Can anyone make snse of this support reply? :D

[Norbert]

Ok

I asked for a simple clarification on whether log off/on on mothership is in breach of games rules, a simple question. I would rather ask than risk a lock and risk it, and i try to play within EULA etc...

Why can't they reply in a way that is definitive , check this out

On 2011-09-18 08:07:49 you wrote:
So

You say there is a problem in these areas, and that this is exploitable in certain ways... but is not bugged.

Can you say whether i am allowed to do this or not to transport stackables, it is a simple question and a rule clarification...

yes or no?


On 2011-09-17 15:23:03 SUPPORT replied:
Hi Dibbler,

Thanks for reporting. We are aware of the problems in these areas and we are currently discussing possible solutions. These areas are not bugged, but they are designed in a way which makes them exploitable in certain ways.

Kind regards,
Gordon | Planet Arkadia Support
On 2011-09-16 01:35:42 you wrote:
Hi

I would very much like to trade planet to planet but am afraid of using the current method as it seems to me an exploit.

Basically it is possible to log off on mothership/privateer at safe zone of planet/FOMA - and log back in at destination ... therefore no risk of losing stackables.

Can you please confirm that doing this is not an exploit?

Ofc if it is then it should be sorted out as soon as possible, many are doing this to transfer resources thrugh lootable pvp.

All the best

Dibbler

So..... "they are not bugged but are designed in a way which makes them exploitable in a certain ways.."

To be continued

Priceless

 

[milena jingles]

Easy to explain .......


"As long as we see the advantage is on our side you can do whatever you want...if we decide it isnt any longer a advantage we decide it is an exploit and you will be banned "


with other words they have no idea what to do....everyone has a lot DC so how to decide it is purpose or not

 

[steffel]

they state "it's not a bug" so it's allowed to use thise "feature". however, they are discussing solutions. i read it as "go ahead and do it, there will be no punishment, but a fix may come one day"

 

[Norbert]

True i guess they can't do anything if i accidently unplug my router... "cough", but looks like won't last forever so use it while it's unplugged ... i mean hot.

 

[slasha]

i read it like this... it is not a bug that you can log off in a mothership , but it is exploitable in certain circumstances , ie if you do it as you say with stackables . If you DC then that is not an exploit . If you dc and then decide to wait 20 mins till u log back in inorder to exploit then that is an exploit . Infact its a massive grey area and we are aware of this because how do we decern who dced and who log/pulls the modem power. They can just ban you if thyey want anyway .
never expect a straight answer from support or even sentences that make sence unless you get an answer from a dev.

 

[chevrons]

Well my opinion of their use of English is that there is a significant difference between 'being exploitable', and being 'an Exploit'.

To say the former merely means that something is capable of being used, to say the latter is to say that it can be used but should not be.

So if one takes what MA Support said at face value, this is not 'an Exploit', and can be used until a solution is implemented. Or maybe that isn't what they intended to say.

And my opinion of the whole situation is that to say that logging off is an Exploit is absurd, and I hope MA have realised that declaring it an exploit would just make them look like some character from Alice in Wonderland.

 

[GeorgeSkywalker]

The reply you got is chosen from a bank of standard template replies. This way it allows them to respond to enquiries quickly and with some consistency. However this method lacks the specifics or the personal touch.

 

[SnowLeopard]

If it is exploitable, there is a bug. Doesn't matter that the bug doesn't arise from a specific error in coding, if unintended consequences occur, it remains a bug.
If anything, in my opinion, errors in coding shouldn't be called bugs, they should be called exactly what they are: mistakes. (Sure they call also lead to exploits.)

 

[Norbert]

Well my opinion of their use of English is that there is a significant difference between 'being exploitable', and being 'an Exploit'.

To say the former merely means that something is capable of being used, to say the latter is to say that it can be used but should not be.

So if one takes what MA Support said at face value, this is not 'an Exploit', and can be used until a solution is implemented. Or maybe that isn't what they intended to say.

And my opinion of the whole situation is that to say that logging off is an Exploit is absurd, and I hope MA have realised that declaring it an exploit would just make them look like some character from Alice in Wonderland.

Ofc logging off itself isn't an exploit, but travelling through lootable pvp while offline i guess can be considered one. It's a tough one for Ma really as they can't really distinguish between a dc, power outage, and log for rl reasons.

I just wanted clarificatiom as i don't want a lock, and in actuality would love them to say go ahead while it lasts.

Looks like they are working on a fix though, so guess "safe" transports days are numbered.

 

[aj502]

Ofc logging off itself isn't an exploit, but travelling through lootable pvp while offline i guess can be considered one. It's a tough one for Ma really as they can't really distinguish between a dc, power outage, and log for rl reasons.

I just wanted clarificatiom as i don't want a lock, and in actuality would love them to say go ahead while it lasts.

Looks like they are working on a fix though, so guess "safe" transports days are numbered.

Well, good job for you alerting MA to yet another way to screw safe transport of resources.







Tippin'

 

[Centech]

I think their english sucks.. which to be honest amazes me. Most swedish players I deal with speak english better than me, but somehow support seems to employ people for an english speaking game whose english skills are lacking.

That's all besides the point..

I think what they are saying is that this is not a "bug" as in, something not working as intended, but rather, a design flaw which leaves the system open for exploit.

MA has shown repeatedly in the past (vtol.. wormhole chips.. trapping... etc etc forever) that once they decide a flaw which they have created is being used for personal game they will deem it an exploit and quite possibly ban you for it for no reason other than basically 'you should have known better'.

So my advice to you is.. the mere fact you are concerned shows that you know this is shady, and if you choose to still do it you do it at your own risk of getting banned.

 

[Norbert]

Well, good job for you alerting MA to yet another way to screw safe transport of resources.







Tippin'

I would rather do that than face a lock/ban, also you really think they were not aware?

MA screwed safe transport all by themselves, i disagree with it but what can we do?

The carrying storage around in pvp 4 exploit was the best one i reported btw an didn't use.

 

[aj502]

I would rather do that than face a lock, also you really think they were not aware?

The carrying storage around in pvp 4 exploit was the best one i reported btw an didn't use.

I dunno...I suppose they might've been but I sure wouldn't have reminded them about it.

But anyway, they ain't going to lock anyone for logging out when one wants to log out.









Tippin'

 

[Norbert]

I dunno...I suppose they might've been but I sure wouldn't have reminded them about it.

But anyway, they ain't going to lock anyone for logging out when one wants to log out.









Tippin'

Sure they know, they all play ingame and with motherships offering 100% safe transport i'm sure they have already been on the ships.

I would say 80% of people ingame knew even before i sent the support, just as i said i would prefer not to get a lock .

 

[Stave]

These areas are not bugged, but they are designed in a way which makes them exploitable in certain ways.

This says to me that logging off at foma and logging on at arkadia intentionally to avoid lootable pvp and remove risk of loosing stackables is an exploit

 

[Mac]

Yes, I think it means something like this...

 

[Strash]

just so everyone knows they knew about this from day 1.
and will figure out a solution .... so keep your minds calm it will come.

 

[Norbert]

Cool

It's allowed, well not seen as an exploit.

On 2011-09-21 19:10:33 you wrote:
coool

tyvm
On 2011-09-20 15:53:26 SUPPORT replied:
Hi,

We have been informed that this behavior is not considered an exploit.

Kind regards,
Gordon | Planet Arkadia Support
On 2011-09-18 08:07:49 you wrote:
So

You say there is a problem in these areas, and that this is exploitable in certain ways... but is not bugged.

 

[kosmos]

If it is exploitable, there is a bug. Doesn't matter that the bug doesn't arise from a specific error in coding, if unintended consequences occur, it remains a bug.
If anything, in my opinion, errors in coding shouldn't be called bugs, they should be called exactly what they are: mistakes. (Sure they call also lead to exploits.)

This is what I feel too. I sent in a case due to concern some others have about this issue. Personally I don't care. I refuse to goto space because I don't play this to be forced into pvp situations just to travel to a planet. Supports response was it isn't an exploit to log on and off in a mother ship. I was shocked to read that. Then why is space pvp lootable?

 

[Mariko Ninja]

This is what I feel too. I sent in a case due to concern some others have about this issue. Personally I don't care. I refuse to goto space because I don't play this to be forced into pvp situations just to travel to a planet. Supports response was it isn't an exploit to log on and off in a mother ship. I was shocked to read that. Then why is space pvp lootable?

It isn’t an exploit as they designed this future most likely for another purpose.
It saves the MS owner and Mindark time and work when one of the passengers would
accidently get disconnected. He/she simply follows the MS to the intended destination.
Also many have made it clear they wanted an safe option to travel to another planet.

This is for Mindark the best solution, since they would most likely not be able to see who lost his/her
connection and who simply logged off. But I would not be surprised if they changed this again.

 

[Strash]

Space is lootable for many reasons. hunting in space could be profitable but risky. We haven't seen deep space arrive yet... And secondly not everyone has access to a MS to use and the MS needs to get paid... so anyways

GL

 

[Milesio]

True i guess they can't do anything if i accidently unplug my router... "cough", but looks like won't last forever so use it while it's unplugged ... i mean hot.

LOL

Greetings.

 

[xaph]

The system has always been flawed, open to explotative behaviour, and the source of maligned intent.
In fact the addition of PVP4 in space has but anything closed it down, rendering what was a comprehensive 'land based' PVP4 into an absolute space cadet shit fight.
I dont play for this, and many are are of the same ilk.
I dont condemn inventive approaches where there is imbalance, but I dont use them as well.

Remove PVP from space.

 

[Wizlawz]

from what i gathered exploit the exploit until a fix is done, hey all is fair in "privateering" it happenas alot in EVE so why not here? BUT i dont get as when you log off you still have what 20 seconds still out there? same as in EVE basically.

you may return to find a broken ship etc.

 

[ReZume]

The system has always been flawed, open to explotative behaviour, and the source of maligned intent.
In fact the addition of PVP4 in space has but anything closed it down, rendering what was a comprehensive 'land based' PVP4 into an absolute space cadet shit fight.
I dont play for this, and many are are of the same ilk.
I dont condemn inventive approaches where there is imbalance, but I dont use them as well.

Remove PVP from space.

Although I hates pirates from deep down my gut and run a "no piracy" soc, i would not say to remove PVP completely..

A soc m8 and me actually talked about those cool looking asteroids at the Zeus mob field (I think its there they are, LOL) and how it would be cool if they were to be mineable in the future.. Create some new ores and enmatters only found on these asteroids, used in certain new blueprints that would create some awesome items.. (weapons/armor/faps)..

Instead of removing lootable pvp completely I could see several of these mineable asteroid fields scattered around space being lootable, and the rest of space none-lootable pvp.. that way, pirates would still have a reason to exist (which is obviously what MA wants), if the surrounding around the asteroids were lootable, but with a small none-lootable spawn point when you leave them.. Pirates could go down to the asteroids and hunt miners or wait for them in space.. Would be a little more like PVP4..

And why none-lootable in the rest you might ask?? Because I personally could see the fun in trying space battle, but i do NOT like the lootable aspect of it.. And I think there are others who thinks the same..

just my 2 cents - and sorry to OP for wandering off topic..