These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-01-07 19:15:02 UTC
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
bumping should be treated the same way as attack with a weapon

its just relocation of energy,isnt it? doesnt matter if missile bumps you or a ship bumps you - it should be doing damages ,or am i expecting too much physics?

you should be totaly able to ram your titan into another titan and watch it break that spacepenis in two



While this would be incredibly hilarious to see, can you imagine the carnage at the undock of any busy trading hub such as, say, Jita 4-4, with the implementation of collision damage?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Rodtrik
Aphex Industries
#62 - 2013-01-07 19:17:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Rodtrik wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank.


Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.


It is possible to shoot people in HS.


Now, please provide your reasoning why someone in a 300 million ISK ship who has taken no measures to keep himself safe shouldn't be profitable to gank. Keep in mind that every other T2 cruiser is profitable to gank if fit the way a standard untanked exhumer is.


Nice strawman. I'll reiterate. Provide evidence where CCP ever said ganking was meant to be profitable. If you do not, your opinion will forthwith be considered moot, biased, and uninformed.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#63 - 2013-01-07 19:18:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
RubyPorto wrote:
Rodtrik wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank.


Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.


It is possible to shoot people in HS.


Now, please provide your reasoning why someone in a 300 million ISK ship who has taken no measures to keep himself safe shouldn't be profitable to gank. Keep in mind that every other T2 cruiser is profitable to gank if fit the way a standard untanked exhumer is.


I'm pretty sure he's refering to Soundwaves quote that says ganking was never intended to be profitable.

However, I think he would also tell you that remark assumed sensible fittings and actually being somewhat attentive. As you say, any ship can be very profitable to gank if given an incredibly stupid fit and going AFK.

Mining vessels have become something of an exception to this rule.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
#64 - 2013-01-07 19:22:59 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
bumping should be treated the same way as attack with a weapon

its just relocation of energy,isnt it? doesnt matter if missile bumps you or a ship bumps you - it should be doing damages ,or am i expecting too much physics?

you should be totaly able to ram your titan into another titan and watch it break that spacepenis in two



While this would be incredibly hilarious to see, can you imagine the carnage at the undock of any busy trading hub such as, say, Jita 4-4, with the implementation of collision damage?


it would keep people on their toes - especially because you cannot instantly stop from warp Twisted
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2013-01-07 19:23:57 UTC
Rodtrik wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Rodtrik wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank.


Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.


It is possible to shoot people in HS.


Now, please provide your reasoning why someone in a 300 million ISK ship who has taken no measures to keep himself safe shouldn't be profitable to gank. Keep in mind that every other T2 cruiser is profitable to gank if fit the way a standard untanked exhumer is.


Nice strawman. I'll reiterate. Provide evidence where CCP ever said ganking was meant to be profitable. If you do not, your opinion will forthwith be considered moot, biased, and uninformed.


What things are "meant to be" and "turn out to be" can be two entirely different things. Whether CCP intended something or not, the first and foremost thing they intended was for EVE to be a sandbox of emergent, player-driver content. They gave us the tools, we create the content. CCP may or may not have 'intended' ganking to be profitable, but it's irrelevant because players can MAKE it profitable.

Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2013-01-07 19:25:16 UTC
Rodtrik wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank.


Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.

loot drops
Rodtrik
Aphex Industries
#67 - 2013-01-07 19:26:03 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony.


Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2013-01-07 19:27:33 UTC
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Randolph Rothstein wrote:
bumping should be treated the same way as attack with a weapon

its just relocation of energy,isnt it? doesnt matter if missile bumps you or a ship bumps you - it should be doing damages ,or am i expecting too much physics?

you should be totaly able to ram your titan into another titan and watch it break that spacepenis in two



While this would be incredibly hilarious to see, can you imagine the carnage at the undock of any busy trading hub such as, say, Jita 4-4, with the implementation of collision damage?


it would keep people on their toes - especially because you cannot instantly stop from warp Twisted




Aside from the additional code necessary to implement collision damage in the engine, they would also have to put some kind of "traffic control" in around stations and stargates to keep ships separated in situations beyond player control, like coming out of a warp or undocking. That, or take ships "out of phase" in those circumstances, so they fly right through things until they've cleared any physical entities. It's not unworkable, but it is a lot of work.

Just remember, EVE physics != real physics. We're flying submarines, not spaceships.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-01-07 19:28:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Rodtrik wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony.


Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument.


Actually, it is. Whenever it's possible to shoot someone, it's possible to profit from it. Just because you don't like the argument, doesn't mean it's not credible, and it certainly doesn't make it a strawman, especially if you can't pinpoint the nature in which the argument does NOT address your own.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Shadowschild
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2013-01-07 19:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowschild
The problem is the existance of NPC corps. Once your character finishes the trial period, force them out. Characters not in a coproration will not benefit from concord assistance. This way corporations can go to war & fight out their differences.

Then again, keep bumping them until they have the balls to come down to nullsec where, you can actually shoot idiots that bump you.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#71 - 2013-01-07 19:33:23 UTC
Rodtrik wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Also, you had better check the definition of a strawman . RubyPorto engaged your argument directly, and offered a valid counter, which you have only engaged with claiming it to be a strawman, which by the definition of a strawman, is pretty much what you just did. This also happens to be the definition of irony.


Answering my claim with "It is possible to shoot people in HS" followed by a question is not a direct and credible argument.


First, that's not what I did. (See those words in between my first sentence and asking you the question? You're meant to read those too.)

Second, when you can shoot someone, you can always profit from it. When you can collect loot from the person you shoot, that's doubly true.

Third, why should someone in an expensive ship who has made no attempt whatsoever at remaining safe in unsafe space (as all of EVE outside the Test Server explicitly is) be unprofitable to kill?

"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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#72 - 2013-01-07 19:38:22 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Aside from the additional code necessary to implement collision damage in the engine, they would also have to put some kind of "traffic control" in around stations and stargates to keep ships separated in situations beyond player control, like coming out of a warp or undocking. That, or take ships "out of phase" in those circumstances, so they fly right through things until they've cleared any physical entities. It's not unworkable, but it is a lot of work.

Just remember, EVE physics != real physics. We're flying submarines, not spaceships.



So... instance undocks so that station games are even safer by preventing people from bumping them out of docking range? Prevent people from bumping gatecrashers away from the gate?


Every proposed "solution" I've seen to the imaginary "problem" of bumping miners inevitably cascades into this ludicrous list of problems caused and exceptions made to fix the new problem, and problems caused by those, and so on.

Here's how you avoid being bumped.
Mine aligned. Someone approaches you, you instantly warp to another spot in the belt.
Or suicide gank the bump ships.
Or mine in Low/Null/WH space, where bumping isn't an issue at all.


PS. Ganking was easier to counter. So you really brought this current difficulty upon yourselves.

"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.
#73 - 2013-01-07 19:53:04 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Aside from the additional code necessary to implement collision damage in the engine, they would also have to put some kind of "traffic control" in around stations and stargates to keep ships separated in situations beyond player control, like coming out of a warp or undocking. That, or take ships "out of phase" in those circumstances, so they fly right through things until they've cleared any physical entities. It's not unworkable, but it is a lot of work.

Just remember, EVE physics != real physics. We're flying submarines, not spaceships.



So... instance undocks so that station games are even safer by preventing people from bumping them out of docking range? Prevent people from bumping gatecrashers away from the gate?


Every proposed "solution" I've seen to the imaginary "problem" of bumping miners inevitably cascades into this ludicrous list of problems caused and exceptions made to fix the new problem, and problems caused by those, and so on.

Here's how you avoid being bumped.
Mine aligned. Someone approaches you, you instantly warp to another spot in the belt.
Or suicide gank the bump ships.
Or mine in Low/Null/WH space, where bumping isn't an issue at all.


PS. Ganking was easier to counter. So you really brought this current difficulty upon yourselves.

Indeed. Be careful what you wish for is a saying that rings true in EvE every day. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Yusef Yeasef Yosef
Doomheim
#74 - 2013-01-07 19:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Yusef Yeasef Yosef
Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses.


Edit: In the context outside of combat aggression (actual combat, where stuff goes *pop*). Bumpind during actual combat is completely valid.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#75 - 2013-01-07 19:59:24 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
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

Thanks very much for your prompt answer. I am certainly looking forward to the GM team's final decision Smile
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#76 - 2013-01-07 20:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarsas Phage
RubyPorto wrote:

Here's how you avoid being bumped.
Mine aligned. Someone approaches you, you instantly warp to another spot in the belt.
Or suicide gank the bump ships.
Or mine in Low/Null/WH space, where bumping isn't an issue at all.


PS. Ganking was easier to counter. So you really brought this current difficulty upon yourselves.


Sigh. Let's just distill this down to its naked skeleton - Miners will always complain so long as something exists - either a mechanic or a method - which impinges on their capability to do their thing with nary a worry.

They complained about how it's too easy to get wardec'd. So wardec'ing a corp went from 2M/week to a mimimum of 50M/week.

They complained about their ships being too gankable. We now have 100k EHP Skiffs and 40k EHP Mackinaws.

They complained about can flippers. Can flippers now open themselves up to being shootable by the entire world instead of just the ill-prepared lackeys in the can's owner's corp.

They complained about Orcas having too little space to hold ore. Freighters can now scoop and dump jetcans.

They're complaining about bumping and are proposing all manners of aspects, from the absurd to the mildly ******** at best, designed to all but snuff that out.

I bet you... I freaking bet you... that if some large enough group came along and vaccuumed up all the roids in popular mining systems for themselves on a daily basis finishing only hours after downtime, we'd start seeing forum rabblerabble around that and equally ******** proposals like "mining X amount in Y time turns off your warp drive and makes you a suspect with a 6 hour timer followed by a 30 day automated ban"

It's just plain fact that these people will never be pleased so long as there's even the chance that their m3/hour stats can be impacted by something.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#77 - 2013-01-07 20:09:35 UTC
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:
Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses.


Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that.

Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment).

"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
Yusef Yeasef Yosef
Doomheim
#78 - 2013-01-07 20:12:22 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:
Bumping is simply a form of harassment. The only purpose is to annoy, regardless of all the excuses.


Since CCP defines quite clearly what constitutes Harassment in their game, Quote and Link where CCP has said that.

Then petition all of the bumpers for violating the TOS (which explicitly bans any form of Harassment).


Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#79 - 2013-01-07 20:15:30 UTC
Yusef Yeasef Yosef wrote:
Just because a Company doesn't want to admit it, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plenty of examples of that.

This is EVE. CCP's game. Not Yusef's game. It doesn't matter what you think harassment means. In this context, the only relevant definition is CCP's definition.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#80 - 2013-01-07 20:21:42 UTC
Miner bumping is grief play IMO, being done by;

1.bored players
2.immaturity
3.lonely middle age guy who angry
4.obsessive player focusing on the lowest thing that won't fight back.

Take your pick it's probably time for those players to get their face out of the monitor and deal with RL so they won't be any of the above.