These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#321 - 2012-06-25 22:00:12 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:


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


Really ? seems counter intuitive ?

meh

Tal
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2012-06-25 22:05:20 UTC
Nope.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#323 - 2012-06-25 22:07:52 UTC
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:


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


Really ? seems counter intuitive ?

meh

Tal


yea I dont see this happening... know why? If theyre absolute you have the Goonswarm internet lawyer division ripping them apart for loopholes and have this exact situation happening on a constant basic instead of every once in a while

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.

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#324 - 2012-06-25 22:11:56 UTC
So to avoid "goonswarm internet lawyer division ripping rules apart for loopholes when rules are absolutes and not open to interpretation", you'll expect a sandbox game to have very loose rules which are open to interpretation?

I ... see.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#325 - 2012-06-25 22:17:22 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:


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


Really ? seems counter intuitive ?

meh

Tal


yea I dont see this happening... know why? If theyre absolute you have the Goonswarm internet lawyer division ripping them apart for loopholes and have this exact situation happening on a constant basic instead of every once in a while

CCP has made it quite clear that when they say "DON'T!" you don't, and trying to internet lawyer your way around it still gets you banhammered, so it is useles to even try. That, to me, seems pretty absolute, don't you think?

"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
#326 - 2012-06-25 22:23:17 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
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?


Sarcasm is lost on you.

I think that bleach you used on your head was absorbed by your frontal lobe.
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#327 - 2012-06-25 22:23:48 UTC
Absolute rules would mean people can't be judged according the BFF factor.
We can't have that.

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.

It was obvious that the system wasn't working as intended, and that my dear chaps is what a bug is. Something not working as intended. It was soo obvious that they told CCP about the flaw and then went on abusing it.
If I had done that I would get all the goodies stripped and a temp ban at the least.
And I would have been very lucky if I got off that easy.

Luckily CCP has a "no tell what we did" policy, so any claims that the culprits have been judged just as harshly as any other grunt in this game ar irrelevant. Those claims can't be proven and I for one think this rule sometimes is just too beneficial to avoid any and all responcebilities.

It's this kind of bullcrap and all the other smokescreens which CCP just loves to throw up that I am seeing more and more veterans leave the game.
I know a lot of you newbees won't care, but in short time you will become bittervets too because next to feel like being lied to and the whole cold shoulder mentality CCP loves to give it's playerbase will start to hit you too.

In my opinion CCP has no accountability. Only accountants.
That's what you get once a love and passion get's replaced by mortgages and bonusses
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#328 - 2012-06-25 22:24:29 UTC
Come on out of this thread there are ISD to annoy out there : )

Tal

Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#329 - 2012-06-25 22:31:57 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

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.


Every new course starts from an old course that gets changed.


Lord Zim wrote:

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.


A titan killing a cruiser does not exactly equal to grabbing 5 trillions.
A titan fitted for that is not also the best titan for everything else, it had to give up on stuff.

Also no self proclaimed group of "we are better than you" players twitted or made smug threads to pour salt over the wound.
Finally a titan killing a cruiser does not make 0.0 pointless, something that this abuse did with regards to FW and large part of low sec with it.
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#330 - 2012-06-25 22:34:18 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:

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."


Exactly, even my cousin who does not even play EvE may read it as a vulnerability waiting to be exploited.
And even my cousin would imagine that abusers would be punished for something so obvious even him who does not play EvE can clearly see.
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#331 - 2012-06-25 22:36:48 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
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?


I recall that event.

It was an exploit because CCP decided it was so. Here, you got your new course.
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2012-06-25 22:37:56 UTC
Alaya Carrier wrote:

Also no self proclaimed group of "we are better than you" players twitted or made smug threads to pour salt over the wound.
Finally a titan killing a cruiser does not make 0.0 pointless, something that this abuse did with regards to FW and large part of low sec with it.

Rubbing salt in a wound stings like heck, but makes the wound heal faster. True story.

"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
#333 - 2012-06-25 22:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mortimer Civeri
Alaya Carrier wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:

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."


Exactly, even my cousin who does not even play EvE may read it as a vulnerability waiting to be exploited.
And even my cousin would imagine that abusers would be punished for something so obvious even him who does not play EvE can clearly see.

Ah, but you forgot the other part of that paragraph. Only CCP can say if it is an exploit or not, and they said nothing.

Nice cherrypick with a handoff to a strawman. You don't see that every day...wait this is Eve-O GD P

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Nazim
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2012-06-25 22:50:09 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
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?


It wasn't the repping by itself. It was parking your ship at a rat spawn site with bounties, repping the sentry drones along with self reping, and leaving the computer on the rest of the day while doing other things. CCP equated it to botting.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#335 - 2012-06-25 22:50:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Nazim wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
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?


It wasn't the repping by itself. It was parking your ship at a rat spawn site with bounties, repping the sentry drones along with self reping, and leaving the computer on the rest of the day while doing other things. CCP equated it to botting.

Well, that's understandable enough, since it is kind of like botting. For a second there, given CCP's latest perceived way of dealing with "creative use of game mechanics", I was beginning to wonder if I'd inadvertently exploited the game when I were repping drones while ratting. I wouldn't want to get banned or penalized for exploiting, retroactively. :ohdear:

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

RIP Vile Rat
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#336 - 2012-06-25 22:52:24 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
Alaya Carrier wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:

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."


Exactly, even my cousin who does not even play EvE may read it as a vulnerability waiting to be exploited.
And even my cousin would imagine that abusers would be punished for something so obvious even him who does not play EvE can clearly see.

Ah, but you forgot the other part of that paragraph. Only CCP can say if it is an exploit or not, and they said nothing.

Nice cherrypick with a handoff to a strawman. You don't see that every day...wait this is Eve-O GD P


CCP Sreegs said it's an abuse and did not look exceptionally happy with the abusers.
Hopefully he will not be bypassed by some brass deciding CCP has to keep being the only company that does not punish abuses.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#337 - 2012-06-26 00:07:31 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:


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


Really ? seems counter intuitive ?

meh

Tal


yea I dont see this happening... know why? If theyre absolute you have the Goonswarm internet lawyer division ripping them apart for loopholes and have this exact situation happening on a constant basic instead of every once in a while

CCP has made it quite clear that when they say "DON'T!" you don't, and trying to internet lawyer your way around it still gets you banhammered, so it is useles to even try. That, to me, seems pretty absolute, don't you think?


you fail at reading

you do realize that yes?

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.

Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2012-06-26 01:37:05 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:


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


Really ? seems counter intuitive ?

meh

Tal


yea I dont see this happening... know why? If theyre absolute you have the Goonswarm internet lawyer division ripping them apart for loopholes and have this exact situation happening on a constant basic instead of every once in a while

CCP has made it quite clear that when they say "DON'T!" you don't, and trying to internet lawyer your way around it still gets you banhammered, so it is useles to even try. That, to me, seems pretty absolute, don't you think?


you fail at reading

you do realize that yes?
Funny, all I've read from you amounts to "RAGH! GOONIES, banzors them all CCP! AGHIJASDLKFJAKL!!!1" really not conducive to a debate on the finer points of the issue.

You fail at debating the issue.

You do realize that yes?

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Morganta
The Greater Goon
#339 - 2012-06-26 01:48:09 UTC
so let me get this straight since the dev blogs show nothing

So certain people discovered an issue with the new FW mechanic on Sisi, reported it and began exploring the potential of this issue.

CCP opted to ignore this rather major issue and push FW out the door hoping that this group of players would support them in sweeping a rather glaring gameplay issue under the rug

The group of players instead decided to exploit the hell out of the issue instead of climbing into the soft comfy chair of ignorance and denial

now CCP is mad that the people who warned them this would happen made it happen so it would be exposed as the sloppy work that it is?

is this about right?
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#340 - 2012-06-26 01:50:15 UTC
Morganta wrote:
so let me get this straight since the dev blogs show nothing

So certain people discovered an issue with the new FW mechanic on Sisi, reported it and began exploring the potential of this issue.

CCP opted to ignore this rather major issue and push FW out the door hoping that this group of players would support them in sweeping a rather glaring gameplay issue under the rug

The group of players instead decided to exploit the hell out of the issue instead of climbing into the soft comfy chair of ignorance and denial

now CCP is mad that the people who warned them this would happen made it happen so it would be exposed as the sloppy work that it is?

is this about right?


yep. you nailed it.

CCP is acting out like an embarrassed child throwing a tantrum...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde