MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
   |
Posted - 2008.06.11 22:02:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: CCP Casqade
But when:
Player B shoots player A -> Player C will now be flagged to Player B and aggression is allowed.
- This is because now player C is actively helping A survive the attack!
- Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C; So if he shoots C, there will be a global Criminal Flag.
Originally by: MailDeadDrop
I think there is a problem where I underlined. The antecedent to that "he" is "Player C". He cannot shoot himself. I think you meant to write "he (C) shoots B".
Originally by: CCP Casqade
No, He is B. But I can see where it gets confusing. "Note that Player B is not flagged to Player C" as in "Player C does not see Player B as "flashing red"".
So to elaborate on your writing:
Quote:
Combatant B shoots combatant A -> Logistics C will now be flagged (i.e. appear flashy red) to combatant B and aggression is allowed (i.e. B can shoot C).
- This is because now logistics C is actively helping combatant A survive the attack (from combatant B)!
- Note that combatant B is not flagged to logistics C (i.e. C does not see B as flashy red); so if he (combatant B) shoots logistics C, combatant B will receive a global criminal flag (and suffer CONCORD sanction if this happens in highsec).
Eh? If it is actually implemented the way you wrote then I suggest that it is seriously broken, as it makes no sense for combatant B to receive CONCORD sanction for firing on logistics C when logistics C is flagged to combatant B.
I think it more likely that you mis-wrote (as I earlier suggested), and in fact the last line should read:
Quote:
Note that combatant B is not flagged to logistics C (i.e. C does not see B as flashy red); so if he (logistics C) shoots combatant B, logistics C will receive a global criminal flag (and suffer CONCORD sanction if this happens in highsec).
This makes sense: combatant B has done nothing hostile towards logistics C, therefore logistics C has no basis for attacking combatant B.
Originally by: Surreptitious
Imagine 10 ships sitting on a gate.
Imagine just one of those 10 ships is a valid Gal EA soldier.
Imagine not one of my 9 buddies assists the Gal EA soldier so none are flagged.
Imagine a Cal EA soldier comes along and sees my Gal EA buddy there. The Cal EA guy sees just one hostile ship so they decide to fire on him and the instant they do we all start remote repping my Gal EA buddy. Because we assisted my Gal EA buddy we can now fire on the Cal EA guy.
In 1 second he went from 1 enemy to 10 enemies and can now be insta baked.
Wil the above tactic work? If so I must get to work exploiting this ASAP.
Surreptitious, what I underlined is what I believe is not true. Because the 9 are repping the Gallente militia member, the Caldari militia member's overview will now have 10 red flashies. But unless/until the Caldari fires upon one of the 9 remote repper ships, they cannot fire on the Caldari without receiving a global criminal flag. Even then, only the ships that the Caldari fires upon will be permitted to engage.
So for example, assume the Caldari is very powerful. He can kill the Gallente, then engage *one* of the 9 reppers and kill it, then engage *another* of the remaining 8 reppers, and so on.
MDD
|