These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#141 - 2012-06-28 19:01:21 UTC
Haifisch Zahne wrote:
I see only two reasons given by CCP Sreegs, speaking for CCP, why this "event" (Goon 4x4? GoonGate? Goon FW Crisis 2012?) has been classified as an exploit:

1) "Because of the volumes and disparity involved we've had to take action to fix this particular system."

2) "Because this was essentially a system where you could print LP, even if ISK was provided as an input, it is classified as an exploit."


But, 1) only speaks to the surprising SUCCESS of the Goons. It does not speak to it being an exploit. For example, that Bill Gates (and Microsoft) have made a giganormous fortune is not reason to say Microsoft Windows is an "exploit". (It is for other reasons.)

And, 2) contains an enormous IF clause: "even if ISK was provided as an input". The Goons did not buy an LP printing press, with ISK. This was not the "input" of ISK. They gamed the system, and it required purchases necessarily to function. Had they blown up stuff "from thin air", then, yes, they would have successfully printed LP.

CCP needs to explain WHY this classifies as an exploit, rather than an enormously successful method of multiplying an investment.

CCP has not done this.


We classified it as an exploit and gave the explanation. That you were not satisfied with that explanation is unfortunate but it's the only one we're giving.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012

Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#142 - 2012-06-28 19:02:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaru Ishiwara
So much for your sandbox.

CCP designed and published that which was live on TQ. Sure, correct the ability to create such an imbalance, but why take away the gains made by players using in-game functionality that was [in theory] vetted by your designers, developers and quality assurance personnel?

The "rest of us" have had to live with the Tech imbalance for ~30 months now, after all.

fyi, I gain absolutely nothing if those Goons were to keep their gains.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#143 - 2012-06-28 19:03:38 UTC
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Shouldn't they also retain LP equivalent to 2 weeks worth of 'normal' game play?

They were playing, they did let you know and they did participate in Faction Warfare.


I really don't want to discuss actions against individual players any more than was detailed in the blog for informational purposes. Sorry duder.


Sreegs i aplogize ahead for this one man. I know you cannot discuss what disciplinary actions are done to player XYZ nd so on but many will be disappointed if there are no Bannings. The group knew; they got their Egg heads together played with the formula and went hey you know you can do this and so a group went and did exactly how the egg heads said and exploited it and then said something about it.

they did toss you under the bus not once but multiple times over this issue alone. A lot of folks feel they should be banned. if it was any other group they would have been banned in a blink of an eye and then work on the investigation. Many of us have talked about this and the general concensus is that your doing the father thing Shaking the finger at them and speaking in a stern voice "Do not do that again or else" Many have seen this and many want what the rules say to happen to them.

Sorry Sreegs had to say my peice on this and hope you do the right thing.

Peace


We feel we did the right thing and it's unfortunate that we perhaps disagree in the severity of the response but unfortunately that's going to happen every time we make any decision.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#144 - 2012-06-28 19:04:43 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
I just had an idea...

Currently (or well, before the fix) the average prices were defined by a rolling average across all transactions of the whole cluster.

How about we give transactions a different weight, depending on, for example:
- The less a single individual player has traded an item within the last day, the higher a transaction containing this item is weight
or:
- The more individual players have been involved in trade at the system/station of the transaction within the last hour/day, the higher its weight

I discourage setting it based on current trade hubs / main regions, as that would interfere with the player-driven aspect of the forming of these hubs and the market in general.
On the other hand, dynamically defining it on amount of items traded or isk exchanged would make it highly manipulable by few with huge capital.

-> Hence above idea. There may be many goons (or members of any given large block), but not enough to outtrade us "pubbies" without creating an actual and valid market.

Aryth, corestwo or someone else with deeper insight.. am I making sense?^^


Yes, I see where you are going with it, but it still puts too much power into an small groups hands. Alts are easy to farm, we used 5 regions in our mani as is, 20 would not have been a big deal. Mass farming and creating "hubs" would not have been a big deal. CCP was already using EVE wide values, not a specific region.

The trick is, many items in EVE have no volume. It only takes manipulating one item in this scenerio.

The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#145 - 2012-06-28 19:08:06 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Sephira Galamore wrote:
I just had an idea...

Currently (or well, before the fix) the average prices were defined by a rolling average across all transactions of the whole cluster.

How about we give transactions a different weight, depending on, for example:
- The less a single individual player has traded an item within the last day, the higher a transaction containing this item is weight
or:
- The more individual players have been involved in trade at the system/station of the transaction within the last hour/day, the higher its weight

I discourage setting it based on current trade hubs / main regions, as that would interfere with the player-driven aspect of the forming of these hubs and the market in general.
On the other hand, dynamically defining it on amount of items traded or isk exchanged would make it highly manipulable by few with huge capital.

-> Hence above idea. There may be many goons (or members of any given large block), but not enough to outtrade us "pubbies" without creating an actual and valid market.

