https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/off-topic
A troll is someone who posts inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community.
Pulling CONCORD is a clear exploit. You must be either dense or in denial not to see it.
But it is a legit exploit, perfectly allowed by CCP and encouraged.
Seriously CONCORD needs to despawn just like facpo and the response should be of what pulled CONCORD response is. Spawning CONCORD every day is annoying as hell.
If concord did despawn, then it would be easy to chain the alts until the target dies (assuming you have enough of them)
Well, the thread had some useful info for a while, but then the Coderats entered and it quickly devolved into a pissing match.
It occurs to me that quite a number of threads are destroyed and shut down shortly after the codelings enter. I also note that of the toxic, nonconstructive, trolling forum posters, Code and it’s adherents and supporters make up over 50% of them.
Further, since the Codeites seem to love that reference to ganking new players from 2015 and assume that “correlation is causation”, I note that Code began in 2012 - which is also the beginning of the bad times for EVE. I note that ‘Crimewatch 2.0’, CCP’s only real response to Code and their little pack of buttsniffers, caused EVE’s best year ever to happen in 2013.
I note further that CCP never did anything else to muzzle the little Code yappers, and ever since, Code has remained but hundreds of thousands of players have left the game. Code remains a factor on the forums but anyone who’s been around for over 3 years can tell you the forums have also been heading downhill ever since Code became active on them.
The correlation is clear, the causation is precise: CODE. is a toxic, game-destroying, community-destroying element of EVE, and should be muzzled and neutered for their own good and the good of the game.
(No replies will be made to the rabid little bearers of the Codisease, so feel free to begin yapping.)
1 Like
CONCORD not despawning doesn’t prevent this at all. It can still be done, but this method of ganking requires some very specific conditions of a target (afk? permabumping no longer possible and this method of ganking used to be used to avoid multiple accounts logged at the same time so it makes no sense to use 20 different alts to keep target in permabump via warpdis each 5minutes by another alt) and ganker (lower number of accounts, but ganking alt at each of the three positions).
Seriously it is not worth it. I ganked an abadoned Orca in similar way (with waiting 15 minutes for a repeat) and the ammount of shield it regained was absurd so it took quite a few attempts to me and it always will if you don’t gank the target “at once”.
That sir, is an oxymoron; exploits being against the rules and the use of them being a bannable offence.
An exploit would be using unintended or unanticipated behaviour to your advantage, the fact that Concord has a 6 second variance in response time depending on player actions is neither, because as far as we know Concord are coded to act in that way.
Even if this were not true, it’s still not an exploit because CCP have stated that it is a legitimate gameplay option and totally within the parameters of the game rules.
2 Likes
The CODE. idiots, in the final analysis, care nothing about AFK or BOT or anything besides getting “bad” fights and creating explosions.
Pure griefing is what it is.
When invited to “bring it” by anyone who shows an ability to fight back…CODE.rs quickly hop on the sploit-horse and tell us that “it’s a sploit” but is a “legal one.” Never mind the juxtaposition in the use of the word itself.
And the end of the day they are weak, lazy, diminished shells of human beings.
Enjoy your weekend! 
1 Like
People keep saying CODE is using exploits but cannot provide said proof that would cause their bans. If only CCP had a report button.
2 Likes
They use the word themselves to describe what they do.
How much more brazen does CCP need it to be?
You are contracting yourself. It either exploit is by definition or it isn’t. That CCP didn’t put it on a list of exploits that get you banned doesn’t mean they intented it and expected it.
But then, you are CODE., those of you posting on forums are all in denial about everything related to ganking.
2 Likes
Really what CODE. does with their stated exploit, is eliminate, in practice, the CONCORD mechanic from having the intended police action that is determined by sec status of a given system.
But it’s not on their list of exploits, ergo it’s not an exploit until they say it is, furthermore Concord manipulation within the rules is well documented so it’s not like CCP are unaware of it and haven’t had ample opportunity to declare it as one.
But then, you are CODE.,
Nothing could be further from the truth, I am not CODE., nor am I a ganker.
those of you posting on forums are all in denial about everything related to ganking.
I accept ganking for what it is and work around it; you, on the other hand, seem to be in denial about the fact that it is a legitimate gameplay option for those who choose to do it.
I am not sure you are talking about the same thing that I am 
.
CONCORD is not there to protect you (and because spawning and pulling CONCORD exists it actually can which is so wrong)
but from the way how it works it seems that CCP intented CONCORD to prevent additional ganking at same place OR to do what @Anderson_Geten refered to (and if it was then it is not working anyway because again you can pull them elsewhere).
No that is not true. Each system security status has a certain amount of time it takes before concord responds.
You cannot stop concord from popping your ship. If somebody has found a way to do that then that is an exploit and ban worthy.
The normal operation is…
GANK
Get popped by concord
Warp pod out
Dock at a station
Get into a rookie ship
Undock rookie ship
Concord comes again and pops you because you still have criminal timer pulling concord from the gank area.
Wait until timer end
Get into gank ship
Gank, rinse repeat.
2 Likes
If concord did despawn, that would be 0s. AFAIK criminal does not prevent you from boarding a catalyst in an orca, or boarding a catalyst in space.
So shoot the target, get killed by concord ; wait until concord despawns (so at once), board new ship, (which will die later on), shoot target, rinse and repeat
Does not mean that his sentence is absurd.
It’s an exploit by definition of what is an exploit from CCP : “delaying concord”. Its legit because CCP said it’s not an exploit.
CCP should just add in their exploit list “delaying concord more than it is supposed to be (eg by spawning concord somewhere else in the system)”
define legitimate.
Allowed by the game mechanisms ? Good for the health of the game ?
LMAO. Typical CODE. response to anyone who has different opinion.
Do you realize I am suggesting a buff to the ganking?
I am ganker. The difference between me and CODE scum is that I do not pretend to others or even fool myself into believing that what I do is flawless for both attacked and victim and that it has positive effect to player retention and other misbeliefs that CODE members and alts spamming in every thread about ganking that arises on forums. EDIT: oh yes and I do not try to mine salt from my victims or try to scam them from stupid 10milion after I kill them.
1 Like
Bollocks. I’m their prey, a miner and industrialist.
What I am not is lazy fat prey that’s easy to catch and kill.
No no and no 
ok so I will elaborate.
Criminal timer does prevent you from boarding ship in space or from another ship. It was nerfed exactly because players were doing exactly this - and guess what, CONCORD not despawning had no effect on doing this. How? Because all you needed was another alt docked at station or citadel with criminal timer and undock with him every time that CONCORD shows up on a target and hence you could suicide gank a freighter using two characters (warp disruption spammer to keep target from disappearing after he logged off and the actual ganker + the support alts, but at least 12 gank alts less than normally). Yes, if CONCORD didn’t stay after a gank, you could save an alt but then it is not possible to board ship anyway.
What I wrote earlier was not related to the method you were thinking and that is not possible anymore (and I expected you to know about it), but slightly altered and still possible method of using another alts that you log in after you attack the target with main group of gank alts, then dock and pull CONCORD.
Which really doesn’t have a lot of sense. The only reason you would want to do it is to avoid subbing more accounts (but then you would have to train a gank character on each slot to make this doable) OR if your computer cannot handle so many alts logged simultaneously (in which case getting better hardware is really better option).
In this method, the “delay time” is around 2-4 minutes depending on your hardware and distance to pulling station/citadel and from docked station to grid with target. (And okay, you are right that if CONCORD despawned automatically, you would save time pulling it hence it would be slighty faster and easier to do this. But still not worth it really.)
It’s not something that concerns me personally, but just on the issue of “Concord delays are an exploit/aren’t an exploit”:
From my past readings, I had clearly gotten the idea that CCP had stated outright that any method of delaying Concord response times was an exploit. From links earlier in this thread, where people use a link to “prove” that CCP says “delaying Concord in this fashion isn’t an exploit”, they seem to miss quite clear points in the post.
This link - Exploit Notification Delaying Concord Response says clearly:
“We would like to clarify that all methods of delaying Concord’s response time are considered an exploit.”
Other links from CCP also state that “delaying Concord response” is an exploit. Perhaps part of the issue is that CCP isn’t consistent with what it considers to be exploits, and/or they are aware of some “delay Concord response” situations which they don’t treat as exploits because they aren’t able to come up with a solution for it. It’s also possible that they consider spawning Concord in one place and then committing a criminal action in another place in such a manner that you have a longer time before Concord appears to complete the 2nd action to be “Well that’s just the way Concord works, so it’s not an exploit”.
It clearly is a case of abusing game mechanics in order to delay Concord response to a criminal act, but the notion that CCP can’t distinguish between their own exploit rules and common abuses of them comes as no real surprise.
(Note: The link I reference is from CCP Falcon, a dev, in 2015. The other post people tend to reference is the response from a GM linked in the forums in 2014 which says “we don’t consider disposable ships spawning Concord elsewhere to be an exploit at this time, subject to change”. I consider Falcon’s 2015 response to be more relevant than the GM’s.)
2 Likes
If it’s an exploit the report it to CCP. I’m sure you are the first person ever you bring this up so they will get right on that and fix the game for you.