Player Features and Ideas Discussion

@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.

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?

So what you are against are the odds of getting out of it, once being bumped?

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.

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?

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?

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.

That would be the counter mechanics that I speak of above, things like webbing etc.

What illegal act?

The current opposition has been saying "show us the evidence that there's a problem that needs to be fixed".

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

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.