strong textIf you engage someone with a suspect timer in a fleet, can the fleet engage you without having concord retaliate on them?
Yes, if you go Suspect or Criminal all other players are free to engage without interference from Concord, fleet or not.
There are a lot of edge cases here. Once a suspect/criminal is engaged, a limited engagement timer is initiated, and anyone who interferes is liable to be CONCORDed. I do not believe @ISD_Sakimura is correct. Please reference the following discussion of edge cases and CCP’s criteria (cited):
You misunderstood me. I want to engage someone who has a suspect timer and is in a fleet. Can the fleet attack **ME ** with out getting concorded
The situation described is a 1 on 1 relationship, there are no logi or other remote assistance in what OP described.
The issue being discussed in the thread linked is the remote assistance (Repair or other forms of boosting) from a neutral 3rd party in an otherwise 1 on 1 fight. Which it is when you attack someone suspect/criminal.
But now that I re-read his question. My answer would be, No. If Suspect Player is in a fleet and an outside player attacks the Suspect, no, none of his fleet members can help him in any way, if the do they do indeed get concorded. Let my try and spell it out for you, to be sure I understand correctly:
Player A has a Suspect timer and also in a fleet with other players. Player B let loose all his armaments on Player A.
Q: Can Player A’s fleet members freely engage Player B without retaliation from Concord?
A: No, the fight between Player A (Suspect) and Player B is consider a 1 on 1 “duel” fight and any assistance from 3rd parties will provoke Concord response.
Thank you answers my question completely
Aye. I was merely pointing out that edge cases exist, not that OP’s case matches the one I linked. Further down the thread I linked additional edge cases are discussed in addition to the original. This is not intuitive at all, especially where suspects/criminals or friendly-fire corpmates are involved (it is more “common sense” when it comes to war targets that are not suspect/criminal).
CCP really needs to examine these edge cases and simplify the system as a whole to address them without making “special rules” for each edge case
It doesn’t make any sense. Why is someone who helps a SUSPECT a CRIMINAL??? Like make them suspect or something… Someone shouldn’t be able to engage a suspect without having any doubts in highsec…
Conspiring to commit a misdemeanor is a felony.
There can be a conspiracy of one. If you think
about committing a misdemeanor,
you’re committing a felony.
Think about it!
The way you say is how it worked until April 2019. The change to the way it works now was announced in the following dev blog and was extensibly discussed back then, with much confusion btw, even amongst some devs, because the exact way it works in every possible circumstance has never been properly documented.
You’re late to the party, but may want to check the Removal of neutral assistance section of the dev blog to better understand the reasons for the change:
It does make sense. You think it doesn’t because of the word help you’re using to describe it. Change that to interfere and you’ll see that it starts to make sense. The way it worked before made sense too, btw. It’s not a matter of whether one way or the other makes sense or not.
Just to expand on the answer you got, there are no circumstances under which anyone being in fleet makes a difference to the engagement rules. Crimewatch doesn’t take into consideration anyone being in fleet at all.
Yeah, but that basis is “it’s frustrating to only be able to shoot logi when they rep”. Which isn’t that bad. You shoot the person, logi rep, you shoot the logi. This encourages situational awareness as well as making shooting suspects in highsec less of a “let’s do it!” but a “hmmm…” situation.
LOL. Did you miss the part where I said it was extensively discussed back then maybe?
I wasn’t there back then… Damn, might have turned the tides (no lol). Any chance this could be aa megathread for rediscussion on the issue? What were the arguments for it?
Do you know most dev blogs include at the beginning a link to the corresponding discussion thread? This was no exception.
I’m sure there were other threads where it was discussed too, the feedback threads for the corresponding release in particular.
You’re free to (try to) beat a dead horse all you want, here or elsewhere I guess, LOL.
…then it would be advisable to not tell anyone.
Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead.
Repping someone who’s breaking the law is breaking the law!
Repping people after they break a law is FIRST AID!