These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#221 - 2012-11-30 14:12:25 UTC
Anslo wrote:
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.


Pro-tip: Calling every interaction with you that you don't like "harassment" inherently weakens your argument, as it makes your bias very evident.

With that said: What miners or missioners desire is irrelevant. They want to mine, they want to shoot rats, woopdeedo. That has no relevance on whether or not they are valid targets for PVP. That's the kind of game EVE is. Everyone is a target, no matter what they do. They're valid targets. Wishing for absolute immunity from everything you don't want to be part of is silly.

PS: If you want to be immune from PVP then you must disable miners abilities to sell ore or manufacture products with it, as those are PVP actions and directly effect other players.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#222 - 2012-11-30 14:16:13 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Anslo wrote:
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.


And as I already pointed out, there ARE risks. Suicide ganking and wars. You dismiss both of these with weak, irrelevant responses. Also, I've taken the liberty of highlighting a key problem in your post: You want CCP to implement additional risks for OTHER players, but not increase your OWN risk (or worse, you want them to reduce it).
Anslo
Scope Works
#223 - 2012-11-30 14:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
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.


No "bro," I will continue to make this point. War dec or not, you bump, no risk, and harass players. It needs to be ended.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Pro-tip: Calling every interaction with you that you don't like "harassment" inherently weakens your argument, as it makes your bias very evident.


It's not every interaction. Do your research. Wanna gank? Gank, miners can tank if they want. If they don't? They're choice. Wanna rat in low? Rat in low and d-scan or you go boom possibly.

Bump? Avoid decs, verbally and mentally harass people and continue to sit on a high horse of straw.

As for bias, are we all not bias in this thread?

Quote:
What miners or missioners desire is irrelevant. They want to mine, they want to shoot rats, woopdeedo. That has no relevance on whether or not they are valid targets for PVP. That's the kind of game EVE is. Everyone is a target, no matter what they do. They're valid targets. Wishing for absolute immunity from everything you don't want to be part of is silly.


Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them?

Quote:
PS: If you want to be immune from PVP then you must disable miners abilities to sell ore or manufacture products with it, as those are PVP actions and directly effect other players.


Right after bumping is banned Smile

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
And as I already pointed out, there ARE risks. Suicide ganking and wars. You dismiss both of these with weak, irrelevant responses. Also, I've taken the liberty of highlighting a key problem in your post: You want CCP to implement additional risks for OTHER players, but not increase your OWN risk (or worse, you want them to reduce it).
[/quote]
You avoid wars and NPC corp, or you keep logi's in field and let them rep you. Please define how either are weak or irrelevant.

Miners already run the risk of a gank, as has been shown in the past. What do you run?

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#224 - 2012-11-30 14:24:33 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them?


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what highsec is. Highsec does not mean, has never meant, and ideally never will mean pvp-free. It's considerably safer than other areas, but it is not 100% safe. So you're simply wrong - them being in highsec does not mean they are not valid targets for any form of PVP, including bumping.
Yuri Wayfare
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
#225 - 2012-11-30 14:25:26 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Miners already run the risk of a gank, as has been shown in the past. What do you run?

Bumpers can't be ganked?

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

Be careful what you wish for.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#226 - 2012-11-30 14:25:42 UTC
As for why we should "force PVP" on them? The answer is simple: Because we can.

That's the kind of game EVE is, brah.
Anslo
Scope Works
#227 - 2012-11-30 14:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them?


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what highsec is. Highsec does not mean, has never meant, and ideally never will mean pvp-free. It's considerably safer than other areas, but it is not 100% safe. So you're simply wrong - them being in highsec does not mean they are not valid targets for any form of PVP, including bumping.



Ok. They risk gank, you risk concord. They risk missioning, you risk them firing back (haa...). They risk bump, you risk what?

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
As for why we should "force PVP" on them? The answer is simple: Because we can.

That's the kind of game EVE is, brah.


Not to the point of harassment. That's not the kind of game Eve is, "brah."

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#228 - 2012-11-30 14:30:08 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Anslo wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them?


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what highsec is. Highsec does not mean, has never meant, and ideally never will mean pvp-free. It's considerably safer than other areas, but it is not 100% safe. So you're simply wrong - them being in highsec does not mean they are not valid targets for any form of PVP, including bumping.


Ok. They risk gank, you risk concord. They risk missioning, you risk them firing back (haa...). They risk bump, you risk what?


War decs, suicide ganks. I've only explicitly mentioned these things about three times now brah

Anslo wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
As for why we should "force PVP" on them? The answer is simple: Because we can.

That's the kind of game EVE is, brah.


Not to the point of harassment. That's not the kind of game Eve is, "brah."


I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC.

But seriously, bumping miners and demanding they give me money to stop is not harassment.
R0me0 Charl1e
Easy A Industries
#229 - 2012-11-30 14:30:33 UTC  |  Edited by: R0me0 Charl1e
Anslo wrote:
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)

I would like to point out that Miners can "harass" other Miners by stripping clean a system (or more) of roids. That's the PVP of mining, the fight over extracting the limited resources in systems.
Alana Charen-Teng
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#230 - 2012-11-30 14:32:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Alana Charen-Teng
Anslo wrote:
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.


Suicide ganking. Miner bumpers haven't lost a ship to this tactic yet, because the miners who are driven to such measures inevitably use the wrong tools and choose not to improve on their past performance. I'm looking at you, smartbombing merlin!
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#231 - 2012-11-30 14:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ahvram
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
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.


So do miners, missioners, etc. I don't see your point.



This applies to Freighter pilots to right?? They can dock warp ect when being bumped harassed... O wait they cant thats the problem. Being warp scrammed by a 3 day old dessie pilot with no agression or the ability to do anyting about it.
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2012-11-30 14:33:28 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
The intention of this thread is to gather questions, opinions and feedback from the player base with regards to bumping, and present them to the Senior GMs for review and responses.


What we are seeing is a small handful of people who will continue to cry for nerfs until they are perfectly safe and invulnerable, not needing to interact with anyone ever again. We are now discussing about bumping, but there will always be the next issue even if this issue is somehow resolved. They will never stop until the goal of invulnerability achieved, at least if CCP does not intervene and explicitly explain their vision of Eve.

Now it is up to you to draw the line. Should player interaction be possible in highsec?

I think this decision is a pivotal point also for the majority of the players, not just the vocal trammelites.
Sara XIII
The Carnifex Corp
#233 - 2012-11-30 14:35:45 UTC
We risk highsec becoming the next Elwynn Forest if we fail.

Simple
Between Ignorance and Wisdom
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#234 - 2012-11-30 14:37:34 UTC
SaKoil wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
The intention of this thread is to gather questions, opinions and feedback from the player base with regards to bumping, and present them to the Senior GMs for review and responses.


What we are seeing is a small handful of people who will continue to cry for nerfs until they are perfectly safe and invulnerable, not needing to interact with anyone ever again. We are now discussing about bumping, but there will always be the next issue even if this issue is somehow resolved. They will never stop until the goal of invulnerability achieved, at least if CCP does not intervene and explicitly explain their vision of Eve.

Now it is up to you to draw the line. Should player interaction be possible in highsec?

I think this decision is a pivotal point also for the majority of the players, not just the vocal trammelites.


Bearing in mind that selling ores or using them to manufacture is player interaction, so to remove all threat to miners you must remove their ability to sell or manufacture anything
M0N0
The Right Hand of Darwin
#235 - 2012-11-30 14:38:21 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Miners already run the risk of a gank, as has been shown in the past. What do you run?

Everyone in eve runs the same risk when they undock; miners, gankers, bumpers, mission runners ect ect. Everyone who undocks risks losing their ship. I don't see how this fact is unfair in anyway... I honestly don't see how you think making specifically what miner bumpers do more risky in some way just because they interact with you in a way you don't like. How is that fair to them?

However imperfect EvE might be (whether its the war dec system or aggression mechanics) EvE remains to be fair to all. Anything a miner bumper can do to a miner a miner can do the same thing to them; which is entirely fair imo. How can anything be harassment if it is fair?
Alana Charen-Teng
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2012-11-30 14:39:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Alana Charen-Teng
SaKoil wrote:
CCP Falcon wrote:
The intention of this thread is to gather questions, opinions and feedback from the player base with regards to bumping, and present them to the Senior GMs for review and responses.


What we are seeing is a small handful of people who will continue to cry for nerfs until they are perfectly safe and invulnerable, not needing to interact with anyone ever again. We are now discussing about bumping, but there will always be the next issue even if this issue is somehow resolved. They will never stop until the goal of invulnerability achieved, at least if CCP does not intervene and explicitly explain their vision of Eve.

Now it is up to you to draw the line. Should player interaction be possible in highsec?

I think this decision is a pivotal point also for the majority of the players, not just the vocal trammelites.


I absolutely agree. I would even go so far as to say that the entire miner bumping movement, the New Order of Highsec, was engineering specifically for the purpose of producing an outcry from this vocal minority of 'carebears', to highlight just how unreasonable their demands and sense of entitlement are. Miner bumpers do not bump for the ISK, or even the entertaining chat logs (although those are certainly appreciated). They bump because they want to support their vision of EVE.
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#237 - 2012-11-30 14:39:22 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them?


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what highsec is. Highsec does not mean, has never meant, and ideally never will mean pvp-free. It's considerably safer than other areas, but it is not 100% safe. So you're simply wrong - them being in highsec does not mean they are not valid targets for any form of PVP, including bumping.


Last time a checked every action in eve related to PVP there are some cause and effect. You gank concord pops you, You can/wreck flip you get and agression timer. You harass miners/freighters by pushing them around belts/gates you get? You take no risk for full reward.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#238 - 2012-11-30 14:41:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Anslo wrote:


Miners already run the risk of a gank, as has been shown in the past. What do you run?


Bumpers run exactly the same risks that the miners do, the risk of being suicide ganked, wardecced etc, there is a subset of players, who aren't miners, that follow the bumpers around and suicide gank them if the opportunity arises. Miners get killrights for 30 days on anybody that suicide ganks them, the opportunity is there for revenge without Concord intervention, if they choose not to take it that's their problem.

As for them mining because they don't want to PvP? At it's heart Eve is a PvP game, every time you hit undock you take the risk of non-consensual PvP happening, if people don't want to PvP they have two choices, one is to never undock, which is a course followed by many a successful trader and industrialist who are technically engaged in PvP, the other is to find another game.

If you're in space you are a legitimate target for PvP, noobies in noob systems aside, in it's many forms, including what some would consider the lowest forms of PvP, namely bumping and suicide ganking.

The measure of success in Eve is not how much ISK you can accumulate, it's how effectively you can enforce your will on others through the use of the excellent mechanics provided by CCP. If you won't even attempt to protect what you do, and what you own, in Eve via enforcing your will then you're playing the wrong game.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#239 - 2012-11-30 14:42:09 UTC
Ahvram wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them?


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what highsec is. Highsec does not mean, has never meant, and ideally never will mean pvp-free. It's considerably safer than other areas, but it is not 100% safe. So you're simply wrong - them being in highsec does not mean they are not valid targets for any form of PVP, including bumping.


Last time a checked every action in eve related to PVP there are some cause and effect. You gank concord pops you, You can/wreck flip you get and agression timer. You harass miners/freighters by pushing them around belts/gates you get? You take no risk for full reward.


I think miners should stop inhaling veldspar dust, as it's given them a curious blindness related to the words "suicide", "gank", "war" and "dec"
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#240 - 2012-11-30 14:53:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ahvram
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Ahvram wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Anslo wrote:
Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them?


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what highsec is. Highsec does not mean, has never meant, and ideally never will mean pvp-free. It's considerably safer than other areas, but it is not 100% safe. So you're simply wrong - them being in highsec does not mean they are not valid targets for any form of PVP, including bumping.


Last time a checked every action in eve related to PVP there are some cause and effect. You gank concord pops you, You can/wreck flip you get and agression timer. You harass miners/freighters by pushing them around belts/gates you get? You take no risk for full reward.


I think miners should stop inhaling veldspar dust, as it's given them a curious blindness related to the words "suicide", "gank", "war" and "dec"



Sorry bumpers are War dec proof see NPC corp. As for ganking Ya lets see the option. Gank the bumper (Which for a miner is near impossible) you lose more money trying to gank them than you would paying there risk free extorsion money. Thats a win for sure... Its not and answer to the issue at all.

Our option to deal with you requires us to use the pvp system. Your option is to avoid the pvp system and its rules. See how that works. Now if I could gank you without concord interference we would be on the same level.

And be real Miner bumpers dont run around in frigs/destroyers they use Machs and other large gank proof battleships to push miners around belts. Last time I check it takes about 10+ Tornados/talos to gank a buffer tank BS. Thats fair right? Only takes one of you completely avoiding all pvp rules to pvp yet it would take nearly 10 pilots all forced to abide by the pvp system to deal with you.