This thread will run for one week, until 17:00 on Wednesday, December 5th, after which I will close it. I will then gather responses, opinions, questions and feedback from it, before forwarding it on to the Senior GMs for review, who will then provide a response.

Bear in mind that this is an issue we would like to consider from all angles, and is also being dealt with over the holiday season. As such, a response may take some time to be issued, and may end up arriving just after the New Year.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2235632

It's been more than a month since that thread was locked, and we're a week into 2013. Isn't it time we got an update on this?

Bear in mind that this is an issue we would like to consider from all angles, and is also being dealt with over the holiday season. As such, a response may take some time to be issued, and may end up arriving just after the New Year.

It's been less than a month since the new year. Have some patience maybe?

Only 12 months in a year. I can't think of a reason that the GM team should have to take a sixth of a year to decide whether or not you're allowed to bump into mining ships.

This is their attempt to further publicize their organization. Do not reply to the thread, and it will die. Belligerent undesirables have no place in demanding anything from anyone. Learn your place, filth.

I don't think anyone has a place making demands, I tend to find making demands is what makes people belligerent undesirables in the first place.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I was demanding a response from CCP. More like politely requesting an update in the slightly belligerently undesirable fashion that is the norm in this forum when discussing CCP's failings.

you certainly weren't as polite as you could have been. "Isn't it time to get an update?" v. "Is it possible to get an update?" - mostly, your wording could have been better if you were aiming for polite.

Well, it's obviously pretty subjective, but wouldn't you say that 'When will there be an update?' is almost completely neutral in terms of politeness, and therefore above average for this forum?

If you were aiming for polite, you did miss the mark, but only by a fraction really.

There's a miner bumping issue?

There's a miner bumping issue?

Honestly, it'd be prudent to simply let it die if they decided that miner bumping isn't the problem that it's made out to be on the forums. If they announced "we decided that miner bumping isn't a problem" you'd have a ton of whining, ~New Order~ victory posts and other noise that is just unnecessary.

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?

There's a miner bumping issue?

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.

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 :)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.

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

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.

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.

While this would be incredibly hilarious to see, can you imagine the carnage at the undock of any busy trading hub such as, say, Jita 4-4, with the implementation of collision damage?

Nice strawman. I'll reiterate. Provide evidence where CCP ever said ganking was meant to be profitable. If you do not, your opinion will forthwith be considered moot, biased, and uninformed.

Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.

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.

it would keep people on their toes - especially because you cannot instantly stop from warp

Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument.

Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument.

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.

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

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.

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.

Why should miners get some special arbitrary protection from bumping? You just got a giant buff from CCP and you're already whinging for another one?

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.

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.

Now you are just getting silly.

IF a NON afk miner is clearly prevented from mining - then implement a function that will flag the bumper for the agression which he clearly perpetrates 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.

Miner bumping is grief play IMO, being done by;

1.bored players
2.immaturity
3.lonely middle age guy who angry
4.obsessive player focusing on the lowest thing that won't fight back.

Take your pick it's probably time for those players to get their face out of the monitor and deal with RL so they won't be any of the above.

This is EVE. CCP's game. Not Yusef's game. It doesn't matter what you think harassment means. In this context, the only relevant definition is CCP's definition.

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.

Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that.

Nice strawman. I'll reiterate. Provide evidence where CCP ever said ganking was meant to be profitable. If you do not, your opinion will forthwith be considered moot, biased, and uninformed.

Eve is a game. This is not the real world. Just because you are so disconnected from reality that you think harassment in the true sense of the word is ONLY defined by a game company doesn't mean others will feed into your delusion.

You and others like you are so disconnected from the real world that I believe you need to have a time out

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.

Depends on the skill of the bumper and the bumpee.

Or the miner could just pay 10 million ISK and that's it.

Eve is a game. This is not the real world. Just because you are so disconnected from reality that you think harassment in the true sense of the word is ONLY defined by a game company doesn't mean others will feed into your delusion.

You and others like you are so disconnected from the real world that I believe you need to have a time out

You started off well, but then you misunderstood me.

What harassment means in the real world applies in the real world.

What harassment means according to CCP applies in EVE.

No overlap.

You made the claim.

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...

No, it doesn't. It's either get bumped or pay. Extortion, risk free extortion. Filth.

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.

Yes, there is. Eve is not a magical place where real world conduct does not apply. Harassment is harassment is harassment until such time that Oxford University decides to change the definition. Keep feeding your delusions though! It simply makes it more evident that you are nothing but a filthy belligerent undesirable who has no place in high sec

Or mine Ore if Ice mining is too "risky."

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 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...



No, it doesn't. It's either get bumped or pay. Extortion, risk free extortion. Filth.

No there isn't. I can harass you according to your definition (or interpretation of the OED's definition) as much as I like ingame, so long as I don't harass you according to CCP's definition.

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."

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.

....

I've given the GM Team a heads up regarding this thread

Clearly, you do not know how Ice Mining works. Please talk more and continue to discredit yourself

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.

And this is what gets me.

It's the sense of entitlement. The instantaneous cry of "harrassment" as if they were in a single player game and in a risk free space game. Even X-BTF wasn't that risk free. At First

They feel they don't have a defence, fine thats cool, to an extent I think there might be a valid point there. A good bumper is nigh impossible to avoid. Then again lets take a look at the "Scam" itself. 10 mill for 365 days, Christ I fart more than that doing l4's and mining is way more lucrative (I know I've tried it) So what are the options.

Pay up, go somewhere else or find an alternative method to combat the agressors.

That first one appears to be a point of nothing more than pride. The Second appears to be nothing more than stubbornness and the last one would necessitate the banding together of people which appears to be outside their capabilities, so lets cry for CCP instead. Sheesh.

O,k Dialing back the rant a bit, and ignoring completely the cries of the space lawyer inclined (seriously, you're being that guy, you know who you are, don't be that guy.)

Surely it would be better all round than instead of crying harassment or griefing to actually give CCP some positive feedback and sensible ideas? Instead of sticking your hands out place some good ideas in the pot.

Someone a while back mentioned an anchoring module, kind of like a seige module for ships making them much harder to move. Great idea I felt.

Takes power and a module, be bumped or stay still at the loss of tank/cargo/speed e.t.c

I am sorry, but that is just silly. Your solution is to give each bumper 10 mil. and trust them not to bump you for a year. Sure honey, if that is what you truely belive I got a..(insert Jita scam du jure) to sell.


B,

Move to another system. It's free.

I am sorry, but that is just silly. Your solution is to give each bumper 10 mil. and trust them not to bump you for a year. Sure honey, if that is what you truely belive I got a..(insert Jita scam du jure) to sell.


B,

I'm playing this game, and in this game I sell materials gained from mining ice.

Now, since I want the most profit possible, I use valid game mechanics to keep other players from mining ice in my area (unless they pay me a fee).

What part of this could possibly be considered griefing or harrassment either in game or outside it?

To any sane person, none of it.

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...

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Replacing one dumb idea with another seems to be though.

B.

Guarantee bumping miners will be considered griefing by this time next week. That sure will resolve the problem too.

I mean it's not like the entire thing was caused by the nerf to excessive buffs to mining barge EHP or anything and even if it was you can't do anything that would upset the miners.

I am new to eve, so missed out on the original post

I have and will do it again - bumping miners.
For a new player that has no skills I found it the only way to defend myself against those lesser players that sit in hi sec mining in the big mining ships (barges I think they are called). IMO they should be in 0.6 and lower as they have the skills, play the game.

Why I bumped as a new player. I was doing the tutorial and had to mine same ore, warped to a belt and there was two barges mining. I moved to the other side of the belt so as not to get in there way. One of the players moved across the belt (aprox 25km to my position and stated to mine the rock I was. OK they were here first and it might be their area.

So I started to mine another one and then that player started to mine that one I was doing - WTF
So I bumped and bumped and bumped.

I hope they keep it as is, eve has a multitude of options and its the lazy that want it changed instead of looking for an ingame solution. Don't turn eve into a WOW pandora baby game.

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

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.

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."

yes pay me or i'll do everything in my power to ruin the game for you without any sort of risk to myself, awesome attitude

and null sec wonders why no one wants to play with them

Pay me or I will use my right to do what I want. You have the same right btw but remember, having the right to try to mine afk does not mean noone can use his right to have a little bumpercar game with your ship.

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.

Nothing will happen mate. Sorry to tell you. CCP will continue to listen to the Nullers who complain about risk vs reward all the while being in Alliances blue to over 50% of Nullsec. Complete stupidity and hypocrisy, but what can you do?

and that logic is exactly why things need to be change, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that its the right thing to do

and that logic is exactly why things need to be change, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that its the right thing to do

and that logic is exactly why things need to be change, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that its the right thing to do

bumping is fun, ergo bumping is a reward. there's no risk on that reward.

the server clearly keeps track of what bumps into what else... otherwise there would be no bumping to begin with... so why cant the server apply a suspect flag to a ship that bumps into another 3 or 5 times in short succession, or once or twice at high speeds in a period of 10-20 minutes?

there, the bumping continues. but now the bumpers have the same thing their targets have... RISK, or a reduction of their reward due to the intervention of another player.

not hard to do...

and before some narrow-minded individual points out a flaw on this waving it as if its enough to tear down the whole concept... let me enumerate some possible solutions to those flaws.

- if the bump has as recipient of the momentum a static target, the bump gives no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same fleet he gets no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same player owned corp he gets no flag.
- if the bumper bumps into someone else after being the recipient of a bump himself, his bump doesn't count.
- chain bumping cant possibly be exploited due to the way momentum transfers between entities in the game.
- if the bump takes place between entities in a limited engagement, active wardec, criminal flag, or if the entities are in low or no security space. the bump gives no flag, but triggers aggression in lowsec after twice the amount of bumps.
- if the entity already has a suspect flag acquired via bumping, and continues to bump , the flag turns into a criminal flag.

and before some narrow-minded individual points out a flaw on this waving it as if its enough to tear down the whole concept... let me enumerate some possible solutions to those flaws.

- if the bump has as recipient of the momentum a static target, the bump gives no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same fleet he gets no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same player owned corp he gets no flag.
- if the bumper bumps into someone else after being the recipient of a bump himself, his bump doesn't count.
- chain bumping cant possibly be exploited due to the way momentum transfers between entities in the game.
- if the bump takes place between entities in a limited engagement, active wardec, criminal flag, or if the entities are in low or no security space. the bump gives no flag, but triggers aggression in lowsec after twice the amount of bumps.
- if the entity already has a suspect flag acquired via bumping, and continues to bump , the flag turns into a criminal flag.

i am bumphurt abloobloo

Because clearly, we should all adhere to a single definition of what is "right" and "wrong", as defined by you.

Nothing will happen mate. Sorry to tell you. CCP will continue to listen to the Nullers who complain about risk vs reward all the while being in Alliances blue to over 50% of Nullsec. Complete stupidity and hypocrisy, but what can you do?

"MINERS IN HIGHSEC ARE TOO SAFE....OHWAIT....I'M BUDDEEZ WITH PRETTY MUCH ALL OF NULLSEC, SO MY MINER ALT IS ACTUALLY SAFER THAN THE AVERAGE HIGHSEC MINER....DERP...WERP...FLERP...SLERP...HERP...."


Yeah.

...and yes, I'm in TEST but I don't say those sort of things about Highseccers. Not all nullsec folks agree with this "nerf highsec" crap. I personally think bumping is lame and ********. It's something anti-social people do to annoy people. That and its completely risk free "HEY DOESNT DAT GO AGANZ WUT THEY BELEEV??? DAT FOLKZ SHOULDNT BE ABULZ TO MAKE ISKEEZ WITHOUT RISKEEZ"?

Yes indeedy...but since when have sociopaths given a damn about being consistent?

yes the same line pretty much every dictator, tyrant, and terrorist has used to justify their actions

You might want to get that MPD checked out.

You might also want to consider finding a corp that will appreciate your special blend of personality more than Dreddit does, but there you go.

yes the same line pretty much every dictator, tyrant, and terrorist has used to justify their actions

It's hard to pull off when you afk auto-pilot a freighter full of stuff.

Video game != real life. No one playing this game is a dictator, tyrant, or terrorist*... but the thing about a sandbox is, their in-game character CAN be a dictator, tyrant or terrorist. So what? It's a game. If you have a problem with it, then you deal with it IN GAME. You wanna take on "bad people doing bad things" then do it in the game. Don't expect CCP to come along and turn their sandbox into a concrete slab just because you can't handle sinking a little.

*Somehow, I imagine they have more pressing concerns to deal with.

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

If the small minority of whiners think it's bad now, wait and see how much we ramp up suicide ganking ops if bumping does magically become an exploit. Will we be back here in 6 months because of epic whining about suicide ganking? Will CCP suddenly rule that an exploit? What about the awoxing that we're sure to employ if ganking gets banned?

Still, hopefully, the GMs will look at the facts and see that our "victims" clearly have sufficient tools at their disposal to defend themselves already.

This is just pure gold. First, miners complained about ganking and hulkageddon but then CCP buffed mining barges and exhumers. Now miners complain about bumping. I wonder what is next .... miners complain about ... other miners depleting their belt?

you know its funny, before goons and their bull **** came along this game was actually fun but all goons have brought us is the mentally ill that only desire to abuse people and ruin the game for others

this game used to be fun, it was never just about the gank or sipping tears, it was a quality community that had honor and respected others, sure we still had scams and greifing but it wasn't widespread like it is now, this community has really became just a bunch of people looking to **** anyone and everyone every chance they get then turn around and brag about it

While this would be incredibly hilarious to see, can you imagine the carnage at the undock of any busy trading hub such as, say, Jita 4-4, with the implementation of collision damage?

It's hard to pull off when you afk auto-pilot a freighter full of stuff.

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

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.

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.

Eve is a game. This is not the real world. Just because you are so disconnected from reality that you think harassment in the true sense of the word is ONLY defined by a game company doesn't mean others will feed into your delusion.

You and others like you are so disconnected from the real world that I believe you need to have a time out

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?

I just always wonder where all the extra mass given by the MWD comes from.

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.

E=MC^2

deal with it.

If CCP will not step in, this will get very ugly.

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.

I think it's beautiful.

Then orbit the ice you're mining from. For a bumper, a moving ship is far less of a target than a stationary one. Do you completely lack any imagination? Christ, you lot really are the mindless F1 punchers of highsec.

Drones on auto-aggro for rats [X] CHECK
Roid in range of laz0rz [X] CHECK
Punch F1...F3 [X] CHECK
Drool all over yourself while ore hold fills [X] CHECK and CHECK

Extra Credit: Maybe plead in local to mooch off someone's Orca boosts.

Might be, very possible that Fanfest could turn into a major gankfest.] They should invite Slipknot for the ambient background

never happen, its easy to play tough in a digital world without consequence but the real world is another thing where actions actually matter

It's sad to see the non-carebears letting themselves always get dragged into discussions
with the carebears. You non-carebears act as if it was a necessity to talk to them,
ignoring that it makes you just as weak as them.

The non-carebears don't have any way to force anything onto us. They are weaklings.
The only reason they succeed is because *you let them* !

Well all know the right way to deal with bigmouths, so why do you keep talking pointless discussions
which have *no* end, because they'll never understand anyway ? They are like the kid that keeps running
a bigmouth and when you slap them, he starts to cry and runs to his mother.

This whole discussion is *pointless*. It's as pointless as any other discussion with them ever was and will be.
But every time one of these discussions start, it plays right into their hands. From one nerf to the next nerf.

You keep talking and let CCP decide things for you. That's what they want and that's what they'll achieve,
because you don't actually do anything against them ... no ... you just keep talking. From one nerf to the next nerf.


I feel sad for New Eden.


o/

Might be, very possible that Fanfest could turn into a major gankfest.] They should invite Slipknot for the ambient background

We didnt speak out against the people whining about having their untanked mining shipsblown up. CCP believed their lies and made a horrible balance pass on barges. We will not make that mistake again.

That wasn't what i meant. It's good to speak out *against* the weak,
but it's bad to let oneself get lured into pointless discussions *with* the weak.

I am *all* on your - anybodies - side, as long as you stick to the natural laws of evolution.

E=MC^2

More speed = more mass

deal with it.

Alcohol and RL ganking hmmm, I see no good coming of that. Fanfest would be more like Brawlfest.

If they held Fanfest here in Detroit and someone tried to gank you, the simple response here would be just to shoot back, problem solved.
Detroit where the weak are killed and eaten.

Fear not forum poster for we are also posting up numbers, real facts and are willing to deploy graphs to make these numbers even easyer to read.

Not sure why people talk about bumping since this business turned into a massive goongamstyle gankfest and more than that, now they ewok many corporations force them to disband or completely change their playstyle.

I was a big fan of James when he started his small business last summer as it was so hilarious seeing him bumping miners and make a decent living from it. But in the end, it turned into a massive bloodbath bringing hate and violence to the extreme. Now is all about "pay or you will be ganked/pay and you will be still ganked". I don't have much sympathy toward miners, but forcing people to play-live according to your personal rules is not something we should just let go that easy. As it is now, nobody can stop this gankbang, no matter what... they use legit game mechanics and that's why they are unstoppable. If CCP will not step in, this will get very ugly.

Personally I hope that James will stop the mindless gank and get back to the afk miners bumping, I had the laugh of my life reading and seeing the afk minners floating in space for hours km away from the belts... high quality entertainment!

It'd be a complete bloody joke if CCP "banned" bumping. Miners cried and cried and cried instead of fitting a tank, so CCP caved and made some huge built in tanks... and what did the miners do? Rejoice? No, they found something else to cry about and demand "fixing".

Calling it now: If CCP ban bumping, the miners will immediately find some new thing to cry about because it slows down their potential isk making and botting

If it is not banned, three or four players will vote with their wallet

I am editing quotes because I want to hide the truth and use buzz words to try to convince CCP that abusing people is ok.

FTFY. Continue on your path and hundreds, if not thousands of players will quit, because of you and your kind. Filthy undesirable.

FTFY. Continue on your path and hundreds, if not thousands of players will quit, because of you and your kind. Filthy undesirable.

'three or four' is not a buzz word.

Bullsh#t tbfh forum scare tactic to try sway ccp

tell you what list the thousend that would leave or did u just pull these random numbers out your @ss