Microwarpdrive: makes your ship go faster. Limited by the mass of your ship. It seems to me they've accounted for using a microwarpdrive on a larger ship, so it seems reasonable to use one for a larger ship. It seems reasonable to use one to increase your speed when trying to enter warp. Maybe that's not its specific intention, but it doesn't seem out of place.

I'm not arguing CCP's intent, I'm arguing YOUR intent. For everything you do. Do you think it's reasonable? If I think something is not reasonable, and possibly cheating, and I decide to use that thing for personal gain, I am exploiting. Yes, it's subjective and different for everyone and more difficult to prove. It works the same in real life.

For all I know, the people who pulled off this LP scheme thought it was reasonably within game design. I question that, but it is not outside the realm of possibilities.


So I say that I am arguing FOR the entire design philosophy of EVE.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-06-23 23:08:08 UTC
Montmazar wrote:

You are basically arguing against the entire design philosophy of EVE. And that's what makes CCPs response to the LP thing so funny - they're going back on everything they've hyped about this universe.


"Come play Eve! The spreadsheet universe where you crunch the numbers and blow yourself up for profits."

Nope, didn't see that hype ... but it souds like something Al Qaeda might like.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#80 - 2012-06-23 23:17:08 UTC
MagicAcid wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Montmazar wrote:
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:



Yes, I use a microwarpdrive to enter warp faster on some large ships. No, I do not think it goes against what the game designers intended. If I ever hear from them that it goes against what they intended I will stop doing it. As long as I believe it is not going against what they intended, I will keep doing it.


So it's just down to individual interpretation then? You believe it is okay so it is?

In that case, what's the problem? Clearly the guys behind the loyalty points generation believed it was okay too. They even helpfully told CCP about it. Which is more than you have probably even done about your microwarpdrive "trick" (i.e. exploit) you dirty cheating exploiter, you.

It's like this: either you need to ask "mother may I" on every single off book game decision that is not borne out exactly like what the item description and dev blog says, or the players are allowed to use their own imaginations given the game mechanics as they are.

Then again on a previous post, you tell someone who actually did ask "mother may I" that it wasn't good enough, so clearly you are deep into crazyville anyway.


I did no such thing. I asked that person what they thought the game designers intended. I still haven't heard back.

And no, it is not interpretation, it is intention.

Let's try it like this. In a small town, a local bar owner sets up a roulette wheel. We all know what a roulette wheel is, and that it is intended to have slots all with an equal chance of the ball falling in it.

One guy in town watches as people play and notes how often each number gets called and starts to notice number 12 is getting called far too often. One night when it starts to get to be not so crowded he goes to inspect the wheel and sees that it has a defect that will make it fall in 12 more often. He tells the bartender, who says he's looked at it and it's fine, stop worrying. You tell him you're going to come use it and make a bunch of money, he says go ahead, give it a try. He thinks you'll lose.

You come in the next day, play the number all day and walk away with a huge profit. That's an exploit. You knew about a flaw that was against the intention of what a roulette wheel is for, and used that flaw.

Another guy comes in every Friday and puts $20 on number 12 because it's his lucky number. At the end of the year he finds that he's a lot richer than he expected. That's not an exploit. There was a flaw, it was used, but without intention.

It's all about intention. Are you trying to use a flaw for personal gain.

That somewhat sums up my definition of 'exploit' and I will stick by it. And since I also believe that they do not intend for me to make a bunch of ISK from NPC's with minimal effort, I would not have used this latest LP exploit.



I would hope that a bar owner that knowingly tricks people into thinking his roulette wheel is unbiased ends up with a visit from the gambling police.

Also how is this an exploit if it is expressly allowed by the bar owner?


You know what a roulette wheel is for. You found a flaw. You used that flaw to make a profit.