These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#581 - 2016-02-02 04:24:35 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.

Ok, so since evidence that this problem exists to the extent that it needs bumping mechanics changed and looting mechanics changed as a result, I swang by Uedama (with my hauling alt) as you suggested.

This is just the start of a study and I'll continue it to collect as much data as needed to determine one way or the other whether bumping is a problem. The only evidence I have been able to find (which is posted in this thread) suggests it isn't a problem.

I'll upload the raw screen capture video and post a link, but in the meantime here's a screenshot to support the following data (but anyone will be able to verify it by watching the video back if they want):

http://puu.sh/mSumM/1e5bbf1d66.jpg

So I sat on the Sivala gate in Uedama for 2 hours and simply recorded the movement of hauling ships (including industrials, freighters, jump freighters, Orca and Bowhead) through the gate.

Total movement: 221 jumps
No. of bumps: 0

Total ships AFK on the gate for between 1 min - 12 min: 3
Total ships on autopilot: 16
Total number of times webs were used to web into warp: 0

Breakdown by ship:

Charon: 10 (1 AFK for 12 minutes on the gate, 1 autopiloting0
Bowhead: 4
Obelisk: 6 (I autopiloting)
Orca: 6
Providence: 3 (1 autopiloting)
Fenrir: 4

T2 and T1 industrials: the remainer

In the video, I'll include the full breakdown at the end.

A very limited set of data and I'll increase the dataset significantly before making any conclusions.

I'll do another 2 hours later today.


I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know.


OMG....even the lack of evidence is turned into evidence.

I'm sorry but that is just complete Bravo Sierra. You are a person with an agenda and are simply...well...bad. Somebody makes an good faith effort to collect data on bumping and you poo-poo it.

Seriously, STFU and go sit on the gate as well to collect data in a different time period than Scipio.


Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right?
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#582 - 2016-02-02 04:29:55 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:


I don't have to admit anything. This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.



Quoted for hilarity. If it is such a problem, collecting the evidence should be quite trivial.


Wrong. But thanks for playing.... a lovely Chia-Pet parting gift for you.


So you're pretty much the internet space equivalent of an anti-vaxxer, eh?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#583 - 2016-02-02 04:30:45 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:

Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right?


Look, I'm not the one trying to turn data that right now does not favor my hypothesis into data that does favor my hypothesis. You just shot yourself in the ass, and unfortunately your head was up there too, so don't blame me.

Scipio reported some initial data from sitting in Uedama and you just had to try and spin it. That is just total Bravo Sierra.

"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
#584 - 2016-02-02 04:31:35 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:


I don't have to admit anything. This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.



Quoted for hilarity. If it is such a problem, collecting the evidence should be quite trivial.


Wrong. But thanks for playing.... a lovely Chia-Pet parting gift for you.


So you're pretty much the internet space equivalent of an anti-vaxxer, eh?


Ouch...but I have to agree. Go on and spin, spin, spin KickAss.

"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
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#585 - 2016-02-02 04:34:03 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Mag's wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know.
No, it makes it a PvP centric game. If you don't want others to take control, then you have to be proactive and take it yourself. That's not to say it's guaranteed. But to complain after no effort was made, doesn't indicate a problem or that a nerf is required.


First I am not complaining about that mechanic. I was merely saying, hanging out in Uedama for an hour or 2 is nothing.


1. It is better than nothing...and better than anything you got.
2. Scipio said it is just the start of something he plans on doing.
3. You blatantly tried to turn his data into something that supports your position.

You are, literally, intellectually bankrupt. You should have not posted anything in reply to Scipio, or just said thanks for the effort keep it up for as long as you can. But nope, you had to try and twist the data to suit your agenda. You have just proven Kaarous correct when he calls you honesty into question. Good job. Roll


1. Wrong, it is nothing...
2. He is free to do what he wants.
3. I don't have to turn anything. I don't know when the Gankers goin'a gank gank gank. So I am saying that data is incomplete. People in the post have mentioned seeing the same thing. So when he comes back in 1 year and says.. Yep, it seems to happen when certain people are online..... Ok... well thats nice and all....
Mag's
Azn Empire
#586 - 2016-02-02 04:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right?
The problem with your premise, is it's built on the idea that change was done solely because of ganking at certain gates. It wasn't. Although the ganking of freighters was mentioned, it wasn't the reason CCP decide to boost wreck HP.

This is what we mean by evidence. The exclusion of the main reason for this new change, isn't helping your argument.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#587 - 2016-02-02 04:36:17 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Mag's wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
I appreciate the attempt. This is what makes it a Ganker's game. They control the speed of the game.. target, and when to do it. You can spend a day there, and unless you are fed intel you might not see anything. Even if you are fed intel it could be a slow day, or week. People who have been doing this for a year or so know.
No, it makes it a PvP centric game. If you don't want others to take control, then you have to be proactive and take it yourself. That's not to say it's guaranteed. But to complain after no effort was made, doesn't indicate a problem or that a nerf is required.


First I am not complaining about that mechanic. I was merely saying, hanging out in Uedama for an hour or 2 is nothing.


1. It is better than nothing...and better than anything you got.
2. Scipio said it is just the start of something he plans on doing.
3. You blatantly tried to turn his data into something that supports your position.

You are, literally, intellectually bankrupt. You should have not posted anything in reply to Scipio, or just said thanks for the effort keep it up for as long as you can. But nope, you had to try and twist the data to suit your agenda. You have just proven Kaarous correct when he calls you honesty into question. Good job. Roll


1. Wrong, it is nothing...
2. He is free to do what he wants.
3. I don't have to turn anything. I don't know when the Gankers goin'a gank gank gank. So I am saying that data is incomplete. People in the post have mentioned seeing the same thing. So when he comes back in 1 year and says.. Yep, it seems to happen when certain people are online..... Ok... well thats nice and all....



So now we can add denial and delusion to intellectual dishonesty.

Okay. Thanks for sharing. Roll

"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
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#588 - 2016-02-02 04:47:52 UTC  |  Edited by: KickAss Tivianne
Mag's wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right?
The problem with your premise, is it's built on the idea that change was done solely because organising are certain gates. It wasn't. Although the ganking of freighters was mentioned, it wasn't the reason CCP decide to boost wreck HP.

This is what we mean by evidence. The exclusion of the main reason for this new change, isn't helping your argument.


Looking though that post, there was no mention of any Evidence. What is even more funny, is seeing so many of the people who don't like this idea, over there loving that one. SO odd...... not odd.



I am done with these petty arguments. I am not responding to them any more. Especially after that slanderous personal comment.

I will try to respond to other actual real comments.

Thank you.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#589 - 2016-02-02 04:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Mag's wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right?
The problem with your premise, is it's built on the idea that change was done solely because organising are certain gates. It wasn't. Although the ganking of freighters was mentioned, it wasn't the reason CCP decide to boost wreck HP.

This is what we mean by evidence. The exclusion of the main reason for this new change, isn't helping your argument.


Looking though that post, there was no mention of any Evidence. What is even more funny, is seeing so many of the people who don't like this idea, over there loving that one. SO odd...... not odd.



I am done with these petty arguments. I am not responding to them any more. Especially after slanderous personal comments.

I will try to respond to other actual real comments.

Thank you.
Sorry but you brought up the wreck change and mentioned it in a way that tried to make it look as though it was done because of popping wrecks of ganking. It wasn't. I'm not sure what you mean regarding evidence, but the actual request thread as well as the dev thread, explains the reasons and supplies the evidence.

Also when did I slander you? I do find it odd, or rather should I say telling, you now do not wish to discuss a topic you raised, after being shown it didn't help your stance.

Edit auto correct

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#590 - 2016-02-02 05:15:20 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
So I am saying that data is incomplete.

I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it.

It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue.

But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other.

That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset.
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#591 - 2016-02-02 05:26:53 UTC
Mag's wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Mag's wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Again... how many wrecks popped? none... Well.. why change HP for Wrecks?? nothing popped at that brief moment in Eve time. So useless right?
The problem with your premise, is it's built on the idea that change was done solely because organising are certain gates. It wasn't. Although the ganking of freighters was mentioned, it wasn't the reason CCP decide to boost wreck HP.

This is what we mean by evidence. The exclusion of the main reason for this new change, isn't helping your argument.


Looking though that post, there was no mention of any Evidence. What is even more funny, is seeing so many of the people who don't like this idea, over there loving that one. SO odd...... not odd.



I am done with these petty arguments. I am not responding to them any more. Especially after slanderous personal comments.

I will try to respond to other actual real comments.

Thank you.
Sorry but you brought up the wreck change and mentioned it in a way that tried to make it look as though it was done because of popping wrecks of ganking. It wasn't. I'm not sure what you mean regarding evidence, but the actual request thread as well as the dev thread, explains the reasons and supplies the evidence.

Also when did I slander you? I do find it odd, or rather should I say telling, you now do not wish to discuss a topic you raised, after being shown it didn't help your stance.

Edit auto correct


Sorry, you did not slander me. It was just making a statement of previous comments. I am sorry if you felt it was directed to you.

I did bring that up,as just an example, im sure there are other reasons why they did it., but it sounds like from reddit, there could have been more other fun stuff done as apposed to just increasing HP.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/43oikc/dev_post_wreck_hitpoint_rebalance/

I did not happen to see the evidence in any post that states why make the change (im being sincere). If you have it, please link it.
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#592 - 2016-02-02 05:30:40 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
So I am saying that data is incomplete.

I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it.

It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue.

But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other.

That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset.


If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#593 - 2016-02-02 05:39:39 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
So I am saying that data is incomplete.

I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it.

It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue.

But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other.

That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset.


If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place.

No need yet.

When I get onto stage 2 looking at the issue of looting as outlined in the OP, then that will be useful, but at this initial stage to establish whether bumping is a problem or not, there's no need to go to specific cases, just to look at the overall risk.

So I'll let you know when I move into testing the looting claims.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#594 - 2016-02-02 07:21:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Sorry but you brought up the wreck change and mentioned it in a way that tried to make it look as though it was done because of popping wrecks of ganking. It wasn't. I'm not sure what you mean regarding evidence, but the actual request thread as well as the dev thread, explains the reasons and supplies the evidence.

Also when did I slander you? I do find it odd, or rather should I say telling, you now do not wish to discuss a topic you raised, after being shown it didn't help your stance.

Edit auto correct


Sorry, you did not slander me. It was just making a statement of previous comments. I am sorry if you felt it was directed to you.

I did bring that up,as just an example, im sure there are other reasons why they did it., but it sounds like from reddit, there could have been more other fun stuff done as apposed to just increasing HP.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/43oikc/dev_post_wreck_hitpoint_rebalance/

I did not happen to see the evidence in any post that states why make the change (im being sincere). If you have it, please link it.
OK no worries about the slander, let's forget it.

Yes you brought it up as an example. But in doing so, you failed to mention that ganking was a side issue in regards to this change. You used it in conjunction with Scipio's attempt at data gathering and implied it was all due to ganking wrecks. Also that his data didn't support that change, as no wrecks were popped. The trouble is the evidence for that change was offered in the original request thread and then stated by CCP in the dev one.

Anthar Thebess wrote:
Currently almost any frigate can instantly kill any wreck. This have good and bad application in game, but usually it is abused to prevent someone from warp , salvage or loot something.
This is from the original request thread. So what evidence does it provide? Well for a start yes, almost any frigate can instantly kill any wreck. That is a fact. It is also a fact it's done to prevent warp ins, salvage or loot.

He then offers up what he thinks the change should be, why and how it could affect the game. Someone even asks him in the first page about the effect on gank wrecks. He replies:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Yes , like you see this is one of the issues.
Most important for me are the warpins, after the fleet warp changes those will be very important things on battlefield.
"We need to kill one of the leading ships to provide warpin to bombers!"

Now you just ungroup your guns and instantly clear those.

Remember that when people see ISK they tend to do stupid things , and provide tons of content.

If you want to troll the gankers , have a bomber with scrams sitting near the dead freighter.
No targeting delay after decloack.
So we can see he's thought about it, but it's not his main concern.

Now to the Dev thread. Fozzie laid out the premise in his OP and asks for feedback to the planned change. He specifically states that atm, a shuttle wreck is the same size as a Titan one and they wish to change it. A CSM member has championed this change, but it isn't the first time this has happened and it will not be the last.
Not only that, but it seems the whole CSM feedback so far has been positive.

Even the reddit thread talks of Titans and warp ins. Try not to let your focus on ganking, blind you to the overall view of why this change happened. CCP decided that having a shuttle wreck the same size as a Titan wreck, needed to change.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Up until now, wrecks (other than those belonging to Ship Maintenance Array and X-Large Ship Maintenance Array starbase structures) have all had a uniform 500 hull hitpoints. This makes them very easy to destroy, with no difference between destroying a shuttle wreck and a titan wreck.

We've seen a few requests here and there to tweak this mechanic from players, and recently Endie from the CSM has brought the issue up with us and championed it. We've got a set of changes ready for the February release that should help bring wreck hitpoints into a better state.
They agree that wrecks should emulate their ships, in what size they should be.

Wrecks are being changed because of their ease of being shot, size inconsistency and stopping warp ins. There is no dispute on this and the reasons why some may want this change as opposed to others, is irrelevant.

So what about bumping. Well you talk of being bumped for 30 to 60 minutes without repercussions. I've already linked a thread on just that and it was deemed working as intended. Eve search link.
What you fail to mention in this regard, is the other pilots who travelled the same lane and were not bumped. Figures shown in this thread from Redfrog, indicate a 0.1% failure rate. For us to look at this, we need to look at it as a whole and use all the data.

Now I could understand there being a problem, if:
A. It was a far higher figure.
B. Bumping wasn't so easily avoidable.
C. Couldn't be escaped once started.

Seeing as none of these are the case, just why is it a problem that needs a fix? What do you base your 'problem' on?

Putting this aside for a moment. If I told you that the inclusion of one more pilot, could improve your odds to 99.9%. What would you say?
If it was the chance of ganking someone, you'd be up in arms I'm sure. I mean two pilots and those odds, it's rather high. As it's the chance of being caught currently in a freighter with a webber, I seems it's fine. Gankers accept it and even suggest it's use.

So just what are you basing your problem on? Just why is this easily avoidable situation, in need of a balance pass? This is the evidence we would like to see.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#595 - 2016-02-02 08:01:09 UTC
One looting issue I brought up....that seem to have been ignored in those posts. The fact that you can loot after you've started to warp startup(Right click, Warpto or Dock).....your able to Loot All, pretty much up to point of insta warp the moment you go suspect. I'm linking 2 videos that confirm this is an issue. The pilot in this video, has me locked and is SPAMMING point. I seem to go invulnerable the moment of suspect.

We've witnessed freighters do this....and that a sloooowwww painful thing to watch. Multiple potential looters on grid, who do you bump? and who do prelock? all that good stuff.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aCCgJYKaI&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBvTXOAYhSg&feature=youtu.be


And yes, this aren't properly trimmed down.....deal with it :)
Iain Cariaba
#596 - 2016-02-02 08:04:17 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
The fact that everyone is so defensive about this, means that this mechanic means a lot to you.

Actually, the mechanic means absolutely nothing to me. I tried my hand at ganking, found it wasn't something I enjoyed. But, just because I don't enjoy ganking doesn't mean I should support yet another nerf to the play style. I realize that my freighter is a capital ship, and that capital ships aren't something for solo game play. I can also fly dreads and carriers, but wouldn't dream of flying them solo either.

KickAss Tivianne wrote:
This is not just me.

Yeah, it pretty much is. You've got a little support, but for the most part the players seem to be against you.

KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Read the comments again.

Why? You've said nothing that hasn't already been said in any of the 17,132,843 or so prior threads to nerf ganking. You've produced no evidence tonsupport your claim that there's a problem here. In fact, even when evidence is provided that shows you to be in error, you retort that any evidence to support your claim is missing because it "does not come easily." Have you stopped to consider that the lack of evidence to support you is because there is no actual problem, only that you imagine there is?

KickAss Tivianne wrote:
But this is not over.

This should've been over 29 pages ago. I can only surmise that the lack of lock for redundancy on this thread is because it gives people like you somewhere to whine about the 0.11% chance of having a freighter ganked without starting a new thread.
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#597 - 2016-02-02 08:28:58 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
So I am saying that data is incomplete.

I said in the first post where the data is laid down that no conclusion can yet be made from it.

It is incomplete data and a very small dataset. it doesn't yet contain sufficient information one way or the other that this is an issue.

But it will, because the dataset will continue to grow to a point where is it useful to support statements one way or the other.

That's a while off yet, but it will happen because I was told that the evidence has been posted in this thread, when it hasn't. So lets all see, verifiably where it's a problem or not, but we can't say that yet from the small dataset.


If thats what will make everyone happy... wonderful. Ill PM you in game when I see such acts take place.

No need yet.

When I get onto stage 2 looking at the issue of looting as outlined in the OP, then that will be useful, but at this initial stage to establish whether bumping is a problem or not, there's no need to go to specific cases, just to look at the overall risk.

So I'll let you know when I move into testing the looting claims.



If need help determine the days and hours of ganking to collect bumping data, this helps.

https://gankerlookout.com/#victim%3A%20Providence%3B%20victim%3A%20Charon%3B%20victim%3A%20Obelisk%3B%20victim%3A%20Fenrir%3B%20victim%3A%20Ark%3B%20victim%3A%20Rhea%3B%20victim%3A%20Anshar%3B%20victim%3A%20Nomad%3B%20victim%3A%20Orca%3B%20victim%3A%20Bowhead


That covers that past 5.5 months.....If you click Activity Card.....it'll give a day and hour breakdown.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#598 - 2016-02-02 08:35:20 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Or just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.


KickAss Tivianne wrote:
This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.



You wanna pick a position and stick with it any time soon mate?
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#599 - 2016-02-02 09:46:56 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
[quote=bigbud skunkafella]@

[quote

It is a proposal that would only work for illegal targets in highsec (and then not even because of the reasons outlined). It wouldn't even work for legal targets in highsec, since they can also be scrammed for as long as needed.


that is the whole point of my suggestion, to assist an illegal target in hisec against unlimited bumping, giving the bumped pilot an opportunity to escape rather than the current options of log off and die, self destruct , pay ransom and die, or just die...Pirate

as for null/lo freighters, lore wise it could be that due to the extremely large mass of freighters , the emergency mjd only works in hisec due to needing f some sort of boosting from a network of sophisticated boosting structures only cost viable in concord protected hisec .

so , having an opportunity to emergency jump away from a squad of incoming catas won't possibly work because....?






baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#600 - 2016-02-02 09:53:44 UTC
Brad Neece wrote:
One looting issue I brought up....that seem to have been ignored in those posts. The fact that you can loot after you've started to warp startup(Right click, Warpto or Dock).....your able to Loot All, pretty much up to point of insta warp the moment you go suspect. I'm linking 2 videos that confirm this is an issue. The pilot in this video, has me locked and is SPAMMING point. I seem to go invulnerable the moment of suspect.

We've witnessed freighters do this....and that a sloooowwww painful thing to watch. Multiple potential looters on grid, who do you bump? and who do prelock? all that good stuff.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aCCgJYKaI&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBvTXOAYhSg&feature=youtu.be


And yes, this aren't properly trimmed down.....deal with it :)


How about bumping the freighter so it cant do this?