Well, point one breaks incursions, and point two is meaningless. Well done OP.

Post your lossmails.

Well, point one breaks incursions, and point two is meaningless. Well done OP.

Post your lossmails.

Neutral logi already go suspect when they start repping someone that's fighting someone else, be it in a wardec or not. That instantly puts those logi at risk of being shot at.

So after they have been hidden and protected by concord, and then joins a battle to completely tip the balance, they become targets for a few seconds while the enemy is mobbed up. And then they dock and return to their protected anonymous state while traveling the to next system where they are going to wait safely until a battle is safe to join.

That is not being a risk.

If you see a bunch of war targets right next to a bunch of logi ships, you, as a thinking, reasoning adult, should be able to put two and two together.

L2Intel.

You should probably read up on what CCP considers "greif play"..

In case you don't get it the first several times through ...

I guess you haven't realized you can have different groups of your fleet waiting at different parts of a system and then warp to each other later, when it is serves a purpose.

Well aware it isn't punishable as grief play under CCP rules, but that doesn't change that those people are not after a war, but only out to grief people.

Wrong. Because what they are doing is legitimate gameplay, not griefing. By definition.

Just because griefing is legitimate, does not make it stop being griefing.

Come with some arguments and don't just troll.

How does point 1 break incursions?

How does point 1 break incursions?

Well aware it isn't punishable as grief play under CCP rules, but that doesn't change that those people are not after a war, but only out to grief people.

and then joins a battle to completely tip the balance, they become targets for a few seconds while the enemy is mobbed up. And then they dock...

On the flipside, it's as easy to avoid wardecs as it is to start them... just food for thought.

Might as well not have corps or war decs at all in hi sec then.

Would rather see a system that added some fun to the game than just removing features.

Might as well not have corps or war decs at all in hi sec then.

Would rather see a system that added some fun to the game than just removing features.

Step two -- grab a bottle of Jack (or, for the more discerning pilot -- Macallan)

real warriors begin the day fresh and early with a triple-white chocolate mini frappuchinno

There is no illegal engagement there, why would anyone get concorded? The Logi has valid engagement with all targets.

The scrammer and neuter from my example would also not get concorded in this scenario.

If this context is too hard to see out of the example, I shall go make it more clear in the original post.

*EDIT* It was actually already there, have put it in bold and added extra explanation. More EDIT, fixed the quotation I had messed up.

1. it's a 15 minute timer [edit 2 ... well it used to be ... $deity knows if it's stayed the same]
2. points - use them
3. Station games are the bane of all sec space.

Define valid engagement then? This has nothing to do with scrams, logis do not rep sansha ships...

Now we come to the real suggestion. You just don't want anyone to be able to mess with you at all without being killed by CONCORD.

Very far from, when they war dec I want to take out their costly logi ships and blow up their PoS while my corpies are striking their mining fleet.

But with the current system. all I can attack are cheap expendable ships.

Currently hi sec wars are just a bunch of griefers in a corp that only consists of PvP oriented ships and characters war deccing everything in sight that is an easy target, so they have some targets to gank. Cowardly keeping all their own logi and income out of the warring corp, making it pretty much risk free to declare the war.

Very far from, when they war dec I want to take out their costly logi ships and blow up their PoS while my corpies are striking their mining fleet.

But with the current system. all I can attack are cheap expendable ships.

A valid engagement would be one where you could help your friend by using guns instead of rep if you were a combat and not a logi ship - without getting concorded.

Helping with rep should be treated no different from shooting at the opposite target.

Well, point one breaks incursions, and point two is meaningless. Well done OP.

Post your lossmails.

Now ur saying they have plenty of soft targets.

While, on the whole, I would say the OP is pointless whinging (as is generally the case whenever anyone starts using the term "griefing" on the Eve O forums), I can't really disagree about neutral logi.

There's something very disingenuous about the canned, "Neutral logi go suspect!" stock response. It's technically true, but it's rarely actually a useful fact w/ regard to average gameplay situations.


