resurrection should have higher priority than reclamation

And when resurrection process is stopped, reclamation (both auto and manual) should be blocked, for example, for 5 seconds.

It can be partial workaround while non-reclaim attribute is not implemented.

But manual reclaim has higher priority than res. now. This should be removed.

And pause needed to save several wrecks with single athena.

One simple solution would be to force all given reclaim commands to have INTERNAL modifier. This is what sub-commands given by area-reclaim get, and what prevents them from reclaiming rezzed wrecks. No idea about side effects though.

Funny aside: the thread title could be interpreted as "responding to old threads is more important than making complaint threads."
Just my 2c.

First of all i hate when ally do reclaim of useful units wrecks, sometimes manual (direct pointing to wrecks, not area reclaim). So personal widget would not be a solution.

But thanks for intention to help.

We need wubget that tells cons to reclaim only debrises!!!

I don't think so. I examined the modifiers some time ago and I don't think there was one for that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

OldGhostStalker, you are right.
"Cheap and cheerful", as translate.google says.

Relatively easy partial solution. But block of forced reclaim is needed to save wrecks being under resurrection, because from time to time such intentional reclamation is done (i remember only giuseppe, but few others do such shit... may be they are unhappy in real life).

The problem is the reclaim case is more damaging whether it happens more or less often.

If someone rezzes the wreck he shouldn't then what? One wreck is blocked, but there is always plenty of other wrecks to reclaim. And if there is really just one single wreck to be reclaimed, it is also very likely it is worth to rez it.

Now if someone reclaims the wreck someone else is rezzing then this is what happens: he directly drains his teammate metal income, because rezzers try to refill the wreck that is reclaimed. It is exactly the same as if one reclaimed a nanoframe the other is building.
Now if the wreck is completely reclaimed the teammate also loses all his energy and time investment he put into the rezzing process. So many times I had something 90% rezzed then a "friendly" con comes and starts reclaim because why not.

Rezzing is hugely beneficial over reclaim, it gives the full unit instead of just 40% of its value in metal. If someone already made the investment in rezzing units, and the wreck is not about to get into enemy hands, then in almost all cases it is for the benefit of the TEAM to let the rezz continue undisturbed.

quote: If someone already made the investment in rezzing units, and the wreck is not about to get into enemy hands, then in almost all cases it is for the benefit of the TEAM to let the rezz continue undisturbed.

I think this accounts for more than half the times that I have seen somebody attempt to rez... and the majority of the times I have seen somebody get flamed for reclaiming the wreck.

I am fundamentally disinterested in some fool being able to say "no, you can't reclaim the wreck of my trollcom that I did something idiotic with, because I want to bring it to 5% rez before the enemy takes this ground".

If somebody makes an investment in Athenas or rezcom, and they want to resurrect stuff safely, then that's fine by me. Go ahead. Introducing the capability to have such a player secure their rezzing is in no way worth giving the aforementioned fool the ability to throw the game.

The possibility that a griefer could make his own team unable to reclaim any wrecks for the lulz is merely the icing on the this-is-a-bad-idea cake.