We haven't said one word about exploits. Technically, the part where you could buy the weapon and then break it down and sell the broken-down materials for four times [the price]?
TL;DRThey say the weapon break-down pricing is intentional rather than an exploit, and that they track several exploit types but won't give details, partly so they can learn causes and who is responsible before acting.
That's worse than an exploit. That's legal and legit in this case, because we put those prices in, right? It's not an exploit in this case, but we are tracking several potential exploits. Basically, we're not going to go into details on exploits, because that's kind of an area that we don't want to be too public about. You don't want people to be using those exploits if they are confirmed.
Well, we benefit from those people not knowing we know what we know. It lets us track, it lets us learn more about it, it lets us find not just that cause of it, but that cause of it and that cause of it. It's very easy to be frustrated when you see an exploit go on and continue. It's like, why the hell isn't CIG doing something about it? Well, no, we are. We're baiting the hook. If we smack this cause of it now, then we never get to see this one and we never get to see this one. So there are reasons why we leave these things going for perhaps longer than some people would prefer, because it's how we find out how it's happening, it's how we find out who is doing it. That's one of those ones where I could see why it's frustrating, but that's actually the process working.
So we're tracking exploits across a range of different types, whether they're environment exploits or economy exploits or duping or adjacent duping or mission bypass, things like that. So we're tracking a bunch of those. We have a great team doing this work, by the way, that supports the developers with all our crazy questions about what, who, when and how, and so these guys are doing great supporting us.