These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anslo
Scope Works
#541 - 2012-12-04 21:46:15 UTC
The storm came and went, it looks like the bumping website now redirects to CCP's banning policy page Lol

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#542 - 2012-12-04 21:55:09 UTC
Mariko Bukan wrote:
:words:


Please stay on topic, we are not discussing RP rules of player run organizations in this thread.
Anslo
Scope Works
#543 - 2012-12-04 21:58:03 UTC
SaKoil wrote:
Mariko Bukan wrote:
:words:


Please stay on topic, we are not discussing RP rules of player run organizations in this thread.


Please stop attempting to discredit individuals with actual complaints by saying they are not on topic. Her claims are valid as your "RP" rules of a player run organization have real effects and have been repeatedly stated to be the creed and purpose of miner bumping.

I.E. harassment.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#544 - 2012-12-04 21:59:36 UTC
Anslo wrote:
SaKoil wrote:
Mariko Bukan wrote:
:words:


Please stay on topic, we are not discussing RP rules of player run organizations in this thread.


Please stop attempting to discredit individuals with actual complaints by saying they are not on topic. Her claims are valid as your "RP" rules of a player run organization have real effects and have been repeatedly stated to be the creed and purpose of miner bumping.

I.E. harassment.


But not in this thread. I direct you to read the first post again.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#545 - 2012-12-04 22:15:10 UTC
Anslo wrote:
The storm came and went, it looks like the bumping website now redirects to CCP's banning policy page Lol

She just ****** up her links.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#546 - 2012-12-04 22:23:07 UTC
Mariko Bukan wrote:
Should it be changed ..... YES and NO it has it's valid uses, It could be improved if the effect was ship mass / velocity related.

To quote a game mate:

"Should a gnat affect the direction of an Elephant"

In my view this answer is NO so that's one for the programmers.

The effect is ship mass/velocity related, and the analogy of a gnat and an elephant isn't at all accurate when you consider that a Stabber Fleet Issue might be traveling at anything up to 10,000 m/s - i.e. very fast.

Mariko Bukan wrote:
a. Organizes or participates in a corporation or group that is based on or advocates any anti-ethnic, anti-gay, anti-religious, racist, sexist or other hate-mongering philosophies.
The New Order's hate-mongering is in the eye of the beholder, really. Everything on the blog is very carefully not hateful at all - I challenge you to quote any hateful text written in a blog post there - and ingame chat (from Agents, that is) is generally very cordial and polite, regardless of their actual intent.

Mariko Bukan wrote:
a. Is abusive, obscene, offensive, sexually explicit, ethnically or racially offensive, or threatening to another player or an official EVE Online representative.

Pretty sure we're allowed to threaten your potential ISK gain.

Mariko Bukan wrote:
b. Uses role-playing as an excuse for violating the guidelines regarding fair play with others.
Sure we roleplay. Doesn't mean we're violating any guidelines, though.

Mariko Bukan wrote:
c. Sends excessive e-mails, EVE-mails or petitions, petitions with false information or repeatedly petitions under the wrong category in an effort to circumvent the customer support queue.
We don't.

In any case, how rude or not rude the Order is is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is whether or not bumping mechanics are being abused.
Mariko Bukan
Zanshin - Everything and Nothing
#547 - 2012-12-04 22:39:31 UTC
Thought I covered the mass/speed thing of the bumping mechanic in my original post ... or did you not read what I said.

So the point is; is its current use of the mechanic against miner's valid under the EULA?

I await the storm
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#548 - 2012-12-04 22:44:23 UTC
Mariko Bukan wrote:
Thought I covered the mass/speed thing of the bumping mechanic in my original post ... or did you not read what I said.

So the point is; is its current use of the mechanic against miner's valid under the EULA?

I await the storm


Read the first post by CCP. It is perfecty valid.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#549 - 2012-12-04 22:56:45 UTC
Mariko Bukan wrote:
So the point is; is its current use of the mechanic against miner's valid under the EULA?

Yes.
Mariko Bukan
Zanshin - Everything and Nothing
#550 - 2012-12-04 23:14:23 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Mariko Bukan wrote:
So the point is; is its current use of the mechanic against miner's valid under the EULA?

Yes.


I find your selective quote amusing.

I await the storm
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#551 - 2012-12-04 23:18:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
I didn't respond to

Mariko Bukan wrote:
Thought I covered the mass/speed thing of the bumping mechanic in my original post ... or did you not read what I said.

because I responded to everything you said about mass/speed in your original post in my last post.

What you said: "It could be improved if the effect was ship mass / velocity related."
What I said: "The effect is ship mass / velocity related already. What's to improve?"

I fail to see what more could be said on this subject.

I didn't respond to

Mariko Bukan wrote:
I await the storm

because it is a meaningless and irrelevant phrase that you should really use the forum signature feature for.
Trin Again
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#552 - 2012-12-04 23:18:06 UTC
Mariko Bukan wrote:
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Mariko Bukan wrote:
So the point is; is its current use of the mechanic against miner's valid under the EULA?

Yes.


I find your selective quote amusing.

I await the storm



He answered a question you posted.

I await dinner.
Mariko Bukan
Zanshin - Everything and Nothing
#553 - 2012-12-04 23:24:45 UTC
Fair enough I stand by my original post and leave it there.

The GM's will decide
Isana Tori
Doomheim
#554 - 2012-12-05 01:35:40 UTC
Yay it's time for the storm!

(Why don't people just warp out and warp back in?)
Benny Lava
Midnite Chrome
#555 - 2012-12-05 01:41:48 UTC
Genius !!!
28 pages of debate and we could have just warped out and warped back in. Never thought of that.
Isana Tori
Doomheim
#556 - 2012-12-05 01:49:53 UTC
One would think it would be pretty easy. The best way to stop them from bumping you is to not be there. If you move around belts and come in from different angles, they have to move to catch you and then bump you out of range.

Unless people are AFK mining in which case..... haha.
Van Kuzco
Perkone
Caldari State
#557 - 2012-12-05 01:57:31 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Why should your activity have risk when there's doesn't?


Anslo you never answered me what the risk actually was beyond losing theoretical isk they weren't at their keyboard to make.

I'm looking to hear a response from anyone else against miner bumping as well.
Hate 101
Doomheim
#558 - 2012-12-05 03:54:50 UTC
all pvp games have a loophole that players will find and run in to ground bumping caps in null and low is fine in fleet fights
bumping exhumers and freighters in high sec is not about pvp Has more to do with players who just come to high sec on there
disposable alts that they trash when sec statis gets to low one more thing they run in to ground in to the ground needs fixed turn off bumping on freighters and mining ships then it fixed . Then they can get back to pvp




Think of as a low sec buff as soon you get them off the alts and back on there mains in low sec space it will be full of targets to rack up kills
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#559 - 2012-12-05 04:09:00 UTC
Hate 101 wrote:
all pvp games have a loophole that players will find and run in to ground bumping caps in null and low is fine in fleet fights
bumping exhumers and freighters in high sec is not about pvp


Yeah because miners want to pvp while invulnerable. Actually, they are quite invulnerable right now, but they want the unthinkable risk of losing a mining cycle removed while they pvp afk.

Talk about loopholes in a pvp game.
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#560 - 2012-12-05 04:23:48 UTC
Mariko Bukan wrote:
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Mariko Bukan wrote:
So the point is; is its current use of the mechanic against miner's valid under the EULA?

Yes.


I find your selective quote amusing.

I await the storm


I went ahead and gave you a second 'like' on the forums as your post presented perhaps the most comprehensive counter-argument against bumping in this whole thread. Which is to say none at all.

The only thing I am seeing are some vague complaints against certain individuals being 'rude', which is totally off-topic, already covered with EULA, easily avoided with ingame mechanics and in my experience much more prevalent in the part of the population who wish to spend their gaming time totally devoid of human contact and social behaviour.