Make boosting and logi only doable in a player corp?

id be down for that.

Make boosting and logi only doable in a player corp?

id be down for that.

I actually had a typo in there, it should have read:

So because there can be neutral scouts (which really lack any practical way to be forced into a corp), you think that it's GOOD that optimal gameplay for logistics pilots means being in an NPC corp, even though that could be easily addressed? Really?

This is exactly the same argument as if I were to say "it's not fair that Red Frog hides their real haulers behind alts so I can't dec them".

This is exactly the same argument as if I were to say "it's not fair that Red Frog hides their real haulers behind alts so I can't dec them".

Well, tough luck. That's smart gameplay for Red Frog. If you want to go after them in that way, go suicide gank them.

"But Kaarous, I'm a carebear and I think suicide ganking is wrong, that means it's not fair!"

Nope. Your choice to handcuff yourself should not reflect upon the ability of others to take that action.

If there were a conceivable way to prevent that, I'd be fine with that too.

If there were a conceivable way to prevent that, I'd be fine with that too.

With that said, it's a false analogy and intellectually dishonest.

Explain why it's INHERENTLY GOOD that the OPTIMAL GAMEPLAY for logistics pilots is to be in an NPC corp. Explain how it is inherently better than having players in player corporations.

Do this without qualifying it via a "two wrongs = right" argument referencing a similar mechanic.

So because there is a game mechanic we can not fix (forcing non-combat pilots into corps), we should leave the rest of the game broken?

I didn't say it was wrong or illegal. It was an observation that the participating characters are simply not bound by the same rules.

So because there is a game mechanic we can not fix (forcing non-combat pilots into corps), we should leave the rest of the game broken?

No. I am not going to answer a logical fallacy.

Whining is for carebears.

What's fallacious is, "Well... we can't fix every damn thing, so **** it, it's fine." The existence of NPC haulers has no bearing on the viability or value in forcing logi in-corp.

And I told you that is hardly a unique situation in the game. It's actually fairly normal.

Actually, it does.

You were talking about it being wrong that the optimal way to do something is by being a neutral character.

And I told you that is hardly a unique situation in the game. It's actually fairly normal.

And to answer surrenders question, yeah it can be good for the game.

alt cyno's, scouts, RR etc are what enable the sneaky tactics that eve players love so much.

Explain how the non-uniqueness impacts the viability of forcing logi, specifically, into corp.

Explain how the non-uniqueness impacts the value of forcing logi, specifically, into corp.

First, let's establish that it's actually a problem.

To date, this has not been done. Aside from the OP's outrage that people might fight dirty, which if you ask me is hardly reason to do a damned thing.

You understand that there's a difference between "fighting dirty" and "this mechanic has an inverted risk-reward curve, wherein the least-risky use-case provides vastly more benefit than the more risky use-case, 100% of the time", right?

Where do ppl get the nerve when they think they can make a corp without understanding it makes them vulnerable to the full force of wardecs?

Not every player likes PvP combat, but they have no right to be excluded from it in this game. It is entirely a PvP environment.

You understand that statement is incredibly debatable?

wardecced is ok but neutrals should not be able to help with immunity to being attacked, that is all there is to it. now they can boost and be on grid and the defending party cant attack the boosters without dying to concorde same for logi. that is wrong period.

I invite you to debate it, then.

You want to think of this as "smart gameplay" but it really isn't. It's not clever. It's obvious. It's an objectively correct tactical decision that should never not be made: If you're going to use logi in high sec, they should be neutral. Always. There's no tradeoff or reason not to do it that way. It's always correct, which, most of the time, is in fact indicative of a problem.

Neutral Logi are not immune to being attacked!

They are suspect flagged when they rep, so you can shoot them just like everybody else.

No different than using neutral haulers.

It's always the correct choice. No tradeoff, no reason to do it any other way.

You have blinders on about logi, but the problem is more broad than that.

They ARE immune to being attacked until they take action, though. That has immense value, and is what makes the, "B..b...but logi go suspect!" argument so disingenuous. The normal combatants on the field aren't given that benefit.

I'm right with you on boosters, as well.

[quote=SurrenderMonkey]


Meaning that until they do, they have zero mechanical effect on the game, and when they do, they are free targets.

If a wartarget is on-grid, but doesn't do anything, he's having zero mechanical effect on the game. He's a valid target regardless.

Why do logi deserve to be able to choose when they become free targets in an engagement where all other combatants begin in that state?

Not just logi, any neutral.

For offensive actions, the result is death and a criminal flag. For a non offensive action, the result is a suspect flag.

For boosting, oddly, the result is nothing. But boosting is all round broken, and needs a full rework as soon as they can figure out how to code it.

Yes, I'm quite aware of the existing rules. As noted before, merely stating the existing rules isn't actually a useful rejoinder to an argument that the rules could benefit from revision.