These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#81 - 2015-11-07 00:42:59 UTC
Daret wrote:

We're talking about highsec though. where the 'fight' option gets you concorded.


The gankers accept that. If you won't, your options should be curtailed.

"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.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#82 - 2015-11-07 00:45:42 UTC
I wouldn't mind seeing a 5min warp timer or something. That way if they want to keep you bumped they need to throw a suicide point on every once in a while. Even if you are using a friendly web, the enemy can use an instalocking suicide point to prevent that initial warp and once they start bumping you there are few options for escape.

I do agree that most gank victims deserved it, either not paying attention, flying an anti-tanked ship, being greedy and carrying way too much cargo, or fitting a bunch of blingy mods. but at a certain point bumping just seems like too much if they aren't even going to try and attempt a gank.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#83 - 2015-11-07 04:01:55 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.


Considering Bumping being used as tackle aggression would not increase the cost of a gank. It would require you to have your gank squad on site and ready to go when the target arrived.

If you want to shoot freighters in high sec you have the same options as everyone else--- Wardec them if possible, get kill rights on them, or trick them into a criminal act. If they avoid these traps then highsec is working as intended. You are supposed to get concorded for unprovoked aggression in high sec. That's the intended balance. If having your stuff together somehow raises the cost 'too high' they can always introduce a capitol killing weapon of somekind that puts it back into balance.


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.


It's that way everywhere else in the game due to scrams, disruptors, and sundry other tackle. That option exists in high sec too, if you can meet the rules of aggression as enforced by concord. You don't need a special snowflake to circumvent the rules of engagement, you just need to follow them.

I'm perfectly fine if they want to introduce a form of tackle that does not trigger aggression and the resulting concordokken. At least they would be being honest about the situation. Bumping is just stupid.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#84 - 2015-11-07 04:12:21 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You don't need a special snowflake to circumvent the rules of engagement, you just need to follow them.


They do. Bumping is not a hostile act in any way. Hostile acts involve modules targeting another ship, not where your engines are pointed.

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#85 - 2015-11-07 04:21:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You don't need a special snowflake to circumvent the rules of engagement, you just need to follow them.


They do. Bumping is not a hostile act in any way. Hostile acts involve modules targeting another ship, not where your engines are pointed.




Oh! ZING!!! you got me there.

Of course, you had to ignore almost the rest of the entire thread including the rest of the quoted post to do it.


There is no reasonable way repeated bumping that is being used as tackle would not be considered aggression by anyone intelligent. The game does not see it due to limitations of AI, which is why it should be changed to require some active module on your ship to get that affect, so there can be no question.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#86 - 2015-11-07 04:54:06 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

There is no reasonable way repeated bumping that is being used as tackle would not be considered aggression by anyone intelligent.


Anyone intelligent would be able to understand the simple criteria for an aggressive act in EVE Online, which bumping does not fit.


Quote:
which is why it should be changed to require some active module on your ship to get that affect, so there can be no question.


It does need an active module, numbskull. A MWD. And the system still cannot tell the difference between an intentional bump and an accidental one. Nevermind that aggression strictly requires the use of an offensive module against an enemy player, which happens in neither of those interactions.

Not only are you asking the impossible, you are asking the absurd. And you're doing it because you think billion isk freighters should be completely safe in highsec.

Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe 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.
Valkin Mordirc
#87 - 2015-11-07 05:03:59 UTC
For the dude on the first page saying log out, I pretty sure most ganks will shoot you with a suicide rookie ship to give you a combat timer, keeping you from logging out. If this is no longer the case, or was mention before, sorry I just skimmed over the first couple pages.


Regardless, bumping doesn't just apply to Indy's. Bumping is a mechanic in other areas as well, you bump to keep somebody from crashing gates in lowsec, You can use a spy to bump links farther away from a Pos shield, so and so forth. So completely trying to rework the system because of Indy ganks might cause more problems for the Game as a whole and only favourably help on player base.


There are a ton of options to prevent bumps from happening as well, Webbing, scouting, and so on. That doesn't require an alt a friend can help you out. If you anti-social and you don't have friends to help (Not saying that's a bad thing I completely understand) then yeah you need an alt. But that is not the games fault. You are putting yourself alone on a trip with the knowledge that you can be ganked. If you don't make precautions to prevent this. Well, honestly, it's your own fault.

EVE basically caters to the multi-toon player. It honestly the next step in the game to own more than one account. That's up for debated if the game should be balanced for a Single account or multiple accounts.



Also with the new AOE T2 Jump Dessies coming out. Depending on how they work. You may get your wish.
#DeleteTheWeak
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#88 - 2015-11-07 05:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Troll vomit


You know, just once it would be nice if you could contribute to a conversation in an adult manner, and not like an angry, pouty child.

Once again, for the thinking impaired, if you bothered to read the thread I earlier stated that bumping should be changed to have no affect unless some sort of module was activated specifically to enable that affect. Not a MWD, which has the effect of increasing speed, but something that specifically enables the bump itself.

Once again, for the thinking impaired, no reasonable person could watch bumping being used as tackle and not recognize that as aggression. I am aware the game engine does not recognize it, because the game engine is stupid and lacks the sentient ability to make judgements. I am not sure what your excuse is, but it's probably willful ignorance in the name of protecting your sadism.

I am not asking the impossible. Making bumping not happen is possible. Changing the way it works is possible. Altering it so that it requires a module to enable it is possible, and then seeing that someone has been bumped with that module activated and defining that in the engine as a hostile act is, in fact, possible.

Please point to the post where I stated freighters should be completely safe in High Sec. I have stated that aggressive acts should follow the rules of aggression, and pointed out that if you aren't incapable of intelligent judgment you should easily see bumping being used as tackle as aggression.

I also stated that if they want things tackled without triggering aggression they should just be honest about it and make a point module that is not considered aggression.

I'm not sure where you get that freighters should be safe from that stance, but whatever. You are just a troll.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#89 - 2015-11-07 05:21:35 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
no reasonable person could watch bumping being used as tackle and not recognize that as aggression.


Except, you know.

Concord.

Along with a bunch of other players, but nice job with the intellectual dishonesty of assuming that only your side is "reasonable".

Quote:

Please point to the post where I stated freighters should be completely safe in High Sec.


You even said in this very thread that content creators who want to shoot freighters should be forced to do so only with wardecs (which you know don't work), kill rights (which you know freighter pilots don't have) or suspect flagging/duels, (which freighter pilots don't do).

Ergo, you want freighters to be completely safe in highsec.

Don't even bother trying to weasel your way out of it, we all already know what you are.

Quote:

I have stated that aggressive acts should follow the rules of aggression


And bumping is not an aggressive act, and so is not subject to them.


Quote:
but whatever. You are just a troll.


And the carebear projection, right on queue. You people are so predictable.

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#90 - 2015-11-07 05:32:12 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Even more troll vomit


Truly, you are thicker than bricks. Concord is not a reasonable, thinking, person. It's a 15 year old poorly done AI script.

Tackle is an aggressive act. Bumping may not be an aggressive act, but using it as tackle is. The game engine cannot recognize it because it's not a thinking, rational person. As far as I can tell you are the only player claiming that tackle is not an aggressive action.

I didn't say that you should only be able to shoot freighters with Wardecs, Criminal Action, or Kill rights. I said that if you want to shoot them without concord intervention those should be your options because that's how the rules of High Sec work. You should not be protected both from and by concord while aggressing in high sec. If you want to do that, head on over to Low or Null Sec where the rules support it.

Feel free to discuss things in a civil manner. The troll spew is not needed to make your points.
Valkin Mordirc
#91 - 2015-11-07 05:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
Mike Voidstar wrote:



Once again, for the thinking impaired, no reasonable person could watch bumping being used as tackle and not recognize that as aggression. I am aware the game engine does not recognize it, because the game engine is stupid and lacks the sentient ability to make judgements. I am not sure what your excuse is, but it's probably willful ignorance in the name of protecting your sadism.

.



I am not 'thinking impaired'. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are ********. One would argue you have a mental issue for believing such. Similar to Donald Trump. Or something.


I do not recognize bumping as a form of Tackle.

Tackle: To stop the forward progress of X by seizing them and knocking them to the ground


Per Definition, Bumping is not tackling.


Take that as you will. However I understand by tackle you mean 'keep a target from warping'

However bump deals no aggressive actions, It deals no damage and produces no negative status effects on the player. So simply putting, it does not follow the 'Rules of Aggression' if you will, that the CONCORD mechanic reacts to.


So Either way you spin it. Bumping can be reasonably argue as a non-aggressive action.


Just because you don't agree with it. Doesn't make that train of thought wrong, or 'Impaired' as you put it.


EDIT!

Calling some stupid and then asking them for a civil discussion. Is uh...stupid.


2nd EDIT: I should really proof read more often,
#DeleteTheWeak
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#92 - 2015-11-07 05:52:01 UTC
If it's not aggression, what's the problem with disabling the affect it has?
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#93 - 2015-11-07 05:56:42 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Tackle: To stop the forward progress of X by seizing them and knocking them to the ground


Per Definition, Bumping is not tackling.

mostly because there is no ground in space Twisted

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Valkin Mordirc
#94 - 2015-11-07 06:00:06 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
If it's not aggression, what's the problem with disabling the affect it has?



Don't go trolling me now.


D=
#DeleteTheWeak
Daret
Moen Tsan
#95 - 2015-11-07 06:00:20 UTC
Well contrary to what you may think I do agree that freighters shouldn't be immune to attacks in highsec. I'm just once again saying that there should be something that the freighter pilot can do on his own to eventually get away.

Emergency warp is just an idea, it's open to changes, tweaks and rebalancing. And most likely it will never get added anyway since CCP seems reluctant to change this aspect of their game.

Maybe make it 60 seconds instead of 30, maybe make it cost 500 million isk. there's many different ways you can balance it to make it work. I just don't think you should be forced to sit in your ship and wait to explode.
Valkin Mordirc
#96 - 2015-11-07 06:01:57 UTC
Daret wrote:
Well contrary to what you may think I do agree that freighters shouldn't be immune to attacks in highsec. I'm just once again saying that there should be something that the freighter pilot can do on his own to eventually get away.

Emergency warp is just an idea, it's open to changes, tweaks and rebalancing. And most likely it will never get added anyway since CCP seems reluctant to change this aspect of their game.

Maybe make it 60 seconds instead of 30, maybe make it cost 500 million isk. there's many different ways you can balance it to make it work. I just don't think you should be forced to sit in your ship and wait to explode.



Yeah man I get you.


I would wait to see how the new T2 Jump Dessie thingyies will work in Highsec,

It might be possible to MJD them away from the bumper if you have one handly.
#DeleteTheWeak
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#97 - 2015-11-07 06:07:40 UTC
Yes, Tackle, as defined by most of the EVE playerbase, is preventing a ship from warping. There are several methods of doing this through modules and deployables, all of which are considered by the game to be aggression.

Bumping is not in itself aggression. However, when used intentionally to keep a ship from warping, it is duplicating the effect of things that are considered aggression.

Doing so with the intention of holding a target for ransom, or holding it while a gank squad forms up is clearly not for any sort of cosmetic or beneficial affect for the person being bumped... thus it is an act of aggression.

Now, you can disagree with that, and using semantics like it does not do HP damage directly to the ship or any official status affect is certainly an argument that can be made. I will hold the opinion that doing so disregards logic and rational judgement. It's ok for people to disagree without behaving like Kaarous.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#98 - 2015-11-07 06:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Tackle is an aggressive act. Bumping may not be an aggressive act, but using it as tackle is.


Wrong. It's still just bumping. Bumping is a completely neutral act.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
If it's not aggression, what's the problem with disabling the affect it has?


It doesn't have one. Absolutely nothing is preventing your warp engines from engaging.

There is no problem here besides you trying to justify your ridiculous risk aversion.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#99 - 2015-11-07 06:36:00 UTC
Daret wrote:
I'm just once again saying that there should be something that the freighter pilot can do on his own to eventually get away.


"on his own"

Never. Freighters are capitals, and they are above all not solo ships. If you take a freighter out by itself, you deserve to die.

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#100 - 2015-11-07 06:52:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Tackle is an aggressive act. Bumping may not be an aggressive act, but using it as tackle is.


Wrong. It's still just bumping. Bumping is a completely neutral act.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
If it's not aggression, what's the problem with disabling the affect it has?


It doesn't have one. Absolutely nothing is preventing your warp engines from engaging.

There is no problem here besides you trying to justify your ridiculous risk aversion.


If there is no effect, then what's the problem with disabling what it does?