These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proposal - Rework bump mechanic

Author
Albert Wittmann
#1 - 2012-12-16 10:04:52 UTC
Hello CCP,

do you like gamemechanics which cannot stopped by players with modules or/and starting CONCORD?

We can bump freighters with mwd-battleships and the freighters flip away like shrapnels, ok, sometime the Corporation of the bumped Freighter will come with some Webber-Modules-fitted ships and want to stop the flight of the bumped freighter, but woops, the webbers dont work on bump-induced speeds ...

So, how i can counter this manveuver without starting CONCORD?
Lexar Mundi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-12-17 05:16:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexar Mundi
Albert Wittmann wrote:
Hello CCP,

do you like gamemechanics which cannot stopped by players with modules or/and starting CONCORD?

We can bump freighters with mwd-battleships and the freighters flip away like shrapnels, ok, sometime the Corporation of the bumped Freighter will come with some Webber-Modules-fitted ships and want to stop the flight of the bumped freighter, but woops, the webbers dont work on bump-induced speeds ...

So, how i can counter this manveuver without starting CONCORD?

I think bumping freighters just for the heck of it is a reportable offence. Bumping miners just for the heck of it on the other hand is not.... not sure why

also to have a true proposal, please put an idea not just "omgwtfbbq my freighters been bumped for 3 hours help meh"
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#3 - 2012-12-17 10:24:39 UTC
Bumping mechanics are fine, you're just bad.

ps web the freighters before they get bumped
Stegas Tyrano
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-12-18 12:23:34 UTC
Is this not possible in freighters?

Herping your derp since 19Potato - [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2403364][Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts[/url]

Xander Kross
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-12-22 16:47:17 UTC
all ships should get damaged when they hit a nother ship, so if a frig bumps a freighter it should be squashed
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
#6 - 2012-12-23 21:46:31 UTC
Xander Kross wrote:
all ships should get damaged when they hit a nother ship, so if a frig bumps a freighter it should be squashed


Hows that going to work out at station exits? Jita 4.4 for example

Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#7 - 2012-12-25 08:03:18 UTC
Jint Hikaru wrote:
Xander Kross wrote:
all ships should get damaged when they hit a nother ship, so if a frig bumps a freighter it should be squashed


Hows that going to work out at station exits? Jita 4.4 for example
For him to know that, he would have had to have thought the idea threw first. We can't have that now, can we?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lola Isabel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-12-26 20:26:40 UTC
bumping should be prohibited , doesn't matter if they are miners , haulers , pre-warping any ship

if a convo spam is prohibited , bumping should be too.
Zol Interbottom
Blimp Requisition Services
#9 - 2012-12-29 11:43:28 UTC
Lola Isabel wrote:
bumping should be prohibited , doesn't matter if they are miners , haulers , pre-warping any ship

if a convo spam is prohibited , bumping should be too.



Perhaps just bumping for blackmail purposes as bumping is a very useful tool for other purposes, especially in PVP

"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba

Lola Isabel
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-12-30 15:56:48 UTC
Zol Interbottom wrote:
Lola Isabel wrote:
bumping should be prohibited , doesn't matter if they are miners , haulers , pre-warping any ship

if a convo spam is prohibited , bumping should be too.



Perhaps just bumping for blackmail purposes as bumping is a very useful tool for other purposes, especially in PVP



convo spaming was good too in pvp especially in shooting carriers
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#11 - 2012-12-31 12:25:33 UTC
The only way to "rework" bumping is to remove it completely - i.e. make the ships fly through each other. It's not like the physics are in very central role in EVE anyway...
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2013-01-02 14:19:14 UTC
Thomas Gore wrote:
The only way to "rework" bumping is to remove it completely - i.e. make the ships fly through each other. It's not like the physics are in very central role in EVE anyway...


That's the only way that doesn't make the problem worse. it's still a bad idea, but it's the best bad idea of the lot.

That said, my signature is appropriate to this topic.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.

mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2013-01-02 18:19:21 UTC
Lola Isabel wrote:
bumping should be prohibited , doesn't matter if they are miners , haulers , pre-warping any ship

if a convo spam is prohibited , bumping should be too.


Convo spam was abusing a coding issue that CCP admitted existed wherein the spam did cause players to lag if not disconnect. It's a very different mechanism from bumping and conflating the two is silly.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Zol Interbottom
Blimp Requisition Services
#14 - 2013-01-03 02:24:34 UTC
Lola Isabel wrote:
Zol Interbottom wrote:
Lola Isabel wrote:
bumping should be prohibited , doesn't matter if they are miners , haulers , pre-warping any ship

if a convo spam is prohibited , bumping should be too.



Perhaps just bumping for blackmail purposes as bumping is a very useful tool for other purposes, especially in PVP



convo spaming was good too in pvp especially in shooting carriers


your silly, bumping is ramming s spaceship into another, convo spamming is lagging a client until they disconnect

"If you're quitting for the 3rd time you clearly ain't quitting" - Chribba

iskflakes
#15 - 2013-01-03 04:05:19 UTC
There are two changes I would make:

1) Reduce MWD mass increase, which will dramatically decrease the effectiveness of bumping
2) Allow ships to align despite bumping. I don't believe you should be able to keep a ship tackled just by bumping it.. it seems like an abuse to me.

-

Stegas Tyrano
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-01-03 15:12:38 UTC
What if Item Mass added to a Ships Mass so that a full freighter would be impossible to bump while an empty one would be easier?

Herping your derp since 19Potato - [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2403364][Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts[/url]

stg213
Loneops
#17 - 2013-01-05 10:29:57 UTC
Jint Hikaru wrote:
Xander Kross wrote:
all ships should get damaged when they hit a nother ship, so if a frig bumps a freighter it should be squashed


Hows that going to work out at station exits? Jita 4.4 for example


How about EVE starting to make some f**in sense ?

1) what the is "bump mechanics" anyway ? the magical push of a ship by another through sheer willpower / pixie-dust ?
2) the station exit mechanics is a sad joke... especially in cases such as 4.4... 50 ships flying overlapped until one moves out of the "convergence bubble" then if you steer you bump in to the bubble and bounce off...

This is just a workaround for not implementing any decent physics into the game. The above is just like saying that broken mechanic A can't be fixed because mechanic B is broken also! Yes, both where workarounds from the start... instead of implementing a "sound" system, it's the easy way out, the cheap fast way where ships are nothing more than bounce-boxes in the engine.

How about a revolutionary approach to game-design? If you have 2 half-baked systems in the game: FIX BOTH!

1) Ship collision:

Shields will push back against shields -> at small speeds and similar mass the ships will SLOWLY push each other away, except if they are intentionally fly towards each other. => shields will be drained by this, just like any "projectile/beam" hitting the shield

If the speed exceeds what the shield can push back => ships will crash into each other resulting in serious damage to both -> depending on the mass of each.

For example, a frig flying full mwd into a freighter will be a fly on the windshield... wish/wash... gone.
A battleship, ramming the same freighter at full mwd will result in the BS going boom and the freighter loosing ~ 10% shield and ~ 30% armor + 10% hull
(the pod of the rammer also going poof in both cases)

(yes, this will make high-sec ganking cheaper and easier)

2) Avoiding ship collisions / station exits:

Station exits are actually very easy to fix:

Stations are BIG! actually huge. Why not having them 5-8 exits instead of only 1 ?

Version 1 (more realistic and more difficult to implement properly): each station has 5-8 exits, ships are sent out through them in round-robin with a timer on each so that no ship is sent through the same hole in less than 5 seconds (maybe 10 ?... needs some testing).
Version 2 (cheaper - will prolly be favoured by ccp): just like stargates, place ships at random points in a random 20km radius of the station => problem solved

Avoiding collisions: while the safety is on, your ship will automatically try to avoid collisions -> if your ship is on a collision course with a ship less than 5000m away, it will break/steer away of the object. If a ship is on a collision course with you, your ship will try to get out of the way/move away from the incoming ship.

3) Possible fix for increased ease of ganking: if you intentionally (safety off) ram (accelerate into) another ship (in highsec), and cause serious (over 50%) damage to either ships, concord suspends your flight license for 30 (15 ?) days, leaving you unable to undock from the station in which your clone is / the first station you dock into (in addition if you don't dock, you also get a 5 min counter & warning to do so, if you don't you become suspect, for the duration of 30/15 days or until you dock)

...and I'm sure the above solutions will also uncover other bad mechanics in place, to which I say: fix them too! Keeping bad mechanics because fixing them will cause problems with other bad mechanics is not valid argument.
VonKolroth
Anarchist's Anonymous
#18 - 2013-01-13 09:28:13 UTC
This is a terrible thread, and bumping is one of the few ways to make many certain ships vulnerable at all. Honestly, the physics are fine and bumping is fine. If i really need to suspend my disbelief for ships 'bumping' of one another I'll just fancy the idea that shields repel one another.

Sent from my Gallente Erabus Titan on -FA- SRP