These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
30 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

Miner Bumping: Discussion & Questions Thread

First post First post
Author
Pandemic Legion
#21 - 2012-11-29 16:44:45 UTC
In all honesty, this is one of those topics, like the Margin Trading issue, that comes up because you have two very different types of people playing this game.

It essentially comes down to the "I don't want to deal with other people, just let me grind in peace" crowd versus the "No, we're going to make you play with other people" crowd.

Each is absolutely convinced they are one hundred percent correct on their perception of how the game ought to work, and neither will ever back down from that position.

Bumping is allowed, and should be allowed. The consequences of simply disallowing it wholesale (or having it cause damage to both ships) would, quite frankly, kill the game all together. (Bump a titan on a bridge in your fast tackle and explode - not a good day to be a Rifter pilot). Trying to make the game decide if you were bumping to be malicious or accidentally is just begging to cause issues of the sort that can only be topped by the release of Incarna and boot.ini.

In short, yes, it's annoying, yes, it sucks. But there's no good reason to change how it works, and plenty of good ones to leave it alone.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.

#22 - 2012-11-29 16:53:16 UTC
Krell Kroenen wrote:
if the bumper is in an NPC corp there isn't much that can done. One could say that the victim could attempt to gank the bumper but I do not see that as very effective or practical.


We bumpers have the same problem in that we cannot wardec a miner in an NPC corp, yet we have no trouble suicide ganking them in their CCP-tanked ships anyway. Why? Because we fit properly and execute the attacks reasonably coherently. More to the point, we actually do gank them, whereas the common miner response is "someone gank this guy". It's the old story about Everybody wanted Somebody to do something and in the end Nobody did it, and I've seen it many times in the short while I've been an agent. The real issue here, as is often the case with highsec, is that some people are willing and able to do things while others stubbornly refuse to help themselves, which is compounded by CCP's track record of yielding.

IMO, CCP should confine themselves to things like a more comprehensive tutorial, better UI, removal of excessive clicking, etc - stuff that helps new and old players alike to get on with the serious business of interwebz spaceshipping. The fact that they're even considering changing policy because a very small number of people are complaining about interaction in a multiplayer game is pretty disheartening. A better use of their time would be making ice belts deplete like ore belts do, because an endless stream of safe resources isn't good.

Honestly, that's what a lot of it comes down to - avoiding effort, avoiding interaction, I'm entitled to play solo. Yesterday in Abudban I had to endure the usual foul language and petty insults that so often are the standard level of "debate" of those who vocally oppose miner bumping. One of them, fully aware of who and what we are, then proceeds to fly straight to the ice belt and AFK mine, so I escorted his ship to the no-permit zone. Twenty minutes later he hadn't moved, so I think we can safely assume he wasn't playing Eve. Why should people like this get any protection, from CCP, or even from other miners?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

#23 - 2012-11-29 16:58:03 UTC
At first, I thought miner bumping was hilarious. Pitifully so, as most gankers seemed to join the band wagon in response to the barge buff, but nonetheless humorous. I even saw profit potential for selling gank ships and mining barges in affected systems. Then I actually watched them do it, and watched the interactions. In any other game, in any other situation, and especially in any place in the real world, what I saw was harassment and would have been treated as such legally.

Eve is indeed a dark and dystopian game, but as said before, it is a game. Games are meant to be enjoyed. There is no joy here, save for that of a few school yard bullies enjoying 0-risk griefing. Even with the upcoming bounty changes, these individuals would still be at no risk unless they happened to pod someone, and that someone happens to sell the rights to the bumper's death. IF that person even remembers he has a kill right on them, which I doubt many do.

In the end, this "emergent game play" has crossed a line. Eve is meant to be fun, frustrating, but fun. It is meant to encourage pvp and some griefing, not out right harassment with offending individuals hiding behind the guise of "emergent game play," and questionable sanctions. Nor is it meant to encourage targeted harassment. I am reminded of the Mittani and his antics at Fan Fest, which subsequently led to his ban. Granted the situation is not comparable to what the Mittani did, but it is nonetheless a form of targeted harassment.

It's sad to see any kind of condoning for this behavior. A gank is one thing, this is another. The only emergent thing about this situation, is an emergent testing method to determine how much harassment and grief casual gamers and players will take before they vote with their wallet and seek more welcoming fields. I know of a few who already have, much to my disappointment.

I wish for Eve to thrive, not die because a few angry gankers want their tears.
Stryker Group
#24 - 2012-11-29 17:03:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Van Kuzco
Anslo wrote:

Got ganked? Tank and prevent it.
Mission ninjas? Warp out and let them get aggro or shoot wrecks.
Low sec pirates hunting you? D-scan and warp around to safe points.
Ransomed? Take revenge by slipping an alt in their corp and awoxing or jacking their wallet.


Got bumped? Pay the 10m and keep an eye on local.
Got bumped? Fly a skiff and orbit with a prop mod.
Got bumped? Hire a merc corp to kill the bumpers.

Bumper ninjas? Darn I had something for this....something something pirates are better than ninjas because they had guns.

Hi sec bumpers hunting you? Warp around the system or to a different one.

Ransomed by bumpers? Take revenge by slipping an alt into their corp and awoxing or jacking their wallet. (or are we assuming that no pirates are in NPC corps)
#25 - 2012-11-29 17:05:32 UTC
admiral root wrote:
It's the old story about Everybody wanted Somebody to do something and in the end Nobody did it, and I've seen it many times in the short while I've been an agent.


So miners should stop mining, train to pvp, and fight you. They should just abandon what they wanna do and come after you, right? Why the hell should they have to bend to you?

Quote:
The real issue here, as is often the case with highsec, is that some people are willing and able to do things while others stubbornly refuse to help themselves, which is compounded by CCP's track record of yielding.


Or because you bend game mechanics to harass other people that chases clients and potential clients away. Nice spin though.

I
Quote:
MO, CCP should confine themselves to things like a more comprehensive tutorial, better UI, removal of excessive clicking, etc - stuff that helps new and old players alike to get on with the serious business of interwebz spaceshipping. The fact that they're even considering changing policy because a very small number of people are complaining about interaction in a multiplayer game is pretty disheartening. A better use of their time would be making ice belts deplete like ore belts do, because an endless stream of safe resources isn't good.


Seriously? You think they're bringing this up because a "small" number of people are ticked that you won't leave them alone? Wow you're disillusioned. Here's an idea, leave the miners alone to get on with the serious business of interwebs spaceshipping and go back to low. All you people want is nerf high sec nerf high sec blablabla. Seriously...

Quote:
Honestly, that's what a lot of it comes down to - avoiding effort, avoiding interaction, I'm entitled to play solo. Yesterday in Abudban I had to endure the usual foul language and petty insults that so often are the standard level of "debate" of those who vocally oppose miner bumping. One of them, fully aware of who and what we are, then proceeds to fly straight to the ice belt and AFK mine, so I escorted his ship to the no-permit zone. Twenty minutes later he hadn't moved, so I think we can safely assume he wasn't playing Eve. Why should people like this get any protection, from CCP, or even from other miners?


They are entitled to solo play, and don't even get started with that "foul language" crap you hypocrits, especially when you use it yourself and you have a post saying "oh the rules don't apply to agents because they're better than you, you're a second class citizen." Get out.

You have no right to harass miners. Bots? Fine. Humans or "bot aspirants" as you call them? NO.

Nerf miner bumping!
#26 - 2012-11-29 17:08:25 UTC
Van Kuzco wrote:


Got bumped? Pay the 10m and keep an eye on local.
Got bumped?[/b] Fly a skiff and orbit with a prop mod.
Got bumped? Hire a merc corp to kill the bumpers.

Bumper ninjas? Darn I had something for this....something something pirates are better than ninjas because they had guns.

Hi sec bumpers hunting you? Warp around the system or to a different one.

[b]Ransomed by bumpers?
Take revenge by slipping an alt into their corp and awoxing or jacking their wallet. (or are we assuming that no pirates are in NPC corps)


They should not have to pay a fee in highsec.
The skiff works at times, but is not infallible.
They will enter dec shield or drop to an NPC corp and the isk is wasted.
...bumper ninjas....right
Hi sec bumpers hunt...this is turning into a bad parody. Please provide an actual argument, as this seems more or less like insulting.
They are not all in one corp, so this does not function as effectively as one would hope. Also, NPC corps.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Stryker Group
#27 - 2012-11-29 17:16:58 UTC
Anslo wrote:

1. They should not have to pay a fee in highsec.
2. The skiff works at times, but is not infallible.
3. They will enter dec shield or drop to an NPC corp and the isk is wasted.
...bumper ninjas....right
4. Hi sec bumpers hunt...this is turning into a bad parody. Please provide an actual argument, as this seems more or less like insulting.
5. They are not all in one corp, so this does not function as effectively as one would hope. Also, NPC corps.


1. Why not?

2. I have yet to hear of a single orbiting skiff at high speed getting bumped.

3. Suicide mercs. Plus dec shield is getting fixed in less than a week.

4. Easy way to not get bumped? Warp away. You are no longer being bumped.

5. Yes, just like awoxing is not possible with all ransomers either.
#28 - 2012-11-29 17:20:20 UTC
I love the emergent nature of miner bumping gameplay. It goes to show just how amazing the EVE universe it when players are able to come up with new ways to interact.

I don't think anything is wrong with bumping miners. If they want to avoid being bumped, there are many ways to do so ranging from expensive (small fast mining ships in orbit) to cheap (10m permit) to free (Questions 3). Or, they could gank the bumpers. Or hire mercs. Or place bounties. Or just, and this may sound crazy but stick with me, move to another one of the hundreds of mining sites in the rest of the EVE Universe. They already have plenty of tools at their disposal and the choice is theirs in how they want to respond.
#29 - 2012-11-29 17:24:27 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
I think Anslo, as always, makes the perfect argument for why bumping should not be changed in any fashion. The game he describes as Eve is what we will have IF miner bumping is officially banned. Just read his argument upthread and see if that's the Eve you want to play.


Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com

Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-11-29 17:26:34 UTC
This thread isn't clear to me. What is it about? Do the people it's going to have the authority to make real changes, changing the physics of bumping or whether it flags; or is this just going for a rule review where they are going to consider whether to ban bumping +mining ship+ extortion + highsec, while keeping any combination of 3 of those without the fourth legal?

I don't see why CCP would carve out such a strange and narrow exception. Bumping is legal in many situations. Claiming a system, like goons freighter-ganking in Uedama, seems to be fine--or establishing a gatecamp in low/null is allowed. Extortion/renting is allowed. Ganking mining ships is allowed in highsec. But somehow, combining all 4 will be banned? Doesn't make any sense to me, but if CCP really wants to help out the afk/bot ice miners, they might lower themselves to that. I think they will be smarter than that, and realize that driving away real EVE players with strange violations of the sandbox like that is a much more pressing danger than angering bot/afk miners.
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2012-11-29 17:29:18 UTC
Bing Bangboom wrote:
[words]


+1 to everything said by Bing Bangboom

Maleficas [REPO.] Security Officer http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN 

#32 - 2012-11-29 17:38:24 UTC
I think it is important to note that miner bumping has emerged because of the barge buff. The number of barge ganks has dramatically decreased and the number of miners bumped has dramatically increased. The significance of this is that a change to game mechanics does not stop players from doing what they want to do.

Before any changes are proposed and or considered for their implications(many of which are unintended) the response to these changes has to be considered first. If by some ingenious way CCP were able to completely stop miner bumping without any unintended ramifications I would expect AWOXing to rise significantly or some other method that forces player to player interaction.

Any "fix" to miner bumping will merely move the problem to another aspect of eve gameplay. I suggest it is the forced player interaction that the miners have a problem with. I suggest its the interaction miners have a problem with because they have chosen the most solo thing you can do in eve-online; mining an infinite resource to sell. As eve is an MMO I don't think there is a problem with the game at all, the miners themselves are the ones that need to be fixed.

The same miners that supported the barge buff probably support the idea that ganking(or otherwise killing) miner bumpers should be much easier. The same miners that complain that NPC corps should not be hiding places for miner bumpers are the same kind of miners that would have used NPC corps to hide. The same kind of miners that got folding and recreating a corp labeled not an exploit are probably scoffing at the idea that miner bumpers do the exact same thing. This meta-game requires a meta-game solution; miners - you need to solve this yourselves as in my opinion CCP is simply not able to do so.

To any miners still reading:
I suggest you pay the measly 10 million isk and start enjoying the emergent gameplay being provided. Payable to me in-game, thanks!
The Bastard Cartel
#33 - 2012-11-29 17:38:48 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
Bumping has a lot of uses in EvE:

1.) Bumping ships trying to approach a gate, preventing them from getting to gate.
2.) Bumping ships out of a POS shield (especially capitals) to gank them.
3.) Bumping ships off station so they can't redock.....
4.) Bumping ships to prevent them from warping (most commonly used on Freighters in Highsec, but historically used on capitals, especially Supercaps.)
5.) Bumping miners. This was originally done as a player-executed attack on highsec mining bots. This allowed pro-active individuals to essentially make bots ineffective, and was successfully in keeping certain constellations safe. Now it's used to extort miners....

In my opinion, there are several glaring problems that have lead to the current situation:
A.) Non-wardeccable NPC corps. Frankly, going to war against an opponent is a fundamental tool for driving them off. The inability to wardec a player in an NPC corp is extremely problematic, and negates the entire war-to-win scenario.

B.) The overly buffered mining vessels. They needed a buff, but they got too much. As such, we have mining vessels that typically land in an ice field, let lose their lasers on an ice roid, and systematically harvest ice for the next hour without needing any additional player input. The old method for "eliminating" these players was suicide ganking, but the new ships, even when fitted for yield, have a excessive amount of EHP to really limit this option.

C.) Ice roids. Ice roids don't deplete, and as such, require very little user input to harvest.

In the end, I think bumping is a good mechanic. I think it's uses are creative and generally for the best, although some ground rules are reasonable:

Bumping to control a system is Perfect. If a bumper declares a system there own, extorts isk for the right to mine there, and enforces there claim with bumping, they are 100% in the right. Ideally, these players should be in player corps, but as long as NPC corps are wardec free and available, then they deserve to exploit that broken situation. A note: A miner has the right to mine in any system, so long as they can.... And the bumper has the right to prevent them, as long as they can. Let them battle over systems.

Bumping to harass a player is unacceptable. Following a player from system to system and continually bumping them is NOT ok. Following a player throughout a single system and preventing them from mining in "your" system is completely acceptable. It's just NOT acceptable to chase them through many systems.


Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
#34 - 2012-11-29 17:42:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnny Aideron
Regarding the complaint that there is "no counter" to bumping and that it is harassment:

1: The complaint about bumpers using NPC corps to avoid wardecs could equally apply to miners themselves. They freqently retreat into the npc corps to avoid wardecs so it's amusing that miners are complaining about the very game mechanics they have so often taken advantage of themselves. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

2: When it comes to ganking or "harassment" of miners by bumpers, the only difference between bumpers and miners is the level of organization and group participation. I can ask for help ganking a miner and several people will probably respond by spending their own ISK on a gank Catalyst, joining my fleet and participating in a gank in their own time. But when a miner wants to gank somebody in revenge and asks his fellow miners for help, they don't want to spend ISK, don't want to take risks and are quite possibly AFK anyway. The miners are helpless because they refuse to organize and are fundamentally selfish with their time and space-money in what is ostensibly a multiplayer game. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of disgruntled miners who have been bumped (nevermind ganked), if just 1-5% of them chose to fight back by building their own gank ships then they'd quite possibly see some success. But they never do, hence the "invincibility" of the New Order.

3: If it is harassment to bother the same person or group of people over and over again until they either surrender to your demands, flee or quit playing, then what does that make nullsec sovereignty? Or legitimate wardecs? I'm sure plenty of people "just want to be left alone" but EVE isn't the sort of game that can or should cater to that mentality.
#35 - 2012-11-29 17:42:57 UTC
Oh, and here's the reasons that I believe miner bumping is completely balanced and should not be changed at all. for fairness as well as the good of the entire game (although the bumping ships desperately require buffs, obviously).



Countering the bumpers

Some miners constantly claim that there is no effective counter to bumping. As even Proveldtariat website acknowledges, there are many ways to prevent yourself from being bumped, even without a dedicated anti-bumping module. Ignoring non-mechanical fixes, like paying 10 million ISK, here are a few;

  • Orbiting an asteroid. You can use a speed-fit skiff if you come across an extra-skilled bumper.
  • Mining somewhere else.
  • Making use of the size and shape of asteroids to position yourself in a place where it is very hard to get an effective bump on you.

Admittedly, none of these methods are infallible. However, EVE does not deal in absolutes, and there should not be an absolute counter to anything. Some miners will disagree of course, believing that they should have absolute counters. Ultimately, that decision is CCP's to make, and if they want to change the scope of their game so drastically, that's their choice. However, as it stands today and for the last nine years, the premise of EVE is that anything can happen.



EVE: Online is supposed to be a game! Games are supposed to be fun!

A very common argument from miners is that while EVE is supposed to be 'dark' and 'harsh', it's also supposed to be a game, and therefore fun. This topic is a little trickier to discuss, since 'fun' is not quantifiable, and you can't really even define it, so you have to resort to opinions and ideas rather than facts.

The miner argument is that they play EVE to have fun, and their way of having fun is mining. However, EVE is also an MMORPG. What this means is that you simply can't play it as a single-player game. MMOs are designed around player interactivity and coexistance. Miners want to ignore the existance of players who have conflicting goals and aims to their own; therefore they are trying their damndest to make EVE a single-player game. In my opinion, the proper way to have fun in an MMO would be to start out mining, and then when somebody comes and tries to stop you from mining, you go out and try to stop them from stopping you from doing what you want. This way, you achieve interaction, coexistance and strife - all proper elements of MMO gaming.

Now, I'm aware that I can't tell other people what they should and should not find enjoyable. However, I do think that CCP can; they can choose the type of player that they want to populate New Eden, and they can focus EVE towards fostering that type of gameplay. If CCP wants to encourage an online singleplayer game, then that's their choice. However, they did not start out that way, and I think that it would be a great pity if they ended up going the way that so many MMOs before have gone - WoW did it, SWTOR started out by doing it, loads of MMOs do it. If CCP wants to retain their niche status (which is where their appeal comes from), they should refrain from turning a multiplayer game into Diablo III.
#36 - 2012-11-29 17:43:02 UTC
Risk versus Reward

One of the most common arguments against bumping as a profession in EVE is that the risk vs reward balance is out of whack. Miners claim that there is no (or minimal) risk to the bumper when he goes about his business, and that there are no set repercussions either. It's true; the most danger we face is the minor (heh) possibility of an angry miner suicide ganking us, and as you might imagine, that doesn't happen awfully often.

However, the reward of miner bumping is also minimal, in keeping with the risk factor. It's true that some miners pay their 10 million ISK for a mining permit, but a majority refuse to, and we are in direct competition with several dozen other bumpers for the money from the percentage of miners that do pay. As an ISK-making profession, bumping is right down at the bottom of the list for EVE. As a risky profession, bumping is also right down there at the bottom of the list. As far as I can tell, this is balanced.

Of course, there is the potential for a lot of money, depending on the receptiveness of the bumped miners to the bumper's demands. Potentially, he could get 50 miners in a row that all pay, and he makes a relatively easy 500 million ISK (still not an awful lot of 'reward', though). However, this too is balanced, since there is equal or near-equal potential for miners to attempt to gank the bumper, and he could fairly quickly lose 500 million ISK in exploded ships. In fact, it would take less than half as many lost ships to lose 500 million ISK as it would take miners who pay their 10 million ISK.

