EVE Information Portal

I see only two reasons given by CCP Sreegs, speaking for CCP, why this "event" (Goon 4x4? GoonGate? Goon FW Crisis 2012?) has been classified as an exploit:

1) "Because of the volumes and disparity involved we've had to take action to fix this particular system."

2) "Because this was essentially a system where you could print LP, even if ISK was provided as an input, it is classified as an exploit."


But, 1) only speaks to the surprising SUCCESS of the Goons. It does not speak to it being an exploit. For example, that Bill Gates (and Microsoft) have made a giganormous fortune is not reason to say Microsoft Windows is an "exploit". (It is for other reasons.)

And, 2) contains an enormous IF clause: "even if ISK was provided as an input". The Goons did not buy an LP printing press, with ISK. This was not the "input" of ISK. They gamed the system, and it required purchases necessarily to function. Had they blown up stuff "from thin air", then, yes, they would have successfully printed LP.

CCP needs to explain WHY this classifies as an exploit, rather than an enormously successful method of multiplying an investment.

CCP has not done this.

Sreegs i aplogize ahead for this one man. I know you cannot discuss what disciplinary actions are done to player XYZ nd so on but many will be disappointed if there are no Bannings. The group knew; they got their Egg heads together played with the formula and went hey you know you can do this and so a group went and did exactly how the egg heads said and exploited it and then said something about it.

they did toss you under the bus not once but multiple times over this issue alone. A lot of folks feel they should be banned. if it was any other group they would have been banned in a blink of an eye and then work on the investigation. Many of us have talked about this and the general concensus is that your doing the father thing Shaking the finger at them and speaking in a stern voice "Do not do that again or else" Many have seen this and many want what the rules say to happen to them.

Sorry Sreegs had to say my peice on this and hope you do the right thing.

Peace

I just had an idea...

Currently (or well, before the fix) the average prices were defined by a rolling average across all transactions of the whole cluster.

How about we give transactions a different weight, depending on, for example:
- The less a single individual player has traded an item within the last day, the higher a transaction containing this item is weight
or:
- The more individual players have been involved in trade at the system/station of the transaction within the last hour/day, the higher its weight

I discourage setting it based on current trade hubs / main regions, as that would interfere with the player-driven aspect of the forming of these hubs and the market in general.
On the other hand, dynamically defining it on amount of items traded or isk exchanged would make it highly manipulable by few with huge capital.

-> Hence above idea. There may be many goons (or members of any given large block), but not enough to outtrade us "pubbies" without creating an actual and valid market.

Aryth, corestwo or someone else with deeper insight.. am I making sense?^^

First my government does something I do not agree with, then CCP roflstomps the sandbox in the interest of "fairnesss". I'm having a bad day =(

The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.

You're basically asking them to work it on a 'basket' or 'item class' level, which I assume would average against the number of items in that class.

I do like that idea, a lot, and as long as the baskets are sufficiently large (i.e. mineral basket, P1 basket, etc) there will be far too much 'white noise' by the average Market user like myself. Its still possible (with enough capital) to do it, but you'll start to have trend-watchers amplifying the change and profiting outside the scheme.

You need a 4.5 multiplier. So that means the amount of ISK required to even attempt such a thing, while holding it there for a price update, against all of EVE might make the best content ever. As one group of guys wage a price war with all of EVE, while CCP watches and laughs watches them get burned to the ground by turning off the updater for a bit.

It's a super elegant solution, and is probably easy to code for them. But yep, they just need to get the baskets to be "big" and it's fixed.

And 4.5x is the worst case, which is "Can buy the seed item from the LP store and also have high warzone control." The required disparity between estimated price and price at which you can buy or build the item becomes much larger if you can't double it over by buying it and blowing it up again, or if they don't have a high tier of warzone control, or both.