Crime & Punishment

I think you misunderstand Eve. We we're killing foos in deadspace, deadspace are the little pockets where mission, exploration, and Incursion sites spawn. One of those is exactly the place we were hunting.

~Andrei.

Well considering that you recognised it as a flaw in the mechanics and yet still abused it, and subsequently seem to be taking some missguided "Hero" stance in profiteering from your known confessed griefing it seems a sensible effort to log a petition, thanks for the suggestion.

Likewise there may be mileage for any individuals who were subject to said abuse of the system to reclaim their loses as a result of those actions?

As to the actions of CCP and how you think your capabale of manipulating their involvement with these elements of the game I cannot possibly comment, as in fairness they may have simply made a fix to a problem in their own good time regardless of your actions? Though I don't deny you may have brought extra attention to the situation as a result.

http://www.evenews24.com/2011/11/11/dead-irish-interviews-psychotic-monk/#idc-container

Again, thank you all for being so ritarded as to get us all this attention. It's p cool, tbh.

~Andrei.

The difference being is that from your own admission you knowingly abused this flawed mechanic as opposed to avoiding it. It was your "choice" to profit from its abuse at the expense of others by using it.

This imo contravenes rule 23 of the terms of service in the EULA:

"You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. Bugs should be reported through the bug reporting tool on our website. "

And by definition a bug includes flawed mechanics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug

Que sera sera.

Meet



I've been forced to repeat myself via quoting... What are these forums coming to?

When CCP says something is "working as intended" imo it contravenes calling it a bug. If CCP later decides that they don't want to deal with your tears because we've expertly honed the most efficient use of their game mechanics to harvest them (and admit it, we made pretty effective use of game mechanics to harvest tears here), then we will have to deal with an evolved landscape. None of us were even warned, and I can guarantee that plenty of those Incursion bears petitioned (f not, they lied to us for no really good reason), and we've been warned on plenty of questionable uses of game mechanics. We even joke about having our own SKNK. case file because the same poor GM always ends up mailing us when we get too far into the grey areas.

We're arguing from two different points, though. You seem to want to use wikipedia to prove that (all?) flawed game mechanics are bugs? Whereas, I believe that if the developer of some software explicitly says that a mechanic is "working as intended," then so long as the player base's cries that it's flawed land on deaf ears, said mechanic is not a bug. I cannot argue with you in this case, because I think you are silly.

In any event, CCP has now (indirectly) decided that it is no longer "working as intended," so exploiting another workaround for this mechanic might actually be a violation of the EULA.

Perhaps a couple of rhetorical situations will clear the air for you?

1. Do you think it's currently an exploit to use an insured battleship to suicide gank another ship, because this seems to have recently been (indirectly) deemed a "flawed game mechanic" by CCP.

2. Do you think that providing neutral RR on a station, and then instantly docking up when targeted to prevent the loss of said logi ship is an exploit (even though it has not yet been identified as a "flawed game mechanic" by CCP)?

Hint: What we did is closer to #2 by CCP's own declarations.

~Andrei.

Right, and I forgot, we didn't exercise any "unfair advantage" over other players. The mechanic wasn't in the least bit shrouded from anyone, nor were it's consequences. We simply put it to better use than anyone else had done so far because we were able to target such a rich environment of careless players with more ISK than sense, and social engineer said group of muppets just enough to convince them to part with the deficit of their ratio. (This environment didn't exist in such a magnitude prior to Incursions, btw.)

~Andrei.

All nice rhetoric, but you still seem to fail to grasp the difference. In that from your own position and stance you chose to abuse what you felt was a bug in the system. You admitted this, in fact went to painful lengths of feeding your own ego to justify it as such. So as a result you knowingly from your own viewpoint and understanding abused the system. This is where the difference arises from what your trying to debate as an excuse for not accepting responsibility for your own actions.

I wont judge the actions of everyone for every view point about their concerns for the game, that would be daft. But seems to be what your trying to provoke me into doing. Sorry won't fall for that kind of manipulation. Other issues are subjective until considered in their own particular context as a result.

Just seems like a massive climb down from what you were trying to wear as a nice pretty medal earlier. ;)

Andrei, your attempt to portray CCP's hotpatch as a victory for you and your friends is so cute!
Just admit it, CCP likes those who run incursions more than they like you.

How does that make you feel?

No one blames you for being jelly, bro.

~Andrei.

That doesn't even make sense.... why should I be jelly? My occupation in EVE didn't just get nerfed
U mad bro? Come at me man!