These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#701 - 2016-02-03 14:22:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless.

@baltec - Your 100% way to counter it has already been discussed, several pages ago. Yes, having stuff in contractrs (or containers) larger then 50k m3 negates the ability to launder the loot, but if that was the norm then we would not be having this discussion now, would we. Because there would be no possibility to launder the loot and looting would have consequences. Which would mean that the exact thing I'm arguing for would happen. And there would be no reason for us to discuss. See?

Anyway, I get it (got it a while ago but every now and then I like to remind myself), you guys simply refuse to stand aside and say - ok, here's these mechanics which - if you look at them w/o any prejudice, are a bit dodgy. That is obviously not your style, these mechanics benefit your approach to game and you'll use whatever argument you can to dismiss counterarguments as invalid. So we get talk about lack of skill, knowledge, intelligence, effort, alts, friends or whatever fits your verbal style while diverting discussion into talk about organisation, size of ganking fleets, hisec content deprivation and whatever else you came up at that moment, not to discuss the mechanics but to personally attack people opposing you and/or divert attention from the topic being discussed. I guess that's fine, such is the nature of the Internet, however I find such attitude disheartening in the forums which are supposed to be the place where we move away from our in-game personas and become real-life adults trying to improve (or at least discuss) the game we spend our time with.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#702 - 2016-02-03 14:25:28 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:


@baltec - Your 100% way to counter it has already been discussed, several pages ago. Yes, having stuff in contractrs (or containers) larger then 50k m3 negates the ability to launder the loot, but if that was the norm then we would not be having this discussion now, would we. Because there would be no possibility to launder the loot and looting would have consequences. Which would mean that the exact thing I'm arguing for would happen. And there would be no reason for us to discuss. See?


So you have a way in game already, no need for a change.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#703 - 2016-02-03 14:31:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless.
Well it would be nice if you answered the question, from the person who actually asked it and didn't avoid it.

As far as your question is concerned. I'm fine with those odds if you are. So how about you now answer the question?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#704 - 2016-02-03 14:38:58 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless.
Well it would be nice if you answered the question, from the person who actually asked it and didn't avoid it.

As far as your question is concerned. I'm fine with those odds if you are. So how about you now answer the question?


What do you want me to say, that bumping is avoidable if you bring an alt who will web you and the bumper has no suicide ship ready? Of course it is, I'm not an idiot to deny that.
However, much like the looting discussion, the point of this whole thread is to discuss the mechanics as such, not various ways to get around them (which undoubtedly exist).
Mag's
Azn Empire
#705 - 2016-02-03 14:41:58 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless.
Well it would be nice if you answered the question, from the person who actually asked it and didn't avoid it.

As far as your question is concerned. I'm fine with those odds if you are. So how about you now answer the question?


What do you want me to say, that bumping is avoidable if you bring an alt who will web you and the bumper has no suicide ship ready? Of course it is, I'm not an idiot to deny that.
However, much like the looting discussion, the point of this whole thread is to discuss the mechanics as such, not various ways to get around them (which undoubtedly exist).
So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#706 - 2016-02-03 14:55:51 UTC
Mag's wrote:
So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped?


I'm not against any odds. Odds don't interest me. I'm against this special set of circumstances which makes bumping a freighter in hisec into what it is - an aggression free warp disruption mechanic. We can (and some of your friends will) play word games around this fact, but it is in fact a form of disrupting ship from entering warp without actually agressing it.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#707 - 2016-02-03 15:00:31 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Mag's wrote:
So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped?


I'm not against any odds. Odds don't interest me. I'm against this special set of circumstances which makes bumping a freighter in hisec into what it is - an aggression free warp disruption mechanic. We can (and some of your friends will) play word games around this fact, but it is in fact a form of disrupting ship from entering warp without actually agressing it.

You can always haul it trough lowsec where you can kill the bumper, I don't see the issue. Carebears cried for a strong CONCORD, everyone got them, now deal with it.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#708 - 2016-02-03 15:01:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Mag's wrote:
So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped?


