These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#741 - 2016-02-04 01:37:19 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:

HPs increased because it make Logical sense or just people being pissed wreck warp-in were being popped? Logically thinking why are wrecks something that you can warp to in the 1st place.


And back to logical......Why are those pilots"transferring" loot to a DST hangar becoming Suspect at all if they are never really in possession of those items. Shouldn't the 1st ship that has the items physically in cargo hold go Suspect in that case.
Its not nerf to ganking to fix this simple thing, is it? After all the ganking is already over by the time the looting starts. Plus gankers like CODE. claim the loot doesnt matter to them anyway :)


The loot is a factor in why at least some people gank....the ganking community is not just CODE.


True but they are seperate actions.....If you have the loot into your cargo, less than a few ms after it was looted. You should be Suspect. Just fixing that, doesn't seem unfair.
As far as I know the suspect flag is tied to the initial act, the items themselves have no variable to indicate that they are looted and thus it isn't possible to pass the suspect flag onto whomever takes the cargo from the the looter. What you're asking for is a change in the database which adds an extra variable to each and every in the game item to track whether it is loot or not, CCP are unlikely to implement such a change because it's just "makework" that serves no real purpose.


Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#742 - 2016-02-04 01:39:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Brad Neece wrote:
Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed.

And an alt that is not on any timer?

Isn't that the problem with looting? That an alt comes on grid and transfers from the wreck to the DST/Orca?

So how would switching off transfers based on timers change anything in relation to the issue? It would just nerf other looting in the game and have no effect on the thing being complained about, leading to another round of requests for changes.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#743 - 2016-02-04 01:42:40 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
But should not be needed I think at this point as official proof to CCP that this happens. They have the data already. They can verify claims and then we can move to the actual fix.

Really?

What data exactly does CCP have on bumping in the logs?
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#744 - 2016-02-04 01:50:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Brad Neece
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed.

And an alt that is not on any timer?

Isn't that the problem with looting? That an alt comes on grid and transfers from the wreck to the DST/Orca?

So how would switching off transfers based on timers change anything in relation to the issue? It would just nerf other looting in the game and have no effect on the thing being complained about, leading to another round of requests for changes.



Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. If you want to loot, you must be the one to physical move it to your ship.
Iain Cariaba
#745 - 2016-02-04 01:51:15 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc.

More like won't than can't. Besides, you don't need anything expensive to counter bump. A t1 cruiser with a mwd can do it.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#746 - 2016-02-04 01:53:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Brad Neece wrote:
Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer.

So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game?

Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.

That's the whole purpose of the safety system (Green, Yellow, Red), so players can decide what level of risk they want to take on. Having the mechanics step in and remove any choice from players is not good.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#747 - 2016-02-04 01:57:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Brad Neece wrote:
Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed.
Yeah, great idea; to fix a problem, that if it exists at all only exists in hisec, change a fundamental mechanic and stop everybody with a suspect or criminal timer from transferring loot.

Before you start with "restrict the change to hisec", you can't. The initial flag is acquired under the crimewatch mechanic, which applies throughout empire space regardless of whether it's high or low sec; the only difference being that in hisec the reaction to a criminal flag is escalated beyond gate and station guns.

Before suggesting changes to mechanics you would do well to understand the current ones and how they work.

@ Scipio, I'd say the safety system removed more than it added, it certainly removed the ability of people to make as many dumb choices that I can laugh at Twisted

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Mag's
Azn Empire
#748 - 2016-02-04 02:04:22 UTC
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:

If you thread my earlier posts, I have already stated I will be covering different timezones and different days.

Luckily, as research is part of my daily work, designing studies is something I do all the time. The data won't be incomplete.


Ahh I did not see that in the thread of comment. But should not be needed I think at this point as official proof to CCP that this happens. They have the data already. They can verify claims and then we can move to the actual fix.

But feel free, if you want a science experiment, go for it! :)
That this happens? Verify claims? We've constantly asked for evidence of a problem and so far all we have from you is that bumping occurs and looting into DST's happen.

I've even tried to open a dialog with you and you shut me down. Reasonable questions go unanswered and now all of a sudden you're here telling us CCP has all the data and we'll soon be seeing a fix. A fix to what I'm unsure about, but a fix nevertheless.

That's great. I look forward to hearing what the problem actually is.

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
#749 - 2016-02-04 02:08:16 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer.

So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game?

Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.


Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed.
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#750 - 2016-02-04 02:14:05 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed.
Yeah, great idea; to fix a problem, that if it exists at all only exists in hisec, change a fundamental mechanic and stop everybody with a suspect or criminal timer from transferring loot.

Before you start with "restrict the change to hisec", you can't. The initial flag is acquired under the crimewatch mechanic, which applies throughout empire space regardless of whether it's high or low sec; the only difference being that in hisec the reaction to a criminal flag is escalated beyond gate and station guns.

