Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |

Lorna Mood
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:12:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lorna Mood wrote:I am advocating making freighters more able to do the job that they are in the game for. That is to transport high volumes of goods in relative safety (not total safety). That would entail giving them more cargo space, which can't happen because then they'd be able to bring cap ships into highsec. They are already as good at doing their job as they'll ever be. No, why do they need more cargo space? Quote:They shouldnt be able to be bumped and killed by a few throwaway alts that are a few days old. Yes they should. Everything should. The day something cannot be bumped and killed by a few day-old characters, that thing needs to be removed form the game because it has just broken one of the core balancing principles. Neither SP nor capital cost is even remotely relevant to that consideration.
There are ppl who see another side to the game rather than pew pew. Its what makes Eve so attractive, you can play how you like and no way is 'right' even though people keep insisting that their way is. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10369
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:16:00 -
[32] - Quote
Lorna Mood wrote:There are ppl who see another side to the game rather than pew pew. Its what makes Eve so attractive, you can play how you like and no way is 'right' even though people keep insisting that their way is. GǪwhich means that there is absolutely no reason to adjust freighter bumping (except maybe making it a bit easier to counteract the numerous nerfs it has received over the last years). 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. |

Anslo
BHEI Galactic Construction The Unforgiven Alliance
585
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:16:00 -
[33] - Quote
James 315 wrote:Lorna Mood wrote:No I'm not advocating making hi sec safer. I am advocating making freighters more able to do the job that they are in the game for. That is to transport high volumes of goods in relative safety (not total safety). They take a lot of skill points and a lot of capital to buy one of these things.
They shouldnt be able to be bumped and killed by a few throwaway alts that are a few days old. That is quite simply a game mechanic not working as intended and I am sure CCPs "current view" will change on this subject Sorry, your ideas were already debunked more than a month ago. 
Because the Mittani is the absolute authority on Eve 
|

Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
44
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:18:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lorna Mood wrote:James 315 wrote:Lorna Mood wrote:I am dealing with it... by questioning it :) I'm sure there are many good reasons why this works as intended but surely there is another side aswell? That's why it's a debate. No, there isn't another side. The only reason to remove the ability to bump freighters would be to make highsec safer. However, the idea that highsec should be safer has been debunked and is only a fringe viewpoint now. Serious observers agree that highsec risk:reward is out of balance because there's too much reward for too little risk in highsec.  No I'm not advocating making hi sec safer. I am advocating making freighters more able to do the job that they are in the game for. That is to transport high volumes of goods in relative safety (not total safety). They take a lot of skill points and a lot of capital to buy one of these things. They shouldnt be able to be bumped and killed by a few throwaway alts that are a few days old. That is quite simply a game mechanic not working as intended and I am sure CCPs "current view" will change on this subject Freighters are relatively safe right now. The freighter pilots mostly decide about how relative this safety is. And here's one major problem. Some of them are feeding gankers with large amounts of assets/isk by making questionable decisions. |

Jax Slizard
Celerna
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:24:00 -
[35] - Quote
^bump |

Lorna Mood
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
Anslo wrote:James 315 wrote:Lorna Mood wrote:No I'm not advocating making hi sec safer. I am advocating making freighters more able to do the job that they are in the game for. That is to transport high volumes of goods in relative safety (not total safety). They take a lot of skill points and a lot of capital to buy one of these things.
They shouldnt be able to be bumped and killed by a few throwaway alts that are a few days old. That is quite simply a game mechanic not working as intended and I am sure CCPs "current view" will change on this subject Sorry, your ideas were already debunked more than a month ago.  Because the Mittani is the absolute authority on Eve 
LOL I like the assumption that all freighter pilots pack all their wealth into one haul then AFK it across Eve.
That isn't the case, freighter ganks these days can be for low value cargo and it makes no difference at all if the pilot is AFK or not. It's that easy.
CCP will change it eventually, I promise you that. They are losing too many casual players over it If you guys wanna shoot stuff then go shoot each other ratrher than fish in a barrel. Oh no... that means someone fights back! |

Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
Lorna Mood wrote:They are losing too many casual players over it Citation needed |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10369
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:28:00 -
[38] - Quote
Lorna Mood wrote:CCP will change it eventually, I promise you that. They are losing too many casual players over it Lolno. They're not losing anyone for a very simple reason: it's an exceedingly rare event.
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. |

Danks
Fat Angry Toe Tappin Inbreds
104
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:28:00 -
[39] - Quote
Quote:CCP will change it eventually, I promise you that. They are losing too many casual players over it If you guys wanna shoot stuff then go shoot each other ratrher than fish in a barrel. Oh no... that means someone fights back!
Been seeing this same argument since 2004, hasn't happened yet. |

Lorna Mood
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:37:00 -
[40] - Quote
Danks wrote:Quote:CCP will change it eventually, I promise you that. They are losing too many casual players over it If you guys wanna shoot stuff then go shoot each other ratrher than fish in a barrel. Oh no... that means someone fights back! Been seeing this same argument since 2004, hasn't happened yet.
I've been here since 2006 but I think the time is right now. I will point you back to this thread when it happens. No charge. |
|

James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp
3097
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
Lorna Mood wrote:They are losing too many casual players over it If you guys wanna shoot stuff then go shoot each other ratrher than fish in a barrel. Oh no... that means someone fights back! Why don't you go haul your stuff in nullsec, where your stuff has a fighting chance to be released from confinement in your boring freighter? 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MinerBumping.com -½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½The daily saga of the New Order's quest to conquer all highsec by bumping miners out of range. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10369
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:39:00 -
[42] - Quote
Safe Orca hauling is being removed in two weeks, by the wayGǪ 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. |

James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp
3097
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:41:00 -
[43] - Quote
Lorna Mood wrote:CCP will change it eventually, I promise you that. They are losing too many casual players over it Name one person who unsubbed from EVE because his freighter got bumped. 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MinerBumping.com -½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½The daily saga of the New Order's quest to conquer all highsec by bumping miners out of range. |

Lorna Mood
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:42:00 -
[44] - Quote
James 315 wrote:Lorna Mood wrote:They are losing too many casual players over it If you guys wanna shoot stuff then go shoot each other ratrher than fish in a barrel. Oh no... that means someone fights back! Why don't you go haul your stuff in nullsec, where your stuff has a fighting chance to be released from confinement in your boring freighter? 
You clearly don't understand manufacturing logistics. In much the same way as I dont understand fleet ops. Each to his own. Don't lecture me on how I play the game and I will do you the same courtesy okay? |

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1914
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Lorna Mood wrote:the important words from CCP Falcon there in the quote that is always used are "current view"
In other words that view can change. That's why it is a legitimate discussion topic.
You have a valid point.
CCP has a long history of changing things that were 'working as intended' once they got tired of the mechanic being abused or hired a coder that could get the job done properly.
In this instance, the bumping mechanic is old code that cannot be easily dealt with. I don't see any changes to this flawed mechanic any time soon as it will require much more resources than they can spare.
But if it starts to affect their bottom line you will see it fixed pretty quick.
Mr Epeen 
Proud forum alt since 09/09/09 |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10369
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:50:00 -
[46] - Quote
Lorna Mood wrote:Don't lecture me on how I play the game and I will do you the same courtesy okay? So you'll petition for the GMs to close this thread, then?
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. |

Metal Icarus
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
371
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:50:00 -
[47] - Quote
I think it would be awesome if people could actually take damage when they are bumped.... i mean, crashed into. |

Lance Rossiter
CHAINS Corp
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:53:00 -
[48] - Quote
Bumping is a broken mechanic. The ability to disable key functionality of another person's ship without triggering aggression or even forfeiting police protection is so obviously contrary to a choice-and-consequences based design that it hardly needs to be mentioned. The contrasts to similar disabling methods are stark enough to leave nothing in doubt: allowing the use of ECM on ships without triggering aggression would be less harmful to the target and easier to counter, but this remains a concordable offense.
The issues around countering or fixing bumping are equally transparent. You can't make bumping a criminal act as it's utterly impractal and has endless grief potential; there are presently no good counters to bumping; but they could use existing and established technologies (shields, spatial anchoring, etc.) as a basis for changing the way the physics operate to solve the issue.
The only question that's even slightly unclear is why CCP haven't made a change yet, and the impression I get is that they support the ways bumping being used at the moment. Why wouldn't they? Novelty, innovation and emergent gameplay are big talking points for EVE; Industrials have blurb that make it clear they're not meant to fly alone so that must go tenfold for freighters, which are bigger, more valuable, and even less capable of taking care of themselves; miner bumping is doing at least something to oppose AFKing and botting, which I assume CCP considers undesirable, as well as encouraging people to take a more active role in the game. I could see any developer finding these things attractive.
But that doesn't make it any less broken, and it's senseless to pretend that it does. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10369
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:55:00 -
[49] - Quote
Lance Rossiter wrote:Bumping is a broken mechanic. The ability to disable key functionality of another person's ship without triggering aggression or even forfeiting police protection is so obviously contrary to a choice-and-consequences based design that it hardly needs to be mentioned. Ok. So why is bumping broken?
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. |

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1914
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:58:00 -
[50] - Quote
Metal Icarus wrote: I think it would be awesome if people could actually take damage when they are bumped.... i mean, crashed into.
If a little bullet bumping into you can strip half your shield, then a frieghter/dred/SC should bloody well erase it.
You could make it so that a high kinetic resist would reduce the damage and a low kinetic resist would reduce the small, untanked, paper airplane into rubble.
Mr Epeen 
Proud forum alt since 09/09/09 |
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10369
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:04:00 -
[51] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:If a little bullet bumping into you can strip half your shield, then a frieghter/dred/SC should bloody well erase it. Well, it would certainly make ganking easier and would cull the (super)cap numbers right down.
After all, a 68 GJ projectile does ~10k HP damage. So logically, a 50 TJ Cruiser should do just under 10M HP damage. 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. |

Doc Enigma
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:05:00 -
[52] - Quote
Why would an empty freighter be ganked other than for tears? for many it seems that is enough. As to why any freighter pilot would AFK with a load of cargo is just beeing foolish. If you have high value cargo, you should have an escort. Using a corpmate with a web works wonders and in low or null sec thats the way it's done.
I dont agree with the way that bumbing is being used. but since it can be worked around with a little effort. I would have to say its working as intended.
Edit: fixed typos |

Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
827
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:08:00 -
[53] - Quote
legit tactic is legit |

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
1914
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:14:00 -
[54] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:If a little bullet bumping into you can strip half your shield, then a frieghter/dred/SC should bloody well erase it. Well, it would certainly make ganking easier and would cull the (super)cap numbers right down. After all, a 68 GJ projectile does ~10k HP damage. So logically, a 50 TJ Cruiser should do just under 10M HP damage.
Show me your math and when I'm done LOLing I'll respond.
Mr Epeen 
Proud forum alt since 09/09/09 |

NEONOVUS
Saablast Followers
38
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:20:00 -
[55] - Quote
Freighter bumping is wrong due to: Being an offensive tactic that does not allow others to respond Removing the ability of a person to enjoy the game by limiting the usability of their character (Just like ECM) AND Makes my stuff take longer to be shipped around.
Ganking is a value faucet not an ISK sink Each item destroyed requires replacement material, it does not remove the ISK - It in fact increases it through insurance payouts. |

Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
NEONOVUS wrote:Ganking is a value faucet not an ISK sink Each item destroyed requires replacement material, it does not remove the ISK - It in fact increases it through insurance payouts. CONCORD doesn't pay insurance for ganks. Ganking is a material sink. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10369
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:28:00 -
[57] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Show me your math and when I'm done LOLing I'll respond. It all depends on how fast you think an L-size projectile moves. I handwaved it at 125km/s because it was a handy figure. 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. |

Lance Rossiter
CHAINS Corp
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:29:00 -
[58] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lance Rossiter wrote:Bumping is a broken mechanic. The ability to disable key functionality of another person's ship without triggering aggression or even forfeiting police protection is so obviously contrary to a choice-and-consequences based design that it hardly needs to be mentioned. Ok. So why is bumping broken?
I believe that's so self-evident that you must be engaging in propaganda. Good for you: that's one of the things the pro-bumping crowd do entertainingly well. Please continue, but I don't believe you genuinely require an explanation. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
10369
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:32:00 -
[59] - Quote
Lance Rossiter wrote:I believe that's so self-evident that you must be engaging in propaganda. Ok. So why is bumping broken?
Quote:I don't believe you genuinely require an explanation. That's your problem. To me, it just means you can't provide one, which is pretty remarkable for something that's supposedly self-evident. 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. |

Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 22:33:00 -
[60] - Quote
Lance Rossiter wrote:Tippia wrote:Ok. So why is bumping broken?
I believe that's so self-evident that you must be engaging in propaganda. Good for you: that's one of the things the pro-bumping crowd do entertainingly well. Please continue, but I don't believe you genuinely require an explanation. It's not at all self-evident because any reasonable person believes bumping is a reasonable mechanic. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |