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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15919	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:34:11 - [61] - Quote 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. Quote: Disrupt is not limited in the English lexicon to a module in an internet spaceships game. It does, however, have a very specific meaning in this context. And it is not applicable to bumping. Quote: You are disrupting their attempt to warp. Fact. False. No warp disruption effect is present on their ship. You don't get to dance around it, "disrupt" has a meaning in EVE, and that meaning does not apply to bumping. "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.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 137	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:40:38 - [62] - Quote 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 certain uses of bumping mechanics are broken, in particular relating to freighter ganking and that changes are incoming, sooner then some might think.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:42:35 - [63] - 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
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 875	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:44:27 - [64] - Quote All the people bitching about how machs are fast and hard to gank, put your talos on top of freighter and it will have to COME TO YOU if it wants to keep bumping. Nobody is preventing you from bumping freighter back to gate so that it can jump and get away on other side. There are tons of ways you can save a freighter but you people use none of them and keep crying about a mechanic that has been perfectly fine for over 10 years. And if you complain about losing sec and gank ships to delete an enemy mach bumper... Why should it take only one guy to kill a mach when it takes 20+ to kill any tanked freighter. This really just boils down to "Just one more nerf". Highsec is safer than ever and it's getting pretty boring, this is why people are ganking in bigger numbers, that and the fact that you just can't do it without at least 11 or more anymore. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:44:43 - [65] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15919	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:45:27 - [66] - 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. This coming from the tinfoil hatter who has accused dozens and dozens of people of perma ban offenses without any proof at all... is beyond hilarious. I mean really, how you have the gall to say this with some of the heinous **** in your post record, I cannot imagine. "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.
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15920	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:46:16 - [67] - Quote 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? "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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:49:32 - [68] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15920	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:51:33 - [69] - Quote 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. "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.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 878	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:53:04 - [70] - Quote Quote: So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it? That... seems... logical? You guys cry so much about it even we have to pretend to care... EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu Bunnyhopping days 137	Posted - 2016.01.26 23:56:26 - [71] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: 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. This coming from the tinfoil hatter who has accused dozens and dozens of people of perma ban offenses without any proof at all... is beyond hilarious. I mean really, how you have the gall to say this with some of the heinous ** in your post record, I cannot imagine. Wow, you are upset. Calm down a bit. As for your nonsenical claims - 'dozens and dozens' would mean something like at least 24 players (dozen is 12, right?), if not more. I only remember expressing my suspicion that two, maximum three guys were guilty of input broadcasting via isboxing (in terms of bannable offenses). Also, I've clearly identified some recycled alts but that has been reported directly to CCP. If someone was been banned due to my reports, good riddance to them. As for the 'heinous *' in my post history, do show which posts of mine were like that.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:01:27 - [72] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15920	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:02:56 - [73] - Quote 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. "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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 504	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:04:26 - [74] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15920	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:08:04 - [75] - Quote 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. "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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:10:33 - [76] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15920	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:14:19 - [77] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: You might even say it's a flawed mechanic that doesn't work correctly? The game's physics collision mechanics are working precisely as intended. They are intended to bump ships and objects off of one another, and it would be completely dishonest to say otherwise. Players just found an extra use for it, one that CCP themselves has approved of many times in the past. Fluff yourself harder, but there is no getting around it. "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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43929	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:16:23 - [78] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it? Put yourself into a developers seat for a second. At the end of the day, the only thing that decides how the game behaves are blocks of code. How are you going to write the logic to deal with a very limited subset of what bumping is? Two ships have a vector and the code detects a collision between them. How is the code supposed to work so that it can determine the intent of the players involved in that collision? Changing bumping becomes a much more difficult issue when you try to think of it as a series of conditional statements that a computer has to make. To me, that's always barking up the wrong tree. The best options seem to be: 1. Freighters being able to fit an MJD - so at least they can get 100km off and then try to warp before a bump ship reaches them 2. Rita Jita's recent suggestion to give Freighters a capability to counter ship scanning The first provides some action that a bumped freighter can perform, while the second increases the cost to gank a target since the gankers wouldn't know whether a freighter is fit with bulkheads or cargo expanders, and would have to bring more gank ships to be certain. Personally, if any change was adopted, I'd just make ship scanning a suspect level offence under crime watch. I can't personally think of a reason to scan a ship without an idea of being prepared to shoot it or apply cap warfare, so it seems that ship scanning while not directly criminal, is an associated act. I think that's a slightly better suggestion than Rita Jita's because it still provides choice, whereas countering ship scanning all together just leads to one outcome - more gank ships. A suspect flag would mean sentry guns for the scanning ship, so they would need to warp off immediately afterwards and remain engageable for the next 15 minutes; while the attentive freighter pilot would have some warning that he may be targeted if they just continue on their trip. Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:16:36 - [79] - 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
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2993	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:17:58 - [80] - Quote lol what? Because CCP didnt intend the use of bumping ships for ganking when they coded collision mechanics it means the mechanic is flawed? I suppose that applies to all emergent gameplay then? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43931	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:18:46 - [81] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: You just contradicted your own argument, I have nothing further to prove... Keep wriggling little worm. What argument? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15921	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:20:28 - [82] - Quote 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? "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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:29:52 - [83] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15921	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:30:59 - [84] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: So are we going to discuss fixes now? We don't discuss fixes for a non problem. Now answer the question, carebear. Are you saying that the game's physics engine for collision detection is working any way other than intended? Because if so, you might want to submit a bug report. "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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:33:41 - [85] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15921	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:36:10 - [86] - Quote 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. Quote: 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. So... you think ship collisions leading to movement was not intended to have been part of the game's physics engine literally each and every day since launch? Whew. Might want to put a ticket in on that one. "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.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 43932	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:38:55 - [87] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: 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. It's not, not intended, if that makes sense. CCP are very in favour of emergent gameplay and the use of mechanics that they never thought of. Bumping in a Mach was only emergent the first time and after that it became regular gameplay. That doesn't mean CCP disagree with it. If they did, they would have ruled it an exploit until they could patch it out. So just because CCP didn't specifically intend it, doesn't mean they see it as a problem. But, if you wanted to change the mechanics, how would you write the logic of it? What decisions would you write into the game engine? Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15922	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:41:20 - [88] - Quote Scipio Artelius wrote: But, if you wanted to change the mechanics, how would you write the logic of it? What decisions would you write into the game engine? "If carebear + tears, then highsec - PvP" "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.
Eli Apol Definitely a nullsec alt 505	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:45:01 - [89] - 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
Kaarous Aldurald Black Hydra Consortium. 15922	Posted - 2016.01.27 00:47:53 - [90] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: My real intent is still to have more ganking I honestly don't believe you. But I will say that you should be proud of yourself for having found what appears to be a long standing bug, one as old as the game itself. You can have the honors of putting a ticket in for it though, since you're the one who determined that the game's physics engine hasn't been working as intended for the last decade. "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.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 46 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.