If it’s possible it’s also legal… 
Ganking is also not legal in other games…here it is so stop whining about the bowhead and live with it… 
No, but being tackled (scram/point) does mean you are involved.
This all seems very simple as far as i can tell, this is neutral logi in another form… so if you’re tackled and a war target and you dock up in a bowhead/orca/etc (neutral ship storage) the behavior should be just like for a neutral logi repping a war target which results in a criminal flag for the ‘neutral logi’ (i.e. concord response in high sec).
Because the resulting gameplay can be frustrating and unfun as combatants cannot effectively engage neutral ship storage at all without incurring CONCORD’s wrath.
I do not care if it’s a mining ship or a combat ship attempting to dock, if you’re engaged in combat (and being tackled means you are engaged) you should not be able to remove your ship from space. If this was intended behavior why not simply allow a ‘safe log’, as the result is the same?
This has been stupid mechanic since always, if a tackled ship can just vanish when tackled why not just let them safe log in space, save an alt! It also affects only high-sec, as anywhere else the ‘neutral ship storage’ would just get shot too.
This should also be extended to stations, all stations. Puts an end to stupid station games, you’ve got the invuln timer after you undock to decide if you want to continue or not
And this, THIS is why we can’t have nice things!
Whoops too late, quoted for prosperity & truthieness!!
Remeber, that CCP person is new, I’m sure still learning the ropes, won’t be long and they will ignore everything on these forums just like the others! 
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
1 Like
I agree (which I think is in my first post in this thread) only to the extent of stowing in ships.
You’ve always been able to dock in an NPC station when you don’t have an aggression timer. Being tackled (eg. someone dumb undocks while at war and then get’s tackled while aligning). There’s no reason to change that.
If we were to stop docking at npc stations when scrammed they should probably get tether mechanics in its place.
I can undock from a citadel, have a look around, even warp off without being attacked.
@Cypr3ss_Deteis @Scipio_Artelius @Daichi_Yamato warp jams + docking at NPC stations… very tempting topic to engage in - perhaps toooooooo out of bounds for this specific thread, though.
It’s all on topic.
HEY!
I’m gonna bite you in your ankle!
1 Like
I enjoyed this thread. It had all the things I like.
An “Alleged” abuse of game mechanics.
Salt.
Whine.
Moar Tears.
A response from a Dev!
An attempt to find a reasonable solution.
A crapload moar tears, whine and salt.
Running out of ideas/arguments and resorting to name calling out of boredom. (I still miss the smack talk in Amarr. That was player interaction!)
Having been on both sides of the coin, I have to give a big slap on the back to pirat! That was a hilarious stunt worthy of the game. I would love to have listened to the fleet comm’s when the targets disappeared!
That being said, it does seem like an exploit of game mechanics with no easy solution. Hardly the 1st time.
What I worry about now is that CCP now knows about it and what will they do about it. If they do nothing, so be it. It’s a “known” tactic now and I’m sure someone will figure out a counter tactic to it.
BUT if they try to “fix” it… Most of us have experienced how CCP “fixed” things in the past. Live with a known evil or dance with the devil for change?
In the age of chaos, it will just be lost. They could ignore it for now, throw a band aid on it or hit it with a sledgehammer. Who knows. Just have to wait and see…
& 
3 Likes
I’m against artificially making someone a legal target just because you don’t like what he’s doing. To me, pretending you should be able to shoot the mothership is the same as pretending pilots should go suspect for scanning your cargo, for salvaging your wrecks, for mining “your” rocks, etc.
I’m also against solutions to a problem that may break other forms of gameplay for no reason or in unexpected ways. In particular, anything you do to try to fix this problem is going to break some forms of suspect baiting too, so the less you change to fix it, the better.
And finally, I’m all for keeping things consistent when possible. If warp scrambling already prevents docking in structures, then that’s obviously the first thing to consider to deal with this situation too. And if that’s enough to solve the problem, then nothing else should be done, in order to minimise the impact that those changes may have on other forms of gameplay.
1 Like
Just to come back to this because I didn’t see it earlier. This isn’t correct. Limited engagements happen are established, no matter who the fighting is between. They automatically start if 2 targets are legally able to shoot each other (eg. 2 war targets), and they start if someone is agressed illegally, decides to agress back.
This memory may be of something else entirely.
I tested this before I issued that post. I had war targets kill me (no duels, no criminality, just war targets). Zero limited engagement timers.
Also, neither CCP’s support article or EVE Uni’s article on timer state that “any conflict = limited engagement timer”. They explicitly said crime or duels, that’s it.
You remembered, or you tested?
Those are 2 distinctly different things and there would be no need to remember, if you specifically tested.
That seems a bit strange.
I actually tested it
I read both articles, noted that they didn’t mention ANY CONFLICT", was puzzled, and tested it myself. Had my FW char get killed by opposing FW militiaman. Zero limited engagement timers.
Can you let me know how you tested this, as it is very different to my experience?
FW char goes to Jita, parks in front, enemy militiaman (specifically - I made sure) kills me, zero limited engagement timers.
OK. So you didn’t test this in a war.
I’ll go test now, because you have me questioning my understanding and if wrong, I’ll apologise for making the incorrect post above.
I just know that any time I get shot by a war target, I end up with multiple limited engagements, but that may be because someone else in fleet has engaged them and perhaps flags are already moving around, but I don’t believe that’s the case.
Anyway, I’ll go check.
FW is an important use case that isn’t covered by the limited engagement timers, thereby diminishing its value. If 100x enemy militamen are engaged in combat with someone attempting to reship, why should that be any different from 100x war targets or 100x criminals? In all three cases, the combat is legal, but only some of these have timers and some don’t. Why make the discrimination? This makes it very difficult to apply the proposal uniformly, to say the very least.
Really? No limited engagements happen at all?
That seems strange, but it’s ages since I’ve been anything other than a neut in lowsec. But if that’s the case, why would you test limited engagement timers with mechanics that don’t cause a limited engagement?
Doesn’t matter. I’ll just go check and update above as appropriate.
With all due respect, this is an artificially rigid principle that serves no utility and is ultimately self defeating. It is like stating “I find it unethical to wear purple on Wednesdays” - on what basis is this principle of any value?
It is always worth considering if player behavior, or at least their existing or lack of consequences, is undesirable. This is what prompts this discussion. It is entirely plausible the answer is “the behavior is fine”, but the discussion is worth having. Imagine EVE without CONCORD in HS, for example. Some would say “lol that’s the way it should be make PVP global”, but they’re quick to forget that not only is PVP not desirable by all players, but newbies who die all the time on entering and learning the game aren’t exactly going to be inclined to stick around, thereby tanking the EVE community as a whole. If CONCORD presently did not exist, your above principle states “I’m artificially against altering killing newbies in hisec without consequence” - your principle says the concern doesn’t merit even a conversation if not agreement?
My “tethers = no reshipping ability” proposal, rather than having unintended effects, solves two problems at once. Two issues have the same root cause - address the root cause for one and the other is resolved as a happy byproduct. I do not find it necessary to examine solutions that are in strict isolation because such solutions may not exist when they are so heavily integrated with other game mechanics, and such isolation is impractical at best, impossible/undesirable/inferior at worst.
On this much we can agree 
Better test it to be sure, but nothing strange about not getting an LE timer when engaging a war target, since the only purpose an LE timer serves is to avoid CONCORD interference between involved parties, and hence it’s only needed when CONCORD might intervene otherwise.