Safe logoff gets you away from the bumper if nobody's taking a shot at you, because there's no combat timer. That said, you're not allowed to just bump someone without taking a shot at them, or a ransom demand.

know the act of bumping is not a reason an exploit, however the people who do the bumping can and often do (in High sec) bump someone for 30-60 minutes or more!!

Those are all great points! I agree! However the bumping mechanic, if you happen to fall into the trap should not keep you in limbo for a long time. Either they have a gank fleet ready in 5-10 min.. and go for it... or let ya go. And if they do kill it... make the punishments for criminals get harder and harder and more expensive to recover from with tags etc...

1. Active Tactical Ramming Shield Module for bumpers ?
1 per ship. High Slot-Requires Charges......1 Charge per bump.....10 Charges Max depending on the skill level? Can only be reloaded from Depot and Stations.
Bumping can be allowed without this but add in a 25 sec Bumper TImer/Buffer.....1st Bump.....Bumper TImer starts... buffer drops to 75%....another bump within 25 secs, timer resets, buffer to 50% and so on. If Ramming shield NOT active on the final bump...the bumper takes shield damage and becomes suspect. Bump buffer resets, once depleted again its now upgraded to criminal.
Maybe a bonus that once suspect level has been reached, the bumping has dice roll to damage and disable frieghter defenses.

Ah, so you're unwilling to deal with the exact same mechanical consequences as the gankers do?

If they scare you off, they must be fine then.

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):

...

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.

So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?

You just contradicted your own argument, I have nothing further to prove...

Keep wriggling little worm.

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.

No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.

Okkkkk.... Logic... Well, Which bumped ship? THey have on in Uedama, One in Madirmilire, and one in Niarja. And maybe the other one you had no idea about because you are spread thin. with the existing potential targets. This is another reason why Gankers get the upper hand as with any attacking force, you get to decide when and which target to attack, everyone else has to scramble to respond.

If they have the resources to bump that many people... more power to them... but don't think they should be able to hold their targets there indefinitely, or with out some additional penalty for the -7 to -10 person once they do gank.

Sounds like RFF has pilots who are actively keeping themselves safe. If CCP were to nerf Concord in some fashion, that could weed out more incompetent independent pilots and RFF could charge more. Just sayin'.

I don't see your first idea doing much as Macheriels have no problem fitting a MJD of their own and could easily follow a freighter.

As for your second idea, I think it is actually a terrible one. If you mean cargo scanning (which I think is what Rita Jita was proposing), preventing pirates from prioritizing their targets removes any incentive to haul responsibly. Flying a freighter with 500M ISK of ore should be safer than one containing 15B ISK of PI materials. If the pirates can't efficiently assess the targets, they would be forced to randomly exploding any target that comes by meaning as a hauler, how much cargo you load has no effect on your chances of successfully making the trip.

I am not sure why freighters are so special that they deserve to be excluded from this part of the game, and I am even less sure the ability to surreptitiously scan a potential opponent's fit should be tossed out to make freighters safer.

Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony.

Interesting post, but it seems that instead of offering some positive criticism, there are people that prefer to yell "please don't touch my cookie". I get it. If I was making a profit out of ganking I guess I would say the same.

So my main concern is this: I started EVE very recently (about 1month) and I was interested in going the haulers way until I got enough ISK to start an industry/research/hauling corp. I quickly found out that in order to haul effectively I need 1 or 2 extra accounts (scouts,webbers) or some people I will always drag around depriving them off their fun and all of this just to have a slim chance of avoiding a group of multi accounts that are having their fun. Yes it really seems they take advantage of game mechanics because they are kind of broken/obsolete (?) but still the fact remains.

Can I play this game with one account without paying for other people to play? Because from where I am looking at it, it seems I cannot.

There is 0 (zero) balance when it comes to a new player coming in and like me wants to haul. Even if I am not afk what stops a multigank and bumper from getting me? And I am not asking for blah blah if this and that info. I am asking about MY options as a solo new hauler when while traveling I start getting bumped and a gank is soon incoming.

Either way my point stands - no risk for the looter.

Those things are hard? Oh well...

Well, that's where you're wrong. This is the "find any possible excuse to nerf ganking" thread.

I'm trying to provide additional by focusing on bumping and safe looting here. Try and stay focused too.

