These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#3081 - 2012-06-24 13:08:07 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

The precedence they set in insurance fraud, PI, PA and tracking titans, which was the same thing as this case? Or the POS exploit, which was the exploitation of a programming bug?

Will save time and just say this was also a programming bug as explained alot above. The PI, insurance thing you use in multiple posts now were fixed, with a lot of people doing it a bit, not a handful pushing it beyond all reason.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Haikato Saraki
Doomheim
#3082 - 2012-06-24 13:08:11 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

Please demonstrate how this was an exploit when CCP hasn't even completed their explanation. That's a mighty big strawman you built there.



Exactly why do I need to demonstrate anything? CCP has apparently already made their ruling on this matter by seizing assets from those involved. At this point your just trying to play word games.

The facts are that some people within goonswarm found out exactly how far they were able to push the envelope and are now paying the price.

Everything else is just conjecture on my part. There's no strawman here, Im just sharing opinion on events that have transpired.

CCP Sreegs wrote:
I find it disturbing that you think you could exploit a system to print money and crash markets and we'd just be like "Oh haha those cards".

We haven't punished anyone to date. We haven't even decided if we will but boy howdy are we well within our rights to do so and I'm just astounded that I even have to explain that.


I think this just about perfectly sums up my opinion on all this. Problem made, problem fixed. What else is there to say?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3083 - 2012-06-24 13:08:14 UTC
Danfen Fenix wrote:
Why the on release did they still proceed to exploit it? You surely can not be argueing that they should get off scott free even thought it was released in that state, when they knew perfectly well it would be deemed an exploit?

If they hadn't shown CCP the extend to which it could be taken, then chances are CCP would've done just like they did with the ferrogel duplication case, let it sit in the game for years while everyone else used the game mechanic to its fullest extent.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Danfen Fenix
#3084 - 2012-06-24 13:11:29 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Danfen Fenix wrote:
Why the on release did they still proceed to exploit it? You surely can not be argueing that they should get off scott free even thought it was released in that state, when they knew perfectly well it would be deemed an exploit?

If they hadn't shown CCP the extend to which it could be taken, then chances are CCP would've done just like they did with the ferrogel duplication case, let it sit in the game for years while everyone else used the game mechanic to its fullest extent.


Ok...so they exploited the system to show CCP what could happen...

Now then. Why should they get off scott free? They've achieved what they wanted to do. Why all the butt hurt over the punishment, which surely they knew was coming?
Frying Doom
#3085 - 2012-06-24 13:12:06 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Danfen Fenix wrote:
Why the on release did they still proceed to exploit it? You surely can not be argueing that they should get off scott free even thought it was released in that state, when they knew perfectly well it would be deemed an exploit?

If they hadn't shown CCP the extend to which it could be taken, then chances are CCP would've done just like they did with the ferrogel duplication case, let it sit in the game for years while everyone else used the game mechanic to its fullest extent.

So now your arguing that because they used a bug with wild abandon they were just showing CCP and should be heroes?

Precedent exists for this behavior and should be used.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Oisin Sandovar
Don't Die Interstellar Enterprises
#3086 - 2012-06-24 13:12:22 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Danfen Fenix wrote:
Why the on release did they still proceed to exploit it? You surely can not be argueing that they should get off scott free even thought it was released in that state, when they knew perfectly well it would be deemed an exploit?

If they hadn't shown CCP the extend to which it could be taken, then chances are CCP would've done just like they did with the ferrogel duplication case, let it sit in the game for years while everyone else used the game mechanic to its fullest extent.

Probably. Yet again, expect consequences.

"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts", Billy Joel, Shades of Grey
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3087 - 2012-06-24 13:12:30 UTC
Oisin Sandovar wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Lon list of meaningless dribble.

Then you haven't read or reflected on the things that Sreegs has said. One day you'll run afoul and will be permabanned. I await that day sir.

So you're saying that the insurance fraud, PI and PA were different from this case? How?

Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

The precedence they set in insurance fraud, PI, PA and tracking titans, which was the same thing as this case? Or the POS exploit, which was the exploitation of a programming bug?