A variation on this argument that miners commonly use is that the risk for the bumper is not equivalent to the loss (anti-reward) suffered by the miner. Gankers who gank miners inevitably lose their ships, while bumpers who bump rarely do. This is true, but I believe that a more pertinent statistic would be loss versus loss; the bumper should lose just as much as the miner does. This is undeniably true; the bumper incurs the opportunity cost of the time that he could otherwise spend doing more profitable things - like mining - while the miner loses the same amount of time from mining. The exception to this is if the miner in question is AFK, in which case they'll sit miles away from the asteroid while the bumper goes off to do something else. However, I do not believe that CCP should be giving any thought to the plight of people who play the game in such a near-exploitative way.



Protecting emergent gameplay

One of the most valuable claims that EVE can make to distinguish itself from today's MMO market is that it is one of the only games where emergent and player-created gameplay is the gameplay. What we have here is effectively a clash of two different cultures in EVE; that of the people who want to stick to predefined mechanics to make their fun in a way CCP mapped out for them, and that of the people who want to take the mechanics CCP gave them and create something new and interesting out of them.

You've probably noticed, but nobody comes to EVE for the mining. Articles on big gaming news sites focus on EVE's emergent gameplay; Guiding Hand Social Club, Burn Jita, the Jita Riots, the Intergalactic Bank, BoB's downfall, I could go on. They don't focus on mining. Like it or not, the player content and the emergent gameplay is what makes EVE special, not mining or incursions or missions or any other content that CCP releases to be used in one way only. It's been said before, but EVE is not a sandbox, and it shouldn't become one. If it does, it's no better than any other theme park game out there, and should be able to expect the same average level of success.
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-11-29 17:43:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Edit: Rule 24 Off-topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
#38 - 2012-11-29 17:45:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
[quote=Ahvram]
Edit: Rule 24 Off topic quote was deleted - ISD Tyrozan

As the thread titles explicitly states, this thread is about [i]miner
bumping. I'm not sure why you're airing your grievances in here, but CCP Falcon did ask us to stay on topic. Do you think that you could, please?

Edit: If you do want a place to discuss freighter bumping, try here.

Edit: **** man, if you're going to edit my posts at least don't butcher them like this.
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-11-29 17:55:15 UTC
Anslo wrote:

I don't like bots. No one does. But this bot-aspirant crap is a problem. People have lives, kids, family, wives, husbands, friends, work, chores, etc. We're humans, we have things to do. The argument the bumpers use is "don't play if you can't be at the keyboard." I'm sorry but, people have things to do, they have lives, and need to go afk at times. Why should they not be "allowed to chill," as so pointed out in the Proveldtariat Manifesto? Why can they not do as they want? Why do the bumpers have the right to inflict grief on miners who may afk?
.


TBH, this is the first I've heard of miner bumping.

However, no-one should be able to 'play' the game and profit while afk with no risk.

Yes, you can choose to mine afk. But you have to accept the risk of returning to a wrecked ship/new clone/bumped off asteroid by doing so.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have *something* to allow miners to stay within range as long as it requires fairly constant activity by the player concerned.

If the bumpers don't like that, they have the option of shooting.
RvB - BLUE Republic
#40 - 2012-11-29 17:55:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Larkall
I think that the problem is not with bumping itself. In my opinion the problem lies with the mining mechanism, it is an activity that requires zero user input for extended periods of time. As a result, people go afk and do other stuff while leaving their lasers running in the belt. If anything should be changed it should be the basic mining mechanics that promotes players to be play the game afk.

Bumping itself is a crucial mechanic for PvP, it allows you to buy precious seconds to prevent a target from making it back to gate or before warping off. It also allows for spies/infiltrators to bump caps and supercaps out of a PoS shield, making for great emergent game play. If you use it in high-sec to bump miners and demand isk it is just another form of emergent game play, they can go to low/null/Wormhole space if they want to be able to fight back.

TL:DR: Bumping is a good and working mechanism. Fix mining instead.
30 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump