Crime & Punishment

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.[/quote]

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 ;-)

[/quote]



I find your argument invalid, as a highly skilled industrialist and everything else when i was in null sec in multiple alliance and corps i was not given the time i needed to produce items as industrialist were threated with being thrown out of the alliance/corp if we did not get a combat ship and go sit in a system far from HQ and wait for a possible attack that usually never came or we would have to go on huge roams to protect our area (which was usually many jumps away in enemy space) but as of recent ive stopped mining in empire as ive moved across the area being chased by awoxors, CODE alliance, and other gankers that want to do nothing but kill the industry or make a profit themselves from it.

This guy is so full of it it's not even funny.


Clearly this disgusting group of people are in it purely for isk, but they cloak this in good intentions saying they are doing the game a world of good and they change people. And who appointed these thugs EVE police, hmmm? What "right" do they have to tell anyone what they can and cannot do and how they should play the game? Oh.. That's right. Might makes right.

But this is pure racketeering. Extortion. Give me 10 mil isk or I blow up your ship!

Back in Ukraine where I was born this was called paying for "roof". A group of thugs would approach a businessman, and tell him that a world is a dangerous place and they will provide protection for only a small percent of all his profits. If the businessman would refuse, his place of business would burn, or his supply truck would be sabotaged, or driver would get killed, or something much much worse.

In RL, people have found ways to deal with these things. That's why there' police. The businessman calls police and thugs get arrested and go to jail. In EVE, police takes long enough to arrive for the criminals to do their thing, and doesn't actively go after these criminals after a certain time expired or certain conditions have been met. I'd like to see gankers keep doing what they do if concord would actively hunt them 24/7, in every solar system, in every place of the galaxy including inside stations. ; )

These people can make a nice website with "code of honor" and all that BS, but I wonder why even bother? Too much time on their hands? Practicing HTML/CSS? Oh wait, it sounds better to say "We're saving EVE" than to say "we racketeer people for money".

It's funny how these people say: "Don't mine in a ship with expensive mods" "Don't use expensive implants" "Fit your ship properly to resist ganks".


My answer? "Don't gank people". "Just leave them alone to be boring, annoying carebears. It's none of your business how people play the game and what they do". "It's not your place to teach people what they should or shouldn't do."

Oh wait.. But you CAN tell people what you do, AND enforce it. Because some folks have a full time job and I actually work for their money, and I some are in college, and EVE thugs have a lot more time than other people do, or more money. Perhaps because that money comes easier to them? I don't know. The point is it doesn't even matter.

What matters is that CCP supports scum like this. Hey, they are only hurting themselves. When people cannot do the things they like in a game they may quit out of frustration. But wait.. What makes me any more of a valuable customer than a scumbag Goon? We're both paying $15, right?

Well, the Goon will play the game regardless, because he has the time to waste. If he cannot gank a miner, he'll gank a hauler. If he cannot harass these people he'll do some PvP. He wont take limitations personally. His feelings wont be hurt(at least not for long). But someone who only plays EVE to mine, or to trade or to do missions, wont necessarily adjust and overcome because of the lack of time, and lack of desire to learn something new. That person just might kick the proverbial can down the road.

After all, who the hell are Goons or anyone else to tell that trader or miner that they should stop doing the same damn boring, stupid activity they enjoy and start "adjusting" to gankers or whatnot? Why not do something much easier and start banning people for any form of harassment? This way those who want to fight will go back to 0.0 where they belong, and those who want to just sit in space and strip roids will do that. Everyone will be happy. Except for maybe the gankers. But that's ok, cause they can always go back to 0.0 and enjoy their life.

I am not against how they playt it, just that they can avoid a wardec so easy.
it gives us miners no first strike option. i have pvp chars also and in null sec i do play the same game
but there they can shoot me too without concord shooting you out of your ship.

Yes I guess you could suicide gank the neutral Orca or bumper but not many small corps can gather a fleet of 20 Tornados. Even if they could the Orca kill might be worth it but killing some cheap bumping ship wouldn't do anything.

The problem with this thread is there's too many off topic troll posts fighting back and forth so the original topic gets buried.

When bumping is used as an exploit. The warp dilemma.

There is an issue which needs to be addressed in terms of knocking someone out of alignment who is attempting to warp away. This happened to my girlfriend when a suicide gang entered an asteroid belt and repeatedly bumped her even though she was aligned and trying to warp away.

There is in place a balanced game mechanic which governs whether someone is able to warp away or not, this is in the form of warp scramblers/disruption fields which are used to lock a target down, warp core stabilizers are a means of defence to scramblers and disruption field generators carry penalties to afterburners/warpdrives/signature radius. This is balanced, for scrambling you trade slots to either gain warp scrambling power, or to increase war core stability and your chances of getting away. For disruption fields there are penalties which reduce your speed, increase signature radius and can only be fitted to interdiction cruisers. This mechanic allows a fair chance at warping away for victims or locking down a target to those ganking, its balanced.

What isn't balanced is when bumping is used to prevent someone warping away, if I fit 5 warp core stabilizers to my ship to allow me to warp away when I'm in trouble I expect to get the benefit from it. Not have someone prevent me from warping away by knocking me continuously out of alignment at no cost to them in terms of fitting or otherwise. When used in this manner bumping is an exploit. There is no way to protect yourself from this when trying to warp away.

Here are a few suggestions at addressing this issue:
When engaging warp, make it so the ship cannot be bumped and can only be stopped by using warp scramblers / warp bubble.
or
Reduce the amount of distance a ship is "bumped" thereby reducing the realignment time when trying to warp out.
or
Introduce a fitting which allows people to protect themselves from being bumped from alignment.

Something is desperately needed as a counterbalance to this exploit. I don't mind trading slots, power or CPU but what I do expect is to at least have some means of protecting myself, as none currently exist. Even though there is no cost to performing the action of preventing someone warping via bumping.

I certainly hope to get a response to this post with adequate explanation, and that it doesn't get thrown in the "too hard basket".

As ever
Nickles

CCP disagree, which is why the first post in this thread is a GM telling you that it's not an exploit.



Using your figure of 250,000 EHP? About 20 in a 0.5

250,000 EHP / 20 seconds (Concord response and time to kill the catalysts) = 12500HP/sec to eat through.
12500HP/600 to 700 DPS = 20ish Catalysts to do the job.

It can be done with less depending on the Orcas fit, whether or not the tank is actually turned on and the skills of the Catalyst pilots. A lot of Orca pilots fail to fit a damage control along with reinforced bulkheads, they go for cargo expanders in the lows instead, which means that their tank is pitiful. The chances of finding a gank crews support Orca with such a shitfit is nil.

^^ I'll think you'll find that bumping to prevent a warp is also considered a valid gameplay tactic, and has been for many years. It's commonly used in all areas of Eve to do just so. If you had read the thread, and the thread that spawned it, you would know this.

The GM statement applies to both bumping to prevent a warp, and bumping to prevent someone mining.

I believe this thread was intended to allow discussion on the matter of bumping, and to allow people to raise concerns and bring forward ideas. I believe that is the spirit of this thread considering it is open for discussion.

The use of bumping to prevent warping was not explicitly stated in GM’s post, you are assuming it has, but you do not know this for certain, if so please reference your source which explicitly discusses bumping and using it to prevent warping. The GM’s post is quite general and we don’t know if this issue has been considered. All I’m doing is bringing an issue forward as a potential concern, and I believe I have stated my argument objectively.

Everyone already knows what the GM’s post says, you don’t have to repeat it with your extraneous posts on the matter. If you want to bring a counter argument, consider an original idea.
For instance if you had said preventing someone warping away by bumping is an intended game mechanic, and then going on to qualify your statement by saying, the cost of performing the action of bumping requires skills to execute and ship fittings to increase speed are sacrificed for this purpose, and results aren’t always guaranteed as you could miss. There's a counter argument.

I’m not explicitly saying that I’m for or against bumping, I’m questioning whether it’s balanced when used to prevent someone warping away and would like to see discussion on arguments both for and against. However looking at the action of bumping to prevent warping away on balance, the costs seem minimal compared to the outcome suffered by the victim being bumped. Basically the point I'm trying to make is if you are not engaged in combat with the ship bumping you, you should be allowed a reasonable degree of movement to walk(warp) away from it.

When used to bump someone off an asteroid field it seems fair tactic to deny resources. Is it fair when used to prevent someone warping away when they wish to leave an area to mine another system? When used to prevent a ship warping away when being ganked, the bump is of significant importance in determining your survivability in this regard, it could be the single most important factor (the entire gank depends on it), and by coming at no cost to the ship performing the bump (not flagged, not attacked by concord) then yes, he has sacrificed fittings, but he isn't in combat and suffers no consequences. Is it balanced?
I’d be glad to hear original and objective arguments regarding the matter, and would like to avoid opinions.

As ever
Nickles

My post is to discuss whether its balanced, and how it is balanced. You seem to be ignoring the purpose of my post and seem now to be focussed on attacking me personally for wanting to discuss an issue. None of the forums you've referenced discusses the balancing of the bump mechanism. Also you still have not presented a valid argument with regards to how its balanced!

I have no desire to continue a discussion on quotes or opinions, please focus on the topic I'm brining forward which is and always has been about balancing issues with the bump mechanism. I would still like to see some discussion on balance issues for bumping when warping as per my previous posts. Not opinions and quotes, valid arguments for and against.

Fly safe, as ever

Nickles