These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#521 - 2014-02-14 14:44:21 UTC
Johnny Aideron wrote:
It's you who needs to improve your reading comprehension. Firstly, you keep claiming that CCP does not consider bumping to be harassment, but actually it is dependent upon the context in which the bumping takes place. Some incidents of bumping are considered to be harassment. You should stop cherry-picking CCP quotes from out of the context of their complete statements. Secondly, I was speculating about what action CCP might take based on their past actions, I didn't say that freighter bumping has been defined as an exploit by CCP as of now. Equally, there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the future.




Which context are you referring to? What incidents of bumping are considered harassment?

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
#522 - 2014-02-14 14:47:57 UTC
As I said previously, referring to CCPs statement on the matter, if a miner leaves system to go mine somewhere else after being bumped, you are prohibited from targeting that player anymore.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#523 - 2014-02-14 14:47:57 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Johnny Aideron wrote:
It's you who needs to improve your reading comprehension. Firstly, you keep claiming that CCP does not consider bumping to be harassment, but actually it is dependent upon the context in which the bumping takes place. Some incidents of bumping are considered to be harassment. You should stop cherry-picking CCP quotes from out of the context of their complete statements. Secondly, I was speculating about what action CCP might take based on their past actions, I didn't say that freighter bumping has been defined as an exploit by CCP as of now. Equally, there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the future.




Which context are you referring to? What incidents of bumping are considered harassment?
The one I said, which he ignored as it didn't fit his posting.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#524 - 2014-02-14 14:50:52 UTC
Johnny Aideron wrote:
As I said previously, referring to CCPs statement on the matter, if a miner leaves system to go mine somewhere else after being bumped, you are prohibited from targeting that player anymore.
More than one or two systems. Some people seem to think simply trying to get away from the first system, qualifies as harassment. That was my point.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#525 - 2014-02-14 14:52:47 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I can see there is some passion for killing freighters here, and the same old mentality of blame the victim for being pretty that permeates the mind of predators everywhere.

As to the list:

1. Actual good suggestion

2. ? Not about bumping...

3. ? Not a freighter, but Ok...Orca's can be fit with stuff.

4. ? Not a freighter, but Ok... they can be fit with stuff.

5. Fair suggestion, even it it is pretty much just #1 repeated.

6. ? Not about bumping. Good advice for any form of ganking I suppose.

7. ? Not even about flying a ship at all. Pure Hyperbole, EVE rocks for pirates...

8. ? Not a freighter. I suppose it would avoid bumping for some circumstances in low and null where they can be used.

9. ? This is the same as 7. Rock on...

10. ? Decent Advice I suppose. Not about bumping, nor flying a freighter.

11. ? Not about bumping, nor flying a freighter. This is more of a suggestion on how to accomplish 6 & 10.

12. ? Not about Bumping, Nor flying a freighter. same as 7 and 9... Rock on and on I suppose.

13. ? Not about bumping, or flying a freighter, nor even an actual suggestion. More like you ran out of wind making up more bogus list entries.

So the entire list of what to do about being bumped for potentially hours in high sec boils down to bring an escort willing to die for you in place of your freighter, or hope you get lucky on a trajectory upon being bumped while webbed. I suppose just not playing would also be a fair counter.

The main complaint, as I read it, was not about being ganked in and of itself. It's about using bumping as an indefinite means of tackle. Doing something about bumping does not stop ganking. It does mean the gankers have to actually be present to get the job done. In the end, that fight becomes a 1v1, with the guy driving a freighter being crippled---once the bumping starts there is no counter, no skill to be used, no end to the tackle. That fight is over and all power is in the hands of the pirate. The countermeasure to something should never be "Don't be there". That's not playing, that's paying to ship spin.




Lol :)


So what you're saying is during Hulkageddon, the answer for a hulk not getting ganked shouldn't be 'Don't be flying a Hulk during Hulkaggedon'?

Ha. Ha ha. Ha. Ha.


Or the answer to flying a super all alone and dropping onto a camp with a HIC shouldn't be 'Well don't do it'?


Lol. L.O.L.


The counter measure for stupid is don't do it. The counter measure for bumping is be prepared for it, and the very high probability of a gank following it. It's completely ridiculous that you think you should be able to just lol about. If someone is putting the time in to spend hours bumping you, then you should be willing to put in hours to wait it out. Kinda the same as any war or PVP engagement on station. You can either spend hours trying to undock, where your opponent will spend hours keeping you camped, or either of you can get bored and go away or dock up. Again, the answer being 'Don't be there.'


