|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote: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.
Then you need to do a good deal of re-writing wiki/etc.
The rule is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN* that if you gank someone in high-sec then it is an exploit to evade concorde.
What you are now saying is that if you gank someone in low-sec (where there is no concorde) then at some point you risk the gateguns and hop through a high-sec system (where you committed no crime) will be an exploit. Or instadeath?
If that IS what you're saying then the carebears are winning the argument and we'll have a bland, safe game soon. Oh and you'll be out of a job because nobody in their right mind would play this ancient bugfest if that was the case.
Get a clue.
Fast.
*not in the early days until CCP realised Concorde could never cope with players and made it an exploit. Sounds like we're back in those days again. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Alex Tremayne wrote:Othran wrote: The rule is AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN that if you gank someone in high-sec then it is an exploit to evade concorde.
Incorrect. The rule is and always has been, that avoiding CONCORD at all, is an exploit. The reasons have never mattered, you just thought they did. You were wrong. :)
Nope. I'm not.
I was in Space Invaders (me, not Othran) and I know EXACTLY how the "evading concorde is an exploit came about".
You don't so hush child. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alex Tremayne wrote: I've been around long enough that I'm also quite familiar with what caused that ruling initially.
Then in that case you must know why it was limited to high-sec.
Either that or you are trolling.
I know for a fact Jade knows why it was limited to high-sec, maybe go ask him mmmm? |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Schalac wrote:HTFU. I believe that is how it goes.
The thing is that is indeed how it goes.
It won't make customer retention any easier though. The only people who stick around for more than 6 months in Eve are those who like the danger aspect of Eve.
Frankly if you don't do PvP in Eve (even as part of the blob) OR you don't do RMT then what on earth would make you stay in Eve long-term? PVE? Don't make me laugh. Customer service? Ahahahahaha.
Bit too many carebear patches happening for upcoming expansions CCP are spinning as "war expansions".
YMMV of course. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lord Helghast wrote:RULES OF EVE
GCC = Concord will shoot you
Concord Patrols HighSec
you get GCC for killing in high or lowsec
Evading Concord is Illegal
With this logic it says that if you kill in lowsec and get GCC and go to highsec you will be killed end of story, its just the way its supposed to be avoiding concord = nono
The bit you are missing is that evading concorde was only an exploit if GCC occurred in high-sec.
Things change of course. Especially when clueless devs create the ultimate high-sec ganking machine (tier 3 BCs). Oh and they got warned. Repeatedly.
Then we end up with ill thought out garbage like we have now.
Knee-jerk policy changes don't work. Never have. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Othran wrote:Lord Helghast wrote:RULES OF EVE
GCC = Concord will shoot you
Concord Patrols HighSec
you get GCC for killing in high or lowsec
Evading Concord is Illegal
With this logic it says that if you kill in lowsec and get GCC and go to highsec you will be killed end of story, its just the way its supposed to be avoiding concord = nono
The bit you are missing is that evading concorde was only an exploit if GCC occurred in high-sec. Things change of course. Especially when clueless devs create the ultimate high-sec ganking machine (tier 3 BCs). Oh and they got warned. Repeatedly. Then we end up with ill thought out garbage like we have now. Knee-jerk policy changes don't work. Never have. Actually, Lord Helghast is correct. See this article: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Global_criminal_countdownIt very clearly states that jumping into High Sec with GCC = death. That article hasn't been touched since January 2010. This really has always been the case (at least for as long as I can remember and I have been playing since early 2006 and I have been a GM for 3 years).
Fair enough then. I was referring to stuff from well before that date (2004 whe it bacame an exploit).
Best to start linking these myriad rules to the EULA then AND start trining staff because I know 3 senior GMs who have said differently from the date you stated.
Consistency.
I'm sure you've heard of it. Would be nice if Eve devs and GMs actually used the same rules. |
Othran
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
174
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Alex Tremayne wrote:Othran wrote:GM Homonoia wrote:Actually, Lord Helghast is correct. See this article: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Global_criminal_countdownIt very clearly states that jumping into High Sec with GCC = death. That article hasn't been touched since January 2010. This really has always been the case (at least for as long as I can remember and I have been playing since early 2006 and I have been a GM for 3 years). Fair enough then. I was referring to stuff from well before that date (2004 when it became an exploit). Best to start linking these myriad rules to the EULA then AND start training staff because I know 3 senior GMs who have said differently from the date you stated. Consistency. I'm sure you've heard of it. Would be nice if Eve devs and GMs actually used the same rules. Things were unstable around 2003-2004 with how CONCORD and GCCs were implemented, I know because when I started in early 2005 I read up on the situation extensively, as it was very interesting to see how the rules had evolved over the first two years of the game. But even in March 2005, I never found anything that would dispute the info in the above article. There have never been any caveats on the rule that avoiding CONCORD for any reason is an exploit.
There have.
Go ask Jade.
Now hush.
|
|
|
|