3. Fleet Hanger owners must accept looted items before they are dropped into ship and take a Suspect Timer for it

Avoid having to manually allow it, by having safety yellow....but still go Suspect once its dropped in.

This gives risk to all looters.

Safe looting I was refering to involves use of a ship with fleet hanger (DST or Orca, 50k m3) and a disposable alt. You get them into fleet, open fleet hanger for fleet members, land them next to a wreck (they usually come along with the ganking crew) and use disposable alt to transfer loot to dst. The disposable alt gets tagged as a suspect but DST (ship holding the actual loot) is flag-free and warps off. It is easy and extremely safe for the looter/ganker. Now, fixing this mechanic would open MORE (not less) content as looters would have to time their moves better, HICs would become a truly useful anti-ganking/anti-looting tool and there would be some actual risk involved in the act of looting. See, content for all involved, and that's what we all want more of - risk and content, right? Right!?

Well....That's not the same. It's fine as his fleet members didn't loot somebodies wreck illegally. And if by chance they did the Orca pilot gets a pop up asking if he accepts, as long as he the orca pilot has his safety green...he will always get the pop up asking before illegal goods are taken on board. If all items legal....no pop up.

If all items transferring were obtained legally....there will not be a popup needing "yes accept" constantly. Now IF somebody tries to transfer items they just stole in the past 15 minutes(Suspect Timer)... that's when "yes accept" is needed from the Orca pilot or Block option there as well. He is afterall accepting stolen goods onto his ship, no? That should be Suspect for the Orca pilot. If the originally owners decide they wanted back what was stolen from them....they are out of luck unless they gank the Orca that now has those items and in that case Concord kill them for even attempting LOL.

When items are "Loot All" illegally.. maybe creates a kind of Plastic Wrap on the spot? If ship destroyed....Plastic Wrap jettisons 1st in a container or dice roll destroyed, then ship explodes. Plastic Wrap still Yellow unless somebody is brave enough to take the risk of looting it again.

And yes AGers do shoot loot.....so much so that CODE./Goon are complaining about hitpoint of wreckage. Yes that's a rumor and possible wrong....forgive me :)

No no no and no...If your are caught and killed. When you ship explodes, any created Plastic Wrap or "illegal loot" Wrap is, by a dice roll, either destroyed or jettisoned within a container beside normal wreckage. The wreckage is White/Blue.....the Illegal Loot Wrap, now in a container is still a Suspect trigger if not picked up by the original owners of those items.

In terms of potential ideas - I'd be all for some form of anti-bumping stat change for freighters (increase their mass? althought that would screw up wh-s so probably no) or a module which would allow for active players to get out of bumping situation without requiring webber alt.

Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp.

Where did I say that it would have no effect. I said that it would not remove the ability to gank.

Whoops, I didn't block your posts.
So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who).
So, by now you've been proven to be:

a) liar
b) denying facts (link above)
c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview
d) who knows what else

In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on.

Wasn't hauling nerfed when freighters got low slots (choice - tank vs capacity)?

The problem is the fact that once first bump lands (and, as we've established so far - that can happen regardless of having a webber alt) when faced with a good bumper you can't get out legally and the bumper has no consequences. I don't understand how that fact is so logical or acceptable.

Well, I've actually done these things so:

- warping to a fast ship only works if the bumper pays no attention to what's going on and does not change his bump vector. We've had fleets with 3-4 people in fast ships trying to provide warpins and more often then not it would not work.
- bumping the bumper is very hard and unreliable. you might land one hit but he recovers from it quickly and then gets another bump on freighter.

Other things I've participated in:
- suicide webbing the bumper in order to provide window for the freighter
- repper fleets
- bumping the freighter into warp (using machariel)
- bumping the freighter as the gank fleet lands
- alphaing gankers using arty loki, cane and/or tornado
- haven't participated in the gank but have assisted with ganking a bumper
- popping the loot
- ganking the scanner alts
- stealing loot

maybe some other stuff I can't think of right now.

After all I can tell that atm the game is skewed towards gankers by a large margin precisely thanks to bumping which provides choice of timing, ability for lazy ping-based reactions and the ability to avoid any opposition. I can see why big ganking groups are opposing the potential chages of bumping but in reality it would not make ganking impossible just more pro-active for both sides.

It would not nerf ganking.

Depends on your definition of a gank. I'd say that keeping target in place would be harder but ganking it would pretty much stay the same.

Looting in a criminal ship that is about to get concorded is an exploit in my opinion: there is no skill involved.

I agree, ganking a Mach is a good way to do it, However with the amount of Machs they have ready to go, and other pilots ready to bump, it is not always a guarantied stop to gank. It is tougher then you think to gank a Mach that is constantly moving and bumping. A few things need to come together for that to happen.

My final suggestion in between this pillow fight of a thread :)......

If any ship is unable to reach warp within 20-30 minutes of starting the WarpTo/Dock process, collision detection is dropped for that ship. Most bumps last 15 minutes before gank anyway....so still fair? Most AGer have no problem with bumping itself....its just length of time those bumps can last. Ransomers still have to time bluff they have a fleet to kill if they choose too. If the bumped ship attempts to change is WarpTo location, timers start over. If they are smart its to a station or a safe spot to log off... if its a empty system. They can be followed to next system and the whole process starts over.

So to avoid the lowsec/null issue.... if you any scrams/disruptors are activated against the bump target, collision detection stays intact during that time.

A 20-30 timer starts automatically(even if system is empty) as soon as right click, warp to/dock is attempted or Autopilot attempting to start the process. Bumps/Collisions have no bearing on when that timer starts. The timer can restart, IF they stop their ship and attempt warp again to another location, given bumping ships another advantage. Bumpers are only attempting to bump until its ganked or timer expires, at which any thing around the freighter just passes thru it. If freighter reaches successful warp....timer off, collision detection restored before that warp ends.

It doesn't even have to a ship causing the issue.....could be a asteroid or gate keeping you bouncing around while trying to warp.

OK, by security then....0.5 below collision never disabled. Yes, bumping is NOT an exploit....but just tonight I seen a orca bumped for an hour and finally let go. Atleast set a time limit, no? So not an exploit, just bumper being a douche for an hour because he can be. Either gank, convince them to pay ransom or let them go.

Well attention was on elsewhere on other targets, they were actually getting ganked. He was bumped for an hour, while a fleet was ganking freely in system, with little regard to this Orca 2000 km off gate before it was let go :)

You make fair points and I bow out gracefully from further suggestions :)......so basically your view, is that as long numbers aren't excessive, there needs to be no changes. As 98% make their trip freely?

Fine..."freely" was bad choice of wording. Forgive me for that noobish response. It was clear there was no intention of ganking the Orca, maybe it was only serving as a distraction. But I'll post bumper and Orca pilots...once I rewatch a Twitch stream to get that information.

Just to stick my tuppence worth in, i've always thought that an inbuilt slow cycle ( say 15 mins - 10 mins depending on mjd skill lvl) mjd on freighters would provide an easy fix for the problem of unlimited bumping.

It would be easy to implement , give an ak freighter pilot some small chance of escape when bumped if used intelligently , and wouldn't be too op.

Freighter gets bumped as he jumps into system, he can choose to use the mjd to try and escape if he thinks he's closely aligned enough to a station or stargate, or wait till he sees the gank squad on dscan to try not being there when they land.

Obvious counter for the gankers would have to land a point on the target if the target hadnt used his mjd, which would take a bit of skill and judgment , which if u listen to how awesome they say they are shouldn't cause any issues :) .

Most of the time the freighter would probably still die, but it at least gives the ak pilot some slim chance of escape, rewards not being afk , and requires a wee bit of vigilance on the part of the bumper .

I've been present on many occasions when freighters have been bumped , sometimes for hours ( if i recall correctly i was part of a fleet that spent 4-5 hrs one night b4 successfully rescuing one ) . saving freighters is a lot harder than popping them, esp if they're strangers and won't accept fleet or web duels off ag fleets , which is understandable cos u know, this is eve .

the plus side from my point of view is the content that would be provided when the gank squad warp in jus as the target warps off , and land in the loving embrace of the ag fleets guns . :)

whats not to like?
o7 bb

a scram does i believe, tho correct me if i'm wrong. and having to fit a mjd on a mach means less tank . i also said intelligent use of the mjd, if the target feels he's nearly aligned to an escape , then the small amount of time he gets from using mjd might just get him out of the situation. also whats 100 km but a cupla minutes bumping anyway ?

my suggested solution is simple, rewards ak piloting , creates a few variables for the gankers, bumpers + target and is no way a nerf to ganking . what's the problem?

If a solution relies on a player having to use an alt (i.e. a second account), that's no solution. Players should not have to play the game with a main and an alt to avoid a certain built-in game mechanic. If you need two chars to play the game, then CCP would have to give every new subscriber two simultaneously playable chars.

The other way is the alt doing the (scouting, webbing, whatever) function has to be another player. If that's the case, then safe hauling can only be done by teams of players. Not solo. Which might be OK, game design-wise. But it would make hauling one other thing that a solo player can viably do in EVE.

Wait, just to be clear.....Consequences are not supposed to imposed by CCP? So the whole Criminal Timer is a broken mechanic by that implication, no? Gankers should keep their ships if others players aren't killing them off after ganks.

I know, right.
Don't want all that risk of getting your little wreck popped or having to think about a way to avoid that from happening, let CCP and CSM solve your problems instead. Sound familiar ?

I saw the original thread and made the same comments about impact of this change on hisec freighter ganking. Considering the numbers, I'd say that change to combat scenarios will be marginal (popping 500 or 3500 ehp w/resis ain't really a problem in any kind of fight where fleets are involved) while it practically negates one of the options anti-gankers (ready to risk thier sec status) had.

please bear in mind that not all eve players have multiple friends/corp members/alts to call upon when needed.

it would be useful to know the success rate of code gank attempts on bumped freighters in uedama, according to code they never fail, despite the efforts of ag crowd, so what's the big deal bout giving em a slightly bigger challenge ?

Aside from that, why do people that fail to protect themselves, deserve special treatment, and particularly why does a capital ship deserve special treatment just because it's in highsec? They get no special treatment anywhere else.

@ Scipio Artelius jump freighters do have an emergeny 'out' option , freighters who are bumped do not , and i'm guessing it's not a very enjoyable experience for the pilot involved to have to sit helplessly for sometimes hours till the gank squad arrives. dare i say that it's prob cost the game a few players

someone mentioned the mjd idea affecting tackling freighters in lo/null, considering there's no penalty in null for aggression it's not imo a big deal. the bumping won't have changed a bit .

the arguments put forward stating that a mjd would be ineffective against bumping in hisec somehow don't apply in lo/null? im confused somewhat...

Correct, this is the problem. Thank you for seeing it. It should be a hostile act. Smashing into someone's ship continuously for 30 minutes to an hour is hostile. I just saw it happen Saturday night. I had to log off at 1 hour of bumping (With a Webber also! ), so It might have been longer. I have a video clip of it that picks up at 1500Km from the gate (already 40 minutes). THe clip is another 20 minutes.

I don't think bumping should be a criminal act, that would be too much. If the penalty is tied to the bumper, it would be invalidated when they bring in the 2nd bumper, it the bumping starts over. It must focus on the freighter, On the same grid as the gates/stations. Im sure Concord's or the station's sensors could pick up continuous shield impacts on one repeated target. Dispatch ships to investigate, web the bumping ship(s) and the freighter for 30 seconds while the Freighter could align and warp.

As someone mentioned also about the looting. Yes, if a ship was ganked. Who ever picks up the loot or ejects it, or puts it into a cargo hold of another neutral, that ship goes FY. Its the source of the loot that makes it suspect, then once it makes it to station the loot is clear of the suspect status.

Punish them immediately... so remove the concord delay?

Then how would you punsh them later? they are all -10.. flying Catalysts. Not really a punishment if you pop them later. They only undock on the way to a gank. You going to hang out and Anti-Gank them then? If so that would be great!

OK, so with this attitude, what is your opinion on the fact that a CSM from one of the most prominent ganking corps in the game manages to push a change favouring the playstyle of his buddies?

Sorry, could not help it. :) Had to lighten it up some.

What I wanted to say, is if you want to help yourself, you can. These mechanics won't effect you. You will be gone before these kick in. Even less of a chance to be ganked for you. Good! See This is what I am getting at. You are taking additional precautions. You are unlikely to be ganked. Someone who does not do as you, will fall back on mechanic. This is HS, there are safety mechanics that have been put in to help assist over the years, I.E. the safety button. We need a mechanic that acts as a safety net. They are on a roof top and it's 50 floors down. Maybe they won't be able to reach it?? But it is there.

Again, you said you will kill them. Like I said, the actual gankers will only undock to go to a gank. Then pod back to station. Thats it. They are disposable alts, so good luck killing them and making them pay...

Your question? I did not know this was YOUR game. Its a community game, and community games can change. If you mean "Your game" as far is how you play it.... Like I said.... you can continue to do what you do for less risk then others.

Are you comparing RL with Eve... Tist tist, but ok.. lets play,...

This post has grown with people adding more evidence.

You my friend need to start trolling somewhere else with a comment at this point of the discussion. This problem exists and have been perceived by many people. Again CCP can validate our claims. Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.

First. Not emotional. It was just funny that at page 30ish, you then want to see evidence. You never disagreed that it happens up to now, but now all of a sudden you want it. If you saw the posts, you would have seen other people mentioned similar aspects. As for direct proof. I again do have a video that I will be happy to share with CCP. I bet CCP could come up with more direct stats. I have not recorded the mass bumps before because certain mechanics were not as abused as of more lately, but might have to record more. That is a great idea!

Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.

I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know.

Random samplings mean nothing if you come by when Code or Batt Country operation is in effect. You have not been there so I don't expect you to understand. WHy do you think code mentioned earlier in the post about 10million will make it not an issue.

Look.. I don't have to convince you personally to do this. I even tried to compromise some, and nothing. You disagree.. I think its well noted in the posts here. TIme to let others that might have ideas speak.

Oh and for the record, I've never been involved in a gank or bump in high sec. I have no axe to grind in that respect. It would be nice if you stopped trying to imply that of us all. Just because I argue against your stance, doesn't mean I have a vested interest in bumping per se. It means I disagree with you as you offer no facts or logical arguments, to back up your stance.

So I am saying that data is incomplete.

If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place.

so , having an opportunity to emergency jump away from a squad of incoming catas won't possibly work because....?

It would also give experienced and active pilots an opportunity to get webbed into warp (after bumping started). How would that be bad?
Also, regardless of having MJD capable freighters, I don't think that inexperienced pilots know anything about the tools that actually might or might not work in the odd case of bumper being really bad.

also, from my observations from assisting hundreds of freighters , webbing only works if the freighter has no lateral movement, meaning it can be aligned correctly to a warp in/out, but all the bumper has to do to prevent warp is side swipe the freighter. so to say bring a webber and all will be well once the freighter is being bumped isnt quite true ....

re the guy who asked to supply proof that being bumped for x amount of hours, while helpless in a giant space pinball costs subscribers, let's just call it an educated guess. i can't see the day that ccp will release a promo video extolling the virtues of the above to attract new players....

The slow down and align times of a bumped capital DO NOT allow enough time for 5 unbonussed webs to get it into warp before the mach makes another run and sends it flying. It wasn't even close. I will say that a rapier or huginn may have a chance to web a cap into warp up until the first bump occurs. Once the first mach bump occurs - webbing alone is pointless. The speed of the bounced ship in the bounced direction can't be reduced enough between bumps.

Since the webbing is effective.....how about allowing it within Fleets, forgot the dueling option?

Also, how frequently is this happening? How common is 5-6 hours of bumping happening?

As it has been pointed out so many times before, having a webber guarantees nothing as seen in this case (if you look at that char's kb, you'll find more similar cases). That BB died suicide tackling the bowhead, which died too after 43 minutes. So webs mean nothing really.

if u re-read carefully what i posted, i said x amount of hours, hours being the operative word here. during my time in hsm, i and my fleet members observed the 'stacking ' of bumped freighters on many occasions, with multiple bumpers (6 or more) holding targets till the gank squad could get round to them, at slightly less than 4 ganks max per hour , taking down targets in order of value or vulnerabilty (ie no protective fleet near) , you do the maths . these gank sessions frequently went on for 6 hrs or more .

i am not asking for bumping to be deemed an exploit in my suggestion , or any kind of nerf .

i personally have observed 4-6 hour bumping sagas on at least 3 occasions. multiple hour bumps? too many to count .

And I do want to point out....bumping/ganking quite seasonal. Summer it sky rockets as more people have time to play. And may well give quite a tell to the age range of bumper/gankers in general :) The Uedama CODE. fleet ganks have slowed as the best FC, Loyalanon has not quite had the time. And when in full swing its quite hectic, a 5 hour mass gank feast days do happen...and multiple bumpers are sending in "pings"... the bumpee does have alot time to kill before there demise.

as was said earlier, once you're bumped you're pretty much guaranteed to die....

so, lets say for example a freighter pilot does the right thing, sets off with a corpy in a webber, as he's jumping thru after the webber , the webber d/c s,( a not uncommon occurence) a cloaky bumper decloaks and has at the freighter pilot .

I'm sorry, i must have been imagining all those nights in uedama where codes bumpers just stacked up bumped freighters for the slaughter for hours at a time i guess.

i've got another proposal, seeing how ganking just got a HUGE buff with the wreck hp boost, how about making shooting wrecks a suspect level offence rather than a criminal offence in hi-sec.

please, where have i stated that it's unfair that gankers can steal loot?

btw, has anyone here got a link to a thread discussing the pros and cons off increasing wreck hps ?

No, I'm assuming you simply won't gank the bumping ship. And in that assumption I feel pretty confident

with concord on site and limited time to shoot the wreck, i'd like to see u pop one successfully . perhaps you'd be prepared to give me a demonstration one day.

You can throw the "/highsec" parameter on there to narrow it down more. January 2nd is the first one I saw.

so the opponents of any change to bumping mechanics are saying that its absolutely fine for a hauler going about his lawful business in hisec plying his trade to be prevented from doing this by the illegal act of deliberately preventing said hauler from entering warp for an infinite amount of time with no consequences for the aforementioned 'criminal' bumper?

Well... You can do what you want to trend it out, please go for it! I give you huge props for that. Because the nature of major ganking outfits, is unless your online 24/7 andin a range of systems when ganks happen, your data will be incomplete. I hope you get lucky to see it! I know I hope to be online when they do decide to do such things. However we should not loose faith, I made an inquire about Bumping with CCP. I do know, that the bumping is logged with CCP. They have quite EXTENSIVE data on this. While I was unable to obtain any specifics, it is logged! So with the observations of others, and myself, it should be easily verifiable to CCP that we are indeed telling the truth, that this is indeed happening. Looting the same way. Follow the loot trail. .

Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed.

But should not be needed I think at this point as official proof to CCP that this happens. They have the data already. They can verify claims and then we can move to the actual fix.

Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer.

Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed.

That this happens? Verify claims? We've constantly asked for evidence of a problem and so far all we have from you is that bumping occurs and looting into DST's happen.

In any real, modern society, criminals are not allowed to continue their criminal acts in areas with heavy surveillance & police presence. Random violence can always happen; but it would not be allowed to continue indefinitely.

However Unintended use of the game mechanics is an EXPLOIT - especially if it allows reward without risk.
- just that CCP has not yet or is currently unable to address it.

My posts are intended to petition CCP to look into this seriously and expeditiously

Just because it was is the past, does not mean it won't be in the future. Games change.

Rules and gameplay are constantly evolving and never static.. otherwise I wouldn't bother to petition.

I can see that those who enjoy being douchebags prefer the status quo.



Thank you!

I was not meaning EXPLOIT in reference to CCP's current rulings..

I meant EXPLOIT in terms of general on line gameplay across all games
(the bunnyhop for example was an EXPLOIT)

I want CCP to CHANGE the rules

And again, the way I see it, only those who enjoy douchery would prefer a status quo

Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.

Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot.

Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose.

Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.

Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot.

Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose.

It's not risk free, though. There's the risk that a group of valiant white knights might suicide gank you, for instance.

There's also the risk that nobody stupid enough to allow themselves to be bumped will come along and you'll just sit about wasting your time.

Of course, both of these risks are significantly mitigated by the unwillingness of people to actually do something other than whine and cry like a toddler with a scraped knee.

would your proposed super mjd be immune to scram so the freighter would have some means of escape from being permanently troll tackled in an empty system ?

those ideas certainly have merit , it would make some sort of freighter escort essential and create lots of content .

As for wrecks, they take either two tornadoes or at least 8 thrashers (add a few to be sure). Fun fact, it will be easier (or at least as hard) to gank an active fit pve tengu then a wreck of a freighter. I find that hillarious.

The point was not ridiculing, it was illustrating the fact that it will be easier to kill a pve fit tengu then a wreck, capital or not.
His fit, while not the best, was certainly working for his purposes and definetely wasn't the worst I've ever seen.

there are hundreds of freighters plying their trade at any one point in the game, in response to pedros suggestion, i am trying to work out the pitfalls in a constructive manner, u got anything constructive to add , lets hear it,

Forget resists, there's a zero transversal.

if, as pedro suggests tackling a freighter is to become a suspect level offence , then there is nothing to prevent troll tackling indefinitely of any unescorted freighters in an empty or near empty system , which would just replace the problem of unlimited bumping with unlimited tackle. hence my suggestion that the tackle is only allowed in 0.5 systems to prevent abuse of this mechanic.

his idea has some merit as i said, let's discuss .

Again, I'm ridiculing noone, if anyone, you are trying to do that.

As for resis, I have no idea how he died, was it inside of a site, in a belt? Were his invulns on or not? If you are planing on ganking a pve boat you will usually pre-scan him and prepare to hit him where his lowest resistance lays, so what the purpose of your 'story' is - I have no idea

... and as soon as you've indicated what my error was, I've edited the posts :).
Now can we get back to what the thread is supposed to be about, i.e. bumping and looting.

Not only that, but looking at what killed him my guess is they were shooting right into his resist hole too. EM is...errr was his weakest resist.

Dunno, maybe you'll be doing the gank away from gates in a system which has concord response time allowing for two-three cycles as opposed to ganking a wreck with concord on grid. Just some ideas.

of course, theres nothing to stop the troll tackler from jumping bak thru, or having a fleet mate on other side is there?

For a full level V skill char, that tengu has 17018 EHP against EM. So, one thrasher worth of volley more then a wreck.

Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.

Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.

Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.

Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose and done deliberately.

oh please. if the above proposal went ahead as is , then think of troll tackling and multiply x 2-300 at any one time all over hisec .just try engaging your brain before typing please or i'll have to add you to the list of timewasters whose posts i've already hidden .

so my asking pedro to clarify if his proposed 3-5 minute cycle 'super mjd' would be immune to scram is suddenly ,according to you , me suggesting that mjd mechanics need to be changed? troll harder please.

bumping would still be a thing too

the flag for freighters to enable fleet members to attack the bumper would create lots of content too, and encourage more pvp , while also enabling the bumper(s) to engage the freighter when it is activated. hisec could become pvp central with these changes, with potentially huge fleets duking it out in the hotspots.

dunno bout u but that sounds awesome to me

the flag for freighters to enable fleet members to attack the bumper would create lots of content too

yes it would be a new 'limited engagement ' thingy, but pretty easy to implement, understand.

edit;please leave out the insults, it adds nothing to the discussion

Solution: Create a game mechanic that works like this: If one player bumps another a certain number of times within a certain amount of time, the aggressor gets a suspect timer for just the aggressed and everyone in his fleet, to attack.

Vectors: The speed and mass of the ship could play a part in rather or not it is registered as an actual aggressive bump, as micro warp drives are needed and they increase the mass of the ship greatly.

Example: Bumper bumps an orca 5 times in 30 minutes, he gets a suspect timer and can be shot, but if the bumper tries to bump the orca into other ships multiple times, it will not cause a suspect timer for the Orca due to lack of necessary speed for it to register as an aggressive bump.

Conclusion: There is no instance or reason someone could bump into someone, outside their fleet, 5 times in 30 minutes unless it was on purpose and done deliberately.

This needs to be a thing ASAP.

Please hire this guy.

under my proposal for the fleet engagement timer against bumpers, the freighter pilot would be best advised to have a fleet with him to engage the bumper if flag is obtained,

Jonah is exactly correct. Even mining has a PvP aspect to it. Since the belts are open to anyone if somebody comes into the belt then they can take some of the more valuable ore before I do. That is a type of competition, a type of PvP. When I sell something on the market and undercut the current lowest price seller I am going to take sales he might have otherwise gotten. CompetitionGǪPvP.

To say one wants to play the game and not engage in behavior that does not impact other players that person is just being silly. Hell, when I buy something off the market, it has an effect. Players participating in the market is what generates prices which in turn tell inventors and/or builders information on what to build. Prices inform miners on what are the best rocks to mine. Etc.

with all due respect, reading your posts is an excercize in wordplay, nuance of definitions..

"even mining has a PVP aspect" indeed! it's comical.

Comical while adding nothing to the gist of this thread..

I'm trying to make you aware.. no disrespect intended. Really.

I want them to need & lose MORE Catalysts..

I want to add BUMPING SHIPS to the tally of destroyed vessels.

OK, so how does it relate to BUMPING for the purpose of ganking not having consequences.

these gankers make endless alts.. give me a break

Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic...
- that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed.

here's the thing... and it's not even so much about more safety (although who would NOT want to be safer?)

It's about getting to act like a jerk with impunity..

by including BUMPING in the Crimewatch mechanic

well not necessarily.. just the BUMPING that sets up a gank..

- now I do realize this is very complicated technically.. it needs to be worked out

and I'm sure the coding is quite involved as well..

good question; good direction

- so first: is it intentional or not?

exactly... so how about they check me.. I'm trying to align and warp; perhaps it's taking longer than it should

or perhaps the BUMPER is doing more than once...

maybe both situations being positive simultaneously cause the flag?

so, to determine the first question , the questions would be:is the slower ship a capital class ship entering warp cycle , is the faster ship involved travelling faster than x speed and posess x amount of mass ? if yes then log collisions above x speed until either x amount of time passes or warp succeeds , if warp cycle doesnt complete and hi speed collisions occur repeatedly during x time, fleet flag awarded for 10-15 mins counting from last collision recieved . (not suspect timer ).

by setting the parameters as'' ignoring anything other than a hisec capital class ship outside a docking ring that is entering warp regarding this flag , the server would only have to deal with a few hundred ships at most i believe, tho i'm only guessing at numbers here, mebbe someone knows the stats for hi sec capitals in space at any given moment?

id say in this regard, the an at keyboard player has the option of attempting to warp back to gate to evade bumper , by activating his warp drive he then fits the parameters for obtaining a 'limited fleet engagement'/'suspect timer. the afk freighter pilot? well he's afk and his fault , so suffers the consequences.

Collision occurs above x amount speed + x amount mass yes? continue, no? ignore.

Is warp-drive active and aligning?

If aligning with warp drive active
- not bumping intentionally

If collision but not aligning to warp... start timer on current warp cycle of capital ship, if incomplete after x amount of minutes while high speed collisions continuing over this period ..
- bumping intentionally


If intentional - suspect flag/fleet engagement flag awarded for 10/15 mins from incident of last bump that meets the parameters.
Else - continue as normal

more in line with what is being suggested , but you knew that already didnt you....?

we don't need a logic test to determine if anyone is afk. if they are afk then in doing so they have given up voluntarily their ability to use a mechanic that may help them extract from the situation. if they choose to do that in a 10 bil freighter or an empty one is again entirely up to them.

5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .

the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...

...]the safety settings would be irrelevant regarding a fleet engagement timer , because its not making the bumper suspect .

mach 1 that bumps for 4 1/2 mins then stops would still receive a timer if the freighter was unable to complete his warp cycle after 5 mins, the timer would then last for 15 minutes , meaning that mach 1 can continue bumping with the danger of having the flag activated , or withdraw to safety until the timer runs down before resuming his activities .

worth a quote i believe ...

fleet engagement flag would have to be activated by the victim of the bumping for the umpteenth time, so the above scenario could only happen if the victim chose to engage,

my whole proposal for a fleet engagement type flag contained the proviso that it would be activated by the victim . please read my posts properly if you wish me to continue responding to your ahem, constructive criticisms.

in answer to your above regarding awoxing type situations , like a suspect timer, the fleet has the option of not engaging the flagged bumper. if a fleet member chooses not to engage the bumper, then he is at no added risk, unless the bumper chooses to suicide gank him. the only person who is immediately vulnerable under my suggestion , is the capital pilot who activates the flag . the rest of the fleet would have to choose to aggress .