These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why freighter bumping in High Sec is an exploit

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cathy Mikakka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#321 - 2014-02-11 16:55:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Cathy Mikakka
JetStream Drenard wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
JetStream Drenard wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
There is freaking easy solution to the bumping problem that would only hurt gankers, and who cares about them, since they can still gank and only thing they lost is the fact that they need to be in the game to gank (what a ******* shocker):

Make bumping not work with your ship if you have green set up with concord (ie you want system to prohibit suspect and criminal actions). If you bump with green settings, you will be the one pushed away while target will not move. However, if you set up your settings to yellow or red, if you bump, it will be the same as now, but you will get suspect.

This is way TOO open to abuse and would completely destroy bumping as a game mechanic. Bumping causing damage is logical but again this would be open to abuse as you could potentially obliterate smaller ships, unless implementing Mournful Conciousness type of proposal (below).. I still say that freighters need fitting slots. If CCP gives them fitting slots and you fit cargo mods on them, I will laugh and ridicule you as much as the gankers do, when you die and cry. I do not think that they should have high slots or at least any turret/missle hardpoints. Fitting slots will not protect you from bumping, or at least would not prevent it. You will still need a webber. They would allow you to tank a freighter up to carry more (valuable) cargo before you cross the gank threshold.

Why would it be open to abuse? The only person you can abuse is yourself, if you set it to red or yellow. There is no way you can abuse anyone with that mechanics... And yes, it would destroy mechanics of bumping freighters, which is kinda point of that...

Estrella Sheikh: no, but apparently 1vs1 where one participant always wins is fair?

Because then anyone could set to green and be bump free. It would make engageable station gamers more powerful and annoying. You would not be able to knock them off the docking ring for one. For two, it would be much more difficult to prevent an opponent from burning to the gate to avoid being killed.

You clearly haven't read what I wrote. If you are set to green, you do not bump the other ship, you only bump yourself off the ship. The position and movement vector of the bumped ship will stay the same. And yes, if you are set in green, you would not be able to do it. Set yourself to yellow or red and bear consequences.

Ammzi wrote:

It's called emergent gameplay and is one of the key selling features of EVE: The Sandbox
If you want to kill emergent gameplay you are going to be in a lot of trouble because either you do it from a "moral point of view" which is very, very bad (do I have to explain why?) or you just nerf all emergent gameplay - which FYI putting up POS in wormholes is (CCP never expected people wanting to live there).

Regardless, taking bumping away will not prevent ganking - it will only constitute to slightly raising the prices of ganks, which in turn means more people will be hauling much more expensive stuff. Just like a system in equilibrium which is put out of balance due to a change in composition, it will re-instate the balance and things will be back to normal.

At lest that way, freighter pilot can use logoffski during gate cloak to attempt to save the freighter and cargo. He can't do that with bumping. Without bumping, he still has (meta)fighting chance to win "PVP" match, with it he has none.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#322 - 2014-02-11 17:00:31 UTC
JetStream Drenard wrote:

exactly my point. orca ganking requires these computations, why should not a freighter?


Because a freighter is relatively static in terms of tank, because they do not have fitting slots.
When freighters are being taken down by a group of players, because the freighter pilot did not protect himself properly against that group of players DOES NOT warrant a gameplay change to freighters. E.g. giving them fitting slots. You can take virtually any freighter that has ever been ganked in highsec and be like: "If this guy had been webbed, then he would have escaped."

Motoko Innocentius wrote:

So what you're saying is, it's harder to gank if you can't just start bumping someone and gank when you've gotten all your friends in place? Sounds like you want to make ganking easier, how bout you try wow?

Guess you're just another ganker that wants ccp to do their job for them.


I am not asking anything from CCP, this is how the game works currently and how it has worked for a long time. Ganking is not "easy", it takes time, effort, ingame knowledge, investment and I could write you an essay on how to counter it and make it absolutely pain in the ass for gankers, but I am not going to.
You're the one with the faulty imagination and/or knowledge of game mechanics so your only resort is to cry out to CCP for help even though there are plenty of completely valid, non-criminal methods to counter ganking freighters, both by the freighter pilot and by "freighter protection pilots".
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#323 - 2014-02-11 17:02:19 UTC
Cathy Mikakka wrote:

At lest that way, freighter pilot can use logoffski during gate cloak to attempt to save the freighter and cargo. He can't do that with bumping. Without bumping, he still has (meta)fighting chance to win "PVP" match, with it he has none.


No, a freighter cannot logoffski during gate cloak to prevent getting ganked.
Again - faulty knowledge of game mechanics.
Cathy Mikakka
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#324 - 2014-02-11 17:09:15 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
Cathy Mikakka wrote:

At lest that way, freighter pilot can use logoffski during gate cloak to attempt to save the freighter and cargo. He can't do that with bumping. Without bumping, he still has (meta)fighting chance to win "PVP" match, with it he has none.


No, a freighter cannot logoffski during gate cloak to prevent getting ganked.
Again - faulty knowledge of game mechanics.

I do not own freighter yet, so I don't know, but since when was this fixed? I thought you could log off at any time, during the cloak, then disappear minute afterwards (you use cloak to prevent aggro 15m timer).
JetStream Drenard
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#325 - 2014-02-11 17:11:27 UTC
Cathy Mikakka wrote:
JetStream Drenard wrote:

Because then anyone could set to green and be bump free. It would make engageable station gamers more powerful and annoying. You would not be able to knock them off the docking ring for one. For two, it would be much more difficult to prevent an opponent from burning to the gate to avoid being killed.

You clearly haven't read what I wrote. If you are set to green, you do not bump the other ship, you only bump yourself off the ship. The position and movement vector of the bumped ship will stay the same. And yes, if you are set in green, you would not be able to do it. Set yourself to yellow or red and bear consequences.

You clearly have not read what I wrote. You clearly dont understand game mechanics either. Any legally engageable player (WT, suspect, criminal) could set to green and therefore NOT be able to be bumped into a position that allows you to kill him BEFORE he can dock or jump away. Ruining the bumping mechanic that CCP has explicitly endorsed.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#326 - 2014-02-11 17:16:05 UTC
Cathy Mikakka wrote:

I do not own freighter yet, so I don't know, but since when was this fixed? I thought you could log off at any time, during the cloak, then disappear minute afterwards (you use cloak to prevent aggro 15m timer).


Ever since the new mechanics. Crimewatch.
Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#327 - 2014-02-11 17:19:33 UTC
Ammzi wrote:

I am not asking anything from CCP, this is how the game works currently and how it has worked for a long time. Ganking is not "easy", it takes time, effort, ingame knowledge, investment and I could write you an essay on how to counter it and make it absolutely pain in the ass for gankers, but I am not going to.
You're the one with the faulty imagination and/or knowledge of game mechanics so your only resort is to cry out to CCP for help even though there are plenty of completely valid, non-criminal methods to counter ganking freighters, both by the freighter pilot and by "freighter protection pilots".



I've yet to say that ganking must not be allowed, you are the only one saying that. Saying ganking is hard and requires ingame knollage is bullshit. With bumping, you only need to bump a whale, gathe people when they bother to come in, then do a countdown and shoot.

This is all it requires, sure you need to scan the freighter with the bumper and copy paste **** in a software/webform of your choice, but thats not much is it ? Only effort is required for the first gank and thats counting how much your fleet can do damage in the time it is given.

You are just crying out because you do not want to use a scout and a scanner and have your fleet ready and prepared (like you're suggesting freighter pilots need to have). You want the luxury of taking your time to gather fleet up when someone pings in jabber that they've started bumping a juicy freighter, at which point you have untill next dt to engage.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#328 - 2014-02-11 17:24:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ammzi
Motoko Innocentius wrote:



Saying ganking is hard and requires ingame knollage is bullshit. With bumping, you only need to bump a whale, gathe people when they bother to come in, then do a countdown and shoot.

This is all it requires, ...


I didn't say you said ganking must not be allowed - I was using ganking synonymously with bumping.
You have no right to state that, you don't have the faintest idea (well actually only the faintest idea) the system you have to setup to successfully locate, immobilize, execute and loot a gank. Any error in any of the procedures and you have wasted all your time, potentially flopped 1b isk down the drain if the gank goes wrong.

This is like exactly like people with no knowledge within software development complaining about bugs in a game and "how ******* difficult can it be to just get it right?".
How about you go out and do some freighter ganking, then come back and tell me:

1. That it was easy as ****
2. And how every single freighter you ganked could not just have been insta-webbed and got away from you.
JetStream Drenard
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#329 - 2014-02-11 17:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: JetStream Drenard
Ammzi wrote:
JetStream Drenard wrote:

exactly my point. orca ganking requires these computations, why should not a freighter?


Because a freighter is relatively static in terms of tank, because they do not have fitting slots.
When freighters are being taken down by a group of players, because the freighter pilot did not protect himself properly against that group of players DOES NOT warrant a gameplay change to freighters. E.g. giving them fitting slots. You can take virtually any freighter that has ever been ganked in highsec and be like: "If this guy had been webbed, then he would have escaped."

This is the crux of the entire argument here. and it a has been repeated multiple times through out this thread. Use a webber and everything else is superfluous> There is no more circular logic necessary. Thread is dead.
Estrella Sheikh
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#330 - 2014-02-11 17:34:09 UTC
JetStream Drenard wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
JetStream Drenard wrote:

exactly my point. orca ganking requires these computations, why should not a freighter?


