Player Features and Ideas Discussion

let's get to a bottom line..

I don't want to inflict the consequences. OK?

I want logical, realistic game mechanics to create consequences - or at least a higher risk of consequences..
- in HISEC only

Currently BUMPING in order to gank in HISEC does NOT invoke the Crimewatch mechanic...
- that is EXACTLY what I hope gets fixed.

I think if you look back through the whole thread; and the history of previous threads, that a lot of us that seem to be stoic opponents; aren't opposed to change at all. We would just like some solid evidence to show that a change is required.

However, that aside; lets assume for a second that the evidence is convincing.

Those of us that don't see a need for change also fly Freighters and the easy solution now is to just use webbing support.

That reduces the risk of being ganked to at most 0.1% (but lower in reality) based on data currently available from Red Frog Freight (and more data coming in the next couple of weeks that will either confirm the RFF data or show a different pattern).

So if the risk is less than 0.1% currently, how would you change the game to get it to an acceptable level of risk for you?

Please stop with the projection and stay on topic. Although the irony of your post is amusing, it adds nothing to the discussion. Just as RL comparisons do.

Tell you what. I'll accept the comparison, when you can show me proof that we're all demigods in RL, live in a goo filled pod, whilst flying massive starships with a huge crew. Can use wormholes, clones and have a pet Fedo.
Until then I'll stick with facts and figures you find uncomfortable. Asking for proof of a problem we're informed of with this game. Thanks anyway.

here's the thing... and it's not even so much about more safety (although who would NOT want to be safer?)

It's about getting to act like a jerk with impunity..

you give me very little credit.. ouch

But if you are not afraid of a change in the BUMPING mechanic when done in HISEC, then we have no disagreements.

I'd hazard a guess that's because you haven't posted anything that is deserving of credit.

I can't speak for Lyod, but for myself, I welcome change, unless it's bad change. Which is what you're proposing because you don't want to use the mechanics, that are universally available, to achieve your goal.

Indeed.

I would welcome change, if it could be shown there is a problem. But being told of one without evidence and seemingly only a problem when focusing on a specific special circumstance, isn't how balance is achieved. It certainly isn't justification, for such a fundamental change to game mechanics.

That's a little light on detail. Maybe we can drill into it a bit more.

All bumping in highsec?

I actually answered that in the quote. Please re-read it.

The difficult part is working out the logic first. Once you have the logic, the coding is simple, since it just has to implement what the logic of the design says.

The good thing about designing an algorithm is that the logic can be designed to a degree by anyone if you don't deal with the technical apsects of the code. In a program design cycle:

http://puu.sh/mXfuq/784e15179a.png

If you can design the program, the coding and correcting syntax errors is for a programmer; which leave then the testing and logic errors (which is what we partially do mentally on the forum when we think about how a suggestion could be used in unintended ways and whether those unintended ways are acceptable or not).

So thinking about the logic:

If you have an outcome to make bumping a crimewatch trigger if it is to set up a gank, what are the logical questions you would ask when bumping occurs to allow you to conclude that it is to set up a gank?

So, starting at the initial trigger:

1. Collision in highsec occurs

What's the first question that needs to be asked to be able to determine if this is leading to a gank?