Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
844
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
On November 28th 2012, CCP Falcon created this thread on the Crime & Punishment Forum for the discussion of Miner Bumping with a view to clearing up any questions regarding the legitimacy of this type of gameplay.
The thread was closed on December 5th and the discussion regarding this tactic has been long and detailed. After speaking with Game Design and discussing the contents of the thread among themselves for quite some time, the GM Team has come to the following conclusion:
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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
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. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
|
CCP Falcon
2215
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:23:00 -
[2] - Quote
This thread will be left open for now, and all discussion regarding bumping will be diverted here.
Keep within the forum rules and stay on topic, and the thread will stay open.
Any attempts to derail discussion, any trolling, and any personal attacks will not be taken lightly. CCP Falcon -á || -á EVE Community Team -á || -á EVE Illuminati -á || -á Live Events Organizer
@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
317
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:This thread will be left open for now, and all discussion regarding bumping will be diverted here.
Keep within the forum rules and stay on topic, and the thread will stay open.
Any attempts to derail discussion, any trolling, and any personal attacks will not be taken lightly. Why did you remove my reply?
I simply noted that it seems that it is still legal to implicitly harass someone by setting up bumper gangs in every belt that one person mines in, as long as they target everyone, not just that one individual. Or am I mistaken here? |
Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote: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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
Does "move to another location" mean another Ice-Asteroid? Or another belt? Another system?
RS |
BadAssMcKill
Ghost Headquarters The Ghost Army
99
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
That seems reasonable Starships were meant to fly~ |
tgl3
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pretty much what I expected, cheers for the response! Member of the EVE Blog Pack - Through Newb Eyes Twitter - TG_3 |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
755
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
does this mean that if a player does not attempt to change location that repeated bumping is not harassment?
i present that situation as 'by itself' i understand there are often other factors involved and that malicious intent is a consideration
this is more specific than your general ruling, but is repeated bumping of a player in an attempt to extort them 'by itself' harassment?
(i think we all know of the player organisation prompting this discussion and i think it'd be good to see a yay or a nay or some example situations rather than have players 'experimenting' near the ruling to see what passes)
assuming the above is ok, if a bumper was extorting in a system, then later moved to another system and bumped a player that had previously moved on, not because the bumper was following the other player but because the other player was in the bumper's new area, is that a situation that 'by itself' is harassment? |
Temmu Guerra
Genco Fatal Ascension
104
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
You guys could always go to another system... |
Kimo Khan
50
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
The Burning Lotus
5220
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kimo Khan wrote: If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?
Because bumping is not, and never has been a flaggable action, more for practical means than anything else. Jita 4-4 undock with flaggable bumping would become a scrapyard FFA.
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it's a goonspiracy. |
|
Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kimo Khan wrote: If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?
Because bumping is not an agressive or illegal action of course. It's not that hard.
RS |
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
146
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Good decision. |
Kimo Khan
50
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable?
It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. An easy solution to this issue is to prevent bumping to a person trying to warp, just turn off the mechanic when a person initiates warp. Its not like you can get bumped when you are in warp, so why not turn it off when you initiate warp. |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
543
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 16:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
The words are chosen wisely.
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Lysantos Kelrus
Hikansog Tax Haven
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
now all we need to do is establish a proper high industry in protection services.
the market looks pretty profitable |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1472
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:51:00 -
[16] - Quote
makes sense. There should always be the option where certain player behavior can be interpreted as griefing from the GMs even though it does not break any rules. Thats why we have them instead of robots. a eve-style bounty system (done)-á dust boarding parties You fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Sulzer Wartzilla
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:55:00 -
[17] - Quote
Kimo Khan wrote:You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable?
It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. An easy solution to this issue is to prevent bumping to a person trying to warp, just turn off the mechanic when a person initiates warp. Its not like you can get bumped when you are in warp, so why not turn it off when you initiate warp. Bumping ships to prevent warping (but mostly crashing back to stargates) has long been an integral and known part of PVP. It takes skill to actually bump someone trying to escape.
It's been around for years. Of course, once this tactic found its way to the asteroid belts of hisec, the calls for nerfing it or utterly removing it from the game did not wait long to rear their ugly face. Predictable. |
|
GM Karidor
Game Masters C C P Alliance
845
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:03:00 -
[18] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:I simply noted that it seems that it is still legal to implicitly harass someone by setting up bumper gangs in every belt that one person mines in, as long as they target everyone, not just that one individual. Or am I mistaken here?
You are mistaken. If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part).
Runeme Shilter wrote:GM Karidor wrote: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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis. Does "move to another location" mean another Ice-Asteroid? Or another belt? Another system? RS
While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents).
Benny Ohu wrote:if a bumper was extorting in a system, then later moved to another system and bumped a player that had previously moved on, not because the bumper was following the other player but because the other player was in the bumper's new area, is that a situation that 'by itself' is harassment?
Depends, see the answer to the quote above which should cover this as well. If the victim just moved next door, that could still be interpreted as 'general area of operation', if the miner starts changing regions and is still being followed around by the same person that keeps bumping in a regular manner then the intent is pretty clear. Note that I said person, not character, so regional alts will be considered be the same player in this regard. GM Karidor | Senior Game Master |
|
Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents).
Thanks for the reply. That is a very wise and sensible ruling!
RS
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
543
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:I simply noted that it seems that it is still legal to implicitly harass someone by setting up bumper gangs in every belt that one person mines in, as long as they target everyone, not just that one individual. Or am I mistaken here? You are mistaken. If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part). Runeme Shilter wrote:GM Karidor wrote: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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis. Does "move to another location" mean another Ice-Asteroid? Or another belt? Another system? RS While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents). Benny Ohu wrote:if a bumper was extorting in a system, then later moved to another system and bumped a player that had previously moved on, not because the bumper was following the other player but because the other player was in the bumper's new area, is that a situation that 'by itself' is harassment? Depends, see the answer to the quote above which should cover this as well. If the victim just moved next door, that could still be interpreted as 'general area of operation', if the miner starts changing regions and is still being followed around by the same person that keeps bumping in a regular manner then the intent is pretty clear. Note that I said person, not character, so regional alts will be considered be the same player in this regard.
Do not get me wrong but that at least partly puts a lock on emergent gameplay and prospering buissnes models. There even were already growing some movements growing driven by miners to oppose so called bumpers. Minerbumping led to loners engeging in group activities to help themselves. Although the niveau might not have been especially high, the comunication between players in high sec also increased. The need for those movements that united in the sight of the common bumper-enemy decreases with this development. While more and more 0.0 alliances struggle to find enough industrialists or miners seeding their markets, high sec afk mining and botting is prosperous and florishes. Although the statement you made leaves a lot of space for interpretation and case sensitive treatment the general direction of the policy does not help any of the involved parties. I might be wrong but you sure will be flooded with petitions...worse than before. In the end the general tenor in the mentioned bumping thread seemed overall "pro-bumping" with only a few very loud and determined "anti-bumping" proponents...but that might be a thing of perception.
Finally I have to say that it is good that there is a position from CCP now. Now the terms can be discussed ;-)
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
|
Sulzer Wartzilla
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:I simply noted that it seems that it is still legal to implicitly harass someone by setting up bumper gangs in every belt that one person mines in, as long as they target everyone, not just that one individual. Or am I mistaken here? You are mistaken. If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part). On the surface of it, this seems reasonable, but what if said target is in an NPC corp? |
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
192
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
what about bumping freighters out of grid, so they can gank and loot without being attacked by other players?
isn't that an exploit of the new crimewatch? |
Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
32
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 20:15:00 -
[23] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:what about bumping freighters out of grid, so they can gank and loot without being attacked by other players?
isn't that an exploit of the new crimewatch?
The other players can just follow the freighter to the next grid and shoot the suspects there... Why must always CCP provide protection/deem things an exploit? |
Johan March
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 20:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
This looks like a good decision. |
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
192
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 20:22:00 -
[25] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Red Frog Rufen wrote:what about bumping freighters out of grid, so they can gank and loot without being attacked by other players?
isn't that an exploit of the new crimewatch? The other players can just follow the freighter to the next grid and shoot the suspects there... Why must always CCP provide protection/deem things an exploit?
I'm asking a question about a rules, i'm not stating anything or asking any change.
|
Agent Trask
Aliastra Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 20:26:00 -
[26] - Quote
Sulzer Wartzilla wrote: On the surface of it, this seems reasonable, but what if said target is in an NPC corp?
Exactly.
Most of our targets for Code Compliance are miners in NPC corps to prevent wardecs.
We do not chase them once they have left the belts we are Role-Playing in. We don't use locator agents to hound them. We just want them to pay our fee, or stop mining in the area we are patrolling. This area will often comprise two or three ice belt systems we are currently monitoring.
Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
Agent Trask
Aliastra Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 20:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:
I'm asking a question about a rules, i'm not stating anything or asking any change.
Just a note ... if you drop some objects while being bumped ( frozen corpses are good for this, as most folks don't have them on overview ), the grid will be extended to cover your frieghter well past the normal grid limit. Another option is to anchor small cans as they bump you along.
Look up grid-fu. Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
Wescro
Tash-Murkon Amalgamated Security
197
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 21:29:00 -
[28] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote: 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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
Is there a reason why bumping is being singled out here? I was under the impression that you could persistently hunt (kill their ship) people for bounties (either from the UI or informal merc contracts). Spies usually target a corp for a long time period, and I'm pretty sure it's been acceptable to try to re-infiltrate the same corp. If there is a particularly gullible and rich player, scammers will try again and again until the player learns. It seems to me the only thing you can't persistently do after this ruling is bump a specific player who takes the onerous precaution of jumping a couple of systems.
GM Karidor wrote: If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part).
This assumes that bumping is not a risky activity without war decs and that's not true in my experience. I have had my bumping ship suicide ganked, had many bounties placed on me, and received several war decs. There is the social cost of bumping, as it beaks some social relationships while reinforcing others. To paint bumping as a riskless activity that must be infused with "actual" risk by wardeccing seems off the mark. There's plenty of risk doing pretty much anything in EVE that other people strongly dislike.
This thread is awful and it should be locked. |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 21:36:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP FTW. If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Go2
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 03:06:00 -
[30] - Quote
You may wish to also clarify that this does not include the new player systems. We don't need people bumping the newbro's.
|
|
Heywood Djiblomi
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 03:07:00 -
[31] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part).
One minor problem: NPC corp. I can't wardec anyone.
...nor can someone in an NPC corp be wardecced. But I know you know that already... |
Melody Amatin
was here.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 04:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
Go2 wrote:You may wish to also clarify that this does not include the new player systems. We don't need people bumping the newbro's.
I'm not sure why that would be necessary. I don't think anyone was arguing that bumping in rookie systems was valid and the GMs already have a stern blanket policy to cover this; don't screw with people in the newbie systems. |
Princess Saskia
Hyperfleet Industries
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 11:36:00 -
[33] - Quote
I personally don't understand why people would be petitioning such nonsense. There are ways for avoid this type of tactic being used on you.
An Example: The Stabber in question has a run up on you... You move so that he is no longer going to hit you. Problem solved.
/P |
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
187
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 11:49:00 -
[34] - Quote
How about bringing mining exhumer and barge HP's down to a sensible level? That way we can forget about this stupid bumping and go back to sucide ganking miners.
Each patch makes this game more like WOW in space but don't worry CCP every step you take away from PVP allows room for another game to fill the void. I hope you are happy when you are left with only high sec bears as they provide zero to the community, fan fest, 3rd party, video content, Dust 315 content. You pandered to the scrubs of eve with the HP buff and it'll catch up with you when the PVP comunity protests at your up coming hauler buff and high sec greif nerf.
CCP this will bite you in the ass real soon, don't even think it's not going to.
Kugutsumen - My signature insures that my post is always read by an ISD or Dev, does yours? |
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
187
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 11:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
Princess Saskia wrote:I personally don't understand why people would be petitioning such nonsense. There are ways for avoid this type of tactic being used on you.
An Example: The Stabber in question has a run up on you... You move so that he is no longer going to hit you. Problem solved.
/P
Their bots are not that sophisticated. Kugutsumen - My signature insures that my post is always read by an ISD or Dev, does yours? |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
440
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 12:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
Agent Trask wrote:Sulzer Wartzilla wrote: On the surface of it, this seems reasonable, but what if said target is in an NPC corp?
Exactly. Most of our targets for Code Compliance are miners in NPC corps to prevent wardecs. We do not chase them once they have left the belts we are Role-Playing in. We don't use locator agents to hound them. We just want them to pay our fee, or stop mining in the area we are patrolling. This area will often comprise two or three ice belt systems we are currently monitoring.
Says the NPC Corp member.
(Not that i agree with hiding in NPC Corp But....) Seriously, if you are going to complain about miners avoiding wardecs by being in NPC corps, you could at least man-up and post with your main.
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Saints Amongst Sinners
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 13:28:00 -
[37] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:How about bringing mining exhumer and barge HP's down to a sensible level? That way we can forget about this stupid bumping and go back to sucide ganking miners.
Rubbish, they are now at a sensible level, sure you cannot easily kill a tanked Skiff / Procurer but how many people actually do fit for tank rather than yield, there are many people out there with Hulks and Mackinaws that are fitted for yield and you can kill them easily, in fact the Hulks are the same as before, easy to kill, go and have a look at those that have been ganked and see the truth in that by looking at the fittings, many have no tanks, yet your whining about it like people whining about bumping, HTFUI!
I am actually mining now, I stopped before because I was sick and tired of mining in a ship with the tank of a wet paper bag, even if I tanked it as much as I could, now I mine ice in a Skiff and ore in a Mackinaw and I fit for tank, if you get a kill on me, you will have to work for it! |
Ildryn
The Inf1dels
77
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 13:35:00 -
[38] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:You are mistaken. If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part).
So when is this patch being released? The patch that actively kicks the miner into a player corp that can be war decced? Is this patch going to effect all types of NPC corp people? Or just the one you want to war dec? Would i be able to war dec someone that does missions as well?
|
Keisha Mei Ash
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 14:22:00 -
[39] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:How about bringing mining exhumer and barge HP's down to a sensible level? That way we can forget about this stupid bumping and go back to sucide ganking miners.
Each patch makes this game more like WOW in space but don't worry CCP every step you take away from PVP allows room for another game to fill the void. I hope you are happy when you are left with only high sec bears as they provide zero to the community, fan fest, 3rd party, video content, Dust 315 content. You pandered to the scrubs of eve with the HP buff and it'll catch up with you when the PVP comunity protests at your up coming hauler buff and high sec greif nerf.
CCP this will bite you in the ass real soon, don't even think it's not going to.
I think all of null and low should declare peace for 1 month this summer and declare an unholy war against all of high sec. Huge ganking partys targetting infamous 1+ year pluss npc corp chars, massive market manipulations, Huge PLEX crashes/ Spikes, swamp all hi sec indy slots with 3 month q's. Sweet! A butthurt ganker! Thanks man, you just made my morning.
It's okay, now you actually have to WORK to kill people that don't want to fight back. |
Kimo Khan
53
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 14:29:00 -
[40] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Princess Saskia wrote:I personally don't understand why people would be petitioning such nonsense. There are ways for avoid this type of tactic being used on you.
An Example: The Stabber in question has a run up on you... You move so that he is no longer going to hit you. Problem solved.
/P Their bots are not that sophisticated.
True bots cannot do anything, but neither can a 100mps barge. I got bumped from a gate while trying to make a run for it . Even while trying got bumped 30km from the gate. It was a rather nice bump and the attackers earned a nice kill, but to say that you can always avoid this is utter non-sense.
I don't have a problem with bumping. I have a problem with bumpers used in conjunction with a gank event, them selves not being flagged for assisting the crime. This does not mean flag all bumpers, only the ones who bumped within 10 seconds of a gank being committed against said bumpee. If I can petition for the kill right on said bumper, then that works for me.
Edit: My whole complaint is not being able to take revenge personally on the bumper without being concorded. |
|
StonerPhReaK
Ashfell Celestial Equilibrium POD-SQUAD
102
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 14:45:00 -
[41] - Quote
I support miner bumping when it is done in the form of afk mining and botters and even as a way to secure belts for alliance mineral goals. But NPC "agents" ruin the emergent gameplay in the same way npc miners do. The miners who drop corp due to wardecs are not real miners, And agents conducting operations from npc corps arent real agents. You may as well both be npc's and treated as such. Cannon Fodder. Signature Removal in Progress, Estimated time of completion? Neva |
Bing Bangboom
Ded End Damage Inc. United Sytems Against Terrorist Opperations
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 16:24:00 -
[42] - Quote
Perhaps its clear to everyone but me but what exactly does this announcement settle?
Someone correct my paraphrasing of the definitive decision on bumping...
A player may bump another player as much as he wants, for emergent gameplay or pvp reasons, as long as he doesn't cross the line into harassment. An example of harassment given is to follow another player to another place, somewhere more than a little distance, and bump them again. The word "follow" is unclearly defined but is open to CCP interpretation on a case by case basis. Also, it is definitely against the rules to claim in your bio that CCP endorses bumping.
Forgive me if I think this resolves nothing. Here is the scenario based on a true event.
I fly into Gosalav and find the ice field rife with bot aspirants (sorry, Whitehound). I bump several, repeatedly, because they are rebel miners and refuse to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct (www.minerbumping.com). I send them all the standard email explaining to them what they must do to be Code compliant. A few bother to respond, some telling me to grow up, others telling me they have petitioned me for "harassment", and some others just telling me they won't pay.
Based on their responses some miners get my special attention and get bumped more... a lot more. All they have to do to get me to stop is pay the 10,000,000 ISK mining fee and agree to follow The Code. Most do not. Some even attempt a gank using alts or friends. After ALL fails, they leave system. I bump a few more, the miners clear out and Gosalav is subdued with no one mining in the ice except Code compliant miners.
So, I move a few jumps to Fabum. And find another ice belt full of afking and botting miners. Now, under the new "ruling" I can bump any of these miners EXCEPT those who have fled here from Gosalav. If I bump them I may be subject to an interpretation of this policy as harassing the miner. I didn't go looking for them, I moved on because I had "won" in Gosalav. But, even from the miners perspective, how can anyone know why I found them again? So the miner thinks, "Bing bumped me, I moved, Bing bumped me again, ah hah! harassment! PETITION TIME!"
So now some GM has to decide whether I am, in fact, harassing a miner by bumping him. Nothing solved.
Highsec is worth fighting for.
Bing Bangboom Agent of the New Order of Highsec Belligerent Undesirable |
Keisha Mei Ash
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 16:58:00 -
[43] - Quote
Yep, so yet again, you have to work harder, and you cannot continually bump players who want nothing to do with the New Order. I really don't understand why you can't process this in your mind. |
Bing Bangboom
Ded End Damage Inc. United Sytems Against Terrorist Opperations
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 17:07:00 -
[44] - Quote
Keisha Mei Ash wrote:Yep, so yet again, you have to work harder, and you cannot continually bump players who want nothing to do with the New Order. I really don't understand why you can't process this in your mind.
Proving my point. Miners STILL think we can't bump them into submission.
BBB |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Saints Amongst Sinners
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 18:39:00 -
[45] - Quote
Bing Bangboom wrote:Keisha Mei Ash wrote:Yep, so yet again, you have to work harder, and you cannot continually bump players who want nothing to do with the New Order. I really don't understand why you can't process this in your mind. Proving my point. Miners STILL think we can't bump them into submission. BBB
You can have a major impact on those that afk mine for plex, but if you bump me, I would just sit there and laugh wondering how far you can bump me out and cheering you on while trying to make it hard for you, so no you cannot bump people like me into submission, because not everyone who mines does so in yield fitted ships and are afk.
Griefing and harrassment is a fine line, If you had gone there after everyone had moved off then they would not see it as harrassment, but if one or two moved and you did not force everyone out and started on them two again in a new location then you might find yourself in trouble, you have a campaign to force your code on defined systems, stick to that and your likely to be safe.
Do you only operate in Gallente space by the way?
In terms of the decision, a common sense decision by CCP, I for one want no mechanisms around bumping, the griefing community would have a field day with manipulating such a mechanism, personally if some afk miners get bumped away what the hell do I care... |
unidenify
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 19:17:00 -
[46] - Quote
I read and want to know one thing.
according to what GM state. person can't bump other person forever when other person make effort to stay away from him by jump to other system, etc. But what about those corp whom goal is to bump miner. would corp get punishment for this action? |
Bing Bangboom
Ded End Damage Inc. United Sytems Against Terrorist Opperations
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 19:33:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Bing Bangboom wrote:Keisha Mei Ash wrote:Yep, so yet again, you have to work harder, and you cannot continually bump players who want nothing to do with the New Order. I really don't understand why you can't process this in your mind. Proving my point. Miners STILL think we can't bump them into submission. BBB You can have a major impact on those that afk mine for plex, but if you bump me, I would just sit there and laugh wondering how far you can bump me out and cheering you on while trying to make it hard for you, so no you cannot bump people like me into submission, because not everyone who mines does so in yield fitted ships and are afk. Griefing and harrassment is a fine line, If you had gone there after everyone had moved off then they would not see it as harrassment, but if one or two moved and you did not force everyone out and started on them two again in a new location then you might find yourself in trouble, you have a campaign to force your code on defined systems, stick to that and your likely to be safe. Do you only operate in Gallente space by the way?
Writing things out still leaves room for mistaken intent I guess. What I mean is she clearly thinks we aren't allowed to TRY to bump them into submission.
Now, as far as the fine line, this is my point. If I space lawyer the announcement I CAN follow them from Gosalav to Fabum because its two jumps. GM Karidor said it had to be more than one or two jumps. He also said the miner needed to make some effort to avoid being found again such as making locating agents required. Or not. Its all very grey.
As far as defined systems, we DO do that. The New Order of Highsec clearly states that we are only interested in systems with security status of .5 to 1.0. This is how we define where we operate and where we expect miners to follow our Code. So, the miner COULD move to lowsec or null and avoid us. Inconvenient maybe but effective. Even more effective is buying a mining permit and following The Code.
In any case, I expect the miners we bump will still continue to petition us and will use this announcement as authority to call us harassers. I still find it rediculous that in a game famous for destroying peoples ships, stations and even organizations that bumping into someone is considered over the line. |
Bantara
Corp 54 Curatores Veritatis Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 20:51:00 -
[48] - Quote
Bing Bangboom wrote:Now, as far as the fine line, this is my point. If I space lawyer the announcement I CAN follow them from Gosalav to Fabum because its two jumps. GM Karidor said it had to be more than one or two jumps. He also said the miner needed to make some effort to avoid being found again such as making locating agents required. Or not. Its all very grey. Dang, does that mean you'll have to use good judgement, common sense, and a sense of what might cross the line into harassment?? Yikes....
|
Bing Bangboom
Ded End Damage Inc. United Sytems Against Terrorist Opperations
129
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
Bantara wrote: Dang, does that mean you'll have to use good judgement, common sense, and a sense of what might cross the line into harassment?? Yikes....
So the answer is sometimes bumping is harassment and sometimes its not...
I guess we have SOME guidelines now. I can bump someone morning, noon and night, as long as its in the same system or within a couple jumps. And if I feel like I'm getting too close to the edge on the harassment I can just call in a Knights fleet to gank their 200 million ISK Mack and pod them without being petitionable.
I can work within those boundaries.
I know CCP had a tough time trying to find the right balance on this. The final decision is pretty generous to us bumpers. I just know from months now of working with the miners that any sliver of doubt will be 100% proof to them and the complaints and petitions and forum threads will continue.
I would have preferred them to stop at "CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit." and not put the "However" and opened it all back up again.
BBB |
Tark en Chalune
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
14
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 23:01:00 -
[50] - Quote
Jint Hikaru wrote:
Says the NPC Corp member.
(Not that i agree with hiding in NPC Corp But....) Seriously, if you are going to complain about miners avoiding wardecs by being in NPC corps, you could at least man-up and post with your main.
Feel better now?
As long as miners continue to hide in NPC corps to avoid PvP while AFK mining and botting, I will continue to use my Ganking alt, in an NPC corp, Agent Trask, to blow them to hell.
I will also continue to role play this alt as a thug who will use deadly force to enforce an unwanted code on these AFK players because doing so is hilarious, and I have every right to role play in EvE Online, even if some scrubby bot miners get asploded in the process.
If this offends you, I am waiting for you in wormhole space. No wardec required.
Hope this helps, have a nice day. |
|
Melody Amatin
was here.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 04:46:00 -
[51] - Quote
Bing Bangboom wrote: So, I move a few jumps to Fabum. And find another ice belt full of afking and botting miners. Now, under the new "ruling" I can bump any of these miners EXCEPT those who have fled here from Gosalav. If I bump them I may be subject to an interpretation of this policy as harassing the miner. I didn't go looking for them, I moved on because I had "won" in Gosalav. But, even from the miners perspective, how can anyone know why I found them again? So the miner thinks, "Bing bumped me, I moved, Bing bumped me again, ah hah! harassment! PETITION TIME!"
This clarification (from page 1 - this post) pretty clearly states that moving a few jumps away is NOT sufficient on the part of the miner to "evade" you and you would not be harassing them if you bumped them again in your scenario (emphasis mine):
"While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents)." |
Keisha Mei Ash
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 07:52:00 -
[52] - Quote
Tark en Chalune wrote:Jint Hikaru wrote:
Says the NPC Corp member.
(Not that i agree with hiding in NPC Corp But....) Seriously, if you are going to complain about miners avoiding wardecs by being in NPC corps, you could at least man-up and post with your main.
Feel better now? As long as miners continue to hide in NPC corps to avoid PvP while AFK mining and botting, I will continue to use my Ganking alt, in an NPC corp, Agent Trask, to blow them to hell. I will also continue to role play this alt as a thug who will use deadly force to enforce an unwanted code on these AFK players because doing so is hilarious, and I have every right to role play in EvE Online, even if some scrubby bot miners get asploded in the process. If this offends you, I am waiting for you in wormhole space. No wardec required. Hope this helps, have a nice day. Hot damn, Jint, you got spanked. |
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
441
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 14:36:00 -
[53] - Quote
Guess I did.
However he is still complaining about a tactic his enemies use, while using the same tactic. Basically claiming its ok for him to do so because they are, while complaining about it on the forums.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in that.
But if he is juts targeting AFK Miners.. then get to it. Good Hunting!
Anyway, we are getting close to derailing this thread......
Back to Bumping.... GO....
Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
800
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:12:00 -
[54] - Quote
Bantara wrote:Bing Bangboom wrote:Now, as far as the fine line, this is my point. If I space lawyer the announcement I CAN follow them from Gosalav to Fabum because its two jumps. GM Karidor said it had to be more than one or two jumps. He also said the miner needed to make some effort to avoid being found again such as making locating agents required. Or not. Its all very grey. Dang, does that mean you'll have to use good judgement, common sense, and a sense of what might cross the line into harassment?? Yikes.... What happens if the GMs who deal with the petition take a slightly different meaning from Karidor's words? I mean, if we're leaving it up to anyone's interpretation of 'harassment', it could be [y]anything[/i].
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
Sara XIII
The Carnifex Corp
152
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:25:00 -
[55] - Quote
This is a great decision. Well done CCP.
In response James 315 has issued a "Call to Bump" for this Sunday! Pick a side, fit an appropriate ship, and come join us in Brapelille at 21:00 EvE time.
please visit www.minerbumping.com for details. Between Ignorance and Wisdom |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Persona Non Gratis
424
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:26:00 -
[56] - Quote
It will be interesting to see what spin the "rebellion" puts on this news. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
800
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:30:00 -
[57] - Quote
admiral root wrote:It will be interesting to see what spin the "rebellion" puts on this news. Which one? I think Anslo has given up on his blog - he's managed to put out a total of three or four posts this whole month, none of which contained any content at all.
The Tolero Guard didn't last any longer than Jake Salvator himself did, and this one never even edited the default WordPress post.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Persona Non Gratis
424
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:36:00 -
[58] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:admiral root wrote:It will be interesting to see what spin the "rebellion" puts on this news. Which one? I think Anslo has given up on his blog - he's managed to put out a total of three or four posts this whole month, none of which contained any content at all. The Tolero Guard didn't last any longer than Jake Salvator himself did, and this one never even edited the default WordPress post.
I don't think anyone has seriously contended the throne of Anslo so far. Not even this guy, although it's hard to rise to the top and maintain your sekrit identity.
Still, maybe this will galvanise the opposition into taking decisive action against us, thus bringing victory to the New Order even sooner. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Mike Adoulin
Trans-Aerospace Industries
159
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:39:00 -
[59] - Quote
Sara XIII wrote:This is a great decision. Well done CCP. In response James 315 has issued a "Call to Bump" for this Sunday! Pick a side, fit an appropriate ship, and come join us in Brapelille at 21:00 EvE time. please visit www.minerbumping.com for details.
You have my 100mn AB fitted Talos.
*salutes*
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
800
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
admiral root wrote:I don't think anyone has seriously contended the throne of Anslo so far. Not even this guy, although it's hard to rise to the top and maintain your sekrit identity. Still, maybe this will galvanise the opposition into taking decisive action against us, thus bringing victory to the New Order even sooner. That one is new to me. Thanks for the link.
Is he actually doing anything, or just complaining about people shooting his barge?
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
|
Nerath Naaris
Pink Winged Unicorns for Peace Love and Anarchy
354
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 23:42:00 -
[61] - Quote
A very sensible decision, some faith in humanity has been restored. Forum-unbanned since 2011.10.20.
Mangala Solaris for CSM 8 |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
519
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 02:15:00 -
[62] - Quote
The Legend of the VCBee will live on through younger generations: http://eveinfo.net/wiki/ind~6531.htm#Orvolle_Patrol (before my time) |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1691
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 03:30:00 -
[63] - Quote
50,000 ISK? That's a princely sum!
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Capt Starfox
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
257
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 07:26:00 -
[64] - Quote
Great job CCP! Emergent gameplay wins again! ..I mean it is afterall what this game is about. Thank you and supported +1 |
Alana Charen-Teng
Tash-Murkon Amalgamated Security
238
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 07:59:00 -
[65] - Quote
surrender all to you make mine i approve not sentiment please give 50,000 isk please to be sending money or for never getting away under pain of ancestors
I don't know where VCBee 205 learned to talk like that, but I think it's an instant winner! |
LizAlec
Odd Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 11:22:00 -
[66] - Quote
Quote: So now some GM has to decide whether I am, in fact, harassing a miner by bumping him. Nothing solved.
I think this would be obvious. In the scenario given, the bumping of those that did not pay the ransom until they leave the belt would be ok. If you follow them to another system once you have cleared the current system and are clearly applying a tactic against ALL ice miners and including them in that, that would be ok. If you persistantly follow the same pilot system after system, griefing the same guy/gal and ignoring others, then that would be seen as harassment.
|
Lucky Jaynara
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 11:24:00 -
[67] - Quote
So repeated bumping could now be harassment, but the New Order ganks too these days. Is repeated ganking the same thing?
|
Aracimia Wolfe
Fade To Darkness
162
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 12:43:00 -
[68] - Quote
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:surrender all to you make mine i approve not sentiment please give 50,000 isk please to be sending money or for never getting away under pain of ancestors I don't know where VCBee 205 learned to talk like that, but I think it's an instant winner!
I aspire to that level of awesome.
Lucky Jaynara wrote:So repeated bumping could now be harassment, but the New Order ganks too these days. Is repeated ganking the same thing?
Again it would depend on the reasoning, it's still open to the same level of interpretation, the only difference being this time there is a consequence ie: the loss of the ganking ship
I like my coffee like I like my men. In a plastic cup http://aracimia.blogspot.co.uk/ |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2207
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 01:03:00 -
[69] - Quote
LizAlec wrote:Quote: So now some GM has to decide whether I am, in fact, harassing a miner by bumping him. Nothing solved.
I think this would be obvious. In the scenario given, the bumping of those that did not pay the ransom until they leave the belt would be ok. If you follow them to another system once you have cleared the current system and are clearly applying a tactic against ALL ice miners and including them in that, that would be ok. If you persistantly follow the same pilot system after system, griefing the same guy/gal and ignoring others, then that would be seen as harassment.
This covers it pretty well. I'll probably-ábe banned for this |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2207
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 01:05:00 -
[70] - Quote
Anslo must be frothing at the mouth right now, while simultaneously looking for a way to spin this. I'll probably-ábe banned for this |
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
807
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 13:38:00 -
[71] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Anslo must be frothing at the mouth right now, while simultaneously looking for a way to spin this. Assuming he's even active enough to have noticed it.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Persona Non Gratis
431
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 16:22:00 -
[72] - Quote
He's definitely active - for some reason he fears me enough to delete a simple comment I posted on his ineffective blog. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Kadari Rhann
Degari Techical
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 02:51:00 -
[73] - Quote
So, while the wanna be extortionists pat each other on the back and say "good game" to CCP for stopping bumping, what is CCP going to do to people that gank then tell the victim that this was "CCP approved" as NEW ORDER throw-away toon Botslayer Goblin did. This is from his "bio":
Knight of the New Order Enforcing The Code in the name of the Saviour of Highsec, James 315. http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html
The Order is a CCP sanctioned movement focused on botting and AFK leeching: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-was-i-ganked-while-mining.html
Active mining in a team is much more fun than botting!
Punishable offenses under the Code: - failing to possess a New Order Mining Permit - Bot or AFK mining - foul language in Local - disrespecting Order Agents or Knights, or interfering with their Duties
Offending miners will be bumped & ganked until they comply, or cease mining.
Grats CCP. You are now officially "sanctioning" ganking. |
Alana Charen-Teng
Tash-Murkon Amalgamated Security
241
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 04:33:00 -
[74] - Quote
Kadari Rhann wrote:So, while the wanna be extortionists pat each other on the back and say "good game" to CCP for stopping bumping, what is CCP going to do to people that gank then tell the victim that this was "CCP approved" as NEW ORDER throw-away toon Botslayer Goblin did. This is from his "bio": Knight of the New Order Enforcing The Code in the name of the Saviour of Highsec, James 315. http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.htmlThe Order is a CCP sanctioned movement focused on botting and AFK leeching: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-was-i-ganked-while-mining.htmlActive mining in a team is much more fun than botting! Punishable offenses under the Code: - failing to possess a New Order Mining Permit - Bot or AFK mining - foul language in Local - disrespecting Order Agents or Knights, or interfering with their Duties Offending miners will be bumped & ganked until they comply, or cease mining. Grats CCP. You are now officially "sanctioning" ganking. Botslayer Goblin will need to change his Bio so that it no longer claims CCP is 'sanctioning' the activity. It should say that CCP confirms that such activities are legitimate gameplay,and does not violate any rules.
That said, Botslayer Goblin is not a 'throw-away' character. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2209
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 08:16:00 -
[75] - Quote
Kadari Rhann wrote:So, while the wanna be extortionists pat each other on the back and say "good game" to CCP for stopping bumping, what is CCP going to do to people that gank then tell the victim that this was "CCP approved" as NEW ORDER throw-away toon Botslayer Goblin did. This is from his "bio": Knight of the New Order Enforcing The Code in the name of the Saviour of Highsec, James 315. http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.htmlThe Order is a CCP sanctioned movement focused on botting and AFK leeching: http://greedygoblin.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-was-i-ganked-while-mining.htmlActive mining in a team is much more fun than botting! Punishable offenses under the Code: - failing to possess a New Order Mining Permit - Bot or AFK mining - foul language in Local - disrespecting Order Agents or Knights, or interfering with their Duties Offending miners will be bumped & ganked until they comply, or cease mining. Grats CCP. You are now officially "sanctioning" ganking.
No, they're officially sanctioning playing the game with in the rules as they always have. I'll probably-ábe banned for this |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:31:00 -
[76] - Quote
Alana Charen-Teng wrote: Botslayer Goblin will need to change his Bio so that it no longer claims CCP is 'sanctioning' the activity. It should say that CCP confirms that such activities are legitimate gameplay,and does not violate any rules.
The bit that stood out to me from that bio was the mention of punishment and bot. I think player organisations shouldnGÇÖt be encouraged to suggest or imply that they are able to take action against players who violate the rules of the game. Violations of rules should only be handled through the appropriate official channels, it wouldnGÇÖt seem unreasonable if that was made clear. Ganking a ship flown by a bot affects the character and you could argue that depriving a char of isk is punishment but in the case of botting it is the account holder and not the char that requires punishment, which cannot be achieved by player interaction.
Also since the bots are likely based on subsumption or similar basic logic they would leave a pattern but the clarity of the pattern would be degraded the more the bot was interacted with making it harder to spot in any human or automated analysis of behaviour. At the worst case it encourages the development of more sophisticated AIGÇÖs which wouldnGÇÖt help, the more simplistic they are the better as that leaves the window open for mass detection and mass banning. Interfering with them seems to only be self defeating in the longer term.
There is also the more human issue that if person thinks someone else is doing something for them then they tend not to do it themselves, that in effect means that in the systems where bumpers operate the player could be less inclined to report a suspicious char since someone else is yapping away in local professing that they are already doing something about it. The reality appears to be that anything but the reporting of suspected bots with a collection of sensible observations is the goal of the organisation; it would be somewhat of a dead end activity if it actually did so. As well as that there is the curious method of detection that is asking in local if someone is there as if a response or not demonstrates the presence of a human. Given the level of complexity of the questioning even the more basic chat bots available would be able to survive it, certainly for long enough that the bot master could intervene. Encouraging more advanced bots is still not a good idea even in this paragraph.
A risk exists of introducing a demand for answer phone style chat bots for the casual miner that would be all but impossible to detect but allow miners to afk without interference. Demand is the first step towards supply. I might fire up the retriever and cut and paste between local and Jabberwacky as an experiment, although they may guess if I have to ask it GÇ£Do you have a permit?GÇ¥ and it responds GÇ£I have a permit to carry concealed Toddlers.GÇ¥ as it just did.
Really it would seem more accurate that the bio mentioned that the organisation serves as a long term bot development, security, concealment and expansion task force rather than suggesting that it provides a punishment for botters. It seems a better idea to leave bots to CCP and the player population rather than attempt uncoordinated overt actions that may well have undesirable consequences.
As far as the mechanic of one ship bouncing off another I donGÇÖt see that is an issue, perhaps irritating at times but it doesnGÇÖt seem fundamentally wrong. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
827
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:36:00 -
[77] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:Violations of rules should only be handled through the appropriate official channels, it wouldnGÇÖt seem unreasonable if that was made clear. Why? Fair enough that all violations of rules should be reported to CCP, but why would CCP ever make it clear that you shouldn't suicide gank someone if they're botting?
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 18:54:00 -
[78] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Pap Uhotih wrote:Violations of rules should only be handled through the appropriate official channels, it wouldnGÇÖt seem unreasonable if that was made clear. Why? Fair enough that all violations of rules should be reported to CCP, but why would CCP ever make it clear that you shouldn't suicide gank someone if they're botting?
I havenGÇÖt said anything of kind, CCP can ban accounts where as player organisations, no matter how well marketed, have no ability to do so. Gank them, call them rude names or whatever turns you on but it is all pointless if they are not reported to CCP. It is an account issue rather than a character one. I do think that there is a lack of awareness that there is a bot reporting system at all, or how to use it effectively, it wouldnGÇÖt hurt if it were given some mention. ItGÇÖs one of the things that miner bumping does disrupt, the casual miners are in the best position to spot a bot and report it effectively, flying in and blowing everything up doesnGÇÖt have the same long term effect but there is nothing to say you cant.
|
Alana Charen-Teng
Tash-Murkon Amalgamated Security
243
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 21:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:Ganking a ship flown by a bot affects the character and you could argue that depriving a char of isk is punishment but in the case of botting it is the account holder and not the char that requires punishment, which cannot be achieved by player interaction. I agree that the account holder (as opposed to the in-game character) should be punished. I believe that depriving a character of in-game assets, through in-game mechanics, is a setback that will be felt by the account holder. Afterall, the goal of botting is to accumulate in-game assets. Whether the setback is significant enough to stop his/her botting is another matter, and open for discussion.
Pap Uhotih wrote:Also since the bots are likely based on subsumption or similar basic logic they would leave a pattern but the clarity of the pattern would be degraded the more the bot was interacted with making it harder to spot in any human or automated analysis of behaviour. In my personal experience, the behaviors that typify a bot become more obvious when the bot is subjected to a greater range of interactions. The range of possible responses they may take is far smaller than that of a human, and this can become glaringly obvious in certain situations - situations that the bot's coding did not account for. When the bot is not interacted with, they appear as uncommunicative human-controlled characters who are choosing to play alone, and there is almost nothing to differentiate the two.
Pap Uhotih wrote:At the worst case it encourages the development of more sophisticated AIGÇÖs which wouldnGÇÖt help, the more simplistic they are the better as that leaves the window open for mass detection and mass banning. Interfering with them seems to only be self defeating in the longer term. There will always be an 'arms race' between those who try to identify botting, and those who try to evade such identification. The same is true of malicious software development.
Pap Uhotih wrote:Really it would seem more accurate that the bio mentioned that the organisation serves as a long term bot development, security, concealment and expansion task force rather than suggesting that it provides a punishment for botters. It seems a better idea to leave bots to CCP and the player population rather than attempt uncoordinated overt actions that may well have undesirable consequences. You may misunderstand the goals of the organization in question, as it was never about the detection and punishment of bots or botters. Everyone in this game is already against botting (with the exception of the botters), so there would be little purpose in forming an organization to promote an anti-botting position. |
G'monk
Naviar INC.
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 04:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
With this ruling, the act of bumping is now a "emerging game mechanic", That is fair, My question is, the act of charging to not use this emerging game mechanic on a person, extorsion by definition, is this not a illegal activity? And the fact that they charge to not bump you, do this not show intent is to extort fees from miners? This would be harassment by definition. the idea that I will bother you until you move away unless you pay me. If of course they owned the sector, then their ability to define what ever fees they would like would be without question. Is CCP now indicating that they are ceeding the ability of a corp to OWN or control the commerce in a high-sec system? |
|
Agent Trask
Aliastra Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 05:42:00 -
[81] - Quote
G'monk wrote: ... My question is, the act of charging to not use this emerging game mechanic on a person, extorsion by definition, is this not a illegal activity? ...
Ransoming ships has always been a staple activity in EvE Online.
"Extorsion" is behavior that is within the EULA, and perfectly legal for players to engage in.
Get used to it.
Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 20:21:00 -
[82] - Quote
Sorry, this seems to be longer than I thought it was
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:I believe that depriving a character of in-game assets, through in-game mechanics, is a setback that will be felt by the account holder. Afterall, the goal of botting is to accumulate in-game assets. Whether the setback is significant enough to stop his/her botting is another matter, and open for discussion. I agree that it would be a setback of some sort but, if youGÇÖll excuse me rambling for a while, I think the frequency that an individual could be targeted is so low that as a percentage the impact on an individual miner would be in low single figures if not trapped behind a decimal point. My ball park calculations would make the ganking effect on me about <0.4% of my wealth but that is only so high because I havenGÇÖt been playing for ever, going for maximum isk per hour and because IGÇÖm awful at following my own rules (a problem a bot would not have). I guess only CCP can run the proper numbers on it but my (very) rough scribbling suggest that given a moderately sensible bot master and bot vs a reasonable suicide ganking operation then the impact on the bot would probably average around 100k a day (but the bot could mine more than 100m a day without having to operate for excessive periods on time). That figure is of course being very generous since it would not be complex for a bot to dock up if a gank capable ship entered a belt. That simple behaviour would give a bot almost total immunity from the operation and it would seem to be an obvious requirement if you were designing a bot - although that is not the same as saying that all bots have that behaviour.
So in my opinion entering a belt in a gank capable ship is only going to allow you to be effective against poorly designed bots. A half decent bot should spot the threat quicker than a human could, it would simply avoid any scrutiny, where as ships that are not a threat would be able to get much closer.
That is not to say that ganking is wrong or shouldnGÇÖt happen, if people enjoy doing it then that should really be the reason that they do it and good luck to them. I guess the inescapable reality is that Eve wouldnGÇÖt last very long if a player losing a ship had any long term impact on them.
Alana Charen-Teng wrote: In my personal experience, the behaviors that typify a bot become more obvious when the bot is subjected to a greater range of interactions. The range of possible responses they may take is far smaller than that of a human, and this can become glaringly obvious in certain situations - situations that the bot's coding did not account for. When the bot is not interacted with, they appear as uncommunicative human-controlled characters who are choosing to play alone, and there is almost nothing to differentiate the two.
Whilst, as you say, perfectly possible it is however potentially a lesson that anthropology already learnt from and gave a clever name that must for now remain hidden inside the dictionary because I canGÇÖt remember what it is. Essentially it is prudent to consider the value of the observation if the fact of observing is having an effect on the observed.
Engineering a situation may reveal a bot however it seems a lot easier to simply watch them. Playing out a predictable pattern endlessly is not something a human is good at. I think it worth considering that if all behaviour is a single set then bot and human exist as subsets and have an area of intersection, it must be more useful to be certain that an approach doesnGÇÖt reveal behaviour that is shared GÇô stubbornness is a good example as a bot and a human will be quite adept at implementing it but that can easily be confused with (strict) repetition which only the bot will manage.
Initiating multiple behaviours at once would seem to add unnecessary noise, perhaps it would snag something simple but it may vindicate something more complex. Keeping things as simple as possible and noticing the detail will reveal most aiGÇÖs for what they are, humans are great at recognising patterns but are generally terrible at sifting through complexity. Interaction may still be necessary as part of a process but deploying it early may simply alert the suspect to what you are up to.
Alana Charen-Teng wrote: There will always be an 'arms race' between those who try to identify botting, and those who try to evade such identification. The same is true of malicious software development. I agree that it is an inevitable arms race but the song and dance made about where exactly bumpers are likely to be seems to provide an unnecessary tool. The service is exactly the sort of thing an ai developer would be thrilled to have on tap, they should consider being slightly less predictable. But as ever it is up to people to chose what they want to do, there is no way of forcing an organisation to act in a certain way and there is no need for that to change.
Alana Charen-Teng wrote: You may misunderstand the goals of the organization in question, as it was never about the detection and punishment of bots or botters. I would agree that the organisation started off with a defined set of goals but that was some time ago. Its operatives (that I have come across so far) do openly claim to be targeting bots and doing the world a favour by doing so (part of the GÇÿserviceGÇÖ that they are providing), similar things can also be read in bioGÇÖs, such as the one quoted earlier in the thread. So while the website and marketing may say one thing the operatives are doing and saying something else and it is these people on the ground that is defining the organisations goals in the here and now. My guess would be that that is due to rapid expansion with too little control leading to inevitable tail wagging dog syndrome. At some point in the future that will inevitably have to be addressed but they seem quite distracted for the moment.
|
Bing Bangboom
Ded End Damage Inc. United Sytems Against Terrorist Opperations
135
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 21:25:00 -
[83] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote: So while the website and marketing may say one thing the operatives are doing and saying something else and it is these people on the ground that is defining the organisations goals in the here and now.
The goal of the New Order is and always has been to ensure that ALL highsec miners comply with the New Halaima Code of Conduct. The Code has always included a no botting clause as one of its several requirements. To say that we have drifted off message because we talk about bots is as meaninless as saying a policeman operating a speed trap has stopped enforcing the no running a red light law.
We can discuss any of the clauses we choose. The most often broken ones are not having a permit and mining afk. Mining afk is defined as bot aspirant behavior so we check for it. Thus we ask non permit holding miners to reply to our questions in local. Those that don't are bots or bot aspirants. Those that do are told to buy a permit. If they don't buy one, they are rebel miners and thus, bot aspirants.
For some miner to say, either in forum or local, "I'm not a bot" or even "I don't afk mine" (right) and then accuse us of not following The Code is being deliberately obtuse or reflects bad reading comprehension. They have to 1) buy a permit, 2) not bot, 3) not afk, 4) not mine excessively, 5) not use profanity in local, 6) the rest of it to be in compliance with The Code and not get bumped or ganked. The whole Code... not just not botting.
Each Agent has his own style and choice of delivery on confronting the miners. Some emphasize different things they are looking for. But all are enforcing the same Code. It's not changing. It's right there at www.minerbumping.com where it always has been. ALL miners must be in compliance.
Or bump.
315 4 CSM8
Highsec is worth fighting for.
Bing Bangboom Agent of the New Order of Highsec Belligerent Undesirable |
Xiphos Volund
ScionTech Services
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 03:18:00 -
[84] - Quote
Bing Bangboom wrote: I still find it rediculous that in a game famous for destroying peoples ships, stations and even organizations that bumping into someone is considered over the line.
This about sums up the whole discussion really... |
Mac James
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 07:02:00 -
[85] - Quote
I assume what most people disagree with is the fact that its a use of a movement mechanic that possess no danger to the person doing it.
ATM any other form of pvp attacking, destroying, looting others comes with a risk/reward while high sec bumping appears to be a feature that CCP never anticipated to be used as such and has no risk while allowing them to bump without some type of risk to the behavior.
Hence why the whole if you follow someone and bump them repeatably apparently that's griefing but if you do it in one field its not? That's a ruling that seems pretty self contradictory as It's griefing if you follow someone but its not if they stick around so it is and it isn't? I personally don't get it but hey if you try and understand EVE your wasting your time Internet Spaceships being super serious business to some people. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
835
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 09:41:00 -
[86] - Quote
Mac James wrote:I assume what most people disagree with is the fact that its a use of a movement mechanic that possess no danger to the person doing it. ATM any other form of pvp attacking, destroying, looting others comes with a risk/reward while high sec bumping appears to be a feature that CCP never anticipated to be used as such and has no risk while allowing them to bump without some type of risk to the behavior. Hence why the whole if you follow someone and bump them repeatably apparently that's griefing but if you do it in one field its not? That's a ruling that seems pretty self contradictory as It's griefing if you follow someone but its not if they stick around so it is and it isn't? I personally don't get it but hey if you try and understand EVE your wasting your time Internet Spaceships being super serious business to some people. The idea is that the 'victim' has to show some kind of awareness and an effort to avoid the 'griefing', or otherwise CCP doesn't feel that they deserve to be protected by the EULA.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
944
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 13:17:00 -
[87] - Quote
A few issue (which may have been covered in the last couple of pages, I'm not caught up) I see:
Saying "just declare war on them" doesn't solve anything when npc corps still exist, does it?
I also don't like the "no following people" type rule, only because it's a little bit sketchy. We mighty Agents of the New Order have been roaming several regions since we started, generally spending a couple of weeks freeing and enlightening a given area before moving to another - what if one of the poor folk we'd been trying to help in the past fled to another region, one that we eventually grace with our wisdom and kindness, and we encounter them again?
I can imagine some of them immediately turning to this thread and going "BUT I WAS IN A DIFFERENT REGION! HARASSMENT!" even though they weren't personally being targeted or followed |
Hadley X
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.06 23:20:00 -
[88] - Quote
The Code is an excuse for trying to justify the extortion of hi-sec mining where no excuse is needed. If you are being ganked and your ship is being ransomed, that is extortion. If you dont want to play by his rules (The Code) you will be bumped and or ganked. All this is within the EULA that CCP has put forth.
James 315 himself states in the URL linked above, that this is a business whos primary goal is to make him ISK. He has successfully gathered supporters who send him ISK and Agents that do his bidding. James 315 is laughing all the way to the bank.
Its a great strategy and its working. I doubt he will ever make any significant impact on the economy of EVE though there are just too many solo players doing their thing.
The extortion of hi-sec miners can continue as along as people continue to pay him. If it didn't work he would not have any profit and that is the entire goal of hte New Order.
James 315 has found a way to monitize hi-sec piracy with a face of "I'm doing this for your own good". Its a genious ploy. It makes me wonder if James 315 is an Alt account of The Mittanni.
Personally I won't cower to extortion. I dont need to, EVE IS NOT A SAFE PLACE! When I started playing EVE there were 2 rules.
1. Dont fly what you cannot afford to lose. 2. See rule number 1.
Those rules are more true now than ever.
When I do mine, I dont mine AFK, I never have. I tank my ships and I watch local. AND the New Order is not in the region where I mine anyway.
Yes, this is an alt. Im not stupid or crazy. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
520
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 00:35:00 -
[89] - Quote
Posting again in the Deal With It thread. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2647
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 23:14:00 -
[90] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:A few issue (which may have been covered in the last couple of pages, I'm not caught up) I see:
Saying "just declare war on them" doesn't solve anything when npc corps still exist, does it?
I also don't like the "no following people" type rule, only because it's a little bit sketchy. We mighty Agents of the New Order have been roaming several regions since we started, generally spending a couple of weeks freeing and enlightening a given area before moving to another - what if one of the poor folk we'd been trying to help in the past fled to another region, one that we eventually grace with our wisdom and kindness, and we encounter them again?
I can imagine some of them immediately turning to this thread and going "BUT I WAS IN A DIFFERENT REGION! HARASSMENT!" even though they weren't personally being targeted or followed
1) When miners come calling for a removal of NPC corps and corp-hopping to evade wardecs, that will be a valid complaint.
2) I'd be surprised if that got you in trouble. I'm sure that CCP gets enough petitions that they can generally plot your movements to distinguish between "following someone" and "bad luck." This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
Belaz Purvanen
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 09:54:00 -
[91] - Quote
G'monk wrote:... Is CCP now indicating that they are ceeding the ability of a corp to OWN or control the commerce in a high-sec system?
Important question.
I mean, it is like the Mob 'owning' Las Vegas? |
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 14:11:00 -
[92] - Quote
The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome. |
Runeme Shilter
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:19:00 -
[93] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome.
Omg, CCP make it so. That would be the most awesome change ever. No more GCC and sec status hit for killing miners! Just bump with X catalyst full speed. Great idea!
RS
PS: You know that for bumping most often stabbers are used? Or Machariels? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2691
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:28:00 -
[94] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome.
And when it's a Machariel at 5km/s, massing 150 million kgs, with ~100k EHP bumping into your Mackinaw (mass 20 million kg, EHP <30k, speed <100m/s)? You're literally asking for CCP to allow people like me to be able to gank you without getting CONCORDed.
Not to mention the fact that you're suggesting a mechanic that would immediately lead to CONCORD-free freighter ganking. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
978
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 16:59:00 -
[95] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:A few issue (which may have been covered in the last couple of pages, I'm not caught up) I see:
Saying "just declare war on them" doesn't solve anything when npc corps still exist, does it?
I also don't like the "no following people" type rule, only because it's a little bit sketchy. We mighty Agents of the New Order have been roaming several regions since we started, generally spending a couple of weeks freeing and enlightening a given area before moving to another - what if one of the poor folk we'd been trying to help in the past fled to another region, one that we eventually grace with our wisdom and kindness, and we encounter them again?
I can imagine some of them immediately turning to this thread and going "BUT I WAS IN A DIFFERENT REGION! HARASSMENT!" even though they weren't personally being targeted or followed 1) When miners come calling for a removal of NPC corps and corp-hopping to evade wardecs, that will be a valid complaint. 2) I'd be surprised if that got you in trouble. I'm sure that CCP gets enough petitions that they can generally plot your movements to distinguish between "following someone" and "bad luck."
I believe 99 out of 100 times it wouldn't either, but it still presents a bit of a grey area, which at the very least will cause more people to think they have a case and petition. Won't someone think of the poor GMs!
Also, just for the sake of some people saying we can't claim these are "CCP sanctioned" actions... yes we can. Sanction means to be given permission. That's exactly what CCP did. They aren't actively advising people TO do it, but they gave us permission to.
All glory to the New Order, and the CCP sanctioned bumping of afk miners, bot aspirants and whoever else! |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 19:01:00 -
[96] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Also, just for the sake of some people saying we can't claim these are "CCP sanctioned" actions... yes we can. Sanction means to be given permission. That's exactly what CCP did. They aren't actively advising people TO do it, but they gave us permission to.
All glory to the New Order, and the CCP sanctioned bumping of afk miners, bot aspirants and whoever else!
Ah, the lost art of reading, if only they would bring it back.
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. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
|
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
195
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 19:50:00 -
[97] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
our shield are magnetics, so it's just like when you try to press 2 magnet of the same polarity together!
|
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 20:07:00 -
[98] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome. Omg, CCP make it so. That would be the most awesome change ever. No more GCC and sec status hit for killing miners! Just bump with X catalyst full speed. Great idea! RS PS: You know that for bumping most often stabbers are used? Or Machariels?
Did I say anything about GCC? No? Didn't think so. |
Runeme Shilter
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 21:53:00 -
[99] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote: Did I say anything about GCC? No? Didn't think so.
So, you want bumping to become an agressive action? Who is the offender? The one bumping into you?
RS |
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 23:18:00 -
[100] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote: Did I say anything about GCC? No? Didn't think so.
So, you want bumping to become an agressive action? Who is the offender? The one bumping into you? RS
That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact? I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.
Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately?
|
|
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
195
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 23:51:00 -
[101] - Quote
how about no bumping?
you just fly right through.
|
Emerik
Federated Industrial Collective
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 02:45:00 -
[102] - Quote
The problem are not the true miners, not even the gankers, bumpers or whatever you can call them, these are a reaction of so many botters hanging around the whole cluster, salvage bots, etc, etc... all in all... cause and effect. I dont blame them... maybe ill join forces, who knows...?? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 04:16:00 -
[103] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact? I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.
Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately?
So we manually pilot into you and kill you without getting CONCORDed because we didn't press the magic "CONCORD me" approach button.
Going with the slightly better (but still terrible) velicity idea:
Park a Freighter infront of the Jita Undock or on the warpin to the Perimiter gate. Now CONCORD is doing our ganking for us.
A sacrificial stabber plows into a group of Mackinaws sending them careening into each other, getting almost all of them CONCORDed.
Literally any what you slice it, Damage or Aggro from bumping results in either CONCORD-free ganks or ganks where CONCORD supplies the DPS.
For someone named after something deadly, you don't seem to be very imaginative when it comes to making things dead. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 04:18:00 -
[104] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:how about no bumping?
you just fly right through.
Yes, let's buff Station games, Titan POS games, and JFs. Great idea. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
978
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 07:11:00 -
[105] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Also, just for the sake of some people saying we can't claim these are "CCP sanctioned" actions... yes we can. Sanction means to be given permission. That's exactly what CCP did. They aren't actively advising people TO do it, but they gave us permission to.
All glory to the New Order, and the CCP sanctioned bumping of afk miners, bot aspirants and whoever else!
Ah, the lost art of reading, if only they would bring it back. 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. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
It's not my fault if Karidor doesn't know the definition of the words he uses
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 07:15:00 -
[106] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:It's not my fault if Karidor doesn't know the definition of the words he uses
Jon Lander wrote: If you pay attention, and youGÇÖve got your wits about you, you can avoid people coming in and ganking, a survival of the fittest kind of thing, and people are now able to actually make a much better living from mining because of things like Hulkageddon and Burn Jita, because minerals are more expensive.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/12/eve-online-interview-betrayal-at-fanfest-burn-jita-virtual-reality-and-the-president-of-iceland/
I see no reason why this doesn't apply equally to the new order. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 10:11:00 -
[107] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote:That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact? I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.
Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately? So we manually pilot into you and kill you without getting CONCORDed because we didn't press the magic "CONCORD me" approach button. Going with the slightly better (but still terrible) velicity idea: Park a Freighter infront of the Jita Undock or on the warpin to the Perimiter gate. Now CONCORD is doing our ganking for us. A sacrificial stabber plows into a group of Mackinaws sending them careening into each other, getting almost all of them CONCORDed. Literally any what you slice it, Damage or Aggro from bumping results in either CONCORD-free ganks or ganks where CONCORD supplies the DPS. For someone named after something deadly, you don't seem to be very imaginative when it comes to making things dead.
You misunderstand me, I'd like to see damage from all collisions, not just ship v ship. You zone out mining and pile your barge into the huge spod rock? It's not going to bend, your ship will. You slam your ship into a forcefield at a pos station you dont have access to? Crunch.
When I first started playing Eve I was a little disappointed it was point and click not joystick and throttle. I'd also like to see manual docking for that matter. If you can't thread the needle with your ship you better be prepared to pay for the repairs or a new ship.
|
Daisai
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
72
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 11:49:00 -
[108] - Quote
Translation of ccp's post.
They cant fix it or change because it takes to much time and effort to do so and banning it would take to much effort to look into every petition when someone bumps a other player. So they basicly allow it because they cant be bothered to change it. |
Lexmana
897
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 13:08:00 -
[109] - Quote
Daisai wrote:Translation of ccp's post.
They cant fix it or change because it takes to much time and effort to do so and banning it would take to much effort to look into every petition when someone bumps a other player. So they basicly allow it because they cant be bothered to change it. That ... or they just like emergent gameplay and wants to allow as much creativity as they can from players. |
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
196
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:29:00 -
[110] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Red Frog Rufen wrote:how about no bumping?
you just fly right through. Yes, let's buff Station games, Titan's near POSes, and JFs. Great idea.
i'm just asking.
wouldn't that make tackler even more wanted on the other end?
and i'm not talking about going thru station or any other object, only ship on ship. |
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
861
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:35:00 -
[111] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:You misunderstand me, I'd like to see damage from all collisions, not just ship v ship. You zone out mining and pile your barge into the huge spod rock? It's not going to bend, your ship will. You slam your ship into a forcefield at a pos station you dont have access to? Crunch.
When I first started playing Eve I was a little disappointed it was point and click not joystick and throttle. I'd also like to see manual docking for that matter. If you can't thread the needle with your ship you better be prepared to pay for the repairs or a new ship.
Hi there. Star Citizen is a game currently being made for EVE players who can't cope with the sandbox aspect and wanted to be able to fly their ships rather than click in space. You might be interested.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
Foxglove Digitalis
LightningStrikesTwice Elemental Tide
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:22:00 -
[112] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote: Hi there. Star Citizen is a game currently being made for EVE players who can't cope with the sandbox aspect and wanted to be able to fly their ships rather than click in space. You might be interested.
Nothing wrong with the litter tray... I mean sandbox
I prefer to avoid Hisec as I have a better idea of who I need to be careful of down in null plus the bounties on the rats are better.
I disagree with the idea that you agree to PVP by undocking - it's more when you log in at all - if you dont accept this - dont play at all.
But Star Citizen does sound interesting from the physics viewpoint. I'll take a look, thanks. |
Daisai
The Riot Formation Unclaimed.
75
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:57:00 -
[113] - Quote
Lexmana wrote:Daisai wrote:Translation of ccp's post.
They cant fix it or change because it takes to much time and effort to do so and banning it would take to much effort to look into every petition when someone bumps a other player. So they basicly allow it because they cant be bothered to change it. That ... or they just like emergent gameplay and wants to allow as much creativity as they can from players.
Because we all know that a cruiser being able to bump a titan is emergent gameplay. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:00:00 -
[114] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Red Frog Rufen wrote:how about no bumping?
you just fly right through. Yes, let's buff Station games, Titan's near POSes, and JFs. Great idea. i'm just asking. wouldn't that make tackler even more wanted on the other end? and i'm not talking about going thru station or any other object, only ship on ship.
Which would mean that you couldn't bump a station game player (or his RR carrier) away from the undock, making him much harder to trap and kill.
It would mean you couldn't bump a Titan out of a POS, making them ridiculously safe (there was a recent titan kill that happened because the titan pilot gave out his POS password to prevent the tier3 fleet from being bombed. After he bridged them, in warped the bump Machariels with the POS password).
And finally it would mean incredibly increased safety for JFs. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:03:00 -
[115] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:You misunderstand me, I'd like to see damage from all collisions, not just ship v ship. You zone out mining and pile your barge into the huge spod rock? It's not going to bend, your ship will. You slam your ship into a forcefield at a pos station you dont have access to? Crunch.
When I first started playing Eve I was a little disappointed it was point and click not joystick and throttle. I'd also like to see manual docking for that matter. If you can't thread the needle with your ship you better be prepared to pay for the repairs or a new ship.
Which, again, would result in either CONCORD-free ganks, or ganks where CONCORD supplies the DPS. Those are the options when you add collision damage.
Also that sort of thing combined with the fact that EVE is a turn-based game with 1 second turns would be kind of terrible. Joystick and throttle would be even worse. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Red Frog Rufen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
196
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:06:00 -
[116] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Which would mean that you couldn't bump a station game player (or his RR carrier) away from the undock, making him much harder to trap and kill.
It would mean you couldn't bump a Titan out of a POS, making them ridiculously safe (there was a recent titan kill that happened because the titan pilot gave out his POS password to prevent the tier3 fleet from being bombed. After he bridged them, in warped the bump Machariels with the POS password).
And finally it would mean incredibly increased safety for JFs.
you can't bump them right now unless they move.
a JF is already pretty safe unless he's making a mistake. granted that would remove a few kills, but not that many. most are bad alignment of the cyno on the station, making them bump away from it out of the bubble of that station.
and really? bumping a titan out of a POS? it's already a stretch. nothing should be even be able to bump those in the first place. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2708
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:06:00 -
[117] - Quote
Red Frog Rufen wrote:you can't bump them right now unless they move.
a JF is already pretty safe unless he's making a mistake. granted that would remove a few kills, but not that many. most are bad alignment of the cyno on the station, making them bump away from it out of the bubble of that station.
and really? bumping a titan out of a POS? it's already a stretch. nothing should be even be able to bump those in the first place.
It seems that you don't actually know what station games are.
And most stations don't have a large camp of people waiting to kill the JF before it can inch back to the docking ring, meaning that most JF kills in LS require at least some bumping.
Why shouldn't titans be bumpable? Newtonian mechanics says they should be.
Almost forgot: Why does gate crashing need a buff? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
dark heartt
Space Truckers Assoc
11
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:21:00 -
[118] - Quote
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote:That's one option - or maybe the one with the higher velocity just before impact? I suppose you could engineer a way to getting yourself bumped to get a free gank.
Or perhaps the one who actually hit approach deliberately? So we manually pilot into you and kill you without getting CONCORDed because we didn't press the magic "CONCORD me" approach button. Going with the slightly better (but still terrible) velicity idea: Park a Freighter infront of the Jita Undock or on the warpin to the Perimiter gate. Now CONCORD is doing our ganking for us. A sacrificial stabber plows into a group of Mackinaws sending them careening into each other, getting almost all of them CONCORDed. Literally any what you slice it, Damage or Aggro from bumping results in either CONCORD-free ganks or ganks where CONCORD supplies the DPS. For someone named after something deadly, you don't seem to be very imaginative when it comes to making things dead. You misunderstand me, I'd like to see damage from all collisions, not just ship v ship. You zone out mining and pile your barge into the huge spod rock? It's not going to bend, your ship will. You slam your ship into a forcefield at a pos station you dont have access to? Crunch. When I first started playing Eve I was a little disappointed it was point and click not joystick and throttle. I'd also like to see manual docking for that matter. If you can't thread the needle with your ship you better be prepared to pay for the repairs or a new ship.
Yeah that wouldn't work. I live in Australia and part of that means that I have some pretty high latency for eve. A manual control scheme isn't going to work for people with high latency, so others would have more of an advantage than they do now with the point and click style of gameplay.
Also can we now stop talking about bumping. It really isn't that hard to avoid and if you aren't afk then it's not an issue. |
Dorah Hawkwing
Old Galactic Earth Regiment
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 12:42:00 -
[119] - Quote
Maybe it is time for a new high-slot module:
forcefield anchor.
Upon engaging, it roots the ship to a targetted asteroid, thus making it an immovable object. Furthermore, any object hitting the anchored ship takes HULL damage equal to it's velocity in m/s. For added risk, consider making the forcefield invisible (no visual effect). The downside: it costs use of a highslot... on a minning barge. |
Leonardo Esil
Miner Pinball INC
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 23:45:00 -
[120] - Quote
Dorah Hawkwing wrote:Maybe it is time for a new high-slot module:
forcefield anchor.
Upon engaging, it roots the ship to a targetted asteroid, thus making it an immovable object. Furthermore, any object hitting the anchored ship takes HULL damage equal to it's velocity in m/s. For added risk, consider making the forcefield invisible (no visual effect). The downside: it costs use of a highslot... on a minning barge.
The real downside? Every single mining barge that didn't have one fitted would die.
How? Anchor one of our barges next to the target. Bump target into our barge. Target dies.
|
|
Agent Trask
New Order Logistics CODE.
63
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 02:56:00 -
[121] - Quote
Dorah Hawkwing wrote:Maybe it is time for a new high-slot module:
forcefield anchor.
Upon engaging, it roots the ship to a targetted asteroid, thus making it an immovable object. Furthermore, any object hitting the anchored ship takes HULL damage equal to it's velocity in m/s. For added risk, consider making the forcefield invisible (no visual effect). The downside: it costs use of a highslot... on a minning barge.
Then we can get barges to CONCORD themselves by "accidentally" ramming them with newbships.
I endorse this change! Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
DirtySnowBunny
Cherri Bombs
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 18:10:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP should stay out of the babysitting game. If you made this MMO as a "sandbox" let it stand as one.
1) Scams are part of the sandbox a) Jita is notorious for this
2) Will ganking the same person or group over and over be considered harassment as well? a) This is typical practice to gain a leverage of an area or system.
The art of bumping actually has become a good business of making additional isk. We have our mercenaries, bounty hunters, other miners WANT and PAY people to gank, bump or otherwise so they can make a profit.
3) Bumping is a good mechanic for detouring AFK assisted mining via one of the many BOT programs out there or custom variations there of.
It is not that hard to change from one space to another, most bumpers (or gankers) will not move their operations around one person. So in conclusion the argument about "omg make bumping an exploit" is just ridiculous.
|
DirtySnowBunny
Cherri Bombs
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 18:14:00 -
[123] - Quote
LOL why not charge him with thought of intent . . . {insert eye roll here}
Kimo Khan wrote: If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?
|
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:42:00 -
[124] - Quote
DirtySnowBunny wrote: If you made this MMO as a "sandbox" let it stand as one. I think the Spartans put it best, GÇ£If.GÇ¥. Whilst in general terms the gameplay could be described as sandbox in style the reality is that the implementation has always gone beyond that of a sandbox and it has always had to.
DirtySnowBunny wrote: 2) Will ganking the same person or group over and over be considered harassment as well? a) This is typical practice to gain a leverage of an area or system. The art of bumping actually has become a good business of making additional isk. We have our mercenaries, bounty hunters, other miners WANT and PAY people to gank, bump or otherwise so they can make a profit. 3) Bumping is a good mechanic for detouring AFK assisted mining via one of the many BOT programs out there or custom variations there of. It is not that hard to change from one space to another, most bumpers (or gankers) will not move their operations around one person. So in conclusion the argument about "omg make bumping an exploit" is just ridiculous.
I think it has long been accepted that financially speaking the only winner is James 315, it is a good business for him. For everyone else the only new thing seems to be the slightly misguided belief that some new market has been created when in reality all that has happened is that a certain set of player behaviour has been grouped together under a single term. The business of disruption has a long history and simply reflects the reality that industrial game play is not necessarily as passive as it may appear to be on the surface.
A lot of irritation is actually rooted in the use of NPC or tiny player corps. Effectively there is an alliance with none of the cost or risk. The structure used by the bumper alliance in fact makes it cheaper and more practical to declare war on Goonswarm. This structure prevents industrialists from paying mercenary organisations to provide a more militaristic response than a Retriever will ever manage. Mercenaries are therefore not really a part of this food chain, certainly they are not able to make the amounts of isk that they would be able to on a level playing field.
Making considered observations of a suspected bot and then using the in game reporting system is the only effective way to take action against a botter. That is the only in game mechanic that deters botting. I had always assumed that there was meant to be humour in the statement GÇ£Bot-aspirant behavior is not permittedGÇ¥ but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a bot is aspiring to be. Why would the bot sit still while a gank capable ship approached it.
The issue is not so much if something should happen when two ships collide it is how that should fit into the rock/paper/scissor model that is typical of Eve.
IGÇÖll refer you to page 1 for a fairly clear statement about what is and is not considered harassment.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2751
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:57:00 -
[125] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:A lot of irritation is actually rooted in the use of NPC or tiny player corps. Effectively there is an alliance with none of the cost or risk. The structure used by the bumper alliance in fact makes it cheaper and more practical to declare war on Goonswarm. This structure prevents industrialists from paying mercenary organisations to provide a more militaristic response than a Retriever will ever manage. Mercenaries are therefore not really a part of this food chain, certainly they are not able to make the amounts of isk that they would be able to on a level playing field.
When Miners start calling en masse for a nerf to NPC corps and Corp Hopping to escape wardecs and stop using the same, that will be a valid complaint from them about the bumpers. But not until.
What's good for the goose, after all. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
admiral root
Red Galaxy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
457
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 07:45:00 -
[126] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote: A lot of irritation is actually rooted in the use of NPC or tiny player corps. Effectively there is an alliance with none of the cost or risk. The structure used by the bumper alliance in fact makes it cheaper and more practical to declare war on Goonswarm. This structure prevents industrialists from paying mercenary organisations to provide a more militaristic response than a Retriever will ever manage. Mercenaries are therefore not really a part of this food chain, certainly they are not able to make the amounts of isk that they would be able to on a level playing field.
The majority of New Order gankers (and a few friends who like highsec wardecs) have been in an alliance for quite some time. The miners are the ones hiding in NPC corps. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Vote 315 for CSM 8 |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 12:57:00 -
[127] - Quote
admiral root wrote: The majority of New Order gankers (and a few friends who like highsec wardecs) have been in an alliance for quite some time.
I think you are referring to the 66(?) chars in CODE., a noteworthy number indeed, but the majority, really?
It is difficult to know what you mean by GÇÿgankersGÇÖ specifically so I have focussed on chars that claim to act on behalf of New Order or have been identified (by a person you would trust in such matters) as acting on their behalf. I have specifically excluded those that have only claimed to support the organisation. This isnGÇÖt intended to be exhaustive (there are many more) but 67 is more than 66 so it seemed sufficient to demonstrate that in reality the majority are not in the alliance that you are referring to. Might be a couple of duplicates, sorry if there are or if there are any mistakes (I wasnGÇÖt going to spend all day on this).
1 James 315 2 Mei Day 3 Manny Moons 4 Dr Tyler 5 Vin King 6 Agent Vin King 7 Vreedom 8 Capt Starfox 9 Melody Amatin 10 Syds Sinclair 11 Mei Day 12 FiveFiveFour 13 Jonathean Rawlins 14 Lin Suizei 15 M0N0 16 Kainotomiu Ronuken 17 Zechrabah 18 Casanunda 19 Agent Eunoli 20 Leonardo Esil 21 admiral root 22 Le Verrier 23 Disciple of James315 24 Baby BadaBoom 25 Mia Bowson 26 Sir Robin Idle 27 Ricky the Rat 28 Iam Thanatos 29 Daniel Plain 30 BillMurray 31 John XIII 32 Droopsack 33 Lord Mandelor 34 Small Beer 35 virm pasuul 36 Pootis Man 37 agent tobruk 38 Raqn Paudeen 39 Alana Charen-Teng 40 Radimir Lenin 41 oshrog 42 Melody Amatin 43 Bing Bandboom 44 Iam Thanatos 45 Wescro 46 Tubrug1 47 Agent Eunoli 48 Gevlon Goblin 49 Riku Klayton 50 jon stelhammer 51 Lin Suizei 52 Keilin Luftesong 53 enterprisePSI 54 Den Arius 55 R0me0 Charl1e 56 Analogy Dichotomous 57 Virajar 58 Xavier Bandar 59 Lord Mandelor 60 Mortamir Thesant 61 Sara XIII 62 Lyra Heartstrings 63 Serenity Saul 64 Phoenix Bibbs 65 Mal Isbad 66 Neltharak Idrissil 67 Xeddiphan
admiral root wrote: The miners are the ones hiding in NPC corps.
The miners donGÇÖt claim to be representing or acting as a single organisation.
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2474
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 14:15:00 -
[128] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:1 James 315 2 Mei Day 3 Manny Moons 4 Dr Tyler 5 Vin King 6 Agent Vin King 7 Vreedom 8 Capt Starfox 9 Melody Amatin 10 Syds Sinclair 11 Mei Day 12 FiveFiveFour 13 Jonathean Rawlins 14 Lin Suizei 15 M0N0 16 Kainotomiu Ronuken 17 Zechrabah 18 Casanunda 19 Agent Eunoli 20 Leonardo Esil 21 admiral root 22 Le Verrier 23 Disciple of James315 24 Baby BadaBoom 25 Mia Bowson 26 Sir Robin Idle 27 Ricky the Rat 28 Iam Thanatos 29 Daniel Plain 30 BillMurray 31 John XIII 32 Droopsack 33 Lord Mandelor 34 Small Beer 35 virm pasuul 36 Pootis Man 37 agent tobruk 38 Raqn Paudeen 39 Alana Charen-Teng 40 Radimir Lenin 41 oshrog 42 Melody Amatin 43 Bing Bandboom 44 Iam Thanatos 45 Wescro 46 Tubrug1 47 Agent Eunoli 48 Gevlon Goblin 49 Riku Klayton 50 jon stelhammer 51 Lin Suizei 52 Keilin Luftesong 53 enterprisePSI 54 Den Arius 55 R0me0 Charl1e 56 Analogy Dichotomous 57 Virajar 58 Xavier Bandar 59 Lord Mandelor 60 Mortamir Thesant 61 Sara XIII 62 Lyra Heartstrings 63 Serenity Saul 64 Phoenix Bibbs 65 Mal Isbad 66 Neltharak Idrissil 67 Xeddiphan
Two things wrong with your list. The first being that's the format makes it terrible to read, the second is I'm not on it.
Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
868
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 15:36:00 -
[129] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:admiral root wrote: The majority of New Order gankers (and a few friends who like highsec wardecs) have been in an alliance for quite some time.
I think you are referring to the 66(?) chars in CODE., a noteworthy number indeed, but the majority, really? It is difficult to know what you mean by GÇÿgankersGÇÖ specifically so I have focussed on chars that claim to act on behalf of New Order or have been identified (by a person you would trust in such matters) as acting on their behalf. I have specifically excluded those that have only claimed to support the organisation. This isnGÇÖt intended to be exhaustive (there are many more) but 67 is more than 66 so it seemed sufficient to demonstrate that in reality the majority are not in the alliance that you are referring to. Might be a couple of duplicates, sorry if there are or if there are any mistakes (I wasnGÇÖt going to spend all day on this). 1 James 315 2 Mei Day 3 Manny Moons 4 Dr Tyler 5 Vin King 6 Agent Vin King 7 Vreedom 8 Capt Starfox 9 Melody Amatin 10 Syds Sinclair 11 Mei Day 12 FiveFiveFour 13 Jonathean Rawlins 14 Lin Suizei 15 M0N0 16 Kainotomiu Ronuken 17 Zechrabah 18 Casanunda 19 Agent Eunoli 20 Leonardo Esil 21 admiral root 22 Le Verrier 23 Disciple of James315 24 Baby BadaBoom 25 Mia Bowson 26 Sir Robin Idle 27 Ricky the Rat 28 Iam Thanatos 29 Daniel Plain 30 BillMurray 31 John XIII 32 Droopsack 33 Lord Mandelor 34 Small Beer 35 virm pasuul 36 Pootis Man 37 agent tobruk 38 Raqn Paudeen 39 Alana Charen-Teng 40 Radimir Lenin 41 oshrog 42 Melody Amatin 43 Bing Bandboom 44 Iam Thanatos 45 Wescro 46 Tubrug1 47 Agent Eunoli 48 Gevlon Goblin 49 Riku Klayton 50 jon stelhammer 51 Lin Suizei 52 Keilin Luftesong 53 enterprisePSI 54 Den Arius 55 R0me0 Charl1e 56 Analogy Dichotomous 57 Virajar 58 Xavier Bandar 59 Lord Mandelor 60 Mortamir Thesant 61 Sara XIII 62 Lyra Heartstrings 63 Serenity Saul 64 Phoenix Bibbs 65 Mal Isbad 66 Neltharak Idrissil 67 Xeddiphan
Now go through and count the number of those characters who are in an NPC corp. I don't think that it is very many.
Oh, and here's a handy list of more bumpers; http://proveldtariat.wordpress.com/the-bumper-tracker/
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2771
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 03:29:00 -
[130] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:1 James 315 2 Mei Day 3 Manny Moons 4 Dr Tyler 5 Vin King 6 Agent Vin King 7 Vreedom 8 Capt Starfox 9 Melody Amatin 10 Syds Sinclair 11 Mei Day 12 FiveFiveFour 13 Jonathean Rawlins 14 Lin Suizei 15 M0N0 16 Kainotomiu Ronuken 17 Zechrabah 18 Casanunda 19 Agent Eunoli 20 Leonardo Esil 21 admiral root 22 Le Verrier 23 Disciple of James315 24 Baby BadaBoom 25 Mia Bowson 26 Sir Robin Idle 27 Ricky the Rat 28 Iam Thanatos 29 Daniel Plain 30 BillMurray 31 John XIII 32 Droopsack 33 Lord Mandelor 34 Small Beer 35 virm pasuul 36 Pootis Man 37 agent tobruk 38 Raqn Paudeen 39 Alana Charen-Teng 40 Radimir Lenin 41 oshrog 42 Melody Amatin 43 Bing Bandboom 44 Iam Thanatos 45 Wescro 46 Tubrug1 47 Agent Eunoli 48 Gevlon Goblin 49 Riku Klayton 50 jon stelhammer 51 Lin Suizei 52 Keilin Luftesong 53 enterprisePSI 54 Den Arius 55 R0me0 Charl1e 56 Analogy Dichotomous 57 Virajar 58 Xavier Bandar 59 Lord Mandelor 60 Mortamir Thesant 61 Sara XIII 62 Lyra Heartstrings 63 Serenity Saul 64 Phoenix Bibbs 65 Mal Isbad 66 Neltharak Idrissil 67 Xeddiphan
This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
991
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 08:33:00 -
[131] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:DirtySnowBunny wrote: If you made this MMO as a "sandbox" let it stand as one. I think the Spartans put it best, GÇ£If.GÇ¥. Whilst in general terms the gameplay could be described as sandbox in style the reality is that the implementation has always gone beyond that of a sandbox and it has always had to. DirtySnowBunny wrote: 2) Will ganking the same person or group over and over be considered harassment as well? a) This is typical practice to gain a leverage of an area or system. The art of bumping actually has become a good business of making additional isk. We have our mercenaries, bounty hunters, other miners WANT and PAY people to gank, bump or otherwise so they can make a profit. 3) Bumping is a good mechanic for detouring AFK assisted mining via one of the many BOT programs out there or custom variations there of. It is not that hard to change from one space to another, most bumpers (or gankers) will not move their operations around one person. So in conclusion the argument about "omg make bumping an exploit" is just ridiculous.
I think it has long been accepted that financially speaking the only winner is James 315, it is a good business for him. For everyone else the only new thing seems to be the slightly misguided belief that some new market has been created when in reality all that has happened is that a certain set of player behaviour has been grouped together under a single term. The business of disruption has a long history and simply reflects the reality that industrial game play is not necessarily as passive as it may appear to be on the surface. A lot of irritation is actually rooted in the use of NPC or tiny player corps. Effectively there is an alliance with none of the cost or risk. The structure used by the bumper alliance in fact makes it cheaper and more practical to declare war on Goonswarm. This structure prevents industrialists from paying mercenary organisations to provide a more militaristic response than a Retriever will ever manage. Mercenaries are therefore not really a part of this food chain, certainly they are not able to make the amounts of isk that they would be able to on a level playing field. Making considered observations of a suspected bot and then using the in game reporting system is the only effective way to take action against a botter. That is the only in game mechanic that deters botting. I had always assumed that there was meant to be humour in the statement GÇ£Bot-aspirant behavior is not permittedGÇ¥ but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a bot is aspiring to be. Why would the bot sit still while a gank capable ship approached it. The issue is not so much if something should happen when two ships collide it is how that should fit into the rock/paper/scissor model that is typical of Eve. IGÇÖll refer you to page 1 for a fairly clear statement about what is and is not considered harassment.
Complains that the Agents of the New Order are in NPC corps (pro tip the majority actually arent)
Is in an NPC corp himself, as are many other disgusting miners.
Hypocrisy, much?
|
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 11:26:00 -
[132] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote: Complains that the Agents of the New Order are in NPC corps (pro tip the majority actually arent)
No, I complained that they were in NPC or tiny player corps. As your caveat eludes to, it would be easy for me to demonstrate that some are in NPC corps. Just to be clear though, I have never claimed where the majority are and for the purposes of my point it would have been more beneficial if they were not located in NPC corps.
Kainotomiu has provided evidence that I need to expand what I said to include hiding in larger corporations which I am happy to do. The source he has quoted (in ball park maths) suggests that to war dec the twenty or so bumpers listed you would have to go to war with somewhere in the region of 13,000 chars, the actual targets being less than 0.2% of the people you would be at war with. That passes any test for being impractical to do. Doing so would certainly exceed the war dec price cap, something that puts TEST, Goons etc. at a disadvantage comparatively. That is why I proposed that it created an imbalance.
I must confess that my original point was largely inspired by a post made by the bumper messiah himself; I wasnGÇÖt expecting the theology department to have such a differing view on a tactic that has more traditionally been bundled as a part of emergent game play.
I have demonstrated that the majority are not in a single corporation/alliance as was claimed by admiral root. I have never said that the remainder were all in NPC corporations, the truth is that some of them are, some of them are in tiny player corporations, some are a part of larger unrelated player organisations and a minority of them are in CODE..
TheGunslinger42 wrote: Is in an NPC corp himself, as are many other disgusting miners.
Personally I try to pay most attention to the column in the middle rather than the one on the left; the content is much more relevant. This posting alt is in an NPC corporation, I am of the opinion that in certain matters you should be able to post as an account holder rather than an in game character, certainly where game rules are called into question. The best effort I can make toward that is to remove any indication of my in game affiliations in order that they do not bias the interpretation of any comments I make. The point is to be able to have a reasonable discussion without having to resort to insulting groups of players. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2776
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 16:42:00 -
[133] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:No, I complained that they were in NPC or tiny player corps. As your caveat eludes to, it would be easy for me to demonstrate that some are in NPC corps. Just to be clear though, I have never claimed where the majority are and for the purposes of my point it would have been more beneficial if they were not located in NPC corps.
Quote:Pap Uhotih Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
Pots and kettles (regardless of your little alt posting justification).
Where's your thread calling for a nerf to corp hopping and NPC corps? Or is it only a problem for you when other people use that mechanic? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
89
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 17:49:00 -
[134] - Quote
I do not enjoy mining, it is tedious, boring and takes a lot of time to get things done. On the flip side it makes good money while fighting inanimate rocks, this is how I choose to play, this is what I do to afford my PvP. I do not have to worry about what fit to use or what ship they are bringing to the fight. It is easy, and casual.
One point that always seems to be missed in these discussions:
YOU CANNOT FIGHT A GANKER PILOT IN HIGH-SEC
Best case scenario,
1) You war'dec the gankers corp or multiple corps. ( your cost ) 2) You locate them in a station. ( again your cost ) 3) You camp outside station until the gank fleet undocks. ( your time lost ) 4) You manage to lock one or two of them up and maybe even warp scram them. ( even with a 10+ fleet it would be hard ) 5) You kill one or two ships ( Planned loss on their side ) 6) They dock back up and the gank is aborted, all other pilot warp to 0 and dock.
-- or --
A) If you do not get a lock then they proceed to gank their intended target, you have failed. B) They undock in much bigger ships than yours and kill you quickly so they re-dock and gank anyway.
With the ganker guides and CONCORD manipulation tactics avaliable online it is very hard to nail down a gank pilot in high sec.
Given the above can someone please tell me how you are going to effect their bottom line?
They are not losing any more ships than they planned on losing. While the war'dec is active you are now the primary target and unless you bring much, much more fire power to the fight, you will lose. t best they will simply move to another system ( either alts or pod running ) and work there until you log off.
James 315 nailed it perfectly, pick a group of players who have almost no combat skills, ships or experience and extort them in an area of space that prevents them from effectively fighting back ( No bubbles, CONCORD, etc )
I am all for following CCP's suggestion and moving but what happens when there is no where left to move? All the years of nerf high-sec whining can stop because a singular group bent ( if CCP needed to clarify, I call it bent ) the rules enough to convert high-sec to low.
Give me a way to REALLY fight the gankers and I will use it, until then respect your fellow pilots who are playing the game YOU love.
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
871
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 18:03:00 -
[135] - Quote
How to fight gankers? Simple. Make it so that you can't be ganked. Get a good tank, stay ATK, move around often, don't stay still when an obvious scout/warpin snuggles up as close to you as possible. Move away when you see other people being ganked. Mine in fleets with some kind of deterrent.
If a gank fails, then the gankers lose ships and you don't - therefore they've lost. If they see that you're a difficult target, then you don't lose your ship - therefore you've won.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
89
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 18:34:00 -
[136] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:How to fight gankers? Simple. Make it so that you can't be ganked. Get a good tank, stay ATK, move around often, don't stay still when an obvious scout/warpin snuggles up as close to you as possible. Move away when you see other people being ganked. Mine in fleets with some kind of deterrent.
If a gank fails, then the gankers lose ships and you don't - therefore they've lost. If they see that you're a difficult target, then you don't lose your ship - therefore you've won.
I do not mean to fight your post but the ganking guides detail exactly how to never fail at a gank.
The scout shows up in a Hulk equipped with a passive target lock and a ship scanner. He can stay far off-ish and the ganks never fail because they know exactly how much DPS to bring to the field to pop you.
I was ganked while actively talking to the New Order in private convo. They decided that I was not to be swayed and ganked me with no bumping attempts first. Oh and I was orbiting an ice chunk at 10km, still never saw the point man.
You can mine in a fleet of 50 and there is nothing you can do to prevent the gank even if you had them all on a war'dec. You have ~10 seconds from them dropping on field to the loss of a ship, that is not enough time to effectively fight them.
If you tank well and sacrifice your yield then you are losing money every cycle that you are not ganked. With them pre-scanning your ship it does not matter if you are a hard target, they will bring as much DPS as needed to take you out.
On miner bumping website the top blog post is how the New Order has started taking out Orca's so what you are flying is not important to them anymore.
|
Bing Bangboom
Ded End Damage Inc.
159
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 19:02:00 -
[137] - Quote
Michael Loney wrote:
Give me a way to REALLY fight the gankers and I will use it, until then respect your fellow pilots who are playing the game YOU love.
Probably obligatory at this point to say:
1) Buy a mining permit and update your bio. 2) Follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct (don't bot, don't afk being the main, but not only requirements) 3) Pay attention to your surroundings when mining.
The first two will pretty much guarantee that you won't be ganked by the New Order. The third point is for the occasional free lancing gank teams.
If you won't do these simple things then you really have nothing to complain about. There is a way out. The New Order Agents are constantly telling the miners how to not get ganked. Just comply.
Oh, and
4) Vote James 315 for CSM 8.
Highsec is worth fighting for.
Bing Bangboom Agent of the New Order of Highsec Belligerent Undesirable |
Agent Trask
New Order Logistics CODE.
64
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 21:42:00 -
[138] - Quote
Bing Bangboom wrote: There is a way out. The New Order Agents are constantly telling the miners how to not get ganked. Just comply.
Seriously.
Not buying a Permit is like running away from a traffic officer who is trying to give you a speeding ticket.
It just wont end well.
Do the right thing.
Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2776
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 22:58:00 -
[139] - Quote
Michael Loney wrote:YOU CANNOT FIGHT A GANKER PILOT IN HIGH-SEC
Sure you can.
Sub Sebos for tank if you feel like it, since you can start locking the Gankers as soon as they land. Once they open fire, it takes about 2 volleys to kill a Catalyst (~5s), so you can expect to kill about 4 of them before CONCORD jams them out in a prepared .5 system. If they're outlaw, you can start shooting as soon as you have lock. That's going to stop most (if not all) ganks.
Before you say "they just won't try to gank me when the Nado is there," let me say that, if that is the case, Mission Motherfucking Accomplished.
[Tornado, Protect Ze Miners]
Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L
Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I [Empty Rig slot]
Edit: ******* is Bleeped out, but Motherfucking isn't? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
872
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 00:03:00 -
[140] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Edit: ******* is Bleeped out, but Motherfucking isn't? You wanna watch out, the ISDs call that evasion of the profanity filter.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
|
Agent Trask
New Order Logistics CODE.
70
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 04:37:00 -
[141] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Before you say "they just won't try to gank me when the Nado is there," let me say that, if that is the case, Mission **************** Accomplished.
[Tornado, Protect Ze Miners]
( fit )
Yea, we would have to gank that instead. That gives one miner time to beat feet. Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2781
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 05:03:00 -
[142] - Quote
Agent Trask wrote:Yea, we would have to gank that instead. That gives one miner time to beat feet.
It's almost certainly much harder to gank a Nado than a Hulk. Especially since not-totally-untanked versions work just as well (I have the SEBO's because someone complained about lock time or something), as do battleship versions (though lock time may be a slight issue).
It also gives every miner he's protecting time to beat feet.
In other words, it is perfectly feasible to fight suicide gankers or to stop them from ganking you. Miners don't do it because, judging by their actual, in game actions, either ganking has never represented a significant enough threat to be worth making any adjustments to counter it (even during HAG), or they're really stupid. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 11:06:00 -
[143] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: In other words, it is perfectly feasible to fight suicide gankers or to stop them from ganking you. Miners don't do it because, judging by their actual, in game actions, either ganking has never represented a significant enough threat to be worth making any adjustments to counter it (even during HAG), or they're really stupid.
It's the classic "Someone must do something - wait, no, not me, I'm afk mining". It's much easier to just cry on the forums for more nerfs to ganking. |
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
89
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:41:00 -
[144] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote: It's the classic "Someone must do something - wait, no, not me, I'm afk mining". It's much easier to just cry on the forums for more nerfs to ganking.
Quite the opposite, I think ganking as it is is fine right now.
I take issue with the relative safety of high-sec ganking in general. There is almost nothing either a casual solo miner or a well oiled 20 man fleet operation can do to fight back against a dedicated ganking group like the New Order. By scanning targets and manipulating CONCORD they will almost never fail.
Either I abandon my Isk making activities and buy combat ships or hire others to protect me. Oh, right, even if I had a Tornado sitting close by that's either another miner who is losing income or a player getting paid to stay at the keyboard and watch me mine in hopes he can prevent me getting ganked.
Think of it like a bully in grade school, he is bigger, badder and willing to go to extremely ridiculous lengths just to pummel you. Only difference is in real life there is a balance to this, a higher authority. For the New Order they have a leader who appointed himself as that authority. Miners are screwed.
|
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 13:45:00 -
[145] - Quote
Michael Loney wrote: If you tank well and sacrifice your yield then you are losing money every cycle that you are not ganked. With them pre-scanning your ship it does not matter if you are a hard target, they will bring as much DPS as needed to take you out.
I think that is perfectly accurate, you may as well go for yield over tank as it makes no difference to the outcome. Going with yield will in the long term mitigate the impact of losses sooner and as an individual you shouldnGÇÖt be losing a ship every day so it should be a viable strategy. It certainly makes no sense for an individual to have an escort.
For fleet operations the inability to defend an Orca raises some issues. In that case they used at least a dozen ships which are enough to make a defence pointless. Even if there had been some ships to keep the Orca safe it wouldnGÇÖt be enough to prevent a fleet of that size from taking out a few barges instead. With such numbers it is cheaper to sacrifice the Orca.
Economically it is always best to have as many people generating income as possible, you can only control the rate and amount of your income so maximise it. The loses you have no control over so you canGÇÖt plan for them. Each ship defending a mining fleet costs you somewhere in the region of 15m/hour in lost income but then those pilots also take a slice of the remaining income so in real terms and for the sake of ease IGÇÖll go with a total of 20m/hour per escort. A single escort is therefore pretty much the equivalent of losing one Hulk for every seven or eight hours of mining (canGÇÖt remember the insurance value) and realistically youGÇÖd have to be pretty unlucky to lose a ship so often. For a fleet you'd need more than one escort so you would be costing yourself more than a ship per operation by attempting a reasonable defence.
|
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1001
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 10:33:00 -
[146] - Quote
Michael Loney wrote:I do not enjoy mining, it is tedious, boring and takes a lot of time to get things done. On the flip side it makes good money while fighting inanimate rocks, this is how I choose to play, this is what I do to afford my PvP. I do not have to worry about what fit to use or what ship they are bringing to the fight. It is easy, and casual.
One point that always seems to be missed in these discussions:
YOU CANNOT FIGHT A GANKER PILOT IN HIGH-SEC
Best case scenario,
1) You war'dec the gankers corp or multiple corps. ( your cost ) 2) You locate them in a station. ( again your cost ) 3) You camp outside station until the gank fleet undocks. ( your time lost ) 4) You manage to lock one or two of them up and maybe even warp scram them. ( even with a 10+ fleet it would be hard ) 5) You kill one or two ships ( Planned loss on their side ) 6) They dock back up and the gank is aborted, all other pilot warp to 0 and dock.
-- or --
A) If you do not get a lock then they proceed to gank their intended target, you have failed. B) They undock in much bigger ships than yours and kill you quickly so they re-dock and gank anyway.
With the ganker guides and CONCORD manipulation tactics avaliable online it is very hard to nail down a gank pilot in high sec.
Given the above can someone please tell me how you are going to effect their bottom line?
They are not losing any more ships than they planned on losing. While the war'dec is active you are now the primary target and unless you bring much, much more fire power to the fight, you will lose. t best they will simply move to another system ( either alts or pod running ) and work there until you log off.
James 315 nailed it perfectly, pick a group of players who have almost no combat skills, ships or experience and extort them in an area of space that prevents them from effectively fighting back ( No bubbles, CONCORD, etc )
I am all for following CCP's suggestion and moving but what happens when there is no where left to move? All the years of nerf high-sec whining can stop because a singular group bent ( if CCP needed to clarify, I call it bent ) the rules enough to convert high-sec to low.
Give me a way to REALLY fight the gankers and I will use it, until then respect your fellow pilots who are playing the game YOU love.
No, James picked a group of players who are UNWILLING to fight, not those who are incapable. Your own post demonstrates this, you complain about the cost or ~effort~ it'd take. Boo hoo.
You also miss the easiest solution: Pay us the 10 million mining gratitude and enjoy. You could also hop in a skiff and supertank it, since we basically don't gank those and instead just gently nudge them out of the mining zone with our stabbers. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2824
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 17:04:00 -
[147] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:Michael Loney wrote: If you tank well and sacrifice your yield then you are losing money every cycle that you are not ganked. With them pre-scanning your ship it does not matter if you are a hard target, they will bring as much DPS as needed to take you out.
I think that is perfectly accurate, you may as well go for yield over tank as it makes no difference to the outcome. Going with yield will in the long term mitigate the impact of losses sooner and as an individual you shouldnGÇÖt be losing a ship every day so it should be a viable strategy. It certainly makes no sense for an individual to have an escort.
So... you're saying that buying insurance for your car is a bad idea because you're losing money every mile that you don't wreck your car?
Ooookay.
Tanked Exhumers do not and never have gotten ganked anywhere near as often as untanked ones. That means that there is a meaningful difference between yield fit and tank fit. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
61
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 18:08:00 -
[148] - Quote
Just face facts, if people want to continue bumping, you need to change your tactics. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
876
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 19:14:00 -
[149] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Just face facts, if people want to continue bumping, you need to change your tactics. Who is 'you'? Because I can assure you that the New Order feels that no change of tactics is required.
You have become the pubbie, Mittani. Yours is the temple whose technetium-clad tables are at risk of being overthrown, whose seats need mixing. You're the one who fears war. -- Sadleric |
Karynak Idrissil
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 19:29:00 -
[150] - Quote
The sheer amount of butthurt in this thread would put san francisco to shame. |
|
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
89
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:51:00 -
[151] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
So... you're saying that buying insurance for your car is a bad idea because you're losing money every mile that you don't wreck your car? And that if you do buy insurance you should drive on bald tires to avoid wasting your insurance money.
Not quite, not really close, not at all.
First off you assume tech 2 ship insurance makes a dent in the amount lost.
I pay for car insurance mainly due to outside causes, like someone else hitting me or acts of god ( hail, flood, fire, etc ) It is a bet against the universe.
To make you car analogy better: it would be like adding 1600mm plate to your car so your bumper will stay shiny after being hit. You never intend to hit anything and don't intend for it in advance either. Meanwhile the added cost per mile in fuel will long pay or a new bumper before the plates did any good saving the old one.
Avoiding a gank by fitting tank is not a bad idea, but the loss of income will be more than simply buying a new ship when you do get ganked.
If we all fit tank then the bar will be raised in the game of escalation.
The only way to win is not to play.
|
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:05:00 -
[152] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: So... you're saying that buying insurance for your car is a bad idea because you're losing money every mile that you don't wreck your car? And that if you do buy insurance you should drive on bald tires to avoid wasting your insurance money.
Ooookay.
Tanked Exhumers do not and never have gotten ganked anywhere near as often as untanked ones. That means that there is a meaningful difference between yield fit and tank fit.
No, you have said that.
I have insurance in the real world because I donGÇÖt have the millions it could cost me if I made even a minor mistake. In comparison I could quite happily stomach the loss of the metal box. In the real world it is possible to lose half the value of vehicle just by buying it and then on top of that you have ongoing depreciation. You are losing money every second that you own a car, as well as every mile you drive it and all totally irrelevant of whether or not it is insured. It is in fact perfectly possible for the cost of the insurance to exceed the value of the car. Cars and car insurance is really a terrible thing to try to relate to a pixel spaceship that exists in the fairly simplistic economy of Eve.
The difference between a tank fit Hulk and a yield fit is about 8% and for ease a miner plays for 4 hrs a day making 15m an hour and loses one ship a month. In that case he loses money by having the yield fit, however if he loses one ship every two months he is in profit, if he can drag it out to one loss every six months then the difference will be about enough to buy a plex. If you get ganked less than once in every 120 hrs of mining then yield wins, for a Hulk. To take your car insurance idea thatGÇÖs the equivalent of your insurer not only giving you the value of your car but also giving you more than double that amount on top simply for destroying your car every six months.
Of course if the tanked Hulk is not ignored in the first month then the value of the loss is increased by the value of the lost yield, approaching the full cost of a new Hull in spite of insurance. The original point was that New Order will set out with sufficient fire power to take out their target (as demonstrated on an Orca and a Mack), therefore if they decide to target you it isnGÇÖt worth having a tank fit, all that will mean is that youGÇÖve lost more money by reducing your income in the interim.
|
Jun Inoue
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 06:56:00 -
[153] - Quote
Jun Inoue > does bumping someone's ship considered as harrasment? ISD Athechu > No ISD Athechu > https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2535377 ISD Athechu > Official GM response Jun Inoue > but Jun Inoue > 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 ISD Athechu > If they are doing it in 1 system ISD Athechu > and continue to do it in 1 system ISD Athechu > that is not harassment ISD Athechu > if you travel 20 jumps away in to another region ISD Athechu > and they follow you and continue ISD Athechu > that's harassment ISD Athechu > https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2536157#post2536157 Jun Inoue > oh ok ISD Athechu > 2nd paragraph Jun Inoue > then I think Ill go to jita, and bump freigther there for a day
|
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Villore Accords
61
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 12:17:00 -
[154] - Quote
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Estella Osoka wrote:Just face facts, if people want to continue bumping, you need to change your tactics. Who is 'you'? Because I can assure you that the New Order feels that no change of tactics is required.
You = successfully petitioned harrassment bumpers. |
Agent Trask
New Order Logistics CODE.
77
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 20:36:00 -
[155] - Quote
Congratulations on choosing honorable PvP over something mind-destroying like mining. Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2844
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 22:46:00 -
[156] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:RubyPorto wrote: So... you're saying that buying insurance for your car is a bad idea because you're losing money every mile that you don't wreck your car? And that if you do buy insurance you should drive on bald tires to avoid wasting your insurance money.
Ooookay.
Tanked Exhumers do not and never have gotten ganked anywhere near as often as untanked ones. That means that there is a meaningful difference between yield fit and tank fit.
No, you have said that. I have insurance in the real world because I donGÇÖt have the millions it could cost me if I made even a minor mistake. In comparison I could quite happily stomach the loss of the metal box. In the real world it is possible to lose half the value of vehicle just by buying it and then on top of that you have ongoing depreciation. You are losing money every second that you own a car, as well as every mile you drive it and all totally irrelevant of whether or not it is insured. It is in fact perfectly possible for the cost of the insurance to exceed the value of the car. Cars and car insurance is really a terrible thing to try to relate to a pixel spaceship that exists in the fairly simplistic economy of Eve.
Car insurance costs you money as long as you use the car (not every mile, but if you don't use your car at all, you can legally drop your insurance policy). It does nothing to help you unless something bad happens. Then it helps protect you from catastrophic loss.
Tanking your Mining ships costs you money as long as you use the ship. It does nothing to help you unless something bad happens. Then it helps protect you from catastrophic loss.
Saying that tanking your ship to help avoid catastrophic loss is a waste of money every hour you're not being ganked is equivalent to saying that car insurance is a waste of money every hour you're not involved in a car wreck.
Saying that the cost (in lost yield) of tanking your barge to avoid ganks is too high to be worthwhile is a different assertion, and one you can reasonably make. However, you can't then turn around and whine when you get ganked, because not tanking your ship is a choice that you made, and choices have consequences. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 14:06:00 -
[157] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Car insurance costs you money as long as you use the car (not every mile, but if you don't use your car at all, you can legally drop your insurance policy). It does nothing to help you unless something bad happens. Then it helps protect you from catastrophic loss.
Tanking your Mining ships costs you money as long as you use the ship. It does nothing to help you unless something bad happens. Then it helps protect you from catastrophic loss.
Saying that tanking your ship to help avoid catastrophic loss is a waste of money every hour you're not being ganked is equivalent to saying that car insurance is a waste of money every hour you're not involved in a car wreck.
Saying that the cost (in lost yield) of tanking your barge to avoid ganks is too high to be worthwhile is a different assertion, and one you can reasonably make. However, you can't then turn around and whine when you get ganked, because not tanking your ship is a choice that you made, and choices have consequences.
Cars do not earn an income and car insurance does not affect that income. With a commercial vehicle where you could claim an income existed the insurance will not have an effect on it. The analogy still does not equate to the fitting of a mining barge where its income will be affected by its GÇÿinsuranceGÇÖ. If a person had a mining ship and just flew about never mining then the analogy might work but it is lacking an important factor otherwise.
The point being made was that there was no defensive option because if New Order target you then they will gank you. This was backed up with the examples of the Orca and (tanked) Mack. As New Order exists on donations they are not constrained in the same way as a traditional organisation, it doesnGÇÖt matter to them if they lose ten ships taking out a Retriever, everything is equally vulnerable so there are no choices to be made.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2854
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 14:17:00 -
[158] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:Cars do not earn an income and car insurance does not affect that income. With a commercial vehicle where you could claim an income existed the insurance will not have an effect on it. The analogy still does not equate to the fitting of a mining barge where its income will be affected by its GÇÿinsuranceGÇÖ. If a person had a mining ship and just flew about never mining then the analogy might work but it is lacking an important factor otherwise.
Cars provide you with Utility which can be measured. The monetary cost of purchasing insurance reduces that utility. Mining ships provide you with Utility which can be measured (in income). The income cost of tanking it reduces that utility.
That reduction in utility is balanced by the reduced risk of catastrophic loss (either buy paying for that loss or reducing its likelihood).
You were claiming that Tanking is wasteful when not being ganked. That is equivalent to saying that buying insurance is wasteful while not filing a claim.
Quote:The point being made was that there was no defensive option because if New Order target you then they will gank you. This was backed up with the examples of the Orca and (tanked) Mack. As New Order exists on donations they are not constrained in the same way as a traditional organisation, it doesnGÇÖt matter to them if they lose ten ships taking out a Retriever, everything is equally vulnerable so there are no choices to be made.
If you are tanked, you are less likely to be ganked, as it costs more money than it's normally worth to gank you.
If you are ATK, there are strategies that guarantee that you will not be ganked, as you will have warped out or your Nado will have killed the gank party.
Everything is not equally vulnerable. An untanked Mackinaw can fall to a single destroyer. A tanked one cannot. Simply slapping some Invulns on your Mackinaw puts you out of reach of all solo gankers. How many Skiffs have the New Order ganked compared to the number of Mackinaws? If your claim that everything is equally vulnerable, I would think that I'd see plenty of Skiff and Procurer ganks from miners testing to see if your claim is true and immediately being ganked. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 17:38:00 -
[159] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Cars provide you with Utility which can be measured. The monetary cost of purchasing insurance reduces that utility.
The benefit or functionality of a car is not proportional to the cost of its insurance. Legal requirements ignored, the car does and offers the same things with or without insurance.
RubyPorto wrote: You were claiming that Tanking is wasteful when not being ganked. That is equivalent to saying that buying insurance is wasteful while not filing a claim.
You are suggesting that if the price of insurance exceeded the value of the car that it would be a good idea to buy the insurance. An individual does not get ganked often enough for a tank to earn its keep, more so since tanking is not guaranteed to prevent a ganking.
RubyPorto wrote: If you are tanked, you are less likely to be ganked, as it costs more money than it's normally worth to gank you.
If you are ATK, there are strategies that guarantee that you will not be ganked, as you will have warped out or your Nado will have killed the gank party.
Everything is not equally vulnerable. An untanked Mackinaw can fall to a single destroyer. A tanked one cannot. Simply slapping some Invulns on your Mackinaw puts you out of reach of all solo gankers. How many Skiffs have the New Order ganked compared to the number of Mackinaws? If your claim that everything is equally vulnerable, I would think that I'd see plenty of Skiff and Procurer ganks from miners testing to see if your claim is true and immediately being ganked.
To a GÇÿnormalGÇÖ ganker I agree that it would make sense to shop around for the most vulnerable target. However in this case the discussion concerned new order whose standard tactic is to know the max ehp of the target and then send sufficient DPS, they exist outside the normal ganking economics.
Im curious how the Tornado is supposed to help matters, I did address the costs of guards earlier but essentially it costs you more than 15m/hour to have a guard, thatGÇÖs the equivalent of losing a Retriever every two hours. If killing the ganking party is more expensive than being ganked why not just be ganked or use the self destruct, it is a cheaper option and you at least get to see an explosion.
I agree that invulns on a Mack should be required by law but they donGÇÖt impact on yield, cap can be an issue but you donGÇÖt need to cycle lasers whilst youGÇÖre being shot at. In normal situations it is definitely the way to go but New Order will take them out if they feel like it. If you are ATK you have to be looking at the right thing at the right time, itGÇÖs easy to miss a ship warping in for a few seconds if youGÇÖre reading something in chat. Staying aligned and being way off the warp in is the biggest life safer as you get those extra seconds back.
You do have a point that Skiffs and Procurers can be fairly beefy when you want them to be. However they may as well have been textured with Admiral Ackbars face, most people mining in them (in hi-sec) are such fresh escapees that they are still wearing strait jackets, the rest are up to something. Im not certain but I think an Orca EHP is in the region of a tanked Procurer and a Skiff can be in the region of a Navy Raven? IGÇÖm just waiting on some drone skills and then my Procurers going out duelling (and it might actually win a few fights). There yields make them expensive to mine in when compared to more gankable options.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2861
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 18:02:00 -
[160] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:You are suggesting that if the price of insurance exceeded the value of the car that it would be a good idea to buy the insurance. An individual does not get ganked often enough for a tank to earn its keep, more so since tanking is not guaranteed to prevent a ganking.
As I said before, if that is the outcome of your cost-benefit analysis, that's fine. It's your choice to put 200m ISK in harms way without any significant impediment to people who you know are trying to kill it. You still do not get to claim that "you are losing money every cycle that you are not ganked" because that is equivalent to the "you are losing money every time you're not in a wreck" insurance argument.
Quote:To a GÇÿnormalGÇÖ ganker I agree that it would make sense to shop around for the most vulnerable target. However in this case the discussion concerned new order whose standard tactic is to know the max ehp of the target and then send sufficient DPS, they exist outside the normal ganking economics.
And an ATK miner can still trivially escape them.
Quote:Im curious how the Tornado is supposed to help matters, I did address the costs of guards earlier but essentially it costs you more than 15m/hour to have a guard, thatGÇÖs the equivalent of losing a Retriever every two hours. If killing the ganking party is more expensive than being ganked why not just be ganked or use the self destruct, it is a cheaper option and you at least get to see an explosion.
Not worth it != Doesn't work. The Tornado will likely prevent the gank from succeeding. It's up to you to decide if it's worth it to protect your 200m ISK investment. Just like tanking.
Quote:If you are ATK you have to be looking at the right thing at the right time, itGÇÖs easy to miss a ship warping in for a few seconds if youGÇÖre reading something in chat. Staying aligned and being way off the warp in is the biggest life safer as you get those extra seconds back.
You have >10s to notice a mess of catalysts on D-scan and insta-warp off (you have been aligned, right? Webs and fleetwarps work wonders for this).
Quote:You do have a point that Skiffs and Procurers can be fairly beefy when you want them to be. However they may as well have been textured with Admiral Ackbars face, most people mining in them (in hi-sec) are such fresh escapees that they are still wearing strait jackets, the rest are up to something. Im not certain but I think an Orca EHP is in the region of a tanked Procurer and a Skiff can be in the region of a Navy Raven? IGÇÖm just waiting on some drone skills and then my Procurers going out duelling (and it might actually win a few fights). There yields make them expensive to mine in when compared to more gankable options.
Put a dang Tank on your Orca if it has that little EHP.
Yes. You have to make a trade off between survivibility and yield/cargo. Why in the world shouldn't you have to make that tradeoff? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 19:32:00 -
[161] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Put a dang Tank on your Orca if it has that little EHP.
Yes. You have to make a trade off between survivibility and yield/cargo. Why in the world shouldn't you have to make that tradeoff?
IGÇÖll give up with the car insurance. IGÇÖll concede it and simply look for a higher quote next time I want a pay rise :p
My Orca is miles away getting really dusty, I havenGÇÖt the faintest idea what its EHP actually is. off hand I think a Skiff can go above 100k, so I assumed you could get to about 70k ish in a Procurer which seemed in the right region.
I think our discussion does come down to yield/tank if we want to save on the multi quoting. I can only go on the evidence I have which is that the frequency that an individual gets ganked in high sec means that going with yield more than covers the cost of losses. It isnGÇÖt about surviving it is about making a profit. It isnGÇÖt really a trade off at all, yield is win win GÇô you just win a little less if/when you get ganked. For tank/cargo in industrials it is a far more open question as to where you should go. I have four Mammoths covering a range of options because there are tradeoffs and you have to make a decision before you set off. In the case of Industrial though it can only be loss loss if I get it wrong, I donGÇÖt really get more reward if I take a greater risk or get less reward with less risk. Maybe it takes a little more time but IGÇÖm not flying them that far in the first place. For longer hauls I take a Freighter and I always have the perfect fit for that.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2863
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 20:05:00 -
[162] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:I think our discussion does come down to yield/tank if we want to save on the multi quoting. I can only go on the evidence I have which is that the frequency that an individual gets ganked in high sec means that going with yield more than covers the cost of losses. It isnGÇÖt about surviving it is about making a profit. It isnGÇÖt really a trade off at all, yield is win win GÇô you just win a little less if/when you get ganked. For tank/cargo in industrials it is a far more open question as to where you should go. I have four Mammoths covering a range of options because there are tradeoffs and you have to make a decision before you set off. In the case of Industrial though it can only be loss loss if I get it wrong, I donGÇÖt really get more reward if I take a greater risk or get less reward with less risk. Maybe it takes a little more time but IGÇÖm not flying them that far in the first place. For longer hauls I take a Freighter and I always have the perfect fit for that.
And I've said that if your analysis comes out that yield is better for your level of risk tolerance, that's fine. You are more than welcome to not tank your 200m ISK investment. But you don't get to whine when you get ganked or claim that you cannot protect yourself because you chose not to.
Sure you do. You move more cargo in less trips if you risk more in each trip. 10 Freighter runs @1b each is safe, but slow. 1 Freighter run @10b is fast (well... you know what I mean), but unsafe.
Up to you to decide on the balance. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 19:02:00 -
[163] - Quote
CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.
Obviously it can't be made an aggressive action because it would be impossible to determine if the "bumping" was to disrupt warp or not.
Looking at it from a logical standpoint the way the game is currently set up "bumping" has the the exact same effect as a warp disruptor on the target ship without any aggression. Why should someone be allowed to warp distrupt another ship without any aggression?
|
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1184
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 21:16:00 -
[164] - Quote
IIshira wrote:CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.
Bumping someone off gate or off a dock point has long been a valid tactic in EveO, and it's no more a truly aggressive act that those inane .01 isk wars. Comparing the two is NOT logical: one is CLEARLY an attack, the other isn't.
I'm truly fascinated that people get excited over this, and CONTINUE to mine (probably in ships fit for yield and not tank) in the same systems where these guys tend to go. Face it, leave the Easy Button behind, find someplace quiet to mine, and you won't get bothered. The bumpers are just as lazy as the wanna-be gankers in Uedama or Sirppala: leave the area, and they won't follow you. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." -á --- Sorlac |
Forum Clone 77777
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 21:10:00 -
[165] - Quote
IIshira wrote:
CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.
Obviously it can't be made an aggressive action because it would be impossible to determine if the "bumping" was to disrupt warp or not.
Looking at it from a logical standpoint the way the game is currently set up "bumping" has the the exact same effect as a warp disruptor on the target ship without any aggression. Why should someone be allowed to warp distrupt another ship without any aggression?
First of all, its used alot to get people off gates and bumping stuff that might have warp stabs on it. Why would you ruin this tactic? Also, since a ship has to be aligned and be at roughly 70% of its top speed to go into warp, how do you propose that bumping DOES NOT disrupt warp, as bumping is pushing the other ship in the direction you hit it in?
Your "idea" is stupid, would ruin the game, and makes no sense whatsoever. |
Piet Pieterszoon Heyn
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 12:15:00 -
[166] - Quote
IIshira wrote:
CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.
I agree that something about bumping should change, but instead of little hacks to the game or complicated policies I think the game mechanics should more closely follow real-world physics. This discussion may deserve a thread of it's own.
If a car on the highway hits a mosquito off-center on the windscreen, the car will not go spinning off the road (unless the driver is fatally distracted by it, of course).
So why does a frigate hitting a dreadnaught cause the dreadnaught to drift outside a POS shield? I looked up several ship sizes and masses and noticed that while a dreadnaught is about 100 times the linear size of a frigate, it's mass is "only" 1000 times as big. If a frigate were massive and the dreadnaught a hollow structure of 10m thickness, the mass should be 10,000 times the frigate's. But I'd expect a warship like a dreadnaught to be quite massive, making the mass 1,000,000 that of a frigate.
Looking further at the Titan, the hull thickness can't be more than a fraction of a millimeter...
I can imagine that fixing this will be problematic, because:
- Reducing size to match mass would completely change the way everything looks.
- Increasing mass to match size would:
- increase the amount of materials required to build ships enormously, or
- cause ships mass to be unrelated to it's required materials, which isn't realistic.
Any ideas about this? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Universal Corporate Repossession Inc.
6103
|
Posted - 2013.03.03 19:34:00 -
[167] - Quote
Piet Pieterszoon Heyn wrote:IIshira wrote:
CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.
I agree that something about bumping should change, but instead of little hacks to the game or complicated policies I think the game mechanics should more closely follow real-world physics. This discussion may deserve a thread of it's own. If a car on the highway hits a mosquito off-center on the windscreen, the car will not go spinning off the road (unless the driver is fatally distracted by it, of course). So why does a frigate hitting a dreadnaught cause the dreadnaught to drift outside a POS shield? I looked up several ship sizes and masses and noticed that while a dreadnaught is about 100 times the linear size of a frigate, it's mass is "only" 1000 times as big. If a frigate were massive and the dreadnaught a hollow structure of 10m thickness, the mass should be 10,000 times the frigate's. But I'd expect a warship like a dreadnaught to be quite massive, making the mass 1,000,000 that of a frigate. Looking further at the Titan, the hull thickness can't be more than a fraction of a millimeter... I can imagine that fixing this will be problematic, because:
- Reducing size to match mass would completely change the way everything looks.
- Increasing mass to match size would:
- increase the amount of materials required to build ships enormously, or
- cause ships mass to be unrelated to it's required materials, which isn't realistic.
Any ideas about this?
Eve physics 101, an active MWD increases a ships mass as well as its speed. A cruiser fitted with an active 10MN MWD gets a 500,000 kg mass increase and 500% speed increase. Change the MWD to a 100MN and that mass increase is 50,000,000 kg with a much greater increase in speed, although it'll handle like an ocean liner.
A bare stabber weighs 10,000,000 kg, a MWD stabber weighs 15,000,000 kg with the MWD active and no other modules fitted. A bare mackinaw weighs 20,000,000 kg, take a 15,000,000 kg item travelling at 2000-2350m/s (dependent on skills) and hit a stationary 20,000,000 kg object with it, what do you think will happen, even with real world physics?
Velocity matters, an 8 gramme lump of lead shot from a rifle is more than enough to knock a 100 kg human flat on his arse. A MWD cruiser can travel considerably faster than a bullet shot from an M16 (950ish m/s IIRC) and weighs about 15,000,000 kg more than the bullet.
Eve in a nutshell, it's you vs the universe, and everybody in it. |
Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 17:33:00 -
[168] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Eve physics 101, an active MWD increases a ships mass as well as its speed. A cruiser fitted with an active 10MN MWD gets a 500,000 kg mass increase and 500% speed increase. Change the MWD to a 100MN and that mass increase is 50,000,000 kg with a much greater increase in speed, although it'll handle like an ocean liner.
Wrong, 100MN doesn't have a much greater increase in speed. it is still 500%
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A bare stabber has a mass of 10,000,000 kg, a 10MN MWD stabber has an increased mass of 15,000,000 kg with the MWD active and no other modules fitted. A bare mackinaw masses 20,000,000 kg, take a 15,000,000 kg item travelling at 2000-2500m/s (dependent on skills) and hit a stationary 20,000,000 kg object with it, what do you think will happen, even with real world physics?
Adding max 35,000m3 ore at 3,000 kg/m3 (give or take), taking into account partial inelastic collision, less than perfect contacts and dampening of thrusters the mack should get less than 10% initial velocity of the stabber and should be able to come to a stop within a reasonable time/distance, not in the ridiculous dimensions that are currently happening in EVE. However the Stabber is likely to see collision damage to the extend of structural failure.
For frigate-freighter bumps to prevent warp/jump/docking the current behaviour is even more ridiculous
Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Velocity matters, an 8 gram lump of lead shot from a rifle is more than enough to knock a 100 kg human flat on his arse. A MWD cruiser can travel considerably faster than a bullet shot from an M16 (950ish m/s IIRC) and weighs about 15,000,000 kg more than the bullet.
Velocity matters, but momentum matters more. 8gr lead resulting in 100kg human on his arse is not about velocity, but about balance. The human topples over, but is not propelled x meters backwards (just like the shooter is not landing on his arse (action-reaction thing) If science is too hard for you try more easily consumable form: MythBusters season 3 episodes 1 and 19 |
Leonardo Esil
Miner Pinball INC
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 01:03:00 -
[169] - Quote
Je'ron wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Eve physics 101, an active MWD increases a ships mass as well as its speed. A cruiser fitted with an active 10MN MWD gets a 500,000 kg mass increase and 500% speed increase. Change the MWD to a 100MN and that mass increase is 50,000,000 kg with a much greater increase in speed, although it'll handle like an ocean liner.
Wrong, 100MN doesn't have a much greater increase in speed. it is still 500%
Have you ever bothered to put a 100MN MWD on to a cruiser hull?
A 2 nano 10MN SFI goes 3800m/s overheated.
A 2 nano 100MN SFI goes 8990 m/s overheated.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2923
|
Posted - 2013.03.06 16:26:00 -
[170] - Quote
Je'ron wrote:Wrong, 100MN doesn't have a much greater increase in speed. it is still 500% The Cap is still 500%. A 10mn MWD doesn't get you to the cap; a 100mn MWD does.
Quote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: A bare stabber has a mass of 10,000,000 kg, a 10MN MWD stabber has an increased mass of 15,000,000 kg with the MWD active and no other modules fitted. A bare mackinaw masses 20,000,000 kg, take a 15,000,000 kg item travelling at 2000-2500m/s (dependent on skills) and hit a stationary 20,000,000 kg object with it, what do you think will happen, even with real world physics?
