Do tell how burning a Mach (max speed is what? 1.5k?) at a freighter that takes 20-30s to align is tricky. You don't even have to do it reliably.

I'm just curious why you think bumping during align as opposed to autopilot approach is so hard. Then again, you think gate camping is hard so I guess my standards might be too high.

Well... you're off by at least a factor of 5 in this case. Similarly, killboard indicates that even empty freighters aren't a significant deterrent.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18502230
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499970
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18499236
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18497615
ect.

So.... there's that.

I didn't realize the war was giving you so much financial trouble btw?

You're catching enemy alts (in completely random corps) in the same general area consistently every 20 minutes? Sounds legit.

Incidentally, looks like about 300m/hr per person. I have to admit that's not bad for no-risk hisec income.

From time to time, it's been possible to alter the landing spot by doing repeated login/disconnects, but they seem to have fixed that for now.

Having to pay 15 bucks extra per month to follow your freighter around meta-gaming it into warp faster is not a counter. Its a dumb fix to bad game design.

I'm not saying it's an obscure tactic, I'm saying frigates following freighters around to web them is weird from both a gameplay and roleplay perspective; imagine trying to explain that mechanic to a new player.

******** argument though. Its a freighter its supposed to be stuffed with goodies. It should be able to be used for its intended purpose to a reasonably reliable degree. How would you like to have your ships suicided regularly unless you left half your slots empty?.

If webbers were designed to pull. They're designed to hold a target still.

Thus, a very messy mechanic.

Even as a bulk hauler carrying trit its cargo value is going to greatly exceed the cost of ganking it. Hell, even an empty freighter looks good on a killboard for the loss of a couple of hundred mil in destroyers.

That's not the design though. Holding isn't pulling. Tractor beams pull.

You promise?

But looking at the killboards, you have taken down five bulk haulers in the last 24 hours carrying no more than 2bil of goods each and two of them were carrying less than a bil. The lowest was only carrying 480mil or so worth of goods. So it sounds like this notion that you will be safe so long as you don't haul high value cargoes is ... how shall I put this ... not true?

I don't really understand the logic of making such a large, expensive ship so defenseless with no upgrade slots, PG, or CPU. Who would design such a ship? All the other soft targets in the game (AFAIK) can be upgraded...why

Pretty much this.

I think any ship you undock is not safe.

I just also think that there's a point to excess.

I don't understand the relevance of your question. Are you trying to say that the hundreds of freighters killed took an hour each time?

I now understand the reasoning behind putting in the aggression timer in the first place. It was put in place to keep capitals (I am assuming it was with combat capitals the timer was targeting) from logging out when aggressed. If that is indeed the case then just take the timer out of high sec space (unless of course you shoot back). Problem solved.

Now with that being said, I understand why all the pro-aggression timer folks don't want see the timer go away and its ok you guys can admit you don't want to see your cash cow dry up. Its ok to feel that way its human nature but to try and gloss over it as something else is just plain silly.

CCP put in a feature, players figured a way to turn into something that I really don't think it was intended for. Now its just a matter of how CCP is going to handle it. If it is intended I don't think it was a very good business decision to disenfranchise a large chunk of your player base.

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.

Which, none of this matters if you are able to A.) alpha the ship or B.) able to draw concord away by attacking other ships in the system. Honestly, the ability to keep someone in space until DT just by shooting it with a rookie ship is a dumb mechanic and should be considered an exploit. Or log off and PvP timers should not renew once the pilot is logged off. You want that kill, bring enough people to do it in 15 minutes.... Oh wait, all the nullbears complained that they couldn't kill ships before they logged off, while at the same time told high sec dwellers to HTFU. The hypocrisy in this game is astounding.

This is how it went down. 2 machs bumped the freighter for 10 minutes or so (to get out of range of gate guns) and agressed with a rookie toon before goons showed up. Goons got there regrouped got concord in sys off grid that took em another 5-10 minutes (agressed with another rookie toon) then they warped in i went global just after they landed. Concord came in as they fired on the freighter and Concord insta popped em so they got off one or two volleys the first round (they failed), Then they bumped (just 1 Machariel now) and agressed freighter 2 more times before they came in sys (1more time after they were in sys) with rookie toons to keep timer on it for 30 more minutes (15+15) (60 or so minutes in total) while they deaggressed global and reshipped then they came back in sys for another 5-10 minutes then finished it.

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 :)

You wouldn't have any problem with CCP limiting the timer to 10m then?

Only if it had 6 prepackaged T3s, and if the IsBox owner isn't napping. Can confirm they IsBox.

And you guys really made multiple toons named after your leader? I mean really want to promote having a cult, too???

Red herring.

It's a red herring because you insist on discounting the obvious constraints would would make it inapplicable to the cases you're worried about.

(He obviously didn't), but because I'm more interested in the mechanic than the killmail.

I asked my question first; form an orderly queue pls.

nou

Feel free; your opinion (much like mine), doesn't matter much to CCP.

Maybe because they had no efficient countermeasure?

Wouldn't a wartarget just be scrammed and held through active means and also not have Concord involved?

No it hasn't. If anything it allows you to harass people more freely in high sec than in any other part of the game.

They bring in reppers, you still sit there bumping him for as long as you feel like.

Counter-attacking the the cats has similar problems.

As evidenced in this case and others, webs are generally not sufficient once the bumping has started.

Their best option would presumably be to counter-bump the Mach's, but trying to fly sufficient ships in when you could potentially finish your gank at any time is (I suspect) generally not worth it.

though it does shed light on why you're so defensive.

I'm going to block your posts because I have no argument that stands. Peace, bal.

If bumping is combat then make it an aggressive act and flag them for retaliation.

This is very well put.

And what were their counters, suicide, suicide, give up, give up, give up and counter bump. Counter bump is the only even plausible counter and it is not very effective in and of itself as it doesn't put an end to act at hand. Only maybe slightly delays it, and to be effective at counter bumping you will need atleast as many pilots that are bumping you in ships capable of bumping them. That is ridiculous that you would even have to think of making a ship for bumper protection. F-in kindergarten BS.

So we are not questioning the safety of a freighter or the ability to kill it then?

Your turn.

Doesn't that show that a freighter is not equipped to handle the dangers of open space?

(separate argument concerning ships and equality).

To coin your phrase... "what abuse?". baltec1 himself said ganks were at an all time low. SO I find a lack of credibility in your statement.

Well, the mechanics used for one. That's kind of the entire point of this thread.

Again, why focusing on bumping and it's relations to bumping miners is, as I've said, a terrible comparison.

So how are you using bumping as a warp disruptor when bumping a miner from mining a rock?

I'm mildly curious why you're all on the same page throwing "intent" around like it means something. You can't reference a single instance of CCP mentioning anything even remotely similar, so.... Do Goons have some sort of internal memo on the topic? Is it just a convenient loophole to cling to? Too many lawyer dramas maybe? Perhaps you just like my rambling on the topic?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Can you disable the neutral ship with warp scram in hi-sec? - Yes
Consequences? - GCC, Concordokken, loss of the security status

Can you disable the neutral ship by bumping it for hours in hi-sec? - Yes
Consequences? - None. Clearly an exploit.

I don't know how to fix it. Even more, i'm not sure that it is even possible to fix it without changing the warp mechanics. But clearly something should be done by CCP, otherwise sooner or later that trick will ruin the game for a lot of players in hi-sec.

Nope. You are wrong.

Bumping miners is one case. Bumping for hours is another. The player tried to move to another location, but he is UNABLE do it because of said actions. Therefore:

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?

Is this to say you want all things to revert back to how they used to be? Are you saying you don't want future changes? Are you saying you don't like tiericide?

Otherwise, that's not a very good excuse.

Wanted to requtoe his quote :)

My argument? I asked you a question based on you saying " its been working for so long".

Not my fault you cant answer a ******* question without hostility.

"but we been doing that for a decade now" is a pisspoor standard when you are trying to advocate being on the cutting edge of highsec mechanics sir.

So uhm.. no. I am not making anything up. You said that. Numerous times.

Don't ever bother trying to insinuate otherwise. You will lose. You know this by now since this isn;t the first time.

Stop wasting my time.

Since it's your standard, it's your business.

How you want to come off to anyone else is ultimately up to you I suppose.

Becareful of your accusations however, because I do not mention sub numbers. I am quite confident in my knowledge that the marketing team and the development team have different priorities.

You WILL however, get people to not want to fly those same hulls you hunt if you show how easily manipulated those timers can be when a freighter has no innate ability to protect itself.

That has nothing to do with subscriptions.

Who was the someone else?

It really shouldn't be too hard to ask that if you're going to claim something, atleast be honest.

Regardless of which, baltec has claimed that ganking is at an all time LOW.

Look, it's simple.

In the scenario this thread has generated, the gank would not have been accomplished had it not been for the manipulation of 2 mechanics.

Both sides were stupid.

"mistakes were made" and all that.

Trying to argue about who said what for this reason is just doing nothing.

The facts still remain; the gank shouldn't have been successful. But it was.

The mechanics should still be looked at, for reasons other than the fact a freighter died.

A pilot, of a ship unable to perform combat, was stuck in place with mechanics that when applied, created a situation that should be a concern for the dev staff to take a look at and decide if it is in fact working as intended, or would need further research and/or tweaking.

As much as we all have our own opinions, it will not be a right or wrong aspect since we obviously will drive this thread into the ground and none of us are admitting to being a dev, so therefore the point is moot.

They also said continuous following and bumping is considered harassment. Since bumping is KEEPING you from leaving, the fact of having to span multiple systems does not have to be met as criteria since both are "working as intended" as you put it.

So... you have 2 omnipotent sources... which is stronger?

Here's the quick answer- we don't decide.

I agree, this isn't null or lowsec.

As to Punkturis deciding, that's kind of my point. I think this scenario warrants a petition. I don't think the combination of CrimeWatch and Concord mechanics in this scenario were why each one were designed.

Which is why I guess we end up being alpha testers /shrug.

...

"You keep getting bumped in your freighter, and you keep fighting back."

You mean someone else. Arguably, it wouldn't matter what ship came to help.

We aren't talking about someone else. We are talking about the freighter.

Relevance.

The mechanic applied to the freighter doesn't apply to any other ship (until it is applied).

So, if a freighter is aggressed, and has a timer on it, it doesn't matter what ship comes to help because that freighter still has a timer on it.

Period.

Unless you wish to insinuate a blackbird or any other ship, could simply remove that timer? No, I did not think so.

Whether it is a multiplayer or not, noone is forced to do anything. You aren't forced to gank, that freighter isn't forced to transport solo.

Those choices have no relevance of the mechanics applied to the ship and the innate abilities (or lack thereof) the ship has for it's defense.

Which is also how the mechanics were manipulated and abused against a freighter, as opposed to say.... a cruiser or barge who could fight back, even at the cost of losing.

None of that has anything to do with the freighter. The freighter has none of any of those abilities, nor does it have any drones or anything else those ships have. It's special in this case, as it were.

There's a subforum for that. Go post it then.

T3s can also be exempt from warp bubbles, so I guess it's up to you to tackle that beast.

Pit a freighter against a freighter and tell me which one dies first.

You were the one saying you wanted a mega to be immune to warp bubbles. I only told you what subforum you needed to go to.

Apart from that your trolling sucks and your sarcasm means jackshit.

This whole "crap ship ganking expensive stuff" thing is pretty stupid. It would be much better if when people talked **** about "risk v reward" they took both sides of the risk into the equation. Not much risk suiciding a crappy destroyer or two.

Eve is a fundamentally unbalanced game on this level. It's really not the kind of way you'd design it to be if you were starting from scratch. Don't get me started on my other appalling game design choice favourite, the ability to log on an alt and AFK-cloak in a null sec indy system.

Hopefully Braben will get it right with E:D.

I don;t understand your question in regards to the quote.

Exactly.

And let's see... why doesn't?

Aren't freighters just like "any other ship"?

Tippia said they were.

Take it up with her.

Want a quick fix? Especially all u its physics its physics BS it is implement real physics.. and that tells us if a be carenes into a freighter its should have almost no effect due to real world physics a fly " the Machs" cannot bump a semi " the freighter" problem solved and please you who are shouting physics if u have half a brain u know if this was real physics the freighter mach would bounce off the freighter like bowling pins to a 50lb bowling ball

Thank you for confirming what I've been trying to say. I just wanted acknowledgement that freighters were not "like any other ship".

We did. A freighter versus a freighter cannot make any of those timers appear.

Not creating a timer is sort of relevant to a discussion about timers dont you think?