PVP Logi timer in highsec case

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

Gate guns will fire on you in LS, yes, but not CONCORD themselves. CONCORD = guaranteed death; gate guns + empire navies/police, however, you can escape from (or even destroy, though this is not recommended)

And like I said, the rule of thumb is that if you’re in HS, never set your safety to red unless you are in a combat ship and you are going to suicide gank someone (ie. hopefully you and your friends will kill the target before CONCORD kills you)

Again, thank you to @Buggs_LeRoach for catching that major oversight on my part - ultimately resolved this issue.

[Wanda_Fayne]

@Archer_en_Tilavine

if you’re in HS, never set your safety to red unless you are in a combat ship and you are going to suicide gank someone

You need to do this to use smartbombs in HS, even though you may or may not get concorded.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

This is true, but if you perceive a need or benefit to use smartbombs in HS, you have even greater problems

[Wanda_Fayne]

No, they have practical useage in the right circumstances. You can use them during a pvp battle or against NPC targets, provided you do not hit any neutral 3rd party. Just have to be aware.

[Labadina]

still my point beeing that seems unfair if u engage a suspect, noone can assist u wihout them getting concorded.

that makes fighting crime in an organized way, very difficult in high sec. Bad, bad

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Labadina

that makes fighting crime in an organized way, very difficult in high sec

Not really. If you are figting crime, everyone can shoot the criminals (or outlaws) and you get more DPS, ECM, etc. on target.

Just can’t directly assist each other, but you can still wsork together.

So you can’t for example, rep a Freighter that is being ganked, but you can try to bump it, shoot the criminals, etc. (usually with a pretty poor outcome, because criminals are generally pretty good at what they do).

[Wanda_Fayne]

When I tested this, if both party A and party B were in the same corp, and if both engaged party C (suspect) then you could do remote assistance between A and B.

Did this without any war targets.

[Xeux]

Why would CCP code it this way? Why not make the remote assistance a separate limited engagement? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

[Buggs_LeRoach]

@Labadina

that seems unfair

please don’t use the “F” word , some of us are offended …

what would you think if you were fighting crime and the suspect had 5 friends in battleships warp in and start repping him ?

and …
what if war targets had warped in and you were unable to assist your corpmate against the war-targets due to his LE with the suspect ???

[Labadina]

i would still think is only ok if they are in the same corp, that is actuyally the situation im descriving? noone is talkking about firends out of corp… that seems to be ok if they are in same corp ofc they can help eachotehr without beeing concorded. get a timer if u want of any other kind, but not a criminal one…

[Labadina]

ok but the remote assistance happened after both A and B attacked C? cause if the assistance happens b4 that is a boom from concord, that actually means that remote repair can happen effectively as faar as both engage target but things like remote sensor boosting in a case of a gatecamp for example is a no go. and repping ganked freighters is game over now than.

[Wanda_Fayne]

When I tested this, safeties were yellow for A, B and C. Remote assistance between A + B (corp members). C was suspect. I engaged C with A, and remote assistance stopped. I engaged C with B, and was able to re-establish remote assistance between A + B. Did not try safety to ‘red’ but assumed I would get concorded.

Confusing, I know.

The mechanics around timers and status flags is always unintuitive and confusing. This is the main reason I vehemently argue against using these mechanics to ‘balance’ game mechanics, when there are other methods available.

[God_Emperor_Kane]

I got a different result.

Member A + B same alliance. C is neutral.

A is the repper, B is the one going suspect. C is the outsider that wants to kill suspect.

C start limited engagement with B A gets an alert that he will go criminal if a RR.

I tried as well with C going suspect and B engaging to create a limited engagement. A trying to rep B still gets a warning about going criminal.

So to avoid any confusion… I will treat myself the same I have always had. I will go suspect like I normally do and just pretend everybody in system or entering system is from the same corp (like the old canflip mechanic) and can kill me. For those to young, in the past if you can flipped a member in a corp the entire corp could engage. In this case now… it is just everybody.

As long as your safety is on green you will never have an issue in highsec of doing something that causes you to get concorded. But it might through away carefully laid out plans due the mechanics uncertainty. I dont actually think CCP understand what they deployed sometimes. Would love to see a workflow diagram.

As for hunting suspects… You have number advantage on your side. ECM, Neuts, Tackle… you have all the advantage. Use it…

If your doing it alone, be prepared. while most are nothing more than mouth breathers, a few knows what they are actually doing and want you to attack.

[Xeux]

You can fly to the Amarr trade hub to find target to practice on - there are usually some floating next to the station.

[Knowledgeminer]

We’re gonna keep having a lot of confusion and messy threads like this, with more wrong answers than correct ones, until CCP properly documents how these really complex mechanics currently work… CCP, are you listening?

@Labadina

ship1 is remote sensor boosting ship2, none of them are criminals or suspect or have any timer.

As long as no engagement happens, you may do this and keep ship2 remote sensor boosted with safeties set to green no problem.

@Labadina

Ship2 shoots ship3 whom has a suspect timer on.

The moment this happens, a limited engagement (LE) is created between ship2 and ship3, which would cause anyone assisting any of them to be CONCORDed. Interfering in a limited engagement is now a criminal offence.

The key here is that for ship1 to actually be CONCORDed, it would need to have safety set to red, which wasn’t needed at all to begin with. Ship1 could simply keep remote boosting ship2 with safety set to green until ship2 engages ship3, at which point the safety setting would cause the remote boosting mods in ship1 to automatically deactivate, which is no problem because once ship2 has engaged ship3, such sensor boosting is no longer needed.

That is, the current game mechanics do allow you to do what you want without being CONCORDed, you just have to set safety to green, so the remote sensor boosting automatically deactivates when the LE is created (at which point it’s no longer needed).

Alternatively, both ship1 and ship2 could engage ship3, which would allow ship1 and ship2 to assist each other, but again if you want to try this do it with safety set to green, just in case.

@Scipio_Artelius

So you can’t for example, rep a Freighter that is being ganked

This is wrong. Suicide ganking does not by itself create an LE, and hence you may rep a ship that’s being suicide ganked with safety green no problem. Only if the ship being ganked retaliates (which isn’t possible in the case of a freighter), would an LE be created and repping the victim would no longer be possible without being CONCORDed, which again the safety setting would handle automatically if set to green by deactivating the rep mods the moment the LE is created.

[Labadina]

For the Sensor booster yes, that is actuallt great, thats is ofc doable, though aboutn the LE part. im not totally sure that is correct, as soon as u engage someone the LE is created.i can verify this as im doing this constantly engaging suspects without them engaging back, as soon as they get engaged without them having to engage me i get a LE timer so… If u rep with safety green the rep will stop as soon as someone engages that ship cause an LE will inmediatelly start between the ganker and the gankee ;o)

[Knowledgeminer]

@Labadina

im not totally sure that is correct, as soon as u engage someone the LE is created.

Not sure what exactly it is that you’re not sure is correct…

As soon as you engage a suspect or a duel is accepted, an LE is created, yes, but not when a suicide ganker engages his target. Suicide ganking does not create an LE.

@Labadina

If u rep with safety green the rep will stop as soon as someone engages that ship cause an LE will inmediatelly start between the ganker and the gankee

The repping will not stop with safety green if the target is suicide ganked, because no LE is created in that case. And you don’t have to take my word for it, you may just try it the next time someone gets suicide ganked and you have the opportunity to try to rep him…

EDIT: If you try this with a freighter being ganked, it may happen that you cannot rep him if he’s using a webbing alt, because that does create an LE between the freighter and the webbing alt, not because any LE created by the freighter being suicide ganked.

[Labadina]

thank you very much for the reply, now i understand the mechanics, i was missing several parts as not understanding that when enganing a suspect otr criminal does start an LE but that its not the case when engaging unlawfully. thanks

[Wanda_Fayne]

@God_Emperor_Kane

I got a different result.

Member A + B same alliance. C is neutral.

A is the repper, B is the one going suspect. C is the outsider that wants to kill suspect.

C start limited engagement with B A gets an alert that he will go criminal if a RR.

I tried as well with C going suspect and B engaging to create a limited engagement. A trying to rep B still gets a warning about going criminal.

Yes, this is exactly what happens.

Now close the loop and have A engage C. You can now re-establish your remote assistance between A and B, without Concord.

Doesn’t make sense but that’s how it works.

A and B

C

[God_Emperor_Kane]

Interesting, so if both A and B engages the suspect C it is ok? I did not try that option route.

Thank you. will check it out.