These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

When will the GM team be producing their response to the Miner Bumping Discussion Thread?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
John E Normus
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#41 - 2013-01-07 18:26:19 UTC
Nothing brings a system alive like a bumper. You should be thanking us!

I took on Osmon last night and had a blast. Made some friends and even observed some ameteur bumpers lending a hand.

Fun, fun, fun

Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Istyn
Freight Club
#42 - 2013-01-07 18:26:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Istyn
RubyPorto wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we?


I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned.

Mmmm... the tears.


It's already harassment under the EULA to bump a freighter with no 'legitimate purpose' for doing so.

As in, not intending to gank or kill it, or anything other than prevent it being able to warp with no exciting explosion eventually occurring.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#43 - 2013-01-07 18:31:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Istyn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we?


I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned.

Mmmm... the tears.


It's already harassment under the EULA to bump a freighter with no 'legitimate purpose' for doing so.

As in, not intending to gank or kill it, or anything other than prevent it being able to warp with no exciting explosion eventually occurring.

I don't think you understand what he is saying.

It's difficult to avoid bumping another ship of any size in those locations, let alone a freighter.

So simply coding in a penalty for bumping of any sort is impractical at best, as it will be penalizing people who do so quite by accident, and it can be easily exploited.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#44 - 2013-01-07 18:33:50 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
What's unrealistic about it?


What's unrealistic is that the MWD increases your mass 5 fold.

Though having said that, can an MWD be used to prevent yourself getting bumped by increasing your inertia? Perhaps a few hulk pilots should give this a go.


Without the mass increase, MWDs would almost certainly be OP. And if we change MWDs to add no Mass, a 10,000,000kg Stabber at 19,000m/s still has a momentum of 190 billion kgm/s, or twice the momentum of a Charon.
BTW doing the equations using momentum paints a less accurate picture of how collisions work than doing them with Kinetic energy, but the bias is entirely in the favor of the slower moving object (since Ke=mv^2 while Momentum=mv), so v0v.

But that would require grid fitting modules in their lows, and those lows can't fit anything but MLUIIs, right?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Istyn
Freight Club
#45 - 2013-01-07 18:35:05 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Istyn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we?


I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned.

Mmmm... the tears.


It's already harassment under the EULA to bump a freighter with no 'legitimate purpose' for doing so.

As in, not intending to gank or kill it, or anything other than prevent it being able to warp with no exciting explosion eventually occurring.

I don't think you understand what he is saying.

It's difficult to avoid bumping another ship of any size in those locations, let alone a freighter.

So simply coding in a penalty for bumping of any sort is impractical at best, as it will be penalizing people who do so quite by accident, and it can be easily exploited.


:(

Thanks for translating it into moron for me, apologies.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#46 - 2013-01-07 18:37:28 UTC
Why fix something that is CCP approved?

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#47 - 2013-01-07 18:38:14 UTC
Istyn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we?


I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned.

Mmmm... the tears.


It's already harassment under the EULA to bump a freighter with no 'legitimate purpose' for doing so.

As in, not intending to gank or kill it, or anything other than prevent it being able to warp with no exciting explosion eventually occurring.


I believe there used to be a line about that in the Harassment wiki page, but that line no longer exists. I would guess that's mainly because you can always simply log off to escape someone purposelessly bumping you.

And I'm talking about if bumping was to be declared an Exploit (as some of these whining miners are calling for), you could simply park a ship in front of the Jita undock or Perimiter gate and petition everyone who undocks and bumps you or lands and bumps you for exploiting.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-01-07 18:44:17 UTC
Istyn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we?


I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned.

Mmmm... the tears.


It's already harassment under the EULA to bump a freighter with no 'legitimate purpose' for doing so.

As in, not intending to gank or kill it, or anything other than prevent it being able to warp with no exciting explosion eventually occurring.


Err... no it's not. In fact, if you hit that link, and push ctrl-f and type in the word "bumping", nothing comes up.

Perhaps you can find for me the specific part of that document that expressly forbids bumping, regardless of purpose.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Boudacca Sangrere
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#49 - 2013-01-07 18:49:12 UTC
Simple solution for miner bumping:

IF the bump disrupts the miner (the module not the pilot) by forcing the bumpee out of range of the rock, then give the bumper a simple suspect flag.

This would hold true to the time honored tradition of EvE that every action also has (some sort of) reaction.


I am thinking this would result in places where bumping occurs become a whole lot more interesting.


Twisted


B.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#50 - 2013-01-07 18:49:39 UTC
So basically griefers have resorted to extortion/bumping as their main type of griefing, because they can no longer successfully gank miners and want a risk-free griefing mechanic. How sad. For both parties involved.

Never thought I would see the day when griefers would use a risk-free mechanic to make isk, and then complain about miners wanting a risk-free isk making environment. Can we say, "Irony"?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#51 - 2013-01-07 18:56:26 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
So basically griefers have resorted to extortion/bumping as their main type of griefing, because they can no longer successfully gank miners and want a risk-free griefing mechanic. How sad. For both parties involved.

Never thought I would see the day when griefers would use a risk-free mechanic to make isk, and then complain about miners wanting a risk-free isk making environment. Can we say, "Irony"?


Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank.

Before the buff, an Untanked, AFK, Hulk could be profitably ganked, a Tanked AFK Hulk could not be profitably ganked, and an ATK Hulk could not be ganked at all.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Istyn
Freight Club
#52 - 2013-01-07 18:57:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Istyn
RubyPorto wrote:
Istyn wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I expect that participating in emergent gameplay through bumping will be declared an exploit. Couldn't have someone effecting someone else's game now, could we?


I can see it now. Park a freighter in front of the Jita Undock or Perimiter gate and get everyone who bumps you banned.

Mmmm... the tears.


It's already harassment under the EULA to bump a freighter with no 'legitimate purpose' for doing so.

As in, not intending to gank or kill it, or anything other than prevent it being able to warp with no exciting explosion eventually occurring.


I believe there used to be a line about that in the Harassment wiki page, but that line no longer exists. I would guess that's mainly because you can always simply log off to escape someone purposelessly bumping you.

And I'm talking about if bumping was to be declared an Exploit (as some of these whining miners are calling for), you could simply park a ship in front of the Jita undock or Perimiter gate and petition everyone who undocks and bumps you or lands and bumps you for exploiting.


Huh, you are correct, GM Spiral edited the griefing page.

http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/index.php?title=Griefing&diff=55598&oldid=41295

I can't find a previous GM post regarding it though due to the ludicrous amount of threads regarding miner bumping creating an insane amount of results.

Edit:

Aha, found the other edit specifically regarding freighters in high:

http://wiki.eveonline.com/wikiEN/index.php?title=Bumping&diff=164302&oldid=47684
Vince Snetterton
#53 - 2013-01-07 18:59:19 UTC
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:
Simple solution for miner bumping:

IF the bump disrupts the miner (the module not the pilot) by forcing the bumpee out of range of the rock, then give the bumper a simple suspect flag.

This would hold true to the time honored tradition of EvE that every action also has (some sort of) reaction.


I am thinking this would result in places where bumping occurs become a whole lot more interesting.


Twisted


B.


That might be difficult for the coders to design.
I would expect there to be an awful lot of cycles required by CCP's end of the game engine to make that happen.

But an excellent suggestion nonetheless.

I would be concerned with one part of this suggested game mechanic, albeit a relatively rare occurrence:
What happens to a hauler that innocently touches a mining boat, and shortly after that, the Orca pilot docks/shuts off his bonuses and suddenly the lasers of that mining boat don't reach some rock?

That scenario I could imagine would create some interesting coding challenges.

But overall, if CCP could make this work without too much strain on their CPU cycles, a great idea.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#54 - 2013-01-07 18:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaju Enki
They just want to play/afk their spaceship "single" player game.

Carebears, ruining every mmo since, well, since ever.

Rip UO

The Tears Must Flow
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2013-01-07 19:05:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
solving bumping mechanically would involve changing parts of the EVE engine devs have described with terms like 'performing open heart surgery' for the benefit of afk players. To put in perspective, miners are expecting their afk needs to make changes that the launch of DUST 514 couldn't justify them doing.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#56 - 2013-01-07 19:06:50 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Boudacca Sangrere wrote:
Simple solution for miner bumping:

IF the bump disrupts the miner (the module not the pilot) by forcing the bumpee out of range of the rock, then give the bumper a simple suspect flag.

This would hold true to the time honored tradition of EvE that every action also has (some sort of) reaction.

I am thinking this would result in places where bumping occurs become a whole lot more interesting.

Twisted

B.



Why should miners get some special arbitrary protection from bumping? You just got a giant buff from CCP and you're already whinging for another one?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#57 - 2013-01-07 19:10:56 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
So basically griefers have resorted to extortion/bumping as their main type of griefing, because they can no longer successfully gank miners and want a risk-free griefing mechanic. How sad. For both parties involved.

Never thought I would see the day when griefers would use a risk-free mechanic to make isk, and then complain about miners wanting a risk-free isk making environment. Can we say, "Irony"?

Now repeat after me.

Bumping a miner is not griefing by any realistic definition, including CCP's.

Ganking a miner is not griefing, by any realistic definition, including CCP's.

Persecuting a miner (or anyone else for that matter) for no valid in game reason IS griefing.

Attempting to drive out competition for your mining alts, or to manipulate the market, are just a couple (out of many) examples of a "valid in game reason" to interfere with or gank someone repeatedly.

EvE 101.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Rodtrik
Aphex Industries
#58 - 2013-01-07 19:11:15 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank.


Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
#59 - 2013-01-07 19:11:36 UTC
bumping should be treated the same way as attack with a weapon

its just relocation of energy,isnt it? doesnt matter if missile bumps you or a ship bumps you - it should be doing damages ,or am i expecting too much physics?

you should be totaly able to ram your titan into another titan and watch it break that spacepenis in two
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#60 - 2013-01-07 19:14:07 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Rodtrik wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Bumping is the emergent reaction to CCP needlessly buffing Exhumers such that an Untanked AFK Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank.


Please provide evidence to prove ganking was ever meant to be profitable.


It is possible to shoot people in HS. CCP was founded by a group of UO PKers. CONCORD exists to provide a set cost to ganking. And finally, because it's always been profitable.

Jon Lander wrote:

If you pay attention, and you’ve got your wits about you, you can avoid people coming in and ganking, a survival of the fittest kind of thing, and people are now able to actually make a much better living from mining because of things like Hulkageddon and Burn Jita, because minerals are more expensive.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/12/eve-online-interview-betrayal-at-fanfest-burn-jita-virtual-reality-and-the-president-of-iceland/

Jon Lander is the Senior Producer of EvE (He's Soundwave's Boss).


Now, please provide your reasoning why someone in a 300 million ISK ship who has taken no measures to keep himself safe (and has actually taken active measures to make himself less safe) shouldn't be profitable to gank. Keep in mind that every other T2 cruiser is profitable to gank if fit the way a standard untanked exhumer is.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon