Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
4 PagesFirst pagePrevious page234
 

Bumping Mechanics Discussion

First post
Author
#61 - 2016-12-31 16:33:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
It only plays a part if you are trying to play from the Ross ice shelf or low earth orbit. Nothing can catch a webbed freighter, there is simply not enough time.

Again with the assumptions that everyone living in a populated area has fast internet because you do.
I live about 40 miles outside a major west coast city and for various "technical" reasons the latency in my area is so bad that I essentially I play EvE on a 2 second server tick because that is the best my internet connection will allow. If you are interested I can give you all the details of why as it was explained to me by the phone company, cell phone companies and the cable companies in teh mean time I will not waste the forum space sine you likely do not care.
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2016-12-31 20:47:36 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
It only plays a part if you are trying to play from the Ross ice shelf or low earth orbit. Nothing can catch a webbed freighter, there is simply not enough time.

Again with the assumptions that everyone living in a populated area has fast internet because you do.
I live about 40 miles outside a major west coast city and for various "technical" reasons the latency in my area is so bad that I essentially I play EvE on a 2 second server tick because that is the best my internet connection will allow. If you are interested I can give you all the details of why as it was explained to me by the phone company, cell phone companies and the cable companies in teh mean time I will not waste the forum space sine you likely do not care.

I dont see how that is an issue or should even be a consideration of us, much less CCP. Latency is a major part of,gaming experiences in any online game, so this complaint is silly. I do feel sorry for you and others in that situation, but Im not going to cry about people in London having a better game experience than I do.
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2017-01-02 02:02:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiasa Kite
I really liked Black Pedro's first idea when he first posted it, God knows how long ago. To be honest, I still like it, because it shakes up the meta so violently.

Mechanically, it's fine. It switches the existing form of bump tackle to a more conventional warp disruptor. The issue starts to arise when you consider the impact on the meta.

The vast, vast majority of freighter ganks occur in Uedama and Niarja. If freighter ganking were to occur as before, you can guarantee antigankers would camp the gates to Hades. Being able to pick off a tackler with literally any number of any ships you want is a pretty damn big advantage. To be honest, I quite like it as it encourages the carebears to gang up on the big meanie gankers.

The downside to this is that it would force a reaction from the gankers. Simple prime-time frieghter ganks in the choke-point systems just wouldn't be viable owing to defensive resistance. So gankers residing in Uedama, for example, would instead start targeting a much larger portion of the Jita <-> Dodixie trade pipe. They could also potentially start more freighter ganking activities elsewhere, forcing antigankers to be much more active in their pursuits. This of course leads to defensive forces being spread thin and potentially being overwhelmed. Also a pretty exciting scenario IMO.

The primary trade routes would have plenty of antigankers/pvpers/hopefuls helping keep the area gank free, while lesser frequented areas of space wouldn't be as profitable for gankers - unless they laid bait contracts.

The sheer potential for new play and counterplay options for freighter pilots, their escorts and antigankers is huge and I'm really quite surprised CCP haven't made any visible steps to implementing it.

edit: I suppose in other words, it's a MASSIVE nerf to freighter ganking in its current form, forcing gankers to change tac, but a new meta would quickly be established. What's not to like?

<^.^> I'm a cat lol

Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2017-01-02 15:10:12 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
I really liked Black Pedro's first idea when he first posted it, God knows how long ago. To be honest, I still like it, because it shakes up the meta so violently.

Mechanically, it's fine. It switches the existing form of bump tackle to a more conventional warp disruptor. The issue starts to arise when you consider the impact on the meta.

The vast, vast majority of freighter ganks occur in Uedama and Niarja. If freighter ganking were to occur as before, you can guarantee antigankers would camp the gates to Hades. Being able to pick off a tackler with literally any number of any ships you want is a pretty damn big advantage. To be honest, I quite like it as it encourages the carebears to gang up on the big meanie gankers.

The downside to this is that it would force a reaction from the gankers. Simple prime-time frieghter ganks in the choke-point systems just wouldn't be viable owing to defensive resistance. So gankers residing in Uedama, for example, would instead start targeting a much larger portion of the Jita <-> Dodixie trade pipe. They could also potentially start more freighter ganking activities elsewhere, forcing antigankers to be much more active in their pursuits. This of course leads to defensive forces being spread thin and potentially being overwhelmed. Also a pretty exciting scenario IMO.

The primary trade routes would have plenty of antigankers/pvpers/hopefuls helping keep the area gank free, while lesser frequented areas of space wouldn't be as profitable for gankers - unless they laid bait contracts.

The sheer potential for new play and counterplay options for freighter pilots, their escorts and antigankers is huge and I'm really quite surprised CCP haven't made any visible steps to implementing it.

edit: I suppose in other words, it's a MASSIVE nerf to freighter ganking in its current form, forcing gankers to change tac, but a new meta would quickly be established. What's not to like?

The Niarja and Uedama systems are great for ganking, but the infamous CODE gank fleets where they would bag 15-20 freighters in one sitting arent a thing anymore. What you have is basically miniluv with scouts, scanners and bumpers scattered all around the hubs and pipes, looking for whales.

A few CSM members held a roundtable where they discussed bumping and ganking risk and mechanics with both anti-gankers and gankers. Not trying to be a negative nancy, but CCP isnt going to read and listen to random thread #150 about bumping or ganking. If you want to lobby for a change or have a good idea, go hunt down a CSM member.
Pandemic Legion
#65 - 2017-01-02 19:23:29 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
It only plays a part if you are trying to play from the Ross ice shelf or low earth orbit. Nothing can catch a webbed freighter, there is simply not enough time.

Again with the assumptions that everyone living in a populated area has fast internet because you do.
I live about 40 miles outside a major west coast city and for various "technical" reasons the latency in my area is so bad that I essentially I play EvE on a 2 second server tick because that is the best my internet connection will allow. If you are interested I can give you all the details of why as it was explained to me by the phone company, cell phone companies and the cable companies in teh mean time I will not waste the forum space sine you likely do not care.



No matter your internet speed its fast enough to get the commands in to get the freighter into warp long before anyone can get their bumping ships up to speed.
#66 - 2017-01-03 08:32:58 UTC
Removed a whole bunch of off topic posts. Keep it on topic and civil please. Thank you.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Vice Admiral

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Executive Outcomes
#67 - 2017-01-03 22:25:35 UTC
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode wrote:
Removed a whole bunch of off topic posts. Keep it on topic and civil please. Thank you.


Thank you.

How bizarre too. My last thread on risk and freighter ganking was turning into a thread on bumping. This thread on possible alternatives to freighter bumping keeps wanting to become a thread on risk and freighter ganking. Shocked

And...not that surprised, but none of the usual suspects are in this thread. Bumping sucks, supposedly, but they can't come here and even discuss the ideas that were presented?

Guess that tells us all we need to know about the anti-bumping posters. P

"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

#68 - 2017-01-05 18:56:44 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ok I'll put a pin in this no counters myth.

First counter is to web the freighter into warp. All you need is a friend in any ship with a few webs fitted but something with a Web range bonus is best. Your freighter now warps so fast that not only is it impossible to bump but also goes into warp backwards.

Second is if you get bumped. Fly a fast frigate out in the direction the freighter is being bumped and at 150 km warp the freighter to the frigate. You can the Web it into warp.

Third is to simply bump the bumpers. This takes some degree of manual piloting but can be done with a few cheap cruisers.

Fourth option is to gank the bumping ship. These bumping ships don't tend to have any tank so are fairly easy to kill.

Fish is to suicide web the bumper. Done right the freighter will get away.


The problem with bumping is you are basically 'webbing' a ship with no consequence for doing so. It isnt a lack of counters that is the problem it is getting away with webbing in highsec space when you should die to concord instead.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Executive Outcomes
#69 - 2017-01-05 21:35:56 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ok I'll put a pin in this no counters myth.

First counter is to web the freighter into warp. All you need is a friend in any ship with a few webs fitted but something with a Web range bonus is best. Your freighter now warps so fast that not only is it impossible to bump but also goes into warp backwards.

Second is if you get bumped. Fly a fast frigate out in the direction the freighter is being bumped and at 150 km warp the freighter to the frigate. You can the Web it into warp.

Third is to simply bump the bumpers. This takes some degree of manual piloting but can be done with a few cheap cruisers.

Fourth option is to gank the bumping ship. These bumping ships don't tend to have any tank so are fairly easy to kill.

Fish is to suicide web the bumper. Done right the freighter will get away.


The problem with bumping is you are basically 'webbing' a ship with no consequence for doing so. It isnt a lack of counters that is the problem it is getting away with webbing in highsec space when you should die to concord instead.


It is a primitive form of tackle, sure, but it does not actually interfere with any of the ships functions nor does it cause any damage, hence the lack of CONCORD response. CONCORDING ships for bumping is also going to be problematic as some players will try to get bumped by people, such as sitting on the Jita undock and getting in a freighter's way. Also, it will be very hard if not impossible for the programming to determine intent.

Hence this thread. Discuss alternatives to bumping. But the idea of CONCORD is probably out due to the aforementioned reasons.

"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

#70 - 2017-01-06 02:01:18 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
The problem with bumping is you are basically 'webbing' a ship with no consequence for doing so. It isnt a lack of counters that is the problem it is getting away with webbing in highsec space when you should die to concord instead.
I don't know where players get this idea that the magical space police should always save them from non-consensual interactions in highsec. From shooting MTUs, to stealing loot, to wardecs themselves, there are many examples of game mechanics that allow players to interfere with your gameplay in highsec without the conflict-killing, heavy-handed mechanic of CONCORD getting in the way.

Arguably, bumping is one of the most benign forms of a non-consensual interaction one can imagine. No damage is done and no loot, real or future, is lost. Sure, it is used as a poor-man's tackle against capital ships, but in itself it does nothing but prevent alignment and thus warping.

Its problem is that CONCORD prevents the most obvious avenues to clear the tackle, not that there are "no NPC-enforced consequences" to the activity. There are plenty of counters and preventative measures to avoid having your capital ship tackled (or release it from such), but many of them are non-obvious to the novice (or just plain bad) player. The big and lumbering freighter was always intended to be slow and vulnerable to harassment by other players and thus a conflict driver.

But even if CCP ever gets around to implementing the 3 minute cap, its most likely form will be that a suicide point will still prevent the freighter from entering warp and force a reset of the timer. Freighter gankers already sacrifice a ship every 15 minutes to keep a freighter in space, so they will just do that every 3 minutes now. Nothing will change: freighters will still die and carebears will still whine that it is unfair that they can be shot at at all and move on to agitating for the next 'one more nerf'.
Executive Outcomes
#71 - 2017-01-06 03:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Black Pedro wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
The problem with bumping is you are basically 'webbing' a ship with no consequence for doing so. It isnt a lack of counters that is the problem it is getting away with webbing in highsec space when you should die to concord instead.
I don't know where players get this idea that the magical space police should always save them from non-consensual interactions in highsec. From shooting MTUs, to stealing loot, to wardecs themselves, there are many examples of game mechanics that allow players to interfere with your gameplay in highsec without the conflict-killing, heavy-handed mechanic of CONCORD getting in the way.


Well, IMO, the idea is that HS PvP is bad for the game. Never mind that when HS PvP was more viable and diverse the game grew. It is an attitude of entitlement--that players are entitled to play the game free of interactions from others. They'll even erroneously cite the notion of a sandbox, but the problem is that the sandbox lets you play however you want, but says nothing about others interacting with you.

Black Pedro wrote:
Its problem is that CONCORD prevents the most obvious avenues to clear the tackle, not that there are "no NPC-enforced consequences" to the activity. There are plenty of counters and preventative measures to avoid having your capital ship tackled (or release it from such), but many of them are non-obvious to the novice (or just plain bad) player. The big and lumbering freighter was always intended to be slow and vulnerable to harassment by other players and thus a conflict driver.

But even if CCP ever gets around to implementing the 3 minute cap, its most likely form will be that a suicide point will still prevent the freighter from entering warp and force a reset of the timer. Freighter gankers already sacrifice a ship every 15 minutes to keep a freighter in space, so they will just do that every 3 minutes now. Nothing will change: freighters will still die and carebears will still whine that it is unfair that they can be shot at at all and move on to agitating for the next 'one more nerf'.


Exactly, and that suicide point will give the freighter a logoff timer which means even logging off won't work. So every 2.5 minutes or so the gankers will reset the logoff timer to 15 minutes. Good going guys you whined so hard you ****** yourselves.

Edit: Logoff timer, not weapons.

"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

Pandemic Legion
#72 - 2017-01-06 11:02:04 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ok I'll put a pin in this no counters myth.

First counter is to web the freighter into warp. All you need is a friend in any ship with a few webs fitted but something with a Web range bonus is best. Your freighter now warps so fast that not only is it impossible to bump but also goes into warp backwards.

Second is if you get bumped. Fly a fast frigate out in the direction the freighter is being bumped and at 150 km warp the freighter to the frigate. You can the Web it into warp.

Third is to simply bump the bumpers. This takes some degree of manual piloting but can be done with a few cheap cruisers.

Fourth option is to gank the bumping ship. These bumping ships don't tend to have any tank so are fairly easy to kill.

Fish is to suicide web the bumper. Done right the freighter will get away.


The problem with bumping is you are basically 'webbing' a ship with no consequence for doing so. It isnt a lack of counters that is the problem it is getting away with webbing in highsec space when you should die to concord instead.


The counters also don't invoke concord.
#73 - 2017-01-06 18:35:53 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Hence this thread. Discuss alternatives to bumping. But the idea of CONCORD is probably out due to the aforementioned reasons.


You could just remove disable ship to ship collision in HS all the time as if they were all cloaked. This remove the current ghetto point you can get.

It's not hard to find way how to remove this.
Executive Outcomes
#74 - 2017-01-12 08:34:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:


Hence this thread. Discuss alternatives to bumping. But the idea of CONCORD is probably out due to the aforementioned reasons.


You could just remove disable ship to ship collision in HS all the time as if they were all cloaked. This remove the current ghetto point you can get.

It's not hard to find way how to remove this.



No it isn't hard to remove it, but the idea of this thread is to replace it with something else that as Black Pedro says:

1. Gives the opportunity to clear tackle, and
2. Allow for possible escalations in terms of fights.

Of course notice that none of the anti-bumping people are in this thread. None of them. Speaks volumes as to their understanding of the game. To be quite honest I think it is safe to say, at this point, that all they want is CCP to fix the problem for them as they can't or won't fix it for themselves. To which I say CCP should let them burn and die in Uedama and Niarja.

"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

4 PagesFirst pagePrevious page234
Forum Jump