These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: The FW Exploit 2012 (or: How I learned about FOREX)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Challu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#381 - 2012-07-07 01:45:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Challu
Wow you're aweful.

Aemonchichi wrote:
it still is no answer, the players made their post after ccp said in the news that something fishy is going on and they investigate


Please read up before you go on a whine-spree. You got the sequence of events the wrong way around. The one duder reported the exploit with all its execution details to CCP.

Aemonchichi wrote:
ccp clearly states that is was an exploit, and sreegs states that they already knew there was someone manipulating LPs way out of scale

so saying they remain in good standing should read they remain in awesome standing cause they get a bunch of plexes on top of no punishment


Not "they", the one reporting dude got plexes because he reported the details of the exploit to CCP. Sure, you can disagree with the ruling, but you just have to ... wait for it ... read the damn blog to understand why what was done =P

Aemonchichi wrote:
and sreegs, as a former goon member, communicating all this to the community, is not a wise choice made by ccp even if u grant him that he above acting biased


And this is where it goes from whiney to having a case of The Dumb. Sreegs is CCP's cop. He deals with this kinda stuff. In some ways, it would be inappropriate for anyone other than Sreegs to report on this. For someone who values form over substance, I can see how this may not seem sensical to you though.

Aemonchichi wrote:
no wonder this smells fishy and i still would like an explanation above the one litte sentence from the dev blog


Read it again. You may not like the answer, but it's there.

Aemonchichi wrote:
sandbox does not mean: no rules, hack, bot and exploit as u like and for a game i invest a lot of time and effort into i would like to see CCP more dedicated to the enforcement of their own rules


Nice to see that you're ending with a red herring. Complements the spirit of the rest of the post.
Aemonchichi
Limited Access
#382 - 2012-07-07 15:03:44 UTC
another fanboi repeating other posters mindless gibberish 8) dude best keep it to yourself

but as the question is not answered in the devblog, no matter how often ppl yell its there 8) not it isnt - seems u should read it yourself again and slow this time trying to understand it
Udonor
Doomheim
#383 - 2012-07-09 18:29:09 UTC
Can't really help thinking that this should NOT have been labelled an exploit. No rules were broken and no code or software design flaws existed. Inputs were required.

In fact CCP has endorsed market manipulation since the beginning in the form of encouraging traders to try to "corner the market". Thus the penalty seems to be for being too successful. Which would be fine if CCP wanted to define the maximum percentage of profit per transaction or directly related transactions. (Directly related might be a wee bit hard to define except by the rule of repetition and pattern.)


Perhaps excessively embarassing your gaming host's over short sighted game design would have been more correct.

I suppose CCP could define some sort of rule dealing with the ethics of cooperating players on both sides of a transaction/interaction which was intended to be hostile. But then CCP would be burdened with defining or at least clarifying which transactions were intended to be hostile and which allowed to be cooperative. I suppose all market transacations could be classified as hostile and maybe private contracts are cooperative...but what about general public contracts. What about when you accidentally buy your own order off market though oversight?
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#384 - 2012-07-10 00:32:25 UTC
Good call CCP! Glad to see that abusive behavior is not rewarded!
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#385 - 2012-07-11 11:22:48 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Highest Kill Value ever in EVE? http://imgur.com/1fSsT


Shocked
Pipa Porto
#386 - 2012-07-11 11:32:33 UTC
Louis deGuerre wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Highest Kill Value ever in EVE? http://imgur.com/1fSsT


Shocked


Gotta give those Defender missiles their 1% boost.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#387 - 2012-07-12 20:08:02 UTC
15 days without a new dev blog!

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Disregard That
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#388 - 2012-07-14 15:25:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Disregard That
What did CCP Soundwave mean in the TenTonHammer interview when, pertaining to LP for PVP, he quipped, "I kind of hope this goes terribly wrong?"

TenTonHammer Interview

Any comments from players or CCP on this?

The relevant comment is at 7m 58s.

It's interesting to note that the TenTonHammer guy says, "You don't hear many game designers say that."

