These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing bumping and looting mechanics

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#301 - 2016-01-30 22:50:10 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

There is no risk or penalty for the BUMPER.


Why would there be? It's an explicitly non hostile act.

"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.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#302 - 2016-01-30 23:07:13 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

There is no risk or penalty for the BUMPER.
Penalties for gankers are such that none of them prevents them from being functional in hisec while keeping -10 sec status, hence, for all practical purposes irrelevant.


So gank the bumping ship.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#303 - 2016-01-30 23:18:44 UTC
And again, no way to discuss it with you lot. Let's just play the semantics game all the time, right.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#304 - 2016-01-30 23:30:03 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
And again, no way to discuss it with you lot. Let's just play the semantics game all the time, right.


Whats to discuss? You refuse to listen to anyone and continually contradict yourself. We have the tools to deal with your issues already, many of them, if you refuse to use them its nobodies fault but your own.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#305 - 2016-01-30 23:33:24 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
And again, no way to discuss it with you lot.


What discussion is there to be had?

You want us to entertain your dishonest premise as though it were true. You want us to talk as though bumping were somehow "harassment" or "broken" or whatever other flimsy justification you care to use.

And since that is not true, I for one will not entertain that. There is no discussion to be had from a lie.

"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.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#306 - 2016-01-30 23:43:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
And again, no way to discuss it with you lot. Let's just play the semantics game all the time, right.


Whats to discuss? You refuse to listen to anyone and continually contradict yourself. We have the tools to deal with your issues already, many of them, if you refuse to use them its nobodies fault but your own.

/thread

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#307 - 2016-01-30 23:56:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
In terms of potential ideas - I'd be all for some form of anti-bumping stat change for freighters (increase their mass? althought that would screw up wh-s so probably no) or a module which would allow for active players to get out of bumping situation without requiring webber alt.

Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has?

If someone is going to invest from 1.2B (Freighter) to 7B (Jump Freighter) into just the ship, shouldn't they be prepared to be responsible for its safety?

Why should they have their risk reduced freely, when it can already be reduced easily, but at the same time the risk of bumpers (and gankers) should be increased?

If risk is going to be required for one side, then surely in a balanced system it should be required for the other side also; and all of us should be responsible to manage our own risks?
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#308 - 2016-01-31 00:01:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
And again, no way to discuss it with you lot. Let's just play the semantics game all the time, right.

Whats to discuss? You refuse to listen to anyone and continually contradict yourself. We have the tools to deal with your issues already, many of them, if you refuse to use them its nobodies fault but your own.


Actually it is you refusing to accept that, for some, going down the criminal route to prevent getting criminally killed in hisec makes no sense the same way that keeping from warping away just by magic of spaceship submarine collisions makes no sense.
If you can't step away from your position, you can never understand what I'm talking about but that's fine. The future will tell which of us was right.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#309 - 2016-01-31 00:08:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
In terms of potential ideas - I'd be all for some form of anti-bumping stat change for freighters (increase their mass? althought that would screw up wh-s so probably no) or a module which would allow for active players to get out of bumping situation without requiring webber alt.

Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has?

If someone is going to invest from 1.2B (Freighter) to 7B (Jump Freighter) into just the ship, shouldn't they be prepared to be responsible for its safety?

Why should they have their risk reduced freely, when it can already be reduced easily, but at the same time the risk of bumpers (and gankers) should be increased?

If risk is going to be required for one side, then surely in a balanced system it should be required for the other side also; and all of us should be responsible to manage our own risks?


Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp.

Other reason is in the fact that bumping (w/o ganking the bumper) contains no risk or penalty for the bumper whatsoever and the only consequence is on a char which is (in vast majority of cases) a disposable alt in a noob ship which (quite often and that has been reported) gets recycled after a while. Hell you don't even need to use a paying account for that, just put eve on a VM or a laptop and use trial accounts.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#310 - 2016-01-31 00:15:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp.

So if it will have no effect, why bother to remove it?

The reason is because you know it will have an effect and that is what this really wants. To think I don't grasp this is pretty insulting and not needed in this conversation.

The act of bumping a Freighter >150km off gate is used by gankers because sentry guns @308 volley damage and 176 DPS per sentry gun will immediately engage (and 4-8 guns per gate - so as high as 2464 volley damage to one shot a catalyst, though sentry guns don't focus fire always, so could take ut several catalysts at the same time), so the freighter is bumped away from the gate in order to eliminate the sentry guns from the equation.

That seems a perfectly reasonable action on the side of the gankers. It's the same thing any of us would do in that situation; and it is a consideration in lowsec pvp all the time; so gankers aren't unique in that regard.

As a Freighter and Jump Freighter pilot, I don't deserve special treatment to not be bumped. If I can't take care of my own safety, then I deserve to die and if gankers are able to manage their risks, just as anyone does, then good luck to them.

For some people, me included, risk in the game is a major part of what attracts me to Eve. I have no problem with suggestions for changed mechanics, but where they aren't balanced, they are generally poor suggestions. Don't remove my risk, just to make the game more risky for someone else.

Risk is fine for all of us and it's not difficult as a Freighter/JF pilot to manage that risk so it is extremely low. No mechanics are needed, just player action.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#311 - 2016-01-31 00:19:27 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form.


Then why change anything?

Oh, because you're intending it as a nerf to ganking despite your claims otherwise. That's why.

Quote:

Other reason is in the fact that bumping (w/o ganking the bumper) contains no risk or penalty for the bumper whatsoever


Of course, because it's not hostile. Just like I have to do if I want a non hostile dead, you have to gank him if you want to bring risk into his gameplay.

Speaking of which, I think NPCs should camp gates and make it functionally impossible for unescorted freighters to get through, because otherwise freighters have no risk or penalty whatsoever.

If your argument is good for the goose, then it's good for the gander too, huh?


Quote:

and the only consequence is on a char which is (in vast majority of cases) a disposable alt in a noob ship which (quite often and that has been reported) gets recycled after a while.


Remember when you got all butthurt when I pointed you that you frequently accuse lots of people of perma ban offenses without proof?

So now you're not only doubly a liar, you're also a hypocrite.

"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.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#312 - 2016-01-31 00:26:50 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp.

So if it will have no effect, why bother to remove it?

The reason is because you know it will have an effect and that is what this really wants. To think I don't grasp this is pretty insulting and not needed in this conversation.

The act of bumping a Freighter >150km off gate is used by gankers because sentry guns @167DPS each will immediately engage, so the freighter is bumped away from the gate in order to eliminate the sentry guns from the equation.

That seems a perfectly reasonable action on the side of the gankers. It's the same thing any of us would do in that situation; and it is a consideration in lowsec pvp all the time; so gankers aren't unique in that regard.

As a Freighter and Jump Freighter pilot, I don't deserve special treatment to not be bumped. If I can't take care of my own safety, then I deserve to die and if gankers are able to manage their risks, just as anyone does, then good luck to them.


Where did I say that it would have no effect. I said that it would not remove the ability to gank.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#313 - 2016-01-31 00:29:55 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

Where did I say that it would have no effect. I said that it would not remove the ability to gank.


Just like increasing Concord response times did not remove the ability to gank. Or making them invincible, or making them jam, or any of the other endless parade of nerfs to content in highsec for the last decade.

"just one more nerf"

"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.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#314 - 2016-01-31 00:32:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

and the only consequence is on a char which is (in vast majority of cases) a disposable alt in a noob ship which (quite often and that has been reported) gets recycled after a while.


Remember when you got all butthurt when I pointed you that you frequently accuse lots of people of perma ban offenses without proof?
So now you're not only doubly a liar, you're also a hypocrite.


As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP. Whose alts they were exactly, I have no idea nor do I claim to know, but ganker aggro alts they were because we saw them used in freighter ganks (and they were on km's). I think there even was a thread somewhere on forums where some of the names of chars were linked.
What is a lie in my sentence, I don't know. What I do know is that you like calling people liers while you do lie for a fact (e.g. about me saying that death threats are ok). Also, I know I had you blocked back in the day for a reason, and you've reminded me to turn the hide posts option back on. Cheers.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#315 - 2016-01-31 00:36:59 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP.


Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say.

Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark.

Bullseye.

"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.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#316 - 2016-01-31 00:37:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Where did I say that it would have no effect. I said that it would not remove the ability to gank.

Ok, sure.

Then why provide that as a response to the actual question I asked, which was:

Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has? (and a couple of others, related to same that question)

So I take it your answer is that they deserve special treatment because ganking will still be possible (which makes no sense as a response); even though the post I asked the question about was about bumping, not ganking (since earlier it was claimed that this is not about ganking, so left that out of the issue).

So why does my Freighter pilot deserve special treatment to escape bumping, when I already have all the tools I need to prevent it from occuring in the first place. Why shouldn't I be responsible to manage the risks I face?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#317 - 2016-01-31 00:46:51 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
In terms of potential ideas - I'd be all for some form of anti-bumping stat change for freighters (increase their mass? althought that would screw up wh-s so probably no) or a module which would allow for active players to get out of bumping situation without requiring webber alt.

Why do freighters deserve special protection that no other ship has?

If someone is going to invest from 1.2B (Freighter) to 7B (Jump Freighter) into just the ship, shouldn't they be prepared to be responsible for its safety?

Why should they have their risk reduced freely, when it can already be reduced easily, but at the same time the risk of bumpers (and gankers) should be increased?

If risk is going to be required for one side, then surely in a balanced system it should be required for the other side also; and all of us should be responsible to manage our own risks?


Because removal of bumping, get ready for this revelation, would not remove the ability to gank those ships in any shape or form. I know, that's a hard concept to grasp.


Sure it would. People are not always online. So you get a juicy target and you start bumping and pinging for people to log on. You get a scan of the ship to see what the tank is, etc. and depending on the result you might have to keep pinging to get people in place.

Removing bumping would allow ships that are overloaded and not using all methods to reduce their risk would be less likely to be ganked.

Further, we all know that people who get ganked while autopiloting with 12 billion ISK worth of cargo would almost surely whine and complain on the forums about how unfair it is to gank a ship autopiloting with 12 billion worth of ISK.

In short, I consider you to be less than honest and a completely incompetent player who wants to enable other incompetent players.

"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
#318 - 2016-01-31 00:49:43 UTC
In my opinion....

I think CONCORD response times should be increased for 0.5 and 0.6 systems. For 0.5 make it 25 seconds and for 0.6 make it 20 seconds.

"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
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#319 - 2016-01-31 00:56:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:

As said previously, some of the people in AG have identified recycled ganker alts and reported them to CCP.


Yeah, if you people told me the sun would come up tomorrow, I would wake up at five thirty just to double check. I don't believe a thing you angsty, hateful carebears say.

Oh, and hiding my posts just makes it look like I hit the mark.

Bullseye.


Whoops, I didn't block your posts.
So, just to prove you, once again, wrong - one example which has been reported: https://zkillboard.com/character/95727954/ (-5.2 according to Eve Who).
So, by now you've been proven to be:

a) liar
b) denying facts (link above)
c) prejudiced towards folks who don't subscribe to your worldview
d) who knows what else

In a perfect world right about now you'd stop spewing your angsty and hateful retoric, but I doubt that will happen. Do carry on.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#320 - 2016-01-31 01:01:50 UTC
Ah yes, because linking a random guy in Doomheim is proof of anything. (well, besides that anti ganking has admitted to mass reporting to try and get people banned)

Blow this more off topic, please. Oh, and please project some more accusations at me while you do it. In particular, the one about being prejudiced against anything you don't agree with gave me a good laugh.

"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.