These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#81 - 2016-01-27 00:18:46 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
You just contradicted your own argument, I have nothing further to prove...

Keep wriggling little worm.

What argument?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#82 - 2016-01-27 00:20:28 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
You just contradicted your own argument


No, I did not. And no amount of your deliberately being obtuse changes that.

Like I said, the game's collision detection mechanics are working precisely as they were intended to. When ships and objects collide, they are bumped apart from one another, precisely as intended.

Or are you suggesting otherwise?

"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
#83 - 2016-01-27 00:29:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
You just contradicted your own argument


No, I did not. And no amount of your deliberately being obtuse changes that.

Like I said, the game's collision detection mechanics are working precisely as they were intended to. When ships and objects collide, they are bumped apart from one another, precisely as intended.

Or are you suggesting otherwise?

To summarise for those with short memories:
Quote:
Bumping into somebody else is a very specifically not hostile act...
...CCP said that it's beyond them to change that [bumping], since it's the base physics engine of the game...
Why would I possibly discuss "fixes" for something that is working fully as intended?
it isn't [working fully as intended]


So are we going to discuss fixes now?

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#84 - 2016-01-27 00:30:59 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

So are we going to discuss fixes now?


We don't discuss fixes for a non problem.

Now answer the question, carebear.

Are you saying that the game's physics engine for collision detection is working any way other than intended? Because if so, you might want to submit a bug report.

"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
#85 - 2016-01-27 00:33:41 UTC
Haha the carebear ad hominem. Classy but incorrect I'm afraid :)

No, I'm saying the behaviour of bumping as a method of preventing a player from warping to a different place without suffering an aggression penalty for this 'disruption' is not working as intended. Indeed this is probably why CCP investigated whether it would be possible to change this facet of the bumping mechanic (as you pointed out earlier, remember?).

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#86 - 2016-01-27 00:36:10 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
Haha the carebear ad hominem. Classy but incorrect I'm afraid :)


How's that exactly? You claimed that you were in favor of ganking, but that didn't even last two pages before your real intent came out.


Quote:

No, I'm saying the behaviour of bumping as a method of preventing a player from warping to a different place without suffering an aggression penalty for this 'disruption' is not working as intended.


So... you think ship collisions leading to movement was not intended to have been part of the game's physics engine literally each and every day since launch?

Whew.

Might want to put a ticket in on that one.

"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
#87 - 2016-01-27 00:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Eli Apol wrote:
No, I'm saying the behaviour of bumping as a method of preventing a player from warping to a different place without suffering an aggression penalty for this 'disruption' is not working as intended.

It's not, not intended, if that makes sense.

CCP are very in favour of emergent gameplay and the use of mechanics that they never thought of. Bumping in a Mach was only emergent the first time and after that it became regular gameplay.

That doesn't mean CCP disagree with it. If they did, they would have ruled it an exploit until they could patch it out.

So just because CCP didn't specifically intend it, doesn't mean they see it as a problem.

But, if you wanted to change the mechanics, how would you write the logic of it? What decisions would you write into the game engine?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#88 - 2016-01-27 00:41:20 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:

But, if you wanted to change the mechanics, how would you write the logic of it? What decisions would you write into the game engine?


"If carebear + tears, then highsec - PvP"

"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
#89 - 2016-01-27 00:45:01 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:
Haha the carebear ad hominem. Classy but incorrect I'm afraid :)


How's that exactly? You claimed that you were in favor of ganking, but that didn't even last two pages before your real intent came out.

My real intent is still to have more ganking....but you're again unable to consider that I think bumping is bad yet am still in favour of more ganking occuring. The idea that these two points are not mutually exclusive is completely alien to you which I'm finding hilarious. I'll draw you a venn diagram to assist your comprehension: http://imgur.com/PnbNrcq

It is very confusing I will admit to have someone that thinks a part of ganking is bad but agrees with ganking as a whole - it must be shattering your worldview but just try and pull through and realise this is a possible stance for me to hold, then realise I've succesfully argued for my stance whilst you've scuppered your own point of view from within.

