How this many items in secured ?!

[Elk Eater]

Dealing with exploits has never involved simply changing the status of items arbitrarily and on the spot, nor has it involved giving players the opportunity to gain another player's items.

Also, the implication that we would ban anyone who isn't part of a specific guild is a completely unfounded claim.

So if a player is actively exploiting in the game, the policy is non-intervention until the exploit is fixed?

What are the repercussions for exploiting this bug? Is it OK if I create one of these in my house in the hopes that it gets grandfathered in, or at the very least, for unlimited weight secure storage until it is fixed?

Also, if I create one of these, can I expect some sort of advanced notice or contingency for protecting the items inside the container in the even that the bug is going to be fixed and the secure status removed?

[killaboy]

The entire reason that we won't change the status of the container is to prevent arbitrary looting. We know how the exploit works, and we'll get a fix for it in the near future.

You said you know how it works? Thought this was the first time seeing it?

[Rick James]

I have posted 2 more replies to this thread which seem to not be going through.. Am I getting hit with the "have a nice cup of STFU" stick?


Kaivan,

So this fix, will it undo the bug or simply disallow it from being recreated? (ie having grandfathered containers) My thinking for this question is how you guys handled the castle courtyard situation where any blocking items in the courtyard were grandfathered, and decay was turned on in all other courtyards..

[Kaivan]

Dealing with exploits has never involved simply changing the status of items arbitrarily and on the spot, nor has it involved giving players the opportunity to gain another player's items.

Also, the implication that we would ban anyone who isn't part of a specific guild is a completely unfounded claim.

So if a player is actively exploiting in the game, the policy is non-intervention until the exploit is fixed?

What are the repercussions for exploiting this bug? Is it OK if I create one of these in my house in the hopes that it gets grandfathered in, or at the very least, for unlimited weight secure storage until it is fixed?

Also, if I create one of these, can I expect some sort of advanced notice or contingency for protecting the items inside the container in the even that the bug is going to be fixed and the secure status removed?

If a player is actively exploiting in game, the policy varies depending on the type of exploit. The same was true on OSI servers (see pre-casting, a bug that no one ever got in trouble for).

I'm not going to disclose what the repercussions may or may not be for this particular exploit.

Finally, we do not have any plans for how to deal with current containers yet.

The entire reason that we won't change the status of the container is to prevent arbitrary looting. We know how the exploit works, and we'll get a fix for it in the near future.

You said you know how it works? Thought this was the first time seeing it?

Once I saw the page about it today, I was able to figure out how it worked within a very short period of time.

[Elk Eater]

The reason I ask about the repercussions is that if this is going to be grandfathered and there are no real repercussions, we should be allowed the same chance to create these as the exploiters, don't you think?

This is assuming that they will be grandfathered, if not the point is moot!

[killaboy]

I'd sure as hell want one of these knowingly that the GM's are saying they are trying to fix it right now and it might become GF'd and worth alot of money for that house its in.....

If it's fixed and not GF'd id have no problem with that...

Also you figured it out quite quick ..... not fixing it now/soon many many people could figure this out...

[Kaivan]

I certainly understand the desire to know what we will and won't be doing to those who own these containers, and to the containers themselves, but that information simply doesn't exist right now.

[killaboy]

Well while you guys sit back and try to figure out what to do with them more and more people going to figure it out....

If you guys just made them in "locked down" so people could loot them it would be a lesson to learn for all those non era accurate chasers and it would be solved..

Instead of the possibility of this being GF'd.

[Elk Eater]

Without disclosing the method for doing this, it should be known that items cannot be added to the container after securing it due to its weight, only removed. This greatly reduces the utility of such a box, the only real "cool" use I could see for one is loading it up with reagents or some other consumable for easier access -- a minor convenience. Edit: and presumably once the exploit is fixed, it will be impossible to reload.

[corruption42]

Well while you guys sit back and try to figure out what to do with them more and more people going to figure it out....

If you guys just made them in "locked down" so people could loot them it would be a lesson to learn for all those non era accurate chasers and it would be solved..

Instead of the possibility of this being GF'd.

I like how this is being turned into "Give me permission to exploit this as well, or give me permission to loot people on something that no policy exists for, those are the only 2 options" -- the logic on this shard is just mindblowing.

You were given an answer; its not like there's just a switch that can be flipped to make this go away, or change the status of all these containers (and selectively doing it to known ones likewise wouldn't be an option because it potentially punishes a group that is known, but no less guilty, than those who aren't known). You are talking about development changes; these things will require actual time of someone with knowledge of code sitting down to correct these things.

If you want to take the risk and try to exploit this, thats your call. Just openly recognize that there may be ramifications for it -- ramifications that you will not be told right now, because they have not been decided. Why you expect an instant response to development related questions, is simply beyond my fathoming.

[killaboy]

Well while you guys sit back and try to figure out what to do with them more and more people going to figure it out....

If you guys just made them in "locked down" so people could loot them it would be a lesson to learn for all those non era accurate chasers and it would be solved..

Instead of the possibility of this being GF'd.

I like how this is being turned into "Give me permission to exploit this as well, or give me permission to loot people on something that no policy exists for, those are the only 2 options" -- the logic on this shard is just mindblowing.

You were given an answer; its not like there's just a switch that can be flipped to make this go away, or change the status of all these containers (and selectively doing it to known ones likewise wouldn't be an option because it potentially punishes a group that is known, but no less guilty, than those who aren't known). You are talking about development changes; these things will require actual time of someone with knowledge of code sitting down to correct these things.

If you want to take the risk and try to exploit this, thats your call. Just openly recognize that there may be ramifications for it -- ramifications that you will not be told right now, because they have not been decided. Why you expect an instant response to development related questions, is simply beyond my fathoming.

It'd be a lesson to learn. Deal with the game and its rules DONT expliot and it wont bite you in the ass... That simple

[Rammar]

...a minor convenience.

Unless you're not co-owner, then it's the only safe way to store large stacks of resources and still have them accessible. Safer (and a lot faster) than messing around with interior doors and blockades as well. Primo for a stock house.

This has been around for over a year at least though. I had actually thought it was fixed when the trashbarrel release bug was a while back.

[killaboy]

Wellllll damn that was easy and quick to figure out...

I hope this is either bannable or atleast get a warning...

I don't hope it gets GF'd because knowing its that easy to do so many people would have done it...

[corruption42]

Well while you guys sit back and try to figure out what to do with them more and more people going to figure it out....

If you guys just made them in "locked down" so people could loot them it would be a lesson to learn for all those non era accurate chasers and it would be solved..

Instead of the possibility of this being GF'd.

I like how this is being turned into "Give me permission to exploit this as well, or give me permission to loot people on something that no policy exists for, those are the only 2 options" -- the logic on this shard is just mindblowing.

You were given an answer; its not like there's just a switch that can be flipped to make this go away, or change the status of all these containers (and selectively doing it to known ones likewise wouldn't be an option because it potentially punishes a group that is known, but no less guilty, than those who aren't known). You are talking about development changes; these things will require actual time of someone with knowledge of code sitting down to correct these things.

If you want to take the risk and try to exploit this, thats your call. Just openly recognize that there may be ramifications for it -- ramifications that you will not be told right now, because they have not been decided. Why you expect an instant response to development related questions, is simply beyond my fathoming.

It'd be a lesson to learn. Deal with the game and its rules DONT expliot and it wont bite you in the ass... That simple

....except none of it is that simple. I don't know why you think the GM's can just magically make any secure in a house over a weight limit magically flip to unsecure, with a matter of a few keystrokes. It simply doesn't work that way. As a side effect of the fact that this is related to the mechanics of how lockdowns and secures work in a house, a solution will have to be developed -- ie, programmed, tested, confirmed to not introduce new problems, deployed -- before that can happen.

No decision regarding things like this are made in haste; thats obvious by Kaivan's responses on this, the LOS bugs, or any other problem on this shard. When decisions are made in haste, and things are developed only to fix for whats directly in front of your nose, you start introducing more unexpected problems and further perpetuate problems. If instead, you take a metered response and plan things out -- treating them with the severity that a free game thats developed in peoples free time for no profit deserves -- then those complications can usually be avoided.

What do you want, a fix that is slapped together quickly to negate this bug, but also inadvertently introduces a major housing break-in exploit -- or one that takes a bit longer, but solves the problem without introducing new ones? The answer's pretty obvious.

[Elk Eater]

I like how this is being turned into "Give me permission to exploit this as well, or give me permission to loot people on something that no policy exists for, those are the only 2 options" -- the logic on this shard is just mindblowing.

You were given an answer; its not like there's just a switch that can be flipped to make this go away, or change the status of all these containers (and selectively doing it to known ones likewise wouldn't be an option because it potentially punishes a group that is known, but no less guilty, than those who aren't known). You are talking about development changes; these things will require actual time of someone with knowledge of code sitting down to correct these things.

If you want to take the risk and try to exploit this, thats your call. Just openly recognize that there may be ramifications for it -- ramifications that you will not be told right now, because they have not been decided. Why you expect an instant response to development related questions, is simply beyond my fathoming.

I think it's prudent and OK to ask what, if any, policy exists around these containers. Before figuring out how this works, it was unclear how useful such a box would be. Let's pretend that it actually allowed for unlimited secure weight, and allowed new items to be added. If it were grandfathered, a house with such a secure box would be worth more in the future due to the utility.

In the event that these items were grandfathered with no repercussions, but the staff was unclear about the policy before removing them, it would in effect be rewarding only those who exploit. If the policy was to allow folks to do this until it is removed, it allows the general population to take equal advantage of a mechanic that exists. If the staff doesn't have or doesn't give a policy regarding the situation, that's fine -- but why not ask?

Anyway, the point(s) I've been trying to make in this post and previous ones:

1) I think the containers should not be grandfathered. I think they should be fixed, with notice to those who use them. I think those who continue to use them should be warned against exploiting in the future.

2) If they are grandfathered, and folks are given fair opportunity to create them, I think those who have them should not be punished.

3) If they are grandfathered, and folks are not given fair opportunity to create them, I think the folks who created them should be punished.

Realize that these are opinions for the sake of discussion, not demands.