These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Miner Bumping: Discussion & Questions Thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#201 - 2012-11-30 13:39:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Ollivir Witt wrote:
Bumping in this case is being used as a no-risk version of PVP.


Didn't bother reading the rest of your huge post after this line because this line is so wrong why waste my time with the rest.

Bumpers can be war decced or suicide ganked just like anyone else. Bam. Risk.

Edit: Rule 7: Trolling is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
Alana Charen-Teng
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2012-11-30 13:42:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Alana Charen-Teng
Ollivir Witt wrote:

This brings up a remarkable solution, nearly instantly when viewed in this perspective. Bumping in this case is being used as a no-risk version of PVP. the player mining wants to mine, the player bumping doesn't want anyone to mine without paying him "protection money" or some other form of extortion, which is COMPLETELY allowable. These two players have conflicting goals, the bumper obviously in this case is the aggressor, and we have entailed a PVP scenario. This should mean a couple of things, A. the aggressor (the bumper) is flagged, and B. that concord will arrive and execute the offender... the result here? suicide gank them or don't, but don't bump them.


The punishment should fit the crime. Bumping, in itself, can not possibly damage a mining vessel - instant destruction of the bumping ship by CONCORD is obviously too severe a repercussion.

Bumpers incur the same risk as any other character in Highsec: they can be suicide ganked at any time.

Ollivir Witt wrote:

The website that so many of you redirect to has SPECIFIC guidelines and tips and tricks laid out for avoiding the consequences of what it is your doing, whether its changing corps, or being in NPC corps, or whatever else. The fact that those tips and tricks exist and are a primary part of your strategy tips your hands. By saying that at all times we will avoid all of the consequences of the PVP interactions we engage in, this ceases to be "emergent gameplay" and becomes an exploit or an attempt at one.

I'm glad we are in agreement about the absurdity of wardec evasion. You may be interested to know how it was that wardec evasion ceased being considered an exploit in the first place...
Anslo
Scope Works
#203 - 2012-11-30 13:43:14 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Ollivir Witt wrote:
Bumping in this case is being used as a no-risk version of PVP.


Didn't bother reading the rest of your huge post after this line because this line is so wrong why waste my time with the rest.

Bumpers can be war decced or suicide ganked just like anyone else. Bam. Risk.

Edit: Rule 7 Trolling is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan


And then they dock up or avoid ti by dropping corp.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#204 - 2012-11-30 13:45:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
Anslo wrote:
And then they dock up or avoid ti by dropping corp.

In the same way as any player in highsec can dock up to avoid PVP or drop corp to nullify a wardec. That's not imbalanced either, since it applies to everyone. Miners are just as capable of docking up to prevent bumpage as bumpers are capable of docking to prevent wars.
Yuri Wayfare
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
#205 - 2012-11-30 13:47:42 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Yuri Wayfare wrote:
Well, that rules out any game mechanics changes as GMs are not Devs. So I guess the only real question on the table here is: does bumping people constitute harassment?

The EULA already covers that nicely. If people are bothered for no reason other than to cause grief, it is harassment. If there is a profit motive, it is not harassment. Quite clean, if a bit difficult to judge and enforce.

Falcon, pray tell - what exactly are you and the Senior GMs unclear about?

I imagine that they feel that miner bumping has caused enough drama and upset and commotion to be worth a reevaluation of policies regarding harrassment.


I imagine so too. Which means that the issue at stake here is the very definition of "harassment" in EVE Online.

So folks, it's pointless to talk about anchor modules or criminal flags. What this discussion is about is how should GMs respond to petitions from bump victims. Nothing more and nothing less.

"Nothing more" I said... As if redefining the fabric of EVE isn't a big enough issue Bear

"Suddenly, trash pickers! HUNDREDS of winos going through your recyclables." -Piugattuk

Be careful what you wish for.
Anslo
Scope Works
#206 - 2012-11-30 13:47:54 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
In the same way as any player in highsec can dock up to avoid PVP or drop corp to nullify a wardec. That's not imbalanced either, since it applies to everyone. Miners are just as capable of docking up to prevent bumpage as bumpers are capable of docking to prevent wars.


I say it is wrong. Person x harasses Person y with bumping.

Person y pays Corp 1 to dec Person X.

Person X drops corp into an NPC corp, and continues to harass person Y with no repercussions.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Azran Zala
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#207 - 2012-11-30 13:51:27 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Yuri Wayfare wrote:
Well, that rules out any game mechanics changes as GMs are not Devs. So I guess the only real question on the table here is: does bumping people constitute harassment?

The EULA already covers that nicely. If people are bothered for no reason other than to cause grief, it is harassment. If there is a profit motive, it is not harassment. Quite clean, if a bit difficult to judge and enforce.

