|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 48 post(s) |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
201
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 14:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Vile rat wrote:Next time somebody does something like this they would be stupid to let ccp know in any manner. That's my takeaway from this :) That would be remarkably stupid. why?
the ferrogel exploit went on for at least 1.5 years without CCP interference
seems like one can keep these things going for quite some time as long as one doesn't overdo it (as goons did in this case) and tbh the cost of a few accounts isn't much of a deterrent considering the potential rewards.
My interpretation is that the jewbal guys hoped they would get to keep part of the proceeds as long as they are open about what they did, don't try to launder any of the wealth they gained through this mechanic and blow the whistle (see ev0ke example).
But when the choice is between "make crazy profit for a few weeks, blow the whistle and get the proceeds subsequently removed" and "make steady profit for several months, launder the proceeds and get your account eventually banned" the choice isn't hard.
|
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 14:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:By that standard the ferrogel exploit was also within the parameters. I don't know why this seems to not be sinking in. All exploits were programmed. The difference is that all of the components of this alleged exploit were working exactly as designed. You've always been able to manipulate the market. Shooting ships to get LP for the value of their cargo was what was stated on the devblog regarding the FW changes. So was upgrading the FW systems with LP to get lower prices from the LP store. The only thing that wasn't intended was a combination of all of these factors. This is entirely different from duping ferrogel, where it was never designed you could react stuff without using the inputs. It's closer to the insurance fraud scheme, where a working design (shoot ship, get insurance payout) was "abused" because you got more than the ship was worth. If we make a correction it clearly wasn't what we intended. You're not manipulating the price so much as taking advantage of time lapses in the calculation of value which pins a different currency to a seldom-changing somewhat arbitrary number that you can set. did CCP intend ship insurance to form a price bottom for minerals?
guess they did not, as insurance payout calculations were reworked to prevent such a thing from happening again...
An obviously flawed game mechanic that had massive effects on the mineral market, injected huge amounts of ISK into the economy and was exploited on a truly industrial scale (too lazy to dig up old numbers, Kazuo alone destroyed a few thousand battleships iirc) - but resulted in absolutely no backlash against the involved players.
Winter 2009/Spring 2010 was probably still before your time at CCP but until now we had no indication from CCP that their approach to balance "sandbox" vs "impact on game economy" had changed.
Whatever action you decide to take, please make sure that we leave this whole affair with a clearer understanding of what is acceptable vs what is considered an exploit.
The old precedents don't seem to give reliable guidance anymore. |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 16:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:What we do with individuals is never a public matter. It never was and it never will be. The public communication will focus on what's been done to the group and the overall impact. I won't deny that nobody should have been speaking to the press and that that has been managed poorly.
CCP Sreegs wrote:You'll have to ask the people who deploy things that. My job is to clean up afterwards. At least we can still count on CCP discussing their internal disagreements in public :popcorn: |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 17:09:00 -
[4] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Holander Switzerland wrote:Actually yeah this is a good point, if people were warning them about this before it left sisi, isn't that pretty much consent for whatever was in the patch. actually but here is where you are wrong. CCP has always said, always ask before you do something that you are not sure if you are gonna be punished or not. I am here for many years and I must admit i came very close myself of abusing something. If its not cos I asked before, I would have been banned. If in doubt, always ask CCP is the modo! if you ask CCP first, they will either say "no" or they will say "yes" and change their mind retroactively.
alliance tournament drama demonstrated the value & reliability of GM answers quite well. |
|
|
|