These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

GM Response On Bumping

First post First post First post
Author
Minmatar Republic
#181 - 2013-04-04 17:00:24 UTC
Otto3d wrote:
Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?


Initially, dropping and reforming the same corp was considered an exploit. But carebears everywhere whined to CCP about wardecs and no way out and CCP changed the rules so that it no longer is an exploit. Thank the carebears! ;-)
#182 - 2013-04-08 15:00:01 UTC
Otto3d wrote:
James 315, the leader of this "New Order", runs a one-man corp and has been war dec several times. However, he just quits and creates a new one with the same name and everything so the war never really happens and he goes about bumping miners and as such. Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?


Which is exactly what the carebears do: They sit in npc corps or drop corp upon a dec, making it impossible for us to legally explode their stupid mining barges, which is why we suicide gank.

Using their own tactics against them and causing tears is just another aspect of our Saviours perfection.
#183 - 2013-04-08 15:34:17 UTC
Runeme Shilter wrote:
Otto3d wrote:
Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?


Initially, dropping and reforming the same corp was considered an exploit. But carebears everywhere whined to CCP about wardecs and no way out and CCP changed the rules so that it no longer is an exploit. Thank the carebears! ;-)


And now they're whining that someone else is using that rule to bother them.

Surprise!

"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

Goonswarm Federation
#184 - 2013-04-09 02:33:00 UTC
Just wanted to stop by and say hello in my favorite thread. Hello!

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet

Caldari State
#185 - 2013-04-23 12:24:47 UTC
RISK FREE PVP ALERT

Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.

Undisputed Facts.

1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp.
2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.

Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.

Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.
#186 - 2013-04-26 05:41:59 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
RISK FREE PVP ALERT

Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.

Undisputed Facts.

1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp.
2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.

Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.

Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.


LOL ...
All activities other than /wave shall eb banned from hisec, and ships should fly through each other (as in other MMOs characters do) in hisec because hisec is not intended for kills.

High Security space is that : HIGH Security. It is not a "no kill zone".
The sooner people get that false feeling of security out of their minds, the better.
Caldari State
#187 - 2013-04-26 11:19:58 UTC
iPod Nubz wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:
RISK FREE PVP ALERT

Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.

Undisputed Facts.

1) Bumping a ship can make the difference between a ship being sploded and it escaping into warp.
2) ooc Bumping ships can not be fired upon without concordonkken in high sec.

Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.

Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.


LOL ...
All activities other than /wave shall eb banned from hisec, and ships should fly through each other (as in other MMOs characters do) in hisec because hisec is not intended for kills.

High Security space is that : HIGH Security. It is not a "no kill zone".
The sooner people get that false feeling of security out of their minds, the better.


I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less.
Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.

You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?


CODE.
#188 - 2013-04-27 00:32:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Agent Trask
Dav Varan wrote:


I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less.
Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.

You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?




So I can force non-consensual PvP on freighters by parking my ship in front of the Jita undock and wait for an undocking freighter to strike me? And not get CONCORDed?

I approve of this proposed change!

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

Caldari State
#189 - 2013-04-29 14:49:47 UTC
Agent Trask wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:


I'm suggesting we make High sec more dangerous not less.
Of course I'm only suggesting we make it more dangerous for those who currently hiding behind the skirts of concord.

You bump into someone at high speed you can be shot in the face , how is this making HS safer ?




So I can force non-consensual PvP on freighters by parking my ship in front of the Jita undock and wait for an undocking freighter to strike me? And not get CONCORDed?

I approve of this proposed change!


How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!

Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.

AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.

Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course.
#190 - 2013-05-01 19:48:53 UTC
Got a distance you want to set this idea at, or we just going to do it gridwide? Also, how about passive speed mods?

Don't forget, bumping is about mass as well as speed....

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide

#191 - 2013-05-02 07:53:25 UTC
Pap Uhotih wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:


Put a dang Tank on your Orca if it has that little EHP.

Yes. You have to make a trade off between survivibility and yield/cargo. Why in the world shouldn't you have to make that tradeoff?


I’ll give up with the car insurance. I’ll concede it and simply look for a higher quote next time I want a pay rise :p

My Orca is miles away getting really dusty, I haven’t the faintest idea what its EHP actually is. off hand I think a Skiff can go above 100k, so I assumed you could get to about 70k ish in a Procurer which seemed in the right region.

I think our discussion does come down to yield/tank if we want to save on the multi quoting. I can only go on the evidence I have which is that the frequency that an individual gets ganked in high sec means that going with yield more than covers the cost of losses. It isn’t about surviving it is about making a profit. It isn’t really a trade off at all, yield is win win – you just win a little less if/when you get ganked.
For tank/cargo in industrials it is a far more open question as to where you should go. I have four Mammoths covering a range of options because there are tradeoffs and you have to make a decision before you set off. In the case of Industrial though it can only be loss loss if I get it wrong, I don’t really get more reward if I take a greater risk or get less reward with less risk. Maybe it takes a little more time but I’m not flying them that far in the first place. For longer hauls I take a Freighter and I always have the perfect fit for that.


You are off by a bit with the orca tank. An untanked orca is something like 90k EHP, just tossing a DC2 on there will bump it up to 180k. Add some more tank modules and you can easily get to 250k ehp.


Caldari State
#192 - 2013-05-03 17:43:01 UTC
Sulzer Wartzilla wrote:
Kimo Khan wrote:
You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable?

It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. An easy solution to this issue is to prevent bumping to a person trying to warp, just turn off the mechanic when a person initiates warp. Its not like you can get bumped when you are in warp, so why not turn it off when you initiate warp.

Bumping ships to prevent warping (but mostly crashing back to stargates) has long been an integral and known part of PVP. It takes skill to actually bump someone trying to escape.

It's been around for years. Of course, once this tactic found its way to the asteroid belts of hisec, the calls for nerfing it or utterly removing it from the game did not wait long to rear their ugly face. Predictable.



To say bumping takes skills is just like saying going to the bathroom takes skill. Turn on MWD and press approach... That's all its requires to bump. Don't make it seem like its more than it is.
CODE.
#193 - 2013-05-03 18:36:53 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:


How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!

Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.

AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.

Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course.


Got it.

So if anyone activates an AB, they become a CONCORDOKEN victim if someone else manages to bump them.

And if I fit an Armageddon with nanos, I can get any miner who is using an AB or MWD CONCORDed by bumping him.

I'm still cool with this.

Although the instant you said "put a safety on ABs", I'm pretty sure any CCP devs reading this started howling with laughter.

Join the New Order, buy your permit today, and follow the code.

www.minerbumping.com

#194 - 2013-05-03 22:15:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarsas Phage
Dav Varan wrote:


Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.

Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.


So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not?

You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move?

How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so?

Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario.
Caldari State
#195 - 2013-05-07 08:42:58 UTC
Agent Trask wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:


How do you activate an AB on a Freighter ? it has no slots!

Proposal was if you "activate a speed mod" and bump into someone at high speed.

AB/MWD would need yellow safeties of course.

Activate an AB/MWD at you own risk , same priciple as Smarty with less sever consequences of course.


Got it.

So if anyone activates an AB, they become a CONCORDOKEN victim if someone else manages to bump them.

And if I fit an Armageddon with nanos, I can get any miner who is using an AB or MWD CONCORDed by bumping him.

I'm still cool with this.

Although the instant you said "put a safety on ABs", I'm pretty sure any CCP devs reading this started howling with laughter.


Your theory crafting is week.
If you want to hang around in belts for hours on end waiting on the off chance a miner is gonna press his ab button.
Up to you.

and no concord.
Concord does not respond to suspect flag.
Learn game mechanics BEFORE posting.

Caldari State
#196 - 2013-05-07 08:46:57 UTC
Tarsas Phage wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:


Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.

Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.


So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not?

You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move?

How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so?

Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario.


No intent calculations.
Changed my mind on that really, its not needed with a safety system.
If you activate mods which can mess up the aligns of other players you take the responsibility.
#197 - 2013-05-07 17:03:52 UTC
A post has been deleted since it contained a modified quote that, if removed, would have left a reply with no content.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL

#198 - 2013-05-09 13:03:22 UTC
Dav Varan wrote:
RISK FREE PVP ALERT

Out of corp bumping constitutes risk free PvP as such it needs to be looked at.

Undisputed Facts.


1) People get so upset over being bumped that they've been known to shoot at the unarmed bumping ship.

Someone tripped on the power again.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

#199 - 2013-05-09 23:31:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nagnor
Tarsas Phage wrote:
Dav Varan wrote:


Bumping a ship on purpose* that is not a legitimate target to you should result in a suspect flag on the bumping vessel.

Bumping on purpose should mean putting on approach or clicking within 10degs of ship on screen and activating a speed mod.


So if you were a piece of software, how would you determine (and quickly) the intent of a bump when deciding whether to apply a suspect flag or not?

You make it sound rather simple, but your focus narrowly covers a specific case. What if I undock from jita 4-4, and want to stay on station but quickly clear myself of all the ships with are typically parked right outside? Are you saying that burning away and trying to find a hole to put my ship through the morass of other ships is now a illegal move?

How about if I'm fighting a legitimate target around a crowded gate, and during the fight I activate my speed mod and happen to click within 10 degrees of a non-target ship while doing so?

Your thinking accounts for nothing beyond a specific scenario.

The detection of the intent of a bump is indeed a problem which I think can not easily be computerized/code. EVE is not RL. There are no human police officers present capable of evaluating the situation, advanced reasoning (doesn't apply to all ;) and make the decision (with escalation process in place if one or more of parties disagrees) .

Nevertheless bumping in combination with Crimewatch is broken. This statement has in most of the previous posts not been disputed, most of the objections are about how to resolve it.

Idea Maybe weird, but how about "fixing" it by breaking something else? Kind of in a similar way that untouchable cloaking and free, perfect intell in local are both broken, but in balance. Let's put aside the attempt to emulate this particular piece of real life physics in EVE and disable the player to player collision detection in High sec Question
(only highsec: low, null & wh remain as it is)
#200 - 2013-05-10 12:24:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Beachura
.
Forum Jump