im awaiting a reply as well from CCP, i submitted a support ticket along with the link here.
Good luck with your support ticket, and also, what you think of my credibility is of no concern to me.
This issue itself and what happened to someone as a result of it is. You’re a irrelevant, non-factor, non-entity.
Looks to me you’re doing a bad job trying to bait someone into publishing GM correspondence, in violation of the ToS.
I remember asking a GM about pulling concord and that was perfectly legal to have concord simply be on grid with you. I can’t possibly see that as a permaban my self.
As it is nice to have multiple concord squads for some nice security.
chill with the caps, damn.
Are these all things ■■■■■■■ serious really ! This is all ridiculous… you still answering and explaing and seem like doesnt work…thats beyond me
Probably, we should wait for some clarification from Shipwreck or a developer, but I tend to think if CCP wanted CONCORD to behave the same regardless of whether they were pulled or not, everyone would get fresh CONCORD NPCs regardless of whether there were any in system. After all this time, I think CCP would be unlikely to change its stance before it would change CONCORD behavior given I can’t see any technical reason why it would not be possible and I can’t see any justification to expedite a shift in policy.
Is this supposed to be some sort of sorry excuse of an AG attempt by means of metagaming on the forums, trying to scare gankers away from the 90% loot drop event by trying to convince them they might get banned for ganking?
Oh, that’s a good point. I forgot about that. I really can’t imagine this change being pushed through silently during a loot drop buff event.
also i can only imagine how much relic spaghetti code is wrapped around the concord mechanics so they would have to be really keen to touch that mess, something i dont see happening any time soon.
Cute, but as the CEO of the corp currently leading zkill in both catalyst and coercer ganks, I can assure everyone that’s not the case.
Well the OP is a ganker, so maybe he’s just trying to get all the gank action for himself, by warning off all other gankers.
I like the metagame angle though. Would be awesome if true.
Just hillarious …
Think like that … if you complete a gang operation then of course concord settle down there… and then what? You see another oportunity you or your frinds shouldnt take that ? Sit down and wait ■■■■■■■ how long the all player team ?
Seriously… i never heard spawning concord somewhere cause somone got banned…
This is a clear interference to natural gameplay…
Inhibiting natural flow of events and gameplay …
there is nothing to argue here.
Please provide your conversation with the GM in here.
So are you miner.
That wouldn’t change things much. It’d just revert back to the old ways of doing things - looter drops own can, transfers stuff from wreck to can, gets Suspect flag and can turns blue, hauler pulls loot from blue can with no problems.
Just more nonsense from drama queen Hrothgar.
Not one shred of evidence provided to support these claims. It reminds me of the time he claimed Lewak is an antiganker.
Closing for below
Any declared exploit will be posted on the following support page; as well as; will generally have a news article about it (See the most recent CRAB exploit notification Exploit Notification - CRAB | EVE Online)
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to courteous when disagreeing with others.
In order to maintain an environment where everyone is welcome and discussion flows freely, certain types of conduct are prohibited on the EVE Online forums. These are:
- Personal Attacks
- Racism & Discrimination
- Hate Speech
- Off-Topic Posting
- Pyramid Quoting
- Rumor Mongering
- New Player Bashing
Hello everyone, Lead GM Arcade here.
Thanks for your patience while this matter was discussed extensively within various departments including Customer Support.
It’s clear there is some confusion regarding what is an exploit and what is allowed. This may have been caused by a reference to posts by CCP’ers which may be outdated. EVE Online and its underlying mechanics continuously change, but the Known & Declared Exploits help center article is the definitive reference for exploits that all players should keep an eye on.
We encourage everyone to keep an eye on the Known & Declared Exploits help center article which is kept updated by the GM team and is the definitive reference for exploits.
Recently there has been a discussion within the community concerning what CONCORD manipulation is allowed. We would like to state, echoing the notification linked in the help center article, that “all methods of delaying Concord’s response time are considered an exploit.” This includes deliberately “pulling” or “spawning” CONCORD to a location for defensive or upcoming aggressive actions.
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.
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.