You are childishly oversimplifying again. Bumping would still be a thing and you can still tackle freighters with it, just not 30 minutes any more. Considering that CODE has at least 6 or 7 ganker families with at least 10 characters each (something that CCP enabled graciously with SP farming), there is not even a risk of ganking less. They just distribute their ganker alts better into the systems they actually want to gank in, instead of one central point. That’s how ganking used to work until it got taken over by CODE and turned into a Game of Bots.
By employing the already heavily used suicide blackbirds, herons, celestii, condors, etc?
By simply being there when a gank target arrives in system and not several systems away, not ready to strike, not ready to intercept your target?
And that shows that you don’t know what bumping actually is. Thank you for proving my point.
That costs more. Therefore less ships will be attacked. I’m not saying ships won’t die, but if you remove bump-tackling you will shift the cost equation which will put more freighters in the ‘unprofitable to kill’ category and this will result in less destruction. For someone like Salvos, who has expressed his concern that highsec transport isn’t risky enough on many occasions, I see his views as incompatible with his proposed change to the game. I was just wondering how he could square the conflict in his mind.
No, it will not. A Blackbird is 10M ISK, the already tackle equipped scanner Herons merely a million ISK. You can even use free rookie ships with a T1 meta 0 point for only a couple thousand ISK. Not to mention that you do not need to bump the targets at all because you can just warp your gank squad in from the safety of a gate-grid citadel and gank the target right away. No bumping, not suicide tackle required. At all. Please learn how ganking works before you ask me to shed a tear for your perceived plight.
No, it will not be pointless. If you really want to keep bumping to get a target away from the gate guns for whatever reasons, you can do that just fine. All you have to do is sacrifice a free rookie ship with a T1 point to prevent the warp.
These are all tactics that CFC and CODE already use extensively if someone dares to log off to get away from the non-concordable tackle module called Machariel/Stabber/Typhoon/whatever. Literally nothing would change. Except for one thing: Ganking would be over in 5 minutes and remove the ordeal bumpers put their targets through for 10, 20 or 30 minutes.
I have no issue with ganking, I have an issue with bumping as I explained above and numerous times in other threads, I have suggested improving the ability to counter bumps with a BS MWD like Bowheads if CCP want to keep bumping in as a mechanic, but having a mechanic that enables someone to keep someone locked in position for hours is wrong in terms of game mechanics. Are you telling me that bumping is needed to enable freighter ganking PvP to happen, because it is not.
PS I came across one poor soul who had been bumped for over three hours, seriously… So don’t try to turn it into a ganking PvP is the issue reply, you normally know better that that, annoyance over…
That is more than free which is the cost of a bump-tacker. And you also need a large number of accounts and multiple Blackbirds to keep a freighter pointed for the many minutes it requires to get a fleet there.
But this truth aside, I am not even really arguing about bumping. If you increase the cost to tackle a ship in highsec, it will decrease the number that get exploded. That is self-evident. We can debate the magnitude, but it will make it more difficult and costly to gank a freighter than today. I just want to know what Salvos would propose to prevent a decrease in highsec destruction, something he is concerned about.
It’s clear that you are quite comfortable with less highsec destruction, you’ve made that clear. Perhaps you can let Salvos tell us if he is as well, or if he has some ideas for compensatory changes to keep highsec similarly dangerous as today.
This is a funny You-Don’t-You-Don’t. You enjoy this, right? Let me explain: Yes, pure bumping will not prevent the target from warping after 30 seconds. That is fine. You have to invest a near free point to stop the warp from the target and you can keep bumping away as much as you like. And if the target warps again, you invest another nearly free point to stop the warp again. If you really need that much time to get your gank squad on grid and on the target, what is your justification to get this killmail? You were utterly unprepared to gank the ship within 2 minutes. You have no reason whatsoever to get this killmail. To put it with common EVE parlance: Git Gud and HTFU. Am I doing this right?
The “physics” where never intended. They have just been explained after that fact.
As many have pointed out, that bumping affects aligbment, was an unexpected result.
EVE fluid physics never made sense anyways.
If you want to bump a ship to displace it, then bump it.
If you want to prevent warp, then use point/bubble, as is their purpose.
So what? They are free for gankers anyway thanks to skill farming. Not to mention that CFC and CODE already have these accounts as my contact list holds dozens of tackle and scanner blackbird, heron, condor character contacts. Please stop making this look worse than it actually is.
In return you are very comfortable with botting in high sec. I am not happy with less destruction in high sec. I am also not happy with destruction enabled by helping incompetence. What I am happy with is destruction by competent, able entities who do not need to rely on extremely questionable tactics to enable their preferred activity.
Instead of concentrating all the kusion, whyte, termoplyae, uninstall, rozei, tax collector, love and other alt farms into Uedama, you just have to put 2 into Niarja in a gate grid citadel. This sounds like an unbearably hard task when the gankers on the other hand expect from freighter pilots to jump through dozens of loops and hoops to “mitigate” gank risk, and then still get tackled by a Machariel just because. Grow up and learn to gank properly and get rid of that botting aspect of CODE ganking.
However, if you really must employ all these botting-like techniques for your ganks to be successful, may I at least suggest that you delete your code and just replace with it with something closer to reality? Something like “We are allowed to bot because we are stronger than you and you are a fool.” maybe?
Why should bumping BOTH displace a ship, and disrupt its entry to warp?
Surely the displacement is enough for colliding with another ship?
The warp aspect can be handled with point/bubbles, as what they are specifically there for.
It seems to me they were absolutely intended. Why go to the trouble of having a requirement to attain a certain vector before entering warp if such ship movements were not to be part of the game? It would have been simpler just to have a ‘warp timer’ and the ship enter warp after a given spool-up time. So as part of building a physical simulation of a universe, CCP instituted a rule set that allowed the actions of other players (i.e. ramming a ship) to influence your ability to enter warp.
Maybe it is slightly emergent, one step removed for the core physics rules, but emergent is the whole point of the sandbox. I’ll grant you those early game designers weren’t considering the use of bumping to tackle ships in high security space, but the physics of the game were intended, so the fact that bumping influences warp is intended. It’s not even that big a leap to see that warping can be influenced by other players ramming you so I very much doubt your claim it was “never intended”.
Why is it either or? Why can’t both bumping and tackle modules prevent warp? I just don’t get your logic.
He’s throwing tamper tantrums like a child would, because he doesn’t know there’s other options available (or he knows but ignores because it would be to agree with the prole he hates)