Neutral logi circumvents any requirement to commit or endanger the resource in any way prior to the actual instant of engagement. Other resources become "fair targets" at undock-time, while the quirks of the engagement rules mean logi don't become fair targets until the logi is actually activated - an event that is entirely under the control of the logi pilot. This eliminates opportunity for the opposition to preempt the neutral logi: You're only permitted to react.


Given the above, much like OGB, neutral logi is a "something for nothing" situation. The objectively correct decision is to keep your logi neutral. There's no tradeoff, cost, or disadvantage for doing so, making it an obvious tactical choice, 100% of the time, which doesn't really mesh with most of the rest of the game, where decisions generally have a few items in both the "pro" and "con" columns.

That being the case, I don't really see any reason why a CONCORD response would be inappropriate. If you want to use logi in your war, you still can - you just have to actually commit the resource at undock time instead of at engagement time, and I sincerely doubt there are any credible arguments for why that would be "bad".

Well aware it isn't punishable as grief play under CCP rules, but that doesn't change that those people are not after a war, but only out to grief people.

Because then you basically break incursions? Someone might become war target in the fleet, bam logis concorded.

Also who cares, really? If you can't handle suspect logies, bring your own. Also, what if there are logis for hire corporations?

All non-attackable and protected by Concord.

Please read before replying.

How about a trade: neutral logis get CONCORDed for interfering in a wardec, and all your industrial alts get flagged as WTs whenever hauling through empire? Fair's fair and all.

I can't help but think that a neutral logi assisting an at war pilot should be tantamount to a declaration of war by the logi on behalf of the logis corp (with associated cost). If the logi pilot doesn't stop repping then a concord response would be appropriate as they are attacking the other corp before their 24 hour wardec period has elapsed.

Were you here for the nanonerf? Back when nanofleets were a big thing, one of the common (and similarly disingenuous) arguments in favor of nano was, "If it's such a big deal just bring your own nano fleet!"

The problem with that is that, one of the key identifiers of a patently broken mechanic is that the mechanic is its own counter.

- There is no way to make a system for who won what war without making it either arbitrary or decided by the players. If its arbitrary its not going to work, different corps attack eachother for different reasons, its not about the isk war all the time. If players decide their own objective then naturally they will give themselves the easiest, or eachother the hardest, possible objectives to win the war and get their 100mil iskies. the idea just wont work.

i like the idea of giving defenders something to achieve to end a dec early. my own suggestion was a structure bash.

indeed, friends are overpowered. /joke

luckily in this case there are various counters to logi

anyone can shoot them when they go suspect. u can bring friends from outside the war to blap them, or u can bring alts in a celestis/blackbird and e-war them (edit - also geddons). Or u can fight in a very public place, some ppl do shoot suspects.

bringing more logi is not the only counter to logi.

Can you shoot them when they undock?

Can you provide a compelling reason why you shouldn't be able to shoot them when they undock?

Is there an actual, good reason why they should be able to avoid being committed until they actually engage?

What about off corp intel covops? What about off corp logistics (I mean real logistics, not logi ships)? What about awoxers?

All of these and more can safely tip the scale. Why do you hate on logis so much?

The one who surrenders (or chickens out by stopping the paying of bills) didn't win.

Extremely simple.

Can you shoot them when they undock?
Can you provide a compelling reason why you shouldn't be able to shoot them when they undock?
Is there an actual, good reason why they should be able to avoid being committed until they actually engage?

Sadly forcing people's non-combat ships and PoS-alts into a corp is not possible. Even if CCP wanted to, its simply to not tell them who owns the account and pay it with plex.

1: They are not going to wait till the timer is run out before they dock.
2: Points go away when you die because you were engaged by ships with no legal engament.
3: Ships in war are targets when the leave the station, out of corp logis that waited out their 15 minute timer are not. And can then travel safely protected by concord.

CONCORDING logi in a war or a duel is not going to happen. its part of the games ethos to have secret allies and sneaky tactics. CCP deliberately made logi a possibility in duels, it will always be deliberately made possible in wars.

If u are that frustrated with logi being invincible upto the point it interferes with a dec, then goto low sec when u get decced.

All non-attackable and protected by Concord.

Please read before replying.

