These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

First post
Author
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2016-01-27 14:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
"Ganking doesn't have enough consequences!"

For someone who dedicates a char to ganking, no it really doesn't.

Quote:
"I refuse to gank the bumper because I don't want the consequences of ganking!"

For someone who doesn't want to live the life of a criminal, yes it really does. I know, it's poorly designed.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#142 - 2016-01-27 14:52:52 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Bumping = no consequences


Yeah, most things that are explicitly non hostile acts don't have consequences for them.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the direction your engines are pointed doesn't have consequences in any part of the game.

"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.
#143 - 2016-01-27 14:54:07 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

For someone who doesn't want to live the life of a criminal, yes it really does. I know, it's poorly designed.


It's not poorly designed at all.

You refuse to avail yourself of all of the possible options, then your effectiveness is limited. Seems like perfect design to me. People like you who would cut off your nose to spite your face should be less effective than a real player.

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#144 - 2016-01-27 14:54:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

Bumping = no consequences


Yeah, most things that are explicitly non hostile acts don't have consequences for them.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the direction your engines are pointed doesn't have consequences in any part of the game.

Explicitly non hostile acts 'under the current mechanics which we're discussing whether or not work as intended and might need improvement"

Jesus, we had this argument yesterday, you lost.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#145 - 2016-01-27 14:56:31 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Explicitly non hostile acts 'under the current mechanics which we're discussing whether or not work as intended and might need improvement"


We aren't discussing that. You've already claimed that the way the game has worked for the last ten years is somehow unintended, and I told you to file a bug report.

Until they get back to you on that bug report, however, the game's collision detection mechanics sure seem like they're working precisely as intended.

"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.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#146 - 2016-01-27 15:08:41 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

I said that the only guaranteed way of getting out is ganking the bumper.

And that is a lie.
Quote:

Again, please do enlighten us all on viable alternative.

Hell, they were posted on the same page as you posted your lie. Why do you need me to do your reading for you? How about you actually read the thread in the first place?


Nothing baltec listed applies to getting out of bump with any degree of certainty (warping to a fast frigate is the closest thing to a legal way out, however it is anything but reliable, certainly not as reliable as bumping is). Do you even read what I post or are your replies just a knee-jerk reaction?

Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.

Best part of it all is - ganking would still be 100% viable without bumping, however it would require more skill and coordination (then current fleet warping), would likely reduce ability of individuals with 10+ accounts to perform ganks and force all members of a ganking fleet to actually be logged into game and attentive. I know, all the things that you're fighting against.
Logon for a ping, take fleet warps, hit F1, that's the skillful gameplay you want to protect. Roll
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#147 - 2016-01-27 15:10:11 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

Nothing baltec listed applies to getting out of bump with any degree of certainty


Wrong.

Have you just not done this before, or what?

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#148 - 2016-01-27 15:11:16 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You've already claimed that the way the game has worked for the last ten years is somehow unintended, and I told you to file a bug report.

And this was one of your many fallacious arguments in attempting to strawman one of my points as something it wasn't.

We get it, as someone that flies with gankers and seems incapable of taking part in PvP outside of highsec you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and trying to drown out discussion by shouting 'THIS IS HOW IT IS SO THIS IS HOW IT ALWAYS MUST BE!'

Unlike you, I have no vested interest in bumping either way; I don't fly haulers, I don't gank haulers, I generally don't even notice gankers in my game on a day to day basis since I'm not often flying through or near niarja/uedama/etc. However it is *still* my opinion that it's a flawed mechanic, and if you recall, you conceded that point yesterday because you tried to suggest that it was working as intended and yet also conceded that CCP had investigated trying to fix it.

And yet today, you seem to have woken up and imagined our whole discourse last night as some kind of forum nightmare that vanished in your pillow and are back to your same, old, tired points which have already been dealt with.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#149 - 2016-01-27 15:15:54 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

And this was one of your many fallacious arguments in attempting to strawman one of my points as something it wasn't.


Except that it's exactly what you said. You said that it's not working as intended.

Except it very much is. Just like emergent gameplay itself is very much intended.

