EVE Search - Suspect flag for fighting against an outlaw?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Suspect flag for fighting against an outlaw?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kenneth Skybound Gallifrey Resources 55	Posted - 2013.05.09 15:29:00 - [1] - Quote Myself and another decided to sit on a gate for legal targets - suspect flagged, criminal flagged and outlaw players - to make an interesting kill or 2. I flew a T1 cruiser, my friend in a T1 logistics. When a fight came through (an outlaw caracal) I engaged and called my friend to start repairs. For a while the reps wouldn't land, and we discovered this was because his safeties were green and thus wasn't allowed to repair me. Now, I understand that a limited engagement will cause a suspect flag to outside interference, but my friend was trying to defend me against an outlaw. Why would concord punish the people attacking the outlaws? Is this a bug? Oversight? Harshly intended feature? (and under what premise if intended. It must have a reason!) Appreciate any insight.
rswfire Firesworn Firesworn Nation 68	Posted - 2013.05.09 15:42:00 - [2] - Quote Working as intended. Your friend is providing "neutral logi." He won't be killed by Concord; he'll just be suspect flagged. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYAz0aWEzpw http://www.firesworn.com/index.php?/topic/69-about-firesworn-nation/
Kenneth Skybound Gallifrey Resources 55	Posted - 2013.05.09 15:47:00 - [3] - Quote Except being suspect flagged (bearing in mind, this is a low sec system - hence the outlaws casually flying around) IS a death sentence. We chose to lose the Moa rather than chance saving it or chance losing both in the fight we ended up with as enemy reinforcements arrived. If the suspect flag wasn't there, the other ships would be less likely to engage the logi as the sentry guns could mean the loss of their ship. Plus, he's hardly neutral if he's in my fleet AND corporation!
rswfire Firesworn Firesworn Nation 68	Posted - 2013.05.09 15:51:00 - [4] - Quote Kenneth Skybound wrote: Except being suspect flagged (bearing in mind, this is a low sec system - hence the outlaws casually flying around) IS a death sentence. We chose to lose the Moa rather than chance saving it or chance losing both in the fight we ended up with as enemy reinforcements arrived. If the suspect flag wasn't there, the other ships would be less likely to engage the logi as the sentry guns could mean the loss of their ship. Plus, he's hardly neutral if he's in my fleet AND corporation! He is neutral to your limited engagement with another pilot. It doesn't matter that he's in your fleet or corp. If you want to go after random criminals, you can...alone, or in groups...by creating multiple limited engagements, but you can't use logi without a suspect flag unless you are attacking someone who is a war target and you're both in the same corp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYAz0aWEzpw http://www.firesworn.com/index.php?/topic/69-about-firesworn-nation/
Kimo Khan 98	Posted - 2013.05.09 15:52:00 - [5] - Quote Harshly intended feature. If your friend does not want suspect flag he needs to do the following: (maybe works but not guarrenteed) 1. Friend Accept duel from you so that he has limited engagement on you. 2. Maybe also need to engage said red target so that he has limited engagement on you and your target. Why would concord punish the people attacking the outlaws? Concord is not punishing him they are simply flagging him for interfering without being limited engaged to other target. If you look at it from pirates point of view. You engage pirate so he can shoot back without gate guns, 3rd party repairs you but since they did not engage pirate the pirate cannot shot repper or gate guns fire on him. Since it is hard to tell exact circumstance each time and many have used the system to repair people at war with neutral reps, they just decided to suspect flag anyone who reps someone else in a limited engagement. The only possible way out of that suspect flag is if you, friend and pirate all have limited engagement flags toward each other BEFORE you start repping. I cannot guarrentee that will work, but it might.
Kimo Khan 98	Posted - 2013.05.09 16:04:00 - [6] - Quote Oh and one other thing. I use a repper in fleets and get suspect all the time. Going suspect in a repper does not get gate guns or station guns to go off, so I can freely repair my fellow "entrepreneurs" without consequences from NPC parties. The targets we shoot at may engage me all they want, they just have to get though my friends first. That does happen: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=17582301 Before someone comments, yes this is a terrible fleet repair, but I was only repper so I had to fit it for solo repair.
Minmatar Citizen160812 The LGBT Last Supper 161	Posted - 2013.05.09 19:09:00 - [7] - Quote Kenneth Skybound wrote: Why would concord punish the people attacking the outlaws? If you were trying to gank an outlaw I would assume you were in low sec. In that case Concord isn't there. You attacked him and your logi tried to butt in...that flags you to all outlaws so we may gather and laugh at you. Thought you were pretty crafty and if he wanted to shoot the logi he would have to take gate guns?
Kenneth Skybound Gallifrey Resources 55	Posted - 2013.05.09 19:46:00 - [8] - Quote CONCORD assigns suspect/criminal flags, hence why it is concord, even if they don't field ships. @Kimo, surely the difference could be called between a duel and non-consensual limited engagment (eg, attacking an outlaw). If you invited the outlaw to a duel, THEN external logi could be considered neutral, while just taking on an outlaw generally is punishing those of low security status. The logi can accept a limited engagement with the outlaw upon repping, matching the repped ship, but it'd prevent random other ships being able to engage without an LE with the repped ship to pass onto the logi.
Kimo Khan 99	Posted - 2013.05.09 20:59:00 - [9] - Quote Kenneth Skybound wrote: CONCORD assigns suspect/criminal flags, hence why it is concord, even if they don't field ships. @Kimo, surely the difference could be called between a duel and non-consensual limited engagment (eg, attacking an outlaw). If you invited the outlaw to a duel, THEN external logi could be considered neutral, while just taking on an outlaw generally is punishing those of low security status. The logi can accept a limited engagement with the outlaw upon repping, matching the repped ship, but it'd prevent random other ships being able to engage without an LE with the repped ship to pass onto the logi. I did not make the rule and while I understand your point, I also understand the point that it is not fair to the person you are shooting to not be able to shoot the repper. Would have made sense to me if the repper would have been placed as limited engagement to all parties currently tagged in limited engagement to the person being repped, but they made the rule as suspect. EDIT: Also consider who the law is. It is the navy which does not allow low sec people in high sec without some difficulties. You are not the law so you should not have free reign to shoot. Case in point: Most wanted list in America, does not mean I can engage them at will, that is the laws job. If I do engage them, I still must answer to the law as to why I did engage.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1280	Posted - 2013.05.09 21:19:00 - [10] - Quote Pre-Crimewatch 2.0 Carebear wrote: Neutral Logistics should be attackable by everyone! Post-Crimewatch 2.0 Carebear wrote: What, I didn't mean my neutral logistics, I meant their neutral logistics! I am so terribly upset that you guys got exactly what you asked for. Shame you didn't think about what the consequences would be.

Kenneth Skybound Gallifrey Resources 55	Posted - 2013.05.09 21:45:00 - [11] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Pre-Crimewatch 2.0 Carebear wrote: Neutral Logistics should be attackable by everyone! Post-Crimewatch 2.0 Carebear wrote: What, I didn't mean my neutral logistics, I meant their neutral logistics! I am so terribly upset that you guys got exactly what you asked for. Shame you didn't think about what the consequences would be. @Vimsy Neutral logi used in wardecs and other high sec fights were a major issue (and tbh, the reluctance of others to engage/lack of others present makes that particular change modest in effect). I wouldn't give two ***** if logi pilots got all the same flags as the person they are repping, it's the EXTRA flag that I have issue with. The logi ship is a neutral as my own ship when first engaging the outlaw! @Kimo Sorry, but comparing the rules laid down by concord and the rules of irl is irrelevant. Just because someone steals a packet of crisps from a shop doesn't mean you are allowed to shoot them on sight for the next 15 minutes either. As it is, we DO have free reign to shoot on outlaws etc, but not to defend against them without "committing an offence".
