You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you know something is working in a manner that is not intended, which allows you to gain an advantage over others who are not aware of such, you are supposed to cease that activity immediately and report it to CCP.

Try proving that we knew it wasn't working as intended.

Try proving that we knew it wasn't working as intended.

Or that looking at your own API data can somehow be punished.

Just ignore the worthless NPC alt, James.

You saw a mechanic that wasn't working as intended, you gained an advantage, and you didn't report it to ccp. You're probably still abusing it as we speak.

If only looking at your own API didn't have literally dozens of legitimate uses.

What stopped them from reporting it to CCP? We've established that they knew it was unintended, but they decided to be all nice and quiet about it.

What stopped them from reporting it to CCP?

Really? Because as far as I know, this only got found out a few hours ago.

Try proving that we knew it wasn't working as intended.

Do you have access to the bug reports that get sent to CCP?

However, there hasn't been any explicit statement or proof that this was abused by any particular party...until such proof is provided I think CCP should launch an investigation into whether and how severely this exploit was abused.

What exploit? Looking at your own API is an intended mechanic.

If you know something is working in a manner that is not intended, which allows you to gain an advantage over others who are not aware of such, you are supposed to cease that activity immediately and report it to CCP.
.

Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data.
I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable.

If you know something is working in a manner that is not intended, which allows you to gain an advantage over others who are not aware of such, you are supposed to cease that activity immediately and report it to CCP.

We've already established that it is unintended, and we have a very good definition for the correct procedure to follow in the event of such an unintended exploit:

This warrants a very harsh punishment if individuals or organizations did not report it and instead abused it.

First of all, don't try and quote the worthless NPC alt for anything, least of all to prove a point.

Secondly, using the API tool is fully intended. That's what it's for.

And like I said, since all you have is conjecture that this was known at all prior to what his face releasing it on reddit(I had no clue about it, it was news to me), you don't have a leg to stand on.




And once again, use of the API is intended and permitted. There are no "individuals and organizations" that can be punished, since using the API has many, many legitimate uses.

And like I said, since all you have is conjecture that this was known at all prior to what his face releasing it on reddit(I had no clue about it, it was news to me), you don't have a leg to stand on.

[...]we don't know who [...] and for how long [...]

And shooting your own MTUs is intended and permitted. We all know how that one turned out.

Pedantry won't help you. Acquiring information about siphons is explicitly unintended. Plain and simple.

Which is why, and I said this very clearly in my past few posts, I merely hope that CCP investigates any potential abuse of this exploit very thoroughly.

*shakes head*

You're trying really hard to not understand this.

They can't investigate jack ****. Any time in which someone looked at their API is 100% of the time a legitimate action, thanks to the fact that there are so very many accepted ways to use it.

Also, CCP should immediately remove the bit of the API that allows for this exploit to occur in the first place.

Aside from your continued misuse of the word "exploit", you are correct.

If they are able, they should patch that out. If not, then they should give up on the pointless siphon concept and just remove them from the game, to be replaced with something that wasn't so ill conceived.

And I don't imagine NOT uploading data for everyone to see is particularly difficult.

You'd think so, but clearly not.

CCP and all that. Still, now that someone has actually pointed a big'ol finger at the exact problem, there shouldn't be any problems in removing it.

Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data.
I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable.

It wouldn't be an exploit to continue using the API, but if it was used explicitly for this purpose without CCP being told then it was an exploit.

Oh, likely, yes.

I still find it funny that, apparently, no one from the dev team who designed these things actually bothered to check.

And you prove this how?

Yup, thats right. If any of you have put a Siphon on a tower belonging to CFC/PL/N3 or any other Sov holding alliance your Siphon was detected through the API end point. Something that CCP said " wouldnt be possible". Since all the major nullsec sov holding alliances knew about this and used it, they should all be fined all the moon goo they have mined since the siphon units were released in game.

They knew about this and contiuned to use it without notifying CCP. Which would be an Exploit.


Source.

It's pretty similar to being able to see the notification mail when someone attacks your POS through the API - clearly an exploit knowing when you're being attacked...?

Or worse, you see the killmail of your structures. You know someone is there shooting up your stuff.

