You can still get away from them if you move fast enough and dont stop moving.

But you have to be really fast, destroyer hull or below. Otherwise you probably wont make it.

You can still get away from them if you move fast enough and dont stop moving.

But you have to be really fast, destroyer hull or below. Otherwise you probably wont make it.

Gridfoo you ninjas

"it is considered an exploit to attack a target after you warp away from the grid where you gained that GCC"

so stay on grid and boomerange? Still WIN.

Gridfoo you ninjas

Avoiding the spirit of the law by trying to use the letter of the law, will probably not be looked upon kindly.

Note that it is also a (seperate) exploit to avoid being destroyed by CONCORD in high sec when you gain a GCC

Say I am in 0.5 system with an ice belt. I then gank a Mackinaw with no tank. Am I allowed to warp to the sun and sit there so that Concord spawns and kills me at the sun instead of the belt? I will still have died and I will not have avoided GCC.

The spirit of the law means nothing. The Rules state "warp off grid", so until CCP alters this statement I see no clear proof of law stating that a ban is justifiable for this act of violence.

We are looking into how far this can be stretched. Even if you think you have found a loop hole, do not use it without asking a GM for clarification. Doing so anyway could still result in repercussions.

The spirit of the law means nothing. The Rules state "warp off grid", so until CCP alters this statement I see no clear proof of law stating that a ban is justifiable for this act of violence.

We are looking into how far this can be stretched. Even if you think you have found a loop hole, do not use it without asking a GM for clarification. Doing so anyway could still result in repercussions.

Is it considered an exploit to warp your ship away to a safespot after agressing and once there die without attacking someone else. The point of this being dying without giving anyone player to shoot at me and scoop the loot from my wreck without probing me.

Yes, if you do not kill anyone else after warping. Note that a software fix will be put into place that may or may not be more or less strict.

The CCP Award for Loose Wording goes to Lead GM Grimmi! You may want to update it and state that you have to lose your ship within 10 seconds after you gained a GCC in highsec. That wont leave any loopholes that require petitioning.

I know one way to avoid CONCORD that would not fit the wording of that news item. (Not gonna tell you, ofc.)

As said earlier, it is always considered an exploit to avoid CONCORD. As for the loose wording, what you stated would invalidate some (currently) legal tactics and we do not want to limit our players any further than we have to.

As said earlier, it is always considered an exploit to avoid CONCORD. As for the loose wording, what you stated would invalidate some (currently) legal tactics and we do not want to limit our players any further than we have to.

But in the above scenario, Bob isn't ignorant of the law.

We are looking into how far this can be stretched. Even if you think you have found a loop hole, do not use it without asking a GM for clarification. Doing so anyway could still result in repercussions.

The spirit of the law means nothing. The Rules state "warp off grid", so until CCP alters this statement I see no clear proof of law stating that a ban is justifiable for this act of violence.

"it is considered an exploit to attack a target after you warp away from the grid where you gained that GCC"

so stay on grid and boomerange? Still WIN.

Gridfoo you ninjas

You do realize that CCP always has that "we can ban you at any time for any reason or no reason at all" thing for them to fall back on, right? So CCP can decide to ban you based on the "spirit of the law" and you won't be able to use some sort of technicality to force CCP to not ban you.

We adjusted the wording slightly to make it less ambiguous. See the full text here:

http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. Also avoiding CONCORD in any way is simply not allowed, attempts to find loopholes in the wording will not fly.

We adjusted the wording slightly to make it less ambiguous. See the full text here:

http://community.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=4972&tid=1

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. Also avoiding CONCORD in any way is simply not allowed, attempts to find loopholes in the wording will not fly.

GÇÿIf you gain a Global Criminal Countdown by committing an illegal action in high security space, it is considered an exploit to attack a target after you warp away from the grid where you gained that GCC, even if you later return to that grid while still affected by that GCC.

This is incorrect, we act on the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Tread that line at your own risk.

Ok. I've read the link. Here's a copypasta of the relevant section:




Riddle me this:

Bob kills a mackinaw at an ice belt. Concord arrives. Bob warps to a point 150k away on the same grid. He is still on grid, concord is still on grid, he never left grid. Concord moves to intercept him, on grid. He warps to another on-grid bounce, because his ship has inertial stabs to align fast. He warps (still on the same grid) to another mackinaw, and pops it. Repeat. Bob has been on grid the entire time.

In this way, in a .5 or .6 system, it is possible to kill many mackinaws without leaving grid before finally succumbing to concord.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say this violates the "spirit of the law". Perhaps you should change the law as follows:

After obtaining GCC and killing someone, it is mandatory for a player to offline all modules, bring their ship to a complete stop, and assume the position.

I think this would get rid of any and all ambiguity.

Edit: The above requires no special 'gridfoo', it only requires the grid to be greater than 150k. Most icebelts have grid larger than 300k.

A ruling on this, but no ruling on the Orca unfit trick that goes hand in hand with it?
This is a clever way of slightly increasing damage whilst not avoiding penalty.

The Orca trick lets you reduce the ISK penalty to near nothing, and even lets gankers fit faction modules to a gank-ship.

Please fix that loophole, or at least declare it an exploit, ASAP.

This means specific indicidents can be arbitrarily acted upon by different GMs. This is Not Good.

Keep crying.. Maybe if you yell and stomp your feet loud enough CCP might listen to you.

You can't remove the ability to access fitting services when in combat because that affects more then hi-sec. It would affect low-sec and nul where people use fitting services in combat all the time. And making it an exploit ruins those tactics. Get out of your little safe world and HTFU.

This is incorrect, we act on the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Tread that line at your own risk.

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law.

(1) Example: in the past people have been punished for dropping decloak cans on gates and in bubbles. Only quite recently, within the last year or so, has dropping large amount of cans on a gate for purposes of decloak been effectively 'legalized'

(2)Example: Rapecageing supers in a pos by deploying tons of bubbles to cover every escape routes was also punishable at one point. It is not any longer.

[...]

2. OR you can set up the rules so strictly and in such a limiting manner that emergent behavior and any form of innovation becomes completely impossible. We could easily fix this by simply making it impossible to attack anyone in high sec ever, no exceptions. This is a situation no one wants.

In other words, making judgement calls will always be part of running a sandbox game. Making sure that a GM is capable of doing this properly is a very important part of our hiring, training and auditing process. This is also why escalation of a support ticket is always a possibility (from non-senior to senior) and why peer review is a very important part of our operating procedures.

Which "spirit of the law" was applicable in both of these?

Back in my days at T-Mobile, that's what we called an 'unauthorized workaround'; if you used one of those, you could kiss your employment goodbye.

Gaming the system is not worth it, Prior.

I give it six months before our esteemed GM team tells us that ganking in HS is considered an exploit because it's mean and makes people sad.

At one point, spamming cans for decloak on a gate (for example) was pretty much universally frowned upon by all gm's and action was taken against it (offenders would be punished, the cans removed, any ships killed by this would be replaced if you petitioned). Then, the "spirit of the law" changed (within the last year) and now this behavior is considered legit. My point was that the "spirit of the law" changes on a regular basis in eve.

I also have to restate that we value the spirit of the law over the letter of the law.

@GM or Devs

Any reason why you cant just make CONCORD act faster and harder?
I mean its a game, its not real, you control those metrics and the code behind it

Not empty quoting...

Because there has to be a balance to it. Why would concord act instantly in a 0.5 system, effectively making it a 1.0?

I don't think people PvEing would be happy about mission payouts and asteroid spawns would be the same as in 1.0 in all high sec systems.

The best way to solve these exploits that I have heard of so far is the insta scram and fixed delay depending on system security for the death ray.

So with respect whats the difference insta scram and insta death? you are still going to die, its just delaying it

that may or may not be more or less strict.

CCP did it wrong again.

Why not just make concord quicker with each kill? The ganker is giving up gank in exchange for the inertia stabs which doesnt mean we will actually pop the target.

Also the target has AMPLE oppertunity to prevent this from happening. This is nothing more then a CPA.


CPA - Carebear Protection Act

Auto piloting non escorted freighter = win for carebears....

