Ram

I'm sorry, but I have to address your complete ignorance of RPO's plot, story and setting. The entire PLANET in RPO was using VR to play Halliday's game. Not only that, most of the economy was done through VR, people using it to work virtual jobs, or real jobs remotely via VR, and education was all done through VR as well, students putting on headsets at home and logging into a virtual classroom. Ironically not much different from the current environment of Zoom meetings and other virtual meeting software being heavily used due to the pandemic. This was the entire world of RPO, and the easter egg hunt that is the main story of the book, involved literally everyone who had a VR headset and access to the game. The company and CEO that serve as antagonist hired endless people to search for the easter egg in the game for them just so they could beat the rest of the entire planet. In fact, the game itself is so integral to the world, that owning it makes one, one of the if not the most powerful and richest people on Earth, and this is exactly *why* the antagonist CEO and company want control. This is NOT as you say, "a tiny group of players" or "no lifers". The end battle of the book and film involves EVERYONE in the entire game gathering together to battle the antagonist CEO and his company. You are 100% dead wrong about your entire comparison of this DU easter egg event to RPO. I do agree with most of your other points about DU, however.

If I am the one who cannot seem to comprehend that real life and video games are not the same thing why do you keep referencing reality in relation to this event? This point is irrelevant. It is irrelevant that video games are not real life. That isn't the point at all, and video games not being real life does not give you permission to do what you want, like you want to pretend it does.
 
If the devs should brush it off and act like adults, why shouldn't you or Scoopy? Absolutely nothing you did or have done was mature. Yes, let's see you quote and then misinterpret the EULA, like you misinterpret RDMS.
 
"We can not get involved with permission based theft, whether as an individual or an organization". This doesn't mean what you think it does. This means, whether RDMS theft involves a single individual or an entire IN-GAME organization, we cannot get involved. This does not mean, "individuals nor NQ as a company cannot get involved" Or they would have said, company. Organization is the specific word used in this game to refer to an Org, a group of players who make an Org through the org system. NOT NQ as a company "organization". So, no, they did not violate their own EULA. This quote is saying that if players use RDMS theft against other players, NQ cannot (doesn't want to) get involved. However, this is NOT the case. Players used RDMS theft against NQ themselves, who are not players, but developers. How you twist these things to defend yourself is beyond me but you guys get a gold medal in mental gymnastics here.
 
My analogy does fit. There is NO SIGN giving permissions to do anything you want. You pressing the Build mode key and finding that permissions were not set IS NOT the same thing as purposefully not setting permissions to purposefully allow you to do anything you want. They just are not the same thing, whatsoever. What is the same thing, is you accidentally finding out the permissions weren't set, and someone accidentally finding a door wasn't locked, then taking advantage of that. You keep twisting and twisting reality as if it helps your case at all.
 
The developers have it in the EULA themselves that permission based theft AGAINST OTHER PLAYERS, individuals or an organization, is fine. YOU make assumptions that are wrong and get punished for it. This is nothing like an alt getting scammed then banning you. This is a straight up, developer owned and made construct. Not a dev's alt. It isn't childish, your continued mental gymnastic defense of your reprehensible actions is. There is little to no bad press around this, most people agree you got what you deserved, and none of you are arbiters of reputation for video games. They should not have said that, because while they made a mistake, they did not make the mistake. You did. Intentionally ruining developer owned constructs is not beta testing. There are proper ways to do things and you did nothing properly here. You should have, as everyone has told you, simply reported it and moved on with your day. They do not need to thank people paying to beta test, people get their thanks for payment by being given access to the game. However, they do thank their testers and supporters. Cowtowing to digital criminals is not an adult move to make.
 
The job of beta testers is to REPORT things like this they find out, not continue to dismantle whatever they wanted. We are not penetration testers. I figured one of your arguments might be referring to yourselves and what you did in the same light as a paid penetration tester. These people are being paid to find faults, exploit them, and then give all necessary data on how it was done to the person that hired them. WE are paying to find faults, NOT exploit them, and then report the faults and move on. This is not comparable. I do not care about F76, nor the players of the game. It shouldn't have even been made IMO.
 
Nowhere in the EULA does it say, "developers are players therefore rules designed for players also apply to developers." Because devs are not players. That is your indication that whatever rules are made for players, they do not affect anyone who isn't a player, i.e. a developer. My analogy is spot-on and the EULA you are misinterpreting to fit your own narrative.

No, you want to pretend there was a sign saying you could do anything you wanted, because you had the physical access to. Again, there is a difference between accidentally giving physical access, and intending physical access to be granted. Accidentally not setting permissions is NOT an intention for you to freely mess with things. This mental gymnastics is WHY you were banned.
 
Additionally, it is common sense to anyone with morals that the developers and owners of the game are exempt from rules pertaining to PLAYERS of the game. We are not devs, or owners. We are players. Rules for players to not apply to developers. You think it should because you think that is fair. This is not about fulfilling your personal sense of fairness. Life is not fair.
 
Video games do not need to = real life for actions to have consequences. Principles exist across everything. Violating these principles is generally unacceptable unless specifically stated otherwise. 
 
Your analogy is flawed. You can fix it by accurately stating the intent of the buffet. What you did was actually akin to walking thru the open back door to a buffet, and started eating whatever you wanted, because it is a buffet, without acknowledging that the buffet hasn't opened and no one should be in there eating until X time of the day when it is open, as that is the intent. The intent here was not to allow anyone to access the buffet without permission. The intent here was not to allow anyone to access the market without permission. But someone forgot and left the back door to the kitchens open so you guys thought you'd walk in and eat. But someone forgot and left the permissions open to the market so you guys thought you'd start taking whatever. No one intended for you to eat at the buffet without permissions, despite it being a buffet and that meaning people eat at them. No one intended for you to access the market without restrictions, despite it being a market and that meaning people access them for trading. Accidentally making a mistake is never an invitation for you to take advantage of that mistake. You can still take advantage though. Being able to do things and the intent for you to be able to do them are separate.

What made you think it was okay to go testing developer owned constructs with the Build mode in the first place? This is like going door to door in a neighborhood looking to see who left their door unlocked so you can rob them. Incompetence of "leaving the door unlocked and open" (no RDMS restrictions) aside, this does not give you a free pass to take advantage of the situation. Similarly, just because a neighbor was dumb enough to leave their door unlocked, it is not an invitation for you to come in. Absolutely nowhere does, "if I shouldn't be allowed to do it why is it physically possible for me to do it still" fly as an excuse or argument. 

Banning paid beta testers in early access games is not unprecedented. It has happened in Ark and other early access titles that you have to pay to test. Firstly, in every single game out there, if it works mechanically but was not intended to work that way, it is an exploit. Secondly, regardless if anyone knew it would ruin the market data or not, the messing with the market caused a "gamebreaking" issue that affected others. You are being absolutist. It was a mistake on the dev's part to leave the RDMS open, accidents happen. It was *also* a mistake on the players part who took advantage of this to edit the market. One is an accident, the other is willful intent to do something that really you should have known not to do. The blame is shared, but the lion's share goes to you and Scoopy. If you are really a dev yourself, you can't seriously say that if a player in one of the games you were making decided to take advantage of a mistake on your part to ruin something that wasn't supposed to be touched by players, you wouldn't punish them and anyone else who decided to do the same, regardless how much they did. Stealing voxels and a lamp is still stealing. We can sit here and debate on the forums or discord if the punishment was too severe or not, but there is no argument that punishment wasn't necessary for the morally and lawfully (rulefully?) bad actions committed.
 
While I do not know about any claims that anyone knew how the game fundamentally works, I do know you have to know a bit more than a fresh noob about the build mode and RDMS in order to even think, "oh hey lets see if build mode works on these dev owned constructs" and then do it, and then act like dismantling or taking anything there was completely acceptable to do. Most arguments defending these actions are, "but the devs said RDMS theft is ok". Well it seems really fishy to me that a fresh, less than a week playtime player knew that every construct has an owner, and B enters the build/edit mode on that construct, that markets are normally not accessible, and that the devs had allowed RDMS theft in one of their posts. You guys either had to be randomly pressing B while jumping around after spawning (which is unlikely as someone THAT new wouldn't then instantly figure out how to properly remove elements or voxels as 99% of new players constantly ask ingame and on discord HOW to pick up voxels or elements) or you decided to purposefully check if build mode was accessible on every construct you went by. OR you purposefully decided to specifically check if markets were available. Either way, it isn't a good look and it is clear you guys aren't being completely honest.

Sorry to confuse you with other people but you have to admit it is difficult when you all parrot the same ridiculous excuses for poor behavior. The reason he was banned was for purposefully messing with developer owned constructs and acting like it is fine to do. You are pretending like only the devs are to blame and nobody else is at fault for anything, which is empirically incorrect.
 
What does an agreement between devs and players have to do with there being rules in the agreement specifically for players? Nothing. I am dev and I release EULA that says, "players can do this this this but not that that that". It isn't beholden to me as a developer. You as a player must agree to the rights and restrictions set forth by the devs in the EULA. There is no equality or equity to it. The developers didn't "fuck up" they made a small mistake. The actual fuck up is players taking advantage of the mistake, which can get you banned. There was nothing to fix for the devs in this context except maybe a reminder to always check permissions on dev owned constructs, prior to the actions that broke the market data. This isn't an instance of some long overdue bug that was never addressed until player did X and now suddenly it is being addressed. If it was something they knew about and put on the backburner, it still doesn't justify taking advantage by players.. All they did was paste the market back in place and put the data that they apparently do have backups for, back into the terminals. Oh and maybe actually set the permissions this time. Not doing this is no excuse to go rampant with dev owned things.
 
The developers have nothing to learn from here except their normal mistake. They made a Human mistake because they're people. The players who took advantage willfully attempted to do what they knew they shouldn't do, and will hopefully learn from their ban not to do that kind of thing elsewhere.
 
The sign is not being able to access the item. This logic is exactly the same as saying an unlocked door is a sign you have an invitation to enter. It is not.
 
Firstly, all press is good press. Secondly, one video by one YouTuber isn't going to do anything except bring more attention to the game. Even if it was more, thats all they are doing.
 
Yes, people do not need to be thanked to beta test. You are paying to test the game, paying to do a job that normally developers would hire people to do in-house. They do not have to when players will either do it for free or pay to access that.
 
Beta testers and pen testers are not the same. I explained the very obvious differences.
 
Devs can do whatever they want with their game. It is their game. EULA is a set of rules for players to agree to before getting access to the product. You don't agree you do not get access. The EULA is quite clear when you understand how to read, that developer made anything is not subject to rules for players. I keep saying mental gymnastics because everyone parroting your arguments is jumping through illogical hoops to come to insane conclusions. It is mental gymnastics to read, "Come in and do whatever you want" into, "RDMS wasn't set properly for this developer made construct", or "Devs said RDMS theft was allowed and they wouldn't get involved as an organization into any of it" into "We cannot get involved if a individual or org uses RDMS theft against other players". It is all very tiresome that you continue to rail against justified punishment. I have already said I agree that permabanning from everything is probably too harsh. That is not me saying there should be no punishment, however.

Look, I get your point, but it is misapplied here. Every MMO is an MMO where only a handful of players can "win". What do we define as wining in an MMO? Being in the top PVP rankings and/or being in the top endgame PVE content rankings (raids, etc). THOSE are the "winners" of the game and there's a handful of people that good. EVERY MMO is like this. However, the goal isn't to "win" in an MMO it is to be a part of a community and have fun with your character, regardless of how good you are. DU's "winning goal" is NOT to find easter eggs, and it isn't to be the first to do it either. The only real win conditions here would be a result of future PVP where two or more orgs fought a war and one had most of their infrastructure/constructs/tiles destroyed or looted to the point of being useless. The one(s) who caused that upon their enemies would "win" DU, in that context of that war. Obviously, if the goal of DU was to find easter eggs and whoever did "wins", then yeah, I agree, I wouldn't play it either, but that isn't the case. This is just a fun little side event.
 
I disagree with you about what constitutes a "good" event, however I will agree that this DU easter egg event was not one. It wasn't horrible either. To me, it's not relevant to anything in DU. Let's say there's 100 easter eggs like this spread around the system. That's 100 more chances for tons of more players to find them in the future in other events. They're easter eggs, the entire point is that they're irrelevant, but neat little things to find in the game. They have no impact on the gameplay whatsoever, or the rest of the players. Now if these easter eggs turn out to be connected to a similar alien event like the E:D one you mention, and they are "required" for that content to happen, I agree 100% with you. That remains to be seen. As long as this is a mini-event that has nothing to do with the game but is a fun thing they can repeatedly do over and over so that eventually, almost everyone has participated in the events and found an easter egg, then there isn't an issue in my mind.
 
I did play Elite, but unfortunately not during the alien event. I agree, that is how you do a game content event, and if DU ever has one, they should emulate it. But this, is not the same type of event.

Underground mining facility and research base for me, yes.

I'm gonna try to take off the days they announce for the pre-alpha as they announce them. We will see how well that works. My time zone being Hawaii might help or hinder a lot though I can't be sure yet.

Lol you want to reward killers and punish victims? Good thing you have no say over real life systems!
 
There should be a possibility of reward, but also risk. Like if you kill someone and it's not exactly secret, you'll get flagged as someone who has committed a murder, and get tracked down. There are similar systems in most MMOs that track player killing players with skulls on the map.

I, RAMMFORGE, refuse the premise of this entire thread and commit to uphold the universal laws nature sets forth for beings and their interactions on any field, real or digital, not arbitrary limitations based on trying to hurt as few people's feelings as possible.

there was an open discussion on DAC's, with a poll already.  starting another thread on the matter was not needed.  The point is NQ stated they were not and a group of players IMHO appear to be trying to sway that to the style of play they want, even going as far as stating they might take back their pledge if they don't get their way....So I call someone who wants to steal little timmy's DAC a scumbag, others threaten to pull their support if they dont get to steal it....
 
From the model above, your 80 DAC are safe if option C is the new method correct???  which is the whole point of this new thread to give yet another option but hey lets steal little timmy's DAC but you better make mine from KS safe mentality.  I have a problem with this, either they are all loot able or non are.  Why should the KS ones be protected but not all future one bought?  The ones in the future are going to cost those members more than the amount you get for your pledge, that is some reverse logic thinking to protect the cheaper dollar ones.
 
The entire point of the DAC system is so that people (mostly kids) that can't afford to pay to play, have an option.  now making that option a loot able item IMHO damages the entire DAC system.  The other problem is its the dumb young kids that are going to fall prey to this time and again.  Now I don't know about you, but I try and take young players under my wing and help them out.  
 
There will be enough loot for the looters, in fully emergent style or crafted items, blueprints, and raw materials.  We all want this game to succeed, but there are a few toxic personalities in these forums, that have attacked time and again different view points from theirs, this being the newest one.  
 
Let me ask you Yamamushi, a few months back when you first seen this project, and thought to yourself, damn! I cant wait to support this, did you really think to yourself, OH, but not is DAC's are not loot able!