These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Bumping Freighters in highsec - A legitimate counter

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lugh Crow-Slave
#21 - 2016-02-09 00:49:46 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
current counter to bumbers


gank the bumper

bump the bumper

get yourself webbed out before you are bumped


look you can do all of these already

Ohh goody, become as bad as those your trying to fight - Lose ships to concord ganking a ship that can commit aggressive acts risk free. Such a great suggestion, why didn't i think of it, makes so much sense to gank rather than engage in mutual pvp.
After all Eve is about ganking and 1 vs X+1 rather than an actual fight.

Waste time and effort to be as bad as the bumper, all without any eve game play other than who can be the most risk averse.

Run away and remove any chance of pvp content - nice, all of eve should just use webs to avoid conflict.


lol "bad" is objective if you want to limit what tools are available to you thats up to you.

same as above

i don't think you know what pvp is (hint you don't need to shoot to be actively involved in pvp)

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#22 - 2016-02-09 00:52:15 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Didn't we just have this thread?


Yes we did, and it covered this horrible idea too.

Why should there be a limited engagement timer?

1. You can avoid being bumped just by having a dude go +1 in a freaking pod.
2. If you are getting bumped you seriously screwed up, so yeah, getting one out of such a mess should be costly.
3. There is no damage done via bumping, no offensive module has been activated.
4. Mechanical means of determining intent do not exist.
5. Black Pedro actually had an intriguing idea, but the AG people in that thread poo-pooed it.

Black Pedro’s idea was, IIRC:

1. Using a scram or a disruptor on freighter did NOT give a criminal flag, but instead a suspect flag.
2. Freighters come with a build in MJD with a long spool up and cool down with a range of 500km.

While I prefer the emergent play via bumping, Black Pedro’s idea was 10x better than the Bravo Sierra that is in any anti-bumping thread to date.

"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
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#23 - 2016-02-09 00:53:00 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
FFS, this idiot-**** idea again?

Got an explanation for how the game is going to determine who bumped whom?

No? Didn't think so.

This would pretty much turn the Jita undock into a hilarious killing field. From that perspective, I like it, but there's still something vaguely offensive about sharing space with people who can't think through an unintended consequence as blazingly obvious as that.

This idea isn't even in the same zip-code as feasible.

Ahh another one who - doesn't read past the 1st line - Would rather put down an idea than consider it.

And I'm sure CCP Devs could code something that says - That ship just bumped that freighter off alignment... Oh wait, that is already there, when a mach bumps a freighter it moves, darn how hard would that be to tie into my suggestion?



The distinction between "The mach bumped the freighter" and "the freighter bumped the mach" is entirely arbitrary.

Two space-ship simulating spheres bumped into each other.


Seriously, this is the best you can ome up with - You really give CCP Devs too little credit.
They may not always do thing we like but that doesn't make them fools or any less skilled at their jobs.

Freighter bumps Mach, freighter maintains original course, Mach veers off. Mach bumps freighter, freighter veers off. Pretty straight forward really. Game are designed to take into consideration everything that happens, game designers can use that information to make thing happen in the game.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
SurrenderMonkey
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2016-02-09 01:00:00 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Freighter bumps Mach, freighter maintains original course, Mach veers off. Mach bumps freighter, freighter veers off. Pretty straight forward really.


When two ships bump, neither maintain their original course.

Please come back when you have an elementary understanding of the game mechanics.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#25 - 2016-02-09 01:00:35 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Didn't we just have this thread?


Yes we did, and it covered this horrible idea too.

Why should there be a limited engagement timer?

1. You can avoid being bumped just by having a dude go +1 in a freaking pod.
2. If you are getting bumped you seriously screwed up, so yeah, getting one out of such a mess should be costly.
3. There is no damage done via bumping, no offensive module has been activated.
4. Mechanical means of determining intent do not exist.
5. Black Pedro actually had an intriguing idea, but the AG people in that thread poo-pooed it.

Black Pedro’s idea was, IIRC:

1. Using a scram or a disruptor on freighter did NOT give a criminal flag, but instead a suspect flag.
2. Freighters come with a build in MJD with a long spool up and cool down with a range of 500km.

While I prefer the emergent play via bumping, Black Pedro’s idea was 10x better than the Bravo Sierra that is in any anti-bumping thread to date.

So again the idea is to avoid any of eves core mechanics by avoiding pvp. Get away safely is the only option.

Not sure what "Bravo Sierra" is - Does it elude to risk free, run away, get out of gaol free by doing X?
Because that is not what I am suggesting - Read the whole post.

