These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#61 - 2012-10-24 18:08:15 UTC
Elinarien wrote:
Just have an alt in a gank-fit catalyst standing by. That'll surprise the bumber & no doubt harvest some very tasty tears.


Nope, the bumper & friends will just get on the Concord killmail when the catalyst pilot goes global, a gank catalyst probably costs more than a bumping cruiser and won't get an insurance payout, the bumper will if the ship is insured which they usually are.

Where are your tears now?

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2012-10-24 18:08:34 UTC
Zkaor wrote:
Not afk mining, doing laps around the item being mined does not work and W.O.W.?

My issue is not with the act of bumping but not being able to respond in a way other than pay or leave. To me this has been exploited enough and needs to be fixed.


And here is the next demand after they made ganking unprofitable.

Kobal81
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2012-10-24 18:10:23 UTC
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.


P.S. If this should be posted elsewhere please let me know...thanks


AOE Doomsday

"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit"

Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#64 - 2012-10-24 18:10:57 UTC
Sad Bro wrote:
Won't anyone think about the asteroids? One day asteroids are going to stop appearing from thin air and then what will we do? We are a society dependent on minerals and when the asteroids are gone, so too will be the minerals. We must consider alternative energy solutions. Quickly, CCP, implement corn farming in PI so I can refine T2 ethanol.


"In the past, scientists shared their concerns about an overall reduction in the supply of raw resources, but in recent times, the discovery of additional ore in unknown sectors of space has alleviated this anxiety. There are some experts who have maintained all along, however, that the ongoing excavations on the frontiers of nullsec, where new belts are still being uncovered each day, has provided more than enough incoming ore to satisfy the industrialists of New Eden. "

sorry duder, the experts have spoken.
Tali Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2012-10-24 18:11:39 UTC
James 315 wrote:
1. In what way am I an "undesirable"?

You interfere with game play of other individuals and ruin the product they paid for.

Quote:
2. Why is your opinion about my desirability more important than others'?

Because many, many others find you as a belligerent undesirable. I merely echo it.

Quote:
3. Why should I get a ban if I do not violate the EULA?

Miners consider it an exploit as you interfere with what they do at no consequence to you, at all.

Quote:
4. How am I interrupting others' game play by improving it?

You are not improving mining, you are preventing their mining gameplay

Quote:
5. Is it "game play" if they're AFK?

Yes.

:)
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#66 - 2012-10-24 18:11:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.

Have you considered moving to another system or region?

Or using a pair of webifiers? [Industrials work too.]

[Scorpion, 2x Quad Webber]
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2012-10-24 18:12:02 UTC
James 315 wrote:
Tali Ambraelle wrote:
Don't care. Let them mine in high sec. James is an undesirable deserving of ban for interrupting paying customers' game play.

Is this directed at me? If so, I have a few questions.

1. In what way am I an "undesirable"?
2. Why is your opinion about my desirability more important than others'?
3. Why should I get a ban if I do not violate the EULA?
4. How am I interrupting others' game play by improving it?
5. Is it "game play" if they're AFK?

Thanks! Smile


James, while I don't disagree with your activities, let me try and answer your questions from their point of view.

1. In what way am I an "undesirable"?
You're annoying other people by bumping their ships.

2. Why is your opinion about my desirability more important than others'?
She's, apparently, one of the ones you annoyed.

3. Why should I get a ban if I do not violate the EULA?
See number 1, paying customers, blah blah blah.

4. How am I interrupting others' game play by improving it?
They're annoyed and entitled. All logic ends at that point.

5. Is it "game play" if they're AFK?
Of course it is - they're logged in aren't they? Besides, annoyed and entitled people don't really have time for your questions.

I hope you found this exposition on their concerns illuminating and that you will allow it to influence your future activities appropriately.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.

Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-10-24 18:15:22 UTC
There's a suggestion in another thread to allow people to blow up the asteroids and be flagged for FFA pvp for 15 min.


I would support this to help save miners from bumpers.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#69 - 2012-10-24 18:16:15 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
Not afk mining, doing laps around the item being mined does not work and W.O.W.?

My issue is not with the act of bumping but not being able to respond in a way other than pay or leave. To me this has been exploited enough and needs to be fixed.


And here is the next demand after they made ganking unprofitable.



Ganking unprofitability has backfired on miners, it's not profitable to gank bumpers, leaving no recourse. I have a new solution.

Let us mine from the hull of bumpers' ships as they bump and grind. low sec ore< null sec ore < high sec ore <<< bumper ore.

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#70 - 2012-10-24 18:16:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.

Have you considered moving to another system or region?

Or using a pair of webifiers?

[Scorpion, 2x Quad Webber]
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I


Interesting wrinkle, would the webs be used on the hulks to prevent them moving too far too fast? Can be counteracted by moving the webber out of range the same way Orcas can be moved via bumping with a MWD Machariel.

Or would they be used on the would be bumper to slow them down? I can see amusing & expensive consequences if someone tries to do that.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#71 - 2012-10-24 18:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.

Have you considered moving to another system or region?

Or using a pair of webifiers? [Industrials work too.]

[Scorpion, 2x Quad Webber]
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I


webifiers are exactly the reason why highsec bumping seems like a problem. webifiers and bumping are two main ways to affect the speed of a hostile ship. webifiers get you concorded in highsec...bumping doesn't. So, your post, while failing in its aims, at least brings up this central inconsistency. If ccp made hostile webifying legal in highsec, I'd cease my opposition to hisec bumping, actually. It would simultaneously remove the inconsistency while providing a means of defense.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#72 - 2012-10-24 18:21:23 UTC
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.


P.S. If this should be posted elsewhere please let me know...thanks



You can suicide gank them

After all there are no consequences for doing this, right?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#73 - 2012-10-24 18:22:26 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.

Have you considered moving to another system or region?

Or using a pair of webifiers? [Industrials work too.]

[Scorpion, 2x Quad Webber]
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I


webifiers are exactly the reason why highsec bumping seems like a problem. webifiers and bumping are two main ways to affect the speed of a hostile ship. webifiers get you concorded in highsec...bumping doesn't. So, your post, while failing in its aims, at least brings up this central inconsistency. If ccp made hostile webifying legal in highsec, I'd cease my opposition to hisec bumping, actually. It would simultaneously remove the inconsistency while providing a means of defense.



Oh dear well you'd better join a corp then

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#74 - 2012-10-24 18:23:21 UTC
In all seriousness though, there are plenty of ways to defend against bumpers. Go mine in low/null and shoot them. Smile
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-10-24 18:23:27 UTC
Let us blow up the asteroids and get a suspect flag, people would stop bumping then.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#76 - 2012-10-24 18:23:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.


P.S. If this should be posted elsewhere please let me know...thanks



You can suicide gank them

After all there are no consequences for doing this, right?


There's no risk. But there are known consequences,also known as 'costs'.
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#77 - 2012-10-24 18:24:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
Malcanis wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.

Have you considered moving to another system or region?

Or using a pair of webifiers? [Industrials work too.]

[Scorpion, 2x Quad Webber]
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I


webifiers are exactly the reason why highsec bumping seems like a problem. webifiers and bumping are two main ways to affect the speed of a hostile ship. webifiers get you concorded in highsec...bumping doesn't. So, your post, while failing in its aims, at least brings up this central inconsistency. If ccp made hostile webifying legal in highsec, I'd cease my opposition to hisec bumping, actually. It would simultaneously remove the inconsistency while providing a means of defense.



Oh dear well you'd better join a corp then


I'm in a corp? (are you suggesting miners simultaneously join the corp of every bumper, which would be impossible even if the bumpers agreed to it?)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#78 - 2012-10-24 18:24:32 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.


P.S. If this should be posted elsewhere please let me know...thanks



You can suicide gank them

After all there are no consequences for doing this, right?


There's no risk. But there are known consequences,also known as 'costs'.



Well no actually I agree that bumping someone in hi-sec should be a concordokken offence


BRB setting up my salvaging alt on Jita 4-4 undock


OK GO!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Elinarien
Doomheim
#79 - 2012-10-24 18:25:02 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Elinarien wrote:
Just have an alt in a gank-fit catalyst standing by. That'll surprise the bumber & no doubt harvest some very tasty tears.


Nope, the bumper & friends will just get on the Concord killmail when the catalyst pilot goes global, a gank catalyst probably costs more than a bumping cruiser and won't get an insurance payout, the bumper will if the ship is insured which they usually are.

Where are your tears now?


having the satisfaction of dealing with others in the way that the game is meant to be played rather than hiding behind high-sec security mechanics.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#80 - 2012-10-24 18:25:16 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Zkaor wrote:
Will someone at CCP please allow miners defend (destroy) the bumpers ship without Concord intervention. As it is now all miners hands are tied and MUST submit to their extorsion tactics with no means of defense.

Have you considered moving to another system or region?

Or using a pair of webifiers? [Industrials work too.]

[Scorpion, 2x Quad Webber]
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I


webifiers are exactly the reason why highsec bumping seems like a problem. webifiers and bumping are two main ways to affect the speed of a hostile ship. webifiers get you concorded in highsec...bumping doesn't. So, your post, while failing in its aims, at least brings up this central inconsistency. If ccp made hostile webifying legal in highsec, I'd cease my opposition to hisec bumping, actually. It would simultaneously remove the inconsistency while providing a means of defense.



Oh dear well you'd better join a corp then


I'm in a corp?



Well then web away! Aggressing a corpmate isn't a CONCORD offence.


(You knew that, right?)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016