These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#341 - 2012-07-01 13:26:12 UTC
Quote:
I wrote a blog on "Responsible Disclosures" a year or so ago. In that blog I mention that telling us about something after you've used the heck out of it isn't what we consider to be responsible. We do our best to be lenient in cases such as this but we want this to serve as a notice to the community that the proper time to alert us to the issue was before actually using the system. I can understand a desire to test the limits but we don't believe two weeks of testing a bug or exploit should net a tremendous benefit in lieu of reporting it in the first place, and that is another reason why the LP activity will be reversed back to zero.

And if it hadn't been members of a cash rich and PR Golden Goose Null Monkey Herd?

Exploiting the snot out of something for TWO weeks and only officially reporting it when the noose tightens as bughunters/devs close in on the anomaly should at the very least be prolonged temporary bans as well as confiscation of all ill-gotten goods and an investigation into the effects of those five holier-than-though exploiters (LOL!) LP dumps into the FW sovereignty mechanic.

What is the contact details to internal affairs again .. I'd like to report the matter of favouritism from the GM employees towards the population of just one of the corners of the Glorious Sandbox at the expense of another.
While null may or may not be the de facto "end game" (even though you deny the existence of such), crapping on all the rest of the areas of Eve (except worms) by doing diddly makes me think that CCP has internally decided to prop up null when/where possible regardless .. since that is more than likely the case, how about putting everything on hold and sorting out the atrocious **** called Null so that everyone can get to try out the non-existent end game of Eve without having to submit to hourly cavity searches and suffering from brain oozing out of ones ears from boredom (looking at you EHP grinds!).

Bad GMs. Bad!
Xython
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#342 - 2012-07-01 22:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dosnix
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Exploiting the snot out of something for TWO weeks and only officially reporting it when the noose tightens as bughunters/devs close in on the anomaly should at the very least be prolonged temporary bans as well as confiscation of all ill-gotten goods and an investigation into the effects of those five holier-than-though exploiters (LOL!) LP dumps into the FW sovereignty mechanic.


*snip*

Off-topic Content deleted
Kind Regards
ISD Dosnix
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#343 - 2012-07-01 23:11:45 UTC
Ok, some folks saw an exploitable condition about to be released, exploited for quite some time after release, manipulated an entire feature (FW), and as far as I can tell bragged about crashing the market for certain items.

CCP agrees that this is not the proper way of doing so, but the offending accounts will remain in good (not neutral) standing (this leads people to believe that no punishment was given).
If writing about the proper way to report exploits was not effective to prevent this exploit from being properly reported, what makes you think people will not have fun like this again if all you did in this case was basicly not much apart from rewarding undesired behaviour and writing another time that this is not the way to do this?
"We will watch what they do, not what they say." goes for us players as well, you know?
I'm not saying that the exploiters should be punished, but rewarding them, publicly, seems to me to be a bit...odd.
CCP Sreegs wrote:
[hi when I ban someone I can't tell you about it and you know that I hope this helps

I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of CCP has banned more people than I have including basically any alliance in the game

I'm pretty sure line 1 is proven wrong by line 2, among other things.P

Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation

Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate
Pipa Porto
#344 - 2012-07-02 00:07:21 UTC
Che Biko wrote:
Ok, some folks saw an exploitable condition about to be released, exploited for quite some time after release, manipulated an entire feature (FW), and as far as I can tell bragged about crashing the market for certain items.


People pointed out that this would be exploitable when it was proposed at fanfest.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#345 - 2012-07-02 00:36:40 UTC
Che Biko wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
[hi when I ban someone I can't tell you about it and you know that I hope this helps

I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of CCP has banned more people than I have including basically any alliance in the game

I'm pretty sure line 1 is proven wrong by line 2, among other things.P

He can tell you that he has banned many people, he cannot tell you the details about those who he has banned.

The two lines are not mutually exclusive and neither proves the other wrong.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Hrothgar Nilsson
#346 - 2012-07-02 05:02:12 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Inflation would come from new currency being injected into the game, which never happened during this whole thing - quite the opposite, since redeeming LP costs isk. We'd already taken large amounts of isk out of circulation and would have taken something like 2T more between Aryth & I alone had we kept it.

LP is a currency.

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#347 - 2012-07-02 05:40:34 UTC
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Inflation would come from new currency being injected into the game, which never happened during this whole thing - quite the opposite, since redeeming LP costs isk. We'd already taken large amounts of isk out of circulation and would have taken something like 2T more between Aryth & I alone had we kept it.

LP is a currency.


Have a point there, Mr Pedant, but isk inflation is what everyone talking about inflation in Eve is concerned about.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#348 - 2012-07-02 07:26:57 UTC
Alikchi wrote:
Vokanic wrote:

in the words of goons.. you mad bro?


If someone in GoonWaffe actually unironically used that phrase we'd probably shame him out of the alliance.



Xython wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Exploiting the snot out of something for TWO weeks and only officially reporting it when the noose tightens as bughunters/devs close in on the anomaly should at the very least be prolonged temporary bans as well as confiscation of all ill-gotten goods and an investigation into the effects of those five holier-than-though exploiters (LOL!) LP dumps into the FW sovereignty mechanic.


You mad Bro?? You sound like you could be mad.


Don't worry guys, I've got this one.
Iris Dement
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2012-07-02 14:55:51 UTC
Very disappointing response from CCP, not even really a slap on the wrist to people who blatantly cheat.
Instead, highfives all around. Permanent bans would have been a better idea. Shouldn't the message to the playerbase be that using exploits will get you banned? Instead, it's that using exploits is totally cool and you may even be rewarded.
Kayrl Bheskagor
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#350 - 2012-07-02 17:13:24 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Well Lord Zim was right, goons don't get banned for this kind of thing.

The post on the Dev blog "I wrote a blog on "Responsible Disclosures" a year or so ago. In that blog I mention that telling us about something after you've used the heck out of it isn't what we consider to be responsible. We do our best to be lenient in cases such as this but we want this to serve as a notice to the community that the proper time to alert us to the issue was before actually using the system."

It shows as such a good warning "Do what ever you want and we will just roll everything back to pretend it didn't happen."
Yeah Good deterant that one.

I at least hope the other members of the 5 are going to shank the snitch.


hi when I ban someone I can't tell you about it and you know that I hope this helps

I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of CCP has banned more people than I have including basically any alliance in the game


Riiiiight. Of course you can't say who you've banned. If you DID name names, that would "only" show the entire player base that people that abuse the system actually ARE held accountable. That wouldn't do. We can't have CCP demonstrating that they are thinking about the entire player base here. Instead though, with ex goons working at CCP, and more and more game changes favouring big null sec alliances (like the war dec re-nerf), and then of course giving plex to exploiting null sec players, well, that shows ALL KINDS of accountability, doesn't it?
David Cedarbridge
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#351 - 2012-07-02 17:33:01 UTC
Kayrl Bheskagor wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Well Lord Zim was right, goons don't get banned for this kind of thing.

The post on the Dev blog "I wrote a blog on "Responsible Disclosures" a year or so ago. In that blog I mention that telling us about something after you've used the heck out of it isn't what we consider to be responsible. We do our best to be lenient in cases such as this but we want this to serve as a notice to the community that the proper time to alert us to the issue was before actually using the system."

It shows as such a good warning "Do what ever you want and we will just roll everything back to pretend it didn't happen."
Yeah Good deterant that one.

I at least hope the other members of the 5 are going to shank the snitch.


hi when I ban someone I can't tell you about it and you know that I hope this helps

I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of CCP has banned more people than I have including basically any alliance in the game


Riiiiight. Of course you can't say who you've banned. If you DID name names, that would "only" show the entire player base that people that abuse the system actually ARE held accountable. That wouldn't do. We can't have CCP demonstrating that they are thinking about the entire player base here. Instead though, with ex goons working at CCP, and more and more game changes favouring big null sec alliances (like the war dec re-nerf), and then of course giving plex to exploiting null sec players, well, that shows ALL KINDS of accountability, doesn't it?


I was planning on making baked potatoes today, but I found that somebody had purchased all of the tin foil. Can I borrow yours? It seems you have a surplus.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#352 - 2012-07-02 17:44:26 UTC
Kayrl Bheskagor wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Well Lord Zim was right, goons don't get banned for this kind of thing.

The post on the Dev blog "I wrote a blog on "Responsible Disclosures" a year or so ago. In that blog I mention that telling us about something after you've used the heck out of it isn't what we consider to be responsible. We do our best to be lenient in cases such as this but we want this to serve as a notice to the community that the proper time to alert us to the issue was before actually using the system."

It shows as such a good warning "Do what ever you want and we will just roll everything back to pretend it didn't happen."
Yeah Good deterant that one.

I at least hope the other members of the 5 are going to shank the snitch.


hi when I ban someone I can't tell you about it and you know that I hope this helps

I'm pretty sure nobody in the history of CCP has banned more people than I have including basically any alliance in the game


Riiiiight. Of course you can't say who you've banned. If you DID name names, that would "only" show the entire player base that people that abuse the system actually ARE held accountable. That wouldn't do. We can't have CCP demonstrating that they are thinking about the entire player base here. Instead though, with ex goons working at CCP, and more and more game changes favouring big null sec alliances (like the war dec re-nerf), and then of course giving plex to exploiting null sec players, well, that shows ALL KINDS of accountability, doesn't it?


CCP has named names exactly twice in the history of the game that I can recall when they've taken punitive action, and in both cases it involved a member of the CSM where explanation was necessary anyway - Mittani with the fanfest fiasco, and dude who's name I can't remember anymore for insider trading...and I don't think he was even banned for it.

But hey man, keep raging against CCP for a policy that's been in place for approximately "forever".

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Diametrix
Absolute Order
Absolute Honor
#353 - 2012-07-03 05:24:16 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:

Yeah and what I'm trying to get at is that I didn't compare how we felt with handling this decision based on past decisions others might have made. We looked at the situation and did what we felt was the right thing for the game as a whole, so I'm not really prepared to discuss x vs. y because we didn't ever discuss it internally and these decisions aren't made solo.


Fair enough. I hope you're having a good long conversation about how to fix Forex markets to keep them from being manipulated.

It would be spectacular to see CCP be the first Gaming company win the Nobel Prize for Economics.


I pitched a possible solution. We spent days theorycrafting a fix that preserves the system without making it gameable to a degree you are profiting on the conversion. You might still profit on the market manip, but not the conversion itself. This might be an acceptable solution to CCP, who knows. I hope they don't gut it though.



Although I cannot do it on behalf of the whole EVE community and CCP, Aryth & Co., Thank you for using the metagame and your obvious interest in seeing how deep the sandbox can go to protect and improve the future of EVE Online.
Udonor
Doomheim
#354 - 2012-07-03 10:44:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Udonor
Well if you don't want market to be manipulated...

try only adding last sale price to market average when an item is mounted on a ship or otherwise put into use.


People are unlikely to waste their time mounting several hundred modules let alone hundreds of thousands. Time vs ISK.

Each item can just carry around its last sale price until that magic moment its put in use the first time after sale. Then its in use flag remains set until sold again. (Resets on repackaging would be very exploitable way of tracking retail use.)

As it is now market average mixes wholesale prices with retail. So last I knew you could just repaetedly buy and sell items between your alts or corp members (wholesale) to juice price up or down in market -- all items and ISK stay ing in friendly hands.

LOL in real world buy orders would be considered more like a separate futures market as until fillled the items might not exist.
Frying Doom
#355 - 2012-07-03 10:59:15 UTC
Xython wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Exploiting the snot out of something for TWO weeks and only officially reporting it when the noose tightens as bughunters/devs close in on the anomaly should at the very least be prolonged temporary bans as well as confiscation of all ill-gotten goods and an investigation into the effects of those five holier-than-though exploiters (LOL!) LP dumps into the FW sovereignty mechanic.


You mad Bro?? You sound like you could be mad.

Did BoB used to say the same thing to Goonswarm, when you guys accused CCP of favoritism towards BoB?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Almiel
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#356 - 2012-07-03 16:24:51 UTC
In cases of exploit, I think the "Name and shame" system is a good one. I doubt most of the perpetrators would mind, in fact, I would bet they like the infamy. Meanwhile it allows the Eve player base to focus there anger or outrage and really, the consequences to the shamed players would be punishment enough i.e hate mails, convos, de-valuation of their character etc.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#357 - 2012-07-03 17:10:50 UTC
Almiel wrote:
In cases of exploit, I think the "Name and shame" system is a good one. I doubt most of the perpetrators would mind, in fact, I would bet they like the infamy. Meanwhile it allows the Eve player base to focus there anger or outrage and really, the consequences to the shamed players would be punishment enough i.e hate mails, convos, de-valuation of their character etc.

I have received zero hate mails or convos.

I feel neglected :(

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Pipa Porto
#358 - 2012-07-03 17:35:26 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Almiel wrote:
In cases of exploit, I think the "Name and shame" system is a good one. I doubt most of the perpetrators would mind, in fact, I would bet they like the infamy. Meanwhile it allows the Eve player base to focus there anger or outrage and really, the consequences to the shamed players would be punishment enough i.e hate mails, convos, de-valuation of their character etc.

I have received zero hate mails or convos.

I feel neglected :(


Fixed.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#359 - 2012-07-03 17:53:42 UTC
yay ^_____^

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Abulurd Boniface
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#360 - 2012-07-03 17:55:44 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Spc One wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
To clarify, we'd like to see the system function as intended so we don't have to worry about it.

Then don't release stupid expansions that weren't tested properly, like very bad UI and FW exploits.
Do more testing and ask players to test stuff out first and tell their opinion about it, not just release expansion that is crap.


This valuable feedback will be noted.


It can't really be all that much fun trying to stomp out this particular fire, can it Blink

I wonder how that was listed on the job description sheet: "Interacting with the player community on a regular basis, defending the companies position and clarifying points of policy."