Adding max 35,000m3 ore at 3,000 kg/m3 (give or take), taking into account partial inelastic collision, less than perfect contacts and dampening of thrusters the mack should get less than 10% initial velocity of the stabber and should be able to come to a stop within a reasonable time/distance, not in the ridiculous dimensions that are currently happening in EVE. However the Stabber is likely to see collision damage to the extend of structural failure. For frigate-freighter bumps to prevent warp/jump/docking the current behaviour is even more ridiculous
Then Ore in the hold should affect acceleration rate for the Mack as well (hooray 1min+ align times). Cargo doesn't affect mass in EVE. You don't want it to affect mass, either. And a 100mn MWD stabber masses around 65m kg, traveling at up to 19k m/s.
EVE ship collisions would be roughly elastic (see lore about shields) if they used physics to calculate them. And a Mack has pretty weak thrusters, since it's max speed (letting alone that the concept of a max speed on a spaceship throws realism arguments out the window) is only ~100m/s, so I'm not sure what dampening effect you're thinking they should have.
As for collision damage, a Bump stabber can have more EHP than the target Mack, so I don't think you want to go there (also people could just switch to bump Machs and their 100k+ EHP).
As for Frigates and Freighters, keeping something that is massive but has weak thrusters from perfectly lining up with something doesn't take a lot of momentum. See Tugboats vs Supertankers, and consider whether the Supertanker could orient itself on a heading with a tugboat pushing it's bow to the side. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
Alexiuss
Boris Johnson's Love Children
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 14:06:00 -
[171] - Quote
pi-+rate (prt) n. 1. a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation. b. A ship used for this purpose.
2. One who preys on others; a plunderer.
3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.
v. pi-+rat-+ed, pi-+rat-+ing, pi-+rates v.tr.
1. To attack and rob (a ship). 2. To take (something) by piracy. 3. To make use of or reproduce (another's work) without authorization. v.intr. To act as a pirate; practice piracy.
Verb 1. pirate - copy illegally; of published material
crime, criminal offence, criminal offense, law-breaking, offense, offence - (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act; "a long record of crimes"
steal - take without the owner's consent; "Someone stole my wallet on the train"; "This author stole entire paragraphs from my dissertation"
This is taken from a dictionary for those who are interested.
My point is simple, why advertise the role of a 'pirate' as a possible career path on your website and limit its use within the game with rules? Pirates do not follow the rules, they are pirates after all. I see this as part of thier job description outlined above under the crime section. If you didn'f want players to be targeted I would suggest you remove that career from your home page and more importantly from the game mechanics.
My personal view on harassment would not be this 'bumping' issue in a 'role playing' game. I would see it as harassment if a person was getting written abuse on a daily basis targeting them in a non-roleplaying fashion. This decision is the wrong decision in my view and it should be up to the players in this so-called 'sandbox' game to band together and fix the problems they are facing instead of screaming to the DEV's every time they feel targeted. (And yes I've been attacked by pirates.... it is part of the game)
And if you are botting I have no sympathy as you're technically not playing the game are you. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2652
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 00:31:00 -
[172] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: 10 Freighter runs @1b each is safe, unless you're red. 1 Freighter run @10b is dead.
I'd have gone with this. Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae Blue Sec
202
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 12:52:00 -
[173] - Quote
Bring Mining ship HP levels back to a sensible rate ie 5000 HP instead of the battleship tank they field currentely. Then New order can just sucide the miners and thus this bumping thread will be redundant.
Next CCP nerf to high sec should bring an organised unsub in which we can get mining ship tanks back down to solo gank levels. Kugutsumen - My signature insures that my post is always read by an ISD or Dev, does yours? |
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
27
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 23:55:00 -
[174] - Quote
Good to see this got all cleared up See Bio for isk doubling rules. -áIf you didn't read bio, chances are you helped fund those who did. |
Loren Torvald
Home Row
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 00:42:00 -
[175] - Quote
bump |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3067
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 04:01:00 -
[176] - Quote
I see what you did there. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Teh Nurffe
Nasranite Watch The Bloody Ronin Syndicate
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:26:00 -
[177] - Quote
It seems like CCP is trying to kill everything fun from the game and converting eve to peaceful place for everyone where no one can interfere to others business
Hello Kitty Online here we come!
|
Samuel Wess
Happy Folks Happy Cartel
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 15:02:00 -
[178] - Quote
Allow wardecs to pilots from NPC corp. This should be possible. Also highsec crimes should get punished, instant -10 on any ship/pod kill without wardec.
|
Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
66
|
Posted - 2013.03.31 15:35:00 -
[179] - Quote
Samuel Wess wrote:Allow wardecs to pilots from NPC corp. This should be possible. Also highsec crimes should get punished, instant -10 on any ship/pod kill without wardec.
Yes! No more hundreds of podkills to get to -10. +1 for that suggestion.
|
Otto3d
Aerospace Corporation
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 16:49:00 -
[180] - Quote
James 315, the leader of this "New Order", runs a one-man corp and has been war dec several times. However, he just quits and creates a new one with the same name and everything so the war never really happens and he goes about bumping miners and as such. Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank? |
|
Runeme Shilter
New Order Logistics CODE.
73
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 17:00:00 -
[181] - Quote
Otto3d wrote:Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?
Initially, dropping and reforming the same corp was considered an exploit. But carebears everywhere whined to CCP about wardecs and no way out and CCP changed the rules so that it no longer is an exploit. Thank the carebears! ;-) |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1196
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:00:00 -
[182] - Quote
Otto3d wrote:James 315, the leader of this "New Order", runs a one-man corp and has been war dec several times. However, he just quits and creates a new one with the same name and everything so the war never really happens and he goes about bumping miners and as such. Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?
Which is exactly what the carebears do: They sit in npc corps or drop corp upon a dec, making it impossible for us to legally explode their stupid mining barges, which is why we suicide gank.
Using their own tactics against them and causing tears is just another aspect of our Saviours perfection. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3156
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 15:34:00 -
[183] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Otto3d wrote:Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank? Initially, dropping and reforming the same corp was considered an exploit. But carebears everywhere whined to CCP about wardecs and no way out and CCP changed the rules so that it no longer is an exploit. Thank the carebears! ;-)
And now they're whining that someone else is using that rule to bother them.
Surprise! This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Capt Starfox
New Order Logistics CODE.
418
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 02:33:00 -
[184] - Quote
Just wanted to stop by and say hello in my favorite thread. Hello! Psychotic Monk for CSM 8 |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.23 12:24:00 -
[185] - Quote
RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp. 2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
|
Phoenix Bibbs
Red Galaxy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2013.04.25 18:38:00 -
[186] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp. 2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
Remind me again why we care what you think? |
iPod Nubz
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 05:41:00 -
[187] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp. 2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
LOL ... All activities other than /wave shall eb banned from hisec, and ships should fly through each other (as in other MMOs characters do) in hisec because hisec is not intended for kills.
High Security space is that : HIGH Security. It is not a "no kill zone". The sooner people get that false feeling of security out of their minds, the better. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.26 11:19:00 -
[188] - Quote
iPod Nubz wrote:Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp. 2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
LOL ... All activities other than /wave shall eb banned from hisec, and ships should fly through each other (as in other MMOs characters do) in hisec because hisec is not intended for kills. High Security space is that : HIGH Security. It is not a "no kill zone". The sooner people get that false feeling of security out of their minds, the better.
I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less. Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.
You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?
|
Agent Trask
New Order Logistics CODE.
153
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 00:32:00 -
[189] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less. Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.
You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?
So I can force non-consensual PvP on freighters by parking my ship in front of the Jita undock and wait for an undocking freighter to strike me? And not get CONCORDed?
I approve of this proposed change! Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
24
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 14:49:00 -
[190] - Quote
Agent Trask wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less. Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.
You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?
So I can force non-consensual PvP on freighters by parking my ship in front of the Jita undock and wait for an undocking freighter to strike me? And not get CONCORDed? I approve of this proposed change!
How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!
Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.
AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.
Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course. |
|
Lady Areola Fappington
New Order Logistics CODE.
110
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 19:48:00 -
[191] - Quote
Got a distance you want to set this idea at, or we just going to do it gridwide? Also, how about passive speed mods?
Don't forget, bumping is about mass as well as speed....
Don't worry miners, I'm here to help!
|
Liltha
Lost My Way Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 07:53:00 -
[192] - Quote
Pap Uhotih wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Put a dang Tank on your Orca if it has that little EHP.
Yes. You have to make a trade off between survivibility and yield/cargo. Why in the world shouldn't you have to make that tradeoff?
IGÇÖll give up with the car insurance. IGÇÖll concede it and simply look for a higher quote next time I want a pay rise :p My Orca is miles away getting really dusty, I havenGÇÖt the faintest idea what its EHP actually is. off hand I think a Skiff can go above 100k, so I assumed you could get to about 70k ish in a Procurer which seemed in the right region. I think our discussion does come down to yield/tank if we want to save on the multi quoting. I can only go on the evidence I have which is that the frequency that an individual gets ganked in high sec means that going with yield more than covers the cost of losses. It isnGÇÖt about surviving it is about making a profit. It isnGÇÖt really a trade off at all, yield is win win GÇô you just win a little less if/when you get ganked. For tank/cargo in industrials it is a far more open question as to where you should go. I have four Mammoths covering a range of options because there are tradeoffs and you have to make a decision before you set off. In the case of Industrial though it can only be loss loss if I get it wrong, I donGÇÖt really get more reward if I take a greater risk or get less reward with less risk. Maybe it takes a little more time but IGÇÖm not flying them that far in the first place. For longer hauls I take a Freighter and I always have the perfect fit for that.
You are off by a bit with the orca tank. An untanked orca is something like 90k EHP, just tossing a DC2 on there will bump it up to 180k. Add some more tank modules and you can easily get to 250k ehp.
|
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 17:43:00 -
[193] - Quote
Sulzer Wartzilla wrote:Kimo Khan wrote:You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable?
It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. An easy solution to this issue is to prevent bumping to a person trying to warp, just turn off the mechanic when a person initiates warp. Its not like you can get bumped when you are in warp, so why not turn it off when you initiate warp. Bumping ships to prevent warping (but mostly crashing back to stargates) has long been an integral and known part of PVP. It takes skill to actually bump someone trying to escape. It's been around for years. Of course, once this tactic found its way to the asteroid belts of hisec, the calls for nerfing it or utterly removing it from the game did not wait long to rear their ugly face. Predictable.
To say bumping takes skills is just like saying going to the bathroom takes skill. Turn on MWD and press approach... That's all its requires to bump. Don't make it seem like its more than it is. |
Agent Trask
New Order Logistics CODE.
160
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 18:36:00 -
[194] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!
Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.
AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.
Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course.
Got it.
So if anyone activates an AB, they become a CONCORDOKEN victim if someone else manages to bump them.
And if I fit an Armageddon with nanos, I can get any miner who is using an AB or MWD CONCORDed by bumping him.
I'm still cool with this.
Although the instant you said "put a safety on ABs", I'm pretty sure any CCP devs reading this started howling with laughter.
Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.
www.minerbumping.com |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
171
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 22:15:00 -
[195] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not?
You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move?
How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so?
Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 08:42:00 -
[196] - Quote
Agent Trask wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!
Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.
AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.
Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course.
Got it. So if anyone activates an AB, they become a CONCORDOKEN victim if someone else manages to bump them. And if I fit an Armageddon with nanos, I can get any miner who is using an AB or MWD CONCORDed by bumping him. I'm still cool with this. Although the instant you said "put a safety on ABs", I'm pretty sure any CCP devs reading this started howling with laughter.
Your theory crafting is week. If you want to hang around in belts for hours on end waiting on the off chance a miner is gonna press his ab button. Up to you.
and no concord. Concord does not respond to suspect flag. Learn game mechanics BEFORE posting.
|
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 08:46:00 -
[197] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not? You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move? How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so? Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario.
No intent calculations. Changed my mind on that really, its not needed with a safety system. If you activate mods which can mess up the aligns of other players you take the responsibility.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
517
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 13:23:00 -
[198] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) Some people get so incensed by being bumped that they retaliate with weapons fire, even against unarmed bump ships.
FYP. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
59
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 17:03:00 -
[199] - Quote
A post has been deleted since it contained a modified quote that, if removed, would have left a reply with no content.
ISD Tyrozan Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy SpaceMonkey's Alliance
518
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 13:03:00 -
[200] - Quote
Dav Varan wrote:RISK FREE PVP ALERT
Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.
Undisputed Facts.
1) People get so upset over being bumped that they've been known to shoot at the unarmed bumping ship.
Someone tripped on the power again. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
|
Nagnor
The Happy Shooters
16
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 23:31:00 -
[201] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Dav Varan wrote:
Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.
Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not? You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move? How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so? Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario. The detection of the intent of a bump is indeed a problem which I think can not easily be computerized/code. EVE is not RL. There are no human police officers present capable of evaluating the situation, advanced reasoning (doesn't apply to all ;) and make the decision (with escalation process in place if one or more of parties disagrees) .
Nevertheless bumping in combination with Crimewatch is broken. This statement has in most of the previous posts not been disputed, most of the objections are about how to resolve it.
Maybe weird, but how about "fixing" it by breaking something else? Kind of in a similar way that untouchable cloaking and free, perfect intell in local are both broken, but in balance. Let's put aside the attempt to emulate this particular piece of real life physics in EVE and disable the player to player collision detection in High sec (only highsec: low, null & wh remain as it is) |
Beachura
Scott Webb Corp
69
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 12:24:00 -
[202] - Quote
. |
Beachura
Scott Webb Corp
69
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 12:25:00 -
[203] - Quote
Bing Bangboom wrote:Bantara wrote: Dang, does that mean you'll have to use good judgement, common sense, and a sense of what might cross the line into harassment?? Yikes....
So the answer is sometimes bumping is harassment and sometimes its not... I guess we have SOME guidelines now. I can bump someone morning, noon and night, as long as its in the same system or within a couple jumps. And if I feel like I'm getting too close to the edge on the harassment I can just call in a Knights fleet to gank their 200 million ISK Mack and pod them without being petitionable. I can work within those boundaries. I know CCP had a tough time trying to find the right balance on this. The final decision is pretty generous to us bumpers. I just know from months now of working with the miners that any sliver of doubt will be 100% proof to them and the complaints and petitions and forum threads will continue. I would have preferred them to stop at "CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit." and not put the "However" and opened it all back up again. BBB
Unfortunately bing stopping at 'normal game mechanic' would leave the field wide open, a 'loop hole' if you will.
My case in point:
I am roaming border low security systems in gallente sovereignty and I spot an individual who I see as easy pickings. I engage that individual and destroy him, which is perfectly within eve online game mechanics, just like bumping I am perfectly permitted to do this.
However, I continue to follow this individual through several jumps spanning regions locating him with a locator agent following him for an extended period of time specifically targeting him and attempting to disrupt his ability to function within eve. This then becomes petitionable and I am liable to action for harrassment, I am clearly following this individual with the intent of causing him distress and ruining his game experience.
Miner bumping is also now confirmed legitimate, but without stating the harrasment rule you would perfectly okay to follow an individual around spanning regions bumping them until they unsubscribed and left eve. Why should I be punished for following an individual around eve irritating them in lawless space while it's okay to bump an individual following them through regions of space that are high security?
It seems to me that you are looking for an excuse to harrass and troll players ruining their game experience with little or no risk to you.
This appears to be quite clear cut to me, and sits as follows:
If it is clear that you are simply pushing miners around because they happen to be there, in the same place as you are located then that is emergent gameplay and perfectly legal.
However, if it becomes apparent that you are following an individual or set of individuals because due to the fact they responded to your troll mail badly you know you can upset them and ruin their game experience, the Game Masters have left themselves room so that you can't claim "Oh but it's a legal game mechanic" if it is clear your intent is to ruin an individuals game experience by following them around day and night.
If game masters can identify any in manner that you are abusing this legal mechanic in order to follow a set of specific individuals around trolling them for extended periods, regardless of how many jumps you have done or where you've been before then it appears to be the case that you will be punished.
If you are simply bumping miners because they are in the same belt as you or constellation, you will be fine. The selection of tools available to game masters I'm sure makes the task of identifying whether you are following specific individual fairly straight forward.
The Game Masters have already made it clear that if you want to harrass a corporation or individual you declare war on them so that they can 'taste blood' as it was put. It is nobodies interest for high security carebears to leave the game because you're being a smart arse when you know deep down you are following them for the tears.
|
EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 22:37:00 -
[204] - Quote
Bottom line, get over it. Its a sandbox.
Pap Uhotih wrote:DirtySnowBunny wrote: If you made this MMO as a "sandbox" let it stand as one. I think the Spartans put it best, GÇ£If.GÇ¥. Whilst in general terms the gameplay could be described as sandbox in style the reality is that the implementation has always gone beyond that of a sandbox and it has always had to. DirtySnowBunny wrote: 2) Will ganking the same person or group over and over be considered harassment as well? a) This is typical practice to gain a leverage of an area or system. The art of bumping actually has become a good business of making additional isk. We have our mercenaries, bounty hunters, other miners WANT and PAY people to gank, bump or otherwise so they can make a profit. 3) Bumping is a good mechanic for detouring AFK assisted mining via one of the many BOT programs out there or custom variations there of. It is not that hard to change from one space to another, most bumpers (or gankers) will not move their operations around one person. So in conclusion the argument about "omg make bumping an exploit" is just ridiculous.
I think it has long been accepted that financially speaking the only winner is James 315, it is a good business for him. For everyone else the only new thing seems to be the slightly misguided belief that some new market has been created when in reality all that has happened is that a certain set of player behaviour has been grouped together under a single term. The business of disruption has a long history and simply reflects the reality that industrial game play is not necessarily as passive as it may appear to be on the surface. A lot of irritation is actually rooted in the use of NPC or tiny player corps. Effectively there is an alliance with none of the cost or risk. The structure used by the bumper alliance in fact makes it cheaper and more practical to declare war on Goonswarm. This structure prevents industrialists from paying mercenary organisations to provide a more militaristic response than a Retriever will ever manage. Mercenaries are therefore not really a part of this food chain, certainly they are not able to make the amounts of isk that they would be able to on a level playing field. Making considered observations of a suspected bot and then using the in game reporting system is the only effective way to take action against a botter. That is the only in game mechanic that deters botting. I had always assumed that there was meant to be humour in the statement GÇ£Bot-aspirant behavior is not permittedGÇ¥ but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a bot is aspiring to be. Why would the bot sit still while a gank capable ship approached it. The issue is not so much if something should happen when two ships collide it is how that should fit into the rock/paper/scissor model that is typical of Eve. IGÇÖll refer you to page 1 for a fairly clear statement about what is and is not considered harassment.
|
EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 22:45:00 -
[205] - Quote
Once again, welcome to the sandbox. After nearly drooling on myself reading your self-righteous, long winded post. We once again come to the bottom line: Sandbox. bumping or insults are part of the game long as its not racial in content.
I think Bunny said it well, If you don't like it move to another system. The only people the truly cried about it are the one that are running semi-assisted to full assisted AFK mining. I would even say its in the 90% range. I gank. I generally don't bump and gank legitimate miners. We have fantastic intel on who is botting and who is not. The subject matter is not rocket science. (or long winded flabber-gastro-unintelligent writing strong alluding to your posting abilities).
Bumping is a via mechanic for income and an endless source of entertainment we we met fellows like yourself.
Pap Uhotih wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote: Complains that the Agents of the New Order are in NPC corps (pro tip the majority actually arent)
No, I complained that they were in NPC or tiny player corps. As your caveat eludes to, it would be easy for me to demonstrate that some are in NPC corps. Just to be clear though, I have never claimed where the majority are and for the purposes of my point it would have been more beneficial if they were not located in NPC corps. Kainotomiu has provided evidence that I need to expand what I said to include hiding in larger corporations which I am happy to do. The source he has quoted (in ball park maths) suggests that to war dec the twenty or so bumpers listed you would have to go to war with somewhere in the region of 13,000 chars, the actual targets being less than 0.2% of the people you would be at war with. That passes any test for being impractical to do. Doing so would certainly exceed the war dec price cap, something that puts TEST, Goons etc. at a disadvantage comparatively. That is why I proposed that it created an imbalance. I must confess that my original point was largely inspired by a post made by the bumper messiah himself; I wasnGÇÖt expecting the theology department to have such a differing view on a tactic that has more traditionally been bundled as a part of emergent game play. I have demonstrated that the majority are not in a single corporation/alliance as was claimed by admiral root. I have never said that the remainder were all in NPC corporations, the truth is that some of them are, some of them are in tiny player corporations, some are a part of larger unrelated player organisations and a minority of them are in CODE.. TheGunslinger42 wrote: Is in an NPC corp himself, as are many other disgusting miners.
Personally I try to pay most attention to the column in the middle rather than the one on the left; the content is much more relevant. This posting alt is in an NPC corporation, I am of the opinion that in certain matters you should be able to post as an account holder rather than an in game character, certainly where game rules are called into question. The best effort I can make toward that is to remove any indication of my in game affiliations in order that they do not bias the interpretation of any comments I make. The point is to be able to have a reasonable discussion without having to resort to insulting groups of players.
|
EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.11 22:53:00 -
[206] - Quote
Most blame everyone but themselves when they could have protected their investment - exhumer in this case - with a small amount of fitted defense.
Thankfully EvE does this: Play stupid, suffer a significant hit on your wallet. Do stupid things, repeat effect. One thing this game offers that I love is ----- Your "stuff" is never safe. Its a great dynamic that most other games don't offer, having a completely safe-zone is just.... so WoW. :) I degrade.
Pap Uhotih is small minority that thinks the tear-stained wheel will get the grease. In his case, the overly-bloated, mostly non-sense tears. You have to sort the overly drawn out 25 dollar words covering the 1 dollar sentence.
RubyPorto wrote:Pap Uhotih wrote:I think our discussion does come down to yield/tank if we want to save on the multi quoting. I can only go on the evidence I have which is that the frequency that an individual gets ganked in high sec means that going with yield more than covers the cost of losses. It isnGÇÖt about surviving it is about making a profit. It isnGÇÖt really a trade off at all, yield is win win GÇô you just win a little less if/when you get ganked. For tank/cargo in industrials it is a far more open question as to where you should go. I have four Mammoths covering a range of options because there are tradeoffs and you have to make a decision before you set off. In the case of Industrial though it can only be loss loss if I get it wrong, I donGÇÖt really get more reward if I take a greater risk or get less reward with less risk. Maybe it takes a little more time but IGÇÖm not flying them that far in the first place. For longer hauls I take a Freighter and I always have the perfect fit for that. And I've said that if your analysis comes out that yield is better for your level of risk tolerance, that's fine. You are more than welcome to not tank your 200m ISK investment. But you don't get to whine when you get ganked or claim that you cannot protect yourself because you chose not to. Sure you do. You move more cargo in less trips if you risk more in each trip. 10 Freighter runs @1b each is safe, but slow. 1 Freighter run @10b is fast (well... you know what I mean), but unsafe. Up to you to decide on the balance. |
Blue Absinthe
Wardec U
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.25 21:16:00 -
[207] - Quote
CCP officially endorses the New Order of Highsec. Hats off to CCP. It was the right decision to let James clean highsec up. |
Sabriz Adoudel
AWOXalypse
395
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 07:46:00 -
[208] - Quote
Otto3d wrote:James 315, the leader of this "New Order", runs a one-man corp and has been war dec several times. However, he just quits and creates a new one with the same name and everything so the war never really happens and he goes about bumping miners and as such. Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?
Oh, I long for the day this is declared an exploit. And I'm sure James would be happy with that too. AWOXalypse is coming! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2898431 Buy shares: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=226618 An enemy is a friend you stab in the front. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
288
|
Posted - 2013.06.10 01:28:00 -
[209] - Quote
Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.
It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).
There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.
A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.
Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it. |
D35
Trianguli Australis
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 12:12:00 -
[210] - Quote
ZaBob wrote:Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.
It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).
There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.
A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.
Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it. I don't see any imbalance here since there is one mechanic that completely protects you from bumping: Moving out of the way. No bumper will waste their time trying to bump something which they can't.
I've seen some miners refusing to do this, deliberately making themselves "victims", because of their principles. But seriously, it's not hard to double click the space. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3537
|
Posted - 2013.06.11 14:24:00 -
[211] - Quote
ZaBob wrote:Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.
It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).
There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.
A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.
Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it.
Orbit yo' Roids.
[Skiff, Bump-Proof]
Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II
Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Upgraded Thermic Dissipation Amplifier I
Modulated Strip Miner II
Medium Ancillary Current Router I [Empty Rig slot]
This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Garek Zosimo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 18:05:00 -
[212] - Quote
Blue Absinthe wrote:CCP officially endorses the New Order of Highsec. Hats off to CCP. It was the right decision to let James clean highsec up.
You need to re-read CCP's statement because they specifically said they are NOT endorsing the conduct. They are merely allowing it to not be categorized as an exploit. |
Amyclas Amatin
sleep Deprivation INC. LLC The Kadeshi
109
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 21:21:00 -
[213] - Quote
Beachura wrote: However, if it becomes apparent that you are following an individual or set of individuals because due to the fact they responded to your troll mail badly you know you can upset them and ruin their game experience, the Game Masters have left themselves room so that you can't claim "Oh but it's a legal game mechanic" if it is clear your intent is to ruin an individuals game experience by following them around day and night.
Suppose I took a mercenary contract to kill a certain individual again and again and again. And the said victim also has a multi-billion isk bounty put on him for the sole purpose of his being killed again and again and again. I am deliberately ruining his game experience for profit. And the folks who put out the contract and bounty did so within the parameters of the game mechanics to encourage the killing of this victim. Is this harassment? Please help me with my survey on high-sec aggression: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1dLcM27c_qDyOIxFgE4Zan_T8j_eZDDeCUAEL4lwXGC8/viewform |
Kiitsune Anstian
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.17 04:01:00 -
[214] - Quote
My experience as a miner being bumped the people Bumping are specifically targeting the cyclical Ice belts to either ensure their alts get the majority of the harvest or try to harass everyone who is their mining.
I have literally had to squat at under 50 meters from the ice to limit their ability to shift me like a limpet and because I am harder to shift I then get focused to ensure I can't stay in range. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Caliban Logistics and Storage
9308
|
Posted - 2013.06.25 02:43:00 -
[215] - Quote
Kiitsune Anstian wrote:My experience as a miner being bumped the people Bumping are specifically targeting the cyclical Ice belts to either ensure their alts get the majority of the harvest or try to harass everyone who is their mining.
I have literally had to squat at under 50 meters from the ice to limit their ability to shift me like a limpet and because I am harder to shift I then get focused to ensure I can't stay in range.
Welcome to competition in the Ice fields, to maximise your profit, you must be prepared to make it difficult for your competitors to mine, it's good business sense.
I eat your hatred for breakfast, then wash it down with your tears. |
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
1431
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 11:45:00 -
[216] - Quote
ZaBob wrote:Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.
It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).
There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.
A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.
Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it.
War dec us. Gank us. Pay us the fees you owe for operating in our systems. Take the miniscule effort to move system.
You have a number options available to you. Don't pretend like you don't have any choice at all though. That's just dishonest. |
jedijed
Thundercats The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 20:39:00 -
[217] - Quote
Bumping to the harcore degree
http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4 |
D35
Trianguli Australis
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 02:56:00 -
[218] - Quote
jedijed wrote:Bumping to the harcore degree http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4Being bumped by not one but 2 Machariels taking turns bumping me 450k off the gate i think falls under harrasment !! I would like to congratulate the bumpers for doing an amazing job by bumping this freighter to where it belongs |
jedijed
Thundercats The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 03:12:00 -
[219] - Quote
I would like to congratulate the bumpers for doing an amazing job by bumping this freighter to where it belongs[/quote] jesus theres so many haters in this game
i like pvp as much as anyone. i can accept haulers getting ganked. i can accept freightor and jf getting ganked by alpha fleets but bumping someone for a f******************************** hr is just over the top . |
Sir Marksalot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
513
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 04:56:00 -
[220] - Quote
jedijed wrote: jesus theres so many haters in this game
i like pvp as much as anyone. i can accept haulers getting ganked. i can accept freightor and jf getting ganked by alpha fleets but bumping someone for a f******************************** hr is just over the top .
So is the video where you accidentally recorded that autopilot to 0 hack or did you cut that out in the new version? |
|
WonkySplitDemon
Red Dawn Mercenaries
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 06:26:00 -
[221] - Quote
jedijed wrote:I would like to congratulate the bumpers for doing an amazing job by bumping this freighter to where it belongs jesus theres so many haters in this game
i like pvp as much as anyone. i can accept haulers getting ganked. i can accept freightor and jf getting ganked by alpha fleets but bumping someone for a f******************************** hr is just over the top .[/quote]
Just give up before you embarass yourself any further |
jedijed
Thundercats The Initiative.
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 06:32:00 -
[222] - Quote
I dont really care what you think about me . Im doing this more so for the next person . most people dont get to record u guys greifing them for an hr . most people arent smart enuff to get concord on grid to insta ur gank fleet . This is the 2 things that makes this gank unusual. Extreme is more appropriate
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193 |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15137
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 08:00:00 -
[223] - Quote
jedijed wrote:I dont really care what you think about me . Im doing this more so for the next person . most people dont get to record u guys greifing them for an hr . most people arent smart enuff to get concord on grid to insta ur gank fleet . This is the 2 things that makes this gank unusual. Extreme is more appropriate Most people are not smart enough, full stop. This is yet another reason why, it's working as intended.
Oh and just how do you warp to zero, when using AP?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:18:00 -
[224] - Quote
The equating of locating and pursuing a miner to continual-bump him as 'harassment' smacks of continued road-to-nerfdom crap, IMHO.
Consider, it's ok to declare war on a player corp, run locates and ruthlessly hunt a player down and pop his ship (repeatedly if he keeps flying blingy tasty morsels); yet somehow the continual hunting and bumping of a carebears mining ship becomes 'harassment'...
What if that miner shot off his mouth in local? Smacked talked during a previous engagement? Brought said bumping 'harassment' upon himself?
CCP, Is EVE an emergent self-regulating 'retribution' sandbox or not?
I'm having trouble telling between the marketing and reality difference here, because one would think said miner would just be expected to dec the agressor pilot (corp), hire mercs to do it for him, take some retributive action...not rely on being bubble-wrapped by CCP with non-code mandates on a fricken website...
As I've often said, if something is worth having a 'rule' for, then its worth CODING for it so the impact is equally and objectively applied across the community. What CCP unfortunately sets up with their GM 'rulings' and mandates like this is sadly akin to the russian judge at the olympics scoring interpretive dance based on his whims (or what he had for lunch that day...)
If CCP implemented these ''rules' or protections for the poor carebears by code -- making someone go suspect after bumping another players ship above a certain number of times within a certain time period, then at least the mechanic is evenly and uniformly applied, experienced and debated by the community. Problem here is CCP is trying to have their cake and eat it too, avoid implementing code changes that will cause rebellion, but issuing nerfing 'rules' through their web site.
FAIL http://evedarklord.blogspot.ca |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
429
|
Posted - 2013.07.09 18:22:00 -
[225] - Quote
Mag's wrote:jedijed wrote:I dont really care what you think about me . Im doing this more so for the next person . most people dont get to record u guys greifing them for an hr . most people arent smart enuff to get concord on grid to insta ur gank fleet . This is the 2 things that makes this gank unusual. Extreme is more appropriate Most people are not smart enough, full stop. This is yet another reason why, it's working as intended. Oh and just how do you warp to zero, when using AP?
You warp before the AP initiates it. (Spam jump button) "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
289
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 14:48:00 -
[226] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:ZaBob wrote:Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.
It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).
There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.
A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.
Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it. War dec us. Gank us. Pay us the fees you owe for operating in our systems. Take the miniscule effort to move system. You have a number options available to you. Don't pretend like you don't have any choice at all though. That's just dishonest.
Ah, you didn't actually read what I wrote, did you?
But pay a "fee" for operating in "your" system? I *never* pay ransoms. Get lost, twerp. |
ZaBob
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
289
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 15:20:00 -
[227] - Quote
D35 wrote:ZaBob wrote:Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.
It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).
There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.
A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.
Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it. I don't see any imbalance here since there is one mechanic that completely protects you from bumping: Moving out of the way. No bumper will waste their time trying to bump something which they can't. I've seen some miners refusing to do this, deliberately making themselves "victims", because of their principles. But seriously, it's not hard to double click the space.
Have you actually mined ice? Mining ships are slow (hard to move out of the way), and mining lasers have limited range, so if you end up out-of-range, you end up with nothing for that entire long cycle. "Moving out of the way" is likely to have the same result as getting yourself bumped.
All I'm suggesting is that the playing field ought be a bit more balanced. Like maybe if someone collides with you (perhaps repeatedly), you get the right to web them, so you CAN get out of the way next time. You have to give something up in your fitting to fit the web.
I don't like the idea of petitioning any more than I like the idea of packing up operations and moving a long way away. I'd rather be able to deal with it myself with a reasonable mechanic.
Someone suggested hugging the ice to make it hard to bump you away. That might work if the bumper isn't good at 3D geometry, but it makes it harder to avoid bumping, and harder to escape a gank. But if combining that with "keep at range" lets you stay in mining laser range then it's a counter-mechanic. (It doesn't matter that "keep at range" is automatic -- you can't do any better than that manually, so I'm using it as a reference point).
But I bet two bumpers working together can force you out of range even so. But so far, I've not seen tag team bumpers where both were sufficiently juvenile to persist for an hour.
Merc contracts? Need a wardec, and way too slow to be effective. Bounty, likewise.
Maybe being able to declare a short-term wardec, maybe 24 hours, limited to one constellation, 15 minute notice, limitted to you and your target (not your corp)? Allow allies, so you can hire a merc or bring in an alt or corpmate (since you're sitting in a mining ship).
If this were more balanced, there'd be no need for CCP to declare it an exploit even if they DO follow you around. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3608
|
Posted - 2013.07.10 18:35:00 -
[228] - Quote
ZaBob wrote:Have you actually mined ice? Mining ships are slow (hard to move out of the way), and mining lasers have limited range, so if you end up out-of-range, you end up with nothing for that entire long cycle. "Moving out of the way" is likely to have the same result as getting yourself bumped.
No they aren't (644m/s), and learn to fly better so you don't fly yourself out of range. [Skiff, Bump-Proof]
Ice Harvester Upgrade II Ice Harvester Upgrade II
Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Upgraded Thermic Dissipation Amplifier I
Ice Harvester II
Medium Ancillary Current Router I [Empty Rig slot]
Quote:All I'm suggesting is that the playing field ought be a bit more balanced. Like maybe if someone collides with you (perhaps repeatedly), you get the right to web them, so you CAN get out of the way next time. You have to give something up in your fitting to fit the web.
Mmmm, aggression rights against freighters in Jita. Delicious idea.
Quote:Someone suggested hugging the ice to make it hard to bump you away. That might work if the bumper isn't good at 3D geometry, but it makes it harder to avoid bumping, and harder to escape a gank. But if combining that with "keep at range" lets you stay in mining laser range then it's a counter-mechanic. (It doesn't matter that "keep at range" is automatic -- you can't do any better than that manually, so I'm using it as a reference point).
You can do way, way better than keep at range does.
Quote:But I bet two bumpers working together can force you out of range even so. But so far, I've not seen tag team bumpers where both were sufficiently juvenile to persist for an hour.
2 people needed to disrupt the activities of one? Sounds balanced to me. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Callathar Tivianne
Unseen Academy The Unseen Company
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 13:15:00 -
[229] - Quote
i love it when carebear is making tear thread, he's flamed to death, but when ccp makes a little gesture towards mentioned carebear, big bad piwhates are QQ themself :P hipocrisy...? |
disillusional
Big Red Wardec Co Petition Blizzard
28
|
Posted - 2013.07.18 12:57:00 -
[230] - Quote
I disagree with the GM on this, everybody knows that people shouldn't be able to mine in hi-sec without some element of pain and grief. To kowtow to the pathetic tears of miners who clearly can't deal with a bit of "banter" in system is pathetic. The first thought that came into my head when I read this post was that EVE Online was adopting the same kind of heavy handed, community destroying moderation which besets World of Warcraft. EVE is about being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want so long as it's within the rules and the EULA, bumping another player repeatedly in my opinion is not harassment, there is no abuse or threats.
In retrospect the thought of a retriever being bumped repeatedly to the point the pilot decides to lodge a petition makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. |
|
Khaos Wildfire
47th Space Militia
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.20 07:50:00 -
[231] - Quote
I have recently returned to Eve to reconnect with old friends and have been trying to get caught up with many of the new changes.
I have considered extortion to make money in previous years, similar to what is going on now, so I'll bring everything out so as to hopefully shed some light and concern on this entire situation.
First of all, I've done a few ganks in high sec on poor miners. At least last year 1 catalyst with T2 mods could kill any mack in .5 space that did not have defenses. I did it for no reason other than being bored and needed refueled on tears.
I have also done a fair share of mining on alts. Sometimes I'd rather watch a movie but still make a few million isk.
There are a number of game mechanics that I would like to call into question here. Some have been poorly and vaguely addressed in this thread already, but I will extrapolate on them to make a few points.
First - this talking about bumping and harassment. Okay, that's fine if CCP wants to eventually call it harassment. I don't think that someone should be followed for hours on end, after all, CCP realizes miners (or anyone) are paying to play this game and will quit if they do not get to play....it's just good business.
However, bumping someone to effectively warp scramble them is definitely a cause for concern. It does avoid any negative effects associated with high sec piracy. Also - accounts can be created daily in order to make sure that your "bumping" ship isn't set to red - allowing you to access any system for scouting and bumping purposes. This means that setting these 'scout/bumpers" is not effective. It also means dozens of alts are created each day just for this purpose.
But that in of itself is not what is causing high sec miners to be concerned. (And for the sake of argument, lets remove the botting from the picture.) This bumping is associated not with ONLY with harassment - but with extremely costly ship destructions by -10 players in frigs and destroyers/
Their tactics are simple - emerge from low sec, avoid NPC destruction, and proceed to the system and belt in question. Then the neutral scout bumps the miner to warp scramble them, the -10 players warp to scout, dogpile on the miner, and everyone dies, except the bumper, who then scoops loot.
Extremely effective - and has been happening for most of Eve's history, just never at these levels.
This calls into question the intention and integrity of Security Status as a game mechanic if it's actually effective. It's intention was to stop pilots from flying around -10 blowing up other players in high sec... but in this day in Eve it's not actually stopping them. Eventually players who go -5 are, in theory, not allowed to fly around high sec. This is their punishment for not playing nice. But in this case there are no punishments - they will just refit into another ship and come back again to gank someone else.
I do not understand how avoiding ship destruction by avoiding Concord after an act of aggression is considered an exploit but avoiding ship destruction from various NPC patrols of pilots currently banned from high sec isn't.
Whatever happened to the days where players who went -10 got their sec status back up in order to gank someone?
So in closing, I think that bumping is not only about harassment, but about avoiding aggression (and I do not have a recommended solution, just making a point) and that I do not believe that Security Status matters for these low risk/high reward ganks of passive players in Eve.
I am not in favor of making everyone 100% safe in high sec nor am I offering any suggestions or advice on changing anything. I am only pointing out somethings that I see as a potential issue. This can only get worse.... can you imagine the extortion + Hulkageddon?
Thank you for your time if you read this entire post.
Khaos Wildfire
TL:DR - Bumping is more about avoiding aggression than harassment. -10 pirate gangs in frigs ganking players in high sec should be a cause for concern - security status has lost it's integrity.
|
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
183
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 17:07:00 -
[232] - Quote
Khaos Wildfire wrote:
TL:DR - Bumping is more about avoiding aggression than harassment. -10 pirate gangs in frigs ganking players in high sec should be a cause for concern - security status has lost it's integrity.
You are confusing two different things. Bumping as an alternative to warp scrambling is related to freighter ganking which this thread is not about. Miner ganking rarely (maybe never) involves bumping of the target.
Instead there is usually a scout ship that positions itself right next to the miner, who, being an afking botter, does not respond like a person would and continues to melt rock or ice. Then, the ganker, either a fleet or solo, leaves station, instawarps to a bookmark and then warps to the scout. Landing on top of the oblivious target the ganker then locks, fires and confiscates the illegal mining equipment. The pod too if there is time before CONCORD arrives. The ganker then warps his pod to station, grabs a noob ship, leaves station and pulls CONCORD to him, clearing the belt for the next event. If at any time the ganker pauses in this chain, faction police show up and ruin the whole thing. Or the group of players collectively known as "vultures" disrupt it at some point, of which there are several particularly vulnerable.
See any bumping in there? No, because there isn't any.
Bumping involves using fast but massive ships to separate miners from their mineral or ice targets. It is done repeatedly because, miners being a rather stubborn and unimaginative bunch, it takes a while for them to realize that we bumpers MEAN it when we say they have to buy a permit and follow The Code or no mining for them.... This whole issue arose because the miners were unwilling to either just do what we say or take any of the several but not extremely pleasant options they had to stop us. So, being carebears they demanded CCP fix it for them.
In this thread CCP said no. sort of.
Highsec is worth fighing for.
BBB |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3718
|
Posted - 2013.07.23 22:36:00 -
[233] - Quote
Khaos Wildfire wrote:TL:DR - Bumping is more about avoiding aggression than harassment. -10 pirate gangs in frigs ganking players in high sec should be a cause for concern - security status has lost it's integrity.
Security status has not ever been a mechanism for keeping you safe. It is a mechanism for telling the faction police who to hunt. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Dalto Bane
Knights of the Posing Meat The Obsidian Front
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.25 22:12:00 -
[234] - Quote
Good stance on this CCP! I take special acceptance to the "case by case" attitude because some miner bumping is going to happen, and rightfully so, for all you afk and/or macro miners out there. I, as I am sure you all have seen where some people take it too far with the bumping to a level where it does seem like harassment. |
Haramir Haleths
Nutella Bande
19
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 14:43:00 -
[235] - Quote
Bumping is bad game mechanic roleplaying wise. Spaceships shouldn't bump without any damage. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3746
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:12:00 -
[236] - Quote
Haramir Haleths wrote:Bumping is bad game mechanic roleplaying wise. Spaceships shouldn't bump without any damage.
So which option do you prefer?
CONCORD does the ganking of Freighters for us or Ganking in HS no longer requires you to lose your ship.
Because, depending on whether or not bumping damage counts as aggression, those are the possible results.
(As for lolRP, shields act as buffers > no damage as the collisions aren't sufficiently energetic) This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
ELWhappo Sanchez
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 01:41:00 -
[237] - Quote
ccp can fix this if they wanted to. just make the bumper bounce off if the other ship is mining. that way no other game play would be effected ie gates and undocks. harassing and griefing miners by bumping should be gone from the game. no reason for ccp to not fix it. |
Laurianne Leone
NEW ORDER DEATH DEALERS CODE.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 00:03:00 -
[238] - Quote
ELWhappo Sanchez wrote:ccp can fix this if they wanted to. just make the bumper bounce off if the other ship is mining. that way no other game play would be effected ie gates and undocks. harassing and griefing miners by bumping should be gone from the game. no reason for ccp to not fix it.
But they don't want to fix it and are (I speculate) enjoying seeing the conflict this behaviour sparks between players, now that you are actually playing the game rather than just alt tabbing and clicking a button once per hour harvesting Isk.
So read the op, digest it, then stop whining and deal with it. |
ELWhappo Sanchez
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 03:27:00 -
[239] - Quote
miner bumping is a broken game mechanic and the new order are just turds in the eve punch bowl plain and simple. you can come in my wh any time and try to bump me any time honey. |
Omar Alharazaad
ZomCom
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:17:00 -
[240] - Quote
Making a ship that is currently mining an immovable object would backfire horribly. All the bad men would have to do is send in a few rookie ships with their civilian mining lasers, form up around your barge and start mining.... suddenly you cannot move. I think we know what happens shortly thereafter, yes? |
|
ELWhappo Sanchez
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:48:00 -
[241] - Quote
Omar Alharazaad wrote:Making a ship that is currently mining an immovable object would backfire horribly. All the bad men would have to do is send in a few rookie ships with their civilian mining lasers, form up around your barge and start mining.... suddenly you cannot move. I think we know what happens shortly thereafter, yes?
same thing that always happens I pull out my salvage drones and salvage there wrecks just like I always do. |
Leto Thule
Sons of Retribution
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:51:00 -
[242] - Quote
Haramir Haleths wrote:Bumping is bad game mechanic roleplaying wise. Spaceships shouldn't bump without any damage.
I think that would cause an issue at the busy hubs. Even if it did cause damage, it would just scratch the shields a bit. In the long run I dont think the work required to patch this into existence would be worth the change to the game mechanics. |
Ressiv
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 21:22:00 -
[243] - Quote
ELWhappo Sanchez wrote: you can come in my wh any time and try to bump me honey.
...this sounds soo f-ing wrong |
Charlie Reed
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.26 03:42:00 -
[244] - Quote
bump
|
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2013.09.16 11:41:00 -
[245] - Quote
All that needs be done is that "bumping" is removed from the game and realistic damage on ramming/impact is introduced.
Let's envisage you in a a Brutix bumping my freighter? If mechanics were done properly, it wouldn't be happening. EVER. The Brutix would, ofcourse impact the hull of the freighter without the freighter even noticing it's presence.
What is currently in the game, isn't bumping. It's automatic avoidance between two possible collidible objects and re-establishing safe distance. If I warp to a bookmark that's technically inside an asteroid, I should splat on it's surface. Not bounce away from it 120km away as if my ship was a gumball.
I'll let each and every person in this thread, try to alter an oil tankers path by hitting it with a rowboat. Be my guest. |
Kasenumi Aakiwa
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:02:00 -
[246] - Quote
People really like to complain, no matter how.
Bumping is the most insignificant event a person can do, unless it is in a "harassment manner", it will only affect those doing what it would affect IRL as well. Should you want "God " to remove bumping because you daydream stading in door people want to pass ?
About reality, in reality there is no such thing as shields like eve has, and no nano whatever like eve has, and no space travel like eve has, but how it can be theoretically postulated, there is a consistent way in which one ship bump in another without damaging if they are developed in such a way, and that would also explain how a shield can prevent damage types em waves actually cant according to IRL science.
Let the bumping go and afkers go afk themselves in another universe. |
Demon Azrakel
Ouran Host Club
89
|
Posted - 2013.10.05 20:37:00 -
[247] - Quote
From what I understand, bumping a freighter off of a gate is perfectly acceptable. Especially if you do not follow it to another system. Sure, you might sit at the spot where the freighter logged out, but this would not really be harassment, as you stayed within the same system instead of chasing them. And they are not stuck either, and can leave whenever they want, assuming they are willing to eject. It could be a business plan if you started ransoming them as well.
Food for thought.
|
Thufir Bezluden
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 04:20:00 -
[248] - Quote
Oh the old days of Long Limbed Roe runs and no warp to zero.
Best thing on earth was to find a nice hauler mining away and set BM 15km away, then get into just the right position and warp to BM at 15. Hauler would get punted 100km or more away -took some skill to pull it off. If miners sit still, they are begging for bumping, but trying to mine while moving is just a pain in the ass.
Please reintroduce Punting because it affected entire fleets dropping out of warp. Nothing like having a quarter of your fleet go shooting off and have to mwd or warp back to gate for jump. |
Aiyana Bayushi
Miners in Pink
5
|
Posted - 2013.10.18 23:53:00 -
[249] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:I simply noted that it seems that it is still legal to implicitly harass someone by setting up bumper gangs in every belt that one person mines in, as long as they target everyone, not just that one individual. Or am I mistaken here? You are mistaken. If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part). Runeme Shilter wrote:GM Karidor wrote: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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis. Does "move to another location" mean another Ice-Asteroid? Or another belt? Another system? RS While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents). Benny Ohu wrote:if a bumper was extorting in a system, then later moved to another system and bumped a player that had previously moved on, not because the bumper was following the other player but because the other player was in the bumper's new area, is that a situation that 'by itself' is harassment? Depends, see the answer to the quote above which should cover this as well. If the victim just moved next door, that could still be interpreted as 'general area of operation', if the miner starts changing regions and is still being followed around by the same person that keeps bumping in a regular manner then the intent is pretty clear. Note that I said person, not character, so regional alts will be considered be the same player in this regard.
So bumping someone off grid then demanding payment or you will continue to bump them or gank them is a legal action? is that not harassment by this definition since the victim would have to declare war themselves to stop the bumping or pay a fee and would member of the same corp/alliance/group working together count? IE driving people out of a area via bumping and ganking without declaring war? |
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
31
|
Posted - 2013.10.23 14:05:00 -
[250] - Quote
Aiyana Bayushi wrote:So bumping someone off grid then demanding payment or you will continue to bump them or gank them is a legal action?
Seems pretty clear the answer is "yes".
Aiyana Bayushi wrote:is that not harassment by this definition since the victim would have to declare war themselves to stop the bumping or pay a fee and would member of the same corp/alliance/group working together count? IE driving people out of a area via bumping and ganking without declaring war?
Seems pretty clear the answer is "no". What's so confusing about the GM replies? |
|
Sally Enviere
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 03:10:00 -
[251] - Quote
I think that PvP bumping should completly be removed from the game. It's an exploit... Bumping slower ships with already long aligning times can prevent them from warping with or without any wardec of yellow flags. This means you can limit a player's movement for hours if you want. Logging off means the solution, but that also limits a player in free movement. There are some exploits around this, so I think, much headache could be spared if PvP bumping would be removed.
For those who gank miners... Aren't miners the ones who dig rocks to sell the minerals that you ships are built by? If you gank all miners in EvE, than you can fly with your pods, smile and bump each other. Why doesn't you PvP enjoying guy shoot each other? Or shoot something that shoots back? Miers are usually guys with low skills, and not much experience in EVE. If you gank them, then they will say: "OMG, EVE sucks!" and leave the game for good. Instead I have a better idea: teach them how to PvP, and on one day they might join you in roaming, and have fun together.
Nowadays corps wardec smaller mining corps just for the killboards, and use all their dirty tactics to achieve kills. Usually on miners who does not even have the chance to defend themselves. I think, this is becoming a trend nowadays, and I'm pretty sure that many people would consider leaveing EVE because of this, it's not becoming about having fun, but causing other players losses, some losses that they can't recover, or just in long time.
I'm sure, after this post, many you minerganker guys will call me a whining miner, but I would say to those peeps to try it on the other side. Even I could bust some lonely miners in lowsec who mine alone, but I didn't, because I know what it's like being killed without the chance to defend myself. Many of you don't know what honorable combat is... Not even to shoot on something that can shoot back... |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4278
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 03:26:00 -
[252] - Quote
Sally Enviere wrote:I think that PvP bumping should completly be removed from the game. It's an exploit... Bumping slower ships with already long aligning times can prevent them from warping with or without any wardec of yellow flags. This means you can limit a player's movement for hours if you want. Logging off means the solution, but that also limits a player in free movement.
Why shouldn't someone be able to limit your movement if they choose to put effort into doing so and you choose not to stop them?
Quote:Even I could bust some lonely miners in lowsec who mine alone, but I didn't, because I know what it's like being killed without the chance to defend myself. Many of you don't know what honorable combat is... Not even to shoot on something that can shoot back...
Ouch, got me right in the internet space bushido. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Sally Enviere
0
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 03:39:00 -
[253] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
Why shouldn't someone be able to limit your movement if they choose to put effort into doing so and you choose not to stop them?
I accept that if it happens within the rules of the game, by webifiers or warp scrams/distruptors, but not by bumping. That has no reaction that the game mechanism can respond with. And why shouldn't? Because this is not a jail. I like to play hide and seek when I have room to move, at least one step. In this game everything has a countermove to respond with. Bumping doesn't. So on one side player A who wants to catch another does something, like scramming, then player B uses stabs to prevent A from catching, then A equips more scrams, and so on, the chances are equal. When being bumped, B can do nothing but log off to prevent A from escaping.
RubyPorto wrote:Ouch, got me right in the internet space bushido. Yeah, usual reaciton. Just try that a few times when have no spare isk and ships, and it won't be funny after all.. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4278
|
Posted - 2013.10.27 19:15:00 -
[254] - Quote
Sally Enviere wrote:I accept that if it happens within the rules of the game, by webifiers or warp scrams/distruptors, but not by bumping. That has no reaction that the game mechanism can respond with. And why shouldn't? Because this is not a jail. I like to play hide and seek when I have room to move, at least one step.
Bumping is within the rules of the game. Just like any other video game, the mechanics are the rules.
Quote:In this game everything has a countermove to respond with. Bumping doesn't.
Sure it does.
You're free to get a friend to counter bump them, you can log out, you can safe log out, you can eject (pods are effectively unbumpable), you can shoot them, you can get a friend to shoot them, you can get a friend to web you into warp before being bumped the first time. That's about a half dozen ways you can counter that one mechanic's ability to limit your movement off the top of my head.
Quote:Yeah, usual reaciton. Just try that a few times when have no spare isk and ships, and it won't be funny after all..
This is why you don't fly what you can't afford to lose. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Violet Crumble
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2013.10.30 21:34:00 -
[255] - Quote
Sally Enviere wrote:I think that PvP bumping should completly be removed from the game. It's an exploit... Bumping slower ships with already long aligning times can prevent them from warping with or without any wardec of yellow flags. This means you can limit a player's movement for hours if you want. Logging off means the solution, but that also limits a player in free movement. There are some exploits around this, so I think, much headache could be spared if PvP bumping would be removed.
It doesn't limit anything and shouldn't be removed.
You want to stop being bumped, fight back or warp away and find an alternative route. It's not difficult.
Quote:For those who gank miners... Aren't miners the ones who dig rocks to sell the minerals that you ships are built by? If you gank all miners in EvE, than you can fly with your pods, smile and bump each other.
It's only the highsec miners that complain. There is plenty of mining going on in lowsec and nullsec that provide resources to build items for the market.
The difference between the highsec and lowsec/nullsec miners though is that the highsec miners have no real interaction with the game. They don't play the game to it's full extent. In many cases, that may be because they are new and haven't learnt all of the different ways to play Eve, so they play the most isolated, unengaged, lonely form of Eve there is.
A large section of gankers, and particularly the bumpers are interested in educating players, not really in bumping or ganking them. They'd be more than happy if the highsec miners chose to move to lowsec/nullsec or decided to learn pvp and fight back, perhaps moved to wormhole space - a whole host of things that result in greater knowledge and much greater interaction with other players. Eve is a social game and AFK mining is the most antisocial, anti-Eve way to play it.
Quote:Why doesn't you PvP enjoying guy shoot each other? Or shoot something that shoots back? Miers are usually guys with low skills, and not much experience in EVE. If you gank them, then they will say: "OMG, EVE sucks!" and leave the game for good. Instead I have a better idea: teach them how to PvP, and on one day they might join you in roaming, and have fun together. Nowadays corps wardec smaller mining corps just for the killboards, and use all their dirty tactics to achieve kills. Usually on miners who does not even have the chance to defend themselves.
It's not about the shooting. It's about educating and it's not true that miners can't shoot back. They can and should. They're going to lose their mining ship anyway, so may as well shoot back or have some combat drones. Or better yet, start talking to othr players, get organised into a Corp, develop a plan of defense and actually implement it.
The most common response is to rage and make idol threats and continue playing the game AFK whenever they can get away with it. Boring.
Miners have the same choices as every other player in the game. They have access to the same tools and mechanics. So they have exactly the same chance to defend themselves as other players do.
Quote:I think, this is becoming a trend nowadays, and I'm pretty sure that many people would consider leaveing EVE because of this, it's not becoming about having fun, but causing other players losses, some losses that they can't recover, or just in long time.
Ganks in highsec happen generally against two classes of player:
1. Players who are generally new to the game, but who've been playing long enough that they should have discvoered more depth to the game than mining in highsec, often AFK; and
2. players with a lot of experience in the game who are hauling valuable cargo through highsec, knowing they'll be at risk.
Group 2 know they may be ganked and don't rage when it happens. They know how the game works and they accept it and figure out what they need to do to avoid the situation in the future (and get revenge in the present in many cases).
Group 1 though are the one's ready to consider rage quitting the first time they are ganked, or file a petition so that someone else can be responsible for acting against the ganker. They don't accept their own responsibility for the situation and then work out how they can play the game to get what they want. They just winge and whine and try to get others to fix their situation.
If they want to quit, good riddance to them. They don't offer anything to the game to begin with, so it's no big loss (and despite claims that this will hurt CCPs bottom line, evidence of player numbers suggests this isn't true).
Quote:I'm sure, after this post, many you minerganker guys will call me a whining miner, but I would say to those peeps to try it on the other side. Even I could bust some lonely miners in lowsec who mine alone, but I didn't, because I know what it's like being killed without the chance to defend myself. Many of you don't know what honorable combat is... Not even to shoot on something that can shoot back...
You have never been killed without the chance to defend yourself. Even in a pod you have choices and can always defend yourself - directly then, at a meta level, later in game. There are always options.
As for honorable combat - there's just combat. Honour doesn't come into it (except in the words in pop-up window when a duel takes place). You win, lose or run away before you lose. Each of them is acceptable and nothing to do with 'honor'. It's internet pixels, not RL. I may be a girl, but I'm also the Alpha and the Omega. Be careful, I bite. |
General Coochie
Lovers Rock
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.02 16:49:00 -
[256] - Quote
I bump along each and everyday baby. |
Train To Zone
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 22:24:00 -
[257] - Quote
Bumper boats is and always will be the dumbest mechanic in EVE. "Emergent gameplay" lol.
|
Naydra Adni
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2013.11.19 07:11:00 -
[258] - Quote
"A large section of gankers, and particularly the bumpers are interested in educating players, not really in bumping or ganking them. " you're so full of s**t lol |
Sitting Bull Lakota
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 02:55:00 -
[259] - Quote
Time for a fresh faced convert to pvp's opinion. I present three scenarios and a chart of my own design.
Scenario #1 "A cruiser bumping an orca out of alignment to prevent it from warping off while waiting for tackle to get on grid." All but the orca pilot and other victims of this tactic would agree that this is a brilliant use of gameplay mechanics for the furtherance of holy pew.
Scenario #2 "An army of catalysts swarming a freighter to push it away from the CONCORD blob during a freighter killing event." While committed for the furtherance of holy pew, is a hazier use of the collision mechanic. It does require teamwork however and bringing such a ship down in high sec is a glorious feat no matter how it is accomplished.
Scenario #3 "A dread (or some ship) warping to zero on a fleet member sitting next to a pos shield with the intent of bumping a parked cap out of the shielded space." This, I believe (third hand tales from old eve vets), was the tactic "Pos bowling" and was declared an exploit and bannable offense by CCP.
So on a scale of creative battle tactic to bannable offense where does miner bumping fall?
Tactic(0)----------1---------2----------3----------4----------5----------6----------7----------8----------9----------Exploit(10) -------------------Bump--------------------------------------------------bump---------------------------------------------Bump ----------------an aligning----------------------------------------a freighter away--------------------------------Docked Caps --------------escaping ship-----------------------------------from CONCORD/Gate------------------------Out of pos shield
I'm leaning towards placing it in the same category as the bumping tactic used by suicide gank fleets killing freighters, between 5 and at most 8. Very hazy stuff, but there is still no specific rule/game mechanic set in place to prevent it. It probably should be reviewed by CCP in more detail.
On the one hand, bumping miners, while annoying, is not as damaging as ganking them outright. It is easy enough to avoid a bumping when the bumping is not specifically directed at one character, just log/relog and relocate to some less turbulent system. (granted, a particularly teary mark will be searched out and bumped ad nauseum purely for the lulz)
On the other hand, bumping is, in theory defeating Eve's philosophy of no action without reaction. Bumping for sport, and especially bumping for tears and profit is probably too safe for the reward it provides to the bumper. But it can't really be made a suspect offense, because places like Jita would become blood soaked lands of death (fun sounding, but probably not advisable). AND many mining ops would become fair targets to players looking to spread the joyous doctrine of holy pew to the peaceful systems of high sec (ala orca warps to zero on ice belt, bumps three retrievers, suddenly suspect flags everywhere).
Like I said above, this topic needs to be reviewed in more detail by CCP. |
Nanatoa
466
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 23:49:00 -
[260] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Like I said above, this topic should probably be reviewed in more detail by CCP.
Reviewed in even more detail? You are aware that this very thread is the outcome of a week-long consultation of players followed by a two-month review by CCP? "Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011
|
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4310
|
Posted - 2013.11.22 02:39:00 -
[261] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Like I said above, this topic should probably be reviewed in more detail by CCP. edit: I need to get out of this npc corp
A Detailed Review by CCP, as you asked. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
14705
|
Posted - 2013.11.23 18:34:00 -
[262] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Like I said above, this topic should probably be reviewed in more detail by CCP. edit: I need to get out of this npc corp
Did you even read the thread? The very first post is the result of a 2 month review.
I am furnishing this post "as is" I do not provide any warranty whatsoever, whether express, implied, or statutory, including, but not limited to, any relevance or fitness for purpose or any warranty that the contents herein are error-free.
|
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 16:13:00 -
[263] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: Bumping is within the rules of the game.
Not really, CCP isnt very clear about it Bumping, thats all.
RubyPorto wrote: Just like any other video game, the mechanics are the rules.
No: Abuses of Game Mechanics are very well known as "Exploits". But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content. AS long the situation gets not somehow out of hand, CCP will do nothing. |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 16:21:00 -
[264] - Quote
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Bumping is within the rules of the game.
Not really, CCP isnt very clear about it Bumping, thats all. RubyPorto wrote: Just like any other video game, the mechanics are the rules.
No: Abuses of Game Mechanics as intended by the Developers are very well known as "Exploits". But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content. AS long the situation gets not somehow out of hand, CCP will do nothing. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4341
|
Posted - 2013.11.24 19:56:00 -
[265] - Quote
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:RubyPorto wrote: Bumping is within the rules of the game.
Not really, CCP isnt very clear about it Bumping, thats all.
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.
What's unclear?
Quote:No: Abuses of Game Mechanics are very well known as "Exploits". But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content.
Not quite. EVE's definition of an "Exploit" is a bit different from yours:
KBase Article wrote:An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever. http://community.eveonline.com/support/knowledge-base/article.aspx?articleId=34&_ga=1.48750566.1138323024.1385283132 "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Sitting Bull Lakota
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 22:04:00 -
[266] - Quote
"Reviewed in even more detail? You are aware that this very thread is the outcome of a week-long consultation of players followed by a two-month review by CCP?" -Nanatoa
"A Detailed Review by CCP, as you asked."-RubyPorto
"Did you even read the thread? The very first post is the result of a 2 month review."-Jonah Gravenstein
Have any game mechanics been changed? Has CCP done anything to address the complaints of the high sec mining community?
