These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
#601 - 2015-11-24 01:45:33 UTC
Anyone who claims you have to get rid of an unintended interaction merely because it was unintended is a moron.

It wasn't intended that anyone ever live in wormholes, either. Pretty sure that's some of the best content in the game too.

"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.
#602 - 2015-11-24 01:56:28 UTC
Oh, and as for "weeks of effort".

There is no more wrong argument. EVE is very literally driven on loss of assets, it is the single most important part of this game. Every other game out there has assets you can generate. Very few have loss, certainly none on the level that EVE does. Loss is what makes EVE, EVE. Anyone who whines about "weeks of effort", or any variation thereof, is simply showing that they do not belong in EVE Online.

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#603 - 2015-11-24 04:48:19 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Anyone who claims you have to get rid of an unintended interaction merely because it was unintended is a moron.

It wasn't intended that anyone ever live in wormholes, either. Pretty sure that's some of the best content in the game too.


I would go even further, the unintended consequences is precisely what the Devs and CCP intended providing things are balanced. Bumping is balanced as there are relatively easy solutions to the problem of bumping through to less than easy (getting an interceptor to burn ahead of you so you can warp in the direction you are being bumped, or ganking the bumping ship).

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#604 - 2015-11-24 05:24:34 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Anyone who claims you have to get rid of an unintended interaction merely because it was unintended is a moron.

It wasn't intended that anyone ever live in wormholes, either. Pretty sure that's some of the best content in the game too.


I would go even further, the unintended consequences is precisely what the Devs and CCP intended providing things are balanced. Bumping is balanced as there are relatively easy solutions to the problem of bumping through to less than easy (getting an interceptor to burn ahead of you so you can warp in the direction you are being bumped, or ganking the bumping ship).


It's almost like this is a sandbox game, and emergent content is not only allowed but encouraged.

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#605 - 2015-11-24 05:50:30 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Anyone who claims you have to get rid of an unintended interaction merely because it was unintended is a moron.

It wasn't intended that anyone ever live in wormholes, either. Pretty sure that's some of the best content in the game too.


I would go even further, the unintended consequences is precisely what the Devs and CCP intended providing things are balanced. Bumping is balanced as there are relatively easy solutions to the problem of bumping through to less than easy (getting an interceptor to burn ahead of you so you can warp in the direction you are being bumped, or ganking the bumping ship).


It's almost like this is a sandbox game, and emergent content is not only allowed but encouraged.


I'm sorry, but that is just crazy talk.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#606 - 2015-11-24 06:23:33 UTC
You guys gonna run out of straw anytime soon?

You want to fixate on it being emergent as if that was the point of the argument. It wasn't.

The point was that changes have been made to reduce ganking. Those changes were ultimately ineffective due to emergent factors that in some cases actually increased ganking.

So problems were perceived, action needed, action taken, emergent factors rendered them null, leaving us back with problem perceived and action needed.

Just because emergent factors create a situation does not mean that situation needs to be considered holy and inviolate.
Iain Cariaba
#607 - 2015-11-24 06:43:02 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You guys gonna run out of straw anytime soon?

You want to fixate on it being emergent as if that was the point of the argument. It wasn't.

The point was that changes have been made to reduce ganking. Those changes were ultimately ineffective due to emergent factors that in some cases actually increased ganking.

So problems were perceived, action needed, action taken, emergent factors rendered them null, leaving us back with problem perceived and action needed.

Just because emergent factors create a situation does not mean that situation needs to be considered holy and inviolate.

Every single time CCP has nerfed ganking, the gankers have adapted. Every single time the gankers have adapted, people like OP and yourself have come to the forums, reddit, twatter, facepalm, blogs, and every other social outlet they think they can get attention on, asking for... wait for it...

JUST ONE MORE NERF!!!!

It has already been pointed out to you, repeatedly and by numerous people, that your suggestion is both unnecessary and ineffective, yet you still persist on asking for... wait for it again...

JUST ONE MORE NERF!!!!

Your standard response to any and all criticism of your request for nerf is to merely regurgitate your failed point, and to throw out your favorite catch phrases of "straw man" and "ad hominem."

I'm, yet again, reporting this thread. It has run the usual course of similar previous threads, and should be locked as well.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#608 - 2015-11-24 06:55:10 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

The point was that changes have been made to reduce ganking. Those changes were ultimately ineffective due to emergent factors that in some cases actually increased ganking.


So you lied earlier, and you do just want ganking nerfed.

And you'll say anything to get that, no matter how absurd.

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#609 - 2015-11-24 07:01:16 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You guys gonna run out of straw anytime soon?

You want to fixate on it being emergent as if that was the point of the argument. It wasn't.

The point was that changes have been made to reduce ganking. Those changes were ultimately ineffective due to emergent factors that in some cases actually increased ganking.

So problems were perceived, action needed, action taken, emergent factors rendered them null, leaving us back with problem perceived and action needed.

Just because emergent factors create a situation does not mean that situation needs to be considered holy and inviolate.


Talk about weaseling around.

"It wasn't intended game play!"

It's called emergence Mike.

"That wasn't the point!!!"

"Its aggression!!!"

Mike it doesn't get a flag, so in game it is not aggression.

"Yes it is, because I'm using the plain English definition!"

"It's tackling!!!"

Mike, the warp drives still work.

"Bumping as tackle circumvents the rules"

No it doesn't Mike, it is not an act of aggression.

Mike, you have basically been throwing **** at the wall hoping something will stick.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#610 - 2015-11-24 07:22:40 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Just because emergent factors create a situation does not mean that situation needs to be considered holy and inviolate.


Oh, and this sentence is really freaking funny, considering how carebears consider CONCORD and highsec safety in general to be "holy and inviolate".

Carebears always project.

"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
#611 - 2015-11-24 07:23:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You guys gonna run out of straw anytime soon?

You want to fixate on it being emergent as if that was the point of the argument. It wasn't.

The point was that changes have been made to reduce ganking. Those changes were ultimately ineffective due to emergent factors that in some cases actually increased ganking.

So problems were perceived, action needed, action taken, emergent factors rendered them null, leaving us back with problem perceived and action needed.

Just because emergent factors create a situation does not mean that situation needs to be considered holy and inviolate.


Talk about weaseling around.

"It wasn't intended game play!"

It's called emergence Mike.

"That wasn't the point!!!"

"Its aggression!!!"

Mike it doesn't get a flag, so in game it is not aggression.

"Yes it is, because I'm using the plain English definition!"

"It's tackling!!!"

Mike, the warp drives still work.

"Bumping as tackle circumvents the rules"

No it doesn't Mike, it is not an act of aggression.

Mike, you have basically been throwing **** at the wall hoping something will stick.


No, I made a fairly clear point, and since there wasn't much to do but disagree on general principal the response has been to pretend like it wasn't understood, to attack me rather than the argument, attempt to derail or reformat the argument to something else, or just plain troll.

I'm not throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, I am arguing with people who believe their dogmatic view should be both unassailable and held by all universally. More like nailing jelly to the wall, really.

That's also a fairly dishonest post, in that you took several things out of order and out of context to construct a silly narrative that didn't happen.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#612 - 2015-11-24 07:26:10 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Just because emergent factors create a situation does not mean that situation needs to be considered holy and inviolate.


Oh, and this sentence is really freaking funny, considering how carebears consider CONCORD and highsec safety in general to be "holy and inviolate".

Carebears always project.



Clearly a false statement as there is no place safe and concord does not exist in 3 of the 4 areas in game.

Not sure what I'm supposed to be projecting there, guess you heard a new phrase somewhere and decided to use it in an attempt to be snazzy even though you don't apparently understand it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#613 - 2015-11-24 07:28:09 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

I'm not throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, I am arguing with people who believe their dogmatic view should be both unassailable and held by all universally.


There's that projection again. He just can't stop.

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#614 - 2015-11-24 07:42:35 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You guys gonna run out of straw anytime soon?

You want to fixate on it being emergent as if that was the point of the argument. It wasn't.

The point was that changes have been made to reduce ganking. Those changes were ultimately ineffective due to emergent factors that in some cases actually increased ganking.

So problems were perceived, action needed, action taken, emergent factors rendered them null, leaving us back with problem perceived and action needed.

Just because emergent factors create a situation does not mean that situation needs to be considered holy and inviolate.


Talk about weaseling around.

"It wasn't intended game play!"

It's called emergence Mike.

"That wasn't the point!!!"

"Its aggression!!!"

Mike it doesn't get a flag, so in game it is not aggression.

"Yes it is, because I'm using the plain English definition!"

"It's tackling!!!"

Mike, the warp drives still work.

"Bumping as tackle circumvents the rules"

No it doesn't Mike, it is not an act of aggression.

Mike, you have basically been throwing **** at the wall hoping something will stick.


No, I made a fairly clear point, and since there wasn't much to do but disagree on general principal the response has been to pretend like it wasn't understood, to attack me rather than the argument, attempt to derail or reformat the argument to something else, or just plain troll.

I'm not throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, I am arguing with people who believe their dogmatic view should be both unassailable and held by all universally. More like nailing jelly to the wall, really.

That's also a fairly dishonest post, in that you took several things out of order and out of context to construct a silly narrative that didn't happen.


I'm waiting for an argument from you that is coherent.

Is something broken? Is something unbalanced? Nope. Move along nothing to see here.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Iain Cariaba
#615 - 2015-11-24 08:15:15 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Just because emergent factors create a situation does not mean that situation needs to be considered holy and inviolate.


Oh, and this sentence is really freaking funny, considering how carebears consider CONCORD and highsec safety in general to be "holy and inviolate".

Carebears always project.



Clearly a false statement as there is no place safe and concord does not exist in 3 of the 4 areas in game.

Not sure what I'm supposed to be projecting there, guess you heard a new phrase somewhere and decided to use it in an attempt to be snazzy even though you don't apparently understand it.

No, he actually got it pretty spot on.

Your entire point is based on your "holy and inviolate" philosophy that highsec should be safer and gankers need to be further punished for even existing.

Now, before you try to refute that point, allow me to point out your entire premise, from my point of view. You want bumpers to be flagged hostile for bumping freighters. This represents a direct punishment to the gankers who use this tactic. Based on your posting history and stances you've taken on other topics, I'm led to believe that your stance on this is based on a misguided belief that further punishing the gankers will have an end result of reducing the number of people bumping freighters. This represents a belief that highsec shoukd be safer.

It's not "straw man" or "ad hominem" to look at what people have said in the past, and draw a conclusion about their stance on a current topic from that history.
Brechan Skene
Lone Wolves Mining
EZ. Street
#616 - 2015-11-24 09:23:15 UTC
This scenario of whether or not 'bumping' is deemed an exploit would have been solved if CCP had come out and stated what the current rules were to 'bumping'. However the only thing they have so far stated is that the previous view , the rules regarding 'bumping', as outdated and is not deemed current. Whatever that means, it would be nice to know the updated stance. Also instead of just stating what are the current do's and don't they have just locked the thread in C&P. Good work CCP now according to you their are no acknowledge, up to date, rules concerning 'bumping' currently in place.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#617 - 2015-11-24 09:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
Brechan Skene wrote:
This scenario of whether or not 'bumping' is deemed an exploit would have been solved if CCP had come out and stated what the current rules were to 'bumping'. However the only thing they have so far stated is that the previous view , the rules regarding 'bumping', as outdated and is not deemed current. Whatever that means, it would be nice to know the updated stance. Also instead of just stating what are the current do's and don't they have just locked the thread in C&P. Good work CCP now according to you their are no acknowledge, up to date, rules concerning 'bumping' currently in place.


probably means they dont know how to change it without p***ing off 99% of the playerbase

Edit: Fix is the wrong word as to fix something usually implies its broken

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Mag's
Azn Empire
#618 - 2015-11-24 09:31:20 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The point was that changes have been made to reduce ganking. Those changes were ultimately ineffective due to emergent factors that in some cases actually increased ganking.
You have proof of this of course?
That:
A. Changes were made to reduce ganking.
And that:
B. They were ineffective and in some cases ganking increased.

There are really only two occasions I can think of where a reduction was a requirement. m0o and mining barges. Both changes actually worked as intended.

But if you have proof of A and B above, then please do tell. But please remember your own notion before replying.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Brechan Skene
Lone Wolves Mining
EZ. Street
#619 - 2015-11-24 09:36:57 UTC
Agreed. But without any rules or at least a statement saying this is our stance on 'bumping'. What have we got? The previous rules/ stance by CCP have been over ruled by the current CCP as being 'outdated and invalid' and they have failed to confirm what the new rules/ stance is, even if it is to confirm they have stayed with the previous stance would be better than the current situation where it is now. Also I have never bumped or been part of a gank, I just would like to see them come out with an actually stance/ rule on 'bumping'.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#620 - 2015-11-24 09:38:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
we dont need rules for bumping into something which is pretty avoidable if the correct counter measures are taken.

Ive said it before, bumping is a valid tactic in every space, stop trying to mess around with it because a freighter gets bumped in highsec

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*