These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Warp Assist Module
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Annette Nolen
Perkone
Caldari State
#101 - 2015-01-28 17:00:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Annette Nolen
Black Pedro wrote:
Annette Nolen wrote:
For the record, RFF prices are averaged across all of our shipping across all of highsec. You can infer precisely nothing about the risk for that specific trip from the quoted price.
We both know there is essentially zero risk to freighters from gankers outside Niarja, Uedama, and the trade hubs. Your own 2013 data show that you completed over 99.8% of your contracts (failed 260 out of 210,388 and probably not all of those were ganks). And yet here you are, asking for a new module to make you even safer.

How safe do you want freighters to be in highsec?


I'm asking for a module to address bumping, not ganking. As I've stated elsewhere, bumping is a far more prevalent issue than ganking and freighters are bumped a LOT more than they are ganked.

The module is specifically designed so that a reasonably competent bumper and gank fleet should still have virtually no problems pinning and popping a target. If a 30-man gank fleet can't spare one cat to come pop my immobile assist ship (which would only matter if their bumper is so bad as to be unable to bump me out of range of my immobile assist ship), then they clearly have no real claim to elite ganker status.

And yeah, If I bring three or four assist ships with the WAM then, yes, I expect the gank fleet to have to devote a small token of effort to pop them, or risk letting me free. "Free" being a relative term as they will have very good odds of finding me and re-pinning me for the definition of "free" provided by this module (random, awkward warp landing intentionally designed to give aggressors a chance to re-acquire targets).

Finally, this proposal is only beneficial to active, attentive freighter pilots WITH FRIENDS or ALTS. Which is, what, 1 or 2% of freighter traffic in high sec? And by definition should not be 100% certain to save even those pilots. Freighter ganking will be just fine, I promise.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#102 - 2015-01-28 17:06:22 UTC
Just lower the align requirements of said ships. Let them be bumped as much as a bumper wants, just make it so that once the maximum align time has been reached, then the ship gets into warp if not pointed. Pointing the ship will reset the align time.

You wouldn't really need to change anything else. Just set a maximum time to warp for each class of ship.

If the elite gank masters can't manage to get a point on or kill a freighter in say 45 seconds, then poof it's gone on to the next gate.

If a freighter is on auto pilot, then it's fair game on the inbound gate. Warp isn't initiated, so you can bump it ALL DAY LONG.

SO.....

The at the keyboard pilot gets a leg up for sitting there and actually playing the game.
The gankers gets free play at the pilot on auto pilot on the inbound side of the gate.

The gankers can take out the super expensive freighter, but if the pilot is actively piloting, then you have to have your ducks in a row and get a point on the target or execute the gank within the max warp timer.

Issue solved.

(bows to the shocked and amazed multitudes)
Annette Nolen
Perkone
Caldari State
#103 - 2015-01-28 17:13:14 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Just lower the align requirements of said ships. Let them be bumped as much as a bumper wants, just make it so that once the maximum align time has been reached, then the ship gets into warp if not pointed. Pointing the ship will reset the align time.


The fundamental problem with this approach is that it requires no outside assistance. It's the same flaw as any other suggestion to bumping that allows a freighter to get away ALONE.

I don't want solo freighters to be able to escape solo bumping. It should REQUIRE outside help.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#104 - 2015-01-28 17:21:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Annette Nolen wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Just lower the align requirements of said ships. Let them be bumped as much as a bumper wants, just make it so that once the maximum align time has been reached, then the ship gets into warp if not pointed. Pointing the ship will reset the align time.


The fundamental problem with this approach is that it requires no outside assistance. It's the same flaw as any other suggestion to bumping that allows a freighter to get away ALONE.

I don't want solo freighters to be able to escape solo bumping. It should REQUIRE outside help.


Then get it on the inbound gate sweety. No warp, no max time to warp - YOU CAN BUMP IT ALL DAY LONG.

If you want to keep it from warping - it should REQUIRE you to put a point on it (just like any other ship). You want it, then point it like everyone else.
Annette Nolen
Perkone
Caldari State
#105 - 2015-01-28 17:40:35 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Then get it on the inbound gate sweety. No warp, no max time to warp - YOU CAN BUMP IT ALL DAY LONG.


This is still an unfair advantage to solo freighter pilots. If you are warping gate to gate, there is no "inbound gate" travel time during which they can bump you. You would be effectively immune to bumping provided you were ATK. That's too OP and definitely an over-nerf of bumping/ganking IMO.

Funnily enough, I'm still waiting for a single bumper/ganker to consider the possibilities of how my proposed WAM could be used offensively. For instance, ATK freighter pilot keeps warping gate to gate, curses! Hit them with a WAM using a disposable alt during their next warp alignment and, hey ho, suddenly they land 25k from the next gate instead of on top of it.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#106 - 2015-01-28 17:47:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Annette Nolen wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Then get it on the inbound gate sweety. No warp, no max time to warp - YOU CAN BUMP IT ALL DAY LONG.


This is still an unfair advantage to solo freighter pilots. If you are warping gate to gate, there is no "inbound gate" travel time during which they can bump you. You would be effectively immune to bumping provided you were ATK. That's too OP and definitely an over-nerf of bumping/ganking IMO.

Funnily enough, I'm still waiting for a single bumper/ganker to consider the possibilities of how my proposed WAM could be used offensively. For instance, ATK freighter pilot keeps warping gate to gate, curses! Hit them with a WAM using a disposable alt during their next warp alignment and, hey ho, suddenly they land 25k from the next gate instead of on top of it.


I'm going to say this slow for you. Just like any other pvp encounter in the game. If you don't want the ship to warp away, then put a point on it. It's a basic game mechanic that applies to every other ship in the game. Putting a max time to initiate warp timer on a freighter just brings it in line with every other ship in the game.

You want it..... point it.

EDIT: requiring a squad of gankers to pull the trigger within some maximum amount of time isn't an unfair advantage. Explain why limiting the time to gank a ship to ONLY 45 seconds is a bad thing. Here's what I think it does on that end:

NOW - some noob character in a frigate finds a target and begins bumping. He keeps bumping and pings out his buddies. He keeps bumping and his buddies log in. He keeps bumping and the fleet gets together. He keeps bumping and the fleet finally arrives and wonk, the gank goes down.

After my proposed max time to warp timer - the gankers have to be logged in and ready or scout the freighter several gates out (this is called actively playing the game) and when he gets to the target system the gank is executed.

Reqireing the gankers to be ATK is a mechanic know as "what's good for the goose is good for the ganker"
Annette Nolen
Perkone
Caldari State
#107 - 2015-01-28 17:55:59 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I'm going to say this slow for you. Just like any other pvp encounter in the game. If you don't want the ship to warp away, then put a point on it. It's a basic game mechanic that applies to every other ship in the game. Putting a max time to initiate warp timer on a freighter just brings it in line with every other ship in the game.


The fact that freighter pilots and bumpers both hate this suggestion and think it is either not OP enough or too OP, respectively, is proof positive that we have a winning, balanced, and compromised suggestion.

Bumping as a mechanic to prevent warp is fine. It's used for a lot more than just freighter pinning in high-sec, and I don't want to mess with that at all. And any suggestion that allows a solo pilot to escape bumping (such as yours) is absolutely over the top and contrary to EVE in my opinion.

This module is simply a reasonable way to escalate active bumping into an encounter with a non-certain outcome by involving more people.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#108 - 2015-01-28 18:01:35 UTC
A reasonable requirement to stop a ship from warping is to point it. OK, you can scram it to. Oh an infinite point will also do it. Bubbles also if you're in that neck of the woods.

Your idea is what's known as a work around. My idea is what is know as a fix.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#109 - 2015-01-28 18:04:26 UTC
Annette Nolen wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I'm going to say this slow for you. Just like any other pvp encounter in the game. If you don't want the ship to warp away, then put a point on it. It's a basic game mechanic that applies to every other ship in the game. Putting a max time to initiate warp timer on a freighter just brings it in line with every other ship in the game.


The fact that freighter pilots and bumpers both hate this suggestion and think it is either not OP enough or too OP, respectively, is proof positive that we have a winning, balanced, and compromised suggestion.

Bumping as a mechanic to prevent warp is fine. It's used for a lot more than just freighter pinning in high-sec, and I don't want to mess with that at all. And any suggestion that allows a solo pilot to escape bumping (such as yours) is absolutely over the top and contrary to EVE in my opinion.

This module is simply a reasonable way to escalate active bumping into an encounter with a non-certain outcome by involving more people.


It's interesting that you say that both freighter pilots and gankers hate this suggestion. You're the only one that has posted a view on it.

I'm going to make a new thread with my idea in it. People will love me for it and forget about you.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2015-01-28 18:19:15 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
It's interesting that you say that both freighter pilots and gankers hate this suggestion. You're the only one that has posted a view on it.

I'm going to make a new thread with my idea in it. People will love me for it and forget about you.

I'm a freighter pilot and a ganker, and I think you forgot your meds.

CCP can't just remove bumping because every other security space (and wormholes) use bumping all the time. Small POS bashing fleet with capitals? Bump the dreads away from the archons to prevent refits and reps. Bump the archons away from each other to prevent spider tanking.
WH: Bump the enemy's archon away from the hole to prevent it from escaping (admittedly, not many are using capitals anymore thanks to CCP Fozzie)
Low sec: Bump capitals to prevent them from escaping whatever they're doing.

Bumping is also used when you have the PW of the enemy POS and are bumping stuff outside the shields. You can't remove one part of the puzzle without the rest getting hit.
Colette Kassia
Kassia Industrial Supply
#111 - 2015-01-28 18:44:14 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
[quote=Serendipity Lost]CCP can't just remove bumping because every other security space (and wormholes) use bumping all the time. Small POS bashing fleet with capitals? Bump the dreads away from the archons to prevent refits and reps. Bump the archons away from each other to prevent spider tanking.
WH: Bump the enemy's archon away from the hole to prevent it from escaping (admittedly, not many are using capitals anymore thanks to CCP Fozzie)
Low sec: Bump capitals to prevent them from escaping whatever they're doing.

Bumping is also used when you have the PW of the enemy POS and are bumping stuff outside the shields. You can't remove one part of the puzzle without the rest getting hit.

What if you could bump them with guns.

I think large, high-alpha impacts of kinetic or explosive damage should physically knock ships around. EM and thermal effects would do nothing. But a huge wallop of KE/EXP would cause small random alignment shifts along each of the three rotational axis proportionate to the impact and inversely proportionate to the mass of the ship.

NUDGE(x,y,z) = RAND(x,y,z) * k * ((KDamage+ExpDamage)^1.5) / ShipMass
where RAND is a random number from -1.0 to +1.0, and k is a tuning constant. The ^1.5 is to favor a few large impacts over more smaller impacts. There is something appealing about the idea of "gun tackling".Twisted

Would that be a satisfactory replacement for collision-bumping?
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2015-01-28 18:50:50 UTC
Colette Kassia wrote:
What if you could bump them with guns.

I think large, high-alpha impacts of kinetic or explosive damage should physically knock ships around. EM and thermal effects would do nothing. But a huge wallop of KE/EXP would cause small random alignment shifts along each of the three rotational axis proportionate to the impact and inversely proportionate to the mass of the ship.

NUDGE(x,y,z) = RAND(x,y,z) * k * ((KDamage+ExpDamage)^1.5) / ShipMass
where RAND is a random number from -1.0 to +1.0, and k is a tuning constant. The ^1.5 is to favor a few large impacts over more smaller impacts. There is something appealing about the idea of "gun tackling".Twisted

Would that be a satisfactory replacement for collision-bumping?


Only if they get nudged (need a better word for when people "nudge" with 1400s or neutrons) in the opposite direction that they are shot at, but even then, you'd have to worry about shifting the entire nullsec meta as Tengus and Baltecs would become extremely powerful, not to mention Moros, Naglfars, Erebus, and Ragnaroks.

In short, no, I don't like it unless CCP introduces a high-slot module that "pushes" a ship that ONLY incurs a LE timer with the target.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#113 - 2015-01-28 19:05:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Serendipity Lost
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
It's interesting that you say that both freighter pilots and gankers hate this suggestion. You're the only one that has posted a view on it.

I'm going to make a new thread with my idea in it. People will love me for it and forget about you.

I'm a freighter pilot and a ganker, and I think you forgot your meds.

CCP can't just remove bumping because every other security space (and wormholes) use bumping all the time. Small POS bashing fleet with capitals? Bump the dreads away from the archons to prevent refits and reps. Bump the archons away from each other to prevent spider tanking.
WH: Bump the enemy's archon away from the hole to prevent it from escaping (admittedly, not many are using capitals anymore thanks to CCP Fozzie)
Low sec: Bump capitals to prevent them from escaping whatever they're doing.

Bumping is also used when you have the PW of the enemy POS and are bumping stuff outside the shields. You can't remove one part of the puzzle without the rest getting hit.


I don't want to remove bumping. I want you to lock the ship and point it if you want to bump it for more than 45 seconds. Heck I'll give you a full minute if you want. Bumping is fine - I'm all for it.

An ibis bumping a capital ship all day w/ no recourse is borked - I'm against it.

EDIT: check my corp KB. The nid we got 2 nights ago was orbiting it's pos in a wh. We got a sweet warp in and a few key bumps and you see the results. I would never be against bumping - it's a core part of eve. I'm just against freighter bumping in HS by a noob in a frigate for 15 minutes while his pals log in.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2015-01-28 19:17:26 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I don't want to remove bumping. I want you to lock the ship and point it if you want to bump it for more than 45 seconds. Heck I'll give you a full minute if you want. Bumping is fine - I'm all for it.

An ibis bumping a capital ship all day w/ no recourse is borked - I'm against it.

EDIT: check my corp KB. The nid we got 2 nights ago was orbiting it's pos in a wh. We got a sweet warp in and a few key bumps and you see the results. I would never be against bumping - it's a core part of eve. I'm just against freighter bumping in HS by a noob in a frigate for 15 minutes while his pals log in.


I call BS on a freighter getting bumped by a frigate as the mass equations would prevent it from doing much of anything, let alone the fact that all you'd need would be one noob in a frigate with a web to get the freighter out of there.

Any time we bumped a freighter, it was with a Macharial specifically rigged and fit to get as much mass and speed as possible out of the hull. And the reason people spend time bumping freighters is to get it out of the range of gate guns and any white knights who may be around.

If you really wanted to help non-afk freighter pilots, you'd be asking CCP to change the webbing aggression mechanics to get your freighters into warp instantly and not have to wait on gates. Or ask them for a lowslot module that reduces warp speed, so your timer can run out before you land on the gate.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2015-01-28 19:52:18 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Again, the bumping fix is having it do nothing with an unlocked target and with a locked bumped target you flag up when you hit them.

Legit uses ALL preserved (you ARE shooting those caps, right?) And no more consequence free hobo-tackle.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2015-01-28 20:41:41 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Again, the bumping fix is having it do nothing with an unlocked target and with a locked bumped target you flag up when you hit them.

Legit uses ALL preserved (you ARE shooting those caps, right?) And no more consequence free hobo-tackle.


Up until relatively recently (IIRC) you weren't able to drop bubbles or use non-targeted interdiction inhibitors (one of the reason Asakai was so interesting). However, the fact that bumping is allowed in lowsec means that roaming gangs don't have to double or triple their capital tackling group. It allows a great deal of flexibility.

Again, I am not opposed to a highslot module that emulates bumping in return for a LE timer.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#117 - 2015-01-28 21:26:22 UTC
Module could work too, I just figured that a simple lock required and a flashy yellow result was least intrusive.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2015-01-28 21:44:22 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Module could work too, I just figured that a simple lock required and a flashy yellow result was least intrusive.


Except that it wouldn't provide a marked advantage for active-freighters compared to AFK freighters. AFK freighters would just be able to snooze along and let someone else take care of the flashies, while a LE would force the player to decide to dock up and reship, or continue along and risk his cargo.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#119 - 2015-01-28 21:58:30 UTC
If you could dock in a bump scenario, we'd not be having this conversation Blink
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#120 - 2015-01-28 22:52:53 UTC
afkalt wrote:
If you could dock in a bump scenario, we'd not be having this conversation Blink

But you can dock if you're in range, and you can take the gate if you're in range.