1. which is why you point them and then switch primary to the logi.
2. don't die and/or bring more points.
3. station games still suck ... which is why engaging on station is stupid.

edit -- seriously, worse than logi is neutral OGB.

Risk/Reward is a far greater part of the game's ethos and, as already noted, OGB is being nerfed for much the same reason: It provides something for nothing by way of the "optimal" gameplay being a complete minimization of risk.

It's an outlier, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the rules of the game. I can't have a "Secret ally" in an offense-oriented ship show up and engage my wartargets, but for some reason it's okay with logi because reasons.

hint -- you can issue your own declarations of war.

right so you need to wardec another corp because of a lame game mechanism, dont forget it takes 24 hours to kick in. its a flaw in the wardeccing system. period it should be adressed by CCP not by players with half working solutions.

so the aggressors have to pay for the war, and have to keep paying for the war forever or lose their 100mil
how is that not hilariously broken when the defenders can just wait in station or corp hop?

Wardecs, even for griefing, is a legitimate mechanic in a game where player conflict is a design goal. try to think of a way to make wardecs more engaging for all involved

All of the conceptual workarounds in the world aren't the same thing as an actual reason for the mechanic itself being "good", nor are they a reason for why "fixing" the mechanic would be bad.

Is it important to the game that neutrals be able to join a battle between war targets?

If yes: Is it important to the game that they only be able to do so defensively? Why?

I don't really see a downside to forcing logi into corp. I see plenty of reasons why people who utilize neutrals would hate it, but I don't see it being anything but beneficial to the game as a whole.

That's already being fixed, though. Neutral logi has many of the same conceptual problems as OGB, and should be fixed for the same conceptual reasons.

It's important that neutrals can join in -- because fighting dirty is kind of "the point" (see: hot drops)
It's not important whether they can do so defensively -- it just happens to be the only way to not get Concordokken.

If it is important that neutrals can join in, then why is a destroyer that opens fire on the one part of the duel concorded?

How is anything I have suggested makign for less engaging wars in anyway?

Sure, some wars might not happen if there is suddenly risk for the aggressor, but Eve isn't about risk free.

Because actual offensive modules are what triggers CONCORD. Are you seriously unaware of that?

It's important that neutrals can join in -- because fighting dirty is kind of "the point" (see: hot drops)

It's not important whether they can do so defensively -- it just happens to be the only way to not get Concordokken.

I don't particularly care if logi are forced into corp ... but the OP's idea of "well, they don't have a valid reason to be helping that neutral-to-them pilot who happens to be my WT, so they should get Concordokken" is terrible.

I'm sure they were aware of that. I think the contention is that the rules are inconsistent. Yes, right now, "offensive modules" are the only thing that triggers CONCORD, but that rule is fairly arbitrary given that defensive modules can represent just as much (or more) of a detrimental action against an opponent that could not otherwise be engaged.

You're all getting bogged down in the semantics of what is, regardless of how you spin it, an unreasonable suggestion.

The OP is unprepared for a war, and unworthy of being in a player corp. The OP can't deal with this, and would like CCP to take something away from everyone else to compensate for his own inadequacies at playing the game.

Neutral logi is not the problem at all. They are at best a slight surprise compared to if they had the logi in their own corp.

The problem is that you don't want to bother with any intelligence or scouting beyond what is in front of your nose. You don't want any surprises, or anything unexpected, so you advocate to take away the other guy's ability to surprise you.

This eHonor crap is not what EVE Online is all about.

What matters is that they do not represent an overt attack.

That is what CONCORD is concerned with, nothing more, and most importantly nothing less.

That's why suspect flags are a thing after all. I mean, if they're repping the opposing war targets in a fight then you can shoot them immediately, it is functionally the same thing.

The only difference is, if you didn't do your homework they took you by surprise.

That's it. That's what people rail against, effort.

you serious? so you think that a fleet of X people in logi ships +1 or 2 active boosting chars from another corp that you cant attack without being instantly killed by concorde is a slight surprise?

and where the heck do you get the nerve to state that someone is not worthy to a corp? i always thought that the only reason to be corp worthy is paying monthly fee by cash or plex and ofc a corp that is willingly to accept, which the OP has managed, not every EVE player likes PVP

concorde is an entity to punish people that violate the rules, and i think that have logi and or boost that is untouchable by the defending corp should fall under violation. that EVE is unfair at times is ok, but this is really so wrong it really should be adressed.

I don't see any compelling reason why it's really that bad. If the "neutral" showed up in a Battlecruiser and started "helping", they would get Concordokken - If they show up in a Guardian, they don't because... reasons.

When pressed, everyone eventually seems to admit that neutral logi isn't really "good", but they resist getting rid of it anyway. The last-line-of-defense, fallback objection is generally, "But it breaks incursions," but I have yet to see anyone put forth a scenario in which it breaks incursions that couldn't be trivially resolved through the safety and existing Crimewatch mechanics.

you serious? so you think that a fleet of X people in logi ships +1 or 2 active boosting chars from another corp that you cant attack without being instantly killed by concorde is a slight surprise?

and where the heck do you get the nerve to state that someone is not worthy to a corp?

All other "combatants" in a war become engageable at undock-time. Neutral reppers become engageable at module-activation. The disparity in risk is quite obvious, and the response options for neutral logi are, as a consequence, comparatively limited. You can't preempt them - you can only react, after they choose to enter the engagement. Sure, if you do your homework you can "plan ahead", but you're still artificially limited in how you can respond to them to actions taken AFTER they start repping.

and where the heck do you get the nerve to state that someone is not worthy to a corp? i always thought that the only reason to be corp worthy is paying monthly fee by cash or plex and ofc a corp that is willingly to accept, which the OP has managed, not every EVE player likes PVP

few mis-conceptions:

- neutrals can show up in any ship and gather intel. a battlecruiser can boost, any ship can provide a warp in point. And ppl have given very relative reasons why logi is the way it is, i hope ur not deliberately down playing the explanations ppl have given by wording it as such.

- The fall back is not incursions. its that assisting should be allowed. Guns are the outlier because u cant use them to assist without breaking hi-sec.

This is much the same argument used by people who want to ban scamming, that there's no way to get back at the scammer.

The only true disparity in risk is between smart gameplay and stupid gameplay. And that disparity should, nay, must exist.

Guns are not the outlier, unless neuts, vamps, TDs, damps, painters, webs, missiles, scrams, drones, ECM, and smartbombs (did I miss anything?) are also "the outlier", and that's a pretty long list.

Eve philosophy: if you cannot defend it, you do not deserve it. By extension, if you cannot defend yourself while in a corp, you do not deserve to be in a corp.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/08/article-0-0290058B00000578-290_468x286.jpg

Kindly refrain from blowing smoke up my ass.

As far as module activations go, you can boost and you can logi.

Guns are not the outlier, unless neuts, vamps, TDs, damps, painters, webs, missiles, scrams, drones, ECM, and smartbombs (did I miss anything?) are also "the outlier", and that's a pretty long list.

I agree. However, what all those things have in common is that they harm the target ships. Remote reps and command modules help the target ships. That's the dividing line.

And it doesn't really make sense for CONCORD to vaporize anyone who is assisting another person conducting a legal action.

No, it really isn't. You're free to scam back. You may not succeed, but all characters are playing by the same rules, at the same time, whereas neutral logi characters are playing by a very different ruleset than the in-corp characters.

So you're saying it's a good thing that OPTIMAL gameplay for characters engaging in a war is to be in a neutral corp? Really?

And are you also asserting that forcing logi into corp would somewhere eliminate the disparity between smart gameplay and stupid gameplay?

Is it really "smart" gameplay if it's the only "correct" tactical decision? At present, there is literally NO good reason to have your logistics pilots in-corp. Do you actually think that's a good thing?

The current rule is merely the existing status quo. It doesn't, in and of itself, constitute an argument against change.

An off the cuff idea about neutral logi...

What about not allowing them to operate from NPC corps & giving their corp a day long flag as valid war targets, if they rep a ship currently under a war-dec? It would allow use of them, but carry at least some consequence for their action, beyond a temporary suspect timer.

You understand that responding to a suggestion that the rules should be altered with, "No, because the present rule is XYZ..." isn't actually an argument, right?

It would only be playing by different rules if the defender were forbidden from using it too. The playing field is even.

It goes for scouts and haulers too. Until local goes away, yes, this will always be the case.

In fact, there are more reasons to not be in a corp, than to be in one.

I used the word "characters" on purpose. The PLAYERS may do the same thing, but as soon as you cite players, you're in "metagame" territory. Sure, the players could do the same thing. That doesn't make it sensible that the CHARACTERS (who are bound by the in-game rules, not the metagame rules) are engaging on entirely different terms.

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

I used the word "characters" on purpose. The PLAYERS may do the same thing, but as soon as you cite players, you're in "metagame" territory.

The very act of neutral repping is pretty meta. The player of the neutral logi knows that the player of the character he is repping is at war.

It's a meta activity from the outset.




It has been addressed. It didn't used to give a suspect flag. Now it has consequences, if the defender has the wherewithal to do anything about it.

But the onus is on them, and they don't want to have to put in the effort. Hence this suggestion in the first place.

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?

Metagame!? My God! Someone is metagaming in Eve? Quick! Report them!

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.

Make NPC corps incapable of trading in contracts...just saying. red frog would hate me for it, but its there.

You understand that statement is incredibly debatable?

Why don't you think up a situation where the NPC corp logi is at higher risk, then the in corp logi then?

I'd still love to hear why this supposed problem needs to be fixed. Or why it's a problem in the first place.

Are you unaware of what a suspect flag is?

Not at all.

But instead of just letting out stuff with no meaning at all. Why don't you answer the question?

In what situation does bringing the logi pilot at greater risk, by being in the player corp, provide a larger benefit then the much less risk of an being in an NPC corp?

Not at all.

But instead of just letting out stuff with no meaning at all. Why don't you answer the question?

In what situation does bringing the logi pilot at greater risk, by being in the player corp, provide a larger benefit then the much less risk of an being in an NPC corp?

I'd still love to hear why this supposed problem needs to be fixed. Or why it's a problem in the first place.

With that said, the inverted risk/reward curve is a small problem, given the overarching ethos of the game. The game SHOULD encourage membership in player corps where possible, and this does the opposite.

It's also simply inconsistent with the rest of crimewatch flagging. Though it's not offensive, logically speaking, the use-case for logi has more in common with offensive actions than it does with actions that grant suspect flags. I can get a suspect flag without ever doing ANYTHING combat related, whereas, while not offensive, remote reps are explicitly a combat action.

My argument for would be simple: It's best to nerf NPC corps at each opportunity.

I don't see a massive revamp to them happening any time soon (sadly), but chipping away their abilities bit by bit would seem to be an effective strategy as to adding balance to them.

No different than using neutral haulers.

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

The very existence of NPC corps themselves are the problem. You have blinders on about logi, but the problem is more broad than that.

Wait, what? It's perfectly in keeping with crimewatch, crimewatch is 100% made up, pulled out of thin air in the first place. But it is consistent.

A suspect flag is an illegal activity in highsec that does not trigger CONCORD.

The entire criteria for that is whether it uses an offensive module or not. That is highly unlikely to change.

Wait, what? It's perfectly in keeping with crimewatch, crimewatch is 100% made up, pulled out of thin air in the first place. But it is consistent.

A suspect flag is an illegal activity in highsec that does not trigger CONCORD.

The entire criteria for that is whether it uses an offensive module or not. That is highly unlikely to change.

Honestly, you wouldn't need a massive revamp. It's basically dead simple, and would use only a slightly modified version of the existing Crimewatch mechanics.

If the rep target is in combat with a player who IS a valid combat target for the logi, the logi can rep.

If the rep target is in combat with a player who is NOT a valid combat target for the logi pilto, the logi can... suicide rep.

Between the existing flagging mechanics and the safety, virtually all of the alleged problems (incursions, etc.) are resolved automatically.

Neutral haulers are not actively involved in conflict.

Neutral logistics are. You are ignoring the logic here because you have arbitrarily drawn a line in your head where supporting changes to neutral logistics is somehow "carebeary" and God forbid you should ever be associated with such vermin.