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1282	Posted - 2013.05.09 22:54:00 - [12] - Quote Kenneth Skybound wrote: I wouldn't give two *** if logi pilots got all the same flags as the person they are repping This is literally what the system used to be prior to crimewatch 2.0 You only gained flags that were relevant to an engagement you were involved in. Shame we changed that, huh? Kenneth Skybound wrote:** @Vimsy Neutral logi used in wardecs and other high sec fights were a major issue Except no, not really because the total extent of the advantage gained by the use of neutral logistics was, and still is that they don't appear with a big red star next to their name in local. In terms of combat they behaved identically to non-neutral logistics, the complaint, therefore, was literally "I want local to provide me with perfect intel about enemy numbers". The entire "neutral logistics problem" was entirely fabricated by people who're bad as a way to rationalize why they lost fights "If they hadn't had those damned neutral logistics we'd have won that fight!" when the reality was if the logistics had not been neutral and had been seen beforehand they would have just not engaged at all. And people keep telling me it's a problem that there's not enough engagements in highsec wars. The current crimewatch system is a consequence of over-eagerness to address a problem that never actually existed. So I don't have any sympathy at all for complaints about it. You guys made your bed on this one, now you can lie in it.
Wolf Soprano The Conference Elite Rainbow Dash Friends 3	Posted - 2013.05.10 00:32:00 - [13] - Quote learn to patch notes they are your friends.
TheGunslinger42 All Web Investigations 1287	Posted - 2013.05.10 07:32:00 - [14] - Quote You started a fight with a valid target, your friend, who was not involved, interfered by providing one party reps he deserves the suspect flag
Agent Trask New Order Logistics CODE. 164	Posted - 2013.05.12 01:52:00 - [15] - Quote TheGunslinger42 wrote: You started a fight with a valid target, your friend, who was not involved, interfered by providing one party reps he deserves the suspect flag This. Have the Logi aggress the target. Yes, he can shoot back, but then you avoid the suspect flag, something designed to prevent invincible neutral logis. Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code. www.minerbumping.com
Mayhaw Morgan State War Academy Caldari State 80	Posted - 2013.05.12 03:27:00 - [16] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: The entire "neutral logistics problem" was entirely fabricated by people who're bad as a way to rationalize why they lost fights "If they hadn't had those damned neutral logistics we'd have won that fight!" when the reality was if the logistics had not been neutral and had been seen beforehand they would have just not engaged at all. Or, maybe they just wouldn't have decided to brawl. Or maybe they just would have engaged the logistics first, rather than capping themselves out and burning their mods chewing through an opponent's buffer only to watch it jump all the way back to full in 2 rep cycles. It's understandable to want to engage people on your terms, but it's disingenuous to say that undocking "a pile of Guardians" at half shields or half armor to keep you alive FOREVER is a reasonable game mechanic when the Guardians are being afforded CONCORD protection from everyone but the dude who is bleeding and out of breath. Couple that with the ability of those logistics to dock at-will, without a gate/station lock-out timer, and yes . . . neutral logistics were a MAJOR problem. TheGunslinger42 wrote: You started a fight with a valid target, your friend, who was not involved, interfered by providing one party reps he deserves the suspect flag So, if my grandma is getting mugged and some good Samaritan steps in to help her, the good Samaritan should be subject to the same police response as the person mugging her. Does that seriously make sense to you? Does that seem like "suspect" behavior to you? By your logic, the person shooting the criminal in the first place should get a suspect flag . . . and I bet that would make you quite happy; wouldn't it? Let me direct you to a relevant Wikipedia entry: criminal law. Maybe you have misunderstood who he was engaging and who "started" the fight, because it wasn't the original poster or his friend in the logi. If you are choosing to be a pirate, then you are choosing to be "the enemy of all mankind" . . . you shouldn't get to *** out when the SHTF and if pirates get to help eachother, then so should we, and OUR gate guns and OUR NPC police force should protect US. Get it? Agent Trask wrote:** . . . Have the Logi aggress the target. Yes, he can shoot back, but then you avoid the suspect flag, something designed to prevent invincible neutral logis. Now that sounds like practical advice and the OP should thank you for it, but what would have been more logical would have been for the logistics pilot to simply acquire the limited engagement and weapon timer of the person that was engaging the criminal/outlaw/suspect. It shouldn't be a surprise that people would expect it to work that way, even if in reality it doesn't.
Cataprah Zamayid Atlas Jupiter Federation Empire of the Never Setting Suns 0	Posted - 2013.05.12 04:33:00 - [17] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: It's understandable to want to engage people on your terms, but it's disingenuous to say that undocking "a pile of Guardians" at half shields or half armor to keep you alive FOREVER is a reasonable game mechanic when the Guardians are being afforded CONCORD protection from everyone but the dude who is bleeding and out of breath. Couple that with the ability of those logistics to dock at-will, without a gate/station lock-out timer, and yes . . . neutral logistics were a MAJOR problem. But let's pretend it's not a pile of Guardians; let's say it's a pile of Gnosises (Gnoses?). If they attack the outlaw as well, they don't get suspect flags -- correct? So in that situation all of the attackers are afforded CONCORD protection against everyone other than the "dude who is bleeding and out of breath." To me, it would seem to make more sense that the logi repping a lawful attacker simply becomes flagged to the pilots in that engagement only. So now the logi cannot dock back up, cannot use a gate, and can be attacked by the outlaw. But he cannot be attacked by anyone who happens to be passing by and sees a suspect flag on overview. And to take it a step further, what happens if a 3rd party does warp in and attack the logi pilot (let's say we're in high sec now)? That would be a legal attack because the logi pilot is flagged suspect, so I'm assuming that if the DPS pilot turned their guns on the new aggressor they would get CONCORDed because they weren't involved in fight #2?
Cataprah Zamayid Atlas Jupiter Federation Empire of the Never Setting Suns 0	Posted - 2013.05.12 04:38:00 - [18] - Quote Agent Trask wrote: This. Have the Logi aggress the target. Yes, he can shoot back, but then you avoid the suspect flag, something designed to prevent invincible neutral logis. So, how does a logi pilot go about aggressing someone? Do you have to gimp your reps and fit an offensive mod just to work around game mechanics? It seems to me like repping the dude who's shooting holes in your hull should be construed as a hostile action and have the same effect.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1288	Posted - 2013.05.12 08:23:00 - [19] - Quote You misquoted there bro. But note the classic argument about neutral logistics that has literally nothing to do with the logistics being neutral. Logistics being able to dock or jump was entirely unrelated to their neutrality and bringing logistics in mid way into a fight is also unrelated to neutrality, unless I'm mistaken and logging in, undocking or warping in at 50 was totally impossible for members of corporations that are at war. Those complaints are about logistics in general and have nothing to do with neutral logistics because in combat they both functioned identically. The tactics and fleet compositions required to counter logistics of any kind were as effective against neutral logistics as non-neutral logistics. There's a reason I fly a Bhaalgorn and it's not because I like the paint job. Just to recap let's go over the complaints made and you can see if you can spot one that applied to logistics that is neutral and not logistics that is not neutral: - Logistics being able to jump and dock while repping - Logistics entering the fight after the combat ships engage - Can only be attacked by parties actually involved in the fight - Waa guardians rep so much and I can't break them! The only advantage gained by neutral logistics is their lack of presence in local, that is why people use neutral logistics. If your fleet could deal with 2 in corp guardians it would be able to deal with 2 neutral guardians just as easily. Please make an argument that is actually about the neutrality of the logistics rather than just you trying to pin blame for your losses on something other than your own ineptitude. But seriously. Maybe if you didn't want your neutral logistics to get suspect flagged you shouldn't have insisted that neutral logistics get suspect flagged while us people who know what the hell we are talking about when it comes to PVP in highsec were explaining why that would have consequences people wouldn't like.
perfect company Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2013.05.12 09:34:00 - [20] - Quote Neutral logistics going suspect is a good thing, before the only counter to it was to have more dps available that could engage or to bring in your own logistics. Now you have the option to use neutral dps that can't be engaged by the original parties you where attacking to take down the logistics.

Ramona McCandless Standards and Practices Petition Blizzard 6	Posted - 2013.05.12 09:40:00 - [21] - Quote Mayhaw Morgan wrote: So, if my grandma is getting mugged and some good Samaritan steps in to help her, the good Samaritan should be subject to the same police response as the person mugging her. Does that seriously make sense to you? Does that seem like "suspect" behavior to you? By your logic, the person shooting the criminal in the first place should get a suspect flag . . . and I bet that would make you quite happy; wouldn't it? I notice you use an emotive argument here, even though there wre no grandmothers present in the OPs example. If you are a cop, and you come across a fight outside a pub between two guys and another one who is yelling encouragement, of course you consider the third man a suspect in the breach of the peace. What would make ME happy is that if they stopped the silly flagging of neutral Neuting randomly into fights. Mayhaw Morgan wrote: Let me direct you to a relevant Wikipedia entry: criminal law. Maybe you have misunderstood who he was engaging and who "started" the fight, because it wasn't the original poster or his friend in the logi. If you are choosing to be a pirate, then you are choosing to be "the enemy of all mankind" . . . you shouldn't get to *** out when the SHTF and if pirates get to help eachother, then so should we, and OUR gate guns and OUR NPC police force should protect US. Get it? I have no evidence the victim in the OP was a pirate. Did you pay taxes on those Gate Guns and police force btw? Also "enemy of mankind". Many so-called pirates do an excellent duty of removing waste humans from this game. Paddy, -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á WhAt a faNtastiC death -á-á-á-á-áAbySS -á-á-á-á-áTell The Others.**
Mayhaw Morgan State War Academy Caldari State 80	Posted - 2013.05.12 23:28:00 - [22] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Just to recap let's go over the complaints made and you can see if you can spot one that applied to logistics that is neutral and not logistics that is not neutral: - Logistics being able to jump and dock while repping - Logistics entering the fight after the combat ships engage - Can only be attacked by parties actually involved in the fight - Waa guardians rep so much and I can't break them! - Logistics that are not neutral can be forced into docking IMMEDIATELY. They don't get to burn to range or warp out and back. They are liable to get primed, forcing them into the docking/undocking cycle which takes away precious time and situational awareness from their repairing and potentially turns the fight. Logistics that are neutral can only be engaged at the time and while in the position of their choosing, which would tend to be outside of web/scram/DPS range. - Logistics ships that are not neutral are in the fight. They "enter" the fight whenever they undock their ship. Neutral logistics are not and cannot be hindered in any way (i.e.: by being pointed 10 AUs away by a Condor camping the likely inbound gate). A logistics ship that was pre-flagged for combat would need to gimp his ship to get off the gate or to warp out and back or to break range, etc. - Neutral logistics pilots did not pay CONCORD to be able to engage in hostilities. Why should they get to play at all? And, if your stance is that neutral logistics aren't engaging in hostilities, then . . . why should they get any flagging at all? Why not just have free-for-all reps on everyone all the time with no consequences whatsoever? - You can't break a neutral logi. You'll be CONCORDed. I definitely think logistics are overpowered, but that is a completely separate argument. Ramona McCandless wrote: I notice you use an emotive argument here, even though there wre no grandmothers present in the OPs example. If you are a cop, and you come across a fight outside a pub between two guys and another one who is yelling encouragement, of course you consider the third man a suspect in the breach of the peace. I notice you use a straw man argument, here, even though the emotiveness of my example is unrelated to the logical integrity of my reasoning. If I am a cop and come across some random person in a knock-down-drag-out fight with Hannibal Lecter or Osama Bin Laden, guess who I'm going to arrest . . . but then, I'm not a cop. Maybe a real cop let's them both go with a warning, eh? In reality, you can cheer on a street-fight all you want, but once you step in and actively assist one of the parties, you are probably committing a crime. The difference in this case is that one of the parties just robbed a bank or killed someone. Do you think the police will arrest you for breaking up a bank robbery? Ramona McCandless wrote: I have no evidence the victim in the OP was a pirate. Did you pay taxes on those Gate Guns and police force btw? I sure as hell DID pay 11% tax for those gate guns, and probably some to the SCC, too. Did you read the title of this thread?
Ramona McCandless Standards and Practices Petition Blizzard 6	Posted - 2013.05.13 08:13:00 - [23] - Quote Mayhaw Morgan wrote: - Logistics that are not neutral can be forced into docking IMMEDIATELY. They don't get to burn to range or warp out and back. They are liable to get primed, forcing them into the docking/undocking cycle which takes away precious time and situational awareness from their repairing and potentially turns the fight. Logistics that are neutral can only be engaged at the time and while in the position of their choosing, which would tend to be outside of web/scram/DPS range. Docking games. You are seriously suggesting that decent logi pilots, "pirates" and/or wartargets should be using docking games to win or lose fights or that even said fights take place near a station? I don't recall that being mentioned anywhere in the example. Mayhaw Morgan wrote: - Neutral logistics pilots did not pay CONCORD to be able to engage in hostilities. Why should they get to play at all? And, if your stance is that neutral logistics aren't engaging in hostilities, then . . . why should they get any flagging at all? Why not just have free-for-all reps on everyone all the time with no consequences whatsoever? - You can't break a neutral logi. You'll be CONCORDed. I definitely think logistics are overpowered, but that is a completely separate argument. Sorry? PAY Concord? In what manner do you play Concord anything exactly? Also, if "neutral" Reps arent flagged in your world, why should neut Neuts? Mayhaw Morgan wrote: I notice you use a straw man argument, here, even though the emotiveness of my example is unrelated to the logical integrity of my reasoning. Yes it is, it is an entirely unrealistic example within EvE. There is nothing equivalent to a grandmother here. Mayhaw Morgan wrote: If I am a cop and come across some random person in a knock-down-drag-out fight with Hannibal Lecter or Osama Bin Laden, guess who I'm going to arrest . . . but then, I'm not a cop. Maybe a real cop let's them both go with a warning, eh? In reality, you can cheer on a street-fight all you want, but once you step in and actively assist one of the parties, you are probably committing a crime. Lector. And what kind of cartoon example is that? Sorry to dispell your idea of how the world works, but Hannibal Lector and Osama Bin Laden are not usually present in a street brawl or armed robbery, one being fictional and the other being dead. Your example is extremely fatuous and does not support your assertion that the police dont make you a suspect for being present at a scene of a crime and being obviously associated with one of the parties. Incitement to violence IS a crime, I think you'll find. Mayhaw Morgan wrote:* The difference in this case is that one of the parties just robbed a bank or killed someone. Do you think the police will arrest you for breaking up a bank robbery? ......I sure as hell DID pay 11% tax for those gate guns, and probably some to the SCC, too. Did you read the title of this thread? Again. this isnt a bank robbery, its a brawl in the street. No one is wearing a uniform and both are flying warships, so... well Im sure you can work out why I dont buy your bank robbery analogy. Really? You paid taxes to Concord, did you? I find that EXCEPTIONALLY hard to believe. Yes, the title of the thread is "Suspect flag for fighting against an outlaw?", not "I Was Attacked By Concord for fight against an outlaw", which is really what you'd need to have happened before you had a case here. Paddy, -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á WhAt a faNtastiC death -á-á-á-á-áAbySS -á-á-á-á-áTell The Others.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1297	Posted - 2013.05.13 09:06:00 - [24] - Quote At this time I think our friend has made himself look sufficiently moronic that no further response is required.
feihcsiM Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 229	Posted - 2013.05.13 09:18:00 - [25] - Quote Kenneth Skybound wrote: his safeties were green Kenneth Skybound wrote: this is a low sec system Usually a bad combination. It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
TheGunslinger42 All Web Investigations 1296	Posted - 2013.05.13 09:36:00 - [26] - Quote Mayhaw Morgan wrote: So, if my grandma is getting mugged and some good Samaritan steps in to help her, the good Samaritan should be subject to the same police response as the person mugging her. Does that seriously make sense to you? Does that seem like "suspect" behavior to you? By your logic, the person shooting the criminal in the first place should get a suspect flag . . . and I bet that would make you quite happy; wouldn't it? Let me direct you to a relevant Wikipedia entry: criminal law. Maybe you have misunderstood who he was engaging and who "started" the fight, because it wasn't the original poster or his friend in the logi. If you are choosing to be a pirate, then you are choosing to be "the enemy of all mankind" . . . you shouldn't get to ***** out when the SHTF and if pirates get to help eachother, then so should we, and OUR gate guns and OUR NPC police force should protect US. Get it? There isn't a wikipedia entry for "Video game mechanics intended for balance in gameplay are not comparable to real life criminal law" but if there was I'd be pointing you to that. If your buddy wants to fight the criminal scum then he should fight the criminal scum, not be a neutral party who hides behind concord.
Mayhaw Morgan State War Academy Caldari State 80	Posted - 2013.05.13 15:58:00 - [27] - Quote "Suspect flag for fighting against an outlaw?" The question is basically this: What is suspect about fighting an outlaw? Why should anyone who is engaging an outlaw, either directly or indirectly, have to acquire any sort of flagging beyond a limited engagement timer with said outlaw? It is not about neutral logistics ships. I can tell you that in the middle of a fight, as a logistics pilot, you don't really have the time or wherewithall to engage each of the hostile targets for a cycle to avoid being flagged as suspect, so often the end result is that a logistics pilot that is helping in a fight against outlaws/suspects/criminals is subject to the CONCORD sanction of being flagged as "Suspect". That basically puts them on equal footing with the outlaws/suspects/criminals, whereas the DPS, eWar, capacitor warfare, etc. players do not have to acquire this flagging to do their job.
Ristlin Wakefield Rama Squadron Eternal Pretorian Alliance 324	Posted - 2013.05.13 17:30:00 - [28] - Quote Agent Trask wrote: TheGunslinger42 wrote: You started a fight with a valid target, your friend, who was not involved, interfered by providing one party reps he deserves the suspect flag This. Have the Logi aggress the target. Yes, he can shoot back, but then you avoid the suspect flag, something designed to prevent invincible neutral logis. Here is your solution, OP Have your friend throw a drone on the enemy suspect, join the limited engagement, then start repping you. I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.
Ramona McCandless Standards and Practices Petition Blizzard 6	Posted - 2013.05.14 06:59:00 - [29] - Quote Mayhaw Morgan wrote: "Suspect flag for fighting against an outlaw?" The question is basically this: What is suspect about fighting an outlaw? Why should anyone who is engaging an outlaw, either directly or indirectly, have to acquire any sort of flagging beyond a limited engagement timer with said outlaw? Kenneth Skybound wrote: Myself and another decided to sit on a gate for legal targets - suspect flagged, criminal flagged and outlaw players - to make an interesting kill or 2. Your examples about crime and criminals and the police have no bearing in this case. As you can see, the protagonists werent chasing a kill-righted or wardecced criminal who had wronged them, they were gate camping for an easy gank. Dont you think that behaviour is suspect in itself? Why shouldnt all the members of this vigilante party be flagged? And why are you ok with the prime attacker being flagged but not the logi? Paddy, -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á WhAt a faNtastiC death -á-á-á-á-áAbySS -á-á-á-á-áTell The Others.
Ramona McCandless Standards and Practices Petition Blizzard 6	Posted - 2013.05.14 07:20:00 - [30] - Quote Also... Mayhaw Morgan wrote: That basically puts them on equal footing with the outlaws/suspects/criminals, whereas the DPS, eWar, capacitor warfare, etc. players do not have to acquire this flagging to do their job. What game is it that you are playing exactly? Because it cant be this one. Paddy, -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á WhAt a faNtastiC death -á-á-á-á-áAbySS -á-á-á-á-áTell The Others.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.