which contradicts what CCP Paragon wrote 25 days ago:
As the vision, that CCP Paragon supported was the status quo for the last years, could you guys talk with each other and confirm, which of those two recent updates is correct?
If what GM Arcade wrote is true, following case:
System has 2 gates. I gank on gate 1. I then gank on gate 2. My first gank now pulled Concord to the gategrid 1, so they are offgrid now and according to your interpretation i “delayed” CONCORD. Is ganking on two different grids in the same system without a DT in between now an exploit as well?
Update from GM Arcade:
It’s clear now that the above messaging is too vague and does not provide sufficient details or convey the intent of the policy changes. For this you have my apologies.
I would also like to apologize to the CSM who were not consulted before the above post was made. It’s fairly typical that the CSM are not consulted as a matter of course when it comes to customer support policies, but in this case it would have been beneficial to do so.
After this post was made, several CSM members were quick to raise their concerns about the impact on everyday gameplay activities that this policy change would have.
After listening to their feedback we have decided not to implement the policy update mentioned above. There will be no changes to how support are policing CONCORD interaction and that ‘pulling’ CONCORD or defensive spawning of CONCORD is currently permitted but we reserve the right to change this at a future date.
Similarly, if I gank on a gate and immediately die to gate guns resulting in no CONCORD spawning, does that mean I have deliberately prevented CONCORD spawning?
Does undocking rookie ships from a station as a criminal constitute an exploit? Couldn’t CCP just prohibit anyone from undocking in a ship as a criminal, in order to eliminate this from the game?
In a similar vein, what if I jump, as a criminal, from low-sec to high-sec in a rookie ship? Is that an exploit? CCP could also very easily prohibit this behavior by preventing jumps into high-sec as a criminal.
In short, the ruling is vague and misleading. The actual text of the rule here is as follows:
Committing a criminal act and delaying CONCORD response for an extended period.
My interpretation: if I commit a criminal act AND perform some action at the same time in order to delay CONCORD response, that’s an exploit. However, pulling off a station is not an action at the same time; it just makes CONCORD respond to another set of criminals elsewhere.
couldn’t you just update the code so the concord time is the same regardless of whether concord is spawned, ongrid, or offgrid? why is making undocking a ship while criminal a permaban offense the solution instead of updating a few lines of code?
additionally, if this isn’t an intended mechanic and allowable as CCP Swift and CCP Paragon clarified when this was discussed a few weeks ago, why was it ever coded that way in the first place?
Also this new interpretation will require new guidance about whether miners are allowed to deliberately spwn concord for self protection, they may have the intent to increase the response time, but by doing it it delays response everywhere else in the system.
if that is allowed, can gankers have mining alts and pull concord to the belts to protect their mining alts between ganks, since they would then not be working only to delay concord but also to speed up it’s response to protect their alts.
you see how banning something like this just muddies the waters and makes all these dumb niche cases really hard to deal with when you could just like, change the mechanics if there is a problem, instead of giving a bunch of contradictory vague guidance and then permabanning people.
i see no salt just confusion, pulling concord as far as im aware is not an exploit and never has been, ccp even confirmed this a few days ago. all i see is another gm that likely doesn’t play eve or understand the fine detail of the mechanics at play.