These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High Sec Miner Bumping, policy change

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2013-12-26 15:24:43 UTC
Hevymetal wrote:
I can't wait till CCP recodes collision mechanics and people's Rifters start going SPLAT on the side of Mackinaws and Freighters.

…or, more accurately, mackinaws and freighters go splat against battleships and gates.
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#42 - 2013-12-26 15:36:50 UTC
CCP,
A cerberus is humping my leg :(

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Eryn Velasquez
#43 - 2013-12-26 15:40:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Eryn Velasquez
Tippia wrote:
Eryn Velasquez wrote:
If you have no chance to avoid your shiploss, there is no risc. And a penalty it would be, if you, in general, lose more than you gain.
If you have no chance to avoid a loss, the risk is total. Unless you're suggesting that they should “introduce” some risk by making CONCORD only appear 10% of the time rather than 100%.

And it's a penalty regardless of the net result. A loss is a loss is a loss.


You have a perfect chance to avoid the loss - don't gank. In case you do, you accepted the loss, so there is no risc.

I really would like to have a mechanic, which would a ganker allow to escape. But in case he get's caught, the penalty should be high - i.e. the loss of the victim plus the same amount as fine.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
The minimal risc to get podded or to lose the loot is so small, that many people are ganking.
Really? How many? It seems an exceedingly rare occurrence and even rarer profession these days due to the inordinate penalties, risks, and costs involved.


I have no problem with gankers/ganking - as you see, i would like to give them a chance to survive. The momentary solution for this "profession" is imho boring.

_“A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau _
ISD LackOfFaith
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#44 - 2013-12-26 15:45:01 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD LackOfFaith
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.

In addition, please note the GM Response on Bumping, arrived to on the 29th of January 2013, after many a discussion and threadnaught about bumping hisec miners. Most notably:

GM Karidor wrote:

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.


If you believe you are dealing with a case of harassment, please file a support ticket.

ISD LackOfFaith

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to Eve Mail or anything other than the forums.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#45 - 2013-12-26 15:45:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Eryn Velasquez wrote:
You have a perfect chance to avoid the loss - don't gank. In case you do, you accepted the loss, so there is no risc.
The risk doesn't go away just because you accept it, nor does it get any lower. It is still a total risk.

Quote:
I really would like to have a mechanic, which would a ganker allow to escape. But in case he get's caught, the penalty should be high - i.e. the loss of the victim plus the same amount as fine.
That's called ISK tanking and it is an in every way completely and utterly idiotic idea. So no. The solution where the ganker risks losing everything for some gain that may or may not be higher than what he lost achieves the same thing without being stupid.

If you want the ganker to lose a lot of ISK, that option is already available and it's not the game's fault if the players decide that they want to give the gankers a pass on some of the penalties involved.

Quote:
I have no problem with gankers/ganking - as you see, i would like to give them a chance to survive. The momentary solution for this "profession" is imho boring.
Solution to what?
Also, you didn't answer the question: how many? Or did you mean to say “so very very few” and miss all the relevant keys?
Mythrandier
Solace Corp
#46 - 2013-12-26 15:54:36 UTC
Praxis Ginimic wrote:
If you really want to take a stand then start ganking miner bumpers.

It takes about a month to train a competent ganknado pilot from scratch. Convince a group of miners to train alts for this then put the bumpers on your watch list and run locates on them. Send out a scout for a good warp in point then destroy the bumpers.

These guys use expensive ships for maximum effect and because they aren't in danger of Concordokken. You might even be able to make some isk by charging for your protection. The really ironic thing is that all the information that you need in order to be good at this can be found on minerbumping.com

Now go have fun instead of paying ridiculous whine threads that will never get you anywhere.

Edited for reasons you will never truly understand


You see, the issue here is that would involve actual ~effort~

The avoidance of effort being the entire premise of the OP somehow I just can't see this happening.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -  D. Adams.
Don Pera Saissore
#47 - 2013-12-26 16:35:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Don Pera Saissore
I got bumped.

It was frustrating for me because i like most other victims was just a month old. I couldn't fly a tech 2 miner and i couldn't fit tech 2 tank.

It's easy to say that i have the same means as them but that is not true. At that point i was still learning the basics, i used the free time while mining to read about the game mechanics. When i was bumped i didn't even see what was happening because i was still struggling with the overview.

This is my main problem with miner bumping, you guys are extorting players who are still learning how this game works.

EDIT: I just realized bumping means colliding with the ship and forcing it to move out of range of the miner. That never happened to me i was simply ganked and then asked for protection money.
Nerath Naaris
Pink Winged Unicorns for Peace Love and Anarchy
#48 - 2013-12-26 16:44:06 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Praxis Ginimic wrote:
If you really want to take a stand then start ganking miner bumpers.

It takes about a month to train a competent ganknado pilot from scratch. Convince a group of miners to train alts for this then put the bumpers pin your watch list and run locates on them. Send out a scout for a good warp in point then destroy the bumpers.

These guys use expensive ships for maximum effect and because they aren't in danger of Concordokken. You might even be able to make some isk by charging for your protection. The really ironic thing is that all the information that you need in order to be good at this can be found on minerbumping.com

Nite go have fun instead of paying ridiculous whine threads that will never get you anywhere.


So you say, but soon CCP will give them the mining barge anchoring module they asked for... soon (tm)



Only if that one is a med slot module and thus can´t interfere with a maximum yield fitting....

Je suis Paris // Köln // Brüssel // Orlando // Nice // Würzburg, München, Ansbach // Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray

Je suis Berlin // Fort Lauderdale // London // St. Petersburg // Stockholm

Je suis [?]
Eryn Velasquez
#49 - 2013-12-26 16:51:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Eryn Velasquez wrote:
You have a perfect chance to avoid the loss - don't gank. In case you do, you accepted the loss, so there is no risc.
The risk doesn't go away just because you accept it, nor does it get any lower. It is still a total risk.


That has nothing to do with the term "risc" - a risc is always accompanied by uncertainty.

_“A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau _
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#50 - 2013-12-26 17:08:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Eryn Velasquez wrote:
That has nothing to do with the term "risc" - a risc is always accompanied by uncertainty.
No, a RISC is always accompanied by a reduced instruction set.

What I said has everything to do with risk, and especially with risk perception. The fact remains: accepting a risk doesn't remove it. Accepting a risk just means you can start taking it into account in your decisions. Your problem is that you're confusing “risk” with “probability” when what risk actually is is the effect of probability, not the probability itself. A 100% probability does not remove the risk — it just creates a very high effect. In other words, the risk is total.

Again, if you want to argue the incorrect notion that 100% probability means no risk and that this is somehow a problem, then you must also agree that CONCORD should only have a 10%… hell, let's say 1% chance of appearing after a gank. After all, that has (somehow) created infinitely more risk than when the probability is 100%.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2013-12-26 17:39:55 UTC
Isn't there a thread in Crime & Punishment where all discussions of miner bumping are to take place?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2013-12-26 17:41:58 UTC
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.

In addition, please note the GM Response on Bumping, arrived to on the 29th of January 2013, after many a discussion and threadnaught about bumping hisec miners. Most notably:

GM Karidor wrote:

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.


If you believe you are dealing with a case of harassment, please file a support ticket.


Why yes there is a thread on miner bumping in Crime & Punishment with this interesting bit:

Quote:
This thread will be left open for now, and all discussion regarding bumping will be diverted here.


ISD can't even follow their own rules. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Eryn Velasquez
#53 - 2013-12-26 17:51:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Eryn Velasquez wrote:
That has nothing to do with the term "risc" - a risc is always accompanied by uncertainty.
No, a RISC is always accompanied by a reduced instruction set.

What I said has everything to do with risk, and especially with risk perception. The fact remains: accepting a risk doesn't remove it. Accepting a risk just means you can start taking it into account in your decisions. Your problem is that you're confusing “risk” with “probability” when what risk actually is is the effect of probability, not the probability itself. A 100% probability does not remove the risk — it just creates a very high effect. In other words, the risk is total.

Again, if you want to argue the incorrect notion that 100% probability means no risk and that this is somehow a problem, then you must also agree that CONCORD should only have a 10%… hell, let's say 1% chance of appearing after a gank. After all, that has (somehow) created infinitely more risk than when the probability is 100%.


Sorry, my fault. English is not my native language.

For further information about risk and uncertainty you can read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk#Basic_definitions

_“A man's freedom consists in his being able to do whatever he wills, but that he should not, by any human power, be forced to do what is against his will.” ― Jean-Jacques Rousseau _
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#54 - 2013-12-26 18:03:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Olivia shy wrote:
1. High sec mining is a non combative or a non- aggressive roll in the game thus leaving the miner vulnerable to aggressive behavior by others looking to make isk from the weaker disadvantaged mining barge .
So?

Quote:
2. Low sec and Null Sec is a place for more experienced players to play in a more aggressive environment.
Not really no. Or at least not in any way that distinguishes them from highsec.

Quote:
3. Any one that is new to the game and decides that mining is what they want to do as a career path in the game could become overwhelmed and frustrated due to High Sec Bumping, this could lead to them not wanting to continue down this path. If this is the case, one of two things can happen from that point.
This goes for all activities since they will all be subject to opposition from other players. If a new player can't handle opposition in a game defined by and built upon opposition from other players, then it is probably not a game for him. If it is for him, he will learn and prosper.

Quote:
With this being said all this can be avoided by simple change of rules preventing any person, corporation or Alliance in the game that decide to put forth any code that has been created by anyone other than CCP should not be permitted in the High sec systems for a positive future of progression and development of the game with such a rule would uphold the Values, Principles, and Integrity of CCP.
You mean the values, principles and integrity of their core statement for EVE: “it's not meant to look like a cold, harsh place — it's meant to be a cold, harsh place”?

And no, preventing or prohibiting bumping in highsec is a spectacularly bad idea since it would rather break large parts of the game and provide new players with a bad environment in which to learn. Preventing players from setting up their own social rules and contracts is an even worse idea since it completely eviscerates the fundamental idea of a sandbox.



it wouldnt break the game it would just mean less people been bumped to death or people being bumped during emergency warpoff just to get killed.. which i dont doubt people still do.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#55 - 2013-12-26 18:08:02 UTC
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.

In addition, please note the GM Response on Bumping, arrived to on the 29th of January 2013, after many a discussion and threadnaught about bumping hisec miners. Most notably:

GM Karidor wrote:

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.


If you believe you are dealing with a case of harassment, please file a support ticket.


dont forget that its now an exploit to bump people during emergency log-off for the sole purpose of getting them to go POP.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2013-12-26 18:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Eryn Velasquez wrote:
For further information about risk and uncertainty you can read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk#Basic_definitions

…which, had you read it, would have told you that risks don't go away just because p=1 and that risk and uncertainty or probability are not the same thing. Nor does acceptance remove the risks.

So, a 100% chance of loss means that the risk is equal to the cost of the ship. It does not make the risk non-existent.

Seranova Farreach wrote:
it wouldnt break the game it would just mean less people been bumped to death or people being bumped during emergency warpoff just to get killed
…i.e. break the game. The mechanics are there and are explicitly allowed and maintained for a reason.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#57 - 2013-12-26 18:13:22 UTC
Don Pera Saissore wrote:
I got bumped.

It was frustrating for me because i like most other victims was just a month old. I couldn't fly a tech 2 miner and i couldn't fit tech 2 tank.

It's easy to say that i have the same means as them but that is not true. At that point i was still learning the basics, i used the free time while mining to read about the game mechanics. When i was bumped i didn't even see what was happening because i was still struggling with the overview.

This is my main problem with miner bumping, you guys are extorting players who are still learning how this game works.

EDIT: I just realized bumping means colliding with the ship and forcing it to move out of range of the miner. That never happened to me i was simply ganked and then asked for protection money.


fly a tanked procurer/skiff those gankers wont bother trying to gank a tanked one of those since they can get battleship EHP

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#58 - 2013-12-26 18:15:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Eryn Velasquez wrote:
For further information about risk and uncertainty you can read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk#Basic_definitions

…which, had you read it, would have told you that risks don't go away just because p=1 and that risk and uncertainty or probability are not the same thing. Nor does acceptance remove the risks.

So, a 100% chance of loss means that the risk is equal to the cost of the ship. It does not make the risk non-existent.

Seranova Farreach wrote:
it wouldnt break the game it would just mean less people been bumped to death or people being bumped during emergency warpoff just to get killed
…i.e. break the game. The mechanics are there and are explicitly allowed and maintained for a reason.



they arnt it was already announced that its a ban-able exploit if you bump some one who is in an emergency warp out to try or even succeed at makeing them blow up

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#59 - 2013-12-26 18:21:08 UTC
Seranova Farreach wrote:
they arnt it was already announced that its a ban-able exploit if you bump some one who is in an emergency warp out to try or even succeed at makeing them blow up

No, it really isn't.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2013-12-26 19:14:08 UTC  |  Edited by: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Xavier Higdon wrote:
Wait, the New Order bumps miners? I thought they only collected pics of dudes wearing mayo.


I take part in neither of these activities. I may have to try bumping one of these days though. I don't get enough conversation when ganking people though it is usually more educational.

Alavaria Fera wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Olivia shy wrote:
2. Low sec and Null Sec is a place for more experienced players to play in a more aggressive environment. Thus bumping should be allowed in such areas because the stakes and pay are higher for the better ores .

Why are low and null for "more experienced players". I haven't seen evidence of this anywhere. Some of my friends jumped into low sec within their first week of play.

You gotta have 30 million SP MINIMUM to join the forces of Vince Draken

I don't need to join a large null sec bloc to move to null sec though.

Don Pera Saissore wrote:
[...]
It's easy to say that i have the same means as them but that is not true. At that point i was still learning the basics, i used the free time while mining to read about the game mechanics. When i was bumped i didn't even see what was happening because i was still struggling with the overview.
[...]

This is one of the few legitimate claims against the new order. Fortunately, most gankers are more than willing to dispense advice on how to avoid being a repeat target if you have the right attitude (read as: "don't be rude"). If you want revenge on a ganker, even as a new player you have many options, but you have to put time and energy into learning about them. I do wish the game provided more information about the tools available to prevent ganks or get retaliation such as d-Scan and local chat for defense, and locator agents for intel.

One final thing for those that (correctly) note that it is very hard to punish a ganker due to the low cost of the ships we fly. This is eve. You have other options available such as infiltrating ganking corporations, locating the mains and hauler alts of gankers, and extracting revenge on the financial backbone of our corporations and alliances. Will this take time and effort? Yes. Will it be easy? No. However, if you really want revenge, you might want to try.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!