These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#421 - 2015-11-19 13:39:50 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
By all means, do share the consequences of ganking defenseless freighters


There's no such thing as a defenceless freighter, just one whose pilot can't be arsed to take sensible precautions. There are no victims of suicide ganking, just volunteers.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#422 - 2015-11-19 13:41:16 UTC
"Waah, negative sec status pilots are still allowed to dock! The game is so unfair!"

Roll

"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.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#423 - 2015-11-19 13:42:27 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Zimmer Jones wrote:

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be great if freighter pilots started to auto destruct and eject to save their SP?


Wouldn't it be great if gankers lost SP when concord ganked them?


Unlike haulers(and every PvE playstyle for that matter), gankers already have numerous consequences attached to their playstyle. In fact they're pretty much the only playstyle that has mechanical consequences anymore, now that faction standings don't mean anything.


By all means, do share the consequences of ganking defenseless freighters outside of wardecs with super cheap destroyers in large groups, in a world where your negative 10 sec status doesn't prevent you from docking in hi-sec or hiding behind a POS until the opportune moment arrives to warp to your broskies for 20 seconds of risk free pvp.

Regale the rest of us as to the impact it has on your assets and wallet by using a comparison to your victim's situation after the fact.


Fun fact: 90% of your solo kills are "defenceless freighters" and other defenceless ships

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#424 - 2015-11-19 14:05:12 UTC
You made the comment that PvP isn't consequence free.... In fact, your words:

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Unlike haulers(and every PvE playstyle for that matter), gankers already have numerous consequences attached to their playstyle. In fact they're pretty much the only playstyle that has mechanical consequences anymore, now that faction standings don't mean anything.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:

By all means, do share the consequences of ganking defenseless freighters outside of wardecs with super cheap destroyers in large groups, in a world where your negative 10 sec status doesn't prevent you from docking in hi-sec or hiding behind a POS until the opportune moment arrives to warp to your broskies for 20 seconds of risk free pvp.


Why would I bother? Your head is so deep up the carebear narrative that you'll never see the light. If you called us not-sees, I'd have a bingo just on this one post.

I mean, seriously, if you cried more in just that one paragraph, you'd give the Morton company a run for their money.


Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
"Waah, negative sec status pilots are still allowed to dock! The game is so unfair!"

Roll


I've simply asked you to mention said consequences to back up your bold claims, having merely preempted a few of the mute points you may raise in any retort.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#425 - 2015-11-19 14:09:34 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I think it's more a case that haulers stick to safer areas, as is proper. Your prey would ideally be the logistics headed out to supply null-sec, but those guys aren't the sort to fall for gankbear ambushes.
Why should my prey be nullsec supplies? My prey is whomever is carting too much valuable loot around highsec in an unsafe fashion. I am not part of a nullsec alliance nor do I play this game to hunt targets for the good of some nullsec entity. I look for opportunities to make some ISK, impose my will upon the sandbox, and have some fun along the way. I enjoy being the embodiment of risk that the designers of this game had in mind when they conceived of Eve Online and it keeps me logging in.

Haulers are safer in safer areas. A freighter is an order of magnitude safer in a 0.5 system than a 0.4, and there is a significant difference in cost for gankers operating in a 1.0 system vs a 0.6 system. But even a 1.0 system is not safe. If you routinely put too much stuff in your freighter and go AFK, you will eventually lose your ship even in a 1.0 system. That is all working as intended so I am not sure what you are trying to say other than highsec should be safe.

If you want highsec to be safe, then you should come out and just argue for that honestly. Right now, you seem to be beating around the bush with notions of who and who are not valid targets for me and other criminals to shoot. This is a sandbox. That means I get to make up the reasons why I want to shoot other players. I am not limited to shoot nullsec players, or players on their way to nullsec for some reason.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#426 - 2015-11-19 14:15:37 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Never said it was easy, I said it was possible.

Reckon you can get a video of someone pulling that off? Because frankly, I don't believe you without proof.

Nah why waste the time, you would not believe even if you saw it.

Besides you are the one that is assuming that when I said bumper that I meant SOLO ship.
However given that our ships can only accelerate on a single vector, and that vector is easily defined by the way the ship is facing, and given how slowly a freighter accelerates a pair of ships should do the trick very nicely, something that any skilled solo player should be able to handle especially since they only need to keep the ship from warping for 30 seconds or so.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#427 - 2015-11-19 14:19:41 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Daret wrote:



I'm not a very experienced pilot so It's very likely that I could be overlooking some glaring issues with this proposal, But I'm open to suggestions and tweaks.


What you are missing is that this is not needed.


Same can be said for bumping itself.


bumping needs to stay its a legit tactic in all spaces will kill alot of pvp removing it

A very interesting claim. My son has been in the PvP side of this game for more than 8 years now and the groups he has flown with have never used bumping as a tactic and it has not hindered their ability to kill others. I am not saying that it is not a valid tactic to use, just questioning what the impact on PvP other than ganking would be if bumping was removed?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#428 - 2015-11-19 14:46:01 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I think it's more a case that haulers stick to safer areas, as is proper. Your prey would ideally be the logistics headed out to supply null-sec, but those guys aren't the sort to fall for gankbear ambushes.
Why should my prey be nullsec supplies? My prey is whomever is carting too much valuable loot around highsec in an unsafe fashion. I am not part of a nullsec alliance nor do I play this game to hunt targets for the good of some nullsec entity. I look for opportunities to make some ISK, impose my will upon the sandbox, and have some fun along the way. I enjoy being the embodiment of risk that the designers of this game had in mind when they conceived of Eve Online and it keeps me logging in.

Haulers are safer in safer areas. A freighter is an order of magnitude safer in a 0.5 system than a 0.4, and there is a significant difference in cost for gankers operating in a 1.0 system vs a 0.6 system. But even a 1.0 system is not safe. If you routinely put too much stuff in your freighter and go AFK, you will eventually lose your ship even in a 1.0 system. That is all working as intended so I am not sure what you are trying to say other than highsec should be safe.

If you want highsec to be safe, then you should come out and just argue for that honestly. Right now, you seem to be beating around the bush with notions of who and who are not valid targets for me and other criminals to shoot. This is a sandbox. That means I get to make up the reasons why I want to shoot other players. I am not limited to shoot nullsec players, or players on their way to nullsec for some reason.


It's not who you shoot. It's the conditions.

In high sec, you can shoot who you want, but are supposed to suffer consequences unless certain criteria are met. Those freighters have not met those criteria, and you are tackling them in a way that gets around those penalties.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#429 - 2015-11-19 15:11:44 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Daret wrote:


I'm not a very experienced pilot so It's very likely that I could be overlooking some glaring issues with this proposal, But I'm open to suggestions and tweaks.


What you are missing is that this is not needed.


Same can be said for bumping itself.


bumping needs to stay its a legit tactic in all spaces will kill alot of pvp removing it

A very interesting claim. My son has been in the PvP side of this game for more than 8 years now and the groups he has flown with have never used bumping as a tactic and it has not hindered their ability to kill others. I am not saying that it is not a valid tactic to use, just questioning what the impact on PvP other than ganking would be if bumping was removed?


This.

Or to play devils advocate.

What if bumping became "collision-cide" with damage to victim ships post Citadel?

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Rosal Milag
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#430 - 2015-11-19 15:18:26 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:


This.

Or to play devils advocate.

What if bumping became "collision-cide" with damage to victim ships post Citadel?



Aside from depopulating the trade hubs? Have you undocked from Jita 4-4 during peak hours? The number of ships bumping accidentally would make any trade hub a wreck fest.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#431 - 2015-11-19 15:22:05 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Daret wrote:



I'm not a very experienced pilot so It's very likely that I could be overlooking some glaring issues with this proposal, But I'm open to suggestions and tweaks.


What you are missing is that this is not needed.


Same can be said for bumping itself.


bumping needs to stay its a legit tactic in all spaces will kill alot of pvp removing it

A very interesting claim. My son has been in the PvP side of this game for more than 8 years now and the groups he has flown with have never used bumping as a tactic and it has not hindered their ability to kill others. I am not saying that it is not a valid tactic to use, just questioning what the impact on PvP other than ganking would be if bumping was removed?


the ability to knock stuff away from gates who are burning back to "gate crash", bumping capitals from rep range of logi, its sort of the wolf pack logic, splitting the group sort of mentality, ive seen it used in a video made in null where supers were fighting, they couldnt break the reps so picked an aeon which was a little away from the rest of the group and started bumping it away till it was out of rep range then killed it.

An old fc i know managed to guess the password to a pos with a nyx inside, obviously the fleet had to bump it out of the pos shields before it could be killed.

basically if reps are too strong then this tactic can be the only way to break the reps and cause damage. there is so many applications where bumping is a totally legit tactic to counter things like station games etc

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#432 - 2015-11-19 15:24:07 UTC
Rosal Milag wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:


This.

Or to play devils advocate.

What if bumping became "collision-cide" with damage to victim ships post Citadel?



Aside from depopulating the trade hubs? Have you undocked from Jita 4-4 during peak hours? The number of ships bumping accidentally would make any trade hub a wreck fest.


This is why I suggested making the effect of bumping require an active module. Bumps happen all the time, and they are almost never a big deal, except when used intentionally to be offensive.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#433 - 2015-11-19 15:24:43 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
A very interesting claim. My son has been in the PvP side of this game for more than 8 years now and the groups he has flown with have never used bumping as a tactic and it has not hindered their ability to kill others. I am not saying that it is not a valid tactic to use, just questioning what the impact on PvP other than ganking would be if bumping was removed?


Bumping is a PvP tool. Why would you want to remove it? More specifically, why would you want to remove a tool that's primarily used in high sec, an area that CCP seems to have a fetish for nerfing again and again?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#434 - 2015-11-19 15:37:26 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:

I've simply asked you to mention said consequences to back up your bold claims


It's not a bold claim. That's like you telling me that suggesting the sky is blue is a bold claim.

Ganking is the only playstyle that has mechanical consequences attached to it. That is self evident to all but the most deluded, which with my earlier statement, I lumped you into that category.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#435 - 2015-11-19 15:38:38 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

If you want highsec to be safe, then you should come out and just argue for that honestly.


If you hadn't noticed, he is literally incapable of honesty.

"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.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#436 - 2015-11-19 15:47:13 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

It's not who you shoot. It's the conditions.

In high sec, you can shoot who you want, but are supposed to suffer consequences unless certain criteria are met. Those freighters have not met those criteria, and you are tackling them in a way that gets around those penalties.
Sorry, it was you who said there were certain types of targets I should be "ideally" shooting. I am glad I am indeed allowed to shoot anyone and suffer the consequences for doing so which I do each and every time.

Well, you seem to have fallen back to the core of your argument which is bumping is somehow something that should incur penalties, a view that is in direct contrast to how the game has worked for the last 12 years, and not in keeping with statements from CCP who have repeatedly confirmed this is how they expect the game to work. I think I can speak for more than myself when I say your opinion has been heard, and I am sure anyone from CCP still reading this thread has by now understood your point of view and your desire to have the game changed in your favour. Who knows, perhaps they'll even listen?

So with this issue solved, perhaps we can let this thread die and move on to other topics that might have a better chance of improving the game for everyone. Anyone up for another round of wardec discussion?

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#437 - 2015-11-19 16:18:11 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Zimmer Jones wrote:
a return to cheap high alpha ships chipping away system after system at targets of opportunity carrying even more expensive cargoes through "safe space." with 2 second response times in every highsec system it would mean every system then becomes equally unsafe and sec status means nothing apart from 1.0 systems. result?

Freightergeddon. Do you really think the cost is an issue when it comes to helicopter dicking? yeah it'll happen less frequently, but the whine will taste the same.


Yeah, but only the fattest freighters will get ganked IMO. Sure some freighters that don't have sufficient loot might get ganked, but I'm thinking that an 8-9 billion cargo to ensure breaking even will mean far fewer ganks (assuming they fit reinforced bulkheads...if they fit cargo expanders, then the break even point is 4.23 billion).

The point being if I drop 2 billion in cargo into my obelisk with reinforced bulkheads and go autu-piloting around chances are I wont be ganked hardly at all. Maybe once every 5 years. So, in this case, AFK play has been buffed--i.e. Serendipity is kinda advocating for AFK play.


You make it seem as if a pilot is doing something sinful if they autopilot at all.

By your logic the only way freighters should be allowed to move is if someone hooks up pedals to the PC and they have to use that to move around at all.

It's not like they are fast, interesting, or all that fun to fly. Moving stuff around is fun, and I can see popping them as fun... But restoring the balance on moving them around is a real concern for some.


Auto-piloting should come with enhanced risk. Your proposal would reduce that risk, IMO. Lets go through this step by step


  1. CCP creates a new "bumping module".
  2. Bumping does not work without the module (at least in HS)
  3. Activating the module cause the player doing so to be flagged and can be engaged by other players without drawing a response from CONCORD
  4. Now bumping has become more costly
  5. Higher costs mean less ganking
  6. Which means auto-piloting is now a safer activity


At the very least the other proposals to put a module on the freighter allowing for escape would not benefit auto-piloting freighters. That makes those proposals better than yours, IMO.

"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
#438 - 2015-11-19 16:27:49 UTC
Zimmer Jones wrote:
My remark on freightergeddon was to point out that nothing will really stop the ganks. Even unprofitability, changes to bumping and further ehp buffer will do nothing. Freighters are garbage bags meant to be picked apart by scavengers.

Bad mod ideas aside, this is about entitlement. Afk'ing is not a sin, but a in a freighter it is acomplete lack of situational wisdom. The 15km slowboat is(imo) there precisely to provide a window of opportunity for gankers, just like the agonizingly slow align times and warp speeds. Tbh, I would like ccp to treat freighters the way t3 cruisers are treated: die in one and lose associated skills. The loss of cargo and a potentialy uninsured ship are clearly not enough.

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be great if freighter pilots started to auto destruct and eject to save their SP?


Oh I'm sure freighter ganking would still happen to some degree, my point was that a hard nerf could eventually be rather effective. And you are right that with a short uniform CONCORD response time that ganks would happen all over the place vs. a few choke point systems. Another aspect the whiners have not considered the implications of. You undock, and just as soon as you hit warp (if you aren't aligned) you could find yourself zapped right there in a 0.9 system. And I'm sure they'd scream and wail and gnash their teeth over that.

And I agree with these proposals stemming from entitlement: "I should be allowed to solo pilot my freighter through 0.5 systems with very little and even now risk."

To me that is complete Bravo Sierra. Those systems are supposed to be more dangerous than a 0.9 or 0.8 system. One significant way they are more dangerous is via the possibility of being ganked.

Heh...SP loss, dude I don't think there are enough containers in the world for all the tears that would flow.

"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
#439 - 2015-11-19 16:30:25 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I think it's more a case that haulers stick to safer areas, as is proper. Your prey would ideally be the logistics headed out to supply null-sec, but those guys aren't the sort to fall for gankbear ambushes.


Though honestly it's not the afk gankbait that has my attention. No suggestion I have made or supported would affect autopiloted freighter ganks at all, with the rare exception of some white knight getting involved. If there was tackle that was only criminal the Afk freighter would still be afk and ganked.


There are plenty of haulers in NS, we are just very, very careful with them. Yes, even freighters. How do you think we get those sov structures out in space?

What you want is for haulers in HS not to exercise even the most rudimentary care with their big fat loot pinatas. That is just bad game design when you are in a sandbox game such as Eve.

"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
#440 - 2015-11-19 16:41:11 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
solve all problems....remove the autopilot button


No, CCP should not practice parentalism (no, I did not mean paternalism) we don't need CCP acting like a parent taking away the toys that could be lead to players having hurt feelings.

"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