These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Patch change for GCC / Warp Prevention GM Clarification needed, Major Lowsec impact.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#21 - 2012-04-03 15:53:57 UTC  |  Edited by: GM Homonoia
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord

What happens with the person with a GCC gained through actions outside of Highsec goes through Highsec is the base question.


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#22 - 2012-04-03 15:55:19 UTC
Adian Grey wrote:
Just tested it out, you get a new warning when jumping into Highsec, the faction police attack you, but no Concord. You are not allowed to dock or use a jump gate.

Once the GCC clears and you are under the yellow crimial tag you normally get for entering you are fine.

Will have to test from setups and tricks for ganking highsec people, miners in particular.


The patch hasn't been deployed yet.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Istyn
Freight Club
#23 - 2012-04-03 16:03:37 UTC
Can you fix CONCORD/Interbus sov now so people with low security statuses don't randomly go GCC/have to remember to avoid those systems? :P

The sentry guns are already Amarr Navy, can't the boats be too?
xxREDNUTTERxx
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-04-03 16:09:53 UTC

Seeing as I am allready receiving hate mail saying that I aam responsible for
"f***ing the game for everybody."
Can you name the patch " the xxREDNUTTERxx /Viper Serenity" patch.

Credit where credit is due, don't hate on us cause we made ships better than concords.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#25 - 2012-04-03 16:11:03 UTC
gfldex wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:
You can have a GCC and burn through 0.5 systems and back into another lowsec system without Concord getting you. They follow the same rules as the spawn timers for acts committed in Highsec, but the GCC itself was not obtained in highsec. This patch is specific to people in highsec getting a GCC that will likely have unintended consequences.


Did you ask a GM recently if they are fine with that? Because it could very well be one of those cases that they overlooked.


I hope they did not nerf it, I used it a lot to go in hi sec while being chased by a train of NPCs.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Gorki Andropov
I Dn't Knw Wht You Wnt Bt I Cn't Gve It Anymre
#26 - 2012-04-03 16:12:47 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.




I'm sorry, putting the word 'unambiguous' in the same sentence as the idiommatic phrase 'grain of salt' is pretty much a contradiction in terms...would you be able to rephrase your sentence so that it is more concrete, please?
Istyn
Freight Club
#27 - 2012-04-03 16:16:16 UTC
Gorki Andropov wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.




I'm sorry, putting the word 'unambiguous' in the same sentence as the idiommatic phrase 'grain of salt' is pretty much a contradiction in terms...would you be able to rephrase your sentence so that it is more concrete, please?


It won't change but it might.
Htrag
The Carebear Stare
Hydroponic Zone
#28 - 2012-04-03 16:16:55 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.



Evading Concord in LOW SEC is technically an exploit? Durr?

Whatever "dev" it was that removed the pod squish sound probably never even logged into the game.
Apollo-Moor
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2012-04-03 16:23:33 UTC
Adian Grey wrote:
So the patch notes say that anyone with a GCC in highsec will be prevented from warping. This is in response to people abusing the "boomerang" tactic for ganking on gates while avoiding Concord. Need to have the following clarified as this impact all lowsec pilots who engage in combat

What if the GCC is not a result of Highsec actions? Namely a lowsec person engages in combat in lowsec. There are many systems that have 0.5 islands lowsec people travel through with active GCC's This is a gate to gate jump only, no GCC from highsec actions. We are NOT breaking the Concord laws, yet we are now going to be punished for something we did not do?

If this is the case CCP needs to change the mechanic to a scram on GCC, not a global GCC rule. If CCP wishes this to affect all GCC enabled people, they need to clarify the changes.


Think.... Grand Theft Auto on Playstation..

You gotta out run the coppers, they'll follow you till ya lose them (Ya GCC runs out). Jumping through a gate to the next system that they normall patrol anyhow, even if half-assedly.. I think CONCORD can manage..
Fatbear
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-04-03 16:27:36 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.


Maybe I'm missing the obvious, but can you clarify what you're calling an exploit? There is no CONCORD presence in lowsec, so how exactly is it an exploit? Are you suggesting we should be forming an orderly line at the nearest gate-guns?
Gorki Andropov
I Dn't Knw Wht You Wnt Bt I Cn't Gve It Anymre
#31 - 2012-04-03 16:29:41 UTC
Istyn wrote:
Gorki Andropov wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.




I'm sorry, putting the word 'unambiguous' in the same sentence as the idiommatic phrase 'grain of salt' is pretty much a contradiction in terms...would you be able to rephrase your sentence so that it is more concrete, please?


It won't change but it might.



No, I understand the premise of the sentence. However, I was thinking more from a reference POV - when people think about this issue, and they look around the forums for some sort of official statement on the issue and they are led to this. The main clause is certainly unambiguous - however the suffix noun phrase afterwards renders what was written before, ironically, ambiguous.
Simvastatin Montelukast
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#32 - 2012-04-03 16:30:22 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.



Can you translate this for a low sec pirate?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#33 - 2012-04-03 16:30:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.


I don't get this sentence (maybe it's my bad English).

Is it an exploit to kill people in low sec and then move to hi sec and go to another low sec system? I thought it was just pew pew Shocked

I mean, how is an exploit to kill stuff in low sec? The "retribution" down there is to get shot by cannons and that's paid for. Now we'd also get a double retribution afterwards for entering hi sec?

(In before Gfidex says I am carebear king Pirate)

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Jason McCoy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-04-03 16:31:11 UTC
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.

I dont understand this statement so low-sec will now have concord presence?

You attack someone in a .4 ~ .1 system and you are flying through a system you are evading concord? I thought low sec did not have concord?
Nebula Terron
Wolf's in Sheep's Clothing
#35 - 2012-04-03 16:32:27 UTC
Htrag wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.



Evading Concord in LOW SEC is technically an exploit? Durr?



There is no Concord in low sec

Eve Online Forums: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

Istyn
Freight Club
#36 - 2012-04-03 16:35:03 UTC
Gorki Andropov wrote:
Istyn wrote:
Gorki Andropov wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.




I'm sorry, putting the word 'unambiguous' in the same sentence as the idiommatic phrase 'grain of salt' is pretty much a contradiction in terms...would you be able to rephrase your sentence so that it is more concrete, please?


It won't change but it might.



No, I understand the premise of the sentence. However, I was thinking more from a reference POV - when people think about this issue, and they look around the forums for some sort of official statement on the issue and they are led to this. The main clause is certainly unambiguous - however the suffix noun phrase afterwards renders what was written before, ironically, ambiguous.


I was joking.

y u ruin it Sad
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#37 - 2012-04-03 16:35:42 UTC
Gorki Andropov wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.




I'm sorry, putting the word 'unambiguous' in the same sentence as the idiommatic phrase 'grain of salt' is pretty much a contradiction in terms...would you be able to rephrase your sentence so that it is more concrete, please?


The grain of salt thing is for the fact that I claimed it will always be so. I do not have a fully functional crystal ball. With my luck we will do something weird with CONCORD 20 years from now and people will send me hate mail during my well deserved pensioner years.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
Nebula Terron
Wolf's in Sheep's Clothing
#38 - 2012-04-03 16:36:29 UTC
Jason McCoy wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.

I dont understand this statement so low-sec will now have concord presence?

You attack someone in a .4 ~ .1 system and you are flying through a system you are evading concord? I thought low sec did not have concord?



People are talking about those high sec spots in low sec. You are -10 and fly through a few low sec systems 0.3->0.2->0.4-0.5(high sec spot->0.4->0.3.

Old system: You can jump into the 0.5 and with a fast ship, warp past Concord and jump back into the 0.4 low sec system
New system: you jump from low sec to high sec, you are Toast.

That's at least how I undestrood it.

Eve Online Forums: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#39 - 2012-04-03 16:36:59 UTC  |  Edited by: GM Homonoia
Nebula Terron wrote:
Htrag wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.



Evading Concord in LOW SEC is technically an exploit? Durr?



There is no Concord in low sec


Ack, ok, I misquoted that. What I MEANT to do was to quote the part where you jump from Lowsec to Highsec with a GCC and then flee back to Low.

I now fixed the quote to show the proper sentence.

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master
GM Homonoia
Game Master Retirement Home
#40 - 2012-04-03 16:38:48 UTC
Nebula Terron wrote:
Jason McCoy wrote:
GM Homonoia wrote:
Adian Grey wrote:

Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord


That is, technically, an exploit as you are not allowed to evade CONCORD, but it is an exploit that we took no action against (a sort of active tolerance, if you will), as it was a victim-less crime. However, with the coming patch this will hole be plugged.

NOTE: Just to make this absolutely and unambiguously clear; evading CONCORD has always been an exploit and always will be (grain of salt). We are NOT changing the rules here, only properly enforcing (through code) rules that have been there from the start.

I dont understand this statement so low-sec will now have concord presence?

You attack someone in a .4 ~ .1 system and you are flying through a system you are evading concord? I thought low sec did not have concord?



People are talking about those high sec spots in low sec. You are -10 and fly through a few low sec systems 0.3->0.2->0.4-0.5(high sec spot->0.4->0.3.

Old system: You can jump into the 0.5 and with a fast ship, warp past Concord and jump back into the 0.4 low sec system
New system: you jump from low sec to high sec, you are Toast.

That's at least how I undestrood it.


Correct

Senior GM Homonoia | Info Group | Senior Game Master