Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The same golden rule of support your capitals applies just as much today as back then. These ships are not designed to excel at solo.


It only takes one dictor to tackle a titan too. These ships are corp and alliance level assets, treat them as such.

Orca is designed for fleet work, it's a corp level asset.


Please don't lie.

This thread is hilarious. It's not often we get to see this type of circle jerking and one sided approval outside of C and P. Well done. You've successfully stealth buff bumping, nerf hauling, blame haulers(all of them, not just the bad ones), circumvented concord, and assumed lack of response as consent all in one go.


So if you're ok with deployable, non-concorded insta tackle for freighters in high sec, surely deployable stasis Web fields are ok too, right? Maybe even deployable rr too?


-1.


You genuinely want to fix bumping? Push for collision mechanics and fitting slots on freighters. Just because they were introduced years ago as helpless herbivores in the cretacious, doesn't mean they can't ever evolve as the game does (and has). Sure, the freighter is gonna get damaged a bit by the noobship, but all in all it won't care. The stabber will do a large chunk more, but the freighter is still gonna survive. And by all means if you wanna throw suicide machs at bumping , let the lols ensue.


Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the guy who throws 20b into his Charon then dies like a scrub in niarja. But the whole treating industry and industrialists and even explorers to some extent like 2nd or 3rd class citizens is beginning to rub thin... as is the whole, 'oh, just attack yourself so you can be safe' argument. FFS, if that's what we wanna settle on then let's make a module specifically designed to do that without the need for all the dueling and character log off timers, etc. Weapons timer? Sure.


I'm done here, seeing as you're not actually interested in addressing bumping, just buffing tackling freighters in high sec.

No, it is not CCP's business if a player is stupid, foolish, ignorant, or whatever in any particular instance. CCP is not here to hold anyone's hand....at least that is what they claim, but sometimes I wonder based on their actions.

Seriously, tell me what is wrong with this picture:

Bob takes on too much risk by putting 7 billion ISK of cargo into his freighter and undocks and flies unescorted through Uedama with no tank.

1. No tank.
2. Overloaded freighter.
3. No escort.

He literally screwed up three times. Let us also posit that he has done this 3 times before. So he has screwed up no less than 12 times....and now he finds himself being bumped....because he screwed up on 1, 2 and 3...repeatedly.

Why should CCP bail him out by giving him a chance to get away yet again? Now, if we want to change the mechanics so that an escort can more easily shoot the bumper...and the bumper can call in a fleet for support leading to a nice big fat fight...I'd like to discuss that. But giving some Bad™ yet another out when he has screwed up again and again...sorry, no. It is well past time he learned a painful, painful lesson.

I screwed up once and lost a JF...why is CCP not doing anything special for me?

Seriously, 99% of the posts on this sub-forum are people engaged in special interest group lobbying with CCP. "Please CCP give me something special because I'm Bad™."

Now, if we can make bumping more interesting and allow for more chances of escalation and conflict around freighter bumping then we can look into that. But saying we should provide and easy out for players who screwed up time and again...that is not good game design, that is bad game design at least for a sandbox game.

So ... What exactly happens if freighters are given a Mid and enough resource to fit say ... a Large MWD? Would an Active MWD increase the mass and maneuverability enough to be able to react to bumps?

Obviously the problem with this is the extra resources allows access to a massive Hull or Armor tank with resists which would likely need to be restricted, but if we focus on access to a single Mid do we have options and ability to fight back and escape a bump lock? What could be included to give Freighters a chance of escaping on their own?

First off, yes it is CCP's business, because they're the ones setting the values that determine those thresholds. If CCP gave freighters 10x their current EHP then Bob hauling 7bil in cargo would be fine because it wouldn't be profitable to gank him. I'm not advocating for that, I just think your entire argument of "no, CCP, don't touch this part of your game!" is absurd.

In your example bumping isn't in any way required to punish Bob's stupidity, he'll be just as dead if you gank him under gate guns, the difference is it requires a few less people and loses a few less ships to bump him 500km off the gate first.

No matter what CCP decides in these sort of situations someone is benefiting and getting things made easier for them. What you seem to want is to make it easier to punish risky decisions, but risks are not certainties and should not be made such.

That's without even getting into the fact that your hypothetical is a straw man in his entirety. Lets say someone is flying a Freighter, which is tanked and not really overloaded, but it's somewhere near the threshold for being a gankable target. If he only becomes a gankable target because the gankers can bump him off the gate does that mean he was an idiot, or just unlucky, or what?

Really this entire rant of yours is kind of amusingly ironic because you're engaged in exactly the same sort of "special interest group lobbying" you're accusing me of. Doubly amusing because I'm not a hauler. I'm not personally impacted by this decision in any way, I just think it's a bad mechanic. I've been up here arguing the other way dozens of times in the past when people put up bad ideas for making ganking impossible too.

Side note: MWDs on a Freighter is a terrible idea. It either creates a mandatory module or just massively buffs their ability to fit tank.

