These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#101 - 2015-11-07 07:19:54 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

If there is no effect, then what's the problem with disabling what it does?


Your appalling grammar aside, it does no disabling. A freighter's warp engines are still functional if they are bumped.

"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.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#102 - 2015-11-07 07:43:03 UTC
Right. I get that. My grammar is apparently superior to your comprehension.

So what's the problem with making it so that you don't spin a ship around when you bump them?

I mean, you are claiming it has no effect, so since it does seem to cause some people problems there should be no objection to removing that, or just making it cosmetic so that it's not a problem for anyone?

You aren't wanting to use that effect in an aggressive manner to the detriment of another player, are you?
Madd Adda
#103 - 2015-11-07 07:53:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

If there is no effect, then what's the problem with disabling what it does?


Your appalling grammar aside, it does no disabling. A freighter's warp engines are still functional if they are bumped.


I think what he means is the alignment of the freighter being thrown off.

Carebear extraordinaire

Black Pedro
Mine.
#104 - 2015-11-07 08:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Right. I get that. My grammar is apparently superior to your comprehension.

So what's the problem with making it so that you don't spin a ship around when you bump them?

I mean, you are claiming it has no effect, so since it does seem to cause some people problems there should be no objection to removing that, or just making it cosmetic so that it's not a problem for anyone?

You aren't wanting to use that effect in an aggressive manner to the detriment of another player, are you?

Velocity is modeled as a single vector in this game engine. The direction your ship is apparently facing in your client is not used to calculate, well anything. Your ship is unable to warp because it is unable to reach sufficient speed along the direction to your destination.

This is also why webbing works even if your ship is sideways to your destination.

I guess you could rewrite the engine so that it uses some relative vector to reach warp, but I do t see CCP doing this, certainly not just to let freighters AFK a little safer.

But again your are missing the main point. The whole point of tackling people is so ships die. Bumping, while non-aggressive in itself, can be used to tackle ships and is in all sectors of space. CCP is not going to remove that to appeal to your sense of space justice. That tackling is also needed in highsec to provide time to get a fleet there. Without it, ganking is much more expensive and thus freighters are much safer.

That isn't going to happen. You can beg for it, make semanitic arguments on what "aggression" means, and invoke the CONCORD articles of space law as a reason, but even if CCP decides that they don't like players perma-bumping others in highsec, they will replace it with another mechanism to give gank fleets time to get onto a potential target.

CCP is not going to collectively slap its forehead and say, "Oh my God, bumping IS an aggressive act, let's get a team on patching that out right away!" after reading this thread. Freighters need to be able to be held in space for them to be vulnerable. More importantly, freighters as powerful capital ships need to have a weakness that a support fleet mitigates.

Feel free to make your case as long and loud as you want but I see little chance of you getting the safety you are after. Time for you to really accept the reality of this game that you alluded to earlier that haulers are primarily prey items for this PvP game.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#105 - 2015-11-07 08:59:32 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

So what's the problem with making it so that you don't spin a ship around when you bump them?


Why would it need to be changed to begin with?

Quote:

I mean, you are claiming it has no effect


You lie. (like you always do. You're incapable of anything else)

What I'm claiming is that, contrary to what you say, it is not warp disruption.

And it's not. Warp disruption is a very specific in game effect.

"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.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#106 - 2015-11-07 10:10:54 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Right. I get that. My grammar is apparently superior to your comprehension.

So what's the problem with making it so that you don't spin a ship around when you bump them?

I mean, you are claiming it has no effect, so since it does seem to cause some people problems there should be no objection to removing that, or just making it cosmetic so that it's not a problem for anyone?

You aren't wanting to use that effect in an aggressive manner to the detriment of another player, are you?

Velocity is modeled as a single vector in this game engine. The direction your ship is apparently facing in your client is not used to calculate, well anything. Your ship is unable to warp because it is unable to reach sufficient speed along the direction to your destination.

This is also why webbing works even if your ship is sideways to your destination.

I guess you could rewrite the engine so that it uses some relative vector to reach warp, but I do t see CCP doing this, certainly not just to let freighters AFK a little safer.

But again your are missing the main point. The whole point of tackling people is so ships die. Bumping, while non-aggressive in itself, can be used to tackle ships and is in all sectors of space. CCP is not going to remove that to appeal to your sense of space justice. That tackling is also needed in highsec to provide time to get a fleet there. Without it, ganking is much more expensive and thus freighters are much safer.

That isn't going to happen. You can beg for it, make semanitic arguments on what "aggression" means, and invoke the CONCORD articles of space law as a reason, but even if CCP decides that they don't like players perma-bumping others in highsec, they will replace it with another mechanism to give gank fleets time to get onto a potential target.