LOL.


Good try. Suggestions weren't just about bumping. They were about surviving and avoiding the impending gank.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
#526 - 2014-02-14 14:53:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnny Aideron
Mag's wrote:
Johnny Aideron wrote:
As I said previously, referring to CCPs statement on the matter, if a miner leaves system to go mine somewhere else after being bumped, you are prohibited from targeting that player anymore.
More than one or two systems. Some people seem to think simply trying to get away from the first system, qualifies as harassment. That was my point.


And my point was that certain incidents of bumping are considered to be harassment.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#527 - 2014-02-14 14:53:52 UTC
Johnny Aideron wrote:
As I said previously, referring to CCPs statement on the matter, if a miner leaves system to go mine somewhere else after being bumped, you are prohibited from targeting that player anymore.




But in the cases we're talking about, the player doesn't leave system. So how does this apply to the discussion?

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
#528 - 2014-02-14 14:57:04 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Johnny Aideron wrote:
As I said previously, referring to CCPs statement on the matter, if a miner leaves system to go mine somewhere else after being bumped, you are prohibited from targeting that player anymore.




But in the cases we're talking about, the player doesn't leave system. So how does this apply to the discussion?


I was using that example as a precedent to establish that bumping is, under some circumstances, considered to be harassment by CCP, and also to establish that CCP has implemented curbs on bumping in the past, which shows that bumping is not action that carries no restrictions, which is an assertion that you guys have been dishonestly implying by cherry-picking CCP quotes.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#529 - 2014-02-14 15:00:22 UTC
Johnny Aideron wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Johnny Aideron wrote:
As I said previously, referring to CCPs statement on the matter, if a miner leaves system to go mine somewhere else after being bumped, you are prohibited from targeting that player anymore.
More than one or two systems. Some people seem to think simply trying to get away from the first system, qualifies as harassment. That was my point.


And my point was that certain incidents of bumping are considered to be harassment.
Yes and I said what it was, you ignored it.

We know the following.

A. You should be more than one or two systems out, from the original system.
B. Followed by the bumpers.
C. It will then be judged on it's own merits.

Second guessing at which system out it will apply and prejudging a GM's stance on unknown circumstances, is rather pointless and not helpful.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#530 - 2014-02-14 15:01:19 UTC
Johnny Aideron wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
Johnny Aideron wrote:
As I said previously, referring to CCPs statement on the matter, if a miner leaves system to go mine somewhere else after being bumped, you are prohibited from targeting that player anymore.




But in the cases we're talking about, the player doesn't leave system. So how does this apply to the discussion?


I was using that example as a precedent to establish that bumping is, under some circumstances, considered to be harassment by CCP, and also to establish that CCP has implemented curbs on bumping in the past, which shows that bumping is not action that carries no restrictions, which is an assertion that you guys have been dishonestly implying by cherry-picking CCP quotes.



Again, inaccurate. We've never said it has no restrictions. For one, it requires time. What we've said is that in terms of being used for bumping freighters or ganking, CCP has stated it's acceptable game play.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#531 - 2014-02-14 15:48:08 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Ad Hominem, Slippery slope, No true Scot, Cherry picking, False analogy, Misleading Vividness, Red herring, Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Argumentum ad nauseam, Diversionary argument, ignorant diatribe ....

I still can't stop laughing, I actually didn't think it was possible to fit that many fallacies in one string post. You have no clue as to what to say so you repeat everything that's already been said and disputed in the last 25 pages.

You can not control your ship due to the actions of another player, they are not using a Scram, Disruptor, Web, ECM, or Gun they have not War Dec'ed you, shot your MTU/Moblie depot or made any other move that is currently viewed as aggressive, but they are still preventing you and yours from proceeding in peace, with the intent of prepping for and actually performing a Gank; This is an exploit.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#532 - 2014-02-14 15:56:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Johnny Aideron wrote:
On the subject of miner bumping, CCP stated that you can bump people but if they make an attempt to leave system and go somewhere you are not allowed to follow them around and keep bumping them, as it becomes personal harassment at that point.


someone petitioned on their freighter being bumped for over an hour. CCP ruled: Not an exploit

mag's wrote:
Also please read the following link. It is the Eve search version of the thread I Iinked. A thread of someone complaining of a freighter being bumped for over an hour.


post 1145 and 1164
Johnny Aideron wrote:
You should stop cherry-picking CCP quotes from out of the context of their complete statements. .


so uve found an example where CCP ruled that keeping a freighter in system by bumping was harassment? would like to see.

Goldiiee wrote:

You can not control your ship due to the actions of another player, they are not using a Scram, Disruptor, Web, ECM, or Gun they have not War Dec'ed you, shot your MTU/Moblie depot or made any other move that is currently viewed as aggressive, but they are still preventing you and yours from proceeding in peace, with the intent of prepping for and actually performing a Gank; This is an exploit.


what mechanic are u referring to that is being used in a way that is not intended and simultaneously is breaking the game?

it couldnt possibly be the bumping, because using bumping in order to hold someone for a gank is perfectly fine, as stated by CCP.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Mag's
Azn Empire
#533 - 2014-02-14 16:02:59 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
You can not control your ship due to the actions of another player, they are not using a Scram, Disruptor, Web, ECM, or Gun they have not War Dec'ed you, shot your MTU/Moblie depot or made any other move that is currently viewed as aggressive, but they are still preventing you and yours from proceeding in peace, with the intent of prepping for and actually performing a Gank; This is an exploit.
What exploit?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#534 - 2014-02-14 16:05:45 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Kenrailae wrote:
Ad Hominem, Slippery slope, No true Scot, Cherry picking, False analogy, Misleading Vividness, Red herring, Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Argumentum ad nauseam, Diversionary argument, ignorant diatribe ....

I still can't stop laughing, I actually didn't think it was possible to fit that many fallacies in one string post. You have no clue as to what to say so you repeat everything that's already been said and disputed in the last 25 pages.

You can not control your ship due to the actions of another player, they are not using a Scram, Disruptor, Web, ECM, or Gun they have not War Dec'ed you, shot your MTU/Moblie depot or made any other move that is currently viewed as aggressive, but they are still preventing you and yours from proceeding in peace, with the intent of prepping for and actually performing a Gank; This is an exploit.





K, Bro. Show me the post where CCP says it's an exploit.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Odoman Empeer
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#535 - 2014-02-14 16:24:37 UTC
Why can't you just bring 2-3 logi support? That should be enough to keep your ship alive until concord has had their way with them. If it isn't, then god bless them, they brought enough firepower to alpha a freighter. Good for them.

Just sayin, with 6-12 pilots, yeah, they can ruin your day any time. But with 2-3 pilots, you can run logi and some warfare links and make your freighter THAT much harder to kill. The burden is on them to bring enough firepower to kill you in 3-30 seconds depending on sec status. They met that burden. Now the burden is on you to guard your 1 bil isk ship from said group of people. Shouldn't penalize them for having a group of people willing to fly together.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#536 - 2014-02-14 16:39:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Odoman Empeer wrote:
Why can't you just bring 2-3 logi support? That should be enough to keep your ship alive until concord has had their way with them. If it isn't, then god bless them, they brought enough firepower to alpha a freighter. Good for them.

Just sayin, with 6-12 pilots, yeah, they can ruin your day any time. But with 2-3 pilots, you can run logi and some warfare links and make your freighter THAT much harder to kill. The burden is on them to bring enough firepower to kill you in 3-30 seconds depending on sec status. They met that burden. Now the burden is on you to guard your 1 bil isk ship from said group of people. Shouldn't penalize them for having a group of people willing to fly together.


they can. but they've quite clearly expressed that they believe that having friends shouldnt be needed to save a solo freighter from 6+ other players, 8+ if u include scout and bumper

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Nag'o
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#537 - 2014-02-14 16:40:39 UTC
The Troll is strong in this thread.

Brain hackz0r. Execute schizophrenia virus. Hyper-phishing activated. Downloading reality.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#538 - 2014-02-14 16:54:55 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
The Troll is strong in this thread.



It's not even all Troll Nag'o. Which is kinda the sad thing :/

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#539 - 2014-02-14 16:58:18 UTC
Nag'o wrote:
The Troll is strong in this thread.


been trying to help and come up with suggestions to counter what they are having problems with, as well as help them understand that it isnt an exploit or harassment.

for that ive been called both 'insane' and 'ridiculous'.

Sadsad pandaSad

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
JetStream Drenard
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#540 - 2014-02-14 17:20:03 UTC
Gar! this is back again. I can only hope that someone at CCP has the fortitude to read through this wall and see how some re-balance of bumping would allow properly trained solo freighters to warp off within 30 seconds if the bumper didnt take suspect status; would allow valid harassment arguments if individual freighters were pursued through multiple systems; would not significantly ruin the lol aspect, just slow it down; would not ruin its intended purpose; and would be a meaningful compromise. every other post -for or against- just buries those great starter idea trail by mournful consciousness.