The GM's response basically says "Rules, mechanics, HTFU"
The resounding complaint that I hear is that there is no reasonable retaliatory action a player can take against a bumper. You can get bumped, or you can leave. There is no risk at all to the bumper. CONCORD prevents reasonable retaliation against the bumper. You can get some dudes to gank the bumper, you can wardec the bumper, you can hire a merc corp to gank/wardec the bumper, you can gank the bumper yourself. All of theses actions are expensive, or heavily time-consuming. Bumping is both instant and costless. This is not acceptable.
When I said that this probably needs to be reviewed in more detail by CCP, I obviously meant that this mechanic is terribad-op and very broken. Miner's can handle suicide gankers. A damage control goes a long way to thwarting a gank attempt. Kill rights can be pursued to great effect against unsuspecting marks.
Bumping has no in-game retaliation. CCP needs to "fix" it. Suspect flags would be great, I would love to abuse a collision mechanic that results in dead missioners or mass carnage in Jita or Amarr. Damage resulting from collisions would be fantastic, freighter bowling could become a thing. Point being, the GM's response of "within mechanics, but not endorsed" is lame. Something needs to change. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4365
|
Posted - 2013.11.26 23:01:00 -
[267] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:The resounding complaint that I hear is that there is no reasonable retaliatory action a player can take against a bumper. You can get bumped, or you can leave. There is no risk at all to the bumper. CONCORD prevents reasonable retaliation against the bumper. You can get some dudes to gank the bumper, you can wardec the bumper, you can hire a merc corp to gank/wardec the bumper, you can gank the bumper yourself. All of theses actions are expensive, or heavily time-consuming. Bumping is both instant and costless. This is not acceptable.
If you're mining, you can slap a prop mod on your mining ship, orbit your asteroid and successfully avoid being bumped.
If you're hauling, you can have a friend web you into warp, preventing you from being bumped.
Stopping someone from doing whatever they're doing (mining/hauling/bumping) is much easier than blowing them up. Duh. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 15:19:00 -
[268] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:What's unclear? "considers" CCP might change their minds, right now its "normal".
Quote:No: Abuses of Game Mechanics are very well known as "Exploits". But like Highsec Ganking it adds to the Player Created Content.
Not quite. EVE's definition of an "Exploit" is a bit different from yours:
In this case it is "normal game mechanics". The expression "such as by" does not exclude anything else. What would be "abnormal" game mechanics?
My point is, that CCP can change their minds. For eg. In the Beginning Titans could fire their Doomdays Devs through cyno gates without leaving the system. (According to "mittens") Since it worked that way it was "normal game mechanics". Was that intended by CCP? I dont know. Did CCP change it? As far as i l know YES
|
Omar Alharazaad
ZomCom
137
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 15:38:00 -
[269] - Quote
CCP tends to only fix things they consider broken. Despite many moons of debate, they still do not consider the mechanic of bumping to be broken. My magic 8 ball tells me that this is unlikely to change. As there are methods in existence to prevent this kind of thing from happening already, pretty sure it's highly unlikely that they'll do much to change things. |
RoaK Varr
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 19:02:00 -
[270] - Quote
If bumping is such a problem for some players then maybe there should be a piece of equipment you buy and put in a high slot that delivers damage to the bumping vessel without setting off agroGǪ sort of a contact pulse weapon.
If course youGÇÖd have to work out the mechanics on determining who the bumper and the bumpy are but you get the idea. Maybe the damage could multiply per bump from the same craft.
Just a thought. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4373
|
Posted - 2013.11.27 23:39:00 -
[271] - Quote
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:"considers" CCP might change their minds, right now its "normal".
That's nothing like what that word means in that context.
Quote:con-+sid-+er k+Ön-êsid+Ör/Submit verb regard (someone or something) as having a specified quality. "I consider him irresponsible" synonyms:deem, think, believe, judge, adjudge, rate, count, find;
Quote:In this case it is "normal game mechanics". The expression "such as by" does not exclude anything else. What would be "abnormal" game mechanics?
Bugs, Duplication tricks (i.e. Goons LP FOREX thing), things like that.
But then there's that second clause, which includes the further requirement that the bypassing of normal mechanics result in an unavoidable advantage. Bumping does not do that because it's got plenty of counters.
Quote:My point is, that CCP can change their minds. For eg. In the Beginning Titans could fire their Doomdays Devs through cyno gates without leaving the system. (According to "mittens") Since it worked that way it was "normal game mechanics". Was that intended by CCP? I dont know. Did CCP change it? As far as i l know YES
That CCP changed something does not make the use of that mechanic before the change an Exploit.
For instance, before the BC changes, I would fit a bunch of guns on a Cyclone. Was that an exploit because the Cyclone is now a Missile boat? No.
Similarly, bumping is not now nor has ever been considered an exploit. Claiming that that is unclear based on the off chance that CCP might someday change their minds after ten years is ludicrous. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
14747
|
Posted - 2013.11.30 18:52:00 -
[272] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:The GM's response basically says "Rules, mechanics, HTFU" And that is all you need to know on the matter.
I am furnishing this post "as is" I do not provide any warranty whatsoever, whether express, implied, or statutory, including, but not limited to, any relevance or fitness for purpose or any warranty that the contents herein are error-free.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
38
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 01:52:00 -
[273] - Quote
RoaK Varr wrote:If bumping is such a problem for some players then maybe there should be a piece of equipment you buy and put in a high slot that delivers damage to the bumping vessel without setting off agroGǪ sort of a contact pulse weapon.
If course youGÇÖd have to work out the mechanics on determining who the bumper and the bumpy are but you get the idea. Maybe the damage could multiply per bump from the same craft.
Just a thought.
No.
The players being bumped already have all the tools necessary to take control of the situation and fight back themselves. They lack conviction, not tools. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4387
|
Posted - 2013.12.02 02:23:00 -
[274] - Quote
RoaK Varr wrote:If bumping is such a problem for some players then maybe there should be a piece of equipment you buy and put in a high slot that delivers damage to the bumping vessel without setting off agroGǪ sort of a contact pulse weapon.
If course youGÇÖd have to work out the mechanics on determining who the bumper and the bumpy are but you get the idea. Maybe the damage could multiply per bump from the same craft.
Just a thought.
Excellent. Now we can either gank Freighters without CONCORD's intervention or get CONCORD to gank miners for us. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 16:05:00 -
[275] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: blablub... ludicrous ...
So so...
CCP wrote: Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now considered an exploit.
From "Offical Game Mechanic" to "Exploit". Looks like i was right. And they even use the Word "considered".
^^ |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4406
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 16:15:00 -
[276] - Quote
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:CCP wrote: Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now considered an exploit.
From "Offical Game Mechanic" to "Exploit". Looks like i was right. And they even use the Word "considered". ^^
Yes, bumping ships that cannot do anything to prevent it is an exploit now. Duh. Just about everybody involved expected CCP to declare bumping in e-warp to be an exploit.
Quote:An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever. There's a bug (you can bump someone during the login warp), it provides an advantage (killing titans), and the victim can't do anything about it (can't cancel a login warp).
That doesn't imply anything about bumping ships whose owners can do things to prevent or stop it. Which is what this thread is about.
The word "considered" still doesn't mean "we'll change our mind in the future." Let me help:
Your version of the word wrote: Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now we might change our mind, but for now its an exploit.
Actual meaning of the word wrote: Bumping a ship in order to get it stuck in emergency warp alignment limbo when its pilot logs in is now regarded as having the quality of being an exploit.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Ria Nieyli
2
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 17:50:00 -
[277] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:There's a bug (you can bump someone during the login warp), it provides an advantage (killing titans), and the victim can't do anything about it (can't cancel a login warp).
How is that a bug tho? The titan has to be probed down which is well within game mechanics. Then it has to be bumped, which is well within game mechanics. Then others come and kill it, which is... you get the idea. Also, you can always call friends to help you login safely, EvE was a MMO last time I checked.
I mean, how's that different from bumping a freighter out of alignment to gank it in highsec. It has no defensive modules that it can use, it can't warp cause it's being bumped. But that's not considered an exploit why? |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4406
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 00:54:00 -
[278] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:How is that a bug tho? The titan has to be probed down which is well within game mechanics. Then it has to be bumped, which is well within game mechanics. Then others come and kill it, which is... you get the idea. Also, you can always call friends to help you login safely, EvE was a MMO last time I checked.
In normal instances, when you bump someone in the process of warping, they can cancel their warp to regain control of their ship and take action. During the login e-warp, they cannot cancel their warp.
This is similar to the multi-web JF killing exploit, where you would take a Vindi and web but not point a JF that had initiated warp without killing its speed from leaving the station. The server would think that the JF had already entered warp and refuse to allow the warp to be canceled while the Vindi would keep bumping the JF to keep its speed above its new max speed. This was declared an exploit (and fixed soon afterwards) because the JF pilot could not cancel the warp to regain control of their ship.
Quote:I mean, how's that different from bumping a freighter out of alignment to gank it in highsec. It has no defensive modules that it can use, it can't warp cause it's being bumped. But that's not considered an exploit why?
A freighter pilot can cancel warp and regain control of their ship in order to deal with the bumper. They could safe log out or eject, they could prevent the initial bump by webbing the freighter, etc. None of those options are available for the e-warping pilot. "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Ria Nieyli
4
|
Posted - 2013.12.05 15:39:00 -
[279] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:How is that a bug tho? The titan has to be probed down which is well within game mechanics. Then it has to be bumped, which is well within game mechanics. Then others come and kill it, which is... you get the idea. Also, you can always call friends to help you login safely, EvE was a MMO last time I checked. In normal instances, when you bump someone in the process of warping, they can cancel their warp to regain control of their ship and take action. During the login e-warp, they cannot cancel their warp. This is similar to the multi-web JF killing exploit, where you would take a Vindi and web but not point a JF that had initiated warp without killing its speed from leaving the station. The server would think that the JF had already entered warp and refuse to allow the warp to be canceled while the Vindi would keep bumping the JF to keep its speed above its new max speed. This was declared an exploit (and fixed soon afterwards) because the JF pilot could not cancel the warp to regain control of their ship. Quote:I mean, how's that different from bumping a freighter out of alignment to gank it in highsec. It has no defensive modules that it can use, it can't warp cause it's being bumped. But that's not considered an exploit why? A freighter pilot can cancel warp and regain control of their ship in order to deal with the bumper. They could safe log out or eject, they could prevent the initial bump by webbing the freighter, etc. None of those options are available for the e-warping pilot.
Ah, I did not know that there was a precedent to this kind of situation.
Also, is it not possible to fleet people and have them warp to you when you log in with a titan and have them explode them bumping vessel? |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 15:21:00 -
[280] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:The word "considered" still doesn't mean "we'll change our mind in the future." I didnt write that.
RubyPorto wrote: Let me help:
Thank you, but NO thank you, i am peachy...
RubyPorto wrote: Your version of the word
More likely its your version and the meaning that you would like to read out of it. Finished nitpicking?
|
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
4420
|
Posted - 2013.12.06 18:19:00 -
[281] - Quote
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:The word "considered" still doesn't mean "we'll change our mind in the future." I didnt write that.
So what, exactly did you mean by this:
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear wrote:RubyPorto wrote:What's unclear? "considers" CCP might change their minds, right now its "normal".
Quote:More likely its your version and the meaning that you would like to read out of it. Finished nitpicking?
My definition of the word comes straight out of the dictionary, and is the only dictionary definition that fits the context. What's your definition of the word that leads you to think the ruling is unclear? "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
d-£-󦦦º-ó-ꦪ¦¦e¦¦-í-ë-í-󦦦+¦¦¦»-ö¦+b-¥¦º¦¦¦¦¦½¦¦-ö-ëa-Ŧ+-¥¦í¦+-à-à¦ñc¦ó-á¦í-ƒ¦«¦½¦Ö¦¦¦á-ò-çl-Ǧ¢-ü¦+-û¦ƒ¦¦-ô-ë-Ö-ô¦Ñ-ô¦¬¦½e¦+¦¿¦ù¦¦¦ÿ¦ù¦Ñ¦¼-ò-ꦽ¦¦¦+¦+-ö¦¦-à¦á¦ú¦ÿ |
Ursa Fatalis Deathbear
Minor Miners
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.07 00:20:00 -
[282] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:So what, exactly d id you mean by this: Read it again. There is a slight difference.
RubyPorto wrote:My definition As i wrote, your definition.
RubyPorto wrote: of the word comes straight out of the dictionary, and is the only dictionary definition that fits the context.
The only one that fits in your context. Language is not "defined" by dictionaries. I thought i would be easier to understand:
Eve is a complex peace of code. Not all the side effects of that code are known and some "game mechanics" simply havent been thought of, or not thoroughly thought through.
In this special case its not the bump thats broken, its the emergency warp. Bumping to use the bug is exploiting.
Bumping is still a valid game mechanic and if not many had found out, even this ebump would be legit. |
Agondray
Avalon Templaris
10
|
Posted - 2013.12.07 20:08:00 -
[283] - Quote
Depends, see the answer to the quote above which should cover this as well. If the victim just moved next door, that could still be interpreted as 'general area of operation', if the miner starts changing regions and is still being followed around by the same person that keeps bumping in a regular manner then the intent is pretty clear. Note that I said person, not character, so regional alts will be considered be the same player in this regard.[/quote]
Do not get me wrong but that at least partly puts a lock on emergent gameplay and prospering buissnes models. There even were already growing some movements growing driven by miners to oppose so called bumpers. Minerbumping led to loners engeging in group activities to help themselves. Although the niveau might not have been especially high, the comunication between players in high sec also increased. The need for those movements that united in the sight of the common bumper-enemy decreases with this development. While more and more 0.0 alliances struggle to find enough industrialists or miners seeding their markets, high sec afk mining and botting is prosperous and florishes. Although the statement you made leaves a lot of space for interpretation and case sensitive treatment the general direction of the policy does not help any of the involved parties. I might be wrong but you sure will be flooded with petitions...worse than before. In the end the general tenor in the mentioned bumping thread seemed overall "pro-bumping" with only a few very loud and determined "anti-bumping" proponents...but that might be a thing of perception.
Finally I have to say that it is good that there is a position from CCP now. Now the terms can be discussed ;-)
[/quote]
I find your argument invalid, as a highly skilled industrialist and everything else when i was in null sec in multiple alliance and corps i was not given the time i needed to produce items as industrialist were threated with being thrown out of the alliance/corp if we did not get a combat ship and go sit in a system far from HQ and wait for a possible attack that usually never came or we would have to go on huge roams to protect our area (which was usually many jumps away in enemy space) but as of recent ive stopped mining in empire as ive moved across the area being chased by awoxors, CODE alliance, and other gankers that want to do nothing but kill the industry or make a profit themselves from it. |
CEO deGroot
ROYAL AMARR TRANSPORT
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 22:47:00 -
[284] - Quote
After having one ship blown out of space by CODE (Krominal) some months ago yesterday i found them in the system i traveled to, that is at first not a problem. but now the bumper's (Kalorned) corp got a wardec (not from me thou) This wardec was surcomvented with the drop of the corp with an immediate recreation of the corp.
This gives me no possible way to defend against the : http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html they use cheap ships to blow my barge out of space if i do not comply to there rules, even grouping does not help. as the barge is gone and the cheap ships get concored and are gone.
on forehand i can not defend myself as a wardec is surcomvented, i can only run with my tail between my legs. i can work with the bumper but if he gets tired he calls the kill squad and then it is game over. yes i get killrights then but it is a little to late the ship is gone.
i am an industrialist and i can make ships faster they they can shoot them (and move often). but still it smells like haressment, it feels like haressment maybe it is haressment.
if i read http://community.eveonline.com/support/knowledge-base/article.aspx?articleId=34&_ga=1.142395637.696781887.1369307377 correctly
Quote: An exploit is when someone bypasses normal game mechanics, such as by utilizing a bug in the game, allowing him to take advantage of other players without them having any means of preventing it whatsoever.
Kalorned is doing just that... bypassing the warcec (normal gameplay) by dropping and recreating the corp check Kalorned's employment history it is full of corp's that close and jointed with in a minute or 2.
please fixed this so a wardec sticks as a wardec enables pvp in highsec, and thus give us industrialists a way to defend.
i have pvp chars and they are so so at pvp but still it evens the score.
just my 2 cents.
ps english is not my first language so typo's will be there. |
Paranoid Loyd
University of Caille Gallente Federation
56
|
Posted - 2013.12.09 22:50:00 -
[285] - Quote
CEO deGroot wrote:surcomvented
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
284
|
Posted - 2013.12.10 19:29:00 -
[286] - Quote
I'm not against PVP or suicide ganking. I've done both.
I am against using some lame tactic such as bumping to prevent a player from warping. I understand that bumping is used to counter station games. This is another lame tactic I'm not fond of. Okay let me agress and then when I realize I'm about to die I deagress then dock. Or even better have a neutral Orca warp in to save the day.
If you want to agress someone you should risk losing your ship.
How about making the agression timer longer so you can't just dock up. If you're not playing the "let's hug the station" game you can just warp from safe spot to safe spot while the timer runs out. Bumping no longer needed. |
Kurai Kihaku
Commonwealth of Individuals
31
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 00:10:00 -
[287] - Quote
Quote:Unlike the carebears, who cloak everything they do in perpetual hypocrisy and deceit, I am a man of honour. I have always been open and honest about my intentions. Most reasonable residents of highsec describe my leadership style as "tough, but fair." In my experience, many miners are completely oblivious to what is going on in EVE, and are apt to repeatedly ask me the same questions about why I am bumping them out of mining range. Out of fairness, and for the sake of convenience, I provide the following FAQ to the miners in New Order territories, as well as potential investors in the company.
This guy is so full of it it's not even funny.
Clearly this disgusting group of people are in it purely for isk, but they cloak this in good intentions saying they are doing the game a world of good and they change people. And who appointed these thugs EVE police, hmmm? What "right" do they have to tell anyone what they can and cannot do and how they should play the game? Oh.. That's right. Might makes right.
But this is pure racketeering. Extortion. Give me 10 mil isk or I blow up your ship!
Back in Ukraine where I was born this was called paying for "roof". A group of thugs would approach a businessman, and tell him that a world is a dangerous place and they will provide protection for only a small percent of all his profits. If the businessman would refuse, his place of business would burn, or his supply truck would be sabotaged, or driver would get killed, or something much much worse.
In RL, people have found ways to deal with these things. That's why there' police. The businessman calls police and thugs get arrested and go to jail. In EVE, police takes long enough to arrive for the criminals to do their thing, and doesn't actively go after these criminals after a certain time expired or certain conditions have been met. I'd like to see gankers keep doing what they do if concord would actively hunt them 24/7, in every solar system, in every place of the galaxy including inside stations. ; )
These people can make a nice website with "code of honor" and all that BS, but I wonder why even bother? Too much time on their hands? Practicing HTML/CSS? Oh wait, it sounds better to say "We're saving EVE" than to say "we racketeer people for money".
It's funny how these people say: "Don't mine in a ship with expensive mods" "Don't use expensive implants" "Fit your ship properly to resist ganks".
My answer? "Don't gank people". "Just leave them alone to be boring, annoying carebears. It's none of your business how people play the game and what they do". "It's not your place to teach people what they should or shouldn't do."
Oh wait.. But you CAN tell people what you do, AND enforce it. Because some folks have a full time job and I actually work for their money, and I some are in college, and EVE thugs have a lot more time than other people do, or more money. Perhaps because that money comes easier to them? I don't know. The point is it doesn't even matter.
What matters is that CCP supports scum like this. Hey, they are only hurting themselves. When people cannot do the things they like in a game they may quit out of frustration. But wait.. What makes me any more of a valuable customer than a scumbag Goon? We're both paying $15, right?
Well, the Goon will play the game regardless, because he has the time to waste. If he cannot gank a miner, he'll gank a hauler. If he cannot harass these people he'll do some PvP. He wont take limitations personally. His feelings wont be hurt(at least not for long). But someone who only plays EVE to mine, or to trade or to do missions, wont necessarily adjust and overcome because of the lack of time, and lack of desire to learn something new. That person just might kick the proverbial can down the road.
After all, who the hell are Goons or anyone else to tell that trader or miner that they should stop doing the same damn boring, stupid activity they enjoy and start "adjusting" to gankers or whatnot? Why not do something much easier and start banning people for any form of harassment? This way those who want to fight will go back to 0.0 where they belong, and those who want to just sit in space and strip roids will do that. Everyone will be happy. Except for maybe the gankers. But that's ok, cause they can always go back to 0.0 and enjoy their life. |
Casanunda
Church Of The Eternal Cosmic Confidence Trick
125
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 01:44:00 -
[288] - Quote
Kurai Kihaku wrote: What "right" do they have to tell anyone what they can and cannot do and how they should play the game? Hypocrite much? Especially as later on in your verbose rant you posted the following: Quote:My answer? "Don't gank people". "Just leave them alone to be boring, annoying carebears. It's none of your business how people play the game and what they do". "It's not your place to teach people what they should or shouldn't do." There you go, hypocrisy in action. You're telling others how they should play the game, while whining about them doing it to you.
Quote:It's funny how these people say: "Don't mine in a ship with expensive mods" "Don't use expensive implants" "Fit your ship properly to resist ganks". Good advice to be honest.
Quote:After all, who the hell are Goons or anyone else to tell that trader or miner that they should stop doing the same damn boring, stupid activity they enjoy and start "adjusting" to gankers or whatnot? Why not do something much easier and start banning people for any form of harassment? This way those who want to fight will go back to 0.0 where they belong, and those who want to just sit in space and strip roids will do that. Everyone will be happy. Except for maybe the gankers. But that's ok, cause they can always go back to 0.0 and enjoy their life. Once again your inner hypocrite rears its ugly visage, you're moaning about other people interfering in the way you want to play, while advocating interference in the way that other people want to play.
You want to know why bumping and suicide ganking is such good fun? Posts like yours. The fact that I am not a gazillionaire Gallente aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle. |
CEO deGroot
ROYAL AMARR TRANSPORT
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 11:00:00 -
[289] - Quote
I am not against how they playt it, just that they can avoid a wardec so easy. it gives us miners no first strike option. i have pvp chars also and in null sec i do play the same game but there they can shoot me too without concord shooting you out of your ship.
|
Meilandra Vanderganken
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 13:51:00 -
[290] - Quote
CEO deGroot wrote:I am not against how they playt it, just that they can avoid a wardec so easy. it gives us miners no first strike option. i have pvp chars also and in null sec i do play the same game but there they can shoot me too without concord shooting you out of your ship.
You have first strike option. The game mechanics are the same for gankers as for non gankers. So you can try and hunt them or their alts for ganking and bumping. Yes, I know that will require effort on your part. |
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2013.12.11 15:40:00 -
[291] - Quote
Meilandra Vanderganken wrote:CEO deGroot wrote:I am not against how they playt it, just that they can avoid a wardec so easy. it gives us miners no first strike option. i have pvp chars also and in null sec i do play the same game but there they can shoot me too without concord shooting you out of your ship.
You have first strike option. The game mechanics are the same for gankers as for non gankers. So you can try and hunt them or their alts for ganking and bumping. Yes, I know that will require effort on your part.
Yes I guess you could suicide gank the neutral Orca or bumper but not many small corps can gather a fleet of 20 Tornados. Even if they could the Orca kill might be worth it but killing some cheap bumping ship wouldn't do anything.
The problem with this thread is there's too many off topic troll posts fighting back and forth so the original topic gets buried. |
Casanunda
Church Of The Eternal Cosmic Confidence Trick
133
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 00:34:00 -
[292] - Quote
IIshira wrote: Yes I guess you could suicide gank the neutral Orca or bumper but not many small corps can gather a fleet of 20 Tornados. Even if they could the Orca kill might be worth it but killing some cheap bumping ship wouldn't do anything.
The problem with this thread is there's too many off topic troll posts fighting back and forth so the original topic gets buried.
The gankers and bumpers seem to have no trouble raising the numbers to go and shoot at stuff, and most of them are in small corps, you don't need 20 Nado's to pop an Orca either, you can do it with Catalysts. The fact that I am not a gazillionaire Gallente aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle. |
Grandpa Nickles
MARS PLANETARY EXCAVATIONS plc
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 02:13:00 -
[293] - Quote
When bumping is used as an exploit. The warp dilemma.
There is an issue which needs to be addressed in terms of knocking someone out of alignment who is attempting to warp away. This happened to my girlfriend when a suicide gang entered an asteroid belt and repeatedly bumped her even though she was aligned and trying to warp away.
There is in place a balanced game mechanic which governs whether someone is able to warp away or not, this is in the form of warp scramblers/disruption fields which are used to lock a target down, warp core stabilizers are a means of defence to scramblers and disruption field generators carry penalties to afterburners/warpdrives/signature radius. This is balanced, for scrambling you trade slots to either gain warp scrambling power, or to increase war core stability and your chances of getting away. For disruption fields there are penalties which reduce your speed, increase signature radius and can only be fitted to interdiction cruisers. This mechanic allows a fair chance at warping away for victims or locking down a target to those ganking, its balanced.
What isn't balanced is when bumping is used to prevent someone warping away, if I fit 5 warp core stabilizers to my ship to allow me to warp away when I'm in trouble I expect to get the benefit from it. Not have someone prevent me from warping away by knocking me continuously out of alignment at no cost to them in terms of fitting or otherwise. When used in this manner bumping is an exploit. There is no way to protect yourself from this when trying to warp away.
Here are a few suggestions at addressing this issue: When engaging warp, make it so the ship cannot be bumped and can only be stopped by using warp scramblers / warp bubble. or Reduce the amount of distance a ship is "bumped" thereby reducing the realignment time when trying to warp out. or Introduce a fitting which allows people to protect themselves from being bumped from alignment.
Something is desperately needed as a counterbalance to this exploit. I don't mind trading slots, power or CPU but what I do expect is to at least have some means of protecting myself, as none currently exist. Even though there is no cost to performing the action of preventing someone warping via bumping.
I certainly hope to get a response to this post with adequate explanation, and that it doesn't get thrown in the "too hard basket".
As ever Nickles |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
286
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 03:19:00 -
[294] - Quote
Casanunda wrote:IIshira wrote: Yes I guess you could suicide gank the neutral Orca or bumper but not many small corps can gather a fleet of 20 Tornados. Even if they could the Orca kill might be worth it but killing some cheap bumping ship wouldn't do anything.
The problem with this thread is there's too many off topic troll posts fighting back and forth so the original topic gets buried.
The gankers and bumpers seem to have no trouble raising the numbers to go and shoot at stuff, and most of them are in small corps, you don't need 20 Nado's to pop an Orca either, you can do it with Catalysts.
Wow what a surprise a PVP corp able to get numbers to PVP... Now for some reason it seems a bit harder with a group of carebears.. Don't get me wrong I don't feel too sorry for them about this because anyone that plays Eve should be willing and able to PVP.
You can gank an Orca with Catalysts?... I'm sure it can be done but how many would it take? A tanked Orca has over 250k EHP. |
Casanunda
Church Of The Eternal Cosmic Confidence Trick
135
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 05:08:00 -
[295] - Quote
IIshira wrote: You can gank an Orca with Catalysts?... I'm sure it can be done but how many would it take? A tanked Orca has over 250k EHP.
Using your figure of 250,000 EHP? About 20 in a 0.5
250,000 EHP / 20 seconds (Concord response and time to kill the catalysts) = 12500HP/sec to eat through. 12500HP/600 to 700 DPS = 20ish Catalysts to do the job.
It can be done with less depending on the Orcas fit, whether or not the tank is actually turned on and the skills of the Catalyst pilots. A lot of Orca pilots fail to fit a damage control along with reinforced bulkheads, they go for cargo expanders in the lows instead, which means that their tank is pitiful. The chances of finding a gank crews support Orca with such a shitfit is nil. The fact that I am not a gazillionaire Gallente aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle. |
Grandpa Nickles
MARS PLANETARY EXCAVATIONS plc
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 08:53:00 -
[296] - Quote
Casanunda I can understand ship bumping in order to deny resources to someone, such as bumping a miner from an asteroid belt, I'm not disputing this at all. If you read my post you'd understand that I was referring to it interfering with warping. If a pirate bumps my barge out of asteroid field so be it, I am denied the asteroids, however I should be allowed the option to warp to another system or back to station, and not have my barge chain bumped for the next 10 minutes without an option to do anything at all. My warp drive is effectively disabled without any cost or consequence to the pilot bumping.
I accept that ship bumping is a valid game mechanic, what I don't accept is that itGÇÖs used as a means to disable a personGÇÖs warp drive without any cost or consequences. If you disable a ship's warp drive there must be a cost to this. In terms of bumping ships off asteroids that's a different matter.
I'd appreciate you not posting any further comments on my post if you have nothing valid to contribute regarding disabling warp drives when bumping.
As ever Nickles
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
14846
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 15:36:00 -
[297] - Quote
^^ I'll think you'll find that bumping to prevent a warp is also considered a valid gameplay tactic, and has been for many years. It's commonly used in all areas of Eve to do just so. If you had read the thread, and the thread that spawned it, you would know this.
There are ways and means of speeding up the switch into warp. The threshold for warp is 75% of a ships top speed, webs can be used by corpmates to reduce the top speed of a ship, and thus the threshold. Malcanis' Law - Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of new players, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. The corollary is that when new players propose a change, they invariably lack the experience and insight to see how the change would again be exploited by older players far more efficiently than themselves. |
Casanunda
Church Of The Eternal Cosmic Confidence Trick
137
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 20:51:00 -
[298] - Quote
Grandpa Nickles wrote:Casanunda I can understand ship bumping in order to deny resources to someone, such as bumping a miner from an asteroid belt, I'm not disputing this at all. If you read my post you'd understand that I was referring to it interfering with warping. If a pirate bumps my barge out of asteroid field so be it, I am denied the asteroids, however I should be allowed the option to warp to another system or back to station, and not have my barge chain bumped for the next 10 minutes without an option to do anything at all. My warp drive is effectively disabled without any cost or consequence to the pilot bumping.
I accept that ship bumping is a valid game mechanic, what I don't accept is that itGÇÖs used as a means to disable a personGÇÖs warp drive without any cost or consequences. If you disable a ship's warp drive there must be a cost to this. In terms of bumping ships off asteroids that's a different matter.
I'd appreciate you not posting any further comments on my post if you have nothing valid to contribute regarding disabling warp drives when bumping.
As ever Nickles
If you would like people to refrain from commenting on your posts, then I suggest that you refrain from making them.
Bumping is a valid mechanic that is used to stop people from doing stuff, which includes but is not exclusive to mining. It's also commonly used as a tactic to prevent freighters and loot pinatas from escaping while the gank squad rolls in.
If you have a problem with it then I suggest you take it up with CCP.
The fact that I am not a gazillionaire Gallente aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle. |
Grandpa Nickles
MARS PLANETARY EXCAVATIONS plc
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 04:09:00 -
[299] - Quote
I believe this thread was intended to allow discussion on the matter of bumping, and to allow people to raise concerns and bring forward ideas. I believe that is the spirit of this thread considering it is open for discussion.
The use of bumping to prevent warping was not explicitly stated in GMGÇÖs post, you are assuming it has, but you do not know this for certain, if so please reference your source which explicitly discusses bumping and using it to prevent warping. The GMGÇÖs post is quite general and we donGÇÖt know if this issue has been considered. All IGÇÖm doing is bringing an issue forward as a potential concern, and I believe I have stated my argument objectively.
Everyone already knows what the GMGÇÖs post says, you donGÇÖt have to repeat it with your extraneous posts on the matter. If you want to bring a counter argument, consider an original idea. For instance if you had said preventing someone warping away by bumping is an intended game mechanic, and then going on to qualify your statement by saying, the cost of performing the action of bumping requires skills to execute and ship fittings to increase speed are sacrificed for this purpose, and results arenGÇÖt always guaranteed as you could miss. There's a counter argument.
IGÇÖm not explicitly saying that IGÇÖm for or against bumping, IGÇÖm questioning whether itGÇÖs balanced when used to prevent someone warping away and would like to see discussion on arguments both for and against. However looking at the action of bumping to prevent warping away on balance, the costs seem minimal compared to the outcome suffered by the victim being bumped. Basically the point I'm trying to make is if you are not engaged in combat with the ship bumping you, you should be allowed a reasonable degree of movement to walk(warp) away from it.
When used to bump someone off an asteroid field it seems fair tactic to deny resources. Is it fair when used to prevent someone warping away when they wish to leave an area to mine another system? When used to prevent a ship warping away when being ganked, the bump is of significant importance in determining your survivability in this regard, it could be the single most important factor (the entire gank depends on it), and by coming at no cost to the ship performing the bump (not flagged, not attacked by concord) then yes, he has sacrificed fittings, but he isn't in combat and suffers no consequences. Is it balanced? IGÇÖd be glad to hear original and objective arguments regarding the matter, and would like to avoid opinions.
As ever Nickles |
Casanunda
Church Of The Eternal Cosmic Confidence Trick
137
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:28:00 -
[300] - Quote
Thankyou for your extremely verbose post, most of which could have been avoided with a little google-fu.
The official Eve Wiki wrote:Bumping a targeted ship is common, and typically used to push a ship away from a Stargate to be outside of the maximum jump range (2,500 meters away from the stargate), away from a station to be outside of its docking radius (500 meters), or away from the direction the ship is traveling to prevent it from warping to a celestial object. Source: https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Bumping
The official Eve Wiki wrote:Bumping is basically the act of throwing your ship directly at an opponent at high speed, to turn his ship around and mess up any aligning or movement heGÇÖs trying to do. The faster and more massive a ship is, the better: Machariels and Stabbers with battleship-sized MWDs fitted (with Reactor Control Units to increase their powergrid) work nicely.
Bumps may keep a slowly-aligning ship from entering warp indefinitely. They can also, together with webs, delay a ship which is trying to burn back to a gate after jumping into a gatecamp. Source https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Advanced_piloting_techniques#Bumping
Good enough for you Grandpa Nickles? (emphasis in the quotes is mine) At present, outside of the conditions expressed in the GM post at the start of the thread, bumping is only considered an exploit if it is used to push ships that aren't completely in a POS out of the POS, and when used to prevent a ship E-warping when it appears at login (only applies to people that log off in space, such as wormhole dwellers).
Other than that it is considered a valid tactic, regardless of how you feel about it.
For further reading you might want to check out these unofficial sources. http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/01/10/eve-evolved-five-interesting-combat-tactics-part-2/ http://www.agony-unleashed.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bubbles_and_Warping http://www.eveinfo.net/wiki/inde~124.htm#Bumping The fact that I am not a gazillionaire Gallente aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle. |
|
Grandpa Nickles
MARS PLANETARY EXCAVATIONS plc
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:51:00 -
[301] - Quote
My post is to discuss whether its balanced, and how it is balanced. You seem to be ignoring the purpose of my post and seem now to be focussed on attacking me personally for wanting to discuss an issue. None of the forums you've referenced discusses the balancing of the bump mechanism. Also you still have not presented a valid argument with regards to how its balanced!
I have no desire to continue a discussion on quotes or opinions, please focus on the topic I'm brining forward which is and always has been about balancing issues with the bump mechanism. I would still like to see some discussion on balance issues for bumping when warping as per my previous posts. Not opinions and quotes, valid arguments for and against.
Fly safe, as ever
Nickles |
Casanunda
Church Of The Eternal Cosmic Confidence Trick
137
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:58:00 -
[302] - Quote
No personal attack at all, you asked for sources regarding the validity of bumping to prevent warp, which I presented. You didn't ask for an argument about the balance of it which is outside the purview of this particular thread anyway. If you wish to start a discussion about balance and bumping start a new thread, I suggest the features and ideas forum, which is probably where it'll end up if you start it in C&P.
The topic itself has been discussed to death regularly for at least the 4 years that I've been playing, if CCP considered it to be unbalanced then they would have changed it more than they already have. The fact that I am not a gazillionaire Gallente aristocrat with the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino is a constant niggle. |
Grandpa Nickles
MARS PLANETARY EXCAVATIONS plc
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 09:30:00 -
[303] - Quote
What you feel is your opinion, I asked on balancing issues, not on the validity of the act. As my post is to do with bumping, just in the context of warping I feel this thread is appropriate. Despite my repeated requests you have still not presented any valid argument for or against regarding the balance issue I raised. I do feel that I a have the freedom and right to discuss any issue whether you agree with it or feel it is appropriate or not. If you feel my post is in the wrong thread, you need only send a request to have it moved. Lets just leave it at that as I think our own discussion has already gone on too long at the expense of this thread, lets just agree to disagree on the matter. You can evemail / message me in game for further discussions if you feel this is necessary.
As ever Nickles |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
287
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 20:08:00 -
[304] - Quote
IIshira wrote:I'm not against PVP or suicide ganking. I've done both.
I am against using some lame tactic such as bumping to prevent a player from warping. I understand that bumping is used to counter station games. This is another lame tactic I'm not fond of. Okay let me agress and then when I realize I'm about to die I deagress then dock. Or even better have a neutral Orca warp in to save the day.
If you want to agress someone you should risk losing your ship.
How about making the agression timer longer so you can't just dock up. If you're not playing the "let's hug the station" game you can just warp from safe spot to safe spot while the timer runs out. Bumping no longer needed.
Again this form has gotten of topic with "you can't tell me what to say" and "I'll say what I want!" Very good guys but this has nothing to do with the topic and only derails the thread.
My main point of this post was if you want to agress someone you should risk losing your ship. Does anyone have something to comment about this?
Just trying to get things back on topic so the thread doesn't get locked for lack of content |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
14847
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 21:29:00 -
[305] - Quote
IIshira wrote:My main point of this post was if you want to agress someone you should risk losing your ship. Does anyone have something to comment about this?
Just trying to get things back on topic so the thread doesn't get locked for lack of content If bumping was considered to be aggression, the fun and games at the undock of Jita 4-4 would be absolutely hilarious. I think that it's probably extremely hard to code something that can distinguish between accidental and deliberate bumpage, which is possibly why CCP have left well alone, outside of the stuff that's considered an exploit.
I think my sig probably applies in this instance, older and more experienced players would definitely take advantage of any changes to the bumping mechanic, to the detriment of those that don't have the experience to do so. Malcanis' Law - Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of new players, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. The corollary is that when new players propose a change, they invariably lack the experience and insight to see how the change would again be exploited by older players far more efficiently than themselves. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
287
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 23:10:00 -
[306] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:IIshira wrote:My main point of this post was if you want to agress someone you should risk losing your ship. Does anyone have something to comment about this?
Just trying to get things back on topic so the thread doesn't get locked for lack of content If bumping was considered to be aggression, the fun and games at the undock of Jita 4-4 would be absolutely hilarious. I think that it's probably extremely hard to code something that can distinguish between accidental and deliberate bumpage, which is possibly why CCP have left well alone, outside of the stuff that's considered an exploit. I think my sig probably applies in this instance, older and more experienced players would definitely take advantage of any changes to the bumping mechanic, to the detriment of those that don't have the experience to do so.
Agreed you can't make bumping an aggressive act. It would be impossible to determine if it was accidental or intentional
What you can do is make bumping not affect going into warp.
One should not be able to warp distrupt another player without some risk. Highsec bumpers are protected by Convord while they safely warp distrupt other players. This makes no sense. You want to attack me fine but I can't defend myself? Obviously a broken game mechanic.
As I said before I hate station games so I understand the need for bumping off stations. Simple fix is you can't dock right away. Make the session change longer so you can die on station if you agrees.
Another broken mechanic related to this is have a neutral Orca warp in and you're safe... Really? |
Vidua Arte Album
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 08:42:00 -
[307] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:IIshira wrote:My main point of this post was if you want to agress someone you should risk losing your ship. Does anyone have something to comment about this?
Just trying to get things back on topic so the thread doesn't get locked for lack of content If bumping was considered to be aggression, the fun and games at the undock of Jita 4-4 would be absolutely hilarious. I think that it's probably extremely hard to code something that can distinguish between accidental and deliberate bumpage, which is possibly why CCP have left well alone, outside of the stuff that's considered an exploit. I think my sig probably applies in this instance, older and more experienced players would definitely take advantage of any changes to the bumping mechanic, to the detriment of those that don't have the experience to do so. Agreed you can't make bumping an aggressive act. It would be impossible to determine if it was accidental or intentional What you can do is make bumping not affect going into warp. One should not be able to warp distrupt another player without some risk. Highsec bumpers are protected by Convord while they safely warp distrupt other players. This makes no sense. You want to attack me fine but I can't defend myself? Obviously a broken game mechanic. As I said before I hate station games so I understand the need for bumping off stations. Simple fix is you can't dock right away. Make the session change longer so you can die on station if you agrees. Another broken mechanic related to this is have a neutral Orca warp in and you're safe... Really? I've read all this and I'm still waiting for something substantial.
"What you can do is make bumping not affect going into warp."
I am sitting here waiting for you to explain how "we" or "I" am able to do this. I know you're talking about CCP, but besides that minor point, if you know it can be done, you know how it can be done, so explain it.
Not even going into the rest of the post ... one step at a time.
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
287
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 10:31:00 -
[308] - Quote
Vidua Arte Album wrote:IIshira wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:IIshira wrote:My main point of this post was if you want to agress someone you should risk losing your ship. Does anyone have something to comment about this?
Just trying to get things back on topic so the thread doesn't get locked for lack of content If bumping was considered to be aggression, the fun and games at the undock of Jita 4-4 would be absolutely hilarious. I think that it's probably extremely hard to code something that can distinguish between accidental and deliberate bumpage, which is possibly why CCP have left well alone, outside of the stuff that's considered an exploit. I think my sig probably applies in this instance, older and more experienced players would definitely take advantage of any changes to the bumping mechanic, to the detriment of those that don't have the experience to do so. Agreed you can't make bumping an aggressive act. It would be impossible to determine if it was accidental or intentional What you can do is make bumping not affect going into warp. One should not be able to warp distrupt another player without some risk. Highsec bumpers are protected by Convord while they safely warp distrupt other players. This makes no sense. You want to attack me fine but I can't defend myself? Obviously a broken game mechanic. As I said before I hate station games so I understand the need for bumping off stations. Simple fix is you can't dock right away. Make the session change longer so you can die on station if you agrees. Another broken mechanic related to this is have a neutral Orca warp in and you're safe... Really? I've read all this and I'm still waiting for something substantial. "What you can do is make bumping not affect going into warp." I am sitting here waiting for you to explain how "we" or "I" am able to do this. I know you're talking about CCP, but besides that minor point, if you know it can be done, you know how it can be done, so explain it. Not even going into the rest of the post ... one step at a time.
I know with many other MMOs players cannot physically block each other's movement. How that translates into computer code I have no idea but it has been done.
Of course this would also eliminate bumping all together but fix aggression timers to eliminate station games and this isn't an issue.
The reason CCP doesn't want to change it currently is they're looking at it from a business perspective (Rightfully so). How many people keep their subscription because they're entertained by this bumping mechanic vs how many loss because it's faulty. Even if it's lame it's currently used as a form of "safe PVP" so that keeps those subscribers interested and they continue to pay.
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
821
|
Posted - 2013.12.22 17:35:00 -
[309] - Quote
if ships fly through each other, does that mean i have no way to prevent someone from warping in high or low sec if i am ECM jammed or damped so much that it takes ages to lock? does it also mean i cannot bump someone off of station or gate when they are trying to de-agress after they have opened fire upon my friends and i show up?
i'd much prefer bumping to exist. it is a valuable option in PvP.
Quote:The reason CCP doesn't want to change it currently is they're looking at it from a business perspective (Rightfully so). How many people keep their subscription because they're entertained by this bumping mechanic vs how many loss because it's faulty. Even if it's lame it's currently used as a form of "safe PVP" so that keeps those subscribers interested and they continue to pay.
lol what? the demographic u are referring to have one use for bumping. however the same mechanic of bumping can also be used to counter 'safe PvP' of ppl fighting off of stations and gates. Bumping is also a great way of preventing super caps from warping away when u are in low sec and dnt have a hictor handy.
i can see how removing bumping improves ur little world, but what about the rest of us? There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.12.22 19:50:00 -
[310] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:if ships fly through each other, does that mean i have no way to prevent someone from warping in high or low sec if i am ECM jammed or damped so much that it takes ages to lock? does it also mean i cannot bump someone off of station or gate when they are trying to de-agress after they have opened fire upon my friends and i show up? i'd much prefer bumping to exist. it is a valuable option in PvP. Quote:The reason CCP doesn't want to change it currently is they're looking at it from a business perspective (Rightfully so). How many people keep their subscription because they're entertained by this bumping mechanic vs how many loss because it's faulty. Even if it's lame it's currently used as a form of "safe PVP" so that keeps those subscribers interested and they continue to pay. lol what? the demographic u are referring to have one use for bumping. however the same mechanic of bumping can also be used to counter 'safe PvP' of ppl fighting off of stations and gates. Bumping is also a great way of preventing super caps from warping away when u are in low sec and dnt have a hictor handy. i can see how removing bumping improves ur little world, but what about the rest of us?
Again if you eliminate the ability to quickly deagress and dock there would be no need to "bump" ships off stations. I absolutely agree that people shouldn't be able to play these silly station games. Come out and fight I say!
If you're fighting a super cap and don't even have one HIC in your fleet you deserve to lose that kill... I know that sounds mean but come on how hard it is to have one or two in your fleet?
|
|
Thufir Bezluden
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 06:18:00 -
[311] - Quote
EVE is at its core a PVP game... bumping is not pvp and does not lead to pvp; it leads to people pissed at CCP instead of players. Sure, NPC player can hire merc, do something else, join player corp, but the bumping cannot really be fought right then and there while your pissed as hell and ready to open fire on someone with more SP and experience almost ensuring your death and lots of tears...
but wait...
the bumper just went suspect flagged... PVP
Whip up some maths to make bumping invoke a suspect flag which will sure as hell instigate some PVP if there are combat drones out and set to aggressive.
Bumper bangs into Bumpee...
1) Was Bumper going faster than 3x base ship velocity? yes, bumper gets suspect flag -good chance for PVP if bumpee is pissed enough or drones on agressive. no, bumper doesn't get suspect flag -good velocity control.
2) Has Bumper bumped a player "x" number of times within 5 minute time period? yes, bumper gets suspect flag -good chance for multiple pvp partners. no, no suspect flag -good self-control -maybe.
3) Has Bumpee been stuck in warp longer than 2 minutes and been bumped within 2.5 minutes? yes, suspect flag on bumper. no, pilot is an idiot.
I'm sure there are lots of fun ways to turn a mechanic like bumping, which only becomes PVP if someone turns to suicide ganking, into loads of PVP fun for everyone -especially the semi-afk idiot with their drones on aggressive. |
Leost
Fedaration Navy
0
|
Posted - 2014.01.14 15:25:00 -
[312] - Quote
How about while in Hi-sec when a player clicks to warp they become bump immune. Another player who has also clicked to enter warp will not collide or interact at all with the other player in the same state. A player who has not clicked to enter warp who collides with a player who has receives all the force of the bump (but not to the point of exceeding normal ship speeds which could be used as an exploit).
Hi-Sec where you can't retaliate against bumping gets a fix and everything else is left alone. Also there is no need for CCP to try and figure out who bumped who. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness
1932
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 22:40:00 -
[313] - Quote
the first post of this thread is vague and muddled
this isn't a ruling, its political blather, a flimsy argument to justify questionable mechanics that can't be fixed.
I personally have no issues with bumping, but seriously GM staff, that "ruling" is complete craptrap
|
Sky' Darkstar
Dark Star Operations.
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.29 01:42:00 -
[314] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote: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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
LMAO. Real harsh backstabbing universe you got there. -Sky' |
Jessie JoeCarr
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 16:15:00 -
[315] - Quote
I don't know if this has been thought of, but what about a deployable web? All ships within a 5km radius are slowed to minimal speed... It'd stop people bumping miners, I'm currently having to hide my barge in a group of roids for the same effect. Guy keeps ramming me with his stabber at full speed... I've told him repeatedly I'm not paying... but he continues to do it... it spoils the game. Might seem pathetic but what if CCP took out all the lasers? wouldn't that ruin it for those who like shooting stuff? I enjoy my own RP, currently mining to get an Orca, but this kid ramming me just throws it all out of wack...
The guy is the ONLY one in the system doing it... he bugs everyone... i it was a system with 3-6 of them doing it... ok but it's one looser doing it.... he needs to be moved on or something... |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
673
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 16:24:00 -
[316] - Quote
Jessie JoeCarr wrote:I don't know if this has been thought of, but what about a deployable web? All ships within a 5km radius are slowed to minimal speed... It'd stop people bumping miners, I'm currently having to hide my barge in a group of roids for the same effect. Guy keeps ramming me with his stabber at full speed... I've told him repeatedly I'm not paying... but he continues to do it... it spoils the game. Might seem pathetic but what if CCP took out all the lasers? wouldn't that ruin it for those who like shooting stuff? I enjoy my own RP, currently mining to get an Orca, but this kid ramming me just throws it all out of wack...
The guy is the ONLY one in the system doing it... he bugs everyone... i it was a system with 3-6 of them doing it... ok but it's one looser doing it.... he needs to be moved on or something...
Even if this existed propulsion jamming to include webbing is an aggressive act and will get CONCORD response. It's like a weird reversal where the griefers (bumpers) are protected by CONCORD from the miners LOL |
Leto Thule
Sons of Retribution
392
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 17:10:00 -
[317] - Quote
Jessie JoeCarr wrote:I don't know if this has been thought of, but what about a deployable web? All ships within a 5km radius are slowed to minimal speed... It'd stop people bumping miners, I'm currently having to hide my barge in a group of roids for the same effect. Guy keeps ramming me with his stabber at full speed... I've told him repeatedly I'm not paying... but he continues to do it... it spoils the game. Might seem pathetic but what if CCP took out all the lasers? wouldn't that ruin it for those who like shooting stuff? I enjoy my own RP, currently mining to get an Orca, but this kid ramming me just throws it all out of wack...
The guy is the ONLY one in the system doing it... he bugs everyone... i it was a system with 3-6 of them doing it... ok but it's one looser doing it.... he needs to be moved on or something...
He isnt ruining your game. He is providing you an opportunity to participate in the game rather than play solo. Also what difference does it make if he is the only one there? He is trying to maximize his profit margin... doesnt make him a loser.
Sandbox man. Sandbox. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/ |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
673
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 19:00:00 -
[318] - Quote
Thufir Bezluden wrote:EVE is at its core a PVP game... bumping is not pvp and does not lead to pvp; it leads to people pissed at CCP instead of players. Sure, NPC player can hire merc, do something else, join player corp, but the bumping cannot really be fought right then and there while your pissed as hell and ready to open fire on someone with more SP and experience almost ensuring your death and lots of tears...
but wait...
the bumper just went suspect flagged... PVP
Whip up some maths to make bumping invoke a suspect flag which will sure as hell instigate some PVP if there are combat drones out and set to aggressive.
Bumper bangs into Bumpee...
1) Was Bumper going faster than 3x base ship velocity? yes, bumper gets suspect flag -good chance for PVP if bumpee is pissed enough or drones on agressive. no, bumper doesn't get suspect flag -good velocity control.
2) Has Bumper bumped a player "x" number of times within 5 minute time period? yes, bumper gets suspect flag -good chance for multiple pvp partners. no, no suspect flag -good self-control -maybe.
3) Has Bumpee been stuck in warp longer than 2 minutes and been bumped within 2.5 minutes? yes, suspect flag on bumper. no, pilot is an idiot.
I'm sure there are lots of fun ways to turn a mechanic like bumping, which only becomes PVP if someone turns to suicide ganking, into loads of PVP fun for everyone -especially the semi-afk idiot with their drones on aggressive.
If they make bumping into an aggressive act someone will find a way to exploit it. Just remove the ability to bump other players in the game and the problem is solved. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
673
|
Posted - 2014.02.10 19:02:00 -
[319] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Jessie JoeCarr wrote:I don't know if this has been thought of, but what about a deployable web? All ships within a 5km radius are slowed to minimal speed... It'd stop people bumping miners, I'm currently having to hide my barge in a group of roids for the same effect. Guy keeps ramming me with his stabber at full speed... I've told him repeatedly I'm not paying... but he continues to do it... it spoils the game. Might seem pathetic but what if CCP took out all the lasers? wouldn't that ruin it for those who like shooting stuff? I enjoy my own RP, currently mining to get an Orca, but this kid ramming me just throws it all out of wack...
The guy is the ONLY one in the system doing it... he bugs everyone... i it was a system with 3-6 of them doing it... ok but it's one looser doing it.... he needs to be moved on or something... He isnt ruining your game. He is providing you an opportunity to participate in the game rather than play solo. Also what difference does it make if he is the only one there? He is trying to maximize his profit margin... doesnt make him a loser. Sandbox man. Sandbox.
If it's just one guy get a bunch of friends together and gank him. After being ganked a few times he'll move on to easier targets. |
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
57
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 14:51:00 -
[320] - Quote
IIshira wrote:If it's just one guy get a bunch of friends together and gank him. After being ganked a few times he'll move on to easier targets.
Yes...please attempt a failgank against a bumper so he has 30 days of kill rights on your Orca and/or blingy exhumer. |
|
Whittorical Quandary
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.12 05:53:00 -
[321] - Quote
does this mean if im not targeting someone, i can randomly ram all the people i want that come out of a station?
Sounds like fun lol |
Arenwa Damarmur
Blaster Masters
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 00:32:00 -
[322] - Quote
Why not develop a module or a rig that prevents a ship from being bumped out of alignment? |
Leto Thule
Sons of Retribution
482
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 14:34:00 -
[323] - Quote
Arenwa Damarmur wrote:Why not develop a module or a rig that prevents a ship from being bumped out of alignment?
Why would you? Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/ |
Lina Drasselbaff
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
28
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 11:56:00 -
[324] - Quote
I have a question for all those saying that bumping should generate a suspect flag on the bumper.
Let's ignore the jita scenario and focus purely on the belts. So you're being bumped, and the bumper goes suspect. Now what?
If you aggress them with your drones, it creates a limited engagement and they can shoot back. So now that bumper can destroy you AND not get concorded, lose sec or have to wait out a gcc until they can do it again.
Obviously that won't happen (except perhaps for miners who go into a blind rage), so option 2 is you reship to your battleship and come attack. Fine, but I'm willing to bet most miners and their friends won't do that, because they might lose the fight. Besides, you can currently gank. Sure that's got penalties but you can always make a gank alt to mitigate..
So in short, this'll do almost nothing except make jita and amarr wreck central.
Perhaps instead of dreaming up these modules and mechanics that will generally aid the bumper much more than the miner, perhaps use some of the many many tools already available to you. Or.. just pay the 10 mil isk a year and keep an eye on local and then at least the new order won't bother you. I'm sorry to say both of these do require effort and staying at the keyboard.
If you don't wanna do that then I'm afraid you have to take the risks of what might happen. That's EVE. That's how those of us who don't mine have to play. If you don't like it that's perfectly okay (no flippancy there, EVE isn't for everyone and that's fine), there are a million other games out there you can play. |
Lakotnik
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 12:59:00 -
[325] - Quote
Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.
Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge. Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged. Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.
Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
707
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 14:05:00 -
[326] - Quote
Lakotnik wrote:Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.
Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge. Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged. Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.
Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat. Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic. |
Leto Thule
Sons of Retribution
504
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 01:21:00 -
[327] - Quote
And replace it with what? Nothing? I don't see how nothing happening when colliding with another ship is anymore realistic than the ship moving away. If anything, the "bump" that occurs could be attributed to the ships navigation system taking an emergency maneuver to avoid the collision. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/ |
Lakotnik
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
2
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 12:18:00 -
[328] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Lakotnik wrote:Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.
Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge. Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged. Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.
Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat. Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic.
Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Damage occurs when two ships bump eachother. When there's a smaller mass involved with greater, the results are quite predictable.
What we have now, isn't "Flight computers taking evasive actions", since my freighters can't actually perform maneuevers like that normally that it doesnt when a cruiser with 100MN MWD bumps into me.
Equal risk/opportunity. Big fleets, two ships lost due to bumping, nothing wrong with that. It'd level the playing field for everyone. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3101
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 02:09:00 -
[329] - Quote
Lakotnik wrote:IIshira wrote:Lakotnik wrote:Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.
Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge. Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged. Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.
Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat. Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic. Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Damage occurs when two ships bump eachother. When there's a smaller mass involved with greater, the results are quite predictable. What we have now, isn't "Flight computers taking evasive actions", since my freighters can't actually perform maneuevers like that normally that it doesnt when a cruiser with 100MN MWD bumps into me. Equal risk/opportunity. Big fleets, two ships lost due to bumping, nothing wrong with that. It'd level the playing field for everyone.
So... you're telling me that I would only need to use 50-60 mil worth of Stabbers to gank a Freighter under your idea?
Sign me up. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
MR DushBag
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 13:56:00 -
[330] - Quote
It has come to my attention that a lot of players complain about being bumped in hi security space and they cant do nothing but move to a different solar system. it is a broken mechanic rule. There should be a way to retaliate with this lowest of scum. There should be some game mechanic that prevents players from hiding in NPC corporations to do their dirty work.
I propose a suspect flag for NPC corp characters that bump. If they are in a player corp, thn business as usual, this way the would be bumpers will have to be subject to retaliation/ wardecs for their actions. At this point the only thing you can do is run to another system and i think that is idiotic. Lets make the miners run all the time. Help us make a stand so we can defend ourselves. Last time i checked the rebalanceing of the gameplay was to make it more war friendly.
Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
17091
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 18:28:00 -
[331] - Quote
MR DushBag wrote:It has come to my attention that a lot of players complain about being bumped in hi security space and they cant do nothing but move to a different solar system. it is a broken mechanic rule. CCP disagree, you should read the GM posts in this thread.
Quote:There should be a way to retaliate with this lowest of scum. There should be some game mechanic that prevents players from hiding in NPC corporations to do their dirty work. There is, it's called suicide ganking, and players hiding in NPC corps goes both ways, miners and haulers do their dirty work while hiding under the NPC corps skirts too.
Quote:I propose a suspect flag for NPC corp characters that bump. If they are in a player corp, thn business as usual, this way the would be bumpers will have to be subject to retaliation/ wardecs for their actions. Most bumpers are already in player corporations, your suggestion will have about as much effect as a sticking plaster on an arterial wound.
Quote:At this point the only thing you can do is run to another system and i think that is idiotic. Lets make the miners run all the time. Help us make a stand so we can defend ourselves. Last time i checked the rebalanceing of the gameplay was to make it more war friendly.
Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. Miners and other highsec residents have access to the self same mechanics as everybody else, including the mechanics of wardeccing, suicide ganking and bumping. It's just that most of them can't be bothered to use them.
Psychotic Monk for CSM 9 |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
712
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 19:19:00 -
[332] - Quote
Lakotnik wrote:IIshira wrote:Lakotnik wrote:Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.
Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge. Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged. Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.
Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat. Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic. Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Damage occurs when two ships bump eachother. When there's a smaller mass involved with greater, the results are quite predictable. What we have now, isn't "Flight computers taking evasive actions", since my freighters can't actually perform maneuevers like that normally that it doesnt when a cruiser with 100MN MWD bumps into me. Equal risk/opportunity. Big fleets, two ships lost due to bumping, nothing wrong with that. It'd level the playing field for everyone.
If you had bumping cause damage that would mean someone would get destroyed by CONCORD in highsec since it would be an aggressive action. That would be a disaster in Jita.
Same thing for suspect flags. You would have people going suspect accidentally. |
Swamp Donkee
Swamp Donkey's United
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 08:04:00 -
[333] - Quote
Runeme Shilter wrote:Foxglove Digitalis wrote:The real question is: Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?
Really? A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.
So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome. Omg, CCP make it so. That would be the most awesome change ever. No more GCC and sec status hit for killing miners! Just bump with X catalyst full speed. Great idea! RS PS: You know that for bumping most often stabbers are used? Or Machariels?
You know, in real life when you get into an automobile accident the police are required to be involved....its called the law.......just saying
As a matter of fact, those who choose to operate an automobile on a public road are required to carry liability insurance at the minimum to pay for the victims damaged vehicle.
Furthermore, this could solve a couple of issues in the game: 1. Prevent intentional bumping in the game with no risk or cost. 2. Prevent massive capital hot drops with sentries as the capitals would destroy their sentries and each other if they move. 3. Require players to actually pay attention and PILOT their ships while considering their relative position in space. 4. Provide an alternative means to getting through gate camps via battering ram fits. 5. I could think of so many benefits.... 6. It would keep people from sitting out in front of Jita looking for easy kills as they may end up concording themselves |
Swamp Donkee
Swamp Donkey's United
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 08:25:00 -
[334] - Quote
MR DushBag wrote: Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD.
CCP could just make a module or a rig thats called an "Inertial Gravitational Stabilization Anti-Collision Containment Field" that any ship could fit. (Make Freighters and Jump Freighters have 1 slot that allows this module or just make it a ship specific trait)
That way, players can choose if they want to be harassed and the tin-hat wearing idiots won't have to worry about being reported if they "target the next system but not the player from the previous system whom is feeling harassed now for not paying the self-proclaimed mining tax in addition to the ludicrous 19% VAT for each monthly subscription." |
Tacomaco
No Taxes just fun
19
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 11:26:00 -
[335] - Quote
Lakotnik wrote: Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged.
11-12k tones of Cruiser bumps into a 10k tones Mining barge. Who's getting damaged, the cruiser of course...
Also the mining barge doesn't take any damage because if a smaller car hits a larger one, only the large car takes damage.
Afk miners and New Order, not sure witch ones bumped their heads harder.
|
Leto Thule
Sons of Retribution
513
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 13:20:00 -
[336] - Quote
Good god people, give it a break! Its a game mechanic! If you dont like it, dont play!! Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/ |
Clara Pond
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 23:28:00 -
[337] - Quote
There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. |
Maxmillian Rokatansky
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 23:09:00 -
[338] - Quote
Clara Pond wrote:There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping. |
Jack Lennox
Killing With a Smile
91
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 10:28:00 -
[339] - Quote
Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:Clara Pond wrote:There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping.
As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say Been ganked? Robbed? Space feelings hurt?-á Now there's something you can do! Fill out a Customer Service Comment Card!-á EIther that or contact everyone's favorite Space Detective for an instant ban! |
Maxmillian Rokatansky
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 14:44:00 -
[340] - Quote
Jack Lennox wrote:Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:Clara Pond wrote:There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping. As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say Next time I bump or gank a CODE compliant miner I'll link them your last post. They can decide how good a deal it was. |
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
822
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 15:51:00 -
[341] - Quote
Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:Jack Lennox wrote:Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:Clara Pond wrote:There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price. Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping. As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say Next time I bump or gank a CODE compliant miner I'll link them your last post. They can decide how good a deal it was. Well the problem is the CODE permit only works for CODE enforcement. If you don't have my permit I must gank you. My permits cost 2 billion for the first month and 1 billion renewal each month. |
Mag's
the united SCUM.
17163
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 09:31:00 -
[342] - Quote
MR DushBag wrote:Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. You've always had the ability to retaliate.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
825
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 15:41:00 -
[343] - Quote
Mag's wrote:MR DushBag wrote:Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. You've always had the ability to retaliate. If you mean retaliation against bumping no you don't. Bumpers are protected by CONCORD. Did you say suicide gank it? Have fun trying to gank a fleet stabber. It's not a Retriever moving at 100 m/s.
Or did you mean against the pilots of the damage dealing ships? When I come to your Retriever with my Thrasher you have no retaliation. You might get on the killmail but my ship was already going to be killed by CONCORD. Wait you have a kill right? You're a funny guy! That means nothing to my gank alt since she's - 10 and anyone can kill her anywhere.
No the only thing you can do is DIE! |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 13:41:00 -
[344] - Quote
Lina Drasselbaff wrote:I have a question for all those saying that bumping should generate a suspect flag on the bumper.
Let's ignore the jita scenario and focus purely on the belts. So you're being bumped, and the bumper goes suspect. Now what?
If you aggress them with your drones, it creates a limited engagement and they can shoot back. So now that bumper can destroy you AND not get concorded, lose sec or have to wait out a gcc until they can do it again.
Obviously that won't happen (except perhaps for miners who go into a blind rage), so option 2 is you reship to your battleship and come attack. Fine, but I'm willing to bet most miners and their friends won't do that, because they might lose the fight. Besides, you can currently gank. Sure that's got penalties but you can always make a gank alt to mitigate..
So in short, this'll do almost nothing except make jita and amarr wreck central.
Perhaps instead of dreaming up these modules and mechanics that will generally aid the bumper much more than the miner, perhaps use some of the many many tools already available to you. Or.. just pay the 10 mil isk a year and keep an eye on local and then at least the new order won't bother you. I'm sorry to say both of these do require effort and staying at the keyboard.
If you don't wanna do that then I'm afraid you have to take the risks of what might happen. That's EVE. That's how those of us who don't mine have to play. If you don't like it that's perfectly okay (no flippancy there, EVE isn't for everyone and that's fine), there are a million other games out there you can play.
It would let freighter escorts have a shot at blapping the bumper.
That's about all I can think of.
I believe an idea to circumvent trade hub issues which has been previously suggested is that bumping does nothing unless the target is locked - therefore all PvP uses are safe, accidental conkordokken at hubs is also avoided. So long as people turn off auto target back, which is simple enough.
Wouldn't help miners a damn for reasons stated, but the wider aspects might be interesting - perhaps create some interesting opportunities of baiting etc. |
Maxmillian Rokatansky
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.04.28 23:43:00 -
[345] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Mag's wrote:MR DushBag wrote:Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD. You've always had the ability to retaliate. If you mean retaliation against bumping no you don't. Bumpers are protected by CONCORD. Did you say suicide gank it? Have fun trying to gank a fleet stabber. It's not a Retriever moving at 100 m/s. You got that right. CODE's only attempt to gank my bumping stabber didnt really work out for them, and its not even a fleet issue.
|
Mr Welsh
Cause For Concern Easily Excited
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 13:29:00 -
[346] - Quote
make a siege module of mining where u are un bumpable but have to be not moving, and u can cancel the mining siege at any time, |
Cage Man
427
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 20:58:00 -
[347] - Quote
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. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
How can you even state this ?? its a cop out.. CCP made the game the way it is and are continually trying to make it easier for this type of activity, ie bullying an extortion (the code). I have no issues with it being there, we choose to play or not to play, but seriously.. this statement is a cop out. Guess I can expect a ban, post removal or something for sharing my thoughts then ??
The thick plottens... CCP, When can my crane get its black paint job back?? |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
937
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 21:57:00 -
[348] - Quote
Cage Man wrote: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. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
How can you even state this ?? its a cop out.. CCP made the game the way it is and are continually trying to make it easier for this type of activity, ie bullying an extortion (the code). I have no issues with it being there, we choose to play or not to play, but seriously.. this statement is a cop out. Guess I can expect a ban, post removal or something for sharing my thoughts then ?? Way to go for resurrecting a dead thread but maybe it needed it.
Does this mean you can't talk about bumping in your bio? |
Soylent Jade
New Order Logistics CODE.
105
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 19:11:00 -
[349] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Way to go for resurrecting a dead thread but maybe it needed it.
Does this mean you can't talk about bumping in your bio?
No. A few people had said in their bio that bumping was endorsed by CCP, and were asked to remove that line, which is what they were addressing there. Making hisec better...one Catalyst at a time
minerbumping.com |
Ji Hyu Song
Horlan Logistics and Support
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 01:56:00 -
[350] - Quote
Please look into the bumping of ships.
It doesn't make sense you can use a small ship to bump a bigger ship that are a few times bigger. It's more reasonable to able bump ships that are almost the same size. |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
19333
|
Posted - 2014.06.25 23:03:00 -
[351] - Quote
Ji Hyu Song wrote:Please look into the bumping of ships.
It doesn't make sense you can use a small ship to bump a bigger ship that are a few times bigger. It's more reasonable to able bump ships that are almost the same size. It doesn't make sense that spaceships in a spaceship game should behave like submarines, but they do.
Also elementary physics, energy transfer, conservation of momentum and Newtons 3rd law would like a word.
Nil mortifi sine lucre |
Dragnkat
Winfield Star-Tech
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 23:26:00 -
[352] - Quote
Personally I'd like an answer better then move to another location please. Because in the case of ice this is something both CCP and the GM need to understand. There is not one usually within a reasonable distance.
You can't just jump one system over or change one belt. You have to make 5-7 jump trips, you have to move ships, you have to then haul longer distances. All because of what just happened to me and a corp mate. A character in a maller was ramming every barge in the belt making ice mining impossible, even if you tried to orbit and evade him, his actions were disruptive and made our undertaking playing the game as we desired impossible.
And we have zero recourse against this. He gets away scott free protected by CONCORD. And we are the ones forced to leave because his ship can't be attacked, evasion is a no go, we don't have someone to try and bump him back (which would be an exploit fighting an exploit) There's no point i nwar dec'ing or hiring mercs over a single bumper, and even then you could avoid that by being in an npc corp. All the while he gets off because of CCP's own stupid rule where harassment is only harassment if you are followed. There's no point in him following because he accomplished his goal of insuring people can't mine the ice. Why would he follow?
And then what if I moved the 5+ jumps to another ice belt and find a DIFFERENT pilot bumping there? Do I move back to the first ice system? Hope the bumper left and bumper #2 now doesn't follow a "Reasonable" (HA!) distance? Do I go even further still looking for every 4 hour spawns even more jumps from a base of operations? Maybe I could even find a third bumper if I'm lucky?
So if we can not within the rules of the game take action against someone who is quite obviously to everyone abusing EVE mechanics, is engaging in what for him is (And this is the point that can't be stressed enough given the mentality of EVE players telling people to HTFU and you are "never safe") --CONSEQUENCE FREE-- PVP activity. How is it not abuse of the rules, mechanics, and an exploit?
And when a player is intentionally disrupting other players actions by an activity that serves no benefit to himself, and meant purely to be disruptive? Please explain to me how in the world that is not the classic mmo definition (to everyone but CCP anyway) of griefing, and exploiting the rules of EVE to accomplish his actions?
CCP needs to get it through there heads bumping is an exploit of the highest order, and something needs to be done about it. It is not "emergent gameplay" it is harassment pure and simple, so why will the devs and GM staff not treat it as such? |
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
225
|
Posted - 2014.06.27 23:45:00 -
[353] - Quote
Whining on the forums is consequence free PVP on the meta level. Something needs to be done with this broken mechanic. Why doesn't CONCORD do something about this? And where are the faction grammar police at when there is obviously so much need for them in enforcing the proper use of words like 'harassment, griefing, defenseless, and helpless'?
Btw, if you check the wikipedia article on griefer... and read all the way to the bottom, you'll find this little gem...
'Eve Online has incorporated activities typically considered griefing as part of the gameplay mechanism. Corporate spying, theft, scams, gate-camping, and PVP on non-PVP players are all part of their gaming experience.'
If the devs and gm's really had a problem with this mechanic and how it's being used they would have done something about it years ago. Use the tools you have available to you, they are the same as everyone else has. Just please stop asking for all the corners and sharp edges in the universe to be padded with foam. |
Dragnkat
Winfield Star-Tech
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 00:29:00 -
[354] - Quote
And look, bumping isn't on that list. Wonder why?
But please educate me, tell this poor widdle carebear (dripping sarcasm) what tools I have to escape, avoid, or deal with a bumper in an ice belt besides leave, counter bump, or try to war dec an npc corp member?
The whole the devs would have dealt with it years ago defense is an empty argument too. Given the evolving nature of any MMO. It's about on par with complaining about grammar instead of actually addressing the problem.
Could it be because you don't have an actual argument to the point being raised Omar? Come on let's see those tools!
And again even if I did use this magical advice you have but can't give specifics on, you still have the issue of should I use those tools how do we address moving from one bumper and encountering a second?
Your thoughts? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
19390
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 01:21:00 -
[355] - Quote
Dragnkat wrote:CCP needs to get it through there heads bumping is an exploit of the highest order, and something needs to be done about it. It is not "emergent gameplay" it is harassment pure and simple, so why will the devs and GM staff not treat it as such?
Because they don't consider it to be an exploit or harassment At the end of the day it's CCP's game and as such their word on the matter is the only one that matters.
Depending on who's doing the bumping you could try and come to a financial or other arrangement with them to leave you alone, it's extortion, and you're allowed to run an extortion racket in Eve.
Nil mortifi sine lucre |
Dragnkat
Winfield Star-Tech
41
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 02:14:00 -
[356] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Dragnkat wrote:CCP needs to get it through there heads bumping is an exploit of the highest order, and something needs to be done about it. It is not "emergent gameplay" it is harassment pure and simple, so why will the devs and GM staff not treat it as such?
Because they don't consider it to be an exploit or harassment At the end of the day it's CCP's game and as such their word on the matter is the only one that matters. Depending on who's doing the bumping you could try and come to a financial or other arrangement with them to leave you alone, it's extortion, and you're allowed to run an extortion racket in Eve.
And if I pay him or not it doesn't change the fact that unlike other anti miner measures. (Suicide ganks for instance) there is still
* No consequences to the bumper for his actions. * No ability by miners to exact retribution upon the bumper. All loss is on them without any counter.
Granted in the case of bumping you lose time moving back, or time finding a new location over a barge. But compare again to a gank.
* Consequence for ganker in the form of criminal flag, loss of sec status, and loss of cheap cata fit. (Granted all of these are minor, but they are actual consequence) * Miner has retribution options in the form of kill rights now. Or actual defense counters in the form of various tanking options, spider webbed repper drones with friends, paying CODE pre gank, avoiding known gank zones, combat escorts, logi ship, suicide gank counters in the most extreme cases, etc.
Again if you want to talk about makes eve appealing (to me as well) It's the risk vs reward factor and how actions have consequences. None of which applies to bumpers, it's a 100% risk free behavior that accomplishes the same goal of miner disruption that a gank would. But again unlike ganks zero consequence zero counter within the system and the rules. Even less of one if again you're dealing with an npc corp bumper you can't war dec or sic mercs on. So even if we concede the point that the devs don't consider it an exploit (though imho it fits the definition perfectly) How does it fit into the ethos so to speak of the eve universe?
For all the ragging high sec "carebears" get this would seem to be another version of that as well, given that bumpers are hiding behind the high sec rules and CONCORD even more than those in the barges. =p
And I'll ask you as well, if you are dealing with a fixed location such as an ice belt where movement to a new system is not an option, how does the CCP stance of harassment = being followed apply across multiple ice spawns then? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
19395
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 13:02:00 -
[357] - Quote
Dragnkat wrote:* No consequences to the bumper for his actions. * No ability by miners to exact retribution upon the bumper.
- His actions aren't considered a crime by Concord or CCP, why would there be consequences?
- Yes there is, you can gank the bumper. To make his life hard you can use an orbiting AB equipped Skiff to avoid being bumped (extremely hard to bump), you can snuggle up close to the material you're mining and sit in a place that makes bumping both hard and pointless because the bounding spheres of the icicles/'roids don't let him get close enough at a speed fast enough to have an effect. If you're running a corp mining op, try using webs on each other to minimise the velocity changes caused by bumping.
Quote:So even if we concede the point that the devs don't consider it an exploit (though imho it fits the definition perfectly) How does it fit into the ethos so to speak of the eve universe? It may fit the general definition of griefing, but as previously stated an awful lot of things that are considered griefing elsewhere are legitimate gameplay options here. It's CCP's game, their rules and definitions are the only ones that count.
Quote:For all the ragging high sec "carebears" get this would seem to be another version of that as well, given that bumpers are hiding behind the high sec rules and CONCORD even more than those in the barges. =p What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Quote:And I'll ask you as well, if you are dealing with a fixed location such as an ice belt where movement to a new system is not an option, how does the CCP stance of harassment = being followed apply across multiple ice spawns then? The only people that can say for sure are CCP, if you want a definitive answer raise a support ticket.
Nil mortifi sine lucre |
Revis Owen
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 12:54:00 -
[358] - Quote
Hmmmm . . . how should miners deal with bumping and any other security issues in the belts, I ponder.
Please hold on to the arms of your chairs, because I'm about to add to the proposals a very revolutionary and innovative idea:
Talk to and play with others also interested in securing belts for peaceful mining.
I know this will shock some who thought the "MM" part of MMO meant "Mono-play Mining". Clue: it doesn't.
But actually, when you look it up, the "MM" part, especially with EVE, means that there are a whole lot of people with whom you can creatively come up with the solution to your security. Isn't that a whole lot more fun and creative than turning EVE into Hello Kitty with space-ships? I think so.
In order to get into the fun and creativity of beating your opponents and providing your own security you'll have to actually, like, talk to and play with other people.
Welcome to the MMO, welcome to the sandbox. WoW and Hello Kitty ------------------> Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 13:26:00 -
[359] - Quote
" It's CCP's game, their rules and definitions are the only ones that count. " So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it.
|
Revis Owen
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 16:42:00 -
[360] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote:" It's CCP's game, their rules and definitions are the only ones that count. " So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it.
I know, right? Traders who manipulate the market are bullies! Miners who mine 24/7 and lower ore prices from dumping all that ore on the market are bullies! But I'm not complaining that they're bullying. I'm looking for a creative way to bully them right back (within allowed game mechanics and EULA, of course).
Yes, Eve is a game full of bullies. In fact, they market that you "can be the villain" in this game. You didn't know this? Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
|
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 18:41:00 -
[361] - Quote
Yes, Eve is a game full of bullies. In fact, they market that you "can be the villain" in this game. You didn't know this?
That's what i said:
"So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it. "
|
Revis Owen
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 21:36:00 -
[362] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote: That's what i said: "So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it. "
u mad bro? Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 00:35:00 -
[363] - Quote
Looks like we're in agreement :
"Yes, Eve is a game full of bullies. In fact, they market that you "can be the villain" in this game. You didn't know this?"
Can be nicely summed up:
" So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it.
|
Revis Owen
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 03:38:00 -
[364] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote:Looks like we're in agreement : "Yes, Eve is a game full of bullies. In fact, they market that you "can be the villain" in this game. You didn't know this?" Can be nicely summed up: " So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it.
I agree with you some, but mostly disagree with you, friend. :)
I'm with you to a limited extent on "enables", but not "encourages".
As far as "enables", I see they enable too much the carebears and their incremental and ceaseless quest for Hello Kitty in space. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 13:00:00 -
[365] - Quote
As far as the "encouragement" is concerned, it would be convenient for CCP to deny this, however you spoke the truth:
"Yes, Eve is a game full of bullies. In fact, they market that you "can be the villain" in this game. You didn't know this?"
This sets the conditions for a full-spectrum of players who derive pleasure from bullying behavior.
There will be situations in which that behavior goes out of bounds (the "Real Life" meta-meta game) and CCP will have to arbitrate.
As far as your Carebear comment, I would say hisec is the quintessential bullying environment. Those deriving pleasure from bullying others can find Players neither looking for, nor prepared for PvP, and thanks to CCP lacking mechanics to counter with defensive PvP techniques.
Slap a simple bastion mode on a T2 barge so it can tank Catalysts until Concord arrives, or turn any and all Pilots that had been in a gank-fleet red in hisec for 24 hrs (are they not declaring war and should be in a wardec environment) and you'd have a balance.
As one of my friends put it.. PvPers looking for targets that can't shoot back. A condition not easily found in losec/nulsec.
CCP has been going "advantage offensive bully", and those are the conditions it set.
So, as said:
" So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it."
If CCP wants to do away with hisec, they should just do it. But as another friend of mine said, the minute they forget that EVE was not "..all about blowing up spaceships.." .. well, let's just say they are truncating the range of game play, and, yes...
they are advantaging the bullies.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
19503
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 12:38:00 -
[366] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote: It's CCP's game, their rules and definitions are the only ones that count. So CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. Got it. Firstly fixed your post, if you're going to quote someone, at least attribute the quote, it's polite to do so.
Secondly, it's a game, it has rules and definitions specific to it. If you don't like the rules or definitions, then don't play the game. What you perceive as bullying is actually people with ambition using creative gameplay and teamwork to achieve their ends, all of which is actively encouraged by CCP and the nature of the game.
Nil mortifi sine lucre |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 20:32:00 -
[367] - Quote
For bullies, the "ends" are merely satisfying the impulse to bully. The fact others will join them in their ends is unfortunately an historic truth. We find bullies building elaborate justifications for their bullying behavior and viewing peer participation as validation.
The discussion was about CCP enabling and encouraging bullying. And indeed, CCP is in charge of the meta-meta-game in RL, and their determinations are what counts. We agree on that. However, the notion you either accept it or leave the game is not entirely viable in a pay-for-service environment that has demonstrated quite a bit of democracy in the past. However, I'm sure bullies appreciate the idea of "luv-it-or-leave-it".
The idea that CCP is being overly influenced by the bullies should be revisited frequently lest the expanding empowerment of bully behavior be construed as validation.
I had lost my post several times attempting to use the quote function and therefore abandoned it. I'm not a professional forum pundit. |
Soylent Jade
New Order Logistics CODE.
125
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 18:49:00 -
[368] - Quote
Confirming PvP in a PvP game is bullying.
Just when you think this thread is dead, some quality tears pop up. I swear people cry about this more than actually being ganked. I might have to start bumping... Making hisec better...one Catalyst at a time
minerbumping.com |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:26:00 -
[369] - Quote
For bullies, the "ends" are merely satisfying the impulse to bully. The fact others will join them in their ends is unfortunately an historic truth.
We find bullies building elaborate justifications for their bullying behavior. For some it is the rationalization that it is all just PvP in a PvP game.
Not to mention, CCP enables and encourages bullying. |
Leto Thule
Narwhals Ate My Duck. Narwhals Ate My Duck
825
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:30:00 -
[370] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote:For bullies, the "ends" are merely satisfying the impulse to bully. The fact others will join them in their ends is unfortunately an historic truth.
We find bullies building elaborate justifications for their bullying behavior. For some it is the rationalization that it is all just PvP in a PvP game.
Not to mention, CCP enables and encourages bullying.
kek
Know where thats from?
Go back. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
If you didnt vote Psychotic Monk, you voted for Hello Kitty in space |
|
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 19:52:00 -
[371] - Quote
Now that's PvP Leto Thule
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/ |
Capt Starfox
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
730
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:33:00 -
[372] - Quote
PvP = Player vs. Player.
This is Eve. You must not be used to it.
Perhaps kek is better suited for you. Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PsychoticMonkCSM9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Leto Thule
Narwhals Ate My Duck. Narwhals Ate My Duck
825
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 20:48:00 -
[373] - Quote
I am confused..... Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
If you didnt vote Psychotic Monk, you voted for Hello Kitty in space |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 21:50:00 -
[374] - Quote
Me too. Maybe Capt Starfox could clarify by stating something like:
"Every now and then sensible and fundamentally decent people will embark, all of a sudden, on courses of which they themselves are the first to disapprove. In these cases the evil-doer acts as though he were possessed by some entity different from and hostile to his ordinary self. In fact, he is the victim of a neutral mechanism, which has got out of hand and, from being the servant of its possessor, has become his master."
See if I got the quote thing right.
|
Capt Starfox
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
730
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 21:58:00 -
[375] - Quote
Nice copy and paste skills. Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PsychoticMonkCSM9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Leto Thule
Narwhals Ate My Duck. Narwhals Ate My Duck
825
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:06:00 -
[376] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote:Me too. Maybe Capt Starfox could clarify by stating something like: "Every now and then sensible and fundamentally decent people will embark, all of a sudden, on courses of which they themselves are the first to disapprove. In these cases the evil-doer acts as though he were possessed by some entity different from and hostile to his ordinary self. In fact, he is the victim of a neutral mechanism, which has got out of hand and, from being the servant of its possessor, has become his master." See if I got the quote thing right.
And that has what to do with my kill board? Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
If you didnt vote Psychotic Monk, you voted for Hello Kitty in space |
Puppy Eating
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:09:00 -
[377] - Quote
Meh, just remove ship-ship collisions, save the server CPU time.
It's not like we are really piloting the ships anyway.
I was so disappointed when I found my joystick was useless for EVE when I first tried it. |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:14:00 -
[378] - Quote
It didn't have anything to do with your killboard. I thought it clarified the confusion nicely. |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:19:00 -
[379] - Quote
Puppy Eating wrote:Meh, just remove ship-ship collisions, save the server CPU time.
It's not like we are really piloting the ships anyway.
I was so disappointed when I found my joystick was useless for EVE when I first tried it.
You might be in the wrong forum channel.
We were discussing how CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online.
But we are really piloting our ships.. just not with a joystick. |
Alyth Nerun
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER CODE.
280
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:24:00 -
[380] - Quote
Dragnkat wrote:Personally I'd like an answer better then move to another location please. Because in the case of ice this is something both CCP and the GM need to understand. There is not one usually within a reasonable distance.
You can't just jump one system over or change one belt. You have to make 5-7 jump trips, you have to move ships, you have to then haul longer distances. All because of what just happened to me and a corp mate. A character in a maller was ramming every barge in the belt making ice mining impossible, even if you tried to orbit and evade him, his actions were disruptive and made our undertaking playing the game as we desired impossible. Why do you think CCP should single you out to enable you to play the game as you desire? Why not me? I want to pew pew your barges all day long without CONCORD or white knights interfering.
But obviously that's not how the game works, it's a sandbox with rules and many fighting about limited resources. You want that risk free Highsec ice? Why should you get it without effort when others invest time to control it with what tools are left to project power in Highsec.
Dragnkat wrote: And we have zero recourse against this. He gets away scott free protected by CONCORD. And we are the ones forced to leave because his ship can't be attacked, evasion is a no go, we don't have someone to try and bump him back (which would be an exploit fighting an exploit) There's no point i nwar dec'ing or hiring mercs over a single bumper, and even then you could avoid that by being in an npc corp. All the while he gets off because of CCP's own stupid rule where harassment is only harassment if you are followed. There's no point in him following because he accomplished his goal of insuring people can't mine the ice. Why would he follow?
It was people like you who closed that door for yourself and everyone else by demanding a stronger CONCORD and more safety.
It was people like you who demanded that the exploit where you close a corp and immediately reopen it is no longer regarded as an exploit so you can avoid wardecs easily.
And it is people like you who demand that there is the possibility of a wardec free NPC corp so their 10 Skiff pilots are protected by the omnipresent, all knowing and invincible CONCORD at all times.
So please cry more about how the demands of your people from the past makes bumper pilots almost invincible.
Dragnkat wrote: So if we can not within the rules of the game take action against someone who is quite obviously to everyone abusing EVE mechanics, is engaging in what for him is (And this is the point that can't be stressed enough given the mentality of EVE players telling people to HTFU and you are "never safe") --CONSEQUENCE FREE-- PVP activity. How is it not abuse of the rules, mechanics, and an exploit?
What about the --CONSEQUENCE FREE-- gathering of resources? Why should the bumper face consequences from CONCORD or CCP while the miner can mine in complete safety? How about you need to go suspect to mine ice? That would certainly make things a bit more interesting.
Dragnkat wrote: And when a player is intentionally disrupting other players actions by an activity that serves no benefit to himself, and meant purely to be disruptive? Please explain to me how in the world that is not the classic mmo definition (to everyone but CCP anyway) of griefing, and exploiting the rules of EVE to accomplish his actions?
Most bumpers like myself will ask money from you. In my case you will also have to follow the Code. If you don't agree you may use the tools available to remove me. CCP is not one of this tools.
Dragnkat wrote: CCP needs to get it through there heads bumping is an exploit of the highest order, and something needs to be done about it. It is not "emergent gameplay" it is harassment pure and simple, so why will the devs and GM staff not treat it as such?
EDIT: Oh and a fun little thought too if you want to get reeeeallly technical about this. If I'm harassed by a bumper in an ice spawn in a single system, but then later on in the same day or two I'm "followed" and this same bumper continues to harass players in a second or third ice spawn have we crossed that harassment line yet CCP?
CCP just recently buffet a set of ships with the pure intention to give you a tool to counter bumping. But jet again here we have some unsatisfied miner who has no intention to actually do the research about how he can avoid bumps by using this new options. Not that it wasn't possible before the buff, it's just ridiculously easier now.
You know, when James 315 years ago pointed out that this constant pattern of people like you crying for CCPs help is destroying Highsec, people where laughing at him. But you are so persistent that by now probably everyone who pays just a little bit of attention has accepted how right he is. And those people fill our war chest, so thanks for your tears, they are worth billions.
Posts like this just fuel my dedication to this path in EVE and I bet I am not the only one. |
|
Capt Starfox
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
731
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:32:00 -
[381] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote: We were discussing how I think CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online.
I fixed for you.
Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PsychoticMonkCSM9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:41:00 -
[382] - Quote
CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE online, and they can be influenced to moderate it, and have in fact moderated it in the past.
In an earlier post I suggested perhaps CCP should simply do away with hisec. What's the point? All positive from my perspective. All pilots would have access to all the PvP mechanics available in nulsec (let's just go for nulsec), and bullies would be deprived of the gratification of gratuitous griefing.
Also, there are PvP mechanics for hisec. If pilots are engaged in illegal ganking operations, that is declaration of war on CONCORD defacto, and those pilots in fleet prior to and during the gank should be red to all hisec pilots for 24 hours.
Certainly this is consistent with existing mechanics and rules, and certainly proud "PvPers" would not eschew the additional "content".
No, my friend, your argument amounts to no more than an elaborate self-justification for bullying. It has no merit.
The practitioners are what they are.
|
Puppy Eating
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:42:00 -
[383] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu wrote:Puppy Eating wrote:Meh, just remove ship-ship collisions, save the server CPU time.
It's not like we are really piloting the ships anyway.
I was so disappointed when I found my joystick was useless for EVE when I first tried it. You might be in the wrong forum channel. We were discussing how CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. But we are really piloting our ships.. just not with a joystick.
That's Navigation, not direct Piloting, Wing Commander/Allegiance style.
I, for one, wouldn't mind high-sec being safe from greifing by other players, but without the massive profits/rewards available in low/null. I ain't making enough to PLEX my time, but I have the cash to pay for an ongoing sub.
Some days I just want to sit back after work, and do a little low stress space-trucking on my one account; trading time-reward vs. risk-reward. If CCP doesn't provide that opportunity, then after my 1 month 'come back please!' special is over, I might not be renewing, maybe I'll play some EQ, or FF instead. (except I'm a spaceship kinda guy, down to the massive pile of 80's spaceship lego. ("SPACESHIP!")) |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:45:00 -
[384] - Quote
Capt Starfox wrote:Gui Tiaowu wrote: We were discussing how I think CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online.
I fixed for you.
Oh no. Everyone in the discussion had agreed that this was the case, and even wanted to equate ALL PvP to Bullying.
I don't think all PvP is bullying, but that was yet another rationalization for the bullying behavior by some bullies.
CCP does indeed enable and encourage bullying behavior in EVE Online.
|
Leto Thule
Narwhals Ate My Duck. Narwhals Ate My Duck
826
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:48:00 -
[385] - Quote
Kek. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
If you didnt vote Psychotic Monk, you voted for Hello Kitty in space |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 22:51:00 -
[386] - Quote
Puppy Eating wrote:Gui Tiaowu wrote:Puppy Eating wrote:Meh, just remove ship-ship collisions, save the server CPU time.
It's not like we are really piloting the ships anyway.
I was so disappointed when I found my joystick was useless for EVE when I first tried it. You might be in the wrong forum channel. We were discussing how CCP enables and encourages bullying in EVE Online. But we are really piloting our ships.. just not with a joystick. That's Navigation, not direct Piloting, Wing Commander/Allegiance style. I, for one, wouldn't mind high-sec being safe from greifing by other players, but without the massive profits/rewards available in low/null. I ain't making enough to PLEX my time, but I have the cash to pay for an ongoing sub. Some days I just want to sit back after work, and do a little low stress space-trucking on my one account; trading time-reward vs. risk-reward. If CCP doesn't provide that opportunity, then after my 1 month 'come back please!' special is over, I might not be renewing, maybe I'll play some EQ, or FF instead. (except I'm a spaceship kinda guy, down to the massive pile of 80's spaceship lego. ("SPACESHIP!"))
It's all good. There's nothing wrong with being a CareBear, even some of the time.
Bullies simply demonize the CareBears to justify their bullying.
There is plenty opportunity for the most torrid PvP in EVE, and you don't have to look far. There is plenty PvP even in hisec, without bullying behavior. In fact there are many Corps that do nothing but PvP.
The truth is, the more elaborate the justification they have to make, the more likely they are involved in bullying and griefing behavior.
|
Capt Starfox
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
733
|
Posted - 2014.07.07 23:49:00 -
[387] - Quote
Gui Tiaowu, HTFU. That is all. Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PsychoticMonkCSM9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Gui Tiaowu
Geistwissenschaft Nanotechnologie
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 00:31:00 -
[388] - Quote
she got no luv |
Capt Starfox
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
733
|
Posted - 2014.07.08 00:39:00 -
[389] - Quote
Awgh, I can't view youtube video's right now.. but that pirate face.. you just had to use the pirate face! :sigh: Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PsychoticMonkCSM9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Elmo Perry
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.11 21:30:00 -
[390] - Quote
Pell Helix is as legit as they ***. |
|
Wingmate
Raven's Flight Reconstructed Criticism
245
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 23:48:00 -
[391] - Quote
gui you are ugly and your opinions are terrible
there, was i bullying? or was i expressing an opinion?
it's not bullying if it's something you choose to do. if you choose to play a game, you choose to play by the rules (or lack thereof). but never mind me, keep circlejerking in your little piles of highsec pity and keep throwing real money at CCP (thereby justifying what you're trying to complain about, that a sandbox that doesn't live by your rules is a bad sandbox). i make spreadsheets for pretty cheap. contact me for more info.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=197433 |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1026
|
Posted - 2014.07.22 00:36:00 -
[392] - Quote
Just as this thread is dead for a few weeks someone revives it lol |
13 nonames
Jumpbridg
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 11:01:00 -
[393] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Kimo Khan wrote: If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?
Because bumping is not, and never has been a flaggable action, more for practical means than anything else. Jita 4-4 undock with flaggable bumping would become a scrapyard FFA.
in all honesty most of the stations in eve need there docking and undocking range fixed
and bunping itself should be consider harassment since a lot of people have been know to use it without the intent to kill, i would like to see a collision mechanics and input a "timer" for entering exiting warp or station that you don't take damage but make it so you take damage upon in packed. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1029
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 13:12:00 -
[394] - Quote
13 nonames wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Kimo Khan wrote: If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?
Because bumping is not, and never has been a flaggable action, more for practical means than anything else. Jita 4-4 undock with flaggable bumping would become a scrapyard FFA. in all honesty most of the stations in eve need there docking and undocking range fixed and bunping itself should be consider harassment since a lot of people have been know to use it without the intent to kill, i would like to see a collision mechanics and input a "timer" for entering exiting warp or station that you don't take damage but make it so you take damage upon in packed. So make it impossible to catch targets outside of a station by modifying the docking range... Umm no stop being lazy and make an insta undock. .
Bumping harassment because you think you know their intent? Really? This isn't WoW.
This being said I dislike bumping all together as a game mechanic and think it should be removed.
|
Jessie JoeCarr
Minmatar Expeditions ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.23 18:39:00 -
[395] - Quote
Easy solution would just be to increase mass of mining barges or enable them to be 'anchored' to asteroids. So either other ships ramming them only results in them moving a few m or the 'roid they're attached to has to be mined out from under them, someone whose not AFK could then attach to the next asteroid but AFK miners are then free to be bumped away. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
1488
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 16:01:00 -
[396] - Quote
Jessie JoeCarr wrote:Easy solution would just be to increase mass of mining barges or enable them to be 'anchored' to asteroids.
The word "solution" implies the existance of a problem, but this isn't the case with bumping. I'd be fine with an anchoring ability as long as it was a highslot module and came with a penalty to mining yield. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Revis Owen
14
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 16:40:00 -
[397] - Quote
IIshira wrote:This being said I dislike bumping all together as a game mechanic and think it should be removed.
Two physical things able to non-interactively pass through each other in "normal" (non-warp) movement doesn't make real-world sense. EVE portrays some liberties with and variances to real-world physics, of course, but there shouldn't be anything as completely bogus to reality as two ships that *look* physical but are really *ghosts* that pass through each other.
If you want what you are talking about, why don't you just petition CCP to change the name of the game to "Ghost Ships In Space" and *then* change the mechanics of ship interaction to suit that game name? Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 15:14:00 -
[398] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:How about bringing mining exhumer and barge HP's down to a sensible level? That way we can forget about this stupid bumping and go back to sucide ganking miners.
Each patch makes this game more like WOW in space but don't worry CCP every step you take away from PVP allows room for another game to fill the void. I hope you are happy when you are left with only high sec bears as they provide zero to the community, fan fest, 3rd party, video content, Dust 315 content. You pandered to the scrubs of eve with the HP buff and it'll catch up with you when the PVP comunity protests at your up coming hauler buff and high sec greif nerf.
CCP this will bite you in the ass real soon, don't even think it's not going to.
I think all of null and low should declare peace for 1 month this summer and declare an unholy war against all of high sec. Huge ganking partys targetting infamous 1+ year pluss npc corp chars, massive market manipulations, Huge PLEX crashes/ Spikes, swamp all hi sec indy slots with 3 month q's.
Lol this is laughable.
Highsec makes up 80% of the Subscriber base. Look at CCP's latest chart in the dev area thing. The entirety of nullsec could quit the game and EvE would be just fine. Maybe better in a lot of ways.
Means New people would go out to 0.0 and claim SOV since there would not be anymore Super Alliances. It would be Glorious chaos once more. |
Lilly Naari
Enclave Security Forces
5
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 15:26:00 -
[399] - Quote
I have an Idea, why don't you Helima Code people/Cult/whatever you are....
Do something about ISboxing 40 man fleets. I mean really, why are you focusing on single miners when these guys are the real threat and around? |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
8
|
Posted - 2014.08.29 22:09:00 -
[400] - Quote
I have no problem with bumping mining barges who are afk to prevent them from mining. People should be at the keyboard to reposition their ship and press F1 again. What does trouble me is bumping ships off the gate so they cannot align, to facilitate multiple waves of gankers killing them, all with no Concord response. This is clearly not a reasonable game mechanic, and I suggest that any gank attempt should make bumping ineffective for 60 seconds against the victim. This will allow non-AFK players enough time to warp off and avoid multiple waves of the exact same gankers blowing up their ship without appropriate Concord intervention. |
|
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
501
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 01:52:00 -
[401] - Quote
**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9339
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 02:06:00 -
[402] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying.
The game isn't dying(that's just a fallacy that dishonest people use to campaign for bad change), and those people should bring web alts and use scouts.
Hint, if your scout sees two Machariels on a gate, don't jump through it. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5418
|
Posted - 2014.08.30 02:22:00 -
[403] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Just as this thread is dead for a few weeks someone revives it lol
I like how you don't even have to go a page to find a response to the last necro
... you know what I mean. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
8
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 01:42:00 -
[404] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying.
The game isn't dying(that's just a fallacy that dishonest people use to campaign for bad change), and those people should bring web alts and use scouts. Hint, if your scout sees two Machariels on a gate, don't jump through it.
Or just design the game so that CONCORD properly responds to criminal activity, which includes unlawful entrapment. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1154
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 20:08:00 -
[405] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying.
The game isn't dying(that's just a fallacy that dishonest people use to campaign for bad change), and those people should bring web alts and use scouts. Hint, if your scout sees two Machariels on a gate, don't jump through it. Or just design the game so that CONCORD properly responds to criminal activity, which includes unlawful entrapment.
So make it where bumping someone gets you CONCORD'ed... That would make Jita so much fun! |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1154
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 20:11:00 -
[406] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying.
Confirmed Eve is dying post #734974 |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
10
|
Posted - 2014.08.31 22:33:00 -
[407] - Quote
No, just make it so that once CONCORD arrives on scene the gank victim gets 60 seconds of invulnerability from CONCORD. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5431
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 00:06:00 -
[408] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No, just make it so that once CONCORD arrives on scene the gank victim gets 60 seconds of invulnerability from CONCORD.
1) Crossposting is bad. Crossposting in a necroed thread is worse.
2) You mean incorporeality, since invulnerable things can still get bumped. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 00:56:00 -
[409] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:No, just make it so that once CONCORD arrives on scene the gank victim gets 60 seconds of invulnerability from CONCORD. 1) Crossposting is bad. Crossposting in a necroed thread is worse. 2) You mean incorporeality, since invulnerable things can still get bumped.
The posting to each thread was appropriate to the topic therein. I'm not concerned with the name, the key is that the gank victim be able to escape before the next wave of gankers comes. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5431
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 00:59:00 -
[410] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The posting to each thread was appropriate to the topic therein. I'm not concerned with the name, the key is that the gank victim be able to escape before the next wave of gankers comes.
That is currently the case.
What you're asking for is that they be automagically entitled to escape, which is different and relies on your false supposition that CONCORD is a police force tasked with enforcing a system of laws that is in any way similar to the extant systems in the real world. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 01:03:00 -
[411] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The posting to each thread was appropriate to the topic therein. I'm not concerned with the name, the key is that the gank victim be able to escape before the next wave of gankers comes. That is currently the case. What you're asking for is that they be automagically entitled to escape, which is different and relies on your false supposition that CONCORD is a police force tasked with enforcing a system of laws that is in any way similar to the extant systems in the real world.
No it isn't....bumping can make it impossible for a freighter to escape. That CONCORD would sit by and allow that is nothing short of absurd. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5431
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 01:18:00 -
[412] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The posting to each thread was appropriate to the topic therein. I'm not concerned with the name, the key is that the gank victim be able to escape before the next wave of gankers comes. That is currently the case. What you're asking for is that they be automagically entitled to escape, which is different and relies on your false supposition that CONCORD is a police force tasked with enforcing a system of laws that is in any way similar to the extant systems in the real world. No it isn't....bumping can make it impossible for a freighter to escape. That CONCORD would sit by and allow that is nothing short of absurd.
Yes, if the bumper does his job perfectly, and the freighter pilot does nothing, the freighter will not escape.
CONCORD's only purpose related to this is to punish Criminal Actions in HS. Bumping is not a Criminal Action, regardless of what space it occurs in, so why should CONCORD care?
Once again, you are confusing CONCORD with an RL Police Force and New Edens laws with the laws in your jurisdiction. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 01:37:00 -
[413] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The posting to each thread was appropriate to the topic therein. I'm not concerned with the name, the key is that the gank victim be able to escape before the next wave of gankers comes. That is currently the case. What you're asking for is that they be automagically entitled to escape, which is different and relies on your false supposition that CONCORD is a police force tasked with enforcing a system of laws that is in any way similar to the extant systems in the real world. No it isn't....bumping can make it impossible for a freighter to escape. That CONCORD would sit by and allow that is nothing short of absurd. Yes, if the bumper does his job perfectly, and the freighter pilot does nothing, the freighter will not escape. CONCORD's only purpose related to this is to punish Criminal Actions in HS. Bumping is not a Criminal Action, regardless of what space it occurs in, so why should CONCORD care? Once again, you are confusing CONCORD with an RL Police Force and New Edens laws with the laws in your jurisdiction.
No, my point was that if BOTH SIDES act optimally the freighter still cannot escape. And the point is that whatever the function of CONCORD there is no conceivable way that it would simply sit there and let the freighter be pinned down and then killed. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5431
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 01:44:00 -
[414] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No, my point was that if BOTH SIDES act optimally the freighter still cannot escape.
Wrong.
Quote:And the point is that whatever the function of CONCORD there is no conceivable way that it would simply sit there and let the freighter be pinned down and then killed.
That would be true, if and only If either CONCORD had an investigative role like RL Police do, or bumping were a Criminal Action in EVE. Neither of those are true.
Again, CONCORD's role is not and never has been to protect the victim. CONCORD's role is solely to punish any Criminal Actions in HS. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 04:07:00 -
[415] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:No, my point was that if BOTH SIDES act optimally the freighter still cannot escape. Wrong. And I contend that I'm right. I think it's impossible to prove either way without CCP input. Quote:And the point is that whatever the function of CONCORD there is no conceivable way that it would simply sit there and let the freighter be pinned down and then killed. That would be true, if and only If either CONCORD had an investigative role like RL Police do, or bumping were a Criminal Action in EVE. Neither of those are true. Again, CONCORD's role is not and never has been to protect the victim. CONCORD's role is solely to punish any Criminal Actions in HS. The reason we're going round and round is because we both have different assumptions about CONCORD's role in EVE. My assumptions are based off of current game mechanics and various statements made by CCP employees (Devs and GMs). How did you come up with your assumptions?
I quoted CCP Falcon, who directly analogized CONCORD to a law enforcement agency. I pointed out the absurdity of the current situation, and I proposed a workable solution. But again, I'm not really look to convince the gankers on this thread of my ideas, it is much more for the benefit of CCP. As I've quoted before "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5434
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 04:10:00 -
[416] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I quoted CCP Falcon, who directly analogized CONCORD to a law enforcement agency. I pointed out the absurdity of the current situation, and I proposed a workable solution. But again, I'm not really look to convince the gankers on this thread of my ideas, it is much more for the benefit of CCP. As I've quoted before "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
CCP Falcon wrote:CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.
"Like" a law enforcement agency, not "the same as" "Reactive and punitive" not "proactive"
Helping someone in between ganking runs is *proactive*
And again, it's only absurd if you don't recognize that New Eden has different laws than the jurisdictions you are familiar with. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 04:12:00 -
[417] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:I quoted CCP Falcon, who directly analogized CONCORD to a law enforcement agency. I pointed out the absurdity of the current situation, and I proposed a workable solution. But again, I'm not really look to convince the gankers on this thread of my ideas, it is much more for the benefit of CCP. As I've quoted before "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
CCP Falcon wrote:CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive. "Like" a law enforcement agency, not "the same as" "Reactive and punitive" not "proactive" Helping someone in between ganking runs is *proactive*
Intervening when bumping is used as a form of false imprisonment between ganks is "reactive" not "proactive" |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5434
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 04:15:00 -
[418] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Intervening when bumping is used as a form of false imprisonment between ganks is "reactive" not "proactive"
Intervening in something that isn't a crime tends to, itself, be a crime.
Bumping is not and has never been a criminal action in New Eden, regardless of circumstance. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 04:18:00 -
[419] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Intervening when bumping is used as a form of false imprisonment between ganks is "reactive" not "proactive" Intervening in something that isn't a crime tends to, itself, be a crime. Bumping is not and has never been a criminal action in New Eden, regardless of circumstance.
Thank you for pointing out that bumping is not currently a crime in New Eden, I'm glad you cleared that point. If you have been paying any attention, my point was not discuss what IS a crime, but rather what SHOULD be a crime. And when bumping is used to effect false imprisonment on a freighter between waves of ganks, that clearly SHOULD be a crime.
|
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1229
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 05:48:00 -
[420] - Quote
Lol bumping a criminal offense? Dude, the jita 4-4 undock would be a constant massacre. You do realize that what you are asking for would in actuality make the game vastly more dangerous than it is now, right? Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 05:54:00 -
[421] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Lol bumping a criminal offense? Dude, the jita 4-4 undock would be a constant massacre. You do realize that what you are asking for would in actuality make the game vastly more dangerous than it is now, right?
Did you read what I suggested? Did I say "hey, let's have CONCORD come and massacre every bumper, that sure would make them game better!"? Or did I instead suggest that gank victims get 60 seconds of being able to warp off without impediment by bumping, in essence CONCORD escorting them from the scene of the crime. Or perhaps this is what you referred to in making the game "vastly more dangerous." Please explain further. |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1229
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 13:57:00 -
[422] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Leto Thule wrote:Lol bumping a criminal offense? Dude, the jita 4-4 undock would be a constant massacre. You do realize that what you are asking for would in actuality make the game vastly more dangerous than it is now, right? Did you read what I suggested? Did I say "hey, let's have CONCORD come and massacre every bumper, that sure would make them game better!"? Or did I instead suggest that gank victims get 60 seconds of being able to warp off without impediment by bumping, in essence CONCORD escorting them from the scene of the crime. Or perhaps this is what you referred to in making the game "vastly more dangerous." Please explain further.
"Criminal" would mean flags.
Flags mean lawful engagements.
Do the math. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Revis Owen
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 14:38:00 -
[423] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying.
Oh, please, the game's not dying, but crap like Orcas traveling without escort or scouting is how they get ganked. Space is dangerous, treat it as such. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1154
|
Posted - 2014.09.01 23:40:00 -
[424] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote: "Criminal" would mean flags.
Flags mean lawful engagements.
Do the math.
You're asking people that love to AFK to actually think...
Revis Owen wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying. Oh, please, the game's not dying, but crap like Orcas traveling without escort or scouting is how they get ganked. Space is dangerous, treat it as such. Of course Eve isn't dying.... This is cries from those that don't understand the game and rage when they fail at it. If you properly tank your ship it's chances of being ganked are reduced. If you look at most of the ganks they're not tanked.
CCP gave freighter pilots the choice between tank and capacity. If you want to go through dangerous space without tank then don't cry when it goes boom.
Same with a mining barge. Procurer/ Skiff for dangerous space vs Retriever/Mackinaw for safer space. Guess what one gets ganked more often. Choose wisely
Some people want to make highsec safe where they can AFK mine and autopilot freighters. This won't help the game at all.
I've done many things in this game. Lowsec/Nullsec PVP, Higsec ganking, and yes carebear stuff like Mining and Mission running... Have I ever been ganked in highsec... No... I've had them try but I was able to thwart their attempts because I used my brain. Play the game... Don't AFK the game!
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 00:48:00 -
[425] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Leto Thule wrote: "Criminal" would mean flags.
Flags mean lawful engagements.
Do the math.
You're asking people that love to AFK to actually think... Revis Owen wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying. Oh, please, the game's not dying, but crap like Orcas traveling without escort or scouting is how they get ganked. Space is dangerous, treat it as such. Of course Eve isn't dying.... This is cries from those that don't understand the game and rage when they fail at it. If you properly tank your ship it's chances of being ganked are reduced. If you look at most of the ganks they're not tanked. CCP gave freighter pilots the choice between tank and capacity. If you want to go through dangerous space without tank then don't cry when it goes boom. Same with a mining barge. Procurer/ Skiff for dangerous space vs Retriever/Mackinaw for safer space. Guess what one gets ganked more often. Choose wisely Some people want to make highsec safe where they can AFK mine and autopilot freighters. This won't help the game at all. I've done many things in this game. Lowsec/Nullsec PVP, Higsec ganking, and yes carebear stuff like Mining and Mission running... Have I ever been ganked in highsec... No... I've had them try but I was able to thwart their attempts because I used my brain. Play the game... Don't AFK the game!
Tank won't help you if you get bumped and hit by multiple waves of gankers. Eve is losing the new/casual players who don't want to see their life savings blown up by career -10 sec status gankers.
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5461
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 01:30:00 -
[426] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Tank won't help you if you get bumped and hit by multiple waves of gankers.
So, if tank doesn't help, why do none of the last 13 Freighters ganked have any tank modules? Are you claiming that no freighter pilots ever fit a tank?
And bumping is trivial to avoid and absolutely possible to escape.
Quote:Eve is losing the new/casual players who don't want to see their life savings blown up by career -10 sec status gankers.
Because new players fly 800m ISK ships filled to the brim with billions of ISK worth of cargo. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1234
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 01:32:00 -
[427] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: Tank won't help you if you get bumped and hit by multiple waves of gankers. Eve is losing the new/casual players who don't want to see their life savings blown up by career -10 sec status gankers.
Stop it.
There are multiple ways to avoid this, and multiple ways to counter it when it happens. They involve using spacefriends.
This is NOT A SOLO game. Its meant to be played with others.
As for the new players not staying?
If they only seek to turn EvE into a kiddie pool, they dont need to be here. Its the same as its always been. There has always been ganking, and there have always been new players. Quite honestly, if you are turned off by losing ships in a game about losing ships, the game is not your cup of tea.
Now, save what face you have left, apologize for wishing nerfdom upon our game, and we can call it good. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 01:42:00 -
[428] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Tank won't help you if you get bumped and hit by multiple waves of gankers. So, if tank doesn't help, why do none of the last 13 Freighters ganked have any tank modules? Are you claiming that no freighter pilots ever fit a tank? And bumping is trivial to avoid and absolutely possible to escape. Quote:Eve is losing the new/casual players who don't want to see their life savings blown up by career -10 sec status gankers. Because new players fly 800m ISK ships filled to the brim with billions of ISK worth of cargo.
Because given the bumping mechanics bulkheads won't help you, so they fit mods that let them warp faster. Look farther in the killboard and you will see lots of fully tanked freighters blown to bits. Some of the recently killed Orcas are sporting 300k + ehp.
800 mil huh? Look through the latest kills - most have had little to no cargo. The story here isn't that freighters are getting ganked for isk, its that empty freighters are getting ganked for tears. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 01:43:00 -
[429] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: Tank won't help you if you get bumped and hit by multiple waves of gankers. Eve is losing the new/casual players who don't want to see their life savings blown up by career -10 sec status gankers.
Stop it. There are multiple ways to avoid this, and multiple ways to counter it when it happens. They involve using spacefriends. This is NOT A SOLO game. Its meant to be played with others. As for the new players not staying? If they only seek to turn EvE into a kiddie pool, they dont need to be here. Its the same as its always been. There has always been ganking, and there have always been new players. Quite honestly, if you are turned off by losing ships in a game about losing ships, the game is not your cup of tea. Now, save what face you have left, apologize for wishing nerfdom upon our game, and we can call it good.
Highsec doesn't depend on spacefriends. It depends on being able to survive until CONCORD comes and saves you. That's what ships fit for - survive the initial alpha. What CODE is doing now is using bumping to negate the role of CONCORD. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5462
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 01:51:00 -
[430] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Because given the bumping mechanics bulkheads won't help you, so they fit mods that let them warp faster. Look farther in the killboard and you will see lots of fully tanked freighters blown to bits. Some of the recently killed Orcas are sporting 300k + ehp.
I went through 15 more and found 1 tanked freighter that got ganked. So 1 in 28 is "lots" now? There are essentially 3 valid fittings for a Freighter.
And nanos are not the proper things to use to get a freighter into warp to avoid bumping.
(Hint: The bumper can't do anything to you solo. He brought friends. You might consider doing the same.)
Quote:800 mil huh? Look through the latest kills - most have had little to no cargo. The story here isn't that freighters are getting ganked for isk, its that empty freighters are getting ganked for tears.
Most were fit with a full rack of anti-tank, making it very cheap to gank them.
If someone's willing to lose money to hurt you, what's the problem?
Veers Belvar wrote:Highsec doesn't depend on spacefriends.
Show me where you found a CCP official source for that statement. Otherwise stop making things up or repeating lies that someone else told you.
Quote:It depends on being able to survive until CONCORD comes and saves you. That's what ships fit for - survive the initial alpha. What CODE is doing now is using bumping to negate the role of CONCORD.
Nobody uses alpha ganks anymore, it's too expensive. Gallente ships are used for DPS ganks.
In what way is CONCORD's role negated? Every ganking ship is destroyed, which means that CONCORD has fulfilled its entire role. Unless you can find some CCP official source for your claim that CONCORD has a protective role? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1235
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 01:51:00 -
[431] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Highsec doesn't depend on spacefriends. It depends on being able to survive until CONCORD comes and saves you. That's what ships fit for - survive the initial alpha. What CODE is doing now is using bumping to negate the role of CONCORD.
Oh, but it does! That is the key to your problems! The whole game revolves around who to trust, who not to trust, not to trust anyone, being a total **** to advance your own goals while trying to find buddies who share the same end goal.
If you use a BUDDY to scout, you WONT end up in a gank! Read your posts man, you are just wrong in this whole thing, and I am saying that objectively, not being a douche.
If this has been your experience thus far, you should consider doing something else in-game. Fly with some buddies. Its more fun, trust me. Im not trolling you.
We like our game the way it is (actually we liked it better before the highsec nerf train). This game has been around for over a decade. It isnt going anywhere just because some people lose a freighter or six.
(Also... new players dont fly freighters, so they wont be quitting because of losing one..) Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
504
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 11:59:00 -
[432] - Quote
There was a moment of epiphany that my buddies and I had in the way back... not all the way, I'm not that old... but that was that certain ships in this game, while most certainly very awesome at what they do, are simply not meant to be properly utilized ALONE. My bud spent ages training into a command ship only to face the sinking realization that it's full awesomeness could really only be brought to bear in a fleet. I trained a stealth bomber up and realized that alone it had about zero pve applications. We were both sad pandas. He left. I stayed til the first ragequit (there were more than one).
Haulers and miners, with certain exceptions, fall into this category as well. Sure, you can fly your max yield victimbarge solo, but not safely. Likewise you can stuff all the expanded cargohold mods possible onto a hauler and fly it solo. You may get away with it a dozen times. You may get away with it hundreds of times.... but the law of averages is not in your favor, and when the hammer comes down, lady fortune will ensure that it's when you're packing the better part of your worldlies in the hold.
These ships operate best as part of teams. Scouts, webbers, counterbumpers for your haulers, Orcas and defenders for your mining ops. If you don't put forth the full effort to ensure the safety of these kind of boats bad things are going to happen to them.... preventable bad things.
Your enemies will be organized and vigilant. If you are not then you will be their next meal. Fly safe isn't just a figure of speech. |
Revis Owen
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:21:00 -
[433] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Highsec doesn't depend on spacefriends. It depends on being able to survive until CONCORD comes and saves you. That's what ships fit for - survive the initial alpha. What CODE is doing now is using bumping to negate the role of CONCORD.
Players in a massively multiplayer online game don't play with others and find friends to cooperate with on security, but instead play the MMO solo having NPC security?
Huh? Why not buy a single-player space game and unplug the internet cable?
EVE is an MMO. You do not make any sense.
Also, you seem to be afflicted with some strange idea of CONCORD's "role". CONCORD provides retribution when a crime is committed, each time. Multiple gank waves are killed each time by CONCORD. Working as intended. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1163
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 15:30:00 -
[434] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:IIshira wrote:Leto Thule wrote: "Criminal" would mean flags.
Flags mean lawful engagements.
Do the math.
You're asking people that love to AFK to actually think... Revis Owen wrote:LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:**** like bumping orcas for 15-30 minutes straight for multiple waves of gank characters is why this game is dying. Oh, please, the game's not dying, but crap like Orcas traveling without escort or scouting is how they get ganked. Space is dangerous, treat it as such. Of course Eve isn't dying.... This is cries from those that don't understand the game and rage when they fail at it. If you properly tank your ship it's chances of being ganked are reduced. If you look at most of the ganks they're not tanked. CCP gave freighter pilots the choice between tank and capacity. If you want to go through dangerous space without tank then don't cry when it goes boom. Same with a mining barge. Procurer/ Skiff for dangerous space vs Retriever/Mackinaw for safer space. Guess what one gets ganked more often. Choose wisely Some people want to make highsec safe where they can AFK mine and autopilot freighters. This won't help the game at all. I've done many things in this game. Lowsec/Nullsec PVP, Higsec ganking, and yes carebear stuff like Mining and Mission running... Have I ever been ganked in highsec... No... I've had them try but I was able to thwart their attempts because I used my brain. Play the game... Don't AFK the game! Tank won't help you if you get bumped and hit by multiple waves of gankers. Eve is losing the new/casual players who don't want to see their life savings blown up by career -10 sec status gankers.
Tank means you don't get picked for the gank most of the time. Look at most freighters CODE kills... Yes some may be tanked but most are not.
Also why would you haul your "life savings" with one trip in an untanked freighter... Or any ship for that matter. "Never put your eggs in one basket"... Does that ring a bell? Again poor choices can have painful consequences.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 16:38:00 -
[435] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Highsec doesn't depend on spacefriends. It depends on being able to survive until CONCORD comes and saves you. That's what ships fit for - survive the initial alpha. What CODE is doing now is using bumping to negate the role of CONCORD. Players in a massively multiplayer online game don't play with others and find friends to cooperate with on security, but instead play the MMO solo having NPC security? Huh? Why not buy a single-player space game and unplug the internet cable? EVE is an MMO. You do not make any sense. Also, you seem to be afflicted with some strange idea of CONCORD's "role". CONCORD provides retribution when a crime is committed, each time. Multiple gank waves are killed each time by CONCORD. Working as intended.
Because the bumping replicates scramming, which does draw a CONCORD response. CONCORD punishment should be based on the outcome, not on a hypertechnical thing like prressing F5. |
Revis Owen
27
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 17:12:00 -
[436] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Because the bumping replicates scramming, which does draw a CONCORD response. CONCORD punishment should be based on the outcome, not on a hypertechnical thing like prressing F5.
Wrong. Scramming in highsec does not draw CONCORD response, if the scrammer is a corpmate of or in a duel with the pilot being scrammed. Therefore, your argument of the "outcome" being "replicated" isn't accurate. Accurately, what is being replicated (to go with your argument, which I don't necessarily endorse anyway) is at least either of those two scenarios.
"But," you may ask, "where did the fail-pilot do something to replicate getting into a corp or duel with other pilots?"
That's quite easily answered: he pushed the undock button. And that follows one of your requirements that we need not get hypertechnical that he pushed precisely the "get into corp" or "accept duel" buttons. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 18:12:00 -
[437] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Because the bumping replicates scramming, which does draw a CONCORD response. CONCORD punishment should be based on the outcome, not on a hypertechnical thing like prressing F5. Wrong. Scramming in highsec does not draw CONCORD response, if the scrammer is a corpmate of or in a duel with the pilot being scrammed. Therefore, your argument of the "outcome" being "replicated" isn't accurate. Accurately, what is being replicated (to go with your argument, which I don't necessarily endorse anyway) is at least either of those two scenarios. "But," you may ask, "where did the fail-pilot do something to replicate getting into a corp or duel with other pilots?" That's quite easily answered: he pushed the undock button. And that follows one of your requirements that we need not get hypertechnical that he pushed precisely the "get into corp" or "accept duel" buttons.
And therefore what? Normal unjustified scramming does draw a response. CONCORD should not allow unjustified impairment of mobility, to be consistent with the way it treats unjustified warp scrambling. |
Revis Owen
27
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:34:00 -
[438] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And therefore what? Normal unjustified scramming does draw a response. CONCORD should not allow unjustified impairment of mobility, to be consistent with the way it treats unjustified warp scrambling.
It's like you didn't read what I wrote. You're continuing to say bumping replicates criminal scramming (punished by CONCORD), when I made an airtight case above that it actually replicates non-criminal scramming (not punished by CONCORD). Please read what I wrote again. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5507
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:36:00 -
[439] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And therefore what? Normal unjustified scramming does draw a response. CONCORD should not allow unjustified impairment of mobility, to be consistent with the way it treats unjustified warp scrambling.
Great. So we'll make bumping a criminal action. Then, to be consistent with the way it treats the *only other criminal action in the game,* pop goes the freighter. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:49:00 -
[440] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:And therefore what? Normal unjustified scramming does draw a response. CONCORD should not allow unjustified impairment of mobility, to be consistent with the way it treats unjustified warp scrambling. It's like you didn't read what I wrote. You're continuing to say bumping replicates criminal scramming (punished by CONCORD), when I made an airtight case above that it actually replicates non-criminal scramming (not punished by CONCORD). Please read what I wrote again.
No my argument was never that all bumping replicated criminal scramming, it was simply that bumping, when used by gankers to trap and pin down a ship between successive gank attempts (where CONCORD is already on the scene) replicates criminal scramming. Clear now? |
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 19:51:00 -
[441] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:And therefore what? Normal unjustified scramming does draw a response. CONCORD should not allow unjustified impairment of mobility, to be consistent with the way it treats unjustified warp scrambling. Great. So we'll make bumping a criminal action. Then, to be consistent with the way it treats the *only other criminal action in the game,* pop goes the freighter. You can't have it both ways. Either Bumping is Criminal (or Suspect) or it isn't. CONCORD is not a victim's services agency, and will never do anything to protect anyone.
If I could isolate the type of bumping gankers do and separate it from other bumping, and only have CONCORD punish that bumping, I would (feel free to suggest how to do it). Since that is difficult to CODE, I proposed a solution to fix the mechanic.
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5509
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:01:00 -
[442] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:If I could isolate the type of bumping gankers do and separate it from other bumping, and only have CONCORD punish that bumping, I would (feel free to suggest how to do it). Since that is difficult to CODE, I proposed a solution to fix the mechanic.
Every single aspect of Crimewatch is designed around specific mechanical actions drawing specific responses. Every single one of those responses are exclusively punitive. Why should an exception be introduced just because haulers can't be bothered to make friends or be at the keyboard in a multiplayer PvP game?
CONCORD has an exclusively reactive, punitive role. It is not in the business of protecting anyone.
(Incidentally, neither are the RL Police in the US, where the Supreme Court and other courts have repeatedlyruled that they're not responsible for protecting anyone even if they promise to protect them, something that an internet space lawyer like you claim to be should be aware of) "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Revis Owen
27
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:40:00 -
[443] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:No my argument was never that all bumping replicated criminal scramming, it was simply that bumping, when used by gankers to trap and pin down a ship between successive gank attempts (where CONCORD is already on the scene) replicates criminal scramming.
No, it doesn't. I made the point above that that scenario replicates an awoxer scramming a corpmate or a duelist scramming another duelist. That scramming is non-criminal and not punished by CONCORD.
I also anticipated above a question you might ask about what action the victim had done to replicate getting into a corp or a duel with the player scramming them. The answer is the player hit the undock button. Because, remember, you said that we don't have to be "hypertechnical" about what button people pushed.
Clearly, you either did not read or think long enough about what I wrote. Please do so, and I anticipate any relevant response germane to my points.
Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:45:00 -
[444] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:If I could isolate the type of bumping gankers do and separate it from other bumping, and only have CONCORD punish that bumping, I would (feel free to suggest how to do it). Since that is difficult to CODE, I proposed a solution to fix the mechanic.
Every single aspect of Crimewatch is designed around specific mechanical actions drawing specific responses. Every single one of those responses are exclusively punitive. Why should an exception be introduced just because haulers can't be bothered to make friends or be at the keyboard in a multiplayer PvP game? CONCORD has an exclusively reactive, punitive role. It is not in the business of protecting anyone. (Incidentally, tangentially, and almost entirely irrelevantly, neither are the RL Police in the US, where the Supreme Court and other courts have repeatedlyruled that they're not responsible for protecting anyone even if they promise to protect them, something that an internet space lawyer like you claim to be should be aware of)
Sir you are a genius, Castle Rock is taught in Law School, and so many people are SHOCKED to learn that police are not your personal security force and have absolutely no obligation to prevent a crime from occuring, just because someone tells them they fear it will occur. I was going to bring this up on the other thread, but I was worried that people would not understand it. CONCORD has no obligation to prevent James 315 and his boys from shooting at you. Their job is to show up after the shooting starts, and take James to the cleaners (which they do admirably). But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission. Now that, sir, they ARE liable for. If they ignore an in commission crime in front of their faces, and it leads to harm, they get sued under Bivens, etc... (read the opinion of the Court).
So here, when we can have CONCORD effectively respond to the in commission crime of replicating warp scrambling by bumping, and I have proposed a way to do so exactly consistent with how the police would act, we should embrace it, as you have now nicely demonstrated. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:50:00 -
[445] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission.
Except that they're not doing any such thing, rendering the rest of your analysis moot. Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Neither is theft, murder, false imprisonment, genocide, etc. The *only* crime in New Eden is activating an aggressive module against an illegitimate target, and it's a property crime.
You keep trying to bring the expectations and assumptions you've developed in other jurisdictions into a new one that doesn't match them. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:50:00 -
[446] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission. Except that they're not doing any such thing, rendering the rest of your analysis moot. Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Neither is theft, murder, false imprisonment, genocide, etc. The *only* crime in New Eden is activating an aggressive module against an illegitimate target. You keep trying to bring the expectations and assumptions you've developed in other jurisdictions into a new one that doesn't match them.
Activating a module is an action, not a crime. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:52:00 -
[447] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission. Except that they're not doing any such thing, rendering the rest of your analysis moot. Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Neither is theft, murder, false imprisonment, genocide, etc. The *only* crime in New Eden is activating an aggressive module against an illegitimate target. You keep trying to bring the expectations and assumptions you've developed in other jurisdictions into a new one that doesn't match them. Activating a module is an action, not a crime.
In EVE, it's a crime when it's an aggressive module and it interacts with a non-legal target. In fact, it's the only crime. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 20:56:00 -
[448] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:But wait, now they have showed up, and James's buddy is sitting there holding you down so James can come back from jail and finish the job. The police choose to look the other way and ignore an actual crime in commission. Except that they're not doing any such thing, rendering the rest of your analysis moot. Bumping is not a crime in New Eden. Neither is theft, murder, false imprisonment, genocide, etc. The *only* crime in New Eden is activating an aggressive module against an illegitimate target. You keep trying to bring the expectations and assumptions you've developed in other jurisdictions into a new one that doesn't match them. Activating a module is an action, not a crime. In EVE, it's a crime when it's an aggressive module and it interacts with a non-legal target. In fact, it's the only crime.
Well, that's not the way I look at it. I see accomplishing or attempting to accomplish what the offensive model does as the crime, the model is merely the mechanism for achieving the crime. So to the extent that such conduct can be replicated by other means, I think that that too should be punishable. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:10:00 -
[449] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, that's not the way I look at it. I see accomplishing or attempting to accomplish what the offensive model does as the crime, the model is merely the mechanism for achieving the crime. So to the extent that such conduct can be replicated by other means, I think that that too should be punishable.
That's not the way the laws in New Eden work. Again, you're making the same error that one might make by going into Louisiana and arguing a case based on Common law principles.
Lore reason: These are laws that mortals are imposing on Immortal Gods. The goal is simply to keep violence between the Gods reasonably contained so that at least it doesn't spill. They're able to track module activation, so that's what they do.
Game mechanics reason: Bumping is an intended game mechanic with a long and important history. CONCORD's response specifically to offensive module activation is a game mechanic validated over 11 years.
It also doesn't accomplish the same thing as any offensive module. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:34:00 -
[450] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Well, that's not the way I look at it. I see accomplishing or attempting to accomplish what the offensive model does as the crime, the model is merely the mechanism for achieving the crime. So to the extent that such conduct can be replicated by other means, I think that that too should be punishable. That's not the way the laws in New Eden work. Again, you're making the same error that one might make by going into Louisiana and arguing a case based on Common law principles. Lore reason: These are laws that mortals are imposing on Immortal Gods. The goal is simply to keep violence between the Gods reasonably contained so that at least it doesn't spill. They're able to track module activation, so that's what they do. Game mechanics reason: Bumping is an intended game mechanic with a long and important history. CONCORD's response specifically to offensive module activation is a game mechanic validated over 11 years. It also doesn't accomplish the same thing as any offensive module.
And round and round we go -
Lore - the fact that they are able to punish capsuleers for bad behavior should not depend on module activation. It's perfectly consistent with the Lore to focus on the result, not the action.
Mechanics - yes, most bumping is fine. CODE has managed to abuse one specific use of it to create the replica of warp scrambling. If this loophole can be easily plugged with minimal consequences, and I've shown how it can be, then it should be. |
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 21:37:00 -
[451] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:No my argument was never that all bumping replicated criminal scramming, it was simply that bumping, when used by gankers to trap and pin down a ship between successive gank attempts (where CONCORD is already on the scene) replicates criminal scramming. No, it doesn't. I made the point above that that scenario replicates an awoxer scramming a corpmate or a duelist scramming another duelist. That scramming is non-criminal and not punished by CONCORD. I also anticipated above a question you might ask about what action the victim had done to replicate getting into a corp or a duel with the player scramming them. The answer is the player hit the undock button. Because, remember, you said that we don't have to be "hypertechnical" about what button people pushed. Clearly, you either did not read or think long enough about what I wrote. Please do so, and I anticipate any relevant response germane to my points.
Ok - this makes no sense me. By accepting a duel or entering a corp, the capsuleer voluntarily agreed to forfeit protection from scramming. By merely undocking in highsec, there was no voluntary renouncement of CONCORD protection, and therefore if an activity replicates scramming, it should be punished as such. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:01:00 -
[452] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And round and round we go -
Lore - the fact that they are able to punish capsuleers for bad behavior should not depend on module activation. It's perfectly consistent with the Lore to focus on the result, not the action.
Ok, so CONCORD ganks all bumping. Remember, they can only detect actions, and even if they detected results, all bumping disrupts aligning and thus, per your claims (which are still false) replicate something you think should be a crime in New Eden.
Quote:Mechanics - yes, most bumping is fine. CODE has managed to abuse one specific use of it to create the replica of warp scrambling. If this loophole can be easily plugged with minimal consequences, and I've shown how it can be, then it should be.
Bumping initially came to promenance to do the exact thing you're complaining about. It was, in fact the only method of tackling Supers in LS until HICs were introduced (from 2005 till 2007). If that were "abusing" the mechanic, CCP would have fixed it in Trinity (2007). In other words, even if we grant that bumping is equivalent to warp scrambling, its use as such isn't abusing anything.
And that's aside from the fact that CCP has been quite clear and consistent, for nearly 11 years (tankable CONCORD was silly, and CCP fixed that), on what CONCORD's role is in HS. That it doesn't match the assumptions you've brought in from RL doesn't make it broken.
Veers Belvar wrote:Ok - this makes no sense me. By accepting a duel or entering a corp, the capsuleer voluntarily agreed to forfeit protection from scramming. By merely undocking in highsec, there was no voluntary renouncement of CONCORD protection, and therefore if an activity replicates scramming, it should be punished as such.
CONCORD doesn't provide protection. Undocking voluntarily forfeits the protection of the Station interior. Logging in voluntarily forfeits protection from PvP. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:14:00 -
[453] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:And round and round we go -
Lore - the fact that they are able to punish capsuleers for bad behavior should not depend on module activation. It's perfectly consistent with the Lore to focus on the result, not the action. Ok, so CONCORD ganks all bumping. Remember, they can only detect actions, and even if they detected results, all bumping disrupts aligning and thus, per your claims (which are still false) replicate something you think should be a crime in New Eden. Quote:Mechanics - yes, most bumping is fine. CODE has managed to abuse one specific use of it to create the replica of warp scrambling. If this loophole can be easily plugged with minimal consequences, and I've shown how it can be, then it should be. Bumping initially came to promenance to do the exact thing you're complaining about. It was, in fact the only method of tackling Supers in LS until HICs were introduced (from 2005 till 2007). If that were "abusing" the mechanic, CCP would have fixed it in Trinity (2007). In other words, even if we grant that bumping is equivalent to warp scrambling, its use as such isn't abusing anything. And that's aside from the fact that CCP has been quite clear and consistent, for nearly 11 years (tankable CONCORD was silly, and CCP fixed that), on what CONCORD's role is in HS. That it doesn't match the assumptions you've brought in from RL doesn't make it broken. Veers Belvar wrote:Ok - this makes no sense me. By accepting a duel or entering a corp, the capsuleer voluntarily agreed to forfeit protection from scramming. By merely undocking in highsec, there was no voluntary renouncement of CONCORD protection, and therefore if an activity replicates scramming, it should be punished as such. CONCORD doesn't provide protection. Undocking voluntarily forfeits the protection of the Station interior. Logging in voluntarily forfeits protection from PvP.
Lolz...you love to play this game.....I already gave a solution to bumping. Bumping in low and null makes sense, in high where CONCORD is on patrol, it should be punished. CONCORD provides protection the same way the NYPD does, they punish people who break the law, and in doing so assist those who are harmed by the lawbreaking. Protection doesn't mean that they are prophylacticaly preventing crime from occurring, it means that they punish lawbreakers, which (1) releases those currently affected by the crime and (2) deters crime from occurring in the first place. |
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:26:00 -
[454] - Quote
Bumping is so ridiculous. I honestly don't understand how this bullshit is allowed to continue except out of inability to fix the problem.
Opinion of CCP greatly lowered. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:30:00 -
[455] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Lolz...you love to play this game.....I already gave a solution to bumping. Bumping in low and null makes sense, in high where CONCORD is on patrol, it should be punished. CONCORD provides protection the same way the NYPD does, they punish people who break the law, and in doing so assist those who are harmed by the lawbreaking. Protection doesn't mean that they are prophylacticaly preventing crime from occurring, it means that they punish lawbreakers, which (1) releases those currently affected by the crime and (2) deters crime from occurring in the first place.
And your "solution" does absolutely nothing to punish the bumpers, exists only to protect their target, was specifically introduced to prevent a hypothetical future criminal act. All of which go right against CONCORD's design intentions.
The NYPD is a police force. CONCORD is not. CONCORD quite specifically and intentionally does nothing to directly aid targets of space violence.
In other words, quite a bit of that post is flatly false. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:50:00 -
[456] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Lolz...you love to play this game.....I already gave a solution to bumping. Bumping in low and null makes sense, in high where CONCORD is on patrol, it should be punished. CONCORD provides protection the same way the NYPD does, they punish people who break the law, and in doing so assist those who are harmed by the lawbreaking. Protection doesn't mean that they are prophylacticaly preventing crime from occurring, it means that they punish lawbreakers, which (1) releases those currently affected by the crime and (2) deters crime from occurring in the first place. And your "solution" does absolutely nothing to punish the bumpers, exists only to protect their target, was specifically introduced to prevent a hypothetical future criminal act. All of which go right against CONCORD's design intentions. The NYPD is a police force. CONCORD is not. CONCORD quite specifically and intentionally does nothing to directly aid targets of space violence. In other words, quite a bit of that post is flatly false.
And you solution is to do nothing and continue to allow CODE to pin down bumpers and have the exact same gankers hit them over and over until they die while CONCORD sits on the scene and watches, which is inconsistent with CONCORD's (which is a police force, and aids victims by killing the aggressors) role in punishing wrongful activity in highsec. So once again quite a bit of your post is "flatly false." |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5511
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 22:58:00 -
[457] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:And you solution is to do nothing and continue to allow CODE to pin down bumpers and have the exact same gankers hit them over and over until they die while CONCORD sits on the scene and watches, which is inconsistent with CONCORD's (which is a police force, and aids victims by killing the aggressors) role in punishing wrongful activity in highsec. So once again quite a bit of your post is "flatly false."
My solution is to allow game mechanics to continue working as intended. As they are. Per CCP. If Freighter pilots don't want to get ganked, they have plenty of tools to protect themselves. That they refuse to use them is not a game balance problem.
CONCORD, incidentally, does not sit on scene and watch. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of Eden
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.02 23:36:00 -
[458] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:And you solution is to do nothing and continue to allow CODE to pin down bumpers and have the exact same gankers hit them over and over until they die while CONCORD sits on the scene and watches, which is inconsistent with CONCORD's (which is a police force, and aids victims by killing the aggressors) role in punishing wrongful activity in highsec. So once again quite a bit of your post is "flatly false." My solution is to allow game mechanics to continue working as intended. As they are. Per CCP. If Freighter pilots don't want to get ganked, they have plenty of tools to protect themselves. That they refuse to use them is not a game balance problem. CONCORD, incidentally, does not sit on scene and watch.
Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5512
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 02:27:00 -
[459] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences.
Actually, we're not, because at the top of this thread, the official CCP position is laid out, and it says that you are quite wrong.
(FYI Code. did not invent bumping freighters) "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1249
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 13:42:00 -
[460] - Quote
It actually sort of hurts.
(No, not when I pee, thank GOD thats over with!)
Reading the repeated requests for nerfs, even after it has been plainly, and politely explained that the tools already exist to prevent being ganked.
For the love of god just use a freakin scout. Its so goddamn easy.
Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
509
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 13:50:00 -
[461] - Quote
This is what makes borderliners become hardliners. When faced with the absolute tenacity of lazy and stupid combining forces any rational mind is confronted with a limited number of choices. You can ignore it, you can refute it, or you can lash out and attempt to quash it violently with prejudice. I mean you can try to educate and convert them over to rational thinking, but by the time the shiptoasting begins you're already too late. All that's left to be done at that point is to try to curbstomp them into submission in hopes that they'll be unable to spread their mindless vitriol further. Unfortunately this just exacerbates that annoying whining sound and creates more threadnaughts about how the sandbox should have safety rails and foamed up corners. It's a daunting, seemingly unwinnable battle... |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6026
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 15:48:00 -
[462] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences.
The real question here is do you actually know anything? You can guess, think, suppose & speculate as much as you want, but do you actually know anything? This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee & Grammar Gestapo. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 15:59:00 -
[463] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences. The real question here is do you actually know anything? You can guess, think, suppose & speculate as much as you want, but do you actually know anything?
As discussed it's impossible for us to "know" the answer to a question that only CCP is in a position to answer. |
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
515
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 16:02:00 -
[464] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences. The real question here is do you actually know anything? You can guess, think, suppose & speculate as much as you want, but do you actually know anything? The answer is no. But by all the gods, angels and demons in all the pantheons he'll not relent until the world acknowledges that he's right in whatever point it is that he's trying to make, regardless of whether or not of it's actual veracity. For the love of all that's unholy please kill it with fire and make it stop poasting. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5523
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:17:00 -
[465] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences. The real question here is do you actually know anything? You can guess, think, suppose & speculate as much as you want, but do you actually know anything? As discussed it's impossible for us to "know" the answer to a question that only CCP is in a position to answer.
Which they have. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310
So, it is, in fact, quite easy to know the answer. All it requires is the ability to read. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:21:00 -
[466] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences. The real question here is do you actually know anything? You can guess, think, suppose & speculate as much as you want, but do you actually know anything? As discussed it's impossible for us to "know" the answer to a question that only CCP is in a position to answer. Which they have. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310So, it is, in fact, quite easy to know the answer. All it requires is the ability to read.
Oh dear...completely failing to answer the question debated here...try again. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5524
|
Posted - 2014.09.03 18:58:00 -
[467] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Oh dear...completely failing to answer the question debated here...try again.
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences.
You think CODE.'s bumping is an unintended game mechanic that needs fixing.
CCP Says that you are wrong.
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.
(Funnily enough, the threads that lead up to that post were all about CODE as well. Also, for reference, gankers started regularly bumping freighters off gates to escape Faction Police and Gate Guns when Incursion, 2 full years before that post, rendered Battleship ganks prohibitively expensive.)
What's left to debate? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6028
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 01:05:00 -
[468] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Oh dear...completely failing to answer the question debated here...try again. Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences. You think CODE.'s bumping is an unintended game mechanic that needs fixing. CCP Says that you are wrong. 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. (Funnily enough, the threads that lead up to that post were all about CODE as well. Also, for reference, gankers started regularly bumping freighters off gates to escape Faction Police and Gate Guns when Incursion, 2 full years before that post, rendered Battleship ganks prohibitively expensive.) What's left to debate?
I'm sure he can guess something to think about the supposed speculations. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee & Grammar Gestapo. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 01:26:00 -
[469] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Oh dear...completely failing to answer the question debated here...try again. Veers Belvar wrote:Well, I guess we are at a standstill then. Because i think the current mechanics are being abused by CODE, and allow them to recreate the exact effect of warp scrambling without any consequences. You think CODE.'s bumping is an unintended game mechanic that needs fixing. CCP Says that you are wrong. 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. (Funnily enough, the threads that lead up to that post were all about CODE as well. Also, for reference, gankers started regularly bumping freighters off gates to escape Faction Police and Gate Guns when Incursion, 2 full years before that post, rendered Battleship ganks prohibitively expensive.) What's left to debate?
Yes, but the point debated was whether it was possible for a freighter to solo escape 3 optimal bumping Machariels. Unless you have become an alt of CCP Falcon, I don't think you can answer that.
CCP changes its mind all the time. It can wave its wand and change the entire sandbox. It recently cut the cap cost of using a 100MN MWD by 50%, reducing the value of my 3 Gist x's by 250 mil each. Why? Not clear. It hit me like a thunderbolt in the night. CCP also recently radically altered wormhole mechanics over the vociferous objection of the leading wormhole groups. CCP can make any change it deems necessary, at any time, to improve the game. The fact is that CODE is institutionalizing freighter bumping, and radically increasing both the size and scope of it use, as we can see from all the tearful freighter pilots putting up posts (in before "Veers is an alt of noob freighter pilot who lost ship to CODE. Tears."). So maybe it's time for CCP to take a step back and reconsider. And this thread was created in order to debate their decision on bumping, and to provide input. So I am doing so. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5529
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 01:30:00 -
[470] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Yes, but the point debated was whether it was possible for a freighter to solo escape 3 optimal bumping Machariels.
How is that relevant to anything? Why should a player be able to easily escape from a trap laid for them by over a dozen players without any help? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 01:33:00 -
[471] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Yes, but the point debated was whether it was possible for a freighter to solo escape 3 optimal bumping Machariels. How is that relevant to anything? Why should a player be able to easily escape from a trap laid for them by over a dozen players without any help?
for the same reason that a player can escape from a trap laid for the by over a dozen players using war disruption and not bumping. The dozen + players get to play the shoot em up game until CONCORD shows. What they don't get to do is continue to commit hostile acts while CONCORD sits around on lawn chairs eating donuts. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5529
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 01:35:00 -
[472] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:for the same reason that a player can escape from a trap laid for the by over a dozen players using war disruption and not bumping. The dozen + players get to play the shoot em up game until CONCORD shows. What they don't get to do is continue to commit hostile acts while CONCORD sits around on lawn chairs eating donuts.
Bumping is still not a hostile act in EVE. Just because you want it to be one doesn't mean that it is. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 01:39:00 -
[473] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:for the same reason that a player can escape from a trap laid for the by over a dozen players using war disruption and not bumping. The dozen + players get to play the shoot em up game until CONCORD shows. What they don't get to do is continue to commit hostile acts while CONCORD sits around on lawn chairs eating donuts. Bumping is still not a hostile act in EVE. Just because you want it to be one doesn't mean that it is.
Good point. And what i am proposing is that it should be treated as one, with the caveat that instead of CONCORD dispatching justice at gunpoint, it provide a 60 second window of warpoff unaffected by bumping, such as a pod would get. But we have been here before (multiple times), so I will hold off further posting here until new content is introduced. |
Hannibal Crusoe
new order logistics CODE.
114
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 02:11:00 -
[474] - Quote
Veers, you have had about 400 comments this month concerning this topic. At the time of this post you have about 20 likes.
I say this to point out that you might not have the support that would be needed to implement a game breaking change to bumping mechanics.
Ride a white mare in the footsteps of dawn |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 02:29:00 -
[475] - Quote
Hannibal Crusoe wrote:Veers, you have had about 400 comments this month concerning this topic. At the time of this post you have about 20 likes.
I say this to point out that you might not have the support that would be needed to implement a game breaking change to bumping mechanics.
A. Decisions aren't made based on likes.
B. Look at all the posts here from people complaining about their ships being blown up by CODE. Did they like me? No. Why? Because a lot of people don't gives likes, it's rather pointless (I have not given any).
C. I would bet that a poll of the live bodies playing the game (not accounts, bodies, most of whom live in highsec) would support changes that would nerf the CODE campaign against empty freighters. Which is again, kind of irrelevent. CCP makes the decisions it wants, not the decisions most players want. Example - the wormhole changes - was there any broad based support for them?
TLDR - ignore likes, and ignore the same 5 people making the same exact posts on the forum ad infinitum. State your views, try to defend them adequately, and hope that CCP is thinking things through. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5529
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 02:36:00 -
[476] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Good point. And what i am proposing is that it should be treated as one, with the caveat that instead of CONCORD dispatching justice at gunpoint, it provide a 60 second window of warpoff unaffected by bumping, such as a pod would get.
Pods do not get any such grace period. They can be bumped and otherwise interacted with the moment they're ejected from a ship (voluntarily or involuntarily). So the supposition that you've now decided to base your "fix" to the nonproblem is false.
Veers Belvar wrote:(not accounts, bodies, most of whom live in highsec)
Got any proof of that, or is it another lie?
Quote:State your views, try to defend them adequately, and hope that CCP is thinking things through.
So why haven't you bothered to try to defend yours with any evidence?
And finally, why is it a problem when the hilariously lowballed first order estimate for freighter survival is 94%? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 02:42:00 -
[477] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Good point. And what i am proposing is that it should be treated as one, with the caveat that instead of CONCORD dispatching justice at gunpoint, it provide a 60 second window of warpoff unaffected by bumping, such as a pod would get. Pods do not get any such grace period. They can be bumped and otherwise interacted with the moment they're ejected from a ship (voluntarily or involuntarily). So the supposition that you've now decided to base your "fix" to the nonproblem is false. Veers Belvar wrote:(not accounts, bodies, most of whom live in highsec) Got any proof of that, or is it another lie? Quote:State your views, try to defend them adequately, and hope that CCP is thinking things through. So why haven't you bothered to try to defend yours with any evidence? And finally, why is it a problem when the hilariously lowballed first order estimate for freighter survival is 94%?
Actually they have a tick to warp off before they appear on overview (the reason no one should get podded in highsec).
Look on your eve map for activity, vast majority is in highsec. Go around highsec interacting with people - miners, haulers, mission runners, etc... They don't like getting shot. They are the much maligned "carebears."
8 freighters already down in uedama, some of them clearly with no chance of making a profit. The problem is growing rapidly - there was never this level of sustained freighter ganking by a single organization. https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/ |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5529
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 02:55:00 -
[478] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Actually they have a tick to warp off before they appear on overview (the reason no one should get podded in highsec).
Which is a function of EVE's 1s server resolution, not its own game mechanic.
Quote:Look on your eve map for activity, vast majority is in highsec. Go around highsec interacting with people - miners, haulers, mission runners, etc... They don't like getting shot. They are the much maligned "carebears."
Quote:(not accounts, bodies, most of whom live in highsec)
Emphasis mine. Cite an actual source for the claim you actually made, or stop lying.
Quote:8 freighters already down in uedama, some of them clearly with no chance of making a profit. The problem is growing rapidly - there was never this level of sustained freighter ganking by a single organization. https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/
And how many Freighters have passed through Uedama in that time? Total numbers killed is a worthless metric. Go count. Until you're willing to do that (y'know, provide evidence for your assertions), we'll assume that freighters account for a tenth of the system's traffic, or 3020 jumps. Where's the problem you have with a 99.8% survival rate?
Every one of those killed had a positive expected value for their gankers. How is it a problem that ships are exploding? MiniLuv was on the same or larger scale two years ago. (And they used the exact same mechanics.)
I know that you know all of this because I've told you several times. So it can only be assumed that you are intentionally saying false things. In other words, why do you continue to lie? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Hannibal Crusoe
new order logistics CODE.
114
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 02:56:00 -
[479] - Quote
Decisions are made for many reasons. Likes on the forums is not a deciding factor. Support for a change might be.
You have stated several times your dislike of the situation of a player being held in place while the original attackers wait to return. It is my view that you have a problem with the disconnect that occurs once this is compared to reality.
I think it would be difficult for an NPC to tell the difference in a good bump verses a bad bump.
To solve this problem just let me have the power of Concord.
I assure you I could simulate real life police responses in EVE.
That includes looking the other way.
Ride a white mare in the footsteps of dawn |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 05:00:00 -
[480] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Actually they have a tick to warp off before they appear on overview (the reason no one should get podded in highsec). Which is a function of EVE's 1s server resolution, not its own game mechanic. Quote:Look on your eve map for activity, vast majority is in highsec. Go around highsec interacting with people - miners, haulers, mission runners, etc... They don't like getting shot. They are the much maligned "carebears." Quote:(not accounts, bodies, most of whom live in highsec) Emphasis mine. Cite an actual source for the claim you actually made, or stop lying. Quote:8 freighters already down in uedama, some of them clearly with no chance of making a profit. The problem is growing rapidly - there was never this level of sustained freighter ganking by a single organization. https://zkillboard.com/character/1941616627/ And how many Freighters have passed through Uedama in that time? Total numbers killed is a worthless metric. Go count. Until you're willing to do that (y'know, provide evidence for your assertions), we'll assume that freighters account for a tenth of the system's traffic, or 3020 jumps. Where's the problem you have with a 99.8% survival rate? Every one of those killed had a positive expected value for their gankers. How is it a problem that ships are exploding? MiniLuv was on the same or larger scale two years ago. (And they used the exact same mechanics.) I know that you know all of this because I've told you several times. So it can only be assumed that you are intentionally saying false things. In other words, why do you continue to lie?
Well, my patience with you has finished. This will be my last response to you for now, I'm not sure you understand what a "lie" is.
1. Irrelevant...I suggested letting the gank targets warp off like pods cans. It's a simple mechanic.
2. This is the evidence I have. Merely stating that you do not like it does not make it a "lie.' In fact, to prove that I am "lying" you would need to supply conclusive evidence of the opposite. Instead you supplied nothing and accused me of "lying." Nice.
3. That's a wildly inflated number for Freighter jumps. And anyhow, the key is the relative change. Uedama went from a normal system to Freighter carnage over the past month. Today, 13 freighters have died in the span of 5 hours, all killed by CODE. Did Miniluv hit at anywhere near that rate? That's a rate of around 60 a day, or 1800 a month. From the numbers I saw monthly freighter kills have not exceeded 250 or so. And that's before the latest changes which allowed freighters to fit bulkheads for max ehp (and yes, one killmail has 3 bulkheads. He still died. Presumably bumping was involved. Disagreeing with you (and you provided no evidence), is not a "lie."
4. Obviously I know that the gankers derive utility from xploding ships. The point is that as Eve regards the gank, thinking in isk, its strongly -EV. And having people repeatedly doing strongly -EV things (as Eve looks at it), and harming a lot of highsec in the process, is the kind of thing that should lead to some thought about mechanics changes.
|
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 05:01:00 -
[481] - Quote
Hannibal Crusoe wrote:Veers
Decisions are made for many reasons. Likes on the forums is not a deciding factor. Support for a change might be.
You have stated several times your dislike of the situation of a player being held in place while the original attackers wait to return. It is my view that you have a problem with the disconnect that occurs once this is compared to reality.
I think it would be difficult for an NPC to tell the difference in a good bump verses a bad bump.
To solve this problem just let me have the power of Concord.
I assure you I could simulate real life police responses in EVE.
That includes looking the other way.
Put CODE in charge of CONCORD....now there's an idea....do they need to buy a permit? :) |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5529
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 06:34:00 -
[482] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Well, my patience with you has finished. This will be my last response to you for now, I'm not sure you understand what a "lie" is.
1. Irrelevant...I suggested letting the gank targets warp off like pods cans. It's a simple mechanic.
2. This is the evidence I have. Merely stating that you do not like it does not make it a "lie.' In fact, to prove that I am "lying" you would need to supply conclusive evidence of the opposite. Instead you supplied nothing and accused me of "lying." Nice.
3. That's a wildly inflated number for Freighter jumps. And anyhow, the key is the relative change. Uedama went from a normal system to Freighter carnage over the past month. Today, 13 freighters have died in the span of 5 hours, all killed by CODE. Did Miniluv hit at anywhere near that rate? That's a rate of around 60 a day, or 1800 a month. From the numbers I saw monthly freighter kills have not exceeded 250 or so. And that's before the latest changes which allowed freighters to fit bulkheads for max ehp (and yes, one killmail has 3 bulkheads. He still died. Presumably bumping was involved. Disagreeing with you (and you provided no evidence), is not a "lie."
4. Obviously I know that the gankers derive utility from xploding ships. The point is that as Eve regards the gank, thinking in isk, its strongly -EV. And having people repeatedly doing strongly -EV things (as Eve looks at it), and harming a lot of highsec in the process, is the kind of thing that should lead to some thought about mechanics changes.
1. Gank targets already can warp off in exactly the same manner that pods can, using the exact same mechanics.
2. Then your claim was a lie. You claimed that HS has the most people, and presented evidence (for which, Kudos) that it might have the most characters. Characters are not people and people are not characters (as you made clear in your *own* claim). There is, in fact, no relationship between characters and people (I, for example, have always had more characters in HS than anywhere else, by a large margin, no matter where I lived, because game mechanics hugely reward you for maintaining a HS posse.)
3. I called on you to provide evidence for your claim and offered an assumption (clearly labeled as such) to use until you can provide such. I also, earlier put a lower bound, at about 100 freighter trips per day EVE-wide which resulted in a calculated survival rate of 94%. 3a. So show me the 1800 killmails a month. I can claim to run a sub-2-hour marathon if I'm allowed to extrapolate from my 400m time. (And looking at Dotlan's kills over 48hrs, you're doing exactly that).
4. EVE doesn't have defined goals the way you seem to think it does. EVE does not look to define anyone's value functions, and never has. If it did, and they were exclusively ISK-based Expected Value functions, nobody would PvP anywhere except ganking. Also, CODE is making ISK off of every gank they perform. 4a. You've presented no evidence of any harm coming to highsec from HS players engaging in the core EVE activity of pixel violence. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 07:09:00 -
[483] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Well, my patience with you has finished. This will be my last response to you for now, I'm not sure you understand what a "lie" is.
1. Irrelevant...I suggested letting the gank targets warp off like pods cans. It's a simple mechanic.
2. This is the evidence I have. Merely stating that you do not like it does not make it a "lie.' In fact, to prove that I am "lying" you would need to supply conclusive evidence of the opposite. Instead you supplied nothing and accused me of "lying." Nice.
3. That's a wildly inflated number for Freighter jumps. And anyhow, the key is the relative change. Uedama went from a normal system to Freighter carnage over the past month. Today, 13 freighters have died in the span of 5 hours, all killed by CODE. Did Miniluv hit at anywhere near that rate? That's a rate of around 60 a day, or 1800 a month. From the numbers I saw monthly freighter kills have not exceeded 250 or so. And that's before the latest changes which allowed freighters to fit bulkheads for max ehp (and yes, one killmail has 3 bulkheads. He still died. Presumably bumping was involved. Disagreeing with you (and you provided no evidence), is not a "lie."
4. Obviously I know that the gankers derive utility from xploding ships. The point is that as Eve regards the gank, thinking in isk, its strongly -EV. And having people repeatedly doing strongly -EV things (as Eve looks at it), and harming a lot of highsec in the process, is the kind of thing that should lead to some thought about mechanics changes.
1. Gank targets already can warp off in exactly the same manner that pods can, using the exact same mechanics. 2. Then your claim was a lie. You claimed that HS has the most people, and presented evidence (for which, Kudos) that it might have the most characters. Characters are not people and people are not characters (as you made clear in your *own* claim). There is, in fact, no relationship between characters and people (I, for example, have always had more characters in HS than anywhere else, by a large margin, no matter where I lived, because game mechanics hugely reward you for maintaining a HS posse.) 3. I called on you to provide evidence for your claim and offered an assumption (clearly labeled as such) to use until you can provide such. I also, earlier put a lower bound, at about 100 freighter trips per day EVE-wide which resulted in a calculated survival rate of 94%. 3a. So show me the 1800 killmails a month. I can claim to run a sub-2-hour marathon if I'm allowed to extrapolate from my 400m time. (And looking at Dotlan's kills over 48hrs, you're doing exactly that). 4. EVE doesn't have defined goals the way you seem to think it does. EVE does not look to define anyone's value functions, and never has. If it did, and they were exclusively ISK-based Expected Value functions, nobody would PvP anywhere except ganking. Also, CODE is making ISK off of every gank they perform. 4a. You've presented no evidence of any harm coming to highsec from HS players engaging in the core EVE activity of pixel violence.
As stated, not going to continue this...just an important point that would help people on the forums, since I think many may not understand what a "lie" is. Proving that a claim is a "lie" requires two elements.
A. Conclusive and absolute proof that the claim is false AND B. Conclusive and absolute proof that the person who made the claim knew it was false at the time he made the claim
Just saying. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5530
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 07:49:00 -
[484] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:As stated, not going to continue this...just an important point that would help people on the forums, since I think many may not understand what a "lie" is. Proving that a claim is a "lie" requires two elements.
A. Conclusive and absolute proof that the claim is false AND B. Conclusive and absolute proof that the person who made the claim knew it was false at the time he made the claim
Just saying.
Veers Belvar wrote:there was never this level of sustained freighter ganking by a single organization.
Here's this false claim. MiniLuv was just as organized and sustained longer. (And used the same mechanics)
As for your knowledge, you asked about the MiniLuv era when the other poster provided killmail data on freighter deaths. You were told about Miniluv several times. QED
Or we could go with a different lie:
Veers Belvar wrote:(not accounts, bodies, most of whom live in highsec) Unproven claim (not a lie, but as the great Popeil said, there's more)
Veers Belvar wrote:Look on your eve map for activity, vast majority is in highsec. Misleading evidence.
Veers Belvar wrote:(not accounts, bodies, Proof that you know the difference, showing that you must have intended to provide misleading evidence. (In your *own* claim, m8).
Anyway, you are, of course, quite free to leave without providing any evidence for your many specious claims. I'll be listening if you decide you want to present any actual evidence for any of them. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1251
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 13:41:00 -
[485] - Quote
Veers is clearly unable to discern "what IS" from "what HE wants".
Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 15:45:00 -
[486] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Veers is clearly unable to discern "what IS" from "what HE wants".
No, what IS is all the freighters blown up yesterday because of bumping (my understanding is that bumping is used even for the initial go around. This is because if they just pointed the freighter, CONCORD would start responding, and the -10 sec status guys don't undock until the target is pinned down, and that would cut their total damage applied to the freighter).
What I want is a mechanics change so that post gank-attempt you get 60 seconds to warp off unaffected by bumping. Obviously this would not assist the freighters who die from the initial wave (and there are enough gankers in these groups so that they don't need to push the freighters off the gate guns), but I don't see any clean way to differentiate between casual and harmless bumping on the one hand, and gank-assistance bumping on the other. |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1252
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 15:56:00 -
[487] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Leto Thule wrote:Veers is clearly unable to discern "what IS" from "what HE wants".
No, what IS is all the freighters blown up yesterday because of bumping (my understanding is that bumping is used even for the initial go around. This is because if they just pointed the freighter, CONCORD would start responding, and the -10 sec status guys don't undock until the target is pinned down, and that would cut their total damage applied to the freighter). What I want is a mechanics change so that post gank-attempt you get 60 seconds to warp off unaffected by bumping. Obviously this would not assist the freighters who die from the initial wave (and there are enough gankers in these groups so that they don't need to push the freighters off the gate guns), but I don't see any clean way to differentiate between casual and harmless bumping on the one hand, and gank-assistance bumping on the other.
"An interesting game. The only winning move is not to play." - "Joshua", the A.I. from "Wargames"
If those freighters had used proper scouting and were flying correctly (bookmarks, instadocks, insta-undocks) they would not require a mechanics change. Once the fish is on the hook, its already too late. Use a scout, use bookmarks, fly smart, and you dont need to worry about being ganked. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 16:13:00 -
[488] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Leto Thule wrote:Veers is clearly unable to discern "what IS" from "what HE wants".
No, what IS is all the freighters blown up yesterday because of bumping (my understanding is that bumping is used even for the initial go around. This is because if they just pointed the freighter, CONCORD would start responding, and the -10 sec status guys don't undock until the target is pinned down, and that would cut their total damage applied to the freighter). What I want is a mechanics change so that post gank-attempt you get 60 seconds to warp off unaffected by bumping. Obviously this would not assist the freighters who die from the initial wave (and there are enough gankers in these groups so that they don't need to push the freighters off the gate guns), but I don't see any clean way to differentiate between casual and harmless bumping on the one hand, and gank-assistance bumping on the other. "An interesting game. The only winning move is not to play." - "Joshua", the A.I. from "Wargames"If those freighters had used proper scouting and were flying correctly (bookmarks, instadocks, insta-undocks) they would not require a mechanics change. Once the fish is on the hook, its already too late. Use a scout, use bookmarks, fly smart, and you dont need to worry about being ganked.
The reality is that a lot of people in highsec play this game solo (which explains the scores of dead freighters in Uedama). Whether it's lifelong miners who use Eve as the next best thing to Valium, career mission runners who have now run The Mordus Headhunters for the 176th time, or haulers who just want to get goods from point A to point B, many of these players are not looking for social interaction.
But remember, CONCORD intervenes when these players get warp disrupted. If you bring your freighter into Uedama, with neither scouts, nor webbers, nor any kind of plan, and someone warp disrupts you. CONCORD doesn't stay at home and say "you are bad, you deserve to xplode." It shows up, quickly dispatches the offending ships, and stays on grid to instantly respond to future attempts.
On the other hand, if instead of warp disrupting you, the ganker folks just use bumping to pin you down, CONCORD doesn't show up. So yes, you may be bad because you didn't bring friends, but the issue isn't your badness, the issue is the consistency of CONCORD response. If CONCORD responds to impairment of mobility through disrupting, it should also respond to impairment of mobility through bumping, when used in the specific context of pinning down ships for a gank in highsec (and where a simple coding solution can be found). |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1252
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 16:34:00 -
[489] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
The reality is that a lot of people in highsec play this game solo.
Yes, and the reality of that decision is that you are vulnerable. That is the trade off.
You keep saying that gankers are warp disrupting by bumping. This is untrue. Warp disruption is a module that lowers your warp core strength by one point (hence called a "point"), rendering you unable to initiate warp if you have no core stabilizers fit. Warp SCRAMBLE lowers your warp core strenghth by TWO points, rendering at least 1 stab inert and also preventing the use of warp modules such as MWD's and MJD's.
BUMPING prevents ALIGNMENT, not warping. They are two separate mechanics. I assume you already know this, however it does need to be pointed out, as some may not. When your ship reaches its alignment and speed requirement to initiate warp, you warp. This is why its useful to have a friend with webs, to lower your maximum speed possible, therefore lowering the time it takes you to reach that modified speed. But again, you probably know this.
So, in essence, you are requesting the game to be changed so that you can play it solo. You want to ignore the tools you have at your disposal to prevent being ganked in favor of an "I win" button in the form of a CONCORD escort out of the fire.
You keep attributing CONCORD to a real world police presence. They are not. CONCORD is binary (On/Off). They exist for the sole reason of relieving a red card holder of his ship, nothing more.
Real world police will attempt to get innocents out of the line of fire and into safety, but in the real world, they are not invincible. So, im fine with your CONCORD acting like real police, as long as that means that CONCORD can be engaged and destroyed too. Also, since CONCORD is a police agency, I assume we will start seeing weigh stations and toll booths, as well as a bill of lading required for your cargo, a Material Safety Data Sheet for any HAZMATS you may be transporting, the required license to operate the ship you are flying, an up to date registration card, and make sure you keep your speed down. Gets ridiculous, doesnt it? Thats why its a game, and they arent police.
Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 17:14:00 -
[490] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
The reality is that a lot of people in highsec play this game solo.
Yes, and the reality of that decision is that you are vulnerable. That is the trade off. You keep saying that gankers are warp disrupting by bumping. This is untrue. Warp disruption is a module that lowers your warp core strength by one point (hence called a "point"), rendering you unable to initiate warp if you have no core stabilizers fit. Warp SCRAMBLE lowers your warp core strenghth by TWO points, rendering at least 1 stab inert and also preventing the use of warp modules such as MWD's and MJD's. BUMPING prevents ALIGNMENT, not warping. They are two separate mechanics. I assume you already know this, however it does need to be pointed out, as some may not. When your ship reaches its alignment and speed requirement to initiate warp, you warp. This is why its useful to have a friend with webs, to lower your maximum speed possible, therefore lowering the time it takes you to reach that modified speed. But again, you probably know this. So, in essence, you are requesting the game to be changed so that you can play it solo. You want to ignore the tools you have at your disposal to prevent being ganked in favor of an "I win" button in the form of a CONCORD escort out of the fire. You keep attributing CONCORD to a real world police presence. They are not. CONCORD is binary (On/Off). They exist for the sole reason of relieving a red card holder of his ship, nothing more. Real world police will attempt to get innocents out of the line of fire and into safety, but in the real world, they are not invincible. So, im fine with your CONCORD acting like real police, as long as that means that CONCORD can be engaged and destroyed too. Also, since CONCORD is a police agency, I assume we will start seeing weigh stations and toll booths, as well as a bill of lading required for your cargo, a Material Safety Data Sheet for any HAZMATS you may be transporting, the required license to operate the ship you are flying, an up to date registration card, and make sure you keep your speed down. Gets ridiculous, doesnt it? Thats why its a game, and they arent police.
This ground has been covered before, so I will try to keep it short.
1. I think the verbiage I used was that they are "replicating warp disruption." By that I mean not that they manage to put the little warp disruption icon over your HUD, or that they lower your warp strength by 1, but rather that they functionally prevent you from warping off, so no matter how many times you press the warp button, your ship doesn't warp. I've also maintained that if 3 bumpers get into Machariels, and bump you optimally (away from celestials, etc...) that they should be able to functionally prevent you from solo warping off, no matter what combination of keys your press (this is from my observation, not a proof. Only CCP could answer that one).
2. What I do want is CONCORD consistency. They currently respond to the activation of an "offensive" module. Generally understood, this means that it is a module that does harm to ships. So when CONCORD sees a ship trying to harm another ship in highsec (without justification), it shows up, destroys the offender, and liberates the victim from the harm. One of the harmful modules is a warp disruptor, which impairs mobility. So CONCORD treats the attempt to impair mobility through warp disruption as an offensive act leading to ship loss. I would like the to treat the achievement of the EXACT SAME EFFECT (impeding ability to warp off), but through other means, in a similar fashion.
3. As far as CONCORD being a police force, it has already been debated at length in other threads. It's kind of a semantic debate without much practical application other than in this specific case. Suffice to say that I don't think it would be problematic as far as lore or game mechanics for CONCORD to intervene and stop bumping in between gank waves in the fashion I suggested (60 second warp off unaffected by bumping once CONCORD arrives). |
|
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1252
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 17:29:00 -
[491] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: This ground has been covered before, so I will try to keep it short.
It has in fact been covered.
Now, explain WHY the game should change to allow for solo play, when the tools exist for you to prevent the gank without the change.
You are banging your head into a brick wall. Someone is offering you a helmet, but you want the wall to become softer so you dont need it.
Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 18:03:00 -
[492] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: This ground has been covered before, so I will try to keep it short.
It has in fact been covered. Now, explain WHY the game should change to allow for solo play, when the tools exist for you to prevent the gank without the change. You are banging your head into a brick wall. Someone is offering you a helmet, but you want the wall to become softer so you dont need it. Edit: You know what? Dont bother explaining it. You are wrong, and you have been told how to prevent the ganks several times. Your refusal to adapt to the game does not mean it should change to suit your needs. Either use the tools you have or stop your bitching.
Well there are two reasons:
1. A lot of players in Eve find the game difficult. If you look at the CODE killboard around their area of operations, you will see a whole bunch of poorly fit mining barges. And some of these people have been playing for a long time. The reality is that a lot of the career highsec PvE oriented players are very disconnected for the Eve knowledge base, and don't understand how to properly fit ships, observe local, read intel channels, assume escape posture when scary people come into local, etc...Now I don't mine, but if I did, and even if I decided to mine right next to CODE (which I would not do, of course), I would venture to say that it is unlikely that my mining barges would do any exploding. Regardless, CCP still significantly buffed the mining barges, and made them harder to blow up. The mere fact that competent players already had solutions did not stay CCP's hand.
2. Hauling is a different animal than mining. If you want to haul effectively, you can't just avoid Uedama. It is a key chokepoint system, and most big time (or even small time) haulers, are going to need to transverse it. Now I don't haul (I hate being in a slow to align ship without guns, its kind of boring, I don't want to need to sub multiple accounts or rely on other people who may be disloyal, etc....),but if I did, I could probably avoid exploding, using some of the same tools that would save my would be mining barge. I could probably even manage to survive flying solo. But the reality is that highsec haulers, like highsec miners, for the most part, don't really have the kind of skills of to prevent themselves from being blown up. Despite the well known activity of CODE in Uedama, and the recent suggestions by CCP Falcon, 13 freighters blew up in Uedama yesterday (and it would have been more if not for AG efforts). That shows you that a lot of high sec haulers are not going to be able to avoid blowing up in Uedama, despite the numerous tools already in their possession. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5532
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 19:14:00 -
[493] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:1. A lot of players in Eve find the game difficult. If you look at the CODE killboard around their area of operations, you will see a whole bunch of poorly fit mining barges. And some of these people have been playing for a long time.
So now EVE should be balanced around the abilities of its least competent players? Sounds like a great plan.
Quote:Regardless, CCP still significantly buffed the mining barges, and made them harder to blow up. The mere fact that competent players already had solutions did not stay CCP's hand.
A big part of the way CCP changed the mining barges was by improving the effect that fitting choices had on tank, and removing the value of fitting anti-tanking modules (Expanded Cargo hulks were some of the most popular fits before the change). It's still quite possible (in fact, it's easy) to profitably gank untanked barges and exhumers (and that's just ISK proft, not counting the value of a child's magical laughter and other such intangibles). ...CCP just provided haulers with essentially the same set of rebalancing, both providing T1 haulers with the ability to fit a meaningful tank and providing Freighters with the ability to fit modules.
In other words, CCP expects players to make use of the tools available if they want to be effective.
Quote:I don't want to need to sub multiple accounts or rely on other people who may be disloyal, etc....),but if I did, I could probably avoid exploding
Welcome to a multiplayer game. You are disadvantaged by not playing with other people. How is that a problem?
Quote:But the reality is that highsec haulers, like highsec miners, for the most part, don't really have the kind of skills of to prevent themselves from being blown up. Despite the well known activity of CODE in Uedama, and the recent suggestions by CCP Falcon, 13 freighters blew up in Uedama yesterday (and it would have been more if not for AG efforts). That shows you that a lot of high sec haulers are not going to be able to avoid blowing up in Uedama, despite the numerous tools already in their possession.
So, they have the tools and refuse to use them. How is that a problem with the tools? I can see it being a tutorial design problem. I can see it being an education problem. I can't see how player incompetence is a game mechanics problem in need of a game mechanics fix. Both Chimera kills I have on my killboard are the result of stunning incompetence, one being used as logistics in a LS gatecamp and one being used to pick up POS guns in null. Should Chimeras be buffed because those players are incompetent, or should mechanics changes be based on what ships are actually capable of?
By the way:
Quote:(and it would have been more if not for AG efforts) This is how a great example of EVE should be played. If you don't like another's players in game behavior, go adjust it. Some tips for being more effective at this (some tips known to be effective, some may require testing and practice): A rookie ship with several webs can be used as a cheap suicide webber for pilots unwilling to accept a duel request (scan freighters the system before to pick likely gank targets and weed out APers who'll just be bumped from 15km on the outgate) An AG bumper can prevent a bump or possibly send a freighter along the proper vector for a warp out An AG interceptor can burn around providing warp-outs And, of course, there's always the direct ECM or DPS route (a Tornado with 650s is great at murdering gank catalysts), Red Safety optional "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1252
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 19:38:00 -
[494] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: 1. A lot of players in Eve find the game difficult.
It is suppose to be that way Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1190
|
Posted - 2014.09.04 20:18:00 -
[495] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
1. A lot of players in Eve find the game difficult. If you look at the CODE killboard around their area of operations, you will see a whole bunch of poorly fit mining barges. And some of these people have been playing for a long time. The reality is that a lot of the career highsec PvE oriented players are very disconnected for the Eve knowledge base, and don't understand how to properly fit ships, observe local, read intel channels, assume escape posture when scary people come into local, etc...
2. Hauling is a different animal than mining. If you want to haul effectively, you can't just avoid Uedama. It is a key chokepoint system, and most big time (or even small time) haulers, are going to need to transverse it.
Okay Eve is a PVP game. Like any game people want to win. Just because a player sucks at it doesn't mean someone else shouldn't try to win just as hard. "Oh I'm sorry you don't know how to fit your ship, read local, and have no clue what you're doing?... Okay I won't attack you then"
You're right hauling is a different animal but you can avoid Uedama. I bet you didn't even know Eve has more than one trade hub. Even if you insist on bringing your stuff to Jita for sale it's not hard to have a scout to watch ahead... If you're flying a one billion ISK ship that's the least you can do.
The funny thing is you had people spamming local many jumps out from Uedama warning about the CODE ganks... These freighter pilots either chose to avoid multiple warnings or were AFK on auto pilot.
Again if someone is terrible at Eve (Or any game) should I try to be just as terrible so they have a "fair chance"?
If you spent half the time educating these pilots about how to play Eve without being ganked as you spend whining on the forums about how "unfair" it is maybe CODE wouldn't have such easy targets... I mean really hours after CODE started their ganking operation pilots were still auto piloting freighters into Uedama. Should they be given a break because they made a very poor decision or should they pay the price for it?
|
loyalanon
The Conference Elite CODE.
476
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 04:20:00 -
[496] - Quote
Alot of the time what happens is a freighter will be autopiloting, when they land on the gate they are 12kms off and will slow boat to the gate.
What I like to do is have my alt in position 12kms off the gate from wherever the freighter warped from. If I time it right (which I do 99% of the time) I can fleet warp to my alt as the freighter is landing without even needing to bump.
Mechanics working as intended.
/Thread.
inb4 that reply I wont read. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.05 22:38:00 -
[497] - Quote
loyalanon wrote:Alot of the time what happens is a freighter will be autopiloting, when they land on the gate they are 12kms off and will slow boat to the gate.
What I like to do is have my alt in position 12kms off the gate from wherever the freighter warped from. If I time it right (which I do 99% of the time) I can fleet warp to my alt as the freighter is landing without even needing to bump.
Mechanics working as intended.
/Thread.
inb4 that reply I wont read.
My general understand is that there are 3 scenarios
1. The Autopiloted freighter - I'm a bit confused by how Loyalanon is putting it, my understanding is that it lands in Uedama at 12km off the gate (but given the 3D nature of the game there are a great many places where it could land), and then warps to 15km from the outgate, and slowboats to the outgate. You could just have a ceptor alt at the outgate, have him burn next to the freighter when it lands (at 15km), and have the gank squad point and web when they land. No need for bumping at all if you do it right. Of course if you are worried that the freighter will stop autopiloting in Uedama, and you want to catch him on the ingate, then this collapses to 2. below.
2. In-gate initial gank. Freighter lands on the ingate, 12km off the gate. You burn an alt over to him, and warp in the gank squad. Now the freighter will be aligning to the outgate to warp. If you have your alt point/scram him before the gankers land, that will draw CONCORD early, and give less time for the gank to be effective. So what you do is have the alt bump the freighter off his align, and then have the gankers point/scram when they land on him, giving max time for DPS. There is no easy way to crack down on this type of bumping, and even if you did, people would just have the initial alt point/scram (he would die fast from the gate guns/police, but buy enough time for the gankers to take over the point/scram), which would only cost the gankers a few seconds of gank time. Traditionally people have tried to bump the freighter 150km off the gate before the gank squad lands because this will avoid the gate guns and make the faction police response slower, but if your gank gank is big enough that's not necessary.
3. Post first-wave gank (in-gate) - When the first wave fails to kill the target, CONCORD is on the scene, the gankers are dead, and back to station to wait out the 15 min aggro timer, and only the bump alts are on scene. If no one bumps the freighter, he will just warp off and the gank is over. Now is when 15 minutes of continuous bumping ensue, to prevent the warp off. Some say the bumping is get the ganker away from CONCORD/Faction Police/gate guns - but if the freighter is sufficiently wounded already, the alpha from the gank ships should be enough to take it down (and I think the gankers pull CONCORD away before hand to their docking station, which means they just need to get enough dps through despite losing a couple Taloses/Brutixes to the faction police/gate guns). Here is where letting the freighter warp off, unaffected by bumping, after the failed gank attempt would make the difference, and prevent these scenario 3 kills from occuring. |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1272
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 16:38:00 -
[498] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Nerf train ideas
Veers, your name has been added to the new program "Gank it forward". (Homage to Feyd)
For every request for a ganking nerf, TWO freighters will be ganked, and YOUR name will provided to the victims for reimbursement. This thread will be cited in the mail they receive, referencing your repeated attempts to destroy EvE.
By their blood and tears will your comments be repented.
Burn the Heretic.
Purge the unclean.
Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 17:04:00 -
[499] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
Nerf train ideas
Veers, your name has been added to the new program "Gank it forward". (Homage to Feyd) For every request for a ganking nerf, TWO freighters will be ganked, and YOUR name will provided to the victims for reimbursement. This thread will be cited in the mail they receive, referencing your repeated attempts to destroy EvE. By their blood and tears will your comments be repented. Burn the Heretic. Purge the unclean.
Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
Keep up the good work! |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5541
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 18:22:00 -
[500] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
-10 pilots are not allowed in Highsec, and the Faction police exist to enforce that rule.
CCP has said on multiple occasions that no character will ever be barred by game mechanics from travelling anywhere in EVE.
And, of course, how is using a game mechanic in the same way it's been used for nearly a decade suddenly "abuse"? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1272
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 18:38:00 -
[501] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
Keep up the good work!
Good, that works out for both of us then. Because for every post they come here crying about, two more will be ganked.
Look for the first two (caused directly by YOU) to be delivered in the next few days. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1224
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 18:50:00 -
[502] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
Keep up the good work!
I don't think anyone would mistake you for a ganker Veers...
The reason why they ignore your convo request is they're likely AFK. This is the same reason they didn't notice the repeated warnings in local a few systems out.
I admire you for sticking to your guns about making -10 pilots banned from highsec but I would say it's not going to happen. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 19:44:00 -
[503] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
Keep up the good work!
Good, that works out for both of us then. Because for every post they come here crying about, two more will be ganked. Look for the first two (caused directly by YOU) to be delivered in the next few days.
A few days to kill two freighters? Seriously? Loyalanon and his groupies could pull this off in a few minutes by pinning them down with bumping and having -10 sec status people swarm them. You need to find some new friends. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 19:48:00 -
[504] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
Keep up the good work!
I don't think anyone would mistake you for a ganker Veers... The reason why they ignore your convo request is they're likely AFK. This is the same reason they didn't notice the repeated warnings in local a few systems out. I admire you for sticking to your guns about making -10 pilots banned from highsec but I would say it's not going to happen.
This is possible. Of course it's not entirely unreasonable to be AFK when flying an empty ship with a lot of EHP (which is what some of the victims told me they were doing) - it's not exactly a prime target. And for AFK ships bumping is not much of a factor anyway, since as stated by Loyalanon, and confirmed by me, those ships can just be scrammed 15km off the outgate. The controversy over bumping relates almost entirely to the non-AFK ships. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 20:12:00 -
[505] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:This is possible. Of course it's not entirely unreasonable to be AFK when flying an empty ship with a lot of EHP (which is what some of the victims told me they were doing) - Why is it that you think going AFK in a game like Eve is reasonable? It's a PvP game no matter which way you try to paint it, AFKing anything is asking to get killed.
Quote: it's not exactly a prime target. If it's in space, it's a target, deal with it.
Quote:And for AFK ships bumping is not much of a factor anyway, since as stated by Loyalanon, and confirmed by me, those ships can just be scrammed 15km off the outgate. The controversy over bumping relates almost entirely to the non-AFK ships. The only controversy is in your head, CCP say bumping is an allowed mechanic, they are the ultimate authority on what is and what is not allowed and the extent to which they allow it. NPC Forum Alt, because reasons. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 20:24:00 -
[506] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:This is possible. Of course it's not entirely unreasonable to be AFK when flying an empty ship with a lot of EHP (which is what some of the victims told me they were doing) - Why is it that you think going AFK in a game like Eve is reasonable? It's a PvP game no matter which way you try to paint it, AFKing anything is asking to get killed. Quote: it's not exactly a prime target. If it's in space, it's a target, deal with it. Quote:And for AFK ships bumping is not much of a factor anyway, since as stated by Loyalanon, and confirmed by me, those ships can just be scrammed 15km off the outgate. The controversy over bumping relates almost entirely to the non-AFK ships. The only controversy is in your head, CCP say bumping is an allowed mechanic, they are the ultimate authority on what is and what is not allowed and the extent to which they allow it.
I will only briefly respond to the first two points because I don't want to derail the thread. The fact that people are allowed to blow your ship up does not mean that they will do so. People who carry Plex around or put 5 bil in a T1 Hauler tend to get instablapped. People who autopilot an empty freighter have traditionally gone unharmed, since there is no real benefit to taking them off the grid. That has been changing as between dedicated -10 sec status gankers and gank ship reimbursements, certain groups have decided to start blowing up empty ships. The risk is still relatively low, so it probably is still +EV utility to autopilot empty ships.
As far as bumping, yes CCP has stated its current position. Obviously given the exploits of CODE, the facts on the ground have been changing, and this thread is an opportunity for members of the Eve community to post their opinions. |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1278
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 20:35:00 -
[507] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
A few days to kill two freighters? Seriously? Loyalanon and his groupies could pull this off in a few minutes by pinning them down with bumping and having -10 sec status people swarm them. You need to find some new friends.
Job + baby = budgeted EvE time.
My current friends are just fine, thank you. They dont focus on ganks in hisec, but rather do it for fun when bored. So yes, it may take a day or so, but they will be delivered.
Also... you do realize that you dont have to be -10 to be a ganker, right? Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1225
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 20:49:00 -
[508] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:IIshira wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
Keep up the good work!
I don't think anyone would mistake you for a ganker Veers... The reason why they ignore your convo request is they're likely AFK. This is the same reason they didn't notice the repeated warnings in local a few systems out. I admire you for sticking to your guns about making -10 pilots banned from highsec but I would say it's not going to happen. This is possible. Of course it's not entirely unreasonable to be AFK when flying an empty ship with a lot of EHP (which is what some of the victims told me they were doing) - it's not exactly a prime target. And for AFK ships bumping is not much of a factor anyway, since as stated by Loyalanon, and confirmed by me, those ships can just be scrammed 15km off the outgate. The controversy over bumping relates almost entirely to the non-AFK ships.
The problem is they don't have a lot of EHP...
Expanded Cargohold is -20% EHP... Fit 3 of those to a ship that has most of it's HP in hull and well...
Now look at Reinforced Bulkheads.. +25% EHP...
Guess what one is most popular on freighter gank victims?....
... |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 20:51:00 -
[509] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:I will only briefly respond to the first two points because I don't want to derail the thread. The fact that people are allowed to blow your ship up does not mean that they will do so. People who carry Plex around or put 5 bil in a T1 Hauler tend to get instablapped. Agreed and rightly so.
Quote: People who autopilot an empty freighter have traditionally gone unharmed, since there is no real benefit to taking them off the grid. Wrong, people have been blapping empty ships of all descriptions, including haulers since beta.
Quote:That has been changing as between dedicated -10 sec status gankers and gank ship reimbursements, certain groups have decided to start blowing up empty ships. Wrong again, dedicated -10 characters and SRPs have long been a staple of ganking, suicide or otherwise.
Quote:The risk is still relatively low, so it probably is still +EV utility to autopilot empty ships. So why all the screaming about it?
Quote:As far as bumping, yes CCP has stated its current position. Obviously given the exploits of CODE, the facts on the ground have been changing, and this thread is an opportunity for members of the Eve community to post their opinions. Nothing has changed, people have been bumping ships as a means of temporarily holding a ship in place since beta. If you'd bothered to read the threads that lead to the GM OP in this thread you'd know that. NPC Forum Alt, because reasons. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 21:07:00 -
[510] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
A few days to kill two freighters? Seriously? Loyalanon and his groupies could pull this off in a few minutes by pinning them down with bumping and having -10 sec status people swarm them. You need to find some new friends.
Job + baby = budgeted EvE time. My current friends are just fine, thank you. They dont focus on ganks in hisec, but rather do it for fun when bored. So yes, it may take a day or so, but they will be delivered. Also... you do realize that you dont have to be -10 to be a ganker, right?
Well - good luck with that. You should know that I support suicide ganking as a game mechanic, and am definitely supportive of ganking freighters that are carrying too much valuable cargo relative to their tank. My concerns are specifically with pinning the down through bumping (especially in between gank waves with CONCORD on the scene) and with the lack of consequences for ganking with dedicated -10 sec status gankers.
To the extent that your ganks will be with non -10 gankers, and to the exent that you will be ganking to make a profit, and hopefully are competent enough to not need to bump people, I would be fully in support of your gank plan (though I do kind of question your plan - go rouse up a bunch of nullsec players to go on a freighter gank spree in highsec because you don't like my comments on the Eve forums. Now, while I am certainly a VIP, not many nullsec folks know who I am, and those who do know that I don't haul and am unlikely to exhibit much reaction to a couple more freighters blowing up, especially after CODE has already taken down so many. But good luck with your master plan bro. Maybe I can stick a 5 mil CSPA charge on and we can split the profits?). |
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 21:09:00 -
[511] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:IIshira wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
Keep up the good work!
I don't think anyone would mistake you for a ganker Veers... The reason why they ignore your convo request is they're likely AFK. This is the same reason they didn't notice the repeated warnings in local a few systems out. I admire you for sticking to your guns about making -10 pilots banned from highsec but I would say it's not going to happen. This is possible. Of course it's not entirely unreasonable to be AFK when flying an empty ship with a lot of EHP (which is what some of the victims told me they were doing) - it's not exactly a prime target. And for AFK ships bumping is not much of a factor anyway, since as stated by Loyalanon, and confirmed by me, those ships can just be scrammed 15km off the outgate. The controversy over bumping relates almost entirely to the non-AFK ships. The problem is they don't have a lot of EHP... Expanded Cargohold is -20% EHP... Fit 3 of those to a ship that has most of it's HP in hull and well... Now look at Reinforced Bulkheads.. +25% EHP... Guess what one is most popular on freighter gank victims?.... ...
What do you think about this kill? https://zkillboard.com/kill/41059941/ Even with nanos still 200k hp (not ehp), 30 gank ships used (including BCs), and a minimal drop. From an Isk perspective that's a really unusual kill, and not something we would expect to see much of. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5541
|
Posted - 2014.09.08 21:38:00 -
[512] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:What do you think about this kill? https://zkillboard.com/kill/41059941/ Even with nanos still 200k hp (not ehp), 30 gank ships used (including BCs), and a minimal drop. From an Isk perspective that's a really unusual kill, and not something we would expect to see much of.
People like expensive killmails and are willing to pay for them. You've yet to show why people spending ISK to entertain themselves and others is a problem.
And we don't see much of them. 13 freighters and Jump Freighters died yesterday (which is a weekend, so high traffic). Of those, 3 were in high-sec. Of those *one* was a suicide gank (which had already been tackled by a war target, and wasn't going to live anyway). To claim that we see "a lot" of ganking, you need to present evidence of a high rate of ganks per trip taken.
To further claim that that is a problem, you would have to show that, in a PvP sandbox game, where the whole point of the game is that everyone gets to make up their own reasons to blow up (or not) ships, it is a problem that other people's reasons for blowing ships up don't match yours.
Why haven't you, after 30 pages of being asked, been able to show either of these?
Might be because CCP Torfifrans says you're wrong about number two:
Quote:Torfi Frans Olafsson, Creative Director: ThatGÇÖs why we have to show this stuff when it happens. Like when Burn Jita happened, when it was blockaded, people are asking if weGÇÖre rooting for the bad guy, the people blockading, and we are not. We are respecting the mechanics of the game, and our role as developers is to provide tools, toys, and mechanics, but itGÇÖs not our job to write the story. The story is written by the players. http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/12/eve-online-interview-betrayal-at-fanfest-burn-jita-virtual-reality-and-the-president-of-iceland/ "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
220
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 19:40:00 -
[513] - Quote
Oh look, it's Veers trying to get another thread locked with the same nonsense he posted in countless other threads already. the Code ALWAYS wins |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 20:01:00 -
[514] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh look, it's Veers trying to get another thread locked with the same nonsense he posted in countless other threads already.
Posting about bumping in a thread about bumping would not normally constitute trying to get a thread locked. As to other topics (including apparently blowing up freighters in my name), I am not the one who brought them up. My comments have focused on, and will continue to focus on, the use of bumping, mainly by your organization (though admittedly by others as well), to trap freighters and allow for multiple waves of ganks by the same gankers every 15 minutes. Hardly "nonsense." And for the record, there was precisely one thread I involved in that got locked - and it was locked because at 180-odd pages it had devolved into the same stale arguments without resolution, not because I was "trying to get a thread locked." Thanks. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6082
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 20:16:00 -
[515] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh look, it's Veers trying to get another thread locked with the same nonsense he posted in countless other threads already. Posting about bumping in a thread about bumping would not normally constitute trying to get a thread locked. As to other topics (including apparently blowing up freighters in my name), I am not the one who brought them up. My comments have focused on, and will continue to focus on, the use of bumping, mainly by your organization (though admittedly by others as well), to trap freighters and allow for multiple waves of ganks by the same gankers every 15 minutes. Hardly "nonsense." And for the record, there was precisely one thread I involved in that got locked - and it was locked because at 180-odd pages it had devolved into the same stale arguments without resolution, not because I was "trying to get a thread locked." Thanks.
Of course you failed to mention that the victim had ample opportunity to avoid being bumped in the first place, but lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good whine. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1292
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 20:18:00 -
[516] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh look, it's Veers trying to get another thread locked with the same nonsense he posted in countless other threads already. Posting about bumping in a thread about bumping would not normally constitute trying to get a thread locked. As to other topics (including apparently blowing up freighters in my name), I am not the one who brought them up. My comments have focused on, and will continue to focus on, the use of bumping, mainly by your organization (though admittedly by others as well), to trap freighters and allow for multiple waves of ganks by the same gankers every 15 minutes. Hardly "nonsense." And for the record, there was precisely one thread I involved in that got locked - and it was locked because at 180-odd pages it had devolved into the same stale arguments without resolution, not because I was "trying to get a thread locked." Thanks. Of course you failed to mention that the victim had ample opportunity to avoid being bumped in the first place, but lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good whine.
It is an exquisite whine. I wonder if it would pair well with some cheese from Goblin. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 20:21:00 -
[517] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Oh look, it's Veers trying to get another thread locked with the same nonsense he posted in countless other threads already. Posting about bumping in a thread about bumping would not normally constitute trying to get a thread locked. As to other topics (including apparently blowing up freighters in my name), I am not the one who brought them up. My comments have focused on, and will continue to focus on, the use of bumping, mainly by your organization (though admittedly by others as well), to trap freighters and allow for multiple waves of ganks by the same gankers every 15 minutes. Hardly "nonsense." And for the record, there was precisely one thread I involved in that got locked - and it was locked because at 180-odd pages it had devolved into the same stale arguments without resolution, not because I was "trying to get a thread locked." Thanks. Of course you failed to mention that the victim had ample opportunity to avoid being bumped in the first place, but lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good whine.
Yawn...just quickly since it's already been said before in this thread - CONCORD response does not depend on your own past behavior or competence. If you autopilot a T1 hauler with 15 bil of stuff in it, right into 20 gankers in Uedama who proceed to scram and shoot you, the "CONCORD Police Captain" folks don't ignore you and tell you that you could have avoided it. They quickly arrive on the scene and dispatch the gankers. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6082
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 20:24:00 -
[518] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Of course you failed to mention that the victim had ample opportunity to avoid being bumped in the first place, but lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good whine. Yawn...just quickly since it's already been said before in this thread - CONCORD response does not depend on your own past behavior or competence. If you autopilot a T1 hauler with 15 bil of stuff in it, right into 20 gankers in Uedama who proceed to scram and shoot you, the "CONCORD Police Captain" folks don't ignore you and tell you that you could have avoided it. They quickly arrive on the scene and dispatch the gankers.
Concord isn't there to protect you, that is your job & there are plenty of way to avoid this happening at all. Of course, all of them rely on the person not being lazy.
Also lol, it doesn't take 20 gankers to kill a T1 hauler, it takes 1. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1293
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 20:29:00 -
[519] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote: Also lol, it doesn't take 20 gankers to kill a T1 hauler, it takes 1.
So THATS why our gank fleets never make a profit! Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 20:54:00 -
[520] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Of course you failed to mention that the victim had ample opportunity to avoid being bumped in the first place, but lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good whine. Yawn...just quickly since it's already been said before in this thread - CONCORD response does not depend on your own past behavior or competence. If you autopilot a T1 hauler with 15 bil of stuff in it, right into 20 gankers in Uedama who proceed to scram and shoot you, the "CONCORD Police Captain" folks don't ignore you and tell you that you could have avoided it. They quickly arrive on the scene and dispatch the gankers. Concord isn't there to protect you, that is your job & there are plenty of way to avoid this happening at all. Of course, all of them rely on the person not being lazy. Also lol, it doesn't take 20 gankers to kill a T1 hauler, it takes 1.
The point was that CONCORD still comes if you engage in wildly reckless and stupid actions. And call it what you will, but to me killing the bad guys, which makes them unable to shoot/scram me seems like "protection." It's not like having a bodyguard or the Secret Service, which attempt to be prophylactic in nature, but it is like a functional police force which arrives on the scene and clears out the baddies, freeing the victim in the process. To the extent that the same can be done with bumping, I'm not sure that your objections carry weight. Even lazy people get and deserve full CONCORD protection. |
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6082
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 21:15:00 -
[521] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Of course you failed to mention that the victim had ample opportunity to avoid being bumped in the first place, but lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good whine. Yawn...just quickly since it's already been said before in this thread - CONCORD response does not depend on your own past behavior or competence. If you autopilot a T1 hauler with 15 bil of stuff in it, right into 20 gankers in Uedama who proceed to scram and shoot you, the "CONCORD Police Captain" folks don't ignore you and tell you that you could have avoided it. They quickly arrive on the scene and dispatch the gankers. Concord isn't there to protect you, that is your job & there are plenty of way to avoid this happening at all. Of course, all of them rely on the person not being lazy. Also lol, it doesn't take 20 gankers to kill a T1 hauler, it takes 1. The point was that CONCORD still comes if you engage in wildly reckless and stupid actions. And call it what you will, but to me killing the bad guys, which makes them unable to shoot/scram me seems like "protection." It's not like having a bodyguard or the Secret Service, which attempt to be prophylactic in nature, but it is like a functional police force which arrives on the scene and clears out the baddies, freeing the victim in the process. To the extent that the same can be done with bumping, I'm not sure that your objections carry weight. Even lazy people get and deserve full CONCORD protection.
No one gets full Concord protection, otherwise suicide ganks would not happen at all. It's the same as in reality, the police can't stop bad things from happening. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 21:19:00 -
[522] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Of course you failed to mention that the victim had ample opportunity to avoid being bumped in the first place, but lets not allow facts to get in the way of a good whine. Yawn...just quickly since it's already been said before in this thread - CONCORD response does not depend on your own past behavior or competence. If you autopilot a T1 hauler with 15 bil of stuff in it, right into 20 gankers in Uedama who proceed to scram and shoot you, the "CONCORD Police Captain" folks don't ignore you and tell you that you could have avoided it. They quickly arrive on the scene and dispatch the gankers. Concord isn't there to protect you, that is your job & there are plenty of way to avoid this happening at all. Of course, all of them rely on the person not being lazy. Also lol, it doesn't take 20 gankers to kill a T1 hauler, it takes 1. The point was that CONCORD still comes if you engage in wildly reckless and stupid actions. And call it what you will, but to me killing the bad guys, which makes them unable to shoot/scram me seems like "protection." It's not like having a bodyguard or the Secret Service, which attempt to be prophylactic in nature, but it is like a functional police force which arrives on the scene and clears out the baddies, freeing the victim in the process. To the extent that the same can be done with bumping, I'm not sure that your objections carry weight. Even lazy people get and deserve full CONCORD protection. No one gets full Concord protection, otherwise suicide ganks would not happen at all. It's the same as in reality, the police can't stop bad things from happening.
The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6084
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 22:01:00 -
[523] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage.
And in substance Concord still does not protect anyone, they're there to punish offenders whether the offender succeeds or not. Nice derail though, considering my point was that it's up to the victim to take measures to protect themselves & mitigate the risks. Do you have a response to that at all? This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5542
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 22:23:00 -
[524] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Yawn...just quickly since it's already been said before in this thread - CONCORD response does not depend on your own past behavior or competence.
And yet you want CONCORD response to rely on hypothetical *future* behavior to justify its interference in legal actions.
Quote:They quickly arrive on the scene and dispatch the gankers.
And they will happily do exactly that every time another of your "waves" comes in. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 22:59:00 -
[525] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage. And in substance Concord still does not protect anyone, they're there to punish offenders whether the offender succeeds or not. Nice derail though, considering my point was that it's up to the victim to take measures to protect themselves & mitigate the risks. Do you have a response to that at all?
Ya, look at previous points, I've already addressed that multiple times. The current setup of CONCORD does not rely in any way on victims taking measures to protect themselves. Even the stupidest and most incompetent victim, when shot at, gets the exact same measure of protection as the smartest and most competent victim. Risk mitigation also does not factor into CONCORD response.
CONCORD responds to any and all illegal activity in highsec, and when it arrives it destroys the offenders. A point I have been making is that because bumping can functionally replicate warp disrupting, in that it can prevent warp off, there should be a measure of CONCORD protection afforded (to avoid distinguishing between "good" and "bad" bumping, I suggested that once CONCORD is on the scene a gank victim should have 60 seconds to warp off unimpeded by bumping). If you take a look at the last few pages here you can see all of the back and forth. If you have anything new to add I'd be happy to respond, but I would prefer to avoid rehashing things that have already been discussed. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6085
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:03:00 -
[526] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage. And in substance Concord still does not protect anyone, they're there to punish offenders whether the offender succeeds or not. Nice derail though, considering my point was that it's up to the victim to take measures to protect themselves & mitigate the risks. Do you have a response to that at all? Ya, look at previous points, I've already addressed that multiple times. The current setup of CONCORD does not rely in any way on victims taking measures to protect themselves. Even the stupidest and most incompetent victim, when shot at, gets the exact same measure of protection as the smartest and most competent victim. Risk mitigation also does not factor into CONCORD response. CONCORD responds to any and all illegal activity in highsec, and when it arrives it destroys the offenders. A point I have been making is that because bumping can functionally replicate warp disrupting, in that it can prevent warp off, there should be a measure of CONCORD protection afforded (to avoid distinguishing between "good" and "bad" bumping, I suggested that once CONCORD is on the scene a gank victim should have 60 seconds to warp off unimpeded by bumping). If you take a look at the last few pages here you can see all of the back and forth. If you have anything new to add I'd be happy to respond, but I would prefer to avoid rehashing things that have already been discussed.
The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:06:00 -
[527] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage. And in substance Concord still does not protect anyone, they're there to punish offenders whether the offender succeeds or not. Nice derail though, considering my point was that it's up to the victim to take measures to protect themselves & mitigate the risks. Do you have a response to that at all? Ya, look at previous points, I've already addressed that multiple times. The current setup of CONCORD does not rely in any way on victims taking measures to protect themselves. Even the stupidest and most incompetent victim, when shot at, gets the exact same measure of protection as the smartest and most competent victim. Risk mitigation also does not factor into CONCORD response. CONCORD responds to any and all illegal activity in highsec, and when it arrives it destroys the offenders. A point I have been making is that because bumping can functionally replicate warp disrupting, in that it can prevent warp off, there should be a measure of CONCORD protection afforded (to avoid distinguishing between "good" and "bad" bumping, I suggested that once CONCORD is on the scene a gank victim should have 60 seconds to warp off unimpeded by bumping). If you take a look at the last few pages here you can see all of the back and forth. If you have anything new to add I'd be happy to respond, but I would prefer to avoid rehashing things that have already been discussed. The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.
Not difficult to understand at all. I am 100% in agreement (check my killboard for details - essentially never been ganked in highsec despite living there). I also think there should be a CONCORD response to hostile actions in highsec, including effectively preventing a ship from warping out so that it can be ganked. Supporting both concepts is not a contradiction!
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6085
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:10:00 -
[528] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Not difficult to understand at all. I am 100% in agreement (check my killboard for details - essentially never been ganked in highsec despite living there). I also think there should be a CONCORD response to hostile actions in highsec, including effectively preventing a ship from warping out so that it can be ganked. Supporting both concepts is not a contradiction!
Effectively, but not actually. A bumped ship still has a chance of getting away. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:10:00 -
[529] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon?
Veers Belvar wrote:I also think there should be a CONCORD response to hostile actions in highsec, including effectively preventing a ship from warping out so that it can be ganked. Except CCP doesn't consider bumping to be a hostile action, so Concord don't respond to it. They said as much in the GM statement at the very beginning of this thread. NPC Forum Alt, because reasons. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
21
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:13:00 -
[530] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon? Veers Belvar wrote:I also think there should be a CONCORD response to hostile actions in highsec, including effectively preventing a ship from warping out so that it can be ganked. Except CCP doesn't consider bumping to be a hostile action, so Concord don't respond to it. They said as much in the GM statement at the very beginning of this thread.
1. Not going to respond to that.
2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position. |
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:19:00 -
[531] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:1. Not going to respond to that.
2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position. 1. I didn't expect you to, but you do seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet for people who bump and gank stuff, just as Gevlon has for anything Goon 2. You're free to express your concerns, just as we are free to refute them. Your solution is pretty much unworkable, and you've provided exactly zero evidence to defend your claim that the bumping/ganking of freighters is a problem. NPC Forum Alt, because reasons. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5544
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:35:00 -
[532] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position.
No, you haven't. Continually asserting that something is a problem because you don't like it is not "defending your position."
Defending your position would involve two things: 1) Providing evidence of a high relative *rate* of ganking (i.e. Ganks/Jump or Trip). AND 2) Providing reasoning why, in a PvP sandbox, where the whole point is to make up reasons to blow up (or not) other ships, it is a problem that people have decided to blow up ships.*
Step 2 Is especially important in the face of Developer statements stating that people blowing ships up for *any reason at all* is perfectly fine with them.
*This is because your claim of a problem hinges on all your talk of +EV and -EV ganks, as if EVE has any such measure. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6085
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:37:00 -
[533] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon?
lol, code. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:46:00 -
[534] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon? lol, code. lol, everybody has their nemesis, in this case both are fairly ineffectual and struggle to put a dent in either groups operations.
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6086
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:49:00 -
[535] - Quote
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon? lol, code. lol, everybody has their nemesis, in this case both are fairly ineffectual and struggle to put a dent in either groups operations.
Gevlon is my friend & loyal servant. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20736
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 23:51:00 -
[536] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Gevlon is my friend & loyal servant. Is he aware of this?
The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1234
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 00:55:00 -
[537] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:IIshira wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:IIshira wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.
Keep up the good work!
I don't think anyone would mistake you for a ganker Veers... The reason why they ignore your convo request is they're likely AFK. This is the same reason they didn't notice the repeated warnings in local a few systems out. I admire you for sticking to your guns about making -10 pilots banned from highsec but I would say it's not going to happen. This is possible. Of course it's not entirely unreasonable to be AFK when flying an empty ship with a lot of EHP (which is what some of the victims told me they were doing) - it's not exactly a prime target. And for AFK ships bumping is not much of a factor anyway, since as stated by Loyalanon, and confirmed by me, those ships can just be scrammed 15km off the outgate. The controversy over bumping relates almost entirely to the non-AFK ships. The problem is they don't have a lot of EHP... Expanded Cargohold is -20% EHP... Fit 3 of those to a ship that has most of it's HP in hull and well... Now look at Reinforced Bulkheads.. +25% EHP... Guess what one is most popular on freighter gank victims?.... ... What do you think about this kill? https://zkillboard.com/kill/41059941/ Even with nanos still 200k hp (not ehp), 30 gank ships used (including BCs), and a minimal drop. From an Isk perspective that's a really unusual kill, and not something we would expect to see much of.
Nanofiber Internal Structure II is the same as Expanded Cargohold II. Both have a -20% hull EHP. Using these over Reinforced Bulkheads II cost her 250k HP and a ship. |
Lady Areola Fappington
2201
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 20:57:00 -
[538] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position. No, you haven't. Continually asserting that something is a problem because you don't like it is not "defending your position." Defending your position would involve two things: 1) Providing evidence of a high relative *rate* of ganking (i.e. Ganks/Jump or Trip). AND 2) Providing reasoning why, in a PvP sandbox, where the whole point is to make up reasons to blow up (or not) other ships, it is a problem that people have decided to blow up ships.* Step 2 Is especially important in the face of Developer statements stating that people blowing ships up for *any reason at all* is perfectly fine with them. *This is because your claim of a problem hinges on all your talk of +EV and -EV ganks, as if EVE has any such measure.
I can just see this conversation happening, between Veers and a hypothetical homeowner.
"OK man, so the problem is, your walls are painted the wrong color." "We like the color of our walls.' "So, what we need to do is, strip the old paint off first, go buy some new paint from the store and get to work. "We like the color of our walls, it's not a problem." "When we go get the new paint, we need to get Brand X, not Brand Y." "Dude you're not seeing it. There' be no repainting. We like the colors of our walls." "So, I recommend you use a roller when repainting, because brushes leave streaks." "... GTFO Noob." "I'M JUST TRYING TO SOLVE THE WALL COLOR PROBLEM GUYS!" Kentucky Derby losers are not turned into Ikea meatballs. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did not accidentally blow up vowels in his own name. The chupacabra does not deliver presents on Cinco De Mayo. Anytime minutes donGÇÖt let you call the future. |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1237
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 21:00:00 -
[539] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position. No, you haven't. Continually asserting that something is a problem because you don't like it is not "defending your position." Defending your position would involve two things: 1) Providing evidence of a high relative *rate* of ganking (i.e. Ganks/Jump or Trip). AND 2) Providing reasoning why, in a PvP sandbox, where the whole point is to make up reasons to blow up (or not) other ships, it is a problem that people have decided to blow up ships.* Step 2 Is especially important in the face of Developer statements stating that people blowing ships up for *any reason at all* is perfectly fine with them. *This is because your claim of a problem hinges on all your talk of +EV and -EV ganks, as if EVE has any such measure. I can just see this conversation happening, between Veers and a hypothetical homeowner. "OK man, so the problem is, your walls are painted the wrong color." "We like the color of our walls.' "So, what we need to do is, strip the old paint off first, go buy some new paint from the store and get to work. "We like the color of our walls, it's not a problem." "When we go get the new paint, we need to get Brand X, not Brand Y." "Dude you're not seeing it. There' be no repainting. We like the colors of our walls." "So, I recommend you use a roller when repainting, because brushes leave streaks." "... GTFO Noob." "I'M JUST TRYING TO SOLVE THE WALL COLOR PROBLEM GUYS!"
So true!.... Now fix the problem!
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5554
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 21:25:00 -
[540] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:I can just see this conversation happening, between Veers and a hypothetical homeowner.
"OK man, so the problem is, your walls are painted the wrong color." "We like the color of our walls.' "So, what we need to do is, strip the old paint off first, go buy some new paint from the store and get to work. "We like the color of our walls, it's not a problem." "When we go get the new paint, we need to get Brand X, not Brand Y." "Dude you're not seeing it. There' be no repainting. We like the colors of our walls." "So, I recommend you use a roller when repainting, because brushes leave streaks." "... GTFO Noob." "I'M JUST TRYING TO SOLVE THE WALL COLOR PROBLEM GUYS!"
So Veers is a paint salesman? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
Stella Fujin
Tequila Worms
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 03:45:00 -
[541] - Quote
Leaving Eve with all my 4 accounts after being bumped 400km off the gate and ransommed to pay billions. I refuse and selfdestruct not giving the pleasure to them to kill me.
I spent around 40-50 minutes to be able to align even used an alt with webs but did not work. I am not asking for compensation ccp. I am out.
Well done. |
Capt Starfox
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
761
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 05:13:00 -
[542] - Quote
If you hadn't gone AFK, it wouldn't have happened to you in the first place.
Can i haz ur stuffs? Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PsychoticMonkCSM9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5566
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 06:32:00 -
[543] - Quote
Stella Fujin wrote:Leaving Eve with all my 4 accounts after being bumped 400km off the gate and ransommed to pay billions. I refuse and selfdestruct not giving the pleasure to them to kill me.
I spent around 40-50 minutes to be able to align even used an alt with webs but did not work. I am not asking for compensation ccp. I am out.
Well done.
Bye.
CCP Soundwave wrote:It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. EVE isn't for everyone. I wish it was, but the reality is that there are some people who just enjoy playing another game more. And that's not really that bad. ... I think we're just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that it's okay to lose.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/27/eve-devs-our-game-is-the-mmo-equivalent-of-running-inferno-solo-with-a-naked-barbarian/ "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Stella Fujin
Tequila Worms
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 08:55:00 -
[544] - Quote
Capt Starfox wrote:If you hadn't gone AFK, it wouldn't have happened to you in the first place.
Can i haz ur stuffs?
I was not afk, war to zero is my way. this happened prewarp alignment.
I trashed 10 b worth of ****. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
50
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 09:49:00 -
[545] - 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. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
63
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 14:49:00 -
[546] - Quote
Stella Fujin wrote:Leaving Eve with all my 4 accounts after being bumped 400km off the gate and ransommed to pay billions. I refuse and selfdestruct not giving the pleasure to them to kill me.
I spent around 40-50 minutes to be able to align even used an alt with webs but did not work. I am not asking for compensation ccp. I am out.
Well done.
Totally agree with you. The failure to stop the abuse of bumping is ridiculous, and is being utilized by the CODE folks to imprison freighters on a daily basis. This is just screaming out for a fix. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5567
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 15:24:00 -
[547] - 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.
Well, I'm sorry it took you so long to figure out that you fundamentally dislike EVE Online. You risk losing any ship you fly at any time for any reason. Had you chosen to, you could have easily preempted the bumping and protected yourself.
Veers Belvar wrote:Totally agree with you. The failure to stop the abuse of bumping is ridiculous, and is being utilized by the CODE folks to imprison freighters on a daily basis. This is just screaming out for a fix.
FYI, 0 Freighters died in HS yesterday. So clearly not actually on a daily basis.
Again, you need to show blah blah blah rate of ganks compared to a useful measure like number of trips, then why it's a problem in a game where blah blah blah. If you point to Stella as your reasoning, you'll have to address CCP Soundwave's quote. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
65
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 17:47:00 -
[548] - Quote
Capt Starfox wrote:
Can i haz ur stuffs?
Also wanted to comment on this. You blew up someone's expensive ship and caused him to abandon his assets and leave the game. Obviously he is quite upset. Instead of just taking your win and moving on, you come here to rub it in, and try to make him angrier so you can get a further emotional reaction. This kind of "tear harvesting" has no place in the game, and is completely reprehensible. Grow up. |
Revis Owen
36
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 18:20:00 -
[549] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:This is just screaming out for a fix.
The fixes exist already in the form of tools, good fitting/flying techniques, and last but certainly not least: make friends in this multiplayer game to help each other counter your obstacles. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Sister Bertrille
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 18:26:00 -
[550] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:This is just screaming out for a fix. The fixes exist already in the form of tools, good fitting/flying techniques, and last but certainly not least: make friends in this multiplayer game to help each other counter your obstacles.
So you download a game and it doesnt work right until you make friends? Yea....that makes a lot of sense. |
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20747
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 18:33:00 -
[551] - Quote
Sister Bertrille wrote:Revis Owen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:This is just screaming out for a fix. The fixes exist already in the form of tools, good fitting/flying techniques, and last but certainly not least: make friends in this multiplayer game to help each other counter your obstacles. So you download a game and it doesnt work right until you make friends? Yea....that makes a lot of sense. MMO's suck until you make friends, that's the whole point of them The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5567
|
Posted - 2014.09.12 19:44:00 -
[552] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Capt Starfox wrote:
Can i haz ur stuffs?
Also wanted to comment on this. You blew up someone's expensive ship and caused him to abandon his assets and leave the game. Obviously he is quite upset. Instead of just taking your win and moving on, you come here to rub it in, and try to make him angrier so you can get a further emotional reaction. This kind of "tear harvesting" has no place in the game, and is completely reprehensible. Grow up.
It is an EVE tradition from the depths of Beta that at least one person ask for the stuff of anyone threatening to leave since, of course, the person leaving has no further need for it.
It remains entertaining because most people who don't give their stuff away come falling back into the game (or never quit in the first place). In fact, "I'm quitting" posts are so common that there is a forum rule specifically written for them (Rule 33).
Anyway, there's nothing to suggest that Capt Starfox had anything to do with the PvP encounter that helped quitting-guy realize that he didn't like EVE (Fox has 0 freighter kills this month), so your attack on Fox is quite without merit for that reason and because the comment serves a quite clear "legitimate" (per your nutty definition) purpose in increasing the chance that Fox, in fact, gets stuff from quitting-guy.
All that's leaving aside the fact that quitting-guy never owned any assets to begin with.
Just as we have no duty to coddle those who would rather quit and go home when their queen is taken in chess tournaments than finish the game, we have no duty to coddle those who quit and go home when their pawn is destroyed in EVE. A simple "can I have your stuff" response to a quitting thread is a far cry from actual harassment. If you want examples of that, I have a quite nice pile of Evemails (and a couple nice forum threads, actually) from one of the posters you were cheering for (because he was the only one who agreed with you) a couple threads ago.
Funny how you only seem to call for restraint and decency from the people whose playstyles you dislike or whose views you disagree with. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Steppa Musana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
53
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 08:20:00 -
[553] - Quote
Stella Fujin wrote:Leaving Eve with all my 4 accounts after being bumped 400km off the gate and ransommed to pay billions. I refuse and selfdestruct not giving the pleasure to them to kill me.
I spent around 40-50 minutes to be able to align even used an alt with webs but did not work. I am not asking for compensation ccp. I am out.
Well done. I'd give you advice, but since you left, I'll just flat out say it: You suck at flying your ship.
I web my freighter through ******* low-sec. Not only have I made it through safely each time - several dozens of jumps in total - but I've also been aggroe'd in my web ship on the gate before, waited out the aggro timer while staying alive via savvy piloting, escaped, and gotten back to the next gate in time to warp my freighter once again before it decloaked.
In ******* lowsec.
With 9bil in the cargohold, it was the scariest damn experience I've had. But you want to know something? The entire time I was thinking I'd not make it back in time, and I'd lose 10.5bil in total (1.5bil for the freighter). And I was laughing. And smiling. Because when you undock your ship, you have a chance to lose it, and a good player accepts that. |
Ria Nieyli
20518
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 09:18:00 -
[554] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Sister Bertrille wrote:Revis Owen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:This is just screaming out for a fix. The fixes exist already in the form of tools, good fitting/flying techniques, and last but certainly not least: make friends in this multiplayer game to help each other counter your obstacles. So you download a game and it doesnt work right until you make friends? Yea....that makes a lot of sense. MMO's suck until you make friends, because most are basically a team sport Pretty much the whole point of playing multiplayer games is to find like minded folks, and then stomp all over the opposition. Would you play Counterstrike/COD/MOH solo against a group of friends?
Thankfully in EvE, you don't need friends. You can just get more alts.
Also, there are multiplayer games that can be played 1v1 so the second part of your post is entirely wrong. And all roads lead to Tranquility Base, where the frown on my face disappears... |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20755
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 19:01:00 -
[555] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Sister Bertrille wrote:Revis Owen wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:This is just screaming out for a fix. The fixes exist already in the form of tools, good fitting/flying techniques, and last but certainly not least: make friends in this multiplayer game to help each other counter your obstacles. So you download a game and it doesnt work right until you make friends? Yea....that makes a lot of sense. MMO's suck until you make friends, because most are basically a team sport Pretty much the whole point of playing multiplayer games is to find like minded folks, and then stomp all over the opposition. Would you play Counterstrike/COD/MOH solo against a group of friends? Thankfully in EvE, you don't need friends. You can just get more alts. Also, there are multiplayer games that can be played 1v1 so the second part of your post is entirely wrong. Yes there are, but that's not the point I was making, most multi player games that I know of reward playing as a group over playing solo. It's a design feature.
Off topic, I suggest that you apologise to Remiel Pollard, the cancer remark was well out of order. I don't care what he said, he did not deserve that, nobody does. The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1320
|
Posted - 2014.09.13 20:09:00 -
[556] - Quote
I find it strange that people try to make a case for playing without friends.
It really is more FUN to play in a group, design of the game aside. Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
80
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 17:57:00 -
[557] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:I find it strange that people try to make a case for playing without friends.
It really is more FUN to play in a group, design of the game aside.
Any progress on the two freighters you were supposed to kill in my name for your "gank it forward program?" I haven't gotten any Eve mails and am eagerly awaiting. If you need tips on how to gank them, I'm available for consulting, for a fee of course. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5581
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 18:18:00 -
[558] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Leto Thule wrote:I find it strange that people try to make a case for playing without friends.
It really is more FUN to play in a group, design of the game aside. Any progress on the two freighters you were supposed to kill in my name for your "gank it forward program?" I haven't gotten any Eve mails and am eagerly awaiting. If you need tips on how to gank them, I'm available for consulting, for a fee of course.
Look friends, Beers is growing up and trying to troll.
I'm so proud of him.
(That doing so goes against everything he's been arguing for in two threads for near on a month makes it even more sweet) "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
80
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 18:22:00 -
[559] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Leto Thule wrote:I find it strange that people try to make a case for playing without friends.
It really is more FUN to play in a group, design of the game aside. Any progress on the two freighters you were supposed to kill in my name for your "gank it forward program?" I haven't gotten any Eve mails and am eagerly awaiting. If you need tips on how to gank them, I'm available for consulting, for a fee of course. Look friends, Beers is growing up and trying to troll. I'm so proud of him. (That doing so goes against everything he's been arguing for in two threads for near on a month makes it even more sweet)
Not trolling...just following up on the earlier post promising to blow freighters up because of my posts here. And the failure to respond to my post soon afterward about why such threat was unconvincing and unlikely to be acted on. An apology would be appropriate of course, not that I harbor much hope.... |
Leto Thule
Fleet-Jump Surely You're Joking
1324
|
Posted - 2014.09.14 22:23:00 -
[560] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Leto Thule wrote:I find it strange that people try to make a case for playing without friends.
It really is more FUN to play in a group, design of the game aside. Any progress on the two freighters you were supposed to kill in my name for your "gank it forward program?" I haven't gotten any Eve mails and am eagerly awaiting. If you need tips on how to gank them, I'm available for consulting, for a fee of course. Look friends, Beers is growing up and trying to troll. I'm so proud of him. (That doing so goes against everything he's been arguing for in two threads for near on a month makes it even more sweet) Not trolling...just following up on the earlier post promising to blow freighters up because of my posts here. And the failure to respond to my post soon afterward about why such threat was unconvincing and unlikely to be acted on. An apology would be appropriate of course, not that I harbor much hope....
Apologize for the lack of response. Eve gate was blocked at work. Fckin government computers. One down, one to go.
Killboard
https://zkillboard.com/character/90841161/
Ripard Teg sucks. |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5581
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 03:28:00 -
[561] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Not trolling...just following up on the earlier post promising to blow freighters up because of my posts here. And the failure to respond to my post soon afterward about why such threat was unconvincing and unlikely to be acted on. An apology would be appropriate of course, not that I harbor much hope....
How is attempting to make someone feel bad for alleged in-game failures any different from the "Can I have your stuff" post you were railing against earlier this page?
Veers Belvar wrote:Instead of just taking your win and moving on, you come here to rub it in, and try to make him angrier so you can get a further emotional reaction.
EDIT: So that we're clear. I find nothing wrong with calling out in-game failure. You are the one who laid out standards that you were unable to hold to for a full forum page. (Which goes nicely with your pattern of only calling for civility from those who disagree with you.) "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
3946
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 03:37:00 -
[562] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Capt Starfox wrote:
Can i haz ur stuffs?
Also wanted to comment on this. You blew up someone's expensive ship and caused him to abandon his assets and leave the game. Obviously he is quite upset. Instead of just taking your win and moving on, you come here to rub it in, and try to make him angrier so you can get a further emotional reaction. This kind of "tear harvesting" has no place in the game, and is completely reprehensible. Grow up. you're just trying to get the stuff for yourself. don't think i don't see through you |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
83
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 04:45:00 -
[563] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Not trolling...just following up on the earlier post promising to blow freighters up because of my posts here. And the failure to respond to my post soon afterward about why such threat was unconvincing and unlikely to be acted on. An apology would be appropriate of course, not that I harbor much hope.... How is attempting to make someone feel bad for alleged in-game failures any different from the "Can I have your stuff" post you were railing against earlier this page? Veers Belvar wrote:Instead of just taking your win and moving on, you come here to rub it in, and try to make him angrier so you can get a further emotional reaction. EDIT: So that we're clear. I find nothing wrong with calling out in-game failure. You are the one who laid out standards that you were unable to hold to for a full forum page. (Which goes nicely with your pattern of only calling for civility from those who disagree with you.)
Not similar. Pouring fuel on the fire after you hurt someone, they are upset, and say they are quitting the game is not the same as gently ribbing someone who semi-threatened you after getting mildly annoyed at forum posts, and is not especially upset. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5581
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 05:06:00 -
[564] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Not similar. Pouring fuel on the fire after you hurt someone, they are upset, and say they are quitting the game is not the same as gently ribbing someone who semi-threatened you after getting mildly annoyed at forum posts, and is not especially upset.
Well see there's the problem with your thinking. You quite literally cannot hurt anyone in EVE.
So the two situations are: 1) Gentle ribbing on the forums for an in-game failure and 2) The exact same thing from someone who said 1) was reprehensible.
Also, since when is promising that you're going to play the game a "threat," semi- or otherwise?
When you thought Leto had failed to fulfill his promise:
Veers Belvar wrote:Instead of just taking your win and moving on, you come here to rub it in Your words, Mr Belvar, not mine, characterize your actions.
Your speech and actions are what matter, not your target's state of mind. Harassment is harassment whether your target is traumatized or tickled. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
83
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 06:01:00 -
[565] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Well see there's the problem with your thinking. You quite literally cannot hurt anyone in EVE. So the two situations are: 1) Gentle ribbing on the forums for an in-game failure and 2) The exact same thing from someone who said 1) was reprehensible. Also, since when is promising that you're going to play the game a "threat," semi- or otherwise? When you thought Leto had failed to fulfill his promise: Veers Belvar wrote:Instead of just taking your win and moving on, you come here to rub it in Your words, Mr Belvar, not mine, characterize your actions. Your speech and actions are what matter, not your target's state of mind. Harassment is harassment whether your target is traumatized or tickled.
Ok, don't want to derail this thread - so just a brief response and leave at that.
You certainly can hurt someone psychologically through in game actions. People who invest a lot of time and effort in something are hurt when they lose it, especially to what is often seen as an abusive use of the bumping mechanic. Ribbing someone who is clearly distraught and quitting the game is in no way similar to someone who is mildly annoyed at some forum posts, and has now threatened to blow up ships in my name. His failing to blow up ships was not a "win for me. I did not do him any harm in the game, hence I had no "win" to rub in. Not like Cpt Starfox who pinned down a freighter for 50 mins, made a huge ransom demand, and caused the pilot to self destruct, losing billions of isk, and quitting the game. Rubbing that in, is just, well, deeply wrong. And harassment does depend on mental state - if you victim would not reasonably feel harassed by the conduct it sure ain't harassment. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5581
|
Posted - 2014.09.15 06:32:00 -
[566] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:You certainly can hurt someone psychologically through in game actions.
Nope. Just like you cannot be said to have hurt someone by playing Chess better than them. No matter how they may feel about the game.
Quote:And harassment does depend on mental state - if you victim would not reasonably feel harassed by the conduct it sure ain't harassment. So yelling at an adult is one thing, yelling at a 4 year old kid quite another, etc...
So you're defending your hypocrisy by saying "He probably liked it." Great argument.
Here's the TOS and EULA to see if you can find *any* justification for it.
Quote:often seen as an abusive use of the bumping mechanic
But not by CCP, and guess who's vision matters. Also, nice use of weasel words with "often."
Quote:Ribbing someone who is clearly distraught and quitting the game is in no way similar to ribibng someone who is mildly annoyed at some forum posts
In other words, it's not harassment if it's aimed at people whose legitimate gameplay choices you disagree with.
The situations are identical. Any useful definition of Harassment cannot possibly hinge on the victim's state of mind. Harassment is Harassment whether the victim is traumatized or tickled, and I'll ask you to find something in the EULA or TOS that says otherwise.
Regardless, neither post is harassment and, if you actually thought it was, you would have reported the post that you found "deeply wrong" rather than propping it up like a soapbox to use in your crusade. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6183
|
Posted - 2014.09.17 10:10:00 -
[567] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Well see there's the problem with your thinking. You quite literally cannot hurt anyone in EVE. So the two situations are: 1) Gentle ribbing on the forums for an in-game failure and 2) The exact same thing from someone who said 1) was reprehensible. Also, since when is promising that you're going to play the game a "threat," semi- or otherwise? When you thought Leto had failed to fulfill his promise: Veers Belvar wrote:Instead of just taking your win and moving on, you come here to rub it in Your words, Mr Belvar, not mine, characterize your actions. Your speech and actions are what matter, not your target's state of mind. Harassment is harassment whether your target is traumatized or tickled. Ok, don't want to derail this thread - so just a brief response and leave at that. You certainly can hurt someone psychologically through in game actions. People who invest a lot of time and effort in something are hurt when they lose it, especially to what is often seen as an abusive use of the bumping mechanic. Ribbing someone who is clearly distraught and quitting the game is in no way similar to ribibng someone who is mildly annoyed at some forum posts, and has now threatened to blow up ships in my name. His failing to blow up ships was not a "win" for me. I did not do him any harm in the game, hence I had no "win" to rub in. Not like Cpt Starfox who pinned down a freighter for 50 mins, made a huge ransom demand, and caused the pilot to self destruct, losing billions of isk, and quit the game, as well as destroying all of his remaining assets. Rubbing that in, is just, well, deeply wrong. And harassment does depend on mental state - if you victim would not reasonably feel harassed by the conduct it sure ain't harassment. So yelling at an adult is one thing, yelling at a 4 year old kid quite another, etc...
I feel harassed by your posts so please stop, thanks. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Omar Alharazaad
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
554
|
Posted - 2014.09.17 12:34:00 -
[568] - Quote
Veers. No amount of verbal diarrhea is going to make you right. And to be truthful you have shat an epic amount on the forums in the name of those who can't be bothered to make a serious effort to be prepared, wary, and wise.
Ordinarily I'd say of course that an innocent bear shall be murdered in thy name for the your offenses against HTFU... but honestly with the absolute torrent of wrong-mindedness that's been spewed I can't even quantify just how many should be slain to compensate for your relentless assault of wave after wave of drivel.
All your unceasing retaliations against logic serve to accomplish is to bury any sane and rational debate on the relevant issues at hand beneath a multitude of pages of people explaining to you how you are wrong, mixed in with your refusal to accept the realities of New Eden.
For the love of all that is unholy, stop.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
91
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 00:54:00 -
[569] - Quote
Omar Alharazaad wrote:Veers. No amount of verbal diarrhea is going to make you right. And to be truthful you have shat an epic amount on the forums in the name of those who can't be bothered to make a serious effort to be prepared, wary, and wise.
Ordinarily I'd say of course that an innocent bear shall be murdered in thy name for the your offenses against HTFU... but honestly with the absolute torrent of wrong-mindedness that's been spewed I can't even quantify just how many should be slain to compensate for your relentless assault of wave after wave of drivel.
All your unceasing retaliations against logic serve to accomplish is to bury any sane and rational debate on the relevant issues at hand beneath a multitude of pages of people explaining to you how you are wrong, mixed in with your refusal to accept the realities of New Eden.
For the love of all that is unholy, stop.
Uhmm....your post was....interesting. Obviously I, and many others, continue to feel that the bumping mechanic is being used to wrongfully pin down freighters without appropriate CONCORD response. Calling me a lot of names ain't gonna change that.
As far as you lacking the math skills to figure out how many "carebears" to kill in retaliation, how about instead going and finding 20 PVE oriented new players and taking them on some Level 4 missions to show them the ropes? That would be a lot more helpful and friendly than killing people in some pathetic and lame attempt to affect the conscience of someone as wholly unflappable as myself. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5584
|
Posted - 2014.09.18 01:20:00 -
[570] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:continue to feel that the bumping mechanic is being used to wrongfully pin down freighters without appropriate CONCORD response
And yet you continue to refuse to provide a reason why CONCORD should become a proactive, protective service to capsuleers.
Quote:As far as you lacking the math skills to figure out how many "carebears" to kill in retaliation, how about instead going and finding 20 PVE oriented new players and taking them on some Level 4 missions to show them the ropes? That would be a lot more helpful and friendly than killing people in some pathetic and lame attempt to affect the conscience of someone as wholly unflappable as myself.
So much for your claim that you have no problem with the mechanic. Sad to see you have such trouble understanding the difference between fantasy and reality.
In game actions have no moral consequence, so how can they affect anyone's conscience? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
|
Xune
Kittys Retreat
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 18:24:00 -
[571] - Quote
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. |
Revis Owen
38
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 05:52:00 -
[572] - Quote
Xune wrote:Give us Mass-increasing beams so we can make the bumped ships giant ******* rocks those guys can bump ther nose bloody.
Why don't you just admit that what you really want, for at least some ships in Eve, is for bumping to be rendered not possible?
It really would require less time and energy for you and those like you to just quit your incrementalism and go straight to petitioning for exactly what you want. Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Highsec Operations Permit, please contact me for issuance. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 08:02:00 -
[573] - 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? |
Xune
Kittys Retreat
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 09:37:00 -
[574] - Quote
Revis Owen wrote:Xune wrote:Give us Mass-increasing beams so we can make the bumped ships giant ******* rocks those guys can bump ther nose bloody. Why don't you just admit that what you really want, for at least some ships in Eve, is for bumping to be rendered not possible? It really would require less time and energy for you and those like you to just quit your incrementalism and go straight to petitioning for exactly what you want.
Duno how you read this into it but no thats not what i want.
I want a non-agression remote assist tool. Something which increases teamplay to prevent bumping.
|
Xune
Kittys Retreat
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 09:38:00 -
[575] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: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?
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. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 11:30:00 -
[576] - 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. |
Lady Areola Fappington
2248
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 14:12:00 -
[577] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:
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 than 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.
It's something I've often noticed with carebear types, they don't seem to grasp the wider-ranging second and third order effects of the things they request. They see the changes from inside a little box, and don't realise the wider implications.
Take for example, the following. I've seen quite a few requests for a "space anchor", to be used to prevent miners from being bumped. As a ganker, I'd love to see this put in place. Why? Because having my target voluntarily forcing itself into a locked-in immobile position just makes my life that much easier. No need for neutral scouts, just bookmark the anchored miner, bounce around, and go in guns blazing. It isn't really hard, but I think there are customers that you can lose in a good way and there's customers that you can lose in a bad way. If people come in and fundamentally don't like EVE Online, then I think that might be a good way of losing customers. . -á--CCP Soundwave |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
93
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 14:58:00 -
[578] - Quote
My idea is still the best - for 60 seconds after CONCORD arrives the gank victim can warp off unaffected by bumping, much like a pod can warp off. No direct negative effects, not even 2nd or 3rd order ones. I will be putting up a thread in F&I on it soon. Hopefully we can quickly resolve this bumping malady. |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
20776
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 15:02:00 -
[579] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:It's something I've often noticed with carebear types, they don't seem to grasp the wider-ranging second and third order effects of the things they request. They see the changes from inside a little box, and don't realise the wider implications. They constantly underestimate their opponents, and their ability to adapt. Any perceived buff to the carebear lifestyle invariably ends up getting used by the very people it was designed to nerf. The difference between a carebear and a bear is that one expects the world to revolve around them, the other accepts the world for what it is and works around it.
Nil mortifi sine lucre. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6204
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 00:13:00 -
[580] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: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
A single webbing alt with about 2 hours of training can put a freighter in to warp in less than 3 seconds, which makes it borderline impossible to bump the ship, & circumstances where it would get bumped are a stretch of the imagination anyway. Webbing a freighter or hauler after a successful bump is a hindrance, since webbing at that point will vastly increase the time it takes to get in to warp.
It's all about knowing how everything actually works. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
97
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 01:05:00 -
[581] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Black Pedro wrote: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 A single webbing alt with about 2 hours of training can put a freighter in to warp in less than 3 seconds, which makes it borderline impossible to bump the ship, & circumstances where it would get bumped are a stretch of the imagination anyway. Webbing a freighter or hauler after a successful bump is a hindrance, since webbing at that point will vastly increase the time it takes to get in to warp. It's all about knowing how everything actually works.
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. |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5604
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 01:22:00 -
[582] - 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.
Explain, exactly, why you think he "had" to do any of that.
Also, if you had bothered to read, you'd know that quitting-guy only bothered to web his Freighter *after* getting bumped. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 09:10:00 -
[583] - 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 |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6312
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 10:11:00 -
[584] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Well thats what i call a broken and abused game mechanic.
CCP disagrees, so you're **** out of luck. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
79
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 11:23:00 -
[585] - 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 |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6312
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 11:52:00 -
[586] - Quote
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? This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 12:04:00 -
[587] - 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 |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5649
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 15:14:00 -
[588] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Yes, so what? It is still bumping.
And in those two cases of bumping, doing so allows you to circumvent other game mechanics in ways the developers do not want.
POS Shields are meant to provide actual protection to anyone inside from anyone who doesn't have the password. POS Bowling, in all its forms, bypasses that intended protection. Getting bumped while logging in means that you cannot act, since EVE still thinks your ship is entering warp, and you cannot cancel that warp.
In other cases, no game mechanics are being circumvented. CONCORD doesn't, and is not intended to provide protection to anyone. Getting bumped while trying to enter a normal warp still gives you the option of canceling that warp and doing something else.
You may notice that the old double vindi web tackling exploit is very similar to the login bumping exploit in that it trapped a ship in a state of uncancellable warp while the attacker bumped and killed the target. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 16:45:00 -
[589] - 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 |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6313
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 21:22:00 -
[590] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
This has been suggested for years. Would you like to know why it has never been added to the game? This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5649
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 22:41:00 -
[591] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
1) You weren't aggressed. Nobody attacked you. Bumping is neither aggressive nor is it an attack.
2) If it were: Cool, that takes the "suicide" right out of "suicide ganking" "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 13:05:00 -
[592] - 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 |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5650
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 13:31:00 -
[593] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
Aggressive actions in EVE are a very clearly defined set. Just because the word "aggressive" has a different meaning in other contexts doesn't mean you get to apply that meaning to EVE.
If bumping were an aggressive action in EVE, it would result in an aggression flag.
Quote:In case of the veers bumped freighter, it was kept from warping out, another game mechanik implemented by CCP.
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 even if we accept your claim that it did (which we do not), you'll note that there's an important clause you missed in your attempt to imply the equivalence to the other two situations
RubyPorto wrote:doing so allows you to circumvent other game mechanics in ways the developers do not want. Now take a look at the OP in this thread. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 18:22:00 -
[594] - 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 -
[595] - 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 |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5650
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:19:00 -
[596] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Not everything was planed from beginning and even if it would have been ( still was not ), things are "at flow".
I never said anything about what the developers planned. I said something about what they currently want. As evidenced by the fact that they declared login-bumping and the new incarnation of POS bumping to be exploits and have made no such declaration for bumping freighters.
Prove it. Find where CCP said that Freighter bumping is broken. I'll wait.
La Rynx wrote:Taken from the very first post! This mentioned freighter tried hard to escape. This *can* be classified as harrasment.
Not hard enough.
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
Sorry, I guess it wasn't in the OP. Just later on the first page. It is useful to read at least part of a thread you want to participate in. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 06:33:00 -
[597] - 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 |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 22:20:00 -
[598] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
Agree with you 100%. Suspect doesn't make sense though. Best solution is a 60 second warpoff unaffected by bumping when concord arrives. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6327
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 02:22:00 -
[599] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
Get mad. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 08:17:00 -
[600] - 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 |
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5651
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 08:59:00 -
[601] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:A "best solution" would be the adaption of better force/mass relation. 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.
EVE's physics most closely resemble the ocean. What happens when a large ship with relatively weak engines (let's call it an Oil Tanker) encounters a small ship with relatively strong engines (call it a tugboat)? The tugboat can move the large ship around and could quite easily prevent the large ship from maintaining a heading.
A semi truck in the US can mass up to about 36,000kg, while a small car is around 1,000kg. And your example only gives the small car a 3.5x speed advantage. A Charon only outmasses a Bump Machariel by a factor of about 5, while the Macharial has 40x greater velocity.
To put what's happening in EVE into terms of your analogy, it would be a small car at 1,200 mph (Mach 1.6!) hitting a box truck at 30mph head on. The remaining fragments of that truck are going quite fast in the direction it was coming from.
To see what a realistic elastic colision between the two would look like, plug in m1=960 (Charon's mass in million kg), v1=72.6 (Cargo charon's top speed), m2=144 (MWD Mach's mass in million kg), v2=-2157 (top speed of an empty Mach with meta MWD) into this 1-dimensional collision calculator. (Or do the math yourself). To save you the trouble, the Freighter gets shoved backwards at ~509m/s and the Machariel gets shoved backwards at ~1720m/s. With a properly kitted out bump Mach, the Freighter is going to get shoved backwards at around 1,100m/s. You'll note that the bumped freighter acheives velocities that are *much* higher than the bumping effects you're complaining are unrealistic.
Changing the bump ship to an SFI (m=60.8mkg, v=18,678m/s) only makes the Freighter's plight worse (~2,100m/s back the way it was coming from), though watching the Stabber fly off at 16,500m/s would be hilarious. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 09:19:00 -
[602] - Quote
Oops! kaputt Forum Main |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 09:20:00 -
[603] - 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 -
[604] - 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
|
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5651
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 10:33:00 -
[605] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
Whatever you may prefer, EVE's physics model says that you're playing a Submarine simulator.
The TI-Class of Supertankers (the largest ships in the word) have engines that produce some 32,000bhp. There are tugboats that produce up to 27,000bhp.
Anyway, the power of an engine can be determined by the time it takes to produce some amount of change in the ship's kinetic energy. That's easy enough to find in EVE, just multiply the mass of each ship by (.75*max speed) squared and divide by the align time.
For a Charon, that's (960million kg*(.75*72.6m/s)^2)/42.1s=67,605 MW
For a Machariel, that's (144million kg*(.75*4141m/s)^2)/8.81s= 157,659,291 MW
Which means that a Machariel's engines are roughly 2,300 times as powerful as a Charon's. So the contest might not go the way you expect. For a fun point of reference, the average electrical power consumed by the US in 2012 was about 467,000 MW.
Quote:Thats one thing, lots of damage.
Pretty easy to make sure you do enough damage to a relatively flimsy freighter to kill it by ramming. And woe be to any non-(semi)-capital ship, which a Mach with ~100k EHP will have no trouble demolishing long before its paint is scratched.
Collision damage in EVE is a non-starter for any number of reasons.
Quote:Sounds lots more fun than the actual version.
Perfectly valid opinion, but it brings with it gameplay problems. Waiting for a capital to slow down from something that produces those kinds of speeds is quite painful.
Quote:Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship!
Means that gankers get to suicide gank freighters everything without ever losing their ship. Super easy to make the freighter the faster ship. (For example, park a Freighter in the Jita 4-4 undock stream, and enjoy seeing every undocking ship go suspect.) "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
5658
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 10:33:20 -
[606] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
Whatever you may prefer, EVE's physics model says that you're playing a Submarine simulator.
The TI-Class of Supertankers (the largest ships in the word) have engines that produce some 32,000bhp. There are tugboats that produce up to 27,000bhp.
Anyway, the power of an engine can be determined by the time it takes to produce some amount of change in the ship's kinetic energy. That's easy enough to find in EVE, just multiply the mass of each ship by (.75*max speed) squared and divide by the align time.
For a Charon, that's (960million kg*(.75*72.6m/s)^2)/42.1s=67,605 MW
For a Machariel, that's (144million kg*(.75*4141m/s)^2)/8.81s= 157,659,291 MW
Which means that a Machariel's engines are roughly 2,300 times as powerful as a Charon's. So the contest might not go the way you expect. For a fun point of reference, the average electrical power consumed by the US in 2012 was about 467,000 MW.
Quote:Thats one thing, lots of damage.
Pretty easy to make sure you do enough damage to a relatively flimsy freighter to kill it by ramming. And woe be to any non-(semi)-capital ship, which a Mach with ~100k EHP will have no trouble demolishing long before its paint is scratched.
Collision damage in EVE is a non-starter for any number of reasons.
Quote:Sounds lots more fun than the actual version.
Perfectly valid opinion, but it brings with it gameplay problems. Waiting for a capital to slow down from something that produces those kinds of speeds is quite painful.
Quote:Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship!
Means that gankers get to suicide gank freighters everything without ever losing their ship. Super easy to make the freighter the faster ship. (For example, park a Freighter in the Jita 4-4 undock stream, and enjoy seeing every undocking ship go suspect.)
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.12 11:15:00 -
[607] - 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 -
[608] - 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
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
162
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 06:42:00 -
[609] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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 relation. 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.
Your "solution" would make basically the entire Jita undock a massive suspect festival...not such a great outcome.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
206
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 06:42:07 -
[610] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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 relation. 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.
Your "solution" would make basically the entire Jita undock a massive suspect festival...not such a great outcome.
|
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2014.10.13 16:06:00 -
[611] - 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 -
[612] - 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
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6353
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 17:56:00 -
[613] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
I have the solution: Bring a webbing alt, or have a friend do it. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 17:56:18 -
[614] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
I have the solution: Bring a webbing alt, or have a friend do it.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6353
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 17:59:00 -
[615] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:La Rynx wrote:Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship! Means that gankers get to suicide gank freighters everything without ever losing their ship. Super easy to make the freighter the faster ship. (For example, park a Freighter in the Jita 4-4 undock stream, and enjoy seeing every undocking ship go suspect.)
Bump the freighter in to a stationary ship. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6424
|
Posted - 2014.10.14 17:59:57 -
[616] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:La Rynx wrote:Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship! Means that gankers get to suicide gank freighters everything without ever losing their ship. Super easy to make the freighter the faster ship. (For example, park a Freighter in the Jita 4-4 undock stream, and enjoy seeing every undocking ship go suspect.)
Bump the freighter in to a stationary ship.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Kairie Caderu
Fire Fliers
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 10:31:00 -
[617] - Quote
Jint Hikaru wrote:Guess I did.
However he is still complaining about a tactic his enemies use, while using the same tactic. Basically claiming its ok for him to do so because they are, while complaining about it on the forums.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in that.
But if he is juts targeting AFK Miners.. then get to it. Good Hunting!
Anyway, we are getting close to derailing this thread......
Back to Bumping.... GO....
What I wonder is can any afk miner or botter legitimately claim that they are making an effort to avoid a bumper? They aren't even at the keyboard to respond to the bump, yet alone to make any effort at all to avoid the bumper. I can't say I'm a fan of bumping, especially when it's used as part of a gank to prevent escape, but I also have little sympathy for those that are afk or botting. Mining was meant to be an at the keyboard activity; if they meant for it to be automatic, it would be like PI, train up the skills, buy the equipment and let er rip.
|
Kairie Caderu
Fire Fliers
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.16 10:31:29 -
[618] - Quote
Jint Hikaru wrote:Guess I did.
However he is still complaining about a tactic his enemies use, while using the same tactic. Basically claiming its ok for him to do so because they are, while complaining about it on the forums.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in that.
But if he is juts targeting AFK Miners.. then get to it. Good Hunting!
Anyway, we are getting close to derailing this thread......
Back to Bumping.... GO....
What I wonder is can any afk miner or botter legitimately claim that they are making an effort to avoid a bumper? They aren't even at the keyboard to respond to the bump, yet alone to make any effort at all to avoid the bumper. I can't say I'm a fan of bumping, especially when it's used as part of a gank to prevent escape, but I also have little sympathy for those that are afk or botting. Mining was meant to be an at the keyboard activity; if they meant for it to be automatic, it would be like PI, train up the skills, buy the equipment and let er rip.
|
Piz Caldera
Saubaer Schweinepriester
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 09:20:51 -
[619] - Quote
Mining was meant to be a keyboard activity?
i dont think so. The only reason to mine is, to do if afk or half afk. Its an important part for the game with all its processes, but the only logic reason to mine is to do it afk or half afk, while watching tv, doing houseworks, or else. There is no logic reason to sit 20 min. in front of monitor, to watch mining barge eating ore, you risk to fall asleep.
If mining should be a keyboard activity, CCP would have programmed it to be. But its programmed, that pilots stay in-game and have a possibility to create isk while beeing non constant at monitor, to create an important process and morgage ingame for all the processes need by ore. As programmer, you need to pull in as most pilots as possible into the game and if it would be necessary that mining would be a keyboard act, many would come.
Afk or non afk, its always good and right to bump miners! |
Pembroke Auduin
Equestrian Logistics and Holdings
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 18:38:51 -
[620] - Quote
Piz Caldera wrote:Mining was meant to be a keyboard activity?
i dont think so. The only reason to mine is, to do if afk or half afk. Its an important part for the game with all its processes, but the only logic reason to mine is to do it afk or half afk, while watching tv, doing houseworks, or else. There is no logic reason to sit 20 min. in front of monitor, to watch mining barge eating ore, you risk to fall asleep.
If mining should be a keyboard activity, CCP would have programmed it to be. But its programmed, that pilots stay in-game and have a possibility to create isk while beeing non constant at monitor, to create an important process and morgage ingame for all the processes need by ore. As programmer, you need to pull in as most pilots as possible into the game and if it would be necessary that mining would be a keyboard act, many would come.
Afk or non afk, its always good and right to bump miners! I don't really get what you are talking about. When I mine, I constantly watch Dscan and local chat for ganking ships, and constantly keep eyes out for enemy corps. That's like, the opposite of being an afk activity. If we want to complain about bots, I want to see something done about the MASS of ratting bots in nullsec... screw miners, that crap is a crime out there. |
|
Nostromo Fidanza
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.11.19 19:29:14 -
[621] - Quote
Piz Caldera wrote:Mining was meant to be a keyboard activity?
i dont think so. The only reason to mine is, to do if afk or half afk. Its an important part for the game with all its processes, but the only logic reason to mine is to do it afk or half afk, while watching tv, doing houseworks, or else. There is no logic reason to sit 20 min. in front of monitor, to watch mining barge eating ore, you risk to fall asleep.
If mining should be a keyboard activity, CCP would have programmed it to be. But its programmed, that pilots stay in-game and have a possibility to create isk while beeing non constant at monitor, to create an important process and morgage ingame for all the processes need by ore. As programmer, you need to pull in as most pilots as possible into the game and if it would be necessary that mining would be a keyboard act, many would come.
Afk or non afk, its always good and right to bump miners!
Please continue to mine this way!
|
Dusty 3allvalve
Candied Potflies Arkai Imperial
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:42:35 -
[622] - Quote
GM Karidor wrote:On November 28th 2012, CCP Falcon created this thread on the Crime & Punishment Forum for the discussion of Miner Bumping with a view to clearing up any questions regarding the legitimacy of this type of gameplay. The thread was closed on December 5th and the discussion regarding this tactic has been long and detailed. After speaking with Game Design and discussing the contents of the thread among themselves for quite some time, the GM Team has come to the following conclusion: 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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis. 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. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.
As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.
So if such "emergent gameplay" has "occurred due to the nature of game mechanics"...it seems clear that we should also be able to dress up and reconfigure a shipm, like the iteron and other feeble industrial ships, as a suicide-ganker hunter. A warship that looks just like its orignal, sending signals (elec mod) of a nicely loaded cargo bay...for a price of course.
"Necessity is the mother of invention." Would you believe I didn't just make that lil' gem up. Point is, if the program does not evolve in common sense ways, it is "dated" and unkept. Because if we are talking about game evolution, how many of us drive a Model A? Or is it only natural to grow...before dying?
Seems obvious to me. I'm sure those that are exploiting the hole, or lack if you prefer, in the game mechanics would disagree. |
Dusty 3allvalve
Candied Potflies Arkai Imperial
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 17:55:15 -
[623] - Quote
An Ore ship named Revenge with an available mod to change its own ID!!
OH YEAAAHHH.... |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2014.11.21 21:30:32 -
[624] - Quote
Dusty 3allvalve wrote:
So if such "emergent gameplay" has "occurred due to the nature of game mechanics"...it seems clear that we should also be able to dress up and reconfigure a shipm, like the iteron and other feeble industrial ships, as a suicide-ganker hunter. A warship that looks just like its orignal, sending signals (elec mod) of a nicely loaded cargo bay...for a price of course.
"Necessity is the mother of invention." Would you believe I didn't just make that lil' gem up. Point is, if the program does not evolve in common sense ways, it is "dated" and unkept. Because if we are talking about game evolution, how many of us drive a Model A? Or is it only natural to grow...before dying?
Seems obvious to me. I'm sure those that are exploiting the hole, or lack if you prefer, in the game mechanics would disagree.
"Be careful what you wish for.", that's another nice lil' gem you should give some thought.
Also: this is a thread about bumping, not ganking. |
Dusty 3allvalve
Candied Potflies Arkai Imperial
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 07:21:13 -
[625] - Quote
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. |
Dusty 3allvalve
Candied Potflies Arkai Imperial
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 09:09:46 -
[626] - Quote
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. |
Dusty 3allvalve
Candied Potflies Arkai Imperial
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 09:11:08 -
[627] - Quote
sorry. accidental repost. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
208
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 09:24:59 -
[628] - 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. |
Dusty 3allvalve
Candied Potflies Arkai Imperial
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.22 21:24:31 -
[629] - Quote
Thank you Black Pedro. I have more research to do. o7 |
Odeva Pawen
Aideron Robotics
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 03:35:25 -
[630] - Quote
Dusty 3allvalve wrote: So if such "emergent gameplay" has "occurred due to the nature of game mechanics"...it seems clear that we should also be able to dress up and reconfigure a shipm, like the iteron and other feeble industrial ships, as a suicide-ganker hunter. A warship that looks just like its orignal, sending signals (elec mod) of a nicely loaded cargo bay...for a price of course.
"Necessity is the mother of invention." Would you believe I didn't just make that lil' gem up. Point is, if the program does not evolve in common sense ways, it is "dated" and unkept. Because if we are talking about game evolution, how many of us drive a Model A? Or is it only natural to grow...before dying?
Seems obvious to me. I'm sure those that are exploiting the hole, or lack if you prefer, in the game mechanics would disagree.
Ever heard of the battle neureus? |
|
Redpainhawk
Hounds Of Haides
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 10:01:19 -
[631] - Quote
fix all problems is decrease amount of ore in high sec belts 75% and give penelties in yeald 20% this means only youngest of miners will mine in high rest will join large null corp or crates low sec mining force and makes more content to empty low sec.
decrease amount of high sec 25% and crate more low sec pockets that are easy to defend. Give low sec more bigger ores with possibility to make alot more isk than in high sec.
Miners follow where profits/safety is good.
theyr willing to risk more to get more income.
and then all these lovely code players cuold have fun time hunting stuff in low sec when we have drops and caps and alot more fun.
Keep the baby in your arms he will never learn or make frends.
if high sec miners wuold like to really protest against these pumpers well do as followed
-join low / null corp
- learn how pvp works
- go mining in systems where system population 0
biggest issue in eve is high sec provides too much for too many to most of people ever step to fill empty low and null
eve is game where players crate content not ccp so all these players should be with logical ways to be guidet (like remove all lv 4 agents from high sec 75% decrease ore amount in high sec / sleepers and low sec rats giving 50% more isk and alot more fun stuff) to low and null so they wuold really start playing this game. |
Redpainhawk
Hounds Of Haides
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 10:07:46 -
[632] - Quote
or just make speed limit in high sec 800meters per second max or concord will web you and give you 100mil ticket of flying too fast and force you to go to do tutorial missions again.
or just understand that high sec is way too full with useless players that should be moved in better areas of the game by netfing high sec resources |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
671
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 15:55:17 -
[633] - Quote
Look at this.
http://www.themittani.com/news/alod-bow-head-shame
hi-sec. guy bumps freighters in machariel for hours, repeatedly warps catalysts on them, reships in mid-space into more catalysts, ganks them solo. Yes clever I admit, but:
tell me thats not bullshit when a guy with 2-3 throwaway accounts can do this all day long with no repercussions.
I understand when a fleet of catalysts drops on your head, scrams and kills you, but this is one guy, repeatedly pulling concord away and reshipping in mid-space while (this is important) bumping ship continues to hold victim in place without aggression for as long as it takes, up to hours. Now tell me thats not bullshit.
CCP please, introduce aggression/suspect flags to bumping in high-sec. Or eliminate bumping entirely, its bullshit mechanic anyway. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
141
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:21:28 -
[634] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Look at this. http://www.themittani.com/news/alod-bow-head-shame hi-sec. guy bumps freighters in machariel for hours, repeatedly warps catalysts on them, reships in mid-space into more catalysts, ganks them solo. Yes clever I admit, but: tell me thats not bullshit when a guy with 2-3 throwaway accounts can do this all day long with no repercussions. I understand when a fleet of catalysts drops on your head, scrams and kills you, but this is one guy, repeatedly pulling concord away and reshipping in mid-space while (this is important) bumping ship continues to hold victim in place without aggression for as long as it takes, up to hours. Now tell me thats not bullshit. CCP please, introduce aggression/suspect flags to bumping in high-sec. Or eliminate bumping entirely, its bullshit mechanic anyway. Veers is that you?
CONCORD would like to remind you that the only thing under their protection is the doughnut shop found on level 2 of the food-mall in every station.
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Scott Bacon
Maximum Q
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:28:32 -
[635] - Quote
I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.
Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.
The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.
To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.
This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic. |
Raimena
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:55:06 -
[636] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Look at this. http://www.themittani.com/news/alod-bow-head-shame hi-sec. guy bumps freighters in machariel for hours, repeatedly warps catalysts on them, reships in mid-space into more catalysts, ganks them solo. Yes clever I admit, but: tell me thats not bullshit when a guy with 2-3 throwaway accounts can do this all day long with no repercussions.
I have a question about this specifically.
As GM Karidor stated (emphasis added in edit):
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, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.
The mechanics, as they stand, allow one person with an alt to keep a target ship unable to warp and in space indefinitely. A rookie ship to ping an agression timer, a bumper ship to keep a freighter from warping. As such, the player is unable to safely logout due to another player's action. More importantly, they have zero chance of moving away.In cases such as the one linked, the bumper's sole motivation was to harrass the one player - spending hours and hours to kill one ship is literally stating "i am going to do everything in my power to annoy you, stop you from playing and unable to actually leave." That, in my opinion, quite fits the description of harassment. The shortened definition of harassment, after all is "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands." By continuing for hours, this fits the definition.
Does this mean that keeping a player bumped and agressed indefinitely to harass them is within the game rules? After all, they haven't made any effort to move away - they simply have no option to. The only "option" they have is to basically give away all their current possessions (ship+contents) to whoever decides to harrass them - giving a huge benefit to the harasser and a huge loss to the victim. This is the literal interpretation of the rules, but is this the one that will actually be endorsed? If not, what wording WILL be endorsed?
Basically, CCP allowing bumping ( for harassment) yet punishing harrassment has a conflicting area. I would like to know how such conflict would actually be solved.
PS: as should be obvious, quotes have been snipped down to only the relevant parts to lower unnecessary post length. |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:11:20 -
[637] - Quote
Raimena wrote: Does this mean that keeping a player bumped and agressed indefinitely to harass them is within the game rules? After all, they haven't made any effort to move away - they simply have no option to. The only "option" they have is to basically give away all their current possessions (ship+contents) to whoever decides to harrass them - giving a huge benefit to the harasser and a huge loss to the victim. This is the literal interpretation of the rules, but is this the one that will actually be endorsed? If not, what wording WILL be endorsed?
"Moving to another location" is not trying to warp off, it's relocating your operation to another part of space as I understand it.
If you consistenly target one person and follow them around the galaxy ganking/bumping/screwing up his missions/exploration/whatever it will at some point be considered harassment. Things like that will be judged on a case by case basis and I guess you have to take it very far before it is classified as actual harassment.
Example: the miner that get's blown up in the same system(s) repeatedly by the same player, not harassment.
If that miner makes attempt to relocate to the far side of the map, only to be followed by the ganker every single time he relocates and getting ganked, harassment (at some point). |
Raimena
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:43:40 -
[638] - Quote
That's why i specifically linked to the example of a hauler being held hostage for many hours and eventually killed by a single enemy. It wasn't followed, yet it's hard to argue it isn't harassment when you sit around doing nothing but stop another player from doing another for multiple hours. It's harassment by definition, but the question is wether it's harassment by the rules.
As for moving operations; haulers can't really move operations away from market hubs. They kind of work like that, so that part doesn't make sense on them either :/. |
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 19:22:47 -
[639] - Quote
Raimena wrote:That's why i specifically linked to the example of a hauler being held hostage for many hours and eventually killed by a single enemy. It wasn't followed, yet it's hard to argue it isn't harassment when you sit around doing nothing but stop another player from doing another for multiple hours. It's harassment by definition, but the question is wether it's harassment by the rules.
You can bet your behind that it is fully within the rules. Getting your gameplay stomped on is the core of EVE, engagements lasting for hours or getting hell camped is stuff that is very common in EVE. I see no reason why all of a sudden a freighter getting bumped for the time it takes to gather a fleet to kill it should be any different just because it happened in high sec. High sec is NOT 100% safe and it does not provide you with extra 'rights to safety' that have not already been built into the game mechanics.
Quote: As for moving operations; haulers can't really move operations away from market hubs. They kind of work like that, so that part doesn't make sense on them either :/.
Of course they can move operations. If they choose not to because of 'convenient' or 'better income' (the latter being debateable I reckon) that is just that: their CHOICE.
Furthermore, you're not going to get a response from a GM in this thread on specifics. It is CCP policy not to draw a definitive line in the sand on issues like these. They want to maintain the freedom of being able to judge on a case by case basis. I think they were very clear on this subject though and that you're just trying to find loopholes (which you're not gonna get).
Edit: ah, this guy did it by himself mostly. Doesn't change anything though. Bumping is legal and he was not being singled out after making a serious attempt to move his operations. Simple really :) |
Raimena
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 19:42:50 -
[640] - Quote
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). |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
370
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 20:37:27 -
[641] - 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.
|
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
243
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 04:33:34 -
[642] - 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). Again: being shut down or held in an engagement for hours is very common in EVE. It's very much part of the core gameplay. If you don't like that, maybe this is not the game for you?
Other than that, judging from experience and what CCP has stated in this and other threads on what goes and what doesn't, I'd say it's pretty clear that your singled out case will not be considered 'harassment'.
And yes, chances of a GM ruling on a single case in an open forum thread are very slim. As stated: they do not want to draw a line in the sand and want to keep the option open to judge on a case by case basis. |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
676
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 10:19:36 -
[643] - Quote
Scott Bacon wrote:I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.
Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.
The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.
To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.
This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic.
Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers
And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers
What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Rein Chelien
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 19:40:11 -
[644] - Quote
Raimena wrote: The mechanics, as they stand, allow one person with an alt to keep a target ship unable to warp and in space indefinitely. A rookie ship to ping an agression timer, a bumper ship to keep a freighter from warping. As such, the player is unable to safely logout due to another player's action. More importantly, they have zero chance of moving away.
This is a very narrow view. There are several things you can do.
What to do if you are willing to plan ahead: 1. Understand when and where you are likely to get bumped and avoid those situations. 2. Fly a ship that aligns quicker. 3. Train and fit your ship for better agility. 4. Fleet up with scouts or caravan. 5. If you frequently use a particular pipe to haul, take the time to make bookmarks off the gates so you have less of a delta to align to in order to escape a bumper. 6. Find others who move large ships and create a channel with them so you have a bat phone to call if you're getting bumped around.
What to do if you are not willing to plan ahead: 1. If you have a friend around, have them come bump the bumper long enough that you can align. 2. If you have a scout alt, have your scout come bump the bumper long enough that you can align. 3. If you have no friends and no alt, convo people in system to come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.
If you are stuck in a ship being bumped for hours by one ship and you can't avail yourself of at least one of the 9 things above to get away you're not trying very hard.
|
Exe Om
The Grand Assembly
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 05:44:34 -
[645] - Quote
Rein Chelien wrote:Raimena wrote: The mechanics, as they stand, allow one person with an alt to keep a target ship unable to warp and in space indefinitely. A rookie ship to ping an agression timer, a bumper ship to keep a freighter from warping. As such, the player is unable to safely logout due to another player's action. More importantly, they have zero chance of moving away.
This is a very narrow view. There are several things you can do. What to do if you are willing to plan ahead: 1. Understand when and where you are likely to get bumped and avoid those situations. 2. Fly a ship that aligns quicker. 3. Train and fit your ship for better agility. 4. Fleet up with scouts or caravan. 5. If you frequently use a particular pipe to haul, take the time to make bookmarks off the gates so you have less of a delta to align to in order to escape a bumper. 6. Find others who move large ships and create a channel with them so you have a bat phone to call if you're getting bumped around. What to do if you are not willing to plan ahead: 1. If you have a friend around, have them come bump the bumper long enough that you can align. 2. If you have a scout alt, have your scout come bump the bumper long enough that you can align. 3. If you have no friends and no alt, convo people in system to come bump the bumper long enough that you can align. If you are stuck in a ship being bumped for hours by one ship and you can't avail yourself of at least one of the 9 things above to get away you're not trying very hard.
Seems like you have never flown a Charon full of cargo. |
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 08:14:31 -
[646] - Quote
I posted this in the Suggestion section. It seemed that a suggested change to the regular Warp Drive belonged in its own thread, rather than at the end of 32 pages of degenerate bickering. But the moderator disagreed and told be to put it here.
Collette Kassia wrote: In another thread there was some discussion about abuse of the bumping mechanic to prevent warp, before it went off the rails and was locked. This guy wanted bumping to be a flaggable offence, while others rightfully pointed out all of the other problems that it would create.
I have a better idea: Lets make the normal warp drive behave the way that MicroJump drives do after a bump. If you get bumped off alignment after starting a warp then your warp drive still fires, but it sends you in whatever direction you are pointing at the moment your speed hit 75% (even, and especially, when the bump caused most of the acceleration). You land somewhere else. Some distance (however many AU your warp drive charged to) but in a totally different direction.
The implication of this are: - No more getting you battleship bumplocked in highsec by some little brat in a frigate. Ditto for freighters. Makes you want to reach through the monitor and slap 'em. You have to do one extra warp, from where ever you landed back to where you want to go. But that's a lot better than getting held down for who-knows how long. - CODE can still suicide-gank AFK freighters in highsec. Have it so that if the autopilot detects that if a jump landed more than 100km off course (almost surely) then it shuts down with the next-target-gate unselected (to disrupt auto-clicker function). That will give CODE plenty of time to find it with Combat Probes and resume their enforcement action. At-F***ing-Keyboard players will likely be able to escape. (And I'm sure CODE can still ambush freighters without any bumping, it will just require better fleet coordination and quicker response time. I don't think that CCP should totally quash highsec ganking; but I do think it should require more gamesmanship than a street mugging.) - Normal "legit gameplay mechanic" bumping is unaffected. The main problem with bumping is its 'griefish' interference with warping. Nudging away an AFK miner, or any other miner with whom you are competing with for ore. is still allowed. - It'd be kind funny. :) Imagine what this would do with the bumper-cars that is always happening outside Jita 4-4. - And it could be employed to make better quality safespots.
This seemed like reasonable compromise between the two positions: those who wanted a Wrath-of-God CONCORD response to collisions and those who think everything's fine and has always been. But like any good compromise, it got flamed to a crisp and thread-locked within hours. But after reading these 32 pages of arguing. I'm am beginning to understand why I got so much hate so fast. People thought that this thread had metastasised...
And after dutifully reading through all of this crap, I concede that a targeted "fix" may not really be necessary. There were some ideas mentioned to escape a bumplock that I hadn't thought of. But I still insist that the game would be better if the regular Warp Drive worked more like a giant MicroJump module. If I had been on the dev team in the early 2000s, when EVE was being developed, this is how I would have designed it, even without foreseeing that "emergent gameplay mechanics". Just let physical interference during the build-up to a warp cause a navigational error that sends to ship off course.
There, everyone's happy.
And, as I mentioned in my original post, this will not totally quash legitimate high-sec PvP. I'm completely sure CODE is competent enough to pounce on a target instantly. They just won't be able to hold him down for five minutes while they get their sh!t together. It would "require more gamesmanship than a street mugging." Do you PvPers think this is unreasonable?!
And notice what I'm NOT saying. I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with bumping miners away for their cans. I'm not demanding that all asteroid belts be harassment-free workplaces. And I'm not saying that collisions should have any criminal or CONCORD implications. I just want to get rid of the 'hobo tackle' bullsh!t in the most nonintrusive and role-play-compatible why I can think of. And yes, it really is bullsh!t. |
Scott Bacon
Maximum Q
7
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 16:39:12 -
[647] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Scott Bacon wrote:I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.
Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.
The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.
To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.
This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic. Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have.
I think you know as well as I do that those modules you mention will be generally ineffective against bumping. I'm talking about a new type of module that specifically counters collision effects. Far narrower applicability than the modules you mention but more effective at their intended purpose. It would provide a viable defense against bumping without eliminating the ability to use bumping as a tactic because haulers would have to choose to use the modules and would have to be at their keyboard to activate them. |
Rein Chelien
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 17:44:58 -
[648] - Quote
Exe Om wrote:Rein Chelien wrote:Raimena wrote: The mechanics, as they stand, allow one person with an alt to keep a target ship unable to warp and in space indefinitely. A rookie ship to ping an agression timer, a bumper ship to keep a freighter from warping. As such, the player is unable to safely logout due to another player's action. More importantly, they have zero chance of moving away.
This is a very narrow view. There are several things you can do. What to do if you are willing to plan ahead: 1. Understand when and where you are likely to get bumped and avoid those situations. 2. Fly a ship that aligns quicker. 3. Train and fit your ship for better agility. 4. Fleet up with scouts or caravan. 5. If you frequently use a particular pipe to haul, take the time to make bookmarks off the gates so you have less of a delta to align to in order to escape a bumper. 6. Find others who move large ships and create a channel with them so you have a bat phone to call if you're getting bumped around. What to do if you are not willing to plan ahead: 1. If you have a friend around, have them come bump the bumper long enough that you can align. 2. If you have a scout alt, have your scout come bump the bumper long enough that you can align. 3. If you have no friends and no alt, convo people in system to come bump the bumper long enough that you can align. If you are stuck in a ship being bumped for hours by one ship and you can't avail yourself of at least one of the 9 things above to get away you're not trying very hard. Seems like you have never flown a Charon full of cargo.
I've flown Orcas plenty, and they have a worse alignment. It can be done.
|
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY F0RCED ENTRY.
40
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 18:30:53 -
[649] - Quote
Scott Bacon wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Scott Bacon wrote:I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.
Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.
The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.
To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.
This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic. Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have. I think you know as well as I do that those modules you mention will be generally ineffective against bumping. I'm talking about a new type of module that specifically counters collision effects. Far narrower applicability than the modules you mention but more effective at their intended purpose. It would provide a viable defense against bumping without eliminating the ability to use bumping as a tactic because haulers would have to choose to use the modules and would have to be at their keyboard to activate them. But the method you mention, is exactly the same as what an intertia stabilizer does. It allows you to align faster.
What exactly are you looking for? A module that allows for a capital ship to align instantly or something? Because that would defeat the whole purpose of having a large capital ship, and would be quite exploitable in low/null sec. If you want something that quickly aligns, buy a frigate. If you want a lumbering behemoth that has its drawbacks as well as its positive aspects, buy an obelisk. Its the price you pay for having a ship that can carry up to 800k+ m3 in stuff.
Also, isnt the Higgs anchor rig supposed to help counter against bumping? |
Scott Bacon
Maximum Q
7
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:03:53 -
[650] - Quote
Solonius Rex wrote:Scott Bacon wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Scott Bacon wrote:I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.
Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.
The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.
To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.
This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic. Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have. I think you know as well as I do that those modules you mention will be generally ineffective against bumping. I'm talking about a new type of module that specifically counters collision effects. Far narrower applicability than the modules you mention but more effective at their intended purpose. It would provide a viable defense against bumping without eliminating the ability to use bumping as a tactic because haulers would have to choose to use the modules and would have to be at their keyboard to activate them. But the method you mention, is exactly the same as what an intertia stabilizer does. It allows you to align faster. What exactly are you looking for? A module that allows for a capital ship to align instantly or something? Because that would defeat the whole purpose of having a large capital ship, and would be quite exploitable in low/null sec. If you want something that quickly aligns, buy a frigate. If you want a lumbering behemoth that has its drawbacks as well as its positive aspects, buy an obelisk. Its the price you pay for having a ship that can carry up to 800k+ m3 in stuff. Also, isnt the Higgs anchor rig supposed to help counter against bumping?
A slight distinction here -- what I suggested would not allow a pilot to align faster in general, it would just reduce the de-aligning effects of collisions. |
|
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY F0RCED ENTRY.
44
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 22:28:48 -
[651] - Quote
Scott Bacon wrote:Solonius Rex wrote:Scott Bacon wrote:Ima Wreckyou wrote:Scott Bacon wrote:I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.
Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.
The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.
To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.
This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic. Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer": https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have. I think you know as well as I do that those modules you mention will be generally ineffective against bumping. I'm talking about a new type of module that specifically counters collision effects. Far narrower applicability than the modules you mention but more effective at their intended purpose. It would provide a viable defense against bumping without eliminating the ability to use bumping as a tactic because haulers would have to choose to use the modules and would have to be at their keyboard to activate them. But the method you mention, is exactly the same as what an intertia stabilizer does. It allows you to align faster. What exactly are you looking for? A module that allows for a capital ship to align instantly or something? Because that would defeat the whole purpose of having a large capital ship, and would be quite exploitable in low/null sec. If you want something that quickly aligns, buy a frigate. If you want a lumbering behemoth that has its drawbacks as well as its positive aspects, buy an obelisk. Its the price you pay for having a ship that can carry up to 800k+ m3 in stuff. Also, isnt the Higgs anchor rig supposed to help counter against bumping? A slight distinction here -- what I suggested would not allow a pilot to align faster in general, it would just reduce the de-aligning effects of collisions. I appreciate you mentioning the Higgs Anchor. It's actually close to what I am talking about, though I have never experimented with one to see how effective it is. What I don't like about the Higgs Anchor is that it's a rig and cannot be equipped on freighters.
Ah, okay, i get it now.
That item seems a little too niche, though, so i doubt it will make it into the game. it would be like adding a module that reduces damage from Void charges, and void charges only. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11120
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 00:56:07 -
[652] - Quote
Scott Bacon wrote: I appreciate you mentioning the Higgs Anchor. It's actually close to what I am talking about, though I have never experimented with one to see how effective it is. What I don't like about the Higgs Anchor is that it's a rig and cannot be equipped on freighters.
It still baffles me that people fail to realize that freighters intentionally have weaknesses. Or that they might once have had rigs, but QQ put an end to that right quick.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Steppa Musana
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
31
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 08:36:20 -
[653] - Quote
This is a new idea I thought up on how to make bumpers go suspect without messing with the rest of the game.
You can right-click a player and flag him as a bumper. If he bumps your ship 3 more times after that, he turns suspect.
Restrictions: -Only works when your ship speed is set to zero, so you cannot flag someone and bump them to suspect them -Does work if your ship speed is above zero from being bumped -Does work if your ship speed is above zero but your warp drive is active -Does not work against players with active warp drives -Does not work against players with a legal engagement such as war targets or duels -Setting your ship speed positive or disengaging your warp drive resets the flag -You can only flag someone for bumping you when you're in a vulnerable classed vessel. Freighters and Orcas are the only ships in this class.
The Jita undock would be nuts! Unlike other bumping suspect ideas, this has no such consequence. A ship coasting out of the undock has not manually set their ship speed and cannot be flagged for this. A ship aligning out for warp cannot be flagged for this. A ship sitting at zero on the undock cannot be flagged for this. A ship moving on the undock cannot be baited into this as you cannot be manually moving yourself to flag him.
Why should you be able to turn someone suspect for bumping you? What they are doing is similar to using a warp disrupter on you. They are engaging you in PVP combat. You should be able to shoot back. Engaging players in PVP combat in high-sec without a legal flag usually has the consequence of going criminal. Going suspect is a fair compromise.
Bumping is legit gameplay, this would make it too risky. If you think that you are risk-averse. Grow a pair, fit some guns on your bump ship, and get some friends in logi to keep you repped.
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
698
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:29:09 -
[654] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:Does not work against players with active warp drives Nice idea! I will just activate the warp drive before I hit the target.
The problem with all "solutions" that end with someone becoming suspect is that it is never only bumper vs. miner/hauler. It's "Player with interest in the game mechanics" vs. "Player who plays EVE like a singleplayer game". This would result in epic tears as we would probably find ways around this very quickly (like I just demonstrates, and yes go on adjust the rules again) and get a new way to trick some counter-bumper into going suspect because they don't know about your rather unintuitive new game mechanic.
the Code ALWAYS wins
|
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:03:36 -
[655] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:This is a new idea I thought up on how to make bumpers go suspect without messing with the rest of the game.
You can right-click a player and flag him as a bumper. If he bumps your ship 3 more times after that, he turns suspect.
Restrictions: -Only works when your ship speed is set to zero, so you cannot flag someone and bump them to suspect them -Does work if your ship speed is above zero from being bumped -Does work if your ship speed is above zero but your warp drive is active -Does not work against players with active warp drives -Does not work against players with a legal engagement such as war targets or duels -Setting your ship speed positive or disengaging your warp drive resets the flag -You can only flag someone for bumping you when you're in a vulnerable classed vessel. Freighters and Orcas are the only ships in this class.
The Jita undock would be nuts! Unlike other bumping suspect ideas, this has no such consequence. A ship coasting out of the undock has not manually set their ship speed and cannot be flagged for this. A ship aligning out for warp cannot be flagged for this. A ship sitting at zero on the undock cannot be flagged for this. A ship moving on the undock cannot be baited into this as you cannot be manually moving yourself to flag him.
Why should you be able to turn someone suspect for bumping you? What they are doing is similar to using a warp disrupter on you. They are engaging you in PVP combat. You should be able to shoot back. Engaging players in PVP combat in high-sec without a legal flag usually has the consequence of going criminal. Going suspect is a fair compromise.
Bumping is legit gameplay, this would make it too risky. If you think that you are risk-averse. Grow a pair, fit some guns on your bump ship, and get some friends in logi to keep you repped.
Your threadnought got MODERATOROKKENED too? Welcome to the club. Here was my suggestion. |
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY F0RCED ENTRY.
46
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:27:30 -
[656] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:This is a new idea I thought up on how to make bumpers go suspect without messing with the rest of the game.
You can right-click a player and flag him as a bumper. If he bumps your ship 3 more times after that, he turns suspect.
Restrictions: -Only works when your ship speed is set to zero, so you cannot flag someone and bump them to suspect them -Does work if your ship speed is above zero from being bumped -Does work if your ship speed is above zero but your warp drive is active -Does not work against players with active warp drives -Does not work against players with a legal engagement such as war targets or duels -Setting your ship speed positive or disengaging your warp drive resets the flag -You can only flag someone for bumping you when you're in a vulnerable classed vessel. Freighters and Orcas are the only ships in this class.
The Jita undock would be nuts! Unlike other bumping suspect ideas, this has no such consequence. A ship coasting out of the undock has not manually set their ship speed and cannot be flagged for this. A ship aligning out for warp cannot be flagged for this. A ship sitting at zero on the undock cannot be flagged for this. A ship moving on the undock cannot be baited into this as you cannot be manually moving yourself to flag him.
Why should you be able to turn someone suspect for bumping you? What they are doing is similar to using a warp disrupter on you. They are engaging you in PVP combat. You should be able to shoot back. Engaging players in PVP combat in high-sec without a legal flag usually has the consequence of going criminal. Going suspect is a fair compromise.
Bumping is legit gameplay, this would make it too risky. If you think that you are risk-averse. Grow a pair, fit some guns on your bump ship, and get some friends in logi to keep you repped.
Wait, but what if you set your ship speed to maximum, and then set it back to zero? your ship would carry the momentum and slowly decrease to zero, but you would still be able to bump the ship despite the fact that your ship speed is set to zero.
Furthermore, what about autopiloting ships? they intentionally set their speed to maximum. I could sit 10k off the gate and stand between an autopilot ship and the gate, and have the ship bump me and activate the suspect flag.
Also, what the hell is a "Vulnerable classed vessel"? I dont think such a category exists in eve. Im not even sure why orcas would belong in that class, as orcas have low, mid and highslots, rigslots and drone bays.
I dont even see why this is combat. But all in all, this seems to be something that is completely and easily avoidable by having 2 ships bump twice each, and then initiating gank. Gankers arent stingy on numbers, after all. This doesnt seem like a mechanic that would change anything, despite the utter pain in the ass it would take for the devs to impliment such a convoluted system. |
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY F0RCED ENTRY.
46
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:41:44 -
[657] - Quote
Colette Kassia wrote:I posted this in the Suggestion section. It seemed that a suggested change to the regular Warp Drive belonged in its own thread, rather than at the end of 32 pages of degenerate bickering. But the moderator disagreed and told be to put it here. Collette Kassia wrote: In another thread there was some discussion about abuse of the bumping mechanic to prevent warp, before it went off the rails and was locked. This guy wanted bumping to be a flaggable offence, while others rightfully pointed out all of the other problems that it would create.
I have a better idea: Lets make the normal warp drive behave the way that MicroJump drives do after a bump. If you get bumped off alignment after starting a warp then your warp drive still fires, but it sends you in whatever direction you are pointing at the moment your speed hit 75% (even, and especially, when the bump caused most of the acceleration). You land somewhere else. Some distance (however many AU your warp drive charged to) but in a totally different direction.
The implication of this are: - No more getting you battleship bumplocked in highsec by some little brat in a frigate. Ditto for freighters. Makes you want to reach through the monitor and slap 'em. You have to do one extra warp, from where ever you landed back to where you want to go. But that's a lot better than getting held down for who-knows how long. - CODE can still suicide-gank AFK freighters in highsec. Have it so that if the autopilot detects that if a jump landed more than 100km off course (almost surely) then it shuts down with the next-target-gate unselected (to disrupt auto-clicker function). That will give CODE plenty of time to find it with Combat Probes and resume their enforcement action. At-F***ing-Keyboard players will likely be able to escape. (And I'm sure CODE can still ambush freighters without any bumping, it will just require better fleet coordination and quicker response time. I don't think that CCP should totally quash highsec ganking; but I do think it should require more gamesmanship than a street mugging.) - Normal "legit gameplay mechanic" bumping is unaffected. The main problem with bumping is its 'griefish' interference with warping. Nudging away an AFK miner, or any other miner with whom you are competing with for ore. is still allowed. - It'd be kind funny. :) Imagine what this would do with the bumper-cars that is always happening outside Jita 4-4. - And it could be employed to make better quality safespots.
This seemed like reasonable compromise between the two positions: those who wanted a Wrath-of-God CONCORD response to collisions and those who think everything's fine and has always been. But like any good compromise, it got flamed to a crisp and thread-locked within hours. But after reading these 32 pages of arguing. I'm am beginning to understand why I got so much hate so fast. People thought that this thread had metastasised... And after dutifully reading through all of this crap, I concede that a targeted "fix" may not really be necessary. There were some ideas mentioned to escape a bumplock that I hadn't thought of. But I still insist that the game would be better if the regular Warp Drive worked more like a giant MicroJump module. If I had been on the dev team in the early 2000s, when EVE was being developed, this is how I would have designed it, even without foreseeing that "emergent gameplay mechanics". Just let physical interference during the build-up to a warp cause a navigational error that sends to ship off course. There, everyone's happy. And, as I mentioned in my original post, this will not totally quash legitimate high-sec PvP. I'm completely sure CODE is competent enough to pounce on a target instantly. They just won't be able to hold him down for five minutes while they get their sh!t together. It would "require more gamesmanship than a street mugging." Do you PvPers think this is unreasonable?! And notice what I'm NOT saying. I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with bumping miners away from their cans. I'm not demanding that all asteroid belts be harassment-free workplaces. And I'm not saying that collisions should have any criminal or CONCORD implications. I just want to get rid of the 'hobo tackle' bullsh!t in the most nonintrusive and role-play-compatible why I can think of. And yes, it really is bullsh!t.
Although this is a stupidly complicated thing to impliment, it would ruin a lot of strategies for us in nullsec as well as cause major headache in highsec trade hubs. People frequently bump ships undocking in null/lowsec so that they are bumped outside of the docking range of the station, and therefore can be killed. People frequently use bumping as a mechanic in lieu of points/scrams and to combat stabs on ships. Hell, ive even seen interdiction nullified and warp core stabilized Tengus being bumped and killed before. All of these basic game mechanics would dissapear. You might as well be removing bumping as a whole, for the effect on gameplay would be the same. |
Sharise Dragonstar
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 13:54:48 -
[658] - Quote
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. |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
297
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 16:29:20 -
[659] - Quote
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. Bumpers and gankers would be ecstatic if this was the case, they'd just ram freighters with multiple ships at high speed until they exploded.
Quote: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. In Eve that small car has a mass measured in hundreds of thousands of KG and is travelling at Mach 6+ (assuming Destroyer and 10MN MWD, frigates are not as effective).
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY F0RCED ENTRY.
46
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 16:49:43 -
[660] - Quote
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? |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
416
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 17:33:58 -
[661] - 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.
|
Kairos Antilles
The Scope Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 05:49:42 -
[662] - Quote
I just can't believe this discussion is still a 'thing'. |
PastyWhiteDevil
Mayhem and Ruin Point Blank Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 20:54:04 -
[663] - Quote
Kimo Khan wrote:You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable?
It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. Edit: Removed the whole thing of not bumping during warp as I can see that abused as well.
what if you were to receive an intentionally distracting convo? should the sender get a glag?
"Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic" that's almost like saying align time is a circumvention of the scram mechanic. bumping is just manipulating align time.
and if you are advocating that ships should not be "bumpable" once they initiate warp that is also a bad idea. it would be a buff to super caps which is not needed. |
Argonicus
Wastion Dominion Home Front Coalition
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 21:46:13 -
[664] - Quote
It maybe role bonuses for all indy and freighters, like reduced jump fatigue |
Ebola IV
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 15:31:25 -
[665] - Quote
The Solution is easy indeed: Just add a counter for bumping the same ship within a given time (like 5 minutes). After counter reaches 2 give a global warning to the bumper; After it hits 3 add a suspect flag to the bumper.
It wouldnt change null-sec, but would affect low- and hi-sec in a very positive way. The high-sec elite pvpers would either be in need for a new "easy-mode-perma-unpunished-warp-scrambler" or alternatively finally add some proper timing in order to get something ganked. I mean, theres already really some special amount of skill needed to be in time at the Uedama undock and initiate the 3-click-sequence: warp to the Ganker-FCs safe spot, being fleetwarped to the victim, locking the broadcastet target and finally activating those guns while the bumper macro-bumps the victim all evening...
So the mentioned bump counter would add to the already huge skill-requirements, as the bumping would need some coordination too and the elite pvpers would be forced to break new ground by being forced to dive into the "risk-vs-reward"-philosophy for the first time and actually risk something valuable other than all those cadged catalysts (or at least change the machariel doctrine) |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11331
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 02:23:37 -
[666] - Quote
Ebola IV wrote:The solution is easy indeed: Just add a counter for bumping the same ship within a given time (like 5 minutes). After counter reaches 2 give a global warning to the bumper; After it hits 3 add a suspect flag to the bumper.
I can think of a few ways off the top of my head to use such a mechanic in ways that you won't like.
Nevermind that it begs the question "why should the people who are afk be given protections of any kind?" (although your suggestion would, in fact, hurt them very badly by letting clever people flag literally any hauler they feel like without consequence)
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
440
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 04:00:24 -
[667] - Quote
Solution to bumping is easy...after CONCORD spawns in response to a gank attempt on a ship...that ship can warp off for 60 seconds unaffected by bumping. No complex suspect mechanics, no unintended consequences...just a clean and easy solution. |
Ebola IV
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 09:24:41 -
[668] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ebola IV wrote:The solution is easy indeed: Just add a counter for bumping the same ship within a given time (like 5 minutes). After counter reaches 2 give a global warning to the bumper; After it hits 3 add a suspect flag to the bumper.
I can think of a few ways off the top of my head to use such a mechanic in ways that you won't like.
Tell me more, I'm curious
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Nevermind that it begs the question "why should the people who are afk be given protections of any kind?" (although your suggestion would, in fact, hurt them very badly by letting clever people flag literally any hauler they feel like without consequence)
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. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
476
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 10:36:56 -
[669] - 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.
|
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:25:53 -
[670] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: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?) An alignment stabliser would be a good addition. Removes cargo space in order to make a freighter hold alignment better when bumped. As it also takes up a spot where bulkheads would go, using it would mean you can't be as tanked either.
Black Pedro wrote:or with a change to policy like "you can't bump a ship for more than an hour or it is harassment". I was under the impression this was already a rule. If you bumped someone for a significant amount of time without attempting to gank them I'm pretty sure if it was reported GMs would intervene and am certain I've read that somewhere written by a GM or dev. Like you said, CCP intends for hauler ganking to be in the game and bumping is a key part of that, but bumping for no reason other to bump and for a significant amount of time is just attempting to stop someone else playing, which is not part of that. |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11389
|
Posted - 2015.01.23 00:18:59 -
[671] - Quote
Ebola IV wrote:Tell me more, I'm curious
Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times.
Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
395
|
Posted - 2015.01.23 15:25:15 -
[672] - Quote
Tim Timpson wrote:I was under the impression this was already a rule. If you bumped someone for a significant amount of time without attempting to gank them I'm pretty sure if it was reported GMs would intervene and am certain I've read that somewhere written by a GM or dev. The official word as it stands is as follows (emphasis mine):
Taken from the opening post of this thread.
GM Karidor wrote: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 The following are from this post, also by GM Karidor.Quote:While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents)
Quote:If the victim just moved next door, that could still be interpreted as 'general area of operation', if the miner starts changing regions and is still being followed around by the same person that keeps bumping in a regular manner then the intent is pretty clear.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Ebola IV
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 07:31:20 -
[673] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ebola IV wrote:Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively.
This would apply, if the system doesn't/can't decide between bumper and bumpee. Thats true. But as I already said: My suggestion would need a proper implementation which actually CAN decide between the former and the latter. If it can't, it fails and would make ganking even easier than it's now ;)
|
Ebola IV
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 07:34:07 -
[674] - Quote
Kairos Antilles wrote:I just can't believe this discussion is still a 'thing'.
cool story bro... |
Concord Guy's Cousin
State War Academy Caldari State
401
|
Posted - 2015.01.24 10:15:07 -
[675] - Quote
Ebola IV wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ebola IV wrote:Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively. This would apply, if the system doesn't/can't decide between bumper and bumpee. Thats true. But as I already said: My suggestion would need a proper implementation which actually CAN decide between the former and the latter. If it can't, it fails and would make ganking even easier than it's now ;) So... How do you propose the system distinguishes between bumper and bumpee?
Bearing in mind that at least 50% of bumps are random accidents.
ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"
NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
|
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY F0RCED ENTRY.
64
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 16:55:00 -
[676] - Quote
Ebola IV wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ebola IV wrote:Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively. This would apply, if the system doesn't/can't decide between bumper and bumpee. Thats true. But as I already said: My suggestion would need a proper implementation which actually CAN decide between the former and the latter. If it can't, it fails and would make ganking even easier than it's now ;)
Wouldnt an autopilot ship continuously bump a stationary ship in its path? Wouldnt it be clear who is doing the bumping, in such a situation? And wouldnt that provide the easiest kill, ever, to the stationary ship? |
Kaarous Aldurald
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11445
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 14:25:02 -
[677] - Quote
Ebola IV wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Ebola IV wrote:Tell me more, I'm curious Hopefully it hasn't escaped your attention that it isn't all that tricky to have a few people bump the gank target into someone else, several times. Boom, instant free flag, no 15 minute GCC. Much, much less people required to gank a freighter, too, so CODE could start camping way more areas, more often, more effectively. This would apply, if the system doesn't/can't decide between bumper and bumpee. Thats true. But as I already said: My suggestion would need a proper implementation which actually CAN decide between the former and the latter. If it can't, it fails and would make ganking even easier than it's now ;)
They can't even add alliance bookmarks, what makes you think they can possibly recode the game's base physics engine from the ground up?
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
Lord Parallax
Dead Pirates Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.18 17:36:47 -
[678] - Quote
SO as I have interrupted the vagueness of this "miner-bumping" I can now freely bump a player for as long as I deem fit as long as they stay within my "operational area" given I am a roamer with no general location to call home my "operational area" could be an entire empire or the entire game and technically would mean I can follow this person anywhere in the game as it is my " operational area". They would have to endure my "miner-bumping" that would eventually lead to them being ganked as I am bumping them to prevent them from being able to warp away and all though I didn't aggress I ensured them to technically be "tackled" on grind allowing the gankers to destroy the person I have been bumping for IDK 40 systems ( since I consider myself to be a roaming pirate).
Thanks for pretty much saying miner-bumping is legal and we wont get in trouble for it at all.......still....
Long live JAMES315. and his supporters.............................. TOP KEK
|
Aodan OfClanBrien
The Industry Of Strength
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 14:08:58 -
[679] - Quote
" 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
|
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium
72
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:42:23 -
[680] - Quote
Is ti normal that I can bump my deployed Rorqual into movement while it's industrial core is running? By trying to warp through it with an Occator? Is that part of the emergent gameplay that I have to cycle down the industrial core and reposition my Rorqual because the hauler can't arrive more accurately to a bookmark.
Why not make a skill that improves accuracy when arriving to the bookmark?
The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
|
|
Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 01:36:02 -
[681] - Quote
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. |
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
553
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 23:46:22 -
[682] - Quote
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. Kill rights are for criminals.
The frustrated local bumping a selfish multiboxer is not a criminal. The criminal is the multiboxer taking all the ore within a few hours of downtime every single day.
It's easy for a solo miner to avoid being bumped but it's very disruptive against large mining fleets. It's easy for a solo freighter pilot to web sling into warp but it's very disruptive to the freighters supporting large mining fleets.
Bumping does not need reworking. It only affects dumb pilots or large mining fleets hogging resources. Working as intended.
There are all our dominion
Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
|
Dana Goodeye
Quafe Commandos Point Blank Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 11:43:59 -
[683] - Quote
well... this bumping effect is just silly, oki? a ruiser collide with a bs high speed, none of them got damaged, but its not enough, the bs gonna gain speed... its just silly. like when i cant warp, because an acceleration gate"bumping" me out of alligment, or an asteroid, and i got pointed, but i cant use them as a cover when i get shot. ccp, make these things uncollidable, or make us able to use them as cover against bullets, missiles -.- my frigs would like that :) and one more thing... in my opinion, if one or more ppl bumping me lets say 3 times, and this is one ppl, or they are in fleet, or same corp or alliance, it would be nice to get a duel invite from them automatically, but my fleet, corp and alliance could be ... i dont know the word for it... participate? well, if i would accept a bumping duel like this, my alliance corp and fleetmates would be able to shoot them too. think about it... escorting haulers in hisec would be a thing... it would be awesomeee =D ccp make it happen or i will bimp you to death -.- |
Aodan OfClanBrien
3
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 19:46:36 -
[684] - Quote
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.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
875
|
Posted - 2015.04.20 20:15:04 -
[685] - 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. |
Solecist Project
The Scope Gallente Federation
20894
|
Posted - 2015.04.23 10:13:01 -
[686] - Quote
*bumps into Black Pedro*
*lawsuit for sexual harassment incoming*
Jokarz > you got owned?
Chris Justice > just a bit
Chris Justice > They were pulsing smart bombs at the point we all warped in. insta death.
Lev Arturis > pervs got 59 killmails
PERVS doing lowsec DD
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
12790
|
Posted - 2015.04.24 15:00:35 -
[687] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: What more do you want?
You know perfectly well what they want.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1741
|
Posted - 2015.04.29 16:40:30 -
[688] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Black Pedro wrote: What more do you want?
You know perfectly well what they want.
Cake? |
Leto Thule
Origin. Black Legion.
2472
|
Posted - 2015.05.07 00:43:53 -
[689] - Quote
Dana Goodeye wrote:well... this bumping effect is just silly, oki? a ruiser collide with a bs high speed, none of them got damaged, but its not enough, the bs gonna gain speed... its just silly. like when i cant warp, because an acceleration gate"bumping" me out of alligment, or an asteroid, and i got pointed, but i cant use them as a cover when i get shot. ccp, make these things uncollidable, or make us able to use them as cover against bullets, missiles -.- my frigs would like that :) and one more thing... in my opinion, if one or more ppl bumping me lets say 3 times, and this is one ppl, or they are in fleet, or same corp or alliance, it would be nice to get a duel invite from them automatically, but my fleet, corp and alliance could be ... i dont know the word for it... participate? well, if i would accept a bumping duel like this, my alliance corp and fleetmates would be able to shoot them too. think about it... escorting haulers in hisec would be a thing... it would be awesomeee =D ccp make it happen or i will bump you to death -.-
Please god no. Cover? This isn't an FPS.
Are you an asshole? Do you like flying with other assholes? Can you listen to the FC and not be horribad?
Origin. is recruiting!
|
Nomis Alexander
Haldskel Corporation
32
|
Posted - 2015.05.10 22:02:34 -
[690] - Quote
Aodan OfClanBrien wrote: 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
Miner, calm down. Nobody ever got poisoned off a bump, at least not the last time I checked.
|
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.20 08:50:20 -
[691] - Quote
As a miner I do not generally afk mine as a rule. I say generally because I will get up for bio break/grab food and other such necessities. Even then I have my drones out at a minimum and am never away for very long. I have lost a couple of barges to suicide gankers (even made friends with one of them). And yes I have run into my fair share of bumpers. The only point at which I find them annoying is when I'm trying to warp away after ignoring them for (record was about 30 min.) however long. It is extremely difficult to get those fat barges aligned when someone is bouncing off my hull. Even so I deal with it, one way or another, and life goes on.
Having said that, I'm all about compromises when issues like this come up. Mostly because compromises by their very nature leave both parties unsatisfied yet unwilling to back down from the agreement for fear of losing any further favorable positions. I say leave bumping in the game however make it so that the degree to which a ship A (angry guy in the barge being bumped) is displaced be proportional to the mass of ship B (B is for bumper). If ship A's mass is 2-3 times that of ship B then the amount ship A move versus the degree to which ship B bounces off should reflect that. Yes, velocity of both ships would remain a factor. Think this fair because it leave most everyone with an unsatisfied, and bitter feeling about the whole affair.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1738
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 01:52:11 -
[692] - Quote
Kenneth Fritz wrote:As a miner I do not generally afk mine as a rule. I say generally because I will get up for bio break/grab food and other such necessities. Even then I have my drones out at a minimum and am never away for very long. I have lost a couple of barges to suicide gankers (even made friends with one of them). And yes I have run into my fair share of bumpers. The only point at which I find them annoying is when I'm trying to warp away after ignoring them for (record was about 30 min.) however long. It is extremely difficult to get those fat barges aligned when someone is bouncing off my hull. Even so I deal with it, one way or another, and life goes on. Having said that, I'm all about compromises when issues like this come up. Mostly because compromises by their very nature leave both parties unsatisfied yet unwilling to back down from the agreement for fear of losing any further favorable positions. I say leave bumping in the game however make it so that the degree to which a ship A (angry guy in the barge being bumped) is displaced be proportional to the mass of ship B (B is for bumper). If ship A's mass is 2-3 times that of ship B then the amount ship A move versus the degree to which ship B bounces off should reflect that. Yes, velocity of both ships would remain a factor. Think this fair because it leave most everyone with an unsatisfied, and bitter feeling about the whole affair. uh, it already works like this...
Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1005
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 01:25:14 -
[693] - Quote
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:Kenneth Fritz wrote:As a miner I do not generally afk mine as a rule. I say generally because I will get up for bio break/grab food and other such necessities. Even then I have my drones out at a minimum and am never away for very long. I have lost a couple of barges to suicide gankers (even made friends with one of them). And yes I have run into my fair share of bumpers. The only point at which I find them annoying is when I'm trying to warp away after ignoring them for (record was about 30 min.) however long. It is extremely difficult to get those fat barges aligned when someone is bouncing off my hull. Even so I deal with it, one way or another, and life goes on. Having said that, I'm all about compromises when issues like this come up. Mostly because compromises by their very nature leave both parties unsatisfied yet unwilling to back down from the agreement for fear of losing any further favorable positions. I say leave bumping in the game however make it so that the degree to which a ship A (angry guy in the barge being bumped) is displaced be proportional to the mass of ship B (B is for bumper). If ship A's mass is 2-3 times that of ship B then the amount ship A move versus the degree to which ship B bounces off should reflect that. Yes, velocity of both ships would remain a factor. Think this fair because it leave most everyone with an unsatisfied, and bitter feeling about the whole affair. uh, it already works like this... To clarify put a 500 men MWD on any cruiser and fire it up. Watch your mass in the fitting window
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
261
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 12:53:33 -
[694] - 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
|
Leto Thule
Origin. Black Legion.
2943
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 18:28:36 -
[695] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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
Oh christ, YOU are back?
Try to imagine, for one second, that bumping is used by players other than gankers, outside of high sec, to do other things than kill industrials... because they do. EVE isnt focused on highsec ganking, so please try to research something before taking a stance on it.
Also lol @ your RL expectations. Its a game, and its not made by Jane's. Please show me where blasters, clone immortals and warp drives exist in real life.
Holeysheet1 is afraid of thunderdome matches.
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Dedicated and Dangerous The Marmite Collective
1096
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 23:06:20 -
[696] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:
Also lol @ your RL expectations. Its a game, and its not made by Jane's. Please show me where blasters, clone immortals and warp drives exist in real life.
In my heart and dreams *sobs*
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Forum BFFL of Mo
|
Leto Thule
Origin. Black Legion.
2957
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 19:26:17 -
[697] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Leto Thule wrote:
Also lol @ your RL expectations. Its a game, and its not made by Jane's. Please show me where blasters, clone immortals and warp drives exist in real life.
In my heart and dreams *sobs*
IKR
Holeysheet1 is afraid of thunderdome matches.
|
Nalia White
Tencus
137
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 22:00:27 -
[698] - Quote
Leto Thule wrote:La Rynx wrote: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
Oh christ, YOU are back? Try to imagine, for one second, that bumping is used by players other than gankers, outside of high sec, to do other things than kill industrials... because they do. EVE isnt focused on highsec ganking, so please try to research something before taking a stance on it. Also lol @ your RL expectations. Its a game, and its not made by Jane's. Please show me where blasters, clone immortals and warp drives exist in real life.
indeed, a good example is gate camping. with bumping you can hinder bigger ships from reapproaching. it's a good mechanic :P
|
Noragen Neirfallas
Fredegar Hohenstaufen Corporation Holy Arumbian Empire
1884
|
Posted - 2015.08.26 23:28:16 -
[699] - Quote
Nalia White wrote:Leto Thule wrote:La Rynx wrote: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
Oh christ, YOU are back? Try to imagine, for one second, that bumping is used by players other than gankers, outside of high sec, to do other things than kill industrials... because they do. EVE isnt focused on highsec ganking, so please try to research something before taking a stance on it. Also lol @ your RL expectations. Its a game, and its not made by Jane's. Please show me where blasters, clone immortals and warp drives exist in real life. indeed, a good example is gate camping. with bumping you can hinder bigger ships from reapproaching. it's a good mechanic :P My preferred use of bumping is against RR T3 gangs. Nothing fucks up an RR T3 Gang Quite like a solid bump
Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment
Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode favourite ISD
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
1120
|
Posted - 2015.08.29 05:55:42 -
[700] - Quote
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:Nalia White wrote:Leto Thule wrote:La Rynx wrote: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
Oh christ, YOU are back? Try to imagine, for one second, that bumping is used by players other than gankers, outside of high sec, to do other things than kill industrials... because they do. EVE isnt focused on highsec ganking, so please try to research something before taking a stance on it. Also lol @ your RL expectations. Its a game, and its not made by Jane's. Please show me where blasters, clone immortals and warp drives exist in real life. indeed, a good example is gate camping. with bumping you can hinder bigger ships from reapproaching. it's a good mechanic :P My preferred use of bumping is against RR T3 gangs. Nothing fucks up an RR T3 Gang Quite like a solid bump Confirming. |
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3346
|
Posted - 2015.09.25 18:31:48 -
[701] - Quote
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**
Which begs the question: what is your current stance?
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Leto Thule
Lazerhawks
3641
|
Posted - 2015.09.26 22:53:08 -
[702] - Quote
admiral root 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** Which begs the question: what is your current stance?
Wait what??
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Leto Thule
Lazerhawks
3680
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 22:38:39 -
[703] - Quote
admiral root 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** Which begs the question: what is your current stance?
Bump
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
25224
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 17:42:57 -
[704] - Quote
admiral root posted a screencap on the halima-code forums, Super Perforator appears to have gotten a GM response and posted it there.
TL:DR From the GM Response the edit is referring to how old the post is, not a change in policy.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3401
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 17:48:13 -
[705] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:admiral root posted a screencap on the halima-code forums, Super Perforator appears to have gotten a GM response and posted it there.
TL:DR From the GM Response the edit is referring to how old the post is, not a change in policy.
Hmmm, perhaps it's just a poorly worded edit to the OP then.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Mare Crisium Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
62
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 23:16:06 -
[706] - Quote
If the OP edit is accurate in that this no longer can be considered to reflect CCP policy, can we get this unstickied and a new post up with current CCP policy?
Interested Party (TM)
|
Dan Ende
Royal Caldari Air Force
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 03:19:24 -
[707] - Quote
I was being bumped by a Battleship for several hours. I could not log off because he had me locked, I could not jump anywhere because he would bump me before I reached warp
In short, if you are in a freighter by yourself, then you simply can't do anything about being bumped. You will sit in a system getting further and further away from the gate you jumped in at (due to bumping) until the bumper gives up or calls in a fleet to kill you.
Its pretty much a one sided game mechanic at that point.
I have been attempting to discern some means of evading the bump or such but the discussions in this thread simply gets off topic into areas where there is simply no answer. Yes, I understand that bumping is a game mechanic, regardless if it is realistic or not (Eve is not a simulation), and that CCP has stated that currently it is not considered illegal nor will it be 'fixed' (changed) any time soon. To me thats not an arguable point, thats the law of the universe so to speak, it is that way, and the gods themselves (ccp) are not going to change it. So be it.
So I am back to the same scenario, I enter a system with a freighter (Charon), and this Battleship starts bumping me. In less than a half hour I am out of range of gate guns even, let alone the gate I jumped in with. I cannot log off because I am targeted (he has me locked). Okay, now he is probably NOT going to agrees me with that battleship, because Concord would kill it if he did. But he can hold me there and call in a fleet of say catalysts to gank me (if he had access to such). CCP has further stated that in their view its not harassment unless they follow you or some such, as in follow you to other systems. Well I can't GO anywhere, or do anything, can't even log off, so just exactly what am I supposed to do in the case outlined above. It has become a totally one sided game mechanic in the above scenario. There is nothing I can do to prevent it or stop it or even lessen it.
I am not asking for a change in the mechanic, I am simply looking for a means of countering bumping (even temporarily) so that I can carry on about my business but according to the discussions in this thread I am SOL. If they bump me for 3 hours is that a ticket issue? It doesn't sound like it. Oh and to be precise, no, I am not in a corp, nor do I have any acquaintances online who would be ablle to assist if it came to that (and what could they do without getting con corded themselves?) And I have alts, but on the same account, and since I can't log off (locked) thats out the window anyway. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3455
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 03:33:03 -
[708] - Quote
Dan Ende wrote:I am simply looking for a means of countering bumping (even temporarily) so that I can carry on about my business but according to the discussions in this thread I am SOL.
Have you tried reading the numerous posts across this site explaining how to de-bump yourself? What about the posts explaining how to avoid getting bumped in the first place? You can take simple precautions that render you 99.9% invulnerable to us, with a server brainfart being pretty much the only way you can be caught.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
Dan Ende
Royal Caldari Air Force
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 04:01:05 -
[709] - Quote
well my apologies, but I glanced through all 34 pages of this thread and didn't come across any that explained how to avoid it in the first place. or de-bump myself. can you point me in the right direction? |
admiral root
Red Galaxy
3456
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 12:19:29 -
[710] - Quote
Non-flippant answer? Google, with site:forums.eveonline.com appended to your search terms. The built-in search facility on this site isn't worth a jot.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
|
|
Leto Thule
Everywhere and Terrible
3964
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 22:06:57 -
[711] - Quote
Dan Ende wrote:well my apologies, but I glanced through all 34 pages of this thread and didn't come across any that explained how to avoid it in the first place. or de-bump myself. can you point me in the right direction?
You seem to be exactly the kind of player the game needs. Accepting of the way things work is the best step in overcoming the obstacles.
The best thing you can do is never land on grid with the bumper. A scout alt that can web is your best bet, as a web will assist you in entering warp.
I know you stated you don't have an extra account. Maybe make some buddies? Hell, I'll do it for you if you pay me a small percentage of the haul. But you are flying a capital ship. It's not meant to operate solo.
More to answer your direct question... If you are solo, and being bumped by a guy who knows how, then no, you are at his mercy. I would suggest at that point asking for a ransom. You may get out, or you may not.
Hope it helps. Fly smart.
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
1790
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 20:10:07 -
[712] - Quote
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?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1864
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 20:29:25 -
[713] - 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", |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
438
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 08:14:40 -
[714] - 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."
|
Aoife Fraoch
Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 10:59:35 -
[715] - Quote
I do hope CCP consider the wider impact of any change they make here.
Personally I really really wish that CCP would start releasing Problem Statements for changes they make that have significant impacts on the players options in game. |
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
439
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 11:02:00 -
[716] - 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."
|
Leto Thule
Everywhere and Terrible
4127
|
Posted - 2015.11.07 01:06:36 -
[717] - Quote
La Rynx wrote: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.
You know what else is risk free and needs to be nerfed? Forum alts! You should be required to post on the character with the most SP. That way jackwagons such as yourself would have to own up to their shitpoasting in-game.
And since your signiture block hasnt been removed, I feel safe in saying:
"You cant spell La Rynx without DOUCHE"
Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
686
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 16:26:40 -
[718] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote: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",
BUMP
Pun fully intended. |
ISD Supogo
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
514
|
Posted - 2015.11.11 01:44:18 -
[719] - Quote
Thread is locked due to unneeded posting and bumping pending final determination by CCP.
Quote:Forum rules13. Spamming is prohibited.Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to (insert other game name)GÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post, or the practice of GÇ£thread necromancyGÇ¥ which involved bumping of old threads for no justifiable reason. 15. Bumping outside the EVE Marketplace and Alliance & Corporation Recruitment channels is prohibited.The bumping of posts to alter the order of the thread listing on a forum is prohibited outside the EVE Marketplace and Alliance & Corporation Recruitment forum channels. Within the EVE Marketplace section of the forums, each forum category has its own rules regarding acceptable bumping for sales threads clearly listed in the stickies. Similarly the Alliance & Corporation Recruitment channel also has its own rules. Please be aware that the rules vary from forum to forum. Please review the sticky threads in these forum channels for specific details. 23. Post constructively.Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.
ISD Supogo
Lieutenant Commander
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: [one page] |