Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8786
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:21:00 -
[61] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Chribba wrote:It's pretty similar to being able to see the notification mail when someone attacks your POS through the API - clearly an exploit knowing when you're being attacked...?
Or worse, you see the killmail of your structures. You know someone is there shooting up your stuff.
/c Yeah but one is intended by CCP (the notification mail) while the other is not. I really don't see why people are having a tough time grasping this: something unintended (in fact the exact opposite of the intended behavior) that gives you an advantage is, by definition, not "working as intended".
The API is still working as intended.
The Siphon isn't. And it was a stupid idea in the first place. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11039
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:26:00 -
[62] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So what the OP is saying is that CCP actually realised that what people were telling them was true: that it's a pretty bad idea to have the API report false information. I agree. It's not just that this isn't an exploit, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us.
No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2020
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:30:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And it was a stupid idea in the first place.
Yeah, no. That's an opinion, one that many will disagree with. Judging by the amount of people I've seen b*tching about siphons, organizations (such as PL) paying bounties for dead siphons (Last I heard they paid their renters ~10 mil per dead siphon), and the plethora of alliances that use said siphons, I'd say they're pretty cool.
They could stand to be smaller and cheaper though. All the cost does is make the barrier to entry higher for newbies. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2020
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:38:00 -
[64] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tippia wrote:So what the OP is saying is that CCP actually realised that what people were telling them was true: that it's a pretty bad idea to have the API report false information. I agree. It's not just that this isn't an exploit, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us. ROFLMAO. You have to love the mental gymnastics that are going on here.
Quote:"Will a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS or not?"
Not. The API will lie about the content. Sorry thought that was clear. Source.
To reiterate:
"Will a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS or not?" ------->Not.<--------
But really, keep going. These mental gymnastics are thoroughly amusing. |
Derrick Miles
EVENumbers
1402
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:40:00 -
[65] - Quote
Chribba wrote: Very true in that sense, with that view however, lots of things concerning the API could be considered an exploit though.
For example, member lists of corporations have never been available to people outside the corp, yet through the API you can find most if not all members of a corporation. Exploit.
Sure I can agree that the intended feature of the Siphon's stealthyness isn't a yay thing, but at the same time I would see the API's ability to detect one the outcome of smart player engineering. Because after all, you have to judge yoruself that the reduced number of goo units in your silo is due to a Siphon. Similar how you could see a killmail and judge what type of weapons a pilot may be fitting if you see the kill being made 5 min ago.
But I understand both sides for sure.
/c
You've definitely got a good point about smart player engineering. There are a lot of ways to use the API to gain an advantage over other players in Eve, although I wouldn't go so far as to call them exploits as well. The only thing I can't get past is that CCP specifically said that the API was supposed to hide the Siphon Unit's activity so when it showed up instead, it was clearly broken since it went directly against what CCP said it was supposed to do. At that point is when it passes into the realm of exploiting: taking advantage of a broken feature for personal gain. |
Derrick Miles
EVENumbers
1402
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:42:00 -
[66] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tippia wrote:So what the OP is saying is that CCP actually realised that what people were telling them was true: that it's a pretty bad idea to have the API report false information. I agree. It's not just that this isn't an exploit, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us. Why do you think that? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23881
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:45:00 -
[67] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:ROFLMAO. You have to love the mental gymnastics that are going on here. What mental gymnastics? People told them what a horrible idea it was to break the API the way they first planned. And now it appears they didn't break the API the way they first planned. No gymnastics is required to connect the dots. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
183
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:47:00 -
[68] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data. I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable.
Let CCP know about it?
absolutely unreasonable!! |
Serene Repose
1500
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:47:00 -
[69] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:How M'I Alive wrote:If you know something is working in a manner that is not intended, which allows you to gain an advantage over others who are not aware of such, you are supposed to cease that activity immediately and report it to CCP. Try proving that we knew it wasn't working as intended. If I ran this by a jury your goose would be cooked.
