Originally by: Mark A

---

Edited by: Mark A on 07/08/2005 09:13:32

Originally by: GM Rendo

---

I think it's safe to say that we've seen both sides make their arguments in this thread. The reason why we haven't made an official response is simply because no senior GM has been on duty since this happened. We'll of course make an announcement regarding this case as soon as that happens.

---

Thanks for looking into this. To summarise Five's position:

1. We did not consider using drones as decoy targets to be an "obvious exploit" (to quote the GM convo). This has been an oft used tactic in other circumstances, e.g. against FoFs, NPCs or gate guns. We were not aware that the L guns could not hit the drones, having not gone up against L guns previously. Also the drones were being shot down a lot, presumably by the med and small batteries. Also L guns missing small targets isn't exactly new. Finally we lost several BS, so the POS was far from rendered impotent.

2. Regardless of whether people agree that it was an exploit, it is our understanding that only CCP, as the game's designers, can declare something unintentional and hence an exploit of the game mechanics.

3. Regardless of 1 & 2 above, it is at best unusual for an exploit to be declared on-the-fly in this manner. Further to this, it is (to my knowledge) unprecedented for a new exploit to be applied retroactively, ie healing the station to 100% after it had been put in reinforced mode.

If this had been handled properly and "by the book" there would be no complaints. It's the way it was done, more than the issue itself, that is the problem here.

Thank you.

---