That's the problem. It shouldn't apply to freighters at all. As mentioned before it was used for capiltals that people tried to bug out on and couldn't.

Since freighters are not used for any of the same abuses the logoff factor of the aggression timers, it shouldn't apply, right?

Bumping in itself has been ruled a legal mechanic.

But when you throw all these other issues into the mix Bumping is at the forefront of this disscusion.

Without the bumping the capital in highsec would never get caught for a Gank by non war tagets that werent in ships able to Alpha it

By allowing Bumping and combat aggression timers on freighters CCP is basically giving Goons/others the green light to remove freighters from the game its just a matter of time before there all gone.

you know i have python mines but guess what there about as useless as a ME 1million PE 1 million freighter BPO (since they will be unsaleable) if its going to get blown up soon as it gets out of dock range or jumps through a stargate .

That's the problem. It shouldn't apply to freighters at all.

Since freighters are not used for any of the same abuses the logoff factor of the aggression timers, it shouldn't apply, right?

theres no way i am going to watch a sixteen minute grainy video about a miner getting bumped

with loud as hell wooden mouse clicks

I never said it was anything new, but the aggression timer is and the way its being utilized does not seem to be what it was intended for. It also seems since I quite playing back in 2010 and coming back 3 years later the rate of hi sec ganks seems to be much higher then it used to be and the targets have become a lot bigger.

You are correct, the Machariels were not keeping the freighter aggressed. Was someone claiming that the Machariels were keeping the freighter aggressed?

Because punishing the victim is all the rage these days.

i don't care about algorithms me i just want CCP to look at the video and logs in my case and determine if this is an intended use of game mechanics.

of course it is for you :)

Trying to defend your cash cow with the tech nerfs coming we all understand :)

Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving.

Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance).

Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away".

But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all.

(By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up).

Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment.

For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else.

Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment.

Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed.

It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics.

Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment.

This is very well put.

Here's the problem with that. Miner bumping is not used ion the same way. Miner bumping is to encourage the miner to leave. Freighter bumping is to keep the ship from leaving.

Intent CAN be proven, simply by the actions of the target (log of warp being clicked for instance).

Now, since you CAN data mine that freighter spamming warp, you can infer intent. "Yes, as you can see by the number of times I was spamming my warp shortcut and right clicking with my mouse, I was trying to get away".

But you cannot prove intent by the bumper except for hitting the approach key. You know he wanted to bump, but that's all.

(By the way, this is why I first replied that miner bumping was a terrible example when it first came up).

Now, since we know the differences of intent, we can then look to the differences of intent, in regards, to harassment.

For instance, we do know, by GM declaration, that harassment was decided by following the miner, from system to system while continuing to bump. This is in regards to knowing you are bumping a miner from a rock so he cannot mine it, to which a simple recourse is to leave the system and find somewhere else.

Using that same model (but in reverse since freighter bumping is meant to KEEP the ship in system, not force it out), continually NOT letting that freighter to leave would be deemed harassment since that freighter was then pushed around multiple grids in system (proven by Concord placement and vectors of such) as well as kept from the gate and gate guns and not able to leave. Approach versus Warp/jump, as the command given to facilitate the harassment.

Before this gets argued, we already know bumping is not illegal. Yes yes we know this. The act by itself did not get the freighter killed.

It was a combination of mechanics that led to what looks like 1 specific instance of how those mechanics, when used in combination, by manipulating current mechanics to reduce risk of the ganker and increase risk of the freighter that relies specifically to highsec's mechanics.

Of which was used to what looks like a matter of excess to the point of harassment.

CCP's opinion?

Citation please.

The reason I ask is because of the supposed amount of time on that timer versus the amount of downtime each day used on the servers.

Fair enough. Feel free to show me a ship that has the same access to the same modules to support your argument that all ships are the same.

explain to me how a freighter can aggress someone like ANY other ship in the game

Now you're asking me to do very precise searches on the forum without the benefit of remembering which (probably no longer employed) GM made the statement in 2008GǪ Suffice to say, it has come up on numerous occasions, and harassment of the kind we're talking about here has consistently been described as something that happens over a prolonged period, at multiple occasions, and preferably multiple log-ins (there's also harassing speech acts, which are a different matterGǪ in nothing else than because they're far more explicitly forbidden by the EULA and TOS).

And yes, the time required for it to be called harassment versus the daily downtime is pretty important: since no act can carry over from before to after downtime, that is a universal cut-off point that's handy to go by: if you can't get them before downtime, the target will escape. If you choose to pick it up again when he returns, it is pretty obviously not a single occurrence, but rather the first two instances in what might be a longer campaign GÇö longer campaigns being the big no-no.

GÇ£All ships are the sameGÇ¥ is not the opposite of GÇ£freighters are specialGÇ¥. All that's required for them to not be special is that any other ship shares similar characteristics. Freighter's access to modules, for instance, is shared by shuttles and pods.

GǪbut we're not talking about weapons timers GÇö we're talking about PvP timers. The ability to aggress someone is not a factor, and this (in)ability is not something that puts freighters in a special category of their own.

And, once again, even if it did, why should they be given special exemptions from the timers? Timers, I remind you, that were put into place to remove the kind of tactics that the special exemption is meant to provide.

This is very well put.

http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4

Being Bumped for an hour kinda kills a little bit of the like and excitement i have for this game,,,

Fisrt the 2 machariels bumped me for 10 minutes or so before goons ever showed up.

Second i never fly freightors i knew they get ganked but i thought it was only in .5 .6 systems

Third i didnt know it could be done in 30 fuc***** destroyers :(

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18472599

http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&view=kills&plt_id=341330&m=6&y=2013

Wrong. "Bears" demand consequences for warp scrambling using the bumping trick. Hi-sec, low-sec, 0.0, wh-space have different agression rules. Nobody denies you the right to warp scram the neutral ship in hi-sec.. but your ship will be killed by concord. Why that should be different with the bumping trick if it is the same thing?

Where on Earth are you getting this garbage? Where have CCP said that the only "[best]" way to PVP in highsec is through wars? I've never seen that anywhere. Do you believe that suicide ganks, baiting, etc are all invalid forms of PVP? If they're not the "[best]" way to PVP why have CCP explicitly implemented those abilities?

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).

Wanted to requtoe his quote :)

I don't disagree that a freighter should get a timer when its a valid target say in low sec null sec or by war targets in high sec but by a random noob ship it shouldn't get a timer . its like opening the door for exploits that (i assume was an unintended mechanic by CCP) will make freighters more dangerous to fly than a t1 hauler. therefore rendering them useful only for reprocessing or in system from station to station .

You guys are as hard headed as i am :) u just like me just keep throwing the same stone with the same message . I really do understand why you dont want CCP to change anything or to rule this as an Exploit because its win win for you.

1 Its always fun to kill ****
2 you get paid for it

but there two sides to every story. and from my perspective i see exploiting mechanics all over this ****

I don't disagree that a freighter should get a timer when its a valid target say in low sec null sec or by war targets in high sec but by a random noob ship it shouldn't get a timer . its like opening the door for exploits that (i assume was an unintended mechanic by CCP) will make freighters more dangerous to fly than a t1 hauler. therefore rendering them useful only for reprocessing or in system from station to station .

If we were actually exploiting anything, it would have been changed by now as a result of the last round of complaining (or the round before that). Do you really think you're the first person to explain exactly how we go about it & petition for changes?

If we were actually exploiting anything, it would have been changed by now as a result of the last round of complaining (or the round before that). Do you really think you're the first person to explain exactly how we go about it & petition for changes?