These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Countering Bumping ganks in highsec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#241 - 2015-11-14 23:22:29 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
But the rules that high sec are supposed to be operating under should not result in self defense causing sec standing loss and Concordokken of your ship(s).


They absolutely should, when you would be "defending" yourself against something that is explicitly not an attack.

If you want to kill someone who isn't flagged, then gank him, just like everybody else does. If you refuse to use all the tools then your options are limited, and that's working as intended.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Iain Cariaba
#242 - 2015-11-15 04:54:04 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are suggesting that self defense be a concord offense. The freighter is being attacked by a loophole in the interaction of the physics engine and the limitations of the AI script governing Concord.

Actually, if you don't pod the bumper, the sec status hit is pretty negligible, and cheaply overcome using the same mechanic gankers use to bring up their sec status.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#243 - 2015-11-15 05:11:01 UTC
BABARR wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


No, the game is not static, you are correct in that. In fact, I liken it to an evolutionary process. What works stays, what does not is tossed aside. We don't have as much opportunity for the mutation part of evolution given we have a set number of modules, ship slots, ships, etc., but still there are possible combinations people have not tried before so there is some room. And CCP can be seen as a source of mutation (albeit maybe not random) with their tweaks and tiericide and so forth to the game.

As for the damage control it would grant a huge buff to freighters. Just a damage controll II alone nearly doubles the EHP of a freighter. Adding on 2 reinforced bulkheads and you get over 650,00 ehp. That is a huge buff. CCP will never do just that. What they would likely do is first nerf the crap out of the freighters natural ehp then allow you to fit a damage control unit to get somewhere close to where you are now...maybe a bit higher.

Why? Because playing the game via autopilot in an expensive ship filled with expensive Stuff™ in this game is just bad game design.

And what will likely happen? People will likey not fit the reinforced bulkheads (that precious cargo space) fit a damage control unit and maybe resistance plating. They'll think, woot tons more ehp, tons more cargo....CODE., et. al. show up with 43 guys instead of 35 guys and gank the poor slob and eventually the usual suspects are here again complaining that ganking is still a thing.

To be quite honest I'd have alot more respect for these people if they were just honest, for once, and said, "Make ganking in HS illegal, a bannable offense or even not possible via game mechanics."


Happy to see someone here whith a brain.

Teckos Pech wrote:
Why? Because playing the game via autopilot in an expensive ship filled with expensive Stuff™ in this game is just bad game design.

Totaly agree. But i think JF are even more bad game designed.


Teckos Pech wrote:
And what will likely happen? People will likey not fit the reinforced bulkheads (that precious cargo space) fit a damage control unit and maybe resistance plating. They'll think, woot tons more ehp, tons more cargo....CODE., et. al. show up with 43 guys instead of 35 guys and gank the poor slob and eventually the usual suspects are here again complaining that ganking is still a thing.

That the point. 43 talos is still more expansive than 35 = less gank against empty freighter.
And that why i laught when i see little ganker come here crying about this idea, cause it don't make freighter unkillable.


Teckos Pech wrote:
To be quite honest I'd have alot more respect for these people if they were just honest, for once, and said, "Make ganking in HS illegal, a bannable offense or even not possible via game mechanics."

Trust me, i don't want a safe Hsec. I don't even have a single freighter pilot on my many account. And i usually don't liek carebear





Actually was thinking 35 and 43 catalysts respectively. Or about 280 million or 344 million ISK respectively. Still plenty of room to gank a freighter...even an empty one and not break the bank.

Here is the thing. If you insist on playing solo. If you insist on not trying to fight back. If you insist that on always being reactive. You are going to ensure you are the victim in this game. Fighting back does not mean you have to go out and become the victimizer....just a scout. One guy...in a noob ship would be sufficient to counter a bumper each and every time.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e0778dka6xo5dz3/OnlyYou.png?dl=0

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#244 - 2015-11-15 05:30:56 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Here is an idea....

Why not start up a anti-ganking group that is dedicated to shooting bumping machariels? You start an in-game channel, push it on the forums, maybe in game as well. Start a corporation around which the core group of players can be built, let others join in (maybe) and then go hunting these guys.

I hear this complaint time and again from players who just don't seem to get the notion of Eve, "Bumping ships have it too safe."

Well, here is the thing, they don't have much tank. I am looking at a fit on a machariel used by a guy I often see in Uedama and he had a DC II, and a LSE II. That is it. That is the sum total of his tanking mods. The rest are cap related or speed/agility related with a ship and cargo scanner in the mid slots. With all Vs this ship has a tank of 59,153 ehp. A catalyst with good skills will put out 674 DPS, lets be safe and say 575 DPS. To kill this guy if you bring 15 dudes in catalysts you'll have more than enough DPS to gank him before concord arrives. You will lose 120 million ISK, the bumper will lose 460 million ISK, and whatever ISK was in the freighter he was going to bump (if he is actively bumping). I have often seen him sitting stationary on gate in Uedama and surrounding systems.

So, ganking this guy is very, very doable. Much much more so than ganking a tanked out Obelisk with over 360,000 ehp. So with less time and effort you can....wait for it...wait.....wait....increase the risk for the bumper yourself!!!!!

You say, "What!?!?! OMFG, me actually do something instead of begging CCP for weeks even months on end?!?!?"

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Pull up your panties, tighten your belt and go increase the risk for that bumper yourself. No need to wait for CCP, you can implement it right now. You can start buffing up your own killboard too. Making bumping more risky will force the gankers to adapt to your new strategy. Might have to fit more tank at the expense of speed modules making bumping more difficult.

You'll need a ship to provide a warp in, maybe one that can cloak and fit a web. The web is if he is actively bumping and the freighter pilot accepts a dual request from your warp in he can web the freighter to get away. That may come later once you guys build up a reputation.

Evolution in action.

Yeah, none of these carebears have the stones....Roll



While true as far as it goes, and a fine idea if one wanted to start hunting random Machs on gates...

You are suggesting that self defense be a concord offense. The freighter is being attacked by a loophole in the interaction of the physics engine and the limitations of the AI script governing Concord.

You are absolutely correct that anyone could run around ganking ships that for whatever reason you suspect are bumping. You can gank anything you want whenever it's in space for no reason at all. But the rules that high sec are supposed to be operating under should not result in self defense causing sec standing loss and Concordokken of your ship(s).

It's a dumb mechanic.


Yeah, you'll get CONCORDED...so? Go run a few missions later to earn back the ISK (and then some) and the sec status. v0v But if you want bumping to have more risk...go out an impose that risk. Get off your ass and stop asking CCP to do it for you.

I'll also point out that the best way to deal with a bumper...is to not get bumped. Again, one guy in a noob ship will let you defeat that bumper every single time. Use a scout every time and defeat the bumper and he'll sit there bored as **** waiting for a ship to bump...a ship that will never come.

So you have two solutions that can defeat the bumper, one active the other preventative. Pick one and use it.

Problem solved.

Only you...

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#245 - 2015-11-15 05:34:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are suggesting that self defense be a concord offense. The freighter is being attacked by a loophole in the interaction of the physics engine and the limitations of the AI script governing Concord.

Actually, if you don't pod the bumper, the sec status hit is pretty negligible, and cheaply overcome using the same mechanic gankers use to bring up their sec status.


Yup. I was close to zero sec status by the time Burn Amarr rolled around. Was at 5.0 when it started. By ratting in NS I was back up to 4 in short order and I was not trying to boost the sec status (e.g. go from system to system and kill the biggest rat you can find). I was also back in all the ISK i lost and then some. So, next Burn X event, I plan on being there.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#246 - 2015-11-15 05:38:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
BABARR wrote:
The problem actually is : you kill EMPTY freighter.


So you think the problem is that we still have any player freedom left.


Ransoming is still a thing. That is a 1.2 billion plus ISK boat you are in. Did you insure it? Even then, you'll still be out some ISK if you get ganked...so some might fork over some ISK. And those that don't...ganked.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#247 - 2015-11-15 08:17:24 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Here is an idea....

Why not start up a anti-ganking group that is dedicated to shooting bumping machariels? You start an in-game channel, push it on the forums, maybe in game as well. Start a corporation around which the core group of players can be built, let others join in (maybe) and then go hunting these guys.

I hear this complaint time and again from players who just don't seem to get the notion of Eve, "Bumping ships have it too safe."

Well, here is the thing, they don't have much tank. I am looking at a fit on a machariel used by a guy I often see in Uedama and he had a DC II, and a LSE II. That is it. That is the sum total of his tanking mods. The rest are cap related or speed/agility related with a ship and cargo scanner in the mid slots. With all Vs this ship has a tank of 59,153 ehp. A catalyst with good skills will put out 674 DPS, lets be safe and say 575 DPS. To kill this guy if you bring 15 dudes in catalysts you'll have more than enough DPS to gank him before concord arrives. You will lose 120 million ISK, the bumper will lose 460 million ISK, and whatever ISK was in the freighter he was going to bump (if he is actively bumping). I have often seen him sitting stationary on gate in Uedama and surrounding systems.

So, ganking this guy is very, very doable. Much much more so than ganking a tanked out Obelisk with over 360,000 ehp. So with less time and effort you can....wait for it...wait.....wait....increase the risk for the bumper yourself!!!!!

You say, "What!?!?! OMFG, me actually do something instead of begging CCP for weeks even months on end?!?!?"

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Pull up your panties, tighten your belt and go increase the risk for that bumper yourself. No need to wait for CCP, you can implement it right now. You can start buffing up your own killboard too. Making bumping more risky will force the gankers to adapt to your new strategy. Might have to fit more tank at the expense of speed modules making bumping more difficult.

You'll need a ship to provide a warp in, maybe one that can cloak and fit a web. The web is if he is actively bumping and the freighter pilot accepts a dual request from your warp in he can web the freighter to get away. That may come later once you guys build up a reputation.

Evolution in action.

Yeah, none of these carebears have the stones....Roll



While true as far as it goes, and a fine idea if one wanted to start hunting random Machs on gates...

You are suggesting that self defense be a concord offense. The freighter is being attacked by a loophole in the interaction of the physics engine and the limitations of the AI script governing Concord.

You are absolutely correct that anyone could run around ganking ships that for whatever reason you suspect are bumping. You can gank anything you want whenever it's in space for no reason at all. But the rules that high sec are supposed to be operating under should not result in self defense causing sec standing loss and Concordokken of your ship(s).

It's a dumb mechanic.


Yeah, you'll get CONCORDED...so? Go run a few missions later to earn back the ISK (and then some) and the sec status. v0v But if you want bumping to have more risk...go out an impose that risk. Get off your ass and stop asking CCP to do it for you.

I'll also point out that the best way to deal with a bumper...is to not get bumped. Again, one guy in a noob ship will let you defeat that bumper every single time. Use a scout every time and defeat the bumper and he'll sit there bored as **** waiting for a ship to bump...a ship that will never come.

So you have two solutions that can defeat the bumper, one active the other preventative. Pick one and use it.

Problem solved.

Only you...


Thus my counter proposal in the thread to make bumping, or some other form of tackle, an active mod that flags the user as suspect. Defending yourself from aggression should not result in Concord. That's not asking to be immune, though I am sure many freighter pilots would prefer it that way. That's just making it so that you can engage your attacker.

Aggression is supposed to be prevented by concord, not protected by it.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#248 - 2015-11-15 08:24:40 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Thus my counter proposal in the thread to make bumping, or some other form of tackle, an active mod that flags the user as suspect.


"Gais, the basic physics of the game should be changed because escorting a capital ship is too much work!"

Roll


Quote:
Defending yourself from aggression should not result in Concord.


Bumping is never aggression.

If you want the Mach dead, grow a pair and gank it(or as you suggested gankers should do to freighters, trick them into suspect flagging, lol). Stop trying to have the mechanics changed to justify your obscene risk aversion, and just play the game correctly for once.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Iain Cariaba
#249 - 2015-11-15 10:14:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Thus my counter proposal in the thread to make bumping, or some other form of tackle, an active mod that flags the user as suspect. Defending yourself from aggression should not result in Concord. That's not asking to be immune, though I am sure many freighter pilots would prefer it that way. That's just making it so that you can engage your attacker.

Aggression is supposed to be prevented by concord, not protected by it.

The suspect flag is utterly irrelevant here. The only reason I could see for not ganking the bumping machs in the first place is complete and utter cowardice.

Using a little search-fu on Google lead me to the formula used to derive security status hits for various nefarious activities in EvE.
Quote:
0.5% loss per target for initiating aggression.
2.0% loss per ship for ship destruction.
12.5% loss per pod for pod kills.

And the magic formula is:
Quote:
Standing_after_decrease = (10+[Current_Standings])x(1-[%modification]/100)-10

Now, if someone with 5.0 security status decides to start ganking bumping machs in highsec, they can expect to take a whopping 0.3735 hit to their security status for the first one. You can gank 16 bumping machs, starting from a 5.0 security status, and still not drop below 0 sec status. Starting from 0.0 sec status, you can gank another 8 bumping machs and still not fall under the -2.0 limit for unharassed access to highsec.

Now, once you've ganked those 32 bumping machs, it'll cost you about 112mil isk, including tags, to bring your sec status back up to 0, which means you get to gank another 8 bumping machs and still not have NPCs chasing you all over highsec.

So, Mike, want to try and tell us again how horrible it will be for you to defend yourself from bumping machs?

Edit: BTW, if your not too concerned about unharassed access to highsec, you can gank 43 bumping machs from 5.0 security status and still not drop below the magic -5.0 sec status that lets everyone shoot at you.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#250 - 2015-11-15 21:01:02 UTC
does bumping currently follow the law of kinetic energy? if so, how about removing the ability to bump a ship beyond it's own top speed - or perhaps increase the mass of freighters and correspondingly buff their agility?

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#251 - 2015-11-15 21:18:31 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
does bumping currently follow the law of kinetic energy? if so, how about removing the ability to bump a ship beyond it's own top speed - or perhaps increase the mass of freighters and correspondingly buff their agility?

Sorry, why would you want to do this?

Yes, CCP can trivially change the stats of freighters to make them immune to bumping, but how does that make the game better?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#252 - 2015-11-15 21:45:47 UTC
Alright, pretty sure the OP's idea has been called out as a bad idea, does the entire bumping issue really need to be rehashed again? From the amounts of whining petitions I imagine that CCP knows some players do not like it, and some players and playstyles cannot be saved from their own incompetence.

Either CCP will deal with the entire issue or they won't. If they conform to previous solutions it will be a large sweeping change (guessing at a change in mass for certain ships, if they're allowed in capitals could do some pretty good freighter bowling) and a clear cut declaration of bumping = exploit or bumping =/= exploit.

I do expect one side to whine alot more than the other though.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#253 - 2015-11-15 23:46:16 UTC
If you wont gank the mach then gank the ganking ships, they are all profitable to gank.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#254 - 2015-11-16 03:19:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
If you wont gank the mach then gank the ganking ships, they are all profitable to gank.

Again, self defense should not result in Concord or sec status loss.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#255 - 2015-11-16 03:25:47 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If you wont gank the mach then gank the ganking ships, they are all profitable to gank.

Again, self defense should not result in Concord or sec status loss.

Gank ships are almost always free to aggress. Try another excuse.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#256 - 2015-11-16 03:36:58 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If you wont gank the mach then gank the ganking ships, they are all profitable to gank.

Again, self defense should not result in Concord or sec status loss.


It's not self defense, because there is no attack happening.

Once again, if you want to kill the Machariel, then grow a pair and gank it. If you refuse to use all the tools at your disposal, your options are and should be limited as a result.

Play the game correctly for once.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#257 - 2015-11-16 04:23:59 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Thus my counter proposal in the thread to make bumping, or some other form of tackle, an active mod that flags the user as suspect. Defending yourself from aggression should not result in Concord. That's not asking to be immune, though I am sure many freighter pilots would prefer it that way. That's just making it so that you can engage your attacker.

Aggression is supposed to be prevented by concord, not protected by it.


Bumping is not aggression. Further, I'd argue that the current state of bumping is a direct result of previous attempts to make HS safer. The removal of insurance and the shortening on CONCORD response times have necessitated larger fleets of pilots in catalysts...which necessitates a longer form up time...hence the need for bumping.

If people had not whined, complained, bitched, and set their hair on fire with regards to ganking we would not be here right now.

It is a classic example of: careful of what you wish for...you just might get it.

Now you have a well organized and optimized ganking community that is boning freighter pilots in the pooper. Now we have people here basically being a bunch of female dogs again saying things like:


  • Ganking is too easy
  • They gank empty freighters
  • Bumping can be done for long periods of time
  • We should be able to be lazy and stupid and still have a way to get out of a jam


I'm sorry, but, f*** you.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#258 - 2015-11-16 04:26:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
does bumping currently follow the law of kinetic energy? if so, how about removing the ability to bump a ship beyond it's own top speed - or perhaps increase the mass of freighters and correspondingly buff their agility?


This. Is. A. Game.

Or: STFU.

Edit: I am seriously thinking I need to Goddamn join Miniluv or something.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#259 - 2015-11-16 09:29:31 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Thus my counter proposal in the thread to make bumping, or some other form of tackle, an active mod that flags the user as suspect. Defending yourself from aggression should not result in Concord. That's not asking to be immune, though I am sure many freighter pilots would prefer it that way. That's just making it so that you can engage your attacker.

Aggression is supposed to be prevented by concord, not protected by it.


Bumping is not aggression. Further, I'd argue that the current state of bumping is a direct result of previous attempts to make HS safer. The removal of insurance and the shortening on CONCORD response times have necessitated larger fleets of pilots in catalysts...which necessitates a longer form up time...hence the need for bumping.

If people had not whined, complained, bitched, and set their hair on fire with regards to ganking we would not be here right now.

It is a classic example of: careful of what you wish for...you just might get it.

Now you have a well organized and optimized ganking community that is boning freighter pilots in the pooper. Now we have people here basically being a bunch of female dogs again saying things like:


  • Ganking is too easy
  • They gank empty freighters
  • Bumping can be done for long periods of time
  • We should be able to be lazy and stupid and still have a way to get out of a jam


I'm sorry, but, f*** you.


So... CCP agreed that the ganking of freighters was not balanced, and made changes. Gankers have found workarounds to those changes, resulting in even more ganks.... and you don't see where that would require a rebalance yet again?

To be clear, I'm not claiming that bumping is official aggression as determined by the game engine. It is aggression of the normal sort, the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general. It is keeping a ship from continuing on it's intended course so that the gank squad can arrive and do their thing. It is something a pilot should be able to defend himself against without having Concord come and shoot you for it.

That is the intended balance of high sec. Criminal action allows someone to use weapons on you, outright violence results in Concordokken. There are specific mechanics around that prohibition, which the freighter pilots are not violating.

My list is a bit different:

1. Bumping is being used in an aggressive manner, violating the intended rules of high sec.
2. Tackling a ship should at the extreme very least result in a criminal flag, regardless of how that is accomplished.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#260 - 2015-11-16 10:01:41 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

So... CCP agreed that the ganking of freighters was not balanced, and made changes. Gankers have found workarounds to those changes, resulting in even more ganks.... and you don't see where that would require a rebalance yet again?


But what really happened is that carebears like you wanted ganking to disappear with those changes. But since it didn't, you're right here crying for more nerfs because you just can't be asked to play the game properly.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.