These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TharOkha
0asis Group
#121 - 2013-01-08 05:30:39 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:
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?

Miner bumping isnt the problem. It can be easy avoided (if you are not AFK) Problem is freighter bumping with frigates and LOL bumping with stabbers so it cannot warp out. It just doesnt make sense

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#122 - 2013-01-08 05:35:26 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
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?

Miner bumping isnt the problem. It can be easy avoided (if you are not AFK) Problem is freighter bumping with frigates and LOL bumping with stabbers so it cannot warp out. It just doesnt make sense


Logoffski and you disappear in 60s.

Log back in a few minutes later and warp off.

"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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#123 - 2013-01-08 05:36:45 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
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?

Miner bumping isnt the problem. It can be easy avoided (if you are not AFK) Problem is freighter bumping with frigates and LOL bumping with stabbers so it cannot warp out. It just doesnt make sense


Any "fix" ever proposed for this "problem" always have some major flaw which would make things much worse.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#124 - 2013-01-08 05:37:59 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
BoSau Hotim wrote:
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?

Miner bumping isnt the problem. It can be easy avoided (if you are not AFK) Problem is freighter bumping with frigates and LOL bumping with stabbers so it cannot warp out. It just doesnt make sense


Logoffski and you disappear in 60s.

Log back in a few minutes later and warp off.


It's hard to pull off when you afk auto-pilot a freighter full of stuff.
Anndy
The Evocati
#125 - 2013-01-08 05:47:16 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Even with Ice mining, it takes less time to relock after warping somewhere you're aligned to than slowboating back from wherever you've been bumped to.

Or just pay the 10m ISK.

Or mine Ore if Ice mining is too "risky."


yes pay me or i'll do everything in my power to ruin the game for you without any sort of risk to myself, awesome attitude

and null sec wonders why no one wants to play with them
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#126 - 2013-01-08 05:50:39 UTC
Anndy wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Even with Ice mining, it takes less time to relock after warping somewhere you're aligned to than slowboating back from wherever you've been bumped to.

Or just pay the 10m ISK.

Or mine Ore if Ice mining is too "risky."


yes pay me or i'll do everything in my power to ruin the game for you without any sort of risk to myself, awesome attitude

and null sec wonders why no one wants to play with them


Pay me or I will use my right to do what I want. You have the same right btw but remember, having the right to try to mine afk does not mean noone can use his right to have a little bumpercar game with your ship.
Lledrith
Ex Caminus
#127 - 2013-01-08 06:04:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lledrith
so why is it that people complain for being bump out of their mining zone when a simple solutions is orbiting the item itself that you so want to mine.

since your already afk why not just orbit the asteroid or a anchored secure can that it is at your strip lasers reach or is that to hard and complex to do?

maybe is because you may not be afk at all but no present at your computer.
Anndy
The Evocati
#128 - 2013-01-08 06:08:23 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Anndy wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Even with Ice mining, it takes less time to relock after warping somewhere you're aligned to than slowboating back from wherever you've been bumped to.

Or just pay the 10m ISK.

Or mine Ore if Ice mining is too "risky."


yes pay me or i'll do everything in my power to ruin the game for you without any sort of risk to myself, awesome attitude

and null sec wonders why no one wants to play with them


Pay me or I will use my right to do what I want. You have the same right btw but remember, having the right to try to mine afk does not mean noone can use his right to have a little bumpercar game with your ship.


and that logic is exactly why things need to be change, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that its the right thing to do
Max Doobie
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#129 - 2013-01-08 06:15:54 UTC


Nothing will happen mate. Sorry to tell you. CCP will continue to listen to the Nullers who complain about risk vs reward all the while being in Alliances blue to over 50% of Nullsec. Complete stupidity and hypocrisy, but what can you do?

"MINERS IN HIGHSEC ARE TOO SAFE....OHWAIT....I'M BUDDEEZ WITH PRETTY MUCH ALL OF NULLSEC, SO MY MINER ALT IS ACTUALLY SAFER THAN THE AVERAGE HIGHSEC MINER....DERP...WERP...FLERP...SLERP...HERP...."


Yeah.

...and yes, I'm in TEST but I don't say those sort of things about Highseccers. Not all nullsec folks agree with this "nerf highsec" crap. I personally think bumping is lame and ********. It's something anti-social people do to annoy people. That and its completely risk free "HEY DOESNT DAT GO AGANZ WUT THEY BELEEV??? DAT FOLKZ SHOULDNT BE ABULZ TO MAKE ISKEEZ WITHOUT RISKEEZ"?

Yes indeedy...but since when have sociopaths given a damn about being consistent?
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2013-01-08 06:22:09 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?


Please read what I write more carefully in future - I never said I supported a collision damage system, I was merely outlining the work that would go into it. All you've done is suggest that if such a system were to be implemented, gamers would have to think of new ways to prevent people from docking or jumping, and since "gatecrashers" are really only a problem in low or nul, that's what your guns are for.

Quote:
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.


That doesn't mean it can't be done, or that it won't be done, just that it would entail a lot of work, which is the point that I was making.

I'm starting to see why people accuse you of logical fallacies. Please try to get the point being made right before you go trying to debate something that isn't actually worth debating, especially if the person making the point does not, in any way, support a collision damage system. If such a system were to be implemented, then the pathfinding algorithms would have to a whole hell of a lot better too otherwise hitting "orbit" near any kind of debris in a battlefield is going to get very messy, which is even more work. And the more work and complex code in a game, the more likely things are to go wrong with it.

Seriously, though, read posts before you reply to them.

“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
#131 - 2013-01-08 06:23:26 UTC
Max Doobie wrote:


Nothing will happen mate. Sorry to tell you. CCP will continue to listen to the Nullers who complain about risk vs reward all the while being in Alliances blue to over 50% of Nullsec. Complete stupidity and hypocrisy, but what can you do?


citation needed

“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
#132 - 2013-01-08 06:25:08 UTC
Anndy wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Anndy wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Even with Ice mining, it takes less time to relock after warping somewhere you're aligned to than slowboating back from wherever you've been bumped to.

Or just pay the 10m ISK.

Or mine Ore if Ice mining is too "risky."


yes pay me or i'll do everything in my power to ruin the game for you without any sort of risk to myself, awesome attitude

and null sec wonders why no one wants to play with them


Pay me or I will use my right to do what I want. You have the same right btw but remember, having the right to try to mine afk does not mean noone can use his right to have a little bumpercar game with your ship.


and that logic is exactly why things need to be change, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that its the right thing to do


Try not to apply your idea of morality to a sandbox - what's right and wrong is completely subjective, especially in this game. You play the game the way you like, not the way someone else thinks is right. Your logic is exactly why things are working as intended - in this game, being able to do something makes it worth doing.

“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
GreenSeed
#133 - 2013-01-08 06:27:44 UTC
bumping is fun, ergo bumping is a reward. there's no risk on that reward.

the server clearly keeps track of what bumps into what else... otherwise there would be no bumping to begin with... so why cant the server apply a suspect flag to a ship that bumps into another 3 or 5 times in short succession, or once or twice at high speeds in a period of 10-20 minutes?

there, the bumping continues. but now the bumpers have the same thing their targets have... RISK, or a reduction of their reward due to the intervention of another player.

not hard to do...

and before some narrow-minded individual points out a flaw on this waving it as if its enough to tear down the whole concept... let me enumerate some possible solutions to those flaws.

- if the bump has as recipient of the momentum a static target, the bump gives no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same fleet he gets no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same player owned corp he gets no flag.
- if the bumper bumps into someone else after being the recipient of a bump himself, his bump doesn't count.
- chain bumping cant possibly be exploited due to the way momentum transfers between entities in the game.
- if the bump takes place between entities in a limited engagement, active wardec, criminal flag, or if the entities are in low or no security space. the bump gives no flag, but triggers aggression in lowsec after twice the amount of bumps.
- if the entity already has a suspect flag acquired via bumping, and continues to bump , the flag turns into a criminal flag.
Lin Suizei
#134 - 2013-01-08 06:33:47 UTC
Anndy wrote:
and that logic is exactly why things need to be change, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that its the right thing to do


Because clearly, we should all adhere to a single definition of what is "right" and "wrong", as defined by you.

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#135 - 2013-01-08 06:33:50 UTC
Anndy wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Anndy wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Even with Ice mining, it takes less time to relock after warping somewhere you're aligned to than slowboating back from wherever you've been bumped to.

Or just pay the 10m ISK.

Or mine Ore if Ice mining is too "risky."


yes pay me or i'll do everything in my power to ruin the game for you without any sort of risk to myself, awesome attitude

and null sec wonders why no one wants to play with them


Pay me or I will use my right to do what I want. You have the same right btw but remember, having the right to try to mine afk does not mean noone can use his right to have a little bumpercar game with your ship.


and that logic is exactly why things need to be change, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that its the right thing to do


"The right thing to do" can only be based on a set of morale. This is not present inside the game. Everybody know EvE is advertised as harsh and cold. Any possible kind of "low blows" are accepted as long as the few rules CCP already set were not broken. Evading concord would be an example of somethign that was once possible (not sure about now) where CCP had set strict rules not be be dodged. There are no rules about perturbing a miner activity and there are none needed since there are easy way to avoid being bumped away from your roids/ice. You are not defenseless against a bumper. Same for gankers. Fitting a real tank will usually make most ganker change thier mind about blowing up your ship.

I can orbit a can at the jita undock in a pod but that does not mean people would let me do it alone.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2013-01-08 06:35:02 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:
bumping is fun, ergo bumping is a reward. there's no risk on that reward.

the server clearly keeps track of what bumps into what else... otherwise there would be no bumping to begin with... so why cant the server apply a suspect flag to a ship that bumps into another 3 or 5 times in short succession, or once or twice at high speeds in a period of 10-20 minutes?

there, the bumping continues. but now the bumpers have the same thing their targets have... RISK, or a reduction of their reward due to the intervention of another player.

not hard to do...

and before some narrow-minded individual points out a flaw on this waving it as if its enough to tear down the whole concept... let me enumerate some possible solutions to those flaws.

- if the bump has as recipient of the momentum a static target, the bump gives no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same fleet he gets no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same player owned corp he gets no flag.
- if the bumper bumps into someone else after being the recipient of a bump himself, his bump doesn't count.
- chain bumping cant possibly be exploited due to the way momentum transfers between entities in the game.
- if the bump takes place between entities in a limited engagement, active wardec, criminal flag, or if the entities are in low or no security space. the bump gives no flag, but triggers aggression in lowsec after twice the amount of bumps.
- if the entity already has a suspect flag acquired via bumping, and continues to bump , the flag turns into a criminal flag.





Bumping is also not a risk to the "victim". In fact, the "victim" loses nothing when being bumped, because 1) if they're paying attention, they can avoid it anyway, 2) if they're afk, then they're not putting in the effort for their own reward anyway, and 3) you're still losing nothing. "But I'm losing precious isk per hour by being bumped away from laser range!!" No, you're still not losing anything that was already yours to defend, because you haven't acquired it yet.

Therefore, bumping is not suitable for any kind of suspect or criminal flag, because no crime has been committed.

“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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#137 - 2013-01-08 06:37:40 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:


and before some narrow-minded individual points out a flaw on this waving it as if its enough to tear down the whole concept... let me enumerate some possible solutions to those flaws.

- if the bump has as recipient of the momentum a static target, the bump gives no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same fleet he gets no flag.
- if the bumper is in the same player owned corp he gets no flag.
- if the bumper bumps into someone else after being the recipient of a bump himself, his bump doesn't count.
- chain bumping cant possibly be exploited due to the way momentum transfers between entities in the game.
- if the bump takes place between entities in a limited engagement, active wardec, criminal flag, or if the entities are in low or no security space. the bump gives no flag, but triggers aggression in lowsec after twice the amount of bumps.
- if the entity already has a suspect flag acquired via bumping, and continues to bump , the flag turns into a criminal flag.





Lets orbit a can in an ibis right at the Jita 4-4 undock for crazy fun flag fest.
Lin Suizei
#138 - 2013-01-08 06:39:24 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:
i am bumphurt abloobloo


Bumping already has plenty of risk - any miner can open fire on the bumper at any time.

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.
Anndy
The Evocati
#139 - 2013-01-08 06:41:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Anndy
Lin Suizei wrote:
Anndy wrote:
and that logic is exactly why things need to be change, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should or that its the right thing to do


Because clearly, we should all adhere to a single definition of what is "right" and "wrong", as defined by you.


yes the same line pretty much every dictator, tyrant, and terrorist has used to justify their actions
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#140 - 2013-01-08 06:41:19 UTC
Max Doobie wrote:


Nothing will happen mate. Sorry to tell you. CCP will continue to listen to the Nullers who complain about risk vs reward all the while being in Alliances blue to over 50% of Nullsec. Complete stupidity and hypocrisy, but what can you do?

"MINERS IN HIGHSEC ARE TOO SAFE....OHWAIT....I'M BUDDEEZ WITH PRETTY MUCH ALL OF NULLSEC, SO MY MINER ALT IS ACTUALLY SAFER THAN THE AVERAGE HIGHSEC MINER....DERP...WERP...FLERP...SLERP...HERP...."


Yeah.

...and yes, I'm in TEST but I don't say those sort of things about Highseccers. Not all nullsec folks agree with this "nerf highsec" crap. I personally think bumping is lame and ********. It's something anti-social people do to annoy people. That and its completely risk free "HEY DOESNT DAT GO AGANZ WUT THEY BELEEV??? DAT FOLKZ SHOULDNT BE ABULZ TO MAKE ISKEEZ WITHOUT RISKEEZ"?

Yes indeedy...but since when have sociopaths given a damn about being consistent?

You might want to get that MPD checked out.

You might also want to consider finding a corp that will appreciate your special blend of personality more than Dreddit does, but there you go.