These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GM Response On Bumping

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2013-01-29 15:13:25 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP CiD
**This forum post is now 3 year old and does not represent CCP´s current stance on the issue, as such it can be viewed as outdated**


On November 28th 2012, CCP Falcon created this thread on the Crime & Punishment Forum for the discussion of Miner Bumping with a view to clearing up any questions regarding the legitimacy of this type of gameplay.

The thread was closed on December 5th and the discussion regarding this tactic has been long and detailed. After speaking with Game Design and discussing the contents of the thread among themselves for quite some time, the GM Team has come to the following conclusion:

CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit. However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.

We would also like to stress that if a gameplay activity is classified as being “within the rules” this does not mean that we endorse, sanction or back player activity. We simply see this as emergent gameplay that has occurred due to the nature of game mechanics.

As such, any players who have any notes to this effect within their in game biographies should remove words of this nature immediately.

GM Karidor | Senior Game Master
CCP Falcon
#2 - 2013-01-29 15:23:24 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Falcon
This thread will be left open for now, and all discussion regarding bumping will be diverted here.

Keep within the forum rules and stay on topic, and the thread will stay open.

Any attempts to derail discussion, any trolling, and any personal attacks will not be taken lightly.

CCP Falcon || EVE Universe Community Manager || @CCP_Falcon

Happy Birthday To FAWLTY7! <3
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#3 - 2013-01-29 15:42:26 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
This thread will be left open for now, and all discussion regarding bumping will be diverted here.

Keep within the forum rules and stay on topic, and the thread will stay open.

Any attempts to derail discussion, any trolling, and any personal attacks will not be taken lightly.

Why did you remove my reply?

I simply noted that it seems that it is still legal to implicitly harass someone by setting up bumper gangs in every belt that one person mines in, as long as they target everyone, not just that one individual. Or am I mistaken here?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Runeme Shilter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2013-01-29 15:54:06 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.


Does "move to another location" mean another Ice-Asteroid? Or another belt? Another system?

RS
BadAssMcKill
Aliastra
#5 - 2013-01-29 15:57:28 UTC
That seems reasonable
tgl3
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-01-29 15:58:01 UTC
Pretty much what I expected, cheers for the response!
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2013-01-29 16:01:31 UTC
does this mean that if a player does not attempt to change location that repeated bumping is not harassment?

i present that situation as 'by itself' i understand there are often other factors involved and that malicious intent is a consideration

this is more specific than your general ruling, but is repeated bumping of a player in an attempt to extort them 'by itself' harassment?

(i think we all know of the player organisation prompting this discussion and i think it'd be good to see a yay or a nay or some example situations rather than have players 'experimenting' near the ruling to see what passes)

assuming the above is ok, if a bumper was extorting in a system, then later moved to another system and bumped a player that had previously moved on, not because the bumper was following the other player but because the other player was in the bumper's new area, is that a situation that 'by itself' is harassment?
Temmu Guerra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2013-01-29 16:20:39 UTC
You guys could always go to another system...
Kimo Khan
Rage Against All Reds
GunFam
#9 - 2013-01-29 16:43:12 UTC
If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#10 - 2013-01-29 16:47:23 UTC
Kimo Khan wrote:
If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?


Because bumping is not, and never has been a flaggable action, more for practical means than anything else. Jita 4-4 undock with flaggable bumping would become a scrapyard FFA.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Runeme Shilter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2013-01-29 16:48:51 UTC
Kimo Khan wrote:
If said bumper is part of a gang which then proceed to gank me, why do I not get killrights on the bumper who prevented warp without using a scrambler and thus avoided invoking concord?


Because bumping is not an agressive or illegal action of course. It's not that hard.

RS
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#12 - 2013-01-29 16:50:06 UTC
Good decision.
Kimo Khan
Rage Against All Reds
GunFam
#13 - 2013-01-29 16:54:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kimo Khan
You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable?

It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. Edit: Removed the whole thing of not bumping during warp as I can see that abused as well.
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2013-01-29 16:57:23 UTC
The words are chosen wisely.

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
Lysantos Kelrus
Hikansog Tax Haven
#15 - 2013-01-29 17:19:21 UTC
now all we need to do is establish a proper high industry in protection services.

the market looks pretty profitable
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#16 - 2013-01-29 17:51:30 UTC
makes sense. There should always be the option where certain player behavior can be interpreted as griefing from the GMs even though it does not break any rules. Thats why we have them instead of robots.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Sulzer Wartzilla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2013-01-29 17:55:52 UTC
Kimo Khan wrote:
You are missing my point. I know bumping is not a flaggable action in itself, but the scenario I mentioned is that it is combined with a flaggable action, just like Remote Repping is flagable only when you use it on a flagged person. So why would bumping when used with a criminal gank not be flaggable?

It is not a question to players, it is a question to CCP to consider. Bumping to prevent warp is a circumvention to the warp scram mechanic which flags a person. An easy solution to this issue is to prevent bumping to a person trying to warp, just turn off the mechanic when a person initiates warp. Its not like you can get bumped when you are in warp, so why not turn it off when you initiate warp.

Bumping ships to prevent warping (but mostly crashing back to stargates) has long been an integral and known part of PVP. It takes skill to actually bump someone trying to escape.

It's been around for years. Of course, once this tactic found its way to the asteroid belts of hisec, the calls for nerfing it or utterly removing it from the game did not wait long to rear their ugly face. Predictable.
GM Karidor
Game Masters
C C P Alliance
#18 - 2013-01-29 18:03:06 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
I simply noted that it seems that it is still legal to implicitly harass someone by setting up bumper gangs in every belt that one person mines in, as long as they target everyone, not just that one individual. Or am I mistaken here?


You are mistaken. If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part).

Runeme Shilter wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.


Does "move to another location" mean another Ice-Asteroid? Or another belt? Another system?

RS


While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents).

Benny Ohu wrote:
if a bumper was extorting in a system, then later moved to another system and bumped a player that had previously moved on, not because the bumper was following the other player but because the other player was in the bumper's new area, is that a situation that 'by itself' is harassment?


Depends, see the answer to the quote above which should cover this as well. If the victim just moved next door, that could still be interpreted as 'general area of operation', if the miner starts changing regions and is still being followed around by the same person that keeps bumping in a regular manner then the intent is pretty clear. Note that I said person, not character, so regional alts will be considered be the same player in this regard.

GM Karidor | Senior Game Master
Runeme Shilter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2013-01-29 18:24:26 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents).


Thanks for the reply. That is a very wise and sensible ruling!

RS
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2013-01-29 18:28:06 UTC
GM Karidor wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:
I simply noted that it seems that it is still legal to implicitly harass someone by setting up bumper gangs in every belt that one person mines in, as long as they target everyone, not just that one individual. Or am I mistaken here?


You are mistaken. If you are reported and we find you actively following around a target without a war to continue bumping a specific player, it will still (at some point) considered harassment, even if you divert your 'attention' a little while doing so. If you have a bone to pick with someone, declare a war and take the risk that your target may actually taste blood and fight back (or finds allies for that part).

Runeme Shilter wrote:
GM Karidor wrote:
However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.


Does "move to another location" mean another Ice-Asteroid? Or another belt? Another system?

RS


While it will involve inconvenience, we will have to see that one actively tried evasion before we consider someone being followed around and harassed. Merely changing belts in the same system or moving a few thousand meters to another asteroid would not qualify in this regard. Ideally you would move to other systems and more than just one or two jumps to avoid being found again quickly, requiring some effort to locate you again (i.e. through locator agents).

Benny Ohu wrote:
if a bumper was extorting in a system, then later moved to another system and bumped a player that had previously moved on, not because the bumper was following the other player but because the other player was in the bumper's new area, is that a situation that 'by itself' is harassment?


Depends, see the answer to the quote above which should cover this as well. If the victim just moved next door, that could still be interpreted as 'general area of operation', if the miner starts changing regions and is still being followed around by the same person that keeps bumping in a regular manner then the intent is pretty clear. Note that I said person, not character, so regional alts will be considered be the same player in this regard.


Do not get me wrong but that at least partly puts a lock on emergent gameplay and prospering buissnes models.
There even were already growing some movements growing driven by miners to oppose so called bumpers. Minerbumping led to loners engeging in group activities to help themselves. Although the niveau might not have been especially high, the comunication between players in high sec also increased.
The need for those movements that united in the sight of the common bumper-enemy decreases with this development.
While more and more 0.0 alliances struggle to find enough industrialists or miners seeding their markets, high sec afk mining and botting is prosperous and florishes.
Although the statement you made leaves a lot of space for interpretation and case sensitive treatment the general direction of the policy does not help any of the involved parties. I might be wrong but you sure will be flooded with petitions...worse than before.
In the end the general tenor in the mentioned bumping thread seemed overall "pro-bumping" with only a few very loud and determined "anti-bumping" proponents...but that might be a thing of perception.

Finally I have to say that it is good that there is a position from CCP now. Now the terms can be discussed ;-)

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
123Next pageLast page