So as with yourself, I was mistakenly under the impression that all engagements sparked that timer, and as such “tracked” everyone you were in combat with and that could be used to inherit conflicts by the mothership. Unfortunately, the current implementation of limited engagement timers does not work like this, and there is no reason to change this (I toyed with the idea of making them appear for all battles, but found it introduced several undesirable consequences). No other timer tracks the players you were recently in combat with, so unless yet a new timer is introduced, it is unlikely to be worthwhile since it has only one use case - mothership inheritance. Thus, there is no transparent way to predict which entities the mothership would inherit conflict with.
Alternatively, the existing capsuleer combat timer might be modified to simply associate itself with who the recent combatants are in the past 5 minutes (bidirectional hostility, legal or not) almost identically to limited engagement timers (a superset, actually). The actual timer behavior would not change, but this metadata would be used for mothership inheritance.
What? Of course it has value, namely that players shouldn’t pretend the game should be changed to make it easier for them and more difficult for those that do things they don’t like. How is it self defeating? What you said there makes no sense.
Undesirable to whom? You may consider some player behaviour is “undesirable” all you want, but as long as he’s playing according to the ToS/EULA, that doesn’t give you the right to pretend the game should be changed to make his gameplay harder. This is precisely what all the whining on the forums about criminal and “griefing” activities is about and the very reason that whining is despised so much…
Whether the discussion is worth having or not depends entirely on what’s being discussed. Most discussions that happen on these forums about supposedly “undesirable” behaviours are total ■■■■■■■■ and pure crybaby whining…
I’m starting to think you like arguing for the sake of arguing. You’re talking to the wrong person for that.
You think anybody, and CCP in particular, is going to care whether you think tethered ships should be able to reship or not?
Actually I do. I think CCP is going to change this, and do it sooner rather than later . One of the reasons I didn’t get the “STFU GTFO” response headstrong up front is because, whether forum dwellers like it or not, the idea is plausible enough for CCP to take it up given their past changes in the past 2 years and planned changes going forward. See what they announced in Surgical Strike? Tell me mothership tethering rework isn’t on their table when you announce a patch like that on top of recent patches. CCP’s stance on disruptive behavior? Zero ****s given
Man, I don’t know how did you arrive to this conclusion, but FWIW you didn’t get that nor any other response to your proposal from me for the simple reason that I think it won’t get anywhere and I cannot be bothered to discuss it either.
LOL. What? How is anything they announced in Surgical Strike an indication that they might consider change how reshipping when tethered works? Makes no sense.
everyone committed to the fight. PIRAT lost. the other side had risked much, including their ships. they had them tackled to prevent escape and had earned the right to destroy the ships. these kills were stolen from them by neutral alts. not cool, very not cool.
this is clearly the PIRAT structure siege strategy. seems they use it for everything else too. keep neutral alts in bowheads on hand so they can save their ships if they start to lose.
There’s no way CCP is going to ignore this.
This thread served its purpose perfectly.
I’m actually impressed.
The only thing bothering me is the short-sightedness and ignorance of those who keep defending it and, as everyone knows, I’m neither a carebear, nor a crybaby, nor risk-averse or any of the other things said about carebears/etc.
Maybe it’s a case of “it happened so often, they got used to not-thinking-things-through and just automatically oppose it.”
Removing CONCORD would solve this and many other problems instantly.
Because it should obviously be possible for the wreck owner at least to shoot the thief if he wants. You don’t pretend we should be discussing this now, do you?
So what? You still should be flagged in case somebody wants to do something about it someday. You have to think about game mechanics in broad terms and consider how any change to them might impact everyone in every possible circumstances, not how relevant they are to what you do in the circumstances you do it…
That’s destroying someone else’s property. Only mobile structures have a lesser consideration and give you a suspect timer instead. I’m not sure what is it that you find questionable about that. Do you want to discuss the whole Crimewatch flagging system now or what?
I’m pretty sure they won’t ignore this and will do something about it sooner or later, if for no other reason because the way docking in a ship works isn’t consistent with the way docking in a structure works. That’s not the question. The question is what will they do about it…
And yet most players, including both of you, prefer to live in high sec and have to deal with those problems, when you could go to low or null to avoid them entirely. What does that tell you?
Actually I have to deal with this mechanic usually when miners dock their ship when I attempt to gank them. The difference here is that I consider it a clever tactic and don’t come to the forums to cry about it.
I find quircky mechanics like this make the game more interesting. But apparently most here are in favor of making the game more boring because they can’t be arsed to come up with ingame counters to the tactic (which is completely possible).
I am referring to unpiloted ships. Even if these guys got CCP to implement all of their proposed changes, you could still eject from your ship and have the bowhead scoop it.
Ah, not sure. I know unpiloted ships cannot be boarded by anyone other than the owner if targeted, but don’t know whether they can be scooped.
Not that I see why this would matter either, mind you. It’s not like anyone would be willing to eject the ship and lose all the skills and implants benefits to its EHP as a result in the circumstances being discussed here…
I agree with this and I have the feeling CCP likes those things too, which is one of the reasons I don’t expect they’ll make any drastic changes here like some pretend CCP will or should.
The problem with this particular mechanic, however, is that, instead of being a cause of conflict and ship destruction, it creates more safety and causes less destruction than it would be desirable, and that’s definitely something CCP isn’t going to like, especially if it becomes more widely known and used, so I think CCP will do something about it.
A cooldown timer whenever somebody uses the ship hangar or fitting array would be the logical, easy solution. It would break the tether and make the bowhead at least a little bit vulnerable. It would leave the miners’ Orcas mostly untouchable, as they are now.
How can you say that when the same mechanic caused you to lose two of your ships to me
You would not have attacked me would I have been in that Sleip already. Same goes for OP, the battle would not have happened in the first place if they did not have this escape mechanism. The reason why battles at all happen in a game where people lose quite a lot and you always consider your options is because of such quirks and tactics you would not expect.
Do you really want more of the boring “honorable fights like real men” as some people here suggest, which only happen if both sides whelp ships at each other they don’t really care about?
I think more such quirks should be possible and would make an interesting game with more interesting conflict.
. One of the reasons I didn’t get the “STFU GTFO” response headstrong up front is because, whether forum dwellers like it or not, the idea is plausible enough for CCP to take it up given their past changes in the past 2 years and planned changes going forward. See what they announced in Surgical Strike? Tell me mothership tethering rework isn’t on their table when you announce a patch like that on top of recent patches. CCP’s stance on disruptive behavior? Zero ****s given 
