These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

An Anti-bumping Module for The Miners of High Sec

Author
Yaturi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-08-04 01:10:41 UTC
After reading my fair share of miner tears on this board and many others I've come to a somewhat compassionate understanding to the plight of said miners.

First off let me clear the air and share my feelings on their profession.

I think belt bumping is kinda cheap and something I wouldn't do unless really angered at someone. Smile
Miner ganking on the other hand is something I find quite amusing. I have dabbled in its practices before and will also in the future.


So I think there should be a new mechanic introduced to the game.Big smile This is my variation of that mechanic:

Anchoring module exerts lco status (large collidable object)

has disengagement timer (cant warp off due to secondary timer, similar to how you cant target after decloak)
Can only be targeted on roids
Optimal of 5km
mid slot
moderately high cap, grid and cpu (will reduce overall yield and/or tanking ability)

Has cool almost bubblelish effect while activated. Maybe like a lightning static electricity luminosity to it.

Holes? Pick at them please.
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-08-04 03:22:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Hesod Adee
That's one way to ensure the target will stay put. Bump them till they turn this module on. Then gank them.


Quote:
moderately high cap, grid and cpu (will reduce overall yield and/or tanking ability)

If this requires a miner to sacrifice yield, many will not use it. They are the ones whining.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-08-04 03:33:03 UTC
Yaturi wrote:
Holes? Pick at them please.


well for one it doesn't require a high slot

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Siobhan MacLeary
Doomheim
#4 - 2013-08-04 03:53:57 UTC
...This is the kind of bullshit I see in F&I that makes me want to gouge out my own eyes.

Miner bumping is a legitimate and hilarious way to mess with AFK miners. Anti-bumping measures already exist - they're called orbiting, keeping at range, and having someone on hand to web you down.

Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave

Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2013-08-04 04:53:17 UTC
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
...This is the kind of bullshit I see in F&I that makes me want to gouge out my own eyes.

Very constructive. And classy.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#6 - 2013-08-04 05:50:24 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
...This is the kind of bullshit I see in F&I that makes me want to gouge out my own eyes.

Very constructive. And classy.


Then read further...
Lin Gerie
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-08-04 05:59:30 UTC
Reduce all resists by 85% for T1 and 75% for T2
Have a related skill, each level gives it +5% to resists while anchored.

Anchoring would have a default time of 60 seconds, movement while anchoring (Even if bumped) will reset the module. Another skill will reduce the length of anchoring by 7.5 seconds per skill level.

Once anchored you can not move or be bumped, but it takes as long to un-anchor as it does to anchor.

This means anchoring will save you from being bumped but will lower your resists a good deal unless you do some additional skilling.

Problem solved, except now you're made of paper. You can still try to boost your resists but honestly this is the only acceptable trade off.
Yaturi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-08-04 06:42:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Yaturi
Andski wrote:
Yaturi wrote:
Holes? Pick at them please.


well for one it doesn't require a high slot


This is an acceptable option. However, I chose mids since most miner ships are shield tanked due to yield mods taking up the lows. Also, this idea revolves around making a miner have to choose between bump harassment or being an easier gank target. Taking up a mid will further diminish said shield tank. While, taking away a laser will undoubtedly make the miner not use the module at all imo.


Lin Gerie wrote:
Reduce all resists by 85% for T1 and 75% for T2
Have a related skill, each level gives it +5% to resists while anchored.

Anchoring would have a default time of 60 seconds, movement while anchoring (Even if bumped) will reset the module. Another skill will reduce the length of anchoring by 7.5 seconds per skill level.

Once anchored you can not move or be bumped, but it takes as long to un-anchor as it does to anchor.

This means anchoring will save you from being bumped but will lower your resists a good deal unless you do some additional skilling.

Problem solved, except now you're made of paper. You can still try to boost your resists but honestly this is the only acceptable trade off.



Sorry, but a resist reduction of that magnitude would create lol scenerios where t1 frigs would be popping hulks. Its just not a fair trade off.

As for having a module-related skill that reduces un-anchoring times, this is an acceptable idea as well. All the inferno modules got skill books, so why not.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#9 - 2013-08-04 07:20:06 UTC
Yaturi wrote:
This is an acceptable option. However, I chose mids since most miner ships are shield tanked due to yield mods taking up the lows. Also, this idea revolves around making a miner have to choose between bump harassment or being an easier gank target. Taking up a mid will further diminish said shield tank. While, taking away a laser will undoubtedly make the miner not use the module at all imo.


it's pretty simple

if you want to use it on a skiff, get owned
if you want to use it on a mackinaw, rip half of your yield
if you want to use it on a hulk, rip a third of your yield

that's how tradeoffs work

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Jureth22
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-08-04 12:04:01 UTC
bot much?
Yaturi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2013-08-04 13:12:34 UTC
Way too into this game to risk the ban. I don't think this module would create more botting, just funnier ganks that's all. Maybe you know something I don't..
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#12 - 2013-08-04 13:35:36 UTC
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
...This is the kind of bullshit I see in F&I that makes me want to gouge out my own eyes.

Miner bumping is a legitimate and hilarious way to mess with AFK miners. Anti-bumping measures already exist - they're called orbiting, keeping at range, and having someone on hand to web you down.


TBH I play mostly in wormhole space so it doesn't really affect me and if it did I could probably come up with ways to counter it - but I know of 3 people from a gaming forum I frequent who have tried to get into eve casually and quit playing due to miner bumping and one guy having 5 retrievers suicide ganked in about 3 days. I don't really know much about it but from 2nd hand information it seems like its turning a good number of people away from the game and thats not really a good thing.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#13 - 2013-08-04 16:30:03 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
...This is the kind of bullshit I see in F&I that makes me want to gouge out my own eyes.

Miner bumping is a legitimate and hilarious way to mess with AFK miners. Anti-bumping measures already exist - they're called orbiting, keeping at range, and having someone on hand to web you down.


TBH I play mostly in wormhole space so it doesn't really affect me and if it did I could probably come up with ways to counter it - but I know of 3 people from a gaming forum I frequent who have tried to get into eve casually and quit playing due to miner bumping and one guy having 5 retrievers suicide ganked in about 3 days. I don't really know much about it but from 2nd hand information it seems like its turning a good number of people away from the game and thats not really a good thing.


Change the system.

Your friends were dumb and didn't do that.

There are plenty of systems where you will never get bumped.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Siobhan MacLeary
Doomheim
#14 - 2013-08-04 17:23:33 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
...This is the kind of bullshit I see in F&I that makes me want to gouge out my own eyes.

Miner bumping is a legitimate and hilarious way to mess with AFK miners. Anti-bumping measures already exist - they're called orbiting, keeping at range, and having someone on hand to web you down.


TBH I play mostly in wormhole space so it doesn't really affect me and if it did I could probably come up with ways to counter it - but I know of 3 people from a gaming forum I frequent who have tried to get into eve casually and quit playing due to miner bumping and one guy having 5 retrievers suicide ganked in about 3 days. I don't really know much about it but from 2nd hand information it seems like its turning a good number of people away from the game and thats not really a good thing.


If your friend's idea of "casual play" is paying $15/month to sit and stare at rocks then that just makes me sad. There's so much more you can do, even on a casual basis, than sit in a barge and mine.

I play regularly now, but when I first started playing I was on maybe one day a week for a couple hours, and I made enough money derping around doing missions and exploring to satisfy my needs.

Maybe your friends should try exploration or missioning, instead of rock munching. And to be honest, if bumping and ganking are turning you away from EVE then you're probably not the kind of person who would be a benefit to the game and community anyway.

Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#15 - 2013-08-04 18:17:26 UTC
Andski wrote:
Yaturi wrote:
Holes? Pick at them please.


well for one it doesn't require a high slot

I'll add that it doesn't give you a suspect flag if you use it.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#16 - 2013-08-04 19:15:34 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:

Change the system.

Your friends were dumb and didn't do that.

There are plenty of systems where you will never get bumped.


No idea what they did and didn't do but for all I know they may well have changed systems and/or made attempts to evade it. Being new they probably wouldn't have had much idea as to if there were/are systems where bumping doesn't happen.


Siobhan MacLeary wrote:

If your friend's idea of "casual play" is paying $15/month to sit and stare at rocks then that just makes me sad. There's so much more you can do, even on a casual basis, than sit in a barge and mine.

I play regularly now, but when I first started playing I was on maybe one day a week for a couple hours, and I made enough money derping around doing missions and exploring to satisfy my needs.

Maybe your friends should try exploration or missioning, instead of rock munching. And to be honest, if bumping and ganking are turning you away from EVE then you're probably not the kind of person who would be a benefit to the game and community anyway.


They'd only been playing around 2 months or so possibly less - maybe if they'd carried on to play longer they'd have got into that other stuff. Mining is one of the most obvious ways to make ISK (atleast it was when I started) as a new player.
Sally Enviere
#17 - 2013-10-27 03:58:49 UTC
I have a simple solution for that... Actually two:

-Remove PvP bumping completely, don't think it has much practical use at all. Just creating weird PvP fights and exploits.

-Put a bumping timer up, so if a ship gets bumped by another player, then it should be invulnerable for bumping for a certain time. That time should be the ship's align time. It still doesn't affect those bot/afkminerbumpergankers, but would give a chance to warp off for those who fly a freighter or other big slow ships. Maybe this can be implemented in highsec, since lowsec is different. Think it would be a fair limitation for both bumpers and miners...
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#18 - 2013-10-27 04:19:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Making the module require a midslot is good. Make it consume a fair bit of resources so that you can't really fit much of a tank. Of course a module like this would have to divert power engines and ore processing in order to reinforce the barge's stability systems so no movement is possible with the module active and mining yield would have to be reduced.

Don't put a suspect flag on it, but do give it a Weapons timer just like the Bastion Module will have. No docking up or jumping system for a minute after the module is disengaged. Now you have the choice between miner bumping as usual or balanced, bump-proof mining that makes you an easier gank target.

I support giving miners the ability to make choices, but only if those choices have both benefits and drawbacks, just like any choices the rest of us make.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#19 - 2013-10-27 04:22:05 UTC
Sally Enviere wrote:
I have a simple solution for that... Actually two:

-Remove PvP bumping completely, don't think it has much practical use at all. Just creating weird PvP fights and exploits.

-Put a bumping timer up, so if a ship gets bumped by another player, then it should be invulnerable for bumping for a certain time. That time should be the ship's align time. It still doesn't affect those bot/afkminerbumpergankers, but would give a chance to warp off for those who fly a freighter or other big slow ships. Maybe this can be implemented in highsec, since lowsec is different. Think it would be a fair limitation for both bumpers and miners...


just facepalm. stupidest idea ever.

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#20 - 2013-10-27 05:14:08 UTC
It already exists, it is called self destruct.
12Next page