Will save time and just say this was also a programming bug as explained alot above. The PI, insurance thing you use in multiple posts now were fixed, with a lot of people doing it a bit, not a handful pushing it beyond all reason.

The PI, PA and insurance thing was not a programming bug, it was a design flaw, same goes for tracking titans. None of them were programming bugs, since they were performing exactly the way they were designed. All the details for how things worked were publically available, with CCP-endorsed explanations saying "this is how this works".

The POS bug you tout did not do what CCP said was how it worked.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3088 - 2012-06-24 13:14:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
Lord Zim wrote:


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.


gush.
ok let me put it simple...
Every time you make a change to the system, you have to do some sort of desing. The design could be small or a broad design depending on the change required. Sometimes it required a complete new redesign of a system.
Would you agree that you cannot have good design and have bugs since the design has to be implemented every time you make a change to the code? If yes, then all of the above posted by you is incorrect.
If no then "you" obviously dont do design everytime you implemente code, so its viable to bugs/features/run time errors etc.
PS: by "you" i did not target you but this is a generalisation. Dont take it personal
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3089 - 2012-06-24 13:16:25 UTC
Danfen Fenix wrote:
Now then. Why should they get off scott free? They've achieved what they wanted to do. Why all the butt hurt over the punishment, which surely they knew was coming?

Call it more a desire to get an answer to what made this different from the other design issues which have been exploited in more or less the same way.

Frying Doom wrote:
So now your arguing that because they used a bug with wild abandon they were just showing CCP and should be heroes?

Please point out where I said they should be heroes.

Frying Doom wrote:
Precedent exists for this behavior and should be used.

You mean the nothing which happened to any one specific person after insurance fraud, PI, PA and tracking titans were tweaked to try to avoid undesirable behavior?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Oisin Sandovar
Don't Die Interstellar Enterprises
#3090 - 2012-06-24 13:16:54 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:

gush.
ok let me put it simple...
Every time you make a change to the system, you have to do some sort of desing. The design could be small or a broad design depending on the change required. Sometimes it required a complete new redesign of a system.
Would you agree that you cannot have good design and have bugs since the design has to be implemented every time you make a change to the code? If yes, then all of the above posted by you is incorrect.
If no then "you" obviously dont do design everytime you implemente code, so its viable to bugs/features/run time errors etc.
PS: by "you" i did not target you but this is a generalisation. Dont take it personal

Heh, nice try. Lord Tim is either trolling, or he doesn't have the capacity to understand the issue and what's happened. Basically, ignore him.

"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts", Billy Joel, Shades of Grey
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3091 - 2012-06-24 13:18:05 UTC
Oisin Sandovar wrote:
Andrea Roche wrote:

gush.
ok let me put it simple...
Every time you make a change to the system, you have to do some sort of desing. The design could be small or a broad design depending on the change required. Sometimes it required a complete new redesign of a system.
Would you agree that you cannot have good design and have bugs since the design has to be implemented every time you make a change to the code? If yes, then all of the above posted by you is incorrect.
If no then "you" obviously dont do design everytime you implemente code, so its viable to bugs/features/run time errors etc.
PS: by "you" i did not target you but this is a generalisation. Dont take it personal

Heh, nice try. Lord Tim is either trolling, or he doesn't have the capacity to understand the issue and what's happened. Basically, ignore him.


i think its both.
Frying Doom
#3092 - 2012-06-24 13:18:55 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Oisin Sandovar wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Lon list of meaningless dribble.

Then you haven't read or reflected on the things that Sreegs has said. One day you'll run afoul and will be permabanned. I await that day sir.

So you're saying that the insurance fraud, PI and PA were different from this case? How?

Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

The precedence they set in insurance fraud, PI, PA and tracking titans, which was the same thing as this case? Or the POS exploit, which was the exploitation of a programming bug?

Will save time and just say this was also a programming bug as explained alot above. The PI, insurance thing you use in multiple posts now were fixed, with a lot of people doing it a bit, not a handful pushing it beyond all reason.

