Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:04:00 -
[1]
CCP Lilith, Director of Customer Support, has just published a new blog for your perusal. Researched and composed by three different teams, "War makes thieves and peace hangs them" is an extremely extensive report on the recent POS Exploit. CCP Pleognost details how POS works and how the bug entered the game (and was removed). CCP Diagoras and CCP Dr.EyjoG detail the effects the exploit had on the economy, and Grimmi outlines how customer support handled previous reports and the current exploiters.
This extremely important blog should be read by everyone with a vested interest in this exploit, however, we do ask that you post your responses responsibly.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
Khanis Zyl
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:23:00 -
[2]
....
|
Vyger
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:24:00 -
[3]
Thanks for the comprehensive analysis.
Shame about those T2 BPOs. I'm guessing they won't get re-introduced back into the game.
|
Flexible Professional
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:24:00 -
[4]
wow, his has to be the massivest blog i've seen! skimming the blg it seems a lot of effort went into researching this exploit, thanks :)
|
Kronos Tempestus
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:32:00 -
[5]
reserved
|
teji
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:42:00 -
[6]
Nothing about any drug reactions being exploited?
Also, less t2 bpos in the game the better. Nice devblog. |
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:43:00 -
[7]
Originally by: teji Nothing about any drug reactions being exploited?
Youz dont readz much... do youz? |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:50:00 -
[8]
My concern is the last paragraph stating tha tyou will now actively check for market anomolies.
Dropping this hint is only going to make it harder to detect duping, because then dupers are only going to shuffle their assets around to make the dent on the market smaller.
For ex: instead of selling the advanced reactions straight to the market, they'll only sell 10% of what they produce directly, then organize requirements contracts across EVE.
idk, could be a problem.
"We can't stop here! This is bat country!"
Awesome quote btw! Good Job in killing those cheaters! ----------------- Friends Forever |
Letrange
Minmatar Mobile Alcohol Processing Units United Freemen Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:53:00 -
[9]
Excellent report. I'm going to go out on a limb and say Dr.E was probably using using colorful Icelandic language when he saw the mountain of work that landed on his desk with this exploit just when he was scheduled to deliver a QEN. Any idea on the possible, tentative, conjectural probability of a QEN coming out before Apocrypha? (I wouldn't want to jinks things by asking for a firm date).
|
Unfamed II
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:55:00 -
[10]
Name and shame a bit moar please. Dddrama awaits.
Originally by: Sandslinger of CA
So this wasn't a straightoff logoffski from our point of view, rather a tactical manoeuvre
|
|
|
CCP Diagoras
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 16:57:00 -
[11]
Originally by: teji Nothing about any drug reactions being exploited?
Also, less t2 bpos in the game the better. Nice devblog.
Booster materials were also produced using this, as mentioned in the blog. When looking at market impact we decided to focus on the moon materials in the blog, as that was what affected the most number of players by quite some margin.
There were 13 reactors in an exploited state that were producing booster materials. _______________ CCP Diagoras Research and Statistics |
|
Joram McRory
eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:03:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Joram McRory on 10/02/2009 17:04:17 A detailed and comprehensive analysis - thank you
But
There is sense that you are playing down the impacts. I can see the overall market effects were minor in statistical terms, but thatÆs like saying statistically in the UK you are very unlikely to be murdered.
Statistically it's true, but the effects on you are fairly significant if you are one of the few!!
The parallel here is the extreme wealth that was generated for a small minority - even if it was just a couple of entities benefiting û may have had a significant impact on the game.
I say ômay have hadö because your analysis does not cover the political and warfare impacts of the exploit. How many systems were taken or defended by the exploiters (or their friends)? How many ships were lost in combat to fleets funded by this? How many posses were seiged and destroyed? Were any large scale changes to the political landscape of 0.0 supported or prevented by the utilisation of this 6 to 12 Trillion isk???
Even though you say that much of the isk was sold for real life money û what use did the buyers of that isk make of it and to what extent did that impact the game?
This is the only bit that really matters, the rest is only of interest to market traders and builders. The ôrealö eve players are much more concerned over who has killed who and which alliance has taken/lost space.
Will there be a ôpart 2ö of this blog looking into the important aspects or do you think this wall of stats and graphs will keep us happy?
Joram
My Photography site |
Gamer4liff
Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:04:00 -
[13]
Thanks for this, this is a good write up.
|
Dolgozo Lany
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:04:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Dolgozo Lany on 10/02/2009 17:05:17
Originally by: CCP Diagoras
There were 13 reactors in an exploited state that were producing booster materials.
Were you able to retrieve all information about reactors which were not in the bugged status at the moment of your data analysis, only prior to the analysis?
E.g.: Corporations stopping and dismantling reactors in this bugged status in within that week, when the exploit report fell into the 'cracks'.
|
jam6549
Paladines
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:05:00 -
[15]
first page!
gonna read it now
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:08:00 -
[16]
Blog was comprehensive and well written. Good work. Though, i still do not believe anything in your privacy policy prohibits you from releasing the character names of those involved since character names are in no way personal information. |
Vir Hellnamin
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:09:00 -
[17]
blog-shot!
Devs, has there been any consideration for open bug report data-base, since it might motivate to post bug(exploits) more since you can actually concentrate / add to a bug report?
I recall some talks from times ago, but haven't seen anything after that. |
|
CCP Diagoras
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:10:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Dolgozo Lany Were you able to retrieve all information about reactors which were not in the bugged status at the moment of your data analysis, only prior to the analysis?
E.g.: Corporations stopping and dismantling reactors in this bugged status in within that week, when the exploit report fell into the 'cracks'.
After discovering the exploit, we checked a recent database backup (if I recall correctly, it was less than a week old at the time) to get a full list. We have also checked older backups when we were working out how long it had been going on for. So, it isn't possible for people to have gotten away with this by taking their starbases down as soon as they heard it had been discovered. |
|
Random Womble
Minmatar Master Miners
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:10:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Random Womble on 10/02/2009 17:15:54 Edited by: Random Womble on 10/02/2009 17:14:47
Originally by: Vyger Thanks for the comprehensive analysis.
Shame about those T2 BPOs. I'm guessing they won't get re-introduced back into the game.
CCP (well a Dev) did state that if any T2 BPOs were removed from the game they would be given back out again to maintain a balance however some how unfortunately i dont see them keeping their word.
And i believe that statement was made with invention either allready out or atleast soon to be relesed.
Edit: Perhaps some (not all obviously) could be given out as prizes of the next alliance tourny might make for intresting prizes since it would be reintroducing BPOs not creating new ones.
Edit2: it would aslo be nice to get a response on if they will remain permanently removed or if they will be reintroduced in some way. |
Cadde
Gallente Gene Works AKA-AHN KINGDOM
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:14:00 -
[20]
Page 1 on a long blog!
Good stuff |
|
Kronos Tempestus
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:16:00 -
[21]
Did the mods eat my 'reserved' post? That was not nice.
Hopefully this new blog will bring closure to this POS exploit issue (shall we call it POSgate? Silogate?).
I for one appreciate CCP's effort in explaining to the community the why, when and how of the exploit.
I am sure you had tons of work to produce the blog and that it impacted the day-to-day operations at CCP.
I do think that this was the correct approach to handling the issue and hope EVE is now a better place for all.
|
Demeterus
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:16:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Demeterus on 10/02/2009 17:19:50
Originally by: CCP Lilith The total number of users banned in relation to the exploit of POS reactors is 134.
That is not the same as 134 accounts. A user can of course have multiple accounts. Are there any numbers on how many accounts were banned?
Or is it none of our business? :)
Edit: And kudos to CCP for this extensive devblog. It went beyong my expectations of what would come.
--- Why are you reading my sig? Did you expect something of sigs? |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:19:00 -
[23]
"...removed from the game...over 30 Tech II BPOs..."
Why? Now those BPO's are missing. Shouldn't they get redistributed somehow instead?
Interesting write-up, thanks.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:19:00 -
[24]
Spectacular blog. IMO this is what most players were looking for: a detailed account of the entire process from discovery to punishment. I for one am really happy with your efforts with respect to the published blog. Great work.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
|
GM Grimmi
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:24:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Demeterus
That is not the same as 134 accounts. A user can of course have multiple accounts. Are there any numbers on how many accounts were banned?
Sorry for the mix up - this does indeed mean 134 accounts. GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master
EVE CSS |
|
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:28:00 -
[26]
Originally by: GM Grimmi
Originally by: Demeterus
That is not the same as 134 accounts. A user can of course have multiple accounts. Are there any numbers on how many accounts were banned?
Sorry for the mix up - this does indeed mean 134 accounts.
We've updated the blog to accurately reflect the type of bans that were issued. |
|
jam6549
Paladines
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:30:00 -
[27]
thats some heavy stuff |
Una D
Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:40:00 -
[28]
Nice report. This is the correct way to handle crap like this. Everyone knows that **** happens but you can handle it good or bad way ;)
Also yeay for less BPOs in the game. Even the playing field. Now just need to hope that next exploit cash is also invested in to t2 BPOs :D
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:43:00 -
[29]
An informative, comprehensive, and very well written and researched blog. Thank you CCP, and an extra big thank you to the hard working folks who contributed to this report. Another big thank you to the instruments of justice against the dirty exploiting scum.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.02.10 17:45:00 -
[30]
From the numbers in the blog I conclude that those reactors produced materials which normally would need 128 dysprosium/promethium moons.
So the amount of 128 dys/pro moons were pumped into the market for quite a while and especially when the numbers for the alchemy-stuff were fixed. The whole alchemy is then based on faulty numbers.
Is there any chance that alchemy will be revisited in the future? Maybe different input/output amount or the <0.3 system restriction relaxed?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |