pirat did aggress, but then the fleet came back for them. and they tried to dock up. but the attackers were clever, they fit points on all of their logis and scrambled the entire pirat fleet, so they couldn’t use their lame ass station hugging tactics to dock up and escape.
so what did they do? brought in neutral bowheads. they stopped firing, the 60 second weapons timer was off. and their ships all have ridiculous amounts of hp, so they won’t die quickly. each of them stored their ships into the bowheads and the bowheads deposited the ships straight into the station.
totally evaded the consequences of their actions. they were all pointed. their fleet should have been destroyed. not saved by neutral ships.
neutral ships should not be able to so hugely influence the outcome of a war. same reason neutral logi was removed.
Which I already showed its easy to make the system not exploitable.
Basically it boils down to the same thing as “oh what if FC turns friendly fire on in fleet suddenly that can make an AWOX”. Well, the FC had to turn it on and I guess if you don’t trust the FC then don’t join their fleets. Same thing. Not an “exploit”.
I am sorry I meant a corp member with right roles changes allows friendly fire. Either way, as I said it is something that can be turned on by someone. You have to trust that someone.
This also sends a full notification to all members and has a timer before implementation. Plenty of time for people who don’t want to be impacted by that to make a decision for themselves.
However, that’s not the case in your proposal. But I’ve said my bit on it (ie. I don’t think CCP would go down the road of replacing one mechanic with a more exploitable mechanic - and no, your follow up doesn;t address all of the ways I can see to exploit it). It’ll never be implemented as you’ve proposed, but good luck with it.
I don’t care if it is or isn’t as I don’t even live in highsec and don’t care about wars. (especially because of the idiotic mechanics involved).
My proposal is only because it makes more sense than the existing mechanic of being able to cower in a neutral mothership for both attackers and defenders in a war. It also makes more sense and has more interesting gameplay than outright banning tackled people from docking in them.
Whatever CCP does or doesn’t do in this case wouldn’t change my game play in the slightest.
While that is true, there are plenty of members that die to all kinds of notified things. Killed by wartarget - “I didn’t know we were at war” etc. So I am positive it would be perfectly easy to change the friendly fire option and awox people if someone wanted to despite all the warnings in the world. At the end of the day, you can only do so much before you have to just say it was their own damn fault they died not some mechanic.
It doesn’t propose the existing mechanic be changed for people wanting to escape from a duel they will lose. It leaves the mechanic totally unchanged for that, for some unknown reason.
I already talked about suspects, etc. I guess you can’t read but ok. Sorry I didn’t “flesh it out to duels” and make a 100 page write up about it. It still is a better idea for both sides than a lot of the other much worse ideas proposed.
With all due respect to @Algathas as a human being who is genuinely trying to contribute, literally no one is in favor of her idea and I guarantee you CCP would never do it, so I think the rest of us are better off spending time discussing sensible ideas and sensible alternatives and refining those that have already been proposed. @Algathas - if you have something else to discuss other than your idea I am all ears, but otherwise I am not going to engage you on this point any further, and I advise everyone else stop engaging with you on this specific topic - your proposal - as well because it’s just a waste of time that will amount to nothing productive, just flame wars.
So sure, go for the light insult on my reading comprehension, but my comprehension is fine. Understanding of game mechanics doesn’t seem your forte though, to return the volley (not just on duels, but also n the earlier bit about FCs setting friendly fire).
But you are wrong. Some people want to keep the ability to dock in the motherships while tackled, others want to ban it. My idea encompasses both sides in a way that gives the people who want it risk but they can still have it, and doesn’t allow awoxing for those that want to be protected from that.
Just because my idea is not in line with your desired “ban all tackled ships docking” idea doesn’t mean no-one else doesn’t want it nor does it mean it lacks merit. It only means YOU don’t like my idea because it doesn’t fit in YOUR bubble.
As I said I didn’t make a 100 page thesis on fleshing out everything but again this is simple and the same concept. If you let someone dock in your mothership and they are in a limited engagement, then the mothership flagged the same as neutral logi, etc interfering with the limited engagement. Wow that was so hard to think of. And oh wow to avoid that the “safety setting” or hangar setting can include “allowing/disallowing tackled suspect, limited engagement, or war targets”. There you go the mothership can’t be awoxed unless they specifically allow that to happen. But allows the existing mechanic to be there if the combatants are willing to risk the mothership.
How about we leave it the way it is? It works the same as NPC stations. It is simple and logical. Fielding bowheads, even neutral ones, is a lot of money on the field.
A lot of money with no risk. And they are not the same as NPC stations. What about a system where there is no NPC station. You can hardly say that the neutral bowhead doesn’t have a clear advantage to cower and run away while being protected by Concord.
There are skillpoint barriers, isk barriers, and a requirement to field an omega clone before you can get these bowheads. Yes, having more ships on the field is an advantage, whether they are bowheads or something else.
Claiming that something is zero risk is laughable.