Because a freighter is relatively static in terms of tank, because they do not have fitting slots.
When freighters are being taken down by a group of players, because the freighter pilot did not protect himself properly against that group of players DOES NOT warrant a gameplay change to freighters. E.g. giving them fitting slots. You can take virtually any freighter that has ever been ganked in highsec and be like: "If this guy had been webbed, then he would have escaped."

This is the crux of the entire argument here. and it a has been repeated multiple times through out this thread. Use a webber and everything else is superfluous> There is no more circular logic necessary. Thread is dead.


Goodness I wish this thread was dead.

Some people refuse to actually act.
Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#331 - 2014-02-11 17:37:53 UTC
Ammzi wrote:
Motoko Innocentius wrote:



Saying ganking is hard and requires ingame knollage is bullshit. With bumping, you only need to bump a whale, gathe people when they bother to come in, then do a countdown and shoot.

This is all it requires, ...


I didn't say you said ganking must not be allowed - I was using ganking synonymously with bumping.
You have no right to state that, you don't have the faintest idea (well actually only the faintest idea) the system you have to setup to successfully locate, immobilize, execute and loot a gank. Any error in any of the procedures and you have wasted all your time, potentially flopped 1b isk down the drain if the gank goes wrong.

This is like exactly like people with no knowledge within software development complaining about bugs in a game and "how ******* difficult can it be to just get it right?".
How about you go out and do some freighter ganking, then come back and tell me:

1. That it was easy as ****
2. And how every single freighter you ganked could not just have been insta-webbed and got away from you.


You are evading the issue, lets put it this way, bl maelstrom fleet from some weird reason decide to undock from jita to gank a cfc titan (i know you're not allowed to attack cfc titans but humor me), while you undock a goon fleet of same size comes out and starts bumping the maelstroms, for some reason the maelstroms happen to have a 45 second align time and as such, one goon can keep one maelstrom locked from getting into warp indefinately by bumping said maelstrom (this is how it goes with freighters).

Now your fleet is locked from doing anything and the characters in the fleet are locked from doing anything until next dt comes. This is great gameplay right? Now are you going to bring ships to gank these bumpers?
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#332 - 2014-02-11 17:43:39 UTC
Motoko Innocentius wrote:


Now your fleet is locked from doing anything and the characters in the fleet are locked from doing anything until next dt comes. This is great gameplay right? Now are you going to bring ships to gank these bumpers?


I would dock up.
Then I would undock.
Then I would warp to my insta undock bookmark.

~creativity~
Estrella Sheikh
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#333 - 2014-02-11 17:44:41 UTC
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
Motoko Innocentius wrote:



Saying ganking is hard and requires ingame knollage is bullshit. With bumping, you only need to bump a whale, gathe people when they bother to come in, then do a countdown and shoot.

This is all it requires, ...


I didn't say you said ganking must not be allowed - I was using ganking synonymously with bumping.
You have no right to state that, you don't have the faintest idea (well actually only the faintest idea) the system you have to setup to successfully locate, immobilize, execute and loot a gank. Any error in any of the procedures and you have wasted all your time, potentially flopped 1b isk down the drain if the gank goes wrong.

This is like exactly like people with no knowledge within software development complaining about bugs in a game and "how ******* difficult can it be to just get it right?".
How about you go out and do some freighter ganking, then come back and tell me:

1. That it was easy as ****
2. And how every single freighter you ganked could not just have been insta-webbed and got away from you.


You are evading the issue, lets put it this way, bl maelstrom fleet from some weird reason decide to undock from jita to gank a cfc titan (i know you're not allowed to attack cfc titans but humor me), while you undock a goon fleet of same size comes out and starts bumping the maelstroms, for some reason the maelstroms happen to have a 45 second align time and as such, one goon can keep one maelstrom locked from getting into warp indefinately by bumping said maelstrom (this is how it goes with freighters).

Now your fleet is locked from doing anything and the characters in the fleet are locked from doing anything until next dt comes. This is great gameplay right? Now are you going to bring ships to gank these bumpers?


o_o have you never heard of HS Undock warp to points?

Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#334 - 2014-02-11 17:47:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Motoko Innocentius
Ammzi wrote:
Motoko Innocentius wrote:


Now your fleet is locked from doing anything and the characters in the fleet are locked from doing anything until next dt comes. This is great gameplay right? Now are you going to bring ships to gank these bumpers?


I would dock up.
Then I would undock.
Then I would warp to my insta undock bookmark.

~creativity~


Can't dock when bumped to 200kmk off the station, stop evading the issue. The end result will be the same if you've just jumped through a stargate and start getting bumped.

edit: Estrella , stop evading the issue
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#335 - 2014-02-11 17:50:53 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Quote:
The problem is that your average fleet stabber can pick a freighter and render it completely unable to act for an indefinitely long period of time, short of the freighter self-destructing.


u must be assuming the freighter be afk. in which case, its owner must surely not mind being held indefinitly, since he doesnt even know. and even then the freighter cannot be held indefinitly, as DT kicks in every 24 hours.

If the freighter pilot is active however; he can log off or eject, he is in no way a prisoner. seeing as the freighter is not being held for any specific purposes like suicide ganks, he will be allowed to log off safely. Or if it is being held for a purpose within the game, then its being held for a purpose within the game, so thats fine.


Freighter doesn't need to be afk to be bumped forever. Logging off or DT does not allow the freighter to escape. What you are saying here, is that if one person or multiple persons decides to hellcamp a freighter's logoff point in hisec, that this is okay, and the freighter pilot has no recourse but to eject or self destruct in order to escape, or wait out his harassers, potentially forever.

While I have described an extreme situation, certainly, but my point is to illustrate that a limit should exist (and does exist) even if that limit is subjective.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#336 - 2014-02-11 17:55:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Motoko Innocentius
Batelle wrote:


Freighter doesn't need to be afk to be bumped forever. Logging off or DT does not allow the freighter to escape. What you are saying here, is that if one person or multiple persons decides to hellcamp a freighter's logoff point in hisec, that this is okay, and the freighter pilot has no recourse but to eject or self destruct in order to escape, or wait out his harassers, potentially forever.

While I have described an extreme situation, certainly, but my point is to illustrate that a limit should exist (and does exist) even if that limit is subjective.


Problem is, the limit has no effect on freighters as there is no way of escaping the situation and having it occur again later. Only way for the ruling on bumping relating to miner bumpage to have effect on freighters is if attempting to warp away is deemed an escape and consequent bumps to be harrassing.

But this is another can of worms to open and as such a clear ruling from ccp on how bumping and harrassing relate to freighters in hisec would be needed.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#337 - 2014-02-11 17:56:46 UTC
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
Ammzi wrote:
Motoko Innocentius wrote:


Now your fleet is locked from doing anything and the characters in the fleet are locked from doing anything until next dt comes. This is great gameplay right? Now are you going to bring ships to gank these bumpers?


I would dock up.
Then I would undock.
Then I would warp to my insta undock bookmark.

~creativity~


Can't dock when bumped to 200kmk off the station, stop evading the issue. The end result will be the same if you've just jumped through a stargate and start getting bumped.

edit: Estrella , stop evading the issue


You're the one avoiding the issue. I just told you. Virtually any freighter is uncatchable with a webbing alt.
Motoko Innocentius
Domus Dei
#338 - 2014-02-11 18:09:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Motoko Innocentius
You are not answering the question, that is avoiding the issue.

Edit: just to add, you are basicly saying, a freighter needs to always have a webbing alt or it gets ganked (you earlier said you gank empty freighters for testing purposes).
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#339 - 2014-02-11 18:09:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
Batelle wrote:


Freighter doesn't need to be afk to be bumped forever. Logging off or DT does not allow the freighter to escape. What you are saying here, is that if one person or multiple persons decides to hellcamp a freighter's logoff point in hisec, that this is okay, and the freighter pilot has no recourse but to eject or self destruct in order to escape, or wait out his harassers, potentially forever.

While I have described an extreme situation, certainly, but my point is to illustrate that a limit should exist (and does exist) even if that limit is subjective.


Problem is, the limit has no effect on freighters as there is no way of escaping the situation and having it occur again later. Only way for the ruling on bumping relating to miner bumpage to have effect on freighters is if attempting to warp away is deemed an escape and consequent bumps to be harrassing.

But this is another can of worms to open and as such a clear ruling from ccp on how bumping and harrassing relate to freighters in hisec would be needed.


Right, which is why I'm actually completely content to leave bumping mechanics unchanged. But I would appreciate clarity from CCP on the issue. But CCP can't be clear because if they say "its okay up to 20 minutes" then people will start bumping freighters with impunity everywhere. CCP doesn't want to draw a line in the sand because of the affect it would have on player behavior. Thus here, as with many other grey areas, CCP will let you know if you crossed the line (if you're reported), but they won't say much more than that.

Quote:
You're the one avoiding the issue. I just told you. Virtually any freighter is uncatchable with a webbing alt.

Assessing the effectiveness of webbing alts/friends is useful when considering balance. It is not useful at all however if you're trying to outline what should be considered an exploit or harassment.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#340 - 2014-02-11 18:31:30 UTC
Motoko Innocentius wrote:
You are not answering the question, that is avoiding the issue.

Edit: just to add, you are basicly saying, a freighter needs to always have a webbing alt or it g̶e̶t̶s̶ can be ganked (you earlier said you gank empty freighters for testing purposes).


Fixed that for you.
Just like a bumping character needs some friends to gank the freighter. The freighter needs someone to make it almost ungankable/uncatchable.