The rest of your post is a big old ad hominem and personal attack, which carebears always resort to once they have their facile arguments dashed. I dunno why I ever expect better from you lot.

Quote:

I don't fly haulers, I don't gank haulers


Oh, it shows.


Quote:

However it is *still* my opinion that it's a flawed mechanic


And your opinion isn't a reason to change a single thing about this game.

Don't you have anything better than "I don't like it so it should go away"?

"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.

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#150 - 2016-01-27 15:16:12 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.


Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gankers "team" put more effort in it than the gankee's team, then they have better odds of winning. I'm pretty sure that's EVE working as intended.

I never really liked how bumping works but every single "solution" the the "problem" ever proposed usually involve a **** load of problems down the line so I just decided to accept how it is.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#151 - 2016-01-27 15:26:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Don't you have anything better than "I don't like it so it should go away"?

Don't you have anything better than "It's working as intended...no wait...it's not working as intended...well it kinda works...well let's keep it anyway instead of exploring other options?...CAREBEAR...HE'S A CAREBEAR"

I'm not egotistical enough to think my opinion on a forum *will* change the game but having a discussion about mechanics is vastly more interesting for me than namecalling, misrepresenting points and basically acting in denial that there might be some other workable solution to the current flawed method.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#152 - 2016-01-27 15:28:52 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

Don't you have anything better than *the stuff I blatantly made up*


You cut two words out of a sentence then claimed that I "admitted" that bumping isn't working as intended.

You know full well what I meant, you dishonest shill, and you've been lying about it the whole time since. Like you said before though, it's all there in black and white, although that does you no good at all, since it exposes you as wholly dishonest.

"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.

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#153 - 2016-01-27 15:34:39 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
is bumping working as intended in highsec?


It is and it isn't.

link

Also a shill tends to be someone standing to gain by fraudulently misrepresenting something. Not two posts ago we established I don't have anything to gain from changing or maintaining this mechanic because it doesn't affect me directly...you, on the other hand, would be affected by it.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#154 - 2016-01-27 15:38:23 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Don't you have anything better than "I don't like it so it should go away"?

Don't you have anything better than "It's working as intended...no wait...it's not working as intended...well it kinda works...well let's keep it anyway instead of exploring other options?...CAREBEAR...HE'S A CAREBEAR"

I'm not egotistical enough to think my opinion on a forum *will* change the game but having a discussion about mechanics is vastly more interesting for me than namecalling, misrepresenting points and basically acting in denial that there might be some other workable solution to the current flawed method.


Bumping has been discussed to hell and back then back again to hell and back. The poor dead horse had a monument erected for it but we also beat that into the groud. The only reason we still remember where that poor horse "is" is because we keep coming back even tho there is nothing left there and even the "replacement" is now long gone. May God have mercy for the soul of that poor horse.

Bumping discussion always end up with nothing because every solution ends worse than what we have currently working.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#155 - 2016-01-27 15:40:41 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.


Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gankers "team" put more effort in it than the gankee's team, then they have better odds of winning. I'm pretty sure that's EVE working as intended.

I never really liked how bumping works but every single "solution" the the "problem" ever proposed usually involve a **** load of problems down the line so I just decided to accept how it is.


No, what I'm saying is that once the first bump lands, you're pretty much f****d and you can do very little if nothing to change that, particularly if you want to get out of it in a way which will not result with criminal flags / killrights for non-ganker side. Being able to essentially perma-bump a freighter while using just two chars without any consequences whatsoever for the bumping character is not 'putting more effort', it is simply wrong. The fact that (quite often) you can extract loot safely is also wrong.
The fact that some guys are so bitter about any discussion related to changing such mechanics is moderately amusing.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#156 - 2016-01-27 15:47:59 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Bumping discussion always end up with nothing because every solution ends worse than what we have currently working.

idd.

I haven't seen a good solution put forwards either. What I've been arguing against though is the simple minded idea of saying:

'It's not broken, it doesn't need fixing therefore all solutions are wrong'

Instead of admitting:

'it is broken and needs fixing but this solution isn't the right one'

One thought process enables a discussion to get off the ground and perhaps some form of progress, the other is fingers in the ears and screaming to maintain the current status quo because of fear of a change being disfavourable to the parties involved.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#157 - 2016-01-27 15:48:09 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

Anything that can be used to avoid bumping can be fairly easily countered - webber is countered by a cruiser suicide tackling the freighter while first bump lands. From there, it's usually gg for the freighter.


Essentially, what you are saying is that if the gankers "team" put more effort in it than the gankee's team, then they have better odds of winning. I'm pretty sure that's EVE working as intended.

I never really liked how bumping works but every single "solution" the the "problem" ever proposed usually involve a **** load of problems down the line so I just decided to accept how it is.


No, what I'm saying is that once the first bump lands, you're pretty much f****d and you can do very little if nothing to change that, particularly if you want to get out of it in a way which will not result with criminal flags / killrights for non-ganker side. Being able to essentially perma-bump a freighter while using just two chars without any consequences whatsoever for the bumping character is not 'putting more effort', it is simply wrong. The fact that (quite often) you can extract loot safely is also wrong.
The fact that some guys are so bitter about any discussion related to changing such mechanics is moderately amusing.


Using 2 guys for them bumping sure as hell is more effort than using just one for the freighter...

You are also telling me that your ship is worth less than criminal flags/kill rights on some alts/friend character for killing the bumper?

You are just not willing to do anything about it and also not willing to accept the consequence of not doing anything about it.
Takari
Promised Victorious Entropy
#158 - 2016-01-27 15:49:42 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
[quote=Kaarous Aldurald] and if you recall, you conceded that point yesterday because you tried to suggest that it was working as intended and yet also conceded that CCP had investigated trying to fix it.


I just read through all 8 pages of this thread, and this didn't happen.

He said that the original intent did not have this in mind but that CCP investigated and found that this was acceptable "Emergent Gameplay" which is not the same as what you have said in this quote.

Still though, to be constructive:

I don't see how this is a problem here. There are tools to avoid this. An open PVP game always has solutions.

I get that no one likes endless bumping. I'm almost certain that even the gank parties doing the bumping aren't terribly fond of having to do it.

Perhaps there are concessions that can be made but the only suggestions I see in this thread are to

1. Remove collision detection for High Sec or Haulers which gives no concessions as it would make high sec gate camping virtually impossible (which is not a good thing) or
2. Give flags for bumping which has such staggering cascading consequences across the entire game as everyone involved with the bump would have to be flagged as intent can't be programmatically determined.

I'm all for modules that make it more difficult to bump at the cost of something else.

Possible bad idea incoming:

Stabilizing Jets. Your ship cannot be moved unless bumped by a combined mass greater than a percentage of your ships mass (increasing percentage for meta or tech II variants?), but in exchange it increases your align time by 20% (Or Decreases cargo capacity by 10% two possible modules? )

This way if you're caught by the entire gank fleet, you're still not going anywhere but if one guy catches you, he's about to be brick walled?



"Roll the dice, don't think twice. This is the way of things. Welcome to EVE." ~ CCP Falcon

"Good luck, shoot straight and don't back down." - Serendipity Lost

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#159 - 2016-01-27 15:53:04 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

No, what I'm saying is that once the first bump lands, you're pretty much f****d and you can do very little if nothing to change that


And that is wrong.

Yes, avoiding it in the first place is much easier, but it is not impossible to get out by any means. You've been told this repeatedly, so I really don't know why you keep repeating this lie.


Quote:

The fact that some guys are so bitter about any discussion related to changing such mechanics is moderately amusing.


Heh, 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.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#160 - 2016-01-27 15:54:38 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

'It's not broken, it doesn't need fixing therefore all solutions are wrong'


Which is absolutely the truth. Not only that, even if it were broken, CCP can't do anything about it anyway.

You're sitting here expecting us to entertain your dishonest premise as though it were true. I will not. Ganking and bumping are not broken, period. There is no "discussion" to be had based on a lie.

"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.