Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:09:30 -
[1141] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:The ship stats are irrelevant...
I hope you're joking. Nope. As you're so fond of informing us, the topic under discussion is the art of bumping. A T1 cruiser fitted properly is perfectly capable of bumping a Machariel regardless of whether the Machariel is fitted for bumping or shooting people in the face. What's important is wheather that bump is consequential in terms of stopping the use of the Mach as an alignment/warp disruption tool. I'd guess that is not the case when bumping machs are concerned. I know for a fact that it doesn't work when using Mach for counter-bumping, so can't see how a t1 cruiser would be more efficient. Also, if you're trying to diconnect discussion about ship stats from discussion about counter-bumping, you are likely not really serious about the discussion in the first place. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:29:43 -
[1142] - Quote
Best part of this is Goons managed to mess up my bumping runs with AB harpies.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2153
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:35:58 -
[1143] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about? You get 5 bumping machs (nothing special for code) and ram the orca while positioning a 'victim' ship directly behind the orca. Orca does 5 bumps with 1+k speeds and gets flagged. 'Victim' ship and his fleet kill orca. Profit. under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply No, seams watertight to me, no need to think it over. A rushed fix is still a fix, and when I see the responses from the concerned AG crowd in this thread it's about time we do "something". So I would rather see this implemented sooner than later.
We all know the AG crowd is top-notch if it comes to game mechanics, so I am not concerned here at all.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 10:48:20 -
[1144] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Best part of this is Goons managed to mess up my bumping runs with AB harpies. I guess we should get goons to join the anti-bumping efforts |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25839
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:15:38 -
[1145] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:What's important is wheather that bump is consequential in terms of stopping the use of the Mach as an alignment/warp disruption tool. I'd guess that is not the case when bumping machs are concerned. I know for a fact that it doesn't work when using Mach for counter-bumping, so can't see how a t1 cruiser would be more efficient. You need to practice more, just because you can't do it doesn't make it impossible.
Quote:Also, if you're trying to diconnect discussion about ship stats from discussion about counter-bumping, you are likely not really serious about the discussion in the first place. That's really rich coming from somebody that wanted to disconnect discussion about ganking from discussion about bumping and looting.
The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about the mechanics.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:21:14 -
[1146] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.
So, what you are saying is that a bumping fit Mach (align time 7 secs w/o mwd or skills) is the same thing as a Mach w/o agility mods/rigs (12,6 secs w/o mwd or skills). Those 5,6 seconds are irrelevant? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25840
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:36:32 -
[1147] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.
So, what you are saying is that a bumping fit Mach (align time 7 secs w/o mwd or skills) is the same thing as a Mach w/o agility mods/rigs (12,6 secs w/o mwd or skills). Those 5,6 seconds are irrelevant? Put it this way, when Baltec1 says that a T1 Cruiser can bump a bumping Machariel I tend to believe him, because he has consistently proven, over many years, that he is knowledgeable about game mechanics and ship fits; you haven't.
TL;DR You're your own worst enemy if you expect others to take you seriously.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:39:47 -
[1148] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:That's really rich coming from somebody that wanted to disconnect discussion about ganking from discussion about bumping and looting. Lol, so you are equating discussion about a basic trait of ships when talking about bumping (ship agility stats) to discussion about bumping and ganking - activities which can be used in conjunction but are completely independent and viable on their own? Rich is a poor word to describe your stretching of arguments.
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.
So, what you are saying is that a bumping fit Mach (align time 7 secs w/o mwd or skills) is the same thing as a Mach w/o agility mods/rigs (12,6 secs w/o mwd or skills). Those 5,6 seconds are irrelevant? Put it this way, when Baltec1 says that a T1 Cruiser can bump a bumping Machariel I tend to believe him, because he has consistently proven, over many years, that he is knowledgeable about game mechanics and ship fits; you haven't. TL;DR You're your own worst enemy if you expect others to take you seriously. So, if I give you numbers which can be easily verified if you care to open your eft (or whatever you're using), you'll simply ignore them and make this a personal issue. Well, color me surprised. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25840
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 12:52:54 -
[1149] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: So, if I give you numbers which can be easily verified if you care to open your eft (or whatever you're using), you'll simply ignore them and make this a personal issue. Well, color me surprised.
I won't dispute your numbers unless you present them as an inappropriate comparison like you did earlier in the thread. I will dispute your understanding of what those numbers actually mean or how they apply in practice, because they're only half the story.
There's no personal issues involved. I'm not known for mincing my words so if there was one you'd know about it.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:03:35 -
[1150] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Very little difference between a Mach and my nano mega.
If you're comparing your 2xNano, 2xOverdrive mega fit vs a typical bumper mach - the difference is about 4 secs w/o skills or mwd. Add likely difference in implants (hisec vs nullsec) into equation too. Weather that is little or big difference will probably be a matter of individual interpretation, depending on which side one belongs to. |
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
277
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:07:32 -
[1151] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I will dispute your understanding of what those numbers actually mean or how they apply in practice, because they're only half the story. Let me put it like this then - does the "half" represented by ship stats matter in discussing the issue of bumping?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25840
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:44:07 -
[1152] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: I will dispute your understanding of what those numbers actually mean or how they apply in practice, because they're only half the story. Let me put it like this then - does the "half" represented by ship stats matter in discussing the issue of bumping? To the extent that you believe they do? Not in my opinion.
I refuse to engage you further on this particular subject, suffice to say I disagree with you, leave it at that.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:49:10 -
[1153] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:That's really rich coming from somebody that wanted to disconnect discussion about ganking from discussion about bumping and looting. Lol, so you are equating discussion about a basic trait of ships when talking about bumping (ship agility stats) to discussion about bumping and ganking - activities which can be used in conjunction but are completely independent and viable on their own? Rich is a poor word to describe your stretching of arguments. Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: The mechanics are the same regardless of the ship stats, ergo the ship stats aren't particularly relevant.
So, what you are saying is that a bumping fit Mach (align time 7 secs w/o mwd or skills) is the same thing as a Mach w/o agility mods/rigs (12,6 secs w/o mwd or skills). Those 5,6 seconds are irrelevant? Put it this way, when Baltec1 says that a T1 Cruiser can bump a bumping Machariel I tend to believe him, because he has consistently proven, over many years, that he is knowledgeable about game mechanics and ship fits; you haven't. TL;DR You're your own worst enemy if you expect others to take you seriously. So, if I give you numbers which can be easily verified if you care to open your eft (or whatever you're using), you'll simply ignore them and make this a personal issue. Well, color me surprised.
EFT is not as accurate as you assume.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 13:59:32 -
[1154] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: Very little difference between a Mach and my nano mega.
If you're comparing your 2xNano, 2xOverdrive mega fit vs a typical bumper mach - the difference is about 4 secs w/o skills or mwd. Add likely difference in implants (hisec vs nullsec) into equation too. Weather that is little or big difference will probably be a matter of individual interpretation, depending on which side one belongs to.
Actually I'm comparing my harpy fleet mega with the mach.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Bunnyhopping days
287
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:26:56 -
[1155] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Actually I'm comparing my harpy fleet mega with the mach.
No idea which of the mega losses that one is, but the one I mentioned was the best one for comparison (speed plays a role as well in the bumping game). Care to share the fit / stats, just for comparison purposes? Re. eft - it might not be precise down to a single percentage, but it gets the job done and provides more then a decent reference point for what we're discussing. |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:27:03 -
[1156] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about? You get 5 bumping machs (nothing special for code) and ram the orca while positioning a 'victim' ship directly behind the orca. Orca does 5 bumps with 1+k speeds and gets flagged. 'Victim' ship and his fleet kill orca. Profit. under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply
further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic .
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2155
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:34:17 -
[1157] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic .
Wow wow whooo.. what do you mean your idea could have been exploited?