I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.-á |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1549
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 09:56:00 -
[70] - Quote
By definition.. CCP said it woudl work one way and it doe snot.. then its a bug. Report it as a bug. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23883
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:02:00 -
[71] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:By definition.. CCP said it woudl work one way and it doe snot.. then its a bug. Report it as a bug. Just one problem: they said it would work in a certain way in a thread asking for critique and suggestions, after which they redesigned some of the functionality. So pretty much everything they said is subject to having been changed before it went live.
The piece of (non)functionality complained about here isn't in the patch notes, for instanceGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2020
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:02:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tippia wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:ROFLMAO. You have to love the mental gymnastics that are going on here. What mental gymnastics? People told them what a horrible idea it was to break the API the way they first planned. And now it appears they didn't break the API the way they first planned. No gymnastics is required to connect the dots. The mental gymnastics in question:
James Amril-Kesh wrote: been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us.
CCP Tuxford wrote:Quote:Will a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS or not? Not. Saying siphons detected via API in any way is intended by CCP when the exact opposite is true is mental gymnastics. No amount of pedantic obfuscation will change that. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11039
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:04:00 -
[73] - Quote
I meant to say "changed their mind". But whatever. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23883
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:05:00 -
[74] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:The mental gymnastics in question: Again, people told them what a horrible idea it was to break the API the way they first planned. And now it appears they didn't break the API the way they first planned. No gymnastics is required to connect the dots.
Repeating what they said before people told them it was a horrible idea does not demonstrate any mental gymnastics. It rather shows a desperate grasping at straws from people who want the player input to have had no impact in a situation where it looks like it did. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11039
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:05:00 -
[75] - Quote
embrel wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data. I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable. Let CCP know about it? absolutely unreasonable!! Again, what makes you so sure nobody let them know about it? No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2020
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:13:00 -
[76] - Quote
Tippia wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:The mental gymnastics in question: Again, people told them what a horrible idea it was to break the API the way they first planned. And now it appears they didn't break the API the way they first planned. No gymnastics is required to connect the dots. Repeating what they said before people told them it was a horrible idea does not demonstrate any mental gymnastics. It rather shows a desperate grasping at straws from people who want the player input to have had no impact in a situation where it looks like it did. The mental gymnastics is saying that CCP intended the EXACT OPPOSITE of every single one of their written statements on the subject. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else that isn't ccp said on the subject, at that time or now.
James said here:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us.
This is the exact opposite of every single written statement from CCP. It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else said this was a bad idea. It doesn't change what CCP said.
Saying "CCP Intended it this way" when every single written statement says the exact opposite is mental gymnastics.
And Let me be clear: In order for this NOT to be mental gymnastics, one written statement from CCP has to exist, after the one I am citing, that explicitly states that "Yes, we intend siphons to be detected by API." But no such statement has ever been made. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8787
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:14:00 -
[77] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote: But no such statement has ever been made.
And the functionality you are claiming is missing is, as Tippia pointed out, notably absent from any form of patch notes.
I find it easier to believe that they just didn't include it, rather than that they tried to, failed, and did not check even once. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Grimpak
Shifting Sands Trader Cartel Bleak Horizon Alliance.
2129
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:16:00 -
[78] - Quote
well:
a) tbh, if it's exploit or not, all I can see is *semantics*
b) if the API isn't lying about it, then it's a bug from CCP
d) THE API IS (NOT) A LIE! [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23883
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:19:00 -
[79] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:The mental gymnastics is saying that CCP intended the EXACT OPPOSITE of every single one of their written statements on the subject. You mean their one statement that was made before the redesign phase and before everyone told them what a bad idea it was to break the API?
Quote:James said here: James Amril-Kesh wrote:it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us. This is the exact opposite of every single written statement from CCP. GǪbut it requires no mental gymnastics because, as you know, intents may change. They also intended it to siphon off 20% and for there to be no limit to how many you could deploy. Guess what happened to that intent?
Quote:It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else said this was a bad idea. It doesn't change what CCP said. Sure it does because of this little thing called chronology. The chronology of events changes what CCP said from GÇ£definitive and final statement about how things will without a doubt work on releaseGÇ¥ to GÇ£something they thought about at firstGÇ¥. No mental gymnastics is required to think that the intent might have changed from that first initial design. If anything, your skipping over the whole discussion and redesign and still trying to claim that everything stated before this is how it must have been at release is the 10.0-manoeuvre here.
So yes, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us. They forget to tell us lots of things that happen between the first presentation and the final release. Given the amount of criticism they received on this particular point, no mental gymnastics is needed to think that the intent changed as a result of the player input and that what was in the final release was entirely intentional. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
embrel
BamBam Inc.
184
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:20:00 -
[80] - Quote
Tippia wrote: You are trying to suggest that connecting those two dots is mental gymnastics. So what does that make the jump from 1 to 4, ignoring the bits in-between, and then being really really really upset that #5 is such an easy connection to the point where you have to start accusing people of not thinking properly for making that simple observation?
I seems mental gymnastic to me too, tbh. Is there any point in this pointless device if it doesn't work in stealth mode? So, can it be a conscious decision to implement something and at the same time make it completely useless?
|
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2021
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:21:00 -
[81] - Quote
Tippia wrote:
1. CCP says the API will lie.
This is purposely leaving out a key detail that I will emphasize again and again and again, if need be:
CCP Tuxford wrote:Quote:Will a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS or not? Not. Period. End of sentence. Then Tuxford goes on to say:CCP Tuxford wrote: The API will lie about the content. Sorry thought that was clear.
[source]
Tuxford, Sentence 1, categorically refutes "a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS". Tuxford, Sentense 2, goes on to detail the method of accomplishing this refutation, a method which we now know to be flawed or incomplete.
Now, to fix part of your post:
Tippia wrote:
0. CCP says the API will not detect siphons. 1. CCP says the API will lie to achieve item 0. 2. People says that it's fundamentally flawed design to let the API lie. 3. The siphon goes through at least one redesign cycle. 4. On release, one part of the API lies, another does not.
Paints a very different picture, doesn't it? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
11039
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:25:00 -
[82] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:changed their mind Because CCP, like everyone, does this sometimes. That's not mental gymnastics. It's a very real possibility you're refusing to consider. No, this isn't it at all. Make it more... psssshhhh. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23883
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:26:00 -
[83] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:This is purposely leaving out a key detail that I will emphasize again and again and again, if need be: No, it does not. In fact, that is the detail. Maybe this is why you're so confused about the matter: you simply don't understand what other people are telling you.
Quote:Tuxford, Sentence 1, categorically refutes "a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS". Tuxford, Sentense 2, goes on to detail the method of accomplishing this refutation which we now know to be flawed. In other words:
1. CCP says the API will lie. 2. People says that it's fundamentally flawed design to let the API lie. 3. The siphon goes through at least one redesign cycle. 4. On release, the API lies.
Quote:Paints a very different picture, doesn't it? No. It still paints the same picture of you desperately grasping at straws. There is no other part about it: the API simply does not lie, which is what people said would be a very bad idea, and is also what the OP is pinning the notion of an exploit on.
If you want to inject some completely new part into the discussion, then go ahead and do so, but the only important part for the OP and for the feedback in the thread (and for the final result) is whether or not the API exports data properly. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
303
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:29:00 -
[84] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data. I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable. As much as null blocs don't need that extra money I do have to agree here. Even if it is an exploit, it's one you can't really hold against them because finding it unintentionally still leaves you in a position where you can't un-ring the bell. This is not like finding an obscure exploitable ship fitting or combination for instance and then just refusing to use it since there are so many other things you can still use legitimately. Your options here are kill the siphon unit (a mechanic allowed by the game) or let it steal from you forever. This issue can not be summed up so simply as "people exploited = severe punishment now", this issue is not so black and white and is why I use my current signature.
If you are checking something in API and happen to notice the siphon unit, it's pretty much impossible to pretend you didn't see it and the only way to follow through with pretending you didn't see it would be to let is steal from you indefinitely and if they did pretend not to see it, would they be justified in asking for reimbursement for not taking out the siphon unit? I think a fair minded person would have to say yes.
While there may be some concern as to how long this was known before it was brought forward only CCP knows for sure if and when a report was filed about the issue. If it can be shown that some people have known about the issue for some time and kept it to themselves, then some form of punishment is probably in order but I suspect this could not be definitively proven. Because siphon units can be found and destroyed legitimately it seems it would be very difficult to distinguish between siphon units found legitimately and those that were tipped off by API info. If you think it can be done please share.
While I suspect there are probably some who have been less then forthcoming with this info, I think you'll just have to swallow this one and GRR [insert alliance/coalition name here] will have to wait for another day. Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification. |
Mithandra
Serene Vendetta Brawls Deep
116
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:29:00 -
[85] - Quote
if an item is meant to be undetectable in game, yet is able to be detected using an api out of game, then that's a bug surely... or am I missing something?
Eve is the dark haired, totally hot emo gothchild of the gaming community
|
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Mordus Angels
2021
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:30:00 -
[86] - Quote
Tippia wrote: So yes, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us. They forget to tell us lots of things that happen between the first presentation and the final release. Given the amount of criticism they received on this particular point, no mental gymnastics is needed to think that the intent changed as a result of the player input and that what was in the final release was entirely intentional.
Hi. My position is that CCP changed it's mind, did a complete 180 to do the exact opposite of all prior written statements. Than they forgot to tell us.
I have no evidence besides my own conjecture to support CCP changing their intent given that the only factual statements from ccp do not corroborate this in any way. However, since I said "they forgot to tell us," it renders any requirement to provide factual evidence moot. I am therefore correct.
Tippia, this is far worse than your usual fare. What's the deal? |
Shederov Blood
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
1398
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:30:00 -
[87] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:well:
a) tbh, if it's exploit or not, all I can see is *semantics*
b) if the API isn't lying about it, then it's a bug from CCP
d) THE API IS (NOT) A LIE! e) What happened to c) ? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8788
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:32:00 -
[88] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:My position is that CCP changed it's mind, did a complete 180 to do the exact opposite of all prior written statements. Than they forgot to tell us.
As has been mentioned, seeing as how the functionality you are describing is NOT in the patch notes, it's not unreasonable at all to think that they abandoned it.
And like I said earlier, I find that easier to believe than that they tried to do it, failed, and did not realize that they had failed because they did not check it even once. Even CCP has more quality control than that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Grainsalt
6-10s Northern Associates.
202
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:32:00 -
[89] - Quote
Shederov Blood wrote:Grimpak wrote:well:
a) tbh, if it's exploit or not, all I can see is *semantics*
b) if the API isn't lying about it, then it's a bug from CCP
d) THE API IS (NOT) A LIE! e) What happened to c) ?
Using c) may be an exploit.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
23883
|
Posted - 2014.08.14 10:33:00 -
[90] - Quote
Mithandra wrote:if an item is meant to be undetectable in game, yet is able to be detected using an api out of game, then that's a bug surely... or am I missing something? It's not meant to be undetectable in-game.
PotatoOverdose wrote:My position is that CCP changed it's mind, did a complete 180 to do the exact opposite of all prior written statements. Than they forgot to tell us. GǪand there is nothing particularly strange about this. In fact, it's not even a 180 and doing the opposite GÇö it's just a case of doing nothing at all. Their abandoning previously presented ideas happens all the time.
You can huff and puff as much as you like, but still no gymnastics is needed to connect the dots between players saying that it was a bad idea to make the API export incorrect data and them not changing it in a way that would make the API export incorrect data. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |