EVE General Discussion

If what we're arguing about here is bumping, then let me tell you, yes, it's pathetic. Smaller ships should be smashed to bits when they collide with something like a freighter. The mass of the ship you're flying should make a difference to bumpability. The trouble is, I don't think there are that many clock cycles dedicated to collision detection and resolution on the server. That's why it's so stupid.

Eve needs Inertia.

I don't care what the cargo is to be honest. I don't think it matters if its 5k m3 of trit or 200 plexes. I am not saying freighters shouldn't be allowed to live or die.

Only equipped modules should matter.

I am also saying that if you cannot aggress, you shouldn't have a timer.

Here's a thought... how bad would it be to give a freighter a drone bay? It wouldn't do ANYTHING about this scenario to help.

But it would justify an aggression timer.

Funny ol world ain't it?

And I did mention a change earlier. Although it is NOT up to me to provide a change, or a fix, I also specifically said that someone WOULD say that, and the response to that should be diminshing returns. Or create a way for a ship (since its ANY ship rules right?) to CAUSE an aggression timer. Doesn't HAVE to be a slot, to incur any nerf such as Tippia fears, but even a drone bay would suffice.

It's not me who is making the the ship special. As to eve standards, blow the damned thing up. But be able to do it within a specific amount of time.

Such as the timer suggests.

People bad posting terrible ideas to try and fix stupid.

The empty freighter can still be killed, and should be if chosen to, regardless of cargo. This is where YOU are making the freighter want special consideration, not me.

Again, please read my quote you posted. We are not talking about preventive maintenance here.

We are talking about a failed gank(well, not failed since it did get blown up) that harassed a player for over an hour through the use of exploiting a working timer that isn't even in the realm of sandboxish.

Scam him as a scout, awox him, blow him up on the gate, all very cool and can be seen as sandbox play.

This isn't.

You know he did have escape options he just wasn't as prepared as the gankers. He was trying to play eve solo. They were playing as a group. He could have scrambled guys to gank the bump boats. Or had scouts and webers. Or hired someone else to move his stuff and set a collateral. The list goes on and on frieghter pilots have options most are just too lazy/stupid to use them. Also I have to point out getting bumped for an hour isn't harassment it's a chance to scramble a response. Stop being babies.



Edit p.s grrrrgoons

I am fully aware of the preventive measures needed and/or taken, but that isn't in question.

This scenario does bring to light how the mechanics in question might need a bit of tweaking.

Since Eve is cold and harsh and unfair, it should go both ways.

If you can't kill a freighter in 15 minutes, he deserves to live.

Gankers' pisspoor performance has nothing to with the stupidity of this freighter pilot (and I do think all parties on that kill, victim included were stupid).

Nah not really, but it would justify having diminishing returns, or justify an addition to the mechanic that allows for Eve play.

You know, sandbox.

Because when you try to realign, or be bumped all over and can't even logoff for over an hour should mean something.

And yes, autocorrect sucks =(

EDIT- But yea, to use your passive attempts at sarcasm here =P, if you can't kill a freighter in 15 minutes, you have no business worrying about it. That IS eve like, you know, htfu or whatever hehe.

I did not make up the timer. Thank you, but no, I am not a DEV.

While you might want to try to insist on freighters being capitals, and not special, they are allowed in highsec... and can continue entering/leaving highsec right?

And this is my favorite one, I'll even quote back in... "Just because neither side wants to give up and go home doesn't mean that anything is broken. It most certainly does not mean that either part is not playing the game.".

Seriously? Ok wait, I need to take a step back and get an order of operations here just to make sure I am crystal clear on your words.

There is a mechanic, that prevents people from logging off, and you are claiming that mechanic is not broken because noone wants to give up and go home. And you also reinforce that "they" are not wanting to give up, or go home, or are not playing the game. By logging off.

Log off.

Give up.

Go home.

Think on that for a bit.

They didn't expire. The aggression rule is "15 minutes from the last point of aggression"
Again, this was deliberately made to be able to be extended because in many cases 15minutes was not long enough. I don't know how many more times people need to say "the ability to keep a ship aggressed for 60minutes is deliberate" -- it is simply a fact.

No, it was designed for all ships. The initial plan was to make it for caps (or even just supercaps) only but CCP deliberately extended it to all ships in all space because they think the mechanic is good.
It was also specifically designed so that people could aggress and catch ships that were NOT aggressing other people. Again, to claim that using it in it's intended design is an exploit is just plain wrong. The fact the pilot could chose to agress in a SC if he wanted to is neither here nor there - but surely if you wanted some bizzaro version of the rules where the ability to do so is the same as doing so, then surely they could travel-fit with no aggressive modules and petition any loss because "they weren't able to aggress"?
Again, it is willfully the design of CCP that ships which are not, and cannot aggress, are able to be aggressed to change their logoff timer.
[quote[I DO care, however, that keeping someone locked down for an hour to the point of not being able to play the game happened[/quote]
So if it's a freighter that I have legal aggression on and I have pointed - how long am I allowed to hold the point and await backup?
You're acting like the length of time is an issue - it's not. The player had more than one option available to him that could have removed him from the situation.
If he wanted it to stop, he could self destruct. If he doesn't want to accept the loss of his ship there's some pretty good ways of getting out of what you saw, but I will not post them and circumvent the work we do.

The mechanic is fine, but yes we're heartless assholes. Deal with it.

The "sandbox" concept is inherently against any and all rules on what players can do to one another. If you want to argue for a true sandbox, one needs to remove concord. Let other players freely stop us from attacking the freighter.