These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Next on the chopping block, bumping?

First post
Author
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#101 - 2015-11-05 15:35:11 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
La Rynx wrote:
reeeeee reeeeee reeeee

Fixed your spelling for you.


Sweet.
but no arguments.
Get your posts ready to be deleted.

Atomic Virulent : "You can't spell DOUCHE. without CODE."

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#102 - 2015-11-05 15:36:48 UTC
La Rynx wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
La Rynx wrote:
reeeeee reeeeee reeeee

Fixed your spelling for you.


Sweet.
but no arguments.
Get your posts ready to be deleted.

Wait, did you just yell "MOM!, Feyd is bugging me!!!" ?

REEE REEE REEE!
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#103 - 2015-11-05 16:12:07 UTC
BirdStrike wrote:
As things stand it is broken that participents in a heist (bumpers) don't get suspect flagged - lets be fair, demanding immunity from consequences is exactly what carebears do so its a bit rich to suggest freighter jacking should be risk free.

Let's think a moment about why this is even the case? Why are bumpers so untouchable and so well protected?

Obviously it's because bumping machs are protected by the Code and blessed by James 315, which makes them essentially invincible bumping machs.

I really hope I got that point across.
Toxic Yaken
Slavers Union
Something Really Pretentious
#104 - 2015-11-05 16:35:23 UTC
So uhhh... do we actually know what they're doing with bumping yet?

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2015-11-05 16:38:46 UTC
Nope, but we can make a threadnaught while waiting Lol
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#106 - 2015-11-05 16:58:07 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I hope "Angry Rham" is just a persona and you really are having fun behind the keyboard because it certainly doesn't come across that way. Remember, Eve Online is just a video game.

Oh well, saddens me that you claim to see anger or at least try to provoke an angry reaction in every poster who disagrees with you. I hope that passive-agressive Pedro is just a persona, but I doubt it.
Toxic Yaken
Slavers Union
Something Really Pretentious
#107 - 2015-11-05 16:59:26 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Nope, but we can make a threadnaught while waiting Lol


A constructive threadnought or another C&P vs the world circlejerk? Straight

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#108 - 2015-11-05 17:37:29 UTC
Samwise Everquest wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Austneal wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Samwise Everquest wrote:
Bumping should cause damage to both ships involved :D



Bumping should only cause damage to the buming ship. NOT the ship being bumped. It's not the freighters fault he got bumped, so he shouldn't take damage. It's not fair to be able to damage a ship and circumvent destruction at the hands of CONCORD.


"It's not the freighter's fault he got suicide ganked"

"It's not the miner's fault they got wardec'd"

That's not really a valid arguing point. If they apply damage mechanics to bumping, then both ships need to take damage. Not that I'm in favor of damage dealing bumps, but it would have to be applied equally.



It should only apply to ships with an active prop mod. Anything other than that is unfair and unbalanced.

Crash into a parked car doing 90 mph then come back and suggest that.


You didn't have a NOS system installed so it shouldn't do damage.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#109 - 2015-11-05 17:41:49 UTC
La Rynx wrote:


And one post "No 5 is alive" suggests subscriber numbers *are* rising.


That's good to hear and I really hope it's true.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Siegfried Cohenberg
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
Freighter Friends
#110 - 2015-11-05 19:03:29 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

You'd still want to go after big 'whales' but I doubt many folks would bother with ganking empty freighters, at least to the degree its being done today. Why - well because ganking would actually have CONSEQUENCES (and fairly light ones too, I mean if you can't afford to spend 200-300 mil every now and then to restore your sec status while ganking, then you're doing something terribly wrong)




Being -10 in highsec already has consequences. It limits your gameplay options. On my -10 characters I can do a couple of things. I can move through highsec but I can never stop moving. So all I'm really limited to doing is just more ganking.

If I want to do things like suspect bait then I need to buy tags for 300m. So now my security status is high enough to have unhindered movement. If I gank again I have to decide if I'm going to limit the amount of things I aggress or do I go all out and get back to -5 within a few hours. A few pods later and that 300m tag purchase is gone.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2015-11-05 20:37:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Siegfried Cohenberg wrote:

Being -10 in highsec already has consequences. It limits your gameplay options. On my -10 characters I can do a couple of things. I can move through highsec but I can never stop moving. So all I'm really limited to doing is just more ganking.

If I want to do things like suspect bait then I need to buy tags for 300m. So now my security status is high enough to have unhindered movement. If I gank again I have to decide if I'm going to limit the amount of things I aggress or do I go all out and get back to -5 within a few hours. A few pods later and that 300m tag purchase is gone.

Well, for starters, you didn't have to become -10 in the first place, it was your choice, so accept the consequnces. Want to pvp without limits - go to nullsec (and lowsec to a degree). However, with lowsec having the same silly sec penalties as hisec, I can't say that arguing for restrictions towards pirate char's movement in hisec is reasonable (unless there is a massive re-work of sec status hits in high/lowsec).

Furthermore, notice how nothing I've proposed would impact pod ganking or solo/small group indy ganking we know today. Hell, it wouldn't even impact miner ganking (which is gameplay of questionable quality but ok, I can see how at least providing some interaction to miners might not be the worst thing out there).

The only thing that would change is the ability to perform the bumping-enabled freighter/capital ganks we have atm. However, my proposals would not render freighter ganks impossible, far from it. They would just be more demanding and consequence laden - as they should be. Why would that be a bad thing, I still don't understand.

What I always find amusing is spinning the narative - making it sound like I want ganking removed, theme-park like hisec etc. Seriously, some of your buddies sound more like whiny carebears then whiny carebears themselves.
Puddsy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2015-11-05 23:16:23 UTC
Heya, I'm Puddsy, one of New Eden's top haulers right now. I deal heavily within EVE's hauling community, on the contractor and contractee sides equally.

Flying a freighter should NOT be a risk free ordeal. I should not be able to put my entire savings into a single ship and undock with no consequences. That said, I think flying a freighter (in highsec) is currently too risky. We're seeing a sharp shift towards DST and BR contracts in the Haulers Channel, as well as NEE's recent change to their freighter service.

Here's what I think is wrong:

1) It's really, really, REALLY easy to bump a freighter. I've done it a few times. If you don't believe me, buy any T1 BS, fit an MWD and some nanos to it, then sit on a gate in the jita -> amarr pipe for a few minutes trying it. I've done it in an Abaddon.

2) A freighter can be killed for a small fraction of the cost it takes to build one. it costs what, 50 mil to kill a freighter? That's 20-some catas, at least. If killing a freighter cost a few hundred mil, people would be less inclined to do it. They wouldn't stop, but I think they'd do it less.

3) There's no good way to escape being bumped aside from using a webber and hoping you don't get bumped before you warp.

4) Freighters have more use OUTSIDE highsec than in it. Less so now that IHubs are 60k m3.

Here's what I think is good:

1) Freighters CAN die. If they were invincible, everyone would fly one. Like I mentioned above, i don't think that freighters should be allowed to move around with no risk. Something something sandbox.

2) Freighters have more moving power than any other ship. A million m3 is a lot. They are also the only ship that can drop outposts.

3) Freighters are like baby JFs. I like JFs. I own 3, soon 4. Freighters and JFs are the lifeblood of EVE's economy. Changing them changes the core aspects of how the game's economy works. They do need a change, though.

Anyway, that about gets across what I wanted to say. It's not exactly the bumping needs a nerf, I think it's more than hauling needs a buff.

Also: JFs are not invincible, don't try that with me. I can write a VERY detailed and specific guide on how to hunt and catch a JF if you want. This is why I think freighters should not be invincible.

Thanks,

-Puddsy

-Puddsy

Sasha Cohenberg
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling
Freighter Friends
#113 - 2015-11-06 04:23:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Sasha Cohenberg
Puddsy let me break down the cost of ganking freighters
So In a perfect scenario which is in a pulled .5 system

Triple anti-tanked freighter - 14 cats or 112m
Default ehp freighter - 18 cats or 142m
Bulkhead freighter 22-26 cats or 176-208m
All above cats are tech 2
And this is only doable when there's 0 opposition.
Now this is pretty cheap but you need that many cankers to make it that cheap

Now for worst case scenario on say a fat whale in a .8 system unpulled
We would be looking at
12-20 talos depending on fitting
Which is 1440m-2400m
The only time we would see a 50m cost puddsy is if the gank fleet has 30 people in t1 cats
Puddsy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2015-11-06 17:50:07 UTC
Sasha Cohenberg wrote:
Puddsy let me break down the cost of ganking freighters
So In a perfect scenario which is in a pulled .5 system

Triple anti-tanked freighter - 14 cats or 112m
Default ehp freighter - 18 cats or 142m
Bulkhead freighter 22-26 cats or 176-208m
All above cats are tech 2
And this is only doable when there's 0 opposition.
Now this is pretty cheap but you need that many cankers to make it that cheap

Now for worst case scenario on say a fat whale in a .8 system unpulled
We would be looking at
12-20 talos depending on fitting
Which is 1440m-2400m
The only time we would see a 50m cost puddsy is if the gank fleet has 30 people in t1 cats



Thanks for breaking that down for me. I kinda just pulled a number out of my ass.

I've put it in my notes for future reference.

-Puddsy

Avi Shekelstien
Doomheim
#115 - 2015-11-06 18:29:35 UTC
Just pay your local friendly agent of the new order 10 million Isk and enjoy a gank free second job.
*disclaimer* being afk will invalidate said permit.
Samwise Everquest
Plus 10 NV
#116 - 2015-11-06 18:36:03 UTC
I would like to see a mechanic added where I can fill a Iteron V with explosives and self destruct it causing significant damage to everyone around me.

Pras Phil.

ISD Buldath
#117 - 2015-11-06 22:08:31 UTC
Quote:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.


This thread is beyond repair. Locked.

~ISD Buldath

Instructor King of the Forums! Knight of the General Discussion

Support, Training and Resources Division

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE-Mails regarding forum moderation.