These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Iain Cariaba
#621 - 2015-11-24 09:59:48 UTC
Brechan Skene wrote:
Agreed. But without any rules or at least a statement saying this is our stance on 'bumping'. What have we got? The previous rules/ stance by CCP have been over ruled by the current CCP as being 'outdated and invalid' and they have failed to confirm what the new rules/ stance is, even if it is to confirm they have stayed with the previous stance would be better than the current situation where it is now. Also I have never bumped or been part of a gank, I just would like to see them come out with an actually stance/ rule on 'bumping'.

Until such time as CCP actually releases a new stance on the subject matter, it is best to operate under the old rules. Admittedly, it was unwise for them to state "this is no longer our position" without actually letting us know what their new position is.

My only hope here, and keep in mind CCP people reading this that I'm not a ganker, is that the don't cave into the vocal minority, yet again, and introduce yet another nerf to ganking that will ultimately do nothing to curb ganking, again.
Brechan Skene
Lone Wolves Mining
EZ. Street
#622 - 2015-11-24 10:08:23 UTC
I am not saying 'bumping' is not a valid tactic, actually I can see several reason why it should remain. what I am saying is, CCP needs to reconfirm 'bumpings' as a valid tactic or decide to set a new stance on 'bumping'. Currently CCP has no stance on 'bumping' according to the recently locked post in C&P.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#623 - 2015-11-24 12:38:53 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Anyone who claims you have to get rid of an unintended interaction merely because it was unintended is a moron.

It wasn't intended that anyone ever live in wormholes, either. Pretty sure that's some of the best content in the game too.



It wasn't intended that 200 carriers would drop sentries just after down time an lag kill everyone that tries to interfere with what they are doing. It wasn't intended that ishtards would (make the game stupid). And so on.

Anyone who claims all unintended interactions are equivalent and good game play is a moron. Anyone that calls someone on this forum a moron is a moron.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#624 - 2015-11-24 12:58:32 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
It wasn't intended that 200 carriers would drop sentries just after down time an lag kill everyone that tries to interfere with what they are doing.


cant exactly web the server to make it go faster though can you?

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*
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#625 - 2015-11-24 13:50:07 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
It wasn't intended that 200 carriers would drop sentries just after down time an lag kill everyone that tries to interfere with what they are doing.


cant exactly web the server to make it go faster though can you?



No, but remove crappy emergent game play that totally sux through coding is something that can be done. Based on the loud crowd raging in this thread this would obvously be a NERF. I'm just not sure where you Einsteins will bin it.

Carrier NERF
Sentry NERF
SOV NERF
(n+1) NERF
Lag NERF
Crappy Game Play NERF
HS NERF (most likely)

Typical that you would skip the spirit of the argument and give server lag a shrug. Focus fire on what you can kill I guess?

The best part of this (these) thread (s) is the blatantly bad arguments from both sides.
The second best part is the mouth foaming rage from both sides.

There is real love and real hate in this thread - utterly delicious. All your silly semantics aside, hats off to CCP for providing a game that can coax these extreme emotions out of you guys.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#626 - 2015-11-24 13:59:44 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:

No, but remove crappy emergent game play that totally sux through coding is something that can be done.


Ah, so your basic argument now boils down to: "I don't like it so it should go away."

It's a bold move Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

"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
#627 - 2015-11-24 14:01:16 UTC
bumping is not emergent gameplay

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
#628 - 2015-11-24 14:32:58 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
The point was that changes have been made to reduce ganking. Those changes were ultimately ineffective due to emergent factors that in some cases actually increased ganking.
You have proof of this of course?
That:
A. Changes were made to reduce ganking.
And that:
B. They were ineffective and in some cases ganking increased.

There are really only two occasions I can think of where a reduction was a requirement. m0o and mining barges. Both changes actually worked as intended.

But if you have proof of A and B above, then please do tell. But please remember your own notion before replying.



That's a good point. I actually accepted those points from some of the other posters in this thread trying to refute me. For instance:

Iain Cariaba wrote:

Every single time CCP has nerfed ganking, the gankers have adapted. Every single time the gankers have adapted, people like OP and yourself have come to the forums, reddit, twatter, facepalm, blogs, and every other social outlet they think they can get attention on, asking for... wait for it...