Boy howdy, you don't!
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#389 - 2012-07-15 19:20:45 UTC
18 days without a new dev blog!

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Pipa Porto
#390 - 2012-07-15 19:48:09 UTC
Alx Warlord wrote:
18 days without a new dev blog!


1. Summer Vacation

2. There is a Dev Blog on this subject. In fact, this thread is discussing it.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Disregard That
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#391 - 2012-07-17 20:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Disregard That
Disregard That wrote:
What did CCP Soundwave mean in the TenTonHammer interview when, pertaining to LP for PVP, he quipped, "I kind of hope this goes terribly wrong?"

TenTonHammer Interview

Any comments from players or CCP on this?

The relevant comment is at 7m 58s.

It's interesting to note that the TenTonHammer guy says, "You don't hear many game designers say that."

Boy howdy, you don't!

Totally not empty quoting. I'm still waiting for a response from CCP.

What is the "correct interpretation" of CCP Soundwave's provocative statement?

It sure looks mighty conspicuous given the tone of CCP Sreeg's scathing assessment of the LP for Pew Pew FOREX scheme.

I thought we hoped this went terribly wrong? That's the cue I took from the game's lead designer.

I'm genuinely looking for some guidance on this here, because it doesn't seem very intuitive to me at all.

[edit]

We also get this gem from CCP Greyscale:

CCP Greyscale wrote:
...we're generally OK with people abusing some of the loopholes in the design and/or UI presentation to use such systems for unintended purposes...


How were the players involved in this scheme supposed to resolve CCP Soundwave's above-referenced comment and an overall-pervasive message from CCP as summed up above by CCP Greyscale, with the supposed expectation that they would police themselves regarding a feature that was functioning exactly as predicted by its stated intent and design parameters and happened to be making them a flat-out fortune?

I fail to see how, given the above quotes, any player could be expected to judge the scheme discussed in this thread as exploitative in any way.

[/edit]
Mezoforta
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#392 - 2012-07-18 03:08:27 UTC
I completly support Disregard That I to watched the video and seen and heard ccp soundave say that he designs for results but he hopes it fails terribly and from what a normal person with any IQ can see he would be talking about the LP from faction warfare. Its pretty weird that even ten ton hammer said wow i have never heard a game designer say that and neither have i. Yes he is one of the faces of CCP and im sure CCP wouldnt like to have their lead game designers be made to look like a fool, but he did it to himself by saying what he did. If CCP really cares about its customers like they have said then maybe he should do another interview with ten ton and retort what he said. Being as that is what they would want any other person who plays the game that was in a seat of power oh say mittens. But yes in short i support Disregard That 100%
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#393 - 2012-07-22 19:26:11 UTC
I hear a disconnect between designers and actual implimentation, "I hope this goes terribly wrong" sounds like someone who fought over how this was going to work and lost

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#394 - 2012-07-23 00:36:06 UTC
I've always found it fascinating how anonymous internet forum posters always demand the most extreme punishments for misdeeds. Even though the fruits of these goons' labour will be undone and everything returned to near normality*, anonymous internet forum posters demand permanent bans. Losing trillions of ISK isn't enough, they must be barred from playing the game they obviously love to play.

Equally interesting how the vindictiveness of anonymous internet forum posters is always amplified when its directed at member's of my alliance. I'm willing to bet that the same people calling for Aryth's and co. banning would be asking for leniency if the person's in question were from a competing alliance. Eve's meta-game always extends disturbingly far into real life ("I don't like you so I hope you're barred from the game forever!").

* This won't be the case. Its almost a certainty that these goons will end up losing considerable legitimate assets due to am incomplete investigation as has happened in every similar case. Not saying Screegs and his team are incompetent, they most certainly aren't, but Eve is a very complicated game and there's only so many man hours you can devote to a problem.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Pipa Porto
#395 - 2012-07-23 01:24:21 UTC
Tarsus Zateki wrote:
"I don't like you so I hope you're barred from the game forever!").


Is there a better way to get rid of your competitors?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto