These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP allow miners to defend against bumpers ?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#321 - 2012-10-25 16:18:46 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:



Goons are very much like communism and you guys are the most vocal and adamant people in eve when it comes to pushing your playstyle on others. Some goons even became CCP developers (good ones.)

Are we going for irony today? tomorrow sarcasm yes?

Cool

High sec communist propeganda.

Arya Greywolf
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#322 - 2012-10-25 16:19:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Arya Greywolf
Tali Ambraelle wrote:


It's quite simple really, you vile PVP undesirables simply refuse to listen;

Eve is a sandbox, not just a warzone. Things die, but they also thrive. You have the right to play your way, even when it comes to ganking a bear. Why? Because at that point, bears have teeth and can counter attack. Whether they do or not is up to them.

However, bumping is a different scenarios. Bear's cannot effectively "gank" them in the traditional sense of the word. They do not have a single company or entity. Nay, half of them are sat inside NPC corps, while the rest are spread out. War deccing them would be a financial sink hole and a useless investment with MAYBE 1 or 2 kills to be had.

For now, miners try to orbit, or AB/MWD back, web each other, counter bump the enemy or bump each other back, but this is not as effective as the game disrupting activity of bumping them away in the first place.

This is what makes them undesirables that must be removed or nerfed; there is no effective counter to them. If it was all one corp, or a gank, or even lowsec, I'd tell the bears to remember their teeth and claws, suck it up, and fire back. This is not the case. It is not considered an "exploit" since it is a game mechanic, as so many workingasintended-tards tend to lean on.

Therefore, they interrupt, without consequence, the gameplay of those who choose to sit in a quiet corner to themselves, talk on corp chat, make a meal, or do whatever and mine their little hearts out. They do not pay to be griefed; they pay to play. I don't care if "this is Eve" or "working as intended" or "get over it." If I could kill you in the game to stop you, this wouldn't be an issue, but the current aggression tactics are not conducive to an effective counter attack.

That is why they are undesirable belligerents. That is why they should be removed. That is why I stand with the bears.

What is your reason, besides annoying people and being generally unproductive?

And don't bother with the "why should they interrupt my gameplay?" Your right to game play ends where it infringes on others' rights.

I honestly and legitimately wish that a large portion of industrialists and miners would simply cease their activities and unsubscribe for a while. Let's see if the claim that they can be replaced really does hold up the eve economy.



It's quite simple really, you vile PVE miner undesirables simply refuse to listen;

Eve is a sandbox, not just farmville. Things are built, but they also die. You have the right to play your way, even when it comes to mining in high sec. Why? Because at that point, minerals are crummy. Whether you mine there in relative safety is up to you.

However, afk/botter mining is a different scenario. Pirates cannot effectively "gank" them in the traditional sense of the word because of the recent buff to mining barges. They do not have a single company or entity. Nay, half of them are sat inside NPC corps, while the rest are spread out. War deccing them would be a financial sink hole and a useless investment with MAYBE 1 or 2 kills to be had.

For now, pirates have to invest much more ISK to get effective ganks on miner/haulers compared to before the EHP buff to these ships. Now miners and haulers can effectively orbit, or AB/MWD back, web each other, counter bump the enemy or bump each other back.

This is what makes them undesirables that must be removed or nerfed; there is no effective counter to them. If it was all one corp, or a fail-fit hulk, or even lowsec, I'd tell the pirates to remember their teeth and claws, suck it up, and purge the miners and bears. This is not the case. It is not considered an "exploit" since it is a game mechanic, as so many workingasintended-tards tend to lean on.

Therefore, they interrupt, without consequence, the gameplay of those who choose to gank and interfere mining/PVE gameplay, talk on corp chat, make a meal, or do whatever and gank their little hearts out. They do not pay to be afk miners; they pay to play. I don't care if "this is Eve" or "working as intended" or "get over it." If I could kill you in the game to stop you, this wouldn't be an issue, but the current EHP buff to mining barges and Concord are not conducive to an effective attack.

That is why they are undesirable belligerents. That is why they should be removed. That is why I stand with the pirates.

What is your reason, besides annoying people and being generally unproductive?

And don't bother with the "why should they interrupt my gameplay?" Your right to game play ends where it infringes on others' rights.

I honestly and legitimately wish that a large portion of pirates and gankers would simply cease their activities and unsubscribe for a while. Let's see if the claim that they can be replaced really does hold up what is (now if you're still following...) the entire point of a sandbox and EVE online.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#323 - 2012-10-25 16:20:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Sarah Schneider wrote:
What next? allow miners to mine spacerocks from station?


mining spaceminerals like technetium from stations? Jeepers, that would ruin the game in minutes!

oh.

~not sure if srs~


The stupidity.

Because we can blow up NPC stations, right?


Go back to your communist center and stop demanding CCP to further push your play style on us.


I don't live in the communist center. Why would you think I do? (and i'm on record as being in favor of all your suggestions about changing highsec and nullsec) Does someone else have a similar name to mine? You seem to be just hurling random senseless accusations about.


Preposterous!


Seriously though, the entire thing read very much to me like you were trying to make some point about how moon mining works; so high seccers mining from stations wouldn't break anything anymore than moon mining does.

Did I read it wrong, is it clearer than i thought it was?
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#324 - 2012-10-25 16:41:04 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Sarah Schneider wrote:
What next? allow miners to mine spacerocks from station?


mining spaceminerals like technetium from stations? Jeepers, that would ruin the game in minutes!

oh.

~not sure if srs~


The stupidity.

Because we can blow up NPC stations, right?


Go back to your communist center and stop demanding CCP to further push your play style on us.


I don't live in the communist center. Why would you think I do? (and i'm on record as being in favor of all your suggestions about changing highsec and nullsec) Does someone else have a similar name to mine? You seem to be just hurling random senseless accusations about.


Preposterous!


Seriously though, the entire thing read very much to me like you were trying to make some point about how moon mining works; so high seccers mining from stations wouldn't break anything anymore than moon mining does.

Did I read it wrong, is it clearer than i thought it was?


It was just a little joke, or at least an attempt at one.
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#325 - 2012-10-25 16:42:38 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:



Goons are very much like communism and you guys are the most vocal and adamant people in eve when it comes to pushing your playstyle on others. Some goons even became CCP developers (good ones.)

Are we going for irony today? tomorrow sarcasm yes?

Cool

High sec communist propeganda.




Lol

Hey, I am not knocking you on this, just pointing out the irony Blink
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#326 - 2012-10-25 16:44:06 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:

It was just a little joke, or at least an attempt at one.


Confirming that sarcasm only works when it's obvious to drolling high sec industrialists.

Hope you learn from this mistake.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#327 - 2012-10-25 16:45:49 UTC
svenska flicka wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
svenska flicka wrote:



Goons are very much like communism and you guys are the most vocal and adamant people in eve when it comes to pushing your playstyle on others. Some goons even became CCP developers (good ones.)

Are we going for irony today? tomorrow sarcasm yes?

Cool

High sec communist propeganda.




Lol

Hey, I am not knocking you on this, just pointing out the irony Blink

It's not irony.

Our propeganda is aimed at improving the game for EVERYONE, yours is entirely based on improving the game for only high sec players, at the expense of null players.

Do you see how irony can not exist there?
AzAkiR NaLDa
Council of Exiles
Brave Collective
#328 - 2012-10-25 16:47:10 UTC
It is and always will remain a sandbox game. And in the sandbox there are always people who can't take it when someone throws sand at them. Bumping is part of the game. It is the exact same with can flipping and stuff like that. Don't want to get bumped in highsec? Don't afk mine or go to nullsec where afk miners are slaughtered for being afk. Or you could try to live with it.Pirate

Lone Star Warrior
Phoenix Bibbs
Fweddit
Free Range Chikuns
#329 - 2012-10-25 20:40:45 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Tesal wrote:
Bumpers live for threads like this. Tears, tears and more tears.

Haha. Well they have been well nourished, then.


Please stop!! You're ruining my diet.

I would also like to take this opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to the New Order of High Sec and James 315. This thread alone has paid back the investment I made into the Order and as a shareholder I couldn't be happier.
Nanatoa
#330 - 2012-10-25 23:34:44 UTC
I echo Phoenix Bibbs' sentiments. Best investment ever!

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#331 - 2012-10-25 23:54:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
AzAkiR NaLDa wrote:
It is and always will remain a sandbox game. And in the sandbox there are always people who can't take it when someone throws sand at them. Bumping is part of the game. It is the exact same with can flipping and stuff like that. Don't want to get bumped in highsec? Don't afk mine or go to nullsec where afk miners are slaughtered for being afk. Or you could try to live with it.Pirate


Couple of things here.

