EVE General Discussion

Content, try adding some instead of endlessly quoting yourself with no additional text.

Both of which were stated guesses at how something can be achieved given we know for a fact it is beyond the current scope of our computer analysis techniques. You may realise that in making those claims, I was responding to your unfounded claim that computer analysis would be able to rule on cases of harassment. This is a unique claim that flies in the face of all available evidence for it, so we have asked you to cite sources.

I was also flinging hyperbole in the mix, because your claims were silly (your claim it was possible 40 years ago). As a point of note - you can slap down my argument here by the mere act of providing proof.

You have been unable to do so. Your best source lists a F1-score of somewhere near 0.2 and the stated claim of the people conducting the experiment is their hope (the aim of the experiment) is that it could be used to flag data for human evaluation and would not, itself, be a suitable tool. No such claim (after searching to confirm this) has ever been made.

Your example is roughly equivalent of sending a blind man to a field of 100 sheep and asking him to identify the 10 black sheep by their bleats. He comes back with 3 sheep, 2 of them black. "Significant!" cries the statistician. "Useless!" says the farmer.

Computers are currently unable to determine intent, in the same way the blind man can't determine colour, but both have a method of approximating an answer.

Oh, and since you're going to say "but CCP haven't said they judge intent!!" for the ... 100th time? I thought I would repeat what I said on post ~100 or so: there are different contexts to the word intent. You can't semantically dodge the concept by proving one meaning of the word is not relevant. It has multiple adjective and noun forms, and the one of which I speak (which is essentially embroiled in the concept of motive) isn't ignored by your rapid hand-waving.

In every definition of harassment as a concept of unwanted behaviour, it is essentially stated as



Harassment, fundamentally, consists of intent. Identical acts when judged as cases of harassment can be ruled either way by their intent.

When looking at cases of harassment in civil and criminal courts, two aspects are usually evaluated
- Intent (wow, weird huh ..)
- Impact

This isn't a hard construct to understand - clearly whether the perpetrator intended harm is relevant (for example - judging behaviour).

Quite a number of Exploits have simply been fixed instead of being ruled an Exploit while being unenforceable. (This approach neatly sidesteps the problem involved in making something against the rules without being able to enforce the prohibition.)

CCP has said that Bumping is fine. At no point have I seen CCP say that they are fundamentally unhappy with the way the Physics engine is working (Well, they made some changes to the bumping mechanics 4-6 years ago, but at that time Shuttles were literally bumping Titans).

CCP has said that they were unhappy with the way logoff mechanics were working (they said this before changing it, and they said this when they changed it).


In one example, something was not working the way CCP wanted it to, in the other, that thing has been working the way CCP wants it to. Where's the similarity?
Nobody in this thread has managed to put together a cogent argument for why bumping is not fine, generally, or for why Freighters, specifically, should be special snowflakes deserving of special protections.

So, why is bumping a problem generally, or why are Freighters deserving of special protections simply because you can't be bothered to protect your own ship?

Because their align time and lack of customization makes this combined tactic fairly unique to them. If CCP says they want freighters to be vulnerable to this, I won't give it another thought; but their only statements on bumping have been in drastically different contexts.

You're missing the point; people are complaining about the combined tactic - bumping to prevent warp, bumping off grid to delay concord, and aggressing with noob ship to prevent logoff.

Yes, it's mostly avoidable if you pre-emptively bring a webbing ult, but that's not good gameplay; it doesn't make much sense conceptually and requiring two people to do an already boring job isn't desirable. CCP didn't respond to the stupid cost-effectiveness of miner ganking by telling them to mine in high sec with an escort.

its not required unless the freighter pilot wants to survive a ganker fleet that consists of much more than 2 people

If all that trit is in one stack, there's only a 50/50 chance that it'll will drop, IIRC stacked items count as 1 item for loot drop purposes so if it does drop it'll be the entire stack, the loot fairy is quite fickle like that. (needs confirming by someone with more experience and knowledge than myself)
The important word there is armoured, an armoured car is specifically designed to resist an attack and in countries without draconian gun laws the guards are probably armed. A freighter on the other hand is not, and the pilot doesn't have a side arm, ergo, you bring friends to assist and provide the equivalent to both armour and side arms.

It's not an offensive action if it's applied by a corp member (another game mechanic), it's clever use of game mechanics to get a ship into warp faster.

Still profitable amortized.



It as the highest EHP though doesn't it? The analogy kinda breaks down in any case; a load of minerals doesn't really equate to a sack of cash. If you prefer, trucks and trains are rarely guarded either.



It's still an offensive action; you're just using it within the constraints of an offensive action.

I don't think this means what you think it means

A freighter load of trit has a substantial value, in isk, opportunity cost and time involved in gathering it, so yes it is the Eve equivalent of a sack of cash, albeit a relatively small one in the whole scheme of things.


If it was an offensive action then Concord would respond, as Concord don't respond then for all intents and purposes it's not an offensive action, in exactly the same way as shooting a corpie isn't an offensive action as far as Concord is concerned, in short if Concord doesn't punish an action then it's not considered offensive under the existing highsec mechanics.

But please carry on with your circular and specious reasoning, because it's quite amusing watching you tie yourself in knots over a long established, much used and totally legitimate use of game mechanics.

This trick bypass the rules of hi-sec where you can't warp scramble the neutral ship without consequences. Doesn't really matter what it is now, but CCP will be forced to change it, if a large player base in hi-sec will be effected by this. Do you remember the nanonerf