Did you purposely blow up ships to make a profit from NPC's from insurance? Do you think it was the intention of the game designers for you to make a PROFIT off insurance, or do you think maybe they thought it would PARTIALLY pay for your ship and help ease the burden of the loss?

Yes clearly no doubt.

Listen, exploiter, I'm not messing with ANY kind of prop mod until this gets fairly and reasonably petitioned. Exploiters like you are RUINING this game.

I shared your belief until I specifically asked CCP and they told me it was 100% allowed.

If you have any reasonable argument why you think that using a microwarpdrive to warp away quickly was not intended by the game designers, you are free to make a post about it.

so was the other posters comment about GCC and undocking the way it was done? like on the first undock, lock and fire on someone's can, then docking, reboarding, repeat?

It doesn't appear anywhere in the item description. This use of prop mods is done by conniving players who looked at what the numbers actually do. I.e. EXPLOITING. That's what exploiting is, right? Anything the game designers didn't say "HELLO THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE INTEND" is an exploit.

And way to not deny using it yourself, you exploiting cheat.

Yes, I use a microwarpdrive to enter warp faster on some large ships. No, I do not think it goes against what the game designers intended. If I ever hear from them that it goes against what they intended I will stop doing it. As long as I believe it is not going against what they intended, I will keep doing it.

You have to separate the act from consequences of the act. The act was an exploit. There is no question about that.

So it's just down to individual interpretation then? You believe it is okay so it is?

In that case, what's the problem? Clearly the guys behind the loyalty points generation believed it was okay too. They even helpfully told CCP about it. Which is more than you have probably even done about your microwarpdrive "trick" (i.e. exploit) you dirty cheating exploiter, you.

It's like this: either you need to ask "mother may I" on every single off book game decision that is not borne out exactly like what the item description and dev blog says, or the players are allowed to use their own imaginations given the game mechanics as they are.

Then again on a previous post, you tell someone who actually did ask "mother may I" that it wasn't good enough, so clearly you are deep into crazyville anyway.

Apart from that, I donGÇÖt like solving specific problems with modules. A module should be something that adds player value, that they will somehow put into some framework in the sandbox, rather than me saying, GÇ£I donGÇÖt like this ship doing something, letGÇÖs make a module to change that.GÇ¥ I think thatGÇÖs a bad way of expanding your library of modules.

And if youGÇÖre going to allow people that degree of freedom, youGÇÖve got to give them tools that they can use in a number of different situations and combinations. So for us to go through the permutations of all those various things is just completely unrealistic. And actually, some of the great moments in EVE have come about when a player has found a new use for a module that makes us all sit around and look at each other and say, GÇ£Wow, I never would have thought of doing that.GÇ¥

Some of these have been bugs in the past, some of these have been something thatGÇÖs not in the module. And then we have great conversations about, GÇ£Well, should we fix it? Because itGÇÖs actually enabling a player to do this particular role and live out this part of the story that they want to live out.GÇ¥

ItGÇÖs hard to be that prescriptiveGÇôto say, GÇ£We know exactly what this module is and exactly what itGÇÖll do and we know exactly how it will be used,GÇ¥ because our players are just cleverer than us basically. There are a lot of them and they try a lot of things and theyGÇÖve got weird enough brains that theyGÇÖll always find a unique use of something that we would never have thought of.

I did no such thing. I asked that person what they thought the game designers intended. I still haven't heard back.

And no, it is not interpretation, it is intention.

Let's try it like this. In a small town, a local bar owner sets up a roulette wheel. We all know what a roulette wheel is, and that it is intended to have slots all with an equal chance of the ball falling in it.

One guy in town watches as people play and notes how often each number gets called and starts to notice number 12 is getting called far too often. One night when it starts to get to be not so crowded he goes to inspect the wheel and sees that it has a defect that will make it fall in 12 more often. He tells the bartender, who says he's looked at it and it's fine, stop worrying. You tell him you're going to come use it and make a bunch of money, he says go ahead, give it a try. He thinks you'll lose.

You come in the next day, play the number all day and walk away with a huge profit. That's an exploit. You knew about a flaw that was against the intention of what a roulette wheel is for, and used that flaw.

Another guy comes in every Friday and puts $20 on number 12 because it's his lucky number. At the end of the year he finds that he's a lot richer than he expected. That's not an exploit. There was a flaw, it was used, but without intention.

It's all about intention. Are you trying to use a flaw for personal gain.

That somewhat sums up my definition of 'exploit' and I will stick by it. And since I also believe that they do not intend for me to make a bunch of ISK from NPC's with minimal effort, I would not have used this latest LP exploit.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/23/eve-online-developers-on-the-importance-of-harnessing-player-creativity/



Huh. It seems like the design philosophy of EVE is that CCP puts out tools out there, and relies on creative players to come up with novel ways to use those tools.


No, that can't be right. Instead we should just try to figure out their specific "intent" and then only do that. That must be it.

I know. It is difficult. You have to see the whole picture and not everybody can do it.

But this is the exploit they used (I actually thought you knew but ... hell I will explain it for you). 1.) They manipulated the price of an item in order to 2) cash in LP on that item based on the manipulated price in 1). The two are not an exploit in isolation. The two of them combined with the intention to make an unfair shitload amount of LP is an exploit.

The perpetrators themselves knew it was an exploit. Or why do you think they reported it to CCP?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/23/eve-online-developers-on-the-importance-of-harnessing-player-creativity/





Huh. It seems like the design philosophy of EVE is that CCP puts out tools out there, and relies on creative players to come up with novel ways to use those tools.


No, that can't be right. Instead we should just try to figure out their specific "intent" and then only do that. That must be it.


You are basically arguing against the entire design philosophy of EVE. And that's what makes CCPs response to the LP thing so funny - they're going back on everything they've hyped about this universe.

You are basically arguing against the entire design philosophy of EVE. And that's what makes CCPs response to the LP thing so funny - they're going back on everything they've hyped about this universe.

I would hope that a bar owner that knowingly tricks people into thinking his roulette wheel is unbiased ends up with a visit from the gambling police.

Also how is this an exploit if it is expressly allowed by the bar owner?

"Come play Eve! The spreadsheet universe where you crunch the numbers and blow yourself up for profits."

Nope, didn't see that hype ... but it souds like something Al Qaeda might like.

Just because game mechanics allow something does not mean it's not an exploit. Often it means they don't know about it or they haven't fixed it yet. The defense "the game allows me to do it so it should be allowed" is trying to get away on a technicality. You don't have to be warned or punished to exploit something unintended. It doesn't have to be fixed for you to be exploiting something that is unintended.

I love the list of things they did and asking which one is the exploit. I'm pretty sure if I had followed all those steps I would have lost ISK and wondered which part you left out. The part that was left out is where they analyzed and manipulated the market to make tons of ISK from NPCs. Your list is not complete because I can follow it to the letter and not make any ISK. You wanted a better analogy, ok...Buying and selling stocks is legal. Using information that not everyone has access to in order to make the buying and selling of stocks more profitable is not legal.

Blowing up ships to make a profit from the insurance was an exploit. Do you really think that was what was intended? It was a flaw in the design of it and people exploited that flaw.

This shouldn't be such a point of contention. How you define it is just silly, we all understand the problem. They used a flaw in the game design to make ISK in a way that was not intended.

Manipulating the market to make lots of ISK from other players = good.
Manipulating the market to make lots of ISK from NPCs = bad.

Any eve player had access to the information they had.

If both Insurance fraud and LP manipulation are exploits why has one gone unpunished and the other punished?

so you're the ass that got insurance nerfed to the point that it's useless.