These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
#61 - 2016-01-26 23:34:11 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
]Again, pointing out a flaw in a mechanic


A flaw in your opinion. And I'm stating that it's irrelevant, because it basically cannot be feasibly changed.


Quote:

Disrupt is not limited in the English lexicon to a module in an internet spaceships game.


It does, however, have a very specific meaning in this context. And it is not applicable to bumping.

Quote:

You are disrupting their attempt to warp. Fact.


False. No warp disruption effect is present on their ship. You don't get to dance around it, "disrupt" has a meaning in EVE, and that meaning does not apply to bumping.

"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
#62 - 2016-01-26 23:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game.

However, I have a feeling that some of the people in charge of the game development see how certain uses of bumping mechanics are broken, in particular relating to freighter ganking and that changes are incoming, sooner then some might think.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#63 - 2016-01-26 23:42:35 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game.

However, I have a feeling that some of the people in charge of the game development see how some uses of bumping mechanics are broken, in particular relating to freighter ganking and that changes are incoming, sooner then some might think.

I too had heard that bumping is under investigation in these respects as well but have nothing concrete :(

Until then 'it is how it is because it is how it is' seems to be the extent of the counter argument.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#64 - 2016-01-26 23:44:27 UTC
All the people bitching about how machs are fast and hard to gank, put your talos on top of freighter and it will have to COME TO YOU if it wants to keep bumping.

Nobody is preventing you from bumping freighter back to gate so that it can jump and get away on other side.

There are tons of ways you can save a freighter but you people use none of them and keep crying about a mechanic that has been perfectly fine for over 10 years.

And if you complain about losing sec and gank ships to delete an enemy mach bumper...

Why should it take only one guy to kill a mach when it takes 20+ to kill any tanked freighter.
This really just boils down to "Just one more nerf".

Highsec is safer than ever and it's getting pretty boring, this is why people are ganking in bigger numbers, that and the fact that you just can't do it without at least 11 or more anymore.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#65 - 2016-01-26 23:44:43 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
]Again, pointing out a flaw in a mechanic


A flaw in your opinion. And I'm stating that it's irrelevant, because it basically cannot be feasibly changed.
And yet rather than discuss possible fixes, you try to shut down any debate and deny it's even a problem. Try opening your mind a little about things and seeing if it gets somewhere more productive.


Quote:
the disrupt thing
You misinterpreted the sentence I wrote, apologies for your misunderstanding.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#66 - 2016-01-26 23:45:27 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game.


This coming from the tinfoil hatter who has accused dozens and dozens of people of perma ban offenses without any proof at all... is beyond hilarious.

I mean really, how you have the gall to say this with some of the heinous **** in your post record, I cannot imagine.

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#67 - 2016-01-26 23:46:16 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
And yet rather than discuss possible fixes, you try to shut down any debate and deny it's even a problem.


Why would I possibly discuss "fixes" for something that is working fully as intended?

"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.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#68 - 2016-01-26 23:49:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
And yet rather than discuss possible fixes, you try to shut down any debate and deny it's even a problem.


Why would I possibly discuss "fixes" for something that is working fully as intended?



Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
CCP said that it's beyond them to change that, since it's the base physics engine of the game


So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?

That... seems... logical?

Lol

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#69 - 2016-01-26 23:51:33 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?


Be more obtuse. Those are two different things.

They have said that they cannot change bumping. And they have also said that ganking as it is right now is working fully as intended. They've also derided people who think the NPCs should defend their haulers.

"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
#70 - 2016-01-26 23:53:04 UTC
Quote:
So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?

That... seems... logical?


You guys cry so much about it even we have to pretend to care...

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Rhamnousia Nosferatu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2016-01-26 23:56:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Nice try Tivianne but unfortunately trying to discuss this on forums with folks like Kaarous, Pablo and similar is fairly pointless as they are absolutely unable to move away from their black/white view of the game.


This coming from the tinfoil hatter who has accused dozens and dozens of people of perma ban offenses without any proof at all... is beyond hilarious.

I mean really, how you have the gall to say this with some of the heinous **** in your post record, I cannot imagine.


Wow, you are upset. Calm down a bit.
As for your nonsenical claims - 'dozens and dozens' would mean something like at least 24 players (dozen is 12, right?), if not more. I only remember expressing my suspicion that two, maximum three guys were guilty of input broadcasting via isboxing (in terms of bannable offenses). Also, I've clearly identified some recycled alts but that has been reported directly to CCP. If someone was been banned due to my reports, good riddance to them.

As for the 'heinous ***' in my post history, do show which posts of mine were like that.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#72 - 2016-01-27 00:01:27 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?


Be more obtuse. Those are two different things.

They have said that they cannot change bumping. And they have also said that ganking as it is right now is working fully as intended. They've also derided people who think the NPCs should defend their haulers.


I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping and saying it was fault y- and you said it was working as intended.

And yet you previously said that CCP have invested time and resources into investigating whether or not bumping mechanics could be changed.

So which is it?

Is investigating the possibility of changing the coding behind highsec bumping worthy of spending time and resources on?

or

Is highsec bumping working as intended and in need of no time and resources to investigate?

I already am aware of CCP's position on the actual ganking and mechanics around suiciding a ship to concord to apply DPS to a target in protected space but I'd love to hear the answer to this contradiction.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#73 - 2016-01-27 00:02:56 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping


No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul.

"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.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#74 - 2016-01-27 00:04:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping


No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul.

Please answer the question, is bumping working as intended in highsec?

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#75 - 2016-01-27 00:08:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Eli Apol wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping


No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul.

Please answer the question, is bumping working as intended in highsec?


It is and it isn't. Emergent gameplay itself is an intended part of EVE.

[edit: Oh, and it's not just highsec. Bumping is used everywhere.

"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.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#76 - 2016-01-27 00:10:33 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

I was discussing the lack of aggression mechanics around bumping


No you were not. You were talking about how ganking needs a complete overhaul.

Please answer the question, is bumping working as intended in highsec?


It is and it isn't. Emergent gameplay itself is an intended part of EVE.

[edit: Oh, and it's not just highsec. Bumping is used everywhere.

It is and it isn't

So you agree it's not working as intended.

You might even say it's a flawed mechanic that doesn't work correctly?


I rest my case yer'onner.

Please clean the blood up when you stop wriggling on those points you skewered yourself on.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#77 - 2016-01-27 00:14:19 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

You might even say it's a flawed mechanic that doesn't work correctly?


The game's physics collision mechanics are working precisely as intended. They are intended to bump ships and objects off of one another, and it would be completely dishonest to say otherwise. Players just found an extra use for it, one that CCP themselves has approved of many times in the past.

Fluff yourself harder, but there is no getting around it.

"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
#78 - 2016-01-27 00:16:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Eli Apol wrote:
So it's working as intended...yet CCP were looking at ways to change it?

Put yourself into a developers seat for a second.

At the end of the day, the only thing that decides how the game behaves are blocks of code.

How are you going to write the logic to deal with a very limited subset of what bumping is, without creating problems or exploitable situations in other areas of the game?

Two ships have a vector and the code detects a collision between them. How is the code supposed to work so that it can determine the intent of the players involved in that collision?

Changing bumping becomes a much more difficult issue when you try to think of it as a series of conditional statements that a computer has to make.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#79 - 2016-01-27 00:16:36 UTC
You just contradicted your own argument, I have nothing further to prove...

Keep wriggling little worm.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#80 - 2016-01-27 00:17:58 UTC
lol what?

Because CCP didnt intend the use of bumping ships for ganking when they coded collision mechanics it means the mechanic is flawed? I suppose that applies to all emergent gameplay then?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs