Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ghost Xray
Hedion University Amarr Empire
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:23:00 -
[331] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote:Ghost Xray wrote:Mortimer Civeri wrote:
All CCP had to do was state right on pach day, that they knew about it and would consider it an exploit, till they could work a patch for it. Thats it, that is all they had to do to stop it being exploited, and they DIDN'T. What else coud anybody infer, when CCP is warned, and they are silent about it?
It was a setup. They were simply letting a stupid player or group of players do something that was ban worthy. Perhaps someone at Sony wanted CCP to clean up the garbage in EvE so expect to see more of these types of things Would you like some more tinfoil for that fine hat you're wearing?
Sarcasm is lost on you.
I think that bleach you used on your head was absorbed by your frontal lobe. |
Killer Gandry
V I R I I Ineluctable.
540
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:23:00 -
[332] - Quote
Absolute rules would mean people can't be judged according the BFF factor. We can't have that.
You may not exploit any bug in EVE Online to gain an unfair advantage over other players. You may not communicate the existence of any exploitable bug to others directly or through a public forum. Bugs should be reported through the bug reporting tool on our website.
It was obvious that the system wasn't working as intended, and that my dear chaps is what a bug is. Something not working as intended. It was soo obvious that they told CCP about the flaw and then went on abusing it. If I had done that I would get all the goodies stripped and a temp ban at the least. And I would have been very lucky if I got off that easy.
Luckily CCP has a "no tell what we did" policy, so any claims that the culprits have been judged just as harshly as any other grunt in this game ar irrelevant. Those claims can't be proven and I for one think this rule sometimes is just too beneficial to avoid any and all responcebilities.
It's this kind of bullcrap and all the other smokescreens which CCP just loves to throw up that I am seeing more and more veterans leave the game. I know a lot of you newbees won't care, but in short time you will become bittervets too because next to feel like being lied to and the whole cold shoulder mentality CCP loves to give it's playerbase will start to hit you too.
In my opinion CCP has no accountability. Only accountants. That's what you get once a love and passion get's replaced by mortgages and bonusses |
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
503
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:24:00 -
[333] - Quote
Come on out of this thread there are ISD to annoy out there : )
Tal
|
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:31:00 -
[334] - 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 -
[335] - 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 -
[336] - 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. |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:37:00 -
[337] - Quote
Alaya Carrier wrote: 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.
Rubbing salt in a wound stings like heck, but makes the wound heal faster. True story. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:41:00 -
[338] - Quote
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 tho. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Nazim
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:50:00 -
[339] - 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?
It wasn't the repping by itself. It was parking your ship at a rat spawn site with bounties, repping the sentry drones along with self reping, and leaving the computer on the rest of the day while doing other things. CCP equated it to botting. |
Lord Zim
944
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:50:00 -
[340] - Quote
Alaya Carrier wrote: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. I'm going to assume there's more to this case than "he repped his sentries". |
|
Alaya Carrier
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 22:52:00 -
[341] - 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. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
179
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 00:07:00 -
[342] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Talon SilverHawk wrote:Lord Zim wrote:
In a sandbox, rules should be absolute and not open to interpretation.
Really ? seems counter intuitive ? meh Tal yea I dont see this happening... know why? If theyre absolute you have the Goonswarm internet lawyer division ripping them apart for loopholes and have this exact situation happening on a constant basic instead of every once in a while CCP has made it quite clear that when they say "DON'T!" you don't, and trying to internet lawyer your way around it still gets you banhammered, so it is useles to even try. That, to me, seems pretty absolute, don't you think?
you fail at reading
you do realize that yes? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
127
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 01:37:00 -
[343] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Mortimer Civeri wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Talon SilverHawk wrote:Lord Zim wrote:
In a sandbox, rules should be absolute and not open to interpretation.
Really ? seems counter intuitive ? meh Tal yea I dont see this happening... know why? If theyre absolute you have the Goonswarm internet lawyer division ripping them apart for loopholes and have this exact situation happening on a constant basic instead of every once in a while CCP has made it quite clear that when they say "DON'T!" you don't, and trying to internet lawyer your way around it still gets you banhammered, so it is useles to even try. That, to me, seems pretty absolute, don't you think? you fail at reading you do realize that yes? Funny, all I've read from you amounts to "RAGH! GOONIES, banzors them all CCP! AGHIJASDLKFJAKL!!!1" really not conducive to a debate on the finer points of the issue.
You fail at debating the issue.
You do realize that yes? "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
1591
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 01:48:00 -
[344] - Quote
so let me get this straight since the dev blogs show nothing
So certain people discovered an issue with the new FW mechanic on Sisi, reported it and began exploring the potential of this issue.
CCP opted to ignore this rather major issue and push FW out the door hoping that this group of players would support them in sweeping a rather glaring gameplay issue under the rug
The group of players instead decided to exploit the hell out of the issue instead of climbing into the soft comfy chair of ignorance and denial
now CCP is mad that the people who warned them this would happen made it happen so it would be exposed as the sloppy work that it is?
is this about right? The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
388
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 01:50:00 -
[345] - Quote
Morganta wrote:so let me get this straight since the dev blogs show nothing
So certain people discovered an issue with the new FW mechanic on Sisi, reported it and began exploring the potential of this issue.
CCP opted to ignore this rather major issue and push FW out the door hoping that this group of players would support them in sweeping a rather glaring gameplay issue under the rug
The group of players instead decided to exploit the hell out of the issue instead of climbing into the soft comfy chair of ignorance and denial
now CCP is mad that the people who warned them this would happen made it happen so it would be exposed as the sloppy work that it is?
is this about right?
yep. you nailed it.
CCP is acting out like an embarrassed child throwing a tantrum...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
179
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 02:00:00 -
[346] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote: Funny, all I've read from you amounts to "RAGH! GOONIES, banzors them all CCP! AGHIJASDLKFJAKL!!!1" really not conducive to a debate on the finer points of the issue.
You fail at debating the issue.
You do realize that yes?
Please, link me that quote cause I dont see it.
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Masumi Do
Dust Devil Cartel
226
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 02:01:00 -
[347] - Quote
its a feature... lol |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
179
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 02:02:00 -
[348] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Talon SilverHawk wrote:Lord Zim wrote:
In a sandbox, rules should be absolute and not open to interpretation.
Really ? seems counter intuitive ? meh Tal yea I dont see this happening... know why? If theyre absolute you have the Goonswarm internet lawyer division ripping them apart for loopholes and have this exact situation happening on a constant basic instead of every once in a while CCP has made it quite clear that when they say "DON'T!" you don't, and trying to internet lawyer your way around it still gets you banhammered, so it is useles to even try. That, to me, seems pretty absolute, don't you think?
btw, dumbass I was talking about the hypothetical situation the guy I quoted was talking about
thats why you fail - you are reacting as if I was talking about the current system (which Im not so I figured Id explain it since youre slow) http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Shukuzen Kiraa
Viziam Amarr Empire
169
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 02:02:00 -
[349] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:Exploit is Exploit....No matter how you color it
This ^^
|
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
1591
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 02:04:00 -
[350] - Quote
this actually reminds me of a funny story.
When I first came back to eve a couple of years ago I was doing some mining poop in some system and accidentally discovered that I could move items between open containers and my cargo hold anywhere on grid
the only restriction was you had to be within the max distance to open the container, but once open you could move stuff around regardless of your distance from the container.
I thought it must be me, how the hell could nobody on either sisi or TQ have not noticed this and reported it already?
but being the good little bundist that I am, I reported it and sure enough the reply was "we were unaware of this bug, thanks for reporting it"
I mean comon, how could nobody ratting, mining or pvping not notice this? I was playing a couple days and found it and knew it was wrong
sometimes the things that CCP misses astounds me
The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
|
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 02:14:00 -
[351] - Quote
Morganta wrote:so let me get this straight since the dev blogs show nothing
So certain people discovered an issue with the new FW mechanic on Sisi, reported it and began exploring the potential of this issue.
