These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Bumping Freighters in highsec - A legitimate counter

First post
Author
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1 - 2016-02-08 23:54:06 UTC
BUMPERS committing an aggressive act face NO RISK at all from current game mechanics. There is no flag for when someone deliberately bumps a freighter for the purpose of allowing others to kill it.

Suggestion;
A new type of limited aggression timer specifically so anyone in fleet with a freighter can freely engage someone passively attacking (bumping) it. Would simply mean, bumping has an associated element of risk that can be managed by force (eve game play) by both sides.

The flag would only be visible to those in fleet with the Freighter and those in fleet with the Bumper. It would be the same as a weapons timer, one minute, so the freighter pilot and bumper would need to have their respective fleets with them, not sitting 2 or 3 jumps away.
No Concord intervention for the two parties in the fight. Neutral logistics would also be flagged as legitimate targets if they rep someone involved in the flagged engagement ..

Players involved in the fight (bumpers fleet and freighters fleet) would only be valid targets to each other, so no suspect or criminal flags. Other timers, logoff and weapons, would apply.

Once an engagement is flagged both fleets are locked, neither party can add members to their fleets while the timer is active.
So the fleet size you have when the engagement begins is what you rely on to win or lose the engagement.

Bump timers have a 5 min cooldown, so multiple bumps by the same individual will not extend the timer (neither party can bring a fleet that is 5 jumps away)

Pros;
It turns a currently risk free act of aggression into a limited engagement for 2 specific groups/fleets.
It creates opportunity for PVP
The bumper faces the same inherent risk of getting killed as the freighter he is bumping.
It adds reason to form a fleet when moving freighters through highsec via PVP opportunity (being in fleet with a freighter simply to web it off gates is not encouraging eves core mechanic - PVP)


Cons;
Some individuals may use double bumping to get someone killed. Bumping a neutral party so they in turn bump into a freighter would create a flag against the neutral party, leaving the actual bumper free from retribution.
Gankers not in fleet with the bumper can still kill the freighter as they do now, if it is caught on grid but unable to warp (this is also a pro from a gankers perspective)
Bumpers could use interdiction (scrams, long points) on freighters for the duration of the bump timer to keep them from warping (they are flagged anyway, so why not make sure the gankers he is bumping for have the best chance for success)


Neutral;
Not every freighter pilot will have a defensive fleet with them, risk free bumping is still possible in that situation as the flag is only visible to fleet members (not concord or other players in the vicinity).
Freighter pilots travelling alone face greater risk of being ganked as the bumper once flagged can use points to keep them on grid for the duration of the bump timer (one minute), without Concord intervention. If he or she still has the freighter pointed after the one minute timer, Concord will respond.


Scenario - Freighter pilot hires an antigank fleet (or has corp mates in fleet) to escort him to trade hub. Bump Mach bumps freighter off alignment, Mach becomes vulnerable to attack by freighters fleet mates, Mach calls in assistance to fight those in fleet with freighter, Eve game play (PVP) secured - there is a fight over the safe passage of a freighter.

Not every freighter pilot will bother with a defensive fleet (lazy, believe they'll be safe, too busy with spreadsheets) so the opportunity for risk free bumping still arises as the aggression timer is only visible to the freighter pilot and his fleet, or lack thereof.


Sounds ridiculous right, why should the guy setting up the gank face any legitimate risk?
Just as ridiculous, why should ganking be the only defense against bumpers?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#2 - 2016-02-09 00:15:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Didn't we just have this thread?
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#3 - 2016-02-09 00:21:09 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Didn't we just have this thread?


My suggestion (this thread) was moved to the appropriate topic, as was suggested in the thread in which it 1st appeared.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

DrysonBennington
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2016-02-09 00:22:09 UTC
Why not just use a Command Destroyer and warp the freighter out of harms way?
Iain Cariaba
#5 - 2016-02-09 00:22:15 UTC
Roll

Now, I know it's fallen off page 1, but seriously, did you even bother to search for identical threads to this one?

We just had one go 57 pages, it was longer but ISD snipped 8 pages out.

Anyway, bad redundant idea is still bad redundant idea, and topic has been reported for redundancy.

Have a good day. Big smile
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#6 - 2016-02-09 00:22:17 UTC
Park freighter on Jita undock, gank everyone undocking risk free.....
WTF?
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#7 - 2016-02-09 00:24:37 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Didn't we just have this thread?


Repeatably, something this forum is in fact well known for. I guess there's something to be said for persistence if not consistency.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#8 - 2016-02-09 00:25:28 UTC
DrysonBennington wrote:
Why not just use a Command Destroyer and warp the freighter out of harms way?


Doesn't work in High Sec.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Snowmann
Arrow Industries
#9 - 2016-02-09 00:26:47 UTC
They just need to change the bumping mechanic again like the did for Titans many years ago.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#10 - 2016-02-09 00:27:40 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Park freighter on Jita undock, gank everyone undocking risk free.....
WTF?

Yes there would need to be some sort of restriction in place for that..
Maybe, the timer is not activated in trade hubs at all, as this is meant for travelling freighters not those already in trade hubs, where freighter ganking never happens.

I suppose it is easier to just put down an idea than think of anything that may make it better, hey Nevyn.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#11 - 2016-02-09 00:30:20 UTC
Snowmann wrote:
They just need to change the bumping mechanic again like the did for Titans many years ago.


That would have the desired effect without creating extra PVP opportunity.
My suggestion is meant to encourage PVP not give freighters safe passage.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2016-02-09 00:32:02 UTC
current counter to bumbers


gank the bumper

bump the bumper

get yourself webbed out before you are bumped


look you can do all of these already
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#13 - 2016-02-09 00:33:27 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Roll

Now, I know it's fallen off page 1, but seriously, did you even bother to search for identical threads to this one?

We just had one go 57 pages, it was longer but ISD snipped 8 pages out.

Anyway, bad redundant idea is still bad redundant idea, and topic has been reported for redundancy.

Have a good day. Big smile

So someone has already posted the same idea as this (creating a limited timer for bumping freighters)? Could you be so kind as to link it.
Searching the forums revealed nothing that encouraged PVP only ways to safely move freighters, like removing bumping.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#14 - 2016-02-09 00:38:14 UTC
FFS, this idiot-**** idea again?

Got an explanation for how the game is going to determine who bumped whom?

No? Didn't think so.

This would pretty much turn the Jita undock into a hilarious killing field. From that perspective, I like it, but there's still something vaguely offensive about sharing space with people who can't think through an unintended consequence as blazingly obvious as that.

This idea isn't even in the same zip-code as feasible.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#15 - 2016-02-09 00:38:52 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
current counter to bumbers


gank the bumper

bump the bumper

get yourself webbed out before you are bumped


look you can do all of these already

Ohh goody, become as bad as those your trying to fight - Lose ships to concord ganking a ship that can commit aggressive acts risk free. Such a great suggestion, why didn't i think of it, makes so much sense to gank rather than engage in mutual pvp.
After all Eve is about ganking and 1 vs X+1 rather than an actual fight.

Waste time and effort to be as bad as the bumper, all without any eve game play other than who can be the most risk averse.

Run away and remove any chance of pvp content - nice, all of eve should just use webs to avoid conflict.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Iain Cariaba
#16 - 2016-02-09 00:39:54 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Park freighter on Jita undock, gank everyone undocking risk free.....
WTF?

Yes there would need to be some sort of restriction in place for that..
Maybe, the timer is not activated in trade hubs at all, as this is meant for travelling freighters not those already in trade hubs, where freighter ganking never happens.

I suppose it is easier to just put down an idea than think of anything that may make it better, hey Nevyn.

Trade hubs are not coded into the game in any manner, they are entirely player created, so adding a timer in trade hubs won't work. Who determines what is or is not a trade hub? Sure there's Jita, Amarr, Dodixie, Rens, and Hek, but what about Osmon, it has a pretty good market due to the SOE l4 agent there, it qualifies as a hub as well.

Another thing, before you start stating absolutes, like freighter ganking never happening in trade hubs, you should probably look to see if the evidence doesn't disprove your assertions.

Lastly, if you're already having to break out the implied personal insults this early in the discussion, I see a lock coming quickly in this thread's future.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#17 - 2016-02-09 00:41:55 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Just as ridiculous, why should ganking be the only defense against bumpers?


The same reason why ganking is the only way to kill most things that aren't flagged.

Because unless they flag themselves with an explicitly hostile act, you have to gank them. And where your engines are aligned is not, and never will be an act resulting in flagging, for a variety of reasons which were elaborated in rich detail in the last thread.

As such, reported for enormous redundancy. You do not get to open a new one of these every time they get locked. That's exactly what the forum rules are for in the first place, for crying out loud.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#18 - 2016-02-09 00:43:33 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
FFS, this idiot-**** idea again?

Got an explanation for how the game is going to determine who bumped whom?

No? Didn't think so.

This would pretty much turn the Jita undock into a hilarious killing field. From that perspective, I like it, but there's still something vaguely offensive about sharing space with people who can't think through an unintended consequence as blazingly obvious as that.

This idea isn't even in the same zip-code as feasible.

Ahh another one who - doesn't read past the 1st line - Would rather put down an idea than consider it.

And I'm sure CCP Devs could code something that says - That ship just bumped that freighter off alignment... Oh wait, that is already there, when a mach bumps a freighter it moves, darn how hard would that be to tie into my suggestion?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#19 - 2016-02-09 00:46:14 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
FFS, this idiot-**** idea again?

Got an explanation for how the game is going to determine who bumped whom?

No? Didn't think so.

This would pretty much turn the Jita undock into a hilarious killing field. From that perspective, I like it, but there's still something vaguely offensive about sharing space with people who can't think through an unintended consequence as blazingly obvious as that.

This idea isn't even in the same zip-code as feasible.

Ahh another one who - doesn't read past the 1st line - Would rather put down an idea than consider it.

And I'm sure CCP Devs could code something that says - That ship just bumped that freighter off alignment... Oh wait, that is already there, when a mach bumps a freighter it moves, darn how hard would that be to tie into my suggestion?



The distinction between "The mach bumped the freighter" and "the freighter bumped the mach" is entirely arbitrary.

Two space-ship simulating spheres bumped into each other.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#20 - 2016-02-09 00:48:53 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Just as ridiculous, why should ganking be the only defense against bumpers?


The same reason why ganking is the only way to kill most things that aren't flagged.

Because unless they flag themselves with an explicitly hostile act, you have to gank them. And where your engines are aligned is not, and never will be an act resulting in flagging, for a variety of reasons which were elaborated in rich detail in the last thread.

As such, reported for enormous redundancy. You do not get to open a new one of these every time they get locked. That's exactly what the forum rules are for in the first place, for crying out loud.

PLEASE, link me the thread that includes my suggestion.
I wasn't aware someone had put my suggestion forward in the past. Or was it just a thread related to ganking and you figure they are all the same.
Did you actually read the post, there is actually a buff to ganking in there or like your reply, that too is irrelevant.

And seriously - Bumping should be considered a hostile act. The fact it isn't is a sad reflection on game balance.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

123Next page