EVE General Discussion

Changing the physics engine is likely the least disruptive and most sensible way to attempt to change things on this front. The thing is though, that no matter what option you go with you'll end up with some unwanted consequence. Even if you dislike the current physics, you're going to have to go with some kind of physics model and have some way which objects influence each other, even if that way is much less dramatic then it is today. Of course you could remove collisions entirely, but that would be a significant downgrade in my view and I would certainly oppose it.

The thing is, that none of that makes it impossible to use it as a tactic where a group of organized players prevent slow clumsy ships from warping out. At best you're making it much more difficult and gaining the inability to forcefully move the ship for long distances by bumping. I wouldn't consider this a bad change, but I also don't consider it a good reason to redo the physics engine. This type of ship bumping is a minor thing, that should certainly be considered when the next time comes to improve the engine, but that is all it is.

The saddest part is that OP doesn't realise that in many cases we let them go if we fluff the first run and they get help, since it's possible for them to
a) Massively increase our costs
b) Massively increase our effort
c) Prevent any financial gain (from looting)
d) Outright prevent the gank / ensure it's escape

Any and all of the above requires fewer people than we need to make it happen with no interference. However, look at how the OP is conducting himself in this thread - do you think he's of a calibre to achieve any of that?

That's basically the problem here, an unskilled player got beaten within the rules of a videogame, doesn't like it, and is crying about it. It's a bit like playing Risk with your 7 y o nephew and letting him keep America because otherwise he wouldn't play.

Well no, it isn't. You're demonstrating why you think it should be one, but CCP disagree with you. They could have decided after their extensive review to disallow using bumping in this manner, but chose to explicitly allow it instead.
This is an unsubtle point that your side keep overlooking; this is not something CCP are unaware of - it has been explicitly deemed acceptable.

We were the first to touch his special place, people don't forget that.

Can you name a timer-based mechanic in EvE that can't be refreshed? Why is this one an exploit (in your opinion, not in recorded fact)? Assuming we accept this - do you not see this logic precludes it being this way in all space?
The logoff timer was not manipulated - it was specifically changed to refresh. You understand we were refreshing it, yes? You understand that we literally used the mechanic in the very manner it was designed to be used?

The server was working fine when you lost your ship and everything happened as it should, hardly a similar circumstance.

Yes, you want specific rules put in place to make you safer. This is clearly not self-motivated by your anger at all

What're you going for here? Making me dig through 40 pages to prove you wrong... again so you can wait a day and go at it... again? We both know I countered you at every turn and you're not worth anymore of my time.

I thought you might man up and give me some insight in return; ah well.

Ohhhhhhhhh, I get it. You're just petty enough that you want the last word; regardless how insignificant or wrong.

I don't mind playing that game.

Claiming the guy who's provided you with publications, formal definitions, expert knowledge, ect. has demonstrated no factual basis while you continue to whine like a little ***** and provide nothing of your own only works in your own head.

It's actually a pretty fitting analogy for this topic as a whole.

That timer is the only timer that you can refresh on someone else who cannot (in that ship) refresh onto you. The physical limitation of his ship prevents it.

And it was manipulated. Fully. It was not constant fire. That timer protects everyone in a current on going fight. Ships intentionally only fired enough to incur the timer, because other existing mechanics ARE in place (in highsec) that work against that same timer.

So, yes, that 1 timer was manipulated in regards to the penalties of other timers being used (in place as protection as highsec is determined compared to other sectors of space).

It was not ONLY used to keep a freighter locked down, it was used to also manipulate Concord in tandem.

It was argued those mechanics happen all over the Eve game in all sectors right? Well, we don't see the same tactic being used in other sectors (primarily because freighter pilots are smarter but that's not the discussion). And Concord is not in any other sector other than Highsec....

So while you say CCP "designed it that way" they designed one mechanic to span all Eve sure. But the mechanic, which was also used in conjunction with another mechanic, created a combination that can be proved as harassment, by the same rules that are in place to allow it to happen. Because it can be seen as manipulation.

Which is why there is a disclaimer that GMs view each instance on a case by case basis.

Now, if you want to say you kept a ship bumped while continuously cycling your guns... I wouldn't have a foot to stand on. But we know that Concord, another "working as intended" mechanic, is in place to punish for that exact reason.

So to limit the cost of whelping noobships at free cost every 3 seconds, the timer was manipulated to refresh at a much longer rate to reduce effort.

So no, I do not understand that you used that timer in the very way it was designed. I see a manipulation of that timer. The creativity I applaud. And by all means, you can show how it should be designed that way. That would only springboard an argument to change freighters to allow the ability to aggress someone (ie- drone bay or an attack module).

Because we all know (CCP included I'd hope) explosions are awesome.

I am in no way saying that freighters should be safe by the way. I just don't think it's a good stance to say you need to manipulate something in order to be successful.

This thread has no evidence of any bumping due to the user deleting the video.

Also consider the titans flying out of POS's after they are built because they did not have the correct password inside them, CCP just stated "working has intended"

This is not an exploit, they did not take much time to kill you should of gotten another ship maybe and webbed your self to warp off instead of dicking around looking at them cockslap you.

Which demonstrated an inability to accurately determine harassment by text mining. Sadly, the thing you link has to work for your case, not mine, for you to start saying you provided evidence to support your case. I have no idea why this concept remains confusing for you some 500 posts later

Yes, claiming you're right because you know you're right .... somehow we're not letting that qualify dude.

You made the original claim on post #40 or so, and it took you till post #522 to attempt to provide evidence, which did not support your claim. My only claim has been you can't support your claim
I'm not the one making claims based on no factual evidence, you are. If it's frustrating for you to repeatedly hear this then it's probably in your best interest to stop quoting posts and saying "nope" and start coughing up something relevant. We both know there is nothing though, so you'll no doubt try to back-foot it and try a semantic walk-around again. It's not going to work.

All of my complaints have been cited examples of your poor ability to form an argument. I'm afraid that's firmly in the camp of things you've done wrong, and I really can't help you.

Amazing.

Rather than help the freighter pilot the alliance just chats about how CCP will not give them their ship back after sending in petitions dispite having an hour to form something up. They are fantastically useless.