Before suggesting changes to mechanics you would do well to understand the current ones and how they work.



Yeah, it was bad wording on my part....If a transfer would result in one party going FY....there should be no transfer at all.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#751 - 2016-02-04 02:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Brad Neece wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer.

So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game?

Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.


Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed.

It would be great if the story can be kept consistent.

Nowhere did you mention hangar before just this now.

I'm not sure how the game deals with cargo holds vs fleet hangars, so it might be possible to ban one and not affect the other, but that isn't what you originally wrote.

You wrote disable transfers by anyone on a timer, then if the transfer would result in a suspect flag, no transfer allowed. That would very much affect ninja looting (since taking it from a wreck into your own cargo hold is also a transfer).

So now, since the proposal is to ban transferring to a hanger, a DST or Orca pilot in highsec can't even loot the wreck themselves (nor Carriers in lowsec if they needed to).

Luckily, I'm still confident CCP would never make a change like that anyway. They've already provided a safety system so that people can choose whether they go criminal or suspect, or avoid those situations. I can't see them preventing it all together. That's removing player choice and not something they seem interested in doing.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#752 - 2016-02-04 02:22:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Brad Neece wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer.

So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game?

Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.


Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed.
Ninja looting doesn't just apply to stealing from other peoples wrecks, it also applies to the practice of looting the scene of a fight with multiple ships and transferring the goodies to a hauler of some description. What you suggest also affects miners, I've gone suspect many times while mining, normally as a result of emptying another miners unattended can, I usually transfer the contents to an Orca while I keep mining; a suspect Procurer or Skiff is often bait and nobody really bothers suspects anyway. Your naive suggestion would prevent myself and other unscrupulous miners from stealing from the ones that can't be bothered to be at the keyboard and are dumb enough to mine into a freight container.

BTW it wasn't that you worded your suggestion badly, it's that your idea has consequences that go far beyond the scope of the thread and those consequences affect people other than suicide gankers and their associated looters.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#753 - 2016-02-04 02:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Mag's wrote:
That this happens? Verify claims? We've constantly asked for evidence of a problem and so far all we have from you is that bumping occurs and looting into DST's happen.

For me, it's not only this, but also the other things that have been written in the thread:

You, I and others have asked for the evidence throughout the thread, only to have these comments made:

KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)

to then be addressed like this when I've asked for the evidence:

KickAss Tivianne: You my friend need to start trolling somewhere else with a comment at this point of the discussion.(2)

When challenged on that, I was told:

KickAss Tivianne: ... just swing by Uedama and watch, it really would not be hard to see it happen.(3)

Only for it ultimately to change to:

KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)

Well, the story just keeps changing, from the very person who started this thread claiming a problem exists that needs the mechanics to be changed.

So if the person claiming there is a problem won't make the effort to collect the data, but will continually stick to an unverfied view that there is a problem, then I'll go get the evidence myself, one way or the other.

Whinging about something only goes so far. Ultimately there needs to be evidence to use as the basis of sound judgement.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#754 - 2016-02-04 03:40:58 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:

They weren't guesses they were statements based on your statements. Things like "not being able to earn ISK in HS." You didn't want to risk that, so you weren't willing to gank. You said so yourself.

No guessing, just reading what you wrote and pointing out the implications.



You strech your implications way too far, and - as I said, are not too good at that guessing game.
Guess what, I don't make my isk in HS, mostly am not even there unless doing some AG stuff.
You're presuming that when talking about inability to make isk in HS I'm talking about myself, and you are wrong. This game is not only about you or me and trying to look at stuff form other's perspective might benefit you.

As for me, I mind killrights on Rham not because of isk making but because that prevents me from trying to effectively fight gankers - can't counter bump, can't fly anything expensive, etc.


What a load of Bravo Sierra...funny how gankers manage this just fine.

With insta undocks, and reasonable precautions ganking a bumping ship is indeed quite feasible, but go ahead and grasp at straws. 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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#755 - 2016-02-04 03:45:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Brad Neece wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Simple disabling transfers from anybody on TImers......no database needed.

And an alt that is not on any timer?

Isn't that the problem with looting? That an alt comes on grid and transfers from the wreck to the DST/Orca?

So how would switching off transfers based on timers change anything in relation to the issue? It would just nerf other looting in the game and have no effect on the thing being complained about, leading to another round of requests for changes.



Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer. If you want to loot, you must be the one to physical move it to your ship.


Just no, as it means locking the loot down to whomever ganked the ship or the person ganked. Talk about being completely antithetical to a sandbox PvP game. Sheesh.

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
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#756 - 2016-02-04 03:50:08 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)

[snip]

KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)

[snip



Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant.

"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
Brad Neece
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#757 - 2016-02-04 05:11:07 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Brad Neece wrote:
Yeah, bad wording on my part, good catch... but basically this, If action is going to create a Suspect timer on the one transferring.....no transfer.

So all ninja looting in highsec and lowsec would be removed from the game?

Well, I'm fairly confident CCP would never do something like that, thankfully.


Thats not ninja looting......if the act of TRANSFERING directly from a wreck to another ships hangar would result in a Suspect timer for any party, no transfer allowed.

It would be great if the story can be kept consistent.

Nowhere did you mention hangar before just this now.

I'm not sure how the game deals with cargo holds vs fleet hangars, so it might be possible to ban one and not affect the other, but that isn't what you originally wrote.

You wrote disable transfers by anyone on a timer, then if the transfer would result in a suspect flag, no transfer allowed. That would very much affect ninja looting (since taking it from a wreck into your own cargo hold is also a transfer).

So now, since the proposal is to ban transferring to a hanger, a DST or Orca pilot in highsec can't even loot the wreck themselves (nor Carriers in lowsec if they needed to).

Luckily, I'm still confident CCP would never make a change like that anyway. They've already provided a safety system so that people can choose whether they go criminal or suspect, or avoid those situations. I can't see them preventing it all together. That's removing player choice and not something they seem interested in doing.




Well this is a ideas discussion forum..... i'm giving examples and getting feedback based on topic, no story really needed.... its making me think of the repercussions elsewhere :) But I've brought up transferring to another ship a few time.....I may have made the mistake of not stating that implied a fleet hanger transfer though.
KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#758 - 2016-02-04 05:27:34 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)

[snip]

KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)

[snip



Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant.


And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I appreciate your comments, you point is noted. But if this is going to be the caliber of comment you have from now on, please move along.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#759 - 2016-02-04 05:40:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
KickAss Tivianne: This post has grown with people adding more evidence.(1)

[snip]

KickAss Tivianne: This is a problem, and it is something that evidence does not come easily.(4)

[snip



Really don't want to mangle that post, but I thought it would be worth while to put those two comments right next to each other to show the intellectual bankruptcy of a thread participant.


And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I appreciate your comments, you point is noted. But if this is going to be the caliber of comment you have from now on, please move along.



Let me see, you claim you'll update as "more evidence" is posted...and when Scipio posts some evidence you...try your damnedest to dismiss it and spin in your favor. And claim evidence does not come easily on top of it when Scipio is clearly going to be sacrificing his time to try and get some decent data.

I'm sorry, if anyone should move on, it is you. And you don't have anything to prove because you can't prove anything.

BTW, I have flown through Uedama quite a bit. I do invention on a number of alts to supplement my income and you know what...other than the time I was bumped in a freighter I have yet to see a freighter getting bumped. Maybe it is just because of the TZ in which I play, but the claim, "Just swing by Uedama and see the bumping" or whatever is nonsense.

Edit II:

Also, we just don't want information on bumping, but also how many freighters get through Uedama without being bumped. Looking at just bumping or even just ganking of freighters is not helpful as it suffers from...ta-da selection bias. 100% of your sample is being bumped.

To know if bumping "is a problem" at the very least we should get an idea of how many freighters move through a system like Uedama and also how many get bumped. Ideally, we'd also like to get an idea on their cargo value, but Hell...lets not kill Scipio.

"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
Mag's
Azn Empire
#760 - 2016-02-04 07:09:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
KickAss Tivianne wrote:
And so..... what is your point? There has been other people who have viewed this.. A witness aka evidence. However getting actual physical evidence does not come easy, all for the reasons I mentioned in the thread. CCP has the evidence. I don't have to prove anything to you.
Viewed this? Viewed what exactly? Oh and a witness isn't evidence unless they can show what they viewed or prove it through actual data.

Let me break down your complaint.

Bumping.
You have issues with it going on for an hour. I've provided a link from this forum and the unedited version from eve-search.com. Those links show someone complaining of a bump that went on for an hour or so. The facts we can readily see from those links is, working as intended. You've chosen to ignore my actual evidence and gone with your 'i and others have viewed this and CCP have the data'.
You've ignored reasonable questions and requests at discourse. When topics you yourself raise work against you, you decide you won't be discussing them anymore and then shut discussion down.

Why did you ignore those links?

Looting.
I've yet to see any evidence of pilots transferring loot after they gank whilst waiting from concord to kill them. The timing of such a move is quite frankly, unbelievable. Now we are in a situation where posters are recommending changes that affect far more, simply due to some special situation that I personally have yet to see any proof of.

But now we're meant to just take your word for it and accept CCP have all the data, and a fix will be along soon.
Sorry, but I tend not to believe someone who's been using a crystal ball when they say "Trust me, I'm a doctor."

No doubt you'll say something along the lines of not talking to me anymore, so be it. But as I've been quite decent through this thread, that type of response only goes to show what little faith you have in your argument.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.