These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Goons 4x4ing through the Sandbox - Market Manipulation on a Grand Scale

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frying Doom
#3041 - 2012-06-24 11:59:10 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So it wasn't a software bug that made the equation so easy to manipulate? Please see underlined text.

That's not a software bug, that's a poorly thought out design.

Frying Doom wrote:
As I said exactly the same. It was a software exploit. Being able to "generate as much LP as you want for practically no cost", sounds like a bug to me.

That's weak design, not a software exploit.

Frying Doom wrote:
The only real question will be the next series of posts either "CCP to soft on Goonswarm Again" or "CCP kick Goonswarm in the goulies". I doubt it will be "CCP follows precedent".

I guess everyone who blew up their ship for insurance money need to get kicked in the nuts, too. And everyone who bought PA and refined them into nocx. And everyone who got "free PI goods for practically no cost".

ok what the hell do you think a software bug is besides poorly thought out design. That is what makes bugs, well that and sloppy coding. Just because it doesn't crash the server or make isk magically appear doesn't mean it is not a bug.
The POS's had to work to make isk for free as did the LP rip off. They are the same.

If this was anyone other than Goonswarm caught doing this you would be first in line asking for their head.



Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lexmana
#3042 - 2012-06-24 12:00:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Lord Zim wrote:
Insurance fraud: were more isk received than should have been? Given that CCP changed the way prices are calculated, Imn going to go with "yes". So they got what they should have plus more, so they got free ISK.

PA: were more nocx received than should have been? Given that CCP changed PA to refine into trit instead of nocx, I'm going to go with "yes".

PI: were more PI goods received than should have been? Given that CCP changed (or completely removed) the refinery options, I'm going to go with "yes".

None of them were software bugs, all of them were mechanics which could've done with more thought behind them. The POS mechanic was a software bug.

And all of them were exploits that were subsequently patched. Some of the exploiters received the banhammer and more. Some didn't. That does not make it less of an exploit. But exploiting on a scale that can break the game will surely leed to some actions. In this particular case I don't think a ban is appropriate for several reasons (but I don't have all the information so that may change) and if it was on a smaller scale it would just have been patched and forgotten about. But these guys were aiming for the headlines. Well they got them and maybe some more.
Frying Doom
#3043 - 2012-06-24 12:00:57 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it.

So you're for the players getting to keep the loot?

I'm sorry I don't know how to respond to you, given your obvious mental difficulties.

The precedence set by everyone who exploited insurance fraud, PI, PA and probably countless others I'm forgetting offhand indicates that the players should keep the loot, since the only thing that was exploited was a design which could use more work. The ferrogel exploit, which you keep referring to, was a pure software bug, the design was sound.

The get as much LP as you want practically for free is also a bug of epic proportions, probably alot greater than the POS scam.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Powers Sa
#3044 - 2012-06-24 12:05:30 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it.

So you're for the players getting to keep the loot?

I'm sorry I don't know how to respond to you, given your obvious mental difficulties.

Nope. I don't think you'll ever learn.
A design flaw is not an exploit. A design flaw is an oversight. It is an error made by the team thinking it out. It is technically legitimate gameplay. No one was actually harmed or murdered endlessly as a result. People bought things they wanted, for cheaper than they could before. This lead to cheap fleet issue tempests, stabbers, and CNR's. No isk was removed or added to the economy.
Manufacturing LP out of thin air is something CCP will need to address more seriously instead of dropping a bandaid on it like they do with titan fixes and other major glaring holes. If you halfass something, someone will figure it out and engineer a way to take advantage of it.

Just like we do with your posting.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Frying Doom
#3045 - 2012-06-24 12:08:42 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
No isk was removed or added to the economy.

No isk was added or removed from the economy with the POS bug.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
spookydonut
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3046 - 2012-06-24 12:13:03 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
No isk was removed or added to the economy.

No isk was added or removed from the economy with the POS bug.


Which one? There's been quite a few.
Frying Doom
#3047 - 2012-06-24 12:15:41 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it.

So you're for the players getting to keep the loot?

I'm sorry I don't know how to respond to you, given your obvious mental difficulties.

Nope. I don't think you'll ever learn.
A design flaw is not an exploit. A design flaw is an oversight. It is an error made by the team thinking it out. It is technically legitimate gameplay. No one was actually harmed or murdered endlessly as a result. People bought things they wanted, for cheaper than they could before. This lead to cheap fleet issue tempests, stabbers, and CNR's. No isk was removed or added to the economy.
Manufacturing LP out of thin air is something CCP will need to address more seriously instead of dropping a bandaid on it like they do with titan fixes and other major glaring holes. If you halfass something, someone will figure it out and engineer a way to take advantage of it.

Just like we do with your posting.

Thought I would add to this one as you state

Design flaw = error
but errors are not bugs.

