These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bumping freighters and criminal flags

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#201 - 2013-09-17 13:21:34 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Bumping wouldn't be so bad if the physics were more realistic. Small ships bumping large objects shouldn't happen. Its like moving a stationary bullet proof car with a bullet.

Tugboat, small ship used for changing the direction of, and propelling, much larger ones via pushing (bumping) and pulling.



Leaning and shoving would be a bit more apt.

Tugboats do not really get up to speed to re align a freighter in a harbor.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#202 - 2013-09-17 13:30:22 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

If you had worked for months to get a top of the line capital ship to fly, even if you could afford to lose it, and then it was killed by a group of newb alts in newb 2 million isk dessies with newb t1 weapons in under 30 seconds you would probably wonder why you were even playing the game too.

I'm not anti-suiciding, I suicided a random in Jita the other day, pod included. I'm anti-imbalance. I used a battleship, it has a loss value that is somewhat painful.



I would definitely wonder why I would be flying such a skill intensive ship into highsec to begin with.

Leave capitals out of highsec. Seriously.

It takes what... 3 months? of skilling to get a perfect skilled battleship rolling... spend time and effort to fully fit that pirate hull properly (mach, nightmare etc) and oh look, it can't hold more than 450 m3 worth of stuff.

Roles. All about the roles.

Loss is about intelligence, not brute force of isk.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#203 - 2013-09-17 13:32:08 UTC
Galen Darksmith wrote:
Shalua Rui wrote:
Hm... ok, it seams I stand corrected then... on the other hand, given CCP's recents changes in management...

...let's just say, I get a different message. Blink Times are a changing, that's especially true for game companies... just don't be too suprised if "your" way of playing the game is suddenly deemed undesirable one day.



CCP Solomon wrote:
The risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (in fact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).


So basically, you're wrong about pretty much everything. That's actually pretty impressive.



Just to play Devil's Advocate here.... can you get CCP Solomon to make a new updated quote please? 1 a bit more recent that is...

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#204 - 2013-09-17 13:49:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So if I throw a small rock at a stationary rock three times bigger in space the big rock is not going to move?



That's the difference between a frig and a cruiser.

Let's talk 3,000 times the size!

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#205 - 2013-09-17 13:49:10 UTC
I'm not actually certain physics calculation in CCP's server reach beyond rudimentary enough to be caused an "engine". I doubt they're even a module separated from the main flight model.

Seems the server stores the ships as mass and vector of motion (which can lead to hilarious exploits, see: doomcats. After portal jumps ships didn't inherit their previous motion vector and the bomb was launched with 0,0,0 velocity. Cue instant hilarity.)

Upon collision, severity is probably just calculated basing on momentum and each ship has its motion vector altered basing on the "angle" of the bump. It's easily observed when you collide with static objects or are ejected, while stationary, by the POS shield.

Thing with coding a system of "who bumped who and is now red" is, it could be easily gamed and we'd return to status quo. Just instead of preventing them from warping they'd figure out a way for freighters to go red and gank them with a single Velator, rather than a bunch of catas.

No matter how you code an idiotproof subroutine, the nature will adapt and design a better idiot that will find a way to break it. Even if that means "stuffing a cat in the microwave oven" level of stupidity.

There already are precautions against being bumped and ganked:

- Don't haul too much in your hold, be an unappealing target
- If you're really paranoid, have a +1
- If you're really, really, really paranoid have a webber with you.
- Watch the news. Null blocs shooting absolutely everything, no matter the profit or loss in Jita? Kind of an obvious "don't go there", isn't it?

Every ship in EVE is disposable. Its purpose, from the point it leaves the factory, is to explode in a ball of fire. It's just up to you to decide whether it will pay for its weight before dying.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2013-09-17 13:49:55 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Fey Ivory wrote:

And if your frigate flies with afterburner into a titan, it shouldent go splat ?, of two less brilliant things, wich is less brilliant ? ;P


If only our ships in space had some kind of shield...



Hell yes, make those collision spheres larger!

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#207 - 2013-09-17 14:05:52 UTC
BoSau Hotim wrote:
Maliandra wrote:
I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.



So tell me. How will CCP decide when a bump is intentional or accidental in the market hubs - or any other high populated area.

Not only that, bumping is not always used in your 'so called' criminal act. What about legit wardec tactics?

Returning to believing it is a criminal act - that is your opinion. Many do not share that opinion and see bumping as a means to a legitimate end which may have non-criminal association. Who decides when and where it is criminal or not? If indeed CCP dedides that it is.

I dont' see the need for CCP to sit down and waste time hashing this out when there are many more important things to focus on.



IF CCP wanted, they could make another timer, a bumper timer... sort of like a warning. I'm not saying they should, or that I would want one.... but with all the talk of how possible it is to "easily" just rewrite all their code (heh)...

Well, we know CCP likes timers in highsec don't we?

Not a proposal, but to explain.... sort of like... you bump ship, incur a 60 second timer, or maybe 120 seconds who knows. If you bump again within that time frame, you get a suspect flag, or at least a limited engagement flag (something I dunno the idea is terrible).


If you wanted to avoid undock bumps well... that's why we have instant undocks. Hell you have a few seconds to move anyways before you even get bumped (current mechanics) and would not be able to stay right at the door as it is with all the current traffic ejected at max speed+.


The workaround to this is that you would employ more people to rotate timers. The workaround for the victim is to simply do what they should have in the first place; employ help/escort/scouts.

Again, not that I want this change, but it is an alternative to rewriting the entire system to simply change bump mechanics.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#208 - 2013-09-17 14:09:13 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

The engine in the ship that's floating is space. The ship produces thrust using energy from fuel. The thrust moves the ship which the engine is attached too. "Simulations" simulate something, usually reality.



Please show me where I can get one of these engines. I have yet to see such a tangible item in game. I want a spare, you see. And what engine fuel? the only fuel I've seen isn't for ships to propel with thrust.

Speaking of... wtf ship are you flying that requires this?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#209 - 2013-09-17 14:10:36 UTC
Peter Raptor wrote:
If youre repeatedly bumped, simply log off, and the would be gankers will shed tears of their own as your ship vanishes within 1 min, come back in hour and play again ;)



As long as noobships aren't concorded to exploit that timer that keeps you in space to eliminate that ability.

Because tools.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Lady Areola Fappington
#210 - 2013-09-17 14:10:44 UTC
Trii Seo wrote:
I
No matter how you code an idiotproof subroutine, the nature will adapt and design a better idiot that will find a way to break it. Even if that means "stuffing a cat in the microwave oven" level of stupidity.



Hey, what you call stupid, I call creative use of gameplay mechanics, but your point is solid nonetheless. Trying to fix bumping via gameplay mechanics won't work, because people will just find a new way to accomplish the objective.


It really does lend credence to the devs saying that ganking is at an all time low though, if the chief complaint among miners is "some guy is running into my ship, causing me to lose mining cycles!"

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#211 - 2013-09-17 14:27:08 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Because technically bumping is not shutting down their warp core; it is still spooling up.

Bumping is keeping the ship from attaining full align and 75% speed.

Since the warp drive is still able to spool up it's not a flag. Warp scram/disruptor actually affects the ships warp strength therefore = flag.

Dual Vindi-webs aren't shutting down the warp core... but when used on a massive ship on undock its effect is much the same as it makes it all but impossible to slow down to the new 75% speed.
As bumping will often push a freighter at several times its top speed might it not be treated in a similar fashion?

I recall, some years ago, a dev talking about making it impossible (or perhaps simply an exploit) to interupt warp without activating a scrambler type module (or using a bubble where such things are possible). It was never done because (as I recall) of the e-warp being uneffected and therefore bumping was the only method to catch certain botters... It may well also have been pre HICs and therefore bumping would have been the only way to catch Ginger Magician's Nyx (and so forth).



My quote was in regards to responding why a warp disruptor creates a flag where bumping doesn't.

A web didn't factor in that post but a web creates a flag for the same reason it is an aggressive module to change the innate effects of a player piloted hull.

But yes, you are absolutely correct; a web does not shut down the warp drive of a ship.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Trii Seo
Goonswarm Federation
#212 - 2013-09-17 14:27:47 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Trii Seo wrote:
I
No matter how you code an idiotproof subroutine, the nature will adapt and design a better idiot that will find a way to break it. Even if that means "stuffing a cat in the microwave oven" level of stupidity.



Hey, what you call stupid, I call creative use of gameplay mechanics, but your point is solid nonetheless. Trying to fix bumping via gameplay mechanics won't work, because people will just find a new way to accomplish the objective.


It really does lend credence to the devs saying that ganking is at an all time low though, if the chief complaint among miners is "some guy is running into my ship, causing me to lose mining cycles!"


Well I mis-phrased it. By stupid I mean dying to said creative use of gameplay mechanics, not exploiting them.

...the funniest part about people complaining about CODE. bumping their mining ships is they can get rid of it even easier. Pay measly 10 mil ISK.

For a year.

Or, I don't know, unionize.

Proud pilot of the Imperium

Arek'Jaalan: Heliograph
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#213 - 2013-09-17 14:41:27 UTC
Trii Seo wrote:
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Trii Seo wrote:
I
No matter how you code an idiotproof subroutine, the nature will adapt and design a better idiot that will find a way to break it. Even if that means "stuffing a cat in the microwave oven" level of stupidity.



Hey, what you call stupid, I call creative use of gameplay mechanics, but your point is solid nonetheless. Trying to fix bumping via gameplay mechanics won't work, because people will just find a new way to accomplish the objective.


It really does lend credence to the devs saying that ganking is at an all time low though, if the chief complaint among miners is "some guy is running into my ship, causing me to lose mining cycles!"


Well I mis-phrased it. By stupid I mean dying to said creative use of gameplay mechanics, not exploiting them.

...the funniest part about people complaining about CODE. bumping their mining ships is they can get rid of it even easier. Pay measly 10 mil ISK.

For a year.

Or, I don't know, unionize.


Or mine elsewhere because the code is definately not enforced everywhere.
Johan Civire
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-09-17 14:51:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Johan Civire
yah I got outside a station and there is a guy standing still I bump because of the auto drop out of the starbase or base station then I get criminal flag because I "bump" the guy... Yah great idea to have a idea not.... Its just plain stupid and other stealth care bear miner post.
archon o'v
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#215 - 2013-09-17 15:02:02 UTC
bumping is bad design, can be corrected by something like ship mass + velocity vs target mass = damage to the hull therefor all the big ships should have massive hull hp, small ship would simply explode on impact with big ship
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2013-09-17 15:07:34 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

The engine in the ship that's floating is space. The ship produces thrust using energy from fuel. The thrust moves the ship which the engine is attached too. "Simulations" simulate something, usually reality.



We covered this at length, but just in case, short memory and all:

If there are no collisions, there's no need for a physics engine. Everything that would require a physics engine can be done via texture transforms. This has been a standard way to code movement in video games, when collisions don't need to be factored.

Being a ten year teacher of programming, you should be well aware of this fact.


Back on topic:

I honestly think the "rebound" mechanic used for bumping is kind of silly. It's computationally simple, yes, but does lead to these silly antics. A more realistic approach would look more like tugboats in a harbor, where little guys with big engines apply continuous pressure against a bigger ship to shove it around.


And with this if the bigger ship wanted to counter the tug boat all the pilot would have to do is turn his rudder all the way in the counter direction and increase the rpm's to his screws and push the tug aside like a toy boat.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#217 - 2013-09-17 15:08:49 UTC
archon o'v wrote:
bumping is bad design, can be corrected by something like ship mass + velocity vs target mass = damage to the hull therefor all the big ships should have massive hull hp, small ship would simply explode on impact with big ship


The mass addition value on a MWD + the applied value of speed would most likely transform some cruiser into efficient anti-ship guided missile instead of just bumping them.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#218 - 2013-09-17 15:29:43 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
archon o'v wrote:
bumping is bad design, can be corrected by something like ship mass + velocity vs target mass = damage to the hull therefor all the big ships should have massive hull hp, small ship would simply explode on impact with big ship


The mass addition value on a MWD + the applied value of speed would most likely transform some cruiser into efficient anti-ship guided missile instead of just bumping them.



Tell me that kind of suicide ganking wouldn't be fun though.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
archon o'v
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#219 - 2013-09-17 16:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: archon o'v
Frostys Virpio wrote:
archon o'v wrote:
bumping is bad design, can be corrected by something like ship mass + velocity vs target mass = damage to the hull therefor all the big ships should have massive hull hp, small ship would simply explode on impact with big ship


The mass addition value on a MWD + the applied value of speed would most likely transform some cruiser into efficient anti-ship guided missile instead of just bumping them.


true that but at least it would feel more realistic, also high amount of hull HP would survive impact of multiple ship as well as you can get RR from alt or whatever
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#220 - 2013-09-17 16:59:31 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
archon o'v wrote:
bumping is bad design, can be corrected by something like ship mass + velocity vs target mass = damage to the hull therefor all the big ships should have massive hull hp, small ship would simply explode on impact with big ship


The mass addition value on a MWD + the applied value of speed would most likely transform some cruiser into efficient anti-ship guided missile instead of just bumping them.



Tell me that kind of suicide ganking wouldn't be fun though.


100 freighters on the jita undock.