These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bumping out of align mechanic

Author
Ria Nieyli
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#161 - 2015-04-26 06:01:19 UTC
Zealous Miner wrote:
2. Eject your pod. It's virtually impossible to bump lock a pod.
4. Use an escort. Why are you flying lumbering, valuable ships that have no means of returning fire alone?
8. Pay the ransom.


Have you played the game recently?
Ria Nieyli
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#162 - 2015-04-26 06:05:52 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Shai 'Hulud wrote:
My suspicion, however, is that this was never an intended mechanic and that its days are numbered.
You're right it's not an intended mechanic, jet can mining, scams and hundreds of other things aren't either. For example alliances are unintended gameplay that forced CCP to implement mechanics to support them after the fact.

That's why it's called emergent gameplay, something Eve is famous for.

If CCP felt that it was exploitive in any way it would have long gone the way of dec-shields, the boomerang and a multitude of other examples of unintended mechanics that they decided weren't legal gameplay.


Pre-spawning Concord is an exploit and it isn't an exploit at the same time, according to CCP. Just saying.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#163 - 2015-04-26 06:46:39 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
How many different times and different ways do ccp developers need to clarify that bumping is legal tactic and allowed and to use your brain/friends/resources to adapt and overcome being bumped?

Its allowed, get over it

overcome it how? if a group wants you dead, there is literally ZERO your friends can do to stop it in highsec, short of suice-ganking EVERY ship that could possible be used for a gank that just happens to be at the same gate the freighter currently is at.

the fact is, there is a mechanic designed to rpevent warp, warp disruption modules. the fact that bumping can be used to hold a ship down near-indefintely so that hostiles that arent even at the gate can warp over, on their own time, and gank a ship that is being prevented from entering warp by mechanics outside of intended warp-disruption mechanics.

Now im not against freighter ganking, or ganking in general, heck, and freighter hauling more than its hull worth in cargo, without full tank mods, needs to die.

But right now the only REAL defense against suicide ganking in highsec, is to have more firends than possible suicide gankers, ready to suicide-gank every suicide-gank possible ship they come across en route. This entire system favors the criminals, in that they are able to manage to an exact measure their risk, and what possible rewards they can get, at their leisure, and without risk (cargo scanning a bumped freighter before following through with the pew), whereas the only way to DEFEND yourself in this mechanic is to commit a crime that prevents further operation (cant easily fly or escort a freighter with -5 standings).


The imbalance comes from the fact that the characters required to defend and operate the freighter are dedicated characters with serious assets and progression within their field at risk, whereas the aggressors dont even need skilled characters, within a trial period they can create a character capable of flying the destroyers capable of wreaking havoc on whatever they choose. Its the fact that in this scenario, the aggressors rarely see consequences, and when they do they are consequences that dont matter (defending yourself gives you negative standing, cant haul in highsec with negative standing, attacking gives negative standing too, but guess what? doesnt amtter because your entire profession revolves around sacrificing a nearly free ship on a regular basis)


im all for a change to the way NPC corps work to prevent members from being completely safe from wardecs as highsec hauling or missioning alts, but the aggression-free warp disruption of bumping needs to be reworked
Black Pedro
Mine.
#164 - 2015-04-26 07:42:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
overcome it how? if a group wants you dead, there is literally ZERO your friends can do to stop it in highsec, short of suice-ganking EVERY ship that could possible be used for a gank that just happens to be at the same gate the freighter currently is at.

This is intended. You are never suppose to be 100% safe anywhere in New Eden. It is in fact a core design principle that has lead to many game mechanics and changes that expose players to the influence of other players. In fact, I would argue that if you find a system that keeps you 100% safe (*cough* DSTs in highsec *cough*) you have found part of the game that is broken.

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
the fact is, there is a mechanic designed to rpevent warp, warp disruption modules. the fact that bumping can be used to hold a ship down near-indefintely so that hostiles that arent even at the gate can warp over, on their own time, and gank a ship that is being prevented from entering warp by mechanics outside of intended warp-disruption mechanics.
And bumping is one of these mechanics. It has literally been used for almost a decade to keep capital and super-capital ships from entering warp. If CCP thought this emergent vulnerability was a problem, they would have patched it long ago.

I can only guess, but since bumping adds a new tactical dimension and increases the chances of big ships being caught and killed (see "nothing should be 100% safe" above) they are fine with the mechanic. Of course they might change their mind, but they have been clear and consistent that bumping is a valid tactic and legitimate gameplay (with the one exception of the POS bumping debacle):

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Now im not against freighter ganking, or ganking in general, heck, and freighter hauling more than its hull worth in cargo, without full tank mods, needs to die.
If I had an ISK for everyone who said that they were not against ganking and then go on to propose something that would have the obvious consequence of dramatically reducing or eliminating ganking I would be a rich man. Bumping is a key tool for gank squads to hold freighters long enough to get enough DPS on the field in highsec to kill them. Ganking would be possible without bumping, but it would significantly increase the cost of ganking, and thus dramatically reduce the number of ganks in highsec. Freighters probably are already one of the safest ship in the game because of their massive intrinsic EHP, so why should we make them even safer?

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
But right now the only REAL defense against suicide ganking in highsec, is to have more firends than possible suicide gankers, ready to suicide-gank every suicide-gank possible ship they come across en route. This entire system favors the criminals, in that they are able to manage to an exact measure their risk, and what possible rewards they can get, at their leisure, and without risk (cargo scanning a bumped freighter before following through with the pew), whereas the only way to DEFEND yourself in this mechanic is to commit a crime that prevents further operation (cant easily fly or escort a freighter with -5 standings).
Yet Red Frog manages to complete over 99.89% of their contracts safely. Suicide ganking of freighters is a non-issue as it is so rare, and completely avoidable with a little effort. Further, CCP has kindly given haulers other ships like DSTs and MWD Orcas which are highly resistant to bumping and able to carry large loads (just like the Skiff and Procurer are immune to miner bumpers).

Eve is a game. You are expected to play the game and for the hauler that is outwitting the bumpers and gankers to get your goods from A to B safely. CCP intends for you to defend your freighter, not AFK all your goods all across New Eden while you make a sandwich. There should not be one ship that can do everything, and there definitely should not be a ship that is 100% safe in highsec. Vulnerability to a bump tackler is the major downside to freighters so take that into account when you undock one.

There are ways to free a trapped freighter, but more importantly there are a plethora of modules, ships, and tactics which will keep you from ever getting in that situation in the first place. Do not assume that highsec is safesec when you are moving expensive goods or flying a costly capital ship/loot pinata and actually play the game.

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
The imbalance comes from the fact that the characters required to defend and operate the freighter are dedicated characters with serious assets and progression within their field at risk, whereas the aggressors dont even need skilled characters, within a trial period they can create a character capable of flying the destroyers capable of wreaking havoc on whatever they choose. Its the fact that in this scenario, the aggressors rarely see consequences, and when they do they are consequences that dont matter (defending yourself gives you negative standing, cant haul in highsec with negative standing, attacking gives negative standing too, but guess what? doesnt amtter because your entire profession revolves around sacrificing a nearly free ship on a regular basis)
Eve is not balanced on ISK or SP. In fact, it is specifically designed so that increasing cost produces exponentially diminishing returns on performance. This is what allows new players to be at all competitive in this game. This isn't WoW - you are not entitled to drop 20M SP into a character or 1B ISK on a ship and be untouchable to a 5M SP character in a destroyer, especially if he brings a dozen or two of his friends. This isn't a problem with the game; that is just Eve.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#165 - 2015-04-26 07:52:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Black Pedro wrote:

:words:

This is a good post. The last bit in particular is spectacularly important to understand: the fact that a minimal-SP character in a cheap-as-chips ship can take out a dedicated character in a dedicated ship is the exact opposite of an imbalance. It is what proper balance actually looks like. The fact that throwing SP and cash at an activity does not make it immune to disruption is one thing that EVE gets right that most other games get horribly horribly wrong.

This particular piece of balancing makes EVE a far superior game to most.

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
im all for a change to the way NPC corps work to prevent members from being completely safe from wardecs as highsec hauling or missioning alts, but the aggression-free warp disruption of bumping needs to be reworked

Good news: there is no such thing in the game as aggression-free warp disruption. So there is nothing that needs to be reworked in that area.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#166 - 2015-04-26 09:17:00 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
This is intended. You are never suppose to be 100% safe anywhere in New Eden. It is in fact a core design principle that has lead to many game mechanics and changes that expose players to the influence of other players. In fact, I would argue that if you find a system that keeps you 100% safe (*cough* DSTs in highsec *cough*) you have found part of the game that is broken.
Checks and balances, and consequences for your actions are also a design principle of EVE. There are none for tackle-bumping. No agression flag, no security hit, nothing.

Black Pedro wrote:
And bumping is one of these mechanics. It has literally been used for almost a decade to keep capital and super-capital ships from entering warp. If CCP thought this emergent vulnerability was a problem, they would have patched it long ago.

I can only guess, but since bumping adds a new tactical dimension and increases the chances of big ships being caught and killed (see "nothing should be 100% safe" above) they are fine with the mechanic. Of course they might change their mind, but they have been clear and consistent that bumping is a valid tactic and legitimate gameplay (with the one exception of the POS bumping debacle):
There aren't many caps in hi-sec tho, they are where this is almost a non-issue, 'cause you can blow the offender off the field ( almost, since in low-sec you are forced to incur the aggressor hit to sec status ).

Black Pedro wrote:
If I had an ISK for everyone who said that they were not against ganking and then go on to propose something that would have the obvious consequence of dramatically reducing or eliminating ganking I would be a rich man. Bumping is a key tool for gank squads to hold freighters long enough to get enough DPS on the field in highsec to kill them. Ganking would be possible without bumping, but it would significantly increase the cost of ganking, and thus dramatically reduce the number of ganks in highsec. Freighters probably are already one of the safest ship in the game because of their massive intrinsic EHP, so why should we make them even safer?
Bumping is only a key tool because the people doing it aren't willing to deal with the consequences that are supposed to balance this. If they payed the price for the sec standing hits, instead of sitting in flashy pods in safes, they wouldn't need the extra time to arrive on field. There's a reason why CCP has a rule about recycling suicide alts, they want you to deal with the consequences, it is their way of ensuring checks and balances.

CCP does not have a good tool to deal with tackle-bumping in hi-sec. Which is why under the current mechanics they are accepting it, the alternative would be to open the flood gates of manually handing each case in customer support. Which is of course why you have people in here insinuating that CCP would warn you for sending in tickets about this. They know very well that the moment CCP has to spend more resources doing nothing about something that doesn't jive with their intended mechanics, than doing something; well, they will start doing something.

Black Pedro wrote:
Yet Red Frog manages to complete over 99.89% of their contracts safely. Suicide ganking of freighters is a non-issue as it is so rare, and completely avoidable with a little effort. Further, CCP has kindly given haulers other ships like DSTs and MWD Orcas which are highly resistant to bumping and able to carry large loads (just like the Skiff and Procurer are immune to miner bumpers).
It's being used for other things than ganking; like in the case of the OP. Holding you in place, and demanding a ransom. Which is why I in this case suggested a ticket for harassment. It was being used solely to deny someone the option of traveling. Not liberating someone of too-expensive-for-your-hold goods.

Black Pedro wrote:
Eve is not balanced on ISK or SP. In fact, it is specifically designed so that increasing cost produces exponentially diminishing returns on performance. This what allows new players to be at all competitive in this game. This isn't WoW - you are not entitled to drop 20M SP into a character or 1B ISK on a ship and be untouchable to a 5M SP character in a destroyer, especially if he brings a dozen or two of his friends. This isn't a problem with the game; that is just Eve.
That is entirely true. If only CCP had not forgotten about this when they re-balanced supers Lol
Solecist Project
#167 - 2015-04-26 09:28:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Instead of talking we should instead remove these people from the game ...
... or crush threads like this in an appropriate fashion.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#168 - 2015-04-26 09:44:17 UTC
Pohbis wrote:
Checks and balances, and consequences for your actions are also a design principle of EVE. There are none for tackle-bumping. No agression flag, no security hit, nothing.
It is balanced against the fact that the target can just warp off.

Quote:
Bumping is only a key tool because the people doing it aren't willing to deal with the consequences that are supposed to balance this.
Other way around: bumping is a key tool because it's a way to deal with the consequences. It also has less to do with bringing enough DPS on the field and more to do with positioning the kill and countering a few classic evasion techniques. They already pay the price for sec standing hits, by the way.

Quote:
CCP does not have a good tool to deal with tackle-bumping in hi-sec.
Sure they do, if there was anything that needed to be dealt with. As it is, there isn't. If anything, CCP has worked pretty hard to retain this mechanic than the much easier option of removing it.

Quote:
It's being used for other things than ganking; like in the case of the OP. Holding you in place, and demanding a ransom. Which is why I in this case suggested a ticket for harassment. It was being used solely to deny someone the option of traveling. Not liberating someone of too-expensive-for-your-hold goods.
And sending in a ticket for harassment, of all things, is nothing other than clogging up the petition system with nonsensical reports. It is so far removed from harassment that it borders on the comedic. Your own description perfectly captures why it cannot possibly be considered harassment: because it is done for a ransom.
Solecist Project
#169 - 2015-04-26 09:48:02 UTC
Aaaand Tippia takes over.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#170 - 2015-04-26 09:57:16 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Aaaand Tippia takes over.


Ah, but we all know it is pointless to educate the carebears, but maybe we can reach new players before the carebears corrupt them. Pirate
Solecist Project
#171 - 2015-04-26 10:06:35 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:
Aaaand Tippia takes over.


Ah, but we all know it is pointless to educate the carebears, but maybe we can reach new players before the carebears corrupt them. Pirate
I see words.
Words are a good weapon for those who know how to use them.

Like Tippia. And then there is a big, empty void.
And then there are all those who use words ...
... but shouldn't.

So you say "maybe we can reach new players".

What's your idea?
What do you do?

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#172 - 2015-04-26 10:17:32 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:


Pre-spawning Concord is an exploit and it isn't an exploit at the same time, according to CCP. Just saying.


Its no longer an exploit, feel free to abuse it untill it is.
Ria Nieyli
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#173 - 2015-04-26 10:29:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:


Pre-spawning Concord is an exploit and it isn't an exploit at the same time, according to CCP. Just saying.


Its no longer an exploit, feel free to abuse it untill it is.


As soon as I figure out how to spawn them in lowsec, I will.
Solecist Project
#174 - 2015-04-26 10:37:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:


Pre-spawning Concord is an exploit and it isn't an exploit at the same time, according to CCP. Just saying.


Its no longer an exploit, feel free to abuse it untill it is.

Never has been. That was a myth spread by people with agenda.
You know it. The more you spread a lie the more sheep will believe it's the truth.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#175 - 2015-04-26 11:36:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Pohbis
Tippia wrote:
Sure they do, if there was anything that needed to be dealt with. As it is, there isn't. If anything, CCP has worked pretty hard to retain this mechanic than the much easier option of removing it.
I'll just cut it down to this, because the rest is two sides presenting their views ad nauseam. The same tiresome debate style that has continuously used CCPs lack of action as evidence, until lo and behold, CCP did take action.

No, CCP can not just selectively rip out or alter this part of their physics engine without impacting gameplay negatively. A suspect flag for continued bumping in hi-sec would be nice tho – for both sides Pirate

*EDIT* – No, "both sides" wasn't both get a flag, you guys are just too cute Blink
Hengle Teron
Rorquals Anonymous
#176 - 2015-04-26 13:31:48 UTC
Pohbis wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Sure they do, if there was anything that needed to be dealt with. As it is, there isn't. If anything, CCP has worked pretty hard to retain this mechanic than the much easier option of removing it.
I'll just cut it down to this, because the rest is two sides presenting their views ad nauseam. The same tiresome debate style that has continuously used CCPs lack of action as evidence, until lo and behold, CCP did take action.

No, CCP can not just selectively rip out or alter this part of their physics engine without impacting gameplay negatively. A suspect flag for continued bumping in hi-sec would be nice tho – for both sides Pirate

Free suspect flags on freighters ?

Oh the tears we'd get then...
Memphis Baas
#177 - 2015-04-26 14:01:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Memphis Baas
Make warp disruption cause suspect status but not cause Concord to appear. So that the tackler can tackle, and the target can respond if it has weapons. Problem of bumping as a mechanic solved.

In reply to all the posts saying that carebears would be tackled everywhere without consequences, consider the fact that carebears can be bumped everywhere without consequences, indefinitely.
Solecist Project
#178 - 2015-04-26 14:09:43 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Make warp disruption cause suspect status but not cause Concord to appear. So that the tackler can tackle, and the target can respond if it has weapons. Problem of bumping as a mechanic solved.

In reply to all the posts saying that carebears would be tackled everywhere without consequences, consider the fact that carebears can be bumped everywhere without consequences, indefinitely.

Go show me how you continuously bump a frigate out of alignment.

Sheesh ... do you even play this game??

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#179 - 2015-04-26 14:12:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Pohbis wrote:
No, CCP can not just selectively rip out or alter this part of their physics engine without impacting gameplay negatively.
Of course they can. They've altered it in the past and they can do it again. They choose not to because there's absolutely no reason to.

Quote:
The same tiresome debate style that has continuously used CCPs lack of action as evidence, until lo and behold, CCP did take action.
No. It's the debate style that has continuously used CCP's clear and explicit statements that it is working properly as evidence for it working properly. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, the only sane and sensible conclusion is that it is working properly. The only thing that has ever been offered to contrast this is myths, hearsay, ignorance, and outright lies and fabrications — none of which works as a cogent or coherent argument for change.

Quote:
A suspect flag for continued bumping in hi-sec would be nice tho – for both sides
It would certainly make it far easier and far cheaper to murder freighters, since you'd be able to do it legally.
Shai 'Hulud
#180 - 2015-04-26 15:17:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Pohbis wrote:
The same tiresome debate style that has continuously used CCPs lack of action as evidence, until lo and behold, CCP did take action.
No. It's the debate style that has continuously used CCP's clear and explicit statements that it is working properly as evidence for it working properly. Since there is no evidence to the contrary, the only sane and sensible conclusion is that it is working properly. The only thing that has ever been offered to contrast this is myths, hearsay, ignorance, and outright lies and fabrications — none of which works as a cogent or coherent argument for change..

Pohbis makes a valid point. A large percentage of the replies in this thread are just "CCP has said this is legal and working as intended." Which would be fine, if they were addressed toward posts that in any way displayed confusion or ignorance about the current state of the rules. But I don't think I've seen a single person actually confused about the current state of the rules.

It would be like me saying: "I don't like cats, I wish they were illegal."

And you replying: "Well cats are perfectly legal in this town and the mayor has said multiple times that cats are working as intended and ..."

Not only is this a bad approach to convince me cats are not so bad, it feels like I'm talking to chatbot Cry

The most useful slaves are those that believe themselves to be free