Why would it have to be deployed first?
Because it would be dumb to have them prevent a cyno that was already being anchored, the same way they donât prevent an already active cyno from finishing its cycle, so if you want to stop someone dropping a beacon you need to have yours out before they deploy theirs
No it wouldnât.
Itâs a deployable that takes time to activate, so you can kill it before it stops the cyno.
You might not want it to work that way, but that doesnât make it dumb, itâs perfectly reasonable.
Killing it by shooting it is fine, nobody is saying it canât be âstoppedâ from activating, just that expecting to be able to drop an inhib shouldnât be the counter
follows the normal ingame logic so something that runs counter to the established pattern would infact be dumb
MJD can be stopped by Scram being applied after it starts cycling.
Warping can be stopped by point being applied after the warp process begins (Clearly before you actually succeed in warping)
The normal in game pattern is that till an action actually completes it can be interrupted. Congratulations on making the point that it is actually reasonable.
So what prevents a cyno from working other than destroying the ship?
Nothing?
So the established pattern is that once the cyno is lit it canât be prevented
What stops a structure from being anchored?
Nothing?
So once that process has begun it will complete and the effect provided by that structure will immediately take effect
Now, what happens when you combine 2 things that cannot be interrupted other than by shooting it?
Iâll wait
But the Cyno is not lit until the structure is anchored. Where as a ship cyno is lit instantly.
Therefore an inhibitor can kick in before the cyno is lit without violating the current practice, because it isnât shutting down an existing cyno, it is blocking a not yet lit cyno. But it also doesnât have to stop the cyno beacon from anchoring to stop the cyno from working.
You get an unexpected result because you are blinder focused on a single aspect without considering the wider picture.
Sure, but the structure is considered present while its anchoring for the purposes of preventing other restricted structures from being placed within range, not only once the structure is active
I mean youâre ignoring deployable mechanics in the hopes that they will let people have a get out of jail free card in the form of a cheap inhib structure, not really something i see happening
Please name which mobile structures happen to prevent OTHER mobile structures being placed close to them. I mean you are the one saying this is a standard mobile structure mechanic, lets see how many actually have that mechanic you are saying should/will exist.
MTUâs
Mobile Depots
Mobile Micro Jump Unit
Mobile Scan Inhibitor
Mobile Cyno Inhibitor
Mobile Siphon Units (Although these are redundant now but the mechanic still exists)
The only mobile deployable that doesnât actually have this is the mobile warp disruptors
These all either canât be anchored in the presence of certain structures and/or limit how close they can be to deployables of conflicting types
Currently they havenât yet had a structure which has a direct counter to its operation, however it isnât unlikely that they would prevent them from being anchored too close to each other
Nice side step of the question.
Which of them block other types of deployables specifically. Lets actually see the list. Not âWhich canât be put within 50km of a jump gateâ. Specifically which block a different type of deployable from being anchored close to them.
Its the answer to your question not a sidestep, because up until now there hasnât been a direct conflict when it comes to âmobileâ deployables, POS, ESS and upwell structures are however on the list, those are also deployables but of a more permanent nature
So yes there are things which cannot be anchored with range of other structures, the cyno beacon will be the first time a direct competing deployable has been created, i mean youâre free to theorise that they might not block them, but given they block anchoring within range of other player deployable structures there is no real reason to expect these to be restricted in the same fashion
We will find out specifics once they are added to SISI and then you can get back to me
That was my question.
So the answer is apparently ZERO.
As in no mobile structures block other types of mobile structures from being near them.
So there are in fact no mechanics currently in existence that I am ignoring here
And there is no reason to think that this will be any different given they are also a mobile structure.
The person here wishing for an exception to the current standard is actually you.
Yes, by ignoring the glaring caveat that there arenât currently any structures with conflicting functions, in this case there will be, hence there will be a need to prevent them from being used within range of each other, the inhibs effect will by default prevent the beacons from being anchored within range so they will need to prevent them from being placed there, so the reverse will likely be true of the beacon itself
You are entirely free to try to argue semantics over logic all you like but youâll have to do it while screaming in to the void, let me know what happens next week 
You keep saying that there âis a needâ but youâve failed to establish any actual need for this.
What you have done however is made a bunch of false claims around existing mechanics that have been systematically proven to be false, and ignored logic.
So⌠yeah.
I mean, they âmightâ go the route you want them to take, sure. But lets not pretend that such a route would be merely a continuation of in game mechanics, it would be a step away from consistency.
Itâs 250m3.
Oh man, thatâs a great number. Love it. So, yes⌠the dictor weâve been watching be argued about all thread can carry it⌠but not much else.
Now we just need HP stats and how long it takes the supercarrier weâve been theorizing to lock it with their NSA on. Probably not too terribly long, so thereâs a good chance said super can kill the cyno before it onlines.
The cyno is off grid, no chance to kill. But keeping the carrier tackled for 3min until the reinforcement appears is the challenge. 3min (2+1 for warping, positioning) is a long time.
I think these deployable cynos are in a good spot.
The cyno is not intended for in-combat use, so it cannot effectively be placed on grid to call in help for defence or attack.
The cyno has a 2 minute activation delay so cannot easily be used to jump out of a sticky situation immediately.
It also is large enough to not fit in interceptors or other quick frigates (t1 explorers have large cargoholds though!).
With those limitations I think these mobile cynos will be a good alternative to recon cynos: cheaper and easier to use in slow non-combat situations, but inferior for combat.
Letâs see what kind of uses these cynos can fill.
Ah⌠I missed this, my bad.
Yeah, thatâll make it undesirable to use for getting ships in, but will probably be in a lot of cargo holds just in case. Otherwise, Iâd probably rather throw one of these down in Ignoitton rather than keep lighting cynos off bombers.