These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Countering Bumping ganks in highsec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#61 - 2015-11-06 13:28:47 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Daret wrote:
Again, I'm not saying it's a get out of pvp free card. i'm simply trying to cut down on the amount of time that gankers can give themselves to set up a kill. a well coordinated and prepared gank squad can easily start the kill within 30 seconds, all it takes is one shot to stop the warp and then they're stuck until you get concorded or you blow them up.
There is a reason highsec gankers rely on bumping to tackle freighters. It takes longer than 30 seconds to get a fleet to the target, even if they are completely on standby and without criminal timers. This would force gankers to use neutral gankers and massively increase the costs of ganking as well as make hauler pilots much safer.

Why should you get to evade another player when try start a PvP engagement? Doesn't really seem fair. I'm not against a some sort of counter to perma-bumping, but a magic button that allows you to escape solo in 30s is way too slippery. Freighters are capital ships that should require a support fleet to fly and to escape from bumping.



There is indeed a reason they rely on bumping. It is an exploit to circumvent action by concord. If it's used in this way it should be considered aggression, because that's what it is.

Why should evasion of an unwinnable encounter not be an option? You are basically countering the counter of a counter.

If the pilot has avoided wars by staying in a npc Corp, taken the long route by avoiding low sec, perhaps even investigated using the in game map... Why do you get a risk free, protected by concord method of aggression?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#62 - 2015-11-06 14:01:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Mike Voidstar wrote:
There is indeed a reason they rely on bumping. It is an exploit to circumvent action by concord. If it's used in this way it should be considered aggression, because that's what it is.
It's clearly not an exploit. It has been confirmed many times by many devs that it is an allowed mechanic. There is no rule somewhere that says CONCORD guarantees you safe navigation in highsec. That may be something you want, but it doesn't actually exist anywhere.

Bumping has been used to prevent captial ships from escaping since the dawn of this game. There is no exploit here.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Why should evasion of an unwinnable encounter not be an option? You are basically countering the counter of a counter.
I'm all for counters. I am not for I-don't-want-to-fight escape buttons. There are plenty of ways to avoid a fight, but once you are tackled and the PvP begins, you don't get to take your ball and go home. Any counter to bumping should require you to escalate and bring in assistance to free you from the tackle, not press a button to magically save you from exploding without effort or cost. If you allow that, how would anything ever die?

CCP has put/left mechanics like warp scramblers and bumping into the game so players can force others to fight, even when the one party is at a disadvantage and would like nothing more than to flee. Otherwise, this would be a pretty boring, and purely consensual, PvP game.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
If the pilot has avoided wars by staying in a npc Corp, taken the long route by avoiding low sec, perhaps even investigated using the in game map... Why do you get a risk free, protected by concord method of aggression?
Bumping isn't aggression in itself, but is an emergent vulnerability of capital ships. Capital ships are hugely powerful and thus come with some downside, chiefly among them their navigation is slow and cumbersome and subject to interference. This means they are intended to be escorted and protected by fleets.

Hey, I think perma-bumping is a little silly, but some sort of highsec tackle is required to provide time to get a criminal gank fleet with enough DPS to overcome the insane amount of HP freighters have, well beyond the capability of one or a few ships to kill. With that major HP benefit comes a major weakness. If CCP decides to do something about bumping they will replace freighter's weakness to bumping with something else so they are vulnerable to gankers. Off the top of my head, maybe a deployable that interdicts capital ships for a set period of time but which can be destroyed by friends of the freighter pilot?

In any case, Eve is a game, not a court of law. Freighters have to be vulnerable to attack somehow for game balance reasons. If you don't want to deal with the hassles of bumping and an escort fleet, stick to the perfectly good, and bump-immune DSTs.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#63 - 2015-11-06 14:13:41 UTC
That's just it. You don't need a method of tackle free from aggression. If that were the case then there would not be any of those crimewatch rules with concord to enforce the peace.

Bumping used as tackle is aggression, and only the limitations of the AI prevent it from being seen as such.

I am all for ganking and other such gameplay according to the rules set out in each area of space. Even a bump or two to delay things to get your people organized would be reasonable. But repeated bumping is purely and obviously aggression and should be treated as such according to the rules in place in whatever space you are in.

You are right, capital ships do get a big advantage in HP, at the cost of speed, and their cargo capacity makes them very attractive targets. That advantage does not need a special cheeseball counter when you can organize and take it down without it if you put in the time and dedicated effort to do so.

Or, if bumping isn't aggression there is no reason not to take it out or provide a way to circumvent it. After all, if there was no aggression then there is no PvP and there is no holy cow to protect.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#64 - 2015-11-06 14:42:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Mike Voidstar wrote:
That's just it. You don't need a method of tackle free from aggression. If that were the case then there would not be any of those crimewatch rules with concord to enforce the peace.

Bumping used as tackle is aggression, and only the limitations of the AI prevent it from being seen as such.

I am all for ganking and other such gameplay according to the rules set out in each area of space. Even a bump or two to delay things to get your people organized would be reasonable. But repeated bumping is purely and obviously aggression and should be treated as such according to the rules in place in whatever space you are in.

You are right, capital ships do get a big advantage in HP, at the cost of speed, and their cargo capacity makes them very attractive targets. That advantage does not need a special cheeseball counter when you can organize and take it down without it if you put in the time and dedicated effort to do so.

Or, if bumping isn't aggression there is no reason not to take it out or provide a way to circumvent it. After all, if there was no aggression then there is no PvP and there is no holy cow to protect.
You again are resorting to semantic or "legal" arguments. The fact is removing bumping straight out would dramatically increase the cost of ganking. Predictably, this would result in less freighters being shot and thus increase the safety of these capital ships. This is undeniable, and probably the basis of most of these anti-bumping ideas which come from haulers who wish to tilt the rules of the game in their favour.

The obvious conclusion is that CCP will not just remove bumping. If they do remove it, they will nerf the hell out of freighters, put another interdiction method in the game, or do something else so freighters are at risk. They will certainly not remove it by adding a button so players can escape tackle without either a fitting cost, outside assistance or something else that offers a cost or trade off for the hauler pilot.

To be honest, freighters should never have been allowed in highsec in the first place. Thier invulnerability to other players is bordering on game breaking. Only through the combined efforts of dozens of people is it even possible to kill them in highsec and it pretty much requires creative uses of the game mechanics like bumping. Perhaps whatever solution CCP comes up with for allowing the other capitals back into highsec will affect freighters and influence the current bumping meta.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2015-11-06 15:24:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
This. very much this
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Well... It would keep you from exploding at their whim.

If you have not realized this yet, the sole reason industry is in this game, from mining to hauling, is to provide gank targets for the PvP players. It's not to make EvE a world, it's not to provide full playstyles of their own.

That's why these 'professions' and their gameplay is stuck somewhere in 2005. Only direct predatory PvP players matter. If a suggestion makes something viable at the expense of that thing exploding to crap like gate camps, then it's a non-starter.


I haul, it is one of my main occupations. If your hauler/miner/exploration ship is blown up, it is due to lack of vigilance, preparation or friends. If that sort of thing did not happen i would not play this game. Hauling is the lowest job in eve, the equivalent of a paperboy. The hauling profession, freighters in specific, are there to be juicy targets. They are supposed to have some sort of escort. Same with all non combat ships.

Inevitably the blown up log an alt on to say"I'm not a carebear but I will sjw for their rights as I perceive them."
Tanstaafl. The devs have made their position clear in regards to bumping, it will go nowhere. The devs have also made it clear that the only things non combat ships will get to counter ganking will be the option of ehp/survivability mods and other players.

I say option because there are plenty that still fit for max cargo/yield and no escort frequently come here to propose absurd module ideas and then when people point out the obvious:
Daret wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


What you are missing is that this is not needed.


I wouldn't expect anyone from goonswarm to understand how something like this is needed.


You are right. They do not understand, because it is not needed. That one module takes another person's jerb(job).
You can bump.bumpers, you can use their bump to get into a warp with help from a friend in a speedy ship.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#66 - 2015-11-06 16:29:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
You again are resorting to semantic or "legal" arguments. The fact is removing bumping straight out would dramatically increase the cost of ganking. Predictably, this would result in less freighters being shot and thus increase the safety of these capital ships. This is undeniable, and probably the basis of most of these anti-bumping ideas which come from haulers who wish to tilt the rules of the game in their favour.

The obvious conclusion is that CCP will not just remove bumping. If they do remove it, they will nerf the hell out of freighters, put another interdiction method in the game, or do something else so freighters are at risk. They will certainly not remove it by adding a button so players can escape tackle without either a fitting cost, outside assistance or something else that offers a cost or trade off for the hauler pilot.

To be honest, freighters should never have been allowed in highsec in the first place. Thier invulnerability to other players is bordering on game breaking. Only through the combined efforts of dozens of people is it even possible to kill them in highsec and it pretty much requires creative uses of the game mechanics like bumping. Perhaps whatever solution CCP comes up with for allowing the other capitals back into highsec will affect freighters and influence the current bumping meta.


Who said CCP is allowing other capitals into high-sec?

Cedric
Black Pedro
Mine.
#67 - 2015-11-06 18:00:14 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:

Who said CCP is allowing other capitals into high-sec?
It's been said a couple times by devs, most recently by CCP Fozzie on the last O7 show.

But to be clear he said they want to, not that they were going to any time soon.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#68 - 2015-11-06 19:42:38 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

There is indeed a reason they rely on bumping. It is an exploit to circumvent action by concord.


Wrong. And it's not an aggressive act, either. Aggressive acts involve using highslot or midslot modules to inflict a negative condition onto an enemy ship, not merely pointing your engines in their direction.


Quote:

Why should evasion of an unwinnable encounter not be an option?


It's not unwinnable, and there are numerous ways to evade it already. What you want is a perfect get-out-of-jail-free card, so you don't have to bother with any of the currently existing ways, because they require more effort than pushing one button.

Basically, like how it comes to everything, carebears aren't real players, and they're lazier than hell to boot.

Quote:
Why do you get a risk free, protected by concord method of aggression?

[/quote]

It's not risk free. It has just as much risk as any faction battleship in highsec. You gutless toads just never bother doing anything about it. They can be ganked as much as anything else.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#69 - 2015-11-06 19:48:34 UTC
why can you not just safe logoff?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2015-11-06 21:04:00 UTC
Can someone please explain to me how having "friends" (meaning something besides your alt in a Dramiel advance scouting and/or webbing the freighter into warp) can in any way help prevent a freighter gank. If the alt in the Dramiel doesn't get it into warp before it's bumped, all the friends in the world can't do ****. They certainly can't out-DPS concord once the gankers start shooting and they can't shoot first without getting concorded themselves.

The stupid part about freighter bumping is not that you need friends, it's that actually having friends beyond the requisite alt account in a dramiel doesn't really help you at all. Literally the best thing they can do is scoop/shoot your freighter's loot can so the gankers can't get it, they have no ability to actually save you from exploding.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#71 - 2015-11-06 21:07:01 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
If the alt in the Dramiel doesn't get it into warp before it's bumped, all the friends in the world can't do ****.


Wrong. It's a bit tricky, but you can get an align on the bump, for the freighter to warp to a fleet member. Seen in plenty of times, and luckily you have plenty of time to pull it off if you're being bumped.

The best thing of course is simply prevention via webs(and scouting). If you do it right, the freighter is aligning for less than two seconds before it's gone.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Daret
Moen Tsan
#72 - 2015-11-06 21:38:48 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
But that aside, gankers already routinely use a suicide noobship every 15 minutes to keep players from logging off and ships from disappearing from space. If your warp idea is subject to the same log-off timer after receiving weapons fire, what does it add over the current log-off? Why add an immersion-breaking exception to the warp mechanics to add functionality that is essentially already there?

Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
why can you not just safe logoff?

Because ONE person being able to force someone to quit the game simply because they have no other viable option is not fair
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2015-11-06 21:45:20 UTC
Didn't say fair on the box.

In fact one of eve's biggest selling points is just that.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Daret
Moen Tsan
#74 - 2015-11-06 21:47:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Daret
Zimmer Jones wrote:
Didn't say fair on the box.

In fact one of eve's biggest selling points is just that.

You have to draw the line somewhere. You can't just cater to one type of player and ignore all others in the name of 'unfairness'

And also Like i have already said in this thread earlier. If the best solution to a problem is to quit the game, then that's a game design flaw.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#75 - 2015-11-06 22:15:22 UTC
Daret wrote:

Because ONE person being able to force someone to quit the game simply because they have no other viable option is not fair


They had viable options, and if the bumping happened in the first place, it was because the target did not use them.

Play the game wrong, suffer the consequences. It's perfectly fair, that's why carebears hate it so much.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Madd Adda
#76 - 2015-11-06 22:51:54 UTC
I'm more curious to what Kaarous's options to counter bumping are. Clearly there must be something we're doing wrong, so enlighten us.

Carebear extraordinaire
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#77 - 2015-11-06 22:55:38 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
I'm more curious to what Kaarous's options to counter bumping are. Clearly there must be something we're doing wrong, so enlighten us.


I've listed two of the best ones in the thread. Try reading it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2015-11-06 22:57:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
Op, to save space i wont bother quoting.

You don't have to quit the game, neither does anyone else. If you prove incompetent at one job, despite people trying to educate you about your options that do exist as bumping counters, maybe that career is not the right one for you. You as in "not me," because I seem to do quite well at it. Oh, wait that's right you're just arguing fairness on other people's behalf, right right..

You might want to give up on that too because you're doing a horrible job.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#79 - 2015-11-06 22:58:07 UTC
Daret wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
But that aside, gankers already routinely use a suicide noobship every 15 minutes to keep players from logging off and ships from disappearing from space. If your warp idea is subject to the same log-off timer after receiving weapons fire, what does it add over the current log-off? Why add an immersion-breaking exception to the warp mechanics to add functionality that is essentially already there?

Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
why can you not just safe logoff?

Because ONE person being able to force someone to quit the game simply because they have no other viable option is not fair

First, you cannot safe logoff while being targeted because well, that isn't a very safe situation for you. You can logoff logoff which will remove you from space in 2 minutes IF the bumper or his friend chooses not to shoot you. It's perfectly fine option if you think they are bumping for a ransom and not really trying to gank you - no guarantees though because if they want to gank you they will use a suicide rookie ship to keep your ship in space for 15 minutes after you log off which is time enough to gank it.

As to it being "unfair" to hold someone in space with no option except to perhaps to logoff, it is literally how the game works everywhere outside of highsec and has since the game was released. Ships get tackled and their owner's have no choice but to fight (or explode). This ability is necessary or everyone's internet connection would suddenly "fail" when they were caught so they could conveniently disappear from space, and no ships, especially big ships which require fleets to kill, would die.

You are playing a PvP game with other players. You must prepare for one of them tackling you and trying to explode you.

Plan accordingly.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Daret
Moen Tsan
#80 - 2015-11-07 00:27:41 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
As to it being "unfair" to hold someone in space with no option except to perhaps to logoff, it is literally how the game works everywhere outside of highsec and has since the game was released. Ships get tackled and their owner's have no choice but to fight (or explode). This ability is necessary or everyone's internet connection would suddenly "fail" when they were caught so they could conveniently disappear from space, and no ships, especially big ships which require fleets to kill, would die.


We're talking about highsec though. where the 'fight' option gets you concorded. So you're left with:

A) Hope you have a friend online and close enough to come to your rescue before the gankers show up
B) Keep mashing the warp button
C) Log out and pray you don't get shot
D) Eject or Self Destruct
E) Hope your bumper gets bored, messes up or disconnects

Just because something has always been one way doesn't mean it should never be considered for changes.