These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#301 - 2012-06-25 19:43:25 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

So when we point out that everything was pointed out to CCP before they'd even released the code, t hat was still "post exploit"?


It started being a known code weakness the day it was first reported.
Therefore any abuse done after the first reports on Sisi is an abuse of a known vulnerability and thus should be bannable.
The fact CCP did not patch it before release is bad for them, but does not authorize individuals going all out to abuse the most they can.
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2012-06-25 19:52:29 UTC
Elysium Foxx wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:

Well you see, you hacking into my computer in the first place is illegal, there are already laws on the books that make it so, and despite finding a novel undocumented way to do it will still get you arrested. All CCP had to do was state that there was an exploit, and anybody abusing that exploit would be punished.

You obviously misunderstood my very, very simple example that had nothing to do with legality, but to simply illustrate the fact that it doesn't matter whether a vulnerability is documented or not (in this case CCP saying, no don't do that, which they didn't), abusing a vulnerability is, by definition, exploiting a system. Which i think was a response to some idiot saying, "but but CCP didn't say we couldn't abuse the vulnerability - so it must be OK , derrr...huhuh."

It just so happens that this vulnerability was spoken about pre-inferno (documented / known of, - just not officially stated as such by CCP)... Its still a vulnerability open to exploitation.

Yes, It is up to CCP to decide if they deem it an exploit. It doesn't look promising that they wont though, since the definition of an exploit is;
"blah, blah...Or, an exploit can be a documented process to take advantage of a vulnerability or exposure, usually in software, that is inherent in the software or is created by the attacker. ....Blah blah."
Principles of Information Security (4th edition) Chapter 1, page10.
by Michael E. Whitman, Herbert J. Mattord.

I'm just not sure why, or how anybody can argue anything different. If they had discovered it by accident, then sure.
But we all know CCP will go easy on them : )

It's a valid game mechanic untill CCP says otherwise. Intended game mechanic or not, that is how the game has worked up untill now. Up untill the twenty first it was a valid game mechanic, now it is not, deal with it. All those that pushed this to the breaking point, I say good job. If CCP knew about it and thought it wasnt what they intended they should have said something about it earlier. All I'm hearing now is, sour grapes, Goonies are bad m'kay, and "I wouldn't have done that." from the peanut gallery.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2012-06-25 20:00:55 UTC
Alaya Carrier wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

So when we point out that everything was pointed out to CCP before they'd even released the code, t hat was still "post exploit"?


It started being a known code weakness the day it was first reported.
Therefore any abuse done after the first reports on Sisi is an abuse of a known vulnerability and thus should be bannable.
The fact CCP did not patch it before release is bad for them, but does not authorize individuals going all out to abuse the most they can.

CCP could have said We've heard about this, it might be a vulnerability, we will monitor it, and anybody abusing it is exploiting. They said NOTHING, or are we supposed to be mindreaders and read CCPs minds as to intent of a game mechanic? I don't know anybody that is a telepath, so we have to infer that it is a valid game mechanic untill CCP says otherwise.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#304 - 2012-06-25 20:06:52 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:


Cause unless you were there you dont know and the guys Im quoting WERE there

OK, sure, don't believe me, then. It matters little to me.


Well, given you CANT prove what YOURE saying and IM quoting from what the GUYS THAT DID IT said, yeah...

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#305 - 2012-06-25 20:08:03 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:

CCP could have said We've heard about this, it might be a vulnerability, we will monitor it, and anybody abusing it is exploiting. They said NOTHING, or are we supposed to be mindreaders and read CCPs minds as to intent of a game mechanic? I don't know anybody that is a telepath, so we have to infer that it is a valid game mechanic untill CCP says otherwise.


Do you seriously need a telepath to understand that a vulnerability discovered and discussed for SiSi was not meant to be abused if it still stayed in game once deployed on TQ?
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#306 - 2012-06-25 20:08:46 UTC
Alaya Carrier wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

So when we point out that everything was pointed out to CCP before they'd even released the code, t hat was still "post exploit"?


It started being a known code weakness the day it was first reported.
Therefore any abuse done after the first reports on Sisi is an abuse of a known vulnerability and thus should be bannable.
The fact CCP did not patch it before release is bad for them, but does not authorize individuals going all out to abuse the most they can.


especially when the guys doing it were (in their words) "lying in wait" for it to hit the play server

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Nomad I
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2012-06-25 20:14:49 UTC
I would say, shooting Mackinaws is an exploit. Shooting somebody else is an exploit too.
Elysium Foxx
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#308 - 2012-06-25 20:15:20 UTC
I think the horse is well and truly dead now. Time to stop flogging it.

Arguments from both sides have been stated, restated, and repeated over and over again.

Lets just wait for CCP's popcorn moment.........
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#309 - 2012-06-25 20:16:16 UTC
Does anyone know if CCP has said what happened and what they've done yet? Can anyone provide a breakdown of what has happened?

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#310 - 2012-06-25 20:16:54 UTC
Elysium Foxx wrote:
I think the horse is well and truly dead now. Time to stop flogging it.

Arguments from both sides have been stated, restated, and repeated over and over again.

Lets just wait for CCP's popcorn moment.........


ya wheres that def blog

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Elysium Foxx
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#311 - 2012-06-25 20:19:32 UTC
This is the part where you lock the thread and release the DevBlog :P
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#312 - 2012-06-25 20:24:06 UTC
Driving home the "listen to your players" lesson.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2012-06-25 20:39:41 UTC
Alaya Carrier wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:

CCP could have said We've heard about this, it might be a vulnerability, we will monitor it, and anybody abusing it is exploiting. They said NOTHING, or are we supposed to be mindreaders and read CCPs minds as to intent of a game mechanic? I don't know anybody that is a telepath, so we have to infer that it is a valid game mechanic untill CCP says otherwise.


