Change how tether works in highsec for suspects and outlaws

[Anderson_Geten]

And also when not manned, which is the point.

@Oriki_Ahvilen

It is not an NPC mechanism , as the owner has total freedom to choose who gets it or who doesn’t.

But no player is actually taking the action of tethering.
Actually no player can control the tethering directly. Which is the definition of non player mechanism : a mechanism that is not directly controlled by the player.

@Oriki_Ahvilen

The structure is not an NPC, it is anchored by players and it is their property , they paid for it , they anchored it , they have their corp logo on it .

Unrelated.
PC or NPC, the difference is only between who is directly controlling it.
character or not character, the difference is only in the ability to take actions.

So yes, the structure anchored is an NPC, for the sole reason that it takes actions out of direct player control.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

And also when not manned, which is the point.

That may be the point you’re trying to make, but I have not yet seen why an unmanned station should be a character. It’s just an object in space.

And if it’s not a character, it’s not an NPC.

[Oriki_Ahvilen]

We all know that we are controlling just pixels into this game . But there are nuances you fail to see .
A pilot in a ship in space during warp it’s not an NPC , just because he can’t control his ship in the warp tunnel , for example.

Cut off with this BS .

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

Actually no player can control the tethering directly. Which is the definition of non player mechanism : a mechanism that is not directly controlled by the player.

A warp bubble, once launched from the Interdictor, is not directly controlled by a player either. And it will then apply it’s effects on player ships by itself.
Does that make warp bubbles NPCs? Or is it a non-player mechanism?

[Anderson_Geten]

@Oriki_Ahvilen

A pilot in a ship in space during warp it’s not an NPC , just because he can’t control his ship in the warp tunnel , for example.

That’s unrelated.
If your ship can take NO action then it’s not a character to start with. Still you can use dscan, activate modules while in warp. So it can still take actions, which means it’s still a character. Those actions are controlled by a player, so it’s a PC.

@Oriki_Ahvilen

Cut off with this BS .

Likewise, cut off with being an idiot.

@Gerard_Amatin

A warp bubble, once launched from the Interdictor, is not directly controlled by a player either. And it will then apply it’s effects on player ships by itself.
Does that make warp bubbles NPCs? Or is it a non-player mechanism?

Neither. It’s an effect, not an action taken - just like WS effects, or edencom/trig.
The only action that is related is “launching it” which is a player action. So the launch of the bubble is PC mechanism, which produces a time-limited grid-limited AOE : everything is bubbled in the grid, and the bubble has no effect if too far or bubble immune.
The destruction of the bubble when reaching EoL is not an action taken by the bubble, it’s outside of the scope of what entities can do (done at the grid management level - more on that Fixing Lag: Drakes of Destiny (Part 1) | EVE Online).

So the entity bubble is … well an entity without any action doable, which applies an effect(grid wide bubble effect) once anchored, and removes that effect when destroyed - just like a fitted overdrive is just a location, that applies an effect when fitted, and removes that effect when unfitted, or a point is just a location, that applies an effect on the target when activated, and removes that effect when unactivated.

Since there is no action to be taken, then there is no mechanism to start with. The only mechanism that are related to creation and removal of the entity (that is, resp. add the grid wide effect and remove it) are not taken by the probe but respectively by the player and the grid manager(=server).

[Oriki_Ahvilen]

@Anderson_Geten

If your ship can take NO action then it’s not a character to start with

And yet , in those circumstances it is not empty , but boarded by a player.

@Anderson_Geten

So it can still take actions, which means it’s still a character.

Thanks for confirming exactly what I’ve already said.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Oriki_Ahvilen

And yet , in those circumstances it is not empty , but boarded by a player.

being boarded is irrelevant. The ability to take actions is what is relevant.

@Oriki_Ahvilen

Thanks for confirming exactly what I’ve already said.

No, I actually said that you are wrong. Just because a piloted ship in warp is not an NPC, does not mean that a structure that is not controlled is not one.

@Oriki_Ahvilen

Since you have been personally attacking everyone here that had different opinions than you

I have not. You were however insulting me by misinterpreting what I wrote and claiming it was BS.

[Oriki_Ahvilen]

@Anderson_Geten

I have not. You were however insulting me.

Show me where I have insulted you , before you called me an idiot ?
And that why ? Just because I shared a different opinion ?

[Anderson_Geten]

@Oriki_Ahvilen

Show me where I have insulted you , before you called me an idiot ?

literally what I quoted.

@Oriki_Ahvilen

And that why ?

Because you made personal attack.
You would have just not posted that SECOND personal attack, we could have kept discussing in a civile way.

[Oriki_Ahvilen]

@Anderson_Geten

Because you made personal attack.

Where ?

[Anderson_Geten]

@Oriki_Ahvilen

Where ?

…

@Anderson_Geten

literally what I quoted.

[Oriki_Ahvilen]

Where I don’t see it ?

Can you tell the difference between:

before

and

after

?

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

Neither. It’s an effect, not an action taken - just like WS effects, or edencom/trig.
The only action that is related is “launching it” which is a player action. So the launch of the bubble is PC mechanism, which produces a time-limited grid-limited AOE : everything is bubbled in the grid, and the bubble has no effect if too far or bubble immune.

And what makes stations any different?

Anchoring one is a PC mechanism just like launching a bubble.

And after that it applies the tether effect to any applicable ship within range, just like the bubble applies it’s ‘no warp’ effect on any applicable ship within range.

I would say that neither the interdiction probes, nor stations are NPCs. Both are launched by players and both have effects on nearby ships, yet neither are characters taking actions.

Unless the station gets manned, in which it is capable of action, but also is very clearly player action and not NPC action.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Gerard_Amatin

And what makes stations any different?

you mean structures.

@Gerard_Amatin

Anchoring one is a PC mechanism just like launching a bubble.

exactly.

@Gerard_Amatin

And after that it applies the tether effect to any applicable ship within range, just like the bubble applies it’s ‘no warp’ effect on any applicable ship within range.

No.
All ships whether or not they are in ACL are “applicable”.
There is no property of being applicable or not from the ship that is tethered ; the choice to tether it or not is made solely by the structure.
The action to apply tether or not is taken by the structure.

@Gerard_Amatin

yet neither are characters taking actions.

In that case the rats are not NPC either. And concord is not NPC either. And pirat structures (fobs…) are not NPC either.

@Gerard_Amatin

Unless the station gets manned, in which it is capable of action, but also is very clearly player action and not NPC action.

Yes ? When a structure is manned it’s partially directly controlled by a player. It’s not a problem ?

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

In that case the rats are not NPC either. And concord is not NPC either. And pirat structures (fobs…) are not NPC either.

Those ships are all taking actions and I would call them NPCs. (Not sure about pirate structures, are those manned or taking any actions?)

After all, they are taking actions similar to players (attacking, locking, etc) but aren’t player characters.

@Anderson_Geten

Yes ? When a structure is manned it’s partially directly controlled by a player. It’s not a problem ?

Partially directly controlled by a player? Why partially?

Is your ship partially controlled by you? Or are you in full control of the actions?

When a player is manning an upwell structure that structure is in full control of a player and thus a player character.

If a structure is unmanned it is as much an NPC as a ship abandoned by a player in space is an NPC. It isn’t. It’s just an object in space, not a character.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Gerard_Amatin

After all, they are taking actions similar to players (attacking, locking, etc) but aren’t player characters.

unrelated. targeted actions can be taken without targeting first.

@Gerard_Amatin

Partially directly controlled by a player? Why partially?

Tether still is not directly controlled.

@Gerard_Amatin

Is your ship partially controlled by you? Or are you in full control of the actions?

Drones are partially controlled. Drones being an extension of my ship, my ship is therefore partially controlled.

@Gerard_Amatin

When a player is manning an upwell structure that structure is in full control of a player and thus a player character.

No .
You are begging the question, but no. The player is still not controlling the tether.

@Gerard_Amatin

If a structure is unmanned it is as much an NPC as a ship abandoned by a player in space is an NPC. It isn’t. It’s just an object in space, not a character.

No. I already explained why you are wrong, so I won’t repeat myself, just : you are wrong.
A ship in space can’t take actions. A structure can. So the comparison is void.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

No. I already explained why you are wrong, so I won’t repeat myself, just : you are wrong.

In your opinion I’m wrong and in my opinion you are wrong.

We won’t get anywhere with this useless sub discussion. So let’s go back to the main topic.

Upwell structure tether is automatically provided to selected players. Whether you want to call the automation a player action or an NPC action, it has absolutely nothing to do with the crimewatch system and should apply to all players chosen by the station owner, and should not apply based on crimewatch rules as crimewatch rules and upwell stations are completely unrelated.

[Duke_Shasta]

@Gerard_Amatin

Upwell structure tether is automatically provided to selected players. Whether you want to call the automation a player action or an NPC action, it has absolutely nothing to do with the crimewatch system and should apply to all players chosen by the station owner, and should not apply based on crimewatch rules as those things are completely unrelated.

But when you are tethered up, the structure is automatically repping you. If a player was repping you, that player would also be flagged, allowing the people hunting you to kill the repper before going after you. But if you are tethered up, the people hunting you can’t do anything about it except wait for you to break your tether

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Duke_Shasta

But when you are tethered up, the structure is automatically repping you. If a player was repping you, that player would also be flagged, allowing the people hunting you to kill the repper before going after you. But if you are tethered up, the people hunting you can’t do anything about it except wait for you to break your tether

Does CONCORD destroy a station when bad people use the repair option? No?

Tether is the same.

Tether is not equal to a player using a repair module. Tether is similar to using the repair option when docked and provides the same invulnerability as when docked.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Gerard_Amatin

We won’t get anywhere with this useless sub discussion. So let’s go back to the main topic.

Yet you are wrong by claiming that tethering is not NPC mechanism while concord is.
To tether a player is an action taken by a non player entity, that is an NPC. A player cannot directly decide to tether another player or to remove the tether, making tether a non PC mechanism.

@Gerard_Amatin

Whether you want to call the automation a player action or an NPC action, it has absolutely nothing to do with the crimewatch system and should apply to all players chosen by the station owner, and should not apply based on crimewatch rules as those things are completely unrelated.

It depends on what you define as crimewatch and being suspect.
If you consider it should prevent NPC protection of the target, then it should also remove tethering.
If you consider it only prevents concord specifically then it’s okay to keep tethering. After all I believe Conoco doesn’t care when other NPC still rep you and you are suspect (fob and endecom/trigs).

Again I just don’t care. But it’s still important to not claim false things.

@Gerard_Amatin

Does CONCORD destroy a station when bad people use the repair option? No?

Tether is the same.

That’s because structures are NPC to start with. Concord only punishes PC.