EVE Search - Next on the chopping block, bumping?

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Next on the chopping block, bumping?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2576	Posted - 2015.11.02 17:58:47 - [1] - Quote Hello spacefriends, As many of you know I am the last person to instigate drama or try to gin up delicious meta for others to enjoy out of sheer boredom, but today I come to you with raised eyebrow and clenched sphincter, after listening very carefully to the latest episode of the Jeffraider show (ep. 9) During the flowing Q&A around capital changes coming out of EvE Vegas, Fozzie commented about how they are looking at bumping mechanics as it relates to capitals. He then also went on to mention they were also looking at bumping mechanics as they relate to freighters. Now I know there is a (stickied) post already affirming CCP's validating bumping as permissable gameplay, but as hyperdunking has shown us CCP can (and will) change their position on a given mechanic on a dime. tldr; If your current career involves bumping mechanics in any way, you may want to let your voices be heard now, rather than later. F --- This is another fine post brought to you by http://evedarklord.blogspot.ca. Evedarklord.blogspot.ca, going where others fear to go. Would you like to know more?
Saskia Laru the 57th Overlanders Brigade Cede Nullis 57	Posted - 2015.11.02 18:05:06 - [2] - Quote Well if that does come to pass, carebears had best dock up their fat whales cause the finally days will be nothing short of gruesome.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 435	Posted - 2015.11.02 18:07:32 - [3] - Quote Another Quote of CCP: Nothing is unthinkable. As i understood bumping will get some rework. Nothing bad with that. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Tengu Grib Black Hydra Consortium. 1452	Posted - 2015.11.02 18:33:00 - [4] - Quote The concept of reworking bumping mechanics... Maybe I'm ok with it? It would be nice not to fly right through ships anymore for instance. Without bumping we'd have to go back to the days of alpha nados for killing freighters. "Just one more nerf, that's what Eve needs. Just one more..." Eve is getting safer and safer, and subscription numbers aren't really going up are they? Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities. StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 435	Posted - 2015.11.02 18:46:51 - [5] - Quote Tengu Grib wrote: The concept of reworking bumping mechanics... Maybe I'm ok with it? It would be nice not to fly right through ships anymore for instance. Without bumping we'd have to go back to the days of alpha nados for killing freighters. "Just one more nerf, that's what Eve needs. Just one more..." Eve is getting safer and safer, and subscription numbers aren't really going up are they? Are you sad? This does not sound like you are OK? Remember: "Broadcast for reps"! There are far more, far interesting changes in the next time. I like those Ideas CCP came up with. And one post "No 5 is alive" suggests subscriber numbers are rising. I would think most ppl will not miss bumping that is replaced by better mechanics. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1888	Posted - 2015.11.02 18:55:08 - [6] - Quote A rework of bumping is not unthinkable, but I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were a freighter pilot that some golden age of risk-free AFK hauling is around the corner. Freighters are already ridiculously safe in highsec and last time CCP touched them they arguably made them easier to gank. CCP could have nerfed bumping hard years ago by just changing a few stats, or during the 2013 freighter re-work when the slots were added but did not. Letting some of the other capitals into highsec is also something CCP is very keen on. However, a major obstacle to that is the current CONCORD mechanic which would make those capitals ungankable haulers. Perhaps the other capitals along with a new tackling/ganking mechanic will make it to highsec far down the road, or one can dream, along with the complete revamp/replacement of CONCORD. But honestly, there are lot of things CCP says it wants to do but there are obstacles that it does not seem to be able to solve or implement around. I think bumping will be with us for a long time yet.
Yong Shin Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 56	Posted - 2015.11.02 19:17:30 - [7] - Quote Don't worry. Even if this does happen, it's as far away as the day Rorquals become viable ships to fly.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 3527	Posted - 2015.11.02 19:28:11 - [8] - Quote Bumping sucks, but it serves important purposes.
Hiasa Kite Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 292	Posted - 2015.11.02 19:46:57 - [9] - Quote Oh, yippee! I totally didn't want to rescue freighters from bump tackle for a nominal fee. I didn't want that player generated content anyway. /s <^.^> I'm a cat lol
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 7193	Posted - 2015.11.02 19:56:14 - [10] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Hello spacefriends, As many of you know I am the last person to instigate drama or try to gin up delicious meta for others to enjoy out of sheer boredom, but today I come to you with raised eyebrow and clenched sphincter, after listening very carefully to the latest episode of the Jeffraider show (ep. 9) During the flowing Q&A around capital changes coming out of EvE Vegas, Fozzie commented about how they are looking at bumping mechanics as it relates to capitals. He then also went on to mention they were also looking at bumping mechanics as they relate to freighters. Now I know there is a (stickied) post already affirming CCP's validating bumping as permissable gameplay, but as hyperdunking has shown us CCP can (and will) change their position on a given mechanic on a dime. tldr; If your current career involves bumping mechanics in any way, you may want to let your voices be heard now, rather than later. F --- This is another fine post brought to you by http://evedarklord.blogspot.ca. Evedarklord.blogspot.ca, going where others fear to go. As I have warned many many times over the years: when a mechanic that lacks consequence is abused, something is going to change. It does not matter how anybody feels about it at that point when, for example, you can bump a ship for an unlimited time or endlessly camp a system fully cloaked up. Sure, "legitimate play" applies, but I can also lawyer up to the EULA too (which is why CCP is non-specific for edge cases. Gotta keep the ban hammer strong). Bring back DEEEEP Space!
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 437	Posted - 2015.11.02 21:16:17 - [11] - Quote Bumping just doesn't look or "feel" right. Shooting ships like playing bowling. Ball hits Pins, Pins fall away... Anyway. As always the best solution for the game, is the solution which satifies wether the bumper nor the bumpee but adds content. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 264	Posted - 2015.11.02 21:21:30 - [12] - Quote i'm gay
Siegfried Cohenberg Schlomos Incorporated Shut It Down 122	Posted - 2015.11.02 21:21:52 - [13] - Quote CCP will never remove freighter bumping from the game. There needs to be a certain level of risk when flying a freighter.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 806	Posted - 2015.11.02 21:26:04 - [14] - Quote CCP is hellbent on making highsec safe so eventually they will just remove highsec ganking altogether. They are removing all risks and enforcing safety. They are doing it slowly to not make all the content creation playerbase quit at the same time but the results will be the same. Once highsec which hosts 70% of playerbase holds no risks anymore players will get bored because the PVE in this game is boring as hell and there will be no chaos left to provide uncertainties. It doesn't matter what we say, they listen to paying playerbase and paying playerbase don't know what they want. Keep chugging those blue pills and live in ignorance. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
BirdStrike State War Academy Caldari State 104	Posted - 2015.11.02 21:27:09 - [15] - Quote Siegfried Cohenberg wrote: CCP will never remove freighter bumping from the game. There needs to be a certain level of risk when flying a freighter. "CCP will never...." All the words after this opening statement are invalid regardless of what they may be.
Siegfried Cohenberg Schlomos Incorporated Shut It Down 122	Posted - 2015.11.02 21:27:55 - [16] - Quote BirdStrike wrote: Siegfried Cohenberg wrote: CCP will never remove freighter bumping from the game. There needs to be a certain level of risk when flying a freighter. "CCP will never...." All the words after this opening statement are invalid regardless of what they may be. It is unlikely that CCP will remove freighter bumping from the game. There needs to be a certain level of risk when flying a freighter.
Sabriz Adoudel Black Hydra Consortium. 5444	Posted - 2015.11.02 22:46:36 - [17] - Quote Bumping is essential as the only realistic counter to the insane EHP of freighters. I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
Aoife Fraoch Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance 237	Posted - 2015.11.03 02:31:21 - [18] - Quote Wonder how far they are going to go. Because bumping is not just for freighters, and has a real use in PVP against opponents who can shoot back and can often be the only thing keeping them on the field when they make an error or fall into a trap.
Alex Pendaho Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 0	Posted - 2015.11.03 02:39:51 - [19] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Bumping is essential as the only realistic counter to the insane EHP of freighters. And it's totally "realistic" that smashing into another ship 200 times doesn't do hull dmg to you.
admiral root Red Galaxy 3515	Posted - 2015.11.03 02:41:03 - [20] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Bumping is essential as the only realistic counter to the insane EHP of freighters. And nerfing bumping is the only realistic counter to the whining of whinebears (for 10 seconds until they whine about the next thing). No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. forum - everyone's welcome (no shiptoasters)
Leto Thule Everywhere and Terrible 4077	Posted - 2015.11.03 03:05:52 - [21] - Quote I am really sick of this stuff... No, not the nerf train. Well, that too... But the tunnel-vision approach to the fact that bumping is NOT JUST A HIGHSEC MECHANIC used by gankers, but something that is used literally everywhere in EVE. No, you are not special because you live in highsec. A mechanic that has many useful applications outside of ganking things should not be changed just because of some crybabies losing haulers. I am going to give the benefit of the doubt here and hope that CCP is going to IMPROVE the way the bumping works rather than nerf it. Hell, maybe it will give the bears that "aggression timer" they have been asking for. That would be great. No need to gank, ever again! Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 599	Posted - 2015.11.03 04:33:56 - [22] - Quote good
Saskia Laru the 57th Overlanders Brigade Cede Nullis 60	Posted - 2015.11.03 05:14:58 - [23] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: good It lives!
Leto Thule Everywhere and Terrible 4077	Posted - 2015.11.03 06:06:08 - [24] - Quote Saskia Laru wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: good It lives! Oh well. Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 1801	Posted - 2015.11.03 06:48:00 - [25] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Now I know there is a (stickied) post already affirming CCP's validating bumping as permissable gameplay, but as hyperdunking has shown us CCP can (and will) change their position on a given mechanic on a dime. I am not surprised, the writing was already on the wall, or better the bumping thread, as they recently changed the OP and added the following text: Quote: 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 Also there was a recent meta show where some PL dude complained about losing his 60 or so billion Freighter to a highsec gank which he also decorated with some tears about bumping. I don't say he then batphoned his old friend Fozzie, but it certainly looks that way now. For now I just wonder if we get another Highsec exclusive here or if this change will impact the other parts of the game as well. I just wonder why we need this nerf, since the recent Awox and Hyperdunking nerfs already fixed Highsec. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 437	Posted - 2015.11.03 08:07:21 - [26] - Quote oh very nice! outdated and not the fact anymore. short and cryptic. i would translate as: we are not happy how bumping actually works and are rethinking things. i am curious about the outcome. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 131	Posted - 2015.11.03 08:18:14 - [27] - Quote I told you so codies @leto they were talking about changes in the context of capitals (i.e. they are aware of all the wider game implications)
Yourmoney Mywallet Jita Institute of Applied Monetary Manipulation 671	Posted - 2015.11.03 08:56:59 - [28] - Quote Alex Pendaho wrote: Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Bumping is essential as the only realistic counter to the insane EHP of freighters. And it's totally "realistic" that smashing into another ship 200 times doesn't do hull dmg to you. What does "realism" have to do with anything?
Ro Fenrios Armilies Corporation 118	Posted - 2015.11.03 09:02:17 - [29] - Quote Well, don't know about freighter bumping, but I wonder how would they tune this. I see few positives and quite some negatives if bumping mechanics are changed. For instance, we live in low sec space and only station in our staging system has very short undock. Just few kilometers and you are out of docking range. Have caught few carriers by just undocking machariel and bumping the cap out of range of docking. I would be sad to see this go away or get needed :( On opposite end though, if we undock just 2-3 drednaughts from same station and one makes mistake of moving, they are going to bounce around the tight undocking ring and bowl each other often at ridiculous speeds out of the station. That is annoying..
Aoife Fraoch Rabble Inc. Rabble Alliance 238	Posted - 2015.11.03 10:39:55 - [30] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I told you so codies @leto they were talking about changes in the context of capitals (i.e. they are aware of all the wider game implications) Um, sometimes you want to bump station hugging caps too. There is a very good chance that this change would have collateral damage.
Lan Wang V I R I I Ineluctable. 1773	Posted - 2015.11.03 10:54:43 - [31] - Quote bye bye to bumping supers out of rep range from the rest of the fleet, i actually hope ccp dont rek this Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic \| Angel Cartel \| Serpentis \|
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 1801	Posted - 2015.11.03 11:52:46 - [32] - Quote My money is on a special Highsec solution or even Freighter specific. Because lets all be honest, this is not because there is an issue with bumping, this is because all the crying carebears who want to solo AFK freight their billions of assets without risk and effort in Highsec. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Mike Adoulin Adolescent Radioactive Pirate Hamsters 1498	Posted - 2015.11.03 12:52:41 - [33] - Quote Tsk. CCP already fixed this. The Higgs-Boson Anchor rig, iirc. Alas, freighters do not have a rig slot. Bet that will probably change. Also bet that if freighters do get a rig slot, that no freighter pilot anywhere will ever use it for a Higgs-Boson Anchor rig. Everything in EVE is a trap. And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:) You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg. Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Leto Thule Everywhere and Terrible 4083	Posted - 2015.11.03 12:54:05 - [34] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I told you so codies @leto they were talking about changes in the context of capitals (i.e. they are aware of all the wider game implications) That's fine. Nail in the coffin for my subscription, so to speak. If what they do doesn't make sense, I'm out. Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 131	Posted - 2015.11.03 13:12:30 - [35] - Quote Again, to all the crybabies, they were talking about changes to bumping in larger / capital context, and then Fozzie mentioned Freighters as well. So ye, I'm gonna guess that some changes will be coming, not specific to freighter bumping but to bumping in general, also impacting freighters. What kind of changes, when etc - no one knows for now, likely with the rest of cap changes (so spring next year). It might be nothing, it might be everything, we just don't know. However, just seeing codies starting to whine already, when nothing is still known, brings joy to my heart. Sorry guys, but karma is a giant beach.
Leto Thule Everywhere and Terrible 4083	Posted - 2015.11.03 13:32:36 - [36] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Again, to all the crybabies, they were talking about changes to bumping in larger / capital context, and then Fozzie mentioned Freighters as well. So ye, I'm gonna guess that some changes will be coming, not specific to freighter bumping but to bumping in general, also impacting freighters. What kind of changes, when etc - no one knows for now, likely with the rest of cap changes (so spring next year). It might be nothing, it might be everything, we just don't know. However, just seeing codies starting to whine already, when nothing is still known, brings joy to my heart. Sorry guys, but karma is a giant beach. Im not a "codie". Im not even a ganker, or "bumper". In the past year or so, so many content nerfs have smacked this game in the face. The AWOX nerf, the cancerous LY changes to capitals (fatigue was needed, but the LY changes are terrible), the citadel stuff looks pretty bad IMHO -- yeah I know its not done... but "Asset relocation"? CTFO. Hyperdunking. Yet still some people cry for nerfs to highsec wardeccing. Others want nerfs to bumping... Seriously where does it come to the point that the game has nothing left for the bad guys to do? Do you play games on easy just to win? I ******* dont. I play EVE because I want to have the dangerous aspects there. I dont want to print free ISK while AFK hauling or mining. I dont want my stuff to magically reappear if my alliance loses its Citadel. Loss matters. Or it did, anyhow. So yeah, last nail in the coffin. One day, not too far from now, everyone who called for all these nerfs and cried for joy at the end of the ebil piwates will merrily afk their way to riches, grow insanely bored from the fact that nobody can hurt you, and quit. Because thats not freakin FUN. "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." - JFK ^ Applies. Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25603	Posted - 2015.11.03 14:07:19 - [37] - Quote Leto Thule wrote: Im not a "codie". Im not even a ganker, or "bumper". It may be a case of "you're either with us, or against us" Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1541	Posted - 2015.11.03 14:08:01 - [38] - Quote Saddly I applaud bumping mechanics being looked at. Between my love and understanding of physics and my overdeveloped sense of OCD... It's about time. FOZZIE - removing the beach ball (mech)antics of capital bumping DOES NOT mean their alignment should suddenly tap into citaldel space magic (which will be moving eve one step closer to ruin) and poof they warp to freedom. Capitals (Ferighters) being beachballed across new eden = wrong Capitals (Freighters) being knocked out of alignment in the gravity free expanse of space = the way it should be! (pro tip) A collision should do crazy spinny things to both ships involved. Crazy spinny recovery time should be dictated by ship characteristics. Mass/thrust ratio would be what i would use - I think that's already in game based on how ships handle under normal propulsion, using an AB and using a MWD. DOWN with space magic and UP with (sort of) making physics work (at least kind of a little bit) in eve.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 195	Posted - 2015.11.03 14:41:49 - [39] - Quote No bumping allowed, it scratches the paintwork. Do you pay for skins to get a scratch on them... No, think again.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 1805	Posted - 2015.11.03 15:12:14 - [40] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Saddly I applaud bumping mechanics being looked at. Between my love and understanding of physics and my overdeveloped sense of OCD... It's about time. FOZZIE - removing the beach ball (mech)antics of capital bumping DOES NOT mean their alignment should suddenly tap into citaldel space magic (which will be moving eve one step closer to ruin) and poof they warp to freedom. Capitals (Ferighters) being beachballed across new eden = wrong Capitals (Freighters) being knocked out of alignment in the gravity free expanse of space = the way it should be! (pro tip) A collision should do crazy spinny things to both ships involved. Crazy spinny recovery time should be dictated by ship characteristics. Mass/thrust ratio would be what i would use - I think that's already in game based on how ships handle under normal propulsion, using an AB and using a MWD. DOWN with space magic and UP with (sort of) making physics work (at least kind of a little bit) in eve. But the current mechanics are actually based on (underwater) physics. The trick is that the MWD increases the mass of the bumping ship. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Samwise Everquest Because ISK 145	Posted - 2015.11.03 15:23:20 - [41] - Quote Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Run and Gun Mercenary Corps looking for work. Pras Phil.
Lan Wang V I R I I Ineluctable. 1777	Posted - 2015.11.03 15:30:30 - [42] - Quote Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D what if the bumper has shields? Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic \| Angel Cartel \| Serpentis \|
Samwise Everquest Because ISK 145	Posted - 2015.11.03 15:34:48 - [43] - Quote Nvm that would pose a risk for the ganker which would be totally unacceptable to the crybabies here. Run and Gun Mercenary Corps looking for work. Pras Phil.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 1805	Posted - 2015.11.03 15:45:54 - [44] - Quote Samwise Everquest wrote: Nvm that would pose a risk for the ganker which would be totally unacceptable to the crybabies here. No, please, no damage! I beg you! You should work for CCP, you just completely wrecked bumping. I have no idea how we can recover from this. Will quit if implemented! the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Lan Wang V I R I I Ineluctable. 1777	Posted - 2015.11.03 15:49:51 - [45] - Quote Samwise Everquest wrote: Nvm that would pose a risk for the ganker which would be totally unacceptable to the crybabies here. oh look a merc who is just the same as a ganker but the difference is mercs pay to to shoot freighters, gankers dont. Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic \| Angel Cartel \| Serpentis \|
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 25606	Posted - 2015.11.03 16:17:33 - [46] - Quote Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Yes it should, I relish the thought of people using MWD frigates as 1500 tonne projectiles travelling at 2km+/s Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business. Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Samwise Everquest Because ISK 145	Posted - 2015.11.03 17:43:37 - [47] - Quote Jonah Gravenstein wrote: Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Yes it should, I relish the thought of people using MWD frigates as 1500 tonne projectiles travelling at 2km+/s Be careful what you wish for. Epic Run and Gun Mercenary Corps looking for work. Pras Phil.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1541	Posted - 2015.11.03 17:46:12 - [48] - Quote Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD.
Samwise Everquest Because ISK 145	Posted - 2015.11.03 17:49:38 - [49] - Quote Naw a freighter can take lots of bumps. Damage for all involved or bust. Run and Gun Mercenary Corps looking for work. Pras Phil.
BirdStrike State War Academy Caldari State 107	Posted - 2015.11.03 17:51:47 - [50] - Quote Bumping thread on bumping before bumping threads about bumping nerfs is nerfed.
Austneal Nero Fazione End of Life 103	Posted - 2015.11.03 17:56:28 - [51] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. "It's not the freighter's fault he got suicide ganked" "It's not the miner's fault they got wardec'd" That's not really a valid arguing point. If they apply damage mechanics to bumping, then both ships need to take damage. Not that I'm in favor of damage dealing bumps, but it would have to be applied equally.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1541	Posted - 2015.11.03 17:58:42 - [52] - Quote Austneal wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. "It's not the freighter's fault he got suicide ganked" "It's not the miner's fault they got wardec'd" That's not really a valid arguing point. If they apply damage mechanics to bumping, then both ships need to take damage. Not that I'm in favor of damage dealing bumps, but it would have to be applied equally. It should only apply to ships with an active prop mod. Anything other than that is unfair and unbalanced.
Samwise Everquest Because ISK 145	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:08:05 - [53] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Austneal wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. "It's not the freighter's fault he got suicide ganked" "It's not the miner's fault they got wardec'd" That's not really a valid arguing point. If they apply damage mechanics to bumping, then both ships need to take damage. Not that I'm in favor of damage dealing bumps, but it would have to be applied equally. It should only apply to ships with an active prop mod. Anything other than that is unfair and unbalanced. Crash into a parked car doing 90 mph then come back and suggest that. Run and Gun Mercenary Corps looking for work. Pras Phil.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1541	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:25:38 - [54] - Quote Samwise Everquest wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Austneal wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. "It's not the freighter's fault he got suicide ganked" "It's not the miner's fault they got wardec'd" That's not really a valid arguing point. If they apply damage mechanics to bumping, then both ships need to take damage. Not that I'm in favor of damage dealing bumps, but it would have to be applied equally. It should only apply to ships with an active prop mod. Anything other than that is unfair and unbalanced. Crash into a parked car doing 90 mph then come back and suggest that. Put my Ferrari in game and what you're saying will start to make sense to me. (please don't pump me full of anti matter in the wallmart parking lot for saying that)
Bumblefck Kerensky Initiatives 9026	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:34:09 - [55] - Quote Epic [b]---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.[/b]
Samwise Everquest Because ISK 145	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:39:28 - [56] - Quote Just waiting for my locator agents to get back to me. Run and Gun Mercenary Corps looking for work. Pras Phil.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3688	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:46:36 - [57] - Quote Siegfried Cohenberg wrote: CCP will never remove freighter bumping from the game. There needs to be a certain level of risk when flying a freighter. There is. You are spending $15 a month to watch planets go past your ship, very, very slowly. One thing to consider: How would bumping be changed? What I like: If you initiate warp, after some longish time, you will always warp, irrelevant of your velocity. Say, after two minutes. With this change, a ship on autopilot, heading for the gate, is still just as vulnerable as now. Also, a ship being piloted can still be delayed from entering warp, giving time for proper tackle to arrive. But endlessly bumping a ship, with little recourse for the pilot, goes away. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3688	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:50:12 - [58] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. So you are saying I can park my ship at the Jita undock, and every ship that runs into me takes damage? Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Lady Ayeipsia Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 970	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:51:16 - [59] - Quote Bumping has been in the game since when? Most likely the inception of the game mechanics. Did it come later? Eh, even if it did am I the only one happy that CCP is doing a code review of the really old stuff? That has to be a good sign and may help with a good many things. How much of lag in a heavily TiDi fight is caused by checks on bumping mechanics? I'm not saying I support removal of bumping, but I do support CCP revising old code to improve all aspects of this game.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1541	Posted - 2015.11.03 18:56:32 - [60] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. So you are saying I can park my ship at the Jita undock, and every ship that runs into me takes damage? No, I'm saying it's the end of the work day, I'm bored so I started trolling. I appologize. Please contact Leto for verification of my slow work day trolling. I've tried to stop on several occaisions, but I just can't. I really don't care who does what to freighters.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 14832	Posted - 2015.11.03 21:07:03 - [61] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. "Realism ONLY when it favors me". ~Carebears. "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.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2579	Posted - 2015.11.03 21:15:32 - [62] - Quote Saskia Laru wrote: Veers Belvar wrote: ... It lives! Hello, It is politely requested that shiptoasters are not inline-quoted, so that the EvE forums 'hide posts' feature can work properly. Please review the attached, and reflect on the future pain and angst that can be avoided by following this simple guidance. Sincerely, F Would you like to know more?
Leto Thule Everywhere and Terrible 4093	Posted - 2015.11.03 22:15:23 - [63] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. So you are saying I can park my ship at the Jita undock, and every ship that runs into me takes damage? No, I'm saying it's the end of the work day, I'm bored so I started trolling. I appologize. Please contact Leto for verification of my slow work day trolling. I've tried to stop on several occaisions, but I just can't. I really don't care who does what to freighters. Vouch. Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Egon Tar University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.11.03 22:27:46 - [64] - Quote Leto Thule wrote: Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Again, to all the crybabies, they were talking about changes to bumping in larger / capital context, and then Fozzie mentioned Freighters as well. So ye, I'm gonna guess that some changes will be coming, not specific to freighter bumping but to bumping in general, also impacting freighters. What kind of changes, when etc - no one knows for now, likely with the rest of cap changes (so spring next year). It might be nothing, it might be everything, we just don't know. However, just seeing codies starting to whine already, when nothing is still known, brings joy to my heart. Sorry guys, but karma is a giant beach. Im not a "codie". Im not even a ganker, or "bumper". In the past year or so, so many content nerfs have smacked this game in the face. The AWOX nerf, the cancerous LY changes to capitals (fatigue was needed, but the LY changes are terrible), the citadel stuff looks pretty bad IMHO -- yeah I know its not done... but "Asset relocation"? CTFO. Hyperdunking. Yet still some people cry for nerfs to highsec wardeccing. Others want nerfs to bumping... Seriously where does it come to the point that the game has nothing left for the bad guys to do? Do you play games on easy just to win? I ******* dont. I play EVE because I want to have the dangerous aspects there. I dont want to print free ISK while AFK hauling or mining. I dont want my stuff to magically reappear if my alliance loses its Citadel. Loss matters. Or it did, anyhow. So yeah, last nail in the coffin. One day, not too far from now, everyone who called for all these nerfs and cried for joy at the end of the ebil piwates will merrily afk their way to riches, grow insanely bored from the fact that nobody can hurt you, and quit. Because thats not freakin FUN. "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." - JFK ^ Applies. Seconded.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 807	Posted - 2015.11.03 22:38:36 - [65] - Quote Bumping needs to stay, hyperdunking was already removed so freighters arent facing much of a threat at all right now. If bumping is removed you can't have control at all over who you can or can't gank and all people have to do it just wait for fleet to go GCC and they can moonwalk through system without any escorts. Bumping has hardcounters, people that die are just incredibly lazy and arent using them at all. You can always counter 1 bumper with another bumper, freighter that can't be bumped however has no counter when it is in NPC corp. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Toxic Yaken Amarr Squad 26	Posted - 2015.11.03 23:14:48 - [66] - Quote Make it so bumping damages both involved, now I can gank freighters with a bump Mach and logi without going criminal, please please please... Seriously though CCP I just want to see the explanations, rather than the stealth nerf we got for boarding ships while criminal (you called it Vimsy) Also I look forward to another c&p threadnought, maybe some insight from a dev that isn't unrelated to the subject or a member of csm that isn't making a witty quip.. Would be nice... Highsec Spaceboat Pirate Overly Neglected Blog: http://shiniestneckonsafari.blogspot.ca
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 195	Posted - 2015.11.04 01:43:08 - [67] - Quote There should be no damage when bumping, you only have to see ships undocking at Jita to know why.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 438	Posted - 2015.11.04 03:33:58 - [68] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Siegfried Cohenberg wrote: CCP will never remove freighter bumping from the game. There needs to be a certain level of risk when flying a freighter. There is. You are spending $15 a month to watch planets go past your ship, very, very slowly. One thing to consider: How would bumping be changed? What I like: If you initiate warp, after some longish time, you will always warp, irrelevant of your velocity. Say, after two minutes. With this change, a ship on autopilot, heading for the gate, is still just as vulnerable as now. Also, a ship being piloted can still be delayed from entering warp, giving time for proper tackle to arrive. But endlessly bumping a ship, with little recourse for the pilot, goes away. yes, i like that too. thats what i am talikng of. wether bumpers nor freighters get anything for free, or are given what they wish. lovely those end of eve tears from some ppl. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Leto Thule Everywhere and Terrible 4098	Posted - 2015.11.04 04:13:14 - [69] - Quote La Rynx wrote: lovely those end of eve tears from some ppl. End of EVE? Likely not. End of EVE for me? I hate to say this, but it seems to be getting that way. The only reason I still have a sub is because of the time I have put into the game so far. I log in, ship spin, and log out. I'm sure some people love where the direction is taking the game. I'm not one of those people. Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Lodestone Toyee Awakened Ones 87	Posted - 2015.11.04 04:18:56 - [70] - Quote Getting in on floor 4 of a soon-to-be skyscraper threadnaught. I promised to stay calm, since I know there is no way CCP can mess this up. It seems to me like lots of the recent changes have been novel ideas dreamed up by people who don't play the game at all and want to just change things for the heck of it. My speculation is that they will keep following their pattern. Bumping as a mechanic will be "weakened", then CCP will add some new mechanic to replace it that functions similarly, but requires more people (or isk) to execute. (maybe something along the lines of the ship tractor beam that citadels can use). The result will be something that still works (Freighters are still vulnerable in highsec) but it will be more annoying to do.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 808	Posted - 2015.11.04 04:28:29 - [71] - Quote As Leto said this is not the end of Eve. But we can see it from here. You can deny that Eve is going downhill. Can't deny the decline in active subscriptions though, not to mention active players. This is a sandbox game and removing what we can do sure as hell isn't helping its features. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Demerius Xenocratus Rapid Withdrawal 727	Posted - 2015.11.04 05:43:29 - [72] - Quote Freighter bumping is aggression-free tackle. That's problematic. You shouldn't be able to tackle another ship permanently without consequences.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1895	Posted - 2015.11.04 07:16:00 - [73] - Quote Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Freighter bumping is aggression-free tackle. That's problematic. You shouldn't be able to tackle another ship permanently without consequences. Why? Because you say so? It is perfectly reasonable game design to give the most powerful hauler in the game (and, more generally the most powerful ships in the game) a unique weakness. In this case, the vulnerability of capital ships to bump-tackle is one of their weaknesses to offset their large benefits. I'm not saying bumping is the best or only "weakness" CCP could give to capital ships, but it is not necessarily a problem, it is just how CCP designed the game. Maybe they will come up with some better weakness, who knows? But as it is freighters have a weakness to bump-tackling - account for that and use them, or fly something else.
