EVE General Discussion

No, we don't.

I don't believe they have the isk yet. It's tied up in the implants and whatever items were bought using the "illicit LP", as the OP stated.

None of these accusations of exploits nor defense there of matter one iota to CCP, who will do whatever they believe is correct.

But, just to add my .02isk, they didn't exploit the market, they exploited the LP gains. I suppose you can argue that the devs should have had the foresight to think people would join all sides of faction wars and drive freighter fulls of lootz into their own alt. But that's a little hard to do when your intent of the system isn't to give people a way to make a crap loads of isk but to give the more causal capsuleer a chance to do low risk PVP without having to join a dull, er I mean, null alliance. And that's why I believe CCP should approach this, not as a question of "exploiting a bug", but exploiting and compromising the spirit of why faction wars were added in the first place. The Goons in this case aren't even playing the same game as the rest of the faction pilots.

I can say what they did was hilariously awesome while not getting any flak from CCP, because at worst it's going to happen to those 5 people, and them alone. So why should I "officially distance myself from the actions of the members involved"?


Sigh.

1) No isk were generated.
2) No isk were generated.
3) No isk were generated.
4) No isk were generated.
5) No isk were generated.
6) No isk were generated.
7) No isk were generated.
8) No isk were generated.
9) No isk were generated.
10) No isk were generated.

In fact, isk was taken out of the economy.

Course he is mate. You keep patting yourselves on the back and sniggering like beavis and butthead. Im sure a large proportion of people can say they've "done things". They just dont wear it like a sad little t-shirt for everyone else to see.

because......its not a big deal mate

exactly. even people who had no idea what was going on (ie: didn't read the publically announced google document as tweeted by aryth) were able to look at the markets and see that something was off - and, by taking advantage of that, these people earned billions.

albeit not in the same magnitude as aryth & co, but they certainly profited.

No, not at all and you know it LOL - awesome or exploit that's for others to decide. I was merely intrigued by Richard's response in which he clearly felt it was important to state where the ownership for the event lay. Interesting that you avoided addressing the question yourself VR

i would say he answered the only question you asked: "is goonswarm distancing themselves from the actions of the few who manipulated £75,000 of eve cash?"

the answer was a loud, unanimous, resounding "no"

In the spirit of providing facts is GS preparing any type of response if CCP having their backsides handed to them whimper their way over to their EULA and wield ban hammers or similar?

also you mistake Richard's desire to not say GOONSWARM did this (to give credit where credit is due [aryth and co jesus christ they're amazing]) for some sort of distancing. i understand, you're a silly pubbie and kind of slow, but he's doing it out of respect for aryth - not somehow saying OH **** GUYS WE'RE GONNA GET BUGGERED BY CCP BEST BLAME THE FEW

does it make you happier if I call it a "defect" instead of a "bug"?

To try an analogy from the material world - a bridge can break down because the engineer made bad assumptions about the load it would have to carry or a bridge can break down because the steel used in construction was of inferior quality.

I would call both cases "defects" despite the former being a defect by design and the latter a defect in implementation.

The way goons used the game mechanics resulted in obviously unintended consequences - the best defense in their favor is to argue that unintended consequences are an essential ingredient of sandbox environments, not to split hairs about whether obviously defective design is a "bug" or not.

(edit: The distinction between "design" and "implementation" in software engineering is notoriously blurry in any case - I could take an extreme position and argue that all code you write is essentially a low-level design document from which the compiler generates the actual implementation.
Or I can argue that at the highest level FW design was probably sound ("reward people for destroying ships based on the value of the destroyed ship/cargo") and that using an easily gamed 90day average price for the calculations was an error in the implementation of said design.)