We only know they are reading.
They could just as easily all be laughing at the discussion.
2 Likes
I would assume that they are as we tear ourselves apart instead of them! 
Edit; At least I hope so.
Still think the simplest change would be make it the same as Upwell structures:
It is incumbent on the opponent to actually scram/point the target sufficiently to prevent the maneuver.
As it should be.
source:
(thanks to CK for the tip)
2 Likes
This proposal was raised as the 4th reply to this topic. Many, including myself, back this proposal. However, another popular competing idea emerged advocated for giving the mothership a suspect timer. There has been a lot of back and forth between both ideas.
3 hours ago I came up with a modified version of the Suspect timer proposal (that uses inherited limited engagement timers instead) and pointed out it could co-exist with the warp jamming proposal (identical to Upwell POSes denying dock/tether to those warp jammed). Apart from some misunderstandings in need of clarifications, there has been no feedback or further discussion yet.
It is not a bad proposal, but it affects far too many playstyles and requires some complicated mechanics to pull it off. The more complex a solution is the easier it will be to âgameâ it in ways unintended. In keeping with CCPâs design goals of streamlining gameplay for newer players, is this what we want?
shrugs,
just keep it simple?
Which playstyles and use cases that we want maintained are being disrupted negatively? Serious question. Worst possible disruption I envision: aggroed barges in the process of being suicide ganked canât deposit their ship into an Orca because the Orca, via the âsafe-onlyâ setting, is denying them the option. The resulting safety is no worse than if no Orca had been present in terms of ability to reship, which is hardly disruptive gameplay. (I am willing to bet that less than 20% of Orca fleets in hisec utilize ship maintenance bay for combat swaps.) And if at least some of your fleetmates havenât been aggroed yet, then at least some of them will be able to swap. LS battles reign on as usual because if you really want to operate unimpeded you set your safety to Yellow for mixed fleet vs mixed fleet battles anyway. And for sure cowardly use of Bowheads in HS is addressed, though their legitimate uses in certain battles are retained - with an added challenge that the Bowheads themselves are only provisionally neutral.
The only thing I see complicated is that there would be three settings instead of two, similar to how our safety system is set up (which was well received). Considering the vital role of a mothership pilot in providing the ability to deposit/swap ships, I think having three settings to choose from (one of them being âoffâ, the default and safest of them all) is a small price to pay if everything else is addressed nicely. 
So itâs a serious question: what are the undesirable disruptions, and what desirable playstyles and modes of operations are being disrupted?
I am not going into what is desireable or undesireable in gameplay. Emergent gameplay will use whatever mechanics are allowable (else we wouldnât be having this discussion).
I will argue simple and logical mechanical changes. Tackling a ship, whether in highsec, lowsec, wormhole or nullsec carries the same mechanical effect. And in all zones, a sufficiently tackled ship cannot dock at an Upwell structure. Everyone would see this change the same, if applied to docking/boarding a ship in a maintenance bay. It is universally applicable, understandeable and logical.
2 Likes
Really, 228 posts all for what?
Quit whining and blow up the bowhead, DUH?
You canât.
It is tethered the whole time.
1 Like
I am in full agreement with warp jamming locking out reshipping, but this proposal alone does not permit any circumstance by which motherships can become legal targets, which is what the other proposal was offering. I provided a way to combine the two proposals. I kindly request specific feedback: what is wrong or complicated with inherited limited engagement timers? When a corp joins an alliance - all corp wars are inheirted by the alliance⌠well here all the limited engagement timers are copied from one pilot and applied to the mothership pilot. It is an extremely straight forward concept: âif I let you reship in my ship maintenance bay, then your battles (at the time) become my battlesâ. I am not asking you to agree with me, I am asking you to specifically point out: what is complicated, insufficient, or undesirable about any of this?
This is incorrect: none of what we are discussing involves tethering. The exploit we are discussing involves reshipping in space with or without a tether, and 95%+ of the time itâs going to be without a tether. None of the common, primary use cases around which weâve framed our discussion involved the use of a tether. (Also, my proposals donât alter mechanics of tethers or interactions between tethers, motherships, and ships refitting from motherships regardless of which are or arenât tethered).
That, and heâs trolling you as he has throughout this conversation 
Specifically to the OP, a limited engagement timer on the bowhead pilot would negate an attacking fleet from using logistics and command boosts. They would get criminal timers (and concordokken) for any direct support to a fleetmate engaged with this bowhead pilot (who is a neutral or 3rd party).
This doesnât satisfy the requirements of the original premise.
Additionally an engagement timer alone does not prevent the bowhead from docking or tethering, negating again the OP.
1 Like
Yes. The Bowhead or Orca being a neutral and not in the war creates several possible pieces of fun to happen unintentionally.
Additionally, with the view that this should carry over to Orcas stowing ships being ganked, the Orca is safe. The gank ships will be CONCORDed within 25 seconds and then those characters cannot re-ship while in space, and are CONCORDed again when they undock.
So the transfer of a limited engagement timer will have 0 effect, despite the proposal for it. The limited engagement timer lasts 5 minutes, while the criminal timer lasts 15.
1 Like
True. But he also deserves the facts of the case presented.
The tethering case is the only case where there seems to be a legitimate issue.
This is talking from the OP about wars, which revolve in large part now around structures and we often shoot structures that even allow us to tether and dock, let alone the neutral support we use too.
If this situation occurs on an Upwell Structure, yes, tethering will be possible in a number of cases and people will complain about that next.
At that point, it doesnât matter what limited engagements flow to the Bowhead. Itâs invilnerable anyway.
Thatâs why, as Wanda noted above, simplicity is best.
Nice! Obviously not an exploit at all.
It isnât an exploit unless CCP says it is an exploit.
3 Likes
@Wanda_Fayne I found your feedback to be highly constructive! Thank you!!!
I came up with a list of counterarguments/further of discussion, but then I remembered that limited engagement timers donât take effect between âjustâ war targets, so there would be nothing to inherit in those instances, limiting the applicability of my âinherited limited engagement timersâ proposal 
. As such, I wonât include my list here.
I forgot it was OP who also said that.
I think the best thing to do is to prevent reshipping off a tethered craft entirely. A mothership is either 100% in the fight or it is 0% in the fight - I donât think there should be a middle ground when it comes to resupplying your fleetmates but keeping the mothership itself safe. If you want to keep the mothership safe, then bring more Logi and/or prioritize your targets better with combat/EWAR. Nothing wrong with relying on tethering in combat, but having it both ways where you can help but not get hurt is â â â â â â â â .
Preventing warp jammed ships from reshipping + disabling reshipping off tethered craft covers almost the entirety of bullshittery raised in this thread and I feel should be sufficient to address all raised issues. The only noticeable gap I perceive is that those two changes wonât permit engaging the neutral mothership itself, tethered or not. I donât consider this to be crucial. A coward reshipping at an untethered Bowhead before you got to warp jam him is loosely equivalent to him docking at an NPC station and then giving his ship to a neutral party to freight via item exchange or courier contracts. At least you can still kill the coward after he reships since he is still in space.
Given the inability of a neutral mothership to enable reshipping in both instances, I donât think there is a need or significantly added benefit to incorporate the suspect timer proposal. The suspect timer COULD be applied to the mothership if it permits unsafe reships using the previously described three-setting switch - No Reshipping, Only Safe Reshipping, All Reshipping [may incur suspect] - but I highly doubt anyone would bother setting All Reshipping in HS, especially given the inability for the mothershipâs fleet to support the mothership in limited engagements (especially at gates or in front of NPC stations), and given that this was never a concern in LS to begin with. The number of people willing to let Bowheads and Orcas go suspect in HS would be so abysmally low that, in conjunction with its lack of necessity (in light of the two other changes), I donât think it would contribute anything to player interactions and is better off not being implemented.
1 Like
I am not some people and my statement was not out of context. Now you can â â â â off: also not out of context.
2 Likes
Nobody will stop you.
1 Like