Crime & Punishment

Newsflash: Ganking freighters is perfectly viable even without bumping. You should ask Russians for some guidelines.
However it is harder then easy mode crap you have today and sec status actually matters (can't camp on gate in hisec if it is too low). We wouldn't want to force codies into fixing sec statuses every now and then just to perform freighter ganks now, would we? That would mean that there are some actual consequences of what they do, and introducing consequences would be too theme park like, right?

Here's my 1/50th of a dollar.

Bumping is a valid mechanic. Bumping a ship for an hour plus because we've got several ships in the ganking queue may be a bit excessive.

My fix: Bumping ships take armor and/or structure dmg after a certain amount of time bumping. Of course these could be repped by logi or bumpers could work in shifts. It's a dumb fix to a problem that isn't broken, I know. That's why I figure it'll be right up CCP's alley.

Elite Dangerous has some pretty cool mechanics for piracy that CCP should look at

Firstly you have the option of target propulsion - you could make this chance based so you have a percentage chance to damage the engines or warp drive or simply damage the hull.

Second was a cargo hold grappling hook / limpet mine, if you successfully hit it then it blows the cargo hold it starts to spill cargo into space which can be scooped. If you destroy the ship then it destroys the cargo with it.

If CCP introduced mechanics like this, with a higher concord response time for an attack vs ship destroyed, with counters that logis can try and rep the propulsion / cargo bay then it would generate a lot more valud piracy content without resorting to things like bumping and hyper dunking.

As things stand it is broken that participents in a heist (bumpers) don't get suspect flagged - lets be fair, demanding immunity from consequences is exactly what carebears do so its a bit rich to suggest freighter jacking should be risk free.

I'd like to see high-sec piracy become a legitimate enabled mechanic, but it needs to be balanced to give victims an option to use military escorts and fight back.

As for the real bear in the room - AFK hauling and mining, the fux is simple - make it uneconomicsl.

For afk autopilot haulers - change the gate warp point to at least 100-150k from gate, if they have to slowcosch for 1 hour between jumps then it won't incentivise afk hauling, i think that is fair - ccp has no problems making supercap pilots waste 5 days of game time with jump fatigue so why should afk players get a easy ride.

For afk miners - introduce mechanics that require miners to actively mine that can't be botted. Moving asteroid fields, lasers that break randomy and need nanite reps, gas pocket explosions that need reps against, percentage of junk rock you mine that you have to purge from your hold - lots of random events that make afk botting imposdible.

Spending an hour bumping a freighter us not content, instead of clinging to a broken dynamic we need to get CCP to recognise piracy in highsec is a good content generator and introduce sone decent options that make it both viable for career criminals but with counters to give well prepped victims options

On second thought, who cares about bumping?

No one is demanding immunity from consequences or asking that freighter ganking be risk-free. It is only self-pitying carebears and their sympathizers that make this demonstrably false claim that there is "no risk" or "no consequences" or is "easy mode". Ganking has risks all along the process, and at the end there is zero guarantee your loot won't be scooped or destroyed. Being a criminal already has the most onerous penalties in the game including being free to shoot and having tireless NPCs on your tail the whole time you are in space. Whether or not the bumper has some mechanical risk is immaterial to the operation - there are plenty of places where gankers can be messed with by other players. Besides, those juicy bump Macherials are at the same risk as the freighter when it comes to being ganked, and as we know both can be exploded.

But I agree with you there is plenty of room for new and improved interdiction methods that could even replace bumping. But when you boil it down, the same entitled carebears will be in a future thread claiming that somehow it is unfair that their ships can be attacked by criminals no matter how CCP changes things. There will always be cries for "one more nerf" or "the other guy has it too easy" as long as it is possible to non-consensually PvP someone's hauler.

Targets can already use escorts to avoid gankers almost completely. Fighting back when you are not the immediate target is more difficult, but that will always be the case when players have 100% safety in stations and the option not to undock. There is literally nothing you can do if the gankers choose to dock-up and decline your fight just like most other places in New Eden. Maybe structures that gankers want to use would be one way to force them to fight, but since they can't undock while -10 to give you a proper fight because of those onerous restrictions, major changes would have to be made to make that balanced or even possible.

These are not easy problems to solve but we can hope that sometime soon CCP will get around to iterating on piracy mechanics.

Nice try with that anger stuff, I'm sure it works on someone. If someone is angry and, may I say, somewhat anxious judging by their behaviour lately, it's your bunch.

I love how you present bumping mechanic as something which has been intentionally developed to reduce safety of freighters whereas CCP employees (Fozzie) refer to it as a "wonky side-effect of" eve's "physics system". Lovely spin, as usual, shame there's an ever increasing amount of clear statements and data working against you.

As for -10's running around hisec, I'm impressed by your knowledge of CCP's intended design goals. You must be Hilmar's alt, or something. Myself, I'd say CCP didn't want to close hisec for those chars, allowing them to move through it. However, I doubt they ever wanted -10's to operate basically unhindered in hisec (which is fairly easy now with insta docks/undocks, ability to dock up in any station and reship there etc.). Also, if you want to tackle a freighter besides bumping - there is a mechanic for that, it's called warp disruption.

The only chips I have to deal with are those occasionally found on my table (hint: French fries). Back on topic, removing ability of -10's to easily gank (as they do nowadays) would make ganking more expensive - true, and that would be the point. You'd still want to go after big 'whales' but I doubt many folks would bother with ganking empty freighters, at least to the degree its being done today. Why - well because ganking would actually have CONSEQUENCES (and fairly light ones too, I mean if you can't afford to spend 200-300 mil every now and then to restore your sec status while ganking, then you're doing something terribly wrong). I don't understand why you find it so hard to accept the possibility of such a scenario, while all this time you advocate consequence based gameplay. I'd say such a change would be much more EVE-like then current mechanics are. Anyway, let's wait and see, I bet that in the end I'll be the one laughing

why is someone wearing an Angel Cartel jacket and opposing criminal activity, what a time to be alive

Because everything in EvE has usually consequences.
Guys like you demand consequences for other stuff but if you need to adapt, you want to get picky.

Always telling others that are possibilities to avoid bumping, avoiding and ignoring, that bumping is a risk free game mechanic. And once again, guys like you, love to sing songs about how you hate those risk averse ppl and how to force them to fight, ignoring all reasonable arguments. So you hate risk avoiding ppl, but of course it is alright if it suits you.

That behavior does not make you evil, it makes you pathetic.

Oh you wrote far more.
To bad ATM i do not have time to rip your chain of arguments to pieces.
Doesn't matter the basics are covered.
Funny how start to throw faulty arguments around.

WHY:
Because after 12 Years CCP thinks that changes to bumping are ok, no matter how it was implemented in the first time.

This is essentially bollocks. I shouldn't have to explain why.

Fixed your spelling for you.

EDIT: Im thinking of changing my sig! "You can't spell REEE REE without NPC CORP membership."

F