/c

It's pretty similar to being able to see the notification mail when someone attacks your POS through the API - clearly an exploit knowing when you're being attacked...?

Or worse, you see the killmail of your structures. You know someone is there shooting up your stuff.

/c

thats it, REPORTED!!!

thats it, REPORTED!!!

In general nothing is an exploit until CCP says it is.

But once they do, you'd best listen. Claiming ignorance or continuing to use it because you think you can't get caught is a ban wave waiting to happen.

Just sayin'

Mr Epeen

Well people said from the beginning that siphons don't do much and some times I hate being right, though my reasons was that I couldn't be arsed to baby sit a one.

It should definitely go on that direction: defend and live on your territory or loose it.

The difference is there's no notification for the Siphon Units and there isn't supposed to be one. It's not like pulling the numbers from the API and doing the math is an automatic thing that just pops up in front of you and you can't help but look at it. If that's what was being done, without telling CCP about it, then it was an exploit.

It's pretty similar to being able to see the notification mail when someone attacks your POS through the API - clearly an exploit knowing when you're being attacked...?

Or worse, you see the killmail of your structures. You know someone is there shooting up your stuff.

/c

Yeah but one is intended by CCP (the notification mail) while the other is not.

I really don't see why people are having a tough time grasping this: something unintended (in fact the exact opposite of the intended behavior) that gives you an advantage is, by definition, not "working as intended".

So what the OP is saying is that CCP actually realised that what people were telling them was true: that it's a pretty bad idea to have the API report false information.

And it was a stupid idea in the first place.

I agree. It's not just that this isn't an exploit, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us.

"Will a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS or not?"

Not. The API will lie about the content. Sorry thought that was clear.

Very true in that sense, with that view however, lots of things concerning the API could be considered an exploit though.

For example, member lists of corporations have never been available to people outside the corp, yet through the API you can find most if not all members of a corporation. Exploit.

Sure I can agree that the intended feature of the Siphon's stealthyness isn't a yay thing, but at the same time I would see the API's ability to detect one the outcome of smart player engineering. Because after all, you have to judge yoruself that the reduced number of goo units in your silo is due to a Siphon. Similar how you could see a killmail and judge what type of weapons a pilot may be fitting if you see the kill being made 5 min ago.

But I understand both sides for sure.

/c

I agree. It's not just that this isn't an exploit, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us.

ROFLMAO. You have to love the mental gymnastics that are going on here.

Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data.
I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable.

Try proving that we knew it wasn't working as intended.

By definition.. CCP said it woudl work one way and it doe snot.. then its a bug. Report it as a bug.

What mental gymnastics?
People told them what a horrible idea it was to break the API the way they first planned. And now it appears they didn't break the API the way they first planned.
No gymnastics is required to connect the dots.

been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us.

The mental gymnastics in question:

Let CCP know about it?

absolutely unreasonable!!

Again, people told them what a horrible idea it was to break the API the way they first planned. And now it appears they didn't break the API the way they first planned. No gymnastics is required to connect the dots.

Repeating what they said before people told them it was a horrible idea does not demonstrate any mental gymnastics. It rather shows a desperate grasping at straws from people who want the player input to have had no impact in a situation where it looks like it did.

it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us.

But no such statement has ever been made.

The mental gymnastics is saying that CCP intended the EXACT OPPOSITE of every single one of their written statements on the subject.

James said here:

This is the exact opposite of every single written statement from CCP.

It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else said this was a bad idea. It doesn't change what CCP said.

You are trying to suggest that connecting those two dots is mental gymnastics. So what does that make the jump from 1 to 4, ignoring the bits in-between, and then being really really really upset that #5 is such an easy connection to the point where you have to start accusing people of not thinking properly for making that simple observation?

1. CCP says the API will lie.

The API will lie about the content. Sorry thought that was clear.

0. CCP says the API will not detect siphons.
1. CCP says the API will lie to achieve item 0.
2. People says that it's fundamentally flawed design to let the API lie.
3. The siphon goes through at least one redesign cycle.
4. On release, one part of the API lies, another does not.

changed their mind

This is purposely leaving out a key detail that I will emphasize again and again and again, if need be:

Tuxford, Sentence 1, categorically refutes "a player or program, using the API, be able to tell if a siphon is on their POS".
Tuxford, Sentense 2, goes on to detail the method of accomplishing this refutation which we now know to be flawed.

Paints a very different picture, doesn't it?

Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data.
I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable.

So yes, it may very well have been intended this way and CCP forgot to tell us. They forget to tell us lots of things that happen between the first presentation and the final release. Given the amount of criticism they received on this particular point, no mental gymnastics is needed to think that the intent changed as a result of the player input and that what was in the final release was entirely intentional.

well:

a) tbh, if it's exploit or not, all I can see is *semantics*

b) if the API isn't lying about it, then it's a bug from CCP

d) THE API IS (NOT) A LIE!

My position is that CCP changed it's mind, did a complete 180 to do the exact opposite of all prior written statements. Than they forgot to tell us.

e) What happened to c) ?

if an item is meant to be undetectable in game, yet is able to be detected using an api out of game, then that's a bug surely... or am I missing something?

My position is that CCP changed it's mind, did a complete 180 to do the exact opposite of all prior written statements. Than they forgot to tell us.

]GǪand there is nothing particularly strange about this. In fact, it's not even a 180 and doing the opposite GÇö it's just a case of doing nothing at all. Their abandoning previously presented ideas happens all the time.

You can huff and puff as much as you like, but still no gymnastics is needed to connect the dots between players saying that it was a bad idea to make the API export incorrect data and them not changing it in a way that would make the API export incorrect data.

The mental gymnastics in question:




Saying siphons detected via API in any way is intended by CCP when the exact opposite is true is mental gymnastics. No amount of pedantic obfuscation will change that.

Did CCP intend to allow the API to detect siphons? ALL written statements from CCP say the opposite.

Therefore, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from CCPs written posts is that they did not intend this. Ergo mental gymnastics.

Hi. My position is that CCP changed it's mind, did a complete 180 to do the exact opposite of all prior written statements. Than they forgot to tell us.

I have no evidence besides my own conjecture to support CCP changing their intent

given that the only factual statements from ccp do not corroborate this in any way. However, since I said "they forgot to tell us," it renders any requirement to provide factual evidence moot. I am therefore correct.

Did CCP intend to allow the API to detect siphons? ALL written statements from CCP say the opposite. Therefore, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn from CCPs written posts is that they did not intend this. Ergo mental gymnastics.

e) What happened to c) ?

No, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn is that at one point they did not intend this, and that something happened between now and then.

Actually the only facts in evidence that I'm aware of are that at one point CCP did not intend siphon units to be found through API and currently they can be.

Technically the something that happened is true because it covers literally anything and everything that happened in the interim but you are being misleading by using it in this context as it leads people to draw the possibly incorrect conclusion that something intentional or otherwise fundamentally changed with the setup and now siphon units can be found by API.

Actually the only facts in evidence that I'm aware of are that at one point CCP did not intend siphon units to be found through API and currently they can be.

Something intentional or otherwise fundamental did change with the setup.
We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise.

First, you have to understand that siphons were quite literally the first and only real tool ccp ever gave to smaller entities to screw larger entities.

And, as such, was born out of the half baked ideas and plaintive wails of the have-nots, frustrated with their own impotence on the large scale.

It is literally the anklebiting module. All of Dinsdales crying given form. Much like the ESS, another excellent example of flawed conceptualization.

So yeah, I have absolutely no sympathy if it turns out that it doesn't work.

Regardless of the above, still not an exploit to look at your own API data.
I mean what options would we have to avoid it if it were an exploit? Refuse to look at our API data? Unreasonable. Pretend we didn't see it? Unreasonable.

In my own humble opinion it is a far, far better thing to be an anklebiter than dude #53,221 that joins the winning side because he wants to think he's winning too.

And the siphon does work if it has api immunity.

Because than you need people, or a the every least alts spread across all of your space. And that takes ~effort~

Without physically stopping players from playing, it wouldn't be unreasonable to fine ISK representative of income generated from towers which had siphon units on them at some point.

I disagree. At least so far as one person is doing what they want to do to have fun, and the other is spitting vitriol at them out of envy, rather than just go and have fun themselves.

Defending the siphon, a zero effort way of taking what others have earned, is not a great time to bring up ~effort~.

HAHAH as if you need to look at api. if you see one of these on scanner in a friendly system its probably a bad guy one so you shoot it.

Now if they did'nt show on dscan they may actually work.

Why does opposing the larger stronger entity imply vitriol and no fun? You make assumptions where you should not.

That's something eve sorely lacks, you know? Asymmetrical warfare. While I hate using real life examples, we have the equivalents of aircraft carriers, destroyer, submarines, tanks, apc's, etc but we lack IED's, vietcong tunnels, and booby traps. Where are the anti-spaceship mines, a trope of much sci-fi, in this game? And so you get this wonderfully stagnant gameplay. Two poles filled with thousands upon thousands of nerds and not much between them.

I and others don't think it's an exploit since it's the only real way to track siphons without going to several hundred moons and checking them on a daily basis.

I for one think having the API present intentionally inaccurate data goes against what the API is intended to do.

I disagree. At least so far as one person is doing what they want to do to have fun, and the other is spitting vitriol at them out of envy, rather than just go and have fun themselves.

One of those kind of people is just fine, playing the game. The other is a bitter waste of a subscription fee.





And the reason we're here in the first place is because this is either impossible, if they intended to do it, or unwanted, if they intended to not do it.



Defending the siphon, a zero effort way of taking what others have earned, is not a great time to bring up ~effort~.

Proof that it isn't working as intended.
Given that (figuratively) half of goonswarm posted in that thread, and most of them replied to that specific dev post...yeah, you knew.

Personally, I think a whole bunch of you should be slapped with a temp ban. You found a loophole that was not at all intended, and you abused it. Simple as that.

You saw a mechanic that wasn't working as intended, you gained an advantage, and you didn't report it to ccp. You're probably still abusing it as we speak.

Let me tell you about how I reported it as soon as I realised that the API was not in fact lying to me, and was told "Don't worry about it" by CCP.

There is a way, with absolute certainty, that CCP can tell if and who used this exploit. The absolute certainty bit is really dependent on system traffic and how fast/who responded to the siphon being dropped.

if what Mallak Azaria wrote is true, it definitely is not an exploit, but very stupid game design.

CCP implement a feature that doesn't actually work, what are the odds.

Much better than your chances of surviving ebola and a plane trip as of late.
Anyone know of a good boat service to get to Iceland from Washington DC?
One that has hard UV and HEPA filters?

First of all, don't try and quote the worthless NPC alt for anything, least of all to prove a point.

Secondly, using the API tool is fully intended. That's what it's for.

And like I said, since all you have is conjecture that this was known at all prior to what his face releasing it on reddit(I had no clue about it, it was news to me), you don't have a leg to stand on.




And once again, use of the API is intended and permitted. There are no "individuals and organizations" that can be punished, since using the API has many, many legitimate uses.

CCP said the siphon unit couldn't be detected (directly). Someone finds a way to detect it (indirectly). Break out the torches and pitch forks.

Actually plane travel is really safe. Like REALLY safe.

No, CCP said the API would lie to you about moon outputs. The API does not actually lie to you. We're doing nothing out of the ordinary to detect this, we're basically using the same POS farm app we've been using for about 5 years now.

Except the mental gymnaistics was always in reference to the intent.

I only care about written statements of intent, the only 100% reliable applicable evidence of intent.

Try proving that we knew it wasn't working as intended.

In general nothing is an exploit until CCP says it is.

But once they do, you'd best listen. Claiming ignorance or continuing to use it because you think you can't get caught is a ban wave waiting to happen.

Just sayin'

Mr Epeen

So, if what james & co say is true, it implies several things.

First, you have to understand that siphons were quite literally the first and only real tool ccp ever gave to smaller entities to screw larger entities. And it worked, kinda. You can find posts from every major alliance, but goonswarm and PL in particular have quite a few bitching about the little things. Both organizations instituted policy specifically to deal with siphons.

