|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 19:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Barbara Nichole wrote:Gaming Exploit: any action which deliberately abuses a gaming mechanic in an way not intended by the developer for an advantage over other players. Frankly, it was obvious that this was not the intended use of this mechanic.. Instead of immediately reporting the bug or problem they took the "bob" approach and exploited it. How does this situation compare to, say, insurance frauding, buying and refining PA, or the whole PI debacle?
You mean, finally CCP does something against cheaters instead of doing nothing like in the past? It was about damn time they changed their policy.
All the past exploiters should have been insta-perma banned to give an example.
It's just fair those involved in this FW abuse get *at least* their assets impounded. |
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 21:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
They did use an EULA violating macro.
You can make a macro to simultaneously press F1 F2 and F3 as it's an "one act" (like you can use a multi-box key repeater as it just instantly replicates what the player does, 1:1), while doing a sequence (A, B then C) is EULA breaching macroing. |
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 22:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lapine Davion wrote:Confirming that using $200 keyboards that were previously okay to use in the game are now cheating because everyone can't afford a $200 keyboard.
Guess I was cheating until my keyboard broke on me.
Heh it's incredible the absurd hoops and loops people will do to ignore simple concepts when it's against their interests or shallow propaganda.
$200 keyboards programmed to press 3-4 keys together = NOT automated gameplay => OK. $200 keyboards programmed to press a timed sequence of keys to *automate gameplay* => shady to forbidden macro. If the sequence also involves conditionals => insta ban bot.
In this istance, the macro had to be programmed in a sequence, to greatly save time and / or effort or to make an excruciating (and thus reasonably impractical) human activity into a faster, automated and thus practical activity. The purpose is there, the motive is there. |
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 22:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Alaya Carrier wrote:In this istance, the macro had to be programmed in a sequence, to greatly save time and / or effort or to make an excruciating (and thus reasonably impractical) human activity into a faster, automated and thus practical activity. The purpose is there, the motive is there. You're assuming. Remember, if you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.
At least I am not cheating nor brown nosing cheaters. |
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 15:05:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: At the time of the actions in question, it was not deemed an exploit, and it was not utilizing a programming bug. Exactly like insurance fraud, PI, PA, titan bowling and tracking titans etc etc etc. Which means that the way CCP is handling matters of this type has changed in this case.
You spell it like CCP having finally turned into a serious company is bad.
No, it's excellent news!
Now, if only they could also reverse PI and Pax amarria and POS dupe exploits, then it'd be golden, but I doubt they have backlogs dating so far back.
|
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 19:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: So when we point out that everything was pointed out to CCP before they'd even released the code, t hat was still "post exploit"?
It started being a known code weakness the day it was first reported. Therefore any abuse done after the first reports on Sisi is an abuse of a known vulnerability and thus should be bannable. The fact CCP did not patch it before release is bad for them, but does not authorize individuals going all out to abuse the most they can. |
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 20:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote: CCP could have said We've heard about this, it might be a vulnerability, we will monitor it, and anybody abusing it is exploiting. They said NOTHING, or are we supposed to be mindreaders and read CCPs minds as to intent of a game mechanic? I don't know anybody that is a telepath, so we have to infer that it is a valid game mechanic untill CCP says otherwise.
Do you seriously need a telepath to understand that a vulnerability discovered and discussed for SiSi was not meant to be abused if it still stayed in game once deployed on TQ? |
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Up until this incident, if something was possible using documented ingame mechanics, and CCP hasn't said "this is not legal, don't do this", then it was fully legal to do so. This means everything is very clear-cut for players wrt legality.
Every new course starts from an old course that gets changed.
Lord Zim wrote: Your interpretation can easily be construed in such a manner that f.ex utilizing tracking titans (which are utilizing an algorithm with a weakness where titans, the biggest ship in the game, can easily enough shoot and kill the smallest and most nimble ships in the game) could be seen as something which you "wouldn't need a telepath to understand shouldn't be done", because it's "not what the ship's designed role was". Instead, we looked upon this as "emergent gameplay" and embraced it. Hated it when we were up against it, but still a part of the sandbox.
In a sandbox, rules should be absolute and not open to interpretation.
A titan killing a cruiser does not exactly equal to grabbing 5 trillions. A titan fitted for that is not also the best titan for everything else, it had to give up on stuff.
Also no self proclaimed group of "we are better than you" players twitted or made smug threads to pour salt over the wound. Finally a titan killing a cruiser does not make 0.0 pointless, something that this abuse did with regards to FW and large part of low sec with it.
|
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote: Hilighted the relevant portion for you. You may consider it an exploit, heck your cousin who doesn't even play EVE may read it and say "Yea, that is a vulnerability waiting to be exploited."
Exactly, even my cousin who does not even play EvE may read it as a vulnerability waiting to be exploited. And even my cousin would imagine that abusers would be punished for something so obvious even him who does not play EvE can clearly see.
|
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nazim wrote:Whoa whoa where is this stuff that its not an exploit until ccp says it is. Firstly ccp can decide retroactively that it was a exploit and punish all those using it prior to this statement. Other game companies do this and ccp has prior precedent of dooing it. For example ccp punished a guy who was afk ratting by having his sentries out and having reppers on the sentry. Ccp punished the guy and only later stated that this was an exploit. Why would repping sentries be an exploit?
I recall that event.
It was an exploit because CCP decided it was so. Here, you got your new course. |
|
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote:Alaya Carrier wrote:Mortimer Civeri wrote: Hilighted the relevant portion for you. You may consider it an exploit, heck your cousin who doesn't even play EVE may read it and say "Yea, that is a vulnerability waiting to be exploited."
Exactly, even my cousin who does not even play EvE may read it as a vulnerability waiting to be exploited. And even my cousin would imagine that abusers would be punished for something so obvious even him who does not play EvE can clearly see. Ah, but you forgot the other part of that paragraph. Only CCP can say if it is an exploit or not, and they said nothing. Nice cherrypick with a handoff to a strawman. You don't see that every day...wait this is Eve-O GD
CCP Sreegs said it's an abuse and did not look exceptionally happy with the abusers. Hopefully he will not be bypassed by some brass deciding CCP has to keep being the only company that does not punish abuses. |
|
|
|