CCP opted to ignore this rather major issue and push FW out the door hoping that this group of players would support them in sweeping a rather glaring gameplay issue under the rug
The group of players instead decided to exploit the hell out of the issue instead of climbing into the soft comfy chair of ignorance and denial
now CCP is mad that the people who warned them this would happen made it happen so it would be exposed as the sloppy work that it is?
is this about right? Yea, and you forgot;
CCP could have simply declared this an exploit the day they shoved it out, and no one would have dared to exploit it for fear of the banhammer. Instead they put their fingers in their ears and said loudly "La la la la I can't hear you."
"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
477
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 13:43:00 -
[352] - Quote
CCP should just fess up that they didn't really think that through. Players did and made lots of profit. But for the good of their game they can't let it stick. So they are going to take back allot of what the players made. Nobody did anything wrong.
Eve is supposed to be a game that is thrown out there and players are told do whatever you can to make isk succeed.
Thats what happened. Honesty is the best policy.
They should let those who did this keep at least some of their profits for their work and to the extent they are honest about it. Maybe let them keep the first 100 billion worth and be done with it. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Htuomotssa
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 14:17:00 -
[353] - Quote
Xhaiden Ora wrote:By your logic Americans should be patting Wall Street on the back for their "entrepreneurial spirit" instead of being pissed over the economy.
They took our jobs!! |
Lord Zim
950
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 14:19:00 -
[354] - Quote
dey turk err jurbz! |
Mons Pubis Giganticus
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 20:02:00 -
[355] - Quote
you realize that it is possible to exploit sloppy design? so both are possible |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
887
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 20:03:00 -
[356] - Quote
Mons Pubis Giganticus wrote:you realize that it is possible to exploit sloppy design? so both are possible Exploiting sloppy design and being an exploit (and using such exploit) are two different things.
One is perfectly acceptable from an EULA standpoint, the other is not. |
Mons Pubis Giganticus
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 20:21:00 -
[357] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Mons Pubis Giganticus wrote:you realize that it is possible to exploit sloppy design? so both are possible Exploiting sloppy design and being an exploit (and using such exploit) are two different things. One is perfectly acceptable from an EULA standpoint, the other is not. by definition, an exploit is an exploit. perhaps tautological statements are too complex for you. |
Lord Zim
950
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 20:25:00 -
[358] - Quote
It's only an exploit in the negative sense when CCP has deemed it as such. Until then, it's ~emergent gameplay~. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
889
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 20:28:00 -
[359] - Quote
Mons Pubis Giganticus wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Mons Pubis Giganticus wrote:you realize that it is possible to exploit sloppy design? so both are possible Exploiting sloppy design and being an exploit (and using such exploit) are two different things. One is perfectly acceptable from an EULA standpoint, the other is not. by definition, an exploit is an exploit. perhaps tautological statements are too complex for you. Exploit, in EVE, is an unintentional mechanic or bug that can be/is used to "get ahead".
However, it is still perfectly possible and legal to exploit an intentional (yet foolish) mechanic.
Perhaps words having more than one definition is too complicated for you. |
qDoctor Strangelove
Beware of the Red Fox
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 18:26:00 -
[360] - Quote
In a true 1.0 system concorde used to react as slow as they do in 0.5 systems. That was known and through superior use of game mechanics, things died.
When reaching true -10 status , concorde would not come aid people, only faction police. This because the concorde trigger was the adjustment of secstat downwards, when in highsec. Tank CEO I believe killed tons through use of superior game mechanics
Zombie Corp killed everything in Yulai using RR. Being able to tank the police turned out to be a superior use of game mechanics.
Now, CCP went out and told people to stop what they were doing in these events. The one that did not, was banned.
For thi FW thing It is OK for CCP to say people are not to do this again, and remove the spoils from counting dropped loot to the value of destroyed ships. The dropped loot was not supposed to be calculated. The rest here, is mechanics working as intended and documented. It is in no way an exploit, except, the lp for dropped loot... That is on the killmails, and should be possible to calculate. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |