These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#601 - 2014-10-12 09:20:51 UTC  |  Edited by: La Rynx
Ruby wrote:
EVE's physics most closely resemble the ocean.

I prefer absolute space, in this example its just about the motors which on a tank still are big AND the water resistance alongside the oiltanker. The tanker might be less anoyed. Tuggboats pull freightors into the harbor, but freighters shut down their motors.
Might be funny to watch them contest.

Ruby wrote:

To put what's happening in EVE into terms of your analogy,...
...The remaining fragments of that truck...

Thats one thing, lots of damage.

Ruby wrote:

To save you the trouble, the Freighter gets shoved backwards at ~509m/s and the Machariel gets shoved backwards at ~1720m/s.

Sounds lots more fun than the actual version.

Ruby wrote:

though watching the Stabber fly off at 16,500m/s would be hilarious.

Yepp!

Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship!

BTW:
mentioning != complaining.

EDIT:
Honest thanks for calculating!

Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#602 - 2014-10-12 10:33:20 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
La Rynx wrote:
I prefer absolute space, in this example its just about the motors which on a tank still are big AND the water resistance alongside the oiltanker. The tanker might be less anoyed. Tuggboats pull freightors into the harbor, but freighters shut down their motors.
Might be funny to watch them contest.


Whatever you may prefer, EVE's physics model says that you're playing a Submarine simulator.

The TI-Class of Supertankers (the largest ships in the word) have engines that produce some 32,000bhp. There are tugboats that produce up to 27,000bhp.

Anyway, the power of an engine can be determined by the time it takes to produce some amount of change in the ship's kinetic energy. That's easy enough to find in EVE, just multiply the mass of each ship by (.75*max speed) squared and divide by the align time.

For a Charon, that's
(960million kg*(.75*72.6m/s)^2)/42.1s=67,605 MW

For a Machariel, that's
(144million kg*(.75*4141m/s)^2)/8.81s= 157,659,291 MW

Which means that a Machariel's engines are roughly 2,300 times as powerful as a Charon's. So the contest might not go the way you expect. For a fun point of reference, the average electrical power consumed by the US in 2012 was about 467,000 MW.

Quote:
Thats one thing, lots of damage.


Pretty easy to make sure you do enough damage to a relatively flimsy freighter to kill it by ramming. And woe be to any non-(semi)-capital ship, which a Mach with ~100k EHP will have no trouble demolishing long before its paint is scratched.

Collision damage in EVE is a non-starter for any number of reasons.

Quote:
Sounds lots more fun than the actual version.


Perfectly valid opinion, but it brings with it gameplay problems. Waiting for a capital to slow down from something that produces those kinds of speeds is quite painful.

Quote:
Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship!


Means that gankers get to suicide gank freighters everything without ever losing their ship. Super easy to make the freighter the faster ship. (For example, park a Freighter in the Jita 4-4 undock stream, and enjoy seeing every undocking ship go suspect.)

"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

La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#603 - 2014-10-12 11:15:36 UTC  |  Edited by: La Rynx
Quote:
Whatever you may prefer, EVE's physics model says that you're playing a Submarine simulator.

I will not nitpick on that, so...

Agree the numbers do not sum up like i'd expected.
But since its already not realistic:
So i change my idea: Do no ask for a really realistic aproach, some kind that would look/feel better.

And:
AAArggh, i forgot stopped ships...
Still they are close to a docking station / gate to get rid of accidents no flag there(12km radius?)
+ parking in front of a freighter in free space might not be that easy.
+ using a freighter to lure into suspect state would be *very* expensive.

No collision at all would be totaly awful.
No colision-effects for freighters does not sound very much better.

Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#604 - 2014-10-13 06:42:07 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:

Get mad.


No!
Bear
It is enough when you are.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Agree with you 100%. Suspect doesn't make sense though. Best solution is a 60 second warpoff unaffected by bumping when concord arrives.


Veers, this is still EvE.
What i think is, that there should be competition between two factions.
In my oppinion there is no "good" or "bad", ganking is a fact and ads tension to highsec.
What i want is some principle. Not realy "fairness" but equal chances.
One of the best games since ever is "Rock, Paper, Scissors".
Since bumping is considered nonaggression, this adds no cost to the gank.
The gank would cost more if to add and would lower the attractivity and raise the danger for the gankers.
In mining a medium fleet has a lots of drones, wiping out a bumper in no time.
A freighter who defends against a bumper gets suspected and can get shot down freely without any timers for the gankers.

A "best solution" would be the adaption of better force/mass relation. A smaller lighter ship bumping a fully loaded freighter?
Seen what happens when a small car with 140 mph hits a truck a 30 mph truck? The truck flies nowwhere.
Since EvE dosnt use relativistic calculations this is quite easy. Space in EvE is a absolute reference.


Your "solution" would make basically the entire Jita undock a massive suspect festival...not such a great outcome.
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#605 - 2014-10-13 16:06:02 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Your "solution" would make basically the entire Jita undock a massive suspect festival...not such a great outcome.


I do not have "the solution".
I am playing with some ideas that could work and are not to hard to implement.
I already said, that your Jita problem could be solved by some kind of "no suspect radius" around stations but not around jumpgates.

I am still thinking.

Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#606 - 2014-10-14 17:56:18 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Your "solution" would make basically the entire Jita undock a massive suspect festival...not such a great outcome.


I do not have "the solution".
I am playing with some ideas that could work and are not to hard to implement.
I already said, that your Jita problem could be solved by some kind of "no suspect radius" around stations but not around jumpgates.

I am still thinking.



I have the solution: Bring a webbing alt, or have a friend do it.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#607 - 2014-10-14 17:59:57 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
La Rynx wrote:
Now lets add some suspect flag to the faster ship!


Means that gankers get to suicide gank freighters everything without ever losing their ship. Super easy to make the freighter the faster ship. (For example, park a Freighter in the Jita 4-4 undock stream, and enjoy seeing every undocking ship go suspect.)


Bump the freighter in to a stationary ship.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Kairie Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#608 - 2014-10-16 10:31:29 UTC
Jint Hikaru wrote:
Guess I did.

However he is still complaining about a tactic his enemies use, while using the same tactic.
Basically claiming its ok for him to do so because they are, while complaining about it on the forums.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in that.

But if he is juts targeting AFK Miners.. then get to it. Good Hunting!


Anyway, we are getting close to derailing this thread......

Back to Bumping.... GO....


What I wonder is can any afk miner or botter legitimately claim that they are making an effort to avoid a bumper? They aren't even at the keyboard to respond to the bump, yet alone to make any effort at all to avoid the bumper. I can't say I'm a fan of bumping, especially when it's used as part of a gank to prevent escape, but I also have little sympathy for those that are afk or botting. Mining was meant to be an at the keyboard activity; if they meant for it to be automatic, it would be like PI, train up the skills, buy the equipment and let er rip.



Piz Caldera
Ex Presidents.
Hell Dawn
#609 - 2014-10-30 09:20:51 UTC
Mining was meant to be a keyboard activity?

i dont think so. The only reason to mine is, to do if afk or half afk. Its an important part for the game with all its processes, but the only logic reason to mine is to do it afk or half afk, while watching tv, doing houseworks, or else. There is no logic reason to sit 20 min. in front of monitor, to watch mining barge eating ore, you risk to fall asleep.

If mining should be a keyboard activity, CCP would have programmed it to be. But its programmed, that pilots stay in-game and have a possibility to create isk while beeing non constant at monitor, to create an important process and morgage ingame for all the processes need by ore. As programmer, you need to pull in as most pilots as possible into the game and if it would be necessary that mining would be a keyboard act, many would come.

Afk or non afk, its always good and right to bump miners!
Pembroke Auduin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#610 - 2014-10-31 18:38:51 UTC
Piz Caldera wrote:
Mining was meant to be a keyboard activity?

i dont think so. The only reason to mine is, to do if afk or half afk. Its an important part for the game with all its processes, but the only logic reason to mine is to do it afk or half afk, while watching tv, doing houseworks, or else. There is no logic reason to sit 20 min. in front of monitor, to watch mining barge eating ore, you risk to fall asleep.

If mining should be a keyboard activity, CCP would have programmed it to be. But its programmed, that pilots stay in-game and have a possibility to create isk while beeing non constant at monitor, to create an important process and morgage ingame for all the processes need by ore. As programmer, you need to pull in as most pilots as possible into the game and if it would be necessary that mining would be a keyboard act, many would come.

Afk or non afk, its always good and right to bump miners!

I don't really get what you are talking about. When I mine, I constantly watch Dscan and local chat for ganking ships, and constantly keep eyes out for enemy corps. That's like, the opposite of being an afk activity. If we want to complain about bots, I want to see something done about the MASS of ratting bots in nullsec... screw miners, that crap is a crime out there.
Nostromo Fidanza
Blueprint Mania
#611 - 2014-11-19 19:29:14 UTC
Piz Caldera wrote:
Mining was meant to be a keyboard activity?

i dont think so. The only reason to mine is, to do if afk or half afk. Its an important part for the game with all its processes, but the only logic reason to mine is to do it afk or half afk, while watching tv, doing houseworks, or else. There is no logic reason to sit 20 min. in front of monitor, to watch mining barge eating ore, you risk to fall asleep.

If mining should be a keyboard activity, CCP would have programmed it to be. But its programmed, that pilots stay in-game and have a possibility to create isk while beeing non constant at monitor, to create an important process and morgage ingame for all the processes need by ore. As programmer, you need to pull in as most pilots as possible into the game and if it would be necessary that mining would be a keyboard act, many would come.

Afk or non afk, its always good and right to bump miners!


Please continue to mine this way!
Dusty 3allvalve
ISK.Industries
ISK.Enterprises
#612 - 2014-11-21 17:42:35 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
On November 28th 2012, CCP Falcon created this thread on the Crime & Punishment Forum for the discussion of Miner Bumping with a view to clearing up any questions regarding the legitimacy of this type of gameplay.

The thread was closed on December 5th and the discussion regarding this tactic has been long and detailed. After speaking with Game Design and discussing the contents of the thread among themselves for quite some time, the GM Team has come to the following conclusion:

CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit. However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.

We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being “within the rules” this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.

As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.




So if such "emergent gameplay" has "occurred due to the nature of game mechanics"...it seems clear that we should also be able to dress up and reconfigure a shipm, like the iteron and other feeble industrial ships, as a suicide-ganker hunter. A warship that looks just like its orignal, sending signals (elec mod) of a nicely loaded cargo bay...for a price of course.

"Necessity is the mother of invention." Would you believe I didn't just make that lil' gem up. Point is, if the program does not evolve in common sense ways, it is "dated" and unkept. Because if we are talking about game evolution, how many of us drive a Model A? Or is it only natural to grow...before dying?

Seems obvious to me. I'm sure those that are exploiting the hole, or lack if you prefer, in the game mechanics would disagree.
Dusty 3allvalve
ISK.Industries
ISK.Enterprises
#613 - 2014-11-21 17:55:15 UTC
An Ore ship named Revenge with an available mod to change its own ID!!

OH YEAAAHHH....
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#614 - 2014-11-21 21:30:32 UTC
Dusty 3allvalve wrote:


So if such "emergent gameplay" has "occurred due to the nature of game mechanics"...it seems clear that we should also be able to dress up and reconfigure a shipm, like the iteron and other feeble industrial ships, as a suicide-ganker hunter. A warship that looks just like its orignal, sending signals (elec mod) of a nicely loaded cargo bay...for a price of course.

"Necessity is the mother of invention." Would you believe I didn't just make that lil' gem up. Point is, if the program does not evolve in common sense ways, it is "dated" and unkept. Because if we are talking about game evolution, how many of us drive a Model A? Or is it only natural to grow...before dying?

Seems obvious to me. I'm sure those that are exploiting the hole, or lack if you prefer, in the game mechanics would disagree.

"Be careful what you wish for.", that's another nice lil' gem you should give some thought. Roll

Also: this is a thread about bumping, not ganking.
Dusty 3allvalve
ISK.Industries
ISK.Enterprises
#615 - 2014-11-22 07:21:13 UTC
I got suicide ganked by a bump miner for "auto piloting a miner through their space without a license." I was using an it iteron to move closer to a friend...through .8 sapce. I do believe it should be addressed by means of game mechanics. I hope not to offend CCP, it's just what I think on the matter.
Dusty 3allvalve
ISK.Industries
ISK.Enterprises
#616 - 2014-11-22 09:09:46 UTC
I got suicide ganked by a bump miner for "auto piloting a miner through their space without a license." I was using an it iteron to move closer to a friend...through .8 sapce. I do believe it should be addressed by means of game mechanics. I hope not to offend CCP, it's just what I think on the matter.
Dusty 3allvalve
ISK.Industries
ISK.Enterprises
#617 - 2014-11-22 09:11:08 UTC
sorry. accidental repost.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#618 - 2014-11-22 09:24:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Dusty 3allvalve wrote:
I got suicide ganked by a bump miner for "auto piloting a miner through their space without a license." I was using an it iteron to move closer to a friend...through .8 sapce. I do believe it should be addressed by means of game mechanics. I hope not to offend CCP, it's just what I think on the matter.

CCP already has. There is a feature called "warp-to-zero" which will move your ship with a very high degree of safety. There are also game mechanics such as "tank modules" and more advanced techniques that use game mechanics such as the "cloak-MWD" technique which give you near 100% safety while traveling in highsec.

There is also the player-derived mechanic of "buying a permit" and "obeying the Code" which would provide you the safety you seek.

I am unsure though why you are posting in this thread as it has apparently nothing to do with ship bumping mechanics.
Dusty 3allvalve
ISK.Industries
ISK.Enterprises
#619 - 2014-11-22 21:24:31 UTC
Thank you Black Pedro. I have more research to do.
o7
Odeva Pawen
Aideron Robotics
#620 - 2014-12-23 03:35:25 UTC
Dusty 3allvalve wrote:

So if such "emergent gameplay" has "occurred due to the nature of game mechanics"...it seems clear that we should also be able to dress up and reconfigure a shipm, like the iteron and other feeble industrial ships, as a suicide-ganker hunter. A warship that looks just like its orignal, sending signals (elec mod) of a nicely loaded cargo bay...for a price of course.

"Necessity is the mother of invention." Would you believe I didn't just make that lil' gem up. Point is, if the program does not evolve in common sense ways, it is "dated" and unkept. Because if we are talking about game evolution, how many of us drive a Model A? Or is it only natural to grow...before dying?

Seems obvious to me. I'm sure those that are exploiting the hole, or lack if you prefer, in the game mechanics would disagree.


Ever heard of the battle neureus?

Overheat Keyboards! Load Rage posts! Prepare for a long, seething, back and forth about irrelevant things!