Well it's fixed now, so we can go on with it. Maybe send it to some CSM members or something
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:37:57 -
[1158] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:Enabran' Tain's mega-exploitable features and ideas? What are you talking about? You get 5 bumping machs (nothing special for code) and ram the orca while positioning a 'victim' ship directly behind the orca. Orca does 5 bumps with 1+k speeds and gets flagged. 'Victim' ship and his fleet kill orca. Profit. under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply No, seams watertight to me, no need to think it over. A rushed fix is still a fix, and when I see the responses from the concerned AG crowd in this thread it's about time we do "something". So I would rather see this implemented sooner than later. We all know the AG crowd is top-notch if it comes to game mechanics, so I am not concerned here at all.
good , now how about you produce some positive input to the discussion instead of just snark...?
lets just imagine for the sake of argument , that ccp has decided to rebalance bumping of hisec freighters to insert an element of increased risk for the bumper , especially over extended periods of bumping .
the preferred conditions of any change are to 1/encourage more meaningful pvp, 2/not make bumping so risky as to be totally redundant as a tactic for holding freighters for enough time for a reasnably organised gang to gank the target.
let's hear your suggestions ... |
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:41:03 -
[1159] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic .
Wow wow whooo.. what do you mean your idea could have been exploited? Well it's fixed now, so we can go on with it. Maybe send it to some CSM members or something
yes , i did state that i was late for work when i attempted to address this earlier, but go ahead and snark if you wish.
anything positive to add?
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21216
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 14:44:14 -
[1160] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:under my fleet flag proposal rham, there would have to be a specific set of circumstances for the flag to be obtained, an active mwd on the bumper being one of them would prevent the above from happening. the false target ship would also have to be trying to enter warp continuously to obtain a flag which i believe would render the above scenario impossible, tho i could be wrong of course cos i'm gonna be late for work and rushing a reply further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic . That's great if you think you have it all covered. Now you just need to prove the problem exists, to require such a fundamental change. That this change is based on balancing current statistics. Such as the 99.9% chance of safety when hauling.
No rush. We can wait.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17282
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 15:04:15 -
[1161] - Quote
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:baltec1 wrote: Actually I'm comparing my harpy fleet mega with the mach.
No idea which of the mega losses that one is, but the one I mentioned was the best one for comparison (speed plays a role as well in the bumping game). Care to share the fit / stats, just for comparison purposes? Re. eft - it might not be precise down to a single percentage, but it gets the job done and provides more then a decent reference point for what we're discussing.
The bumping mechanics are exactly the same. Doesn't matter what battleship you use, a cruiser with a closing speed of roughly 5km/sec is going to have a big impact.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 15:04:50 -
[1162] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? True enough for the fleetmate, not for the tackle due to weapons timers, however that risk is there for every ship, not just freighters. Also please explain the term troll tackle.
under pedros proposal, the risk of troll tackle is only there for freighters, due to there not being a concord response , as there would in any other case of illegally tackling any other ship in hisec.
troll tackling = tackling a freighter with no intent to properly engage, doing it for giggles, a bit like the troll inty concept regarding entosis mechanics that i'm sure you've heard about.
tho if pedros suggestion only allowed point rather than scram , then the mjd to escape the point would of course help prevent this being abused too much.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2156
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 15:10:40 -
[1163] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:further to the above, the added proviso that a ship that that has entered its warp cycle cannot gain a flag from hi speed collisions should be easy enough to implement and completely prevent the above example of exploiting the mechanic .
Wow wow whooo.. what do you mean your idea could have been exploited? Well it's fixed now, so we can go on with it. Maybe send it to some CSM members or something yes , i did state that i was late for work when i attempted to address this earlier, but go ahead and snark if you wish. anything positive to add? No, the idea is perfect I believe. No room for abuse. So how do we go from here. The game will not fix itself and only whining in the forum will not change anything. So what's your plan?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Enabran' Tain
Viziam Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 15:37:48 -
[1164] - Quote
Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2159
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:15:09 -
[1165] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote:Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. I am so excited about this, I currently mash F5 every 10 seconds to see if this feature makes it into the patch notes.
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Mag's
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
21217
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:24:51 -
[1166] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Enabran' Tain wrote:Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time. I am so excited about this, I currently mash F5 every 10 seconds to see if this feature makes it into the patch notes. Oh thank Bob. I thought I was the only one.
The sooner the better tbh.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
ISD Fractal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
914
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 16:43:15 -
[1167] - Quote
Quote:13. Spamming is prohibited.
Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to insert other game nameGÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post, or the practice of GÇ£thread necromancyGÇ¥ which involved bumping of old threads for no justifiable reason.
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
I have removed several posts by the same individual posting their ideas over and over again. Please post one idea and don't spam the forums to increase visibility. Additionally, I have removed all references to a lengthy side-discussion about wreck HP that does not belong in this thread.
ISD Fractal
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Bella Jennie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:16:56 -
[1168] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Mazzara wrote:bumping is a cheap risk free way of holding someone in place, and just because ccp is ok with it doesn't make is any less cheap or any less of a mechanic that needs to be fixed.
It's not risk free, though. There's the risk that a group of valiant white knights might suicide gank you, for instance. There's also the risk that nobody stupid enough to allow themselves to be bumped will come along and you'll just sit about wasting your time. Of course, both of these risks are significantly mitigated by the unwillingness of people to actually do something other than whine and cry like a toddler with a scraped knee.
Sorry but I don't buy into the constant chant of: "you can do it to me as well" - well I don't want to do it to you - I don't want to play like you - if you play like a douche, I don't want to also be a douche..
I want the game mechanics/rules to treat you like a criminal whenever you act like one. - as always, I'm talking about when in HISEC.
I even want you banned from HISEC if you're a habitual criminal.
These are reasonable expectations for people who prefer to play "casually".. - and don't give me the BS about I shouldn't be playing THIS game or I'm playing it wrong..
why should this game belong to the DOUCHEBAGS?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2182
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:20:11 -
[1169] - Quote
bigbud skunkafella wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:bigbud skunkafella wrote:of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there? True enough for the fleetmate, not for the tackle due to weapons timers, however that risk is there for every ship, not just freighters. Also please explain the term troll tackle. under pedros proposal, the risk of troll tackle is only there for freighters, due to there not being a concord response , as there would in any other case of illegally tackling any other ship in hisec. troll tackling = tackling a freighter with no intent to properly engage, doing it for giggles, a bit like the troll inty concept regarding entosis mechanics that i'm sure you've heard about. tho if pedros suggestion only allowed point rather than scram , then the mjd to escape the point would of course help prevent this being abused too much. Since the tackler would be suspect, I am not sure why it would be any worse than other spaces. You can "troll tackle" a ship in a tanked Legion in low sec, but eventually someone will come by and explode you. If you "troll tackle" in a cheap frigate, your death should be even faster to a passerby or to friends of the capital pilot.
Why should you be able to just MJD away from any attacker? Seems like a solo, get-out-of-PvP-card to me.
Freighters are suppose to be a vulnerable ship that needs fleet support. Allowing them to MJD away without any consequence from any threat is way too OP. You are not entitled to be free from non-consensual interaction of other players in this game, especially when you are piloting an incredibly powerful capital ship like a freighter.
|
bigbud skunkafella
Not The Usual Suspects
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.05 17:22:46 -
[1170] - Quote
Enabran' Tain wrote:Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, at a certain speed, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.
Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.
Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.
Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose and done deliberately.
The speed and mass would literally determine an aggressive bump. Hitting someone going several thousand k/sec multiple times in minutes would earn a suspect time.
..if the targetted ship was prevented from entering warp as a result of these collisions . the suspect timer imo after a few minutes would effectively remove bumping as a tactic in hisec from the game, which is imo too drastic a measure.
i have no problem with bumping per se, just the potentially unlimited bumping with no consequence for the bumper that exists at current time. gankers should be able to use bumping to get a freighter out of range of guns to allow a gank attempt , but mechanics should be balanced to bring a level of risk beyond what is required for a reasonably organised gank squad to kill the target. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |