Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Niko Trive
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 17:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Situation: A defenseless ship like a freighter in High Security space getting rammed or GÇ£bumpedGÇ¥ by an aggressor into a position where station/gate guns cannot help protect this ship from suicide ganking or in a mining area for the purpose of harassment and preventing mining operations.
Options:
A. Concord response to multiple bumps in High Security space, inside of a set timeframe, to which point an aggressor is flagged as a criminal and is destroyed by Concord. Normal Concord response time remain unchanged as well as conditions of War Declarations that would prevent Concord interference. (I like how the War Dec works, so please don't change that.) a. Example. I lost my Obelisk to multiple bumps preventing me from completing the 45 seconds warp alignment to warp to the next waypoint. Once my ship was far enough away from the star gate a fleet of ganking ships appeared (using a 3rd party multibox program) and suicide ganked me before Concord arrived and destroyed all the gankers. A classic high sec freighter gank. Since the Obelisk is not allowed any defensive measures such as armor plating, ECM/ECCM, etc., I feel this change would be the most effective at discouraging this type of game tactic/play in High Security space because it causes a good disruption of the supply chain for warring corporations and factions. b. Or allow a freighter to install defensive measures. (If I could have defended myself, then maybe losing my freighter could have been more enjoyable, that Obelisk explosion was awesome after all! )
Next...and this seems much more feasible and reasonable.
B. New game mechanics are called for to address damage done to both ships. Where the aggressor suffers the most damage if the mass of his/her ship is less than the targeted ship. And of course vice versa, the greater damage is done to the target ship if its mass is smaller than the aggressors. a. Example. I have been bumped multiple times while mining in my Mack by a frigate. How can such a small vessel get to fly full speed into a larger ship and NO damage is inflicted to either ship?? I would think that the frigate ramming a Mack or an Orca would almost be completely destroyed by this act. i. A discussion about both ship's shields reflecting each other away may come up but then the same thought applies, how can shields take kinetic damage but not kinetic damage from ship ramming?? ii. Would the 1st bump knock the shields off line? Second bump take the armor down 50%, third ram results in ship destroyed....something along those lines maybe? iii. The physics in the game are awesome, in this discussion though their are completely missing, can we resolve it? Yes, but how is the question. I am thinking about how a small car stuck on the train tracks never stays in one piece when hit by a fast moving freight train. Same principles would apply in space. b. The concept of collision damage due to ramming/bumping as a combat tactic should be applied throughout the game, not just in High Sec space.
Now these next two options I brought up because of this: would changes to the EULA be needed?? I'm not sure. (I don't like lawyers but they are a necessary evil.)
C. Clarification of the EULA could be warranted concerning this player behavior if modifying the game as I have suggested above suggestion are too complicated to resolve or implement. This would of course require a support ticket mechanism to allow players to file grievances when just behavior takes place.
D. A change to the EULA to include rules that using a 3rd party multibox software to control multiple accounts logged into EvE at the same time by the same person/computer be RESTRICTED. If a person wants to have multiple accounts, then great!! But if you want to use all of the accounts at the same time, then 3rd party software assistance should not be allowed. Learn to juggle multiple screens/computers I say. Oh, and violating this multibox rule result in account banning.
Now I know there are holes in these ideas, but they are just that...ideas to help improve the game. I would like to think it would bring balance and make the game more realistic. Then again, maybe not. Thanks for taking the time to read this!! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20560
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 17:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Niko Trive wrote:Situation: A defenseless ship like a freighter in High Security space getting rammed or GÇ£bumpedGÇ¥ by an aggressor into a position where station/gate guns cannot help protect this ship from suicide ganking or in a mining area for the purpose of harassment and preventing mining operations. In the former case, it is already not allowed and petitionable. In the latter case, it's not a problem that needs to be solved.
Also, you're essentially trying to algoritmically determine intent. Good luck. Personally, I'll need to buy another Noctis to cash in on all the Jita 4-4 explosionsGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Tengu Grib
Maniacal Laughter Ltd.
29
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 18:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yeah, biggest problem is, undock in freighter from station. Get concorded. Get new freighter. Repeat. Tengu Grib > I agree. The distinct lack of quality spaceships makes RL the worst space sim ever.
SolidX > i'm an alt IRL |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
5161
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 18:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
So If I have friends bump the OP's ship into mine a couple of times... will the OP be CONCORDed? Will ships that get bumped on stations be CONCORDed? How about fleet warps of large groups in high-sec?
If not... then I can have friends bump me into the OP's ship without fear!
OP... if it takes multiple people with a plan to bump/gank you then it should also require multiple people with a plan to protect you. And yes, you CAN be protected from this kind of stuff without the need for aggression flags or CONCORD. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?" |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
1965
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 18:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Really? Another one of these? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11106
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 19:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jita undock. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
512
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 19:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jita undock.
And all those NPC that constantly bump into gates. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5180
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 19:30:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jita undock.
This.
Situation for you OP: 2 freighters undock and bump into each other. Which one does Concord destroy?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Nolen Cadmar
Nexus Ore Technologies and Excavations Surely You're Joking
148
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 19:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
I like bumping damage as an idea, but not for the same reasons. I think bumping damage should be a thing b/c physics. Not to prevent people from bumping others for ganking purposes. I get OCD sometimes about games/movies breaking physics. Nolen's Spreadsheet Guru Services: Need a spreadsheet created, maintained, updated or repaired? Learn more about my services at:-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3865379 |
Kale Silence
Sebietar Scavenging and Hacking
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 19:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think if freighters were allowed to fit a microjump drive, it would help solve a lot of Hisec ganking, example being they should be able to warp now that the ships are 100 clicks away. Possibly make it so they can fit two so they can use that one right after the first, or double the range or something, in the case that frigates can quickly come and harass them again.
I know of some people who like to use Battleships when freighting really valuable cargo out of Jita, partially for the tank, and partially because they can use a mjd to get away from the blob clogging the station exit. See Corp bio for business details
"Love me or hate me, but money don't judge me. I don't care about your opinion, unless you intend to pay me. Then I care." - Anonymous |
|
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
276
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 20:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
Here's a solution - why not just not carry items which make you a gank target, eh?
Or do you believe that you should be able to skip around anywhere free of worry?
Also, what if I see your freighter AP'ing the 15km to a gate and just sit my ship in front of yours and you repeatedly push me out of the way? Under your proposal, I hope your AFK butt gets CONCORDed for that.
There are ways to drastically minimize the probability of you getting ganked. However, the vast majority of people who fly freighters refuse to think they should employ any of these ways simply because of some misplaced sense of nobility.
Here's some news - people who think they are trustworthy do-gooders in all aspects of their life will still get mugged if they venture down the wrong street. Plan for it, plan around it, or just don't do it.
PS - if it takes 45 seconds for your freighter to warp after coming though a gate, then you haven't even trained skills which would be a great asset to any freighter pilot. This speaks volumes about what you value more. |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1599
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 20:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Kale Silence wrote:I think if freighters were allowed to fit a microjump drive, it would help solve a lot of Hisec ganking, example being they should be able to warp now that the ships are 100 clicks away. Possibly make it so they can fit two so they can use that one right after the first, or double the range or something, in the case that frigates can quickly come and harass them again.
I know of some people who like to use Battleships when freighting really valuable cargo out of Jita, partially for the tank, and partially because they can use a mjd to get away from the blob clogging the station exit.
Inventing overly-complex solutions escaping Jita. Just warp to the planet that is directly in your align path when you undock. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
281
|
Posted - 2014.04.10 20:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
^ The Law is a point of View |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
525
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 03:20:00 -
[14] - Quote
It would be nice if it took relative mass into consideration--- a frigate should not be knocking a freighter off more than a few degrees, nor moving something much more massive very far. That's about it. |
Isky von Purps
Caldari Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 08:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
First you need to decide whether or not its a good idea for CCP to make it harder to be .
If so there are a number of measures which can protect Freighters:
1. The ability to review contract contents before accepting it or the ability to decline a contract within 5 minutes after accepting it with no penalty / refund of collateral. This eliminates obvious freighter gank bait contracts - unpackaged ships / containers etc.
2. You can make it so that if you deliver the contents of the freight package then the deal is done. ie you accept the 500,000sqm contract and you can 'break bulk' as you see fit. This also allows you the opportunity to fly the contents in different ships - eg the un-scannable hangars. Allusions to "The Transporter" and not looking inside the package are rather asinine- you can look in the package already - you just can't **** with it.
Personally these two mechanics should render it unprofitable to gank with minimal changes to EHP.
3. The MJD. For an MJD to work it will need to propel you align time x fastest speed possible (and you can put a 10MN MWD on a Dram if you really really want to and get to >20km/s) so you need to be 900km away. This assumes they just don't probe you down. (Although being stupid with probe scan resolution can be a way to do this).
