These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bump hindering rig
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Netan MalDoran
Voidlings
#1 - 2014-05-27 16:45:48 UTC
Hey all, an idea to help quell the miners crying about bumping. What if there was a rig that drastically increased your ships mass and increased your ships agility. That way the extra mass would keep the ship from moving as much when it is bumped but the agility increase would (I think) counteract the mass increase and allow the warp out time to be the same. The calibration points could be high to hinder the use of ice harvesting, tank, or speed rigs.

This could also have uses for indys, it could be a basic resist against gangs that bump indys out of alignment to keep them from warping, the downside is that you now can't install as many cargo rigs, everything has a trade off.

"Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was!

Falcon's truth
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-05-27 16:49:20 UTC
Netan MalDoran wrote:
Hey all, an idea to help quell the miners crying about bumping.



Miner tears aren't a bug, they're a feature.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Velicitia
XS Tech
#3 - 2014-05-27 16:51:49 UTC
or -- they could be ATK.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#4 - 2014-05-27 16:52:57 UTC
There's also not being AFK.
Willmahh
#5 - 2014-05-27 17:04:04 UTC
extra mass AND extra agility? newton would slap you for suggesting a rig that has two opposing forces increasing...


although i do think that it is a little unfair that bumping has no drawbacks to the "aggressor" and is a form of "free" aggression, modules, rigs, and immunity mechanics aren't the solution.

if CCP suddenly decided to make a change, i would suggest:

1. making bumping cause mutual damage with multipliers based on each ship size ( the larger ship takes less damage and the smaller ship more damage)
2. make it start a limited aggression timer, but no suspect or criminal timers.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2014-05-27 17:10:24 UTC
Willmahh wrote:
extra mass AND extra agility? newton would slap you for suggesting a rig that has two opposing forces increasing...


although i do think that it is a little unfair that bumping has no drawbacks to the "aggressor" and is a form of "free" aggression, modules, rigs, and immunity mechanics aren't the solution.

if CCP suddenly decided to make a change, i would suggest:

1. making bumping cause mutual damage with multipliers based on each ship size ( the larger ship takes less damage and the smaller ship more damage)
2. make it start a limited aggression timer, but no suspect or criminal timers.


1. Sweet, so when I run my plated Typhoon into a barge, I can do large amounts of damage?

2. So I can do damage to a target without getting concorded in highsec? Oh joy oh joy. One typhoon with a self repper or logi, and ONE catalyst will be all that is needed to take out any freighter. And only the catalyst dies. Assuming of course that you can't actually finish someone off with bumping. If you can, then no need to actually lose a ship.

But hey, limited suspect timers? That sounds awesome. All I have to do is park my ship in front of a freighter and BAM! I can kill it without concord intervention.

I really hate it when people try and propose this. Even if it were not a total complete nightmare from the server standpoint, there is no possible way to implement it that would not be immediately broken to easily kill freighters or shiny ships with minimal risk.
Willmahh
#7 - 2014-05-27 17:40:46 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Willmahh wrote:
extra mass AND extra agility? newton would slap you for suggesting a rig that has two opposing forces increasing...


although i do think that it is a little unfair that bumping has no drawbacks to the "aggressor" and is a form of "free" aggression, modules, rigs, and immunity mechanics aren't the solution.

if CCP suddenly decided to make a change, i would suggest:

1. making bumping cause mutual damage with multipliers based on each ship size ( the larger ship takes less damage and the smaller ship more damage)
2. make it start a limited aggression timer, but no suspect or criminal timers.


1. Sweet, so when I run my plated Typhoon into a barge, I can do large amounts of damage?

2. So I can do damage to a target without getting concorded in highsec? Oh joy oh joy. One typhoon with a self repper or logi, and ONE catalyst will be all that is needed to take out any freighter. And only the catalyst dies. Assuming of course that you can't actually finish someone off with bumping. If you can, then no need to actually lose a ship.

But hey, limited suspect timers? That sounds awesome. All I have to do is park my ship in front of a freighter and BAM! I can kill it without concord intervention.

