These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP allow miners to defend against bumpers ?

Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#241 - 2012-10-25 10:21:12 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
yes thats what eve badly needs
much less pvp


More like bumpers scared of PvP.


Why are you in hi-sec when you can bravely PvP all you like in the belts in lo-sec, 0.0, W-space?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Rollin Forties
School of Applied Street Knowledge
#242 - 2012-10-25 10:43:25 UTC
Quote:
I'm guessing just the idea would scare enough people not to bump


I think you're wrong, I think more bumping would happen because of this. Think back to when can flipping came into being. Miners were happy they could "fight back" but the only thing that happened was they got ganked more.
Nanatoa
#243 - 2012-10-25 11:15:59 UTC
Indeed these requests for action usually back-fire. If they don't change themselves, miners will never stop complaining; this is what the New Order of Highsec intends to fix. Helping miners help themselves, by letting them embrace the New Order.

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011

svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#244 - 2012-10-25 11:18:57 UTC
Clearly this topic tells me one thing, I need to start bumping miners lol
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#245 - 2012-10-25 11:37:14 UTC
Lordy, this thread delivered.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#246 - 2012-10-25 13:11:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Bumping at the very least should flag you as aggressive and CONCORD should stay out of it.


Yes this couldn't possibly have any repurcussions elsewhere in the game.


Highsec carebears typically don't understand any of the mechanics in EVE, it's not really their fault that they suggest truly idiotic ideas, they're simply ignorant of game mechanics on the whole so don't understand why their idea is stupid.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#247 - 2012-10-25 13:13:52 UTC
I also find it rather pathetic that miners are still crying and demanding CCP further buff their stupid braindead "profession".

I mean really, you twonks cried and cried and cried about ganking, ccp buffed the crap out of your barges and just a week or two later you've came up with another thing to cry about and demand "fixing"
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2012-10-25 13:14:25 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Bumping at the very least should flag you as aggressive and CONCORD should stay out of it.


Yes this couldn't possibly have any repurcussions elsewhere in the game.


Highsec carebears typically don't understand any of the mechanics in EVE, it's not really their fault that they suggest truly idiotic ideas, they're simply ignorant of game mechanics on the whole so don't understand why their idea is stupid.


And you're simply an ignorant undesirable belligerent who needs to be removed from this game if the company and its product are to thrive.

biomass. Smile
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#249 - 2012-10-25 13:18:43 UTC
This game operates solely on the fact that broken windows need fixing. Without pvp, the economy would become oversaturated within months, and people would leave in droves. That's not thriving. That's not even a slow death at that point.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#250 - 2012-10-25 13:18:46 UTC
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Sentamon wrote:
Bumping at the very least should flag you as aggressive and CONCORD should stay out of it.


Yes this couldn't possibly have any repurcussions elsewhere in the game.


Highsec carebears typically don't understand any of the mechanics in EVE, it's not really their fault that they suggest truly idiotic ideas, they're simply ignorant of game mechanics on the whole so don't understand why their idea is stupid.


And you're simply an ignorant undesirable belligerent who needs to be removed from this game if the company and its product are to thrive.

biomass. Smile


Undesirable Belligerent.

Brilliant.
svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#251 - 2012-10-25 13:19:48 UTC  |  Edited by: svenska flicka
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
This game operates solely on the fact that broken windows need fixing. Without pvp, the economy would become oversaturated within months, and people would leave in droves. That's not thriving. That's not even a slow death at that point.



SWG + NGE CryCryCryCryCryCryCryCryCryCryCry
Rollin Forties
School of Applied Street Knowledge
#252 - 2012-10-25 13:22:57 UTC
Who does this guy think he is to decide who is desirable and who is not?
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#253 - 2012-10-25 13:25:38 UTC
To note: I absolutely support James315 and the emergent gameplay he has perfected, if not pioneered. I say this as someone with a large number of industry and mining skillpoints.
Ekscalybur
Templar Services Inc.
#254 - 2012-10-25 13:29:53 UTC
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
*yawn* Typical undesirable arguments. It's ok, new changes will soon be made my fellow miners, and the undesirables will be forced away :)

No More Heroes wrote:
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
Not in high sec, they're entitled, they're not bothering anyone


They are bothering the Guardian and Protector of high sec: James 315 and the New Order with their decadent ways.


Hah, he's no guardian. He's nothing but an unwanted individual causing trouble for others, :)


What changes, exactly, do you think are going to happen that will stop bumping?

Seriously, think about this one for a minute before you reply. You're going to slap a bounty on someone? That is pee-my-pants funny. James315 could end up with a bounty of 100 billion+ on him, if the player looking to collect some of that doesn't have killrights, they are getting Concordokkened shortly after they open fire on him.

BTW, bumping something will never, ever grant kill rights to anyone.

nerf Veldspar!

Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2012-10-25 13:30:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tali Ambraelle
Rollin Forties wrote:
Who does this guy think he is to decide who is desirable and who is not?


It's quite simple really, you vile PVP undesirables simply refuse to listen;

Eve is a sandbox, not just a warzone. Things die, but they also thrive. You have the right to play your way, even when it comes to ganking a bear. Why? Because at that point, bears have teeth and can counter attack. Whether they do or not is up to them.

However, bumping is a different scenarios. Bear's cannot effectively "gank" them in the traditional sense of the word. They do not have a single company or entity. Nay, half of them are sat inside NPC corps, while the rest are spread out. War deccing them would be a financial sink hole and a useless investment with MAYBE 1 or 2 kills to be had.

For now, miners try to orbit, or AB/MWD back, web each other, counter bump the enemy or bump each other back, but this is not as effective as the game disrupting activity of bumping them away in the first place.

This is what makes them undesirables that must be removed or nerfed; there is no effective counter to them. If it was all one corp, or a gank, or even lowsec, I'd tell the bears to remember their teeth and claws, suck it up, and fire back. This is not the case. It is not considered an "exploit" since it is a game mechanic, as so many workingasintended-tards tend to lean on.

Therefore, they interrupt, without consequence, the gameplay of those who choose to sit in a quiet corner to themselves, talk on corp chat, make a meal, or do whatever and mine their little hearts out. They do not pay to be griefed; they pay to play. I don't care if "this is Eve" or "working as intended" or "get over it." If I could kill you in the game to stop you, this wouldn't be an issue, but the current aggression tactics are not conducive to an effective counter attack.

That is why they are undesirable belligerents. That is why they should be removed. That is why I stand with the bears.

What is your reason, besides annoying people and being generally unproductive?

And don't bother with the "why should they interrupt my gameplay?" Your right to game play ends where it infringes on others' rights.

I honestly and legitimately wish that a large portion of industrialists and miners would simply cease their activities and unsubscribe for a while. Let's see if the claim that they can be replaced really does hold up the eve economy.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#256 - 2012-10-25 13:33:02 UTC
miners are the undesirable belligerents

they demand the "right" to bot in peace while saturating the economy with cheap minerals that minimize consequences in other areas of the game

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#257 - 2012-10-25 13:35:50 UTC
Andski wrote:
miners are the undesirable belligerents

they demand the "right" to bot in peace while saturating the economy with cheap minerals that minimize consequences in other areas of the game


False. If a miner is botting, that is against the EULA and they should be treated as, indeed, undesirables and be removed.

This is not what I'm against.

I've seen this bump crusade go from something that could be rather useful to bumping players at their station, mining, and going about their business, but not botting.

If they mine without a script or bot, and let the ship sit while they make a sandwich, catch up on news, or whatever, then there's a problem. If they are within the rules and not botting, why care?

And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation?

Oh right, it doesn't.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#258 - 2012-10-25 13:39:50 UTC
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation?

Oh right, it doesn't.


more expensive things means more meaningful losses

hth

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

svenska flicka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#259 - 2012-10-25 13:41:09 UTC  |  Edited by: svenska flicka
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
Andski wrote:
miners are the undesirable belligerents

they demand the "right" to bot in peace while saturating the economy with cheap minerals that minimize consequences in other areas of the game


False. If a miner is botting, that is against the EULA and they should be treated as, indeed, undesirables and be removed.

This is not what I'm against.

I've seen this bump crusade go from something that could be rather useful to bumping players at their station, mining, and going about their business, but not botting.

If they mine without a script or bot, and let the ship sit while they make a sandwich, catch up on news, or whatever, then there's a problem. If they are within the rules and not botting, why care?

And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation?

Oh right, it doesn't.


But itz sanboxx meza wants to *bump bump.

see wat i did har?
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2012-10-25 13:44:03 UTC
Andski wrote:
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
And why do you want higher mineral prices? Why do you want more expensive things? Why are you trying to raise the barrier of entry for others? What makes you the good guy in that situation?

Oh right, it doesn't.


more expensive things means more meaningful losses

hth


It doesn't help. Why would more expensive losses equate to more meaningful to everyone? It just means people would be MORE risk averse you twit. You raise the barrier of entry, they dont want to risk loosing the ship, they end up not playing OR paying, subscriptions go down, and gg Eve. GG free expansions, GG more content, expanding company, more gameplay, more fixed, more ANYTHING.