These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Ship Bumping? Still needed?

Author
Pipa Porto
#81 - 2012-10-02 10:45:04 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
hm....
how is Frighter pilot meant to fight those pesky aplha-tornadoe suiciders who uses neutral scaner + logoff traps?
How is tankless miner meant to survive high-sec gankers?

I see wide range of stupid and unlogical things needed to answer those stupid questions.


By avoiding becoming a target. ISK Tanking FTW. Or by using a scout and webs. (Loging in takes time).

By fitting a tank. It's your choice to mine in an untanked ship.

Respectively.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Pipa Porto
#82 - 2012-10-02 10:48:29 UTC
Atley Tramming wrote:
How about a module that deals damage to a ship that rams you proportionate to it's inertia? Or, perhaps a module so when rammed, that person's propulsion systems are disabled for a period of time (passive stasis webifier?).

If it you made it so there were small, medium, and large modules that took up a large amount of powergrid/cpu, you wouldn't see the module used in PvP (so that tactic would still be useful), yet it would still be useful as an anti-griefing module.

Any reason(s) that can't/shouldn't be done?


First Idea: Party on the Jita Undock. Grab a couple people with these things and sit there blowing people up without being CONCORDed. Pirate

Second Idea: Sweet, now instead of bumping people away from the gate to stop them from crashing the gate, we just need a ship parked in their way.

Finally, you're starting with the assumption that there is a problem and that something should be done about it. Care to elaborate on what you think the problem is and why you think it's a problem?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Muad 'dib
State War Academy
Caldari State
#83 - 2012-10-02 10:50:13 UTC
makes webs more effective from 60% to say 90% for the best ones, then anyone with two of those can shut down a potential incoming bump before it hits!

its genius you idiots!

Cosmic signature detected. . . . http://i.imgur.com/Z7NfIS6.jpg I got 99 likes, and this post aint one.

Ra Jackson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2012-10-02 14:56:51 UTC
I demand a general speed limit in hisec.
Ra Jackson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2012-10-02 14:57:40 UTC
Atley Tramming wrote:
How about a module that deals damage to a ship that rams you proportionate to it's inertia? Or, perhaps a module so when rammed, that person's propulsion systems are disabled for a period of time (passive stasis webifier?).


Freighters have no module slots Oops
CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#86 - 2012-10-02 16:02:22 UTC
Ra Jackson wrote:
I demand a general speed limit in hisec.



35m/s or Concord will get you?
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
#87 - 2012-10-02 19:43:51 UTC
Atley Tramming wrote:
How about a module that deals damage to a ship that rams you proportionate to it's inertia? Or, perhaps a module so when rammed, that person's propulsion systems are disabled for a period of time (passive stasis webifier?).

If it you made it so there were small, medium, and large modules that took up a large amount of powergrid/cpu, you wouldn't see the module used in PvP (so that tactic would still be useful), yet it would still be useful as an anti-griefing module.

Any reason(s) that can't/shouldn't be done?


I've always thought (before tractor beams were introduced) that tractors should have a repulsion mode that works on ships half the mass of the user or below. With cap cost dependent on mass of repulsed ship. This would help stop lower class ships and pilots from bumping ships way outside their class.

It could have an activation range of 10 km. The repulsion deactivates all of your hostile modules directed at repulsed target while it is under the repulsion effect.

Repulsor will flag you for pvp in hi sec and institute the station lockout. So lamers won't benefit, but serious internet spaceships will.

Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.

I invented Tiericide

Immortis Vexx
Onyx Moon Industries
#88 - 2012-10-02 20:46:10 UTC
Skip to the very bottom for the short version.. :)

The idea that a frig can bump a freighter without turning into a pod fluid stain on the side of it is dumb. That said, I see no viable way to fix it without drastically impacting other game mechanics. Some have suggested module additions but such things should not be used to simulate a law of physics. Someone mentioned Newton's second law but the third law also applies here as well. This same fact works on a planetary scale when an asteroid impacts a planet. Upon impact both masses exert force on each other.

For simplicity lets say that the freighter was traveling at 10m/s directly at the an ibis (with AB running). Taking into account the addition of mass from the AB that puts the ibis at 1.66m kg mass. I am going to ignore the additional thrust because it really won't matter. Lets also say that the acceleration of the ibis peaks at the very moment of impact, otherwise we have to take into consideration impulse and other time factors.

Ibis (with AB) stats. This is just raw stats, no skill improvements
Mass: 1.66m
Velocity: 398.25 m/s

Freighter stats
Mass 940m
Velocity: 10 m/s

so lets apply F=MA to both of these to figure out how much force they have.
Ibis: F = 662,289,750
Freighter: F = 9,400,000,000

The third law says, "that all forces exist in pairs: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: FA = −FB"

So this means that the freighter applies a force of 9.4b vs the ibis's force of 662m. If I've done the math right (which it prolly isn't). That freighter wouldn't even know that the ibis hit it. There is probably some other force that would get added in at the moment of impact but I lack the knowledge to compute it. I don't think that it would matter anyway given the numbers.
Lets try this again with a mwd

Ibis Stats
mass: 1.66m
Velocity: 1,475 m/s

again, F= MA right?

F = 2,452,925,000


Ok so we have a significant improvement in the amount of force applied but it still doesn't come close to the force needed to budge the freighter.

TLDR: Bumping mechanic is broken but there isn't a fix for it.

Borisk Zeltsh
Alcohlics Anonymous
#89 - 2012-10-03 02:27:16 UTC
I use bumping to bump fw farmers out they alignment incase they stabed buys me much needed extra seconds to kill them

also bump to stop ppl reaproching gates in gate camps

Dracan02
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#90 - 2012-10-03 07:25:14 UTC
just introduce ramming instead, .25 of each damage type per 1ms of speed in addition to current bumping mechanics.
you can still bump but running an MWDing inty into the side of a freighter has the appropriate bug on windscreen affect on the inty.
Pipa Porto
#91 - 2012-10-03 09:11:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Immortis Vexx wrote:
Ok so we have a significant improvement in the amount of force applied but it still doesn't come close to the force needed to budge the freighter.

TLDR: Bumping mechanic is broken but there isn't a fix for it.




First, bumping is a Momentum exchange. M=Mass*Velocity
Second, Velocity and Acceleration are not the same thing. You can't just plug velocity in where the equation calls for acceleration.
Third, Try hitting something with 10% of your Car's momentum. You'll certainly notice it.
Fourth, Bumping a Freighter in an Ibis doesn't do much.
Fifth, as I pointed out earlier ITT, a Bump stabber at full speed has something like 13 times more momentum than a Freighter moving at 100m/s. A Bump Slasher at full speed has about the same momentum as a Freighter moving at 100m/s.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Pipa Porto
#92 - 2012-10-03 09:12:15 UTC
Dracan02 wrote:
just introduce ramming instead, .25 of each damage type per 1ms of speed in addition to current bumping mechanics.
you can still bump but running an MWDing inty into the side of a freighter has the appropriate bug on windscreen affect on the inty.


Blow up All the Jita Undocks.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Felicia McVanders
xTESLAx
#93 - 2012-10-03 14:13:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Felicia McVanders
I say that the bug vs. windshield theory should not apply. Why? Shields, of course!

I'll clarify:
The ships have shields that currently act like a rubber ball for the purposes of collisions with other objects. This means that any such collisions are elastic (based on the definition per RL Physics).

I propose that the collisions should instead be inelastic in a way such that the shield of each ship takes damage. Flavor-wise, it could make sense that when the shields repel each other, they interfere and partially overload the respective shield matrices. Since an inelastic collision results in a loss of energy, the rebound velocities would be lower than currently in place. How much damage each shield takes should be a function of the momentum exchange. This way, the damage is equal, but the effect on each ship differs. Obv. the smaller ship would suffer more. E.g., a frig's shield taking 150 dmg is more critical than a BS's shield taking 150 dmg.

Since dmg is involved I would expect that KR on the offender would be a likely implementation, and the reciprocity of the damage seems fair. Bumping with this in place can still be used tactically, but the gained vulnerability no longer makes the choice as easy.

Thoughts?
Pipa Porto
#94 - 2012-10-03 14:20:50 UTC
Felicia McVanders wrote:
I say that the bug vs. windshield theory should not apply. Why? Shields, of course!

I'll clarify:
The ships have shields that currently act like a rubber ball for the purposes of collisions with other objects. This means that any such collisions are elastic (based on the definition per RL Physics).

I propose that the collisions should instead be inelastic in a way such that the shield of each ship takes damage. Flavor-wise, it could make sense that when the shields repel each other, they interfere and partially overload the respective shield matrices. Since an inelastic collision results in a loss of energy, the rebound velocities would be lower than currently in place. How much damage each shield takes should be a function of the momentum exchange. This way, the damage is equal, but the effect on each ship differs. Obv. the smaller ship would suffer more. E.g., a frig's shield taking 150 dmg is more critical than a BS's shield taking 150 dmg.

Since dmg is involved I would expect that KR on the offender would be a likely implementation, and the reciprocity of the damage seems fair. Bumping with this in place can still be used tactically, but the gained vulnerability no longer makes the choice as easy.

Thoughts?


Wheee... CONCORD-Free Suicide Ganking.

If you're going to say "Bumping Triggers CONCORD," then:
Wheee... CONCORD doing the Suicide Ganking for us! (Simply park a ship in front of the Jita Undock and watch it get bumped by the ebil gankers undocking)

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Felicia McVanders
xTESLAx
#95 - 2012-10-03 15:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Felicia McVanders
Pipa Porto wrote:


Wheee... CONCORD-Free Suicide Ganking.

If you're going to say "Bumping Triggers CONCORD," then:
Wheee... CONCORD doing the Suicide Ganking for us! (Simply park a ship in front of the Jita Undock and watch it get bumped by the ebil gankers undocking)


The idea is for the bumper, not the bumpee to become targetable. I'm not sure how that could even really be done logistically with the current implementation of aggression and docking mechanics.. If possible though, it would not mean Concord-Free ganking. The idea is to introduce a method of applying a consequence to bumping others. Under this idea, if you bump, they are allowed shoot you, it doesn't mean that they should or will shoot back.

I do agree that gates, and major market undocks are the largest barrier to modifying or replacing the bump mechanic.

Mostly, I am going for combo of the ram damage idea and slight griefer punishment.
Moonlit Raid
Doomheim
#96 - 2012-10-03 20:40:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonlit Raid
CorInaXeraL wrote:
Where did James 315 bump you? Lol

That much aside...yes. It is a valid tactic. Until such a day as ships can collide with one another for damage...totally valid. What if I see a freighter in hi-sec being a buffoon and carrying 10b isk in goodies, why should he have 0 risk for being a moron and me not be able to bump him away from the gates until a gank-squad arrives?

There are many uses beyond just this, and not simply limited to hi-sec.

Think you're just a victim of someone's bumpage and lashing out because you lost something. So...I go back to the original question.

The gank squad should already be there, your ill preparation shouldn't be forgiven by a function that is relatively useless unless used in riskless aggression.

IMO, if guns don't hit object between you and another ship, why should your ship hit other ships?

If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough.

Please Note: Any advice given comes with the caveat that nothing will be suitable for every situation.

Pipa Porto
#97 - 2012-10-05 04:48:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Felicia McVanders wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:


Wheee... CONCORD-Free Suicide Ganking.

If you're going to say "Bumping Triggers CONCORD," then:
Wheee... CONCORD doing the Suicide Ganking for us! (Simply park a ship in front of the Jita Undock and watch it get bumped by the ebil gankers undocking)


The idea is for the bumper, not the bumpee to become targetable. I'm not sure how that could even really be done logistically with the current implementation of aggression and docking mechanics.. If possible though, it would not mean Concord-Free ganking. The idea is to introduce a method of applying a consequence to bumping others. Under this idea, if you bump, they are allowed shoot you, it doesn't mean that they should or will shoot back.

I do agree that gates, and major market undocks are the largest barrier to modifying or replacing the bump mechanic.

Mostly, I am going for combo of the ram damage idea and slight griefer punishment.


Ok, if the Bumper gets concorded (or becomes flagged) just park a ship in front of the Jita undock (or in the path to the gate from an AP landing spot) and your victims will bump you, getting them CONCORDed or Flagged as a legal target.

Ahem

Wheeeeeee, CONCORD-free (or CONCORD-assisted) freighter (and everything else) ganks.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

CorInaXeraL
The Dresdeneers
#98 - 2012-10-05 15:47:59 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Felicia McVanders wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:


Wheee... CONCORD-Free Suicide Ganking.

If you're going to say "Bumping Triggers CONCORD," then:
Wheee... CONCORD doing the Suicide Ganking for us! (Simply park a ship in front of the Jita Undock and watch it get bumped by the ebil gankers undocking)


The idea is for the bumper, not the bumpee to become targetable. I'm not sure how that could even really be done logistically with the current implementation of aggression and docking mechanics.. If possible though, it would not mean Concord-Free ganking. The idea is to introduce a method of applying a consequence to bumping others. Under this idea, if you bump, they are allowed shoot you, it doesn't mean that they should or will shoot back.

I do agree that gates, and major market undocks are the largest barrier to modifying or replacing the bump mechanic.

Mostly, I am going for combo of the ram damage idea and slight griefer punishment.


Ok, if the Bumper gets concorded (or becomes flagged) just park a ship in front of the Jita undock (or in the path to the gate from an AP landing spot) and your victims will bump you, getting them CONCORDed or Flagged as a legal target.

Ahem

Wheeeeeee, CONCORD-free (or CONCORD-assisted) freighter (and everything else) ganks.



I...would so do this.
Veryez
Hidden Agenda
Deep Space Engineering
#99 - 2012-10-08 13:46:40 UTC
Immortis Vexx wrote:


....Stuff....



Someone needs to re-open their kinematics textbook I see… What you have is kinematics problem, and while you could figure this out with forces (since we are working with elastic collisions), you can’t the way you’re trying to do it (using velocity instead of acceleration). The easiest way to do this is to use conservation of momentum. To simplify the equation, we’ll assume that the frigate transfers all of its energy to the freighter (thus frigate final velocity = 0). Therefore:

M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 + M2V4

Where M1 = Freighter Mass
M2 = Frigate Mass
V1 = Initial Freighter Velocity
V2 = Initial Frigate Velocity
V3 = Final Freighter Velocity
V4 = Final Frigate Velocity

Velocity is of course a vector, so to simplify our calculation, we’ll assume a perpendicular collision (i.e. the freighter is moving perpendicular to the frigate). Therefore V1 = 0 and V4 = 0 (remember we’re dealing with vectors, and I assumed complete energy transfer).

Using numbers for an ibis (with a MWD) and a charon, I used 960 e6 for M1, 1.663 e6 for M1 (the MWD raises mass by 500000) and 2448 m/s for V2.

Solving for V3, I get 4.24 m/s (this would be the Freighter's velocity in the initial frigate’s direction). For those who want the full challenge (i.e. the Frigate doesn’t completely transfer all it’s energy, you will need to solve for V3 in relation to V4 in the conservation of Momentum equation and plug it into the Conservation of Energy equation and solve the polynomial equation – have fun). However in that case, the angle changed would only be smaller.

In other words the freighter will be knocked off course by 3.733 degrees. Which considering the number of times I’ve warped sideways, probably really isn’t enough to prevent a warp.


i.e. Bumping in EvE has nothing to do with real life physics....
Pipa Porto
#100 - 2012-10-09 03:35:33 UTC
Veryez wrote:
Immortis Vexx wrote:


....Stuff....



Someone needs to re-open their kinematics textbook I see… What you have is kinematics problem, and while you could figure this out with forces (since we are working with elastic collisions), you can’t the way you’re trying to do it (using velocity instead of acceleration). The easiest way to do this is to use conservation of momentum. To simplify the equation, we’ll assume that the frigate transfers all of its energy to the freighter (thus frigate final velocity = 0). Therefore:

M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V3 + M2V4

Where M1 = Freighter Mass
M2 = Frigate Mass
V1 = Initial Freighter Velocity
V2 = Initial Frigate Velocity
V3 = Final Freighter Velocity
V4 = Final Frigate Velocity

Velocity is of course a vector, so to simplify our calculation, we’ll assume a perpendicular collision (i.e. the freighter is moving perpendicular to the frigate). Therefore V1 = 0 and V4 = 0 (remember we’re dealing with vectors, and I assumed complete energy transfer).

Using numbers for an ibis (with a MWD) and a charon, I used 960 e6 for M1, 1.663 e6 for M1 (the MWD raises mass by 500000) and 2448 m/s for V2.

Solving for V3, I get 4.24 m/s (this would be the Freighter's velocity in the initial frigate’s direction). For those who want the full challenge (i.e. the Frigate doesn’t completely transfer all it’s energy, you will need to solve for V3 in relation to V4 in the conservation of Momentum equation and plug it into the Conservation of Energy equation and solve the polynomial equation – have fun). However in that case, the angle changed would only be smaller.

In other words the freighter will be knocked off course by 3.733 degrees. Which considering the number of times I’ve warped sideways, probably really isn’t enough to prevent a warp.


i.e. Bumping in EvE has nothing to do with real life physics....



Try it again with a ship people actually use to bump, and you'll see why it works. Like the 100mn MWD Fleet Stabber, which has about 13 times as much momentum as the Freighter.

Second, the direction your ship model is facing has no bearing on the vector that the server sees your ship as. That vector is what has to be pointing in the right direction to initiate warp.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto