Never said you were a single group, but there is such thing as peer pressure. Talking about PvE players like you did, is merely a deflection on the issue, because for me the Abyssal runner has the same right to adjust the response time of CONCORD as the gankers do.
I agree but if the PvE player is going to flood CCP with petitions on intended gameplay then should gankers not be allowed to stoop to their level? Drac is sounds like you need to reel in your peers and publicly shame them for sending in false petitions.
Still a deflection because AG players, which are the active people opposing ganking just accept that Gankers play tricks with CONCORD. I can’t talk for the victims because they are not AG. Gankers have a lot of contact with each other because there is often conflict over key ganking spots.
Just to be clear ,I’ve always been happy with the way concord response to gankers , we are all free to fire on ship and go flashy red or undock why flashy red .
The only mistake is calling it concord pulling , we should call it by another name , it’s just concord responding.
So for once it seems I’m on the gankers side about their type of pulling .
Other forms of pulling which I don’t know about maybe need looking at but I’m happy with what I see concord do in high sec
Wait, so its not a bannable offense again?
Correct, pulling CONCORD is allowed, for now.
You see CCP has best practices when it comes to well thought out decision making, internal communications and properly pre-assessing the effects their changes will have on the game. So because of these once they saw the backlash and the CSM stepped in they realized they’ve messed up so as a showcase of their competent developer and policy making practices reversed the change a few hours later. Nothing to see here just the usual stuff.
So… not just a GM making an uninformed descision to clear his ticket queue?
Cool as long as it was thought out and not a kackhanded bungle.
It clearly sounds like a whole CCP effort not just customer service / GMs and especially not like a random dude gone rogue. At least based on that description that is how it seems.
Thinking about this is actually a little scary, that ccp are so out of touch with the basic mechanics of their game that they could extensively discuss this across various departments and no one in ccp could point out the massive unworkable flaws in their plans.
I thought it was all started by something a GM said to someone in game or as a direct response to a question, and then the gms got petitioned and it snowballed.
No idea based on the linked post by the GM it seems this question was brought up many times so the support team might have felt a clarification is in order to reduce the amount of incoming requests. So in that respect probably correct but don’t think it was a single request that caused it alone instead seems likely it was a constant flow of requests over a long period of time and probably involving many GMs as a result. Just an educated guess though.
Apparently, anything is a bannable offense. You may or may not have success petitioning for an appeal.
I read Warcraft’s EULA once.
Did you know any and all names you can give a character are bannable?
Him lets see…
This issue havent been on the table for a long time… suddenly someone created a post about it… and told that he got banned because of that.
Yesterday CCP paragon wrote on reddit that for a long time CCP did not ban anyone because of this spesific reason …
It has been all normal respwn the concord on other place both strategic defensive and offensive purposes…
People begin to argue about these … and…
Suddenly what was obvious become something blur…
This smells fishy… Feels like checking the pulse of community… probing, measuring reactions…
As well as it is very common strategy in 3 party countries leaders , create these kind of artficial l hesitations in citizens by starting, or create a cause to start controversial arguments within the society via 3. party media and allies , sockpuppets without messsing their hands… they use that strategy esp if they are considering to make something which can be opposed by mass groups…
Second important function of this strategy is desintization … makes things stir and seems like blur first… if prior direction is not clear for the group … it is always easier to stir the wheel to the direction they want … less resistance , less riot comes out of more confused people
Very smelly this thing…
Every experienced vet who thrive in that security zones and familiar about mechanics knows these things with no hesitation …
GM’s and Devs would not need to write so much about what constitutes an exploit, if the “problem” was fixed in code.
That is a totally different department.
Well, I’ve watched a lot of youtube about making games, and I’ve heard of lots of instances of devs starting out with terrible ideas, but eventually shaping them into something great (in fact, Extra Credits has a whole video advocating that devs fail faster). So, I don’t think that the fact that CCP could have made the wrong decision is particularly scary. To me, it seems like exploring ideas is part of the creative process.
No one likes seeing how the sausage is made, but, at the end of the day, what I care about is whether or not the sausage is good.
Hm. That sounds dirty.
A particular scene from the Game of Thrones TV series comes to mind.
Edit: I see you’ve later edited it in.
Of course… just like wardeck changes and suicide ganking was on the table in these CSM meetings and some CSM claims that these are effecting player retention rates negative.
It is a witch hunt.
Just , they search so surficial and and catching and killin wrong ones.