What you’re trying to call a mechanic is barely theoretical ramblings. When you did hint at an actual mechanic everyone showed you what was wrong with it. You got salty, whined that no one understands you and went on a tangent.
If you ever get back to proposing an idea though (i wont hold my breath), I’ll probably be there.
See for me it is the “then what”. Your responses on that front have not been very good.
-1, nope. Sorry. And I just don’t care what your response is. 
Yes, you may very well resolve the “intent problem” here, but you remove other stuff as well that I find problematic.
I do like bumping. There are ships that cannot be warp scrammed and bumping can keep them in place till a hictor or dictor can get on grid and hold them. I also like that it enables freighter gankers to actually impose consequences on imprudent and foolish players. The issue of intent is not really my main concern. I like emergence and EVE is a great example of it. You want to curtail, at least in part, some of that emergence. And it is not just hostile bumping. Your approach seems to flag any and all bumping as hostile…but here is a scenario:
A ship is caught off a station/gate/citadel (outside tethering range)/etc. He is scrammed and webbed and is going to die. I decide to try some hero bumping to try and save him…but now I get the flag and the guys killing the guy I’m trying to help can now shoot me. Now you might say, “That’s fine you just committed an act that lets them shoot your.” But my response is “No, I didn’t, it just looks that way thanks to a ‘dumb’ system that cannot think.” It is even worse if I get blown up by CONCORD.
Good luck. Those kinds of things are hard to spot until they actually appear, that is part of the nature of emergence. Emergent behavior is one where even if you have a good understanding of the constituent components you probably won’t be able to say what will happen when those components start interacting.
So, to answer these:
Is intentional bumping a hostile act: No. I don’t care what any poll says, there are instances of “friendly bumping”.
Is bumping/ship collision a necessary game mechanic? Yes. Bumping is one way to hold a titan until a hictor or dictor gets on grid and can hold it. Accidental bumping can also lead to other forms of spontaneous game play.
Oh, and regarding this comment.
No. I don’t get a flag because I decide I am going to shoot you. I get a flag because I have shot you. So your system would have to give a flag as/after the bump occurs.
No, my safety is never green, yet I rarely if ever engage people in HS. I will engage in LS though, hence my settings. That I might shoot does not mean I will shoot you–i.e. the possibility is there, but not the intent…you seem to be having issues with this intent thingy.
Your responses have not been very good. You haven’t responded at all to the suggestion I made. Even when I clearly and directly say something (like “I’m not talking about crimewatch flags” in my last reply), you ignore my answer and then give “examples” of why my suggestion “wouldn’t work” that aren’t even part of my suggestion.
Every reply you have given me has been about something other than what I suggested, and when I tell you that that is the case you think my responses are “not very good”.
False, my suggested mechanic doesn’t flag ANY bumping as hostile or not, it only marks who caused, through their intentional actions, the collision.
The only thing I have removed in my suggestion collision between two ships being in the same place and have not had any player provided interaction with each-other. I haven’t removed any ability for anyone to cause a collision anywhere.
False. my suggested mechanic would mark that you caused the collision or the collision was mutual (if we could ever actually discus the mechanics I suggested), and nothing more. Why would this ever give a crimewatch flag? Other than you, who as said it should? I wouldn’t even call it “bumping” as a form of interdiction.
That’s what I said. I’ve never suggested any sort of flag before any event occurs. In my suggested mechanics when a collision occurs the system flags (sets an internal marker, not a crimewatch flag) who caused the collision. If any event that happens at that time or later as a result of that collision needs to know “who caused the collision?” it can then check the set flag.
Those were addressed 100 posts ago, and have already been incorporated into my suggestion. I think you fail to grasp, that in this thread, I have been part of two different side conversations: The first was a short aside about it being better to argue in steps instead of everything at once. That is the conversation you are quoting here, and that conversation is long since over. The second is my limited scope suggestion about how the server could know who caused a collision, this is what we were trying to talk about now.
Allowing it was intentional. Safeties don’t change on their own, a player has to intentionally change them. And yes, I do have a problem with the “intent thingy” and I already addressed it: by “intent” I do not mean “what the player wanted to do” I do mean “the players interaction with the game client”. You and others want to use the existential first meaning, which cannot be applied to the conversation because the game couldn’t do anything if it had to first determine the players “real intent”. That is why I have defined it:
At this point I honestly don’t know if you just don’t understand the English language, are really thick, or intentionally being an ass, maybe all three. “A tangent” is to go away from the point at hand, the point at hand is my suggestion. Me saying “that isn’t my suggestion, come back to my suggestion” is 100% the opposite of a tangent.
If by “it” you mean all the other ideas people in the past have suggested regarding “bumping” then you might be right. But if “it” is my suggestion, you can’t be right because no one has discussed my suggestion. The auto-target back, is the one exception, we discussed it, it doesn’t break things but might have to be accounted for.
For all I care, the end result of my suggestion could be nothing more than an entry in the combat log that says “you collided with XXX” or “XXX collided with you”. Granted this would be pointless, but if my suggestion is so broken, and so easy to show what’s wrong with it, please tell me how it could be exploited so that entry is backwards from reality?
It is a suggestion about how the system can assign blame, not what to do with that blame. In most cases what to do with the blame will be “nothing”. If you can’t understand why this is important, or how it will be used higher-up in the system, that’s fine, you can move on.
Your responses have been horrible and indicate a lack of understanding of what EVE actually is.
Bravo Sierra I responded a number of times. Normally this is called a lie, but I’ll just assume you missed my responses. Heck the post you are responding to I answer two of your questions.
No, I am addressing your intent (there is that word again) to have this lead to a flag. I have not written anything about crime watch. Further, you yourself have indicated that if there is a flag it should be a criminal flag, so spare us this nonsense please.
Spare me. You have indicated that your intent is for a flag of some sort.
Really, so your suggestion won’t affect accidental/unintended bumping/collision…like say jumping to a beacon? If not please explain. Your last response was “I don’t care.”
Can you stop with this lying by omission? I asked if all you wanted was for a bumper to get on a killmail. You said no, and that it would be a side effect though. You have also indicated the intent of your proposal is for a flag of some sort.
Correct, the only thing you can say is, “Teckos intentionally set his safety green ,” and nothing more. You can’t say I am intending to shoot someone in HS.
See, this is my issue. People cannot articulate an idea completely. Given that people are a heck of a lot smarter than any computer or computer program the computer is going to have an even harder time determining intent in all cases.
What a load of crock. Of course players intend to interact with the client for pretty much everything. So what.
You know if you wanted this just so that bumpers get on the killmail that might be interesting. First off no more “hiding in NPC corps” for the bumper. Sure they can be in an NPC corp, but there is their name on the KM. People can now set them red and look out for them. That right there brings in some degree of “consequence” by making bumpers more notorious and easier to spot. I’d even be fine with that (I think).
Seriously, can you stop fecking around with Daichi and get on the goddamned conversation?
yeah filing a ticket has been tried. a couple hours of bumping a freighter and it was told bumping is working as intended. even with the pilot that had logged out hoping it would save him, just kept being bumped until 2 fleets of cats came in and ganked it
@Teckos_Pech Exactly, I find myself agreeing with you about ‘troll bumping’, but add
If an individual is sure it is ‘troll bumping’ file a ticket, or if they think it likely, file a ticket, though understand the nature of the petition and that they may not get an answer that confirms anything.
Actions may result which give an answer and a kind of confirmation. Silence may be the answer. A temp ban of a player may be the answer, but the petitioner may never know this, as data protection laws prevent CCP from telling the petitioner. They may be reimbursed their loss, or told 'normal gameplay.
@Agondray Unfortunately, one could say
-though it is a direct consequence of the pvp sandbox, so how unfortunate I am not sure, perhaps I should have said ‘fortunately’-
it can rarely be clear cut what is harassment and legitimate gameplay- without full investigation of the matter by GMs/Devs- for only they have an overview of the board as a whole, and even they cannot access everything-
The point is that there may be a legitimate ‘game’ reason to hold your piece on the board, for any length of time.
May I explain why I am not merely justifying wanton destruction or ‘griefing’ for its own sake?
Perhaps bumping and holding a freighter for 40 minutes or 4 hours could be used as a tool for harassment, it may, it is true, in principle;
But bumping a freighter you have scanned covertly that does have a valuable cargo, or a freighter that has a better than average chance of having a good cargo,
(say 25% chance; you spend 8 hours bumping 4 freighters statistically you have 100% chance one will have good cargo, given quality of intel; obviously standard deviation applies so not actually 100% chance, though remember, entities who do this for a living do it a lot, so deviation becomes less of an issue, as it does with each coin toss or dice roll in a casino)
may be legitimate gameplay, and the ‘harassment calculation’ may not be a function of how long the freighter is held in place at all,
It would rather be a matter of risk/reward and/or isk/hour.
TLDR:
Gankers make same isk/hour min/max calculations mission runners and haulers (should and usually) do,
the larger the entiity and the more ganks they are able to achieve, the less of a statistical edge they need to max isk/hour, risk/reward, the less deviation will be an issue and the more their results will reflect ‘true odds’, and the bigger risks they can and will take- and the longer they will be able to hold targets while maintaining isk/hour and risk/reward.
Even shorter TLDR: gankers use spreadsheets also.
PS. (Sorry postscript negates TLDR, but I am at least trying to be concise 
)
So Yes, petition is the only way to find out if it was harassment, but you don’t get told the answer, and the answer may be, we are not able to tell either way from the evidence.
So the only responsible thing for an adult gamer to do, is only petition when they are SURE it was/is harassment, as these questions will always challenge the GMs, given the sandbox- one game board- nature of eve, and that hauling is and always was a player versus player activity.
As traders/indy players/haulers, hey even PVE players, we must always consider our nature as prey and predator and our relationships with the same: the immanent appraisal of the steps that led to us being bumped for two or four hours may be beyond us, but their deduction rarely is.
(perhaps just a reputation as a trader who makes isk- maybe a mogul profile- maybe to have flown with too big cargoes in the past, publicised on killboards?
Maybe an entity is large enough, and the pool of whales who do not operate intelligently large enough, that it is always profitable to gank any freighter, given the chance, and that the cut off time to hold a freighter and still sustain reasonable risk/reward, isk/hour may be three, four or even five hours of bumping?)
@Agondray What was your cargo when you were held and ganked? Had you been ganked before? Genuine interest not ‘point proving rhetoric’ as irrelevant to point in any case, and just wondered if it had a direct impact in your case?
This could be used for trolling and potentially harassment. An example of this would be say you’re flying a freighter on a 5-10 jump run from jita. Basically you jump into the next system and are spotted by potential gankers and they see you starting to warp, you get targeted and pointed so your warp cancels. As you continue alligning another ship comes along and bumps you in the other direction and this cycle repeats till you either log or start bishing in one of the chat windows you have up.
Yes, as the discussion progressed I realised it would be too overpowered for baiting, and such.
I for sure said ‘more awesome’ as I imagined it would increase and improve gameplay options.
But now I have thought of so many ways to use it that would be awesome, but perhaps too awesome?
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.