Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Since I had the same suggestion earlier in the thread...

Logis are different because it's a completely legal action to rep someone in high sec.

It's used outside of war-decs in many activities. Incursions use them, I've used them to keep a friend alive when he was having trouble with a mission. (Mission of Mercy, a level 2 which is tougher than some level 3's, he had just started playing, obviously.)

All of the other activities you mention are illegal in high sec outside of legal aggression, repairing someone is not. Making a otherwise legal activity Concordable makes no sense at all.

thers no way to give logi risk before hand. its pretty straight forward mechanically. The only hurdle would be the code.
if they are friends no it shouldnt. however, it would break hi-sec so a compromise has been made.
it actually un fair that i cannot interfere with wars and duels with my guns when my friends are involved.

It is not only the logistics, it is the entire concept that has gone out of hand.

Currently a high-sec war means: some random griefer Corp declared war on you, has people on all major trade-hubs waiting for you, that either try to one-shot you or - if there is any even remote danger for them - they doc. Effectively all they do is Jita-camping without Concord interfering.

I made a suggestion for this years ago and I think it is still a good idea:
If you declare war on someone, you need to pay a fee of (let's say) 10 millions per member in the corp you are declaring war upon. Each time you destroy a ship from that corp, you get some of that money back. After you killed an amount of ships of at least (let's say) 50% of that corp, Concord has returned the entire fee, and what you do afterwards is no longer Concord's business. Thats it.

That (and the logi change as suggested by the OP to limit the war to those who are in it) would ensure that a war will actually be a war, because now the one declaring it cannot afford just camping some trade hub, they need to aggressively attack. Because otherwise they pay a very high fee for "bothering Concord" with no return of investment.

Some numbers for those who like em:

Assume you declare war on a corp with 20 members, then you need to pay a 200m fee in addition to the normal war declaration cost. If you now kill someone from that corp, Concord returns 20m (50% of #members) of that money back to you. After 10 kills you got your 'bothering' fee back, and no further money is payed.

Assume you declare war on a corp with 100 members, you need to pay 1b 'bothering fee' and get 20m back per kill. After 50 kills you got your entire money back.

If you complain that a 1 billion fee is too much, please also keep in mind that you are as well interrupting the playstyle of 100 other players Disrupting or even disabling the day-to-day high-sec business of so many people should come with a reasonable price.

Why not simply disallow assistance from anyone who is not in your corp, or officially assisting corp, during a war dec? This mechanic obviously already exists, as it prevents capsuleers from assisting pirate NPCs. I would imagine a notification window informing the neutral logi that they cannot assist you, as you are currently engaged in a war. This would be a win/win, as it would solve a blatant imbalance in neutral logi providing reps during war time and it would prevent incursion running during war time.

One could even go so far as to prevent people from joining non-corp (with the exception of corps officially assistingin the war) fleets during WarDec. This could also apply to the inverse, neutral pilots would be unable to join a fleet with members currently engaged in a war.

It is not irrelevant, any cost at all makes it less than100% voluntarily. And as such your statement is already false.

And you forgot the defenders PoS, and much much more. But I will leave it up to you to actually have to think about it a little.

So, it's a reason for being as it is because that is how it is?

That isn't a reason.




Incursions and missions does not involve engaging in combat you need flags for, it is a completely irrelevant element for if a Logi should be able to engage in PvP without engement rights.



And that is exactly the point, why isn't it illegal for a logi to engage when it is for everyone else?

And you did say: "No need to concord anyone". So we can agree this was completely wrong and there is a need to concord everyone except logi that illegally engages?

*EDIT Added last sentence + fix spelling.

Merriam-Webstar, you should try it out.

Grief c: trouble, annoyance.

So a griefer can be one that cause trouble or annoy.

False.

In this context, no definition matters besides CCP's definition.

CCP doesn't have a definition for griefer. They have a definition for when grief play is punishable.