So why is it not balanced?
There's no real way to determine if neutral logi are around. You can guess but that's it. It's called a cloaking device. It's this wonderful thing that combined with the right rigs/implants/skills allows you to decloak any ship type in like 7 seconds.

If I had more friends I'd thoroughly enjoy wardeccing your corp to prove this point. Alas I don't and you guys seem a bit active

The inconsistency is in the nature of the actions.

You can't callout logistics in NPC corps, and say it's not acceptable that a neutral character is optimal in that situation, and then dance around the FACT that neutral characters are optimal in way more situations than that.

There is no inconsistency. There is no nature of the actions.

There is what uses offensive modules and triggers CONCORD, and there is what does not use offensive modules and triggers a suspect flag.

It is perfectly consistent.

As for your last sentence, good call. Picking your battles is important, that's what this thread is railing against of course, but it's still true nonetheless.

You want to talk about fallacies? Being able to improve one instance of a given issue is not logically contingent on being able to fix all instances of the issue. For some reason, you keep implying that it is, and that if all such issues cannot be improved, then none should.

This thread isn't against being able to pick your battles.

This thread is against only aggressor being able to pick their battle.

Out of corp logi chooses when it when wants to fight, I can't choose to shoot it down when it is on the way to battle.

That is why I want it in corp, so I can seek it out and shoot it down when it is not in the middle of a huge fleet.

Your blinders are getting in the way again. I have no idea where you got that from.

I am telling you that it is quite clear that CCP has no problem with the things that are optimal in an NPC corp.

Probably from the fact that you keep harping on other instances of neutral-optimal conditions as if their existence constituted a credible argument against changing this one particular instance of a neutral-optimal condition.

Dude, you keep speaking on their behalf. I don't see a CCP logo next to your name.

You want reality? Reality is that the rules of the game change frequently. Citing the present rules as an argument against changing the present rules is a circular argument, akin to asserting that the Bible is infallible, because it's the word of god, who defintely exists, because the bible says so.

The OP has demonstrated, repeatedly, that this is about not wanting to put in the same effort that other people are putting in.

I honestly don't know why anyone else is entertaining this incredible display of selfishness and entitlement.

If it hasn't changed, CCP is either unwilling or unable to change it. In the case of POS mechanics, that is unable.

You keep trying making it about me, instead of about the issue. Having to resort to personal attacks instead of arguments usually shows you have nothing intelligent to say about the subject.

There are still 2 questions waiting for answers as well:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4656729#post4656729

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4656788#post4656788

I already answered your question, you just can't read.

Oh I can't seem to find the answers, please do link them, obviously I have gone blind.

But we can also skip directly to the subject:

On what basis did you select the one that doesn't belong?

Oh, and you can knock off the fallacious argument of "If that were true nothing would have ever changed, ever, nyah!".

Because not only is it enormous hyperbole, but you're being deliberately obtuse, and acting like that somehow means you won the argument instead of Matrix-dodging the point I was making.

If it hasn't changed, CCP is either unwilling or unable to change it.

I don't answer false dichotomies. So don't offer them.

Yeeeah, unfortunately, it's the thing you actually said. So, you know, that's problematic.

Just quoting because it's pretty funny, given the above.

That whooshing sound? That was the point going over your head.

A good example of something that was not working as intended was (however much I may personally disagree) the MTU drone aggro trick.

They fixed that in a week.

Neutral reps have been going on for... how long now? Nearly 2 years since Crimewatch 2.0 was put in? Oh, and they specifically did not make neutral repping a criminal act, but a suspect one. Where before it was in fact an act with zero consequences.

There is abso-*******-lutely ZERO validity to the assertion that, "Hasn't changed = Can't or don't want to change". Again, the ENTIRE landscape shifts pretty regularly.

Once again I offer the MTU drone aggro trick.

They wanted it changed, they had the means, it was changed in a week.

That's pretty clear unless you have cotton stuffed in your ears.

In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.

"Means" can include time.

In this instance? Yes, there is.

They have the means, clearly.

Not at all.

But instead of just letting out stuff with no meaning at all. Why don't you answer the question?

In what situation does bringing the logi pilot at greater risk, by being in the player corp, provide a larger benefit then the much less risk of an being in an NPC corp?

Still waiting for the answer on the previous question, but I see since you have no basis for anything you say you just let it go and start up something new.

In order for Crimewatch to be consistent, it would need to have similar punishment for similar "crimes".

So ... which one doesnt belong?

"Stealing from a can" "helping in fight by shooting at the enemy of friend" "helping in fight by repping friend".

The inconsistency is in the nature of the actions.

On the "CONCORDOKKEN!" side of the line we have nothing but combat actions: Shooting, disrupting, Ewaring, droning, missiling, etc.

On the "Suspect" side of the line, we have one specific combat action - logi - and theft. Nothing else on the suspect side of the line actually has ANY chance of endangering another player without their taking action.

If I loot a wreck, I go suspect. I do not endanger the victim of the theft, unless he aggresses me.
If I blow up an MTU, I go suspect. I do not endanger the owner of the MTU, unless he aggresses me.

If I remote rep a player, I go suspect, and I'm DEFINITELY endangering the opponent of my target. The nature of the action (and its consequences) has FAR more in common with "red" actions than "yellow" ones.



Er... The suggestion is, "Slightly modify the criteria so that it's Y instead of X." Saying, "But the criteria is X!" isn't actually a response. We know what X is. We started with X, and then suggested it be changed to Y.

There is however much to be said to have recently had the opportunity to change things but deliberately, and with explanation, decided not to.

Mtu's
Duels
Crimewatch

If I haul my friends equipment into a warzone I am seriously endangering his opppnents. Assisting allies is a suspect offense.

Logi is actually the norm.

If the pilot is in the deccing Corp he is at less risk than a neut logi pilot. Did u not know in Corp logi does not go suspect??

Being able to choose when to turn on your suspect flag and when not to, is far less risk than being a war target.

If it wasn't, there wouldn't be anyone hiding in NPC corps.

- The recent implementation of all those systems is relevant.

- The comparison is there. Theres more than one side to what ur trying to argue and yes it can extend to hauling. Doesnt matter if u dnt like it.

- Its an opinion. Just like u thinking the opposite is opinion. If it were possible to implement a system where friends and allies could intervene with offensive mods without any chance of players exploiting it to gank randoms, I sincerely believe it would be attractive. It would work both ways u realise. And the op and u would get ur wish where u can shoot possible logi's, related miners and pos stations.

So if it were possible, whats not to like??

Yes, I suppose if you just want to consider any arbitrary statement as being equally valid simply because someone said it, you certainly have a point.

Back in reality, you still can't conclusively assert that you've definitively determined to know their mind on any arbitrary topic.

I mean, not without looking like an idiot, anyway. I guess there's nothing stopping you from actually making the claim.

And yet it has more consistency with the current system and aligns with ccp's recent and repeated design choices and even ur AND the ops desires.

The only issue is that it can be exploited to attack randoms and only go suspect for it.

So basically, except for the part where it's entirely unworkable at a fundamental level, it's a fantastic idea!

And if it weren't for gravity, I could flap my wings and fly.

Thats exactly what I said. And ur calling me an idiot.

Fact remains, Its clearly the intention of ccp that players can assist their allies in underhanded ways, logi and boosts being two viable ways. Offensive mods not being viable for obvious reasons. But if it could be done, ud all get what u want.

Ah, here we go with the mindreading and bizarre belief that nothing every changes, again. Round and round we go.

U dnt think the recent design decisions are relevant, I think ur being obtuse.

Ur also disgustingly condescending.

Logi and how it works with decs has been around for years and has been a controversial topic. Despite numerous and recent opportunities to make it concordable ccp have decided not to.

It is then in no way bizarre to infer that this would suggest that ccp are happy with how it is. Especially when considering how easy it would be to change like u say. It is in fact bizarre to believe that, despite all this, things are going to change.

U can say ud like change and u can make ur case. But the belief that ccp are fine with the current system because of the above is very much logical and a viable diacussion point for this thread.