Yes ganking is (still) good and I (still) want more of it.

But bumping is (still) a ****** flawed mechanic.


Eventually you'll get there son.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#90 - 2016-01-27 00:47:53 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

My real intent is still to have more ganking


I honestly don't believe you.

But I will say that you should be proud of yourself for having found what appears to be a long standing bug, one as old as the game itself. You can have the honors of putting a ticket in for it though, since you're the one who determined that the game's physics engine hasn't been working as intended for the last decade.

"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
#91 - 2016-01-27 01:01:00 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

My real intent is still to have more ganking


I honestly don't believe you.
I honestly don't care. I've backed my points up whilst your own points have looked like a pokemon collector who's moved on to collecting fallacies.

Your latest is a simple strawman, trying to propose I think that the physics is broken rather than my point that the use of bumping without aggression in highsec ganks is broken. Basically trying to misrepresent what I've said so that you can prove me wrong...

Before that, we had a black and white fallacy, assuming that two points are mutually exclusive when they're quite clearly not....

We've had some kind of ad hominem/no true scotsman fallacy in calling me a carebear.

"No true eve player is a carebear!"

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/FallaciesPoster16x24.pdf

Take your pick on the next one, I'm all ears.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#92 - 2016-01-27 01:11:42 UTC
If bumping is flawed purely on the basis that it is emergent gameplay, then so is ganking. When CCP coded CONCORD response times they did not intend players to try and kill eachother before CONCORD arrived.

As is scamming, corp theft, rolling and collapsing WH's, using stabs in FW plexes, the MWD cloak trick, armour tanking a black bird, pipe bombing etc etc.

By your thinking this is all flawed gameplay?

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

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#93 - 2016-01-27 01:35:19 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
If bumping is flawed purely on the basis that it is emergent gameplay, then so is ganking. When CCP coded CONCORD response times they did not intend players to try and kill eachother before CONCORD arrived.

As is scamming, corp theft, rolling and collapsing WH's, using stabs in FW plexes, the MWD cloak trick, armour tanking a black bird, pipe bombing etc etc.

By your thinking this is all flawed gameplay?



What I really want to know is why folks think this is a "Gankers Vs. Gankees" matter.

In the abstract, this is really, "Competent and cautious players" Vs. "Improvident lackwits".

I do a lot of industry. Consequently, I move a lot of freight.

My freight does not get ganked. Other people's freight gets ganked, but not mine, because I take precautions to ensure that my freight does not get ganked. This gives me a competitive advantage over the improvident lackwits whose freight does get ganked.

Any idea suggesting it should be any easier to avoid ganks - and it's already quite trivial - is essentially suggesting that the gameplay value of effort and skill should be reduced in favor of making life easier for people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

Why should the scale be tipped a single degree in favor of the perpetual fuckups who refuse to address their own problems through the myriad means available to them?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#94 - 2016-01-27 01:36:33 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
If bumping is flawed purely on the basis that it is emergent gameplay, then so is ganking. When CCP coded CONCORD response times they did not intend players to try and kill eachother before CONCORD arrived.

As is scamming, corp theft, rolling and collapsing WH's, using stabs in FW plexes, the MWD cloak trick, armour tanking a black bird, pipe bombing etc etc.

By your thinking this is all flawed gameplay?


Not at all, many emergent behaviours are great and definitively a part of Eve and it's a sign of respect from the devs that they leave us open ended mechanics to play with and adapt without involving themselves too heavily.

That said, there have been prior instances where emergent behaviours have been fixed/tempered once they've got out of hand (POS bowling and hyperdunking to name two off-hand) and so just because something is emergent, does not mean it's necessarily worth keeping in its current state.

Bumping is a great emergent technique in terms of preventing a burn into a POS bubble or back to a gate but in terms of using it as a form of tackling to avoid the aggression flag of using a tackle module it seems like a cheap and gamey exploit to me. The fact CCP have previously looked at changing this in highsec seems to suggest they agree it's a little bit flawed.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#95 - 2016-01-27 01:51:40 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:
I've backed my points up


No you have not. You've danced around like you were on fire, while ignoring the majority of what anyone says to you.


Quote:

Your latest is a simple strawman, trying to propose I think that the physics is broken


You said as much. You claimed that bumping is unintended, when I'm telling you that the way collision detection works in this game is not only intentional but it's not something they can change anyway.

You don't have a leg to stand on, carebear.

"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
#96 - 2016-01-27 02:04:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
zzzz

Whatever mate, it's all here in black and white for people to read themselves.

Oh and I missed out the 'personal incredulity' fallacy from my last post - "I don't believe you" indeed, that matters not a jot as to my argument.

o/

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#97 - 2016-01-27 02:06:54 UTC
Then you havent defended your argument or backed up your points at all. The sole argument you have given to want to change bumping is that it was not intended gameplay (and that you just dont like it).



If bumping is cheap and gamey, then how isnt the mwd cloak trick? How isnt having a friend web you into warp to avoid a gank cheap and gamey?

Both those mechanics are just as unintended as bumping for tackle, except they take much less effort, much less investment and have a much higher rate of success.

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

Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#98 - 2016-01-27 02:26:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Apol
I've pointed out WHY I think it's cheap and gamey:

- The primary counter to DEFEND someone that's (e:already) being bumped is to become criminal yourself and gank them, a complete reversal of how criminality would sensibly work. It also requires arguably more luck/skill to actually gank a fast moving, rapidly aligning machariel..so not only do you have to become a ganker, you have to exceed them in skill at their own game.
- It's a way to evade the aggression flags that would ensue if you tackled someone with one of the provided tackling modules...nuff said? They made a way to tackle people with repercussions for it, then people found a way to evade the repercussions.

Sure it's an opinion, one I've backed up. I don't think I ever said it was unintended and that's why it should be gone, I stated why it doesn't really make sense in the gamespace.

Also I already stated I disagree with webbing being as safe as it currently is and the way that it encourages alt play by being more effective than having two separate players (as you can roughly move your webbing alt closer to the freighter before the freighter drops cloak using the freighter screen as a guideline). I also think that a single frigate acting as an escort for a freighter/capital is pretty crap and would prefer to see more meaningful mechanics involved in this kind of escort/defensive gameplay without making it into incredibly boring nullsec freighter escort ops.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#99 - 2016-01-27 02:39:45 UTC
Eli Apol wrote:

- The primary counter to DEFEND someone that's (e:already) being bumped is to become criminal yourself and gank them


Wrong.

That's how you inflict "repercussions" on the ganker.

There are plenty of ways to defend someone who is being bumped and/or ganked. But more importantly, there are numerous strong and effective ways to avoid being bumped or ganked in the first place.

"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.

KickAss Tivianne
Lohengrin Legion
#100 - 2016-01-27 02:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: KickAss Tivianne
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Eli Apol wrote:

On the other hand, Eve is supposed to have some element of repercussion for your actions but the repercussions are negligible for the players doing the ganking and non-existent for players doing the bumping and carrying stolen property.


Gankers don't have many repercussions?

Because the so called victims refuse to do anything about it. Like any PvP interaction, "consequences" are for the other player to inflict. It doesn't take many Talos to gank a Machariel, especially since the bumping one are absolutely not combat fit. Meanwhile, if anyone pops the freighter's wreck, they have basically ruined the gank post facto.

The repercussions are there. But no one bothers to inflict them.


No gankers really don't have any Risk... loose a 2 million Isk ship. and not have any additional security status drop, or penalty for being a criminal. Same old same old. No Risk.