These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pap Uhotih
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#161 - 2013-02-24 19:32:10 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:


Put a dang Tank on your Orca if it has that little EHP.

Yes. You have to make a trade off between survivibility and yield/cargo. Why in the world shouldn't you have to make that tradeoff?


I’ll give up with the car insurance. I’ll concede it and simply look for a higher quote next time I want a pay rise :p

My Orca is miles away getting really dusty, I haven’t the faintest idea what its EHP actually is. off hand I think a Skiff can go above 100k, so I assumed you could get to about 70k ish in a Procurer which seemed in the right region.

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.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#162 - 2013-02-24 20:05:43 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
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.

"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

IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-02-26 19:02:29 UTC


CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.

Obviously it can't be made an aggressive action because it would be impossible to determine if the "bumping" was to disrupt warp or not.

Looking at it from a logical standpoint the way the game is currently set up "bumping" has the the exact same effect as a warp disruptor on the target ship without any aggression. Why should someone be allowed to warp distrupt another ship without any aggression?

Ginger Barbarella
#164 - 2013-02-26 21:16:17 UTC
IIshira wrote:
CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.


Bumping someone off gate or off a dock point has long been a valid tactic in EveO, and it's no more a truly aggressive act that those inane .01 isk wars. Comparing the two is NOT logical: one is CLEARLY an attack, the other isn't.

I'm truly fascinated that people get excited over this, and CONTINUE to mine (probably in ships fit for yield and not tank) in the same systems where these guys tend to go. Face it, leave the Easy Button behind, find someplace quiet to mine, and you won't get bothered. The bumpers are just as lazy as the wanna-be gankers in Uedama or Sirppala: leave the area, and they won't follow you.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Forum Clone 77777
Doomheim
#165 - 2013-02-27 21:10:15 UTC
IIshira wrote:


CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.

Obviously it can't be made an aggressive action because it would be impossible to determine if the "bumping" was to disrupt warp or not.

Looking at it from a logical standpoint the way the game is currently set up "bumping" has the the exact same effect as a warp disruptor on the target ship without any aggression. Why should someone be allowed to warp distrupt another ship without any aggression?


First of all, its used alot to get people off gates and bumping stuff that might have warp stabs on it. Why would you ruin this tactic?
Also, since a ship has to be aligned and be at roughly 70% of its top speed to go into warp, how do you propose that bumping DOES NOT disrupt warp, as bumping is pushing the other ship in the direction you hit it in?

Your "idea" is stupid, would ruin the game, and makes no sense whatsoever.
Piet Pieterszoon Heyn
Doomheim
#166 - 2013-03-02 12:15:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Piet Pieterszoon Heyn
IIshira wrote:


CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.



I agree that something about bumping should change, but instead of little hacks to the game or complicated policies I think the game mechanics should more closely follow real-world physics. This discussion may deserve a thread of it's own.

If a car on the highway hits a mosquito off-center on the windscreen, the car will not go spinning off the road (unless the driver is fatally distracted by it, of course).

So why does a frigate hitting a dreadnaught cause the dreadnaught to drift outside a POS shield? I looked up several ship sizes and masses and noticed that while a dreadnaught is about 100 times the linear size of a frigate, it's mass is "only" 1000 times as big. If a frigate were massive and the dreadnaught a hollow structure of 10m thickness, the mass should be 10,000 times the frigate's. But I'd expect a warship like a dreadnaught to be quite massive, making the mass 1,000,000 that of a frigate.

Looking further at the Titan, the hull thickness can't be more than a fraction of a millimeter...

I can imagine that fixing this will be problematic, because:

  1. Reducing size to match mass would completely change the way everything looks.
  2. Increasing mass to match size would:

    • increase the amount of materials required to build ships enormously, or
    • cause ships mass to be unrelated to it's required materials, which isn't realistic.

Any ideas about this?

So... where is this Treasure Fleet hiding nowadays?

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#167 - 2013-03-03 19:34:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Piet Pieterszoon Heyn wrote:
IIshira wrote:


CCP should change "bumping" to where it doesn't distrupt a ship from warping.



I agree that something about bumping should change, but instead of little hacks to the game or complicated policies I think the game mechanics should more closely follow real-world physics. This discussion may deserve a thread of it's own.

If a car on the highway hits a mosquito off-center on the windscreen, the car will not go spinning off the road (unless the driver is fatally distracted by it, of course).

So why does a frigate hitting a dreadnaught cause the dreadnaught to drift outside a POS shield? I looked up several ship sizes and masses and noticed that while a dreadnaught is about 100 times the linear size of a frigate, it's mass is "only" 1000 times as big. If a frigate were massive and the dreadnaught a hollow structure of 10m thickness, the mass should be 10,000 times the frigate's. But I'd expect a warship like a dreadnaught to be quite massive, making the mass 1,000,000 that of a frigate.

Looking further at the Titan, the hull thickness can't be more than a fraction of a millimeter...

I can imagine that fixing this will be problematic, because:

  1. Reducing size to match mass would completely change the way everything looks.
  2. Increasing mass to match size would:

    • increase the amount of materials required to build ships enormously, or
    • cause ships mass to be unrelated to it's required materials, which isn't realistic.

Any ideas about this?


Eve physics 101, an active MWD increases a ships mass as well as its speed. A cruiser fitted with an active 10MN MWD gets a 500,000 kg mass increase and 500% speed increase. Change the MWD to a 100MN and that mass increase is 50,000,000 kg with a much greater increase in speed, although it'll handle like an ocean liner.

A bare stabber has a mass of 10,000,000 kg, a 10MN MWD stabber has an increased mass of 15,000,000 kg with the MWD active and no other modules fitted. A bare mackinaw masses 20,000,000 kg, take a 15,000,000 kg item travelling at 2000-2500m/s (dependent on skills) and hit a stationary 20,000,000 kg object with it, what do you think will happen, even with real world physics?

Velocity matters, an 8 gram lump of lead shot from a rifle is more than enough to knock a 100 kg human flat on his arse. A MWD cruiser can travel considerably faster than a bullet shot from an M16 (950ish m/s IIRC) and weighs about 15,000,000 kg more than the bullet.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Je'ron
The Happy Shooters
#168 - 2013-03-04 17:33:04 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:


Eve physics 101, an active MWD increases a ships mass as well as its speed. A cruiser fitted with an active 10MN MWD gets a 500,000 kg mass increase and 500% speed increase. Change the MWD to a 100MN and that mass increase is 50,000,000 kg with a much greater increase in speed, although it'll handle like an ocean liner.

Wrong, 100MN doesn't have a much greater increase in speed. it is still 500%

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

A bare stabber has a mass of 10,000,000 kg, a 10MN MWD stabber has an increased mass of 15,000,000 kg with the MWD active and no other modules fitted. A bare mackinaw masses 20,000,000 kg, take a 15,000,000 kg item travelling at 2000-2500m/s (dependent on skills) and hit a stationary 20,000,000 kg object with it, what do you think will happen, even with real world physics?

Adding max 35,000m3 ore at 3,000 kg/m3 (give or take), taking into account partial inelastic collision, less than perfect contacts and dampening of thrusters the mack should get less than 10% initial velocity of the stabber and should be able to come to a stop within a reasonable time/distance, not in the ridiculous dimensions that are currently happening in EVE. However the Stabber is likely to see collision damage to the extend of structural failure.

For frigate-freighter bumps to prevent warp/jump/docking the current behaviour is even more ridiculous

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

Velocity matters, an 8 gram lump of lead shot from a rifle is more than enough to knock a 100 kg human flat on his arse. A MWD cruiser can travel considerably faster than a bullet shot from an M16 (950ish m/s IIRC) and weighs about 15,000,000 kg more than the bullet.

Velocity matters, but momentum matters more. 8gr lead resulting in 100kg human on his arse is not about velocity, but about balance. The human topples over, but is not propelled x meters backwards (just like the shooter is not landing on his arse (action-reaction thing)
If science is too hard for you try more easily consumable form: MythBusters season 3 episodes 1 and 19
Leonardo Esil
Miner Pinball INC
#169 - 2013-03-05 01:03:13 UTC
Je'ron wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:


Eve physics 101, an active MWD increases a ships mass as well as its speed. A cruiser fitted with an active 10MN MWD gets a 500,000 kg mass increase and 500% speed increase. Change the MWD to a 100MN and that mass increase is 50,000,000 kg with a much greater increase in speed, although it'll handle like an ocean liner.

Wrong, 100MN doesn't have a much greater increase in speed. it is still 500%


Have you ever bothered to put a 100MN MWD on to a cruiser hull?

A 2 nano 10MN SFI goes 3800m/s overheated.

A 2 nano 100MN SFI goes 8990 m/s overheated.



RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#170 - 2013-03-06 16:26:36 UTC
Je'ron wrote:
Wrong, 100MN doesn't have a much greater increase in speed. it is still 500%
The Cap is still 500%. A 10mn MWD doesn't get you to the cap; a 100mn MWD does.

Quote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

A bare stabber has a mass of 10,000,000 kg, a 10MN MWD stabber has an increased mass of 15,000,000 kg with the MWD active and no other modules fitted. A bare mackinaw masses 20,000,000 kg, take a 15,000,000 kg item travelling at 2000-2500m/s (dependent on skills) and hit a stationary 20,000,000 kg object with it, what do you think will happen, even with real world physics?

Adding max 35,000m3 ore at 3,000 kg/m3 (give or take), taking into account partial inelastic collision, less than perfect contacts and dampening of thrusters the mack should get less than 10% initial velocity of the stabber and should be able to come to a stop within a reasonable time/distance, not in the ridiculous dimensions that are currently happening in EVE. However the Stabber is likely to see collision damage to the extend of structural failure.

For frigate-freighter bumps to prevent warp/jump/docking the current behaviour is even more ridiculous


Then Ore in the hold should affect acceleration rate for the Mack as well (hooray 1min+ align times). Cargo doesn't affect mass in EVE. You don't want it to affect mass, either. And a 100mn MWD stabber masses around 65m kg, traveling at up to 19k m/s.

EVE ship collisions would be roughly elastic (see lore about shields) if they used physics to calculate them. And a Mack has pretty weak thrusters, since it's max speed (letting alone that the concept of a max speed on a spaceship throws realism arguments out the window) is only ~100m/s, so I'm not sure what dampening effect you're thinking they should have.

As for collision damage, a Bump stabber can have more EHP than the target Mack, so I don't think you want to go there (also people could just switch to bump Machs and their 100k+ EHP).

As for Frigates and Freighters, keeping something that is massive but has weak thrusters from perfectly lining up with something doesn't take a lot of momentum. See Tugboats vs Supertankers, and consider whether the Supertanker could orient itself on a heading with a tugboat pushing it's bow to the side.

"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

Alexiuss
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#171 - 2013-03-11 14:06:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexiuss
pi·rate (prt)
n.
1.
a. One who robs at sea or plunders the land from the sea without commission from a sovereign nation.
b. A ship used for this purpose.

2. One who preys on others; a plunderer.

3. One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization.

v. pi·rat·ed, pi·rat·ing, pi·rates
v.tr.

1. To attack and rob (a ship).
2. To take (something) by piracy.
3. To make use of or reproduce (another's work) without authorization.
v.intr.
To act as a pirate; practice piracy.

Verb 1. pirate - copy illegally; of published material

crime, criminal offence, criminal offense, law-breaking, offense, offence - (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act; "a long record of crimes"

steal - take without the owner's consent; "Someone stole my wallet on the train"; "This author stole entire paragraphs from my dissertation"


This is taken from a dictionary for those who are interested.

My point is simple, why advertise the role of a 'pirate' as a possible career path on your website and limit its use within the game with rules? Pirates do not follow the rules, they are pirates after all. I see this as part of thier job description outlined above under the crime section. If you didn'f want players to be targeted I would suggest you remove that career from your home page and more importantly from the game mechanics.

My personal view on harassment would not be this 'bumping' issue in a 'role playing' game. I would see it as harassment if a person was getting written abuse on a daily basis targeting them in a non-roleplaying fashion. This decision is the wrong decision in my view and it should be up to the players in this so-called 'sandbox' game to band together and fix the problems they are facing instead of screaming to the DEV's every time they feel targeted. (And yes I've been attacked by pirates.... it is part of the game)

And if you are botting I have no sympathy as you're technically not playing the game are you.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#172 - 2013-03-15 00:31:02 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

10 Freighter runs @1b each is safe, unless you're red.
1 Freighter run @10b is dead.


I'd have gone with this.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#173 - 2013-03-18 12:52:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Brewlar Kuvakei
Bring Mining ship HP levels back to a sensible rate ie 5000 HP instead of the battleship tank they field currentely. Then New order can just sucide the miners and thus this bumping thread will be redundant.

Next CCP nerf to high sec should bring an organised unsub in which we can get mining ship tanks back down to solo gank levels.
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#174 - 2013-03-24 23:55:28 UTC
Good to see this got all cleared up

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

Loren Torvald
Home Row
#175 - 2013-03-28 00:42:42 UTC
bump
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#176 - 2013-03-28 04:01:08 UTC
Loren Torvald wrote:
bump


I see what you did there.

"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

Teh Nurffe
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#177 - 2013-03-28 12:26:25 UTC
It seems like CCP is trying to kill everything fun from the game and converting eve to peaceful place for everyone where no one can interfere to others business

Hello Kitty Online here we come!

Samuel Wess
Doomheim
#178 - 2013-03-31 15:02:23 UTC
Allow wardecs to pilots from NPC corp. This should be possible.
Also highsec crimes should get punished, instant -10 on any ship/pod kill
without wardec.

Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"

Runeme Shilter
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2013-03-31 15:35:48 UTC
Samuel Wess wrote:
Allow wardecs to pilots from NPC corp. This should be possible.
Also highsec crimes should get punished, instant -10 on any ship/pod kill
without wardec.


Yes! No more hundreds of podkills to get to -10. +1 for that suggestion.
Otto3d
Meteor Industrial Complex
Hardly Competent
#180 - 2013-04-04 16:49:05 UTC
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?

EVElopedia < add this to your sig to show u WANT it back