Your use of the words "a solution" implies there is a problem. Is there really? You seem to imply there is no counter, but isn't there a simple counter already? DON'T BE AFK MINING. All this "we need a counter-module so we can continue to afk-mine in peace" is making me sick. Miners do not even pretend they're playing the game, no, instead they rather petition the game creators to give them the means to continue not playing their game. How do you even come up with such nonsense?!

Why do people always demand new modules to mitigate a game mechanic?

(preface: I'm pro bumping; anti-extortion)


If we're going to 'solve a problem' it needs to make sense. Anchoring to avoid a game mechanic doesn't make sense. That's like trying to 'solve' the problem of plex being destroyed in the cargohold of pewed ships.


But here's something we could do that would 'solve' the problem: Give mining barges a deployed mode. It increases mining laser yield, lasts for 10 min at a time (during which a ship is unmovable). But here's the kicker, EHP decreases while deployed as a ship is effectively opening itself up to increase yield.

So the advantage is you can't be bumped AND you get increased yield. But now EHP is half what it was making it easier to get ganked.

It's simple and everyone has a choice of what to do.

[...] anti-miner activity [...]

make each bump on a ship in high sec or low sec, (not belonging to a fellow corp, alliance or fleet member or a war target,) result in the loss of a small portion of security status

*undocks in jita*

*hits -10 immediatley*

A module isn't the answer. Just apply CCP's new outlook in everything to it. Actions have consequences. Anyone bumping a neutral party (not a fellow corp/alliance member or war target) in highsec or lowsec loses some security status.

I don't think it necessary for a bump to pull aggression, but there does need to be a comeback. You can't even put a bounty on a bumper most times as their sec status is too high.

Attacked and ganked by CONCORD.

Please note I stated 'aggressive bumping'. I suggest anyone 'deliberatly' bumping should suffer the penalty. So using approach, etc would cause it on impact.

Please note I stated 'aggressive bumping'. I suggest anyone 'deliberatly' bumping should suffer the penalty. So using approach, etc would cause it on impact.

(Perhaps a countdown timer after undocking.)

See, miners would never, EVER go for that. They aren't interested in balance, they simply want CCP to change/introduce mechanics which remove all negative effects from them. They refused to sacrifice yield for tank. They'll refuse to sacrifice yield for immunity from bumping. They'll refuse to take the miniscule time and effort required to simply move system. Repeat this pattern forever. 95% of miners simply do not want to play EVE Online, they're just too stupid to realise it.

How on earth would anyone be able to tell the difference? A bump is a bump.

Class any bump after undock timer expires as aggressive unless its a war target or your in same alliance, corp or fleet. Problem solved

I still think each of these things can be mitigated.

Who said anything about a 10 second timer. Takes longer than that to hit warp with a freighter. call it double the time a freighter needs to warp.

Concorded in seconds, how do you work that out? Thats assuming about 10 bumps will drop you from 0.0 standing to -5.0. I said a small amount of security loss, probably just less than the gain from killing rat cruiser. I cant say I have the exact maths worked out for the calculation, but hey, this is still very much an idea that popped into my head during my origional post.

Also, its just good protocol to have an insta-warp point in front of the undock of the main hubs that you use. Personally I have 5 in front of Jita 4-4, one of which is over 2,000,000 km.