| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Alex Tremayne
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
24
   |
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
Adian Grey wrote:Since people cannot read...
Attacking someone in Highsec = GCC, Concord
Attacking someine in Lowsec = GCC, No Concord
What happens with the person with a GCC gained through actions outside of Highsec goes through Highsec is the base question. This also affects a number of mechanics currently used by pirates and bad people. Getting the GCC in Highsec is the exploit they are fixing. There is no exploit from getting a GCC in lowsec.
You're making a false assumption that there is a difference between attacking someone in lowsec and attacking someone in hisec. There isn't. In both cases, the penalty for attacking someone is that you get a GCC.
The difference between lowsec and hisec is that hisec has a CONCORD presence and lowsec doesn't.
One of the penalties for having a GCC is that CONCORD will engage you in hisec, so if you GCC in lowsec and jump into hisec, CONCORD should kill you dead.
Being able to jump into a hisec system with a GCC, warp to another gate and jump out without being killed by CONCORD counts as avoiding CONCORD and is an exploit that will be plugged by this new patch.
You may now commence crying bitter tears. :) |
Alex Tremayne
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:
What you're saying sounds like this to me: " Concord isn't smart enough to know WHERE you got your GCC, so they're going to come after you anyway, and if you avoid them it's an exploit, and you won't be able to avoid them at all after the next patch"
It's not that CONCORD isn't smart enough to know where you got your GCC, it's just that they don't care and they never have. The difference is that now you won't be able to avoid them. :) |
Alex Tremayne
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
24
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 16:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. :) |
Alex Tremayne
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 17:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Othran wrote:
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.
Having been in Space Invaders doesn't actually make you the oracle of all things CONCORD and GCC. I've been around long enough that I'm also quite familiar with what caused that ruling initially.
It doesn't change the fact that the ruling was that evading CONCORD became an exploit. Full stop. |
Alex Tremayne
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 18:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
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. |
| |
|