You two are playing four dimensional chess in your heads, It all is fascinating.
1 Like
I like the passion of the arguments, itâs too bad these donât meet up on the space battlefield a bit more oftenâŚ
Also, you rep structures that have been damaged after you kill a tower to unanchor them. Although someday that part of the game will be gone.
Isnât the easy solve âyou cannot rep an enemyâ?
m
In about 48h Iâll be doing an A vs B vs C test. Takes that long to set it up. Because it sounds like a lot of the tests here have only been A vs B. So it may require no more solving, or CCP may have already solved it in their recode.
Yeah, itâs the easy âsolveâ.
But then, there are reasons to rep an enemy. For example, to let your mates get to the fight to whore on the kill. Some would say thatâs a shallow example, but some people enjoy killmails, etc. Itâs just as valid a part of play as any other, including part of the social fabric of the game.
Then there are the oops mistakes where you misclick and rep the enemy when you donât mean to, and if youâve set your safety to red, to turn off the game keeping you safe, accidentially repping the enemy (it happensâŚfrequently), will get you Concorded, even though they are a valid target. Or you canât rep them, even though youâve told the game you know what you are doing and donât want safety.
Then what about rep drones. Thatâs another rule that needs to be written into the game, to stop what is currently now a totally valid part of play - ie. if the other ship is a valid target, you can hit them how you like.
Every time CCP adds rules into the game, there are edge cases that people can work around and the more complex the rules become, to remove play options, the more opaque and âhiddenâ they become to the unprepared - even though the rules are put in place to assist the unprepared.
It sounds like on the basis of what.
Go test it. Youâll see that A v B and B v C make no difference. A will not be a legal target of C if they shoot B (they wonât go suspect).
You donât go suspect for shooting a legal target. Itâs always been that way.
Which⌠is not what I am testing and you know it.
Itâs like you work at deliberately misinterpreting what other people write.
What? It is what you are testing.
Surely you are testing this:
Corp A, the alt Corp of B, get decced by Corp B (A v B)
Corp B, the wardec corp, declares war on Corp C (the defenders)
A v B and B v C
Surely you are testing whether the logi alt corp (Corp A), becomes a valid target of Corp C (the defenders), when both are at war with the wardeccers, Corp B, and A reps B.
They donât, but thatâs what you are testing right?
If you arenât testing that, then you arenât testing anything relevant.
Take your head out of your ass and just think for a minute before responding.
If you think itâs misrepresenting, explain it.
Which isnât what you said above. So like I said, you know what Iâm testing.
Itâs exactly what I wrote.
A v B and B v C, A does not become a legal target of C. Hereâs the quote:
Whatâs different Nevyn?
See the word shoot⌠Quite different yo the word ls remote assistance in how the game behaves.
When CCP redid crime watch 2.0 they made all sorts of things happen to make remote assistance go suspect when you start going cross corp with stuff.
Now, even with the ABC situation it may work as you claim, but you utterly ignored when I asked if it had been tested in a three way wardec rather than just AB. and everyone else Iâve talked to has no experience with using logi cross corp in a three way wardec situation.
Good catch, this looks like a loophole not easy to fix. This is because militia is special (canât inherit wars) but also tight into the highsec war mechanics system like an alliance.
2 Likes
I didnât ignore it. Iâve been telling you how it works for multiple posts. I generally donât post stuff I donât know 100% to be true (I generally check my facts before posting something idiotic).
Itâs been tested multiple times, hence my question of what makes it sounds like it hasnât?
Because no one has said they have tested this scenario. Theyâve said they repped enemies. Which is only an AB situation. Throwing a third corp into the equation does change things in CCP code. And if it already worked this way in an ABC situation Iâm surprised more wardec corps arenât doing it hence the investigation
FFS. Itâs been tested, hence me telling you to go test it. I already know the outcome.
So you personally have been part of an A reps B while B is getting shot by C test then. Yes? Or live in the wild?
Not a Chinese whispers but you personally have been part of this scenario?
Yes means yes, and in both situations - controlled test on SiSi and in game on TQ.
Want more assurance? What next?
The irony of accusing others of intellectual dishonesty. You are looking for every possible angle to discredit what others have written, instead of just acknowledging that people who donât share your opinions, can still actually know what they are talking about
Saying itâs been tested does not mean you tested it personally. It can just mean you heard from someone else who said it was tested. Hence the seeking clarity in what you were saying.
Yes, I have tested it personally.
Whatâs next now?
Like, now we are at the point that every single possible crack needs to be plugged for you to even accept someone else might know what they are talking about, whatâs the next thing you want to use to dismiss it?
And the right response is just wardec the alt corp. That makes the logi attackable within 24 hours and all back to âooh the poor defendersâ now have two structures they can attack.
So many whines for so long that there should be a structure to attack. Now thereâs potentially 2, which surely must be better than 1 and you still whine and cry.
Except that gets even worse if the hole isnât plugged after the upcoming changes because now you get free mutual wardecs with your alt corps.
And sure⌠the defending mining corp can go wardec Pirats alt corp, who pirat then ally in to defend if they actually get around to hitting the structure down to a timer. that isnât a serious answer and you know it.
And itâs not 1 alt corp. Its 5 or 10 they have to wardec. All for the price of one wardec by the attacker. Just to be able to actually shoot the logi when trying to defend their structure.
And you are back to the personal attacks without any actual case again. I guess two posts with only passive aggressive hostility was too hard and you had to go back to being a full troll.