So quick Wikipedia entry for you so you can learn

"A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways. Most bugs arise from mistakes and errors made by people in either a program's source code or its design, and a few are caused by compilers producing incorrect code. A program that contains a large number of bugs, and/or bugs that seriously interfere with its functionality, is said to be buggy. Reports detailing bugs in a program are commonly known as bug reports, fault reports, problem reports, trouble reports, change requests, and so forth."

So according to Wikipedia Error does equal bug. Did you learn yet?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3048 - 2012-06-24 12:15:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Frying Doom wrote:
ok what the hell do you think a software bug is besides poorly thought out design. That is what makes bugs, well that and sloppy coding. Just because it doesn't crash the server or make isk magically appear doesn't mean it is not a bug.

You've been down pedantry road before with me, and you know how that went.

But anyways: a software bug is things like a reaction keeping going even though there's absolutely no inputs going into the reactor, because they were all removed after the reaction was started. Why was this doable? The check for inputs were only done when the reaction was started, not on subsequent ticks. The design was very clear on how it was supposed to work, the implementation did not match the design.

The FW "bug" was also pretty clear on how it was supposed to work, and what aryth etc did did not make the implementation do what it was not designed to do, it's just that the overall design was poorly thought out.

Hence, software bug vs design flaw.

Frying Doom wrote:
If this was anyone other than Goonswarm caught doing this you would be first in line asking for their head.

I would assume they'd get the same treatment as those who exploited the insurance fraud mechanic, the PA refining into nocx mechanic, and the POS stuff refines into PI mechanic.

Lexmana wrote:
And all of them were exploits that were subsequently patched. Some of the exploiters received the banhammer and more. Some didn't. That does not make it less of an exploit. But exploiting on a scale that can break the game will surely leed to some actions. In this particular case I don't think a ban is appropriate for several reasons (but I don't have all the information so that may change) and if it was on a smaller scale it would just have been patched and forgotten about. But these guys were aiming for the headlines. Well they got them and maybe some more.

The designs were changed to stop the unintended usage of the mechanics, yes. I've yet to hear of anyone who actually got banned over this, or had any reactions against them. Unless, of course, they continued doing what CCP had told, very publically, that they shouldn't keep doing after that point in time.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Lexmana
#3049 - 2012-06-24 12:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Powers Sa wrote:
A design flaw is not an exploit.

Just because you keep repeating that does not make it true.

But seriously, lets discuss this principle. Do you actually argue that if CCP would mess up in the same way but on a scale that would make LP worthless for a decade and ruin the whole economy ine the game we should just accept it and move on even if EVE would die (yes I said it) because it was a design flaw?

By the way, this is how an exploit is defined by wikipedia. How do you define an exploit?

Quote:
An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or design flaw including glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.[1]
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3050 - 2012-06-24 12:16:26 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
No isk was removed or added to the economy.

No isk was added or removed from the economy with the POS bug.

Actually, isk was removed from the economy due to the LP isk sink.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#3051 - 2012-06-24 12:19:06 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
No isk was removed or added to the economy.

No isk was added or removed from the economy with the POS bug.

Actually, isk was removed from the economy due to the LP isk sink.

Well you need to argue with Powers SA about that.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3052 - 2012-06-24 12:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
[quote=Frying Doom]This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it.

So you're for the players getting to keep the loot?

The ferrogel exploit, which you keep referring to, was a pure software bug, the design was sound.


What are you talking about Lord ZIm? A bug means the design was poor. If the design was correct then you have no bugs!
You cannot claim a good design and have bugs. Its does not work that way!

Now a design thats poor, will have flaws. In this case the heart of the issue is a design flaw.
So Goons took advatange of a design flaw which all it really means is that they exploited a game mechanic.

By exploiting a game mechanic based on a design flaw you are in violation of CCP rules.

Its that simple. You cannot say game mechanic and design flaw is different thing cos they are a meachnic.
You cannot claim good design and say it has bugs. You cannot have good design with bugs. Its simply called bad software design! Infact one of the reasons you do a design is to avoid bugs/flaws!
Yolanta Geezenstack
GWA Corp
#3053 - 2012-06-24 12:22:49 UTC
Whow, some litres of coffee were needed to reach this page. :)

What really impressed me was Aryth's calm reaction - kudos. Not sure I would have been so restrained. What?What?

Like a couple of other non-goons personally I still think it wasn't an exploit and that the "Faction Five" should have kept what they gained. But of course it is a grey area (or we wouldn't had such a long thread).

While we see a couple of non-goons who say it isn't an exploit, there isn't a goon who says it was. Or at least says it was a grey area (or did I miss a post in all those pages?).

I wonder what would have been the reaction if a non-goon (for instance this Jade-guy...) would have made 3 Trillion ISK and the goons only a couple of Billions. Somehow I doubt that everyone who now thinks it wasn't an exploit still would have had the same opinion... Roll
Frying Doom
#3054 - 2012-06-24 12:24:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:
Hence, software bug vs design flaw.

A design flaw is a software bug and is classed as an exploit.

Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
If this was anyone other than Goonswarm caught doing this you would be first in line asking for their head.

I would assume they'd get the same treatment as those who exploited the insurance fraud mechanic, the PA refining into nocx mechanic, and the POS stuff refines into PI mechanic.

As stated before it was the size of the matter and the numbers involved. the POS was by 7 corps, this was by 1 alliance and very deliberate, you can not say all the others PI and insurance fraud were all deliberate. Hell I lost ships to stupidity and got insurance but I did not blow up hundreds and post it in General Discussion.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Powers Sa
#3055 - 2012-06-24 12:27:44 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
This was finding a hole in the game mechanic (an obviously broken one) and exploiting it.

So you're for the players getting to keep the loot?

I'm sorry I don't know how to respond to you, given your obvious mental difficulties.

Nope. I don't think you'll ever learn.
A design flaw is not an exploit. A design flaw is an oversight. It is an error made by the team thinking it out. It is technically legitimate gameplay. No one was actually harmed or murdered endlessly as a result. People bought things they wanted, for cheaper than they could before. This lead to cheap fleet issue tempests, stabbers, and CNR's. No isk was removed or added to the economy.
Manufacturing LP out of thin air is something CCP will need to address more seriously instead of dropping a bandaid on it like they do with titan fixes and other major glaring holes. If you halfass something, someone will figure it out and engineer a way to take advantage of it.

Just like we do with your posting.

Thought I would add to this one as you state

Design flaw = error
but errors are not bugs.

So quick Wikipedia entry for you so you can learn

"A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an incorrect or unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways. Most bugs arise from mistakes and errors made by people in either a program's source code or its design, and a few are caused by compilers producing incorrect code. A program that contains a large number of bugs, and/or bugs that seriously interfere with its functionality, is said to be buggy. Reports detailing bugs in a program are commonly known as bug reports, fault reports, problem reports, trouble reports, change requests, and so forth."

So according to Wikipedia Error does equal bug. Did you learn yet?

Anyone can edit wikipedia.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Frying Doom
#3056 - 2012-06-24 12:29:16 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Anyone can edit wikipedia.

And billions have learned to read. Your point?

Just for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3057 - 2012-06-24 12:30:44 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:
What are you talking about. A bug means the design was poor. If the design was correct then you have no bugs!

A bug means the software doesn't do what the design says it should.

Andrea Roche wrote:
You cannot claim a good design and have bugs. Its does not work that way!

You can have an awesome design, but the guys doing the programming ****** up their implementation somewhere. That's a pure software bug right there.

Andrea Roche wrote:
Now a design thats poor, will have flaws. In this case the heart of the issue is a design flaw.

A bad design which is implemented properly is not a software bug, it's a design with issues.

Andrea Roche wrote:
So Goons took advatange of a design flaw which all it really means is that they exploited a game mechanic.

By exploiting a game mechanic based on a design flaw you are in violation of CCP rules.

And this is different from insurance fraud, the PI debacle and the PA/nocx debacle how?

Andrea Roche wrote:
You cannot claim good design and say it has bugs. You cannot have good design with bugs. Its simply called bad software design! Infact one of the reasons you do a design is to avoid bugs/flaws!

Yes, you can have good design with bugs, it's called a bad implementation.

And no, the reason you do design is to develop a system design. The software bugs come during the implementation phase, where the design is implemented into actual code, which comes after the design phase.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Maybelater Headache
Doomheim
#3058 - 2012-06-24 12:31:37 UTC
+1 CCP
Lexmana
#3059 - 2012-06-24 12:31:45 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
Anyone can edit wikipedia.

Anyone can post on eve forums?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3060 - 2012-06-24 12:35:10 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
As stated before it was the size of the matter and the numbers involved. the POS was by 7 corps, this was by 1 alliance and very deliberate, you can not say all the others PI and insurance fraud were all deliberate.

1) "this" was done by 5 people. I had nothing to do with it, even though I wish I had just for the sheer thrill of it.
2) The PI were very deliberate, the effects are still felt today as a matter of fact.
3) Insurance fraud was very deliberate. You don't platinum insure a ship, undock, accidentally hit selfdestruct, dock up, platinum insure another ship, undock, accidentally hit selfdestruct etc etc etc hundreds of times, do you?

Frying Doom wrote:
Hell I lost ships to stupidity and got insurance but I did not blow up hundreds and post it in General Discussion.

So what you're saying is, it would have been better to just use the feature on a low scale and not tell CCP about it, and let them find out about it in a few years? Like the POS bug you keep talking about?

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

RIP Vile Rat