These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Mutuality of Freighter Ganking

First post
Author
Miriam Beckstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#121 - 2016-12-20 11:23:41 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Your problem is risk is not something the game should be imposing on players at least it should not be the only source. It should be a function of their actions....and your solution is to basically shield people from taking on too much risk. Stop it. Stop defending people who were imprudent and foolish. Yes, there is no risk to bumping. And that is totally fine....because bumping is not really an issue unless you are initially a complete and blithering fool.


OK, so you've managed to convince me your intent in these threads is to troll/hurl insults at those opposed to ganking, and not to discuss anything.

To summarise your post:

Risk should be a function of a player's actions.... but it's totally fine that the action of bumping carries no risk & no consequences.

Bumping is not an issue unless you're a complete and blithering fool.... but adding consequences to bumping basically shields anyone who takes on too much risk.

And when my post explicitly says 'ganking is fine', you tell me I'm defending pilots who are imprudent & foolish?

You blatantly contradict yourself twice in 4 lines. And you still won't answer my actual questions.

If CCP addressed bumping, what did they do to address it? Can you point me at a link?

If bumping is a non-issue to all non-fools, then what's the problem with it having consequences, just like the other aggressive acts do? Being tackled on a highsec gateis a non-issue to non-fools, yes? Being ganked is a non-issue to non-fools, yes? They are all aggressive acts. Tackling & bumping perform identical roles, yes? They are all (mostly) used against the imprudent & foolish. But only 2 of the 3 have consequences for the aggressor. Only 2 of the 3 have counters once on grid.

If people are silly enough to undock with 6 billion onboard and 3 expanded cargoholds, and get ganked, then they have mismanaged risk and paid the price. I agree with you 100% about that.

If people have played a role in performing the gank, if they have aggressed the freighter, helped hold it on grid and/or fired at it, then they should lose sec status and the ship they aggressed with. That's the bit you don't seem to agree with.


Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#122 - 2016-12-20 13:30:47 UTC
It's like taking a time travel trip to 2007

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2016-12-20 13:37:22 UTC
Miriam Beckstein wrote:


If CCP addressed bumping, what did they do to address it? Can you point me at a link?


Of course we can. Now that I've answered your question, maybe you can answer mine. When I was a nub to the game, I suggested introducing ship impact damage on a limited scale, damage that would be dependant on the mass and speed of the impacting ships, like in reality. However, I was quickly corrected when I was pointed to how much bumping can go on on the undock of a station, bumping outside of the control of players. This kind of traffic also rules out the use of aggression flags, since literally everyone in Jita would be getting one just by undocking.

So ship damage and aggression flags for bumping aside, what sort of 'consequences' would you like to see for bumping other ships? Let's forget the fact that there are more than a few tactics a player can deploy to avoid being bumped when coming through a gate, even in the biggest ships, and discuss what sort of consequences you think should be magicked into the game.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#124 - 2016-12-20 14:16:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
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... Lol

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2016-12-20 14:25:03 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:

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.


That's not the information the article I linked provides, and it's completely inaccurate. There are any number of methods that a bump target can employ to escape being bumped, and you know it. It is not even close to the same thing as being pointed by an offensive module. You are being obtuse.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#126 - 2016-12-20 14:29:09 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

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.


That's not the information the article I linked provides, and it's completely inaccurate. There are any number of methods that a bump target can employ to escape being bumped, and you know it. It is not even close to the same thing as being pointed by an offensive module. You are being obtuse.


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.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Josef Djugashvilis
#127 - 2016-12-20 14:44:25 UTC
Could the good people involved in the 'risk averse - risk mitigation' conversation please take it elsewhere.

The ability to bump or hold a ship with no real risk does seem to me to be a valid point.

Of course it would concern me more should I ever get around to training for one of the freighters.

This is not a signature.

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2016-12-20 14:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

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.


That's not the information the article I linked provides, and it's completely inaccurate. There are any number of methods that a bump target can employ to escape being bumped, and you know it. It is not even close to the same thing as being pointed by an offensive module. You are being obtuse.


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?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#129 - 2016-12-20 15:00:20 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:

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.


That's not the information the article I linked provides, and it's completely inaccurate. There are any number of methods that a bump target can employ to escape being bumped, and you know it. It is not even close to the same thing as being pointed by an offensive module. You are being obtuse.


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?


So what does that web actually do for you when being bumped, continue on this line please, this should get interesting.

And no need to get insulting about my lack of creative thinking, as you have no idea what I have done or have not done in trying to counter this consequence free pointing in hisec I will just leave that one up in the air.

We are not talking about the gank, which is carried out by multiple people, but we are talking about the bump which can be carried out by one player so by your logic should be countered by one player.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2016-12-20 15:06:10 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


So what does that web actually do for you when being bumped, continue on this line please, this should get interesting.

And no need to get insulting about my lack of creative thinking, as you have no idea what I have done or have not done in trying to counter this consequence free pointing in hisec I will just leave that one up in the air.

We are not talking about the gank, which is carried out by multiple people, but we are talking about the bump which can be carried out by one player so by your logic should be countered by one player.


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.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#131 - 2016-12-20 15:24:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


So what does that web actually do for you when being bumped, continue on this line please, this should get interesting.

And no need to get insulting about my lack of creative thinking, as you have no idea what I have done or have not done in trying to counter this consequence free pointing in hisec I will just leave that one up in the air.

We are not talking about the gank, which is carried out by multiple people, but we are talking about the bump which can be carried out by one player so by your logic should be countered by one player.


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.


People give the impression that you just web the freighter when being bumped, nope, all webbing does is reduce the top speed of the ship being webbed, it does not impact the bumped speed. This makes it even more difficult because you can also go too fast to warp, like when you exit a station. But you know that...

I never said that bumping was easy, I have seen a lot of people do it, done it myself too, I have been quite impressed with the people doing it. I have been involved in some countering actions which were to get the freighter in warp, easy to say quite difficult to pull off.

I am not playing silly games with you, the bumping part is a key element of ganking operations and makes it so easy for gankers, you can stack up targets, move away from gate guns and you control when you come in to kill it. Bumping is critical for efficient hisec freighter ganking. One player can do it and on important targets I have seen three bumpers at it, my focus is on the bumping which I think is a major issue, there are some other changes I would make but the bumping part makes it very easy for gankers.

EDIT: Bumping enables the gankers to have almost total control on when and where they do their hit, if bumping was not possible they would have to be more reactive with roaming gank fleets which would be a lot more interesting as compared to what is fairly stale play at this point...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Miriam Beckstein
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#132 - 2016-12-20 16:35:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Miriam Beckstein
Remiel Pollard wrote:


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.

Quote:
Now that I've answered your question, maybe you can answer mine. When I was a nub to the game, I suggested introducing ship impact damage on a limited scale, damage that would be dependant on the mass and speed of the impacting ships, like in reality. However, I was quickly corrected when I was pointed to how much bumping can go on on the undock of a station, bumping outside of the control of players. This kind of traffic also rules out the use of aggression flags, since literally everyone in Jita would be getting one just by undocking.

So ship damage and aggression flags for bumping aside, what sort of 'consequences' would you like to see for bumping other ships? Let's forget the fact that there are more than a few tactics a player can deploy to avoid being bumped when coming through a gate, even in the biggest ships, and discuss what sort of consequences you think should be magicked into the game.


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?
Salvos Rhoska
#133 - 2016-12-20 17:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Im not particularly interested in or enthusiastic about reducing the efficacy of bumping, because I think material transport is too safe already between HS and NS. But since Remiel mentioned there was once at least some potential in reducing how long something can be continuously bumped, Id follow that line of reasoning/solution.

Especially for HS, which is somewhat of a different animal than other space sectors.

Im no expert. The only bumping Ive done is to remove a few other miners off my alts ice back in the day. Cos.

Perpetually bumping something seems a silly mechanic to me.
Especially in HS where its either just to aggravate the hell out of the target, or to buy indefinite time for the rest of the suicide gank effort to mobilize/arrive.

I mean there has to be some limit, right?
Ship masses, acceleration/velocity, targeted piloting, inertia etc are a limitation, but ultimately based in ship balance that I would argue was never designed/intended for this kind of niche behavior.

Should I be able to bump another player indefinitely, just cos they have no friends/contacts willing to aggress me (and face CONCORD in HS), and my ship stats happen to make it poasible vs theirs?
Galaxy Duck
Galaxy Farm Carebear Repurposing
#134 - 2016-12-20 19:03:20 UTC
This is a divisive issue, but I think we can all agree that Dracvlad is completely helpless, unimaginative, and ignorant of many game mechanics.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#135 - 2016-12-20 19:46:33 UTC
Galaxy Duck wrote:
This is a divisive issue, but I think we can all agree that Dracvlad is completely helpless, unimaginative, and ignorant of many game mechanics.


Let me see what the Stasis Web II says:

Quote:
Reduces the maximum speed of a ship by employing micro energy streams which effectively entangle the target temporarily, thereby slowing it down.


It does what it says on the can, the key part is the maximum speed....

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#136 - 2016-12-20 19:55:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Didn't take me long to find a number of scholarly articles and other explanations of the difference between risk aversion vs risk management (another word for risk mitigation). Here are a few examples, minus the scholarly ones which are behind paywalls. I'm trying to find some that aren't, but in the meantime:

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/investing-risk-mitigation-not-risk-aversion-is-key/1110668/

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040315/what-difference-between-risk-avoidance-and-risk-reduction.asp

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Lo/publication/222527421_Nonparametric_Risk_Management_and_Implied_Risk_Aversion/links/54998be30cf22a83139622af.pdf (this pdf won't load for me, probably because of my bad internet atm, but there's either something there or it's just a bad link, idk if it'll work for anyone else).

https://theitriskmanager.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/risk-aversion-and-risk-management-a-case-study/


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,

Quote:
Typical value-at-risk (VaR) calculations involve the probabilities of extreme dollar losses, based on the statistical distributions of market prices. Such quantities do not account for the fact that the same dollar loss can have two very different economic valuations, depending on business conditions. We propose a nonparametric VaR measure that incorporates economic valuation according to the state-price density associated with the underlying price processes. The state-price density yields VaR values that are adjusted for risk aversion, time preferences, and other variations in economic valuation. In the context of a representative agent equilibrium model, we construct an estimator of the risk-aversion coefficient that is implied by the joint observations on the cross-section of option prices and time-series of underlying assest values.


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

"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

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#137 - 2016-12-20 20:50:32 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Im not particularly interested in or enthusiastic about reducing the efficacy of bumping, because I think material transport is too safe already between HS and NS. But since Remiel mentioned there was once at least some potential in reducing how long something can be continuously bumped, Id follow that line of reasoning/solution.

Especially for HS, which is somewhat of a different animal than other space sectors.

Im no expert. The only bumping Ive done is to remove a few other miners off my alts ice back in the day. Cos.

Perpetually bumping something seems a silly mechanic to me.
Especially in HS where its either just to aggravate the hell out of the target, or to buy indefinite time for the rest of the suicide gank effort to mobilize/arrive.

I mean there has to be some limit, right?
Ship masses, acceleration/velocity, targeted piloting, inertia etc are a limitation, but ultimately based in ship balance that I would argue was never designed/intended for this kind of niche behavior.

Should I be able to bump another player indefinitely, just cos they have no friends/contacts willing to aggress me (and face CONCORD in HS), and my ship stats happen to make it poasible vs theirs?


If you want to prevent repeated bumps, you could add a counter and anything bast 10 collision pass through as if both ship were cloaked. This of course has secondary effect such as breaking bumping in low/null/WH where it's seen as a legit strategy for some action. But then, the gankers will bring more bumpers in rotation manned by alts.

The real issue is that the defensive stuff you can do require alts/friends and a **** load of people doing freight jobs don't want to use them. The web trick is well know and only really require 1 alt. I personally think it's a stupid way for the game to work but that's an entirely different can of worm.

As long as people will want to go solo at it, the people who are willing to put teamwork into it will find way to gank. If your enemy muster 15 dude, you should not be mad you could not outplay them solo. "Fixing" bumping is secondary to having people at least be willing to put in the effort.
Aaron
Eternal Frontier
#138 - 2016-12-20 23:11:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Aaron
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.

Fear no one, live life, be free, accept the truth, do not judge others, defend yourself, fight hard till the end, meditate on problems and be prosperous. Things to exist by. -- RAIN Arthie

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2016-12-21 00:02:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Dracvlad wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


So what does that web actually do for you when being bumped, continue on this line please, this should get interesting.

And no need to get insulting about my lack of creative thinking, as you have no idea what I have done or have not done in trying to counter this consequence free pointing in hisec I will just leave that one up in the air.

We are not talking about the gank, which is carried out by multiple people, but we are talking about the bump which can be carried out by one player so by your logic should be countered by one player.


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.


People give the impression that you just web the freighter when being bumped, nope, all webbing does is reduce the top speed of the ship being webbed, it does not impact the bumped speed. This makes it even more difficult because you can also go too fast to warp, like when you exit a station. But you know that...


Yes, I do. I also know that if you're webbing after the bump, you're doing it wrong. I also provided an effective alternative to webbing to counter bumps, which you have yet to argue against, and I have any number of other counters which I will deploy if and when I need them, but for now keep them a secret since they are 'aces in the hole' so to speak. Again, Dracvlad, it doesn't take much to think up counters here. I know you don't like it, but the fact is, you are demonstrating your lack of creativity to me when you tell me there is no counter, when I know there are, and have used, plenty.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2016-12-21 00:05:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Teckos Pech wrote:
lots of intellectual dishonesty


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.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104