Player Features and Ideas Discussion

1. If you say so. I sincerely doubt the intent behind the physics engine had anything to do with keeping people from navigating at the whim of others. That's a purely emergent factor that has likely been left alone for the difficulty of changing it.

2. The 'nuh uh!' rebuttal is as time tested and effective as ever.

3. You are trying to reframe my argument into a strawman of your own design. I never said that imprudent behavior should be protected. In fact, my proposal based on the argument I did make was specifically designed to protect imprudent behavior as little as possible.

What I said was that bumping does not conform to the rules of high sec in a realistic or intuitive manner. Nothing there about protecting anybody.

Claims his suggestion won't buff bad players.

Suggests a buff for bad players.

Gets pointed out repeatedly that it would in fact buff bad players.

Continues to claim his suggestion won't buff bad players.

Oh hi, brick wall, have you considered moving over there?

Except they can help. They're just too afraid of taking a miniscule hit to their precious, yet meaningless, sec status.

nothing needs added to freighter safety, you wanna fly a capital ship then take your own precautions to protect it like everyone else

Cries straw man instead of dealing with the argument.

Pretty sure my point is what I said it was, and not what you reinterpret it to be.

My overall position has not changed much, but perhaps if you fine tooth comb it you can see some differences. That's actually how discussion and compromise are supposed to work.

I never said ganking needs a nerf. I never said that I can recall that freighters should be safer. I am pretty sure I have said that the op has a point because the mechanics are being used in a way that circumvent the intended rules. I have said bumping on its own is stupid.

You accuse me of projecting while repeatedly attacking me over things you said and attributed to me.

I just solved the whole issue!! There could be a specialized rig for freighters. We'll call it the rubber/glue rig.

90% of the time it acts like rubber and the freighter goes flying 4 times as far as normal.

10% of the time it acts like glue and the mach gets helplessly stuck to it and gang warped to the next gate. The stuck effect would last for 10 minutes or until the freighter goes through a session change (dock, gate or wh)

Let me sit my own "glued" freighter on Jita Undock and let the engine debate who is bumping me and get mercilessly trapped to my hull for 10 minutes.

Well I guess it would be a way to fight docking games fanatics...

Regarding the notion that bumping was not intended, my response is a big fat: so what.

So what that the devs may or may not have intended for bumping to be used in this way. In fact, the developer’s intent could be considered largely irrelevant. It is irrelevant for 2 reasons.

1. This is a sandbox game and players are going to do things that the devs did not anticipate. That is the whole damn point of sandbox games and the concept of emergence. The whole idea is the devs provide a game with some simple rules/mechanics and let the players explore those rules and figure out ways to use them to their advantage. For example, did the devs anticipate every single fit that players have come up with? No. Well then we must put an end to that, right? No.
2. Through the very same concept of emergence there are counters to freighter bumping. Using a scout, using a scout with webs, not over stuffing your freighter, fitting a tank, using your watch list.
Any emergent game play that has an effective counter should rarely if ever be nerfed.

So Mike’s claim that bumping was not intended. It can be countered in game, so who gives a ****? Only those who want to buff imprudent game play.

Similarly for the various scams in game that make use of various mechanics. CCP may not have intended for that type of play, and they certainly do not prevent it.

BTW, these scams can also cost players weeks of effort in game.