What you're saying here is that the scale of the operation made it an exploit. This is the second time you have said this. Wrong. Something either is an exploit, or it is not, the scale is immaterial. If a game mechanic is used on an industrial scale, and this is harmful for the economy as a whole, don't put it in. If, by some oversight, you have put it in, you can't blame the players for using it.

This game is supposed to be a sandbox with a free market economy, and all the cheating, scheming market pvp tricks that entails. That's why your mechanics and systems must be robust enough to withstand anything the player base can throw at it.

Please provide more information on how this damaged the economy beyond repair. I would like to see it. I suspect that you are exaggerating here.

The manner in which this was handled...the tone the blog was written in, the removal of NIC, the corps named in the blog. How else can people react? It came across as an attempt to publically humiliate certain corporations.

This is not an excuse to penalise players for using the tools the devs gave them. If it's in, it's in; if it's allowed, it's allowed. If not, declare it an exploit, or don't put it in.

You mentioned previously that you named corps because you wanted to prove that the Dev team are not favouring one corp over another. In my opinion, a dev team should basically ignore these comments. They will be made even if you are the fairest handed dev team in the whole of the universe. Any time there is a new patch, or a moderating decision, or a reaction to some community issue, some portion of the player base will scream that devs are clearly in bed with some other part of the player base. It's as annoying as hell but it's endemic and you can't do anything about it. Just be as fair and professional as you can and don't lower yourself to respond to it.

How come you deducted NIC from corporation wallets that had not ever engaged in insurance fraud? How did this mistake come to be made?

I don't think this is a worthy comment from a dev. Either NIC should have been taken, or it should not, and if it was, it should have been done so in a fair manner. And we are not convinced that it was.

Also Jita: good post

Example - you're in a light bot. You see a sequer 1600m away. You can see him, but you know he can't see you unless he has a sensor module fitted.

Now, suppose all people on your radar are coloured yellow if they can't see you and red if they can.

If that sequer is coloured yellow, you know he doesn't have a sensor module. If he's coloured red, you know he does...

Immediately this radar feature is telling you about the fitting of a robot you haven't even targetted. On the whole, I think it's better to be doing these on the fly calculations than have this scenario.

I agree the whole system is a bit complicated...but not sure how you would solve it without spoiling it.

It would be handy for default sensor ranges, but you can't do this for sensor modules, because you can't know they have one fitted or not. And it would be unfair to flag this somehow on the radar, without a chassis scanner being involved.

And the problem with doing it for default ranges is that potentially it's false information if they do have a sensor module fitted.

/signed

That's like saying WoW is a copy of EQ.

People do say that, but all they mean by it is that WoW is the same genre of game. We throw the word "clone" around a bit carelessly.

Having more games of EVE's genre is a good thing.

If you have an issue with moderation, you need to speak to the moderators. Send Dev Zoom or Recogniser a PM outlining all your issues with the way the forum moderation is handled.

Also yeah...report button.

In my opinion, this forum is a pretty good one. I think this is partly because the community is small...as it grows it will get a lot harder to handle. But for now (particularly for a sandbox pvp game which attracts aggressive forum trolls like flies to honey) it's pretty good.

Remember, moderating can only do so much. It can encourage a tone, it can't force a community to change it's nature.

So why didn't you remove it? It doesn't matter how much NIC is on the account, if there is any at all, it should be removed first from the people who blew up more bots.

No you didn't. You removed Lupus money because you thought his account was one of Styx's. You told him that. And you (or Manx) refunded his money when you realised it was a different person.

Furthermore, you are making it up when you say you have taken NIC from those connected with blowing up the bots for insurance fraud.

You haven't taken any of my NIC. You have not taken any NIC from the members of M2S who blew up the most bots, you haven't checked that at all. You should have done that before you took NIC from Lupus again.

You have made a very unfair decision, and now you are just making excuses.

You cannot have a different rule for one person just because he has higher personal wealth than other members of the corp.

So why wasn't NIC removed from me? Surely a percentage of my NIC should have been removed as well, since I'm pretty sure I was involved as Lupus.

Also, other members who did most of the blowing up of bots didn't lose any NIC either...

This is hardly a fair or reasonable response.

This is true. I hate seeing these conspiracy theories invent themselves and spiral out of control, it's one of the worst parts of having to deal with a community. You have my sympathy there.

I still think "no naming" would be a good policy to implement in future, it's pretty standard practice for a lot of good reasons.

Truly?

So what you're saying is that the devs knew about it, and not only didn't fix it but also condoned it for a limited number of players.

That's incredible. It's...beyond naive.