These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GM Response On Bumping

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#521 - 2014-09-09 22:01:08 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage.


And in substance Concord still does not protect anyone, they're there to punish offenders whether the offender succeeds or not. Nice derail though, considering my point was that it's up to the victim to take measures to protect themselves & mitigate the risks. Do you have a response to that at all?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#522 - 2014-09-09 22:23:36 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
Yawn...just quickly since it's already been said before in this thread - CONCORD response does not depend on your own past behavior or competence.


And yet you want CONCORD response to rely on hypothetical *future* behavior to justify its interference in (to avoid devolving into another one of your whines about the laws in New Eden differing from your local ones, I'll add "otherwise" here) legal actions.

Quote:
They quickly arrive on the scene and dispatch the gankers.


And they will happily do exactly that every time another of your "waves" comes in.


All of this, is, of course, ignoring your continued refusal to provide evidence of a high relative *rate* of ganking (i.e. Ganks/Jump or Trip) and refusal to provide reasoning why, in a PvP sandbox, where the whole point is to make up reasons to blow up (or not) other ships, it is a problem that people have decided to blow up ships.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#523 - 2014-09-09 22:59:27 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage.


And in substance Concord still does not protect anyone, they're there to punish offenders whether the offender succeeds or not. Nice derail though, considering my point was that it's up to the victim to take measures to protect themselves & mitigate the risks. Do you have a response to that at all?


Ya, look at previous points, I've already addressed that multiple times. The current setup of CONCORD does not rely in any way on victims taking measures to protect themselves. Even the stupidest and most incompetent victim, when shot at, gets the exact same measure of protection as the smartest and most competent victim. Risk mitigation also does not factor into CONCORD response.

CONCORD responds to any and all illegal activity in highsec, and when it arrives it destroys the offenders. A point I have been making is that because bumping can functionally replicate warp disrupting, in that it can prevent warp off, there should be a measure of CONCORD protection afforded (to avoid distinguishing between "good" and "bad" bumping, I suggested that once CONCORD is on the scene a gank victim should have 60 seconds to warp off unimpeded by bumping). If you take a look at the last few pages here you can see all of the back and forth. If you have anything new to add I'd be happy to respond, but I would prefer to avoid rehashing things that have already been discussed.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#524 - 2014-09-09 23:03:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Veers Belvar wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage.


And in substance Concord still does not protect anyone, they're there to punish offenders whether the offender succeeds or not. Nice derail though, considering my point was that it's up to the victim to take measures to protect themselves & mitigate the risks. Do you have a response to that at all?


Ya, look at previous points, I've already addressed that multiple times. The current setup of CONCORD does not rely in any way on victims taking measures to protect themselves. Even the stupidest and most incompetent victim, when shot at, gets the exact same measure of protection as the smartest and most competent victim. Risk mitigation also does not factor into CONCORD response.

CONCORD responds to any and all illegal activity in highsec, and when it arrives it destroys the offenders. A point I have been making is that because bumping can functionally replicate warp disrupting, in that it can prevent warp off, there should be a measure of CONCORD protection afforded (to avoid distinguishing between "good" and "bad" bumping, I suggested that once CONCORD is on the scene a gank victim should have 60 seconds to warp off unimpeded by bumping). If you take a look at the last few pages here you can see all of the back and forth. If you have anything new to add I'd be happy to respond, but I would prefer to avoid rehashing things that have already been discussed.


The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

For example; A freighter pilot can bring an alt or a single friend to web them in to a 3 second warp which will stop the person being bumped every single time, leaving the 6-30 or whatever gank fleet to look for someone else that is easier to catch. People flying freighters could literally kill off highsec freighter ganking with this time old method of moving goods through space.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#525 - 2014-09-09 23:06:24 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
The way I would put it is that CONCORD is REACTIVE not PROACTIVE (much like a real life police force, but unlike, say, the Secret Service or a bodyguard). But yes, your point is valid, CONCORD does not "protect" in the sense of stopping suicide ganks from occurring, rather it "protects" in the sense of coming in mid-gank, killing the gankers, and saving the victim. If you want to call that something other than "protection" that is fine with me - the substance matters more than the verbiage.


And in substance Concord still does not protect anyone, they're there to punish offenders whether the offender succeeds or not. Nice derail though, considering my point was that it's up to the victim to take measures to protect themselves & mitigate the risks. Do you have a response to that at all?


Ya, look at previous points, I've already addressed that multiple times. The current setup of CONCORD does not rely in any way on victims taking measures to protect themselves. Even the stupidest and most incompetent victim, when shot at, gets the exact same measure of protection as the smartest and most competent victim. Risk mitigation also does not factor into CONCORD response.

CONCORD responds to any and all illegal activity in highsec, and when it arrives it destroys the offenders. A point I have been making is that because bumping can functionally replicate warp disrupting, in that it can prevent warp off, there should be a measure of CONCORD protection afforded (to avoid distinguishing between "good" and "bad" bumping, I suggested that once CONCORD is on the scene a gank victim should have 60 seconds to warp off unimpeded by bumping). If you take a look at the last few pages here you can see all of the back and forth. If you have anything new to add I'd be happy to respond, but I would prefer to avoid rehashing things that have already been discussed.


The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.


Not difficult to understand at all. I am 100% in agreement (check my killboard for details - essentially never been ganked in highsec despite living there). I also think there should be a CONCORD response to hostile actions in highsec, including effectively preventing a ship from warping out so that it can be ganked. Supporting both concepts is not a contradiction!
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#526 - 2014-09-09 23:10:30 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
Not difficult to understand at all. I am 100% in agreement (check my killboard for details - essentially never been ganked in highsec despite living there). I also think there should be a CONCORD response to hostile actions in highsec, including effectively preventing a ship from warping out so that it can be ganked. Supporting both concepts is not a contradiction!


Effectively, but not actually. A bumped ship still has a chance of getting away.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#527 - 2014-09-09 23:10:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Mallak Azaria wrote:
The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.
He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon?

Veers Belvar wrote:
I also think there should be a CONCORD response to hostile actions in highsec, including effectively preventing a ship from warping out so that it can be ganked.
Except CCP doesn't consider bumping to be a hostile action, so Concord don't respond to it. They said as much in the GM statement at the very beginning of this thread.

Your little crusade will result in exactly nothing, nada, nil, niets, ekkert. The mechanic is working as intended as far as CCP are concerned.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#528 - 2014-09-09 23:13:13 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.
He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon?

Veers Belvar wrote:
I also think there should be a CONCORD response to hostile actions in highsec, including effectively preventing a ship from warping out so that it can be ganked.
Except CCP doesn't consider bumping to be a hostile action, so Concord don't respond to it. They said as much in the GM statement at the very beginning of this thread.



1. Not going to respond to that.

2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#529 - 2014-09-09 23:19:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Concord Guy's Cousin
Veers Belvar wrote:
1. Not going to respond to that.

2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position.

1. I didn't expect you to, but you do seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet for people who bump and gank stuff, just as Gevlon has for anything Goon P
2. You're free to express your concerns, just as we are free to refute them. Your solution is pretty much unworkable, and you've provided exactly zero evidence to defend your claim that bumping and subsequent ganking is a problem.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#530 - 2014-09-09 23:35:46 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Veers Belvar wrote:
2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position.


No, you haven't. Continually asserting that something is a problem because you don't like it is not "defending your position."


Defending your position would involve two things:
1) Providing evidence of a high relative *rate* of ganking (i.e. Ganks/Jump or Trip).
AND
2) Providing reasoning why, in a PvP sandbox, where the whole point is to make up reasons to blow up (or not) other ships, it is a problem that people have decided to blow up ships.*

Step 2 Is especially important in the face of Developer statements stating that people blowing ships up for *any reason at all* is perfectly fine with them.


*This is because your claim of a problem hinges on all your talk of +EV and -EV ganks, as if EVE has any such measure.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#531 - 2014-09-09 23:37:08 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.
He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon?


lol, code.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#532 - 2014-09-09 23:46:49 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.
He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon?


lol, code.
lol, everybody has their nemesis, in this case both are fairly ineffectual and struggle to put a dent in either groups operations.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#533 - 2014-09-09 23:49:13 UTC
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Concord Guy's Cousin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
The setup of Concord has nothing to do with pilots taking their own measures to mitigate the risks of being ganked. I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.
He's CODE.s and MiniLuvs own personal Gevlon?


lol, code.
lol, everybody has their nemesis, in this case both are fairly ineffectual and struggle to put a dent in either groups operations.


Gevlon is my friend & loyal servant.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#534 - 2014-09-09 23:51:28 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Gevlon is my friend & loyal servant.
Is he aware of this? Twisted

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#535 - 2014-09-10 00:55:47 UTC  |  Edited by: IIshira
Veers Belvar wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:

Exxcellent! I try to contact the freighter pilot victims to give advice, but they usually ignore my convo request, figuring I am a ganker looking to mock them. I will be happy to discuss further with them, and will suggest that they post on the Eve forums about how CODE is abusing bumping, and how -10 sec status people should not even be allowed in highsec.

Keep up the good work!


I don't think anyone would mistake you for a ganker Veers... Roll

The reason why they ignore your convo request is they're likely AFK. This is the same reason they didn't notice the repeated warnings in local a few systems out.

I admire you for sticking to your guns about making -10 pilots banned from highsec but I would say it's not going to happen.


This is possible. Of course it's not entirely unreasonable to be AFK when flying an empty ship with a lot of EHP (which is what some of the victims told me they were doing) - it's not exactly a prime target. And for AFK ships bumping is not much of a factor anyway, since as stated by Loyalanon, and confirmed by me, those ships can just be scrammed 15km off the outgate. The controversy over bumping relates almost entirely to the non-AFK ships.


The problem is they don't have a lot of EHP...

Expanded Cargohold is -20% EHP... Fit 3 of those to a ship that has most of it's HP in hull and well...

Now look at Reinforced Bulkheads.. +25% EHP...


Guess what one is most popular on freighter gank victims?....

...



What do you think about this kill? https://zkillboard.com/kill/41059941/ Even with nanos still 200k hp (not ehp), 30 gank ships used (including BCs), and a minimal drop. From an Isk perspective that's a really unusual kill, and not something we would expect to see much of.


Nanofiber Internal Structure II is the same as Expanded Cargohold II. Both have a -20% hull EHP. Using these over Reinforced Bulkheads II cost her 250k HP and a ship.
Lady Areola Fappington
#536 - 2014-09-10 20:57:31 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position.


No, you haven't. Continually asserting that something is a problem because you don't like it is not "defending your position."


Defending your position would involve two things:
1) Providing evidence of a high relative *rate* of ganking (i.e. Ganks/Jump or Trip).
AND
2) Providing reasoning why, in a PvP sandbox, where the whole point is to make up reasons to blow up (or not) other ships, it is a problem that people have decided to blow up ships.*

Step 2 Is especially important in the face of Developer statements stating that people blowing ships up for *any reason at all* is perfectly fine with them.


*This is because your claim of a problem hinges on all your talk of +EV and -EV ganks, as if EVE has any such measure.



I can just see this conversation happening, between Veers and a hypothetical homeowner.

"OK man, so the problem is, your walls are painted the wrong color."
"We like the color of our walls.'
"So, what we need to do is, strip the old paint off first, go buy some new paint from the store and get to work.
"We like the color of our walls, it's not a problem."
"When we go get the new paint, we need to get Brand X, not Brand Y."
"Dude you're not seeing it. There' be no repainting. We like the colors of our walls."
"So, I recommend you use a roller when repainting, because brushes leave streaks."
"... GTFO Noob."
"I'M JUST TRYING TO SOLVE THE WALL COLOR PROBLEM GUYS!"

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#537 - 2014-09-10 21:00:16 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Veers Belvar wrote:
2. Obviously. That's why I pointed out my concerns with that decision, suggested a solution, and defended my position.


No, you haven't. Continually asserting that something is a problem because you don't like it is not "defending your position."


Defending your position would involve two things:
1) Providing evidence of a high relative *rate* of ganking (i.e. Ganks/Jump or Trip).
AND
2) Providing reasoning why, in a PvP sandbox, where the whole point is to make up reasons to blow up (or not) other ships, it is a problem that people have decided to blow up ships.*

Step 2 Is especially important in the face of Developer statements stating that people blowing ships up for *any reason at all* is perfectly fine with them.


*This is because your claim of a problem hinges on all your talk of +EV and -EV ganks, as if EVE has any such measure.



I can just see this conversation happening, between Veers and a hypothetical homeowner.

"OK man, so the problem is, your walls are painted the wrong color."
"We like the color of our walls.'
"So, what we need to do is, strip the old paint off first, go buy some new paint from the store and get to work.
"We like the color of our walls, it's not a problem."
"When we go get the new paint, we need to get Brand X, not Brand Y."
"Dude you're not seeing it. There' be no repainting. We like the colors of our walls."
"So, I recommend you use a roller when repainting, because brushes leave streaks."
"... GTFO Noob."
"I'M JUST TRYING TO SOLVE THE WALL COLOR PROBLEM GUYS!"


So true!.... Now fix the problem!
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#538 - 2014-09-10 21:25:40 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
I can just see this conversation happening, between Veers and a hypothetical homeowner.

"OK man, so the problem is, your walls are painted the wrong color."
"We like the color of our walls.'
"So, what we need to do is, strip the old paint off first, go buy some new paint from the store and get to work.
"We like the color of our walls, it's not a problem."
"When we go get the new paint, we need to get Brand X, not Brand Y."
"Dude you're not seeing it. There' be no repainting. We like the colors of our walls."
"So, I recommend you use a roller when repainting, because brushes leave streaks."
"... GTFO Noob."
"I'M JUST TRYING TO SOLVE THE WALL COLOR PROBLEM GUYS!"



So Veers is a paint salesman?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Stella Fujin
Vitalic
#539 - 2014-09-12 03:45:04 UTC
Leaving Eve with all my 4 accounts after being bumped 400km off the gate and ransommed to pay billions. I refuse and selfdestruct not giving the pleasure to them to kill me.

I spent around 40-50 minutes to be able to align even used an alt with webs but did not work. I am not asking for compensation ccp. I am out.

Well done.
Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#540 - 2014-09-12 05:13:09 UTC
If you hadn't gone AFK, it wouldn't have happened to you in the first place.

Can i haz ur stuffs?

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet