Someone got banned for merely pulling with rookie ships to spawn CONCORD.
Not really sure what you’re confused about.
1 Like
Committing a criminal act and delaying CONCORD response for an extended period.
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.
It is also considered an exploit to commit a criminal act and prevent ship loss to CONCORD by any means.
We would like to clarify that all methods of delaying Concord’s response time are considered an exploit.
while your post that you shared from @GM_Lelouch is from 2014, in 2015 it was changed as you can see above, that is from the known exploits, and the last sentence is from the 2015 blog.
also there is no GCC in EVE online, that is an outdated function.
Okay. Who got banned and when? Was there a post on reddit? Did they share GM correspondence? If you are afraid to share it, at least point me in the general direction.
And, FYI, the reason I’m asking for all these details is because 1) people who get banned frequently lie about why they were banned, and 2) people frequently spread rumors and outright misinformation. I’m not saying you’re guilty of either, but it most certainly happens. And I have personally believed things people have told me only to find out it wasn’t true (both inside and outside of Eve Online). Thus, I want to know the details, and be reasonably certain that what you are saying is actually true.
So, if you would be so kind to humor me, please give me all the details.
2 Likes
pulling concord works within the normal parameters of concord and does not extend the period of response
again pulling concord does not extend the period of response. the response times are as coded by ccp and unaffected by pulling. concord has the normal states of unpullled /pulled / ongrid /offgrid .pulling concord does not alter these, im always amazed folk find this hard to grasp.
5 Likes
No, I don’t see that the policy was changed. GM_Leouch was very specific that using disposable ships to pull CONCORD was allowed, and the exploit notification from 2015 only speaks of using items and jettisoning ships to delay CONCORD’s arrival.
“We would like to inform players that distracting CONCORD by jettisoning ships or other items into space to distract them from attacking the perpetrator of a criminal act is now considered an exploit.”
Nobody has been banned in the six years since 2015 for merely spawning CONCORD with rookie ships, until two days ago.
After CONCORD is spawned using rookie ships, they are not being delayed on subsequent ganks in that system, they show up exactly when CCP designed and intended them to.
A tortured reading into that at best on your end, and wilful misinterpretation at worst.
1 Like
Post the details to Reddit.
If true, some new intern GM has made a mistake; because that’s a signficant change without any notice to the community.
2 Likes
lol true , if we gank more than once in a system we get a permaban for moving concord 
thats a Major change to the game.
5 Likes
Exactly. It can’t possibly be the new policy of CCP, but that’s the implication of it.
1 Like
so a miner just needs to shoot an alt or station once after downtime to spawn concord then no one is allowed to gank in the system for 24 hours . that wont be abused at all.
In that case, it would be arguable that it was the miner that delayed CONCORD arriving at a gank location elsewhere in system, not the gankers; so I can’t see how CCP would make that judgement.
However if the OP is correct, then who knows what the new policy is - seems like experimentation is the only way to know, as CCP haven’t announced anything.
Okay, to anyone interested, I filled a support ticket asking CCP about it. I’ll respond with more information as soon as I have it.
And to OP, I hope you got busy with real life, because your failure to provide a source or more information is causing your credibility with me to rapidly tank.
7 Likes
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.
4 Likes
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.
1 Like
MY APOLOGIES!!!
5 Likes
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.
3 Likes