I'm not against any odds. Odds don't interest me. I'm against this special set of circumstances which makes bumping a freighter in hisec into what it is - an aggression free warp disruption mechanic. We can (and some of your friends will) play word games around this fact, but it is in fact a form of disrupting ship from entering warp without actually agressing it.
Well it's stopping alignment, but that isn't the question.

Look I know you have an agenda, but in order to decide balance we need factual evidence. I'm trying to establish why this needs a change. Simply focusing on a special set of circumstances and not the whole picture, isn't how balance is achieved.

So are you fine with those odds, or not?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#709 - 2016-02-03 15:02:06 UTC
so the opponents of any change to bumping mechanics are saying that its absolutely fine for a hauler going about his lawful business in hisec plying his trade to be prevented from doing this by the illegal act of deliberately preventing said hauler from entering warp for an infinite amount of time with no consequences for the aforementioned 'criminal' bumper?

or have i missed something? Straight
Mag's
Azn Empire
#710 - 2016-02-03 15:05:06 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
or have i missed something? Straight
The thread, apparently.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#711 - 2016-02-03 15:12:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
@Jonah Gravenstein - if I told you that by adding one more ship to bumper, you were 99.9% certain that you'll succeed in bumping, what would you say? The thing is - we can play such word-games whole day and night and there will always be a formulation which will suit your viewpoint, or mine. Such discussion is thus pointless.
Not only do you fail at anti-ganking, you also fail at addressing the relevant party in a forum discussion. I didn't post that at all, that would be Mags.

Are you going to answer the man or are you going to prevaricate in your usual fashion?

Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
However, much like the looting discussion, the point of this whole thread is to discuss the mechanics
Last time I checked we were still discussing the mechanics, and how there are counter-mechanics to balance them out. That you're unwilling to use those counter mechanics or are willing to dismiss them out of hand is irrelevant, they exist and they are effective when used correctly.

Quote:
as such, not various ways to get around them (which undoubtedly exist).
That would be the counter mechanics that I speak of above, things like webbing etc.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#712 - 2016-02-03 15:21:51 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
so the opponents of any change to bumping mechanics are saying that its absolutely fine for a hauler going about his lawful business in hisec plying his trade to be prevented from doing this by the illegal act of deliberately preventing said hauler from entering warp for an infinite amount of time with no consequences for the aforementioned 'criminal' bumper?

or have i missed something? Straight


You missed the fact that a simple web ship will let you avoid getting bumped at all.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#713 - 2016-02-03 15:39:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
so the opponents of any change to bumping mechanics are saying that its absolutely fine for a hauler going about his lawful business in hisec plying his trade to be prevented from doing this by the illegal act of deliberately preventing said hauler from entering warp for an infinite amount of time with no consequences for the aforementioned 'criminal' bumper?

What illegal act?

The current opposition has been saying "show us the evidence that there's a problem that needs to be fixed".
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#714 - 2016-02-03 15:48:47 UTC
...unless there's a suicide scrammer assisting the bumper then it's goodbye vienna for freighter, but again we're just going round in circles .

if you don't like the idea of mine about the emergency mjd for freighters which fits in with the Eve ethos of helping yourself, would create content for all involved , including more exploding ships,and also encourage more casual bystanders to get involved , then as an alternative surely it wouldn't be too difficult to code a mechanic for collisions that if you hit another ship outside a docking ring of a station above a certain speed for a certain amount of times while it is trying to enter warp you get a warning that you are committing an offense, and say 10 seconds to desist before getting a 2nd + final warning that you will acquire a suspect flag if you continue. once the suspect timer is active , you get 3 more similar warnings before criminal flag ?

how bout it ccp?



bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#715 - 2016-02-03 15:51:17 UTC
Evil
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#716 - 2016-02-03 15:59:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
bigbud skunkafella wrote:


if you don't like the idea of mine about the emergency mjd for freighters which fits in with the Eve ethos of helping yourself, would create content for all involved , including more exploding ships,and also encourage more casual bystanders to get involved
It's a crap idea, all that is required to counter it is for the bumping mach to fit one and align behind the freighter before activating it, given the Machs superior warp speed it'll probably arrive 100 km from the point of origin before the freighter does. Congratulations, all that's been achieved is that the freighter is now closer to the extreme range of gate guns and the bumper only has to bump it 1/3 as far to get it completely out of range, 50 or 60 km instead of the current 150+km, which lowers the chance of surviving a gank even further.

Quote:
then as an alternative surely it wouldn't be too difficult to code a mechanic for collisions that if you hit another ship outside a docking ring of a station above a certain speed for a certain amount of times while it is trying to enter warp you get a warning that you are committing an offense, and say 10 seconds to desist before getting a 2nd + final warning that you will acquire a suspect flag if you continue. once the suspect timer is active , you get 3 more similar warnings before criminal flag ?

how bout it ccp?
Nothing new here then, that particular idea has been discussed in the past, it's also a crap one that is open to abuse.

Like Jon Snow, you apparently know nothing

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#717 - 2016-02-03 17:02:54 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
5-8 is a large fleet? No wonder AG sucks as bad as it does. If you field less than half your opponent's numbers, why should you expect to prevail?

Let's use this logic in the case of bumping, pretty please. Unless you field at least three machariels you should not be able to reliably bump a freighter with a webber alt or two. We cool?


Considering that the gank fleet, which includes the bumper, is 4 to 5 times larger already, no.

"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

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#718 - 2016-02-03 17:22:42 UTC
Mag's wrote:

Look I know you have an agenda, but in order to decide balance we need factual evidence. I'm trying to establish why this needs a change. Simply focusing on a special set of circumstances and not the whole picture, isn't how balance is achieved.
So are you fine with those odds, or not?


I'm not fine with the odds because, as I said already, each of us can setup a scenario which will be beneficial to his case and yes I am focusing on a special case scenario because that scenario is the root cause of this thread. If you want odds then let me put it like this - I want a counterplay to bumping which is as reliable and efficient as the bumping itself with same set of consequences. Let's level the playfield.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#719 - 2016-02-03 17:36:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Mag's wrote:

Look I know you have an agenda, but in order to decide balance we need factual evidence. I'm trying to establish why this needs a change. Simply focusing on a special set of circumstances and not the whole picture, isn't how balance is achieved.
So are you fine with those odds, or not?


I'm not fine with the odds because, as I said already, each of us can setup a scenario which will be beneficial to his case and yes I am focusing on a special case scenario because that scenario is the root cause of this thread. If you want odds then let me put it like this - I want a counterplay to bumping which is as reliable and efficient as the bumping itself with same set of consequences. Let's level the playfield.
I'm not setting up a special scenario though. I'm asking about an already known hauler advantage, that can be gained from the addition of one pilot.
You then asked a similar question, with the addition of another bumper. Why do you get to talk about an advantage, but not me?

You seem fine with one of those odds, but not the other.

As I said before, to look at balance you cannot focus on a special circumstance. You need to look at the whole. Seeing as the bumping is a part of the .1% odds, it is indeed a special circumstance when viewed as a whole.

I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.

Edit: That's a whole lot of whole. Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#720 - 2016-02-03 18:03:27 UTC
Mag's wrote:

I'm fine with talking about bumping, but it needs to be viewed as a whole. When it's so easy to avoid and you seem fine with that, why are you not fine with the odds reversed within the bump? It quite obviously is already a level playing field, you just don't want to acknowledge the whole field.


Well the odds are only about being able or not being able to avoid the first bump. After that, they stack up to the gankers/bumpers favor without anything resembling what you could call "balance" (although I'm aware that absolute balance is impossible). Regardless of trolls and insults, I understand the tactical importance bumping has in the wider game, that's why you won't see me proposing anyhting related to its change or removal (although apparently, changes are coming). I'm just talking about this 0.1% special case which, I feel, can be argued as poorly designed.
Would I trade webbing freighters into warp for a change resulting in removal or ability to avoid bumping through active gameplay by freighter pilot? Yes. To prevent freighter pilots from raging, ccp could slightly increase their warp speeds to compensate for slower alignment. For example.