That really happened in December. This is different. Before, I could be shot if I intervened. Nothing was unfair about that, but it changed because large wardec corps could abuse the neutrality. So CCP blocks me… and PIRAT goes right on using alt corps with separate wardecs to keep their logi safe from other hostiles.
So the cure is to let the problem cases florish and kill off the rest…
There is a simple fix, make allies war independent. If you want to help someone, you have to join all their wars on their side. Being friends in one and enemies in another war would not work anymore.
Ah, but he didn’t say Pandemic Horde. He said PanFam. Pandemic Family: the crossroads of PL, PH, and NCdot. And Horde more often has FCs from the other alliances than TEST or GSF do.
My issue isn’t specific to null alliances in hisec. One example I gave was the current hisec wardec groups just merging so they are large enough that the small merc groups will be at a mechanical disadvantage even if they have even numbers on grid.
I agree with that. Neutral logi weren’t an issue if you knew about the mechanic, but they were a dumb mechanic. Changing the war ally system to allow mutual assistance with shared wars would mean neutral logi could be removed without giving a mechanical advantage to larger corps/alliances fighting a coalition of smaller corps/alliances.
you can get yourself unblocked with a 500mil Raitaru and an alt corp
Jesus, this is like a game of “spot the moronic griefer who cant live without his neutral logi”, and spoiler alert: its you.
Edit: I will admit, reading what you post in this thread has been a soothing balm to my soul. You are slowly but surely sliding down the slope from ‘anyone who cant counter neutral logi is a mongoloid’ to ‘I will get my logi whatever way I have to but I want it to be neutral and dont know how to critical think my way to actually winning at pvp by myself’
Exactly. I mean, you join a war as an ally… the mechanic is already tracking ‘joined as ally’. There’s no reason crimewatch can’t look for that when it looks for ‘is X at war?’
it’s like he doesn’t get that he has to have a structure to be able to help… but it would help if he further CLARIFIES why he is blocked from helping…
The issue currently seems to be that joining as an ally doesn’t mean you share all wars and CCP don’t want the issue of alliance A being able to rep alliance B who is being shot by alliance C who isn’t at war with A. There are ways to tackle that but they would be complex mechanically and opaque to the players (eg being A being able to rep B with green safety until B was shot by C, then A would have to go yellow safety and get a suspect tag). A better solution to that is to make allies share all wars.
You are right. But if Horde has to call in their coalition members to fight a smaller alliance, it’s absolutely their fault. Also TEST is affected even more by this, since they can’t rep their high-sec sig PPD anymore.
They’ll just put it in alliance. The only reason to have SIGs like that out of alliance is to play wardec games which CCP wants to stomp out.
It is, and that’s not a bad idea… but I doubt they’d go for it, as it would be a step toward establishing game mechanics that create de facto coalitions.
Will the War HQ structure have a war HQ upgrade then? Can these war HQs have null sec reienfoce timers so a defenders response to end a war is more swift?
While CCP might be afraid of creating yet another level of corporate hierarchy (I started playing back when alliances were informal like modern coalitions and not a DB entity) I think the modern solutions like shareable ACLs mean formal coalitions aren’t needed.
I know exactly why I can’t.
My issue is that the upcoming change that affects me IS ALREADY PROVEN INEFFECTIVE.
That is, We know PIRAT will be able to evade the consequences of having defenders in multiple wars pool up. They’ll just need a little more effort to do so in the future. It does prevent people who don’t have tons of alts (I have 0. I will continue to have 0.) and are not in high enough roles in their corp from offering assistance.
And that’s the problem: in six months, nothing will have changed for the small guys, who will just get wardecced by otherwise disposable corps that will likely transfer structures to new disposable corps, but the small guys have even less chance to bring outside help. Because CCP has restricted that.
Imagine instead if a structure had a de facto defense fleet that you could join, and if you’re in that, you’re fair game. As far as I’m concerned, that would fix the complexity of who is allied to who. Join the fleet and you can rep fleet members and members of the defending corp, and even shoot war targets. Anyone at war with them can shoot you. Corp/alliance don’t matter then, so corp A is at war with both B and C, corp members from B and C show up for a timer on C’s citadel. They all pile into the defense fleet. Can rep each other. Can shoot A. Everyone is happy, because A knows they can shoot the whole fleet, B and C can rep each other without worrying about ally mechanics. It all works.
That’s far better than what we’re getting.
I think ACLs as a broader replacement for standings could be a definite way to go, but right now, we’re not there. vOv
Yeah I’m sure the corporate/alliance code is as horrific as POS code.
Giving them suspect status would be great (maybe based on standings?).
It would also force people to keep their alts in the corp/alliance owning the refineries. Now the refineries can go to a holding corp while the miners can be in a non-wardecable corp and just keep mining during the wars like nothing happened.
Well, we’ve learned in the last year or so that the alliance code is basically just nested corporate code… a corporation of corporate members.
This is a terrible idea. Just imagine you have a small corp starting a war on another small corp. So they come to attack, and suddenly 200 people from a large group undock and join the defence fleet and shoot the small group.