These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#141 - 2015-11-09 08:49:11 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Sounds great, I'll immediately use it to tackle some sap in a mission and watch the rats explode him because he can't warp out and I don't get concorded.

Sold.

Smile


You could try. Just because Concord won't mind does not mean it would draw any less aggression from rats, and most missioners can tank the whole room on their own already.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#142 - 2015-11-09 08:50:40 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Kaarous, stop trolling.


I'm not.

And tackle is a synonym for warp disruption.


Quote:

And for the everloving glory of god, if it's that xaxtdamned important to kill things despite the rules governing aggression in that area, then just put in a mod to do it outright instead of being dishonest about it.


Why would they go to the trouble? There isn't anything wrong with the existing situation.

"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
#143 - 2015-11-09 09:06:47 UTC
Synonym for warp disruption specifically? Really?

I have also heard it used I reference to infinite points on heavy interdictors, scramblers, and bubbles... all of which have different rules that apply but all of which are used to keep a ship from warping.

No. I am afraid that you are at best mistaken, at worst just lying to try and be obtuse about the point.


Just because it's not a problem for you in particular does not mean it's not a problem. I don't make these threads, but they sure pop up pretty often. It's a problem for somebody, and I'm willing to bet they believe in their own right to exist and have an opinion just as firmly as you believe in your own.


From a balance perspective, it's not right because unprovoked aggression is supposed to have strict consequences in highsec. I am aware that your own belief is that highsec should just be removed all together, though why you don't just move out to low sec where that style of play is normal is beyond me. I suppose it's because the targets our there tend to prepare for that sort of thing, and you'd rather hide behind one sided wardecs and sloppy outdated game mechanics.

It's not a problem that affects me either, though I do tend to have the ability to look beyond my own activities and understand the problems of others. I don't fly freighters, because if I'm going to fly a 1 billion ISK target it will have defenses and guns.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#144 - 2015-11-09 09:12:03 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Synonym for warp disruption specifically? Really?


Yes. And infinipoints and bubbles also warp disrupt/scram your ship.

Bumping does not.

In fact, I can't seem to find where it inflicts a debuff of any kind for Concord to respond to. It's almost like they exclusively respond to offensive module activation, and bumping doesn't qualify.


Quote:

From a balance perspective, it's not right because unprovoked aggression is supposed to have strict consequences in highsec.


And of course, here is what you really want. Your supposed claim of being alright with a module that does the same was just a mask. What you really want is a big, fat nerf, because you don't think highsec is safe enough already.

Quote:

I am aware that your own belief is that highsec should just be removed all together


Considering you just made that up, it really wouldn't surprise me if you were aware of anything else imaginary either.

"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
#145 - 2015-11-09 09:22:53 UTC
Warp Disruption is a specific effect.

Warp Scrambling is also a specific effect, distinct from disruption.

as are infinite points, interdiction probes, and other things that all stop your ship. Each has its own rules that apply.

You are just trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that excludes using bumping to achieve the same goal because you think that's clever.

There is no supposed claim. I said it, I meant it. If you could convince me that a method of aggression that is not just allowed by concord but actively defended by it was balanced, I'd go along with it. It won't be an easy sell however.

You have said many times that concord is an abomination and should be removed from the game. Concord is pretty much the only difference between low sec and high sec, except maybe for some ship restrictions.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#146 - 2015-11-09 09:35:35 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Warp Disruption is a specific effect.

Warp Scrambling is also a specific effect, distinct from disruption.


Actually, they both fall under the category of warp disruption.

Quote:

You are just trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that excludes using bumping


I'm not trying to do anything, they are all in the same category, the warp disruption effect, the one that stops your warp engines from activating.

They all have the same mechanical effect, although to varying degrees.

Quote:

There is no supposed claim. I said it, I meant it. If you could convince me that a method of aggression that is not just allowed by concord but actively defended by it was balanced, I'd go along with it. It won't be an easy sell however.


I don't believe you. There is no circumstance in which I would consider you to be arguing in good faith. None whatsoever.

Quote:

You have said many times that concord is an abomination and should be removed from the game.


What I've said is the binary, heavy handed, anti sandbox mechanic that Concord presently is should not exist and should never have existed.

That's quite different. But mischaracterizations and outright lies are your M.O., as you've long since proven.

"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.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#147 - 2015-11-09 09:39:44 UTC
Daret wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


What you are missing is that this is not needed.


I wouldn't expect anyone from goonswarm to understand how something like this is needed.


Totally irrelevant, but still hilarious. Classic EVE forum stuff right there, good job.
Valkin Mordirc
#148 - 2015-11-09 09:49:45 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


You are just trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that excludes using bumping to achieve the same goal because you think that's clever.




I know I just keep popping in here at random and cherry picking.

But...

Is that what you're doing as well?

Trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that includes bumping as a way to achieve your own definition of tackle?
#DeleteTheWeak
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#149 - 2015-11-09 09:58:17 UTC
Kaarous, I guess that's it then. You really are ust a troll.

Despite that my only 'lies' are simple disagreements with your own unsupported opinions, you won't trust that I argue in good faith under any circumstances, yet you go out of your way to vomit your own dreck all over everything anyone who does not agree with you says.

You don't argue. You make unsupported claims, and then attempt to treat them as if they were the very foundation of reality.

The only thing of worth you have contributed to this thread is the opinion that if it does not apply a status effect to the ship it should not be considered tackle.

On that point we disagree, and that would be Ok if you weren't such a narcissist that everyone has to be exactly like you or be considered a liar.

As you cannot support anything else you have to say with anything other than troll vomit, it's unfortunate you can't seem to stop yourself.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#150 - 2015-11-09 09:59:55 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


You are just trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that excludes using bumping to achieve the same goal because you think that's clever.




I know I just keep popping in here at random and cherry picking.

But...

Is that what you're doing as well?

Trying to lump them all together on an arbitrary definition that includes bumping as a way to achieve your own definition of tackle?


Actually no. As was discussed earlier in the thread the act of stopping a ship from warping is considered tackle. I even went to great length to be clear that bumping itself wasn't tackle, unless it was intentionally and specifically being used to stop a ship from warping.
Valkin Mordirc
#151 - 2015-11-09 10:00:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
Oh another thought

The 30sec E-Warp wouldn't help at all.


It would very easy to see where your freighter goes

which warps very slow

which will be out warped by the Mach and Gank fleet

and once you hit the other gate it starts all over,

Unless you warp to a safe,

which it takes less than two seconds to scan and probe down a Freighter.


So the only the thing this idea would do is make EVE just a little bit more tedious. Which honestly it doesn't need,


Quote:
Actually no. As was discussed earlier in the thread the act of stopping a ship from warping is considered tackle. I even went to great length to be clear that bumping itself wasn't tackle, unless it was intentionally and specifically being used to stop a ship from warping.


Discussed yes.

But that doesn't mean that you were right. Doesn't mean Kaarous is right, doesn't mean I'm right.

It would a GM that decides that. And right now, they are 100% on the side that bumping is fine as a game mechanic.

Does that mean bumping can't be tweak? No. But I honestly don't think we need another nerf to Highsec right now. It's getting pretty barren out there as it is.

And by that I mean, Nerfing to Highsec Variants of PVP. Hyperdunking, Wardecs and Crime Watch.

Honestly what is amazing is that, and what I find incredibly commendable for Highsec PVP is they always find away to take the Nerfs and the 'Carebear' buffs to Highsec and turn them into their favour.

IE the Bowhead used to help with hyperdunks, Suspect baiting and such. Emergent gameplay in Highsec at least, which CCP seems to love, comes from them
#DeleteTheWeak
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#152 - 2015-11-09 10:13:57 UTC
Depends on your point of view.

Some, if not most, would consider it a buff to high sec.

It would certainly make the rules of high sec consistent, which would improve some folks opinion of the game as a whole.

I agree that the 30 second timer is just a bad idea. There are far better ways to implement an emergency warp, if such were to be considered.

For instance, hitting emergency warp attempts to align to whichever warpable object requires the least navigation and then attempts to warp until dead or sucessful. This would be more balanced than the oft requested GTFO button because alignment is still necessary and it gives the aggressor time to land a point, and allows the defender to take his finger off the warp button and concentrate on trying to break the point.

In the case of bumping it would be a help, though it would not be a 30 second guarantee of freedom.
Valkin Mordirc
#153 - 2015-11-09 10:21:17 UTC
No it would be Nerf to Highsec Variants of PVP. And yes Buff to what I guess you can all 'Carebear Variants of EVE"


Not that Carebear is bad. I generally don't like using the term now. But it's the only way I could describe what I'm trying to say.

I don't see how a Bumping nerf would make Highsec more Consistent, and personally I hate consistency it leads to repeated and circles which become stale. EVE in my opinion should be chaotic. It should have a swirling mass of emotions tied to it, that what I love most about the game. I've had my fair share of it. And even though I lost some things, I'm still here enjoying the game.


#DeleteTheWeak
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#154 - 2015-11-09 10:26:57 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Kaarous, I guess that's it then. You really are ust a troll.


You keep saying that, but it's pure projection. You're the one incessantly spinning strawman arguments and misrepresenting game mechanics.

"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
#155 - 2015-11-09 10:31:28 UTC
More consistent in that unprovoked aggression follows the same rules regardless of how you do it.

The way Highsec is supposed to be is that so long as you don't steal or shoot anyone then Concord will attack anyone that aggresses you. There are exceptions to this, like Wardecs.

Tackling someone in preparation for a gank would get you concorded if you used any of the standard modules, but doing it by repeated bumping is Ok, no matter how long that goes on. That's inconsistent with the intent of what high sec is supposed to be like. The aggressor should need a wardec, or get the freighter to steal, or gain killrights if those are available. If the pilot of the freighter does not do any of those things, then that is high sec working as intended. You can still gank him, you just have to have your gank ready instead of tackling him until your gank force can arrive, and as per normal deal with the consequences imposed by Concord.

But I don't hold finding ways to break the game because ganking is a holy cow in high regard.
Valkin Mordirc
#156 - 2015-11-09 10:51:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
As said before no one in there right mind, would loot a yellow wreck in a freighter.


Killrights are rare to find on Freighter pilots as Freighter pilots don't go out getting Killrights. Normally you see only the ones that are scamming with them. Sometimes yes you do find some shiny ship with a KR. But normally it's something other than freighter. In all my days in Highsec. Which have been since I started playing. I have never once personally seen a Freighter with a legitimate KR on it.


Ganking is not the holy cow. It quite literally was nerfed last week.



Highsec is not meant to be safe. These consistent whine threads about ganking and bumping is frustrating. So far I've just been popping in and out of the thread basically being a smartass, and that should show how much value I place on them.

It would be clear after the 1000th one that CCP like Ganking as a mechanic and wants to keep it. So arguing about how it doesn't fit the intended the idea of Highsec is a dumb, because CCP obviously intended it to be apart of the Highsec Mechanics. I understand that you want it to be different, but bumping,

Either A, Completely fine in the eyes of CCP

B They don't like it, but due to how it functions trying to fix it would break the game.


It in reality changing the way bump mechanics work, is probably extremely hard to to do, because the nerf would effect a **** ton of other aspects of the game. Even if you or me don't see it I'm sure CCP has look at it as some point and came to A or B conclusion.
#DeleteTheWeak
Mag's
Azn Empire
#157 - 2015-11-09 11:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
OK a few things.

1. Is it a tackle? Well no, because you can still warp. Bumping only alters your vector, it does not disable your warp capability.
People can and have warped to friends, when being bumped.

2. Is it broken? Well no, because that would assume there is no way to avoid it. Seeing as one friend can remove almost every chance of being bumped, this really is a none issue.

3. Is CCP OK with it? Now this was a definite yes, but now I'm not so sure. Why? Well take a look at the first new line in the bumping thread.

CCP CiD wrote:
**This forum post is now 3 year old and does not represent CCP´s current stance on the issue, as such it can be viewed as outdated**

4. If this is nerfed, will it be the one more nerf that will satisfy the whiners? Well no, the phrase "Just one more nerf and it will be balanced." will still be alive and kicking. Until high sec is perfectly safe, that is. Maybe even after that.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#158 - 2015-11-09 11:37:51 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
More consistent in that unprovoked aggression follows the same rules regardless of how you do it.


It already does. Bumping is not aggression.

"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.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#159 - 2015-11-09 11:37:54 UTC
Mag's wrote:
3. Is CCP OK with it? Now this was a definite yes, but now I'm not so sure. Why? Well take a look at the first new line in the bumping thread.

CCP CiD wrote:
**This forum post is now 3 year old and does not represent CCP´s current stance on the issue, as such it can be viewed as outdated**


Well, well. Something interesting happened in this thread after all...Shocked
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#160 - 2015-11-09 12:30:18 UTC
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



How about travel the route twice to decrease the risk, but na that´s too easy.
First why should a not aligned ship be able to warp, and why only stopping at the aligning why we didn´t let them break warp disruptors and scrambler.

But honestly do you really think your idea causes any good ?

If your system will be introduces i will probe your freighter, bump him and wait for the emergency warp. Probe him with my alt again (i got the id of his ship) shouldn´t take that long. And have a freighter with no shield, a reduced armor or hull. Awesome please implement so you make it easier to gank people not harder.