These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

I think I recall miners summoning concord with a rookieship being against the rules?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Roadkill Rhino
Doomheim
#1 - 2011-10-22 14:39:33 UTC
I think I recall that miners summoning concord to the belt with a throw away rookieship being against the rules? Then why may I ask is it not an exploit for gankers to summon concord away from the belt by attacking a station or stargate in a throw away rookieship so they can gank the same belt over and over?
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-10-22 14:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: David Grogan
Roadkill Rhino wrote:
I think I recall that miners summoning concord to the belt with a throw away rookieship being against the rules? Then why may I ask is it not an exploit for gankers to summon concord away from the belt by attacking a station or stargate in a throw away rookieship so they can gank the same belt over and over?


easy solution is to fit a small smartbomb on a rookie ship then sit in range of an anchored gsc your corp doesn't own. when a ganker warps in hit your smartbomb and watch concord spank u

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#3 - 2011-10-22 15:05:00 UTC
Summoning concord is not against the rules.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Amsterdam Conversations
Doomheim
#4 - 2011-10-22 15:14:20 UTC
Creating alts to recycle them after ganking is against the rules, spawning concord is not. Why would it be?
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#5 - 2011-10-22 15:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Kengutsi Akira
Renan Ruivo wrote:
Summoning concord is not against the rules.


Not when the Goons do it but when the miners were doing it during Hulkageddon, it was an exploit.

Amsterdam Conversations wrote:
Creating alts to recycle them after ganking is against the rules, spawning concord is not. Why would it be?


Technically, as I understand that, its a case-by-case basis and they dont have the manpower (especially after the layoffs) to review them cases. So essentially, no its not.

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Vastek Non
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-10-22 15:43:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Vastek Non
Roadkill Rhino wrote:
I think I recall that miners summoning concord to the belt with a throw away rookieship being against the rules? Then why may I ask is it not an exploit for gankers to summon concord away from the belt by attacking a station or stargate in a throw away rookieship so they can gank the same belt over and over?


Roadkill, the answer is very simple and has nothing to do with manpower or any conspiracy theories being thrown around.

'Summoning' Concorde or distracting them achieves nothing. They are 0's and 1's in a database, and programmed to respond within a certain timeframe, regardless of where in the solar system they are at the time.
Well before this whole sorry incident a few players (including myself) tested response times.

Test 1 - no Concorde in sight - 7 seconds to death
Test 2 - 30 minutes later with Concorde battleships a few thousand meters away - 10 seconds to death.

Concord responses are random within their parameters i.e. perhaps 10 seconds in a 0.6 system with +/-10% randomness (this is just hypothetical, i'm not sure what the randomness % really is). Nothing players can do will change this.

While aware of this, I did a test petition to see if this was still the case, and basically the response was 'response times are within parameters'.

End of story Blink

Edit: in summary its 100% psychological. I find it amusing that Goons actually believe it works, as they pride themselves on being metagamers. It just goes to show how many are really capable of independant thought if they are given incorrect info by their leadership.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#7 - 2011-10-22 15:58:50 UTC
atually.......
Quote:
Ganking relies on doing enough damage before CONCORD shows up and ends the party. That means if CONCORD is already in the belt, you can't gank: they will instantly jam you as soon as you fire. So if CONCORD ships are already in the belt, you need to move them out so you can get the full amount of ganking time.

In addition, the first spawn of the day will arrive 6 seconds early: it takes 6 seconds for CONCORD to warp once they are 'alerted' (alert time varies by sec status, anywhere from near immediate to 15+ seconds), but if they haven't been spawned they will merely spawn right on top of you. If you're the first person to gank in the system that day you need to "prep" the system: go get a newbie ship and shoot something in a non-ice belt or shoot a pos. Once you're destroyed, the system is ready.


Quote:
Cleaning up your own CONCORD spawn, so other people can make their own attack runs, is actually really easy. Dock at the closest station to the belt you just ganked in, then immediately undock in a newbie ship and don't move - simply drift for 30 seconds with your docking immunity. This will pull CONCORD to you, and since you have your docking immunity sentry guns will not kill you before CONCORD gets there. If multiple people participated in a gank, they should all do this at the same time.

Please make sure to clean up your own CONCORD spawns whenever possible: it makes life easier for everyone else and really isn't very difficult.


Quote:
Sometimes clever pubbies, or lazy goons, will leave a spawn in a belt. You need to get rid of that before you gank, or you'll be instagibbed when you gank (unless you're in a Galtpest).

Concord usually only spawns one fleet per system. Concord, once spawned, will travel from place to place dealing with anything that shoots something they shouldn't. That means you just need to summon CONCORD somewhere else: take a newbieship in an alt and plink something - a GSC, or the staging pos. Just don't do it near faction police or sentry guns, so you don't die before CONCORD gets there.

If two people gank at once, however, there will be two fleets. It appears that the closest spawn is the one that moves: ergo get closer to the spawn you want to move (nearby belt, nearby pos, whatever) than the one you don't, then summon it. If all else fails, use safespots just off-grid. Don't worry about CONCORD being close: they take a flat 6 seconds to warp regardless of distance.


varies by sec status not random as I understand it, I do believe the two following examples as given by our illustrious CSM chair is what the thread is about lol

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Vastek Non
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-10-22 21:51:41 UTC
Kengutsi: Yes, it is a certain time in each sec zone *with* a random variance to that (which is what I was referring to), and nothing players do can change that.

And yes, I read on the K site Mittani's comments and was disgusted. The fact that he was wrong doesn't take away from the fact that he would have encouraged the entire Alliance to cheat if he could.

Kind of brings to mind question of if his recent protestations of being 'anti-bot' were really that sincere. He really doesn't have much credibility left at this stage.
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
#9 - 2011-10-22 22:11:19 UTC
Vastek Non wrote:
Kengutsi: Yes, it is a certain time in each sec zone *with* a random variance to that (which is what I was referring to), and nothing players do can change that.

And yes, I read on the K site Mittani's comments and was disgusted. The fact that he was wrong doesn't take away from the fact that he would have encouraged the entire Alliance to cheat if he could.

Kind of brings to mind question of if his recent protestations of being 'anti-bot' were really that sincere. He really doesn't have much credibility left at this stage.


Interesting. Very interesting indeed. That's good to know about concord spawn times, thank you for that.

Now all we need to do is summon Mittens to see what he has to say for himself. Everybody say: "OH MIIIIITEEEEEENS!"

Stop the spamming, not the scamming!
Not-Apsalar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2011-10-22 22:23:52 UTC
Vastek Non wrote:


And yes, I read on the K site Mittani's comments and was disgusted. The fact that he was wrong doesn't take away from the fact that he would have encouraged the entire Alliance to cheat if he could.

Kind of brings to mind question of if his recent protestations of being 'anti-bot' were really that sincere. He really doesn't have much credibility left at this stage.


He's a lawyer; what do you expect? Scum of the Earth. Sell their own mother down the river to win a court battle
Jaton
JatCorp
#11 - 2011-10-22 23:09:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaton
Why is it that only one poster so far has bothered to answer the original question that Roadkill Rhino had, while the rest of the replies are either half-answers, wrong, or have nothing to do with the question? And even that one poster (Amsterdam Conversations) only gave a 3/4 answer. He needed to include less attitude and more info.

The basis for the answer to Roadkills's question is in this old thread:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=818978

To summarize what both the Dev and GM said: no, its not "illegal" to shoot/attract Concord as long as the player sucks up the consequences. But to do so with a throwaway alt (in this case, a toon that is created with the intention of shooting Concord and then to be biomassed later) is considered an exploit.

If Roadkill suspects that Goons are using throwaway alts, then he should submit a petition and hope that CCP does its job.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2011-10-22 23:27:09 UTC
Vastek Non wrote:
Kengutsi: Yes, it is a certain time in each sec zone *with* a random variance to that (which is what I was referring to), and nothing players do can change that.

And yes, I read on the K site Mittani's comments and was disgusted. The fact that he was wrong doesn't take away from the fact that he would have encouraged the entire Alliance to cheat if he could.

Kind of brings to mind question of if his recent protestations of being 'anti-bot' were really that sincere. He really doesn't have much credibility left at this stage.


I doubt anyone is naive enough to believe Mr. Mittens stance on botting.
Baidol Veris
Perkone
Caldari State
#13 - 2011-10-22 23:34:07 UTC
I think my favorite thing about these threads is that we do not cheat to do what we do.
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo
EVE Trade Alliance
#14 - 2011-10-22 23:46:18 UTC
Personally I feel the use of an orca to bypass the -5 sec status means concord shots on site... ergo allowing players to gank past -5 sec status with no additional consequence is something that should be addressed before concord "training."

And frankly... what are throw away alts? GS are using alts in pods, droping BC's for them to board, ganking.. then flying around in their pods in high sec freely.... in the end condemning their toons to null sec. That seems worse than making alts to just be ignored, unplayed, or biomassed after a couple of weeks of training and then used to gank people.
Vastek Non
State War Academy
Caldari State
#15 - 2011-10-22 23:48:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Vastek Non
Jaton wrote:
Why is it that only one poster so far has bothered to answer the original question that Roadkill Rhino had, while the rest of the replies are either half-answers, wrong, or have nothing to do with the question? And even that one poster (Amsterdam Conversations) only gave a 3/4 answer. He needed to include less attitude and more info.

The basis for the answer to Roadkills's question is in this old thread:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=818978

To summarize what both the Dev and GM said: no, its not "illegal" to shoot/attract Concord as long as the player sucks up the consequences. But to do so with a throwaway alt (in this case, a toon that is created with the intention of shooting Concord and then to be biomassed later) is considered an exploit.

If Roadkill suspects that Goons are using throwaway alts, then he should submit a petition and hope that CCP does its job.


I believe you missed the part of my response where I had submitted a trial petition to test that (as there was plenty of evidence that this was taking place).
Obviously I can't quote the GM, however the response was effectively 'system working as designed, no exploit'. I.E. Player actions have no effect upon Concorde response times, as noted by my experiments many months prior.

That link - P2 CCP Atropus "Ah I see the misunderstanding; I was attempting to state that if you use an alt for committing illegal acts (illegal in the sense that CONCORD kicks your ass for it) and then recycle them as a method to avoid the repercussions, you are committing an exploit. It's the avoidance of these penalties that is the problem.

I hope this clarifies my earlier statement somewhat."

Summoning Concorde is not the problem, the problem is avoiding security status penalties by biomassing characters and creating others to do the job.

Not going to bother commenting on this anymore as I can only repeat what I have already stated. If people don't wish to believe me, well enjoy Big smile
Jovan Geldon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-10-23 00:23:44 UTC
Sure is rectumravaged in this thread
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#17 - 2011-10-23 00:51:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
The method described in the quoted post above is not considered an exploit. I've seen a lot of miners using alts that they later biomass to keep CONCORD in an ice field (and petitioned them appropriately)

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Jaton
JatCorp
#18 - 2011-10-23 01:42:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaton
I see that what I said previously about inaccurate replies and "you're not answering the question" replies still holds true, even after I clearly point them out.

Vastek: Your replies are about whether the "Call Concord" exploit works, and about concord response times. Roadkill did not ask about any of that. He simply asked why (in his perception) gankers were seemingly being allowed to perform an exploit. Thats all. You did not answer his question.

Andski: What part of "and then recycle them as a method to avoid the repercussions, you are committing an exploit" do you not seem to understand? Its an exploit as defined in that old thread. It doesn't matter what you see, it doesn't matter what you perceive to see, and it does not matter whether or not ccp bothers to enforce it. Nowhere in the TOS does it say "If Andski thinks he sees something then its not an exploit". There is also nothing in the TOS that says "its not an exploit if we don't bother to enforce it".

Perhaps you should evemail mittens. He's one of you. and he's a CSM. Perhaps he can explain it better than me.
Vastek Non
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2011-10-23 02:25:13 UTC
Jaton wrote:
I see that what I said previously about inaccurate replies and "you're not answering the question" replies still holds true, even after I clearly point them out.

Vastek: Your replies are about whether the "Call Concord" exploit works, and about concord response times. Roadkill did not ask about any of that. He simply asked why (in his perception) gankers were seemingly being allowed to perform an exploit. Thats all. You did not answer his question.

Andski: What part of "and then recycle them as a method to avoid the repercussions, you are committing an exploit" do you not seem to understand? Its an exploit as defined in that old thread. It doesn't matter what you see, it doesn't matter what you perceive to see, and it does not matter whether or not ccp bothers to enforce it. Nowhere in the TOS does it say "If Andski thinks he sees something then its not an exploit". There is also nothing in the TOS that says "its not an exploit if we don't bother to enforce it".

Perhaps you should evemail mittens. He's one of you. and he's a CSM. Perhaps he can explain it better than me.


Ok, i'll bite, despite promising not to Sad

You make a good point.. however.. we don't know that even given that rule they are *biomassing* those characters once they reach -5 or what they consider to be unuseable sec levels. Therefore we don't know if they are exploiting.

Further, even if they are, what they are doing to reach that level of sec rating is utterly pointless, thus CCP may consider it to be a lot lower priority than say, a suicide ganker biomassing toons to evade sec status (which in a roundabout way is what I was getting at, even if it wasn't entirely clear).

And yes, just because someone doesn't get punished for something doesn't mean its not an 'exploit' of sorts, regardless of how pointless it is. Depends on how pedantic they want to get I guess.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2011-10-23 02:50:06 UTC
Solution: Set goonswarm and friends to -10
If they enter system, safe the **** up.

eve basics 101. Or 1.0

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
12Next page