These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

When will the GM team be producing their response to the Miner Bumping Discussion Thread?

First post
Author
TheBlueMonkey
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-01-07 15:56:22 UTC
You people are angry that people are bumping into you now?

Jesus Roll
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
#22 - 2013-01-07 16:02:13 UTC
posting in locked thread is fun


a source with knowledge of this situation told me it will be decided thats its an exploit and everyone will be permabanned retroactively

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#23 - 2013-01-07 16:04:59 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we?


I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned.

Mmmm... the tears.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#24 - 2013-01-07 16:06:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Honestly, you are fortunate that they are even considering the issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Any "fix" to this issue is going to be touching on aspects of the physics engine that will involve a huge amount of development time, and potentially cause issues in everything from combat to undocking from Jita. This isn't something to be taken lightly.

I don't think anyone would object if the physics of collisions in game were made more realistic, however that has little or nothing to do with people considering the bumping of miners to be a serious issue.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#25 - 2013-01-07 16:23:41 UTC
1st RULE: You do not talk about MINER BUMPING.

2nd RULE: You DO NOT talk about MINER BUMPING.


Highsec is worth fighting for.

Bing Bangboom
Agent of the New Order of Highsec
Belligerent Undesirable

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com

Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#26 - 2013-01-07 16:23:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ana Vyr
I have nothing against bumping at all, but the mechanic should be modified to account for ship mass, IMO.

Frigates trying to bump a freighter should be like throwing raisins at an Oldsmobile.
Lord Leftfield
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-01-07 16:26:17 UTC
I woke up hearing something about bumping, so i logged in and started mining.

Life is just a 420 all the way home :) Please give me more of that chocolate brew!!

Kla2
Defiance LLC
#28 - 2013-01-07 16:30:41 UTC
A while back my corp needed some minerals and went a-mining. These folks showed up and started bumping us and others .......kinda just made us pay attention. didnt cause us any problems and we just worked around it. The next day we went mining again and the bumper guys didnt show up. really boring. Almost messaged them to see if they would come bump us. How is this a problem, unless you are AFK?
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#29 - 2013-01-07 16:53:12 UTC
Edit: Rule 7 - Trolling is prohibited. - ISD Tyrozan
Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#30 - 2013-01-07 17:04:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Khergit Deserters
Edit: Never mind, Ranger 1's post #24 said what I was going to say. Posting Before Reading, Class A-- pleading guilty as charged.Oops
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-01-07 17:09:31 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
There's a miner bumping issue?

Yea, it's a minor issue, but the miners don't think it's minor, so it's an issue.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#32 - 2013-01-07 17:11:35 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Honestly, you are fortunate that they are even considering the issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Any "fix" to this issue is going to be touching on aspects of the physics engine that will involve a huge amount of development time, and potentially cause issues in everything from combat to undocking from Jita. This isn't something to be taken lightly.

I don't think anyone would object if the physics of collisions in game were made more realistic, however that has little or nothing to do with people considering the bumping of miners to be a serious issue.

Personally, I'm not hoping for a change. I'm just interested in the outcome of the decision, and was wondering when it'd arrive.
Ghazu
#33 - 2013-01-07 17:25:59 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Honestly, you are fortunate that they are even considering the issue rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Any "fix" to this issue is going to be touching on aspects of the physics engine that will involve a huge amount of development time, and potentially cause issues in everything from combat to undocking from Jita. This isn't something to be taken lightly.

I don't think anyone would object if the physics of collisions in game were made more realistic, however that has little or nothing to do with people considering the bumping of miners to be a serious issue.

Personally, I'm not hoping for a change. I'm just interested in the outcome of the decision, and was wondering when it'd arrive.

The court find you, not guilty

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#34 - 2013-01-07 17:41:21 UTC
CCP should not change mechanics because of some angry forum posts.

Only negative thing about miners bumping is that there's no destruction, and that means less profit.
CCP Falcon
#35 - 2013-01-07 17:50:37 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Falcon
To reiterate on what people have said, this is still being discussed given the fact its a seen as a "widespread issue" by a lot of people.

It's January 7th, we still have a fair number of staff who are visiting their families or otherwise taking time out over the holiday period.

There'll be a response, and as was pointed out, it was stated that it'll be after the New Year.

I've given the GM Team a heads up regarding this thread Smile

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3

Ze'jira Penshar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2013-01-07 17:52:10 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
CCP should not change mechanics because of some angry forum posts.

Only negative thing about miners bumping is that there's no destruction, and that means less profit.


So much for third party neutrality. I'll make sure not to recommend your services in case you scam someone who dislikes James :)
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#37 - 2013-01-07 18:03:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Ze'jira Penshar wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
CCP should not change mechanics because of some angry forum posts.

Only negative thing about miners bumping is that there's no destruction, and that means less profit.


So much for third party neutrality. I'll make sure not to recommend your services in case you scam someone who dislikes James :)


1) I have never claimed being neutral. And that's completely unrelated with how I deal with my customers. I can think one is a complete asshat but I would never be unfair with them.
I have held stuff & collateral for Goons for sake of example (seek on MD) who both for my corp history and current, VASTLY voiced opinions are not exactly my butt mates.

2) Here you can see a statement made prior to my above post, made exactly in James 315 thread, where I say I don't support James 315, therefore your claim is void.
BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#38 - 2013-01-07 18:06:11 UTC  |  Edited by: BoSau Hotim
I'm surprised that the miner bumping 'issue' has become an issue for the Dev's to consider. What about bumping vet miners who mine out all the ore in starter systems? They deserve to be bumped contiinuously so they leave the system IMO. Making strict guidelines about who can and cannot be bumped is a bit crazy.... and guess what... if they do make strict guidelines, that will give the GM'S LOADS of new harassment petitions... won't they love that!

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#39 - 2013-01-07 18:09:01 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Ranger 1 wrote:
I don't think anyone would object if the physics of collisions in game were made more realistic, however that has little or nothing to do with people considering the bumping of miners to be a serious issue.


What's unrealistic about it?

A nicely fit Bump SFI has a mass of 59,810,000kg with MWD on and a top speed of 19,000m/s, for a momentum of 1.121 trillion kgm/s. A Hulk has a mass of 40,000,000kg and a top speed of 90m/s, for a momentum of 3.6 billion kgm/s. (A Charon's mass is 960,000,000kg with a top speed of 95m/s, for a total momentum of 100 billion kgm/s, 10 times less than the momentum of the SFI.)

The bump ship is heavier and faster than the target. In the elastic collision caused by the repulsing shields of each ship, of course the Hulk is going to go spinning off wildly. The alternative would be an inelastic collision, which would imply that some kinetic energy would be lost as some other form of energy, which could only imply damage to the colliding ships.

Collision damage would invariably result in either CONCORD ganking freighters for us, or being able to gank freighters without CONCORD intervention (depending on whether causing Collision damage is considered to be criminal).

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

iskflakes
#40 - 2013-01-07 18:25:12 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
What's unrealistic about it?


What's unrealistic is that the MWD increases your mass 5 fold.

Though having said that, can an MWD be used to prevent yourself getting bumped by increasing your inertia? Perhaps a few hulk pilots should give this a go.

-