5/3/2015 - Issues with Generated Money

[Alice Lune]

It's funny that you're one of those who've been be benefitting from Pol Pot and now are talking about just a roll back a few days. No it should be rolled back to the first time it was noticeably used at the very least.

 

Every single person who's been trading with Pol Pot and Ford for ridiculous amounts of money and PPUs, who didn't report it should be reset and/or banned.

I would like to mention that Pol Pot has also bought stuff from me, but it doesn't seem like it's affecting me. So maybe it's only on his end? Not arguing with you, just pointing it out.

 

Yes, I did sell steel at 2,500, 2600 and 2700 each.

04/30 06:31 am Pol Pot of Great Democratic Kampuchea accepted your trade offer. You received $270,000.00 and in exchange Pol Pot received 100 steel. 04/30 06:31 am Pol Pot of Great Democratic Kampuchea accepted your trade offer. You received $260,000.00 and in exchange Pol Pot received 100 steel. 04/30 06:31 am Pol Pot of Great Democratic Kampuchea accepted your trade offer. You received $250,000.00 and in exchange Pol Pot received 100 steel.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Alice Lune

[Filthy Fifths]

if der iz a rezet, do da treaty papers xfer ova?

[Muhammad Ali Bas]

Don't rollback, try to find every person who did it with the help of ppl ok.

[Boony]

Does this mean I can do whatever I want with no consequences? 

[Daloaf]

Prolly👆👆

[Donald Sterling]

GIVE ME ROLL BACK WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Samwise]

It's funny that you're one of those who've been be benefitting from Pol Pot and now are talking about just a roll back a few days. No it should be rolled back to the first time it was noticeably used at the very least.

 

Every single person who's been trading with Pol Pot and Ford for ridiculous amounts of money and PPUs, who didn't report it should be reset and/or banned.

 

VE's government has filed multiple reports to Sheepy.

On a serious note, ban Pol Pot and ban Ford as they seem to be the worst offenders. Anyone found using this exploit knowingly and not reporting it should also be banned.

 

Ford doesn't actually know what the exploit is. I think he had a ridiculous open trade offer on the market, and Pol Pot accepted it. Ford is probably one of the worst people that could have been sent that much cash, since he was already scalping on the market, and therefore most likely to wreck the market. It seems to me that Pol Pot sent Ford that cash for that reason. From there it was like giving a fat kid a candy store, and VE's gov knew enough to file reports to Sheepy about it. 

[Lu Xun]

 

In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.

I play RTS games and most games are filled with imbalances. The best part of the game is not when players play it as "intended" but when players come up with novel strategies using gimmicks the game's designers never thought of in the first place.

 

The practical matter is that all the tournaments tend to be won by the players using the "strongest" race at a given time, and players who use "cheese" end up dominating the tournaments and becoming pro-gamers, instead of being banned. Long-term, cheese and exploits end up being "fixed" by patches, or they simply aren't fixed and they become part of the gameplay system.

I think when you're complaining about Pol Pot, you're complaining that he's smarter than you are and that he managed to discover this particular exploit and you didn't. He obviously shouldn't be allowed to benefit the way he is currently doing so from the exploit, but at the same time just summarily banning him creates a certain lackness in game creativity and the aggressive search for mechanics exploits and bugs. This is part of why people are literally backing Kastor because they complain that the game is boring; a mentality of purely playing by the rules, basically, leads to stale, formulaic gameplay.

I seriously think that damming and diversion is the best solution; create a program that allows players to be compensated for discovering game breaking bugs, then make non-reports punishable by reduction (reduction to nation account), suspension, deletion, and banning, depending on severity. People who discover major exploits can benefit from doing so by mailing the PnW bugs department, upon which a ruling can be made on whether or not it's considered degenerate, and if it's banned, the person who discovered the bug will be compensated in credits.

[Phiney]

 

VE's government has filed multiple reports to Sheepy.

 

Ford doesn't actually know what the exploit is. I think he had a ridiculous open trade offer on the market, and Pol Pot accepted it. Ford is probably one of the worst people that could have been sent that much cash, since he was already scalping on the market, and therefore most likely to wreck the market. It seems to me that Pol Pot sent Ford that cash for that reason. From there it was like giving a fat kid a candy store, and VE's gov knew enough to file reports to Sheepy about it.

If a user receives a game breaking amount if money that is clearly not possible, it is that users responsibility to report it and not their alliance leaders. Not saying he should or shouldn't be banned, but that's how it works.

[Lu Xun]

 

VE's government has filed multiple reports to Sheepy.

 

Ford doesn't actually know what the exploit is. I think he had a ridiculous open trade offer on the market, and Pol Pot accepted it. Ford is probably one of the worst people that could have been sent that much cash, since he was already scalping on the market, and therefore most likely to wreck the market. It seems to me that Pol Pot sent Ford that cash for that reason. From there it was like giving a fat kid a candy store, and VE's gov knew enough to file reports to Sheepy about it. 

That is pretty smart, I'm in awe of his foresight. He has the foresight to put a trade offer to take advantage of any sudden moves in the market that result in drastic increases in pricing, even something to take advantage of potential gamebreaking bugs.

 

But you know me and how I work and you can judge me appropriately.

[Samwise]

That is pretty smart, I'm in awe of his foresight. He has the foresight to put a trade offer to take advantage of any sudden moves in the market that result in drastic increases in pricing, even something to take advantage of potential gamebreaking bugs.

 

But you know me and how I work and you can judge me appropriately.

 

Haha Hello to you too, Inst.

[LordRahl2]

This is not an RTS game.  It is a MMORPG.

Abusing exploits is not normative behavior in these games although it might be in an RTS game.

[Malakai]

There's a bug in the game that a few folks are abusing for their own benefit. I am investigating the issue and will be fixing it ASAP. Should anyone know anything about how the exploit/bug works, please contact me directly via PM. It's important that we get this issue solved quickly so that we can get the game running back to normal.

 

Until then, the market has been disabled. We may possibly have to restore the game to an old backup from a few days ago, previous to the bug being exploited. I apologize for these inconveniences, but it's important that we get things back to normal and working in an orderly fashion.

 

I thank you for your patience as we resolve this matter.

 

So what happens to those of us who just spent real cash getting credits, sold a few, and then used the rest on our nations?  I sold 2 at $1,050,000 each and then cashed in the rest to buy infra and land.

[Lu Xun]

It is a multiplayer online social strategy and simulation game. Part of it, being a strategy game, is that you want creativity and aggression in creating new structures.

 

Also, when you say "you know cheating when you see it", that's a reference to a US judge saying "I know it when I see it" as a reference to hard-core porongraphy, which is a terrible ruling because it basically means that the judge rules on pornography depending on how well his genitals are functioning on any given day, or alternately his gender and sexual orientation, instead of having reasoned, measured, and clearly-explained standards for pornography. So saying "I know cheating when I see it" is arbitrary. There doesn't seem to be any defined terms for cheating so far in this game, so...

[Belisarius]

Roll back the game ASAP and ban Pol Pot. Because otherwise this is a game breaking situation >_>

[Fox Fire]

I play RTS games and most games are filled with imbalances. The best part of the game is not when players play it as "intended" but when players come up with novel strategies using gimmicks the game's designers never thought of in the first place.

 

The practical matter is that all the tournaments tend to be won by the players using the "strongest" race at a given time, and players who use "cheese" end up dominating the tournaments and becoming pro-gamers, instead of being banned. Long-term, cheese and exploits end up being "fixed" by patches, or they simply aren't fixed and they become part of the gameplay system.

I think when you're complaining about Pol Pot, you're complaining that he's smarter than you are and that he managed to discover this particular exploit and you didn't. He obviously shouldn't be allowed to benefit the way he is currently doing so from the exploit, but at the same time just summarily banning him creates a certain lackness in game creativity and the aggressive search for mechanics exploits and bugs. This is part of why people are literally backing Kastor because they complain that the game is boring; a mentality of purely playing by the rules, basically, leads to stale, formulaic gameplay.

 

I seriously think that damming and diversion is the best solution; create a program that allows players to be compensated for discovering game breaking bugs, then make non-reports punishable by reduction (reduction to nation account), suspension, deletion, and banning, depending on severity. People who discover major exploits can benefit from doing so by mailing the PnW bugs department, upon which a ruling can be made on whether or not it's considered degenerate, and if it's banned, the person who discovered the bug will be compensated in credits.

Who the !@#$ are you? Listen !@#$, I've known "Pol Pot" for years now and not only am I completely uninterested in abusing exploits, but the ONLY reason I don't know how this one works is because he knows I would report it, thus he refused to tell me how it's done. 

 

As for the rest, are you seriously suggesting that we reward cheaters like Pol Pot? Or are you suggesting that we just allow this exploit to continue as "part of the game mechanics?" People should not be rewarded for discovering exploits. People should report them because it's right, and because when they don't, we get things like this that ruin the game for both the exploiter and others. I'd say that's incentive enough. If you're exploiting the game, you will be caught eventually, and then you don't get to play anymore. If that doesn't encourage people to report exploits, then they can eat a ban hammer and !@#$ off.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Fox Fire

[LordRahl2]

It is a multiplayer online social strategy and simulation game. Part of it, being a strategy game, is that you want creativity and aggression in creating new structures.

 

Also, when you say "you know cheating when you see it", that's a reference to a US judge saying "I know it when I see it" as a reference to hard-core porongraphy, which is a terrible ruling because it basically means that the judge rules on pornography depending on how well his genitals are functioning on any given day, or alternately his gender and sexual orientation, instead of having reasoned, measured, and clearly-explained standards for pornography. So saying "I know cheating when I see it" is arbitrary. There doesn't seem to be any defined terms for cheating so far in this game, so...

'Social strategy' as you say includes normative behavior and punishments when it is violated.

 

It is actually a response to an argument that certain things fell in the 'grey' area between art and pornography.  So it is fully apt.  It was a great ruling because we can and do differentiate between art and porn.  We also know what exploits are when we see them.  This is one.  so...

[Lu Xun]

If you're wondering why I don't like bannings, the reason is simple. Banning leads to ban evasion. Ban evasion leads to multi-operation. The problem with banning people is that you have to make sure they stay banned, or you're basically giving them a license to act like a douchebag because there's nothing you can do to them. If they're behind a good proxy, you can't even report them to their ISP.

 

The next worse part is when they become ban evaders, and then their alliance covers for them. A good alliance should have the esprit de corps necessary to cover up this kind of stuff long-term, and then it becomes that a good alliance has the esprit de corps to cover up general cheating. Then you have the ban evader handle the cheating, because if you can't prove that people know about it, the worst thing that happens is that the ban evader gets rebanned so he can be what he already is, a ban evader.

 

Now, depending on game culture and how people handle things, this can end at the first step, which is to say, someone gets banned and the ban evasion gets reported. If you have an extremely low population of ban evaders, and the game administration is seen as legitimate, instead of tyrannical or psychotic, ban evaders will get caught and exposed, and you will be able to keep control of the game. However, if you have a ton of ban evaders to the point where they could more or less form their own alliance, then you have a major control problem and you will have difficulty implementing administrative and moderation decisions.

[LordRahl2]

Oh I see.  Banning leads to ban evasion which leads to the death of the game.  Hence we should allow cheating.

 

Your logic is...incredible.

[Fox Fire]

If you're wondering why I don't like bannings, the reason is simple. Banning leads to ban evasion. Ban evasion leads to multi-operation. The problem with banning people is that you have to make sure they stay banned, or you're basically giving them a license to act like a douchebag because there's nothing you can do to them. If they're behind a good proxy, you can't even report them to their ISP.

 

The next worse part is when they become ban evaders, and then their alliance covers for them. A good alliance should have the esprit de corps necessary to cover up this kind of stuff long-term, and then it becomes that a good alliance has the esprit de corps to cover up general cheating. Then you have the ban evader handle the cheating, because if you can't prove that people know about it, the worst thing that happens is that the ban evader gets rebanned so he can be what he already is, a ban evader.

 

Now, depending on game culture and how people handle things, this can end at the first step, which is to say, someone gets banned and the ban evasion gets reported. If you have an extremely low population of ban evaders, and the game administration is seen as legitimate, instead of tyrannical or psychotic, ban evaders will get caught and exposed, and you will be able to keep control of the game. However, if you have a ton of ban evaders to the point where they could more or less form their own alliance, then you have a major control problem and you will have difficulty implementing administrative and moderation decisions.

You should probably be banned just for saying something so retarded.... 

 

You heard it here folks! Next time someone cheats, posts porn, swastikas, or acts like a blatantly disrespectful piece of shit, we should suck him off and not only not ban him, but reward him for ruining the community....

 

:facepalm:  :facepalm:  :facepalm:

[Lu Xun]

Who the !@#$ are you? Listen !@#$, I've known "Pol Pot" for years now and not only am I completely uninterested in abusing exploits, but the ONLY reason I don't know how this one works is because he knows I would report it, thus he refused to tell me how it's done. 

 

As for the rest, are you seriously suggesting that we reward cheaters like Pol Pot? Or are you suggesting that we just allow this exploit to continue as "part of the game mechanics?" People should not be rewarded for discovering exploits. People should report them because it's right, and because when they don't, we get things like this that ruin the game for both the exploiter and others. I'd say that's incentive enough. If you're exploiting the game, you will be caught eventually, and then you don't get to play anymore. If that doesn't encourage people to report exploits, then they can eat a ban hammer and !@#$ off.

 

You should know me from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and I know you from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). If you understand the dynamics involved in a particular game, and for that matter, in real-life law enforcement, using an ethical concept alone does not solve much.

 

First, ethics are subjective, for instance, I can quote you the Analects of Confucius where Confucius argues with a local duke about morality; that is to say, the duke claims that his people are moral because when a son steals a sheep the father will turn him in, and when the father steals sheep the son will turn him in. Confucius argues instead that in his state people are moral when the father covers for son and the son covers for father.

 

This isn't to say that either of them is necessarily right, or wrong, and there are societies that think the duke is right and there are societies that think that Confucius is right, but it means that you cannot work off absolute moral standards for purposes of administration, because there are none. There is only what the userbase will accept and what is best for everyone involved.

 

Second, if you sincerely depend on people to be naturally good and do their duty, then you should abolish the police and all punishments. A system of law, jurisprudence, and policework exists because people will always want to step out of line when methods of social control fail, and you need a way to force people to work in a socially beneficial way.

 

The problem with this is this, if you want to avoid a brush with the law, there are actually two ways to do it. The first way is not to actually commit the crime, the second way is to figure out how to cover up the crime effectively. If you are simply going to depend on punishments as a way to control behavior, and especially in online games such as these, the end result is that people will develop convoluted systems for getting out of bannings, and when they're banned, as I've mentioned either above or elsewhere, they become ban evaders.

 

You have insulted me with profanity so I will respond in kind and call you an idiot. I cannot seriously believe that people think like you. This is half the reason the world is so !@#$ed up, because everyone thinks they're in the right and always refuses to look at things from other people's perspective.

[Lu Xun]

Oh I see.  Banning leads to ban evasion which leads to the death of the game.  Hence we should allow cheating.

 

Your logic is...incredible.

Wrong. Banning should be avoided at all costs and used minimally because you do not want to create an increasing population of ban evaders. I've been there, done that, I've shook hands with quite a few of them.

 

After all, once you're banned, what can the game administration do to you? It's sort of like the death penalty, except you get free respawns in this game. I will admit that in a certain game, I have been banned over 30 different times within 4 months (actually, I believe the first time after I was banned I made 80 different rerolls and had them all PM the game administration). I never wanted to play that game in the first place, but I caused quite a headache for the game administration. When you're banned / ban evading the administrators are no longer a problem to you, but instead you're a problem to the game administrator.

 

Essentially, banning is more useful as a threat than as an actual punishment.

[Fox Fire]

You should know me from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and I know you from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). If you understand the dynamics involved in a particular game, and for that matter, in real-life law enforcement, using an ethical concept alone does not solve much.

 

First, ethics are subjective, for instance, I can quote you the Analects of Confucius where Confucius argues with a local duke about morality; that is to say, the duke claims that his people are moral because when a son steals a sheep the father will turn him in, and when the father steals sheep the son will turn him in. Confucius argues instead that in his state people are moral when the father covers for son and the son covers for father.

 

This isn't to say that either of them is necessarily right, or wrong, and there are societies that think the duke is right and there are societies that think that Confucius is right, but it means that you cannot work off absolute moral standards for purposes of administration, because there are none. There is only what the userbase will accept and what is best for everyone involved.

 

Second, if you sincerely depend on people to be naturally good and do their duty, then you should abolish the police and all punishments. A system of law, jurisprudence, and policework exists because people will always want to step out of line when methods of social control fail, and you need a way to force people to work in a socially beneficial way.

 

The problem with this is this, if you want to avoid a brush with the law, there are actually two ways to do it. The first way is not to actually commit the crime, the second way is to figure out how to cover up the crime effectively. If you are simply going to depend on punishments as a way to control behavior, and especially in online games such as these, the end result is that people will develop convoluted systems for getting out of bannings, and when they're banned, as I've mentioned either above or elsewhere, they become ban evaders.

 

You have insulted me with profanity so I will respond in kind and call you an idiot. I cannot seriously believe that people think like you. This is half the reason the world is so !@#$ed up, because everyone thinks they're in the right and always refuses to look at things from other people's perspective.

I'm not a fan of Confucius, or you're terrible logic in this thread. Don't get me started on morality, because all I have to say about that is that morality is a social construct. Not a reality. Thus we can say anything is immoral/moral, argue about it, and never get anywhere.

We don't depend on people to police themselves in this game. Which is why moderators exist. It's quite simple. If they cheat, they get reset/banned. That's incentive enough to keep people in line. This is also why we have jails in RL. We depend on punishments to control behavior everywhere on earth, be it online, the US, China, Saudi Arabia or even your workplace. That's how societies work and that's why punishments exist at all. You cannot rely on the human ego to keep itself in line. If we could, terms like punishment, selfishness, and government wouldn't even exist.

 

I always try to look at things from my opponents perspective, but your logic is complete shit. Whoever you are, you clearly don't know me as well as you think you do.

[Lu Xun]

'Social strategy' as you say includes normative behavior and punishments when it is violated.

 

It is actually a response to an argument that certain things fell in the 'grey' area between art and pornography.  So it is fully apt.  It was a great ruling because we can and do differentiate between art and porn.  We also know what exploits are when we see them.  This is one.  so...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

 

 

 

The Court's obscenity jurisprudence would remain fragmented until 1973's Miller v. California. Many legal observers[who?] feel that, after Miller, it remained confusing and vague. What is obscene in one place can well be completely legal in another.

 

Shall I look it up for you?

[Fox Fire]

Wrong. Banning should be avoided at all costs and used minimally because you do not want to create an increasing population of ban evaders. I've been there, done that, I've shook hands with quite a few of them.

 

After all, once you're banned, what can the game administration do to you? It's sort of like the death penalty, except you get free respawns in this game. I will admit that in a certain game, I have been banned over 30 different times within 4 months (actually, I believe the first time after I was banned I made 80 different rerolls and had them all PM the game administration). I never wanted to play that game in the first place, but I caused quite a headache for the game administration. When you're banned / ban evading the administrators are no longer a problem to you, but instead you're a problem to the game administrator.

 

Essentially, banning is more useful as a threat than as an actual punishment.

Are you another "Pol Pot" multi?

 

Banning works just fine. If ban evader comes back, he gets banned again. Pretty !@#$ing easy and simple. Ban evader may be able to come back now and again without getting caught, but do you realize how they do that? They do so by learning their mistakes and not repeating them. And if they do, BANHAMMER AGAIN!

 

I think this method is easily far more effective on any day of the week than simply forgiving people for blatantly breaking the rules. This is not anarchy, sir. There are rules, and punishments. We don't give people blow jobs for abusing exploits, K?