These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Delaying and speeding up concord response time
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
psmember Erquilenne
Pro Synergy
#1 - 2017-03-01 18:57:07 UTC
I don't think it's fair that delaying concord by having them go to another grid is considered an exploit but bringing concord on grid to speed up their response time is not.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#2 - 2017-03-01 19:14:15 UTC
psmember Erquilenne wrote:
I don't think it's fair that delaying concord by having them go to another grid is considered an exploit but bringing concord on grid to speed up their response time is not.
Unless something has changed, neither of these are considered exploits:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4768719#post4768719

Spawning or moving CONCORD by shooting someone or something is a-ok as long as you suffer the intended consequences.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#3 - 2017-03-01 19:18:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Black Pedro wrote:
psmember Erquilenne wrote:
I don't think it's fair that delaying concord by having them go to another grid is considered an exploit but bringing concord on grid to speed up their response time is not.
Unless something has changed, neither of these are considered exploits:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4768719#post4768719

Spawning or moving CONCORD by shooting someone or something is a-ok as long as you suffer the intended consequences.
He might be referring to the post hyper-dunking exploit notification.

AFAIK moving Concord about for nefarious purposes is legit as long as the ship you use explodes, gankers do it all the time and they don't get grief from CCP about it.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
psmember Erquilenne
Pro Synergy
#4 - 2017-03-01 19:24:09 UTC  |  Edited by: psmember Erquilenne
Black Pedro wrote:
Unless something has changed, neither of these are considered exploits:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4768719#post4768719

Spawning or moving CONCORD by shooting someone or something is a-ok as long as you suffer the intended consequences.


Well based on my conversation with customer support and the wording of the exploit notice https://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/exploit-notification-delaying-concord-response it is considered and exploit .
Black Pedro
Mine.
#5 - 2017-03-01 19:54:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
psmember Erquilenne wrote:
I don't think it's fair that delaying concord by having them go to another grid is considered an exploit but bringing concord on grid to speed up their response time is not.
Unless something has changed, neither of these are considered exploits:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4768719#post4768719

Spawning or moving CONCORD by shooting someone or something is a-ok as long as you suffer the intended consequences.
He might be referring to the post hyper-dunking exploit notification.

If so, he doesn't have to worry. That method didn't delay CONCORD by having them move to another grid. That delayed CONCORD by distracting them with a multitude of empty ships to shot before they reached the criminal.

Rest easy OP, spawning or moving CONCORD onto another grid to buy yourself a few extra seconds for a later gank is kosher. I've done it hundreds of times without so much as a warning. Which makes sense because CCP decided to implement them that way for whatever reason so long ago. It would sort of be unfair to ban you for a "delay" that may or may not be under your control due to previous events that had taken place in that system that spawned CONCORD you may not have knowledge of.


psmember Erquilenne wrote:
Well based on my conversation to customer support and the wording of the exploit notice https://community.eveonline.com/news/news-channels/eve-online-news/exploit-notification-delaying-concord-response it is considered and exploit .
I can't tell you what risks to take, but clearly whomever you talked has an interpretation of the rules that does not match previous statements on the issue. If CCP doesn't want CONCORD to have a move time, they should code the game so CONCORD doesn't have a move time.

I and hundreds of other players moved CONCORD literally thousands of times last weekend during Burn Jita so we could manipulate the CONCORD response time in the most public way possible. As far as I know, not a single one of us was banned. That is not to say you won't be banned for this - a round of almost certainly unjust bans went out last November to a CODE. Freighter ganking group - and while such bans would most likely be overturned by someone who looked at the situation who knew what they were doing, there are no guarantees that such person will see your case. CCP enforcement of rules is opaque, and often seems inconsistent from the outside and "fair" is a description that doesn't come to mind from my experience.

You have to decide for yourself how much you are willing to let CCPs opaque and sometimes changing stance on things impact your game. I have seen too many people banned for crossing shifting or unseen lines to worry much about it anymore. What will be will be and I will play the game my way as best I can within the rules of the game, but if I am banned for playing the game in good faith so be it.

That said, as lines go, the moving of CONCORD by undocking as a criminal or shooting something on another grid seems very well established as completely legal as long as you lose your ship. It is literally standard operating procedure for most types of ganking and I have heard no inkling that anything has changed and it is systematically being used as a reason to ban players.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2017-03-01 22:49:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Henry Plantgenet
The thing is that....
The exploit notification says that ANY methods of delaying concord is an exploit and not just the ship droppy thing.
I will keep reporting anyone i see preloading concord on one grid with Corvettes because it falls under ANY method of delaying concord, and then going to gank on another grid.
CCP should change the wording or come out with posts that properly explain it if they think it should be handled otherwise.
Dark Lord Trump
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#7 - 2017-03-02 00:09:42 UTC
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
The thing is that....
The exploit notification says that ANY methods of delaying concord is an exploit and not just the ship droppy thing.
I will keep reporting anyone i see preloading concord on one grid with Corvettes because it falls under ANY method of delaying concord, and then going to gank on another grid.
CCP should change the wording or come out with posts that properly explain it if they think it should be handled otherwise.

Please don't waste the GM's time.

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#8 - 2017-03-02 06:12:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
The thing is that....
The exploit notification says that ANY methods of delaying concord is an exploit and not just the ship droppy thing.
I will keep reporting anyone i see preloading concord on one grid with Corvettes because it falls under ANY method of delaying concord, and then going to gank on another grid.
CCP should change the wording or come out with posts that properly explain it if they think it should be handled otherwise.

Yup. An over-broad statement by CCP designed to cover all situations, even similar but unknown ones, yet one that is not clear to the player. The best solution, of course, would be for CCP to fix their game so CONCORD works as intended but for whatever reason CCP is unable or unwilling to do so. That's par for the course and we are left with an exploit notice that is open to interpretation by both players and GMs who may not have a complete understanding of the mechanics and intent of the mechanics and will lead to both a chilling effect as players are afraid to interact with CONCORD and GMs mistakenly handing out bans for players using the the intended, or at least historically accepted, fact that CONCORD has a time to warp when moving in-system.

The working interpretation is that moving CONCORD off a grid so that a player can take advantage of the normal travel time to for them to move back in response to a suicide attack is acceptable. You are not "delaying" CONCORD by "pulling" them to another place in the system - you are just using the normal move mechanics that were coded into the game to place them somewhere else and they will respond to a later crime exactly as they were coded to do. Of course in the general English use of the term you are in fact moving them for the purpose of delaying a response to a later gank (as compared to the time it would take to respond if they were already within 150km or not spawned) which cause this confusion.

It would be great for a senior GM to clairify this. It is unfair to expect players to have the confidence to interpret such broad statements who don't have the understanding of the history and intent of the ruling and the mechanic. But they haven't so I completely understand why some player considering playing as a criminal wouldn't want to even bother with suicide ganking any more or a victim, angry about a loss, would petition. And that latter one will result in people being mistakenly banned by a junior GM having to interpret broadly written rules that were not meant to cover the normal move/respond mechanics of CONCORD to a later crime in a system.

I have moved CONCORD for years without incident and I am totally convinced that it is within the rules and intent of how the game was designed. I will continue to do so unless explicitly informed by someone with authority that they are making that illegal. That does not include some junior GM parroting back to me a broadly written "exploit" notification that I know for a fact was intended to cover a method to actually delay CONCORD from shooting you once they had arrived on grid, not manipulating their normal movements around a system.

Do what you feel you have to. Common law and practice completely supports pulling CONCORD as a legal way to set up future ganks in a system. If you ask enough times perhaps you'll get a GM to who will confirm that.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#9 - 2017-03-02 08:25:21 UTC
Roll

I just buy them coffee and donuts.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Erich Einstein
Swoop Salvage
#10 - 2017-03-02 09:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Erich Einstein
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
The thing is that....
The exploit notification says that ANY methods of delaying concord is an exploit and not just the ship droppy thing.
I will keep reporting anyone i see preloading concord on one grid with Corvettes because it falls under ANY method of delaying concord, and then going to gank on another grid.
CCP should change the wording or come out with posts that properly explain it if they think it should be handled otherwise.


Most of these gankers stage out of Jita V - Moon 17 station. Great place to follow them from and report any such delays you may see them performing.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2017-03-02 16:54:13 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
The thing is that....
The exploit notification says that ANY methods of delaying concord is an exploit and not just the ship droppy thing.
I will keep reporting anyone i see preloading concord on one grid with Corvettes because it falls under ANY method of delaying concord, and then going to gank on another grid.
CCP should change the wording or come out with posts that properly explain it if they think it should be handled otherwise.

Yup. An over-broad statement by CCP designed to cover all situations, even similar but unknown ones, yet one that is not clear to the player. The best solution, of course, would be for CCP to fix their game so CONCORD works as intended but for whatever reason CCP is unable or unwilling to do so. That's par for the course and we are left with an exploit notice that is open to interpretation by both players and GMs who may not have a complete understanding of the mechanics and intent of the mechanics and will lead to both a chilling effect as players are afraid to interact with CONCORD and GMs mistakenly handing out bans for players using the the intended, or at least historically accepted, fact that CONCORD has a time to warp when moving in-system.

The working interpretation is that moving CONCORD off a grid so that a player can take advantage of the normal travel time to for them to move back in response to a suicide attack is acceptable. You are not "delaying" CONCORD by "pulling" them to another place in the system - you are just using the normal move mechanics that were coded into the game to place them somewhere else and they will respond to a later crime exactly as they were coded to do. Of course in the general English use of the term you are in fact moving them for the purpose of delaying a response to a later gank (as compared to the time it would take to respond if they were already within 150km or not spawned) which cause this confusion.

It would be great for a senior GM to clairify this. It is unfair to expect players to have the confidence to interpret such broad statements who don't have the understanding of the history and intent of the ruling and the mechanic. But they haven't so I completely understand why some player considering playing as a criminal wouldn't want to even bother with suicide ganking any more or a victim, angry about a loss, would petition. And that latter one will result in people being mistakenly banned by a junior GM having to interpret broadly written rules that were not meant to cover the normal move/respond mechanics of CONCORD to a later crime in a system.

I have moved CONCORD for years without incident and I am totally convinced that it is within the rules and intent of how the game was designed. I will continue to do so unless explicitly informed by someone with authority that they are making that illegal. That does not include some junior GM parroting back to me a broadly written "exploit" notification that I know for a fact was intended to cover a method to actually delay CONCORD from shooting you once they had arrived on grid, not manipulating their normal movements around a system.

Do what you feel you have to. Common law and practice completely supports pulling CONCORD as a legal way to set up future ganks in a system. If you ask enough times perhaps you'll get a GM to who will confirm that.


They could just do away with all the confusion by making criminal action just trigger a locked self destruct on the ship after however many seconds concord is supposed to respond in. No more delays legit or not, no more move legit or not, no more stupid repeated petition from people until they get a GM who says read the rule as X as opposed to Y.
Ajem Hinken
WarFear Gaming
#12 - 2017-03-03 02:48:10 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Henry Plantgenet wrote:
The thing is that....
The exploit notification says that ANY methods of delaying concord is an exploit and not just the ship droppy thing.
I will keep reporting anyone i see preloading concord on one grid with Corvettes because it falls under ANY method of delaying concord, and then going to gank on another grid.
CCP should change the wording or come out with posts that properly explain it if they think it should be handled otherwise.

Yup. An over-broad statement by CCP designed to cover all situations, even similar but unknown ones, yet one that is not clear to the player. The best solution, of course, would be for CCP to fix their game so CONCORD works as intended but for whatever reason CCP is unable or unwilling to do so. That's par for the course and we are left with an exploit notice that is open to interpretation by both players and GMs who may not have a complete understanding of the mechanics and intent of the mechanics and will lead to both a chilling effect as players are afraid to interact with CONCORD and GMs mistakenly handing out bans for players using the the intended, or at least historically accepted, fact that CONCORD has a time to warp when moving in-system.

The working interpretation is that moving CONCORD off a grid so that a player can take advantage of the normal travel time to for them to move back in response to a suicide attack is acceptable. You are not "delaying" CONCORD by "pulling" them to another place in the system - you are just using the normal move mechanics that were coded into the game to place them somewhere else and they will respond to a later crime exactly as they were coded to do. Of course in the general English use of the term you are in fact moving them for the purpose of delaying a response to a later gank (as compared to the time it would take to respond if they were already within 150km or not spawned) which cause this confusion.

It would be great for a senior GM to clairify this. It is unfair to expect players to have the confidence to interpret such broad statements who don't have the understanding of the history and intent of the ruling and the mechanic. But they haven't so I completely understand why some player considering playing as a criminal wouldn't want to even bother with suicide ganking any more or a victim, angry about a loss, would petition. And that latter one will result in people being mistakenly banned by a junior GM having to interpret broadly written rules that were not meant to cover the normal move/respond mechanics of CONCORD to a later crime in a system.

I have moved CONCORD for years without incident and I am totally convinced that it is within the rules and intent of how the game was designed. I will continue to do so unless explicitly informed by someone with authority that they are making that illegal. That does not include some junior GM parroting back to me a broadly written "exploit" notification that I know for a fact was intended to cover a method to actually delay CONCORD from shooting you once they had arrived on grid, not manipulating their normal movements around a system.

Do what you feel you have to. Common law and practice completely supports pulling CONCORD as a legal way to set up future ganks in a system. If you ask enough times perhaps you'll get a GM to who will confirm that.


They could just do away with all the confusion by making criminal action just trigger a locked self destruct on the ship after however many seconds concord is supposed to respond in. No more delays legit or not, no more move legit or not, no more stupid repeated petition from people until they get a GM who says read the rule as X as opposed to Y.

Then people would ask two questions - why am I putting bombs in my ship, and why am I handing Billy Bob Joe over there the detonation button?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6875494#post6875494 - Ship mounted explosives. Because explosions and Jita chaos.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#13 - 2017-03-03 07:24:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Frostys Virpio wrote:
They could just do away with all the confusion by making criminal action just trigger a locked self destruct on the ship after however many seconds concord is supposed to respond in. No more delays legit or not, no more move legit or not, no more stupid repeated petition from people until they get a GM who says read the rule as X as opposed to Y.
I bet if they had to implement it again they would do it this way. The current way is probably a vestigial remnant of the days when you could fight/evade CONCORD. The mechanic has been reduced to essentially a timed explosion you are forbidden to do anything about now so why bother with all the lag these invulnerable NPCs cause and the confusion around "delaying" something?

Just having your ship explode might be less immersive, but certainly would be much cleaner than the mess we have today with NPCs you are not allowed to interact and who can cause you to be banned if they don't function as intended. Perhaps for CrimeWatch 3.0?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?