These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

exploit vs. sloppy game mechanic design

Author
Xhaiden Ora
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-06-23 11:27:57 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
was it spotted on sisi before it went live? yes.
did it go live anyway? yes.

i fail to see how it wasn't intended.


If it was really intended it wouldn't be being investigated. Simple as that. Argue all you want, but CCP's actions reveal that this was not intended.
Dave stark
#42 - 2012-06-23 11:29:30 UTC
Xhaiden Ora wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
was it spotted on sisi before it went live? yes.
did it go live anyway? yes.

i fail to see how it wasn't intended.


If it was really intended it wouldn't be being investigated. Simple as that. Argue all you want, but CCP's actions reveal that this was not intended.

then CCP should stop releasing content before it has been tested/finished.

let's assume it wasn't intended; goons are now being investigated for CCP dropping the ball. i guess if blizz/activision can get away with poor treatment like that, CCP can too.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#43 - 2012-06-23 11:29:38 UTC
Copine Callmeknau wrote:
I could name a dozen things that are valid tactics yet equally an 'obvious exploit'


Such as webbing freighters on undock and bumping them to prevent them docking, cancelling warp or getting away? Or perhaps fitting Titans in such a way that they can blow moving interceptors out of the sky? Some problems can be fixed (such as halving the tracking on XL turrets), others can't (such as the mechanics behind docking, warping and being able to stop a warp).

When you find yourself thinking, "when CCP see me doing this, they're sure to nerf it," or "I can't believe they didn't think of this," that should be a clue that what you are doing is likely to be classed as an exploit. The FW reward system was intended to reward people for engaging in PvP in the FW environment, not to reward people for blowing up ridiculously overvalued freighter loads of goods in hisec, far away from FW fleets. I don't expect anyone actually believes that the design intent of FW was to have players blowing up their own freighters in hisec.

The people involved were clever to work this system out to efficiently. They were too full of their own egos though, and ruined the gig for everyone.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#44 - 2012-06-23 11:30:28 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
then CCP should stop releasing content before it has been tested/finished.


Be careful what you wish for.
Ghost Xray
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#45 - 2012-06-23 11:34:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Ghost Xray
Dave stark wrote:
was it spotted on sisi before it went live? yes.
did it go live anyway? yes.

i fail to see how it wasn't intended.


Actually, I don't think it was. I had posted the question "if you say this was all done in the interest of helping out EvE and the community, then why not do the "proof of concept" on Sisi."

And the response was "not possible". And while I agree the market manipulation wasn't possible as the market doesn't exists there, generating crap loads of LP and presenting to the devs with "See, in 15 minutes I just earned 1 BILLION LP's. Are you sure you guys got this stuff right?"

So, no, it wasn't spotted on Sisi. And even if the market did exist and everything was doable on Sisi, they wouldn't have done it there anyway.

As they already stated, the point wasn't to QA the system design, the point was to get rich, filthy space rich. And, then try and shut down the operation by telling CCP about so that nobody else got space rich, because "that would be damaging".
Dave stark
#46 - 2012-06-23 11:40:05 UTC
Ghost Xray wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
was it spotted on sisi before it went live? yes.
did it go live anyway? yes.

i fail to see how it wasn't intended.


Actually, I don't think it was. I had posted the question "if you say this was all done in the interest of helping out EvE and the community, then why not do the "proof of concept" on Sisi."

And the response was "not possible". And while I agree the market manipulation wasn't possible as the market doesn't exists there, generating crap loads of LP and presenting to the devs with "See, in 15 minutes I just earned 1 BILLION LP's. Are you sure you guys got this stuff right?"

So, no, it wasn't spotted on Sisi. And even if the market did exist and everything was doable on Sisi, they wouldn't have done it there anyway.

As they already stated, the point wasn't to QA the system design, the point was to get rich, filthy space rich. And, then try and shut down the operation by telling CCP about so that nobody else got space rich, because "that would be damaging".


"Much of what we believed to be true could not be tested on SISI."

clearly the issue had already been identified, but was untested. it was spotted on sisi.
The Chronophage
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-06-23 11:41:03 UTC  |  Edited by: The Chronophage
This happens IRL all the time. Bankers fix the system in such a way that the man on the street can't get a shot at the riches, lobbyist ensure that GE pays no taxes while the rest of us turn into peasants, Facebook insiders sell overpriced shares to the public and BP pays a few million for permanently destroying the fisheries in the Gulf while still continuing to pump oil.

Smart people game the system even better than the people in charge of the system. The only way for us to stay in the game is to keep up. This is what makes EvE real.
Gun Gal
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-06-23 11:43:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Gun Gal
Whelp we know who wears the pants now
Ursula Thrace
Dreamland Augmented Consortium
#49 - 2012-06-23 11:47:25 UTC
Constable Chang wrote:
In an MMO something is an exploit if the people who make the game say it is. Its really that simple.


constable hit the nail on the head.
Ghost Xray
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2012-06-23 11:53:45 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Ghost Xray wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
was it spotted on sisi before it went live? yes.
did it go live anyway? yes.

i fail to see how it wasn't intended.


Actually, I don't think it was. I had posted the question "if you say this was all done in the interest of helping out EvE and the community, then why not do the "proof of concept" on Sisi."

And the response was "not possible". And while I agree the market manipulation wasn't possible as the market doesn't exists there, generating crap loads of LP and presenting to the devs with "See, in 15 minutes I just earned 1 BILLION LP's. Are you sure you guys got this stuff right?"

So, no, it wasn't spotted on Sisi. And even if the market did exist and everything was doable on Sisi, they wouldn't have done it there anyway.

As they already stated, the point wasn't to QA the system design, the point was to get rich, filthy space rich. And, then try and shut down the operation by telling CCP about so that nobody else got space rich, because "that would be damaging".


"Much of what we believed to be true could not be tested on SISI."

clearly the issue had already been identified, but was untested. it was spotted on sisi.


The issue was spotted by reading the dev blogs about how they were going to reward LPs. It could have been demonstrated (at least the raping of the LP reward system anyway) and shown to CCP, but again, they didn't see the value in that.

Again, it was about "abusing", "exploiting", "cheating", "working" (whatever verb suits you) the situation for individual profit.
Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
#51 - 2012-06-23 11:56:05 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
was it spotted on sisi before it went live? yes.
did it go live anyway? yes.

i fail to see how it wasn't intended.

This
Dave stark
#52 - 2012-06-23 12:00:26 UTC
Ghost Xray wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Ghost Xray wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
was it spotted on sisi before it went live? yes.
did it go live anyway? yes.

i fail to see how it wasn't intended.


Actually, I don't think it was. I had posted the question "if you say this was all done in the interest of helping out EvE and the community, then why not do the "proof of concept" on Sisi."

And the response was "not possible". And while I agree the market manipulation wasn't possible as the market doesn't exists there, generating crap loads of LP and presenting to the devs with "See, in 15 minutes I just earned 1 BILLION LP's. Are you sure you guys got this stuff right?"

So, no, it wasn't spotted on Sisi. And even if the market did exist and everything was doable on Sisi, they wouldn't have done it there anyway.

As they already stated, the point wasn't to QA the system design, the point was to get rich, filthy space rich. And, then try and shut down the operation by telling CCP about so that nobody else got space rich, because "that would be damaging".


"Much of what we believed to be true could not be tested on SISI."

clearly the issue had already been identified, but was untested. it was spotted on sisi.


The issue was spotted by reading the dev blogs about how they were going to reward LPs. It could have been demonstrated (at least the raping of the LP reward system anyway) and shown to CCP, but again, they didn't see the value in that.

Again, it was about "abusing", "exploiting", "cheating", "working" (whatever verb suits you) the situation for individual profit.


every thing people do in this game is for individual profit. they simply logged in, and played the game and made money, like every other player. just because CCP made this method of making money faster than another method of making money doesn't make it an exploit, or cheating, or abusing.
Lili Lu
#53 - 2012-06-23 12:04:55 UTC
It appears the proper tactic would have been to alert CCP to the problem. If CCP failed to do anything to correct it once alerted then use the problem to your advantage.

Unfortunately it appears these goon spacefriends used the problem to their advantage, then alerted CCP to the problem.

The problem here being the market basis formula and lp reward ratios.

Regardless one poster above, I can't remember who, identified another huge flaw in the new FW design. The advantages for acheiving each tier are massive. In a game with usually 5% advantages per level (with skills) who thought a 100% advantage per level or whatever the damn advantage is for each tier was a good idea. That and no reward at all for defensive plexing. I can understand wanting to favor offensive plexing and incentivize attainment of each tier, but the design here seems extreme.

Soundwave doesn't have to hope the system is broken, it is broken.
Ghost Xray
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#54 - 2012-06-23 12:13:34 UTC
Dave stark wrote:


every thing people do in this game is for individual profit. they simply logged in, and played the game and made money, like every other player. just because CCP made this method of making money faster than another method of making money doesn't make it an exploit, or cheating, or abusing.


Ah, see, this is where you are confused.

"... CCP didn't make this method of making money..." at all. The intent of Faction War loyalty rewards isn't to make money, at least not excessively. The intent is to give people a little incentive to bother with it since you can't fund Faction War PVP with the traditional "moon goo", "abusive landlord", what have you.

And I believe this is why action was taken. Because they broke the intent and abused Faction Wars.

Unless you think making alts in all factions and killing yourself over and over is fun, then this whole things reeks of "lame emergent game play"


Ghost Xray
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2012-06-23 12:19:47 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
It appears the proper tactic would have been to alert CCP to the problem. If CCP failed to do anything to correct it once alerted then use the problem to your advantage.

Unfortunately it appears these goon spacefriends used the problem to their advantage, then alerted CCP to the problem.

The problem here being the market basis formula and lp reward ratios.