Aryth, corestwo or someone else with deeper insight.. am I making sense?^^


The main flaw that I see with this idea is that it would be difficult to set the number of individual trades or players involved in such a way as to prevent price games, but not exclude items that are genuinely traded, but in low volumes, such as many officer items. Set that threshold low enough and, as Aryth said, you just get around it with multiple alts. Sure they wouldn't have standings and such to minimize fees, but if you're looking at a method of making trillions of isk, do you care?

I'll also note that as the price estimate is intended to serve as an estimate of market price, excluding hubs and main regions is a poor idea no matter how it's implemented, because those hubs and main regions are the largest markets. Blink

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

fofofo

Lindsey Ocelot
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2012-06-28 19:12:26 UTC
So people can openly exploit, then two weeks later report and all is well? Roll
Sega Phoenix
Chicks on Speed
Centipede Caliphate.
#147 - 2012-06-28 19:12:47 UTC
First my government does something I do not agree with, then CCP roflstomps the sandbox in the interest of "fairnesss". I'm having a bad day =(
0oO0oOoOo0o
Caldari State
#148 - 2012-06-28 19:13:24 UTC
You are too soft, I'd ban 'em all !
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#149 - 2012-06-28 19:16:10 UTC
Sega Phoenix wrote:
First my government does something I do not agree with, then CCP roflstomps the sandbox in the interest of "fairnesss". I'm having a bad day =(


We just lost 5T of profits. Our day is pretty damn bad.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2012-06-28 19:16:24 UTC
i am beginning to understand why expansions in eve are free.......maybe ccp will learn from this......Roll
Alain Kinsella
#151 - 2012-06-28 19:16:44 UTC
Aryth wrote:
The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.


You're basically asking them to work it on a 'basket' or 'item class' level, which I assume would average against the number of items in that class.

I do like that idea, a lot, and as long as the baskets are sufficiently large (i.e. mineral basket, P1 basket, etc) there will be far too much 'white noise' by the average Market user like myself. Its still possible (with enough capital) to do it, but you'll start to have trend-watchers amplifying the change and profiting outside the scheme.

"The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever."

Currently Retired / Semi-Casual (pending changes to RL concerns).

Lindsey Ocelot
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#152 - 2012-06-28 19:18:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Lindsey Ocelot
......oops Twisted
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#153 - 2012-06-28 19:19:24 UTC
Alain Kinsella wrote:
Aryth wrote:
The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.


You're basically asking them to work it on a 'basket' or 'item class' level, which I assume would average against the number of items in that class.

I do like that idea, a lot, and as long as the baskets are sufficiently large (i.e. mineral basket, P1 basket, etc) there will be far too much 'white noise' by the average Market user like myself. Its still possible (with enough capital) to do it, but you'll start to have trend-watchers amplifying the change and profiting outside the scheme.


One step further, actually. The basket would not merely average items, but cut off obvious outliers (such as a 1% implant spiking to 68.7 million in value). It wouldn't work for everything, obviously - minerals are too varied in price to apply it uniformly, for example, but then again minerals are too large a market to feasibly game the price on anyway - but it would probably do a good job of mitigating attempted manipulations in items that are actual targets for this sort of thing.

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

fofofo

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#154 - 2012-06-28 19:20:02 UTC
Alain Kinsella wrote:
Aryth wrote:
The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.


You're basically asking them to work it on a 'basket' or 'item class' level, which I assume would average against the number of items in that class.

I do like that idea, a lot, and as long as the baskets are sufficiently large (i.e. mineral basket, P1 basket, etc) there will be far too much 'white noise' by the average Market user like myself. Its still possible (with enough capital) to do it, but you'll start to have trend-watchers amplifying the change and profiting outside the scheme.


You need a 4.5 multiplier. So that means the amount of ISK required to even attempt such a thing, while holding it there for a price update, against all of EVE might make the best content ever. As one group of guys wage a price war with all of EVE, while CCP watches and laughs watches them get burned to the ground by turning off the updater for a bit.

It's a super elegant solution, and is probably easy to code for them. But yep, they just need to get the baskets to be "big" and it's fixed.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#155 - 2012-06-28 19:23:41 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
Aryth wrote:
Alain Kinsella wrote:
Aryth wrote:
The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.


You're basically asking them to work it on a 'basket' or 'item class' level, which I assume would average against the number of items in that class.

I do like that idea, a lot, and as long as the baskets are sufficiently large (i.e. mineral basket, P1 basket, etc) there will be far too much 'white noise' by the average Market user like myself. Its still possible (with enough capital) to do it, but you'll start to have trend-watchers amplifying the change and profiting outside the scheme.


You need a 4.5 multiplier. So that means the amount of ISK required to even attempt such a thing, while holding it there for a price update, against all of EVE might make the best content ever. As one group of guys wage a price war with all of EVE, while CCP watches and laughs watches them get burned to the ground by turning off the updater for a bit.

It's a super elegant solution, and is probably easy to code for them. But yep, they just need to get the baskets to be "big" and it's fixed.


And 4.5x is the worst case, which is "Can buy the seed item from the LP store and also have high warzone control." The required disparity between estimated price and price at which you can buy or build the item becomes much larger if you can't double it over by buying it and blowing it up again, or if they don't have a high tier of warzone control, or both.

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

fofofo

Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
The Watchmen.
#156 - 2012-06-28 19:31:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Aryth wrote:
The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.
Hmm... should this group average be used for the est. value of each element of this group (a) or as a means to normalize the indivual averages (b)?

I assume (b), because, in case of (a), there are many groups e.g. Sleeper salvage that have huge differences within the group.

But with (b) how will you account for market shifts due to expansions etc? Parts of a group could suddenly become more valuable, not for market manipulation but for naturally increased need.

Is there a (c) that I missed?

// Edit: oh, you got into details later, let me read that up.

// Edit 2:
Okay, so you would leave - when we take the Sleeper example - Melted Nanoribbons out of the group average. How would you prevent manipulation Melted Nanoribbons? (ignoring trade volumes of the specific item for now, this is an example)
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#157 - 2012-06-28 19:33:42 UTC
corestwo wrote:
Aryth wrote:
Alain Kinsella wrote:
Aryth wrote:
The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.


You're basically asking them to work it on a 'basket' or 'item class' level, which I assume would average against the number of items in that class.

I do like that idea, a lot, and as long as the baskets are sufficiently large (i.e. mineral basket, P1 basket, etc) there will be far too much 'white noise' by the average Market user like myself. Its still possible (with enough capital) to do it, but you'll start to have trend-watchers amplifying the change and profiting outside the scheme.


You need a 4.5 multiplier. So that means the amount of ISK required to even attempt such a thing, while holding it there for a price update, against all of EVE might make the best content ever. As one group of guys wage a price war with all of EVE, while CCP watches and laughs watches them get burned to the ground by turning off the updater for a bit.

It's a super elegant solution, and is probably easy to code for them. But yep, they just need to get the baskets to be "big" and it's fixed.


And 4.5x is the worst case, which is "Can buy the seed item from the LP store and also have high warzone control." The required disparity between estimated price and price at which you can buy or build the item becomes much larger if you can't double it over by buying it and blowing it up again, or if they don't have a high tier of warzone control, or both.



If CCP pays careful attention to keeping LP store items, very cost controlled, this very quickly isn't doable anymore. There is a reason we picked LP store items do manip. They made this the lowest multiplier. You are already having to sink ******** amounts of ISK/Captail into this, even what we did was on a scale never seen before in EVE. For any manip period I believe.

As the others have pointed out in jabber (we talked about this a while ago) Anything from a BPO/BPC should be calculated by taking input costs at perfect research. Still across classes.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#158 - 2012-06-28 19:38:42 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Aryth wrote:
The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.

The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this.
Hmm... should this group average be used for the est. value of each element of this group (a) or as a means to normalize the indivual averages (b)?

I assume (b), because, in case of (a), there are many groups e.g. Sleeper salvage that have huge differences within the group.

But with (b) how will you account for market shifts due to expansions etc? Parts of a group could suddenly become more valuable, not for market manipulation but for naturally increased need.

Is there a (c) that I missed?

//Edit: oh, you got into details later, let me read that up.


Certain disparities within a group are a given, yes, but to some degree they are corrected for by the /10000 modifier in the formula. And, beyond that, the price disparity required when you can't buy an LP store item and blow it up again is large (I'll decline to say how large) even at tier 4, and increases by a factor of 4 each tier the faction loses.

Also as aryth noted, anything player produced can just calculate its price based on input cost.

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

fofofo

Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#159 - 2012-06-28 19:41:41 UTC
From my perspective as a player this was in no way an exploit. The system seems to have worked exactly as it was designed to work, it just contained a loophole big enough to drive 5 trillion through.

Given that the FW design is too fragile to allow for the staggering amount of LP it generated I would consider the removal of LP from the relevant accounts to be a fair solution after the loophole was closed.

But exploit? Nah.

I'm actually kind of curious why this has been something CCP Sreegs have dealt with. I would have thought this was a game design issue from start to finish.
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#160 - 2012-06-28 19:49:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaru Ishiwara
Dalilus wrote:
i am beginning to understand why expansions in eve are free.......maybe ccp will learn from this......Roll
Nothing in EVE is free.

We pay for our expansions in installments, whether they are monthly or one of the other payment frequencies chosen.

Furthermore, some of CCP's customers opt to provide stress / load, design and functionality testing services via the Mass testing sessions and feedback periods on Sisi. That is an enormous cost savings to CCP and could also be looked at as yet another way in which CCP's clients pay into their services and enable these "free" expansions.

TBH, EVE is a fairly expensive MMO, so don't kid yourself about all of the stuff that CCP is just throwing at their customers for "free."

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.