4. Fix it with a Cyno: I know calling for HiSec Cynos for freighters is a travesty of blasphemous whatever but it solves the problem. Also covert cynos for jump freighters. It also means you don't need to fly a JF through multiple hisec stations. Essentially as it is now you fly a freighter to border of hisec, Jump your JF to the lowsec station and then warp to the hisec gate, gate jump and warp to the hisec station before jumping from the station undock to somewhere in lowsec.
5. The SUAF approach: Don't fly a freighter until you have a f-ton of alts ready to jump in and rep / jam / generally F-up the gank.
6. Yellowboxing = yellow-flashing: So what if you are getting bumped? You can log in 60 seconds. Unless you are locked. So the expensive bumping ship goes yellow flashie.
7. Increased EHP for freighters. Why not tank Freighters more than Jump Freighters? JFs have jump drives. Jump drives can logically F-up capacity and they could be said to f-up tank too. Treble EHP or just give the freighter the tank of a Supercarrier so it is just not profitable to gank it. Who knows, this might open its use in lowsec- (no....It won't, it'd just get bumped and hot dropped by caps) So the tank on a Freighter is just anti-gank tank. It cannot be explained by anything else. CCP is saying "this is what should be required to kill gank a Freighter in hisec". Just make it so it is not profitable... ie up to 99% resists on hull. ie you want to take one down you war dec it.
8. Fighters for freighters: Give them a drone bay. Especially effective if the bumper is yellowboxing = yellow flashing. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
5170
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 08:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
Alternatively you can just have a single corpmate (or friend you have started a duel with) in a Hyena double web your freighter 3 seconds after it drops gate cloak and send it into warp instantly. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective.
"How did you veterans start?" |
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
31
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 08:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Here's a solution - why not just not carry items which make you a gank target, eh?
Or do you believe that you should be able to skip around anywhere free of worry?
Also, what if I see your freighter AP'ing the 15km to a gate and just sit my ship in front of yours and you repeatedly push me out of the way? Under your proposal, I hope your AFK butt gets CONCORDed for that.
There are ways to drastically minimize the probability of you getting ganked. However, the vast majority of people who fly freighters refuse to think they should employ any of these ways simply because of some misplaced sense of nobility OR because these methods don't reduce your gank chance to 0%.
Here's some news - people who think they are trustworthy do-gooders in all aspects of their life will still get mugged if they venture down the wrong street. Plan for it, plan around it, or just don't do it.
PS - if it takes 45 seconds for your freighter to warp after coming though a gate, then you haven't even trained skills which would be a great asset to any freighter pilot. This speaks volumes about what you value more.
She wore a miniskirt, so it was her fault she got raped
|
Mike Whiite
Space Mutts The Harlequin's
349
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 08:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jita undock. This. Situation for you OP: 2 freighters undock and bump into each other. Which one does Concord destroy?
as far as I remember you're invunrable untill you make actions or are undocked for 30 seconds it is, if CCP would implant this, why would undocking cause a flag. as undock now from Jita I end up in the middle of a Charon, which doesn't bump me either.
Undock isn't a reason not to implant this.
an better option is a unduck que end or extra exits.
If they invest in this, it would be nice to take a minnimum speed in mind needed to actualy ram/bumb a ship. would give way t en entire new line of ships as well.
|
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
965
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 10:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:So If I have friends bump the OP's ship into mine a couple of times... will the OP be CONCORDed? Will ships that get bumped on stations be CONCORDed? How about fleet warps of large groups in high-sec?
If not... then I can have friends bump me into the OP's ship without fear!
OP... if it takes multiple people with a plan to bump/gank you then it should also require multiple people with a plan to protect you. And yes, you CAN be protected from this kind of stuff without the need for aggression flags or CONCORD.
I've got a solution for all those problems.
Freighters just never ever would produce a concord response when bumping someone.
Think about it, all the positive effects for the industry.
All the gankers would need to buy freighters, three or four at once, to be able to properly bump another freighter until the hit squads arrive. Every Freighter Escort would panick and attack every other freighter on the same route (the route from anywhere to Jita would then be known as "The Gauntlet"), all in good self defense.
Freighters would be one of the most bought, produced and destroyed ships in the entire eve cluster.
I'm all for it, we should do it. Stupidity should be a bannable offense.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
965
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 11:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:
Undock isn't a reason not to implant this.
an better option is a unduck que end or extra exits.
I unducked once, in Planetside 2 and just like that, a sniper headshoted me to death until I died, some tanks walzed ofer my mutiilated corpse just after that and I think a few bombs dropped on the same location.
I don't think I'll ever unduck again as long as I am defending The Crown. Stupidity should be a bannable offense.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy Disband.
1087
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 11:38:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kale Silence wrote:I think if freighters were allowed to fit a microjump drive, it would help solve a lot of Hisec ganking,
This implies that ganking is a problem, rather than a feature of the game. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
277
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 14:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:
She wore a miniskirt, so it was her fault she got raped
That's a decent, albeit extreme, analogy for life in Eve.
|
Snupe Doggur
Republic University Minmatar Republic
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 17:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
I love the idea of introducing more real physics.
1. Ramming ought to do damage both to the ramming and the rammed ship, first to shields, then to armor and finally to hull.
2. The damage should be proportional to the square of the relative velocity at impact, capped at the smaller remaining hp total of the two ships. MWD kamikaze!
3. Damage that penetrates hull should have a chance to disable/destroy modules (nerfing loot; AURA: "Microwarpdrive damaged. Microwarpdrive failing.") and may prevent ejection before a hull is destroyed (AURA: "Emergency ejection is offline."). It kills crew members (if any) as outlined below (AURA: "Hull breach on deck three. Casualties reported.").
4. Add a crew cost and morale system. Capsuleers who casually dispose of their own crews by ramming must pay significantly more to staff their ships and undock...maybe not much in null, but more in low and the most in highsec. The act of ramming causes the capsuleer to take a standings hit with whatever corp owned the station where the ship first undocked. These penalties are reduced for the capsuleer who makes a killing blow by ramming. The penalties increase rapidly for a capsuleer who rams more than once per month. Any hull damage taken by a ramming ship is assumed to have killed a proportional part of the crew and therefore increases repair costs, with the increase ascribed to recruitment and training of new crew members. Nonpayment of the additional crew costs is noted in any contracting of the ship and is assumed by the purchaser. A ship can be sold on the market with unpaid crew costs, which reduce selling price.
5. IF CCP ever brings our crews to life with a system like that described above, it should apply to all cap pilots of crewed ships. Standings increases also reduce recruitment/training costs with the same corp/faction, so capsuleers' reputations can make crew eager to sign on. A bad rep might make it nearly impossible, or just very expensive, to crew a new ship in certain stations. |
Catherine Laartii
Knights of Xibalba
142
|
Posted - 2014.04.11 19:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
I think a decent way of mitigating the bumpage issue the OP is facing with his idea would be to have the option for offensive bumping that causes a degree of damage to both ships, but more to the bumped. The mechanics to this would be turning off the ship's 'defensive repulsor field' and flying at the target ship in question to attack them for damage along with bumping them more significantly. This constitutes the concordable offense that the OP is seeking, and provides new and interesting avenues for combat, i.e. certain ships getting stronger damage bonuses to bumping, take less damage, tactics involved, etc. |
Yato Shihari
The TERRA Guardians of Serenity
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.12 00:08:00 -
[25] - Quote
The issue at hand is, a player can repeatedly interfere with another player's activities, or even assist in a suicide gank, but Concord will do nothing to stop it. I understand why CCP allows bumping, but it's odd that it has no legal consequences in-game.
However, the issue you have to deal with is finding a way to determine who is bumping who. If that issue was settled, then I would suggest applying a suspect flag to repeat bumpers, not Concording - in the same way that stealing loot is a suspect offense. This would at least allow a bumping victim to call in backup. |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1618
|
Posted - 2014.04.12 00:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
Yato Shihari wrote:The issue at hand is, a player can repeatedly interfere with another player's activities, or even assist in a suicide gank, but Concord will do nothing to stop it. I understand why CCP allows bumping, but it's odd that it has no legal consequences in-game.
However, the issue you have to deal with is finding a way to determine who is bumping who. If that issue was settled, then I would suggest applying a suspect flag to repeat bumpers, not Concording - in the same way that stealing loot is a suspect offense. This would at least allow a bumping victim to call in backup.
CONCORD is not there to stop suicide ganking, it is there to make sure that you lose your ship when you do. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
PrettyMuch Always Right
University of Caille Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2014.04.12 00:17:00 -
[27] - Quote
So tired of seeing this thread.
CCP needs to add "web warping" as a tutorial. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
4599
|
Posted - 2014.04.12 00:51:00 -
[28] - Quote
Reporting for duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate of a duplicate.
Seriously, even in F&I, you aren't allowed to repost the same dumbass ideas over and over again. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1140
|
Posted - 2014.04.12 01:09:00 -
[29] - Quote
As there already are several threads on the same topic, this one gets a lock.
The rules: 16. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.
As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussions regarding a topic to a single thread. ISD Ezwal Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |