These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Redpainhawk
Off-Target
#621 - 2014-12-25 10:01:19 UTC
fix all problems is decrease amount of ore in high sec belts 75% and give penelties in yeald 20% this means only youngest of miners will mine in high rest will join large null corp or crates low sec mining force and makes more content to empty low sec.


decrease amount of high sec 25% and crate more low sec pockets that are easy to defend.
Give low sec more bigger ores with possibility to make alot more isk than in high sec.


Miners follow where profits/safety is good.

theyr willing to risk more to get more income.

and then all these lovely code players cuold have fun time hunting stuff in low sec when we have drops and caps and alot more fun.

Keep the baby in your arms he will never learn or make frends.

if high sec miners wuold like to really protest against these pumpers well do as followed

-join low / null corp

- learn how pvp works

- go mining in systems where system population 0




biggest issue in eve is high sec provides too much for too many to most of people ever step to fill empty low and null

eve is game where players crate content not ccp so all these players should be with logical ways to be guidet (like remove all lv 4 agents from high sec 75% decrease ore amount in high sec / sleepers and low sec rats giving 50% more isk and alot more fun stuff) to low and null so they wuold really start playing this game.
Redpainhawk
Off-Target
#622 - 2014-12-25 10:07:46 UTC
or just make speed limit in high sec 800meters per second max or concord will web you and give you 100mil ticket of flying too fast and force you to go to do tutorial missions again.

or just understand that high sec is way too full with useless players that should be moved in better areas of the game by netfing high sec resources
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#623 - 2015-01-02 15:55:17 UTC
Look at this.

http://www.themittani.com/news/alod-bow-head-shame

hi-sec. guy bumps freighters in machariel for hours, repeatedly warps catalysts on them, reships in mid-space into more catalysts, ganks them solo. Yes clever I admit, but:

tell me thats not bullshit when a guy with 2-3 throwaway accounts can do this all day long with no repercussions.

I understand when a fleet of catalysts drops on your head, scrams and kills you, but this is one guy, repeatedly pulling concord away and reshipping in mid-space while (this is important) bumping ship continues to hold victim in place without aggression for as long as it takes, up to hours. Now tell me thats not bullshit.

CCP please, introduce aggression/suspect flags to bumping in high-sec. Or eliminate bumping entirely, its bullshit mechanic anyway.
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#624 - 2015-01-02 16:21:28 UTC
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:
Look at this.

http://www.themittani.com/news/alod-bow-head-shame

hi-sec. guy bumps freighters in machariel for hours, repeatedly warps catalysts on them, reships in mid-space into more catalysts, ganks them solo. Yes clever I admit, but:

tell me thats not bullshit when a guy with 2-3 throwaway accounts can do this all day long with no repercussions.

I understand when a fleet of catalysts drops on your head, scrams and kills you, but this is one guy, repeatedly pulling concord away and reshipping in mid-space while (this is important) bumping ship continues to hold victim in place without aggression for as long as it takes, up to hours. Now tell me thats not bullshit.

CCP please, introduce aggression/suspect flags to bumping in high-sec. Or eliminate bumping entirely, its bullshit mechanic anyway.
Veers is that you?

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.

Scott Bacon
Forging Industries
Silent Infinity
#625 - 2015-01-02 16:28:32 UTC
I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.

Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.

The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.

To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.

This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic.
Raimena
Zaikenu corporation
#626 - 2015-01-05 16:55:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Raimena
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:
Look at this.

http://www.themittani.com/news/alod-bow-head-shame

hi-sec. guy bumps freighters in machariel for hours, repeatedly warps catalysts on them, reships in mid-space into more catalysts, ganks them solo. Yes clever I admit, but:

tell me thats not bullshit when a guy with 2-3 throwaway accounts can do this all day long with no repercussions.



I have a question about this specifically.

As GM Karidor stated (emphasis added in edit):

GM Karidor wrote:

CCP considers the act of bumping a normal game mechanic, and does not class the bumping of another player’s ship as an exploit. However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis.


The mechanics, as they stand, allow one person with an alt to keep a target ship unable to warp and in space indefinitely. A rookie ship to ping an agression timer, a bumper ship to keep a freighter from warping. As such, the player is unable to safely logout due to another player's action. More importantly, they have zero chance of moving away.In cases such as the one linked, the bumper's sole motivation was to harrass the one player - spending hours and hours to kill one ship is literally stating "i am going to do everything in my power to annoy you, stop you from playing and unable to actually leave." That, in my opinion, quite fits the description of harassment. The shortened definition of harassment, after all is "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands." By continuing for hours, this fits the definition.

Does this mean that keeping a player bumped and agressed indefinitely to harass them is within the game rules? After all, they haven't made any effort to move away - they simply have no option to. The only "option" they have is to basically give away all their current possessions (ship+contents) to whoever decides to harrass them - giving a huge benefit to the harasser and a huge loss to the victim. This is the literal interpretation of the rules, but is this the one that will actually be endorsed? If not, what wording WILL be endorsed?

Basically, CCP allowing bumping ( for harassment) yet punishing harrassment has a conflicting area. I would like to know how such conflict would actually be solved.

PS: as should be obvious, quotes have been snipped down to only the relevant parts to lower unnecessary post length.
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#627 - 2015-01-05 18:11:20 UTC
Raimena wrote:

Does this mean that keeping a player bumped and agressed indefinitely to harass them is within the game rules? After all, they haven't made any effort to move away - they simply have no option to. The only "option" they have is to basically give away all their current possessions (ship+contents) to whoever decides to harrass them - giving a huge benefit to the harasser and a huge loss to the victim. This is the literal interpretation of the rules, but is this the one that will actually be endorsed? If not, what wording WILL be endorsed?


"Moving to another location" is not trying to warp off, it's relocating your operation to another part of space as I understand it.

If you consistenly target one person and follow them around the galaxy ganking/bumping/screwing up his missions/exploration/whatever it will at some point be considered harassment. Things like that will be judged on a case by case basis and I guess you have to take it very far before it is classified as actual harassment.

Example: the miner that get's blown up in the same system(s) repeatedly by the same player, not harassment.

If that miner makes attempt to relocate to the far side of the map, only to be followed by the ganker every single time he relocates and getting ganked, harassment (at some point).
Raimena
Zaikenu corporation
#628 - 2015-01-05 18:43:40 UTC
That's why i specifically linked to the example of a hauler being held hostage for many hours and eventually killed by a single enemy. It wasn't followed, yet it's hard to argue it isn't harassment when you sit around doing nothing but stop another player from doing another for multiple hours. It's harassment by definition, but the question is wether it's harassment by the rules.

As for moving operations; haulers can't really move operations away from market hubs. They kind of work like that, so that part doesn't make sense on them either :/.
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#629 - 2015-01-05 19:22:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Meilandra Vanderganken
Raimena wrote:
That's why i specifically linked to the example of a hauler being held hostage for many hours and eventually killed by a single enemy. It wasn't followed, yet it's hard to argue it isn't harassment when you sit around doing nothing but stop another player from doing another for multiple hours. It's harassment by definition, but the question is wether it's harassment by the rules.
You can bet your behind that it is fully within the rules. Getting your gameplay stomped on is the core of EVE, engagements lasting for hours or getting hell camped is stuff that is very common in EVE. I see no reason why all of a sudden a freighter getting bumped for the time it takes to gather a fleet to kill it should be any different just because it happened in high sec. High sec is NOT 100% safe and it does not provide you with extra 'rights to safety' that have not already been built into the game mechanics.

Quote:

As for moving operations; haulers can't really move operations away from market hubs. They kind of work like that, so that part doesn't make sense on them either :/.

Of course they can move operations. If they choose not to because of 'convenient' or 'better income' (the latter being debateable I reckon) that is just that: their CHOICE.

Furthermore, you're not going to get a response from a GM in this thread on specifics. It is CCP policy not to draw a definitive line in the sand on issues like these. They want to maintain the freedom of being able to judge on a case by case basis. I think they were very clear on this subject though and that you're just trying to find loopholes (which you're not gonna get).

Edit: ah, this guy did it by himself mostly. Doesn't change anything though. Bumping is legal and he was not being singled out after making a serious attempt to move his operations. Simple really :)
Raimena
Zaikenu corporation
#630 - 2015-01-05 19:42:50 UTC
I see you are plainly pro-harassment, then. Nothing to be gained here if nobody "official" will ever reply. I only hope CCP will deal with harassment properly, rather than your literal "he didn't move so it's okay to keep him from logging out until another player decides he can" (after being held unable to move for hours).
Black Pedro
Mine.
#631 - 2015-01-05 20:37:27 UTC
Raimena wrote:
I see you are plainly pro-harassment, then. Nothing to be gained here if nobody "official" will ever reply. I only hope CCP will deal with harassment properly, rather than your literal "he didn't move so it's okay to keep him from logging out until another player decides he can" (after being held unable to move for hours).

CCP's position on bumping is crystal clear in this thread. It is perfectly valid unless you use it to harass someone. Now what is harassment is in the famous CCP grey zone, but thankfully there is a easy way to check.

If someone bumps your freighter repeatedly and you feel you are being harassed, pres F12 and file a petition with a GM. They will tell you if your case falls under the harassment guidelines. Of course no one here can tell you where that line is, but from what I have seen bumping a freighter for a ransom or to hold it for a gank fleet, even for an extended period of time is completely kosher.
Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#632 - 2015-01-06 04:33:34 UTC
Raimena wrote:
I see you are plainly pro-harassment, then. Nothing to be gained here if nobody "official" will ever reply. I only hope CCP will deal with harassment properly, rather than your literal "he didn't move so it's okay to keep him from logging out until another player decides he can" (after being held unable to move for hours).

Again: being shut down or held in an engagement for hours is very common in EVE. It's very much part of the core gameplay. If you don't like that, maybe this is not the game for you?

Other than that, judging from experience and what CCP has stated in this and other threads on what goes and what doesn't, I'd say it's pretty clear that your singled out case will not be considered 'harassment'.

And yes, chances of a GM ruling on a single case in an open forum thread are very slim. As stated: they do not want to draw a line in the sand and want to keep the option open to judge on a case by case basis.
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#633 - 2015-01-06 10:19:36 UTC
Scott Bacon wrote:
I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.

Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.

The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.

To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.

This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic.


Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer":
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers

And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer":
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers

What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have.
Rein Chelien
Nova Express
Central Omni Galactic Group
#634 - 2015-01-07 19:40:11 UTC
Raimena wrote:

The mechanics, as they stand, allow one person with an alt to keep a target ship unable to warp and in space indefinitely. A rookie ship to ping an agression timer, a bumper ship to keep a freighter from warping. As such, the player is unable to safely logout due to another player's action. More importantly, they have zero chance of moving away.


This is a very narrow view. There are several things you can do.

What to do if you are willing to plan ahead:
1. Understand when and where you are likely to get bumped and avoid those situations.
2. Fly a ship that aligns quicker.
3. Train and fit your ship for better agility.
4. Fleet up with scouts or caravan.
5. If you frequently use a particular pipe to haul, take the time to make bookmarks off the gates so you have less of a delta to align to in order to escape a bumper.
6. Find others who move large ships and create a channel with them so you have a bat phone to call if you're getting bumped around.

What to do if you are not willing to plan ahead:
1. If you have a friend around, have them come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.
2. If you have a scout alt, have your scout come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.
3. If you have no friends and no alt, convo people in system to come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.

If you are stuck in a ship being bumped for hours by one ship and you can't avail yourself of at least one of the 9 things above to get away you're not trying very hard.


Exe Om
The Grand Assembly
#635 - 2015-01-08 05:44:34 UTC
Rein Chelien wrote:
Raimena wrote:

The mechanics, as they stand, allow one person with an alt to keep a target ship unable to warp and in space indefinitely. A rookie ship to ping an agression timer, a bumper ship to keep a freighter from warping. As such, the player is unable to safely logout due to another player's action. More importantly, they have zero chance of moving away.


This is a very narrow view. There are several things you can do.

What to do if you are willing to plan ahead:
1. Understand when and where you are likely to get bumped and avoid those situations.
2. Fly a ship that aligns quicker.
3. Train and fit your ship for better agility.
4. Fleet up with scouts or caravan.
5. If you frequently use a particular pipe to haul, take the time to make bookmarks off the gates so you have less of a delta to align to in order to escape a bumper.
6. Find others who move large ships and create a channel with them so you have a bat phone to call if you're getting bumped around.

What to do if you are not willing to plan ahead:
1. If you have a friend around, have them come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.
2. If you have a scout alt, have your scout come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.
3. If you have no friends and no alt, convo people in system to come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.

If you are stuck in a ship being bumped for hours by one ship and you can't avail yourself of at least one of the 9 things above to get away you're not trying very hard.





Seems like you have never flown a Charon full of cargo.

It is not enough that I succeed, all other must fail

Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#636 - 2015-01-08 08:14:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Colette Kassia
I posted this in the Suggestion section. It seemed that a suggested change to the regular Warp Drive belonged in its own thread, rather than at the end of 32 pages of degenerate bickering. But the moderator disagreed and told be to put it here.

Collette Kassia wrote:

In another thread there was some discussion about abuse of the bumping mechanic to prevent warp, before it went off the rails and was locked. This guy wanted bumping to be a flaggable offence, while others rightfully pointed out all of the other problems that it would create.

I have a better idea: Lets make the normal warp drive behave the way that MicroJump drives do after a bump. If you get bumped off alignment after starting a warp then your warp drive still fires, but it sends you in whatever direction you are pointing at the moment your speed hit 75% (even, and especially, when the bump caused most of the acceleration). You land somewhere else. Some distance (however many AU your warp drive charged to) but in a totally different direction.

The implication of this are:
- No more getting you battleship bumplocked in highsec by some little brat in a frigate. Ditto for freighters. Makes you want to reach through the monitor and slap 'em. You have to do one extra warp, from where ever you landed back to where you want to go. But that's a lot better than getting held down for who-knows how long.
- CODE can still suicide-gank AFK freighters in highsec. Have it so that if the autopilot detects that if a jump landed more than 100km off course (almost surely) then it shuts down with the next-target-gate unselected (to disrupt auto-clicker function). That will give CODE plenty of time to find it with Combat Probes and resume their enforcement action. At-F***ing-Keyboard players will likely be able to escape. (And I'm sure CODE can still ambush freighters without any bumping, it will just require better fleet coordination and quicker response time. I don't think that CCP should totally quash highsec ganking; but I do think it should require more gamesmanship than a street mugging.)
- Normal "legit gameplay mechanic" bumping is unaffected. The main problem with bumping is its 'griefish' interference with warping. Nudging away an AFK miner, or any other miner with whom you are competing with for ore. is still allowed.
- It'd be kind funny. :) Imagine what this would do with the bumper-cars that is always happening outside Jita 4-4.
- And it could be employed to make better quality safespots.


This seemed like reasonable compromise between the two positions: those who wanted a Wrath-of-God CONCORD response to collisions and those who think everything's fine and has always been. But like any good compromise, it got flamed to a crisp and thread-locked within hours. But after reading these 32 pages of arguing. I'm am beginning to understand why I got so much hate so fast. People thought that this thread had metastasised...

And after dutifully reading through all of this crap, I concede that a targeted "fix" may not really be necessary. There were some ideas mentioned to escape a bumplock that I hadn't thought of. But I still insist that the game would be better if the regular Warp Drive worked more like a giant MicroJump module. If I had been on the dev team in the early 2000s, when EVE was being developed, this is how I would have designed it, even without foreseeing that "emergent gameplay mechanics". Just let physical interference during the build-up to a warp cause a navigational error that sends to ship off course.

There, everyone's happy.

And, as I mentioned in my original post, this will not totally quash legitimate high-sec PvP. I'm completely sure CODE is competent enough to pounce on a target instantly. They just won't be able to hold him down for five minutes while they get their sh!t together. It would "require more gamesmanship than a street mugging." Do you PvPers think this is unreasonable?!

And notice what I'm NOT saying. I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with bumping miners away from their cans. I'm not demanding that all asteroid belts be harassment-free workplaces. And I'm not saying that collisions should have any criminal or CONCORD implications. I just want to get rid of the 'hobo tackle' bullsh!t in the most nonintrusive and role-play-compatible why I can think of. And yes, it really is bullsh!t.
Scott Bacon
Forging Industries
Silent Infinity
#637 - 2015-01-08 16:39:12 UTC
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Scott Bacon wrote:
I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.

Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.

The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.

To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.

This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic.


Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer":
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers

And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer":
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers

What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have.


I think you know as well as I do that those modules you mention will be generally ineffective against bumping. I'm talking about a new type of module that specifically counters collision effects. Far narrower applicability than the modules you mention but more effective at their intended purpose. It would provide a viable defense against bumping without eliminating the ability to use bumping as a tactic because haulers would have to choose to use the modules and would have to be at their keyboard to activate them.
Rein Chelien
Nova Express
Central Omni Galactic Group
#638 - 2015-01-08 17:44:58 UTC
Exe Om wrote:
Rein Chelien wrote:
Raimena wrote:

The mechanics, as they stand, allow one person with an alt to keep a target ship unable to warp and in space indefinitely. A rookie ship to ping an agression timer, a bumper ship to keep a freighter from warping. As such, the player is unable to safely logout due to another player's action. More importantly, they have zero chance of moving away.


This is a very narrow view. There are several things you can do.

What to do if you are willing to plan ahead:
1. Understand when and where you are likely to get bumped and avoid those situations.
2. Fly a ship that aligns quicker.
3. Train and fit your ship for better agility.
4. Fleet up with scouts or caravan.
5. If you frequently use a particular pipe to haul, take the time to make bookmarks off the gates so you have less of a delta to align to in order to escape a bumper.
6. Find others who move large ships and create a channel with them so you have a bat phone to call if you're getting bumped around.

What to do if you are not willing to plan ahead:
1. If you have a friend around, have them come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.
2. If you have a scout alt, have your scout come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.
3. If you have no friends and no alt, convo people in system to come bump the bumper long enough that you can align.

If you are stuck in a ship being bumped for hours by one ship and you can't avail yourself of at least one of the 9 things above to get away you're not trying very hard.





Seems like you have never flown a Charon full of cargo.


I've flown Orcas plenty, and they have a worse alignment. It can be done.
Solonius Rex
F0RCED ENTRY
Pandemic Legion
#639 - 2015-01-08 18:30:53 UTC
Scott Bacon wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Scott Bacon wrote:
I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.

Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.

The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.

To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.

This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic.


Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer":
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers

And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer":
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers

What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have.


I think you know as well as I do that those modules you mention will be generally ineffective against bumping. I'm talking about a new type of module that specifically counters collision effects. Far narrower applicability than the modules you mention but more effective at their intended purpose. It would provide a viable defense against bumping without eliminating the ability to use bumping as a tactic because haulers would have to choose to use the modules and would have to be at their keyboard to activate them.

But the method you mention, is exactly the same as what an intertia stabilizer does. It allows you to align faster.

What exactly are you looking for? A module that allows for a capital ship to align instantly or something? Because that would defeat the whole purpose of having a large capital ship, and would be quite exploitable in low/null sec. If you want something that quickly aligns, buy a frigate. If you want a lumbering behemoth that has its drawbacks as well as its positive aspects, buy an obelisk. Its the price you pay for having a ship that can carry up to 800k+ m3 in stuff.

Also, isnt the Higgs anchor rig supposed to help counter against bumping?
Scott Bacon
Forging Industries
Silent Infinity
#640 - 2015-01-08 22:03:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Scott Bacon
Solonius Rex wrote:
Scott Bacon wrote:
Ima Wreckyou wrote:
Scott Bacon wrote:
I've suggested this in game a few times when the conversation comes up, but I've never mentioned it in the forums, so I'll add my suggestion here.

Add a new equipment type that makes it easier for a ship to align for warp. It doesn't have to work on everything, it could be limited to just reducing the effect of a bump. Call it an Alignment Stabilizer. There could also be a Remote Alignment Stabilizer. Effects would stack.

The Alignment Stabilizer would be an active module that the pilot would have to turn on. This would prevent an AFK pilot from benefiting from it.

To avoid making the Remote Alignment Stabilizer overpowered, it's effect could be less than an Alignment Stabilizer and/or it's effect could be a suspect level offense, adding risk to using it if not in fleet with the target.

This seems like a good solution to the potential for overuse and abuse of bumping. It's an opt-in solution (requires fitting equipment) that provides a counter to bumping without completely destroying the ability to bump as a tactic.


Here is your "Alignment Stabilizer":
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Propulsion_:Propulsion_Upgrades:Inertia_Stabilizers

And here is your "Remote Alignment Stabilizer":
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:Stasis_Webifiers

What makes you think your idea will actually change something? Especially since the suggested modules already exist. This just shows how bad the AG community is at the game. They even ask for tools they already have.


I think you know as well as I do that those modules you mention will be generally ineffective against bumping. I'm talking about a new type of module that specifically counters collision effects. Far narrower applicability than the modules you mention but more effective at their intended purpose. It would provide a viable defense against bumping without eliminating the ability to use bumping as a tactic because haulers would have to choose to use the modules and would have to be at their keyboard to activate them.

But the method you mention, is exactly the same as what an intertia stabilizer does. It allows you to align faster.

What exactly are you looking for? A module that allows for a capital ship to align instantly or something? Because that would defeat the whole purpose of having a large capital ship, and would be quite exploitable in low/null sec. If you want something that quickly aligns, buy a frigate. If you want a lumbering behemoth that has its drawbacks as well as its positive aspects, buy an obelisk. Its the price you pay for having a ship that can carry up to 800k+ m3 in stuff.

Also, isnt the Higgs anchor rig supposed to help counter against bumping?


A slight distinction here -- what I suggested would not allow a pilot to align faster in general, it would just reduce the de-aligning effects of collisions.

I appreciate you mentioning the Higgs Anchor. It's actually close to what I am talking about, though I have never experimented with one to see how effective it is. What I don't like about the Higgs Anchor is that it's a rig and cannot be equipped on freighters.