* Can flipping flags you. Bumping does not.
* Nullsec miners dock as soon as an unfriendly enters their system, and if they are AFK "magic" does it for them. The only slaughter in nullsec is the slaughter of your braincells from the lack of risk.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
bufnitza calatoare
#332 - 2012-10-26 00:10:36 UTC
hmmm only just noticed this thread.

I have been told off by gm's for bumping orca's and hulks in my nano mach.

it is considered to be harassment if you bump anyone for absolutely not reason.

yet gms also say its fine to bump someone if faction popo is onto them.

double standards if you ask me..

I know tell gm's where to go on bumping issues.
Nanatoa
#333 - 2012-10-26 00:33:52 UTC
bufnitza calatoare wrote:
it is considered to be harassment if you bump anyone for absolutely not reason.


It is. But spreading the New Order and selling mining permits is a reason (and a very good one, if you ask me), so if you do that, bumping is not harassment

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011
Heimdallofasgard
Ministry of Furious Retribution
Fraternity.
#334 - 2012-10-26 00:47:49 UTC
Bump
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#335 - 2012-10-26 01:01:37 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
Orbit with an MWD


Yes please do this. It turns bumping in to a zero effort activity.


Yeah, I've done this with a skiff. The bumper has a lot more trouble keeping you out of range. They move on to easier targets, like an Orca and a bunch of barges/exhumers all sitting in one place.

Additionally, the effort of the bumpers is not that organized, anyway. In most systems if you see bumpers, they usually get bored and leave rather quickly. If they're not doing that in your system, find another system. They're not everywhere.
crab nicholson extreme
The Aloha Snackbar
#336 - 2012-10-26 01:51:14 UTC  |  Edited by: crab nicholson extreme
ok if they were to do that then i would either fit a skiff for pvp with drones in high sec by parking outside a station so people would bump me or a pirate would bump me so my drones freak out on him giving him kill rights on me then him ganking me GREAT PLAN

if its not broken don't fix it because even if you don't like it you can go mine somewhere else this is a HUGE SANDBOX GAME YA KNOW Roll
Zkaor
HATRON 4
#337 - 2012-10-26 02:12:49 UTC
WOW, I can't belive this thread took off like this.

Was just looking for some CCP input that they would consider looking into letting the bumpee fight back without getting his/her arms chopped off by Concord similar to the effects of can flipping. I am NOT suggesting any nerfs, buffs, bans, etc., just the ability to hit back.

Obviously the bumpers do not want this because they will lose their protection.

As a miner found out the hard way, Concord protects all bumpers.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14763810

This is what I am against.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#338 - 2012-10-26 02:19:26 UTC
Zkaor wrote:
WOW, I can't belive this thread took off like this.

Was just looking for some CCP input that they would consider looking into letting the bumpee fight back without getting his/her arms chopped off by Concord similar to the effects of can flipping. I am NOT suggesting any nerfs, buffs, bans, etc., just the ability to hit back.

Obviously the bumpers do not want this because they will lose their protection.

As a miner found out the hard way, Concord protects all bumpers.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14763810

This is what I am against.

They listened.

On december 4th you'll be able to put a bounty on the bumpers. Problem solved.

Just don't cry about me putting a bounty on you so that james can blow you up instead of bumping you.

You guys should have been careful what you wished for.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#339 - 2012-10-26 02:20:01 UTC
Phoenix Bibbs wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Tesal wrote:
Bumpers live for threads like this. Tears, tears and more tears.

Haha. Well they have been well nourished, then.

Please stop!! You're ruining my diet.

I would also like to take this opportunity to reaffirm my commitment to the New Order of High Sec and James 315. This thread alone has paid back the investment I made into the Order and as a shareholder I couldn't be happier.

Good return on the investment, eh.

That's great.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Zkaor
HATRON 4
#340 - 2012-10-26 02:25:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zkaor
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
WOW, I can't belive this thread took off like this.

Was just looking for some CCP input that they would consider looking into letting the bumpee fight back without getting his/her arms chopped off by Concord similar to the effects of can flipping. I am NOT suggesting any nerfs, buffs, bans, etc., just the ability to hit back.

Obviously the bumpers do not want this because they will lose their protection.

As a miner found out the hard way, Concord protects all bumpers.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14763810

This is what I am against.

They listened.

On december 4th you'll be able to put a bounty on the bumpers. Problem solved.

Just don't cry about me putting a bounty on you so that james can blow you up instead of bumping you.

You guys should have been careful what you wished for.




Bounties do not allow bumpees to respond

quoted from a dev blog "Bounties have no effect on who can be attacked legally where"

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73446



unless i understand it incorrectly.