|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |
Fatbear
Starwinders The Unwilling.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:You discover an issue with game design that allows for unintended consequences. Now you can
(A) Fix game design so the unintended consequences can no longer happen. (B) Leave the "trick" in the game but ban everyone who uses it.
Takes a special kind of developer to choose (B).
This issue has been well known for months and yet there is no proper fix (rework static plexes), instead we get a honeytrap because Sreegs just enjoys blowing up AT ships and banning unsuspecting players.
The very least you could do is give us an official database of behaviors that are consciously made possible but CCP but will get you banned - this news article and discussion thread will be buried in a few weeks (and compete for attention with many prior GD threads which generally declared this behavior legal) and smart players will keep rediscovering this "exploit" over and over.
edit: on a related note: the drama around the recent give-aways (many people missing the deadlines as they never read the news items) has clearly shown that login screen items and news are not a suitable way to reach out to the EVE playerbase. Using this medium to spread information that is vital to players is asinine.
Most sensible post in this thread.
That aside, this is a monstrous example of poor developer posting and mismanagement of information. Created a s**t-storm over a limited bug/exploit, rattling the cages of plenty of innocent/uninvolved players. Far better option would've been to just fix the sodding problem and not panic every drone using high-seccer into a meltdown. |
Fatbear
Starwinders The Unwilling.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 15:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: Secondly, if innocent drone users are having meltdowns because they mis-read a news item, perhaps they should spend some of their AFK drone time learning how to read.
The original news article was incredibly ambiguous, as evidenced by the fact it's been edited NUMEROUS times.
I'll use a real world situation as an example of what's taken place here today. UK police (and probably others, but not relevant) use heat detection gear to pickup excessive heating and lighting in house attics to spot illegal cannabis farms. During the winter and snow, these houses stick out like a sore thumb because they're the only building in a ten mile radius that has no snow on their roof (due to the heating systems melting it).
The ORIGINAL unedited unclarified news post was akin to British Police releasing a news article saying "It has come to our attention that drug growers use heating and lighting a lot, which is easy to spot during the winter. Anyone found to use their central heating a lot during December to February may come under investigation".
Ambiguous/vague, borderline erroneous, and frankly panic-causing.
After numerous edits and clarification it is now possibly to see that SPECIFIC fixed cosmos sites (at least known of at present) are creating a UNIQUE set of circumstances that can lead to abuse, and said abuse is punishable. If the original post was as clear and precise as some of you seem to pretend (with all the "lots of people clearly don't have Reading 5 trolllololol" comments and the like), then it wouldn't have needed clarifying so much.
|
Fatbear
Starwinders The Unwilling.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 16:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote: Anyone who was performing the activity I'm referring to in the news item has most likely already been banned for doing so. Another item about the belt ratting bit is that in the scenario you paint the amount of income gained is basically nothing. In the scenario we're specifically discussing in this thread you are making a lot more money. By a factor of a whole bunch.
This is a worrying post.
As stated by others, you've just placed a monetary value on the acceptable limit of AFK performance.
You've just quite directly said that 23/7 AFK drone farming is perfectly acceptable in one form (belt ratting) because the income is low, but bannable in another form (these funky COSMOS things) because the income is high.
I really don't mean to sound as if I'm jumping on the "flame a dev" wagon here, but I'd rather be clear on details and you seem to clarify in one step then muddy the waters with another. |
|
|
|