So here we are, with Fountain burning, and I receive a message from CONCORD upon the destruction of the Keepstar in IGE-RI (ref: https://zkillboard.com/kill/86280575/)
Dear Marie Kaster,
A jump clone you had installed has been destroyed.
Location: IGE-RI - Fuel Cartel Command Hub
Location Owner: Initiative Holding
Responsible party for the destruction: Initiative Holding
Lost implants: No implants were lost
In this instance, why would Initiative Holding be the the responsible party for the destruction of the clone? Shouldn’t Northern Coalition. be the responsible party as they dealt the final blow to the structure? I can only assume that it claims Initiative Holding as the responsible party because of how the server would process the structure destruction. IDK maybe it’s just me but it seems that CCP could tidy up the way the system reports this kind of event.
Eh, that’s kind of a weak argument. Now if someone deliberately pulled the service, then totally understandable. It would seem that even in the event of an all out brawl where you could have the most epic battle the game has ever seen, the owning corp would still be claimed as the responsible party.
Well, this is just a theory, but: when Upwel structure enters final timer/gets hull damage all the services get automagically disabled. In case of disabled clone service i guess all installed jump clones get destroyed (although i’m pretty sure it just prevents from installing new clones). And since there are several ways to disable/offline a service and it can be hard to discern the cause so CCP just did notification the way they did it.
When the structure enters the final timer/low power mode, the service is disabled, but the clones are not destroyed. Only removing the service, via deliberate act of the fitting window or by blowing up the structure will pop the clones.
But we digress from why the game considers the responsible party to be Initiative Holdings and not Northern Coalition.
Lack of coding that kind of detail, probably. The notification appears to simply assume the bay owner is the ‘responsible party’ in this situation without ever looking at what caused the service module to become unfitted (manual removal or destruction of station). I imagine the responsible party clause was set to track actions where an ACL allows non-owner parties to manage the clone bay, and never given any more sophisticated logic to handle the destruction scenario.