Second, removing the immunity to api detection basically castrates the bloody thing. The point of the thing was that you needed people in space to know if you were being siphoned. No people = no intel = your goo gets jacked. Since the blocs have way more space than they ever use, this makes siphons an ideal tool against them, again assuming no api detection. It also *may* explain why we've been able to siphon goo off with impunity off of the shittier (aka non-goonswarm) cfc entities but any siphon operations on goonswarm towers are quickly shut down outside of a particular time bracket.

Third, backtracking on the api detection represents a full cave-in to the whims of the blocs. This was the first and only thing that could actually f*ck blocs a tiny bit that they themselves can't use. Goons and PL don't siphon, because in most cases doing so would violate their existing treaties. But goons (and to a lesser extent PL) were most of the people that opposed siphons.

If true, to me it sends the message that CCP will cater to the whims of the blocs on just about every f*cking issue under the sun, even when that issue is specifically designed to hurt said blocs (a tiny bit). Further, because CCP themselves suggested the API immunity, it means they damn well understand what happens if you don't have said api immunity. And that just makes it shittier

So, if what james & co say is true, it would pi*ss me off something fierce, and it would disappoint a whole lot of the player base.

Posting in another terrible thread being made worse by members of the npc corporations.

GǪwhich requires no mental gymnastics. Intents can change, you know. You have somehow convinced yourself that the one thing said before any comments were in was the intent that went into the release because you are have no concept of the notion of changing your mind and redesigning things.

What you call GÇ£mental gymnasticsGÇ¥ is nothing of the sort. it is simply us recognising that the intent of the live build may be vastly different from the intent of the first test case.

Too bad that it is not 100% reliable as far as determining intent goes. This is the mental gymnastics you have been caught in: the adamant refusal to accept the very simple fact that intent may change and the equally adamant refusal to accept that not all changes are communicated.

All we can say with some minor certainty is that before the siphons went through a couple of redesigns, they though it would be a good idea to make the API lie. Before the redesigns, they were also told that this was not a good idea. Then they redesigned it. We have absolutely no information about the intent after that other than facts such as it not being in the patch notes and the API not lying.

Yes, looking at your own API data is clearly an exploit.

I'm confident that the thing was intended to have a use, which it doesn't in its current form.

Yup, thats right. If any of you have put a Siphon on a tower belonging to CFC/PL/N3 or any other Sov holding alliance your Siphon was detected through the API end point. Something that CCP said " wouldnt be possible". Since all the major nullsec sov holding alliances knew about this and used it, they should all be fined all the moon goo they have mined since the siphon units were released in game.

They knew about this and contiuned to use it without notifying CCP. Which would be an Exploit.


Source.

As always if something uncomfortable flies in the direction of CFC. Their forum warriors show up to rabbit on the topic to snuff it out one way or the other.

A clearification of CCP on this matter is what is needed. Let's hope a dev posts in here about it soon.

Are you saying that the siphon has no use in it's current form, or did I miss something?

I'm glad that my english is good enough that the point I was trying to make came across.

Maybe that it doesn't have 0 use, but for sure it's not what was sold.

I'm glad that my english is good enough that the point I was trying to make came across.

Maybe that it doesn't have 0 use, but for sure it's not what was sold.

Be realistic here, how many people actually use siphons?

Hardly anyone now since they get blapped within a couple of hours.

Mr Epeen

I mainly asked for clarification, due to some of the rambling that occurred in the post you quoted.

What exactly were you expecting, or what was "sold" to you, as you put it? Personally, I see something that functions exactly as I expected it would.

It's not really an exploit, it's another case of CCP being wrong.

I don't think the ability to see it on API really affects it that greatly though, does it. Be realistic here, how many people actually use siphons? Basically noobs that don't realise that any other task in the game would net them more isk and that the amount of effort involved is so laughable that we hope people use them against us, since the only way to be more useless at impacting us would be to go full Gevlon and start crying on a blog about us every day.

Lets face it, siphon units were useless from the moment they were thought up. Nothing in this thread changes that.

Anyway perhaps people in the thread should stop making assumptions on what they think CCP intended, and wait for an official response, the devs look at these, so perhaps they can respond.

If they dont then we know there is something not quite right...thats the way i see it

People dont use siphons for the isk. They use it for the effect. On top of this problem people are running garbage interactions on the front end to make siphons useless anyhow.

Siphons need to be looked at again to make more of a burden for the large alliances.

NO... YOU WRONG COL SANDERS

An official response from CCP.. hahahaha

Chances are they didn't have a clue about this and are now trying to figure out a response that doesn't make them look stupid.

Please try again in English.

ROFLMAO

either they knew and lied knowing that the big alliances would figure it out fairly quickly - look realy silly

or

Forgot to change code to allow it OR discovered they couldn't get it to work that way and said nothing - ROFLMAO

either way how can any response NOT make them look idiotic? It was a KEY feature of the release FFS.

Talk about timing as well, they have a a twitch stream due to tell us the new niceness in Hyperion, this really instills confidence

Please try again in English.

It's not in patch notes. So it didn't make it in. That's the best indication that their intent changed. Tough nuggets.

Because all things that are not in the patch notes are not in the game, amirite?

Because all things that are not in the patch notes are not in the game, amirite?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3748965#post3748965

Post #7 made by the leader of GoonSwarm Economic Cabal.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3748982#post3748982

Post #11 explicitly stating that the API would lie.

Followed by many posts from other well-known goons. So don't try to make it out like you didn't know. But I doubt anything will come of it.

This is a waste-basket. \_/ You've been dunked.

I did not read the entire thread, too much 'grrr goons' and too long.

Tell everybody what new features have been added in the last 12 months that has not been covered in depth in a dev blog

Try proving that we knew it wasn't working as intended.

API coverage of hostile siphon activities for starters. You really do make this too easy.

You're missing all the content though

I like this "I'm right because I'm right" thing you've got going.

Since people keep jumping on this:
Nobody in this thread even knows that it isn't working as intended. All that we know is it's not working the way CCP said it would at one point, but this is prior to the redesign of the module that happened before it was ever released.

It's about as good as "we're right because we say we are" from the other side of the argument...

We are supposed to assume their design direction changed when something is not working as it was previously described?

So for example it should of been accepted as correct for worm drones to keep their bonus when going from a ship to another since nobody from CCP said the drone should have it's value reset?

You are basically saying every single bug in the game should be used because CCP obviously never mentioned a mechanic was not supposed to work that way and even if they did, then it gets a free pass because they somehow might have changed their mind? What's the point of asking people to report bug when they think there might be one if the course of action is to effectively use it because it might be intended even if it makes no sense at all to be this way?

You're missing all the content though

This side of the argument is working from facts only.

The fact that the only version from CCP that we have say it's not supposed to be showing the info?

You assume they made a 180 on that design while the other side assume they derped the api implementation of it.

And you prove this how?

We have patch notes which say nothing of the sort.


I think it's more likely they did, yeah. Considering it's not in the patch notes, considering changes were made to the module between then and release, and considering how bad of an idea it is to have the API provide intentionally inaccurate data. It may not have even been feasible to do.

Apparently, 'PotatoOverdoes in Ancient Aramaic translates to "Dinsdale was here"

Let me tell you about how I reported it as soon as I realised that the API was not in fact lying to me, and was told "Don't worry about it" by CCP.

What effect?
I mean seriously, if they make a couple of million per hour, the effect is that the alliance loses a couple of million per hour IF they don't find and loot it. You'd be better off nuking ratters.

Yeah most bugs are usually non mentionned in patch notes so a non documented "feature" can either be intended or not.

This is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.

It actually is because you used the patch notes to prove it was not intended because it was not there.

If this is true than I have one thing to say: f*ck this game. It deserves to lose all the subs it's been losing.

So, the end result is that nullsec did know about it (I guess I'm just ill informed from lack of owning a moon pos), and not only did CCP know about it as a result, they also don't care?

Hilarious.

Now I am going to go back and read all the bitter tears about this. See you in a few pages, folks.

FTFY

CCP the fix to this problem is removing NPC corps.

I wouldn't really say that's an exploit.

I understand that it must be very frustrating to be in MoA these days but these kinds of comments aren't helpful.

After reading this entire thread, i have found out you live in highsec, for your entire eve life. that is nice to know, please stop being rude to npc poster and people that dont post with their mains. there are reasons for this, that you will never understand. please go back to your mining and mission running.