I really hate it when people try and propose this. Even if it were not a total complete nightmare from the server standpoint, there is no possible way to implement it that would not be immediately broken to easily kill freighters or shiny ships with minimal risk.





since i didn't give any numbers, you are assuming damage levels that could cause your scenarios... you know what they say about assuming...
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-05-27 19:40:00 UTC
Willmahh wrote:

since i didn't give any numbers, you are assuming damage levels that could cause your scenarios... you know what they say about assuming...


Either damage is significant enough that repeated bumping by a larger ship at high speeds can deal a significant amount of damage (even just removing most of the shields), or it is low enough as to become useless, with no point in adding it in.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a ship collision deals damage without bringing in concord or limited aggression, then it will be massively abused.

If it does invoke limited aggression, how is the "aggression" party determined? If I put a ship in front of a freighter so that it rams me, will it give me aggression? If they are being launched from station? If they are on autopilot? If I put a cloaked ship in front of an ABing mission runner or someone burning to gate and they run into me at significant speed, will I gain limited engagement on them? How is the offending side determined anyway?

Collision aggression or damage, even if possible with the hardware issues, would immediately be horrifically abused. There is no sweet spot between "Useless" and "Broken as hell". There is no way to implement "Bumping gives aggression" in such a way as it would not immediately be used to kill off unsuspecting people who do not intend to get into a situation of limited aggression. A total pipe dream.
Willmahh
#9 - 2014-05-27 20:10:16 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Willmahh wrote:

since i didn't give any numbers, you are assuming damage levels that could cause your scenarios... you know what they say about assuming...


Either damage is significant enough that repeated bumping by a larger ship at high speeds can deal a significant amount of damage (even just removing most of the shields), or it is low enough as to become useless, with no point in adding it in.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If a ship collision deals damage without bringing in concord or limited aggression, then it will be massively abused.

If it does invoke limited aggression, how is the "aggression" party determined? If I put a ship in front of a freighter so that it rams me, will it give me aggression? If they are being launched from station? If they are on autopilot? If I put a cloaked ship in front of an ABing mission runner or someone burning to gate and they run into me at significant speed, will I gain limited engagement on them? How is the offending side determined anyway?

Collision aggression or damage, even if possible with the hardware issues, would immediately be horrifically abused. There is no sweet spot between "Useless" and "Broken as hell". There is no way to implement "Bumping gives aggression" in such a way as it would not immediately be used to kill off unsuspecting people who do not intend to get into a situation of limited aggression. A total pipe dream.


very good points. i was looking more at tiny ships bumping large ones and just splatting on the hull, but in a reversed situation, you're right.

i retract the idea :)
Itrala
Trains Awesomeness
#10 - 2014-05-28 15:22:01 UTC
why do miners don't just stop crying and start actually understanding the game and just letting go about the game mechanics, they are there for a reason. Deal with it or get out.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#11 - 2014-05-28 18:45:16 UTC
Netan MalDoran wrote:
Hey all, an idea to help quell the miners crying about bumping. What if there was a rig that drastically increased your ships mass and increased your ships agility. That way the extra mass would keep the ship from moving as much when it is bumped but the agility increase would (I think) counteract the mass increase and allow the warp out time to be the same. The calibration points could be high to hinder the use of ice harvesting, tank, or speed rigs.

This could also have uses for indys, it could be a basic resist against gangs that bump indys out of alignment to keep them from warping, the downside is that you now can't install as many cargo rigs, everything has a trade off.

For your heresy against HTFU and stealth cry for nerfs we must unfortunately add a +1 to the Kill-It-Forward queue.

An innocent carebear will be murdered in hisec, and advised it was because of your pansied cries for nerfs.

Your heresies, our hands, their blood, your conscience.

F

Would you like to know more?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2014-05-28 19:04:28 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
conscience.



I thought they left that bit out of the clone when you agreed to fry your original biological brain and become a pod bunny...
Iain Cariaba
#13 - 2014-05-28 19:47:41 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
For your heresy against HTFU and stealth cry for nerfs we must unfortunately add a +1 to the Kill-It-Forward queue.

An innocent carebear will be murdered in hisec, and advised it was because of your pansied cries for nerfs.

Your heresies, our hands, their blood, your conscience.

F


Make that two carebears for this idea, please.