|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 48 post(s) |
Crellion
Parental Control
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am torn on this. Of course I don't want goonies to keep the iskies because it inflates the hell out of my iskies and everyone else's. :P
On the other hand this was an obvious hole of bad design by CCP. I don't mean the initial bug but the core mechanic of rewarding based on average price market of cargo and offering the person reaping this reward in LPs the opportunity to redeem at 1/4 the LP cost at a fully upgrafed system, allowing for buying even more stuff blah blah blah.
They made and advertised (in the dev blog) a big arse closed loophole of infinite isk. It was there for all to see before the patch went live. Most people did not see the opportunity or did not pursue it (my corp thinks FW is for nooblars )... How does that entittle us to punish goonies for goign ahead with it.
How can CCP punish this activity after having advertised the possibility in their dev blog (determined as they were to "reverse the value of null sec v low sec v FW to put FW at the apex"). Well done CCP FW is now at the apex as intended.
I dunno hats off t[o goons I guess but I am very dissapointed with CCP for such a cavallier approach... +20% in LP costs from fully upgraded systems would have been incntive enough... what was the point in going for a 400% incentice ffs...
Ham fisted & CCP these days a match made in heaven it seems...
It is wrong for goons to have aquired all that isk for subzero risk and effort but not their wrong, CCP's booboo rather.
|
Crellion
Parental Control
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Crellion wrote:It is wrong for goons to have aquired all that isk for subzero risk and effort but not their wrong, CCP's booboo rather.
It's far from being "zero risk or effort." It's high-effort because it involved an insane amount of planning and number crunching. It's high-risk because, well, if CCP isn't very happy with what happened, at best, they could take away the profits made from this, or at worst, hand out bans (which doesn't seem likely, but it's still possible) - and there's the whole risk of all their numbers being wrong or the whole plan going south if they ran into an unforeseen obstacle in the process. And then there's the fact that CCP will most likely be /much/ more careful when working on future changes for the game to prevent enterprising individuals from finding gaping holes like this to jump through.
(a) hope you read the rest of what I posted too
(b) it is virtually zero risk and effort compared to the risk and effort involved in making a few trillion isk in other ways.
The problem of course is not the people that did this but the CCP dev plan that includes LP rewards for cargo items, at market price and the possibility to redeem at 1/4 th the cost... |
Crellion
Parental Control
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 09:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Wasse wrote: As someone who works for a software company (business software, but still software), I've never once heard bad design called a bug.
A design feature which is coded correctly, but does not work as intended in the field, is indeed known as a design "bug". These sorts of bugs happen frequently in large, complex software systems, where it is difficult or impossible to work out all of the possible use cases, via QA or simulation, prior to release.Perhaps you remember the Patriot Missile software failure during the Gulf War, which resulted in a failed Scud intercept and the deaths of 28 US soldiers? This failure was due to a design bug, not a coding bug.
I disagree with the part in bold.
Creating a system where the reward to the killer is potentially 4x the loss of the person whose ship just diaf'd (or eve 1.5x for that matter) is a sure way to introduce an easy exploit in a game where everyone knows that the same RL controller can be both the killer and the victim.
A great many people saw this merely from reading the dev blog... so for the devs not to spot it .... hmmmm....
|
Crellion
Parental Control
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 11:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vokanic wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Vile rat wrote:Also let me be perfectly blunt here. There was no bug abuse. They made the economy for faction war and they set the parameters. Everything that was done occured within the realm of legal game mechanics even if that wasn't the intention of the dev that coded this. As has been explained blapping frigates with titans wasn't intended either but was considered a legal, if abusive method of using game mechanics. You could argure that having the value of the loot that dropped from the freighters available to process again whilst nonetheless counting in the isk value "destroyed" for LP was an abuse of a bug Vile Vat. You could argue that if Goons get Sreeg'd, you're next in line.
Ummm just for the sake of bolstering an epic thread I ll consider the accuracy of this statement. Done. Its false.
IF he really did what he said and IF he made that isk then the "profit" he made was exchanging his LPs at the 1/4 LP cost rate of a fully upgraded system. This is the intended game mechanic (a ridiculous one IMPO but still ...). The fact that the goons had (IF they had) used an exploit to upgrade the system fully is nothing to him. There is no evidence or indication he knew of this and no obligation on him to know anyway. Moreover it is clearly not just him but ALL the happy punters in winmaturd militia exchanging LPs at 1/4 prices legally.
CCP perhaps owes an appology to all of us the rest of EVE who did not get an opportunity to benefit from a 1 - 4 conversion rate and being forced to use the good old 1 - 1 rate but getting items whose value was plummeting due to the exploit lost a lot of potential iskies that would be coming our way if it was not for the haxsploitz (IF there was such an exploit and methinks there was not technically)...
In any event I d rather they did nothing for us rather than "indemnifying us" through an isk faucet... |
Crellion
Parental Control
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 12:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Ghost Xray wrote:interested in QA'ing, do it on the test server. this wasn't done on the test server because one huge aspect of the scheme wasn't possible on the test server
Upgrading systems?
|
|
|
|