CCP is not going to collectively slap its forehead and say, "Oh my God, bumping IS an aggressive act, let's get a team on patching that out right away!" after reading this thread. Freighters need to be able to be held in space for them to be vulnerable. More importantly, freighters as powerful capital ships need to have a weakness that a support fleet mitigates.

Feel free to make your case as long and loud as you want but I see little chance of you getting the safety you are after. Time for you to really accept the reality of this game that you alluded to earlier that haulers are primarily prey items for this PvP game.


Yes, the point of tackle is so ships die. Tackling is aggression.

My point is that those who are upset about the use of bumping for this have a legitimate complaint. I don't like it because it's stupid and frankly dishonest. I would be fine seeing it replaced with an overt tackle mod, or just making scrams not be considered aggression, if that's how they want to go.

So long as tackle is considered aggression, then it should not matter how it is accomplished. The limitations of a 15 year old AI script does not have to remain a lynchpin of the game for all eternity just Kaarous can polish his epeen. Eve has enough arcane rules without this sort of shenanigans. They don't have to rewrite the whole engine to mitigate bumping. Those ships are already moving, it's not being calculated from a dead stop. That's why webbing works.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#107 - 2015-11-07 10:20:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

So what's the problem with making it so that you don't spin a ship around when you bump them?


Why would it need to be changed to begin with?

Quote:

I mean, you are claiming it has no effect


You lie. (like you always do. You're incapable of anything else)

What I'm claiming is that, contrary to what you say, it is not warp disruption.

And it's not. Warp disruption is a very specific in game effect.


Try quoting the rest so your trolling is even more obvious.

I said Bumping is being used as tackle. I never claimed it was applying a warp disruption effect on the ship. Nor scramble. Nor any of the other warp cancelling debuffs. It is being used to accomplish the same goals, with the same intent.

Since the end result is the same (ship cannot enter warp) then the actions are equivalent. I am even fine with it being used this way, as it can counter things like warp core stabilization and ships with higher base warp strength, without requiring a heavy interdictor or multiple points. However, since the AI cannot distinguish it from an accident no matter how blatant, then altering it so you need something active the engine can see is reasonable.

@Pedro I still don't see where you are saying the cost of a gank would go up. I can see it requiring more dedication and organization, with the ships being required to be ready to go when the target arrives rather than slowboating over from wherever, but not costing more ships or ammo.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#108 - 2015-11-07 10:23:50 UTC
Madd Adda wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

If there is no effect, then what's the problem with disabling what it does?


Your appalling grammar aside, it does no disabling. A freighter's warp engines are still functional if they are bumped.


I think what he means is the alignment of the freighter being thrown off.


He is just a troll. It's his thing. He knows what I mean he just can't admit it because it invalidates his arguments.

I don't know why he can't just be upfront and say that bumping is aggression protected by concord, but that's ok because it keeps freighter ganks easy.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#109 - 2015-11-07 11:21:05 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Yes, the point of tackle is so ships die. Tackling is aggression.
Sure, tackling a ship is aggression in the sense you are doing it as part of an effort to defeat your opponent in a PvP game. I agree.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
My point is that those who are upset about the use of bumping for this have a legitimate complaint. I don't like it because it's stupid and frankly dishonest. I would be fine seeing it replaced with an overt tackle mod, or just making scrams not be considered aggression, if that's how they want to go.
I'll accept that a player who is bumped for 8 straight hours without being ganked has a legitimate complaint. But this is a PvP game. You are responsible for defending your ship so you should have your defense fleet with you or on standby to come help your freighter. This is an intended weakness for capital ships.

Perhaps CCP can improve that. But they are not going to address that complaint by making freighters safer so they don't have to worry about being tackled in the first place. Any fix will likely involve a support fleet to rescue/protect these big, lumbering, and frankly OP ships.

Maybe making warp scrambling only a suspect level offense in highsec against capitals is an answer (and nerf bumping somehow). Then the freighter's friends or white knights could try to shoot the tackler while the gankers could assist their tackle leading to a chance of escalation. Seems like there are a bunch of problems with that proposal I see right away, but if CCP is ever going to allow the rest of the capitals into highsec, there are going to have to be some major changes in aggression/CONCORD mechanics anyway.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
So long as tackle is considered aggression, then it should not matter how it is accomplished. The limitations of a 15 year old AI script does not have to remain a lynchpin of the game for all eternity just Kaarous can polish his epeen. Eve has enough arcane rules without this sort of shenanigans. They don't have to rewrite the whole engine to mitigate bumping. Those ships are already moving, it's not being calculated from a dead stop. That's why webbing works.
Again, it is a single velocity vector that the server uses to model ship movement, not a combined speed and direction. It is probably unrealistic for them to make such a major change such the core of the game to address, honestly a minor fraction of all the gameplay and PvP that goes on in Eve. I would think any "fix" to address bumping will come from the addition of a counter, that either has a significant fitting cost for freighters or requires an additional ship/player to use. I am betting on the latter as just allowing freighters to give up some cargo space or speed to be immune to bumping will enable more AFK hauling play and make the profession even less financially viable for those who do it for a living.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-11-07 15:50:22 UTC
Holy crap, its still going on. This calls for a Bad Idea!
This is coming pre-morning coffee, you've been warned.

Bumping a ship aligning into warp remains as a non aggressive act. The effect changes to the ship warping the same distance, but not to the intended destination.

Still lets people do their bumping thing, but if people want to get away they can. Too bad large ships warp so slowly, an unfortunate freighter pilot might get probed down and bumped many more times, but she/he will still be "getting away"

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

Styx Saken
Styx Saken Corporation
#111 - 2015-11-08 14:28:06 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Bumping to prevent miners mining, or a few other uses, is one thing... but using bumping to basically keep a ship tackled more or less indefinitely is stupid and should be changed. Game Mechanics clearly define tackle as hostile action, as evidenced by scrams and disruptors, and bumping should not be allowed to completely circumvent that.


+1
Styx Saken
Styx Saken Corporation
#112 - 2015-11-08 16:24:24 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I'll accept that a player who is bumped for 8 straight hours without being ganked has a legitimate complaint.


This.

Bumping for a few minutes in preparation of a gank? Fine.

Bumping for hours just to push someone around in space? Not so much.

Unfortunately, the current bumping mechanics allow both.
Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#113 - 2015-11-08 20:34:23 UTC
Daret wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daret wrote:

They're bad players so they should not get any chance to get away without outside intervention from a friend.


Nope.

They're bad players, and that's why they didn't get away to begin with.

Is it really that hard to watch local, or web your freighter? Seriously, quit trying to put in mechanics to enable people who are actively not playing the game.


Quote:

Should ONE person be capable of completely preventing someone from playing the game?


They aren't, unless he's dumb enough to be afk.


Your definition of 'playing the game' is clearly not the same as mine. Maybe you have 0 respect for miners and industry but they're a vital part of EVE and so are definitely playing the game.

As for watching local, we're talking highsec here, you try keeping track of the 20+ names that appear and dissapear on the local list every few minutes.

And again.. afk players are not affected by this measure. If someone is truly afk then you don't need to bump them to kill them



So find a quieter place to mine? They do exist. The 0.5 system three jumps away from a trade hub is a really good place to get hit, because the gankers don't have to go far after buying their suicide catas. The 0.5 system 10 jumps away is a real pain to haul stuff in and out of, but local is usually not 20 people and the gankers usually don't bother flying that far.

Usually.

A signature :o

Daret
Moen Tsan
#114 - 2015-11-08 20:38:49 UTC
Shallanna Yassavi wrote:
So find a quieter place to mine? They do exist. The 0.5 system three jumps away from a trade hub is a really good place to get hit, because the gankers don't have to go far after buying their suicide catas. The 0.5 system 10 jumps away is a real pain to haul stuff in and out of, but local is usually not 20 people and the gankers usually don't bother flying that far.

Usually.


This isn't about me as a miner, I've never been bumped personally. and have only once or twice had suicide gank attempts against me.

Also I mine in the same system that my corp's POS is in. to mine somewhere else would be much less efficient. The reason why my particular system is so popular is because it contains ice.
Daerrol
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2015-11-08 20:48:39 UTC
Why not just web your freighter? You guys are so quick to yell at pirates but we always put a scout in system, and more often than not bring webs when we move our carriers, dreads, oh and our freighters. This is through low-sec as well as highsec.... Not lost a freighter yet.


As for bumbing an exhumer? Can those things get MWDs? I think they have midslots O_O Though really I wouldn't use an exhumer in highsec for the exact same reason I don't PVE in a bling fit marauder.
Daret
Moen Tsan
#116 - 2015-11-08 20:57:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Daret
Daerrol wrote:
Why not just web your freighter? You guys are so quick to yell at pirates but we always put a scout in system, and more often than not bring webs when we move our carriers, dreads, oh and our freighters. This is through low-sec as well as highsec.... Not lost a freighter yet.


As for bumbing an exhumer? Can those things get MWDs? I think they have midslots O_O Though really I wouldn't use an exhumer in highsec for the exact same reason I don't PVE in a bling fit marauder.


I agree. It is best to have an escort when moving an orca, or a charon etc. But let's be honest you can't always have an escort for every moment of every day.

Meanwhile one solo player can sit at a gate waiting for you to show up and then bump you for however long it takes with no risk to himself until his friends show up to blow you up.

Also the actual methods to actually stop the bumper even with the escort are a bit poor, counter bumping him can be difficult to pull off if he's a good pilot in an agile ship. Suiciding him should not be something you're forced to do because of it's effect on your security status etc. And Webbing the freighter isn't 100% guaranteed to be good enough.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#117 - 2015-11-08 23:22:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Daret wrote:
I realize that CCP has stated that bumping is a game mechanic and is probably never going to be changed. But that doesn't stop someone from bumping a charon for hours on end, so I'm proposing something to help solve the problem and hopefully without unbalancing the game elsewhere.

Implement a new feature, Emergency Warp.

Emergency Warp starts a 30 second timer similar to when logging out in space (possibly with or without modules turned on) where you are then warped a random distance in a random direction (10-99 au?) Any aggressive action that would normally call concord cancels the warp.

You do not need to be aligned for the warp to complete. you simply need to wait the 30 second timer without being attacked in any way, but bumping does not count obviously.

Alternatives or other options to make it more balanced:

-Add a long cooldown timer to prevent repeated abuse (12-24 hours would be pretty fair)

-Warp fatigue after using emergency warp

-Strip shields and even cause armor or hull damage when emergency warp is used (completed, not started)


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.

*Edit*
I'd just like to add that this is not a personal vendetta I have against Bumpers, I have never personally been the victim of a bumper so to all the people who are trying to antagonize me for 'being bad at the game' you should probably think twice


Ya know, if you just got a handful of buddies (like 2) in game who could get into tornados for example and blap the bumping ship you could solve the problem yourself instead of having to run to the play ground monitor crying like a wimp.

Even better, 6 buddies in catalysts will burn down a bumping machariel...make it 7 for added measure. You and your buddies are out 65 million ISK, the bumper is out 425+ million ISK.

"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

Tisiphone Dira
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2015-11-08 23:32:10 UTC
You could have saved a lot of typing by just saying

Dear CCP

Make my ships invincible and ganking impossible

-A scrub

10/10 on the troll though.

There once was a ganker named tisi

A stunningly beautiful missy

To gank a gross miner

There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2015-11-08 23:38:12 UTC
Daret wrote:
Daerrol wrote:
Why not just web your freighter? You guys are so quick to yell at pirates but we always put a scout in system, and more often than not bring webs when we move our carriers, dreads, oh and our freighters. This is through low-sec as well as highsec.... Not lost a freighter yet.


As for bumbing an exhumer? Can those things get MWDs? I think they have midslots O_O Though really I wouldn't use an exhumer in highsec for the exact same reason I don't PVE in a bling fit marauder.


I agree. It is best to have an escort when moving an orca, or a charon etc. But let's be honest you can't always have an escort for every moment of every day.

Meanwhile one solo player can sit at a gate waiting for you to show up and then bump you for however long it takes with no risk to himself until his friends show up to blow you up.

Also the actual methods to actually stop the bumper even with the escort are a bit poor, counter bumping him can be difficult to pull off if he's a good pilot in an agile ship. Suiciding him should not be something you're forced to do because of it's effect on your security status etc. And Webbing the freighter isn't 100% guaranteed to be good enough.


So let me get this straight....

You want to play solo and not spend the time or effort to organize even the most minimal escort.

And at the same time Mommy and Daddy (i.e. CCP) should come hold your hand and pat your poo poo so that the guys who did spend the time and effort to gank you can't.

Have I summed up your entitled and self-righteous position sufficiently?

"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
#120 - 2015-11-08 23:43:43 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
That's just it. You don't need a method of tackle free from aggression. If that were the case then there would not be any of those crimewatch rules with concord to enforce the peace.

Bumping used as tackle is aggression, and only the limitations of the AI prevent it from being seen as such.

I am all for ganking and other such gameplay according to the rules set out in each area of space. Even a bump or two to delay things to get your people organized would be reasonable. But repeated bumping is purely and obviously aggression and should be treated as such according to the rules in place in whatever space you are in.

You are right, capital ships do get a big advantage in HP, at the cost of speed, and their cargo capacity makes them very attractive targets. That advantage does not need a special cheeseball counter when you can organize and take it down without it if you put in the time and dedicated effort to do so.

Or, if bumping isn't aggression there is no reason not to take it out or provide a way to circumvent it. After all, if there was no aggression then there is no PvP and there is no holy cow to protect.


Mike how do you draw a distinction between purposeful bumping and incidental bumping (the latter being two capitals that land too close to each other and bump)? Seems unreasonable to give the latter pilots any sort of timer as they had no control.

Until you can explain such a mechanism I don't see a reasonable and workable solution.

"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