These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Miner Bumping: Discussion & Questions Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#141 - 2012-11-30 03:01:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Talona Vemane wrote:
We all know that minerbumping while annoying, cause no damages to ships. When I asked about this, I was informed that it does not because of ships undocking from stations in areas such as Jita, it would cause headaches and such. Now what I am purposing is that CCp tweak the areas around stations to allow bumping, (sorta like a warp scram bubble, placed around gates in low sec for instance) that allows it. While allowing it to cause damage and be seen as an act of aggression elsewhere, therefore the NON afk miners can react..with teeth, fangs..or whines..what have you.....and the AFK miners, and semi bots ( i believe they are called) can be crushed, salvaged and taught a lesson. That way the Miners will be forced to adapt their style, the NO would be forced to adapt their style..the gameplay has evolved even more.



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

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.
Gladius Codicis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#142 - 2012-11-30 03:10:57 UTC
Risk to reward. Skills to reward. Player effort to reward. Competition. Every profession in the game should be thought of in these terms.

Ignore the question of balance between highsec and null/low/wspace. Just focus on highsec. Everything you can do outside of a station to earn money has some risk, because everyone can be suicide ganked. So that is the baseline that everyone accepts. Similarly there is no passive income. You must exert yourself to earn any isk.

But what are the relative rankings?

Ice mining is lowest. No risk outside of gank. Low pay, but almost no work for the player. You can AFK mine and most do at least part of the time they are mining. There is no competition at all.

Next is asteroid mining. Same low risk, better rewards, but requires clicks every few minutes. There is trivial but nonzero competition.

Then missioning. There is nonzero risk here, from rats. This will be mitigated by player skill. Pay is better than mining. Takes actual presence at keyboard and constant keypressing almost all of the time except possibly with droneboats. There is very little competition, but you are possibly subject to ninja salvagers and thieves.

Then exploration. Better isk than missioning once you know what you are doing, but requires more skills and knowledge. And the competition is intense. Newbs won't make the big scores because Tengus will beat them.

Then trade at Jita. Zero risk, but player-skill intensive, moderately character skill intensive, and just chock full of monitoring. You can earn while AFK, but the competition is fierce. Invention and production are similar but with escalating skills and better pay.

Note the general balance in all of the professions. The market creates this. But there is one large imbalance here: only the ice miner can earn money AFK without any competition. And that is why carebears want to do it.

This brings us to the bump. I do not really like the bumping mechanics of EVE, from a "realism" POV. (A guy a few pages back posted an interesting take on this -- there is a lot of energy in a 10 million kg ship travelling 1000m/s.) That said, I find the mechanic highly valuable because it creates a way to interact with ice miners. This enriches the game. The ice miner must make a choice: possibly risk interacting with a bumper, or go mine something else. How about tritanium, guys? You earn more; then only downside is you actually have to be at your computer. Is this so much to ask?
Gladius Codicis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#143 - 2012-11-30 03:22:59 UTC
As I said, I don't really like the bumping mechanic because I find it "unrealistic". What would I prefer to the current system?

  • create ice fields that can be found via probing, just like the current gravitational sigs. This gives the rebel miner a skillful way to get a quiet place to mine -- though the New Order can scan, too.
  • change the bump mechanics to favor larger ships more. A far more massive ship should not be dramatically moved by a much smaller one unless it is going very fast.
  • add damage and a criminal flag for sufficiently high speed bumps. Damage should apply to both ships, with the smaller ship getting the worse of it.
  • create a new non-criminal way to interfere with mining. I.e., if you get into a miner 's beam, it shuts off his miner. This allows the "bumping" to continue, without causing very much difficulty at all to the non-AFK miner.

But such changes require dev work, particularly balancing the third. Just stick with the current system.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#144 - 2012-11-30 03:42:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Trading is very risky, what the hell are you talking about?

Gladius Codicis wrote:
change the bump mechanics to favor larger ships more. A far more massive ship should not be dramatically moved by a much smaller one unless it is going very fast.


Bumping already works this way.

Gladius Codicis wrote:
add damage and a criminal flag for sufficiently high speed bumps. Damage should apply to both ships, with the smaller ship getting the worse of it.


So you want to change something you find unrealistic in to something just as unrealistic.

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.
R0me0 Charl1e
Easy A Industries
#145 - 2012-11-30 04:10:03 UTC
Gladius Codicis wrote:

  • add damage and a criminal flag for sufficiently high speed bumps. Damage should apply to both ships, with the smaller ship getting the worse of it.

    • YES! Make this a feature CCP, I want to destroy barges with my BS!
    MTB BR
    Unique Corp BR
    #146 - 2012-11-30 04:57:22 UTC
    [quote=M0N0]Plenty of pilots asking for a effective counter to bumping...

    Can I ask on behalf of everyone else for an effective counter to afk mining ect? A few suggestion:
    Being afk for 3 minutes or more gives you an aggression timer.
    Introducing a module that delays concord.
    Making afk against the rules.
    Allowing ore bays to be stolen from.

    If a miner wants to be AFK is not no one else problema his ore bay will be full and the miners will stop working. but when some one else thinks he has the right to bump our kill any one that don't pay him our his friends to be safe AKF our not thats direct affect more than his own. the prices are low not couse the AFK miners the price are low couse People looks to by shipper stuff. and only pay for the shippest. bump neider gank will not solve this problema. For exemple i had more than 12k units of ice and i was planing to save it to my on use in a POS. but after got bumped even when i was not afk and killed and poded just cause i din't pay NO, i had to put some of it in market for a lower price to sell and get me another Ship. and implants.
    Alana Charen-Teng
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #147 - 2012-11-30 04:59:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Alana Charen-Teng
    My understanding is that this thread is for discussing whether miner bumping (especially as conducted by the so-called 'New Order of Highsec'), qualifies as griefing or harassment.

    With that said, I'd like to respond to a few of 87102-6's points, especially regarding his sensitivity towards non-English speakers and persons with physical ailments/disabilities. The arguments put forth by 87102-6 could be applied to *any* time-sensitive player interaction in this game, and applying them to another situation may help underscore how absurd these arguments are.

    Imagine you have been tackled by a pirate (hostile pilot) somewhere. There is no escape - you are hopelessly outmatched. The pirate opens a chat window and demands a payment of ISK within 30 seconds or he will destroy your ship and pod.

    87102-6 wrote:

    - Short durations of time do not give non-English-speaking players proper amount of time to respond (in any language), which could be construed as harassment. This also makes the assumption they can read/understand English to begin with. EVE is officially supported in English, Russian, German, and Japanese.

    Suppose the unfortunate pilot being ransomed is not fluent in English and his hesitation leads to his destruction. Is that harassment? Suppose the pirate is Russian and the pilot being ransomed cannot understand Russian. Is that still harassment? Language barriers exist in EVE, but no player is obligated to expend the effort in overcoming those barriers. Failing to do so is hardly 'harassment'. In fact, would you consider it harassment if no words were exchanged at all before the shooting started?


    87102-6 wrote:

    - Failure to respond could be one of many non-technical reasons, such as:

    ** Bio (restroom/bathroom) breaks (more on that in a moment)
    ** Player not watching Local chat (minimised window, etc. -- all permitted)
    ** Health issues (examples include IBS, IBD, Chron's disease, diabetes, etc.)
    ** Real life emergency situations (too many to list here)
    ** Recipient does not understand/cannot read English

    - CCP does not have any rules against players with the above disabilities not being permitted to play EVE. Meaning: players cannot be *expected* to be at their computers at all times.

    Suppose the unfortunate pilot being ransomed is AFK or otherwise unable to respond - perhaps he is attending to any number of possible physical ailments or social obligations. The pirate subsequently destroys him after failing to receive a response. Is this harassment? You seem to believe that the rest of EVE should pause itself for your benefit, or else it constitutes 'harassment'.

    Our unwillingness to overcome language barriers or to accommodate your out-of-game obligations absolutely do not constitute 'harassment'. They are, in fact, the norm in this game. If miner bumpers were targeting you *specifically* because of your language, race, or physical infirmities, then perhaps there would be a problem. You seem to imagine that they are, but I am confident that this is not the case.

    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?

    The rest of EVE does not wait on you. Imagine if you had lost your ship while idling on a gate in lowsec and tried to make this argument. When you are undocked, things will happen to you - sometimes it helps to be at your keyboard to make an appropriate response. I've been killing auto-piloting capsules with a suicide artillery thrasher - I imagine those players have other obligations to attend to, and that's perfectly fine - but they aren't justified in crying foul when they find their implants missing.
    Heavy Met4l Queen
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #148 - 2012-11-30 05:00:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Heavy Met4l Queen
    Ive had some thoughts on this and i figure this is as good of a place than any to dump them.

    i think bumping is fine. it has been used as a primitive means of disrupting warp and keeping targets on grid since as long as i have known in eve. it is a sound part of eve that does not need to be changed mechanic wise.

    however, there has been talk of an anti bump module and from my view i think it would be interesting to bring this into eve. allow me to explain.

    for warp disruptors, we have, warp stabilizers. for jammers, we have sensor backup arrays. why not have a module that allows you temporary immunity to bumping? at least as a prototype module in an update. this module will have a few uses in eve such as, keeping miners stationary, allow freighters to be immune to bumping, and allow freighters and transport ships an added safety measure of not being able to be bumped while transporting goods.

    a few things i would like to point out for discussion:

    1. this module would most likely become a highslot module

    2. this module would not "anchor" the ship in space, but would remain on course when bumped. in addition, it cannot change course while the module is active. it will follow the last directional command given to it. ex: warp, orbit, alighn.

    3. the module would require a mild amount of capacitor to be activated. enough that it would allow a ship to get out of a tough situation, but not remain activated indefinite. approx 15-45 seconds depending on ship.

    4.whether this module may be fully active or cycle once then need to be activated again. its something to be discussed. keep in mind the capacitor should drain fairly quickly if fully active.

    5. the module should require some kind of fuel. similar to a cyno module.

    6. the module should take a bit of time to train up to use. about 15-20 days in my opinion. additional training of the skill required to use the module should decrease the capacitor use rate or increase the cycle time by %5.

    7.if this module is to be brought into game for freighters, the freighters themselves would need a makeover. a highslot and enough cpu/powergrid to fit the module.

    above all else, keep in mind. this module will only work if a player chooses to put one on his/her ship by sacrificing a highslot. it will not change the fundamental mechanic of bumping in eve. please discuss these thoughts and ideas, and if you have any criticism please make it constructive and detailed as to why you disagree.

    In the game of conquest, who cares about the pawns if the king yet reigns?
    gizzmasterzero
    Shake Hands With Beef
    #149 - 2012-11-30 05:06:50 UTC
    Gladius Codicis wrote:
    As I said, I don't really like the bumping mechanic because I find it "unrealistic". What would I prefer to the current system?

    • change the bump mechanics to favor larger ships more. A far more massive ship should not be dramatically moved by a much smaller one unless it is going very fast.




    I pledge to purchase EVERY agent a phoon if this happened....basically, what I'm getting at is that it really doesn't matter what ccp does as long as they don't outlaw bumping...we will deactivate your mining lazorz one way or the other.


    MTB BR
    Unique Corp BR
    #150 - 2012-11-30 05:07:22 UTC
    Dramiel Dan wrote:
    I just wanted to get my say in real fast.
    1. Miner bumpers stay in NPC corps, so there is no recourse the miners have, short of hiring someone who doesn't mind using alts to end up with CONCORDed ships at every attack. They are abusing and exploiting the mechanics of the game by hiding behind the skirts of NPC corps, because they cannot be wardec'd.
    2. Miner bumpers claim to be going after afk miners and bots, but I see them griefing the same active, at keyboard miners for hours on end, day after day. This is griefing. It is harassment. Period.
    3. Game mechanics have been changed many times due to the brilliance of groups such as the Goons. It needs to be changed for the miner bumping exploit as well. These carebear players are, yet again, getting bullied. Only this time they have no built in recourse. One needs to be made for them.

    Remember, the more the carebears are hindered, the more your costs go up.
    "


    My alt got bumped hundreds of times even when i was here present in key board. I even use an other ship to bump the bumpers and make harder to then to bump my mack. and start to making it fun couse i dont do ice mine to live here in eve. but 4 days ago they gank my mack and pod kill me insted of bump just couse i block them in local to stop fload my chat with "pay me stuff"

    And that s stop to be fun
    Alana Charen-Teng
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #151 - 2012-11-30 05:17:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Alana Charen-Teng
    87102-6 wrote:

    ** Recipient cannot feasibly declare wardec on every corporation when being harassed by multiple NOA simultaneously -- success rate here is roughly 0.01% by my guess (just pulling numbers out of my butt)
    ** Wardec situation can be worked around by disbanding corporation (and this has been done by James 315 himself multiple times and admitted on his blog at that). Another method is described by an uninvolved corporation (tag: R-RIN). Quoting: "... and if wardec'd, it takes 24 hours for the wardec to go into effect, and it takes 24 hours to let the dummy account take over the corp as it's sole member.. Yeah, do the math.. if someone wants to waste their money wardecing us, it's their decision to do so.. Like I said, we have no interest in that type Gameplay and we have a plan to ensure that we can continue to play regardless ..."


    I'd like to make a few comments regarding wardecs - particularly whether miners may use them as a deterrent against miner bumpers. Obviously, wardecs do not serve as a meaningful deterrent for miner bumping (or almost any activity in highsec). Wardecs are laughably easy to evade, and wardec evasion will continue being abused. This does not mean that miner bumping should be considered harassment or exploitation of a game mechanic - instead, wardecs should be changed so as to give miners a useful tool to protect themselves with. Wardec evasion should not be possible - I believe it was once considered an exploit, and should return to being considered an exploit. The reason why miner bumpers repeatedly evade wardecs is to draw attention to how ridiculous war evasion is.

    Dramiel Dan wrote:
    I just wanted to get my say in real fast.
    1. Miner bumpers stay in NPC corps, so there is no recourse the miners have, short of hiring someone who doesn't mind using alts to end up with CONCORDed ships at every attack. They are abusing and exploiting the mechanics of the game by hiding behind the skirts of NPC corps, because they cannot be wardec'd.

    The same could be said of any number of other highsec entities - you know the ones I'm talking about. This is not a problem specific to miner bumpers. As it happens, most miner bumpers I interact with are actually in player corps.

    Dramiel Dan wrote:

    3. Game mechanics have been changed many times due to the brilliance of groups such as the Goons. It needs to be changed for the miner bumping exploit as well. These carebear players are, yet again, getting bullied. Only this time they have no built in recourse. One needs to be made for them.

    I agree. Do not allow wardec evasion.

    Dramiel Dan wrote:

    Remember, the more the carebears are hindered, the more your costs go up.

    Remember, the more the mining and missioning bots are hindered, the more your costs go up.
    MTB BR
    Unique Corp BR
    #152 - 2012-11-30 05:22:24 UTC
    87102-6 wrote:
    [quote=Bing Bangboom]
    * With all the above in mind: no matter what the situation, be reasonable at some point in time and move on to someone else. I know this is probably a bad example (please folks don't let this spiral out of control I'm just giving an example!), but you should have left Capt Lynch alone after 2 weeks. Seriously. That situation I think is the best, and most public, example of that what NO is doing is in fact harassment. NO (in my experience) does not know when to let a dead dog lie. There's a very obvious breaking point for people (not referring to Capt) -- and I think forcing people to reach that point is what NO tries to do. That isn't "griefing": that's harassment.


    Just to complete they follow me for 28 jumps to treat me and my alt after pod kill my alt just couse i dint anwer then in local. i consider it as a harassment to.
    gizzmasterzero
    Shake Hands With Beef
    #153 - 2012-11-30 05:23:42 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
    MTB BR wrote:
    My alt got bumped hundreds of times even when i was here present in key board. I even use an other ship to bump the bumpers and make harder to then to bump my mack. and start to making it fun couse i dont do ice mine to live here in eve. but 4 days ago they gank my mack and pod kill me insted of bump just couse i block them in local to stop fload my chat with "pay me stuff"

    And that s stop to be fun

    Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
    gizzmasterzero
    Shake Hands With Beef
    #154 - 2012-11-30 05:27:39 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan

    Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
    Nathalie LaPorte
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #155 - 2012-11-30 05:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
    MTB BR wrote:
    87102-6 wrote:
    [quote=Bing Bangboom]
    * With all the above in mind: no matter what the situation, be reasonable at some point in time and move on to someone else. I know this is probably a bad example (please folks don't let this spiral out of control I'm just giving an example!), but you should have left Capt Lynch alone after 2 weeks. Seriously. That situation I think is the best, and most public, example of that what NO is doing is in fact harassment. NO (in my experience) does not know when to let a dead dog lie. There's a very obvious breaking point for people (not referring to Capt) -- and I think forcing people to reach that point is what NO tries to do. That isn't "griefing": that's harassment.


    Just to complete they follow me for 28 jumps to treat me and my alt after pod kill my alt just couse i dint anwer then in local. i consider it as a harassment to.



    Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
    Alana Charen-Teng
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #156 - 2012-11-30 05:37:09 UTC
    Larkall wrote:
    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.


    Miner bumping is, I believe, a separate issue from how engaging the activity of mining actually is. I absolutely agree that mining should demand greater involvement from the miner. But even if it did, there would (or at least, should) still be ways for other players to disrupt the miner's effectiveness. In our EVE, one of these ways happens to be miner bumping.
    admiral root
    Red Galaxy
    #157 - 2012-11-30 05:39:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
    MTB BR wrote:
    My alt got bumped hundreds of times even when i was here present in key board



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

    MTB BR wrote:
    4 days ago they gank my mack and pod kill me insted of bump just couse i block them in local to stop fload my chat with "pay me stuff"



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

    No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
    MTB BR
    Unique Corp BR
    #158 - 2012-11-30 05:50:59 UTC  |  Edited by: MTB BR
    I do realy think that the best solution to bump is this:

    About bump in Hi sec: transform it in a semi illegal practice. For example : during the day 24h 1st bump the bumper gests a warning. Second bump e turns in to a outlaw and 3 bump concord takes action against him. The bumped player has the right to forgive the bumper so in case of accidental bump the bumper don’t take penalty. In fleet it do not get penalty to. Cause its normal to be bumped in fleet warping.

    Any one can bump but if they do it a lot with no war dec. in hi sec he will face the consequents. in low and null sec it wont make any difference. It will break the idea of an alt kill the bumper to get the money of a bounty, it will finish the harassment of excessive bumping, and if you bump some one by mistake the bumped one can scuse the bumper and hi don't be penalized for it.
    This will force bumpers to joing a Players comp and Spend isk to wardec some one that they wanna bump.Big smile
    ISD Tyrozan
    ISD Community Communications Liaisons
    ISD Alliance
    #159 - 2012-11-30 05:52:48 UTC
    A significant number of posts have been edited for off-topic posting and trolling. Please confine your posts to Miner Bumping: Discussion & Questions.

    ISD Tyrozan

    Captain

    Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

    Interstellar Services Department

    @ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL
    Sara XIII
    The Carnifex Corp
    #160 - 2012-11-30 06:12:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Sara XIII
    Miner Bumping.

    Every bump is a player to player interaction.
    Every post in local from either side is a player to player interaction.

    Why stop or hinder this?

    This is a great game. It's really solid at every level a highsec bear like me operates in. What blows my mind is the freedom of player interactions. From Kannibal Kane running a WH corp I was in back to highsec by himself to a Frigate battle in RvB that lasted almost a half hour that I re-shipped for until I had no ships left..... some great times. And I lost in both cases!

    So when I bump a miner to the non-compliant sectiom of an Ice belt and he comes back and apologizes for being AFK because: "He just got done ******* my Mom" it's a victory for EVE.

    - John
    Between Ignorance and Wisdom