EVE Search - Bumping should not prevent warp.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Bumping should not prevent warp.

» 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)
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.29 06:22:00 - [1] Simply put, there are skills and fittings in the game specifically designed to prevent players from warping away. By allowing players to exploit the flight dynamics and constantly bump into other ships to prevent them from warping is invalidating those skills. In my oppinion bumping = exploiting a game dynamic and should be a bannable offence when used for that purpose. However a very simple fix would to be to auto warp after a set time. Snip for trolling - Timmeh - 27/3/07 My first mod edit.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.29 06:31:00 - [2] I don't actually think ships should be able to 'bump' each other at all. With the mass of these things they'd destroy each other if they really did collide. But the point of the post was to draw the attention of CCP to a game exploit. Why bother training up to use Scramblers, when all you need to a fast ship to run into them? Snip for trolling - Timmeh - 27/3/07 My first mod edit.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.29 06:36:00 - [3] Originally by: Alski That all said, how can we, let alone the GMs differentiate between deliberate bumpage and another ship just happening to be in our path or trying to approach but not being able to get into orbit because of lag or excessive speed? I agree and this is why it needs to be a hard coded fix by CCP. They can't really ban for it as theres no defininitive method of telling it was intentional. Once a ship initiates warp it should perform it's allignment and then warp. The time should not be altered by any other ship collision. Snip for trolling - Timmeh - 27/3/07 My first mod edit.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.29 14:16:00 - [4] Just to clarify, no I've not lost anything to bumping. I've never been in a combat situation where I was being bumped. I have read a lot of comments on the issue and felt it was one which needed bringing to the topic of the day ;). Take a real life example if you will. A row boat bashes into a cross channel ferry. The row boat breaks, while the ferry is not even scratched. There's no noticeable influence on the ferry at all. Two ferries collide and both sink. Equal mass = an equal reaction to the impact. A freighter with a mass of 1,175,000,000 kg should not be affected when ran into by a frigate with a mass of 1,100,000 kg. It would be like a mouse throwing itself in the path of a car to deflect it. In EVE we don't have any feasible way to implement physics damage without too many other problematic factors interfering.,but it's not needed. We have weapons to generate damage. The use of bumping to prevent warp is clearly an exploit in that it's not the intended use of the game mechanic. It's exploiting the physics system so that you can achieve the same results as a scrambler without having to have the skills or even a scrambler fitted. You can't bump Stations, you can't bump asteroids or stargates. You cant even bump cargo containers. Bumping is clearly not an intentional means of preventing warp. Skills and equipment are. I trained those skills so I could perform that duty, I don't expect to be up against others who use bumping instead. Spamming cans is an exploit as I believe is bumping. Snipped - 27/3/07 My first mod edit. Now you have your second - please dont discuss modding in your siggy =) Tim
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.29 14:24:00 - [5] Originally by: jbob2000 How are we supposed to kill motherships and titans (who stay logged on) if we can't bump them? Worst rant I've ever heard. I don't believe they should be 100% EW resistant, They should require a LOT of scrambling, but thats a topic for another thread .
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.29 15:29:00 - [6] Your cow example is quite interesting, but you seem to be misunderstanding the physics of Mass and Kinetic energy. If a cow traveling at 500m/s were to hit the side of a super tanker, it would splatter the cow all over the side. It may even dent the hull a little, but it wouldn't influence the tankers heading. Nothing which would be noticable anyway. If the same cow were traveling at 5000m/s and it colided with the same super tanker, it's likely to penetrate the hull and make a nice mess, but it would still fail to influence the tankers heading. If that cow approached the tanker and applied force over a sustained duration it would stand a better chance of affecting the tankers heading. This web page will best explain the physics behind collisions. Momentum
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.29 23:07:00 - [7] Edited by: Elgar Lightfoot on 29/03/2007 23:11:16 "The anti-warp bumper has sacrificed some efficiency" How exactly? It seems to me that the 'bumper' pilot actually has extra efficiency as he now has an extra mid slot to assign to other modules. He's not using a webber, instead he's exploiting a game mechanic to replace that module so he can be even more efficient in other way. As to your statement about 'bumping' being legal as stated by the Devs. 'LeMonde's' Stated that it was a 'hypothetical' situation, and when asked directly if 'bumping' was a legal and permitted method his reply was... Quote: These questions are ones you're going to have to ask Tuxford. I was just responding to the OP Tuxford never posted, nor did any other dev stating that it was a legal and permitted move. The whole thread was a hypothetical question, and the reply clearly stated that they were NOT saying it was legal.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.30 10:09:00 - [8] Originally by: Aramendel To be fast enough they have to use a MWD - there goes a med slot - a cap injector to be able to keep said MWD running for any extended period - there goes another med slot - and then a few low and/or rig slots for speedmods to be fast & agile enough to get to anything before it warps off. Using 4+ slots to "save" one slot. Brilliant I say! But he's not giving up those 4. The point of a fast agile ship is to get into range to grapple. Not to race and collide. No matter which he did he'd still be using those 4, just with colliding he's exploiting the system in that he doesn't need the skills or equipment to grapple. He fills the grapplers roll for free. How about if I found a way to use speed to insta jump between systems, without using the stargate? After all, navigation is a part of the game and all I'm doing is utilizing existing game mechanics to perform a feature which exists in other forms? Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot Tuxford never posted, nor did any other dev stating that it was a legal and permitted move. The whole thread was a hypothetical question, and the reply clearly stated that they were NOT saying it was legal. He simply stated that he had not the authority to call it legal. It does not mean he does not know if it legal or not but just that he has no authority to call it either way. Not because it has no clue but because it is the usual policy to have only one "official" spokeperson to avoid people contradicting each other. Happened often enough. But yes, Tux never responded there. So? Maybe he forgot about it. Maybe he thought it too unimportant to be worth a comment. It still speaks more for it being a nonissue and no exploiting whatsoever than the opposite. And there's my point, just because a dev hasn't said it's illegal, it doesn't automatically make it legal. You can not assume based on the Devs NOT stating something. Until a devs clearly states that it IS permitted then it has to be classified as suspect, simply because it's quite clear it's not an intended action. Originally by: Aramendel When a game mechanic is not intended the devs usually are rather quick to respond to it and you can petition your ships back. See the wreck aggro issue for example. There was a "It's an exploit" reply within days. The current bumping mechanics are like this since years. This might be a subtle hint. So by your reasoning 'Logoffski' is a legal and permitted game mechanic too. One that was in game and used for years. It wasn't commented on by the Devs, yet they recently made changes to it, supposedly to prevent it happening. How about Jet cans? They were a left over bug/exploit from beta. The devs even stated that mining with them wasn't an intended use and it was an exploit. It was never changed and for years was used and classed as an exploit. It was later accepted as a game feature. What about Insta BM's? They were not intended to be used like that. It was even stated by the devs that it wasn't correct, yet it took years to change it. How about Indirect Targeting and POS's? Exploits are not always commented on by the Devs, yet they exist. Just because they are not fixed or commented upon does not mean it's permitted to use them. The EULA is quite specific on what is an exploit.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.30 11:05:00 - [9] You seem unable to comprehend the difference between game changes and exploits. Changing the range on an ammo/weapon is a change in design, it does not mean everyone was exploiting before. An exploit is when you use a game mechanic in a way it wasn't designed. Exploits in the past include... Mining to Jet cans. Logoffski. Insta BM's Indirect targeting. Can spamming. Node crashing. Teleporting. None of the above were intended mechanics, yet some were fixed, others changed, and some adopted to be accepted as allowed. Before their change they were ALL exploits. Ship bumping is ONLY in the game to prevent players getting hung up on each other. It's been stated by Devs that is why it's there. Bumping never existed before so it's quite obvious it wasn't designed to prevent warp. Players have found that they can use Bumping to prevent others from warping out. It's not an intended used. Collisions were never added or designed to be used to prevent warping. By the clear definition of 'exploit' bumping easily classifies as an exploit.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.30 15:10:00 - [10] Originally by: Major Stallion Originally by: Elgar Lightfoot I don't actually think ships should be able to 'bump' each other at all. With the mass of these things they'd destroy each other if they really did collide. But the point of the post was to draw the attention of CCP to a game exploit. Why bother training up to use Scramblers, when all you need to a fast ship to run into them? I would love to agree with u that this is an exploit of game mechanics, but when I filed a petition stating that i was bumped, they stated that it is a mechanic that is intended to be there and there is no intention of replacing ships lost to the use of the mechanic. Furthermore I was told that there were no plans to change bumping as they said the mechanic is "working as intended"....typical CCP Wasn't that a GM response though? Not a CCP dev one? If I were you I'd appeal it. If I lost a ship to someone because I was unable to warp through bumping I'd petition exploit.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.30 18:10:00 - [11] I'll reply once more, just for those who have a severe problem with reading comprehension (pay attention in school)... ...I've never lost a ship to bumping. In fact, I don't believe I've ever had my ship destroyed by another player. I've only ever been put into my pod by NPC's. NPC's don't bump. I'm simply posting on a subject which seems to have a large support in the EVE playerbase. Only one more comment...The negative side to this thread seem unable to post without insults or some form of ridicule. I believe that makes all the statement it needs.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.30 21:58:00 - [12] I never accused anyone of exploiting. I know none of you personally and have not met any of you in game. I'm commenting specifically on an exploited tactic in game and stating how I see it as an exploit. I bring no insults to the table, yet see many from the other side. Discussion is a two sided thing. So long as insults stay out of it it's generally an enjoyable pastime. Once one side resorts to insults they clearly loose the plot. You can not win an argument with insults, you only succeed in demonstrating a lack of skill.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.30 23:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Mistress Suffering This thread has too many of the same guy's alts talking to themselves. The fact that ships have physical properties and locations which can be influenced to effect the outcome of battle is pure goodness. There are a huge number of tactical elements that are introduced by this mechanic. I'm sorry if its still beyond your skill threshhold to manipulate it well, but train harder, and you'll figure it out. You seem to have missed the point that bumping requires NO training. It actually takes less training than a proper grappler.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.31 00:52:00 - [14] Originally by: The Slayer Give me a skill to stop motherships warping in lowsec. Then i'll /sign. I agree with you that you should have some way to grapple a Mothership. I thought other motherships could do that? But that's a totally separate subject. It may need fixing as well.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.31 12:21:00 - [15] One correction. Selling GTC's for cash IS permitted in every single MMO out there. A GTC has a real cash value and is a physical asset. No one can prevent you selling it anymore than they can prevent you selling your house. What is banned is selling in game gold (ISK) for RL cash.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.31 13:41:00 - [16] Originally by: Neon Genesis Edited by: Neon Genesis on 31/03/2007 12:54:17 Disagree, I know you've said in the thread that you think there should be a way to hold down capital ships, but this makes bumping very important at the moment. Also I feel strongly about what someone else said, it adds a big physical dimension to the game that isn't present in games such as WOW. I also don't understand why you have such a problem with it. Theres no way collision should cause damage, that would make the game ridiculous. And should having 7 stabs on mean you can just warp when you are swarmed on all sides by large ships? If the other ships can't beat your fittings then yes you should be able to warp away. This is a skills based game, not one where if you can find some dynamic which is undefensible you win. If you gave up seven low slots to fit stabs then you gain all the benefits of those. Bumping invalidates the sacrifice that pilot made when they chose to fit seven stabs instead of Cargo expanders. If he had seven stabs, then the attackers have a choice. Either sacrifice other functionality to fit scramblers or they lose because they chose not to fit what was required. Currently the system is that the attackers gain a huge advantage because they don't have to choose. They can have both while making no sacrifice, their bonus is undefensible.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.31 14:23:00 - [17] Edited by: Elgar Lightfoot on 31/03/2007 14:19:56 Yes I have tried out bumping. I did it on my two accounts to see how easy it was, and I have to say it was so easy a new character can even do it. I jumped in an Incurus frigate and put my other account in a BS. Fitted with just an AB I was able to close from 20k and bump to keep him from warping. With an MWD I'd assume it's even easier to close from a greater distance. This wasn't just close and bump once either. I was able to stay close and constantly bump him to prevent him from warping. It was so easy I was appauled. As for skill, I said this was a 'skills' based game, not skill based.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.31 17:31:00 - [18] Originally by: heheheh Even if it was not intended by the devs it is not necesserely an exploit, if this rule applied to EVE then jetcan mining would also be classed as an exploit. Tbh i think most of those screaming "EXPLOIT!!" are the ones that cant actually do it. Jet can mining was classified as an exploit by CCP. It was just so handy and prevelant that they adopted it as a game mechanic. The same may happen to Bumping, but at the current time it falls under the same description of expoit as Jet can mining did. If they adopt it as a game mechanic then thats fine with me. They make the rules, but at this current time it's an exploit in mine and many others eyes.
Elgar Lightfoot Lightfoot Industries	Posted - 2007.03.31 17:37:00 - [19] Originally by: Savesti Kyrsst Originally by: Penny Priddy Originally by: Savesti Kyrsst You kill the tacklers or die. Thank you for restating the problem so concisely. It's the same if you're warp scrambled. You seem to think that fitting 7 or 8 wcs on a battleship should make you completely invulnerable outside 0.0. I doubt most of eve shares that view. The point is that when webbed they have trained the skills and fitted the right equipment to prevent you warping out. They beat your fittings so they get the kill. If I fit 7 Stabs, then I expect you to get 8 points on me to prevent me warping out.

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.