These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#321 - 2014-02-20 14:34:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Leto Thule
Arenwa Damarmur wrote:
Why not develop a module or a rig that prevents a ship from being bumped out of alignment?


Why would you?

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Lina Drasselbaff
Doomheim
#322 - 2014-02-28 11:56:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lina Drasselbaff
I have a question for all those saying that bumping should generate a suspect flag on the bumper.

Let's ignore the jita scenario and focus purely on the belts. So you're being bumped, and the bumper goes suspect. Now what?

If you aggress them with your drones, it creates a limited engagement and they can shoot back. So now that bumper can destroy you AND not get concorded, lose sec or have to wait out a gcc until they can do it again.

Obviously that won't happen (except perhaps for miners who go into a blind rage), so option 2 is you reship to your battleship and come attack. Fine, but I'm willing to bet most miners and their friends won't do that, because they might lose the fight. Besides, you can currently gank. Sure that's got penalties but you can always make a gank alt to mitigate..

So in short, this'll do almost nothing except make jita and amarr wreck central.


Perhaps instead of dreaming up these modules and mechanics that will generally aid the bumper much more than the miner, perhaps use some of the many many tools already available to you. Or.. just pay the 10 mil isk a year and keep an eye on local and then at least the new order won't bother you. I'm sorry to say both of these do require effort and staying at the keyboard.

If you don't wanna do that then I'm afraid you have to take the risks of what might happen. That's EVE. That's how those of us who don't mine have to play. If you don't like it that's perfectly okay (no flippancy there, EVE isn't for everyone and that's fine), there are a million other games out there you can play.
Lakotnik
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#323 - 2014-03-11 12:59:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lakotnik
Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.

Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge.
Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged.
Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.

Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#324 - 2014-03-11 14:05:23 UTC
Lakotnik wrote:
Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.

Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge.
Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged.
Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.

Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat.

Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#325 - 2014-03-12 01:21:34 UTC
And replace it with what? Nothing? I don't see how nothing happening when colliding with another ship is anymore realistic than the ship moving away. If anything, the "bump" that occurs could be attributed to the ships navigation system taking an emergency maneuver to avoid the collision.

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Lakotnik
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#326 - 2014-03-13 12:18:06 UTC
IIshira wrote:
Lakotnik wrote:
Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.

Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge.
Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged.
Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.

Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat.

Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic.


Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Damage occurs when two ships bump eachother. When there's a smaller mass involved with greater, the results are quite predictable.

What we have now, isn't "Flight computers taking evasive actions", since my freighters can't actually perform maneuevers like that normally that it doesnt when a cruiser with 100MN MWD bumps into me.

Equal risk/opportunity. Big fleets, two ships lost due to bumping, nothing wrong with that. It'd level the playing field for everyone.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#327 - 2014-03-14 02:09:07 UTC
Lakotnik wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Lakotnik wrote:
Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.

Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge.
Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged.
Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.

Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat.

Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic.


Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Damage occurs when two ships bump eachother. When there's a smaller mass involved with greater, the results are quite predictable.

What we have now, isn't "Flight computers taking evasive actions", since my freighters can't actually perform maneuevers like that normally that it doesnt when a cruiser with 100MN MWD bumps into me.

Equal risk/opportunity. Big fleets, two ships lost due to bumping, nothing wrong with that. It'd level the playing field for everyone.


So... you're telling me that I would only need to use 50-60 mil worth of Stabbers to gank a Freighter under your idea?

Sign me up.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

MR DushBag
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#328 - 2014-03-14 13:56:43 UTC
It has come to my attention that a lot of players complain about being bumped in hi security space and they cant do nothing but move to a different solar system. it is a broken mechanic rule. There should be a way to retaliate with this lowest of scum. There should be some game mechanic that prevents players from hiding in NPC corporations to do their dirty work.

I propose a suspect flag for NPC corp characters that bump. If they are in a player corp, thn business as usual, this way the would be bumpers will have to be subject to retaliation/ wardecs for their actions. At this point the only thing you can do is run to another system and i think that is idiotic. Lets make the miners run all the time. Help us make a stand so we can defend ourselves. Last time i checked the rebalanceing of the gameplay was to make it more war friendly.

Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#329 - 2014-03-14 18:28:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
MR DushBag wrote:
It has come to my attention that a lot of players complain about being bumped in hi security space and they cant do nothing but move to a different solar system. it is a broken mechanic rule.
CCP disagree, you should read the GM posts in this thread.
Quote:
There should be a way to retaliate with this lowest of scum. There should be some game mechanic that prevents players from hiding in NPC corporations to do their dirty work.
There is, it's called suicide ganking, and players hiding in NPC corps goes both ways, miners and haulers do their dirty work while hiding under the NPC corps skirts too.

Quote:
I propose a suspect flag for NPC corp characters that bump. If they are in a player corp, thn business as usual, this way the would be bumpers will have to be subject to retaliation/ wardecs for their actions.
Most bumpers are already in player corporations, your suggestion will have about as much effect as a sticking plaster on an arterial wound.

Quote:
At this point the only thing you can do is run to another system and i think that is idiotic. Lets make the miners run all the time. Help us make a stand so we can defend ourselves. Last time i checked the rebalanceing of the gameplay was to make it more war friendly.

Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD.
Miners and other highsec residents have access to the self same mechanics as everybody else, including the mechanics of wardeccing, suicide ganking and bumping. It's just that most of them can't be bothered to use them.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#330 - 2014-03-14 19:19:12 UTC
Lakotnik wrote:
IIshira wrote:
Lakotnik wrote:
Bumping should have consequences dependant on the mass difference between the two vessels.

Frigate trying to bump a freighter = dead frigate. Freighter doesn't budge.
Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged.
Freighter bumping a capital = freighter takes some damage and bumps the capital out of alignment.

Let's make it interesting for everybody. Equal risk vs. reward when you're trying to bump a tanker with a rowboat.

Realistically you couldn't "bump" with spaceships. Doing so would cause massive damage to at least one of the ships. Problem is no one wants to turn Eve into bumper cars. When it comes to aggro mechanics it would be impossible for the server to accurately determine if a bump was intentional. As I said before just remove this failure of a game mechanic.


Doesn't matter if it's intentional or not. Damage occurs when two ships bump eachother. When there's a smaller mass involved with greater, the results are quite predictable.

What we have now, isn't "Flight computers taking evasive actions", since my freighters can't actually perform maneuevers like that normally that it doesnt when a cruiser with 100MN MWD bumps into me.

Equal risk/opportunity. Big fleets, two ships lost due to bumping, nothing wrong with that. It'd level the playing field for everyone.


If you had bumping cause damage that would mean someone would get destroyed by CONCORD in highsec since it would be an aggressive action. That would be a disaster in Jita.

Same thing for suspect flags. You would have people going suspect accidentally.
Swamp Donkee
Swamp Donkey's United
#331 - 2014-03-20 08:04:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Swamp Donkee
Runeme Shilter wrote:
Foxglove Digitalis wrote:
The real question is:
Why doesn't crashing one ship into another at high speed cause damage to both?

Really?
A speed optimised nano fit (lower armour lower structure and above all light) catalyst crashes into a tanked Mackinaw with 30K m^3 ore in hold... come on the catalys should be a thin layer on the macks hull with the mack drifting an aditional 0.5m/s due to the difference in mass.

So say 10K damage to each, umm thats the catalyst is dust and the mack has lost all shield and some armour - seems a sensible outcome.


Omg, CCP make it so. That would be the most awesome change ever. No more GCC and sec status hit for killing miners! Just bump with X catalyst full speed. Great idea!

RS

PS: You know that for bumping most often stabbers are used? Or Machariels?



You know, in real life when you get into an automobile accident the police are required to be involved....its called the law.......just saying

As a matter of fact, those who choose to operate an automobile on a public road are required to carry liability insurance at the minimum to pay for the victims damaged vehicle.

Furthermore, this could solve a couple of issues in the game:
1. Prevent intentional bumping in the game with no risk or cost.
2. Prevent massive capital hot drops with sentries as the capitals would destroy their sentries and each other if they move.
3. Require players to actually pay attention and PILOT their ships while considering their relative position in space.
4. Provide an alternative means to getting through gate camps via battering ram fits.
5. I could think of so many benefits....
6. It would keep people from sitting out in front of Jita looking for easy kills as they may end up concording themselves

Or just eliminate bumping damage at station and gate grids...
I would love to fly my Orca through this botter that infested my system (A1go Bastard and his other toons) rather than wasting my time fitting catalysts and concording myself every freaking day.
Swamp Donkee
Swamp Donkey's United
#332 - 2014-03-20 08:25:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Swamp Donkee
MR DushBag wrote:

Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD.


CCP could just make a module or a rig thats called an "Inertial Gravitational Stabilization Anti-Collision Containment Field" that any ship could fit. (Make Freighters and Jump Freighters have 1 slot that allows this module or just make it a ship specific trait)

That way, players can choose if they want to be harassed and the tin-hat wearing idiots won't have to worry about being reported if they "target the next system but not the player from the previous system whom is feeling harassed now for not paying the self-proclaimed mining tax in addition to the ludicrous 19% VAT for each monthly subscription."
Tacomaco
No Taxes just fun
#333 - 2014-03-24 11:26:43 UTC
Lakotnik wrote:

Destroyer/cruiser bumping a Mining barge = Mining barge is bumped, but destroyer/cruiser gets damaged.


11-12k tones of Cruiser bumps into a 10k tones Mining barge. Who's getting damaged, the cruiser of course...

Also the mining barge doesn't take any damage because if a smaller car hits a larger one, only the large car takes damage.

Afk miners and New Order, not sure witch ones bumped their heads harder.
Leto Thule
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#334 - 2014-03-24 13:20:12 UTC
Good god people, give it a break! Its a game mechanic! If you dont like it, dont play!!

Thunderdome ringmaster, Community Leader and Lord Inquisitor to the Court of Crime and Punishment

Clara Pond
Never Not Snazzy
#335 - 2014-04-16 23:28:36 UTC
There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price.
Maxmillian Rokatansky
Doomheim
#336 - 2014-04-23 23:09:32 UTC
Clara Pond wrote:
There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price.

Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping.
Jack Lennox
Grove Street Families
#337 - 2014-04-26 10:28:11 UTC
Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:
Clara Pond wrote:
There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price.

Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping.



As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say

Been ganked? Robbed? Space feelings hurt?  Now there's something you can do! Fill out a Customer Service Comment Card!  EIther that or contact everyone's favorite Space Detective for an instant ban!

Maxmillian Rokatansky
Doomheim
#338 - 2014-04-26 14:44:42 UTC
Jack Lennox wrote:
Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:
Clara Pond wrote:
There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price.

Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping.



As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say

Next time I bump or gank a CODE compliant miner I'll link them your last post.
They can decide how good a deal it was.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#339 - 2014-04-26 15:51:49 UTC
Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:
Jack Lennox wrote:
Maxmillian Rokatansky wrote:
Clara Pond wrote:
There is already a module that prevents bumping. It's called a New Order Mining License, and it's available in most highsec ice fields at a very reasonable price.

Sorry Clara, turns out having one of those doesnt even prevent bumping.



As long as you abide by the rules of having a permit (be at your computer, not alt-tabbed, not "just going to the bathroom," pay attention to local, have the proper bio, etc, etc) then you shouldn't have a problem. It sounds to me like you've never bought a permit, can I interest you in one? It's only 10 mil and it lasts a full year, pretty good deal I'd say

Next time I bump or gank a CODE compliant miner I'll link them your last post.
They can decide how good a deal it was.

Well the problem is the CODE permit only works for CODE enforcement. If you don't have my permit I must gank you. My permits cost 2 billion for the first month and 1 billion renewal each month.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#340 - 2014-04-27 09:31:41 UTC
MR DushBag wrote:
Give miners and other hi sec dwelers the ability to retaliate, because as it sits this game mechanic is just BAD.
You've always had the ability to retaliate.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.