Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
792
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 18:59:07 -
[91] - Quote
I think in good space sim physics the bumping ibis would pretty much smash itself into the side of a freighter one time and be done. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14619
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:00:31 -
[92] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Baltec1 I'm calling you out. Go and gank 10 orcas in HS over then next week and I'll aknowledge that your arguments have merit.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44026087/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44014024/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44010948/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44005832/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/44002941/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/43990082/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/43988763/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/43975688/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/43962727/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/43961855/
3 days.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14619
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:01:49 -
[93] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:
Yep, it would prevent you from pinning a ship with 100% certainty. "Impossible" is a bit of a stretch. It would take a poor bumper/gank team to not still come out on top most of the time with the proposed module.
100% certainty to get out of being bumped means there is no room at all for success. Thus impossible.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
792
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:05:49 -
[94] - Quote
No no sweety. I'm calling YOU out. I didn't see YOU on any of them.
Sometimes I feel like you and I aren't on the same page so to speak.
This isn't where you start arguing some vague meaning of the word 'you' is it? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14619
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:16:31 -
[95] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:
No no sweety. I'm calling YOU out. I didn't see YOU on any of them.
Sometimes I feel like you and I aren't on the same page so to speak.
This isn't where you start arguing some vague meaning of the word 'you' is it?
Why does it matter whos nake is on those kills? You asked for 10 in a week and here they are. What exactly is your point?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
792
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:23:50 -
[96] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:
No no sweety. I'm calling YOU out. I didn't see YOU on any of them.
Sometimes I feel like you and I aren't on the same page so to speak.
This isn't where you start arguing some vague meaning of the word 'you' is it?
Why does it matter whos nake is on those kills? You asked for 10 in a week and here they are. What exactly is your point?
It matters to me. I called you out. Stating I would acknowledge your arguments on this matter if you performed the task.
It matters because you would actually have to do something to get something. Not just rest on the efforts of others. I'm lookinf for you to log into the game and participate personally in 10 orca ganks. I didn't want to put it out for everyone to read, but I find your opinion lacks a certain credibility on this matter.
If you completed the 10 orca task no one could actually question your credibility. I am trying to elevate you from some random mouthpiece that spouts generalizations and claims to be the voice of the many to someone who has actually been there and done that.
I'm just trying to help you out dude. If you're not up to it, then just bow out. (Sorry, I didn't want' to go full expose on you, but you kind of cornered me)
Edit: I can contract you a destroyer skill book if you need it. |
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
486
|
Posted - 2015.01.21 19:31:46 -
[97] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Black Pedro says I'm saying that a billion plus isk capital class ship being taken down with no chance on its own to escape by a handful of t1 fit destroyers is unbalanced. That's why it's rampant in its occurance right now. The whole thing is OP in favor of the catalysts. (kind of like everyone flew drams when they were the cat's meow, or falcons when they were OP and so on)
You guys always drum the afk freighter pilot mantra so here's a counter. Give them a robust active tank. If they are afk as you say, then BOOM they are yours for the taking. If they are at the keyboard and activate their tank then make it work out that it costs a billion isk in catalysts to take down a billion isk freighter. That seems pretty OK to me.
It's cool that you compared ganking a freighter to catching a lone ratting carrier. They are practically the same except... hmmm...... oh yeah, the carrier has quite the tanking ability, quite the offensive capability and so on. You stating they are the same thing pretty much borks any credibility you have on this matter.
There is a clear reason why folks gank freighters in HS and they don't gank orcas in HS. It's because freighters are compartively easy. Do you have a better explanation? They are both capital class ships. So the lone carrier tackled by a competent gang or even lone ship and kept there until the reinforcement come to finish it off has a chance to escape by themselves? Perhaps more than a freighter, but it is still vanishingly small if the tacklers know what they are doing and have the firepower to call in. A capital ship is vulnerable to smaller ships locking it down. That is just the way the game is and always has been and this exactly what is happening to these unescorted freighters who travel without friends.
I don't what highsec you are referring to but Orca's get ganked all the time. I haven't done the math but I get the impression they get ganked even more than freighters as untanked, they are gankable by a smaller number of players. But they are also susceptible to bumping - in fact the only time I have ever experienced bumping myself was in my Orca perhaps because I always fly my freighter with a webbing escort. Sure Orcas can be fit with a MWD to allow a 10s warp (which does make them highly resistant to bumping), but many players don't do that or fly them AFK where they are still bumped and often ganked during the same ops that catch freighters.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
1210
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 12:58:07 -
[98] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: It matters to me. I called you out. Stating I would acknowledge your arguments on this matter if you performed the task.
It matters because you would actually have to do something to get something. Not just rest on the efforts of others. I'm lookinf for you to log into the game and participate personally in 10 orca ganks. I didn't want to put it out for everyone to read, but I find your opinion lacks a certain credibility on this matter.
If you completed the 10 orca task no one could actually question your credibility. I am trying to elevate you from some random mouthpiece that spouts generalizations and claims to be the voice of the many to someone who has actually been there and done that.
I'm just trying to help you out dude. If you're not up to it, then just bow out. (Sorry, I didn't want' to go full expose on you, but you kind of cornered me)
Edit: I can contract you a destroyer skill book if you need it.
Haha, tell me more about how baltec1 has no ganking cred, thats the funniest thing I've read in awhile.
Aside from the obvious - posting killmails don't 'prove' anything.
You do realize that most gankers use -10 alts to do the actual ganking, right?
'Herr Wilkus' hasn't ganked anyone in years - because it long, long ago became more efficient to gank with a -10 alt than have your main absorb all the new punishments tacked onto ganking by CCP over the last 7 years. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:49:26 -
[99] - Quote
Oscae wrote:However, what happens when an organised group of people get together and make an effort to bump you out of align to gank you. Your mod now makes all of their hard work redundant as you disregard physics and slingshot yourself to the nearest celestial. Sure they can follow you, but what's to say you're not already aligning back to gate with a webber freind to speed things up?
How can your proposal help in the first situation but not be a pain to balance for the second?
I managed to miss this post entirely back when it was posted, sorry :/
Yes, fundamentally, the whole point of the module is that a bumper should not be 100% certain/guaranteed to keep a cap ship locked down. I'm not making their "hard work redundant"; I'm offering a way to escalate the situation.
The limitations of the module as described already make it nowhere near a certain escape. A decent bumper should have no problem keeping you 10k away from your immobile assist ship, preventing it from ever cycling at all. It would take reasonable 3d coverage with three or four assist ships to really make it tough for a bumper to get you out of range. If I'm bringing four alts to counter a single bumper, then yes I expect it to become tougher for them to keep me locked down.
But not impossible. An "organised group of people" should have no problem blapping my completely immobile and vulnerable assist ships. They should also have no problem following me into warp/probing me down quickly if I DO happen to get away, as the random/awkward landing is intentionally designed to give them a chance to re-acquire me as a target.
Will people sometimes get away with this module? Yes, that's the point. Bumping is currently a certainty; it should not be.
In other words, if we're just nitpicking the implementation, fine. Make it a 5k range, or a 90s cycle time, or add some kind of cool down timer on the landing that prevents the target from entering warp at all for 30s or 60s or whatever is needed to give the bumpers a reasonable chance to find you again. Whatever is needed to ensure that both sides have non-zero odds of coming out on top. |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 16:53:54 -
[100] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Annette Nolen wrote:
Yep, it would prevent you from pinning a ship with 100% certainty. "Impossible" is a bit of a stretch. It would take a poor bumper/gank team to not still come out on top most of the time with the proposed module.
100% certainty to get out of being bumped means there is no room at all for success. Thus impossible.
The described module does not provide 100% certainty of escape. But if you think it does, then offer tweaks to the values until it doesn't. The basic concept is sound; with appropriately tweaked values NEITHER SIDE should be certain to win. Which is the essence of the suggestion. |
|
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:00:05 -
[101] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Annette Nolen wrote:For the record, RFF prices are averaged across all of our shipping across all of highsec. You can infer precisely nothing about the risk for that specific trip from the quoted price.
We both know there is essentially zero risk to freighters from gankers outside Niarja, Uedama, and the trade hubs. Your own 2013 data show that you completed over 99.8% of your contracts (failed 260 out of 210,388 and probably not all of those were ganks). And yet here you are, asking for a new module to make you even safer. How safe do you want freighters to be in highsec?
I'm asking for a module to address bumping, not ganking. As I've stated elsewhere, bumping is a far more prevalent issue than ganking and freighters are bumped a LOT more than they are ganked.
The module is specifically designed so that a reasonably competent bumper and gank fleet should still have virtually no problems pinning and popping a target. If a 30-man gank fleet can't spare one cat to come pop my immobile assist ship (which would only matter if their bumper is so bad as to be unable to bump me out of range of my immobile assist ship), then they clearly have no real claim to elite ganker status.
And yeah, If I bring three or four assist ships with the WAM then, yes, I expect the gank fleet to have to devote a small token of effort to pop them, or risk letting me free. "Free" being a relative term as they will have very good odds of finding me and re-pinning me for the definition of "free" provided by this module (random, awkward warp landing intentionally designed to give aggressors a chance to re-acquire targets).
Finally, this proposal is only beneficial to active, attentive freighter pilots WITH FRIENDS or ALTS. Which is, what, 1 or 2% of freighter traffic in high sec? And by definition should not be 100% certain to save even those pilots. Freighter ganking will be just fine, I promise. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
819
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:06:22 -
[102] - Quote
Just lower the align requirements of said ships. Let them be bumped as much as a bumper wants, just make it so that once the maximum align time has been reached, then the ship gets into warp if not pointed. Pointing the ship will reset the align time.
You wouldn't really need to change anything else. Just set a maximum time to warp for each class of ship.
If the elite gank masters can't manage to get a point on or kill a freighter in say 45 seconds, then poof it's gone on to the next gate.
If a freighter is on auto pilot, then it's fair game on the inbound gate. Warp isn't initiated, so you can bump it ALL DAY LONG.
SO.....
The at the keyboard pilot gets a leg up for sitting there and actually playing the game. The gankers gets free play at the pilot on auto pilot on the inbound side of the gate.
The gankers can take out the super expensive freighter, but if the pilot is actively piloting, then you have to have your ducks in a row and get a point on the target or execute the gank within the max warp timer.
Issue solved.
(bows to the shocked and amazed multitudes) |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:13:14 -
[103] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Just lower the align requirements of said ships. Let them be bumped as much as a bumper wants, just make it so that once the maximum align time has been reached, then the ship gets into warp if not pointed. Pointing the ship will reset the align time.
The fundamental problem with this approach is that it requires no outside assistance. It's the same flaw as any other suggestion to bumping that allows a freighter to get away ALONE.
I don't want solo freighters to be able to escape solo bumping. It should REQUIRE outside help.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
819
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:21:38 -
[104] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Just lower the align requirements of said ships. Let them be bumped as much as a bumper wants, just make it so that once the maximum align time has been reached, then the ship gets into warp if not pointed. Pointing the ship will reset the align time. The fundamental problem with this approach is that it requires no outside assistance. It's the same flaw as any other suggestion to bumping that allows a freighter to get away ALONE. I don't want solo freighters to be able to escape solo bumping. It should REQUIRE outside help.
Then get it on the inbound gate sweety. No warp, no max time to warp - YOU CAN BUMP IT ALL DAY LONG.
If you want to keep it from warping - it should REQUIRE you to put a point on it (just like any other ship). You want it, then point it like everyone else.
(I sense your panic.... it makes me kind of dizzy) |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:40:35 -
[105] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Then get it on the inbound gate sweety. No warp, no max time to warp - YOU CAN BUMP IT ALL DAY LONG.
This is still an unfair advantage to solo freighter pilots. If you are warping gate to gate, there is no "inbound gate" travel time during which they can bump you. You would be effectively immune to bumping provided you were ATK. That's too OP and definitely an over-nerf of bumping/ganking IMO.
Funnily enough, I'm still waiting for a single bumper/ganker to consider the possibilities of how my proposed WAM could be used offensively. For instance, ATK freighter pilot keeps warping gate to gate, curses! Hit them with a WAM using a disposable alt during their next warp alignment and, hey ho, suddenly they land 25k from the next gate instead of on top of it. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
822
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:47:40 -
[106] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Then get it on the inbound gate sweety. No warp, no max time to warp - YOU CAN BUMP IT ALL DAY LONG. This is still an unfair advantage to solo freighter pilots. If you are warping gate to gate, there is no "inbound gate" travel time during which they can bump you. You would be effectively immune to bumping provided you were ATK. That's too OP and definitely an over-nerf of bumping/ganking IMO. Funnily enough, I'm still waiting for a single bumper/ganker to consider the possibilities of how my proposed WAM could be used offensively. For instance, ATK freighter pilot keeps warping gate to gate, curses! Hit them with a WAM using a disposable alt during their next warp alignment and, hey ho, suddenly they land 25k from the next gate instead of on top of it.
I'm going to say this slow for you. Just like any other pvp encounter in the game. If you don't want the ship to warp away, then put a point on it. It's a basic game mechanic that applies to every other ship in the game. Putting a max time to initiate warp timer on a freighter just brings it in line with every other ship in the game.
You want it..... point it.
EDIT: requiring a squad of gankers to pull the trigger within some maximum amount of time isn't an unfair advantage. Explain why limiting the time to gank a ship to ONLY 45 seconds is a bad thing. Here's what I think it does on that end:
NOW - some noob character in a frigate finds a target and begins bumping. He keeps bumping and pings out his buddies. He keeps bumping and his buddies log in. He keeps bumping and the fleet gets together. He keeps bumping and the fleet finally arrives and wonk, the gank goes down.
After my proposed max time to warp timer - the gankers have to be logged in and ready or scout the freighter several gates out (this is called actively playing the game) and when he gets to the target system the gank is executed.
Reqireing the gankers to be ATK is a mechanic know as "what's good for the goose is good for the ganker" |
Annette Nolen
Red Frog Freight Red-Frog
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 17:55:59 -
[107] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:I'm going to say this slow for you. Just like any other pvp encounter in the game. If you don't want the ship to warp away, then put a point on it. It's a basic game mechanic that applies to every other ship in the game. Putting a max time to initiate warp timer on a freighter just brings it in line with every other ship in the game.
The fact that freighter pilots and bumpers both hate this suggestion and think it is either not OP enough or too OP, respectively, is proof positive that we have a winning, balanced, and compromised suggestion.
Bumping as a mechanic to prevent warp is fine. It's used for a lot more than just freighter pinning in high-sec, and I don't want to mess with that at all. And any suggestion that allows a solo pilot to escape bumping (such as yours) is absolutely over the top and contrary to EVE in my opinion.
This module is simply a reasonable way to escalate active bumping into an encounter with a non-certain outcome by involving more people. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
822
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:01:35 -
[108] - Quote
A reasonable requirement to stop a ship from warping is to point it. OK, you can scram it to. Oh an infinite point will also do it. Bubbles also if you're in that neck of the woods.
Your idea is what's known as a work around. My idea is what is know as a fix. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
822
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:04:26 -
[109] - Quote
Annette Nolen wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:I'm going to say this slow for you. Just like any other pvp encounter in the game. If you don't want the ship to warp away, then put a point on it. It's a basic game mechanic that applies to every other ship in the game. Putting a max time to initiate warp timer on a freighter just brings it in line with every other ship in the game. The fact that freighter pilots and bumpers both hate this suggestion and think it is either not OP enough or too OP, respectively, is proof positive that we have a winning, balanced, and compromised suggestion. Bumping as a mechanic to prevent warp is fine. It's used for a lot more than just freighter pinning in high-sec, and I don't want to mess with that at all. And any suggestion that allows a solo pilot to escape bumping (such as yours) is absolutely over the top and contrary to EVE in my opinion. This module is simply a reasonable way to escalate active bumping into an encounter with a non-certain outcome by involving more people.
