Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Dear All

I have seen many many people complain recently about the current trend of ship bumping which frankly i fully support as a viable means to make fast ISK - and i would like to propose a game mechanic that was inspired by but not directly involved in that sticky topic.

also i appreciate that "anchoring" might already exist as a term but read thru it ignoring the fact its been named backwards x


i would like to suggest ship anchoring as a means to force your ship to stay put in space in much the same way as a container etc with a few tweaks for both realism, fun and general shenanigans.

let me explain my idea as best i am able first and when people find the things i forgot/oversaw i will do my best to solve those issues via suggestion and if need be admit openly that my idea was poorly thought out should that be the case!


So say an orca anchors at a belt, he spends 10 mins anchoring and instantly becomes immune to bumping, the difference being is now instead of being moved by the rifter flying at him, he takes some damage from the rifter which takes 2x the damage dealt to the orca (damage based on mass x speed and a slider based upon how close to the centre of impact the collision is – percentage of total shields from both parties to show slowing from shield collision

So if the rifter flies fast and hard enough (lots of added mass) it will destroy itself and do some damage to the orca.

Now before we start screaming at the insanity of the idea let me play with a few factors.

Multiple small ships would be needed to destroy the orca
A few mediums ships to destroy it
A couple if not one large ship etc etc

Unanchoring takes a fraction of the time it takes to anchor / no module activating / movement during anchoring process

Ramming a party and doing damage gives a yellow skull flag to the ramming party – destroying the rammed ship gives a criminal flag to the ramming party but DOES NOT get concord involved / NO SEC STATUS LOSS. (To allow other miners / players to retaliate)

Anchoring can only be done a certain distance from stations (to prevent players making themselves undock mines.) [[Free for all on gates though, autopilot clash?]]

Only large industrial ships can anchor

Anchoring should not cost fuel, to offset ramming risk.

Warping parties cannot collide (to avoid accidental destruction, insane damage calc)

Possible bonuses for anchored industrial ships?

Perhaps any insurance on an owned ship that gets destroyed gets added to the party that rammed the other ship to death as an automatic bounty?

So using the things above let me give an example scenario


A few Hulks anchor and starts to mine, jettisoning cargo containers as it goes for pickup from anchored orca.

Group of players decide to force the hulk to pay mining fee / clear their territory of miners in high sec. They get in some cheap frigates and start to ram the target, going yellow skulled and becoming aggressed to the mining party – the mining party If large enough and of the same player corporation can now all aggress the ramming party with drones, and being that it probably took a bit of damage can finish it off fairly fast. OR they can ignore the ram; the hulk didn’t take too much damage.

Assuming they enter into chatter and tell the ramming party to go swivel on a stabber.

The frigates all engage in ramming and sooner or later either the frigates will destroy themselves or if the all do a lil bit will get the hulk dangerously low on armour etc.

Now the hulk if he’s fast enough can unanchor ready to allow him to be bumped and avoid damage but there is a timer.

Say the hulk isn’t fast enough and POP he is destroyed. The ramming party that caused the finishing blow now is red flagged but no concord show up / no sec status loss. But anyone can engage for a limited amount of time and the hulk was ensured so the insurance value is added to the ramming party as an automated bounty from the insurance firm.

Now the rest of the mining fleet can pay to be left alone/ come to some agreement, OR can engage the aggressors OR call for backup as now at least one ramming ship can be engaged safely by anyone and the rest can be fought by corp. friends.

This allowed mining parties to be relatively safe, it allows for mining based engagements from protection fleets in high sec – it gives players an alternative method to get a pvp fight in high sec – the higher hp cost for the ramming party makes it a fairer situation.

And frankly it’s quite realistic. Fleets that mine thru an entire belt have to either take bumping on the chin, OR lose a bit of time to making themselves immune.

And remember while anchoring, u can be bumped which cancels it ^_^

Interesting idea. I've always thought of an orca as a mobile pos.

However, bumping doesn't degrade the performance of the orca. While I can see bumping means the hulks may need to move a bit to deposit their ore, it's still not a problem that needs a fix. The barges can jetcan and the orca tractors, as its bonuses suggest.

AFK pilots may like the idea, but the barges can access only the corp hangars on the orca; 40k m3 of space. The pilot needs to be at the kbd to do the internal transfers to the other holds. As the pilot is there, bumping is a minor irritation at best.

Unless the orca receives bonuses from being in deployed mode, which is what this is, then I can't see it being a starter.

Orbit. The. Asteroid.

It's very hard to bump something that is moving and changing it's flight path.

Then just fire back at them. :)Nothing wrong without counter-critique.


I hope I did not misunderstand.

I like the idea. I am not tooooo sure if it can work out with collision detection. I'm not into the itty gritty bits of the game's engine but I think that "ramming speed" damage part might not work out - but I'm really not sure. I like the aspect of the penalty though. I also shows one has to be very VERY careful with anchoring. And I see that there is a 2-in-1 suggestion here, as it sounds like that ramming is away of dealing dmg too. Maybe ramming itself has to be a rightclick menu ability or a module of whatever in this case.

I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but you said there would be a calculation around mass and that that would apply a multiplier upon raw damage. That could be welcoming too much ganking by high burst dmg ships, especially in highsec. Imagine tier3 BCs (ie Tornados) dealing a lot more damage - and these are damn popular for doing such nowadays. The actual state of this idea could force players to not anchor up and 0.0 wouldn't really have to worry.



This is important though. The idea is not bad actually, but there needs to be more advantages of anchoring. I would post it, but I do not want to come with crazy stuff now and rather have that tossed in a seperate thread. But yeah, there needs to be bonuses somehow.
I like the fact that you are using the ships stats like mass and x to generate a multiplier, maybe you can do this for bonuses as well.

hi all sorry for the slow response. righty i do appologise i had thought i mentioned there should be a bonus to ammounts mined range etc for anchored targets it would be needed as a reward for making urself vulnrable to damage.

and true i see that higher mass ships would deal a lot more damage but then thats where the speed multiplyer comes into it. not much speed means you have to take the slowing effect of the shield into account by the time u hit then u will just be bumping plates. dnt get me wrong it does need some work.

and yes bumping is a loveley tactic im a pvp pilot myself so dont suffer from bumping hut thouht this would be a nice compromise for those that want to knuckle down. the whole concept is essentially to stop players having to warp out and inn and give them the option to sit tiht for a set ammount of time. doesnt need to be a long long cooldown on anchoring. juat to stop u moving.

think what applications this would have on things like say bonuses to defence for ships like the hulk in lowsec or using this mechanic to get a global suspect flag for ramming a ship to death. there are rewards and risks but it means unpess they are commited to causing themselves pain u wnt need to worry and makes smaller cheap ships in large froups viable as rammer

I refer you to the thread here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=201963

very true, however i thought it made more sense to have anchoring take a while to get into anchored mode and have it faster to remove it so the ship can move again. if you think of it as a cause and effect to get into anchored mode would require careful maneuvering, adjustments of jets - magnetic adjustment etc. to disengage would essentially just be an off switch, so a cycle time that took longer to disengage seemed to be a bit of a kick in the teeth if the ship was being rammed.

the bonus would be small but beneficial, the threat of being rammed to death by a large group is the downside, i wouldn't want it so the ship cant disengage. and any AFK miners in anchored mode would easily fall prey to rammers before they realized what was happening.


((i did think that warping to an anchored ship might cause issues where they collide, but im not sure how best to avoid that!))

Skorpynekomimi - - nice thread =] i fully support that concept and gave you a like thank you for the link =]

This looks less like a buff to mining and more like an enormous boost to ganking and griefing disguised as a buff to mining.

Who in their right mind would anchor anything, knowing that MWD Rifter after MWD Rifter after MWD Atron after MWD Rifter will be (quite literally) thrown at it?

Frigates don't do enough damage? MWD Stabbers - which really start living up to their name.