I understand that some people may not like a GM having the right to make a judgement call, but this is something that is also necessary. No set of rules can be held up by the letter of the law. Once you only use the letter of the law you have only 2 options:

1. Accept that people who want to be bad (the people that these laws are here to stop) will always find a loophole to get to the people they want to be bad to (the people these laws are designed to protect); thereby making any system of (social) rules ineffective. The limitations of the human languages simply do not let you define all possible situations; this is why everyone is always expected to act responsibly according to the spirit of the law. To find the balance between sticking to the rules and bending them to innovate is the type of balance that you learn to seek out when you grow up as a kid and get into scrapes on the school yard.

2. OR you can set up the rules so strictly and in such a limiting manner that emergent behavior and any form of innovation becomes completely impossible. We could easily fix this by simply making it impossible to attack anyone in high sec ever, no exceptions. This is a situation no one wants.

In other words, making judgement calls will always be part of running a sandbox game. Making sure that a GM is capable of doing this properly is a very important part of our hiring, training and auditing process. This is also why escalation of a support ticket is always a possibility (from non-senior to senior) and why peer review is a very important part of our operating procedures.

This is incorrect, we act on the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Tread that line at your own risk.

Wut?

lol ;)

The spirit of the law means nothing. The Rules state "warp off grid", so until CCP alters this statement I see no clear proof of law stating that a ban is justifiable for this act of violence.

Stop whining. When a single tornado with a bumping alt can kill a freighter in high sec something is obviously broken.

So wait, it's not part of the game to run away from the cops??? I would think that would be a fun game mechanic, to evade the law, how is this an exploit?? I'm not a pirate by any means but my BS meter is all the way up on this one CCP...

TBH, Concord should be a player profession where the cop-players fly the concord ships and they get to chase us baddies.

WHOOP WHOOP! SPACE POLICE!

We could easily fix this by simply making it impossible to attack anyone in high sec ever, no exceptions. This is a situation no one wants.

the entitlement of highsec bears to autopilot freighters with zero backup or thought for defense is the problem

a single alt in an assault frig (or a falcon) could save the bear's freighter from a tornado

the entitlement of highsec bears to autopilot freighters with zero backup or thought for defense is the problem

a single alt in an assault frig (or a falcon) could save the bear's freighter from a tornado

2. OR you can set up the rules so strictly and in such a limiting manner that emergent behavior and any form of innovation becomes completely impossible. We could easily fix this by simply making it impossible to attack anyone in high sec ever, no exceptions.This is a situation no one wants.

Instead of making up crazy rules and constantly enforcing them, just fix the game mechanic.

EX. Once you get GCC for the illegal crime, you cant warp.. Seems like a simple fix to me.

For the role player: system-wide CONCORD warp jammer or something.

I'm still having some trouble understanding why it's even considered an exploit... You still lose your ship, unavoidably so, even. I'm sure somebody at CCP was also aware of the intersection between ship agility and CONCORD arrival time....

Or I would be if all signs didn't point to all the brains there aiming for a forced pve grindfest.

But it would also limit legitimate gameplay far more than is necessary to address the issue. Very blunt tool to fix one small loophole. A bad fix.

I'm still having some trouble understanding why it's even considered an exploit... You still lose your ship, unavoidably so, even. I'm sure somebody at CCP was also aware of the intersection between ship agility and CONCORD arrival time....

Or I would be if all signs didn't point to all the brains there aiming for a forced pve grindfest.

can you give an example of legitimate gamplay and "gcc from an illegal act"?

EDIT: oh youre talking about hiding your salvage in a safespot,.. cheap.

TBH, Concord should be a player profession where the cop-players fly the concord ships and they get to chase us baddies.

WHOOP WHOOP! SPACE POLICE!

Does this new ruling affect missiles, which can destroy a target even after CONCORD arrives, the shooter warps off, or even after the shooter is destroyed?

Not specifically, but things like saving your pod and drop are good reasons to use as an example.

I am not sure I understand this right...

Attack someone. Get a GCC. Manage to warp away escaping CONCORD. Considered an exploit?

If this is true...how does it make any kind of logical sense at all that escaping the police is an exploit?

I am not sure I understand this right...

Attack someone. Get a GCC. Manage to warp away escaping CONCORD. Considered an exploit?

If this is true...how does it make any kind of logical sense at all that escaping the police is an exploit?

The way this is written, is now against the rules to warp from gate to gate in high-sec with a Sec Status of -10, since that is running from CONCORD.

-10 is not the same as GCC and does not have the same consequences. Which I am sure any -10 knows, so no risk of misunderstandings there. ;)

just curious, what happens if you self-destruct before concord gets there?

It takes 2min to auto-destruct.. Concord always responds before that..

TBH, Concord should be a player profession where the cop-players fly the concord ships and they get to chase us baddies.

WHOOP WHOOP! SPACE POLICE!

What if I acquire a GCC in low-sec and then jump into high-sec? Am I obligated to sit still after emerging from the gate until CONCORD kills my ship?

no... however if you are enough of a moron to jump into highsec with a GCC for no reason, then who the hell cares if you wait for CONCORD, no one is going to petition that so its a moot point. If you are pursuing a target into highsec and immediately start the boomerang tornado strategy, then yes, you deserve a ban.

I get a GCC in low-sec, then go to high-sec to perform a suicide-gank. On one hand, I haven't attacked anyone in high-sec to receive a CONCORD response. On the other, CONCORD is already "interested" in me the second I jump in. The new rules essentially disallow me from performing any actions after I make the jump, even though I've performed no action which obligated me to stay "on grid."

I get a GCC in low-sec, then go to high-sec to perform a suicide-gank. On one hand, I haven't attacked anyone in high-sec to receive a CONCORD response. On the other, CONCORD is already "interested" in me the second I jump in. The new rules essentially disallow me from performing any actions after I make the jump, even though I've performed no action which obligated me to stay "on grid."

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say this violates the "spirit of the law". Perhaps you should change the law as follows:

After obtaining GCC and killing someone, it is mandatory for a player to offline all modules, bring their ship to a complete stop, and assume the position.

I think this would get rid of any and all ambiguity.

I wouldn't push the point on this, it has already been brought up at FanFest that they are considering just saying screw it and instituting a "death ray" that simply pops the aggressor within a specific time frame regardless of what other clever actions he may try to take.

Don't give them more reason to pursue that line of thinking.

There is nothing wrong with multiple kills per offence (example: smartbombs, multiple volleys), if you don't have to evade CONCORD (warp around) to do it.

Last I heard regarding hi-sec shenanigans was that anything trying to or succeeding at avoiding Concord gets hammered .. statement is from a couple of years ago when Cocnord were last buffed. Doubt the "rules" have changed in the meantime.

The notice given is an excessive courtesy (if such a thing exists) if you ask me

As a miner you can not defend against a gank, the ships are not setup for that. The high alpha strike of short range will usually nullify any repper/booster you have on it. You cannot pre-emp the strike with an ECM module (burst) as you are aggressing and will get concorded.

Fitting a few nanofibers in your lows and warping out while a Maelstrom/Tornado/Thorax/Catalyst/Etc... is warping in is a pretty good defense against suicide ganks.

But that would require you to not be tabbed out of the game.

Even with all skills at level 5, and maxed nano in the lows. It would still be around 9 seconds to warp out.

If the ganker has had a scout. More likely cloaked. Taken into consideration warp in time, there would still be 3/4 second for target and scram. More than enough time.

I'm not against high sec ganking. I think it should be a realistic profession. But the mechanic of high sec also means that you have to wait to be shot before you a re-act back. The advantage should always be with the aggressor at that point.

This exploit just adds to that advantage. Thats all.

I have no idea how to fix this, I'm hoping high sec ganking continues. It keeps Ice prices high :-).

We do you continue to bother with Concord shenanigans at this point? The moment someone gets a GCC, just blow their ship up. No space lasers from nowhere, no spawning a bunch of lag inducing NPCs to blap you. Just boom, gone.

Even with all skills at level 5, and maxed nano in the lows. It would still be around 9 seconds to warp out.

If the ganker has had a scout. More likely cloaked. Taken into consideration warp in time, there would still be 3/4 second for target and scram. More than enough time.

I'm not against high sec ganking. I think it should be a realistic profession. But the mechanic of high sec also means that you have to wait to be shot before you a re-act back. The advantage should always be with the aggressor at that point.

This exploit just adds to that advantage. Thats all.

I have no idea how to fix this, I'm hoping high sec ganking continues. It keeps Ice prices high :-).

Even with all skills at level 5, and maxed nano in the lows. It would still be around 9 seconds to warp out.

If the ganker has had a scout. More likely cloaked. Taken into consideration warp in time, there would still be 3/4 second for target and scram. More than enough time.

I'm not against high sec ganking. I think it should be a realistic profession. But the mechanic of high sec also means that you have to wait to be shot before you a re-act back. The advantage should always be with the aggressor at that point.

This exploit just adds to that advantage. Thats all.

I have no idea how to fix this, I'm hoping high sec ganking continues. It keeps Ice prices high :-).

Because CCP want to try and maintain the facade you that you are playing in a sandbox despite consistently making it more and more difficult to destroy ships in high security space.

It's going to reach a point where destroying a ship in highsec will be considered an exploit if the victim didn't click an "okay" button.

So, you've taken away our ability to run from the police in a sandbox.

Well done CCP.

CCP has decided that its supposed to be hard to destroy ships in high sec and that it is exploiting to avoid systems that are in place to make it hard and no amount of tasty tasty carebear pvper tears is going to change that. If you do not like that you can always quit. Just be sure to contract all your stuff to this alt.

What the **** i thought the point of different high secs is the fact that at .5 you CAN outrun concord. :\

carebears crying about suicide gankers calling the same gankers carebears is nothing but sweet, sweet irony

Hrm? Since when did I become a carebear? Maybe instead of a carebear that I in fact want some challenge when suicide ganking? Maybe I don't want my tornado to basically be untouchable? Maybe I don't like the feel that I am basically cheating. I don't use the exploit, but neither should the risk adverse pvpers be able to use it because they have to make up for their terribad skills.

(Waiting for mr. goonie over here to ask me to link my killboard so Mittani can tell me to kill myself at the next fanfest)

Because CCP want to try and maintain the facade you that you are playing in a sandbox despite consistently making it more and more difficult to destroy ships in high security space.

It's going to reach a point where destroying a ship in highsec will be considered an exploit if the victim didn't click an "okay" button.

EVE is hard +ñhhh

better say

EVE will be soften

No my dearest Watson, on the contrary, this is a situation that a great deal of many people want.

The exploit part is leaving the grid where Global Criminal Cooldown was acquired.

Boomerang was:

1. shoot ship 1
2. warp off grid before concord shows up on <--exploit, this bit gets you banned now
3. Warp back to ship 1, shoot again (or shoot some other ship) while concord is still in warp
4. repeat


You may, however, warp on the same grid, thus making a mini-boomerang manover. The leaving the grid part is the bannable bit... what if you don't leave the grid ?

No, no no no no. Read CCP's announcement closely.

1. shoot ship 1
2. warp off grid before concord shows up on (THIS is perfectly legal)
3. Warp back to ship 1, shoot again (or shoot some other ship) while concord is still in warp (THIS IS NOW EXPLOIT)
4. repeat


Oh, and I never claimed to be a PVPer. I'm better than that. I'm a ganker.

Thanks god you at least reconogize that you're even more carebear than the carebears you say to shoot. At least they are risking themselves to be ganked while flying a hauler/mining ship.

Erm, Thats not concord, thats the Faction Police

TBH, Concord should be a player profession where the cop-players fly the concord ships and they get to chase us baddies.

WHOOP WHOOP! SPACE POLICE!

can you give an example of legitimate gamplay and "gcc from an illegal act"?

EDIT: oh youre talking about hiding your salvage in a safespot,.. cheap.

EDIT: in fact, my fix addresses 3 issues.
1.) The warp away exploit.
2.) More risk when ganking. When you suicide gank, other people have the chance to loot you. (no more hiding your wreck from others looters)
3.) CCP can use their GMs to do more meaningful things.

Miscellaneous

Pilots with a Global Criminal Countdown in high security space will be prevented from warping (if they are in any ship other than a capsule). This is to prevent a tactic declared to be an exploit recently.

Nope, not saying I'm a carebear either. I'm better than that. I'm a ganker.

Miners have a very tiny chance of being ganked on any given day, have the option of tanking - and get guaranteed profits.
I take a guaranteed loss, can easily be podded - am not guaranteed a kill, let alone a profit.
My only reward is tears and creating a trail of dead miners.

So, your carebear slur simply falls flat. Please try again!

Yes, this game is a sandbox. That doesn't mean you're allowed to take a crap in it.

The exploit part is leaving the grid where Global Criminal Cooldown was acquired.

Boomerang was:

1. shoot ship 1
2. warp off grid before concord shows up <--exploit, this bit gets you banned now
3. Warp back to ship 1, shoot again (or shoot some other ship) while concord is still in warp
4. repeat


You may, however, warp on the same grid, thus making a mini-boomerang manover. The leaving the grid part is the bannable bit... what if you don't leave the grid ?

I have to say I'm with the gankers though, evolution does not occur without selection pressure. Perhaps changes to the mechanics allowing miners to defend themselves better. The pressure from gankers wouid force miners to use proper logistics and fly in fleets, to use escorts. This can only be a good thing. A real cause and real effect. In the wild west everyone carried a gun, even in safe areas. This approach would make everyone happy, except bot miners.

Hisec may be intended to be the safest part of the Eve universe, but why force it to be a Utopia for carebears I dont understand. Although, from my own experiences mining, I would actually say I felt safer in 0.0 mining than I did in Empire space.

yay for necro-ing a dead thread to beat the dead and buried horse that has already passed into the afterlife.

suffice to say that the tactic did not only affect miners, and was used with remarkable results against freighters. CCP decided that a single tornado should not be able to kill a freighter or jump freighter, amongst other things, so there you go, now let the dead horse rest in peace.

I didnt check the dates actually. This thread was near the top of the list in the forum.... anyway there are all kinds of fun things you can do with or to a dead horse. Why bury it?

If you dont want a tornado to be able to kill a freighter, dont you think it would have been better to give the freighter more survivability, than to give Concord superpowers.

To be brutally simple about it, this is why fighter planes got faster, tanks got tougher and people got smarter.

I am not sure I understand this right...

Attack someone. Get a GCC. Manage to warp away escaping CONCORD. Considered an exploit?

If this is true...how does it make any kind of logical sense at all that escaping the police is an exploit?

Sooooooo, attacking someone in hs and then warp to a wh and jump into that wh is an exploit ????

We are looking into how far this can be stretched. Even if you think you have found a loop hole, do not use it without asking a GM for clarification. Doing so anyway could still result in repercussions.

Ok. I've read the link. Here's a copypasta of the relevant section:




Riddle me this:

Bob kills a mackinaw at an ice belt. Concord arrives. Bob warps to a point 150k away on the same grid. He is still on grid, concord is still on grid, he never left grid. Concord moves to intercept him, on grid. He warps to another on-grid bounce, because his ship has inertial stabs to align fast. He warps (still on the same grid) to another mackinaw, and pops it. Repeat. Bob has been on grid the entire time.

In this way, in a .5 or .6 system, it is possible to kill many mackinaws without leaving grid before finally succumbing to concord.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say this violates the "spirit of the law". Perhaps you should change the law as follows:

After obtaining GCC and killing someone, it is mandatory for a player to offline all modules, bring their ship to a complete stop, and assume the position.

I think this would get rid of any and all ambiguity.

Edit: The above requires no special 'gridfoo', it only requires the grid to be greater than 150k. Most icebelts have grid larger than 300k.

There was a guy in a system with a -8.3 sec rating doing this. He was drawing Concorde to one belt, then running over to another and ganking people. How does a player with a -8. sec rating even fly in a high sec area rated .8 without Concorde actively persuing them? o.O