These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Better solution to the bumping problem

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#1 - 2015-01-07 09:23:42 UTC
In another thread there was some discussion about abuse of the bumping mechanic to prevent warp, before it went off the rails and was locked. This guy wanted bumping to be a flaggable offence, while others rightfully pointed out all of the other problems that it would create.

I have a better idea: Lets make the normal warp drive behave the way that MicroJump drives do after a bump. If you get bumped off alignment after starting a warp then your warp drive still fires, but it sends you in whatever direction you are pointing at the moment your speed hit 75% (even, and especially, when the bump caused most of the acceleration). You land somewhere else. Some distance (however many AU your warp drive charged to) but in a totally different direction.

The implication of this are:
- No more getting you battleship bumplocked in highsec by some little brat in a frigate. Ditto for freighters. Makes you want to reach through the monitor and slap 'em. You have to do one extra warp, from where ever you landed back to where you want to go. But that's a lot better than getting held down for who-knows how long.
- CODE can still suicide-gank AFK freighters in highsec. Have it so that if the autopilot detects that if a jump landed more than 100km off course (almost surely) then it shuts down with the next-target-gate unselected (to disrupt auto-clicker function). That will give CODE plenty of time to find it with Combat Probes and resume their enforcement action. At-F***ing-Keyboard players will likely be able to escape. (And I'm sure CODE can still ambush freighters without any bumping, it will just require better fleet coordination and quicker response time. I don't think that CCP should totally quash highsec ganking; but I do think it should require more gamesmanship than a street mugging.)
- Normal "legit gameplay mechanic" bumping is unaffected. The main problem with bumping is its 'griefish' interference with warping. Nudging away an AFK miner, or any other miner with whom you are competing with for ore. is still allowed.
- It'd be kind funny. :) Imagine what this would do with the bumper-cars that is always happening outside Jita 4-4.
- And it could be employed to make better quality safespots.
Artassaut
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2015-01-07 09:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Artassaut
Wonder how long it would take people to re-create their 200AU super-safespots of old.

Since CCP physically removed all super-safespots, I doubt they will create a mechanic that allows them to be recreated. People trying to flush others out of safespots would hate this too.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2015-01-07 09:29:04 UTC
I'd prefer it did nothing unless the target was locked and bumping a locked target gave the flag.

>Undock solved (auto target back hand holding I cant care about)
>Bumping solved as it remains a viable hobo tackle - only this time with a risk associated with depriving someone of control of their ship.
>Whining solved


Win Smile
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#4 - 2015-01-07 09:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Colette Kassia
Artassaut wrote:
Wonder how long it would take people to re-create their 200AU super-safespots of old.

Since CCP physically removed all super-safespots, I doubt they will create a mechanic that allows them to be recreated. People trying to flush others out of safespots would hate this too.


Well there is a limit to how far you could get. It's the distance between to celestial bodies away from the further of the two from the sun. If two planets are 30 AU away from each other and outer-most one is 23 AU from the sun than the furthest you could get would be 53 AU from the sun.

Get further via a second bump-warp would require another ship to be involved. CCP could set it up so that any time you intentionally try to warp to a fleet member or bookmark that is an improper distance from the sun then a dialogue pops up to say "You can't warp there", or something similar.

Or the server could cheat and place you somewhere inside the orbit of the outer-most planet if you somehow end up outside it. Most players wouldn't notice. This bump-warp thing would usually happen by accident or without the intent to send a spin in any specific direction.

But remote safespots are not what this thread is about.
Artassaut
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2015-01-07 10:12:10 UTC
Colette Kassia wrote:

Get further through a second bump-warp would require another ship to be involved. CCP could set it up so that any time you intentionally try to warp to a fleet member or bookmark that is an improper distance from the sun than a dialogue pops up to say "You can't warp there", or something similar.

How would the game determine that?

Thera is a huge system. An "improper" distance from the sun is still pretty large. Trying to automate something to fix that, like only being warpable to 2x the sun's distance from the furthest planet, would mean that tiny systems could end up having huge issues.

This thread may not be about remote safespots, but remember, EVE players don't use mechanics the way CCP thinks they will be used a lot of the time.

Players could simply use probes to find their friend, warp to him, and when they make their final safe, drop a remote depot to use in reprobing the site to resafe their ship.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#6 - 2015-01-07 10:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
What problem?

Oh and reported for redundancy.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#7 - 2015-01-07 10:23:16 UTC
Mag's wrote:
What problem?

Oh and reported for redundancy.

The other thread was about legal mechanics, this is about warp drive behaviour. It's not redundant.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#8 - 2015-01-07 10:25:10 UTC
But... But...
But there is no bumping problem.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#9 - 2015-01-07 10:25:44 UTC
Colette Kassia wrote:
Mag's wrote:
What problem?

Oh and reported for redundancy.

The other thread was about legal mechanics, this is about warp drive behaviour. It's not redundant.

It's about bumping. Therefore redundant.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#10 - 2015-01-07 10:30:40 UTC
Artassaut wrote:
Colette Kassia wrote:

Get further through a second bump-warp would require another ship to be involved. CCP could set it up so that any time you intentionally try to warp to a fleet member or bookmark that is an improper distance from the sun than a dialogue pops up to say "You can't warp there", or something similar.

How would the game determine that?

Thera is a huge system. An "improper" distance from the sun is still pretty large. Trying to automate something to fix that, like only being warpable to 2x the sun's distance from the furthest planet, would mean that tiny systems could end up having huge issues.

This thread may not be about remote safespots, but remember, EVE players don't use mechanics the way CCP thinks they will be used a lot of the time.

Players could simply use probes to find their friend, warp to him, and when they make their final safe, drop a remote depot to use in reprobing the site to resafe their ship.


The systems already have a "wall" at [outermost planet] + N AU (I want to say N=10) from the sun. We already know the system size limit, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a hard wall there (i.e. ships will stop moving when they hit it). IIRC, CCP didn't just arbitrarily decide to get rid of deep bookmarks (and left the systems that big) -- they physically reduced the "container" that the systems live in.


And in either event, the "problem" of bumping can be solved by bringing friends (a.k.a "a scout") ... or at the least, an alt.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Lugh Crow-Slave
#11 - 2015-01-07 10:58:08 UTC
afkalt wrote:
I'd prefer it did nothing unless the target was locked and bumping a locked target gave the flag.

>Undock solved (auto target back hand holding I cant care about)
>Bumping solved as it remains a viable hobo tackle - only this time with a risk associated with depriving someone of control of their ship.
>Whining solved


Win Smile


so do i just pass through a ship then if i don't have them locked or what?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-01-07 10:58:57 UTC
Those super saves were before my time, what's so bad about them?

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Artassaut
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2015-01-07 11:02:43 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
The systems already have a "wall" at [outermost planet] + N AU (I want to say N=10) from the sun. We already know the system size limit, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a hard wall there (i.e. ships will stop moving when they hit it). IIRC, CCP didn't just arbitrarily decide to get rid of deep bookmarks (and left the systems that big) -- they physically reduced the "container" that the systems live in.

My bad, forgot about that Tyrannis blog.

Though, this still means that large systems, such as Thera etc, can be abused instead of both small and large systems.

Velicitia wrote:
And in either event, the "problem" of bumping can be solved by bringing friends (a.k.a "a scout") ... or at the least, an alt.

Sounds like we already have the solution we want in this MMO game.

Debora Tsung wrote:
what's so bad about them?

At the time, it allowed fleets to be bridged/jumped into the system with absolutely no risk.

I'm fairly certain CCP didn't like the no risk part.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#14 - 2015-01-07 11:09:17 UTC
As there already is a thread on the same topic, this one gets a lock. Please feel free to post any idea you might have in regard to the bumping mechanic in that thread.

Thread locked.

The Rules:
17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked.

As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss.
If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost.
Please keep discussion regarding a topic to a single thread.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2015-01-07 11:09:17 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
afkalt wrote:
I'd prefer it did nothing unless the target was locked and bumping a locked target gave the flag.

>Undock solved (auto target back hand holding I cant care about)
>Bumping solved as it remains a viable hobo tackle - only this time with a risk associated with depriving someone of control of their ship.
>Whining solved


Win Smile


so do i just pass through a ship then if i don't have them locked or what?


Yup, why not. Is there a problem with that I've overlooked? I don't think brick walling with ships to prevent movement is a current meta tactic?

I mean, at this point we might as well make points not cause flags either, after all if someone is constantly pointing you preventing warp, just alt up and bump them away, right? Lol

I jest, of course, but the current uses of bumping are damned sure broken against the universal rule: Risk/reward balance. I should not be able to tackle someone without repercussions - however hobo that tackling is.