Sabbing and logs

[stuff of legends]

Since massing has everything against it, I think sabbing should be in the alliance logs, not all, just the sabs that either have failed on the alliance member, or the sabbers that have been identified by them.

[Kikaz]

Well outgoing sabbs are included..

But I agree with failed sabbs being shown in incoming, successful sabbs should remain hidden though.

[stuff of legends]

Well outgoing sabbs are included..

But I agree with failed sabbs being shown in incoming, successful sabbs should remain hidden though.

If you identify a sabber, from an alliance member point of view, you would tell the alliance, with a rocket infused carrier pigeon. Same deal with attacks. So i dont see why they shouldnt be included.

[GeneralChaos]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

[Clarkey]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

Not if they have been identified or failed, which is what SoL is saying.

[Rodwolf]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

+1

[Clarkey]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

+1

-1

If someone attempts to sabotage your alliance and fail then your alliance would know about it.

[jedi~tank]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

Yes, agreed. A successful covert mission should be..well recorded as such. I would be in favor of the ????? not even showing up.

[Clarkey]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

Yes, agreed. A successful covert mission should be..well recorded as such. I would be in favor of the ????? not even showing up.

But based on SoL's "actual" suggestion of failed/identified sabs appearing in logs.... they should appear right?

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

Yes, agreed. A successful covert mission should be..well recorded as such. I would be in favor of the ????? not even showing up.

But based on SoL's "actual" suggestion of failed/identified sabs appearing in logs.... they should appear right?

yes.

+1.

[GeneralChaos]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

Yes, agreed. A successful covert mission should be..well recorded as such. I would be in favor of the ????? not even showing up.

But based on SoL's "actual" suggestion of failed/identified sabs appearing in logs.... they should appear right?

Its still a covert operation on 1 person though, so if it fails it shows up in that persons logs,

99/100 times the person sabbing will not fail, so whats the point of adding it....

[~LordRse~]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

You got it baby!

[Clarkey]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

Yes, agreed. A successful covert mission should be..well recorded as such. I would be in favor of the ????? not even showing up.

But based on SoL's "actual" suggestion of failed/identified sabs appearing in logs.... they should appear right?

Its still a covert operation on 1 person though, so if it fails it shows up in that persons logs,

99/100 times the person sabbing will not fail, so whats the point of adding it....

Where's the harm in adding it?

If an officer has a failed sab attempt on them then the CO can see it.

I'm sure Alliances would like to know of sabotage attempts against their members?

It's not exactly a covert operation if they get caught. Where is the harm in having alliances have the ability to see failed sabs? I don't understand what the issue is around it. Please explain it.

[Tekki]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

+1

-1

If someone attempts to sabotage your alliance and fail then your alliance would know about it.

But they aren't attempting to sabotage the alliance, just the individual... Unless you want to bring in alliance sabotage That could be fun.

As for where is the harm in bringing it in. Sab is the last covert attack you can launch without having it spotted ingame. Surely those who have alarms on the log pages have enough advantages, and there are those who have alarms on the log pages to let them know about things.

[jedi~tank]

I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

Yes, agreed. A successful covert mission should be..well recorded as such. I would be in favor of the ????? not even showing up.

But based on SoL's "actual" suggestion of failed/identified sabs appearing in logs.... they should appear right?

Its still a covert operation on 1 person though, so if it fails it shows up in that persons logs,

99/100 times the person sabbing will not fail, so whats the point of adding it....

Where's the harm in adding it?

If an officer has a failed sab attempt on them then the CO can see it.

I'm sure Alliances would like to know of sabotage attempts against their members?

It's not exactly a covert operation if they get caught. Where is the harm in having alliances have the ability to see failed sabs? I don't understand what the issue is around it. Please explain it.

I think its fine to add failed attempts and leave successful ones anonymous.