Jump to content
NQ-Naerais

“Marketplace Heist” Response

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, vertex said:

Hence all these people that reported but didn't exploit it are proof that it is possible to report and not exploit. Something that those now banned failed to do. They didn't only fail, they did the exact opposite: they did not report but they did exploit.

 

So if NQ can't fix the issue fast enough, next time when there's an issue like this NQ should shut down the servers and re-open them once the issue is fixed, so nobody thinks it's ok to exploit if NQ doesn't fix instantly? I certainly wouldn't like that.

 

If it takes NQ weeks to fix major exploits, there's bigger issues at play. 

 

If it takes NQ weeks to even open a ticket, there's bigger issues at play. 

 

If it takes NQ days to acknowledge an exploit, there's bigger issues at play. 

 

People have been making MMOs for over 20 years now...I don't understand how NQ struggles to handle well-understood concepts so poorly.

 

Patch exploits quickly because they ruin the economy. Make sure your customer support can answer tickets within a reasonable time (6 weeks is absolutely absurd). 

 

We are doing our part as players by paying the price they set...if they still can't afford enough support to move tickets along or fix exploits promptly, something is very wrong.

 

$20/minimum for each player that joined beta isn't a tiny amount of money. It is definitely enough to scale up support and open tickets...and if isn't? That's still their fault for not doing basic math to figure out a workable price that would allow them to scale the game...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vertex said:

No, it woudln't. "An issue" can be like.... anything? Including but not limited to RDMS.

 

In my opinion the option to exploit does not need to be announced ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Btw: I don't care about EVE. I'm not into archeology ;) 

Regardless they had an bug, we can atleast agree on that. If they knew about a bug for days and they don't tell their community that using the bug is an exploit or they don't fix it. 

Then it shouldn't be a ban for using something that could easily be a feature. Communication is key and they have failed over and over with it. For example, when they enabled force respawn = lose inventory, a lot of players force respawned before they even put out the patch notes about this change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether this has happened due to a bug (i.e. Marketplaces were never supposed to use RDMs but be "hardcoded, which IMO is highly unlikely due to the fact everything in the game uses the same systems that players use, even market tiles are claimed using territory units) or due to incorrect settings in RDMs, the whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Did the players make a mistake by making and publicizing the "ultimate heist" on Reddit? Possibly. Most likely yes. However that only sets the scenery to what is essentially a "make or break" decision on the NQ's side.

Had NQ reacted in good humor, fixed the problem, and owned up to their mistake, they'd actually build and reinforce trust of their community. They would've come out on top, as a team that can take responsibility for their mistakes and fix them. As someone with years of community management experience, I'd go a step beyond that: I'd create a "ruin of a marketplace" with a memorial plaque that would say something along the lines of "MP15 has fallen prey to a legendary group of bank robbers", to make it part of the lore. Then I'd build a new Marketplace next to it, and recover lost items to the unfortunate players who had their stuff listed. The lesson is simple: Does it seem like bad press? Take ownership of it, turn it around, make it work for you.

It's very unfortunate that instead NQ reacted the way they have. Their response, and reaction of Discord moderators who started handing out mass bans for even mentioning the incident is what creates bad press. I mean, it's their choice to make. Just not a choice that I'd make as community manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Corwan said:

Had NQ reacted in good humor, fixed the problem, and owned up to their mistake, they'd actually build and reinforce trust of their community.

Or I'd get another hand full of mates telling me that NQ is a half-... need to rephrase this to comply with forum etiquette, so let's say: that NQ is afraid of players getting mad at them and therefore doesn't issue hard enough sanctions. There is a good amount of ppl who welcome finally seeing NQ taking serious action - and I'm one of them.

 

For me NQ has just reinforced my trust because I can smell change in the wind that previously was just way too calm and forgiving with warnings and announcements repeated over and over but without any real consequences.

 

Huh, I just realize I need to head back to the OP and hit that round button with the heart symbol on it :) 

 

9 minutes ago, Corwan said:

They would've come out on top, as a team that can take responsibility for their mistakes and fix them.

I disagree - they would've come out as the team that you can screw over if you get the chance and thereby work against everything we do here day after day.

 

11 minutes ago, Corwan said:

I'd go a step beyond that: I'd create a "ruin of a marketplace" with a memorial plaque that would say something along the lines of "MP15 has fallen prey to a legendary group of bank robbers", to make it part of the lore. Then I'd build a new Marketplace next to it, and recover lost items to the unfortunate players who had their stuff listed. The lesson is simple: Does it seem like bad press? Take ownership of it, turn it around, make it work for you.

Now that sounds interesting - yeah, they could still do something like that. Still, I think punishment for those "legendary bank robbers" is correct and if it's a lifelong sentence - fine :)

 

@Darrkwolf okay, EVE then. I'm pretty sure that CCP was a well established company and had a solid game running at the time they fixed that exploit you mentioned within a few hours. Tho even if not it doesn't change the fact that exploiting an obvious error in the game is a bannable offense.

 

20 minutes ago, michaelk said:

If it takes NQ weeks to fix major exploits, there's bigger issues at play.

This hasn't been weeks. But that's just counting peas and in my opinion is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Sure there are bigger issues at play - a lot of them, I think, actually. But all that does for me is make me even more sympathetic and makes me want to hand them some cookies and coffee or a pizza. In my opinion DU development is taking leaps since release of beta. A week ago I couldn't set my industry up on sanctuary because of performance issues - yesterday it was just as smooth as Jago.

 

I can see progress and that changes everything for me. If it doesn't do the same for you, I guess we can still agree to disagree? Because I don't think that we will hit common ground on the evaluation of these issues and their implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vertex said:

Or I'd get another hand full of mates telling me that NQ is a half-... need to rephrase this to comply with forum etiquette, so let's say: that NQ is afraid of players getting mad at them and therefore doesn't issue hard enough sanctions. There is a good amount of ppl who welcome finally seeing NQ taking serious action - and I'm one of them.

 

For me NQ has just reinforced my trust because I can smell change in the wind that previously was just way too calm and forgiving with warnings and announcements repeated over and over but without any real consequences.

 

Huh, I just realize I need to head back to the OP and hit that round button with the heart symbol on it :) 

 

I disagree - they would've come out as the team that you can screw over if you get the chance and thereby work against everything we do here day after day.

 

Now that sounds interesting - yeah, they could still do something like that. Still, I think punishment for those "legendary bank robbers" is correct and if it's a lifelong sentence - fine :)

 

@Darrkwolf okay, EVE then. I'm pretty sure that CCP was a well established company and had a solid game running at the time they fixed that exploit you mentioned within a few hours. Tho even if not it doesn't change the fact that exploiting an obvious error in the game is a bannable offense.

 

This hasn't been weeks. But that's just counting peas and in my opinion is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Sure there are bigger issues at play - a lot of them, I think, actually. But all that does for me is make me even more sympathetic and makes me want to hand them some cookies and coffee or a pizza. In my opinion DU development is taking leaps since release of beta. A week ago I couldn't set my industry up on sanctuary because of performance issues - yesterday it was just as smooth as Jago.

 

I can see progress and that changes everything for me. If it doesn't do the same for you, I guess we can still agree to disagree? Because I don't think that we will hit common ground on the evaluation of these issues and their implications.

The problem is not that strict or hard, the problem is that this method was stolen by the player base, there is no compensation and adequate explanation, incorrect configuration of RDMS is nonsense, it is permissible, but not in these cases(with the rights all in order) , the problem is that it may happen tomorrow, day after tomorrow, whenever, we don't see feedback, not feel safe, to develop further in the game, there is no motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vertex said:

I disagree - they would've come out as the team that you can screw over if you get the chance and thereby work against everything we do here day after day.

It's perfectly fine that we disagree. There are some who appreciate NQ taking the heavy-handed approach. I'm just speaking my mind and voicing my substantiated opinion as a longtime community manager. Also I majored in Psychology, Mass Communication, and Public Relations, so there's that to back my understanding of how communities and PR work. Personally I cringed when I saw the sithstorm raining down on everyone (Yes I said Sith! They have cookies!). To me, it was a waste of opportunity for NQ to come out of it gracefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Corwan said:

 To me, it was a waste of opportunity for NQ to come out of it gracefully.

Once again NQ fails to learn from other games.

 

https://massivelyop.com/2015/10/03/the-game-archaeologist-the-assassination-of-lord-british/

 

This could have been the same epic tale - instead it's just stupid drama....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vertex said:

To those who say it's not clearly stated in the rules that you can't dismantle a market if it's in jeopardy because of "RDMS misconfiguration" (unconfirmed afaict) and the issue therefore should be treated exactly like any other player base RDMS scam, here's an excerpt from the EULA that Naerais referred to in the original post:

Source https://www.dualuniverse.game/legal/eula

Really sorry to disagree with you on this Vertex, but "have a negative impact on their gaming experience" really does need rewording. 

 

It's so vague that it becomes meaningless or makes rule-breakers of everyone (e.g. am I having a 'negative impact' on your gaming experience by disagreeing with you on a forum? Pretty sure ONIXXX had his game experience negatively impacted, I read about the theft happening on the support forum). 

 

This game has aspirations to be a PvP game, like EVE. Player conflict is actively encouraged. 

 

What DU are failing at is drawing the line between what is ok and what isn't. Between player and avatar. Between PvP areas and 'safe zone' areas. 

 

If the model they have drawn up for player run markets, at a time when orgs are stealing assets through both RDMs and exploit theft, can so easily destabilise more than just the voxels maybe they need to rethink that plan? 

 

It genuinely troubles me that this incident has raised an issue that could make player run markets not viable. 

 

Or do NQ have to add in a mechanic / rule that territory warfare is not allowed to happen in tiles with markets, because that could have a 'negative impact' on third parties trying to buy at those markets? 

 

That would be so open to abuse, everyone would just put a market in every tile.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mordgier said:

Our org lost all their sales orders on the market. They just poofed. 

When you say 'the market'...

 

...all your orders on Market 15 only, or all your orders? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mornington said:

When you say 'the market'...

 

...all your orders on Market 15 only, or all your orders? 

Just Market 15.

 

Everything that we had listed for sale on Market 15 simply ceased to exist. We fortunately didn't just use 15, so it wasn't 'everything' - but had we listed exclusively on 15 it could have been a crippling loss.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mornington said:

Really sorry to disagree with you on this Vertex, but "have a negative impact on their gaming experience" really does need rewording. 

Agreed. To quote from EULA, "You must refrain from behavior that ... could harm one or more users or have a negative impact on their gaming experience ..." 
Now, if I say that getting attacked or in any way engaged in PVP has a negative impact on my gaming experience because I'm a PVE player (trader, crafter, builder), will NQ punish whoever attacked me? 

Mind you, I'm not saying that I want them to do that - but the vague wording really leads to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mornington said:

Really sorry to disagree with you on this Vertex, but "have a negative impact on their gaming experience" really does need rewording. 

 

It's so vague that it becomes meaningless or makes rule-breakers of everyone (e.g. am I having a 'negative impact' on your gaming experience by disagreeing with you on a forum? Pretty sure ONIXXX had his game experience negatively impacted, I read about the theft happening on the support forum).

Nah, we don't completely disagree there - I feel like most ppl agree that those things could do well with an update, to put it mildly ;) 

 

That's why after quoting that I followed up picking the last bit "detrimental to the proper functioning of the game", because the rest is too open to interpretation. And it's why I stressed that this doesn't apply here, because the destruction of that market is so clear a violation of all of those rubber band paragraphs that no matter how far you manage to stretch them, this incident would still blow that rubber away. Not only this but in addition it's perfectly clear that it was an error/bug/exploit and we've just had a very clear announcement regarding this.

 

So while I agree that this is difficult with those other issues, I still think it's not difficult here. On the contrary, it's very obvious, testified, tracable, provable and even the vague wording can't be interpreted in any way that would justify the act, which all leads to it being such a perfect opportunity to make an example. I like it.

 

Considering the other issues, well, it may be easy to fight over the interpretation, but I think it's rather easy to grasp the general intention. The letter of the law might be confusing, but the spirit is clear. We have many of these vague things in our laws too and at some point there needs to be a judicial precedent that can be referred to later. Some here want to turn the "non-interfere with RDMS theft" into that precedent case to apply here, but it's pretty easily dismantled if you think about how such an RDMS theft goes down: they trick someone into trusting them and giving them permission and then they steal the assets. So at first you have someone actively creating rules that grant someone else access who then abuses these permissions. People on this thread claim that's what happened here, but that's just a hollow statement so far and if you think for just one second about if there's a chance that NQ wanted to grant public access to build mode on a market you'd immediately arrive at "no, wait, that must be an error or a mistake" - which even is established by circumstantial evidence looking at the "pls no ban" hovering above the scene.

 

If there's a bug that enables players to exploit the RDMS and rob someone who otherwise didn't let anyone trick him and made no mistake with configuration... well, at least to me it's pretty obvious that this wouldn't be covered by the "non-interfere with RDMS theft" precedent. Instead we have a new precedent here: destruction of public buildings and game features is detrimental to the proper functioning of the game and leads to a ban. It's as simple as it can get.

 

On previous incidents, like the dock-theft from safe zone, they let offenders off the hook who participated in such acts before the announcement. Maybe because it was too difficult to prove, maybe because there was reasonable doubt on the interpretation, maybe both. But in this case it's neither - it's easy to prove, there's no doubt and the offending party knew exactly what they were doing.

 

Bottom line: it doesn't compare and whatever ppl may think about the rest of the game, other rules or other incidents, doesn't affect this case. And shouldn't either - issues should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and it will not always be black or white - but in this case it is clear as day and night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vertex said:

Considering the other issues, well, it may be easy to fight over the interpretation, but I think it's rather easy to grasp the general intention. The letter of the law might be confusing, but the spirit is clear. We have many of these vague things in our laws too and at some point there needs to be a judicial precedent that can be referred to later. Some here want to turn the "non-interfere with RDMS theft" into that precedent case to apply here, but it's pretty easily dismantled if you think about how such an RDMS theft goes down: they trick someone into trusting them and giving them permission and then they steal the assets. So at first you have someone actively creating rules that grant someone else access who then abuses these permissions. People on this thread claim that's what happened here, but that's just a hollow statement so far and if you think for just one second about if there's a chance that NQ wanted to grant public access to build mode on a market you'd immediately arrive at "no, wait, that must be an error or a mistake" - which even is established by circumstantial evidence looking at the "pls no ban" hovering above the scene.

This is simply false.

 

Most RDMS theft is just people not setting RDMS permissions up correctly and allowing for public access.

 

You know...exactly what happened here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or not what happened here. There's more things that can break than the RDMS. As I repeatedly said there doesn't seem to be any confirmation that anyone at NQ has set that market to public access. On the contrary, there are claims that suggest there's another bug that lets people access constructs even tho there are no policies set in RDMS that would allow it. In addition, from personal experience, I know that even if you set up the RDMS properly, it doesn't always work. All in all the claim that it's "exactly what happened here" is a weak hypothesis at best.

 

And my paragraph above is not false - it's basically the same as what you said. In conclusion to my first example I said "at first you have someone actively creating rules", which is true in your example too (still unknown if this has been the case with the market). Then I continued with "that grant someone else access who then abuses these permissions", which is also true because that "someone" can just as well refer to "everyone" and each individual being "someone" in that group.

 

I can see the possibility that they added the wrong tag to a policy (core instead of terminals) or the core (terminal tag added to core), which would make it publicly accessible. But that's not confirmed - and even if it was the case and would be confirmed, I'd still consider this a bug or error in game design and not equal to someone setting up their private property RDMS wrong, simply because markets are not player owned structures, but part of game design and basic funcitonality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mordgier said:

This is simply false.

 

Most RDMS theft is just people not setting RDMS permissions up correctly and allowing for public access.

 

You know...exactly what happened here.

This is partially incorrect, there still a bug that allows people to steal from you, even with the right permissions. This includes all cores been static, dynamic or space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Iorail said:

This is partially incorrect, there still a bug that allows people to steal from you, even with the right permissions. This includes all cores been static, dynamic or space.

If the player walked up, pressed B, it's not the player using some exploit to bypass RDMS. It's RDMS not set up correctly.

 

 

If RDMS is riddled with bugs that cause it to give public rights to players when it shouldn't, as unfortunate as that is, that's hardly the fault of the players - AND if that is indeed the case - what is NQ doing about all the players who lost their stuff through the exact same scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As several people already noted over here and in Discord talks, problem not particular "interpretation" of crime act or even ban of this guy/guys (even people who seem like "defend" them not actualy I think much care about per se involved individuals). 

 

Its, as always in history, matter of circumstance and context, that makes mundane things powder kegs. Because if this happend in more calm circumstance, effect was drammaticly lower. Banned? And to hell with them. No one cared.

 

Yet circumstance made them kinda "resistance" figures in funny sense. Vandalizing Robin Hoods.

 

This discontent about NQ communication (especialy -- lack of communication on several very sensetive issues about different exploits, clear rules and examples of punishments) was brewing for some time now. For some people since early start, for some since alpha, for some -- from newer times.

 

And this event was like sort of tragico-comedical twist of plot, when someone got biten with exactly same thing he was like... "deserving"? You know this stories? This why it having now so much effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vertex said:

Or not what happened here. There's more things that can break than the RDMS. As I repeatedly said there doesn't seem to be any confirmation that anyone at NQ has set that market to public access. On the contrary, there are claims that suggest there's another bug that lets people access constructs even tho there are no policies set in RDMS that would allow it. In addition, from personal experience, I know that even if you set up the RDMS properly, it doesn't always work. All in all the claim that it's "exactly what happened here" is a weak hypothesis at best.

 

And my paragraph above is not false - it's basically the same as what you said. In conclusion to my first example I said "at first you have someone actively creating rules", which is true in your example too (still unknown if this has been the case with the market). Then I continued with "that grant someone else access who then abuses these permissions", which is also true because that "someone" can just as well refer to "everyone" and each individual being "someone" in that group.

 

I can see the possibility that they added the wrong tag to a policy (core instead of terminals) or the core (terminal tag added to core), which would make it publicly accessible. But that's not confirmed - and even if it was the case and would be confirmed, I'd still consider this a bug or error in game design and not equal to someone setting up their private property RDMS wrong, simply because markets are not player owned structures, but part of game design and basic funcitonality.

That's a lot of text to say what happened was "Player walked up to market. Player pressed B. Player tore down the market."

 

The above are known events.

 

You can theory craft all you want about the innerworkings of RDMS but none of that is relevant.


All the player did is press B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This "just pressed B" argument is invalid. The level of difficulty to use an exploit has nothing to do with the classification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vertex said:

Or not what happened here. There's more things that can break than the RDMS. As I repeatedly said there doesn't seem to be any confirmation that anyone at NQ has set that market to public access. On the contrary, there are claims that suggest there's another bug that lets people access constructs even tho there are no policies set in RDMS that would allow it. In addition, from personal experience, I know that even if you set up the RDMS properly, it doesn't always work. All in all the claim that it's "exactly what happened here" is a weak hypothesis at best.

 

All true and including myself I know of several who encountered this very thing and had their base's containers emptied by people who should not have access. Reports to this effect are not even touched by NQ  4 or more weeks in and NQ shows no intent to actually properly deal with these issues outside of pretty much trying to sweep it all under the "RDMS theft is allowed" rug, ignoring clear and obvious signals there is more going on. Players lost days, if not weeks of work and material and NQ simply does not care.

 

Then when they are impacted themselves they instaban and act very quickly and in the process show they did not even properly investigate (claimed there was no report while there was for instance) nor tried to get the perpetrators side of the story. Following that they go right back to being silent, something that seems they continue to be very good at. Now, some did try to raise issues and escalate (to CS lead), Naerais specifically, but the support team NQ runs is simply not capable of performing the task they are hired for and are failing on every front.

 

 

Meanwhile I have no illusions of NQ ever actually doing anything about these instances as it does not affect them and hey, it's just backers who are really just ballast at this time anyway, what are they going to do, not pay a sub in 4 years time? problem is the 4 subbed alts I have will not be resubbing come December.. I'll scoop their stuff and let them sit where they are.. 

 

I see nothing that justifies supporting NQ beyond what i put in already at this time, I paid my dues to get where we are and unless they bring the goods going forward that wil be it..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vertex said:

This "just pressed B" argument is invalid. The level of difficulty to use an exploit has nothing to do with the classification.

So is misconfigured RDMS an exploit or user error?


Or is it only user error when we do it? But an exploit when devs do it? 

 

If Scoopy bypassed RDMS permissions, he absolutely should have been banned. 

 

He didn't.

 

RDMS was set to allow public access.

 

Why that was the case is not relevant.

 

There is no scenario where pressing B to access a publicly configured structure is an exploit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mordgier said:

So is misconfigured RDMS an exploit or user error?


Or is it only user error when we do it? But an exploit when devs do it? 

 

If Scoopy bypassed RDMS permissions, he absolutely should have been banned. 

 

He didn't.

 

RDMS was set to allow public access.

 

Why that was the case is not relevant.

 

There is no scenario where pressing B to access a publicly configured structure is an exploit.

Why do you have such confidence? after all, you can reconfigure RDMS using illegal methods, and get the B button by criminal means, is this possible? Yes, are you sure that the B button was received by an incorrect RDMS setting? no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mordgier said:

RDMS was set to allow public access.

Why that was the case is not relevant.

 

There is no scenario for pressing B to access a publicly configured structure is an exploit.

 

Exactly this. By being dumb and making the mistake of setting the construct to public, NQ in my opinion voided their own EULA/TOS or whatever and the latest clarification on their ruleset applies, which reads ; "RDMS theft is allowed"

 

NQ bends the rules here as they are butthurt for being the victim of their own ignorance in not setting RDMS correctly

 

Period

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to summarize how I perceive this after all these posts.

 

A. If Aphelia (NQ staff personification in game) did mess up RDMS settings, and it was really just a matter of pressing B. Then I think it is no different then emptying a player base with wrongly set RDMS, and there should be no punishment. In fact it could be considered the MMO heist of the century, and the stuff legends are made of. So NQ should have played into it, and used it to add some meat to the game lore.

 

B. If some kind of exploit was used, then there should definitively be punishment. But since historically these types of exploits have been ignored up until now, it should not be a permban. I am pretty sure that if NQ had set a precedence for punishing exploiters earlier, this would not have happened as it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...