These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

GM Response On Bumping

First post First post First post
Author
Beachura
Doomheim
#201 - 2013-05-10 12:25:23 UTC
Bing Bangboom wrote:
Bantara wrote:

Dang, does that mean you'll have to use good judgement, common sense, and a sense of what might cross the line into harassment??
Yikes....


So the answer is sometimes bumping is harassment and sometimes its not...

I guess we have SOME guidelines now. I can bump someone morning, noon and night, as long as its in the same system or within a couple jumps. And if I feel like I'm getting too close to the edge on the harassment I can just call in a Knights fleet to gank their 200 million ISK Mack and pod them without being petitionable.

I can work within those boundaries.

I know CCP had a tough time trying to find the right balance on this. The final decision is pretty generous to us bumpers. I just know from months now of working with the miners that any sliver of doubt will be 100% proof to them and the complaints and petitions and forum threads will continue.

I would have preferred them to stop at "CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit." and not put the "However" and opened it all back up again.

BBB



Unfortunately bing stopping at 'normal game mechanic' would leave the field wide open, a 'loop hole' if you will.

My case in point:

I am roaming border low security systems in gallente sovereignty and I spot an individual who I see as easy pickings. I engage that individual and destroy him, which is perfectly within eve online game mechanics, just like bumping I am perfectly permitted to do this.

However, I continue to follow this individual through several jumps spanning regions locating him with a locator agent following him for an extended period of time specifically targeting him and attempting to disrupt his ability to function within eve. This then becomes petitionable and I am liable to action for harrassment, I am clearly following this individual with the intent of causing him distress and ruining his game experience.

Miner bumping is also now confirmed legitimate, but without stating the harrasment rule you would perfectly okay to follow an individual around spanning regions bumping them until they unsubscribed and left eve. Why should I be punished for following an individual around eve irritating them in lawless space while it's okay to bump an individual following them through regions of space that are high security?

It seems to me that you are looking for an excuse to harrass and troll players ruining their game experience with little or no risk to you.

This appears to be quite clear cut to me, and sits as follows:

If it is clear that you are simply pushing miners around because they happen to be there, in the same place as you are located then that is emergent gameplay and perfectly legal.

However, if it becomes apparent that you are following an individual or set of individuals because due to the fact they responded to your troll mail badly you know you can upset them and ruin their game experience, the Game Masters have left themselves room so that you can't claim "Oh but it's a legal game mechanic" if it is clear your intent is to ruin an individuals game experience by following them around day and night.

If game masters can identify any in manner that you are abusing this legal mechanic in order to follow a set of specific individuals around trolling them for extended periods, regardless of how many jumps you have done or where you've been before then it appears to be the case that you will be punished.

If you are simply bumping miners because they are in the same belt as you or constellation, you will be fine. The selection of tools available to game masters I'm sure makes the task of identifying whether you are following specific individual fairly straight forward.

The Game Masters have already made it clear that if you want to harrass a corporation or individual you declare war on them so that they can 'taste blood' as it was put. It is nobodies interest for high security carebears to leave the game because you're being a smart arse when you know deep down you are following them for the tears.


EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
#202 - 2013-05-11 22:37:29 UTC

Bottom line, get over it. Its a sandbox.


Pap Uhotih wrote:
DirtySnowBunny wrote:
If you made this MMO as a "sandbox" let it stand as one.

I think the Spartans put it best, “If.”.
Whilst in general terms the gameplay could be described as sandbox in style the reality is that the implementation has always gone beyond that of a sandbox and it has always had to.

DirtySnowBunny wrote:

2) Will ganking the same person or group over and over be considered harassment as well?
a) This is typical practice to gain a leverage of an area or system.
The art of bumping actually has become a good business of making additional isk. We have our mercenaries, bounty hunters, other miners WANT and PAY people to gank, bump or otherwise so they can make a profit.
3) Bumping is a good mechanic for detouring AFK assisted mining via one of the many BOT programs out there or custom variations there of.
It is not that hard to change from one space to another, most bumpers (or gankers) will not move their operations around one person. So in conclusion the argument about "omg make bumping an exploit" is just ridiculous.


I think it has long been accepted that financially speaking the only winner is James 315, it is a good business for him. For everyone else the only new thing seems to be the slightly misguided belief that some new market has been created when in reality all that has happened is that a certain set of player behaviour has been grouped together under a single term. The business of disruption has a long history and simply reflects the reality that industrial game play is not necessarily as passive as it may appear to be on the surface.

A lot of irritation is actually rooted in the use of NPC or tiny player corps. Effectively there is an alliance with none of the cost or risk. The structure used by the bumper alliance in fact makes it cheaper and more practical to declare war on Goonswarm. This structure prevents industrialists from paying mercenary organisations to provide a more militaristic response than a Retriever will ever manage. Mercenaries are therefore not really a part of this food chain, certainly they are not able to make the amounts of isk that they would be able to on a level playing field.


Making considered observations of a suspected bot and then using the in game reporting system is the only effective way to take action against a botter. That is the only in game mechanic that deters botting.
I had always assumed that there was meant to be humour in the statement “Bot-aspirant behavior is not permitted” but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a bot is aspiring to be. Why would the bot sit still while a gank capable ship approached it.

The issue is not so much if something should happen when two ships collide it is how that should fit into the rock/paper/scissor model that is typical of Eve.

I’ll refer you to page 1 for a fairly clear statement about what is and is not considered harassment.

EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
#203 - 2013-05-11 22:45:43 UTC
Once again, welcome to the sandbox. After nearly drooling on myself reading your self-righteous, long winded post. We once again come to the bottom line: Sandbox. bumping or insults are part of the game long as its not racial in content.

I think Bunny said it well, If you don't like it move to another system. The only people the truly cried about it are the one that are running semi-assisted to full assisted AFK mining. I would even say its in the 90% range. I gank. I generally don't bump and gank legitimate miners. We have fantastic intel on who is botting and who is not. The subject matter is not rocket science. (or long winded flabber-gastro-unintelligent writing strong alluding to your posting abilities).

Bumping is a via mechanic for income and an endless source of entertainment we we met fellows like yourself.


Pap Uhotih wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

Complains that the Agents of the New Order are in NPC corps (pro tip the majority actually arent)


No, I complained that they were in NPC or tiny player corps. As your caveat eludes to, it would be easy for me to demonstrate that some are in NPC corps.
Just to be clear though, I have never claimed where the majority are and for the purposes of my point it would have been more beneficial if they were not located in NPC corps.

Kainotomiu has provided evidence that I need to expand what I said to include hiding in larger corporations which I am happy to do. The source he has quoted (in ball park maths) suggests that to war dec the twenty or so bumpers listed you would have to go to war with somewhere in the region of 13,000 chars, the actual targets being less than 0.2% of the people you would be at war with. That passes any test for being impractical to do. Doing so would certainly exceed the war dec price cap, something that puts TEST, Goons etc. at a disadvantage comparatively. That is why I proposed that it created an imbalance.

I must confess that my original point was largely inspired by a post made by the bumper messiah himself; I wasn’t expecting the theology department to have such a differing view on a tactic that has more traditionally been bundled as a part of emergent game play.

I have demonstrated that the majority are not in a single corporation/alliance as was claimed by admiral root. I have never said that the remainder were all in NPC corporations, the truth is that some of them are, some of them are in tiny player corporations, some are a part of larger unrelated player organisations and a minority of them are in CODE..

TheGunslinger42 wrote:

Is in an NPC corp himself, as are many other disgusting miners.


Personally I try to pay most attention to the column in the middle rather than the one on the left; the content is much more relevant. This posting alt is in an NPC corporation, I am of the opinion that in certain matters you should be able to post as an account holder rather than an in game character, certainly where game rules are called into question. The best effort I can make toward that is to remove any indication of my in game affiliations in order that they do not bias the interpretation of any comments I make. The point is to be able to have a reasonable discussion without having to resort to insulting groups of players.

EnilToor
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
#204 - 2013-05-11 22:53:38 UTC
Most blame everyone but themselves when they could have protected their investment - exhumer in this case - with a small amount of fitted defense.

Thankfully EvE does this: Play stupid, suffer a significant hit on your wallet. Do stupid things, repeat effect. One thing this game offers that I love is ----- Your "stuff" is never safe. Its a great dynamic that most other games don't offer, having a completely safe-zone is just.... so WoW. :) I degrade.

Pap Uhotih is small minority that thinks the tear-stained wheel will get the grease. In his case, the overly-bloated, mostly non-sense tears. You have to sort the overly drawn out 25 dollar words covering the 1 dollar sentence.


RubyPorto wrote:
Pap Uhotih wrote:
I think our discussion does come down to yield/tank if we want to save on the multi quoting. I can only go on the evidence I have which is that the frequency that an individual gets ganked in high sec means that going with yield more than covers the cost of losses. It isn’t about surviving it is about making a profit. It isn’t really a trade off at all, yield is win win – you just win a little less if/when you get ganked.
For tank/cargo in industrials it is a far more open question as to where you should go. I have four Mammoths covering a range of options because there are tradeoffs and you have to make a decision before you set off. In the case of Industrial though it can only be loss loss if I get it wrong, I don’t really get more reward if I take a greater risk or get less reward with less risk. Maybe it takes a little more time but I’m not flying them that far in the first place. For longer hauls I take a Freighter and I always have the perfect fit for that.



And I've said that if your analysis comes out that yield is better for your level of risk tolerance, that's fine. You are more than welcome to not tank your 200m ISK investment. But you don't get to whine when you get ganked or claim that you cannot protect yourself because you chose not to.


Sure you do. You move more cargo in less trips if you risk more in each trip.
10 Freighter runs @1b each is safe, but slow.
1 Freighter run @10b is fast (well... you know what I mean), but unsafe.

Up to you to decide on the balance.
Blue Absinthe
Wardec U
#205 - 2013-05-25 21:16:26 UTC
CCP officially endorses the New Order of Highsec. Hats off to CCP. It was the right decision to let James clean highsec up.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#206 - 2013-06-04 07:46:13 UTC
Otto3d wrote:
James 315, the leader of this "New Order", runs a one-man corp and has been war dec several times. However, he just quits and creates a new one with the same name and everything so the war never really happens and he goes about bumping miners and as such. Given the cost of the war from the other corps, will this be consider as an exploit? Since James 315 has provided no way for other players to "get him" other than a suicidal gank?



Oh, I long for the day this is declared an exploit. And I'm sure James would be happy with that too.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2013-06-10 01:28:03 UTC
Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.

It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).

There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.

A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.

Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it.
D35
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#208 - 2013-06-11 12:12:21 UTC
ZaBob wrote:
Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.

It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).

There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.

A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.

Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it.

I don't see any imbalance here since there is one mechanic that completely protects you from bumping: Moving out of the way. No bumper will waste their time trying to bump something which they can't.

I've seen some miners refusing to do this, deliberately making themselves "victims", because of their principles. But seriously, it's not hard to double click the space.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#209 - 2013-06-11 14:24:29 UTC
ZaBob wrote:
Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.

It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).

There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.

A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.

Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it.


Orbit yo' Roids.

[Skiff, Bump-Proof]

Mining Laser Upgrade II
Mining Laser Upgrade II

Experimental 10MN Afterburner I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Upgraded Thermic Dissipation Amplifier I

Modulated Strip Miner II

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
[Empty Rig slot]

"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

Garek Zosimo
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2013-06-13 18:05:33 UTC
Blue Absinthe wrote:
CCP officially endorses the New Order of Highsec. Hats off to CCP. It was the right decision to let James clean highsec up.


You need to re-read CCP's statement because they specifically said they are NOT endorsing the conduct. They are merely allowing it to not be categorized as an exploit.
Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2013-06-13 21:21:52 UTC
Beachura wrote:

However, if it becomes apparent that you are following an individual or set of individuals because due to the fact they responded to your troll mail badly you know you can upset them and ruin their game experience, the Game Masters have left themselves room so that you can't claim "Oh but it's a legal game mechanic" if it is clear your intent is to ruin an individuals game experience by following them around day and night.


Suppose I took a mercenary contract to kill a certain individual again and again and again. And the said victim also has a multi-billion isk bounty put on him for the sole purpose of his being killed again and again and again. I am deliberately ruining his game experience for profit. And the folks who put out the contract and bounty did so within the parameters of the game mechanics to encourage the killing of this victim. Is this harassment?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Kiitsune Anstian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#212 - 2013-06-17 04:01:07 UTC
My experience as a miner being bumped the people Bumping are specifically targeting the cyclical Ice belts to either ensure their alts get the majority of the harvest or try to harass everyone who is their mining.

I have literally had to squat at under 50 meters from the ice to limit their ability to shift me like a limpet and because I am harder to shift I then get focused to ensure I can't stay in range.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#213 - 2013-06-25 02:43:15 UTC
Kiitsune Anstian wrote:
My experience as a miner being bumped the people Bumping are specifically targeting the cyclical Ice belts to either ensure their alts get the majority of the harvest or try to harass everyone who is their mining.

I have literally had to squat at under 50 meters from the ice to limit their ability to shift me like a limpet and because I am harder to shift I then get focused to ensure I can't stay in range.


Welcome to competition in the Ice fields, to maximise your profit, you must be prepared to make it difficult for your competitors to mine, it's good business sense.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#214 - 2013-06-26 11:45:26 UTC
ZaBob wrote:
Moving to a different system to avoid a bumper is going to be pretty annoying if you have to move your equipment, fleet, arrange to haul ore to the refinery, etc.

It becomes even more of a pain, when it's ice that you're mining. The amount of wasted time just to avoid someone who's persistently acting like a 7th grade bully is even more annoying. Ice mining is time-consuming as it is (and CCP just made it more annoying IMO).

There's an imbalance here. The bumper gets to do what he wants, with no consequences. The ice miner has to pick up and move a long way away -- a harsh penalty (relative to the effort required to impose it) to which he has no realistic recourse.

A wardec against the bumper is not generally a realistic option. You drag entire corporations into it, multiplying the cost. I suppose an alt corp for the purpose might be an option, but even so, that's a lot of hassle just to deal with someone being a jerk.

Bottom line -- to me, it seems like griefing once it gets to the point I'd have to spend all that time just to be allowed to play the game. Or give us a reasonable mechanic to counter it.


War dec us. Gank us. Pay us the fees you owe for operating in our systems. Take the miniscule effort to move system.

You have a number options available to you. Don't pretend like you don't have any choice at all though. That's just dishonest.
jedijed
legion of fortune
#215 - 2013-06-30 20:39:39 UTC  |  Edited by: jedijed
Bumping to the harcore degree

http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4

Being bumped by not one but 2 Machariels taking turns bumping me 450k off the gate i think falls under harrasment !!
D35
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#216 - 2013-07-01 02:56:26 UTC  |  Edited by: D35
jedijed wrote:
Bumping to the harcore degree

http://youtu.be/0MmIsrAQPM4

Being bumped by not one but 2 Machariels taking turns bumping me 450k off the gate i think falls under harrasment !!

I would like to congratulate the bumpers for doing an amazing job by bumping this freighter to where it belongs
jedijed
legion of fortune
#217 - 2013-07-01 03:12:50 UTC  |  Edited by: jedijed
I would like to congratulate the bumpers for doing an amazing job by bumping this freighter to where it belongs[/quote]
jesus theres so many haters in this game

i like pvp as much as anyone. i can accept haulers getting ganked. i can accept freightor and jf getting ganked by alpha fleets but bumping someone for a f******************************** hr is just over the top .
Sir Marksalot
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2013-07-01 04:56:01 UTC
jedijed wrote:

jesus theres so many haters in this game

i like pvp as much as anyone. i can accept haulers getting ganked. i can accept freightor and jf getting ganked by alpha fleets but bumping someone for a f******************************** hr is just over the top .


So is the video where you accidentally recorded that autopilot to 0 hack or did you cut that out in the new version?
WonkySplitDemon
Doomheim
#219 - 2013-07-01 06:26:04 UTC
jedijed wrote:
I would like to congratulate the bumpers for doing an amazing job by bumping this freighter to where it belongs

jesus theres so many haters in this game

i like pvp as much as anyone. i can accept haulers getting ganked. i can accept freightor and jf getting ganked by alpha fleets but bumping someone for a f******************************** hr is just over the top .[/quote]

Just give up before you embarass yourself any further
jedijed
legion of fortune
#220 - 2013-07-01 06:32:21 UTC  |  Edited by: jedijed
I dont really care what you think about me . Im doing this more so for the next person . most people dont get to record u guys greifing them for an hr . most people arent smart enuff to get concord on grid to insta ur gank fleet . This is the 2 things that makes this gank unusual. Extreme is more appropriate


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=254193