you need a structure to assist.
Those three conditions again:
- is involved in a war (normal wars or factional warfare)
- does not share a corp/alliance (or FW side if the war in question is the FW war) with the assistor
- is engaged in PVP (has a capsuleer logoff timer)
So no, no concord.
CORRECTION: providing remote assistance to a player in high sec who is currently in a limited engagement will be a criminal offence, regardless of their war status.
2 Likes
I think heās asking this:
If the guy youāre repping is in a war and a different alliance while he PvPs, you get CONCORDed regardless of limited engagement timer. Yes/No?
If the guy youāre repping is not in a war while he PvPs via duel, do you get CONCORDed, or just a Suspect flag?
I could be wrong.
@CCP_Lebowski Related more to crimewatch than these changes, but has any thought been given to streamlining highsec mechanics for large fights such as weāre seeing in Perimeter these days. Having to check all the permutations of crimewatch and wars every time someone shoots or reps someone makes fights that would be 75% tidi in nullsec into 10% slogs in highsec.
What about the 4th condition.
āThe increased penalty for neutral targeted assistance will also apply to limited engagements (such as those caused by duels)"
Is this being removed from the dev-blog? Because again it is inconsistent with the answer you just gave me.
No, heās saying that what that means is āeven if the guy youāre repping is in a duel with someone heās not at war with, if heās in any declared war, you get CONCORDedā.
1 Like
No War, No Concord.
1 Like
The issue is, under the current mechanics it states
suspect flag if their target meets ALL of the following conditions
this isnāt true, it should state āif their target meets ONE of the following conditionsā.
You do not need to be at war to receive a suspect flag.
Thatās largely irrelevant, since individual structures arenāt a thing, Iām not in any corp roles that would let me be an ally, etc.
In effect, CCP closed the last option for individual participation in highses.
Joining wars does not allow mutual assistance such as remote reps under the new system.
That doesnāt change anything. It doesnāt matter whether you were āinterestedā in hisec markets because you wanted a share of the hisec market or because you wanted to ā ā ā ā with Horde. The fact is the neutral logi change benefits Goons and TAPI much more then it does Panfam.
And I donāt even really care about that as Iām not in Panfam. Iām just sick of changes which encourage blobbing and remove options for smaller groups.
Does the Removal of neutral assistance effect Faction Warfare?
Except that your point was āoh, look, it gets fixed as soon as Goons care about highsec warsā when Lebowski demonstrated that no, that wasnāt the cause for this.
Regardless of whether if you are in a limited engagement or not, the increased penalty applies. Thatās what the blog says and what I have been saying.
Indeed
CORRECTION: providing remote assistance to a player in high sec who is currently in a limited engagement will be a criminal offence, regardless of their war status.
Correct
CORRECTION: providing remote assistance to a player in high sec who is currently in a limited engagement will be a criminal offence, regardless of their war status.
Only if youāre repping someone who isnāt in your militia, or youāre not in theirs.
So, for example, a pilot in LUMEN canāt rep a pilot in PIE, because LUMENās not actually in the Amarr militia.
That was a point, not my whole point. These changes are bad whether or not they benefit current members of the CSM.
if your corp/alliance doesnāt have a structure, then you cannot be an ally in a war.
organizations must be war eligible in order to declare wars, have wars declared against them, or join an existing war as an ally.
And my point is that thatās entirely irrelevant, since I canāt anchor a structure, even if I could, I wouldnāt be able to use that to declare a war, and in effect, Iām now barred from any role in highsec warfare.
You can keep trying to tell me why, but the real answer is that CCP just made it a crime.
What ccp did is made it so if you want to help in wars you have to be vulnerable to wars, the fact that you are not willing to make yourself vulnerable is not their fault
2 Likes
While I donāt know if I agree about whether or not the changes are bad, I do agree that if theyāre bad, that isnāt because of any benefit or cost to null bloc alliances.
I think thereās good things and bad things here. I think the removing of neutral logi during wars is a good stepā¦ but I think that the lack of cut-out for allies in the war, or for other groups that are also at war with the same group, is a problem
I also think the lack of any addressing of corp-hopping is an issue.
Further, I think that thereās a definite complication introduced with the simple phrase of āwell, our War HQ is the Perimeter Keepstarā. I meanā¦ honestly, thereās no primarily-HS group thatās gonna endanger that thing. I donāt care if PIRAT or Marmite call in all the flying monkeys. Theyāre not gonna present a credible threat. Iām not sure theyād even hit the damage threshold. And thatās a concern, because what happens when Marmite or PIRAT drops a Keepstar?
So thatās a thing.
I generally donāt like the idea of marrying highsec wars to structures, in general, because it basically turns HS warfare into the same N+1 that null warfare is. To hit the structure, you need to be able to bring more firepower than your enemy. Which means small groups are inherently disadvantaged against large wardec groups. Thereās no way to be evasive and use creative tactics to overcome that problem: Winning requires timers. Timers means a stand-up fight.
And a stand-up fight means N+1. It means the blob wins. And in most HS wars, āthe blobā is the dedicated PvP pilots who are attacking smaller corps that are not always PvP-centric.
So the system is set up now to favor the bigger, stronger kid whoās actually got fight training, going and picking on the little guy. Which seems to meā¦ like itās going to encourage people to not anchor their own structures, to stay war-ineligible.
4 Likes
This is just silly. Why should this benefit the largest and third largest alliance, but not the second largest alliance?