It's interesting that you say that both freighter pilots and gankers hate this suggestion. You're the only one that has posted a view on it.
I'm going to make a new thread with my idea in it. People will love me for it and forget about you. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
626
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:19:15 -
[110] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:It's interesting that you say that both freighter pilots and gankers hate this suggestion. You're the only one that has posted a view on it.
I'm going to make a new thread with my idea in it. People will love me for it and forget about you. I'm a freighter pilot and a ganker, and I think you forgot your meds.
CCP can't just remove bumping because every other security space (and wormholes) use bumping all the time. Small POS bashing fleet with capitals? Bump the dreads away from the archons to prevent refits and reps. Bump the archons away from each other to prevent spider tanking. WH: Bump the enemy's archon away from the hole to prevent it from escaping (admittedly, not many are using capitals anymore thanks to CCP Fozzie) Low sec: Bump capitals to prevent them from escaping whatever they're doing.
Bumping is also used when you have the PW of the enemy POS and are bumping stuff outside the shields. You can't remove one part of the puzzle without the rest getting hit. |
|
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:44:14 -
[111] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:[quote=Serendipity Lost]CCP can't just remove bumping because every other security space (and wormholes) use bumping all the time. Small POS bashing fleet with capitals? Bump the dreads away from the archons to prevent refits and reps. Bump the archons away from each other to prevent spider tanking. WH: Bump the enemy's archon away from the hole to prevent it from escaping (admittedly, not many are using capitals anymore thanks to CCP Fozzie) Low sec: Bump capitals to prevent them from escaping whatever they're doing.
Bumping is also used when you have the PW of the enemy POS and are bumping stuff outside the shields. You can't remove one part of the puzzle without the rest getting hit. What if you could bump them with guns.
I think large, high-alpha impacts of kinetic or explosive damage should physically knock ships around. EM and thermal effects would do nothing. But a huge wallop of KE/EXP would cause small random alignment shifts along each of the three rotational axis proportionate to the impact and inversely proportionate to the mass of the ship.
NUDGE(x,y,z) = RAND(x,y,z) * k * ((KDamage+ExpDamage)^1.5) / ShipMass where RAND is a random number from -1.0 to +1.0, and k is a tuning constant. The ^1.5 is to favor a few large impacts over more smaller impacts. There is something appealing about the idea of "gun tackling".
Would that be a satisfactory replacement for collision-bumping? |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
626
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 18:50:50 -
[112] - Quote
Colette Kassia wrote:What if you could bump them with guns. I think large, high-alpha impacts of kinetic or explosive damage should physically knock ships around. EM and thermal effects would do nothing. But a huge wallop of KE/EXP would cause small random alignment shifts along each of the three rotational axis proportionate to the impact and inversely proportionate to the mass of the ship. NUDGE(x,y,z) = RAND(x,y,z) * k * ((KDamage+ExpDamage)^1.5) / ShipMass where RAND is a random number from -1.0 to +1.0, and k is a tuning constant. The ^1.5 is to favor a few large impacts over more smaller impacts. There is something appealing about the idea of "gun tackling". Would that be a satisfactory replacement for collision-bumping?
Only if they get nudged (need a better word for when people "nudge" with 1400s or neutrons) in the opposite direction that they are shot at, but even then, you'd have to worry about shifting the entire nullsec meta as Tengus and Baltecs would become extremely powerful, not to mention Moros, Naglfars, Erebus, and Ragnaroks.
In short, no, I don't like it unless CCP introduces a high-slot module that "pushes" a ship that ONLY incurs a LE timer with the target. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
823
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:05:10 -
[113] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:It's interesting that you say that both freighter pilots and gankers hate this suggestion. You're the only one that has posted a view on it.
I'm going to make a new thread with my idea in it. People will love me for it and forget about you. I'm a freighter pilot and a ganker, and I think you forgot your meds. CCP can't just remove bumping because every other security space (and wormholes) use bumping all the time. Small POS bashing fleet with capitals? Bump the dreads away from the archons to prevent refits and reps. Bump the archons away from each other to prevent spider tanking. WH: Bump the enemy's archon away from the hole to prevent it from escaping (admittedly, not many are using capitals anymore thanks to CCP Fozzie) Low sec: Bump capitals to prevent them from escaping whatever they're doing. Bumping is also used when you have the PW of the enemy POS and are bumping stuff outside the shields. You can't remove one part of the puzzle without the rest getting hit.
I don't want to remove bumping. I want you to lock the ship and point it if you want to bump it for more than 45 seconds. Heck I'll give you a full minute if you want. Bumping is fine - I'm all for it.
An ibis bumping a capital ship all day w/ no recourse is borked - I'm against it.
EDIT: check my corp KB. The nid we got 2 nights ago was orbiting it's pos in a wh. We got a sweet warp in and a few key bumps and you see the results. I would never be against bumping - it's a core part of eve. I'm just against freighter bumping in HS by a noob in a frigate for 15 minutes while his pals log in. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
626
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:17:26 -
[114] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:I don't want to remove bumping. I want you to lock the ship and point it if you want to bump it for more than 45 seconds. Heck I'll give you a full minute if you want. Bumping is fine - I'm all for it.
An ibis bumping a capital ship all day w/ no recourse is borked - I'm against it.
EDIT: check my corp KB. The nid we got 2 nights ago was orbiting it's pos in a wh. We got a sweet warp in and a few key bumps and you see the results. I would never be against bumping - it's a core part of eve. I'm just against freighter bumping in HS by a noob in a frigate for 15 minutes while his pals log in.
I call BS on a freighter getting bumped by a frigate as the mass equations would prevent it from doing much of anything, let alone the fact that all you'd need would be one noob in a frigate with a web to get the freighter out of there.
Any time we bumped a freighter, it was with a Macharial specifically rigged and fit to get as much mass and speed as possible out of the hull. And the reason people spend time bumping freighters is to get it out of the range of gate guns and any white knights who may be around.
If you really wanted to help non-afk freighter pilots, you'd be asking CCP to change the webbing aggression mechanics to get your freighters into warp instantly and not have to wait on gates. Or ask them for a lowslot module that reduces warp speed, so your timer can run out before you land on the gate. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
713
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 19:52:18 -
[115] - Quote
Again, the bumping fix is having it do nothing with an unlocked target and with a locked bumped target you flag up when you hit them.
Legit uses ALL preserved (you ARE shooting those caps, right?) And no more consequence free hobo-tackle. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
627
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 20:41:41 -
[116] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Again, the bumping fix is having it do nothing with an unlocked target and with a locked bumped target you flag up when you hit them.
Legit uses ALL preserved (you ARE shooting those caps, right?) And no more consequence free hobo-tackle.
Up until relatively recently (IIRC) you weren't able to drop bubbles or use non-targeted interdiction inhibitors (one of the reason Asakai was so interesting). However, the fact that bumping is allowed in lowsec means that roaming gangs don't have to double or triple their capital tackling group. It allows a great deal of flexibility.
Again, I am not opposed to a highslot module that emulates bumping in return for a LE timer. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
713
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:26:22 -
[117] - Quote
Module could work too, I just figured that a simple lock required and a flashy yellow result was least intrusive. |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
627
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:44:22 -
[118] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Module could work too, I just figured that a simple lock required and a flashy yellow result was least intrusive.
Except that it wouldn't provide a marked advantage for active-freighters compared to AFK freighters. AFK freighters would just be able to snooze along and let someone else take care of the flashies, while a LE would force the player to decide to dock up and reship, or continue along and risk his cargo. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
713
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 21:58:30 -
[119] - Quote
If you could dock in a bump scenario, we'd not be having this conversation |
Nolak Ataru
Incursion Osprey Replacement Fund LLC
628
|
Posted - 2015.01.28 22:52:53 -
[120] - Quote
afkalt wrote:If you could dock in a bump scenario, we'd not be having this conversation But you can dock if you're in range, and you can take the gate if you're in range. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |