|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2307
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 16:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we?
I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned.
Mmmm... the tears. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I don't think anyone would object if the physics of collisions in game were made more realistic, however that has little or nothing to do with people considering the bumping of miners to be a serious issue.
What's unrealistic about it?
A nicely fit Bump SFI has a mass of 59,810,000kg with MWD on and a top speed of 19,000m/s, for a momentum of 1.121 trillion kgm/s. A Hulk has a mass of 40,000,000kg and a top speed of 90m/s, for a momentum of 3.6 billion kgm/s. (A Charon's mass is 960,000,000kg with a top speed of 95m/s, for a total momentum of 100 billion kgm/s, 10 times less than the momentum of the SFI.)
The bump ship is heavier and faster than the target. In the elastic collision caused by the repulsing shields of each ship, of course the Hulk is going to go spinning off wildly. The alternative would be an inelastic collision, which would imply that some kinetic energy would be lost as some other form of energy, which could only imply damage to the colliding ships.
Collision damage would invariably result in either CONCORD ganking freighters for us, or being able to gank freighters without CONCORD intervention (depending on whether causing Collision damage is considered to be criminal). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:RubyPorto wrote:What's unrealistic about it? What's unrealistic is that the MWD increases your mass 5 fold. Though having said that, can an MWD be used to prevent yourself getting bumped by increasing your inertia? Perhaps a few hulk pilots should give this a go.
Without the mass increase, MWDs would almost certainly be OP. And if we change MWDs to add no Mass, a 10,000,000kg Stabber at 19,000m/s still has a momentum of 190 billion kgm/s, or twice the momentum of a Charon. BTW doing the equations using momentum paints a less accurate picture of how collisions work than doing them with Kinetic energy, but the bias is entirely in the favor of the slower moving object (since Ke=mv^2 while Momentum=mv), so v0v.
But that would require grid fitting modules in their lows, and those lows can't fit anything but MLUIIs, right? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Istyn wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Psychotic Monk wrote:I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we? I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned. Mmmm... the tears. It's already harassment under the EULA to bump a freighter with no 'legitimate purpose' for doing so. As in, not intending to gank or kill it, or anything other than prevent it being able to warp with no exciting explosion eventually occurring.
I believe there used to be a line about that in the Harassment wiki page, but that line no longer exists. I would guess that's mainly because you can always simply log off to escape someone purposelessly bumping you.
And I'm talking about if bumping was to be declared an Exploit (as some of these whining miners are calling for), you could simply park a ship in front of the Jita undock or Perimiter gate and petition everyone who undocks and bumps you or lands and bumps you for exploiting. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:So basically griefers have resorted to extortion/bumping as their main type of griefing, because they can no longer successfully gank miners and want a risk-free griefing mechanic. How sad. For both parties involved.
Never thought I would see the day when griefers would use a risk-free mechanic to make isk, and then complain about miners wanting a risk-free isk making environment. Can we say, "Irony"?
Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank.
Before the buff, an Untanked, AFK, Hulk could be profitably ganked, a Tanked AFK Hulk could not be profitably ganked, and an ATK Hulk could not be ganked at all. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:Simple solution for miner bumping: IF the bump disrupts the miner (the module not the pilot) by forcing the bumpee out of range of the rock, then give the bumper a simple suspect flag. This would hold true to the time honored tradition of EvE that every action also has (some sort of) reaction. I am thinking this would result in places where bumping occurs become a whole lot more interesting.  B.
Why should miners get some special arbitrary protection from bumping? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
Rodtrik wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank. Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.
It is possible to shoot people in HS.
Now, please provide your reasoning why someone in a 300 million ISK ship who has taken no measures to keep himself safe shouldn't be profitable to gank. Keep in mind that every other T2 cruiser is profitable to gank if fit the way a standard untanked exhumer is. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rodtrik wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony. Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument.
First, that's not what I did. (See those words in between my first sentence and asking you the question? You're meant to read those too.)
Second, when you can shoot someone, you can always profit from it. When you can collect loot from the person you shoot, that's doubly true.
Third, why should someone in an expensive ship who has made no attempt whatsoever at remaining safe in unsafe space (as all of EVE outside the Test Server explicitly is) be unprofitable to kill? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Aside from the additional code necessary to implement collision damage in the engine, they would also have to put some kind of "traffic control" in around stations and stargates to keep ships separated in situations beyond player control, like coming out of a warp or undocking. That, or take ships "out of phase" in those circumstances, so they fly right through things until they've cleared any physical entities. It's not unworkable, but it is a lot of work.
Just remember, EVE physics != real physics. We're flying submarines, not spaceships.
So... instance undocks so that station games are even safer by preventing people from bumping them out of docking range? Prevent people from bumping gatecrashers away from the gate?
Every proposed "solution" I've seen to the imaginary "problem" of bumping miners inevitably cascades into this ludicrous list of problems caused and exceptions made to fix the new problem, and problems caused by those, and so on.
Here's how you avoid being bumped. Mine aligned. Someone approaches you, you instantly warp to another spot in the belt. Or suicide gank the bump ships. Or mine in Low/Null/WH space, where bumping isn't an issue at all.
PS. Ganking was easier to counter. So you really brought this current difficulty upon yourselves. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses.
Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that.
Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment). This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |
|

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses. Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that. Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment). Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that.
So charging rent on someone who lands on Boardwalk is harassment, despite Hasbro's claims to the contrary?
When the people who make the rules for a game say that the rules allow X, X is allowed. Duh. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:I neither mine nor gank, so this would not buff or nerf me either way. Your reaction though seems to indicate you are a tad miffed about the buff mining ships got. Frankly, after thinking ever so briefly about this, I would like to know from someone who does mine, and from someone who does bump the following:
Can a bumper prevent a NON afk miner from mining? HOW many would it take if one cannot?
IF a non afk miner can continue to mine - then no problem with bumping. Keep and allow as is.
IF a non afk miner is clearly prevented from mining - then implement a function that will flag the bumper for the agression which it clearly is. The idea about module interruption is just one, I am sure there are others. Collission damage etc. will not work due to bottlenecks like Station undock etc.
B.
Mine aligned to another part of the belt or to another belt. Warp when a bumper approaches. Bumping solved by being ATK.
Exactly the same tactic that has always provided guaranteed safety from gankers. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:RubyPorto wrote:So charging rent on someone who lands on Boardwalk is harassment, despite Hasbro's claims to the contrary?
When the people who make the rules for a game say that the rules allow X, X is allowed. Duh. Now you are just getting silly. 
You made the claim. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tali Ambraelle wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Mine aligned to another part of the belt or to another belt. Warp when a bumper approaches. Bumping solved by being ATK.
Exactly the same tactic that has always provided guaranteed safety from gankers. This shows that you are nothing but biased and have no real credible opinion. This doesn't work with ice mining, which is what they target. You would never be able to complete a cycle. Problem not solved.  Typical belligerent undesirable thinking...
Even with Ice mining, it takes less time to relock after warping somewhere you're aligned to than slowboating back from wherever you've been bumped to.
Or just pay the 10m ISK.
Or mine Ore if Ice mining is too "risky."
Quote:Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Depends on the skill of the bumper and the bumpee.
Or the miner could just pay 10 million ISK and that's it. No, it doesn't. It's either get bumped or pay. Extortion, risk free extortion. Filth.
Feel free to create some risk for them by ganking them.
But "Risk Free" extortion of people engaged in a Risk Free activity. Sounds like a fit. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 20:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:The subject of "bumping in Eve" and "charging rent in Monopoly" are not even in the same relm in regard to gameplay.
Bumping in non-combat situations is an emergent form of harassment allowed by loose gampley rules. Charging rent is on the other hand, is a clearly written mechanic of gameplay.
One is allowed by loose rules, the other is a specific game mechanic. Trying to equate the two is simply, silly.
Bumping is a specific game mechanic. CCP specifically included collisions as a game mechanic. Some space games do not have collision detection at all.
Both are quite specific game mechanics. But people playing monopoly understand that they're playing with other people who might sometimes cause them in-game inconvenience. People complaining about bumping do not seem to understand that. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2323
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 05:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:BoSau Hotim wrote:I'm surprised that the miner bumping 'issue' has become an issue for the Dev's to consider. What about bumping vet miners who mine out all the ore in starter systems? Miner bumping isnt the problem. It can be easy avoided (if you are not AFK) Problem is freighter bumping with frigates and LOL bumping with stabbers so it cannot warp out. It just doesnt make sense
Logoffski and you disappear in 60s.
Log back in a few minutes later and warp off. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2328
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 08:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:RubyPorto wrote:TharOkha wrote:BoSau Hotim wrote:I'm surprised that the miner bumping 'issue' has become an issue for the Dev's to consider. What about bumping vet miners who mine out all the ore in starter systems? Miner bumping isnt the problem. It can be easy avoided (if you are not AFK) Problem is freighter bumping with frigates and LOL bumping with stabbers so it cannot warp out. It just doesnt make sense Logoffski and you disappear in 60s. Log back in a few minutes later and warp off. It's hard to pull off when you afk auto-pilot a freighter full of stuff.
So don't Autopilot AFK if it's too risky for you. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2328
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 08:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:RubyPorto wrote:So... instance undocks so that station games are even safer by preventing people from bumping them out of docking range? Prevent people from bumping gatecrashers away from the gate? Please read what I write more carefully in future - I never said I supported a collision damage system, I was merely outlining the work that would go into it. All you've done is suggest that if such a system were to be implemented, gamers would have to think of new ways to prevent people from docking or jumping, and since "gatecrashers" are really only a problem in low or nul, that's what your guns are for.
Did I say that you supported it? I just rephrased your outline in simpler terms and expanded on it.
If removing collision detection were to be implemented, what new method would you use to prevent a tanky ship from crashing the gate? (Because they are guaranteed 1 MWD cycle, Scram and web often is not enough.)
What method would you use to keep a Titan outside of a POS shield for long enough to kill it after it sticks its nose out to DD something? Because why should it only be gates and stations that are magical grids of collision-free space?
Quote:That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that it won't be done, just that it would entail a lot of work, which is the point that I was making.
I'm starting to see why people accuse you of logical fallacies. Please try to get the point being made right before you go trying to debate something that isn't actually worth debating, especially if the person making the point does not, in any way, support a collision damage system. If such a system were to be implemented, then the pathfinding algorithms would have to a whole hell of a lot better too otherwise hitting "orbit" near any kind of debris in a battlefield is going to get very messy, which is even more work. And the more work and complex code in a game, the more likely things are to go wrong with it.
Seriously, though, read posts before you reply to them.
But it probably means that it shouldn't be done. Which is the point I was making.
When each new change issued in an attempt to "fix" a "problem" spawns two new ones or requires increasingly bizarre justifications, you might consider looking at the "problem" and see if it's worth "fixing," or even if it's actually a problem in the first place.
In the case of bumping, it is very much working as intended. As for miners, just remember, industrialized ganking was much easier to counter than bumping (tanking their ship was all that was required), and it was entirely their complaints that spelled the end of industrialized ganking and the rise of bumping. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2328
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 08:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
TharOkha wrote:Yeah, because every freighter pilot is AFKer right?  While miner CAN avoid bumping just by simply NOT be AFK, freighter pilot cannot. Im talking about LOL bumping near the gates which is pure grief. And thats why DEVs considers this as an issue. Also bumping freighter with frigate?  logic 
http://www.physicstogo.org/images/features/supertanker-large-7-26-07.jpg
Small Ship + Oversized Engine muscles around Giant Ship + Weak engine. Looks like it's working just fine.
Just like a Frigate (or more likely a cruiser) bumping a Freighter around. KE=.5MV^2. In other words, a 10mn AB Dramiel (mass 5.9m kg, speed 5800m/s) has 190 trillion Joules of Kinetic energy, while a Charon (mass 960m kg, speed 94m/s) has only 10 trillion Joules of Kinetic energy. (The Dram also carries 2.5 times the momentum of the Charon.)
A bog standard 1mn MWD Dramiel (1.5 million kg, 6100m/s) still has over 40 trillion Joules of Kinetic energy to the Freighters 10 trillion.
Why are you surprised that a ship with more energy and momentum than your freighter is able to knock your frieghter around? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
Guess Who's Back. -á Back Again. |
|
|
|