Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
365
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:09:00 -
[31] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:There's a miner bumping issue? Yea, it's a minor issue, but the miners don't think it's minor, so it's an issue. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
547
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:11:00 -
[32] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Honestly, you are fortunate that they are even considering the issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.
Any "fix" to this issue is going to be touching on aspects of the physics engine that will involve a huge amount of development time, and potentially cause issues in everything from combat to undocking from Jita. This isn't something to be taken lightly.
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. Personally, I'm not hoping for a change. I'm just interested in the outcome of the decision, and was wondering when it'd arrive.
|
Ghazu
452
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:25:00 -
[33] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Honestly, you are fortunate that they are even considering the issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.
Any "fix" to this issue is going to be touching on aspects of the physics engine that will involve a huge amount of development time, and potentially cause issues in everything from combat to undocking from Jita. This isn't something to be taken lightly.
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. Personally, I'm not hoping for a change. I'm just interested in the outcome of the decision, and was wondering when it'd arrive. The court find you, not guilty http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984 |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3633
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:41:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP should not change mechanics because of some angry forum posts.
Only negative thing about miners bumping is that there's no destruction, and that means less profit. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Falcon
2046
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
To reiterate on what people have said, this is still being discussed given the fact its a seen as a "widespread issue" by a lot of people.
It's January 7th, we still have a fair number of staff who are visiting their families or otherwise taking time out over the holiday period.
There'll be a response, and as was pointed out, it was stated that it'll be after the New Year.
I've given the GM Team a heads up regarding this thread CCP Falcon -á || -á EVE Community Team -á || -á EVE Illuminati -á || -á-á@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents
-- Disciple Of The Delicious Tea -- |
|
Ze'jira Penshar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP should not change mechanics because of some angry forum posts.
Only negative thing about miners bumping is that there's no destruction, and that means less profit.
So much for third party neutrality. I'll make sure not to recommend your services in case you scam someone who dislikes James :) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3633
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:03:00 -
[37] - Quote
Ze'jira Penshar wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP should not change mechanics because of some angry forum posts.
Only negative thing about miners bumping is that there's no destruction, and that means less profit. So much for third party neutrality. I'll make sure not to recommend your services in case you scam someone who dislikes James :)
1) I have never claimed being neutral. And that's completely unrelated with how I deal with my customers. I can think one is a complete asshat but I would never be unfair with them. I have held stuff & collateral for Goons for sake of example (seek on MD) who both for my corp history and current, VASTLY voiced opinions are not exactly my butt mates.
2) Here you can see a statement made prior to my above post, made exactly in James 315 thread, where I say I don't support James 315, therefore your claim is void. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
4805
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:06:00 -
[38] - Quote
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? They deserve to be bumped contiinuously so they leave the system IMO. Making strict guidelines about who can and cannot be bumped is a bit crazy.... and guess what... if they do make strict guidelines, that will give the GM'S LOADS of new harassment petitions... won't they love that! *GLOMP* with your AltGäó-á |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:09:00 -
[39] - 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. |
iskflakes
Magnets Inc.
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:25:00 -
[40] - Quote
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. Track your wealth with EVEStats - https://ohheck.co.uk/EVEStats/home.php |
|
John E Normus
New Order Logistics CODE.
12
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:26:00 -
[41] - Quote
Nothing brings a system alive like a bumper. You should be thanking us!
I took on Osmon last night and had a blast. Made some friends and even observed some ameteur bumpers lending a hand.
Fun, fun, fun |
Istyn
Freight Club Whores in space
161
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:26:00 -
[42] - Quote
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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3269
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:31:00 -
[43] - 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 don't think you understand what he is saying.
It's difficult to avoid bumping another ship of any size in those locations, let alone a freighter.
So simply coding in a penalty for bumping of any sort is impractical at best, as it will be penalizing people who do so quite by accident, and it can be easily exploited. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:33:00 -
[44] - 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. |
Istyn
Freight Club Whores in space
161
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:35:00 -
[45] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: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 don't think you understand what he is saying. It's difficult to avoid bumping another ship of any size in those locations, let alone a freighter. So simply coding in a penalty for bumping of any sort is impractical at best, as it will be penalizing people who do so quite by accident, and it can be easily exploited.
:(
Thanks for translating it into moron for me, apologies. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
1386
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:37:00 -
[46] - Quote
Why fix something that is CCP approved? Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:38:00 -
[47] - 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. |
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra Gallente Federation
1181
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:44:00 -
[48] - 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.
Err... no it's not. In fact, if you hit that link, and push ctrl-f and type in the word "bumping", nothing comes up.
Perhaps you can find for me the specific part of that document that expressly forbids bumping, regardless of purpose. |
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:49:00 -
[49] - Quote
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. |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
23
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:49:00 -
[50] - Quote
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"? |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:56:00 -
[51] - 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. |
Istyn
Freight Club Whores in space
162
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:57:00 -
[52] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: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.
Huh, you are correct, GM Spiral edited the griefing page.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/index.php?title=Griefing&diff=55598&oldid=41295
I can't find a previous GM post regarding it though due to the ludicrous amount of threads regarding miner bumping creating an insane amount of results.
Edit:
Aha, found the other edit specifically regarding freighters in high:
http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/index.php?title=Bumping&diff=164302&oldid=47684 |
Vince Snetterton
233
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:59:00 -
[53] - 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.
That might be difficult for the coders to design. I would expect there to be an awful lot of cycles required by CCP's end of the game engine to make that happen.
But an excellent suggestion nonetheless.
I would be concerned with one part of this suggested game mechanic, albeit a relatively rare occurrence: What happens to a hauler that innocently touches a mining boat, and shortly after that, the Orca pilot docks/shuts off his bonuses and suddenly the lasers of that mining boat don't reach some rock?
That scenario I could imagine would create some interesting coding challenges.
But overall, if CCP could make this work without too much strain on their CPU cycles, a great idea.
|
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
311
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:59:00 -
[54] - Quote
They just want to play/afk their spaceship "single" player game.
Carebears, ruining every mmo since, well, since ever.
Rip UO If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Air The Unthinkables
2502
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:05:00 -
[55] - Quote
solving bumping mechanically would involve changing parts of the EVE engine devs have described like 'performing open heart surgery' for the benefit of afk players |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2308
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:06:00 -
[56] - 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. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3270
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:10:00 -
[57] - 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"? Now repeat after me.
Bumping a miner is not griefing by any realistic definition, including CCP's.
Ganking a miner is not griefing, by any realistic definition, including CCP's.
Persecuting a miner (or anyone else for that matter) for no valid in game reason IS griefing.
Attempting to drive out competition for your mining alts, or to manipulate the market, are just a couple (out of many) examples of a "valid in game reason" to interfere with or gank someone repeatedly.
EvE 101. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Rodtrik
Aphex Industries
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:11:00 -
[58] - Quote
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. |
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
304
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:11:00 -
[59] - Quote
bumping should be treated the same way as attack with a weapon
its just relocation of energy,isnt it? doesnt matter if missile bumps you or a ship bumps you - it should be doing damages ,or am i expecting too much physics?
you should be totaly able to ram your titan into another titan and watch it break that spacepenis in two
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2310
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:14:00 -
[60] - 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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |