hAHAHA, ANTIGUNKers faiL AgAin
6 Likes
CCP thank you for quickly addressing the concerns raised and changing your decision on this. Well done. In the future, please present changes like this to the CSM prior to announcing them in order to avoid the entire player base having to see how the sausage gets made.
150kmā¦tested tried and trueā¦
151-152km and you can ping pong Concord back and forth if you want to try to gank an Astrahus instead of deccing itā¦just need 235 T2 Torp Ravens per layer.
4 Likes
noted.
1 Like
highsec suicide ganking is clearly too op if it only takes 235 T2 battleships x3 to kill an astrahus without wardeccing
/s
4 Likes
That is impossibleā¦
So, is ganking with the same guys on two different gates now still allowed or not? CCPās incompetence at wording their policies and clarifications is not creating clarity. Does anyone at CCP know at all what is going on?
It is amazing that CCP and GMs do not communicate and institute a ban policy and announce it in the topic that discussed all sorts of issues with this policy, which shows that the GM or CCP do not read the forums and have no clue what is going on. And then the CSM has to come to the ārescueā and explain basic gameplay features to GM and CCP. And most funny thing is that this particular GM even insults the CCP dev that actually had the correct grasp of the situation, and then has to backpaddle from their statement. If I didnāt know that this is reality, I would think I am in a comedy theater.
1 Like
lets just say i was in the process of supplying just that to someone for the very reason of replicating results on SiSi on TQ when the March indy changes hitā¦my corp can not produce 800 T1 Battleships twice a week anymore, so i cancelled that deal.
Agreed. One would think that this subjective analysis of a previously declared exploit to address Hyperdunking may require escalation for clarity. Instead, GMs take it upon themselves to enforce as they see fit in a black and white world.
The problem is that most gankers pull CONCORD away as a matter of course and it was accepted, but then some gankers get upset when potential victims pull CONCORD to the location of the gank to help prevent it. If those people stopped petitioning defensive pulling then this would not be an ongoing issue.
The ganking community needs to clean house on this.
It seems to me they could just declare what the maximum delay is intended to be (i.e. in seconds) and say extending the delay by any method that exceeds that value is prohibited.
If the stated values include the additional time granted by pre-pulling, then pre-pulling CONCORD would be unambiguously OK unless they add language to specifically ban that. If someone invented a method to delay CONCORD by any longer than that, it would be unambiguously not OK unless there was additional language added to permit it. Problem solved, right?
1 Like
Hey @CCP did you know that you can circumvent the criminal timer by undocking and ganking on an astrahus? I called it āAstradunkingā and have claimed exactly 1 victim for it. I actually got a 2 week ban for it and the only explanation I got was that I was manipulating concord response time.
You can have a gank targetā¦ say a freighter bumped and trapped against your astrahus. You undock a ganker and shoot, dock back up after weapons timer is up, reship and undock to
repeat.
The trick is that as a criminal youāre allowed to tether to the structure and you can get volleys off before concord jams you, even if they are right on top of you.
Even with a bump timer, I just have to fit my gank ships with warp disrupters and it resets the timer.
Your welcome CCP. Fix your game if you donāt want people doing out of the box things. You didnāt know what I was doing, incorrectly suspended me under the wrong excuse, and still didnāt fix the issue.
2 Likes
Hi Dracvlad, there are good reasons for this strategy. One of the lesser known ones is that we regard it as a courtesy to other gankers to clear the field after our work, where we can, in addition to preparing for our own subsequent endeavours in the field.
I think you will struggle to defend this assertion, beyond the casual assumption it so very clearly resembles. If Miners pull CONCORD, it indicates - at the very least - that theyāre spending some time ATK. It cannot be frequent, in the belts, for I never once saw it. Doesnāt mean it doesnāt happen; just not to me.
That raised a wry smile from me. Gankers donāt petition defensive pulling of CONCORD because - wait for it - they know that the GMs would laugh long and loud! Miners, however, continually petition the Masters. I recall James 315 reporting a conversation with someone from CCP at FanFest, in which that august personage admitted that the activities of the former CODE. members drew by far the greatest number of whines (my word, there) in their petition in-tray.
I believe we donāt really need to do anything of the sort. CCPās latest pronouncement on CONCORD pulling would seem to support our view - for the time being!
2 Likes
Nothing to do with miners it was Abyssal runners pulling concord to the exit point, so the gankers were petitioning it.
As I said, the ganking community needs to clean house on this. Ridicule them, they deserve it. 
Ah, now I see. Thank you, Dracvlad.
1 Like
Gankers arenāt under a single group. Thereās no real community other than if you are in a group. Who cares about ridicule? You see more pve players petitioning for bans in the hope that some experienced GM does in fact ban or suspend.
1 Like
1 Like
Saying that gankers arenāt a collective. Drac lumps in some gankers as if thereās a singular group or membership to reel in others leash.
Dracvlad is an idiot. He doesnāt even play EVE.
2 Likes