Falcon, pray tell - what exactly are you and the Senior GMs unclear about?

I imagine that they feel that miner bumping has caused enough drama and upset and commotion to be worth a reevaluation of policies regarding harrassment.


I actually think he just wanted the whining to be condensed into a single thread (which will then be ignored) instead of having to go in an check every duplicated whining thread for moderation.
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#208 - 2012-11-30 13:51:44 UTC
87102-6 wrote:

.. it needs to be toned down (or better yet cease), and if it doesn't, banned/account cancelled..
So for now I'll tell you what would ease my annoyance.

* Give players reasonable amount of time to respond. If I had to give you a number? 30 minutes.


And here we have it. The proposed change to harassment rules:
The reasonable time limit to answer the question "Firstname Lastname are you afk"? 30 minutes.
If 30 minutes are not given to answer the question, risk getting banned/account cancelled whatever that means.

Some men you just can't reach.
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2012-11-30 13:55:42 UTC
Anslo wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Ollivir Witt wrote:
Bumping in this case is being used as a no-risk version of PVP.


Didn't bother reading the rest of your huge post after this line because this line is so wrong why waste my time with the rest.

Bumpers can be war decced or suicide ganked just like anyone else. Bam. Risk.

Also there's a considerable risk of drowning in all the tears


And then they dock up or avoid ti by dropping corp.


Force all miners and bumpers in player corps. Make it impossible to avoid wardecs for both sides. Happy now? I would be.
Anslo
Scope Works
#210 - 2012-11-30 13:57:36 UTC
SaKoil wrote:
Force all miners and bumpers in player corps. Make it impossible to avoid wardecs for both sides. Happy now? I would be.


No, because miners don't want to be dec'd, thus why they NPC corp. They don't want to pvp, so they mine in highsec.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#211 - 2012-11-30 13:58:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
Azran Zala wrote:
I actually think he just wanted the whining to be condensed into a single thread (which will then be ignored) instead of having to go in an check every duplicated whining thread for moderation.

In that case it would have been better to declare all bumping threads spam and lock the last one, like he did a few days ago.

Anslo wrote:
SaKoil wrote:
Force all miners and bumpers in player corps. Make it impossible to avoid wardecs for both sides. Happy now? I would be.


No, because miners don't want to be dec'd, thus why they NPC corp. They don't want to pvp, so they mine in highsec.

Well, we've been through this before. That's a singleplayer game you're looking for, or one with PvE-only servers, like WoW. In EVE, PvP is not optional.

Anslo wrote:
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
In the same way as any player in highsec can dock up to avoid PVP or drop corp to nullify a wardec. That's not imbalanced either, since it applies to everyone. Miners are just as capable of docking up to prevent bumpage as bumpers are capable of docking to prevent wars.


I say it is wrong. Person x harasses Person y with bumping.

Person y pays Corp 1 to dec Person X.

Person X drops corp into an NPC corp, and continues to harass person Y with no repercussions.


Yeah, wardecs aren't quite right. Anyone can tell you that. But that means that the issue is with wardecs rather than bumpers, and this thread is about bumping and the definition of harassment.

Let's stay on topic, shall we?
Anslo
Scope Works
#212 - 2012-11-30 14:00:32 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Yeah, wardecs aren't quite right. Anyone can tell you that. But that means that the issue is with wardecs rather than bumpers, and this thread is about bumping and the definition of harassment.

Let's stay on topic, shall we?


And there we go again with the veil of "civility" to try to further a pro-bump agenda.

It is on topic. You say war decs can let miners fight back. This is wrong. You continue to harass miners.

Therefore, it is about bumping and how bumping is harassment because what you suggest doesn't work.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#213 - 2012-11-30 14:02:32 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Anslo wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Ollivir Witt wrote:
Bumping in this case is being used as a no-risk version of PVP.


Didn't bother reading the rest of your huge post after this line because this line is so wrong why waste my time with the rest.

Bumpers can be war decced or suicide ganked just like anyone else. Bam. Risk.

Edit Rule 7 Trolling quote deleted - ISD Tyrozan


And then they dock up or avoid ti by dropping corp.


So do miners, missioners, etc. I don't see your point.
R0me0 Charl1e
Easy A Industries
#214 - 2012-11-30 14:03:36 UTC  |  Edited by: R0me0 Charl1e
Let me tell you a tale that is relevant to this discussion, not too long ago (like 5 minutes ago from this post), I was a victim of being bumped. I was mining in a system not under control of NO and I was still bumped. Did I lose my cool? No indeed. I gave a friendly hello to my bumper friend and after some general chatter, he hasn't bump me and won't continue to.

Moral of this story, apply some common courtesy and you can avoid being bumped. Simple as that.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#215 - 2012-11-30 14:04:42 UTC
Anslo wrote:
And there we go again with the veil of "civility" to try to further a pro-bump agenda.

It is on topic. You say war decs can let miners fight back. This is wrong. You continue to harass miners.

Therefore, it is about bumping and how bumping is harassment because what you suggest doesn't work.

Wardecs should allow miners to fight back (and they do, in the case of every single bumper other than James). They're broken at the moment. Any bumper will tell you that. That's the whole point of James' antics with decshield and corp switching.

The issue still lies with wardecs, not bumping or whether it constitutes harassment.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#216 - 2012-11-30 14:04:42 UTC
Anslo wrote:
SaKoil wrote:
Force all miners and bumpers in player corps. Make it impossible to avoid wardecs for both sides. Happy now? I would be.


No, because miners don't want to be dec'd, thus why they NPC corp. They don't want to pvp, so they mine in highsec.


Oh I get it now: You want one set of rules for yourself, and another set of rules for everyone else. LMAO, get real.
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#217 - 2012-11-30 14:04:51 UTC
Anslo wrote:
SaKoil wrote:
Force all miners and bumpers in player corps. Make it impossible to avoid wardecs for both sides. Happy now? I would be.


No, because miners don't want to be dec'd, thus why they NPC corp. They don't want to pvp, so they mine in highsec.


See, this is a problem. You want one set of rules for yourself and another ruleset for others.

Miners participate in mining/market PVP all the time when they fire their lasers. Refusing to understand this point does not make it less true.

In my opinion we should not go around changing the basic philosophy of whole Eve based on what you want.
Anslo
Scope Works
#218 - 2012-11-30 14:06:20 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
So do miners, missioners, etc. I don't see your point.


Miners, Missioners etc don't harass players. They engage NPCs (risk of dying to NPC) and mine roids (risk rats, ganks, or other mienrs taking roids)

You do harass people. You bump players, and risk nothing.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Anslo
Scope Works
#219 - 2012-11-30 14:09:45 UTC
Goody, I've been targeted.

Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Wardecs should allow miners to fight back (and they do, in the case of every single bumper other than James). They're broken at the moment. Any bumper will tell you that. That's the whole point of James' antics with decshield and corp switching.

The issue still lies with wardecs, not bumping or whether it constitutes harassment.


Yes it does lie in harassment. Miners can't give you risk for your behavior, thus its harassment, as there is no way to stop you.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Oh I get it now: You want one set of rules for yourself, and another set of rules for everyone else. LMAO, get real.


You people always run around with risk vs reward decries. Where is your risk in this behavior? I want rules to give you risk.

SaKoil wrote:
See, this is a problem. You want one set of rules for yourself and another ruleset for others.

Miners participate in mining/market PVP all the time when they fire their lasers. Refusing to understand this point does not make it less true.

In my opinion we should not go around changing the basic philosophy of whole Eve based on what you want.


See above. I want your behavior put at risk. There is no risk. Just harassment, targeted harassment. And stop using semantics saying they "pvp" when they mine, it's very unbecoming.

Also, it is not what I want, it's what the miners want. Otherwise this thread would not exist. And situations need to change to adapt to harassment and abuse of things.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#220 - 2012-11-30 14:11:46 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Goody, I've been targeted.

Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Wardecs should allow miners to fight back (and they do, in the case of every single bumper other than James). They're broken at the moment. Any bumper will tell you that. That's the whole point of James' antics with decshield and corp switching.

The issue still lies with wardecs, not bumping or whether it constitutes harassment.


Yes it does lie in harassment. Miners can't give you risk for your behavior, thus its harassment, as there is no way to stop you.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Oh I get it now: You want one set of rules for yourself, and another set of rules for everyone else. LMAO, get real.


You people always run around with risk vs reward decries. Where is your risk in this behavior? I want rules to give you risk.

SaKoil wrote:
See, this is a problem. You want one set of rules for yourself and another ruleset for others.

Miners participate in mining/market PVP all the time when they fire their lasers. Refusing to understand this point does not make it less true.

In my opinion we should not go around changing the basic philosophy of whole Eve based on what you want.


See above. I want your behavior put at risk. There is no risk. Just harassment, targeted harassment. And stop using semantics saying they "pvp" when they mine, it's very unbecoming.

Also, it is not what I want, it's what the miners want. Otherwise this thread would not exist. And situations need to change to adapt to harassment and abuse of things.

So bro, everyone here agrees that wardecs should not be avoidable. Yes? Yes.

Now that we've settled that, let's please return to the actual topic of discussion.