EVE General Discussion

In most other games I've played (alot of MMOs) cross teaming is banned because it drives people away from competitive play. I really don't give a fruit if it's banned or not in Eve, just using that for reference.

In most other games using an unintended design flaw to gain an advantage was not allowed. Again I don't care if this in Eve or not.

A combination of the two, killing your own alts to gain an uncompetitive edge whilst also manipulating the system is really shady and I haven't read the whole post, but I think makes most people want to see action taken against the offenders.

If you argue that pushing the edges and combining every possible exploit it fair because "it was allowed in the game" then I HOPE, you are in for a rude awakening, and that CCP does not allow that.

Show me 2 and I'll biomass and send you my assets.

So now we are supposed to be mind-readers of CCP devs to figure out what they intended? We had the Dev blog, we had it on SISI, we had people questioning/telling devs on the forums, everything pointed to the fact that this was, what was intended. Goons figured it out and Goons capitalized on it, I say good for them. Everything they did was within the rules and mechanics of the game, as presented to us. Now that this type of manipulation is considered an exploit, it shouldn't happen any more, end of story. Give them their stuff back and lets move on, the market will work itself out eventually in a few years.

That always seems to be a problem with folks who threaten to unsub. Their accounts don't run out until people have forgotten they ever threatened to unsub.

Hyperbole is a sin, you guys.

Speaking of which, I found, (thought of), the solution early on while reading this, though I'm not sure it would be particularly feasible to introduce as part of game design.

The issue lies primarily in the fact that the design that allowed this relied primarily on the use of player generated market data to create database entries that gave values for items based on their commonly traded market values. Really, this is something that players want, because it allows for implementation of proper insurance payouts, killboard entries with loss values in the new kill report feature, market tracking features, etc...

The fix is not so simple while maintaining the implementation of such a feature though, (at least not the one I've thought of), while allowing it to provide numbers for calculations to create insurance payouts or generate rewards such as the LP rewards in the new FW system.

What would need to be implemented is a system of checks and balances that adjudicated the databse values of all items by attempting to gather only accurate market data.

Effectively this would involve the review of each market trade to determine legitimacy based on the evaluation of this value compared to other trades involving the same items, and could also involve the arbitrary removal of consideration for mean value of an item of trades that occur in backwater systems or in places that generally do not see much trade.

Effectively, items in areas that are not considered trade hubs or active trade areas would immediately be ignored, while all other trades in valid areas would be collected as values in a database, after which a snooping program would check for the most commonly traded values within certain ranges, then remove values outside of that range and prevent them from influencing the mean or average value of an item entered in the database.

Now, the easiest way to do this without increasing lag or load on the servers would be to utilize the Content Delivery System that currently provides player avatar images to the client, (among other things perhaps), to deliver the information to the TQ server for use in such calculations.

This external database could then rely on daily static market dumps and external sorting programs to provide a reliable database that is current and evaluates and balances every static dump based on a system of logged values from previous dumps in addition to the values present in those dumps.

..I think that's as much as I need to work on that problem. I seem to have considered a way that makes my earlier statement invalid with regards to feasability too. Unfortunately, it would still require the implementation of a server and programs for gathering and evaluating all this data, so it's not an easy fix by any means.

It is the only one I can think of that would allow the continuation of the features that rely on it, and the implementation of new ones without.. ..omitted..

I'm making an assumption there, but I think it is a correct one.

We're missing one one. Someone that one hasn't posted. Where is he? WHERE IS HE???

Won't ya please make way for a very special guy
Our man Mittani is king of the pumpkin patch
Everyone heil to the Pumpkin King now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw8pcxE6U9k

FAR less than you think if this thread is any indication



It is damn funny how pissy Goons get when they receive slaps on the wrist isnt it?



k, point to where this is a documented feature not an exploit. If you can do that we can prove CCP wrong.

Mittens had nothing to do with any of this.