This is not an option in high sec. If you attack the bumper you will be CONCORDed.

You shouldn't be forced to aggress first and lose your ship when the player is actually aggressing you but it just not being recognized by the current system.

Especially when high sec space is claimed to be a safe area for neutral members.

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Highsec

Isn't is also fairly obvious?

I thought about this some more and at first I thought it was a good idea but then I remembered sec status. A defense team would be taking huge sec status hits each time it tries to defend against someone who has found a way to tackle without getting an aggression timer and the bumper get no sec status hit at all. A defense squad eventually would not be able to come into high sec.

The way gankers stay in high sec is ,since they make profit on ganks, they buy tags to raise their sec status while a defense squad would not have that luxury. Again, the system is set up in the favor for tackling a freighter by bumping with no consequences.

Is that actually how it works?

Yep, cos that's not going to get those BS CONCORDed and Kill Rights now is it not to mention that it's an AoE weapon and could include innocents...

I'm just going to leave this here, courtesy of GM Karidor.

Freighters are inherently trying to leave the area no?

You keep assuming they have to stay above -4.5.

You don't acknowledge kill rights

and assume they are just gonna be chillin' in space the whole time waiting on some poor freighter.

So it will take 1b of assets in order to gank 1b of assets (not counting cargo)?

Sounds fair to me.

Sounds the way it should be

20 gankers are 20 people out for a good time and that is easy to acquire.

The freighter pilot cant convince their friends that it is fun to bring out a command ship, a rapier and a fleet of ECM and T2 Logi ships to escort him/her around every time they need to make a freighter run. Which means they have to do all that stuff themselves. Is this what the freighter pilots set up is supposed to look like? https://sites.google.com/site/khromtor/ No one is trying to take away your right to gank a freighter, just saying that the situation is lopsided.

Even with a lvl 5 skills, a Fenrir, and a full set of Nomads it takes 25 seconds to align. Thats 25 seconds, 12 km from the safety of a gate (after jumping through it) Add some rapier webs to it,,, who knows EFT doesnt calcualte that as far as I know

If the freighter could have low and mid slots with bonus to ECM and align time it might help. it might not

I keep seeing people say Eve is not a single player game, but being a sandbox means you play it how you choose

there are many ways to at least mitigate against others in many situations...

Shall we look at this another way?

My proposal is that bouncing ships is silly. If ships hit each other, they should take damage in proportion to the mass and velocity of the ship that is hitting them.

By default, you ship should auto-evade other ships regardless of your command inputs. However, this safety feature should be able to be turned off.

Ramming someone in hisec should then make you suspect. Ramming a freighter with a cruiser should most likely result in the evaporation of the cruiser and some damage to the freighter, with the cruiser pilot now a suspect.

i cant see any way to fix it except to declare it a exploit.

Boy, that's not a convenient conclusion for a ganker to come to. We should all be convinced by the sheer counter-intuitiveness of this outcome.

by saying that people shouldn't haul cargo of high value in T1 freighters.

Referring to these specific reasons for ganking is not much more than a diversionary tactic to make it seem like the issue is about the validity of ganking, when it really has nothing to do with that.

You defended that post. So I'm saying #1. If #1 is not true for you, perhaps you shouldn't defend posts that you don't agree with.

But do you think it is a valid rebuttal to the suggestion that freighter bumping is an exploit? If not, we're on the same page and have nothing to argue about.

I seem to recall that if you are mining and get bumped over and over, then move to a new system, get followed there and again bumped over and over, you can report it as harassment

You're missing an important element, which is that an exploit is often a known mechanic being used in an unintended way

So CCP introduced the bumping mechanic specifically so that gankers would be able to perma-bump freighters in high-sec instead of having to aggress (and get blown up by CONCORD) for using a point? Interesting analysis.

You have just singlehandedly explained why no computer application need ever be modified or updated.

the possibility that CCP just hasn't yet been thoroughly convinced of the seriousness of the problem

This is faulty. Bumping is a valid mechanic that when abused can be considered an exploit.

Bumping is not something that can be "fixed," meaning the exploit remains in-game.

The length of time that a player is bumped is a factor. Bumping someone to delay/prevent alignment to kill them is proper usage, but there are certain circumstances, particularly in highsec, where its used to circumvent other game mechanics to the detriment of the game. The vast majority of bumps are not anything that could be considered exploits, however it is possible to repeatedly bump ships, leaving them uncontrollable, for hours. There's no way that in such circumstances this could be considered anything but an exploit.

Why should freighters only be giant boxes? Industrial ships are also heavily geared toward moving stuff, and they have plenty of options for tank/cargo/troll fits.

Can you imagine anything in EVE that would be more boring than being a hisec Freighter escort? At least with mining, you have the option of watching a movie or something. A freighter escort would need to be constantly vigilant for the entire (painfully slow) journey, and even then, they can't really do much about a bumping stabber keeping the freighter out of warp basically indefinitely. What do you suggest, suicide-ganking the bumper? Should every freighter have a gang of a half-dozen catalysts on standby, on top of the ECM wing and logis and webbing ships that you recommend?

DCII + Bulkheads would be reduced cargospace relative to current freighters, but with substantially better survivability (about 1.5 times as much EHP as they do now). Two cargo expanders get it up above current cargo space levels, but with substantially reduced EHP. DCII + Cargo expander is just about equal to a current freighter, slightly less cargo and slightly more tank.

Also, what is with people and "bring friends" attitude. What if your friends are not online? Unlike bumpers friends, who are probably alerted out of game and can come at any time, freighter pilot doesn't have to have any way of contacting them out of game and if they are not in the game, he is screwed

I canGÇÖt help to wonder if after 21 pages if we are not all just flogging a deceased equine.

CCP could bring this to an end with a simple definitive statement but have chosen to remain silent to this point.

CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another playerGÇÖs ship as an exploit.

It achieves the identical result of a warp scram

The result is gankers can still bump freighters out of alignment, however must enable a suspect flag in order to do so. This gives the player being bumped a tool to retaliate with, which is very important in keeping freighter bumping balanced.

Even if you don't think bumping is an exploit, I don't know how anyone could argue the approach above isn't more balanced at the very least.

ganking is fine and bumping isn't required for it.

'External forces are preventing you from warping at this time.' Warp scram, bumping same thing, you just don't get the message when your getting bumped.

The difficulty in ganking something increases only because the aggression rules of high sec are not being subverted

So in essence it's not making it more difficult it's just making it as difficult as it is supposed to be.

you would have to be with your gankmates at the gate attacking that freighter. That is all.

No member of CCP ever said that bumping as an agressive maneuver is allowed under any circumstances. What they said was that miner bumping was not an exploit.

In highsec harassing another person is supposed to mean the automatic loss of your ship.

This forum needs a dislike button.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

So you agree with statement A, B, but find fault in the logic of 'If A is true' and 'B is true' then 'C should be true'

Do you disagree that the current mechanic of 'Concord relieves you of your ship' for criminal acts is true.

Bumping to prevent a ship from going into warp and escaping is a workaround for the aggression mechanic in High sec

the same effect as a Warp scram

most workarounds I have seen and used are eventually classified as Exploits

since this workaround is allowing someone to hit an 'I WIN' button while bypassing standard High Sec aggression mechanics and profiting from it ... Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... Exploit.

Hence my quote from Sir Winston Churchill, It doesn't matter how many times the argument is given and how many ways it is described you still refuse to see the valid points given by your opposition.

If someone is forcibly stopping you from leaving they are essentially aggressing you.