Jump to content

Unknown people took the base


Guest ONIXXX

Recommended Posts

The answer came, I think it is not answered and the GM works, as any use of exploit you can justify this answer, I have not heard the details, where exactly is the problem, which player has granted access, I believe that access is provided to the core was not, in General, I'm completely disappointed, I will try to convey the maximum count of people this "competent" answer, 

here is the answer

Hello ONIXXX,

Thank you for reporting this, however in this case after a prolonged investigation I can confirm that this was not an exploit.
Without going into the details of the investigation, which I cannot do. I would like to advise you to be careful when giving the rank of Legate to a player.
I know this is not the news you were hoping for, but I cannot compensate you for the losses under the circumstances found in the investigation.

Further clarification on our stance towards exploits, can be found at this forum post.

We do however greatly value these reports and would like to encourage you to report other issues, bug and exploits you discover. And provided that we deem no excessive intentional abuse is discovered before or after the report, no punitive measure will be applied as a result of reporting.

If you have any further issues or questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.
And I sincerely hope you recover from this event.

Kind regards,
NQ-Deckard



All until, in such a project I no longer want to play, I think it would be appropriate to write who when and what did what brought to this situation, and not throw out a General answer that is suitable in any situation, compare the reaction to my situation and the reaction to market 15, and in both cases it is not clear what these people are guided by....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Samlow said:

Sooo.. One of your long time friends betrayed you? 

The chance of this is about the same if a bear came into your house now, treachery is out of the question, we have been playing with these people for more than 6 years, we are all investing in the game equally, as well as people of other nationalities have taken apart the base, a lot of factors that completely eliminate intention to do this, if this was an accident, then I would like to know who did when and what, while there is no such information, I believe that this was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Samlow said:

Can you share with us then the same details as you shared with NQ? Else its tough to think otherwise 

I think this will hardly help you, I provided screenshots of the robbers, logs from the client, and a description of the situation, this will not help you understand anything, you need to analyze server information and logs, which NQ apparently does not have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ONIXXX said:

The chance of this is about the same if a bear came into your house now, treachery is out of the question, we have been playing with these people for more than 6 years, we are all investing in the game equally, as well as people of other nationalities have taken apart the base, a lot of factors that completely eliminate intention to do this, if this was an accident, then I would like to know who did when and what, while there is no such information, I believe that this was not.

You don't need treachery. Maybe someone made a mistake at some point - which was than noticed by unrelated players. Like "i can't build", "ok, i will switch it for a moment to public" or something similar. Easy enough if are not used to consider ops-sec every time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Elrood said:

You don't need treachery. Maybe someone made a mistake at some point - which was than noticed by unrelated players. Like "i can't build", "ok, i will switch it for a moment to public" or something similar. Easy enough if are not used to consider ops-sec every time. 

You can assume anything, there was no response with specific names and people, so it didn't happen, no one will convince me until I find out the details of the incident, I'm not the only one you want to say hundreds of players give up their bases, this is nonsense, there is a vulnerability that NQ can't fix

I don't want to play this anymore, as I wanted to hear the wrong answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ONIXXX said:

You can assume anything, there was no response with specific names and people, so it didn't happen, no one will convince me until I find out the details of the incident, I'm not the only one you want to say hundreds of players give up their bases, this is nonsense, there is a vulnerability that NQ can't fix

I don't want to play this anymore, as I wanted to hear the wrong answer

Hundreds? Lol, how the hell did you get that number?
Nonetheless I see you are burned out and just want to leave at that moment - and its easier if you assume NQ is at fault. Well - thank you for information that they are actually looking at the tickets : ) That's one useful thing I can take away from it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Elrood said:

Hundreds? Lol, how the hell did you get that number?
Nonetheless I see you are burned out and just want to leave at that moment - and its easier if you assume NQ is at fault. Well - thank you for information that they are actually looking at the tickets : ) That's one useful thing I can take away from it. 

I highlighted the problem in the discord, a lot of people faced this, and wrote to me that they have a similar situation, some of them wrote in support, some did not write, but the answer is always the same, I did not burn out, I really like the game but I don't feel safe, cheaters are NQ's problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the core owner was a corporation

And you had more than 1 legate in the corporation

 

A mistake that a lot of newbies does, it that they want to place a new core, and there is no free core aviable (because you need some skill to place many core)

so they abandon a usles core, but they faiedl correctly identify the core they should abandon, and as NQ say, one of your lagate have abandon your main base core. He is probbly not a bad guy, but he just don't realy what consecance his action will have

did you contact the guy that take your base after ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ONIXXX said:

The answer came, I think it is not answered and the GM works, as any use of exploit you can justify this answer, I have not heard the details, where exactly is the problem, which player has granted access, I believe that access is provided to the core was not, in General, I'm completely disappointed, I will try to convey the maximum count of people this "competent" answer, 

here is the answer
 

 

I'd remove the NQ response as it is a breach of EULA/TOS to do so and may have consequences.

 

NQ seems to be implying that the heist was conducted by an org member who has/had legate status. If you have any evidence to the contrary please do feel free to share unless you want to appeal their decision. If any legate in your org would have full acces to any org construct (which I am not actually sure is the case even when NQ seems to say it is), this  is a legitimate case of org theft and not something NQ could intervene in.

 

I'll promote an alt to legate in another alts's org when server go back up to verify this and let you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

I'd remove the NQ response as it is a breach of EULA/TOS to do so and may have consequences.

 

 

If the answer was specific, I would agree with you, but there is no answer in the answer, I did not receive anything, which of the legates committed this, when, no details)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

I'd remove the NQ response as it is a breach of EULA/TOS to do so and may have consequences.

 

NQ seems to be implying that the heist was conducted by an org member who has/had legate status. If you have any evidence to the contrary please do feel free to share unless you want to appeal their decision. If any legate in your org would have full acces to any org construct (which I am not actually sure is the case even when NQ seems to say it is), this  is a legitimate case of org theft and not something NQ could intervene in.

 

I'll promote an alt to legate in another alts's org when server go back up to verify this and let you know.

They could also be saying the legate opened up the construct RDMS, either intentionally or by accident. 

 

I find it horrific design that the option to share a construct publicly is even a right click option in the first place.

 

Also I imagine OP is past caring about "consequences".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the only issue I am seeing is RDMS / promotion issues that caused the theft. Not seeing any actual "exploit" of any kind and the details that very few shared again prove that it was a permissions issue or a promotion issue. Legates have full access and trying to claim that none of their legates would ever do such a thing is fooling yourself. No game master / admin of any MMO would be able to provide all the details after investigating things, such as giving a name of who actually did so due to their privacy provisions. 

 

I dealt with a lot of insiding tickets when I worked at Blizzard with their in-game support team. We never gave out details because of privacy provisions. I fully expect the same in DU. 

 

I have even seen times when a guild master is the culprit, takes everything out of the guild bank and sends it all to one of their alts, then plays the dumbfounded card with their clan. In some cases it is all a mind game and deception is a powerful tool. 

 

Unfortunately DU is lacking some very basic QOL core features, such as giving orgs some means to track who takes things out of containers, puts things in, etc, along with a log of who edited construct voxels. (IE:Player A removed 60m cubed of carbon fiber from Construct C) 

 

It sucks when other players with permissions steal from an org, but this is all on the super legate in promoting folks to legate, and setting RDMS rights. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ONIXXX said:

 

If the answer was specific, I would agree with you, but there is no answer in the answer, I did not receive anything, which of the legates committed this, when, no details)

as i read it this was by now means just general...i mean the GM basically told you it was a issue with whatever a legate did and no exploit or anything, if he would have told you names and what not it would have been quite unprofessional if you ask me.

 

sorry for you loss nevertheless...can understand that this is frustrating :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ONIXXX said:

If the answer was specific, I would agree with you, but there is no answer in the answer, I did not receive anything, which of the legates committed this, when, no details)

 

If your org was the owner of the construct then anyone with legate status is able to dismantle the base regardless of RDMS being set. Once NQ sees in their data that a person who is legate in your org did this they are correct in their conclusion and I'd agree they have no obligation to give you any more detail.

 

Now, whether or not is it a good idea for the mechanic to be set up this way is another matter but that does not alter the fact that it is currently. At best you could make the argument that NQ is really not communicating this well but that will also not change anything in this case i expect.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Palad1n said:

Unfortunately DU is lacking some very basic QOL core features, such as giving orgs some means to track who takes things out of containers, puts things in, etc, along with a log of who edited construct voxels. (IE:Player A removed 60m cubed of carbon fiber from Construct C) 

I'd certainly expect NQ to actually implement proper journaling for this as their rights system is so fragile and complex that at least a log would allow for some balance in case of situations like this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...