EVE General Discussion

It's like taking a time travel trip to 2007

Question: Have CCP addressed consequence free bumping in hisec?

Information: This allows the bumper to effectively point a target indefinitely without any consequences for his PvP in hisec, furthermore his acts are protected by CONCORD and can only be stopped by ganking the bumper.

Answer: CCP put forward a fix of forcing a warp after 3 minutes unless the ship is pointed, at which point the timer gets re-set, this fix which can be countered easily with a suicide point has still not been applied and no explanation has been given.


Additional Information on bumping exploits: Bumping has only been declared as an exploit where it allowed people to bump parked Supers and Titans out of POS shields and of course bumping ships away from Citadels.

Conclusion: Some bumps are more equal than others...

Please explain how you as a freighter can escape a properly fitted and well piloted Macherial once he has managed to stop you from your initial warp.

With a friend in a well-tanked cruiser and multiple webs. In corp, or out of corp with a running duel. Maybe even multiple ships with multiple webs. The amount of time they spend bumping a ship to keep it in place, a freighter pilot could even muster up a couple of mates in Atrons from a few systems over to come quickly and apply multiple webs to the freighter significantly reducing the speed it needs to hit warp.

There's also the option of counter-bumping the Machariel, or just putting another ship in his path even. See, Dracvlad, you're doing that thing again where you demonstrate your inability to think creatively. The coordinated effort that gankers put in to a successful freighter gank relies on more than one person. What makes you think the counter to that shouldn't?

Nope, you're not baiting me into this, mate. The counters are demonstrably successful and I've been on both sides of the main event. I've been with CODE and seen how these ops play out from beginning to end, and I just told you exactly what works. Depending on how competent you are, of course. But bumping ships accurately ain't exactly a rookie's talent either. You don't just click 'approach' on a ship an hope for the best. The fact is, Dracvlad, bumping can be countered. You don't have to believe me, and I don't care if you do. What matters is, CCP knows it can be countered, I've seen it countered as has the rest of CODE, and I've countered it myself.

And don't play silly games with me either. The bumping is part of the freighter ganking operation, the whole thing being performed by multiple people with different roles. Try it sometime, get a taste for the op itself, and then come back and tell me it can't be countered.

So, they have not made any change, simply confirmed that ramming to stop warping is not an exploit, and teckos is making stuff up? Thank you.



Sure. Just to be clear, I didn't say I had the answer, just that from what I know, I think the current method is flawed. And also just to be clear, I don't think bumping is an exploit, nor needs to be declared an exploit. I think declaring an exploit is an inelegant, last-ditch answer to any problem. But I'll give it a go, and you can poke holes in it, because my first attempt will almost certainly have holes.

As you say, even a little damage would cause issues on a busy undock. So that's not feasible.

An aggression flag would cause similar issues. Undock freighter, from jita, align to certain gates, and you ram the station. When hacking, I ram cans all the time. Going to get suspect flagged or concorded for those? So, that's not really feasible either.

Maybe differentiate between inadvertent bumping and using the approach command? But that seems like it might be quite hard to code, easy to circumvent with good manual piloting anyway, and likely what the more skilled bumpers do already. So differentiating between deliberate bumps and accidental bumps is out, which basically means punishing the bumpers is also out.

*edit* Thought of another way to punish them. The bumper is fleeted up with the gankers, aren't they? And the gankers warp to the bumper? And the warp to command isn't available if not in fleet? So if gankers get concorded and they have a fleet member on grid who recently collided with the gankee, concord the bumper, too? Seemed an ok idea when I thought of it, but I can see issues. Could use a network of bookmarks for the warp, instead of warp to the bumper. Could use another alt in fleet in something cheap to orbit the bumper and get the warp to command. Both ways would mean bumper wouldn't be fleeted up with gankers, and only make for a slight increase in difficulty/coordination/number of toons needed. So it'd force a slight change to tactics without changing anything practical, which would make it a waste of a rule.*/edit*

So, if the bumpers can't be punished, how about reducing the efficacy of bumping? There's clearly the ability to make ships ethereal, for want of a better word. You can see it in action on the jita undock almost constantly, it takes however long for ships to become physically there, my frigate flew right through the middle of a freighter the other day. Don't want ships to be invisible to stations and other npc objects, still want to have the ability to get 'stuck' on large collidables in sites & things.

But, how about having ships become temporarily physically invisible after a collision? So you can bump once, but then they can warp out? Might be hard to program, might be a bit processing intensive with a lot of ships in system, I don't know. Might be an issue for something like burning to a gate, that one little contact means you immediately get clear run to the gate.

What about having the 'align' (or the align part of warp to/jump) make your ship physically invisible to other ships for the duration? Would there be a downside? Could still be locked & shot, could still be tackled, could still be bumped away from an undock or gate you are burning towards, could still be decloaked by someone inside 2000m, literally the only thing stopped would be ramming to prevent a warp, it'd mean if you want to prevent warp, you must tackle, and therefore expose yourself to concord/the hauler's combat escort. Is there any reason to ram in order to prevent a warp that isn't an aggressive one, something this would prevent?

I can only think of one potential downside so far, and that's attempted decloak & ram of someone aligning while cloaked. So make fitting a covops (or any) cloak remove that physical invisibility while aligning.

I don't know if there might be coding problems, but do you see any gameplay issues with it?

This is a divisive issue, but I think we can all agree that Dracvlad is completely helpless, unimaginative, and ignorant of many game mechanics.

All but one of those is a schollarly article BTW, the pdf you could not load, that is an article in the Journal of Econometrics. Here is the abstract,



There is a key sentence in there, "The state-price density yields VaR values that are adjusted for risk aversion, time preferences, and other variations in economic valuation." Further, in reading the paper you see that they are talking about risk mitigation in the face of risk aversion. For example, this quote from page 13, "In particular, one investor may be quite willing to bear a one-standard deviation in u(t,tau), while another investor my be devestated by such an event. In other words, two investors may have different levels of risk aversion and the statistical value at risk may miss this because it does not capture the economic valuation that is at risk. The authors continue, "Therefore, although the dollar losss is the same for both investors, their personal valuations of suck risk can differ dramatically. More importantly, the market valuation of this risk -- the vlue assigned by teh interactions of many heterogeneous investors in a market setting -- can differe substantially from purely statistical measures." In short, when you are managing your risk you are doing so because you are risk averse. FFS, it is right there in the title,

Nonparametric risk management and implied risk aversion.

And in looking at the conclusion, page 39, we have the following, "Risk management has become a first-order concern for financial managers and in this paper, we propose a new measure of value-at-risk: E-VaR. The difference between economic and statistical value-at-risk lies in the fact that E-VaR incorporates and reflects the combined effects of aggregate risk preferences, supply and demand, and probabilities; S-VaR involves only one of these effects."

That part I bolded...yeah, that is short hand for saying are investors risk averse, risk neutral or risk seeking.

The rest of your links are not in anyway "scholarly" as in a peer reviewed journal article. But looking at the investopedia that link describes risk avoidance which is an extreme form of risk aversion as seen by this sentence, "Risk avoidance is not performing any activity that may carry risk." Risk avoidance is an extreme version of risk aversion.

The bottom line is that risk aversion does NOT imply avoiding risk, except in the extreme case. People who are risk averse will take risks when the expected payoff of the risk overcomes their risk premium and that risk premium varies from individual to individual.

Here is an actual scholarly article on this topic (you'll have to copy and paste the URL for it to work),

http://darp.lse.ac.uk/PapersDB/Friend-Blume_(AER_75).pdf

And of course this classic, yes it is from 1964 but it is a classic,

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ642/Babcock/pratt.pdf

It seems you're all arguing about trying to remove the flour from the bread after it's been baked.

Facts are simple. the counter to bumping is to ensure that your freight load doesn't exceed 1 billion.

If you want 40 billion worth of goods transported then I think you'll have to hash out some sort of deal with Red Frog and give them 1 or 2 weeks to get it to its destination safely. Freight pilots must now make a choice which is, pay Red frog their dues and get the stuff there safely or risk losing all of it including the costly freighter.

All of us in this thread are old and wise enough to know prevention will always be better than cure or solution. If people bothered to analyse the game mechanics properly they would see that the odds are only against you if you take ridiculous risks.

I speak from experience because I have lived in environments in game where I am outnumbered 15 to 1, I lost alot to begin with but then I learned to be effective without risking too much.

Bottom line is this; never walk through a notorious ghetto with lots of bling all around your neck, wrists, and fingers while counting a large stack of $100 dollar bills, you will be robbed and relieved of your riches and police wont really bother to help you.

It wouldn't load for me because my internet is bad at the moment. That doesn't mean I haven't read it. I suggest you read a little more than the abstract, and try to interpret it the way the authors intended instead of in a way that fits your own personal incorrect narrative. I already said, too, that the scholarly articles I had found were behind paywalls. Feel free to look them up yourself, because you remain as wrong about risk aversion now as you were before. I have explained why, you have provided no refutation to that explanation, and once again, your denial of simple facts is your own problem. Risk seeking is not mutually exclusive with risk mitigation, sorry. Time to stop arguing with a professional risk seeker now, kiddo.