The PI, PA and insurance thing was not a programming bug, it was a design flaw, same goes for tracking titans. None of them were programming bugs, since they were performing exactly the way they were designed. All the details for how things worked were publically available, with CCP-endorsed explanations saying "this is how this works".

The POS bug you tout did not do what CCP said was how it worked.

So if that is the argument you wish to put forward please show me the Dev blog that states that you can shoot ships you have deliberately filled with goods that the valuer, prices higher than they are to get more LP than you should.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3093 - 2012-06-24 13:20:43 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

So if that is the argument you wish to put forward please show me the Dev blog that states that you can shoot ships you have deliberately filled with goods that the valuer, prices higher than they are to get more LP than you should.


Since when was it a rule you can't blow any of your own things up? Especially for profit, I might add.
Frying Doom
#3094 - 2012-06-24 13:21:44 UTC
captain foivos wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

So if that is the argument you wish to put forward please show me the Dev blog that states that you can shoot ships you have deliberately filled with goods that the valuer, prices higher than they are to get more LP than you should.


Since when was it a rule you can't blow any of your own things up? Especially for profit, I might add.

Is this where I point to Lord Zim's insurance fraud?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#3095 - 2012-06-24 13:22:48 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:
Would you agree that you cannot have good design and have bugs since the design has to be implemented every time you make a change to the code? If yes, then all of the above posted by you is incorrect.

A design just lays out what something should do, when it should do what, and how it should react to certain situations. The programmer then sets out to implement that design.

It doesn't matter how awesome the req spec, tech spec and design doc is for a feature, if the programmer sucks, just like it doesn't matter how awesome the programmer is, if the req spec, tech spec and design doc's content contain a flawed design. You can have an awesome design and a suckass implementation, or a ****** design but an awesome implementation. It's not an if x is good, then y is good kind of situation.

Andrea Roche wrote:
If no then "you" obviously dont do design everytime you implemente code, so its viable to bugs/features/run time errors etc.

No design document has any impact on programmer mistakes, inability to implement certain features or lack of input parameter checks.

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

RIP Vile Rat
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3096 - 2012-06-24 13:23:07 UTC
Also Lord Zim just walked over all of your terrible, whiny arguments with impeccable logic and good grammar but as we can all tell that means nothing so really I don't even see why anyone argues with you anymore since you are beyond convincing.

I literally make my living sitting in Jita 4-4 playing the market. I flipped Caldari Navy Ravens yesterday and made ~500M. Is CCP gonna take my stuff now because I increased the price of CNRs? What if I blew up my CNRs because I hate Caldari stuff? Would it be illegal then? That'd also be driving up the price of CNRs and making me, or anyone who had CNRs, money.
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3097 - 2012-06-24 13:24:25 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

Is this where I point to Lord Zim's insurance fraud?


The fact that that was legal, accepted, and extensively practiced without repercussion has been established beyond any doubt so you should probably stop using that as a precedent.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#3098 - 2012-06-24 13:24:33 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Your comparison is flawed. The "Jewbal" built the economic equivalent of a warp drive with the economic equivalent of tinker toys.

That's why everybody's so mad.

Economic warp fields shouldn't be possible with Viking-made formulae. Icelandic Calculus is champion.


No everybody are not so mad at all.

This is my post in this very thread: "BRAVO GOONS!".

But now that they proved their point and shown CCP they outplayed them, look at the thing for what it is (an abuse) and undo the damage done on the game. They got their "medal" and media e-fame, along with the privilege for not being banned that's all the prize they should keep.


Kinda think the slap on the wrist theyre all super pissed about WAS CCP undoing the damage

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.

Enaris Kerle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3099 - 2012-06-24 13:25:25 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
captain foivos wrote:
Since when was it a rule you can't blow any of your own things up? Especially for profit, I might add.

Is this where I point to Lord Zim's insurance fraud?

You mean the one where there wasn't a rule that you couldn't do it? The one where CCP just patched it out and didn't do anything further?

Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm.
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#3100 - 2012-06-24 13:26:02 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:


This was no exploit.


The owners disagree. Theyre really all who matter

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.