EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
158 PagesFirst pagePrevious page156157158
 

Goons 4x4ing through the Sandbox - Market Manipulation on a Grand Scale

First post First post First post
Author
#3141 - 2012-06-24 13:59:41 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Except that was all done using information which was very public, which means everyone could've (and probably were on their way to doing as well) inferred the same and done it themselves.

Exploiting known vulnerabilities is still exploiting.
#3142 - 2012-06-24 13:59:42 UTC
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up. But this has happened before

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=626

the result was POS's blown up and accounts permanently banned.

As they have stated "As clearly stipulated in our rules and policies, exploiting is strictly prohibited. In our Suspension and Ban Policy there is a special clause about so-called "duping" exploits. Employing this sort of exploit will lead to permanent bans for anyone directly involved as well as possible reprimands for players who benefit from such exploits from removal of the items in question up to, and including, banning of their accounts."

So anything less than what has previously occurred would be favoritism, anything more would be unfair.

So at least the perpetrators know what to expect.

but the "How will this not happen again?" is worth reading Lol

This has been brought up multiple times, and it's not applicable as it was an actual software defect in EVE. It was brought to CCP's attention multiple times over a few years until something made CCP finally actually take notice (presumably, the exploit became so widely used it was actually noticeable in some graph or something).

What aryth etc did was not utilize a software defect, everything was legal according to game mechanics.


Not according to CCP lol


wrong. ccp haven't made a decision yet. did you not read the thread before you started posting?
#3143 - 2012-06-24 14:00:28 UTC
captain foivos wrote:
So when did buying something from an LP store--which thousands of players do every day, I might add--become an illegal, punishable exploit? I mean, I would be thrilled if we banned all highsec mission runners and lowsec FW frigate-plexers, but I digress.


Problem is, that isn't 'just' what happened here. They found a hole in this system, brought it to the attention of CCP as they knew it could be exploited...

And then proceeded to exploit the system anyway to show CCP how it would work. They have admitted as such. As I said to Lord Zim earlier, due to this, why should they get off scott free? They knew it would class as an exploit, and yet went ahead with it anyway, and so they should have expected consequences.
Gallente Federation
#3144 - 2012-06-24 14:00:59 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:
You did not agree with
"Would you agree that you cannot have good design and have bugs since the design has to be implemented every time you make a change to the code? If yes, then all of the above posted by you is incorrect."

Yes, I didn't agree with it because I actually work as a programmer, I know what goes on in these processes. I know what is design and what is implementation, and the design being good doesn't automatically exclude the implementation being bad.

Andrea Roche wrote:
Bugs/features are part of bad design. Even run time errors are part of bad design.

No. Bugs are a part of bad implementation, missing features are a result of either the design being too ambitious or the implementer being too bad at his job. Runtime errors are squarely on the implementer's shoulders, the designer has absolutely nothing to do with what fuckups the programmer has made in his code.

Andrea Roche wrote:
If the design is correct then we got no errors or bugs.

If the design is good, then we have a chance of ending up with a good product. If the implementation is bad, then the implementation is bad and has errors or bugs, it doesn't mean the design is good or bad, it means the implementation is bad.

Andrea Roche wrote:
If the design is wrong then the implementation will aso be wrong!

If the design is wrong, then the end result will be wrong, but that doesn't mean the implementation can't be good. If the implementation does exactly what the design says it should do, then the implementation cannot be faulted for the design being bad, just like the design can't be faulted for the implementation being bad.

Andrea Roche wrote:
If the design was good but the implementation of the design by the devloper was wrong then the implemented code is wrong and does not comply with the initial design and therefire the design coded is wrong!
In either case you will get flaws and bugs.

If the design is good and the implementation is bad, then the implementation being bad doesn't negatively reflect on the design, since they're two separate stages.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Caldari State
#3145 - 2012-06-24 14:01:32 UTC
When has the use of "Jewbal" been acceptable here?

Come on.

#3146 - 2012-06-24 14:02:18 UTC
LoveFromAbove wrote:
Manipulating and exploiting are very different terms, you should probably learn the difference.


Take your on advice

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

#3147 - 2012-06-24 14:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Spitfire
Inappropriate post removed. Spitfire
Minmatar Republic
#3148 - 2012-06-24 14:03:24 UTC
Sorry i'm late.

Lexmana wrote:
Quote:
An exploit, in video games, is the use of a bug or design flaw including glitches, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.[1]


Which shows that an exploit is not a design flaw.

"An exploit ... *is the use* of a bug or design flaw ..."

Gallente Federation
#3149 - 2012-06-24 14:03:44 UTC
Lexmana wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Except that was all done using information which was very public, which means everyone could've (and probably were on their way to doing as well) inferred the same and done it themselves.

Exploiting known vulnerabilities is still exploiting.

Just like it was when people insurance frauded, hoarded tons of PI stuff during the CCP PI fuckup, got 1.8 billion units of nocx (I think it was) out of the PA fiasco, and used tracking titans to help kill an alliance and capture their space.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Gallente Federation
#3150 - 2012-06-24 14:03:53 UTC
Many thanks to all participating in this discussion. The attention of developers was successfully involved in the matter. However, at present the thread started to go aside from topic. To avoid a further contamination of a thread, I close it. Once again thanks to all participants for constructive posting.

[b]ISD Stensson Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

158 PagesFirst pagePrevious page156157158
Forum Jump