If you have an idea to make bumping more interesting, great, that sounds fantastic. I've said, repeatedly in this thread, that what I'd like is for this to have some kind of counterplay to it, because that's the entire problem with bumping, there's no counter play. Either you're easily bumpable and can't do much about that, or your ship isn't and you're immune to it. All the available counters to a single player bumping you are "have an alt", which is boring and bad for the game.

---

Heck, random pie in the sky idea here.

How about a free-form addition to the bounty system that allows players to send out pings with money attached, the more money the further you can ping. Other players can respond to the pings and if they meet some criteria they're eligible for a payout from the money the player put in to send out the initial ping.

Could be something like "kill X ship" or "Save my ship", where everyone who accepts and gets on the killmail gets a payout or everyone who managed to be on-grid while the ping was active gets a payout if your ship docks up safely.

That helps solve the "need an alt" problem and creates plenty of opportunities for emergent gameplay, including gankers basically ransoming ships by threatening to gank them and then jumping on the ping payout, but risking that randoms might eat into some of their share.

CCP would have to nerf them further.

The whole freighter issue is linked to the fact that while a bunch of relatively easy method can be used to counter a gank, the required ship are very rarely in place when needed because in the very vast majority of case, it will be wasted time as the freighter would just go though unharmed. If an escort was accounted for because there is more often something to clear, even if it's stupid NPC rats, then the whole thing could evolve because you would see a design direction toward making the freighter no longer an actual viable solo option. Anyone getting caught solo in a freighter would just get pointed out that it's just not meant to be instead of an escort being something that can happen but is useless something along the line of 98% of the time.

You could for example put NPC rat BS on gates that do just enough damage to overcome the regen of a freighter and point things that stay on gate a few seconds. This would mean a lot of hauling might require escort and same for battleships maybe but from that point on, all interaction with those ships by other player can also be based on the concept that escort will be available. Hyperdunking for example would never really have been a problem because the answer to it is present instead of being vaguely existing in the form of an alt or some friends who might not be present. The alt/friend is now present anyway because he just flat out have to.

As much as "player driven" stuff is cool in EVE, I really think CCP will have to twist some arms a little if they want things to move in there. If ganking is to ever become an engaging form of game play where both side can do something, then you kinda have to setup the cards for it to happen. Nobody will do the job that is 98% of the time a waste of time. The holy sandbox is cool and all but we see it all the time, if there is nothing at the end of it, it will not get done in EVE. Escorting freighter falls way too often in the useless bin of activity to be relevant. If the game is to move with this game play, then it has to stop being so damn stupid.

Or CCP can be happy about the current situation where the real effective solution to a problem is to use a pilot's time in a way that is borderline useless 98% of the time. They get to design the game however they want after all.

No. CCP sets the parameters and given those parameters players determine the level of risk they want to take. If a player is ignorant of how these things work...that is something they should seek to remedy. Maybe CCP can do a better job at informing them of how these things work. But at the same time some players are amazingly obstinate in their desire to remain ignorant. Those players...screw 'em.

Seems like most of the complaints are about bumping freighters so they will discard your experience and opinions.

It does not. I can dock a Freighter in an Astrahus, I can jump a Freighter through a High Sec gate, I can not fit any capital class module to a Freighter, and I gain no benefit from having the Capital Ships skill when flying a Freighter.

Freighters are only classes as capitals because they're too big to reasonably be Battleships.



You listed five ways to use alts to avoid getting bumped. My contention is that a single player should not be able to effectively shut down a Freighter for effectively no risk and no penalty and have the Freighter be unable to escape without help from another character.



One very very specialized ship, assuming no HAWs, or it's not a Carrier. In point of fact Capitals have more of a chance of dealing with a solo-tackle than a Freighter does of dealing with being bumped on his own. In fact at the very least the Capital can fit stabs and warp off, or try to shoot the HIC or Dictor, or various other options that while various degrees of unlikely to work at least have a chance of doing so.

If we could get bumping up to that level of basic counter-play that would be wonderful IMO.

Also I never said I bumped a franken-fit Skiff with an over sized prop mod. If someone wants to fit that then by all means go ahead, they won't be able to fit much else... If you have a viable fit for that I'm curious to see it. Just at an eyeball I'm thinking... either a small powercore and no other tank, or only one strip miner maybe?



And how, exactly, do you think CCP determines what the parameters should be?

Seriously just look at the Freighter re-balance when they gave them low slots, CCP are very well aware of *about* where the risk and reward curve is going to fall. Same for when they removed insurance from gank ships, that was done *entirely* because the new Battlecruiser hulls were completely wrecking the cost/benefit curve for ganking in favor of the gankers compared to what had previously existed.

If CCP feel that something is either too easy for a player to do relative to its reward, or not hard enough, or not rewarding enough, then that is *quite literally* their job to address that.

Even something like corp theft has resulted in improvements to the tools available to corp operators to make it easier for them to define roles, setup access, and generally make UI mistakes less likely because corp theft should be a battle of wits between players, not a fight between the corp owner and the UI. Those are all tools the corp owner can use and any sort of anti-bumping mechanic should fit the same sort of mold. Not something that completely shuts down bumping, but something that gives the pilots of very slow ships a window of opportunity to exploit or a tool they can use, instead of the current system where the entire interaction is one-sided and not particularly interesting.