EVE Search - Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 19:35:20 - [1] - Quote As someone that feels quite impartial when it comes to the whole ganking thing: Almost every hauler I see that gets ganked has not taken the necessary precautions to avoid it: - overstuffed with valuables - missing a webbing alt - not scouting - undertanking their ship - not using instadock and undock BMs When I see these people die, I think: "Good, they've just reduced the competition for competent haulers." On the other hand, Eve is supposed to have some element of repercussion for your actions but the repercussions are negligible for the players doing the ganking and non-existent for players doing the bumping and carrying stolen property. However I don't think OPs suggestions are workable (nor do I have suggestions of my own) but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 21:29:07 - [2] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Gankers don't have many repercussions? Because the so called victims refuse to do anything about it. Like any PvP interaction, "consequences" are for the other player to inflict. It doesn't take many Talos to gank a Machariel, especially since the bumping one are absolutely not combat fit. The repercussions are there. But no one bothers to inflict them. Your point suggests that people have to become gankers themselves to force repercussions upon the bumpers? And that they'd actually have to become more skilled than the gankers themselves at ganking in hunting a more agile, faster, smaller target that can't be endlessly bumped for an hour. I don't feel this fits in with any kind of white knight roleplay. Besides which, if enough vigilantes DID decide to act in this way and the machariel losses became high enough then the bumpers would just stop using 'expensive' machs and simply downscale to insurable T1 hulls at which point there really would be no meaningful repercussion for them under the current game rules. Outside of bumpers, gank alts can freely travel around highsec in pods and shuttles, freely dockup, freely undock (provided they have an instaundock BM and keep moving around the system) and at most put an 80m (already replaced) battlecruiser on the line at a point where they've already factored in it's loss to the activity they're partaking in...and of course, they can just swap to a non criminal alt for the duration of their 15 minute timer. I like ganking as a part of the game but really it's laughable how easy it is to setup a 30 day gank alt and log it in on request. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 22:02:22 - [3] - Quote Ah yeah, as I said in my first post, I laugh everytime I see the lemmings dying to a gank and bumping is pre-emptively avoidable... That said, imo the types of ganks where the gankers are already milling about in system seem so much more in-keeping with immersion and lore than the current situation where someone in a mach bumps as long as necessary whilst sending out a ping for catalysts and waiting for the calvary to log in - even waiting to see how many pilots they can muster before doing their napkin math, calculating how many should be in battlecruisers and how many in destroyers. It's this refinement of bumping and ganking combined so that only one active player is needed to make a system 'risky' that seems crass. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 22:17:54 - [4] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: "become gankers" nothing, the sec status loss is completely negligible if they don't pod the guy. It's still a loss of security status and giving up kill rights to people who'd be happy to use them. Basically you have to burn an alt to do this in perpetuity or at least stop doing anything in expensive ships until the KR expires. You suffer more repercussions than the people that use disposable alts to do this with. Quote: Same thing I have to do if I want to kill a freighter, since they're basically never in player corps. And I'm perfectly in agreement that people shouldn't be able to hide behind npc corps, that doesn't validate how the current mechanics work or don't work. Quote: If by that you mean get within 20km for about twelve seconds, on a target that you know is going to be hanging around within 10km of a gate anyway. Not that high of a bar to jump, if they hate the ebil gankerz as much as they say they do. Whereas a freighter will be the same distance away from the gate and not as agile...so yes I think you just confirmed that it's easier to get an accurate warp in on and gank a freighter before it aligns away, unlike a machariel with an MWD fitted. I don't consider gankers 'ebil' - just a little lazy and scared of losing the ability to continue with their minimum effort, well oiled routine. Quote: I don't feel like that matters. They're players, same as everyone else, have access to the same mechanics and are subject to the same restrictions. Which says nothing about whether those mechanics are actually any good or not. In features and ideas, generally people are pointing out flaws with current mechanics and suggesting changes. In this thread I disagree with the proposed changes but agree with some of the flaws that have been pointed out. I'd love to see suicide ganking given a whole rework, including removing some of the ability of webbing freighters directly into warp to increase losses and risk across the board - but I'd also like to see bumping without aggression removed as a pretty lame mechanic. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:01:51 - [5] - Quote As I already stated...I dont see why you have to become criminal to fight against other people that are assisting criminals themselves. For Scip and Kaar: I understand your very blinkered views and attempts to polarise opinion with regards to current ganking mechanics but I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to them (or their opposite): Ganking is great and part of what makes Eve, Eve, I am still not anti-ganking inspite of your attempts to pigeon hole me as such. BUT I believe the mechanics need a revamp because: a) Nothing should be able to transfer so much value across the universe as safely as webbed freighters currently can [when flown properly] - likewise for JFs and other caps being able to land directly in docking range of stations. Capitals should encourage/necessitate group play and not be able to travel with such little risk - conversely, if someone wants to autopilot their empty freighter, it should have enough repercussions that unprofitable ganking isn't so attractive. b) Escorting a freighter should be more interesting and meaningful gameplay than a second account in a frigate sending a duel request and webbing it into warp every jump (a form of gameplay that is actually easier with an alt rather than a second player). c) One player shouldn't be able to 'disrupt' a players attempt to warp endlessly without being flagged as a suspect or criminal. d) A risky, dangerous system to haul through should have a more interesting permanent population than a single player with a machariel sporadically joined by his mates logging in for an actual kill. Sadly, the game is maybe too old, the code too obfuscated for anything to be changed easily. Anyways...as I say, you both seem unable to view it as shades of grey and only consider people to be either pro or con ganking when it comes to discussion of the mechanics. That's your loss, not mine. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:16:20 - [6] - Quote Quote: Because they're not flagged. Their actions is explicitly not hostile. Because they're not flagged...under the current mechanics you know, those current mechanics that I'm saying need a revamp? /facepalm Quote: Quote: 'disrupt' a players attempt to warp It doesn't disrupt anything. Their warp engines are still online, and they are not scrammed. It does change their alignment, but that's it. Changing their alignment disrupts a player's ATTEMPT TO WARP, it prevents them warping, therefore their attempt to warp has been disrupted. Read the actual words, not what you choose the words to say. I know the engines are fine, there's a reason I used quotation marks around 'disrupt' Quote: Quote: d) A risky, dangerous system to haul through should have a more interesting permanent population than a single player with a machariel sporadically joined by his mates logging in for an actual kill. Yeah, never happening. That currently occurs because of two things. Facpo being the first, and the 15 min Concord "time out" being the second. Unless you're willing to part with both of those, you'll never see such gatecamps as you claim you want. It's absolutely not in the cards. I never said I wasn't against changing those mechanics - it's why I said it needs a complete revamp, not just little tweaks and fixes. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:29:04 - [7] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Because they're not flagged...under the current mechanics you know, those current mechanics that I'm saying need a revamp? /facepalm And the ones I'm saying don't. Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act. Not only has CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game, but it also does not fit ANY of Concord's definitions of one either, which require the activation of a module that has a deleterious effect on another player. Again, pointing out a flaw in a mechanic doesn't equate with me suggesting a way to fix it and having it said that a faulty mechanic is unfixable doesn't make me change my mind about it being a faulty mechanic. Quote: Quote: Changing their alignment disrupts a player's ATTEMPT TO WARP, it prevents them warping, therefore their attempt to warp has been disrupted. Incorrect. Their attempt to warp is still there, their ship is unable to complete it because they aren't aligned. Hence webs. Please learn to English. You are interfering with their attempt to warp, you are disrupting their efforts, you are impeding their desire to achieve something. Disrupt is not limited in the English lexicon to a module in an internet spaceships game. You are disrupting their attempt to warp. Fact. Quote: And like I said, you really aren't going to get it for technical reasons at the very least. They might as well just make a new game as change things that fundamental to the base game. Hell, it took them the better part of a decade to fix POSes, and they didn't actually fix it, it's still in the game because they can't fix it, they just made a replacement for it. Yeap and that's why I (and many others) haven't thought of suitable suggestions for fixes, this doesn't mean that I can't point out perceived flaws in the current mechanics though. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:42:35 - [8] - Quote Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote: Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game. However, I have a feeling that some of the people in charge of the game development see how some uses of bumping mechanics are broken, in particular relating to freighter ganking and that changes are incoming, sooner then some might think. I too had heard that bumping is under investigation in these respects as well but have nothing concrete :( Until then 'it is how it is because it is how it is' seems to be the extent of the counter argument. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:44:43 - [9] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: ]Again, pointing out a flaw in a mechanic A flaw in your opinion. And I'm stating that it's irrelevant, because it basically cannot be feasibly changed. And yet rather than discuss possible fixes, you try to shut down any debate and deny it's even a problem. Try opening your mind a little about things and seeing if it gets somewhere more productive. Quote: the disrupt thing You misinterpreted the sentence I wrote, apologies for your misunderstanding. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:49:32 - [10] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: And yet rather than discuss possible fixes, you try to shut down any debate and deny it's even a problem. Why would I possibly discuss "fixes" for something that is working fully as intended? Kaarous Aldurald wrote: CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it? That... seems... logical? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:01:27 - [11] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it? Be more obtuse. Those are two different things. They have said that they cannot change bumping. And they have also said that ganking as it is right now is working fully as intended. They've also derided people who think the NPCs should defend their haulers. I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping and saying it was fault y- and you said it was working as intended. And yet you previously said that CCP have invested time and resources into investigating whether or not bumping mechanics could be changed. So which is it? Is investigating the possibility of changing the coding behind highsec bumping worthy of spending time and resources on? or Is highsec bumping working as intended and in need of no time and resources to investigate? I already am aware of CCP's position on the actual ganking and mechanics around suiciding a ship to concord to apply DPS to a target in protected space but I'd love to hear the answer to this contradiction. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:04:26 - [12] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul. Please answer the question, is bumping working as intended in highsec? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:10:33 - [13] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul. Please answer the question, is bumping working as intended in highsec? It is and it isn't. Emergent gameplay itself is an intended part of EVE. [edit: Oh, and it's not just highsec. Bumping is used everywhere. It is and it isn't So you agree it's not working as intended. You might even say it's a flawed mechanic that doesn't work correctly? I rest my case yer'onner. Please clean the blood up when you stop wriggling on those points you skewered yourself on. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:16:36 - [14] - Quote You just contradicted your own argument, I have nothing further to prove... Keep wriggling little worm. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:29:52 - [15] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: You just contradicted your own argument No, I did not. And no amount of your deliberately being obtuse changes that. Like I said, the game's collision detection mechanics are working precisely as they were intended to. When ships and objects collide, they are bumped apart from one another, precisely as intended. Or are you suggesting otherwise? To summarise for those with short memories: Quote: Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act... ...CCP said that it's beyond them to change that [bumping], since it's the base physics engine of the game... Why would I possibly discuss "fixes" for something that is working fully as intended? it isn't [working fully as intended] So are we going to discuss fixes now? but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:33:41 - [16] - Quote Haha the carebear ad hominem. Classy but incorrect I'm afraid :) No, I'm saying the behaviour of bumping as a method of preventing a player from warping to a different place without suffering an aggression penalty for this 'disruption' is not working as intended. Indeed this is probably why CCP investigated whether it would be possible to change this facet of the bumping mechanic (as you pointed out earlier, remember?). but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:45:01 - [17] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Haha the carebear ad hominem. Classy but incorrect I'm afraid :) How's that exactly? You claimed that you were in favor of ganking, but that didn't even last two pages before your real intent came out. My real intent is still to have more ganking....but you're again unable to consider that I think bumping is bad yet am still in favour of more ganking occuring. The idea that these two points are not mutually exclusive is completely alien to you which I'm finding hilarious. I'll draw you a venn diagram to assist your comprehension: http://imgur.com/PnbNrcq It is very confusing I will admit to have someone that thinks a part of ganking is bad but agrees with ganking as a whole - it must be shattering your worldview but just try and pull through and realise this is a possible stance for me to hold, then realise I've succesfully argued for my stance whilst you've scuppered your own point of view from within. Yes ganking is (still) good and I (still) want more of it. But bumping is (still) a ****** flawed mechanic. Eventually you'll get there son. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 01:01:00 - [18] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: My real intent is still to have more ganking I honestly don't believe you. I honestly don't care. I've backed my points up whilst your own points have looked like a pokemon collector who's moved on to collecting fallacies. Your latest is a simple strawman, trying to propose I think that the physics is broken rather than my point that the use of bumping without aggression in highsec ganks is broken. Basically trying to misrepresent what I've said so that you can prove me wrong... Before that, we had a black and white fallacy, assuming that two points are mutually exclusive when they're quite clearly not.... We've had some kind of ad hominem/no true scotsman fallacy in calling me a carebear. "No true eve player is a carebear!" https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/FallaciesPoster16x24.pdf Take your pick on the next one, I'm all ears. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 01:36:33 - [19] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: If bumping is flawed purely on the basis that it is emergent gameplay, then so is ganking. When CCP coded CONCORD response times they did not intend players to try and kill eachother before CONCORD arrived. As is scamming, corp theft, rolling and collapsing WH's, using stabs in FW plexes, the MWD cloak trick, armour tanking a black bird, pipe bombing etc etc. By your thinking this is all flawed gameplay? Not at all, many emergent behaviours are great and definitively a part of Eve and it's a sign of respect from the devs that they leave us open ended mechanics to play with and adapt without involving themselves too heavily. That said, there have been prior instances where emergent behaviours have been fixed/tempered once they've got out of hand (POS bowling and hyperdunking to name two off-hand) and so just because something is emergent, does not mean it's necessarily worth keeping in its current state. Bumping is a great emergent technique in terms of preventing a burn into a POS bubble or back to a gate but in terms of using it as a form of tackling to avoid the aggression flag of using a tackle module it seems like a cheap and gamey exploit to me. The fact CCP have previously looked at changing this in highsec seems to suggest they agree it's a little bit flawed. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 02:04:37 - [20] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: zzzz Whatever mate, it's all here in black and white for people to read themselves. Oh and I missed out the 'personal incredulity' fallacy from my last post - "I don't believe you" indeed, that matters not a jot as to my argument. o/ but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 02:26:40 - [21] - Quote I've pointed out WHY I think it's cheap and gamey: - The primary counter to DEFEND someone that's (e:already) being bumped is to become criminal yourself and gank them, a complete reversal of how criminality would sensibly work. It also requires arguably more luck/skill to actually gank a fast moving, rapidly aligning machariel..so not only do you have to become a ganker, you have to exceed them in skill at their own game. - It's a way to evade the aggression flags that would ensue if you tackled someone with one of the provided tackling modules...nuff said? They made a way to tackle people with repercussions for it, then people found a way to evade the repercussions. Sure it's an opinion, one I've backed up. I don't think I ever said it was unintended and that's why it should be gone, I stated why it doesn't really make sense in the gamespace. Also I already stated I disagree with webbing being as safe as it currently is and the way that it encourages alt play by being more effective than having two separate players (as you can roughly move your webbing alt closer to the freighter before the freighter drops cloak using the freighter screen as a guideline). I also think that a single frigate acting as an escort for a freighter/capital is pretty crap and would prefer to see more meaningful mechanics involved in this kind of escort/defensive gameplay without making it into incredibly boring nullsec freighter escort ops. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 02:43:49 - [22] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: - The primary counter to DEFEND someone that's (e:already) being bumped is to become criminal yourself and gank them Wrong. That's how you inflict "repercussions" on the ganker. There are plenty of ways to defend someone who is being bumped and/or ganked. But more importantly, there are numerous strong and effective ways to avoid being bumped or ganked in the first place. It also provides some player enforced repercussions on the bumper (at the expense of losing status and providing killrights to DEFEND someone)...again though, it seems you're getting confused with these ideas of one activity being exclusive to another. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 02:48:17 - [23] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: And even without that, we have to deal with the loot fairy, which is more risk than any PvE activity by itself. Carebears don't have to flip a coin to see if they get any mission rewards. Gankers have that to begin with. PvE'rs aren't aware of RNG based loot drop mechanics? I think that'll be news to almost everyone that does exploration And multiplying something by 50% to find out the average loot drop, does not constitute risk. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 02:57:09 - [24] - Quote I never said anything about highsec exploration (although it's more profitable than you seem to think)...I know you like to throw around this term 'carebear' but it seems you have a limited knowledge of what being a 'carebear' pertains to and perhaps this is why you're using it incorrectly: I know people that 'carebear' in wormholes. Almost everyone in Deklein is 'carebearing' 24/7 in their carriers. And yet when you say 'carebear' you assume that the term only refers to highsec players? It's like you never get to meet the other kinds. How cute. And you think I'm one, even cuter. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 14:44:18 - [25] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: A good thing to know! But that also assumes said carebear never missions or rats between those kills. Which, if it was a 5.0 character, he/she probably will. So you're going to go off and carebear in your mission running ship having just given a killright to someone that associates with gankers? Legit. Basically people have to roll their own gank alts so they can avoid the same repercussions that gankers avoid by rolling their own gank alts. Yes it's doable, but instead of the interesting rock-paper-scissors dynamic gameplay we get in the rest of eve, we've devolved into a single staid winning strategy: Everyone roll a gank alt to avoid the repercussions of the crimewatch system the same way gankers currently do. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 14:50:26 - [26] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: "Ganking doesn't have enough consequences!" "I refuse to gank the bumper because I don't want the consequences of ganking!" Ganking =/= bumping....remember we had this discussion yesterday about things being different from each other sometimes. Bumping = no consequences Ganking = not enough consequences for players that have rolled a disposable gank alt. It's not so hard to understand: please review the fallacy link from yesterday and stop bloody straw-manning everything. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 14:54:48 - [27] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: Bumping = no consequences Yeah, most things that are explicitly non hostile acts don't have consequences for them. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the direction your engines are pointed doesn't have consequences in any part of the game. Explicitly non hostile acts 'under the current mechanics which we're discussing whether or not work as intended and might need improvement" Jesus, we had this argument yesterday, you lost. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 506	Posted - 2016.01.27 15:11:16 - [28] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: You've already claimed that the way the game has worked for the last ten years is somehow unintended, and I told you to file a bug report. And this was one of your many fallacious arguments in attempting to strawman one of my points as something it wasn't. We get it, as someone that flies with gankers and seems incapable of taking part in PvP outside of highsec you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and trying to drown out discussion by shouting 'THIS IS HOW IT IS SO THIS IS HOW IT ALWAYS MUST BE!' Unlike you, I have no vested interest in bumping either way; I don't fly haulers, I don't gank haulers, I generally don't even notice gankers in my game on a day to day basis since I'm not often flying through or near niarja/uedama/etc. However it is still my opinion that it's a flawed mechanic, and if you recall, you conceded that point yesterday because you tried to suggest that it was working as intended and yet also conceded that CCP had investigated trying to fix it. And yet today, you seem to have woken up and imagined our whole discourse last night as some kind of forum nightmare that vanished in your pillow and are back to your same, old, tired points which have already been dealt with. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 506	Posted - 2016.01.27 15:26:05 - [29] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Don't you have anything better than "I don't like it so it should go away"? Don't you have anything better than "It's working as intended...no wait...it's not working as intended...well it kinda works...well let's keep it anyway instead of exploring other options?...CAREBEAR...HE'S A CAREBEAR" I'm not egotistical enough to think my opinion on a forum will change the game but having a discussion about mechanics is vastly more interesting for me than namecalling, misrepresenting points and basically acting in denial that there might be some other workable solution to the current flawed method. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 506	Posted - 2016.01.27 15:34:39 - [30] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: is bumping working as intended in highsec? It is and it isn't. link Also a shill tends to be someone standing to gain by fraudulently misrepresenting something. Not two posts ago we established I don't have anything to gain from changing or maintaining this mechanic because it doesn't affect me directly...you, on the other hand, would be affected by it. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 506	Posted - 2016.01.27 15:47:59 - [31] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Bumping discussion always end up with nothing because every solution ends worse than what we have currently working. idd. I haven't seen a good solution put forwards either. What I've been arguing against though is the simple minded idea of saying: 'It's not broken, it doesn't need fixing therefore all solutions are wrong' Instead of admitting: 'it is broken and needs fixing but this solution isn't the right one' One thought process enables a discussion to get off the ground and perhaps some form of progress, the other is fingers in the ears and screaming to maintain the current status quo because of fear of a change being disfavourable to the parties involved. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 506	Posted - 2016.01.27 16:07:04 - [32] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Eli Apol wrote: 'It's not broken, it doesn't need fixing therefore all solutions are wrong' Which is absolutely the truth. Not only that, even if it were broken, CCP can't do anything about it anyway. You're sitting here expecting us to entertain your dishonest premise as though it were true. I will not. Ganking and bumping are not broken, period. There is no "discussion" to be had based on a lie. We know CCP can't do anythign about it...because they investigated changing it. And why would they have investigated changing it? because it's working perfectly? Riiiiight. Keep on telling everyone that I'm the dishonest one, that I'm the carebear, that I'm the shill and keep ignoring the obvious logical step that they investigated changing it because they themselves perceived it to be broken. I mean that's all your rhetoric consists of: "He's a liar, he's a carebear, he's no true eve player, he's a shill, I don't believe him, he's saying the whole physics system is broken" It's like being in playschool. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 507	Posted - 2016.01.27 16:31:06 - [33] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: Like wise if my bowhead lands in a bubble camp with 30 hostiles im also ****** and I can also be held there indefinitely or until I self destruct. The fact that there was plenty I could have done before I landed in the bubble camp is the issue here. You say people are bitter about discussing it, but its been discussed for years and no viable alternative has been put forward. In fact, considering how easy the mechanic is to avoid, the need for an alternative is highly questionable. The motives of everyone who proposes a change is also highly questionable. They make up facts. They misrepresent. And the best reason they give for wanting a change is: I dont like it. Its obvious to everyone that they are asking CCP to let them be greedier and dumber. Plenty of argument has been put forward in this thread, and every other, that freighters really do NOT need the help. The vast VAST majority of hauling is wholly uneventful. Even afk freighters make it through the most dangerous systems more often than not. The smart thing to do is make hauling more dangerous before, or at least at the same time as, any 'fixes' for tackling with bumping is done. The difference between a nullsec bubble camp and aggression free tackling in highsec is that one's a nullsec bubble camp and the other is aggression free tackling in highsec .oO As for questioning motives to undermine an argument, it doesn't do anything to the argument but I'll nibble anyways: I'm still pro ganking in spite of others stating the opposite. I still believe that the safety of freighter hauling with a web alt is too much and there should still be more risk for freighters even when using this technique (or the technique should be abolished entirely with alternative, more interesting, defensive options in it's place). I still think that aggression free tackling in highsec is a faulty mechanic. but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

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.