Directly addess Aiko Danuja comments about ganking

What I’m getting at really is were they all used in a single gank? Like i said before gankers don’t typically waste ships engaging with 20 when 7 or 10 will do the job.

And seeing a kill mail will provide lists of information. Like if all 20 ships have done similar damage then they were all activated at the same time (which may suggest bottling). Or if there is a steady decline in damage across the ships (which would suggest a time delay on pressing F1 on each ship. I.e manual activation)

We cant ban players left right and centre because somebody is being irrational on the internet. I don’t think asking for evidence that supports the claims being made is unreasonable.

Confirmation bias again. I am not reading the same thing you are. The policy against the exploit still stands. Your simply not listening to what is being said.

“There are simply too many scenarios that may trigger CONCORD reaction and thus we would like to ask that players do not deliberately manipulate or interfere with CONCORD in any way.” GM from the article you linked.

That was the change to policy he was referring to. The original one still stands. So yes you can manipulate concord. Like pulling concord to your mining locations for protection. We use that for protection not for exploiting. So when you pull them away to attack that alerts us of the impending attack.

you got too much time on your hands if you are looking that up just to insult me.

What about the bitty that says specifically pulling Concord or defensive spawning of concord is currently permitted.

It’s right there.

No insult intended, Hornstone was used in ancient resonant structures not recognised by contemporary historians.

I would like an answer to the question tho.

Yes it is and i that is not what was being discussed these guys are just inserting a false issue into the argument. The exploit being used is specific and they dont want it to be known they are exploiting. This smokescreen defence must have worked in the past on the forums so thats why they are engaging in it now. I think the GM forum moderators must be on to them now. No moderation is incoming in spite of their pleas.

Is the thrust of your argument “ganking with 25 ships is an exploit because it delays concord because concord has to blow up each ship one by one,” seriously?

And the post right about what I linked is the one you linked so they are talking about the same issue.

Pulling Concord is either an exploit or it isn’t. You don’t get it both ways.

1 Like

That was part of the argument but not the whole argument. The issue is delaying Concords response. The loss of a corvette on the zkillboard shows they are using them to pull concord away by attacking a station. Then they execute the attack on the target. Sometimes they avoid all concord action this way. The numbers of ships was described in the policy for the exploit.

Then please be clearer. What is the specific exploit that you are referring to?

Pulling concord is permitted. We just established that like two posts ago

I linked a killmail…

Anyway… If someone comes and say the 0.1 % diference in dps beetween ships is proof of not multiboxing… I dont know what to say.

Cycling through 20+ clients seems really practical and efficient.

I dont buy that BS.

This is legal. Either all pulling is legal, or it is not. Trying to distinguish “intention” for pulling means when there are TWO separate mining groups in ONE system and each tries to pull concord “for defensive purposes”, they are “delaying concord’s response” for the other miner group, so under your logic they should ALL be banned. Congrats, now miners are getting banned.

To avoid these absurdities, it is all or nothing for pulling. And today pulling is NOT an exploit, but a game mechanic.

You’re going to need concrete proof of specific incidents when making this claim, otherwise you are just flat out lying. So here is me asking you to give CCP’s GMs that proof so they can take correct action. Otherwise, without proof this is happening, you are just spreading lies.

Apologies I didn’t see a killmail in here. Must have missed it.

If you have the killmail and think it shows that there was bottling then you need to submit a ticket.

you are manipulating the discussion that way. nice try. It’s not the action that is the exploit it is what your doing with the action. You do get that right? Someone can make a stabbing motion with a knife without killing, right?

Let’s at least mention what the exploit site really says. I’m going to re-link it for convenience if anyone wants to check the excerpt.

Commonly involves leaving empty ships or drones in space that CONCORD focuses on before dealing with the attacker. This exploit is not limited to drones or ships and applies to any item or method which might be used to delay CONCORD

So, we would have to define that 1 ship per omega account engaging a target protected by CONCORD constitutes a method used to unreasonably delay CONCORD, which seems unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. All the things specifically mentioned in the exploit are unoccupied/pilotless.

Intention doesn’t come into it. Pulling Concord is legal. Delaying concord is not.

Now I’ve never done this and me describing the difference between the two would probably contain some inaccuracies but perhaps someone with a bit more experience could give an example of the difference between pulling an delaying?

1 Like

My educated guess is:

  • CONCORD pulls deal with “objects with capsuleer pods in them”. Which is a police action.
  • CONCORD delays deal with “objects without capsuleer pods in them”. Which is a garbage truck.

Though depending on the quality of capsuleer, sometimes the police action also feels like a garbage truck…

EDIT: 10 years ago I recall a discussion about tricks like trying to eject from one ship and re-ship into a different one during concord action. I don’t know where those landed.

Presumably using a fleet of piloted corvettes would qualify though. Like pulling with 5 or 6 corvettes so concord had to destroy them all before moving on?

That’s how i was reading it at least. I’d really like a couple of examples from someone that knows how this works now as i genuinely think Cherti might not actually be trolling and is just interpreting things differently.

I.e. I think Cherti believes that pulling can be the same thing as delaying if there is intention. Like the difference between murder and manslaughter. If thats the case maybe some examples would help to save us all screaming through a language/interpretation barrier for the foreseeable.

1 Like

As I recall every pilot who commits a criminal act is immediately either assigned an unengaged pre-spawned squad or is set to generate a new squad if there are no unengaged squads to spare, so there’s no difference as far as I’m aware unless they declare pre-spawning CONCORD an exploit in itself for the extra 5 ish seconds that grants when they are off grid somewhere in system, which is something I believe we already had a bit of a fiasco over and we settled on pre-pulls being not an exploit, at least as the current official stance.