Therefore A cannot possibly do D. That doesn’t make logical sense - of course it can. Two mechanics can accomplish the same thing, and they can even do the same thing without being redundant because of the nature of those mechanics.
Bump-tackling isn’t even redundant because it is a tool used to tackle freighters in highsec without invoking a CONCORD response. Aggressive modules like scrams cannot be used without ship loss meaning that bump-tackling is a much cheaper option to tackle a freighter. The proof of this is that deleting bumping will result in a higher cost, and thus less freighters being ganked, than before. If they were “redundant” there would be no change in the game if you just deleted bumping.
So again, given your views on destruction of goods in highsec, how would you deal with the increase in safety your change would give to freighters?
I know. I am am refuting your claim that bumping and tackle modules are “redundant”. They clearly aren’t as you can see by the thought experiment of the predicted changed in highsec destruction numbers that everybody can see.
Ok, I’m with @QuakeGod at this point and am being reminded by the forum software not to quibble with you anymore. Enjoy the rest of your day.
No, I mean just scanning. Every one of these scanners is equipped with a warp disruptor, though. There are dozens of those characters and these are only those I have seen. They are all involved with the ganking and just need to be used properly.
Why did you have to @ me!??? I don’t need another thread in my life! This looks like fun though, so I’ll do a little catch up and join you guys (or gals)
In the fact that they use them already and readily equipped with the necessary modules and thus don’t need any more characters or ships to prevent a freighter from warping under bumps if a scenario like Salvos’ would be implemented in the game. Simple.
There is no increased safety in high sec under this scenario. Quite the opposite: There would be less safety because gankers are ready quicker and more spread out to intercept more freighters more regularly. All Salvos’ scenario does is removing the indefinite tackling of a ship to make it possible for unprepared gankers to arrive on the scene.
Something (A) can do B & D while something else (C) only does D. I just don’t get your logic! There is no rule that if A does B, and C does D, A cannot also do D. None. Bumping and tackle modules have different requirements, different uses, different costs, are effective against different targets, and thus are not redundant at all even if they achieve the same thing in some cases.
Ok. This is hurting my brain. I am really gone this time.
