Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 106 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 48 post(s) |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1152
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:23:00 -
[2431] - Quote
I'm not sure you can design a flawed system and expect people not to game it. |
Maggie Maggie
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:23:00 -
[2432] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:When do we get to the part where we stop pretending that a gap in the timing of value calculation (programming) wasn't what was being taken advantage of here? This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code.
It is not always apparent what is a flaw in the code and what is a flaw in the design. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious, as in the ferogel dupe. A variety of now-defunct GARPA projects relied on flaws in the code, yes, we knew it, you fixed it, it's done.
This, however, does not look like a flaw in the code. This does not look like code being pushed into an edge case where it goes for a variable that has not been initialized and instead picks up old junk that just so happens to not be junk. We've been there, this doesn't smell like that. The code didn't default into a case where it unexpectedly decides to calculate an EVE-wide 90 day moving average. That was a design error, not an implementation error. And design errors are fair game. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3736
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:23:00 -
[2433] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Dancing Tree wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. It was a flaw in the design, not the code. Seeing that flaw when others do not is arbitrage. Leveraging arbitrage is what happened here, entirely within the bounds of the sandbox market. If leveraging arbitrage in the market becomes forbidden, what becomes of the game? You weren't just leveraging arbitrage because the value you were manipulating was fairly abritrary. This would not be acceptable in any financial system at all. I know ya'll are having fun pretending this is just A OK but I'm telling you it's not. to be fair most of the fun of EVE's finances is doing things to the markets that would get you locked up in a heartbeat
don't mind me, i'm just dynamiting every oil well after buying up all the oil :v: |
Dancing Tree
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:23:00 -
[2434] - Quote
Phoenixx wrote: There's a difference between ... fair profit of ISK and ... a far greater value.
So you think the game shouldn't be a sandbox wherein profit is only limited by the ingenuity of the players? |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
219
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:24:00 -
[2435] - Quote
Man, this is such fun to read.
Screegs, I have to feel for you, just a little bit. Now YOU get to feel the power and wrath of the goon propaganda team. How does it feel to try to keep up with dozens of posters all working together?
2 separate things jump out at me:
1. If you remove the assets from these asshats (and no, I don't think you should, but I would just ban them for being goons), you are not removing THEIR assets, you are removing the assets from all the FW people they scammed/manipulated/smart gameplayed ( I truly hate to say they played the game well, but it is true).
Essentially, you would be introducing a one-time 5 trillion ISK tax into the game, that affects anyone who ran FW missions, or any mission involved with a Minmatar agent.
2. Maybe, just maybe, you guys at CCP will start listening to your player base before rolling out changes.
UI: Sisi screamed murder, yet you rolled it out. Incursions: The player community screamed the OTA's would pile up, you ignored them, now you are "looking at changes". War dec mechanics: You were warned, yet you rolled it out, then had to hot fix it. Now this. I have yet to see a post, but several people have stated that CCP was warned about this prior to release.
How about improving or creating a QA team, or at least listening carefully to the people on Sisi and in-game? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:24:00 -
[2436] - Quote
I think this is far worst than the word "exploit". The word "exploit" is far too weak or linient of a word to use. I say goons "raped" the market and now are claiming no fault. This to me is helarious. Take all their isk and assets away CCP and send a message out that the gloves are off for anyone trying to do the same!! |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:25:00 -
[2437] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Dancing Tree wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. It was a flaw in the design, not the code. Seeing that flaw when others do not is arbitrage. Leveraging arbitrage is what happened here, entirely within the bounds of the sandbox market. If leveraging arbitrage in the market becomes forbidden, what becomes of the game? You weren't just leveraging arbitrage because the value you were manipulating was fairly abritrary. This would not be acceptable in any financial system at all. I know ya'll are having fun pretending this is just A OK but I'm telling you it's not.
Oh look, an "Eve Is Real" post.
Thanks. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
317
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:25:00 -
[2438] - Quote
CCP Screegs, Maybe you need to role play it. What would Concord do if they found out what people are doing. They would shift the blame to the accountents and fixe the issue with massive fleet combat Right. |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:26:00 -
[2439] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Dancing Tree wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. It was a flaw in the design, not the code. Seeing that flaw when others do not is arbitrage. Leveraging arbitrage is what happened here, entirely within the bounds of the sandbox market. If leveraging arbitrage in the market becomes forbidden, what becomes of the game? You weren't just leveraging arbitrage because the value you were manipulating was fairly abritrary. This would not be acceptable in any financial system at all. I know ya'll are having fun pretending this is just A OK but I'm telling you it's not.
No you don't understand.
Give it another 50 pages. A few hundred more goon posts and you'll come around and realize how right they are here.
And it has nothing to do with keeping 5000 fleet stabber bpc's and mad mad mad assets and bank. Goons are much more noble than that. They are doing this for the good of the game and the sand in our sandbox. |
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
100
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:26:00 -
[2440] - Quote
Maggie Maggie wrote:And design errors are fair game.
My dear maggie: this is CCP's game. They tell us what's fair game, not the other way around.
Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomine Tua Da Na Glorium |
|
Tomytronic
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
187
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:26:00 -
[2441] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:I think this is far worst than the word "exploit". The word "exploit" is far too weak or linient of a word to use. I say goons "raped" the market and now are claiming no fault. This to me is helarious. Take all their isk and assets away CCP and send a message out that the gloves are off for anyone trying to do the same!! I say your hyperbole is offensive to actual victims of ****. This isn't 'helarious'. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1623
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:27:00 -
[2442] - Quote
Maggie Maggie wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:When do we get to the part where we stop pretending that a gap in the timing of value calculation (programming) wasn't what was being taken advantage of here? This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. It is not always apparent what is a flaw in the code and what is a flaw in the design. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious, as in the ferogel dupe. A variety of now-defunct GARPA projects relied on flaws in the code, yes, we knew it, you fixed it, it's done. This, however, does not look like a flaw in the code. This does not look like code being pushed into an edge case where it goes for a variable that has not been initialized and instead picks up old junk that just so happens to not be junk. We've been there, this doesn't smell like that. The code didn't default into a case where it unexpectedly decides to calculate an EVE-wide 90 day moving average. That was a design error, not an implementation error. And design errors are fair game.
Flaw in code was a bad way of saying things v0v You're correct that the code was doing what it was written to do. However when the new mechanic was introduced a system was being leveraged to determine the value of a currency that was not built for that purpose and that's what caused this. "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
Kazanir
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
390
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:29:00 -
[2443] - Quote
Kazanir wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:When do we get to the part where we stop pretending that a gap in the timing of value calculation (programming) wasn't what was being taken advantage of here? This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. That is absolutely not true, and to people who DO understand the mechanic it kind of calls into question whether you understand what you are talking about. The mechanic involved has nothing to do with timing or a "flaw" in the code. The system worked precisely as it was designed to. I'll make a larger post explaining it, but I wanted to put this out there first.
To expand on this:
The problem here had nothing to do with timing. It had to do with items that have no market volume, because they are useless, and yet are available from the Faction Warfare store. For example:
Let's say there is an item, which I'll call 'Faction Warfare Boondoggle 44-z0r' for the sake of simplicity. This item has literally no use in the game except allowing the pilot who has it fitted to always efficiently complete every z0r chain he sees. Because few people care about this ability, the market price of this item languishes around 5 million ISK, with about 100 of them actually being traded per month.
The Faction Warfare Boondoggle 44-z0r, meanwhile, is available from LP stores for 5 million ISK and 5000 LP. This makes it extremely unprofitable to buy with LP.
But, now let's say that I take advantage of the item's low market volume to increase its average price. I do this by buying 5,000 of the 44-z0r Boondoggle (from the LP store, naturally), putting them on the market for 500M ISK apiece, and then buying out my own sell order. This costs me a tiny amount of ISK in the form of broker fees, as well as 25B ISK to get the material initially. But now the average price of that item is just under 500M ISK, since my own sales (to myself) utterly dominate the normal market volume of the Boondoggle in question.
Now all of a sudden the worth of this item is 500M ISK. That means that for each Boondoggle I blow up, I get 50,000 LP. Basically I can now buy 50,000 LP for the cost of 5M ISK and 5,000 LP invested. (This is 111.11 ISK per LP, right around the actual value cited in Aryth's article.)
Now then, what is the takeaway from my explanation? The takeaway is that there is no timing issue like Sreegs is saying. The market value of that item isn't affected by me repeatedly blowing it up for profit. It still has no use and it still isn't being sold on the market. I couldn't do this to a normal item, because the sales volume on the normal market would make my attempt at manipulation invisible.
This is the key point. This doesn't depend on timing -- it doesn't matter when CCP updates their internal price index, because the average market price of this item is going to remain around 500M ISK. The market won't bring it back down because the market has no use for it. What we are looking at here is not a bug or a programming issue or an abuse of a timing problem.
It is a design flaw.
Using an average market index is a design flaw because it can be manipulated by players in the case of items that have no market volume. And I'm pretty sure that all of the players of EVE see a large difference between taking advantage of a design flaw and exploiting a programming bug (like the Ferrogel dupe.) |
Mechaet
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:29:00 -
[2444] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Maggie Maggie wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:When do we get to the part where we stop pretending that a gap in the timing of value calculation (programming) wasn't what was being taken advantage of here? This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. It is not always apparent what is a flaw in the code and what is a flaw in the design. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious, as in the ferogel dupe. A variety of now-defunct GARPA projects relied on flaws in the code, yes, we knew it, you fixed it, it's done. This, however, does not look like a flaw in the code. This does not look like code being pushed into an edge case where it goes for a variable that has not been initialized and instead picks up old junk that just so happens to not be junk. We've been there, this doesn't smell like that. The code didn't default into a case where it unexpectedly decides to calculate an EVE-wide 90 day moving average. That was a design error, not an implementation error. And design errors are fair game. Flaw in code was a bad way of saying things v0v You're correct that the code was doing what it was written to do. However when the new mechanic was introduced a system was being leveraged to determine the value of a currency that was not built for that purpose and that's what caused this. Only because a developer decided to include a value that the players can move, which in retrospect was a terribly bad idea. The math worked exactly as designed. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:29:00 -
[2445] - Quote
There are people coding what their design leader tells them to.
There's this guy on top checking everything goes accordingly to stated plan
There's a test server
There are bug hunters
There is players feedback (hohoho)
Then you decide to implement "stuff"
Players play the content you give them under the form you've decided to release despite all steps above.
Then it's players fault because they play the game and should be penalised because steps above failed?
What the heck? brb |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:29:00 -
[2446] - Quote
Tomytronic wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:I think this is far worst than the word "exploit". The word "exploit" is far too weak or linient of a word to use. I say goons "raped" the market and now are claiming no fault. This to me is helarious. Take all their isk and assets away CCP and send a message out that the gloves are off for anyone trying to do the same!! I say your hyperbole is offensive to actual victims of ****. This isn't 'helarious'. it does not imply the meaning you intend to put. I specifically said "the market"! Dont try to make this into something else.... |
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
144
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:29:00 -
[2447] - Quote
Istyn wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Benedic wrote:I find it quite disturbing that you can be punished by finding clever ways to profit from the rules of Eve. This was no exploit, it was using the code and systems the way they were designed. Who knows what the **** you can get punished for next considering if it benefits you in any way they may randomly yank back all your profits. I find it disturbing that you think you could exploit a system to print money and crash markets and we'd just be like "Oh haha those cards". Dude, bro... have you read market discussion?
or hell most of what goons do/type? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Sister Evian
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:30:00 -
[2448] - Quote
So while Goons where trying to screw the game for everyone they have members sitting on the CSM ...
Smart move CCP ...... |
Tomytronic
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
187
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:30:00 -
[2449] - Quote
It sounds like Sreegs is being given the task of defending others' bad design implementations. Which is a pretty strange remit to have for his job title. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
168
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:30:00 -
[2450] - Quote
Cygnet Lythanea wrote:Maggie Maggie wrote:And design errors are fair game. My dear maggie: this is CCP's game. They tell us what's fair game, not the other way around. As has been previously said both by CCP Sreegs and others; CCP is well within their rights to do pretty much whatever they want.
That does not mean that whatever they decide to do is right, however. |
|
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1623
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:30:00 -
[2451] - Quote
Kazanir wrote:Kazanir wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:When do we get to the part where we stop pretending that a gap in the timing of value calculation (programming) wasn't what was being taken advantage of here? This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. That is absolutely not true, and to people who DO understand the mechanic it kind of calls into question whether you understand what you are talking about. The mechanic involved has nothing to do with timing or a "flaw" in the code. The system worked precisely as it was designed to. I'll make a larger post explaining it, but I wanted to put this out there first. To expand on this: The problem here had nothing to do with timing. It had to do with items that have no market volume, because they are useless, and yet are available from the Faction Warfare store. For example: Let's say there is an item, which I'll call 'Faction Warfare Boondoggle 44-z0r' for the sake of simplicity. This item has literally no use in the game except allowing the pilot who has it fitted to always efficiently complete every z0r chain he sees. Because few people care about this ability, the market price of this item languishes around 5 million ISK, with about 100 of them actually being traded per month. The Faction Warfare Boondoggle 44-z0r, meanwhile, is available from LP stores for 5 million ISK and 5000 LP. This makes it extremely unprofitable to buy with LP. But, now let's say that I take advantage of the item's low market volume to increase its average price. I do this by buying 5,000 of the 44-z0r Boondoggle (from the LP store, naturally), putting them on the market for 500M ISK apiece, and then buying out my own sell order. This costs me a tiny amount of ISK in the form of broker fees, as well as 25B ISK to get the material initially. But now the average price of that item is just under 500M ISK, since my own sales (to myself) utterly dominate the normal market volume of the Boondoggle in question. Now all of a sudden the worth of this item is 500M ISK. That means that for each Boondoggle I blow up, I get 50,000 LP. Basically I can now buy 50,000 LP for the cost of 5M ISK and 5,000 LP invested. (This is 111.11 ISK per LP, right around the actual value cited in Aryth's article.) Now then, what is the takeaway from my explanation? The takeaway is that there is no timing issue like Sreegs is saying. The market value of that item isn't affected by me repeatedly blowing it up for profit. It still has no use and it still isn't being sold on the market. I couldn't do this to a normal item, because the sales volume on the normal market would make my attempt at manipulation invisible. This is the key point. This doesn't depend on timing -- it doesn't matter when CCP updates their internal price index, because the average market price of this item is going to remain around 500M ISK. The market won't bring it back down because the market has no use for it. What we are looking at here is not a bug or a programming issue or an abuse of a timing problem. It is a design flaw. Using an average market index is a design flaw because it can be manipulated by players in the case of items that have no market volume. And I'm pretty sure that all of the players of EVE see a large difference between taking advantage of a design flaw and exploiting a programming bug (like the Ferrogel dupe.)
How long does it take for that price to change and how long does it stay that way? "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association Independent Faction
100
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:31:00 -
[2452] - Quote
Tomytronic wrote:I say your hyperbole is offensive to actual victims of ****. This isn't 'helarious'.
No, it's hilarious, because it's been a long time since I needed a 5 gallon bucket to gather up all these goon tears. It's like that scene in Alice in Wonderland where Alice cries an ocean.
Non Nobis Domine Non Nobis Sed Nomine Tua Da Na Glorium |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1623
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:31:00 -
[2453] - Quote
Mechaet wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Maggie Maggie wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:When do we get to the part where we stop pretending that a gap in the timing of value calculation (programming) wasn't what was being taken advantage of here? This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. It is not always apparent what is a flaw in the code and what is a flaw in the design. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious, as in the ferogel dupe. A variety of now-defunct GARPA projects relied on flaws in the code, yes, we knew it, you fixed it, it's done. This, however, does not look like a flaw in the code. This does not look like code being pushed into an edge case where it goes for a variable that has not been initialized and instead picks up old junk that just so happens to not be junk. We've been there, this doesn't smell like that. The code didn't default into a case where it unexpectedly decides to calculate an EVE-wide 90 day moving average. That was a design error, not an implementation error. And design errors are fair game. Flaw in code was a bad way of saying things v0v You're correct that the code was doing what it was written to do. However when the new mechanic was introduced a system was being leveraged to determine the value of a currency that was not built for that purpose and that's what caused this. Only because a developer decided to include a value that the players can move, which in retrospect was a terribly bad idea. The math worked exactly as designed.
Nobody's denying that here whatsoever. "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Aliastra Gallente Federation
144
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:31:00 -
[2454] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: When do we get to the part where we stop pretending that a gap in the timing of value calculation (programming) wasn't what was being taken advantage of here? This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code.
The problem is there's no way where the timing of value calculation isn't exploitable. Rapid adjustment leads to being manipulable (either intentionally or not: it could get spoofed by someone margin scamming, or relisting, or the like) while slow adjustment leads to cases where the market has moved but the value has not. There's a fundamental problem with a mechanism of value calculation that isn't based on fundamentals (build cost, cost to acquire from an LP store, or the like). I know that fixing the design isn't your baliwick but as long as the fundamentals of the system remain the same there will always be opportunities to generate LP at a profit (essentially pay less than 2000 isk per lp), without spoofing the game's price.
It is however funny to see when CCP rules against Goons they rage as hard as everyone else does http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:31:00 -
[2455] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Maggie Maggie wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:When do we get to the part where we stop pretending that a gap in the timing of value calculation (programming) wasn't what was being taken advantage of here? This wasn't just market manipulation it was taking advantage of a flaw in the code. It is not always apparent what is a flaw in the code and what is a flaw in the design. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious, as in the ferogel dupe. A variety of now-defunct GARPA projects relied on flaws in the code, yes, we knew it, you fixed it, it's done. This, however, does not look like a flaw in the code. This does not look like code being pushed into an edge case where it goes for a variable that has not been initialized and instead picks up old junk that just so happens to not be junk. We've been there, this doesn't smell like that. The code didn't default into a case where it unexpectedly decides to calculate an EVE-wide 90 day moving average. That was a design error, not an implementation error. And design errors are fair game. Flaw in code was a bad way of saying things v0v You're correct that the code was doing what it was written to do. However when the new mechanic was introduced a system was being leveraged to determine the value of a currency that was not built for that purpose and that's what caused this.
Your job would probably be a lot easier if expansions or patches weren't released despite players warning what might happen. You know, like, "obtw guys, inferno will just cause dogpiling of war decs", "we'll wait and see", and now this.
I think it's fairer to say CCP's 'wait and see, metrics are everything' policy caused it along with numerous other recent problems. |
|
CCP Sreegs
C C P C C P Alliance
1623
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:31:00 -
[2456] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:There are people coding what their design leader tells them to. There's this guy on top checking everything goes accordingly to stated plan There's a test server There are bug hunters There is players feedback (hohoho) Then you decide to implement "stuff" Players play the content you give them under the form you've decided to release despite all steps above. Then it's players fault because they play the game and should be penalised because steps above failed? What the heck?
Nobody has been penalized "Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012 |
|
Mechaet
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:32:00 -
[2457] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Cygnet Lythanea wrote:Maggie Maggie wrote:And design errors are fair game. My dear maggie: this is CCP's game. They tell us what's fair game, not the other way around. As has been previously said both by CCP Sreegs and others; CCP is well within their rights to do pretty much whatever they want. That does not mean that whatever they decide to do is right, however. See: Monoclegate |
Tomytronic
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
187
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:32:00 -
[2458] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Tomytronic wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:I think this is far worst than the word "exploit". The word "exploit" is far too weak or linient of a word to use. I say goons "raped" the market and now are claiming no fault. This to me is helarious. Take all their isk and assets away CCP and send a message out that the gloves are off for anyone trying to do the same!! I say your hyperbole is offensive to actual victims of ****. This isn't 'helarious'. it does not imply the meaning you intend to put. I specifically said "the market"! Dont try to make this into something else.... If you intend to use such inappropriate language to describe the actions of people in an internet spaceships game, then you should possibly sit back and reflect on your communication skills. I think you should retract your word, apologise and make your point again using different language that does not offend, nor hyperbolise. |
Pr1ncess Alia
Perkone Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:32:00 -
[2459] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Man, this is such fun to read.
Screegs, I have to feel for you, just a little bit. Now YOU get to feel the power and wrath of the goon propaganda team. How does it feel to try to keep up with dozens of posters all working together?
2 separate things jump out at me:
1. If you remove the assets from these asshats (and no, I don't think you should, but I would just ban them for being goons), you are not removing THEIR assets, you are removing the assets from all the FW people they scammed/manipulated/smart gameplayed ( I truly hate to say they played the game well, but it is true).
Essentially, you would be introducing a one-time 5 trillion ISK tax into the game, that affects anyone who ran FW missions, or any mission involved with a Minmatar agent.
2. Maybe, just maybe, you guys at CCP will start listening to your player base before rolling out changes.
UI: Sisi screamed murder, yet you rolled it out. Incursions: The player community screamed the OTA's would pile up, you ignored them, now you are "looking at changes". War dec mechanics: You were warned, yet you rolled it out, then had to hot fix it. Now this. I have yet to see a post, but several people have stated that CCP was warned about this prior to release.
How about improving or creating a QA team, or at least listening carefully to the people on Sisi and in-game?
Someone used massive amounts of assets and magic to make LP. LP used to make items that would have flooded and wrecked our markets for anyone trying to profit on those items.
Letting them keep those assets impacts hundreds likely thousands of players that actually play the game without violating the EULA (which, you could argue you didn't break, but the authority itself just told you you done goofed)
I'm sure something awful or whatever is abound with word to press the "it was legit" "it was good for the game" propaganda.... but you don't realize how old and tired the goon bs has become.
It's just not edgy anymore, and CCP figured out a long time ago they have no reason to bend to their adolescent internet spaceship strutting and tantrums.
It's almost as if the only people that "dont get goons" are the goons themselves. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3736
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:33:00 -
[2460] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: How long does it take for that price to change and how long does it stay that way?
The next price update, and it will stay that way basically forever because there are no legitimate transactions to drown out the spoofed ones.
The problem is that with items with no volume, you cannot eliminate outliers automatically because the real prices are the outliers, not the spoofed ones. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 106 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |