These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1041 - 2016-02-06 03:52:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .

the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...

Yes obviously on the first part. That's in the logic test, but it wasn't expressed that way when it was expressed above, but no matter.

On the mass, ok sure. Leave that aside as an above X value and we will leave it out of trying to decide whether the proposal will work or not (it's actually not that difficult to figure out).

So, logic error #1:

What if there are multiple bumping ships?

Earlier in the thread it was stated that up to 6 Machariels bump the 1 freighter.

So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced.

The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1042 - 2016-02-06 05:15:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Scipio Artelius wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .

the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...

Yes obviously on the first part. That's in the logic test, but it wasn't expressed that way when it was expressed above, but no matter.

On the mass, ok sure. Leave that aside as an above X value and we will leave it out of trying to decide whether the proposal will work or not (it's actually not that difficult to figure out).

So, logic error #1:

What if there are multiple bumping ships?

Earlier in the thread it was stated that up to 6 Machariels bump the 1 freighter.

So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced.

The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.


Yep, all this will do is induce gankers to use more bumping ships.

Black Perdo's idea is the second best idea so far. Best idea...do nothing.

We already know that the gankers adapt and change their tactics. People who die in freighters to gankers...they never change.

"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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1043 - 2016-02-06 06:32:45 UTC
So having caught up I have a question.

Do you bears know what happens when you bump a webbed freighter?
Black Pedro
Mine.
#1044 - 2016-02-06 06:54:02 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .

the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...

Just so we are clear on this, there is probably zero chance of the bump-earning-you-a-flag proposal ever being implemented. Not only is it probably technically impossible to implement as Scipio is illustrating (how do you tell from two velocity vectors who bumped who and why?), it would break one of the centerpiece features of Crimewatch 2.0 which are the safety settings. Currently, there is no way to passively/accidentally earn a suspect flag and if you turn your setting to green, the game will lock out any action you can commit to earn that flag. This is 100% and clearly a design goal for how highsec works. How would the game then lock out bumping if you had a green setting?

Even if you managed to build a "evil bumping detection algorithm" that was 99% effective, what are you going to tell to the poor hauler in the 1% who managed to get tricked or maneuvered into bumping himself a suspect flag even though his setting were set on green?

Bumping flags are a non-starter. Look elsewhere to change bumping if you think it is a problem, rather than adding a new, and even more arcane, level of aggression mechanics that are intended to flag bumpers, but will be used by the bad guys to flag innocents for CONCORD-free kills. Any change to bumping is going to simplify the system of aggressing a capital ship, not add another loophole for players to exploit against players who don't understand the rules.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1045 - 2016-02-06 06:59:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Yes. Safety settings is on my current list of logic issues.

Hopefully there'll eventually be a realisation that changing the game isn't simple at all and the best solution is the one that has already been found to work well, using webs accepting that the Freighter pilot is responsible for his own safety, not the game.

That's all of course not even considering the issue that there still is no evidence that it's even a problem at all.

When you actually try to think about how to implement some of these suggestions, it doesn't take long to run into issues. It's something I've been questioning since page 4:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6302093#post6302093
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1046 - 2016-02-06 09:29:17 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
5 minutes of hi speed bumping , preventing a warp is a possible condition that would need to be met to determine whether a collision was intentional or accidental . this being met rules out any possibility of accidental collisions resulting in a timer .

the mass as i stated would have to be determined by someone who knows , tho the mass figure is less important if the resultant timer is for a fleet engagement timer rather than a suspect flag for the bumper. 5 mins is too short a time for a bumper to get flagged suspect , but plenty time for a prepared freighter pilot in an escort fleet ...

Yes obviously on the first part. That's in the logic test, but it wasn't expressed that way when it was expressed above, but no matter.

On the mass, ok sure. Leave that aside as an above X value and we will leave it out of trying to decide whether the proposal will work or not (it's actually not that difficult to figure out).

So, logic error #1:

What if there are multiple bumping ships?

Earlier in the thread it was stated that up to 6 Machariels bump the 1 freighter.

So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced.

The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.


the condition needing to be met is 'was the capital ship able to complete its warp cycle after 5 minutes , if not then a fleet engagement timer is awarded to the capital ship against the bumper, multiple bumpers would mean that after 5 mins from the first hi speed collision that meets the conditions , those bumpers too would receive the fleet engagement timer .

the safety settings would be irrelevant regarding a fleet engagement timer , because its not making the bumper suspect . tho a work around, if you want to insist on the bumper going suspect in your argument, would be a warning that after the conditions are met to be penalised for bumping (5 mins) , that the bumper is going to go suspect in say 10 mins .another workaround could be that like attempting to rep a ship that would make the repper suspect, the module would shut down if safety was green, in this case the mwd .

pedro ;re the velocity vectors , the ship that is going over 1500 m/sec would be the one who receives the penalty. tell me any capital ship that travels at 1500 m/sec and your point would make sense .
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1047 - 2016-02-06 09:51:49 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
[quote=bigbud skunkafella]

So if someone is AFK, then the only logical test is a timer test and if they are determined AFK, then bad luck to them. They can be bumped forever, even if they later come back to their keyboard.


again , the afk player would be vulnerable to extended bumping, not forever, but until he returns to keyboard and activates his warp drive , then the timer would start on the bumper. this scenario shouldnt cause any objections from code & supporters , because it complies with the code ethos of 'always be at the keyboard' . an afk freighter pilot is then far more vulnerable to being bumped away from gate guns and ganked.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1048 - 2016-02-06 09:53:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
...]the safety settings would be irrelevant regarding a fleet engagement timer , because its not making the bumper suspect .

Safety settings are not irrelevant at all.

From the devblog from retribution:

The upshot of all this is that you can never just do something illegal by accident: you always have to deliberately go and disable your safety settings first.

and from the devblog on updated CrimeWatch:

The main one is that a suspect can be freely attacked, but he has no way to defend himself from attack without committing further crimes. We want to ensure that a player always has a right to self-defense, even if he is A Bad Guy. To solve this, we still require a form of A-B flagging. However this will be heavily limited in application, and won't be propagated via assistance chains like the existing aggression flags are. This is where we introduce the concept of a Limited Engagement. An LE is between a pair of characters.

A limited engagement specifically acknowledges that there is no propagation via assistance, so no such thing as a fleet flag. CCP specifically eliminated that from the game when they last updated CrimeWatch. It is only ever a flag between 2 characters.

The only way to achieve a limited engagement with multiple characters is to first go suspect, but to go suspect you must deliberately disable your safety settings.

Logical error.

You can't have both situations. You either have a suspect timer, or a limited engagement only with the Freighter pilot.

That's not even dealing with the first part of the post which has it's own logic errors.
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1049 - 2016-02-06 10:02:14 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
[quote=bigbud skunkafella]

So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced.

The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.


mach 1 that bumps for 4 1/2 mins then stops would still receive a timer if the freighter was unable to complete his warp cycle after 5 mins, the timer would then last for 15 minutes , meaning that mach 1 can continue bumping with the danger of having the flag activated , or withdraw to safety until the timer runs down before resuming his activities .
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1050 - 2016-02-06 10:04:08 UTC
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
[quote=bigbud skunkafella]

So if Mach 1 bumps for 4 1/2 minutes and then stops, only to be replaced by Mach 2, etc. then no flag will ever be produced.

The proposal as it currently stands won't achieve what is desired.


mach 1 that bumps for 4 1/2 mins then stops would still receive a timer if the freighter was unable to complete his warp cycle after 5 mins, the timer would then last for 15 minutes , meaning that mach 1 can continue bumping with the danger of having the flag activated , or withdraw to safety until the timer runs down before resuming his activities .

Read more before posting more. It might help.

That's also not how your pseudocode (the logic above is close enough to call it that), works.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1051 - 2016-02-06 10:08:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Of course, under the current proposal there is also this:

One guy, being good, could just bump a highsec Capital for 5 minutes in order to deliberately gain a limited engagement with others in the fleet, and then kill them all (whether they want pvp or not) without CONCORD intervention. He can bump and go kill.

That would be great in asteroid belts where Freighters and Orcas are used as large storage. He can warp in, bump the freighter/Orca for 5 minutes when its ready to warp, gain a limited engagement with the mining barges and wipe them all out. I would hope the barges would be smart enough to warp off, but this is Eve and if we know anything about this game, it's that stupid people will do stupid things. Great way to wipe out a whole mining fleet for free.

There's a lot more logic errors to come yet with the current proposal too.

Edit:

I logged in and within 5 minutes found an example.

Here is a screenshot I just took (see date and time bottom left against the timedate of this post). In this case 2 x Procurer, 1 x Skiff with an Orca in an ice belt:

http://puu.sh/mXNCE/2fa1bb49ae.png

With the proposal, I can wait until the Orca moves, warp in and bump in. Get limited engagement and potentially kill all the barges and exhumer with no consequence, or if they are smart at least, totally shut down their mining operation that they peacefully want to conduct.

That mining fleet is normally a dozen barges/exhumers. It is small now because we are close to DT. For most of the time it is on, it is much larger. Great targets for the proposal.
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1052 - 2016-02-06 10:29:39 UTC
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which:

- Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever.

- Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free)

- Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless

- Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt

Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. Roll



worth a quote i believe ...
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1053 - 2016-02-06 10:32:20 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Of course, under the current proposal there is also this:

One guy, being good, could just bump a highsec Capital for 5 minutes in order to deliberately gain a limited engagement with others in the fleet, and then kill them all (whether they want pvp or not) without CONCORD intervention. He can bump and go kill.

That would be great in asteroid belts where Freighters and Orcas are used as large storage. He can warp in, bump the freighter/Orca for 5 minutes when its ready to warp, gain a limited engagement with the mining barges and wipe them all out. I would hope the barges would be smart enough to warp off, but this is Eve and if we know anything about this game, it's that stupid people will do stupid things. Great way to wipe out a whole mining fleet for free.

There's a lot more logic errors to come yet with the current proposal too.

Edit:

I logged in and within 5 minutes found an example.

Here is a screenshot I just took (see date and time bottom left against the timedate of this post). In this case 2 x Procurer, 1 x Skiff with an Orca in an ice belt:

http://puu.sh/mXNCE/2fa1bb49ae.png

With the proposal, I can wait until the Orca moves, warp in and bump in. Get limited engagement and potentially kill all the barges and exhumer with no consequence, or if they are smart at least, totally shut down their mining operation that they peacefully want to conduct.

That mining fleet is normally a dozen barges/exhumers. It is small now because we are close to DT. For most of the time it is on, it is much larger. Great targets for the proposal.



fleet engagement flag would have to be activated by the victim of the bumping for the umpteenth time, so the above scenario could only happen if the victim chose to engage,
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1054 - 2016-02-06 10:34:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which:

- Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever.

- Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free)

- Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless

- Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt

Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. Roll



worth a quote i believe ...

Why is it worth a quote?

If you mean for the last line, then it's also worth quoting this:

bigbud skunkafella wrote:
i am trying to work out the pitfalls in a constructive manner,


from here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6319795#post6319795

Asking questions and pointing out current holes in a proposal is not calling you a risk-averse-carebear.

I'm just trying to avoid unintended consequences by looking at the proposal from all possible sides. That's what needs to happen to make an idea good.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1055 - 2016-02-06 10:39:29 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
Rhamnousia Nosferatu wrote:
Yes, yes its a competitive and consequence laiden game in which:

- Someone can indefinitely (or until downtime) prevent a freighter from warping using just a bumping ship (doesn't even have to be a mach, ONI or SFI with large MWD will suffice) and a disposable aggro alt in a noob ship (!). No consequences for the bumper whatsoever.

- Having negative sec status has very limited practical consequences for a dedicated ganker char and does not limit the ability to perform ganks in hisec in any way, making sec status loss irrelevant (and consequence free)

- Killrights against ganker chars are practically useless

- Looting stuff from a ganked hauler can be made perfectly safe by using a DST or Orca and a disposable alt

Try arguing for removal/change of any of the above mechanics and you get shouted at for being a risk-averse-carebear-emergent-gameplay-hater. Oh, the irony. Roll



worth a quote i believe ...

Why is it worth a quote?
Because they prefer ill informed rhetoric, over actual evidence.

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
#1056 - 2016-02-06 10:41:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
fleet engagement flag would have to be activated by the victim of the bumping for the umpteenth time, so the above scenario could only happen if the victim chose to engage,

You have never said that, let alone umpteen times (if you have, then I didn't read it that way, but it hasn't been umpteen times).

It still goes against CCP's principle of not propogating flags by assistance, even if it is allowed for one player to commit the rest of his fleet to a pvp situation.

That would also be a new form of Awoxing.

Join a Corp to fly a Freighter/Orca alt and then deliberately commit them to pvp flags that they don't want.

Can't shoot them with the in Corp character because Friendly Fire is set illegal, but can make the Corp members in fleet legal targets for an alt and then kill them all.

CCP not long ago nerfed awoxing. This proposal will bring it right back again (which is also on my current list of issues with the proposal, but there are more).
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1057 - 2016-02-06 10:53:52 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:
fleet engagement flag would have to be activated by the victim of the bumping for the umpteenth time, so the above scenario could only happen if the victim chose to engage,

You have never said that, let alone umpteen times.

It still goes against CCP's principle of not propogating flags by assistance, even if it is allowed for one player to commit the rest of his fleet to a pvp situation.

That would also be a new form of Awoxing.

Join a Corp to fly a Freighter/Orca alt and then deliberately commit them to pvp flags that they don't want.

CCP not long ago nerfed awoxing. This proposal will bring it right back again (which is also on my current list of issues with the proposal, but there are more).


my whole proposal for a fleet engagement type flag contained the proviso that it would be activated by the victim . please read my posts properly if you wish me to continue responding to your ahem, constructive criticisms.

in answer to your above regarding awoxing type situations , like a suspect timer, the fleet has the option of not engaging the flagged bumper. if a fleet member chooses not to engage the bumper, then he is at no added risk, unless the bumper chooses to suicide gank him. the only person who is immediately vulnerable under my suggestion , is the capital pilot who activates the flag . the rest of the fleet would have to choose to aggress .
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1058 - 2016-02-06 11:00:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
bigbud skunkafella wrote:

my whole proposal for a fleet engagement type flag contained the proviso that it would be activated by the victim . please read my posts properly if you wish me to continue responding to your ahem, constructive criticisms.

in answer to your above regarding awoxing type situations , like a suspect timer, the fleet has the option of not engaging the flagged bumper. if a fleet member chooses not to engage the bumper, then he is at no added risk, unless the bumper chooses to suicide gank him. the only person who is immediately vulnerable under my suggestion , is the capital pilot who activates the flag . the rest of the fleet would have to choose to aggress .

The bumper can engage the fleet. That's what a limited engagement is. It's an A-B flag. Both ways.

If it's not a both ways flag, then it isn't a limited engagement, it's a suspect flag; which is not possible if someone has their safety set green (that is all in the 2 links I provided earlier).

Once the awoxing alt activates the flag, the engagement goes both ways. The bumping ship (combat fit) can engage the fleet members.

It's your proposal and I'm not name calling, being abusive, nor insinuating anything about you. Every post is attempting to be constructive, dealing only with what has been outlined as the idea.

As a Freighter pilot, I have a vested interest in changes proposed to make things safer for me and it is only right to look for the pitfalls in the proposal.

So how many mechanics are you now proposing need to be modified, rolled back to old mechanics that CCP has removed, or created to solve a limited problem; when the simple solution for every hauling ship is to use webs?

This cuts straight back to the claims about double standards earlier. It's ok for one side to look for pitfalls in a proposal, but apparently not the other. Disappointing.

So I'll end it here and just say, yes your proposal should be implemented 100% as you've explained it. It's a wonderful idea and will totally solve bumping in highsec.

Thumbs up.
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1059 - 2016-02-06 11:15:55 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
bigbud skunkafella wrote:

my whole proposal for a fleet engagement type flag contained the proviso that it would be activated by the victim . please read my posts properly if you wish me to continue responding to your ahem, constructive criticisms.

in answer to your above regarding awoxing type situations , like a suspect timer, the fleet has the option of not engaging the flagged bumper. if a fleet member chooses not to engage the bumper, then he is at no added risk, unless the bumper chooses to suicide gank him. the only person who is immediately vulnerable under my suggestion , is the capital pilot who activates the flag . the rest of the fleet would have to choose to aggress .

The bumper can engage the fleet. That's what a limited engagement is. It's an A-B flag. Both ways.

If it's not a both ways flag, then it isn't a limited engagement, it's a suspect flag; which is not possible if someone has their safety set green (that is all in the 2 links I provided earlier).

Once the awoxing alt activates the flag, the engagement goes both ways. The bumping ship (combat fit) can engage the fleet members.

It's your proposal and I'm not name calling, being abusive, nor insinuating anything about you. Every post is attempting to be constructive.

As a Freighter pilot, I have a vested interest in changes proposed to make things safer for me and it is only right to look for the pitfalls in the proposal.

This cuts straight back to the claims about double standards earlier. It's ok for one side to look for them, but apparently not the other. Disappointing.

The only option (for someone that doesn't use a webbing alt) based on the current holes in the idea as it is outlined, would be to stop hauling and stick with industry work and then get other people to haul using inflated collateral so they never lose.

So I'll end it here and just say, yes your proposal should be implemented 100% as you've explained it. It's a wonderful idea and will totally solve bumping in highsec.

Thumbs up.


so because you say a limited engagement timer activated against a pilot for 'illegally' obstructing a capital pilot from going about his lawful business should be permitted only on terms that would benefit the bad guys most and allow for 'awoxing' type abuse , it must be the only way because...?
bigbud skunkafella
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#1060 - 2016-02-06 11:26:24 UTC
look at the timer /flag as similar to a kr , but only available to the freighter pilots fleet , once activated (manually just to be clear :) ) by the freighter pilot, , the freighter pilot and bumper are able to aggress each other legally, but , just like a kr, the bumper may only defend himself against those who choose to aggress him. lets call it a ' clear my way of obstructions' right.