Except i have been showing you how the system cannot tell.
And the direct input is for ship A to approach to ship B. NOT to bump. There is no direct input to bump.
Is honestly a load of pseudo-intelligent bull ■■■■. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
I think this might just add complexity to bumping, and make it more skill intensive to manage a gank fleet, but I am quite convinced, having engaged in the activity, that it is not easy as such.
It would also enable ANY ship with the module to interdict without concorde, so the cries of ‘ganking is so cheap’ which we hear now would grow louder, as bumpers could use t1 frigates rather than machs.
Also, mini games are rarely that ‘skillfull’, I worry this could be immersion breaking and make ganking more passive for all parties, ad possibly boring?
Plus all of the baiting possibilities remain, if the result is a flag.
We have addressed that it would be possible to establish intent
We have yet to establish whether that in itself is useful in terms of ‘making bumping irrelevant and making high sec more awesome’
With the understanding that the basic premise, which I will now spell out, remains
IT MUST BE POSSIBLE TO DO NONE-CONSENSUAL PVP IN HIGH SEC.
But honestly, if it was just about establishing intent, @Anjyl_Took has addressed this, it isn’t really ‘the problem’
‘the problem’ is what we do with this if we have it, without breaking eve?
I’d argue you havent. Approaching a ship can have several intentions, only one of which will be to bump. And you can’t/shouldnt flag someone for bumping if they are just trying to move around. On top of that a lot of bumping happens with manual piloting becuase ‘approach’ isn’t very good for bumping faster ships. Any proposal that determines intent will surely eliminate bumping anything small and fast.
But simultaneously I have been discussing ‘what do you do when you have intent’ to which there is also no good answer. Certainly not a better one than what we have now.
The whole thing is ‘just not good enough’. Do not underestimate how every angle of this has been discussed to death and back. Anj thinks he has something new. He doesn’t.
She did address all of these points, including a specific ‘bump command’ to activate, or using safeties or a mechanism like safeties.
I think they are flawed as a response to the total discussion as a whole, that’s what I am chatting with her about now,
but she did offer a way to establish intent.
I too now agree that the current mechanic is the best we have, for now, but this does not invalidate the discussion as discussion.
For one, I am further convinced that suicide ganking via bumping, and bumping as a valid form of interdiction in high sec is
a)not easy
b)not cheap
and that
c)changing it is changing the core game, and should be done so with a light touch, if at all
The “approach” command tells your ship to approach the other ship until it hits it and bounces, and then it keeps repeating this or you tell it to stop.
The command to get in a certain range of another ship without colliding with it is called “keep at range” or “orbit”.
If you click “approach” and don’t stop it, you have directly ordered your ship to collide with the other ship.
No, you haven’t, you have not provided one example, within my suggestion, that would “flag” a ship for causing a collision when the pilot of that ship did not direct his ship to interact with the other ship.
If I directed my ship to jump or dock and someone else directed their ship to a random point in space that moved them in front of me, this would be an example of the system not being able to tell who caused the collision. but my suggestion avoids this.
Then you didn’t read what I wrote. I said targeting a ship could indicate an intent to interact, and therefore would allow bumping. I also said it would not affect fleet battles, PvE, or PvP that has already been established.
Only that two ships who are not interacting with each-other will not trigger a “bump” unless one of (can totally be one-sided, does not have to be consensual) the pilots interacts with the other ship on his screen or in his overview.
I completely agree with this. 
I don’t however think any part of it should be cheap, easy, or CONCORD-free. I don’t even think it has to cost-effective.
I’m pro-ganking, but I’m also pro-CONCORD wasting everyone involved in the offensive side of the gank. Including the guy who “was just sitting in the car” (for a RL analogy). I don’t want “safe” I want more wrecks on both sides. 
You’re saying anyone who chooses to approach another ship intents to collide with it. That’s simply not true. For example,
Approach means simply that. It does not imply any intent to collide and is used more often than orbit and keep at range because its easier to use.
You’re grasping at straws now.
The specific bump command would be able to determine intent, I’ve already said that. But its a clunky half assed solution that isn’t going to happen. We all know this.
It orders your ship to approach to 0, at 0, a collision occurs. I don’t know what more you want in a command to show that the collision is the result of the approach command.
Yes, all of your examples are examples of you telling the game that you intend to interact with the other ship.
You haven’t given any examples where you tell the game you intend to interact with something other than the ship you end up colliding with, and then you collide with said ship.
You’re not grasping anything. 
Just because it’s the end result does not mean it was the intent of the command. I just want to move closer to a ship, not bothered about colliding or not and using approach is easier than faffing on with keep at range.
By approaching it. Not necessarily intending to collide with it. The collision is a side effect. Not something i should be flagged for.
No im not. I know where this is going. I know exactly that nothing you’ve put forward thus far will be even considered for implementation. Maybe it was one of the hundred times it came up before but has since been found ‘not good enough’.
This is the “intent” that I am discussing, you redefinning it to anything other then “intent to interact with another ship” is a Straw Man.
Two ships pass in space, neither one targets, approaches, orbits, or gives any other command to interact with the other. - No interaction happens because neither intended to interact.
Two ships pass in space, both of them target, approach, orbit, or gives some other command to interact with the other. - Interaction happens because both intended to interact, and it is consensual.
Two ships pass in space, and only one targets, approaches, orbits, or gives any other command to interact with the other. - Interaction happens, and that interaction is because the player giving the command intended for there to be interaction.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
This has been an “unsolvable” question of “who bumped whom?” in the past because a deliberate player action was not required, my suggestion changes that. And just like changing your safety away from “green” doesn’t make you a criminal, it does declare your intent to the game that you might want to be one, my suggestion doesn’t make anyone a criminal or suspect, it is just a way that the system can tell who intended to interact with the other.
Players targeting people can happen for a million reasons. For one, auto-targeting a player who is targeting you is a default setting.
Approaching players is normal movement. Players use approach to get closer to other ships for a million reasons other than trying to bump.
Combining the two may be unlikely to cause an accident, but give 30 thousand players one thousand hours and it’s going to happen. At which point you’re going to get players asking ccp, ‘who came up with this stupid system?’
I’m not changing the definition of anything. It is in fact you that is trying to redefine the purpose of targeting and the approach command. But it’s not going to happen.
Yes, and it states an intent to interact with that player.
Auto-targetting is easy to filter out as an active statement of player intent as the system can clearly distinguish between the setting and a command issued from the player. (But this is the first reasonable thing your said all thread.)
Yes, and it states an intent to interact with that player.
I have said “intent to interact” you change it to “intent to bump” and then reply to your redefined version of the argument that you claim to be my position. This is what a Straw Man argument is.
If you would like to actually address the “intent to interact” point, I would love to hear your opinion on how the system could be confused about if you intended to interact or not, if all interaction required at least one of the players to give a command to interact.
The server doesn’t know the difference between a lock that was initiated by the player and one auto initiated by the client.
When you talk about intent, you are clearly talking about the intent to bump. on top of that, this is a thread on bumping. The only intent that matters, is the intent to bump.
This isnt the first time you’ve tried to back track.
The server can’t see the setting in the client?
No, that isn’t the only intent that matters. This is a limitation you have tried to impose on my words, not anything I have actually said. Bumping is one of the results that can come from an intentional action. A suspect flag is one of the results that can come from bumping. You are trying to apply a specific example (one case in many) as a general case (the only). Regarding your quotes:
#1-3 were hypothetical examples about the type of questions that could be used to establish a premise and do not apply to the current “intent” question. #2 flat out says this. This was from a side argument about how it’s being argued wrong. One that I might add you came into at the end of, and agreed that I had proven that point. Yet, now you are confused about it.
#4 says that intentional actions effect shooting, so they should be able to effect bumping. Not “intensional bumping”.
#5 clearly states that bumping can only come as a result of the pilot “intentionally interacting” (not “intentionally bumping”) with the other ship. This was when we stopped talking about the premises and I made a suggestion, this was indicated by
#6 was clearly an exaggerated joke that people other than you got.
#7 “intent” (notice the scare-quotes, that means the word is being used to mean something other than it’s literal meaning, in this case “intentional interaction” which was already said, it’s just shorter to write “intent”.
#8 “intentionally moving” not “intentionally bumping”
#9 clearly a repeat of the same joke made in #6 in reply to your broad “there exists no solution” statement. This is not my argument, it has never been my argument, it was simply a rebuttal to your Sweeping Generalization.
Even if I have, because you know, ideas grow and develop. You still haven’t addressed the point that I have now, and have asked you to address many times now:
If one player clicks to interact with another, but the other player doesn’t click to interact with the first, how can this be exploited such that the server thinks the second player signalled the intent to interact?
Auto-retargeting, is a valid answer to this question, but one that i think is easily solvable. Are there any others?
I very much doubt it. Why would it? Its the same command whether it comes from the player via the client, or the client initiating it automatically. All the server sees is ‘Player A wants to target player B’.
How does the intent to interact matter when compared to intent to bump in a bump thread? it doesn’t. Its a needless tangent. Take your question for example, the nature of the possible exploits in any interaction is heavily dependent on the nature of said interaction. Interaction on its own could mean anything…in fact i think you mean it to mean anything so you can keep dancing around this pointless argument asking questions that have no answers. You’ve divided the issue down so far that what remains is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
edit- the very problem of your linear thinking is that you have lost sight of what the initial issue is. Kinda like not seeing the forest for the trees. How else are we now discussing the intent of ANY kind of interaction between two players?
This is a bump thread.
/thread
The auto-target back setting is stored in the client, not on the server side, (I just confirmed by logging in an account on two different computers and seeing two different settings.) So, maybe the server can’t see a difference? Worst case is that if someone has the auto-target back enabled, the intention goes from A → B to mutual, but it still can’t create B → A, and it’s easily disabled by someone who wants to avoid it.
(I’m really not trying to be rude.) But you aren’t getting the linear thing. 
If we can establish an intent to interact, then we can use it to try to establish an intent to bump, or we could say something like “after an intent to interact, everything is fair-game and intent doesn’t matter.” (This is like once you accept a duel, it doesn’t matter who shoots first.) Either of these, or countless other things that could come from it, should be discussed on their own. But they don’t affect the intent to interact, but are affected by it.
No, I think I’ve been quite clear on this, it means a player telling the game to do something with/to another player.
There, I fixed it for you. Just because you don’t see/understand how going past 4 to get to 7 is important or relevant, doesn’t mean that it isn’t. (I really hate when people project their shortcomings on the world as if they are objective truths. sigh)
There is no problem in my linear thinking, I have been paid large sums of money to do for business what I’ve done with this thread, To go into companies where different departments can’t agree on direction because each only sees things their own way, and either can’t see the big picture or can’t see the details. Then I talk with those departments, understand the issues, break things down and present them in different ways. Sometimes taking things back to an apparent irrelevant point that people can agree on, so we can then build out from there.
The OP on this thread @Patti_Potato_Patrouette has already recognised this and thanked me for helping her see things in ways she hadn’t before. She and I disagree about bumping and “fixing” it, and that’s just fine. I’m not trying to be “right” or “win the internet”, I’m trying to help others think and develop ideas.
You’re just upset that every time you try to wander off to something else I don’t take your bait, and I just say “no, that’s not where we are, come back here.” Something that I didn’t need to do with anyone else. We haven’t even gotten to more advanced ideas like “are all collisions ‘bumping’?” which they aren’t, yet your examples are treating them like they are. Or the host of other things connecting “intentional interaction” to bumping to crimewatch flagging. And I’m not interested in discussing any of those until an understanding of “intentional interaction” is reached and a discussion about how to make it unexploitable, because any discussion past this falls apart when someone says “there is no way to know a players intent!”
If you feel that way, then stop wasting your time. I have not felt this was wasting my time (except for maybe having to tell you the same thing so many times, but TBH it was amusing to deal with someone so incredibly thick), nor did the OP think I was wasting her time.
If you keep posting “examples” of how my idea is bad, that don’t actually address my idea, I will continue saying “that doesn’t address my idea.” If you want to discuss my idea, that’s great, but it must be my idea, so a Straw Man of it, if you think any conversation is a waste of time, then move on.
But, if you just want to “win the internet” or try to prove that my idea has changed or evolved in 100 posts, then congratulations! You sir, are the winner of the internet. Here is your crown 
Actually the system can’t tell. People can tell, but not some computer system.
Also, the game rarely imposes consequences on players. Players typically impose consequences. If you want consequences go impose them. That is what gankers do, gate campers, hot droppers, etc.
Still not seeing the problem. As I noted consequences are rarely imposed by “the game”/NPCs. The only time that really happens is with CONCORD and the FacPo.
Further, you look at bumping as something where “somebody has to be at fault” but bumping can happen without “somebody being at fault” and that can and has lead to emergent game play. Do we really want to remove that?
Bumps can also happen when ships jump to cyno beacon. If the bump is bad enough, it can leave the ship vulnerable to attack. But with this change that is gone.
Sometimes bumping happens without intent and it leads to interesting game play.
Further, I don’t think you are being honest. I see all this talk about flags…but then you’ll write you aren’t talking about flags.
Can you definitively state that you are not talking about using this to flag the bumper?
I think you’ve conned some companies out of their money…
I’m imagining lots of looong presentations with silly quotes like the one you used earlier that you think make you sound smart but, like most of your posts here, have little substance.
Can mean almost anything within the game. Where as predicting exploits of a mechanic relies on knowing at least a little of what that mechanic is.
flag n. 3. (Computer Science) computing an indicator, that may be set or unset, used to indicate a condition or to stimulate a particular reaction in the execution of a computer program
flag n. 8. Computers A variable or memory location that stores true-or-false, yes-or-no information.
This is my meaning when I say action X could “set a flag”. Crimewatch flags are an extension of this, and where they got the name “flags”, but also “repackaged” or “insured” are also in-game flags that are set by the software.
I can definitively state that I am talking about setting a flag (see definition above) to mark who caused the collision. I have said nothing past that regarding how that flag should then be used by the system or if it should lead to a crimwatch flag. I haven’t even started discussing that part of the conversation.
I don’t know, and I honestly don’t care. I haven’t made any points regarding if bumping as it now stands is good or bad, or if it should be changed. I have only addressed one very narrowly defined question. which is:
Under the current system there is technically no way for the game servers to determine who caused the bump to occur.
I have suggested a small change that would remove accidental collisions between ships that are for all technical aspects ignoring each-other, and then presented a logical/technical system by which the game severs could assign cause (one sided or mutual) to all collisions.
I never said that all collisions are bumps, or anything about removing bumps or collisions, or what to do after the cause of the collision is determined.
And people can program those systems with a set of rules that they will follow to be able to tell. And that’s all I’ve addressed is that very limited set of rules.
Regarding the rest of your reply: All you really said is “I like bumping” and that’s fine, but not really relevant to the limited scope that I am trying to sort out and get feed back on.
Of course my small piece will have to fit into the bigger question eventually, but that is after it is developed and picked apart for exploits on it’s own.
And I have defined that mechanic at least five times, and you are still confused. You already won, I gave you your winner crown. I don’t know what your point is now because it sure isn’t addressing my suggestion.