Regardless one poster above, I can't remember who, identified another huge flaw in the new FW design. The advantages for acheiving each tier are massive. In a game with usually 5% advantages per level (with skills) who thought a 100% advantage per level or whatever the damn advantage is for each tier was a good idea. That and no reward at all for defensive plexing. I can understand wanting to favor offensive plexing and incentivize attainment of each tier, but the design here seems extreme.

Soundwave doesn't have to hope the system is broken, it is broken.


Yeah, and I agree here. CCP got themselves into a bad spot trying to polish this turd that is "Faction Wars". And that's why it's been largely unused and ignored.

But I do applaud them in trying to think of something to get more people shooting each other instead of shooting NPC's and rocks.
Dave stark
#56 - 2012-06-23 12:29:19 UTC
Ghost Xray wrote:
Dave stark wrote:


every thing people do in this game is for individual profit. they simply logged in, and played the game and made money, like every other player. just because CCP made this method of making money faster than another method of making money doesn't make it an exploit, or cheating, or abusing.


Ah, see, this is where you are confused.

"... CCP didn't make this method of making money..." at all. The intent of Faction War loyalty rewards isn't to make money, at least not excessively. The intent is to give people a little incentive to bother with it since you can't fund Faction War PVP with the traditional "moon goo", "abusive landlord", what have you.

And I believe this is why action was taken. Because they broke the intent and abused Faction Wars.

Unless you think making alts in all factions and killing yourself over and over is fun, then this whole things reeks of "lame emergent game play"




telling me i'm confused, then telling me CCP didn't make it. then who did? the pixies?

seriously though; CCP did make the method, and people used it. i'm sure CCP didn't intend for FW to have this kind of result. at the end of the day though, it has happened. CCP should have just gone "ok, we had a few teething problems with it, it's now fixed, carry on." we all make mistakes and CCP made one by releasing FW in the state it was. goons shouldn't be punished for CCP releasing FW in the state they did.

also if you justify some thing's legitimacy by how fun it is; ban all miners. clearly they're all cheating because they're making money by doing some thing boring.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#57 - 2012-06-23 12:30:58 UTC
EvEa Deva wrote:
Goons will get a wee wee slap im sure, would suck if they all rage quit Roll



Explain people what is the Wee Wee Slap first so they know how painful it can be:

You put someone in some closed room, no windows, no light, no water no food and no toilets and you make them listen this for 48h NON STOP

brb

Cpt Roghie
Chemical Invasion Co.
#58 - 2012-06-23 12:39:45 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
EvEa Deva wrote:
Goons will get a wee wee slap im sure, would suck if they all rage quit Roll



Explain people what is the Wee Wee Slap first so they know how painful it can be:

You put someone in some closed room, no windows, no light, no water no food and no toilets and you make them listen this for 48h NON STOP



Oh yes Im sure that's sufficient punishment for doing something that was working as intended. I mean, why else put it up on TQ?

This could be fun.

Florio
Miniature Giant Space Hamsters
#59 - 2012-06-23 12:40:35 UTC
Yes, it is CCP's fault: why the hell do they employ an economist in any case?

It is also an exploit if CCP decides it is, given that it's their game and the definition of an exploit is subjective.

In the past, CCP have called something that bypasses "Rules As Intended" as an exploit and I expect they will be consistent in this case.

And they should call it an exploit and they should get every last bit of profit back, as failing to do so would cause me, and many others I am sure, to leap towards the point of no return where you think "What's the frakkin' point? No amount of work or organisation could ever allow me to catch up with that amount of wealth." And that's where people just unsub.

Accordingly I'd disagree that this is a wonderful example of the colourful sandbox which will get more people to play the game. It'll put off any potential players (as well as any non-goon-butt-licker existing player).

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this because I don't like Goons. Yes we all know they're generally a bunch of mom's-basement socially-deficient children, but ever since I read Mittani's first leaked eloquent address to them back in the BoB days I knew that Goon leadership would turn the rabble into a force to be reckoned with. Anyway, I have no particular hostility to them.
Ghost Xray
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2012-06-23 12:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Ghost Xray
Dave stark wrote:


telling me i'm confused, then telling me CCP didn't make it. then who did? the pixies?

seriously though; CCP did make the method, and people used it. i'm sure CCP didn't intend for FW to have this kind of result. at the end of the day though, it has happened. CCP should have just gone "ok, we had a few teething problems with it, it's now fixed, carry on." we all make mistakes and CCP made one by releasing FW in the state it was. goons shouldn't be punished for CCP releasing FW in the state they did.

also if you justify some thing's legitimacy by how fun it is; ban all miners. clearly they're all cheating because they're making money by doing some thing boring.


I don't think anyone was really punished. There are some quibbles about "they took more they were supposed to" from someone who is still filthy space rich doesn't really make that much of a difference. They just didn't get to keep their ill gotten goods.

Had these dudes been banned you'd have a point.

And regarding miners... no, they shouldn't be banned, but they shouldn't get to be trillionaires for mining in high sec either (And I think Goons and co. are actively making sure that is the case). I'll chalk that up with "lame emergent game play" as well. - edit.. not killing miners, that I can get behind. But mining in high sec as a "profession".