|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
50
   |
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Stella Fujin wrote:
Funny how you are not comprehanding. I have been playing since Feb.2010 and have 90m SP on my pvp toon. All homegrown. Loss over tens of billions of a lot of stuff.
This, this is not a cool loss. Not fun(I'm a gamer, I must have fun and enjoy gaming) I respect dieing. But not this.
Why did you have your whole net worth, tens of billions of ISK in a single ship? I agree that it isn't a cool loss and certainly not fun for you, but it was your mistake though no? In the four years you have been playing did you never realize that when you undock, it is always possible that your ship will explode, sometimes even through no fault of your own? There is a reason Red Frog and others place an ISK-limit on what they will haul and mitigating the damage of an unfortunate voyage is one of them.
Why don't you respect those that got you? Seems like you owe them a 'gf' for out-playing you. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 08:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Xune wrote:I THink the repeated bumping to keep a player from going somewhere is indead harassment.
Ther are solutions to the bumpers yes, but most involve loosing secrating since they hide in NPC corps while the ganking force is then in ther own corp.
CCP can of course just say this is all fine and dandy. However if it is fine and dandy i would like ccp to intreduce a Remote assist module i can use to increase the mass of a ship lets say by 100X Per module on the targeted ship to be able to HELP people not being tossed around like the small kid getting pushed around by the mentally challenged bully.
Give us Mass-increasing beams so we can make the bumped ships giant ******* rocks those guys can bump ther nose bloody.
There are already remote modules (i.e. webs) that will help a player escape bumpers preventing them from entering warp. If people can't be bothered to use them, what makes you think they will fit and use a "mass magnifier" ?
There are plenty of ways to avoid a gank already, do you think it is the best use of developer time to create yet another one that AFK miners and haulers will be too lazy to use? |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 11:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Xune wrote:Sadly what your stating here is wrong. Web reduces the top speed which makes you go to warp faster. However once some one is bumped a web would not help them at all. Once bnumped thers no module you could use to remote assist some one.
I find it highly funny your keep reffering to afk people when i was clearly stating an active remote assist module which provides teamwork.
I guess provides teamwork is a wonderfull thing to say to justify ganking and bumping but is a horrible abnomitation when used to justify a module that would make bumping take more effort.
Edit:
Allso Webs on a bumping victim requires you to be in there corp or get sec hit. A nother part ofd your nullified argument.
I don't think you fully understand the mechanics involved here. If you are engaging in "teamwork" you can reduce the time for a freighter to enter warp to mere seconds making it extremely difficult, if not impossible for a bumper to prevent the ship from entering warp. Even if they have already started bumping you, webbing a hauler can save them unless the bumpers have so many ships that they are constantly hitting the target every few seconds, which is much more more difficult that hitting it every 10 or 20 seconds that they need to do for an unwebbed freighter.
If you are in not in the same corp, you can avoid a sec status hit by having the hauler and the webbing ship engage in a duel. This is exactly what your proposed module would do - in fact webbing is even better as it reduces the alignment time of the hauler and will make the trip significantly faster.
Do you know what else would happen if you put this module in the game? Gankers would start using it on their bumping ships multiplying the mass of them so high that they would be able to bump targets without the beam on them (which would be essentially all ships as most highsec miners/haulers are unescorted and AFK) much, much further. I'd love to have that beam so I could have an alt use it on my bumping ship and in one shot send a miner hundreds of kms away from an asteroid belt. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
208
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 09:24:59 -
[4] - Quote
Dusty 3allvalve wrote:I got suicide ganked by a bump miner for "auto piloting a miner through their space without a license." I was using an it iteron to move closer to a friend...through .8 sapce. I do believe it should be addressed by means of game mechanics. I hope not to offend CCP, it's just what I think on the matter.
CCP already has. There is a feature called "warp-to-zero" which will move your ship with a very high degree of safety. There are also game mechanics such as "tank modules" and more advanced techniques that use game mechanics such as the "cloak-MWD" technique which give you near 100% safety while traveling in highsec.
There is also the player-derived mechanic of "buying a permit" and "obeying the Code" which would provide you the safety you seek.
I am unsure though why you are posting in this thread as it has apparently nothing to do with ship bumping mechanics. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
370
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 20:37:27 -
[5] - Quote
Raimena wrote:I see you are plainly pro-harassment, then. Nothing to be gained here if nobody "official" will ever reply. I only hope CCP will deal with harassment properly, rather than your literal "he didn't move so it's okay to keep him from logging out until another player decides he can" (after being held unable to move for hours).
CCP's position on bumping is crystal clear in this thread. It is perfectly valid unless you use it to harass someone. Now what is harassment is in the famous CCP grey zone, but thankfully there is a easy way to check.
If someone bumps your freighter repeatedly and you feel you are being harassed, pres F12 and file a petition with a GM. They will tell you if your case falls under the harassment guidelines. Of course no one here can tell you where that line is, but from what I have seen bumping a freighter for a ransom or to hold it for a gank fleet, even for an extended period of time is completely kosher.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
416
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 17:33:58 -
[6] - Quote
Solonius Rex wrote:Sharise Dragonstar wrote:The solution to bumping is so easy. Collision detection. Have ships damaged according to there size, whatever they are bumpings size and whatever speed they are doing when they get bumped. A frigate bumping a freighter at 2k a sec should nudge the freighter off line but should also destroy itself. If you want to test this theory...take a small road car, accelerate it to top speed and ram a HGV...let us know how you get on. (BTW that was a joke in case anyone stupid enough to try). Just deactivate collision detection at station entrances. So frigates undocking in jita at maximum velocity and bumping into freighters should be slaughtered?
The solution is so easy!
The tears from missioners and other carebears who accidentally collide with an in-space structure or other ship by mistake while at full speed would be delicious. Not to mention the havoc a bumping Mach could cause hitting small ships head on to make them explode.
I would love this change.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
476
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 10:36:56 -
[7] - Quote
Ebola IV wrote:Well, of course my suggestion would need a proper implementation, so the system knows whos the bumper and whos the bumpee. And yes, even when Troll X decides to camp hi-sec gate while trying to cross someones alignment line to force them to be the bumper.
This is the core of the problem. It is very difficult to come up with a set of rules to decide who is the bumper and who the bumpee. And if the system flags a "bumper" that means if players just figure out just one way to game the system, even if it has low probability of success, it will be eventually be used to gank other players without CONCORD intervention.
Freighters are large capital ships, and just like every other large capital ship since the beginning of this game they are vulnerable to bumping. If the bumping of ships in highsec ever gets out of control, the fix will come either from a module that needs to be added at a fitting cost (low-slot MJD?), or with a change to policy like "you can't bump a ship for more than an hour or it is harassment".
CCP intends for hauler ganking to be in the game - and bumping is pretty much the only way you can hold down such a large ship long enough to get enough gank ships to it. Plus, there are many uses of bumping in other parts of the game other than highsec ganking make it unlikely that CCP is ever going to change the core of the mechanic, and they certainly won't just to increase the safety of haulers in highsec who are already very, very safe.
Why do people insist on arguing for changes to the game solely for their own personal advantage on the forums? There are plenty of ways to avoid bumpers either by flying other ships, or bringing friends. Vulnerability to bumping is a (intended/emergent) weakness of freighters - just like everything else in this game there are tradeoffs. Use freighters when they are appropriate to haul your stuff, and use another ship or tactics when they are not.
You know, actually play the game?
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
875
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:15:04 -
[8] - Quote
Aodan OfClanBrien wrote:Drez Arthie wrote:Aodan OfClanBrien wrote:" We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics."
bumping is toxic to the game play within Eve online, writing it off as "emergent gameplay" is just a lazy way of dealing with a problem
It is emergent gameplay, that's not the question. It's where do you draw the line between player interaction and player harassment? I think there is no need to restrict players' ability to interfere with each other, but there should be more ability for those interefered with to respond. If you bump a miner, and then bump him when he comes back to the asteroid, and then bump him five times more, he should get klll rights or something. The miner might be totally risk averse and do nothing, but then again he might decide this is a great chance to fight back and buy a Proteus and hunt you down. I agree with your comment,when I wrote my comment I was exacerbated by what I perceived as a lazy answer to a problem in-game. I was seeing (in a high sec ice mining belt), a player who (clearly) has multiple alts, was using a skiff to scout the belt, bumping from the ice (newbie miners in their retrievers) using a Machariel, while watching people going to a fro from the only station in system in a tengu.Clearly the miners can't compete against a Machariel or a tengu and the bumping was pure harassment and greifing. I agree with bumping to gain some sort of tactical advantage in a fight ie bumping somebody away from a gate before they jump, but what i am seeing is just nasty and spitefull behavour against newbros (who are not afking) trying to mine ice as a change from veldspar.
What more do you want? CCP has already provided two mining ships, the Procurer and the Skiff (four if you count the mining frigates) that are effectively immune to bumping if actively piloted.
Eve is a competitive PvP sandbox game where players compete for power and resources. I fail to see how it is nasty or spiteful to try to outcompete your fellow players for a limited resource like an ice field even using an emergent gameplay tool like bumping. Playing the game as designed is not "pure harassment" or "griefing" by any stretch of these definitions, especially when you are directly competing for a resources and when CCP has given you several tools to avoid the bumpers. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1864
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 20:29:25 -
[9] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:GM Karidor wrote:**This forum post is now 3 year old and does not represent CCP-¦s current stance on the issue, as such it can be viewed as outdated** so what is the new stance on the "issue" then? Why not just update it?
Or at least un-sticky it. Seems strange to have a sticky thread on something that "does not represent CCP-¦s current stance on the issue", |
|
|
| |
|