It was an exploit? When did that ever get said?

If its in-game its a feature.

Successful reading between the lines is successful.

Well... I personally found most curious that only PvP corp would be named here.

Specially a corp like E=MK2 that only have 15 members, and is utterly unable to really produce bots for the purpose of defrauding insurance. (almost everyone is PvP specced.)

Sure, on some days, we lost 10 bots per member, doing PvP, loosing bots, and destroying even more enemies.
Are we getting punished because we played the game as it was intended?

Almost all these bots we lost were bought on the market.

Why don't you punished the terribad producer that dared sell the bot at such a low price instead?
We did NOTHING to deserve such name-calling and punishment.

All the exploited bots were blown up in PVP, it was just inter-corp PVP.

I don't see how they could tell the difference unless.

1) they track the time from when the bot was produced til it was killled, even then you 'could' have been waiting to do a roam on that batch, so the time could still be short even for a valid PVP death.

2) If they track who gets the killing blow on each bot. They do keep track of the 'number' of killing blows, but do they track which bot was blown up by which character.

Even if they did track that, they would have to cross reference thousands of bot kills to corporate rosters to see if you were killed 'internally'. They would also need to know alliance members and NAP just incase.

And, tehcnially, it doesn't matter if the bot died in PVP or exploit, the 'profit' from losing the bot was unintended. Since some corps exploited this greatly, now anyone who got some profit has to pay for it; or payback for it.

No, the exploitation didn't do anyone any favors.

Inter corp pvp? With 800 sequers? Spin more pls.

I wasn't spinning sheet. I meant intercorp as in destroyed by someone within their own corp for fraud purposes...

but you bring up another good point that I was making in the Mech vs. Assualt thread, which is most mech pilots can't get any practice because the bots are too expensive to lose.

So another advantage, in addition to the healthy NIC return, was being able to practice PVP and actually get paid for it!

Even if the target mech was empty, as it would have to be for profit, the attacking bots would still get the benefit of using terrain and such; if the target bot was being actually being used and not just sitting there.

nvm

Doesn't need to be said. Anyone who has spent any real time in these games knows the score.  When one finds an exploit, report it and move on. DON'T use it. In many games, such actions are perma ban offenses.  Especially, when its a major exploit of this type.

Hey, MODERATOR, how many threads do we need on this subject, 3 going atm.  Anyhow, this is reposted from other thread, lets get a little logic going here:

Here are the facts people:
A) Devs put in an insuance system, that had short term(16 days at max skill) life, and payouts that actually allowed you to make significantly more than the actual cost to build the bot.

B) Before the announcement that insurance was being turned off, there was no statement on the forums, in the EULA, in the game description of insurance, no where in game or out that this was designated an exploit or a fraud.  People, GMs and Devs, when asked in the past, stated that it is working as intended.

C) Devs were informed, from multiple sources, how this system potentially was "broken", and took no action.

In RL, when you do a Root Cause analysis, you start off with with:

1) What is the issue?
2) What procedure, standard, regulation, etc., that it violates

If you find that there is no regulatory or procedural requirement that the issue violates, you implement corrective action by creating a new requirement to cover the issue.  You cannot at that time claim it is a violation of a requirement, only that your system did not anticipate the need for control of something that at the time was not an issue.

There was not exploit or fraud.  Because there was no rule / requirement / procedure that it violated.  There was no hack, becuase someone did not use out of game mechanics to affect in game performance.  The only ones that are at fault here are the Devs, everything else was done according to the at the time published game rules and functionality.  Corrective Action at this point would be to declare it an exploit, create a mechanic to prevent it, and publish it in an easily referable source, such as an Exploit Forum or list, and state from this point forward, it is not allowed.  To retroactively punish people for something that was not a violation prior to that point is inherently wrong, logically, and ethically.