EVE Search - Sticky:GM Response On Bumping

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Sticky:GM Response On Bumping

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 79	Posted - 2014.10.08 09:10:00 - [1] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Did you bother reading the forum posts a couple of pages back by the Non-AFK freighter pilot who was bumped for 50 minutes with webber alts, and as a result had to self destruct his ship, biomass, and quit the game? Enough said. Hardly. So far what i understand: CCP response on bumping is: It is ok, except on special occasions. Example: Bumping Titans out of Station shield leads to a ban! Bumping barges, orcas and freighters is tolerated as legal gameplay. Note: Tolerated is not the same as required, The reason for this situation is, that the mechanics of bumping are bad implemented to say the least. After being bumped with a full orca for quite a while, the game mechanics are broken, since a small ship can play ball with a significant bigger ship with far bigger mass. I did not lose anything, but it still felt ridiculous, since the bumped ship is even impaired on its regular movement. Whats more annoying is, that it doesn't raise the aggression flag, when it is an aggressive action. Annoying so far, cause i had enough forces at hand, if that guy would have gone suspect, there would have been firepower enough, tacklers where there and drones en masse. But in this case the aggressor is covered by CONCORDE. Well thats what i call a broken and abused game mechanic. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 79	Posted - 2014.10.08 11:23:00 - [2] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: La Rynx wrote: Well thats what i call a broken and abused game mechanic. CCP disagrees, so you're **** out of luck. Nope, i've been following discussions over bumping. An additional Problem is, that isn' easy to fix. I know of two cases where CCP acts. One is that bumping titans out of shield. One is bumping to keep titans from warping so that the pilot has problems disconnecting. The case Veers mentioned is a close call. As long as those mechanics can be countered CCP will not act fast. If its abused a lot, they will in the end. Be it in a ruling, or in change of code. Another thing you should note: Since this thread is not locked, bumping is still open for discussion. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.10.08 12:04:00 - [3] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: La Rynx wrote: One is that bumping titans out of shield. Because it circumvents the protective shield which is actually supposed to stop that from being able to happen at all. La Rynx wrote: One is bumping to keep titans from warping so that the pilot has problems disconnecting. Because if you can get a bump on a titan as it logs on before it gets in to it's emergency warp, the ship will stay in space until it is destroyed & is completely unable to act. Do you see what those two cases have in common with each other, but not with regular old bumping? Yes, so what? It is still bumping. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.10.08 16:45:00 - [4] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: CONCORD doesn't, and is not intended to provide protection to anyone. I did not ask for CONCORDE help, but when aggressed so hard, i think it would be OK to set the attacker to suspect. As said, in my example their was ample firepower. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.10.09 13:05:00 - [5] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: You weren't aggressed. Nobody attacked you. Bumping is neither aggressive nor is it an attack. You make sense most of the time, but this is nonsense. Of course this is an aggressive action. In case of the veers bumped freighter, it was kept from warping out, another game mechanik implemented by CCP. This was an unrequested aggressive external course correction. In my case, one tried to keep my orca from boosting, which i was not anyway. I was just bait for the bumper. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.10.09 18:22:00 - [6] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: aggressive action in EVE, it would result in an aggression flag. Thank you for stating the obvious. I already thought, that you try to bullshit me. RubyPorto wrote: Nothing of the sort occurred. Bumping does not prevent warp. It might prevent a ship's successful alignment for a warp, but that's quite a bit different. And trying harder... RubyPorto wrote: game mechanics in ways the developers do not want. You really try hard to bullshit people. The Development of EvE and the intentions of the Developer are a story for its own. Not everything was planed from beginning and even if it would have been ( still was not ), things are "at flow". The bumping mechanism is flawed, CCP knows that, others know that, but you still try to sell this crap for a fix, well known and completly intentional mechanism. Which is, guess what? BULLSHIT! Many ships and shiptypes came much later and still this old mechanism is unchanged. Those mentioned examples still fit for Veers example. One allows ships to keep in warp when the pilot logs out, the other keeps the pilot from fleeing. No difference, the pilot is at the keyboard. It is not some kind of billiard, when smaller ships can shoot bigger ships around. And the bigger ships are restrained in movement after a bump. Absout nonsense considering, that bigger ships also need much bigger engines to move, dosn't matter how nonexististent physics in EvE is. Small ships shooting much bigger ships over the grid is plain stupid. Moreso: The oh-so-tough PvPlers cry when some mechanics are in danger which replaces skill without any repercussions. There is not danger for the bumper and the bumped one is bound by concorde. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.10.09 18:39:00 - [7] - Quote GM Karidor wrote: CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit. However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment Taken from the very first post! This mentioned freighter tried hard to escape. This can be classified as harrasment. GM Karidor wrote: We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being GÇ£within the rulesGÇ¥ this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. This differs quite a lot from stories some people try to sell! GM Karidor wrote: Now take a look at the OP in this thread. I did. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 80	Posted - 2014.10.10 06:33:00 - [8] - Quote RubyPorto wrote: planned. I said something about what they currently want. No, they accept the status quo, this has been made absolut clear. Huge Difference. This is why i say you try to fool others. RubyPorto wrote: Not hard enough. There is no "must try hard enough" in the OP. AND this is just "not hard enough" in your opinion, that guy had escorts, he took some effort. The bumper was at risk at no time. RubyPorto wrote: GM Karidor wrote: Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard Why should the freigther change belt? He was not in one? Miners Business -> mine astereoids, stays in system. Can be slowed mining but not stopped from changing system. Freighter Business -> jump systems Next try to fool someone. It can be discussed if this action on a miner is agressive, but on the freighter there is no question. It is the same like warp-disrupting, what gives a suspect status or webbing witch gives suspect status too ( but in fact would help the freigther). So this bumping abuse is a gift, given to gankers. Why? He was running, he tried to align, he had help, he was on keyboard. Worse: The gank did not work on the first try Much effort, no success, that is frustrating. A game should be never frustating. RubyPorto wrote: Sorry, I guess it wasn't in the OP You guess wrong. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 81	Posted - 2014.10.12 08:17:00 - [9] - Quote Mallak Azaria wrote: Get mad. No! It is enough when you are. Veers Belvar wrote: Agree with you 100%. Suspect doesn't make sense though. Best solution is a 60 second warpoff unaffected by bumping when concord arrives. Veers, this is still EvE. What i think is, that there should be competition between two factions. In my oppinion there is no "good" or "bad", ganking is a fact and ads tension to highsec. What i want is some principle. Not realy "fairness" but equal chances. One of the best games since ever is "Rock, Paper, Scissors". Since bumping is considered nonaggression, this adds no cost to the gank. The gank would cost more if to add and would lower the attractivity and raise the danger for the gankers. In mining a medium fleet has a lots of drones, wiping out a bumper in no time. A freighter who defends against a bumper gets suspected and can get shot down freely without any timers for the gankers. A "best solution" would be the adaption of better force/mass adaption . A smaller lighter ship bumping a fully loaded freighter? Seen what happens when a small car with 140 mph hits a truck a 30 mph truck? The truck flies nowwhere. Since EvE dosnt use relativistic calculations this is quite easy. Space in EvE is a absolute reference. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 81	Posted - 2014.10.12 09:19:00 - [10] - Quote Oops! kaputt Forum Main

La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 82	Posted - 2014.10.12 09:20:00 - [11] - Quote Ruby wrote: EVE's physics most closely resemble the ocean. I prefer absolute space, in this example its just about the motors which on a tank still are big AND the water resistance alongside the oiltanker. The tanker might be less anoyed. Tuggboats pull freightors into the harbor, but freighters shut down their motors. Might be funny to watch them contest. Ruby wrote: To put what's happening in EVE into terms of your analogy,... ...The remaining fragments of that truck... Thats one thing, lots of damage. Ruby wrote: To save you the trouble, the Freighter gets shoved backwards at ~509m/s and the Machariel gets shoved backwards at ~1720m/s. Sounds lots more fun than the actual version. Ruby wrote: though watching the Stabber fly off at 16,500m/s would be hilarious. Yepp! Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship! BTW: mentioning != complaining. EDIT: Honest thanks for calculating! Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 88	Posted - 2014.10.12 09:20:51 - [12] - Quote Ruby wrote: EVE's physics most closely resemble the ocean. I prefer absolute space, in this example its just about the motors which on a tank still are big AND the water resistance alongside the oiltanker. The tanker might be less anoyed. Tuggboats pull freightors into the harbor, but freighters shut down their motors. Might be funny to watch them contest. Ruby wrote: To put what's happening in EVE into terms of your analogy,... ...The remaining fragments of that truck... Thats one thing, lots of damage. Ruby wrote: To save you the trouble, the Freighter gets shoved backwards at ~509m/s and the Machariel gets shoved backwards at ~1720m/s. Sounds lots more fun than the actual version. Ruby wrote: though watching the Stabber fly off at 16,500m/s would be hilarious. Yepp! Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship! BTW: mentioning != complaining. EDIT: Honest thanks for calculating! Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.10.12 11:15:00 - [13] - Quote Quote: Whatever you may prefer, EVE's physics model says that you're playing a Submarine simulator. I will not nitpick on that, so... Agree the numbers do not sum up like i'd expected. But since its already not realistic: So i change my idea: Do no ask for a really realistic aproach, some kind that would look/feel better. And: AAArggh, i forgot stopped ships... Still they are close to a docking station / gate to get rid of accidents no flag there(12km radius?) + parking in front of a freighter in free space might not be that easy. + using a freighter to lure into suspect state would be very expensive. No collision at all would be totaly awful. No colision-effects for freighters does not sound very much better. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 88	Posted - 2014.10.12 11:15:36 - [14] - Quote Quote: Whatever you may prefer, EVE's physics model says that you're playing a Submarine simulator. I will not nitpick on that, so... Agree the numbers do not sum up like i'd expected. But since its already not realistic: So i change my idea: Do no ask for a really realistic aproach, some kind that would look/feel better. And: AAArggh, i forgot stopped ships... Still they are close to a docking station / gate to get rid of accidents no flag there(12km radius?) + parking in front of a freighter in free space might not be that easy. + using a freighter to lure into suspect state would be very expensive. No collision at all would be totaly awful. No colision-effects for freighters does not sound very much better. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 83	Posted - 2014.10.13 16:06:00 - [15] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Your "solution" would make basically the entire Jita undock a massive suspect festival...not such a great outcome. I do not have "the solution". I am playing with some ideas that could work and are not to hard to implement. I already said, that your Jita problem could be solved by some kind of "no suspect radius" around stations but not around jumpgates. I am still thinking. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 88	Posted - 2014.10.13 16:06:02 - [16] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: Your "solution" would make basically the entire Jita undock a massive suspect festival...not such a great outcome. I do not have "the solution". I am playing with some ideas that could work and are not to hard to implement. I already said, that your Jita problem could be solved by some kind of "no suspect radius" around stations but not around jumpgates. I am still thinking. Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 261	Posted - 2015.06.29 12:53:33 - [17] - Quote I always wondered WHY the bumping mechanics feel so wrong: Not only there is no damage, BUT: EvE is more an (U-)Boat Simulator! The movement is like movement in media like water, you have to put constant energy for your impetus. And then there is bumping: Not only that there is no damage, the media slowing down you movement behaves even more WRONG! This displacement of that strange media (Dark Matter LOL) would absorb a lot of the collision energy too!. It feels so wrong, cause its very illogical An unneccessary easy mechanic gift for the gankers "Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." Forum Main
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 438	Posted - 2015.11.03 08:14:40 - [18] - Quote the discussion was taken seriously, so removing the sticky flag would be the wrong sign. there is no better place to show that ccp will rethink bumping. a nice problem to solve for c&p find a solution that adds more for both sides, without pissing of the other one. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 439	Posted - 2015.11.04 11:02:00 - [19] - Quote CCP does consider. Otherwise this unlucky mechanic would long be gone. However a rework could in fact mean, that humping will be removed. HOWEVER! IF (very big if) this happens, it is safe to assume, something will replace it. Right now bumping is a cheap risk free action for the bumper. On the other hand, the possible victims have it much harder to counter this cheap techniques. That makes bumping unbalanced. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.