Yes, no bumping unless one of the two pilots clicks something in the interface to tell the game that they want to bump. It’s the same way my ship flies past other ships without shooting them unless I tell it to do so.
The player either targets the other ship or clicks on the other ship and clicks “approach”, this tells the computer the players intent. If the player fails to do one of these these, he does not tell the computer his “intent” and so it assumes “no intent”.
“not intentionally interacting” is a catch-all term so we aren’t arguing about how this would affect fleet battles, Since those are intentional interactions.
You really don’t understand how logic works.
Since every bumping discussion hinges on the “who really made the bump happen?” question, nothing after it can be discussed until it has an offered solution. That is the only part that is relevant to talk about!
If you can’t even figure out what your flag is supposed to do then there isn’t even any point in determining intent. No one is going to code a flag that does nothing.
It is literally a waste of time to discuss half an idea.
If you are counting to 10, you have to count to 5 first. But according to you, it’s “literally a waste of time” to say “let’s get to 5 before we worry about 10.” If we can’t even get to 5, there is no 10 to discuss. No one has said or suggested that we will only “discuss half an idea”. Any idiot (okay, well maybe not any) can see that the point is not to stop at “half an idea”.
You are the only person who has suggested that! Another straw man!
Your argument now is like a police officer saying he can’t arrest someone until he knows exactly what sentence the judge will give the guy.
You do understand that this is a discussion board, it’s a place where ideas are discussed and developed? Ideas do not have to be complete codeable solutions to be discussed.
As I noted, bumping may not be a criminal action. Second, hiding behind the skirts of NPCs should generally be discouraged especially when there is no damage to another ship.
Your solution is a top down complete solution, IMO.
Yes, but your flagging does not allow for this.
Bumping is pretty much the only method of HS interdiction for people who use their freighter imprudently and foolishly. Why do you want to buff foolish and imprudent behavior?
So, you quote my example of how someone would misinterpret me as what I was saying? I never said it should be a criminal action. I have said nothing regarding what should happen after intent is determined.
Then please tell me the “complete” part of it. Because all I’m talking about is a mechanic by which the pilot who caused the “bump” can be determined by the system.
Sure it does, all it does is tells the system “Han shot first” and flags them as such. Corp mates (if allowed) can shoot at each-other without being criminals, but I am almost certain the server knows who shot first.
I don’t. I think every such freighter should be scattered is small pieces around New Eden. But, I also think that every ship involved in the attack should be on the kill mail. Bumping is a bug that needs to be fixed, but not removed. I want bumps, I want lots of bumps, I just don’t want the ■■■■■■■■ that is “I didn’t do anything, I didn’t attack you, I just bumped you.”
I want to fix the problem, I want to answer the question “who bumped whom”, and I want to make Eve a better place for everyone. The KM is a “side effect”.
Is the problem the “intention problem”? If so, okay…then what?
To be perfectly honest, I’m not even seeing “the problem” here. It is only a “problem” if we want to use the intent to do something else. So…then what?
I’m going to reply to your last few posts in one go, because I cant multi-quote, and I think I have the substance of what you are saying now.
I would like to stop for a moment and remind you (and myself, already I address you in the second person) that we are arguing and discussing a point, not arguing with each other. These discussion are by their nature frustrating sometimes, especially if we really expect them to lead to solutions and conclusions rather than be valuable, ‘in their own right’ as a discussion.
The post in which I define trade as PVP, really has nothing to do with rape, or incest, though I do understand, I think, that you might find my replies to you frustrating as it might ‘appear’ that I am wilfully misunderstanding you, and am myself using rhetoric to make a point that appears to you irrelevant, in the post you quoted from. That was not my intention, and I respect your counter use of rhetoric to make your point, though I do think you missed mine.
(PS I just worked out multiquote I think, god help us all!)
(PPS. Yes, all we do is bump each other on the market, pun intended for light relief)
I do agree it is possible for the server to determine ‘who made the bump’, and that this COULD be used to provide a flag- of some sort- in principle. My objection is not a technical one.
To try again to demonstrate why I have gone off the idea of bumping occurring a flag- for the sake of argument call it a suspect flag- I will merely state that
A) Those with knowledge of the system will use it to suspect bait, they will get easier kills this way.
A) 1) If we have a 'new flag; it will either allow the flagged player to be attacked or not
A) 1) a) If the flag is like a full suspect flag as now, it will be exploited to bait the unwary
A 1) b)If it is a new kind of flag, for instance one which allows the bump target to attack without instigating limited engagement- it will still be exploited and used to gank- though the baiter will have to use their own neutral alts etc- AND NO COMPETENT HAULER WILL EVER ENGAGE IN THEIR HAULING SHIP THEMSELVES, ESPECIALY GIVEN THE HULLS SUSCEPTIBLE TO BUMPING ARE GENERALLY NOT CAPABLE OF COMBAT
B) Those who currently haul with adequate op sec will not die less as a result, they will still need alts or friends to move freighters with maximal (not full of course) safety- it will not affect their gameplay in a positive or negative way, as they will never be silly enough to engage the ‘suspect’ baiter.
C) Those who do not understand the mechanics, will be more susceptible to ganking, this will be one more layer of mechanics for them to ignore, and they WILL be suspect baited and gankers will get free ganks.
C) 1) Allowing point by web or scram in high sec, with some sort of none criminal but ‘suspect’ flag would be OP for the gankers, and would be also bad for those who accept pewpew PVP as something to figure into the cost of doing business, but who do not fly in combat ready ships- EVEN WITH a nerf to bumping as a form of interdiction I now believe this would be the case. This was my original idea, and I reject it, unless the goal is to make High Sec generally a more PVP area and to actively encourage more baiting and ganking, rather than to better balance an existing system
C) 2) ) By treating bumping AS web by point or scram (I don’t mean to argue semantics I just mean to point out this would be the result of having an 'activate bump module or button, or a ‘bump approach’ command, or using safeties to determine etcetc, I think this is not a misrepresentation, but what you are getting at?), and using that to give a flag- would be equally exploitable by the ganker, as allowing traditional point in high sec without a full criminal flag.
C) 2) a) If the bump prouduces a criminal flag, then that will mean instant concorde for the bumper, this would REMOVE bumping as a form of interdiction, and radically nerf ganking, especially of high value targets, eg. freighters, DST’s and Bowheads. As you have said several times you, do not want this.
For the record, neither do I.
Anjyl_Took:
If any in-game flag was implied by what I said it would have been “criminal” (since I said bumping was like applying point), but I never said anything about what type of flag or “going flashy” or anything else like that. You weren’t paying attention and assumed “suspect”, which if you were paying attention you wouldn’t have assumed, because you should have assumed “criminal”.
So I began the op by assuming that WHATEVER change was proposed, the change would not be to impose a criminal flag on the bumper, whether we can infer intention, or not- this was my first premise- that interdiction be possible in high sec without instant destruction by concorde, but could we make the bump ship ‘somehow’ involved in the pewpew it instigates, so as to apear on KMs for instance, without completely removing risk from all hauling activities.
So assuming the flag is not a full criminal flag, I see
no gain in gameplay opportunities for anyone other than the ganker, and not necessarily for the ganker either
no gain in gameplay opportunities for the competent hauler, as they will never take advantage of the flag even when it is given, they will already be out of system due to opsec, and if they do engage it will be in another ship, not the bump shipped, and this will always open limited engagement and give the ganker a concorde free fight/kill or kills
a loss to newer players or players who do not know adequate opsec, as it would add a further level of complexity to the flag system, and would open up many exciting opportunities for suspect baiting that currently do not exist
I had begun to ‘fall for’ the idea of combining the ‘warp to total safety after a timer’ proposal, with the idea we could impose a (not full criminal for reasons explained above) flag on the bumper after a set period of time-
thus not nerfing bumping, but nerfing bumping used ONLY to harass and not for valid gameplay reasons.
I now reject this, and have two reasons for doing so:
A) I could repeat my description of trade as PVP again here, but the upshot is that sometimes in this game merely limiting someone’s movement and preventing them from playing the game as they chose is not harassment, but is itself an important part of the meta- for we never see the whole board. Thus
A) I) The ONLY viable option to a player who feels they are being bumped for an unreasonable length of time is to petition, and to understand the difficulty of determining if this is the case for the GM, that they may never give you an ‘answer’ as to whether it was harassment even if they reimburse your loss, and so to do so is a last resort.
B)
So for myself, I am now ‘happy with the status quo’, as I no longer feel bumping is OP at all, and feel the benefits of these options (bumper on KM, ability for hauler to 'fight back etc) are far outweighed by the cons.
Just my 2isk, but I hope you can see I have tried to consider your idea and the others in this thread,
and while my opinions are my own and I seek to change no one’s mind,
the process of discussing this has clarified my opinions, and I have enjoyed it immensely.
If I have misunderstood any aspect of your proposal, or any one elses, please let me know!
EDIT for TLDR: I cant do these, and if I try, I will miss important points, and not do justice to your proposal, so the only option is to read the whole lot. I realise someone else could be more concise perhaps, but I have tried to at least format my post properly, as you do, so I hope it is not too much pain!
Comparing the formation of an idea to counting to ten is disingenuous at best. Not everything has to be done linearly, especially when we know where you’re going with it is a non-starter. To use your own crude analogies, Instead of counting to ten, you’re trying to count to infinity or like an officer arresting someone but not knowing what for…which everyone but you seems to know is a waste of time.
Your also caught up on determining fault, which is again not what we need. I can be at fault but it still be an accident. What we need is intent.
Of course. You might have had some of my sarcasm or rhetoric directed your way, but none of my ire.
I didn’t miss your point about bad things, it was just too far from what I used the term for to really be addressed. I used the more vague term to point to the cause and effect argument not to shift to an ethical discussion.
This is the right idea, “for the sake of argument”, but then we remember it’s one of the outcomes and don’t attack it as if it’s the only one (like others did).
I didn’t say that, I said I didn’t say I wanted it. TBH I haven’t said what I want the outcome of determining “intent” to be, because I’m not sure yet. I have not ruled out any outcomes, including “don’t really do anything” and “criminal flag”. My point has been “one step at a time”, and this outcome is a later “step”.
If that is the case, then I personally think an argument should be made to make interdiction not a criminal offence in high-sec. I don’t think that case has been made. (I’m not saying no one has tried.) I do very much feel that the use of bumping as a form of interdiction is very exploitive, in getting a reward (doing something) without a risk (any “legal” connection to that action).
If this were applied to WD, would it be a serious idea, or would it be laughed at? Would anyone actually be discussing a proposal that said “you can WD someone in high-sec for 3 min with no flag, recourse, or anything, and then after 3 min your WD will fail and they can magically warp away”?
Personally, I haven’t been worrying or caring about the harassment side of bumping. Harassment is something for GMs to figure out and address on a case by case basis, not a question of game mechanics or suggestions. IMO
I have been focused on the exploitive nature of using a gameplay system, while avoiding the in-game consequence of that system.
You and others have stated and agreed that “bumping” can be interdiction. And it is clearly understood that the use of interdiction modules is a criminal offence. To not connect these two should require a strong argument as to why interdiction by module is bad, and interdiction by “bump” is good. I haven’t seen this argument.
The main argument I have seen, which I have tried to address is “the sever can clearly see who used a module, but it can’t see who ‘used’ the bump.” This is the argument I have been addressing, what comes of it is further than I have gone so far.
But this brings me back to my point about people trying to argue too much at once and not “honestly” arguing about what they mean. They use the “we can’t say who caused the bump” argument when really their point is “I like bumping, I’m happy that it allows interdiction without consequence, and I don’t want to change it.” There is of course nothing wrong with this opinion, but don’t hide behind “the system can’t tell”,
^^^ The above paragraph, there is the problem. (As I said when I entered the thread, “the problem” I was addressing was how people were arguing past each-other.)
The game play excuse, that may or may not be a problem, is that there is no way for the server to assign blame when it comes to a bump. This I provided a solution for which people then jumped way past it and tried arguing (proving my point about not starting at the bottom and building up to a solution), or people fell back to “bumping is good” (proving my point about not establishing premises).
I think this is more of an argument for a full criminal flag. But that should be much later in the discussion. Also if a full criminal flag were set, it wouldn’t have to happen at the time of the bump, but could happen at the time that the bump becomes “point equivalent”, which would eliminate most “normal” collisions from the works.
To this point no one has shown any way that my suggestion could be exploited so that it would assign blame to the bumpee instead of the bumper, as is the case with just about every other discussion of “who did the bumping.” There have been some attempts to say that someone might get flagged as a bumper in a non-bump situation, but those were either in situations that had already been specifically excluded, or could be addressed after “who caused it” is settled.
You are so right! Why didn’t I think of this. So if I target one ship, but I intended to target another, the game should read my mind, and not shot at the ship I didn’t intend to target. Or if I target a ship, and I intend to approach it, but instead I click attack, I shouldn’t get a flag because I didn’t intend to.
To know the intend of what the player was thinking is an impossible bar that cannot not be met in any circumstance, and is not required in any other in game mechanic. The game must take the direct input from the player as the players intent! There is no other reasonable discussion regarding “intent”.
As I already told you, you are saying that even though you commanded your ship to fly into another ship (“approach” is a command that ends in a collision, and not stopping or changing direction is also a command, by lack of command) you didn’t intend for your ship to fly into another ship.
This is a great idea, We should apply it to undocking also, you can only undock after you convince the game that what you clicked in the UI was what you reallyintended to click. It would eliminate anyone being blamed for something they didn’t intend, but it could also make gameplay kind of boring.
He just can’t understand <<千里之行，始於足下>> “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” and thinks that it only makes sense to argue about a destination, without taking any steps to see which destinations might actually be reachable.
In his failed attempt at redefining my analogy he has just shown that he doesn’t understand the conversation, or doesn’t understand logical argument. If we directly apply the police analogy to the bumping discussion it would go like this:
“what for” = “is bumping hostile?”, etc.
“who to arrest” = “determining who caused the bump”, etc.
“how the judge will rule” = what will happen to the bumper, once we can say who the bumper was, etc.
Then he says crazy things like:
Which is exactly opposite of what I said. Since when I frist entered the thread it was that talking about hanging the guy or giving him life in prision is a waste of time until we establish the “what for” and the “how to know who done it.”
At this point I think we are not going to come to an agreement, for myself I have started with certain premises and assumptions, that I believe I have these out clearly.
It seems that you do not accept these premises as basic, if you even consider the possibility of bumping giving a criminal flag with attendent consequences,
as this would COMPLETELY REMOVE the possibility of high sec interdiction without concordunken, which was one of the basic premises with which I began the thread.
To KEEP an option to hold ships in place without concorde interference, while possibly making the gameplay for all parties more engaging.
A criminal flag just kills the mechanic. Thus to advocate it is another discussion.
I have outlined why I believe the solutions we have all offered, to keep it but make it more engaging are bad, and have outlined why. I have changed my mind in some ways due to the responses in this thread including yours. (thanks everyone).
To ignore the possibility of a mechanics change leading to more baiting and easier ganking (not necessarily harassment- that is always a GM call and its rare as rocking horse shit in reality), when designing a system intended to improve the gameplay for ganker AND gankee, seems to me unwise.
Yep, and that was exactly my point about establishing premises first.
But, I wouldn’t have any problem with a discussion about changing the legality of high-sec interdiction.
My premise is not the bumping should result in CONCORDing, but that if bumping is interdiction, then it should be treated as such. I’m not arguing for a safer world, just one in which we don’t insist that “six” and “a half dozen” are different things.
I sort of get this but the activation of a criminal flag in high sec DOES result in ship destruction, and so a criminal flag would result in absolute safety instead of balanced risk.
I should have been clearer, but assumed it was a given that we were not trying to do away with high sec interdiction altogether.
If you think a criminal flag or another change to the mechanics, such as a new flag, or even the total removal of concorde is necessary IN ADDITION to us being able to establish intent, for this to work
then the onus is on you to explain what those changes would have to be.
But I took it as an unwritten premise that 'No where is safe, concorde are there to punish not protect’
in the same way we might argue whether a particular criminal once convicted in real life should get the death penalty or life in prison, without first specifying that we believe laws should exist in general, or the police force and courts in general- our participation in the game (in the eve example) and our participation in society (in the rl example) presupposes we accept certain basic premises.
But if you have a way to treat bumping as a hostile act with penalties for the bumper, without nerfing bumping or arbitrage pvp/hauling/competing for space rocks, such that any of those activities are still sustainable,
and to do so respecting the basic premise on which ‘this society’ is founded,
then please do so! Its just I am now convinced devs have probably been over this and also theory crafted the ■■■■ out of it, and have come to the same conclusion, most balanced way to keep eve eve and not over power either playstyle, is bumping as is.
I never said it should be a criminal action. I have said nothing regarding what should happen after intent is determined.
