These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Miner Bumping: Discussion & Questions Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#121 - 2012-11-29 22:29:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Dramiel Dan wrote:

1. Miner bumpers stay in NPC corps, so there is no recourse the miners have, short of hiring someone who doesn't mind using alts to end up with CONCORDed ships at every attack. They are abusing and exploiting the mechanics of the game by hiding behind the skirts of NPC corps, because they cannot be wardec'd.



Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan - Responding to a post with truth is now trolling?

Quote:
2. Miner bumpers claim to be going after afk miners and bots, but I see them griefing the same active, at keyboard miners for hours on end, day after day. This is griefing. It is harassment. Period.


It is not griefing, it is not harassment. Period.

Quote:
3. Game mechanics have been changed many times due to the brilliance of groups such as the Goons. It needs to be changed for the miner bumping exploit as well. These carebear players are, yet again, getting bullied. Only this time they have no built in recourse. One needs to be made for them.

Remember, the more the carebears are hindered, the more your costs go up.


Miner bumping is not an exploit & carebears should be as much at risk as anyone else. Turning EVE in to a game where miners are kept safe through game mechanics & CCP enforcment would turn this game in to a staple MMO with spaceships.

Cost of ships is not an issue.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Galaxy Pig
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#122 - 2012-11-29 22:30:46 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan

Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

Highsec is owned by players now. Systems 0.5-1.0 are New Order Territory. All miners and other residents of Highsec must obey The Code. Mining without a permit is dangerous and harmful to the EVE community. See www.MinerBumping.com
Dcna
Nehe Umbrella
#123 - 2012-11-29 22:31:55 UTC
Malcolm Rennolds wrote:
I see several situations where bumping is featured in EvE.

1: PvP to break someone's align, move them out of dock/jump range or prevent them from Pos'ing up. No one, to my understanding, is questioning this use. This is a relatively high-skill, potentially high-impact activity that makes pvp more than just a matter of hitting orbit or manually spiraling around someone.

2: Bumping freighters/orcas to make it easier to suicide gank them. First off, it's not like they can't just be warp scrammed anyway. Second how do you fix it so that colliding with a ship in high sec is punishable without adding tons to GM workloads and/or turning jita undock into a charlie foxtrot. Additionally, the changes to stealing loot will make this substantially harder come Dec 4th.

3: Bumping miners. If you're at your computer being bumped is a manner of manually piloting to weaken them bump and you can likely keep yourself in range of your mining lasers without to much trouble. If you're afk, you're engaging in a playstyle that CCP shouldn't make easier, or support, so who cares what happens to you? Bumping active miners, aka new order bumpers, is part of the kind of crazy emergent game play that makes eve awesome. Don't get me wrong, I hate then new order. It's funny, but I have an ice mining alt and don't see why I should pay 10m isk to someone just so that they don't fly their ship into mine. Here's the thing. It's eve. You make your own fun, oftentimes at the expense of others. With the bounty changes on Dec 4th there will be a great way to punish the new order.


I agree with Malcolm Rennolds (except for the not liking The New Order part).

I am mostly worried that any Bumping changes will negatively affect* PvP activities in Eve, or any created module will not let you bump that carrier off the undock. Worse than negatively affecting PvP will be making special "rules" about when bumping can happen and when it cannot...isn't that why crimewatch was changed?

*Trying to find out if affect or effect should be used took longer than writing this entire post. Sorry if the wrong word was used.
Sidrat Flush
KarmaFleet
#124 - 2012-11-29 22:32:16 UTC
Where do I start?

There is nothing to see here. Perhaps the. Petition queue is getting too big. Automate replies with the words bumping and mining together informing hem it's not an exploit.

Now if ccp wants to address something it's the complete lack of effort required to mine in empire in well anyway being able to mine until your hold fills up while doing the housework or even real work and not even thinking about having to keep an eye on the screen until you get back is much more important than bumping.

Doing this with ice is the easiest but ore mining afk for well up to a coffee break for two or three cycles if you find roids big enough of course.

Can attentive miners get a buff to yield or a tank bonus perhaps. Or better yet nerf afk players by eliminating afk game mechanics for good.

The most efficient miner is a player with a spreadsheet and a timer. Sad very sad.

Change mining mechanics not bumping code.

Its time to stand up against the bad empire based CEO telling falsehoods about what new characters can accomplish and pushing them towards an in game experience of drudgery and loneliness keeping them in the shadow of ignorance for at nest their own profit at worse apathy towards all the experiences that Eve has to offer.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#125 - 2012-11-29 22:49:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Galaxy Pig wrote:
I would like to put forward an alternative story about my real-life friend Tim, who had played many MMOs but after I explained to him in graphic detail how EVE was unlike any of them, that it is a cut-throat game in which you have the tools to rise to the top of an empire, then, should you choose, orchestrate a galaxy-wide manipulation of the market, impose a tax on a population because you both have the power and you believe it's right, that the administrators' jobs are to ensure we all play by the SAME rules, that is, as few as possible, and to more or less stay out of our business, he signed up through the buddy program and is going on 6 months active and hooked.



As it should be!!

+1

I'm a huge advocate of freewill. You don't like it; leave.

Otherwise, welcome aboard, enjoy the ride. Or take the wheel. Your choice.

What's funny, is the claim of rookie-ness, and need to mine ice. As an income, its the worse thing to mine.

As a ratio of attentiveness to your ship (being at the keyboard) it's the most profitable.

Nice little setup there. Try arguing out of the fact you want to be bump-free so you can STAY at your keyboard for each and every cycle.

I also noticed after 7 and half pages each page averaged 1-3 posts of someone talking about how it was unfair because they had to go afk.

And got bumped. Of all the things to be able to be done to you... you got bumped. Not aggressed. Not blown up. Not podded.

Bumped.

#firstworldproblems


2% of all visitable areas in highsec are ice belts, and you're biggest concern is your laser got shut off.

EDIT- Only the +1 was for Galaxy, the rest is just me adding to a post instead of a new post.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Rokmal Serala
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-11-29 23:07:56 UTC
Kimo Khan wrote:
Perhaps a new module: Active anchor. Prevents ship from being bumped, like a siege mode. DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY CYCLE. This means person has to actively be at keyboard and see a bump coming. Drawback, ship cannot move, or warp until cycle complete. Cycle takes 3 minutes. So I can prevent the bump, but doing so I am a sitting duck for gankers who don't care about concord.


I support this. You must be at the keyboard, or you have the risk to be bumped and you have the negative effect that you could be suicide ganked. And in my opinion suicide gank is better then that no risk bumping. Blink So i hope its all okay, cause i'm tired and its not my mother tongue :).
Nanatoa
#127 - 2012-11-29 23:13:36 UTC
I am confused.
On the one hand CCP seem to believe that they might decide that bumping miners with the goal of obtaining isk is harassment.
On the other hand they have designed and are releasing a system which will make it possible to put bounties on any miner for no reason at all, allowing them to be profitable gank targets.


Someone said it above and I will say here again: any system that allows interaction with miners can be used to do stuff miners won't like. Unless CCP would like to cordon off an area of the sandbox and make miners immune to everything, they'll have to live with miners whining about not being able to "enjoy" their afk-mining. Better that CCP learn to live with it now, before they mess with the sandbox too much.

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#128 - 2012-11-29 23:14:22 UTC
Rokmal Serala wrote:
Kimo Khan wrote:
Perhaps a new module: Active anchor. Prevents ship from being bumped, like a siege mode. DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY CYCLE. This means person has to actively be at keyboard and see a bump coming. Drawback, ship cannot move, or warp until cycle complete. Cycle takes 3 minutes. So I can prevent the bump, but doing so I am a sitting duck for gankers who don't care about concord.


I support this. You must be at the keyboard, or you have the risk to be bumped and you have the negative effect that you could be suicide ganked. And in my opinion suicide gank is better then that no risk bumping. Blink So i hope its all okay, cause i'm tired and its not my mother tongue :).


This would make our job so much easier. I'm shocked that freighter pilots would support something like this.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#129 - 2012-11-29 23:15:54 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Thread unlocked. Keep it on topic from now on please. Thank you.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#130 - 2012-11-30 00:16:28 UTC
What miners are asking is for CCP to make it easier to play the game AFK. Really? Make me a module my bot can press every 3 minutes to completely eliminate the need to check on my miner?

For shame.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#131 - 2012-11-30 00:20:46 UTC
SaKoil wrote:
What miners are asking is for CCP to make it easier to play the game AFK. Really? Make me a module my bot can press every 3 minutes to completely eliminate the need to check on my miner?

For shame.



For balance, such a module would have to be a high slot module. Can you really see miners sacrificing a strip miner for some siege module?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#132 - 2012-11-30 00:22:07 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan

Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Lascivit Mercator
#133 - 2012-11-30 00:22:51 UTC
I support bumping as a mechanic of this game 100%.
I support having consequences for all actions in this game.

There is a happy medium somewhere out there, but no one in this thread (myself included) has it nailed down yet.

I like to multiply with sheep
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#134 - 2012-11-30 00:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: admiral root
A question for CCP Falcon (or other devs / GMs) - Does your work schedule allow for you to come and spend some time rolling with the agents from the new order, then after (or before, or both) with our "victims"? You could see how we operate, then see how the miners operate. Perhaps you could use your mad Eve skillz and knowledge to give them an example of hope, a beacon of light for them to cling to (ie: you could gank us, wardec us, hire mercs to kill us, buy a permit, or some other devious thing). You could even organise a minor miner uprising, and see for yourself how unwilling many of them are to interact or do anything to save themselves.

They're playing tennis and getting bent out of shape because *they* want to hit the ball with a cricket bat, which begs more questions:


  • Why should such people be given any special treatment?
  • Isn't it about time the new player tutorials included being ganked and podded as very important lessons?
  • What do people seriously think will happen when bumping suddenly becomes a griefing exploit of harrassment?
  • Will the inevitable retaliation in the form of suicide ganks be next on CCP's target list?
  • What about the obvious awoxing that will come from that change?
  • How long before saying hello in local is a Concord offence for harrassment, unless both parties have signed an agreement in triplicate and a 28-day cooling off period has passed?
  • Is there a threshold of complaints that triggers a process like this thread? If so, are you willing to share the number? I'd wager far more people have complained about moon goo, which even Goons have said needs fixing.
  • What's the ultimate CCP plan for highsec? Is it the removal of Concord in favour of tools that enable players to do the job, or is it a dull wasteland of perfect safety? Is it somewhere in between?


Here's my favourite question: How is temporarily disrupting someone's ability to mine ice because they refuse to buy a 10 million isk permit, where the "victim" always has the option to go elsewhere and lose nothing, different from pointing someone's officer-fit battleship in lowsec and demanding 10 billion isk or you'll permanently deny them their ship and their pod, where they lose everything?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Van Kuzco
Perkone
Caldari State
#135 - 2012-11-30 00:34:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan

Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2012-11-30 00:41:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
admiral root wrote:

Here's my favourite question: How is temporarily disrupting someone's ability to mine ice because they refuse to buy a 10 million isk permit, where the "victim" always has the option to go elsewhere and lose nothing, different from pointing someone's officer-fit battleship in lowsec and demanding 10 billion isk or you'll permanently deny them their ship and their pod, where they lose everything?



Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
Diedre Starchasm
Starchasm LLC
#137 - 2012-11-30 00:47:44 UTC
I believe that minerbumping.com is the funniest EVE blog I have found.

I believe that the New Order bumping mining ships is "emergent gameplay".

I believe that there are two issues that are getting mixed up together and should be treated differently:
1. repeated bumping
2. repeated speech in Local

The in-game mechanic of bumping should be left alone. If someone wants to bump my mining ship repeatedly, and then follow me to another system and continue to bump me there, this should be permissible. This is in fact a milder form of them suicide ganking me everytime I undock -- and that is behavior I chose to accept when I subscribed. If I ever get tired of someone ganking me or bumping me -- I would go do something else.

However.

I do not ice mine, and my only information is based on blog posts and this thread. If it is in fact the case that players are engaging in harassing speech in Local (or private chat), then it should be subject to the same oversight and review by CCP as any other sort of conduct prohibited under the EULA.

If CCP follows this policy, it might mean that James 315 would need to modify his Code in ways that others have pointed out upthread. And I'm sure I'll be rolling on the floor laughing at how he justifies the changes.
Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2012-11-30 01:42:35 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
As of now, policy on bumping is as follows:

  • Bumping in itself is not considered an exploit.
  • Bumping in itself is a valid game mechanic.
  • If players feel they are being repeatedly harassed despite trying to avoid this practice by all necessary means, they are free and encouraged to file a petition.

And your future policy should remain the same. Thank you.

CCP has no sense of humour.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#139 - 2012-11-30 01:47:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
SaKoil wrote:
admiral root wrote:

Here's my favourite question: How is temporarily disrupting someone's ability to mine ice because they refuse to buy a 10 million isk permit, where the "victim" always has the option to go elsewhere and lose nothing, different from pointing someone's officer-fit battleship in lowsec and demanding 10 billion isk or you'll permanently deny them their ship and their pod, where they lose everything?


You see, miners believe they are entitled to full invulnerability in high-sec. James 315 wrote an excellent manifesto on the issue back at april, you all should check it out:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1200137#post1200137
These people will not rest until high-sec becomes Trammel or CCP puts its foot down and says enough is enough.



Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Talona Vemane
Wylde Stallions
#140 - 2012-11-30 02:42:07 UTC
We all know that minerbumping while annoying, cause no damages to ships. When I asked about this, I was informed that it does not because of ships undocking from stations in areas such as Jita, it would cause headaches and such. Now what I am purposing is that CCp tweak the areas around stations to allow bumping, (sorta like a warp scram bubble, placed around gates in low sec for instance) that allows it. While allowing it to cause damage and be seen as an act of aggression elsewhere, therefore the NON afk miners can react..with teeth, fangs..or whines..what have you.....and the AFK miners, and semi bots ( i believe they are called) can be crushed, salvaged and taught a lesson. That way the Miners will be forced to adapt their style, the NO would be forced to adapt their style..the gameplay has evolved even more.