Crime & Punishment

First of all it's been ruled as not being an exploit. If CCP wants to make a change that kills it, fine... CCP has made no official statement on it being bad or an exploit. All ships in the criminal action are still seeing the wrath of CONCORD.

I will still be able to kill freighters solo after this. The issue can be fixed with more alts. Ganking is fun with friends, but the profit is in minimizing the split. I've also previously spoke about what kind of risk I put myself at. Most of the time I have more isk and assets on field than what I'm actually ganking. Just because you lack the capability or network to actually effect me in any meaningful way doesn't mean that the opportunity isn't there.

It was originally an exploit, however CCP realised that they could not police it so let it go, so its a buff to your play style and had the effect hat solo gankers with multiple accounts could now gank freighters. I rather enjoyed it at times because it created content for me when normally nothing happened, but still at the end of the day it was a mistake by CCP.

Of course you can still kill solo piloted freighters with massed alts, I am fine with that and good luck to you.

Ganking freighters systematically does not really appeal to me, I did contemplate going after Imperium JF's, did a lot of work on getting pilots names and where they jumped from etc., but at the end of the day when I assessed the vulnerability points realised that it would be fairly easy to counter by escalation if I went into a campaign, and one or two here and there would have no impact. Yep lacked the capability is pretty much a spot on assessment, but it does not bother me to admit that, I happen to be very happy in my own skin and only need to prove things to myself.

I am pointing out that the majority of people who play in hisec are largely playing solo and many of them do not have multiple accounts.

A risk from hyperdunking is the loss of multiple catalyst's and pods for nothing in return, hardly bank breaking, no one is going to gank the Bowhead sitting there. Its low risk high reward, the scooping of loot is also no risk, alt in a noob ship and a DST or Bowhead to get it into the freighter, only noobs risk their freighter.

Hyperdunking was considered an exploit before CCP declared it was not an exploit, just stating facts my dear boy.

Stopping the Hyperdunk, the biggest issue was not actually stopping it as such, that was easy, it was finding out where the event was happening and the TZ when hyperdunking was most lucrative was when most AG's were not on. I just ran around certain systems then spotted a freighter and a Macherial on D-scan, at that point probe them down, start repping the freighter and blowing up the Catalysts, pretty simple that. After a while the gankers would hold them and if there was someone getting in the way would earmark that ship for a full on gank fleet, very efficient that.

I have an issue with unlinked accounts, it makes meta game stupidly easy and breaks the immersion in the game, however my point here is more on the basis that the casual hisec player that is being impacted by this is largely a solo player and many do not have a second account, so when you said avoid systems or use an alt I pointed out that avoiding choke point systems or having to get another account was not really the solution you thought it was.

Its much deeper then that, you are just avoiding the fact that this was a move away from declaring anything that got around CONCORD as an exploit and a change in CCP's position. As there was an increased use of this and it would be too much hassle and cost to police they went with that reply.

EDIT: You remember that guy who warped away and then shot another target and then warped away and did the same, well that is still an exploit isn't it and they changed the system so that they could not warp out. Anyway you believe what you want to believe that's fair enough.

If hyperdunking got around Concord in any way at all you might have had a point; it doesn't, thus you don't.

Concord's purview is to punish, not to prevent; reshipping while under GCC doesn't affect Concord's ability to punish transgressors.

While you're certainly entitled to publish your analysis of CCP's decision, without a source for this statement it is nothing more than speculative opinion on your part.

You mean the boomerang technique that came from Herr Wilkus?

The difference between that particular exploit and hyperdunking is that it allowed active evasion of Concord's wrath, as such it was rightly termed as an exploit, hyperdunking explicitly does not allow for such avoidance as recognised by CCP Falcon in the initial post where it was deemed not to be an exploit.

Just as you are allowed to believe what you wish, it doesn't make you right though.

As far as singularity tho, you cannot jump, cannot dock, and so on. And as someone stated before, you still have the believe that Concord (the person said NPC, but Concord in this case) will "never" pod anyone.

But regarding pod people ...

"CCP Affinity indicated that they would likely introduce it, but with a twist. Mike asked if they plan to announce they're making a change to NPCs to allow them to do so. CCP Affinity answered that no, they do not. (If you're reading this, consider yourself lucky!)"

And Singularity regulars know that ...

the new AI “behavior tree” for the Circadian Seekers. The overall intent behind the trees is to enable NPCs to act as a group. Unlike the purely passive red crosses that compose the vast majority of NPCs in the game Circadian sleepers use a “blackboard” to coordinate their actions across an entire system. The CSM was given a demonstration of this in action,

Which is to say that we are moving to a change that as I stated before, may have the style people asking for, but the outcome they are not counting on. As AI enthusiast myself, I know amazing things it can accomplish, and the famous "NPCs will never beat the human element given the same rules" is absolutely false.

Which leads me to think and hope that fits and practices of PvE and PvP will soon be very similar. In WoW they tried it in the expansion call of the crusade, and they removed the idea of making all npcs behave that way because of players whine. In EVE I dont think that will be the case.

AI Concord will be fun to watch.

CONCORD blow up two ships the Catalyst that did the firing and then a noob ship or shuttle that was not the ship that carried out the transgression was it? Their intent is pretty obvious in that they wanted to block further activities, and the Bowhead got around that. So why blow up the second ship then?

I remember them stating that anything to get around CONCORD was an exploit, until it was not, that is not speculation but what happened.

Falcons post to explain or justify himself was to get around the previous statements that anything to get around CONCORD was an exploit, his statement changed the basis of CCP's approach to CONCORD.

My point of view is that CCP lost out in terms of many lost subs on that, but that is their call.

Hyperdunking had been going on for years before Globby gave it a name and made it famous. Falcon acknowledges this when he said "[t]actics similar to this have been used with previous hulls before the Bowhead was introduced, and have been considered perfectly legitimate in the past." It was never an exploit. If you think that it was considered an exploit, you are either confusing it with the "Boomerang" exploit, or are deliberately being disingenuous.

Hyperdunking was considered "perfectly legitimate" (CCP Falcon's words) in the past before it became popular to use on freighters. Hyperdunking was then publicly affirmed as not an exploit in the post I linked above.

Hyperdunking was never declared an exploit by CCP. You are either mistaken or confused on this point.

It's your job to provide risk, not CCP's.

Well the statement made by CCP Falcon is classic justifying himself, which he would not have done if he was not doing a change that was changing policy in the view of many including CCP staff. You can argue about fine print but at one point doing anything to get around CONCORD was an exploit and then it is not.

The blowing up of offline POS modules was at a low level and involved offlined POS modules and not ships, hardly the same.

But you can spin it any which way you want, we moved from getting around CONCORD is an exploit to adding a but to that.