That's an example of the same argument, yet somehow the acknowledgement that CCP found cause to change things, and then emergent factors have nullified or actually surpassed the previous levels of the problem means we should just call it quits rather than continue to move the game in the direction the devs intended.

To be honest, I cannot think of another purpose for changes like reducing Concord response time. If it wasn't to reduce ganking, what else would it be for?
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#629 - 2015-11-24 14:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
Ah, finally someone other than Mike.

Yes, it is currently no emergent gameplay. It was, and now it is an established and documented tactic. It has its counters, repeated ad nauseum, and has the added bonus of multiplayer flavor. Even the web boosters helping those "in the know"
show off a bit: two ships decloak off a gate, one starts to gtfo, the other hits the jets and blasts it with a visual something-or-other( from the point of view of someone just starting eve). Fatass ship warps off fast. Shows teamwork to noobs.

That multiplayer flavor is part of the taste of The Butterfly Effect. "Help I'm being bumped!" Might not work all the time, some random white knight may or may not be there. That little bleats in local, and two bigass ships doing sumo impressions have a way of being noticed. So does the raging. Someone might take names and corp details thinking,"damn that guy is a moron, make sure we very seriously vet anyone from that corp."

Others might do the same and cancel contracts from that person, or watch for future ganking. Some people live and learn, but in eve people learn and live. Or not. No, it is not nice to pick on people with no friends, but those people should not rely entirely on luck and the good will of strangers.

Most of all: they should not complain when they get hurt for not being there playing the game. But the will, they do and if bumping is taken away, I fully expect to get slapped in the face with something worse as a hauler because of those whiners.

I'll even start it myself: make bumping an exploit, but give HICs a noncriminal web nulling bubble. There. Now all Freighters are susceptible. Let all haulers suffer, because in this game the squeeky wheel does not get the grease, everything that rests on that wheel, including said wheel, gets replaced.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#630 - 2015-11-24 14:44:48 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Brechan Skene wrote:
Agreed. But without any rules or at least a statement saying this is our stance on 'bumping'. What have we got? The previous rules/ stance by CCP have been over ruled by the current CCP as being 'outdated and invalid' and they have failed to confirm what the new rules/ stance is, even if it is to confirm they have stayed with the previous stance would be better than the current situation where it is now. Also I have never bumped or been part of a gank, I just would like to see them come out with an actually stance/ rule on 'bumping'.

Until such time as CCP actually releases a new stance on the subject matter, it is best to operate under the old rules. Admittedly, it was unwise for them to state "this is no longer our position" without actually letting us know what their new position is.

My only hope here, and keep in mind CCP people reading this that I'm not a ganker, is that the don't cave into the vocal minority, yet again, and introduce yet another nerf to ganking that will ultimately do nothing to curb ganking, again.


Hate to break it to you, but I'm not the minority, except on the forums.

What were those stats on vessels engaging in PvP daily... something less than 20% wasn't it? And some percentage of that were unwilling participants.

Also bear in mind that my goal was never to curb ganking. I agreed with the OP that bumping used to facilitate it was a problem, but not with his solution. What I suggested is the very lightest touch that could possibly be applied, assuming you agree that there was merit to the OP at all.

My arguments got regurgitated so much because the primary method of arguing against them was to pretend to not understand them, reframe them into something they weren't, or to attack my credibility or right to make them.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#631 - 2015-11-24 15:00:33 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not the minority, except on the forums.


I don't hate to break it to you, but you speak for no one but yourself, and your opinion means nothing.

Quote:

Also bear in mind that my goal was never to curb ganking.


Forgive me if I hadn't noticed, since you change positions on that pretty much every few posts.

"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.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#632 - 2015-11-24 15:27:05 UTC
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Suicide_gank

"Overview

"Suicide ganking" refers to the practice of intentionally attacking enemies in high-security space, with the expectation of losing one's ship to Concord. Some targets have very valuable items equipped and/or very valuable items in their cargo, and killing them and recovering the items that are dropped will pay for the costs incurred in losing the ships necessary to kill it. Concord response times are longer in lower-sec systems, so suicide ganking is generally most profitable in 0.5."

The "Hacking" gate idea eliminates suicide ganking because the kill takes place in lowsec.
The word you are looking for is hijack, like what is being done to this thread.

No, no, not curbing ganking at all.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#633 - 2015-11-24 15:29:31 UTC
This thread has run its course. To prevent further devolution of this thread, I will close it.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.