Trying to create PVP content is so very different to "built in MJD that moves you 500K from danger".

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2016-02-09 01:01:02 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
FFS, this idiot-**** idea again?

Got an explanation for how the game is going to determine who bumped whom?

No? Didn't think so.

This would pretty much turn the Jita undock into a hilarious killing field. From that perspective, I like it, but there's still something vaguely offensive about sharing space with people who can't think through an unintended consequence as blazingly obvious as that.

This idea isn't even in the same zip-code as feasible.

Ahh another one who - doesn't read past the 1st line - Would rather put down an idea than consider it.

And I'm sure CCP Devs could code something that says - That ship just bumped that freighter off alignment... Oh wait, that is already there, when a mach bumps a freighter it moves, darn how hard would that be to tie into my suggestion?



Both ships are bumped off alignment. Roll

"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
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#27 - 2016-02-09 01:03:07 UTC
I believe the words were.

Locked... Forever.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2016-02-09 01:03:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Just as ridiculous, why should ganking be the only defense against bumpers?


The same reason why ganking is the only way to kill most things that aren't flagged.

Because unless they flag themselves with an explicitly hostile act, you have to gank them. And where your engines are aligned is not, and never will be an act resulting in flagging, for a variety of reasons which were elaborated in rich detail in the last thread.

As such, reported for enormous redundancy. You do not get to open a new one of these every time they get locked. That's exactly what the forum rules are for in the first place, for crying out loud.

PLEASE, link me the thread that includes my suggestion.
I wasn't aware someone had put my suggestion forward in the past. Or was it just a thread related to ganking and you figure they are all the same.
Did you actually read the post, there is actually a buff to ganking in there or like your reply, that too is irrelevant.

And seriously - Bumping should be considered a hostile act. The fact it isn't is a sad reflection on game balance.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=466427&find=unread

You should feel bad for being so bad.

Edit:

Because you are so bad, here is a post discussing a new type of flag,

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6322264#post6322264

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2016-02-09 01:07:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Didn't we just have this thread?


Yes we did, and it covered this horrible idea too.

Why should there be a limited engagement timer?

1. You can avoid being bumped just by having a dude go +1 in a freaking pod.
2. If you are getting bumped you seriously screwed up, so yeah, getting one out of such a mess should be costly.
3. There is no damage done via bumping, no offensive module has been activated.
4. Mechanical means of determining intent do not exist.
5. Black Pedro actually had an intriguing idea, but the AG people in that thread poo-pooed it.

Black Pedro’s idea was, IIRC:

1. Using a scram or a disruptor on freighter did NOT give a criminal flag, but instead a suspect flag.
2. Freighters come with a build in MJD with a long spool up and cool down with a range of 500km.

While I prefer the emergent play via bumping, Black Pedro’s idea was 10x better than the Bravo Sierra that is in any anti-bumping thread to date.

So again the idea is to avoid any of eves core mechanics by avoiding pvp. Get away safely is the only option.

Not sure what "Bravo Sierra" is - Does it elude to risk free, run away, get out of gaol free by doing X?
Because that is not what I am suggesting - Read the whole post.

Trying to create PVP content is so very different to "built in MJD that moves you 500K from danger".


Black Pedro's idea would create PvP content FFS. The tackle ship would get a suspect timer...i.e. he could be shot by anyone. At the same time, freighters would be wise to have an escort.

It does what you are asking with out invoking magical thinking regarding a computer's ability to determine intent.

Bravo Sierra = BS....that stuff that comes out of the hind end of a bull. Shocked

Edit:

You do know that a scram will stop a MJD from working...right? Roll

Edit II: Changed limited engagement to suspect. Derp.

"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
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#30 - 2016-02-09 01:09:55 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Freighter bumps Mach, freighter maintains original course, Mach veers off. Mach bumps freighter, freighter veers off. Pretty straight forward really.


When two ships bump, neither maintain their original course.

Please come back when you have an elementary understanding of the game mechanics.

Ok lets dumb it down enough for you.

When a ship rams a freighter, it registers on the server that the freighter has been hit by another ship above X speed, inferring the freighter was rammed with the intention of changing its alignment . That is all that is required for the flag to be activated. Very rarely is something going to ram a freighter that is aligning to somewhere, by accident.

I believe the server has the ability to know how hard or softly a freighter has been hit, ramming a freighter at 80 ms is not going to change its alignment a great deal, but if it is hit a 1200ms it is.

I'm sure CCP have the staff able to code something with the information the server provides.
If not, bumping should just be removed.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2016-02-09 01:14:33 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Freighter bumps Mach, freighter maintains original course, Mach veers off. Mach bumps freighter, freighter veers off. Pretty straight forward really.


When two ships bump, neither maintain their original course.

Please come back when you have an elementary understanding of the game mechanics.

Ok lets dumb it down enough for you.

When a ship rams a freighter, it registers on the server that the freighter has been hit by another ship above X speed, inferring the freighter was rammed with the intention of changing its alignment . That is all that is required for the flag to be activated. Very rarely is something going to ram a freighter that is aligning to somewhere, by accident.

I believe the server has the ability to know how hard or softly a freighter has been hit, ramming a freighter at 80 ms is not going to change its alignment a great deal, but if it is hit a 1200ms it is.

I'm sure CCP have the staff able to code something with the information the server provides.
If not, bumping should just be removed.


We already discussed this to death in the other thread.

Seriously, go read it. You asked for links, I've provided them, yet here you are still posting your bad idea.

"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
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#32 - 2016-02-09 01:15:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Didn't we just have this thread?


Yes we did, and it covered this horrible idea too.

Why should there be a limited engagement timer?

1. You can avoid being bumped just by having a dude go +1 in a freaking pod.
2. If you are getting bumped you seriously screwed up, so yeah, getting one out of such a mess should be costly.
3. There is no damage done via bumping, no offensive module has been activated.
4. Mechanical means of determining intent do not exist.
5. Black Pedro actually had an intriguing idea, but the AG people in that thread poo-pooed it.

Black Pedro’s idea was, IIRC:

1. Using a scram or a disruptor on freighter did NOT give a criminal flag, but instead a suspect flag.
2. Freighters come with a build in MJD with a long spool up and cool down with a range of 500km.

While I prefer the emergent play via bumping, Black Pedro’s idea was 10x better than the Bravo Sierra that is in any anti-bumping thread to date.

So again the idea is to avoid any of eves core mechanics by avoiding pvp. Get away safely is the only option.

Not sure what "Bravo Sierra" is - Does it elude to risk free, run away, get out of gaol free by doing X?
Because that is not what I am suggesting - Read the whole post.

Trying to create PVP content is so very different to "built in MJD that moves you 500K from danger".


Black Pedro's idea would create PvP content FFS. The tackle ship would get a suspect timer...i.e. he could be shot by anyone. At the same time, freighters would be wise to have an escort.

It does what you are asking with out invoking magical thinking regarding a computer's ability to determine intent.

Bravo Sierra = BS....that stuff that comes out of the hind end of a bull. Shocked

Edit:

You do know that a scram will stop a MJD from working...right? Roll

Edit II: Changed limited engagement to suspect. Derp.

Why would a freighter need an escort - 500K MJD built, even if the freighter had an escort it is 500K away from it.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#33 - 2016-02-09 01:16:57 UTC
Oh it's Sgt Special.

Please explain when the level of safety hauling in freighters can be 99.9%, why do you feel the need for improving that?

Also, when safety can be achieved with one extra pilot. Why do we need game breaking, loophole enabling changes?

One last thing. How does the server determine intent?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#34 - 2016-02-09 01:17:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Teckos Pech wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Freighter bumps Mach, freighter maintains original course, Mach veers off. Mach bumps freighter, freighter veers off. Pretty straight forward really.


When two ships bump, neither maintain their original course.

Please come back when you have an elementary understanding of the game mechanics.

Ok lets dumb it down enough for you.

When a ship rams a freighter, it registers on the server that the freighter has been hit by another ship above X speed, inferring the freighter was rammed with the intention of changing its alignment . That is all that is required for the flag to be activated. Very rarely is something going to ram a freighter that is aligning to somewhere, by accident.

I believe the server has the ability to know how hard or softly a freighter has been hit, ramming a freighter at 80 ms is not going to change its alignment a great deal, but if it is hit a 1200ms it is.

I'm sure CCP have the staff able to code something with the information the server provides.
If not, bumping should just be removed.


We already discussed this to death in the other thread.

Seriously, go read it. You asked for links, I've provided them, yet here you are still posting your bad idea.

As I've asked previously - Link it, I'd be happy to read it. If for no other reason to see how similar it is to my suggestion.

Edit;
Yeah not really the same sort of suggestion but I can see, if you haven't read my suggestion completely, how you could think they are.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#35 - 2016-02-09 01:17:49 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

And seriously - Bumping should be considered a hostile act. The fact it isn't is a sad reflection on game balance.


No it should not, and the fact that it isn't is a reflection of it being unnecessary, a terrible idea and wholly impossible.

No multiplayer physics engine that exists, let alone a decade old submarine simulator, can genuinely determine intent in a collision. Moreso because this is not a physical rendering engine, it's just differently sized spheres with a static graphic pasted on at the client end.

"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
#36 - 2016-02-09 01:20:29 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Didn't we just have this thread?


Yes we did, and it covered this horrible idea too.

Why should there be a limited engagement timer?

1. You can avoid being bumped just by having a dude go +1 in a freaking pod.
2. If you are getting bumped you seriously screwed up, so yeah, getting one out of such a mess should be costly.
3. There is no damage done via bumping, no offensive module has been activated.
4. Mechanical means of determining intent do not exist.
5. Black Pedro actually had an intriguing idea, but the AG people in that thread poo-pooed it.

Black Pedro’s idea was, IIRC:

1. Using a scram or a disruptor on freighter did NOT give a criminal flag, but instead a suspect flag.
2. Freighters come with a build in MJD with a long spool up and cool down with a range of 500km.

While I prefer the emergent play via bumping, Black Pedro’s idea was 10x better than the Bravo Sierra that is in any anti-bumping thread to date.

So again the idea is to avoid any of eves core mechanics by avoiding pvp. Get away safely is the only option.

Not sure what "Bravo Sierra" is - Does it elude to risk free, run away, get out of gaol free by doing X?
Because that is not what I am suggesting - Read the whole post.

Trying to create PVP content is so very different to "built in MJD that moves you 500K from danger".


Black Pedro's idea would create PvP content FFS. The tackle ship would get a suspect timer...i.e. he could be shot by anyone. At the same time, freighters would be wise to have an escort.

It does what you are asking with out invoking magical thinking regarding a computer's ability to determine intent.

Bravo Sierra = BS....that stuff that comes out of the hind end of a bull. Shocked

Edit:

You do know that a scram will stop a MJD from working...right? Roll

Edit II: Changed limited engagement to suspect. Derp.

Why would a freighter need an escort - 500K MJD built, even if the freighter had an escort it is 500K away from it.


The tackle might have a scrambler....no MJD in that case.

"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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2016-02-09 01:21:01 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Freighter bumps Mach, freighter maintains original course, Mach veers off. Mach bumps freighter, freighter veers off. Pretty straight forward really.


When two ships bump, neither maintain their original course.

Please come back when you have an elementary understanding of the game mechanics.

Ok lets dumb it down enough for you.

When a ship rams a freighter, it registers on the server that the freighter has been hit by another ship above X speed, inferring the freighter was rammed with the intention of changing its alignment . That is all that is required for the flag to be activated. Very rarely is something going to ram a freighter that is aligning to somewhere, by accident.

I believe the server has the ability to know how hard or softly a freighter has been hit, ramming a freighter at 80 ms is not going to change its alignment a great deal, but if it is hit a 1200ms it is.

I'm sure CCP have the staff able to code something with the information the server provides.
If not, bumping should just be removed.


We already discussed this to death in the other thread.

Seriously, go read it. You asked for links, I've provided them, yet here you are still posting your bad idea.

As I've asked previously - Link it, I'd be happy to read it. If for no other reason to see how similar it is to my suggestion.


I did provide a link, scroll up.

Jesus.

"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
SurrenderMonkey
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2016-02-09 01:27:06 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:


Freighter bumps Mach, freighter maintains original course, Mach veers off. Mach bumps freighter, freighter veers off. Pretty straight forward really.


When two ships bump, neither maintain their original course.

Please come back when you have an elementary understanding of the game mechanics.

Ok lets dumb it down enough for you.


You're awfully condescending for someone who just made an idiot of himself by flatly stating that the bumping ship doesn't change course.


Quote:
I believe the server has the ability to know how hard or softly a freighter has been hit, ramming a freighter at 80 ms is not going to change its alignment a great deal, but if it is hit a 1200ms it is.


A freighter hitting an interceptor will change its alignment a great deal, if only briefly. So, is it then game-on when that happens, or are we special-casing this for the bottom 1% of freighter pilots who are stupid enough to get bumped?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Mag's
Azn Empire
#39 - 2016-02-09 01:28:39 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
I did provide a link, scroll up.

Jesus.
I think Jesus was in that thread as well.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#40 - 2016-02-09 01:32:10 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

The tackle might have a scrambler....no MJD in that case.

In that case Concord would make short work of the ship with the scrambler. Giving the freighter a get out of gaol free card.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Previous page123Next page