|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 48 post(s) |
Isphirel
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
7
   |
Posted - 2012.06.23 22:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
Xen Solarus wrote:The key question for me is would something similar to this be allowed to happen in "the real world".
The answer is a definate no.
I'm going to use that line when I petition CCP for reimbursement of my freighter that was autopiloting through nullsec! After all, "in the real world", you wouldn't be allowed to just fly up to it and shoot missiles at it, right? |
Isphirel
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 23:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Also you forgot CCPs golden rule aka
"If in doubt always ask to get cover before you act or be banned"
Yo that has never been any sort of "rule", golden or not. I don't have to ask CCP for permission before I buy a pile of minerals and sell them for more money the next day, I don't have to ask CCP before I buy all the Maelstroms in VFK and relist them at markup right before a fleet operation, and the OP doesn't have to ask for permission before he uses documented game mechanics to play the market either.
The fact that CCP neither thought their FW changes through nor listened to the community when they were on the test server, and are now having some sudden regrets about the whole thing, doesn't make it suddenly sleazy to not play games of "mother, may I" every time you log into the game. |
Isphirel
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 23:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:you know damn perfectly well that this is nothing like buying a maelstrom and reseling it. This is nothing compared to that. We are talking of 3 trillions of isk and market manipulation based on a vulnerability (exploit of mechanic). If you are gonna exploit a mechanic then you ask if its within the rules so that you are covered. Dont try to down play 3 trillions of isk and market manipulation of a game mechanic. Once again if you did not read the EULA go and do so again.
Sounds like you're seeing a number bigger than you're used too and going "wow, that must have been an exploit". There's absolutely no reason to assume that just because it's profitable it's againt the EULA. If you'd like to explain this supposed "vulnerability", be my guest, but you'll probably want to read the OP another few times to understand what was going on. |
Isphirel
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 23:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:
Its not. EULA says that if exploting game mechanic = ban
That includes also "design flaw" since at the end of all its all written in code and exploting a game mechanic is also exploiting a game flaw. Which in all it means is : goons exploited a game mechanic by exploting a design flaw
I was gonna give you the benefit of the doubt on your crappy tautology there but my curiosity got the better of me and it turns out that the EULA doesn't contain either of the words "exploit" or "mechanic", so you're gonna have to step down from your high horse and explain what you mean by "exploiting a game mechanic" other than "making money faster than hisec miners do", and why you think it is a ~bad thing~. |
Isphirel
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 23:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
If you can't tell the qualitative difference between "exploiting" it when some underpaid overworked coder didn't implement all the necessary sanity checks to make the game not blow up, and "exploiting" it when the game functions literally exactly as designed, expected, described in the patch notes and discussed on the forums before the patch hit, you probably should stay away from the market in your own interest. |
|
|
| |
|