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 1819	Posted - 2015.11.04 07:16:12 - [74] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. So you are saying I can park my ship at the Jita undock, and every ship that runs into me takes damage? Cool! Will I get killmails? If even Vincent Athena gets why your idea is flawed you should probably biomass. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 1543	Posted - 2015.11.04 11:36:24 - [75] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. So you are saying I can park my ship at the Jita undock, and every ship that runs into me takes damage? Cool! Will I get killmails? If even Vincent Athena gets why your idea is flawed you should probably biomass. I made a vow that I would not biomass until some time after Leto coughs up the thanatos carrier he owes me. If you want me to biomass - you have to get Leto to cough up the carrier. Then next step is in his hands - not mine.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 6923	Posted - 2015.11.04 13:54:44 - [76] - Quote Ro Fenrios wrote: Have caught few carriers by just undocking machariel and bumping the cap out of range of docking. I would be sad to see this go away or get nerfed :( Of course it would, because you benefit from it. Look at your wording though. If you just have to undock a machariel and bump, it would seem to me that it's too easy. Especially since you can just redock if things go awry. Tengu Grib wrote: Eve is getting safer and safer, and subscription numbers aren't really going up are they? It's not though, is it. There are changes in both directions, you just ignore them if they don't fit your narrative. Bumping has been pretty lame since it was massively buffed a while back. Fixing it so that it's entertaining for both sides would be the best idea. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3689	Posted - 2015.11.04 22:10:55 - [77] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Freighter bumping is aggression-free tackle. That's problematic. You shouldn't be able to tackle another ship permanently without consequences. Why? Because you say so? Because Eve is a harsh world where actions have consequences. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
StonerPhReaK Best Kept Frozen. Bad Intention 305	Posted - 2015.11.04 22:33:49 - [78] - Quote If you aint got haters, You aint poppin. Signature Removal in Progress, Estimated time of completion? Neva
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 600	Posted - 2015.11.05 03:22:12 - [79] - Quote simple solution - anyone attacked in highsec, causing the attackers to get GCC gets a 60 second free warp away period once concord shows, unaffected by bumping. Consider it a police escort.
Leto Thule Everywhere and Terrible 4110	Posted - 2015.11.05 05:26:07 - [80] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: simple solution - anyone attacked in highsec, causing the attackers to get GCC gets a 60 second free warp away period once concord shows, unaffected by bumping. Consider it a police escort. Agreed. And if the guy who gets attacked loses his ship, he can just run back from the graveyard and respawn at his wreck, with all his stuff still there. That would get rid of that nasty "loss matters" garbage. Also I think we should only be allowed to attack people a certain level equal or higher to us. Because it's only fair. AOE heals from the NPC guards would be nice too. Can someone point me to the auction house? I need to get a few of my items enchanted before spamming for tank/heals UBRS. Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1908	Posted - 2015.11.05 05:48:21 - [81] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Freighter bumping is aggression-free tackle. That's problematic. You shouldn't be able to tackle another ship permanently without consequences. Why? Because you say so? Because Eve is a harsh world where actions have consequences. I agree: bumpers are that consequence. From a game design perspective freighters have to be vulnerable to something and have to have some special downsides or no one would fly anything else. Whether CCP changes that to some other form of tackle, slower CONCORD response, or something completely different, freighters are always going to require extra protection while flying to mitigate the "consequences" of failing to protect them. Bumping is just a scapegoat used by those not wanting to take precautions to protect thier freighter. If bumping was changed, freighter pilots will just complain about whatever other mechanic or weakness CCP gives freighters next and demand "consequences" if people use that weakness to kill their ship. This is a PvP game. Why should there be "consequences" for tackling someone to facilitate that PvP beyond what the other players inflict? CONCORD only punishes remember, it does not protect and that includes bumpers.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 131	Posted - 2015.11.05 09:31:24 - [82] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: Black Pedro wrote: Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Freighter bumping is aggression-free tackle. That's problematic. You shouldn't be able to tackle another ship permanently without consequences. Why? Because you say so? Because Eve is a harsh world where actions have consequences. I agree: bumpers are that consequence. From a game design perspective freighters have to be vulnerable to something and have to have some special downsides or no one would fly anything else. Whether CCP changes that to some other form of tackle, slower CONCORD response, or something completely different, freighters are always going to require extra protection while flying to mitigate the "consequences" of failing to protect them. Bumping is just a scapegoat used by those not wanting to take precautions to protect thier freighter. If bumping was changed, freighter pilots will just complain about whatever other mechanic or weakness CCP gives freighters next and demand "consequences" if people use that weakness to kill their ship. This is a PvP game. Why should there be "consequences" for tackling someone to facilitate that PvP beyond what the other players inflict? CONCORD only punishes remember, it does not protect and that includes bumpers. Newsflash: Ganking freighters is perfectly viable even without bumping. You should ask Russians for some guidelines. However it is harder then easy mode crap you have today and sec status actually matters (can't camp on gate in hisec if it is too low). We wouldn't want to force codies into fixing sec statuses every now and then just to perform freighter ganks now, would we? That would mean that there are some actual consequences of what they do, and introducing consequences would be too theme park like, right?
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1909	Posted - 2015.11.05 10:43:09 - [83] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Newsflash: Ganking freighters is perfectly viable even without bumping. You should ask Russians for some guidelines. However it is harder then easy mode crap you have today and sec status actually matters (can't camp on gate in hisec if it is too low). We wouldn't want to force codies into fixing sec statuses every now and then just to perform freighter ganks now, would we? That would mean that there are some actual consequences of what they do, and introducing consequences would be too theme park like, right? So much anger. I suggest you take that oft-proffered advice and calm down a little. Ganking freighters is of course viable without a bumper but it is far more expensive to use neutral pilots. Removing bump-tackling will make freighters much safer and more expensive to gank and CCP knows this. Any change to bumping will either be just a counter, or will provide another way for potential attackers to hold these ships down long enough to get a criminal gank fleet on them. Making it (nearly) impossible to gank freighters while criminal is arguably more broken. CCP clearly intended for criminals to operate in highsec when then designed Crimewatch, CONCORD and the other ganking mechanics. Making it so freighter gankers have to tag-up between ganks would just mean there would never be a -10 running around highsec completely circumventing all the work they spent making that possible in the first place. That is why they have allowed bumping - to allow criminals a way to tackle targets - and are not going to remove it without putting something in it's place. It's clear you have a chip on your shoulder over CODE. but freighter ganking is an intended mechanic as are criminals running around highsec. CCP is not going to massively change the balance, and if they do make a change, it probably will be to make freighters more vulnerable like they did with the last freighter re-balance. The Empires are due to lose some of their control remember? Oh, and as an aside, how is the intricate bumping/ganking machinations required to pull off a gank of a freighter while -10 more "easy mode" than tagging up to neutral and sitting on a gate "Russian-style", then locking a target and pressing F1? That isn't elite PvP, that is just leveraging numbers to shoot someone. The art that CODE. has perfected is threading the NPC-enforced restrictions, dodging the admittedly ineffectual white knights, to deliver the DPS where it needs to be to hurt. That is far less "easy mode" than brute-forcing the problem with tags and accounts.
Amanda Rekenwhith Bureau of CODE Enforcement CODE. 36	Posted - 2015.11.05 11:13:30 - [84] - Quote Here's my 1/50th of a dollar. Bumping is a valid mechanic. Bumping a ship for an hour plus because we've got several ships in the ganking queue may be a bit excessive. My fix: Bumping ships take armor and/or structure dmg after a certain amount of time bumping. Of course these could be repped by logi or bumpers could work in shifts. It's a dumb fix to a problem that isn't broken, I know. That's why I figure it'll be right up CCP's alley. For dessert we're offering humble pie. -áWould you like some after you're done eating crow?
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 1828	Posted - 2015.11.05 12:00:09 - [85] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Newsflash: Ganking freighters is perfectly viable even without bumping. You should ask Russians for some guidelines. However it is harder then easy mode crap you have today and sec status actually matters (can't camp on gate in hisec if it is too low). We wouldn't want to force codies into fixing sec statuses every now and then just to perform freighter ganks now, would we? That would mean that there are some actual consequences of what they do, and introducing consequences would be too theme park like, right? only one more nerf!! Did anyone else notice that the majority of the carebears change with every nerf attempt as they discover that everything we told them holds true? Well there are some trolls like Lucas who are a constant. But who still listens to his drivel? the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
BirdStrike State War Academy Caldari State 122	Posted - 2015.11.05 12:06:15 - [86] - Quote Elite Dangerous has some pretty cool mechanics for piracy that CCP should look at Firstly you have the option of target propulsion - you could make this chance based so you have a percentage chance to damage the engines or warp drive or simply damage the hull. Second was a cargo hold grappling hook / limpet mine, if you successfully hit it then it blows the cargo hold it starts to spill cargo into space which can be scooped. If you destroy the ship then it destroys the cargo with it. If CCP introduced mechanics like this, with a higher concord response time for an attack vs ship destroyed, with counters that logis can try and rep the propulsion / cargo bay then it would generate a lot more valud piracy content without resorting to things like bumping and hyper dunking. As things stand it is broken that participents in a heist (bumpers) don't get suspect flagged - lets be fair, demanding immunity from consequences is exactly what carebears do so its a bit rich to suggest freighter jacking should be risk free. I'd like to see high-sec piracy become a legitimate enabled mechanic, but it needs to be balanced to give victims an option to use military escorts and fight back. As for the real bear in the room - AFK hauling and mining, the fux is simple - make it uneconomicsl. For afk autopilot haulers - change the gate warp point to at least 100-150k from gate, if they have to slowcosch for 1 hour between jumps then it won't incentivise afk hauling, i think that is fair - ccp has no problems making supercap pilots waste 5 days of game time with jump fatigue so why should afk players get a easy ride. For afk miners - introduce mechanics that require miners to actively mine that can't be botted. Moving asteroid fields, lasers that break randomy and need nanite reps, gas pocket explosions that need reps against, percentage of junk rock you mine that you have to purge from your hold - lots of random events that make afk botting imposdible. Spending an hour bumping a freighter us not content, instead of clinging to a broken dynamic we need to get CCP to recognise piracy in highsec is a good content generator and introduce sone decent options that make it both viable for career criminals but with counters to give well prepped victims options
Yami Elendor Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.11.05 12:11:28 - [87] - Quote I got it....take away bumping, but replace it with corp jumping restrictions and eliminate npc corporations.
Yami Elendor Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.11.05 12:15:34 - [88] - Quote On second thought, who cares about bumping?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 132	Posted - 2015.11.05 12:39:10 - [89] - Quote Yami Elendor wrote: On second thought, who cares about bumping? Ever increasing number of dead freighters in hisec do, apparently. Fun fact - there has been a steady rise in freighter deaths for complete period Zkill covers (yes, post Phoebe EvE included). Unfortunately, extracting ganks only is not something I can/know how to do, but still - it speaks a lot about both 'near perfect safety' of hisec and 'dieing' of EvE.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1923	Posted - 2015.11.05 12:52:47 - [90] - Quote BirdStrike wrote: As things stand it is broken that participents in a heist (bumpers) don't get suspect flagged - lets be fair, demanding immunity from consequences is exactly what carebears do so its a bit rich to suggest freighter jacking should be risk free. I'd like to see high-sec piracy become a legitimate enabled mechanic, but it needs to be balanced to give victims an option to use military escorts and fight back. No one is demanding immunity from consequences or asking that freighter ganking be risk-free. It is only self-pitying carebears and their sympathizers that make this demonstrably false claim that there is "no risk" or "no consequences" or is "easy mode". Ganking has risks all along the process, and at the end there is zero guarantee your loot won't be scooped or destroyed. Being a criminal already has the most onerous penalties in the game including being free to shoot and having tireless NPCs on your tail the whole time you are in space. Whether or not the bumper has some mechanical risk is immaterial to the operation - there are plenty of places where gankers can be messed with by other players. Besides, those juicy bump Macherials are at the same risk as the freighter when it comes to being ganked, and as we know both can be exploded. But I agree with you there is plenty of room for new and improved interdiction methods that could even replace bumping. But when you boil it down, the same entitled carebears will be in a future thread claiming that somehow it is unfair that their ships can be attacked by criminals no matter how CCP changes things. There will always be cries for "one more nerf" or "the other guy has it too easy" as long as it is possible to non-consensually PvP someone's hauler. Targets can already use escorts to avoid gankers almost completely. Fighting back when you are not the immediate target is more difficult, but that will always be the case when players have 100% safety in stations and the option not to undock. There is literally nothing you can do if the gankers choose to dock-up and decline your fight just like most other places in New Eden. Maybe structures that gankers want to use would be one way to force them to fight, but since they can't undock while -10 to give you a proper fight because of those onerous restrictions, major changes would have to be made to make that balanced or even possible. These are not easy problems to solve but we can hope that sometime soon CCP will get around to iterating on piracy mechanics.
Lan Wang V I R I I Ineluctable. 1788	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:06:07 - [91] - Quote next up npc escorts because hiring mercs costs valuable isk Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic \| Angel Cartel \| Serpentis \|
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 132	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:19:47 - [92] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: ... Nice try with that anger stuff, I'm sure it works on someone. If someone is angry and, may I say, somewhat anxious judging by their behaviour lately, it's your bunch. I love how you present bumping mechanic as something which has been intentionally developed to reduce safety of freighters whereas CCP employees (Fozzie) refer to it as a "wonky side-effect of" eve's "physics system". Lovely spin, as usual, shame there's an ever increasing amount of clear statements and data working against you. As for -10's running around hisec, I'm impressed by your knowledge of CCP's intended design goals. You must be Hilmar's alt, or something. Myself, I'd say CCP didn't want to close hisec for those chars, allowing them to move through it. However, I doubt they ever wanted -10's to operate basically unhindered in hisec (which is fairly easy now with insta docks/undocks, ability to dock up in any station and reship there etc.). Also, if you want to tackle a freighter besides bumping - there is a mechanic for that, it's called warp disruption. The only chips I have to deal with are those occasionally found on my table (hint: French fries). Back on topic, removing ability of -10's to easily gank (as they do nowadays) would make ganking more expensive - true, and that would be the point. You'd still want to go after big 'whales' but I doubt many folks would bother with ganking empty freighters, at least to the degree its being done today. Why - well because ganking would actually have CONSEQUENCES (and fairly light ones too, I mean if you can't afford to spend 200-300 mil every now and then to restore your sec status while ganking, then you're doing something terribly wrong). I don't understand why you find it so hard to accept the possibility of such a scenario, while all this time you advocate consequence based gameplay. I'd say such a change would be much more EVE-like then current mechanics are. Anyway, let's wait and see, I bet that in the end I'll be the one laughing
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 1929	Posted - 2015.11.05 13:51:26 - [93] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: I love how you present bumping mechanic as something which has been intentionally developed to reduce safety of freighters whereas CCP employees (Fozzie) refer to it as a "wonky side-effect of" eve's "physics system". Lovely spin, as usual, shame there's an ever increasing amount of clear statements and data working against you. CCP has had 12 years to make changes to the bumping mechanics. They just revisited and rebalanced freighters two years ago. If they wanted to fix bumping they would have. They haven't because it is clear that criminals need some way to tackle ships in highsec or freighters would be almost perfectly safe from them. There isn't some grand conspiracy here: CCP wants freighters to be vulnerable to criminals. If they remove/change bumping, it will be replaced with some other interdiction method or weakness for freighters. Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: As for -10's running around hisec, I'm impressed by your knowledge of CCP's intended design goals. You must be Hilmar's alt, or something. Myself, I'd say CCP didn't want to close hisec for those chars, allowing them to move through it. However, I doubt they ever wanted -10's to operate basically unhindered in hisec (which is fairly easy now with insta docks/undocks, ability to dock up in any station and reship there etc.). Also, if you want to tackle a freighter besides bumping - there is a mechanic for that, it's called warp disruption. Again with the myth propagating. -10 are far from unhindered. There are very limited ways in which they can operate which practically necessitates the current way ganking is done. CCP is quite concerned about allowing suicide gankers to operate in highsec. They of course have to be a little careful about expressing that unpopular truth in public, but there are hints of that all throughout the CSM minutes (like on page 59 where they are worried about an "unhealthy reduction suicide ganking") and other less public sources. CCP wouldn't have built the security status system, Crimewatch mechanics if they just wanted to prevent criminals from operating or always use tags to repair their status. It would have been much simpler just to lock criminals out of highsec if that was their design goal. Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: The only chips I have to deal with are those occasionally found on my table (hint: French fries). Back on topic, removing ability of -10's to easily gank (as they do nowadays) would make ganking more expensive - true, and that would be the point. You'd still want to go after big 'whales' but I doubt many folks would bother with ganking empty freighters, at least to the degree its being done today. Why - well because ganking would actually have CONSEQUENCES (and fairly light ones too, I mean if you can't afford to spend 200-300 mil every now and then to restore your sec status while ganking, then you're doing something terribly wrong). I don't understand why you find it so hard to accept the possibility of such a scenario, while all this time you advocate consequence based gameplay. I'd say such a change would be much more EVE-like then current mechanics are. Anyway, I'd say, let's wait and see, I'll bet that in the end I'll be the one laughing I am equally sure you will be raging impotently just as you are now whatever changes are made. CCP is not going to make freighters safe from criminals ever so no matter how they iterate or "balance" things CODE. is going to continue to explode them. You will then be back on the forums the next week demanding yet another nerf to solve what you think is a problem ("Consequences!, we want them"), yet is intended game play put into the game on purpose by the developer. I hope "Angry Rham" is just a persona and you really are having fun behind the keyboard because it certainly doesn't come across that way. Remember, Eve Online is just a video game.
Lan Wang V I R I I Ineluctable. 1790	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:25:35 - [94] - Quote why is someone wearing an Angel Cartel jacket and opposing criminal activity, what a time to be alive Recruiting V I R I I Small Gang Nullsec PVP Drinking rum before 10am makes you a pirate, not an alcoholic \| Angel Cartel \| Serpentis \|
Ione Kjyshy TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium 0	Posted - 2015.11.05 14:52:22 - [95] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Bumping is essential as the only realistic counter to the insane EHP of freighters. I don't see EHP of freighters being insanely high. If a ship can be alpha'd in HighSec with number of ships and modules that cost less than the said freighters hull I'd say it's quite effectively the opposite.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 442	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:04:24 - [96] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Demerius Xenocratus wrote: Freighter bumping is aggression-free tackle. That's problematic. You shouldn't be able to tackle another ship permanently without consequences. Why? ...Snipped the blah... Because everything in EvE has usually consequences. Guys like you demand consequences for other stuff but if you need to adapt, you want to get picky. Always telling others that are possibilities to avoid bumping, avoiding and ignoring, that bumping is a risk free game mechanic. And once again, guys like you, love to sing songs about how you hate those risk averse ppl and how to force them to fight, ignoring all reasonable arguments. So you hate risk avoiding ppl, but of course it is alright if it suits you. That behavior does not make you evil, it makes you pathetic. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2588	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:09:35 - [97] - Quote La Rynx wrote: ....That behavior does not make you evil, it makes you pathetic. Says the dude hiding out in an NPC corp lol Scrubalicous, really. Thank you for that. F Would you like to know more?
Mortlake Devils Rejects 666 851	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:27:27 - [98] - Quote Ione Kjyshy wrote: Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Bumping is essential as the only realistic counter to the insane EHP of freighters. I don't see EHP of freighters being insanely high. If a ship can be alpha'd in HighSec with number of ships and modules that cost less than the said freighters hull I'd say it's quite effectively the opposite. This is essentially bollocks. I shouldn't have to explain why.
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 442	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:27:51 - [99] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: La Rynx wrote: ....That behavior does not make you evil, it makes you pathetic. Says the dude hiding out in an NPC corp lol Scrubalicous, really. Thank you for that. Oh please, you are welcome. I am not hiding, i am stating my own opinion and do not need the backup of my alliance to boost it. You obviously have not realized, that NPC arguments makes you pathetic since you have no other argument to bring up? Time to wake up, only kindergarden kids, codies and their friends from C&P give a "shi-t", because they have no good arguments. Black Pedro wrote: So much anger. I suggest ... Have you any idea how hard the codie-bullshit-BINGO is ringing whith your arguments? Apropos hiding... Why are you not in any corp of the codie alliance? You are very very obviously more than friend to them? Why oh why should WE be angry? Changes to bumping are bad for you, not "us". Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2588	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:33:52 - [100] - Quote La Rynx wrote: reeeeee reeeeee reeeee Fixed your spelling for you. EDIT: Im thinking of changing my sig! "You can't spell REEE REE without NPC CORP membership." F Would you like to know more?
La Rynx School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 442	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:35:11 - [101] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: La Rynx wrote: reeeeee reeeeee reeeee Fixed your spelling for you. Sweet. but no arguments. Get your posts ready to be deleted. Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Carpe Noctem. Pandemic Legion 2588	Posted - 2015.11.05 15:36:48 - [102] - Quote La Rynx wrote: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: La Rynx wrote: reeeeee reeeeee reeeee Fixed your spelling for you. Sweet. but no arguments. Get your posts ready to be deleted. Wait, did you just yell "MOM!, Feyd is bugging me!!!" ? REEE REEE REEE! Would you like to know more?
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 1830	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:12:07 - [103] - Quote BirdStrike wrote: As things stand it is broken that participents in a heist (bumpers) don't get suspect flagged - lets be fair, demanding immunity from consequences is exactly what carebears do so its a bit rich to suggest freighter jacking should be risk free. Let's think a moment about why this is even the case? Why are bumpers so untouchable and so well protected? Obviously it's because bumping machs are protected by the Code and blessed by James 315, which makes them essentially invincible bumping machs. I really hope I got that point across. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Toxic Yaken Amarr Squad 28	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:35:23 - [104] - Quote So uhhh... do we actually know what they're doing with bumping yet? Highsec Spaceboat Pirate Amarr Squad Diplomat
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 132	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:38:46 - [105] - Quote Nope, but we can make a threadnaught while waiting
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 132	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:58:07 - [106] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I hope "Angry Rham" is just a persona and you really are having fun behind the keyboard because it certainly doesn't come across that way. Remember, Eve Online is just a video game. Oh well, saddens me that you claim to see anger or at least try to provoke an angry reaction in every poster who disagrees with you. I hope that passive-agressive Pedro is just a persona, but I doubt it.
Toxic Yaken Amarr Squad 28	Posted - 2015.11.05 16:59:26 - [107] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Nope, but we can make a threadnaught while waiting A constructive threadnought or another C&P vs the world circlejerk? Highsec Spaceboat Pirate Amarr Squad Diplomat
Tengu Grib Black Hydra Consortium. 1457	Posted - 2015.11.05 17:37:29 - [108] - Quote Samwise Everquest wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Austneal wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Samwise Everquest wrote: Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD. "It's not the freighter's fault he got suicide ganked" "It's not the miner's fault they got wardec'd" That's not really a valid arguing point. If they apply damage mechanics to bumping, then both ships need to take damage. Not that I'm in favor of damage dealing bumps, but it would have to be applied equally. It should only apply to ships with an active prop mod. Anything other than that is unfair and unbalanced. Crash into a parked car doing 90 mph then come back and suggest that. You didn't have a NOS system installed so it shouldn't do damage. Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities. StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
Tengu Grib Black Hydra Consortium. 1457	Posted - 2015.11.05 17:41:49 - [109] - Quote La Rynx wrote: And one post "No 5 is alive" suggests subscriber numbers are rising. That's good to hear and I really hope it's true. Special thanks to Carlvagio for being a cool bro and financing fun activities. StonerPhReak> Being an adult sucks.
Siegfried Cohenberg Schlomos Incorporated Shut It Down 124	Posted - 2015.11.05 19:03:29 - [110] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: You'd still want to go after big 'whales' but I doubt many folks would bother with ganking empty freighters, at least to the degree its being done today. Why - well because ganking would actually have CONSEQUENCES (and fairly light ones too, I mean if you can't afford to spend 200-300 mil every now and then to restore your sec status while ganking, then you're doing something terribly wrong) Being -10 in highsec already has consequences. It limits your gameplay options. On my -10 characters I can do a couple of things. I can move through highsec but I can never stop moving. So all I'm really limited to doing is just more ganking. If I want to do things like suspect bait then I need to buy tags for 300m. So now my security status is high enough to have unhindered movement. If I gank again I have to decide if I'm going to limit the amount of things I aggress or do I go all out and get back to -5 within a few hours. A few pods later and that 300m tag purchase is gone.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 132	Posted - 2015.11.05 20:37:48 - [111] - Quote Siegfried Cohenberg wrote: Being -10 in highsec already has consequences. It limits your gameplay options. On my -10 characters I can do a couple of things. I can move through highsec but I can never stop moving. So all I'm really limited to doing is just more ganking. If I want to do things like suspect bait then I need to buy tags for 300m. So now my security status is high enough to have unhindered movement. If I gank again I have to decide if I'm going to limit the amount of things I aggress or do I go all out and get back to -5 within a few hours. A few pods later and that 300m tag purchase is gone. Well, for starters, you didn't have to become -10 in the first place, it was your choice, so accept the consequnces. Want to pvp without limits - go to nullsec (and lowsec to a degree). However, with lowsec having the same silly sec penalties as hisec, I can't say that arguing for restrictions towards pirate char's movement in hisec is reasonable (unless there is a massive re-work of sec status hits in high/lowsec). Furthermore, notice how nothing I've proposed would impact pod ganking or solo/small group indy ganking we know today. Hell, it wouldn't even impact miner ganking (which is gameplay of questionable quality but ok, I can see how at least providing some interaction to miners might not be the worst thing out there). The only thing that would change is the ability to perform the bumping-enabled freighter/capital ganks we have atm. However, my proposals would not render freighter ganks impossible, far from it. They would just be more demanding and consequence laden - as they should be. Why would that be a bad thing, I still don't understand. What I always find amusing is spinning the narative - making it sound like I want ganking removed, theme-park like hisec etc. Seriously, some of your buddies sound more like whiny carebears then whiny carebears themselves.
Puddsy Puddsy Corp Phoebe Freeport Republic 9	Posted - 2015.11.05 23:16:23 - [112] - Quote Heya, I'm Puddsy, one of New Eden's top haulers right now. I deal heavily within EVE's hauling community, on the contractor and contractee sides equally. Flying a freighter should NOT be a risk free ordeal. I should not be able to put my entire savings into a single ship and undock with no consequences. That said, I think flying a freighter (in highsec) is currently too risky. We're seeing a sharp shift towards DST and BR contracts in the Haulers Channel, as well as NEE's recent change to their freighter service. Here's what I think is wrong: 1) It's really, really, REALLY easy to bump a freighter. I've done it a few times. If you don't believe me, buy any T1 BS, fit an MWD and some nanos to it, then sit on a gate in the jita -> amarr pipe for a few minutes trying it. I've done it in an Abaddon. 2) A freighter can be killed for a small fraction of the cost it takes to build one. it costs what, 50 mil to kill a freighter? That's 20-some catas, at least. If killing a freighter cost a few hundred mil, people would be less inclined to do it. They wouldn't stop, but I think they'd do it less. 3) There's no good way to escape being bumped aside from using a webber and hoping you don't get bumped before you warp. 4) Freighters have more use OUTSIDE highsec than in it. Less so now that IHubs are 60k m3. Here's what I think is good: 1) Freighters CAN die. If they were invincible, everyone would fly one. Like I mentioned above, i don't think that freighters should be allowed to move around with no risk. Something something sandbox. 2) Freighters have more moving power than any other ship. A million m3 is a lot. They are also the only ship that can drop outposts. 3) Freighters are like baby JFs. I like JFs. I own 3, soon 4. Freighters and JFs are the lifeblood of EVE's economy. Changing them changes the core aspects of how the game's economy works. They do need a change, though. Anyway, that about gets across what I wanted to say. It's not exactly the bumping needs a nerf, I think it's more than hauling needs a buff. Also: JFs are not invincible, don't try that with me. I can write a VERY detailed and specific guide on how to hunt and catch a JF if you want. This is why I think freighters should not be invincible. Thanks, -Puddsy -Puddsy CEO of Puddsy Corp
Sasha Cohenberg Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE. 24	Posted - 2015.11.06 04:23:45 - [113] - Quote Puddsy let me break down the cost of ganking freighters So In a perfect scenario which is in a pulled .5 system Triple anti-tanked freighter - 14 cats or 112m Default ehp freighter - 18 cats or 142m Bulkhead freighter 22-26 cats or 176-208m All above cats are tech 2 And this is only doable when there's 0 opposition. Now this is pretty cheap but you need that many cankers to make it that cheap Now for worst case scenario on say a fat whale in a .8 system unpulled We would be looking at 12-20 talos depending on fitting Which is 1440m-2400m The only time we would see a 50m cost puddsy is if the gank fleet has 30 people in t1 cats
Puddsy Puddsy Corp Phoebe Freeport Republic 10	Posted - 2015.11.06 17:50:07 - [114] - Quote Sasha Cohenberg wrote: Puddsy let me break down the cost of ganking freighters So In a perfect scenario which is in a pulled .5 system Triple anti-tanked freighter - 14 cats or 112m Default ehp freighter - 18 cats or 142m Bulkhead freighter 22-26 cats or 176-208m All above cats are tech 2 And this is only doable when there's 0 opposition. Now this is pretty cheap but you need that many cankers to make it that cheap Now for worst case scenario on say a fat whale in a .8 system unpulled We would be looking at 12-20 talos depending on fitting Which is 1440m-2400m The only time we would see a 50m cost puddsy is if the gank fleet has 30 people in t1 cats Thanks for breaking that down for me. I kinda just pulled a number out of my ass. I've put it in my notes for future reference. -Puddsy CEO of Puddsy Corp
Avi Shekelstien New Order Logistics CODE. 41	Posted - 2015.11.06 18:29:35 - [115] - Quote Just pay your local friendly agent of the new order 10 million Isk and enjoy a gank free second job. disclaimer being afk will invalidate said permit.
Samwise Everquest Run and Gun Mercenary Corps FETID 148	Posted - 2015.11.06 18:36:03 - [116] - Quote I would like to see a mechanic added where I can fill a Iteron V with explosives and self destruct it causing significant damage to everyone around me. Run and Gun Mercenary Corps looking for work. Pras Phil.
ISD Buldath ISD STAR 201	Posted - 2015.11.06 22:08:31 - [117] - Quote Quote: 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. This thread is beyond repair. Locked. ~ISD Buldath Interstellar Services Department Support, Training and Resources Division Lt. Commander

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.