| Author |
Topic |
Zeriel Meholick
Minmatar
Legio Fortunae |
Posted - 2010.05.30 18:23:00 - [ 1]
One of the pilots in one of our war target corporations has a neutral alt with an Orca. Now, appropriately, neutrals who remote-repair a legitimate target become legitimate targets themselves. However, that does NOT hold true if a war target utilizes the ship maintenance facility on an Orca to switch ships with no docking lag mid-fight.
I propose that if you have kill rights on a target, and that target uses the ship maintenance facilities of an Orca (or carrier, I suppose, but it's more moot in lowsec/null), kill rights should be given on the Orca pilot in the same way they are currently given to neutral repairers. |
Dariah Stardweller
Gallente
NO U111 Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 18:42:00 - [ 2]
 Originally by: Zeriel Meholick
One of the pilots in one of our war target corporations has a neutral alt with an Orca. Now, appropriately, neutrals who remote-repair a legitimate target become legitimate targets themselves. However, that does NOT hold true if a war target utilizes the ship maintenance facility on an Orca to switch ships with no docking lag mid-fight.
I propose that if you have kill rights on a target, and that target uses the ship maintenance facilities of an Orca (or carrier, I suppose, but it's more moot in lowsec/null), kill rights should be given on the Orca pilot in the same way they are currently given to neutral repairers.
Supported. |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 19:47:00 - [ 3]
|
Aineko Macx
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 20:00:00 - [ 4]
Not the first time this proposal goes around. Still supported. |
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 22:05:00 - [ 5]
If a pilot supplies assistance in any way to a valid target, they too should become valid targets. |
Slimy Worm
The Skunkworks
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 23:01:00 - [ 6]
Edited by: Slimy Worm on 30/05/2010 23:02:21
Supported, but with the addition that they (and neutral rr) receive aggression as if they legally activated a hostile module. So, no Concordokken, but they can't dock nor jump for a while. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 23:24:00 - [ 7]
Seems sensible. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 00:26:00 - [ 8]
I love it when I find out about sleazy loopholes like this. It restoreth my soul.
But at the same time: supported.
Question: which is better - kill rights, or simply not permitting drive-by ship swaps? |
Taxesarebad |
Posted - 2010.05.31 06:46:00 - [ 9]
no, it should just not allow him use it after aggressing. IMO it would be annoying to have a mining op or somthing with friends that arnt corpies and them have a war and use my bay then get be flaged |
Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 13:24:00 - [ 10]
Edited by: Xearal on 31/05/2010 22:57:24 Originally by: Zeriel Meholick
One of the pilots in one of our war target corporations has a neutral alt with an Orca. Now, appropriately, neutrals who remote-repair a legitimate target become legitimate targets themselves. However, that does NOT hold true if a war target utilizes the ship maintenance facility on an Orca to switch ships with no docking lag mid-fight.
I propose that if you have kill rights on a target, and that target uses the ship maintenance facilities of an Orca (or carrier, I suppose, but it's more moot in lowsec/null), kill rights should be given on the Orca pilot in the same way they are currently given to neutral repairers.
While I see and agree to your point, IMHO, your execution of the idea is wrong. Because I can see a big loophole in this, to target unsuspecting orca's. have a friend in a 1 person corp, and wardec him, then have him along with you and your ganking buddies fly up to an orca, he accesses the orca, BAM orca is a target, and you can freely nuke it. Zeriel's idea is much better, disallow someone who has the aggression counter active from using an Orca's hangar, maintenance bay or corp bays. This way, if it's a mining op you're attacking, they can fly in and grab their guns to combat you, but you can't stow your ship and get a new one if it threatens to be destroyeed by war combat. |
Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 14:36:00 - [ 11]
Originally by: Xearal
Originally by: Zeriel Meholick
One of the pilots in one of our war target corporations has a neutral alt with an Orca. Now, appropriately, neutrals who remote-repair a legitimate target become legitimate targets themselves. However, that does NOT hold true if a war target utilizes the ship maintenance facility on an Orca to switch ships with no docking lag mid-fight.
I propose that if you have kill rights on a target, and that target uses the ship maintenance facilities of an Orca (or carrier, I suppose, but it's more moot in lowsec/null), kill rights should be given on the Orca pilot in the same way they are currently given to neutral repairers.
While I see and agree to your point, IMHO, your execution of the idea is wrong. Because I can see a big loophole in this, to target unsuspecting orca's.
have a friend in a 1 person corp, and wardec him, then have him along with you and your ganking buddies fly up to an orca, he accesses the orca, BAM orca is a target, and you can freely nuke it.
Zeriel's idea is much better, disallow someone who has the aggression counter active from using an Orca's hangar, maintenance bay or corp bays. This way, if it's a mining op you're attacking, they can fly in and grab their guns to combat you, but you can't stow your ship and get a new one if it threatens to be destroyeed by war combat.
|
Kimbeau Surveryor
Gallente |
Posted - 2010.07.19 12:55:00 - [ 12]
Edited by: Kimbeau Surveryor on 19/07/2010 12:59:12 Originally by: Xearal
Zeriel's idea is much better, disallow someone who has the aggression counter active from using an Orca's hangar, maintenance bay or corp bays. This way, if it's a mining op you're attacking, they can fly in and grab their guns to combat you, but you can't stow your ship and get a new one if it threatens to be destroyed by war combat.
This +1. Though I'm not sure that the limitations on Cargo holds are needed. One one hand, access to extra ammo and cap charges may be considered bad, but on the other hand, it would be pain if the aggression was caused by rats whilst mining. Presumably, the restrictions would include not allowing swapping of modules with those in your own cargo hold. |
Patri Andari
Caldari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 13:59:00 - [ 13]
Originally by: Kimbeau Surveryor
Edited by: Kimbeau Surveryor on 19/07/2010 12:59:12
Originally by: Xearal
Zeriel's idea is much better, disallow someone who has the aggression counter active from using an Orca's hangar, maintenance bay or corp bays. This way, if it's a mining op you're attacking, they can fly in and grab their guns to combat you, but you can't stow your ship and get a new one if it threatens to be destroyed by war combat.
This +1. Though I'm not sure that the limitations on Cargo holds are needed. One one hand, access to extra ammo and cap charges may be considered bad, but on the other hand, it would be pain if the aggression was caused by rats whilst mining.
Presumably, the restrictions would include not allowing swapping of modules with those in your own cargo hold.
As I was reading the OP I kept thinking to myself "Lofty redux!!" I see how there may be a need to address this issue, but be careful the cure is not more deadly than the disease. |
MNagy
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 15:06:00 - [ 14]
100% agree |
Aineko Macx |
Posted - 2010.07.19 15:45:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Question: which is better - kill rights, or simply not permitting drive-by ship swaps?
Killmail + Tears > Tears ;) |
Cyprus Black
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 19:27:00 - [ 16]
Edited by: Cyprus Black on 19/07/2010 19:26:58I support this for the sole reason of seeing more Orca killmails.  |
Brutus B |
Posted - 2010.07.19 20:27:00 - [ 17]
SUPPORTED!
NEVER HAD THIS HAPPEN TO ME.... BUT DEFINITELY SUPPORTED. If a person swaps ships out with an agression timer on his head, agroflag the offending support ship.
It's kinda funny tatic though, those people who hug stations all the time have found a way to bring the station to them at gates/belts without risking the carrier... but funny as it is, it's still a bull-**** loophole. |
Saelie
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:23:00 - [ 18]
Originally by: Xearal
Zeriel's idea is much better, disallow someone who has the aggression counter active from using an Orca's hangar, maintenance bay or corp bays. This way, if it's a mining op you're attacking, they can fly in and grab their guns to combat you, but you can't stow your ship and get a new one if it threatens to be destroyeed by war combat.
|
Shuckstar
Gallente
Hauling hogs
Swine Aviation Labs
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:26:00 - [ 19]
|
Fournone
|
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:59:00 - [ 20]
|
Mr Intel
|
Posted - 2010.07.20 06:47:00 - [ 21]
I spy with my little eye... a concordokken-escape exploit. Oh the tears that shalt flow from this one.
<.< Forum timer for the fail |
Mr Management
|
Posted - 2010.07.20 14:04:00 - [ 22]
Quote:
Zeriel's idea is much better, disallow someone who has the aggression counter active from using an Orca's hangar, maintenance bay or corp bays. This way, if it's a mining op you're attacking, they can fly in and grab their guns to combat you, but you can't stow your ship and get a new one if it threatens to be destroyeed by war combat.
This |
Klyria
Minmatar
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.07.20 23:11:00 - [ 23]
Makes sense. |
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp |
Posted - 2010.07.25 18:05:00 - [ 24]
this issue was passed 9/0 in CSM meeting 5.5 and will be presented to CCP |
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari
Original Sin.
|
Posted - 2010.07.26 07:39:00 - [ 25]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
this issue was passed 9/0 in CSM meeting 5.5 and will be presented to CCP
Who will ignore it, just as they ignored virtually all of the other issues passed unanimously by the CSM. |
Avorill
Gallente
Chaos Rendering
STR8NGE BREW
|
Posted - 2010.07.28 00:01:00 - [ 26]
|
Agent Unknown
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.07.28 01:45:00 - [ 27]
Why not just disallow swapping ships while aggressed by players period? It's personally only happened once to me, but saving your ship like that is sort of lame (and it was a fair fight mind you). |
Voddick
|
Posted - 2010.07.28 22:49:00 - [ 28]
Fully support ending exploit warfare in highsec |
Wraithik
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 03:13:00 - [ 29]
|
Echo Gemini
Minmatar
Intergalactic Sunrise
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 07:29:00 - [ 30]
[supported]
But the orca pilot should be warned before he helps your little red dot!
Else more petitions and logs will be handle by CCP ... and they don't want that! |
All Channels
Assembly Hall