Do you seriously need a telepath to understand that a vulnerability discovered and discussed for SiSi was not meant to be abused if it still stayed in game once deployed on TQ?

Up until this incident, if something was possible using documented ingame mechanics, and CCP hasn't said "this is not legal, don't do this", then it was fully legal to do so. This means everything is very clear-cut for players wrt legality.

Your interpretation can easily be construed in such a manner that f.ex utilizing tracking titans (which are utilizing an algorithm with a weakness where titans, the biggest ship in the game, can easily enough shoot and kill the smallest and most nimble ships in the game) could be seen as something which you "wouldn't need a telepath to understand shouldn't be done", because it's "not what the ship's designed role was". Instead, we looked upon this as "emergent gameplay" and embraced it. Hated it when we were up against it, but still a part of the sandbox.

In a sandbox, rules should be absolute and not open to interpretation.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#314 - 2012-06-25 20:44:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mortimer Civeri
Alaya Carrier wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
CCP could have said We've heard about this, it might be a vulnerability, we will monitor it, and anybody abusing it is exploiting. They said NOTHING, or are we supposed to be mindreaders and read CCPs minds as to intent of a game mechanic? I don't know anybody that is a telepath, so we have to infer that it is a valid game mechanic untill CCP says otherwise.


Do you seriously need a telepath to understand that a vulnerability discovered and discussed for SiSi was not meant to be abused if it still stayed in game once deployed on TQ?

Hilighted the relevant portion for you. You may consider it an exploit, heck your cousin who doesn't even play EVE may read it and say "Yea, that is a vulnerability waiting to be exploited." Only CCP can say if it is or not, and up untill the 21st, it was on TQ it was live and WAS NOT AN EXPLOIT, it was a valid game mechanic that anybody could use.

All CCP had to do was state right on pach day, that they knew about it and would consider it an exploit, till they could work a patch for it. Thats it, that is all they had to do to stop it being exploited, and they DIDN'T. What else could anybody infer, when CCP is warned, and they are silent about it?

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Ghost Xray
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#315 - 2012-06-25 20:48:37 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:


All CCP had to do was state right on pach day, that they knew about it and would consider it an exploit, till they could work a patch for it. Thats it, that is all they had to do to stop it being exploited, and they DIDN'T. What else coud anybody infer, when CCP is warned, and they are silent about it?


It was a setup. They were simply letting a stupid player or group of players do something that was ban worthy.

Perhaps someone at Sony wanted CCP to clean up the garbage in EvE so expect to see more of these types of things

Roll
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#316 - 2012-06-25 20:58:46 UTC
Ghost Xray wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:


All CCP had to do was state right on pach day, that they knew about it and would consider it an exploit, till they could work a patch for it. Thats it, that is all they had to do to stop it being exploited, and they DIDN'T. What else coud anybody infer, when CCP is warned, and they are silent about it?


It was a setup. They were simply letting a stupid player or group of players do something that was ban worthy.

Perhaps someone at Sony wanted CCP to clean up the garbage in EvE so expect to see more of these types of things

Roll

Would you like some more tinfoil for that fine hat you're wearing?

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#317 - 2012-06-25 21:18:32 UTC
Ghost Xray wrote:
It was a setup. They were simply letting a stupid player or group of players do something that was ban worthy.

Perhaps someone at Sony wanted CCP to clean up the garbage in EvE so expect to see more of these types of things

Roll

If this had been anything other than just a troll, then I would've been highly worried as a player, simply because it would mean that EVE the game has gone from a sandbox with clear, distinct rules of conduct, to a semi-sandbox with a developer which is actively trying to find ways with which to punish players.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Nazim
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2012-06-25 21:38:58 UTC
Whoa whoa where is this stuff that its not an exploit until ccp says it is. Firstly ccp can decide retroactively that it was a exploit and punish all those using it prior to this statement. Other game companies do this and ccp has prior precedent of dooing it. For example ccp punished a guy who was afk ratting by having his sentries out and having reppers on the sentry. Ccp punished the guy and only later stated that this was an exploit.
Ghost Xray
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#319 - 2012-06-25 21:40:08 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Ghost Xray wrote:
It was a setup. They were simply letting a stupid player or group of players do something that was ban worthy.

Perhaps someone at Sony wanted CCP to clean up the garbage in EvE so expect to see more of these types of things

Roll

If this had been anything other than just a troll, then I would've been highly worried as a player, simply because it would mean that EVE the game has gone from a sandbox with clear, distinct rules of conduct, to a semi-sandbox with a developer which is actively trying to find ways with which to punish players.


I dunno, EvE's advertising talks about consequences and a MMO world where things you do matter. Do something that looks like an exploit and maybe the consequence is finding a new MMO to play.

"I was there... but then I got banned."

Lol
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#320 - 2012-06-25 21:55:29 UTC
Nazim wrote:
Whoa whoa where is this stuff that its not an exploit until ccp says it is. Firstly ccp can decide retroactively that it was a exploit and punish all those using it prior to this statement. Other game companies do this and ccp has prior precedent of dooing it. For example ccp punished a guy who was afk ratting by having his sentries out and having reppers on the sentry. Ccp punished the guy and only later stated that this was an exploit.

Why would repping sentries be an exploit?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat