Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Last I read the new player FAQ, the "intended style of gameplay" for the entire game, including highsec, was to have nowhere in the game where you are completely safe. The simple fact is, if someone is bumping you, there is nothing but your own fear and/or cowardice preventing you from acting offensivly to protect yourself.


Translation: Go to low/nullsec if you want to PvP.

Again, you have the same option of "aggressively defending" yourself in highsec as you do elsewhere, just with slightly higher consequences. After all, a 15mil desty and a miniscule hit to sec status per person is trivial.

Additionally, if you're getting bumped in the first place, you've already screwed up. Red Frog has something like 99.8% contract completion, so any claims that bumping is a problem are bulls***. Simply fly right, and do something other than whine when you do mess up, and all will be good.

Not if they want to keep it a sandbox they can't. That's was my point. In a sandbox game, even the developers are constrained. They are constrained because of the environment they created.

Sure they can decide to change the environment, but then stop ****ing caling it a sandbox.

Oh, and yeah, delete all those videos saying it was.

Kinda my point, in that there are mechanisms in place to allow for aggression in high sec. Bumping used as tackle circumvents those rules. Self defense is not supposed to be a concord offense, yet your suggestion is to treat it as such.

How about we just make it so that the people following high secs rules aren't the ones suffering high secs penalties for breaking them? Tanking them is fine, but doing so in a way that violates the intended balance for the area of space you are in makes for a poor gaming experience. It's ok to let the other guy have fun.

OR just get a corpmate or an alt to burn out 200km away from you and just warp directly to the alt.

It works because people are being dumb. The counters to bumping are also free from concord retaliation.

Kinda the point of the thread, right?
Bumping is being used to tackle. While not recognised as aggression by the limits of the AI script, all other forms of tackle are.

Thus it is a reasonable position to equate intentional repeated bumping for the purpose of stopping a ship from warping with aggression, which violates the intent of gameplay in high sec. Criminals are indeed allowed to operate in high sec, but in doing so they are meant to incur certain penalties, including suspect and criminal flags, security status rating loss, and for unprovoked open aggression Concord destroying your ship.

The current bumping situation not only circumvents the penalties for unprovoked aggression, but actually protects the offender by imposing those penalties on the target of the attack should he try to defend himself directly.

Altering bumping so that the proper party carries the onus of the penalties of criminal action and aggression does not prevent ganking, nor even raise the cost except in the effort to prepare. Gankers would adapt, and people playing by the stated rules can expect a consistent game experience, which is more fun for most people- losing to a loophole makes for a very poor game experience.

Eh, your analogy almost works. Almost. Until recently evolutionary biologists and doctors largely didn't really see how much they had to learn from each other, where recently would mean the last 10-15 years. Maybe a few, but not nearly to the extent that is currently the status quo.

The difference is most people in the know, knew exactly what was going to happen with each Hi Sec nerf. There is almost no lack of communication on the matter or ambiguity here. Take away can flipping, let people evade wardecs, etc. etc., the boys will have no where to play, so the people who don't quit after their gimmick is removed are forced into whatever is left. In this case, tossing catalysts and friends at things ad-nauseam, as all other forms of content generation have been removed. This is and was entirely predictable, as were the changes to what ships were practical after insurance changes. There simply isn't any innovation or evolutionary arms race here at all – it's not a great challenge to cook up the few last practical ways to utilize HS mechanics.

Antagonists are in a really bad spot right now. Null is so absurdly safe and distant that content creation opportunities are so limited, and low is just.....empty. So they are forced to Hi, and boxed into the one viable form of antagonist content left. No matter which 'side' you are on, it is imperative for the health of the game and the economy that freighting is not a zero risk proposition, as then there would be zero opportunity cost to freighting, thus no real money to be made from it. Good freighter pilots should make more ISK from their efforts and get their cargo places safely, and bad freighter pilots should make less or no ISK, and get blown up all the time – if freighter ganking was impossible or the bar for accomplishing it was raised too high, than this risk would not be present at acceptable levels, and then there would be no way to differentiate a good freighter pilot from a bad one. Thus there would be no money for good freigther pilots, as a good one and an AFK one would both have the same risk - zero.

If there was actual risk in null, and antagonists could reasonably make a profession out there, there wouldn't be this big brouhaha about Hi Sec. The big fix to most of this is to let antagonists actually find content elsewhere, so every last vulnerable thing in Hi Sec isn't instantly mowed down for lack of other good targets.

Null isn't for PvP the same way High isn't for risk free ISK, at least on paper. In it's present state, at least de facto, null is for making risk free isk, and high is for using that isk to gank people once you have gotten bored of your safe null. The game itself would be a happier ecosystem if risk were added back to null in any of several forms.

It is not reasonable to equate repeated bumping with aggression. I once bumped a carrier back into POS shields. He went AFK not realizing he was not approaching the tower. Was that aggression? No. Did it entail repeated bumps? Yes. To do something similar in HS I’d have to fit a special module and get a timer? No.

Further, why can’t those being bumped adapt? The onus of adapting is always on those who are not complaining. How about those being bumped actually focus on playing the game better. If a player is going to stuff 5 billion ISK worth of stuff in a ship worth 1.2-1.3 billion ISK, and then fly it solo through 0.5 or 0.6 systems…he may not be asking for trouble, but only just.

And yes, this will increase the costs of ganking. Costs are not just ISK related. What you are asking for is a higher costs for gankers and reduced cost for yourself. In other words you are not only advocating incompetent play, but lazy and incompetent play as well.

And this is not a loophole. It is a mechanic that has been in the game the whole time. CCP could have removed it years ago, but they have not. You would not come off looking so bad if you stopped using language like this that is patently misleading.

Not empty quoting...just not seeing any problem here.

Just because you don't personally find something fun doesn't mean others don't find it fun. This is a sandbox, remember?

"not an intended feature of the game at release" is a non-reason in a sandbox.