|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
447
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 15:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sometimes Emergent Gameplay means dunking so hard you break the backboard!
I can't say we are happy about this decision, but we respect it. Being unwound is a good thing as it gets us our capital back, and at least shows CCP wanted to be fair here. I applaud that decision.
Highest Kill Value ever in EVE? http://imgur.com/1fSsT |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
447
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 15:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
That graph is a thing of beauty. I like it how it has 5 points too, with one little baby point down at the bottom. That was probably querns. You can just hear the glass shattering!
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
447
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 15:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
corestwo wrote:If he doesn't correct the graph, the major axis lines on it have to be at least 200m LP.
Sshh. They just handed us more data that only we know the true axis on. Heheheheh. Reverse engineer! |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
447
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 16:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
Other posts bring up a intersting point though. If in the future, after the system is fixed/revamped whatever. If this becomes slightly possible again but not to the degree shown here, would that be legal? I am not trying to words lawyer, just trying to see where the boundary is.
Once something is reported, and time gone by to remediate, does anything after that pass muster? |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
452
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 16:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Squizz Caphinator wrote:API or GTFO :) (no really, I'd love to see that on eve-kill as API verified)
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=1372523&m=6&y=2012
That is one char. EVE Kill doesn't seem to use CCP values though. But even with EVE Central prices the 160b freighter kill will stand etc. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
455
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 16:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Nagapito wrote: So... This means that insurance fraud is actually an exploit? If, somehow, mineral prices hit the ground tomorrow and we start building and blowing ships for the insurance ISK, we are exploiting?
That's sort of what we're asking. It's clear it's an exploit to manipulate the price, then use it. What we're asking is if it's an exploit to use a differential we didn't create.
This. The market creates these disparties on it's own sometimes without player help. At least active help. Is it ok to use it then? Is it ok to use it as a matter converter? Essentially this system can function like reprocessing for any item in EVE. It has dramatic implications for EVE going forward. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
459
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 17:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Aryth wrote:Weaselior wrote:Nagapito wrote: So... This means that insurance fraud is actually an exploit? If, somehow, mineral prices hit the ground tomorrow and we start building and blowing ships for the insurance ISK, we are exploiting?
That's sort of what we're asking. It's clear it's an exploit to manipulate the price, then use it. What we're asking is if it's an exploit to use a differential we didn't create. This. The market creates these disparties on it's own sometimes without player help. At least active help. Is it ok to use it then? Is it ok to use it as a matter converter? Essentially this system can function like reprocessing for any item in EVE. It has dramatic implications for EVE going forward. I think it certainly has an impact on EVE as you stated, but that impact is something new. To make a statement of USING THE MARKET TO GAIN MONEY IS OVER EVE IS DYING, is a bit silly. (Not you specifically but others in this thread) This isn't a legacy problem and has no impact on how you deal with existing systems. It only impacts your interaction with FW. What we need to do is take a good long hard look at how to deal with items that have disparate values in what are essentially two currencies. I'm pretty sure that is the pivot point in this scenario and from that perspective I'm just Winston Wolf. I don't design these systems. As it stands today our stance is that buying something and purposely blowing it up to generate value in another currency is exploiting. It was clearly not our intent in creating the system for that to occur. The system was meant to encourage PVP not wanton suicidal destruction to print money. I guess it would somewhat logically be the same to use an example as going to the lamp shop in America, buying a lamp and smashing it, and having the Chinese manufacturer send more money than you paid for it to your account over and over and over again. It's a bit of a stretch in my opinion at least to think this would ever be acceptable. There's certainly a design flaw here that needs to be worked out but we have never intentionally introduced a system in EVE where buying an item and killing yourself should be a legitimate way to manufacture income. Least of all on a massive scale.
I just want to point out, that even if someone generates negative returns doing this, they might still have very good financial reasons for doing so.
Please consider the reprocessing angle. This has essentially introduced a mechanic where you can reprocess anything in EVE and get a return (probably not what you paid for it of course). But many manipulation scenerios might mean you can remove some supply from EVE and profit on the spike in the item. I understand the intention wasn't that to begin with. I would ask the developers to consider the ramifications of that in EVE. I think it is a good thing to be able to get some value for anything in EVE as reprocessing tradionally has only worked for a portion of the market. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
464
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 17:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Gogela wrote:While I'm sure this is destined to be a goon-run threadnaught, I personally think CCP handled this perfectly. They could have gone extreme and seized all of their assets and isk and banned them, or they could have just ignored the problem (old CCP), but this explanation and the consequences seem very well balanced and *gasp*... fair.
Whoever was in charge of dealing with this... should be given more freedom to deal with things.
+1 You may not have noticed, but all five of us involved (or the ones posting, anyway) are satisfied with CCP's judgement. I mean, we'd prefer our trillions, but we're all capable market players...I'm sure we'll get there on our own soon enough. The other goons posting are posting because posting is what goons do.
Not only that, but I was already a trillionaire before this. It's not like I am crying all the way to the poor house if CCP just unwinds me. I will remain one of the riches players in EVE. Sure, I would more like trillions, but I got many news articles, a 160 page thread or whatever, multiple blogs/news annoucements and the most hilarious graph to ever exist in the history of EVE play.
Throw in the most ISK in kills/deaths records, and goddamn. I am pretty smug.
But really. The true reward is to dunk on Stoffer. If there is one things goons love, it's trolling goons. Even Ex-goons.
CCP gets press, we get our capital back, EVE gets another hilarious footnote in history. Everyone won here. We just won less than we woulda liked. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
464
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 17:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Mme Pinkerton wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:What we said was that this could be done in such a way that lead to an artificial disparity (albeit one created by our own systems) between the real value of an item and the number we were calculating value based upon to magically die over and over again to gain another currency. Inquiring minds want to know how you determine the "real value" of an item. It's in the blog. There's the current cost you pay for an item and there's the rolling average of the item's value. LP gain was tied to the long term average cost which is calculated by us. By causing disparity in the two values, whether on purpose or if it happens naturally, you can be in a position where you can print LP (corrected :)) by just buying things and shooting yourself. The destruction of items to harvest LP is the main issue here. The manipulation of the average cost in and of itself is not at this point in time considered problematic. It's merely how much that can be used to amplify the damage caused by the destruction.
I hope when you guys do the redesign, using it as a matter convertor is still possible. I felt it was the most interesting part of this mechanic in the long run. It will provide some creative ways to run manips on item prices as well as create artificial scarcity for items if you are willing to put ISK behind it.
If you think permageddon is bad, wait until you see what we can do with a matter converter. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
464
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 17:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:Aryth wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Mme Pinkerton wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:What we said was that this could be done in such a way that lead to an artificial disparity (albeit one created by our own systems) between the real value of an item and the number we were calculating value based upon to magically die over and over again to gain another currency. Inquiring minds want to know how you determine the "real value" of an item. It's in the blog. There's the current cost you pay for an item and there's the rolling average of the item's value. LP gain was tied to the long term average cost which is calculated by us. By causing disparity in the two values, whether on purpose or if it happens naturally, you can be in a position where you can print LP (corrected :)) by just buying things and shooting yourself. The destruction of items to harvest LP is the main issue here. The manipulation of the average cost in and of itself is not at this point in time considered problematic. It's merely how much that can be used to amplify the damage caused by the destruction. I hope when you guys do the redesign, using it as a matter convertor is still possible. I felt it was the most interesting part of this mechanic in the long run. It will provide some creative ways to run manips on item prices as well as create artificial scarcity for items if you are willing to put ISK behind it. If you think permageddon is bad, wait until you see what we can do with a matter converter. This was unironically a better market correction tool than anything else CCP has tried.
The mechanic can be used for good. You can fix imbalances in the market that have existed for years from past oversights using this to cash into LP. It wouldn't be profitable, but it would provide liqudity and the ability for players to fix/manip markets if they are willing to take huge risks and capital hits. I am not saying this as a theoretical. I already have a plan and item in mind.
It would be a pretty cool mechanic going foward (after it's fixed of course) if it could still be used in this way. It opens up a lot of really fun market possbilities. |
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
464
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 17:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Yeah and what I'm trying to get at is that I didn't compare how we felt with handling this decision based on past decisions others might have made. We looked at the situation and did what we felt was the right thing for the game as a whole, so I'm not really prepared to discuss x vs. y because we didn't ever discuss it internally and these decisions aren't made solo.
Fair enough. I hope you're having a good long conversation about how to fix Forex markets to keep them from being manipulated. It would be spectacular to see CCP be the first Gaming company win the Nobel Prize for Economics.
I pitched a possible solution. We spent days theorycrafting a fix that preserves the system without making it gameable to a degree you are profiting on the conversion. You might still profit on the market manip, but not the conversion itself. This might be an acceptable solution to CCP, who knows. I hope they don't gut it though. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 18:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote:Zagdul wrote:Shouldn't they also retain LP equivalent to 2 weeks worth of 'normal' game play?
They were playing, they did let you know and they did participate in Faction Warfare. I really don't want to discuss actions against individual players any more than was detailed in the blog for informational purposes. Sorry duder. Sreegs i aplogize ahead for this one man. I know you cannot discuss what disciplinary actions are done to player XYZ nd so on but many will be disappointed if there are no Bannings. The group knew; they got their Egg heads together played with the formula and went hey you know you can do this and so a group went and did exactly how the egg heads said and exploited it and then said something about it. they did toss you under the bus not once but multiple times over this issue alone. A lot of folks feel they should be banned. if it was any other group they would have been banned in a blink of an eye and then work on the investigation. Many of us have talked about this and the general concensus is that your doing the father thing Shaking the finger at them and speaking in a stern voice "Do not do that again or else" Many have seen this and many want what the rules say to happen to them. Sorry Sreegs had to say my peice on this and hope you do the right thing. Peace
It appears neither of us gets the ending we wanted then. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 19:04:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:I just had an idea...
Currently (or well, before the fix) the average prices were defined by a rolling average across all transactions of the whole cluster.
How about we give transactions a different weight, depending on, for example: - The less a single individual player has traded an item within the last day, the higher a transaction containing this item is weight or: - The more individual players have been involved in trade at the system/station of the transaction within the last hour/day, the higher its weight
I discourage setting it based on current trade hubs / main regions, as that would interfere with the player-driven aspect of the forming of these hubs and the market in general. On the other hand, dynamically defining it on amount of items traded or isk exchanged would make it highly manipulable by few with huge capital.
-> Hence above idea. There may be many goons (or members of any given large block), but not enough to outtrade us "pubbies" without creating an actual and valid market.
Aryth, corestwo or someone else with deeper insight.. am I making sense?^^
Yes, I see where you are going with it, but it still puts too much power into an small groups hands. Alts are easy to farm, we used 5 regions in our mani as is, 20 would not have been a big deal. Mass farming and creating "hubs" would not have been a big deal. CCP was already using EVE wide values, not a specific region.
The trick is, many items in EVE have no volume. It only takes manipulating one item in this scenerio.
The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.
The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 19:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
Sega Phoenix wrote:First my government does something I do not agree with, then CCP roflstomps the sandbox in the interest of "fairnesss". I'm having a bad day =(
We just lost 5T of profits. Our day is pretty damn bad. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 19:20:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote:Aryth wrote:The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.
The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this. You're basically asking them to work it on a 'basket' or 'item class' level, which I assume would average against the number of items in that class. I do like that idea, a lot, and as long as the baskets are sufficiently large (i.e. mineral basket, P1 basket, etc) there will be far too much 'white noise' by the average Market user like myself. Its still possible (with enough capital) to do it, but you'll start to have trend-watchers amplifying the change and profiting outside the scheme.
You need a 4.5 multiplier. So that means the amount of ISK required to even attempt such a thing, while holding it there for a price update, against all of EVE might make the best content ever. As one group of guys wage a price war with all of EVE, while CCP watches and laughs watches them get burned to the ground by turning off the updater for a bit.
It's a super elegant solution, and is probably easy to code for them. But yep, they just need to get the baskets to be "big" and it's fixed. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 19:33:00 -
[16] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Aryth wrote:Alain Kinsella wrote:Aryth wrote:The fix we proposed used a commodity group concept. So that CCP doesn't do a 90 day average of an individual units price, but instead of an entire group averaged together. You have to get it right, but say, DM-801 would be averaged with all other 1% implants.
The goal being you make it so hard to manipulate the price, the trader is having to move dozens of markets at once. Which isn't practical in EVE on this scale. Not with the multipliers required to do this. You're basically asking them to work it on a 'basket' or 'item class' level, which I assume would average against the number of items in that class. I do like that idea, a lot, and as long as the baskets are sufficiently large (i.e. mineral basket, P1 basket, etc) there will be far too much 'white noise' by the average Market user like myself. Its still possible (with enough capital) to do it, but you'll start to have trend-watchers amplifying the change and profiting outside the scheme. You need a 4.5 multiplier. So that means the amount of ISK required to even attempt such a thing, while holding it there for a price update, against all of EVE might make the best content ever. As one group of guys wage a price war with all of EVE, while CCP watches and laughs watches them get burned to the ground by turning off the updater for a bit. It's a super elegant solution, and is probably easy to code for them. But yep, they just need to get the baskets to be "big" and it's fixed. And 4.5x is the worst case, which is "Can buy the seed item from the LP store and also have high warzone control." The required disparity between estimated price and price at which you can buy or build the item becomes much larger if you can't double it over by buying it and blowing it up again, or if they don't have a high tier of warzone control, or both.
If CCP pays careful attention to keeping LP store items, very cost controlled, this very quickly isn't doable anymore. There is a reason we picked LP store items do manip. They made this the lowest multiplier. You are already having to sink ******** amounts of ISK/Captail into this, even what we did was on a scale never seen before in EVE. For any manip period I believe.
As the others have pointed out in jabber (we talked about this a while ago) Anything from a BPO/BPC should be calculated by taking input costs at perfect research. Still across classes. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
466
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 20:00:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:From my perspective as a player this was in no way an exploit. The system seems to have worked exactly as it was designed to work, it just contained a loophole big enough to drive 5 trillion through.
Given that the FW design is too fragile to allow for the staggering amount of LP it generated I would consider the removal of LP from the relevant accounts to be a fair solution after the loophole was closed.
But exploit? Nah.
I'm actually kind of curious why this has been something CCP Sreegs have dealt with. I would have thought this was a game design issue from start to finish.
Presumably because he knows how to follow the ISK. That is what he does to catch RMT. He probably also wanted to cavity search us too. You don't pop up on a forum and shout 5T without bending over for a good probing. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
466
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 20:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
Abulurd Boniface wrote:The graph does not show the value of the Y-axis, which makes it as useful as the given word of the CEO of Landsbanki.
I still tip my hat at the ingenuity of the people who found this particular caper. Deep respect to you.
I feel that the player should not be the one making the distinction between what is functionality and what is an exploit. Basically they used designer-produced content to their best advantage. They -only- used the interface as it was presented to everyone else in the game. Everybody who did their homework could have done the same thing. For me that means they are walking on the extreme razor's edge of the point where they start doing illegal stuff. But they're not quite there yet.
On the other hand, I can understand CCP's point of view, because this puppy was drawing blood, to the point of breaking the game. From the perspective of good stewardship of the environment, they just can't let that slide by.
I'm very happy that it all ended in amiable fashion, with the reset, so that the parties can take a bow, congratulate one party on their superb mastery of the environment, while the other is absolutely doing the right thing in taking the lesson in stride.
And because we are all adults here, we get to appreciate what a grandiose place this is and enjoy each other's company even more.
It is a privilege to share this experience with you fine people.
This is for the most part how I see it too.
CCP decided that this one was so close to the line, it was the line. At the line you don't get banned, or punished, you get made whole, but you get chest bumped back.
Over the line you get insta banned. So in effect they are saying, the line is right about here. It's a grey area, I obviously don't agree the line is right here, but it's their game. I will just keep helping to shape the limits of it. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
469
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 20:30:00 -
[19] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Aryth wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Yeah and what I'm trying to get at is that I didn't compare how we felt with handling this decision based on past decisions others might have made. We looked at the situation and did what we felt was the right thing for the game as a whole, so I'm not really prepared to discuss x vs. y because we didn't ever discuss it internally and these decisions aren't made solo.
Fair enough. I hope you're having a good long conversation about how to fix Forex markets to keep them from being manipulated. It would be spectacular to see CCP be the first Gaming company win the Nobel Prize for Economics. I pitched a possible solution. We spent days theorycrafting a fix that preserves the system without making it gameable to a degree you are profiting on the conversion. You might still profit on the market manip, but not the conversion itself. This might be an acceptable solution to CCP, who knows. I hope they don't gut it though. This sounds really interesting. Implemented or not, I hope that you publish your fix. And I think limiting the profit to the market manip is the best CCP can hope for with Forex.
I think it's something we should all hope for. Introducing an entirely new game mechanic that would let you combine manip+forex is quite interesting. I hope they don't completely kill it off. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
474
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 22:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
Madner Kami wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote::Fancygraph: All the other factions are kinda even keep and Minmitar was like OH HI! So, not wanting to rain on your :Exploit-fixed-parade: but how comes nobody noticed that, until those 5 players spilled the beans to you? P.S.: Page 11 already? Damn, I was afk for too long.
They did see it elsewhere I guess. The connection just hadn't been made yet. |
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
489
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 14:24:00 -
[21] - Quote
The line is here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDbfCbQnH8
Hey CCP, can I have some complementary fanfest tickets for next year? A little love for the 5T that coulda been. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
489
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 15:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ethilia wrote:Out of curiosity, how many PLEX did they give you guys (or just you?) for finding / reporting this whole deal?
None so far. We haven't gotten our capital back yet either. Waiting with baited breath on this so we can get busy on the next zany endevour. aka, Delve |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 17:04:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ethilia wrote:Aryth wrote:Ethilia wrote:Out of curiosity, how many PLEX did they give you guys (or just you?) for finding / reporting this whole deal? None so far. We haven't gotten our capital back yet either. Waiting with baited breath on this so we can get busy on the next zany endevour. aka, Delve Usually, hostile take overs by banks are done with $$$ and lawyers and not guns. Are you suggesting there will be a significant financial assault on Delve residents? If so I'd love to see a detailed post on how it was done and what impact it had.
I run the ship supply program for GSF. I often use my personal ISK to backstop the program and to perform hostile market activities. Pretty standard stuff in bloc level warfare I would think. At least from our point of view. Just isn't talked about cause it's only a handful of players doing it. (with a lot of assets) |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
493
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 18:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ethilia wrote:Aryth wrote:Ethilia wrote: Usually, hostile take overs by banks are done with $$$ and lawyers and not guns. Are you suggesting there will be a significant financial assault on Delve residents? If so I'd love to see a detailed post on how it was done and what impact it had.
I run the ship supply program for GSF. I often use my personal ISK to backstop the program and to perform hostile market activities. Pretty standard stuff in bloc level warfare I would think. At least from our point of view. Just isn't talked about cause it's only a handful of players doing it. (with a lot of assets) Maybe this is common knowledge, but it seems a lot of bloc warfare is funded by a small # of very rich players. Can you give a guesstimate on bloc funding breakdown by 1. isk from alliance activities (Technetium mining, taxes, etc.) 2. Player activities (ratting, mining, etc.) and 3. Rich player activities (CEO/Director 'salary/bonuses', stupid scale investments - 250b+, etc.). I'd be very interested in even a hand wavey guesstimate on what % of bloc activity costs (sov, super caps, ship replacement, whatever) are funded by each.
It's more complicated than that. It also varies from alliance to alliance. But in GENERAL.
Ship replacement programs are funded through alliance income. Tech/Ratting/POCO Taxes. Our finances are public, so you can see the exact amounts if you want.
SOV Structures/Fuel/POS's are also funded through alliance income.
Where it gets cloudy is the ancillary costs to war. Total war in EVE requires a great deal more than just #'s.
Example: Stocking the market in the front line stager. This is pretty much always done purely through private ISK. While some standardized fits may be stocked on contracts (we do this) and some is also private ISK, there are a great many more modules and hulls stocked on the market in addition to this. This is where private ISK comes in.
The other side of this coin is hostile manipulation. This also is purely private ISK, generally this means attacking the hostile staging market. Relisting critical modules for hilarious markup etc. This can also (and does in my case) extend to Jita. I may actively move major Jita markets as a part of war activity. Supply shortages are often artificial and caused by vast sums of private ISK.
Private ISK also is typically leveraged for super capital production. Supercap yards are hilariously expensive and this requires hundreds of billions of private capital.
So think of it sorta like a tight ball of alliance ISK, surrounded by a huge cloud of private wealth when alliances go to war. Everyone plays this on a slightly different level. I would say we do it better than anyone. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
495
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 19:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
Hoarr wrote:Chicken W1ng wrote:Rather one of the 105% of buttlickers that are around (given that some probably post with multiple accounts). HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Butt lickers. SERIOUSLY? Kindergarten Comebacks FTW! On a different note, congrats to Aryth and crew. This has been a hugely entertaining saga, and suff like this is one of the reasons why we all play EvE. This will only get more entertaining when CCP gives Jade Constantine 10 plex for reporting Aryth's twitter leak.
We made Jade 8b. He got paid already. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
496
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 00:29:00 -
[26] - Quote
We provide this to all our members/allies etc. It's public. So you can see, at the large alliance level, it's a different game. Luckily for you guys, we mostly spend it pounding other null sec alliances to death. Which is as it should be. Only when we get bored do we go to high-sec and lay waste.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlIIq5agK7rWdDRnaWwzMVRrYTFCTG1sZEJhTWN1Z1E&authkey=CMng2u0B&hl=en&authkey=CMng2u0B#gid=5 |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
496
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 01:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
corestwo wrote:I guess I look pretty dumb now :welp:
That's why he's Riker and I'm Picard.
A Picard with an Eyepatch, and a black Hat.
ARRRRR |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
496
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 01:06:00 -
[28] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Aryth wrote:corestwo wrote:I guess I look pretty dumb now :welp: That's why he's Riker and I'm Picard. A Picard with an Eyepatch, and a black Hat. ARRRRR Better analogy? You're Kirk, I'm Spock. That is, you have all the ideas, and I do all the hard thinkin'.
Yep, I get all the space hookers. And the coke. Can't forget all the coke.
Edit: and then I self-destruct said hookers in my personal game of EVE survivor. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
502
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 18:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Nagapito wrote:CCP Sreegs wrote: Nobody ever said anything about manipulating the market prices. What we said was that this could be done in such a way that lead to an artificial disparity (albeit one created by our own systems) between the real value of an item and the number we were calculating value based upon to magically die over and over again to gain another currency.
That's not "Market Manipulation" that's blowing someone up over and over again to magically get more money out of the same item.
So... This means that insurance fraud is actually an exploit? If, somehow, mineral prices hit the ground tomorrow and we start building and blowing ships for the insurance ISK, we are exploiting? As I said I won't deal in hypotheticals. That could certainly be the case but it could also not be. Are you printing money from nowhere? Is that printing being done in a tremendous volume? If either or both of those is yes then I think it's pretty fair to say we'd be pretty displeased.
I missed this the first time through.
The reason this was so grey to us it, the last time this very scenerio happened, for months on end, with CCP's full knowlege, you allowed all the profits to stand. Insurance fraud did exactly this, except worse as it printed ISK itself, not LP. You broke your spacelamp and got back more ISK than you paid. People blew up thousands of ships each and raked in fortunes. To us, this was no different. I know you guys don't agree, but that is where we are coming from. There was precedent. |
|
|
|