Ares Backwards Game Play


(JunTuu) #1

So in the real world, if you retaliated against some one shoving or pushing you, you would be defending yourself right? You have two options to run or fight. This is simple psychology. Fight or Flight.

So why in the world in EVE has CCP decided that bumping is not considered assault?

CCP prides themselves on mimicking real world. That would include the aggressor becoming hostile and the defender being allowed to retaliate. Now we are not saying the aggressor becomes criminal, but, yes, they are very suspect in game or real life.

So the EVE mechanic is very Bass Ackwards as the Bumper is allowed to push and shove people around and the only real option is to either become criminal and retaliate of flee. Which in most cases that is not possible due to the highly refined skill of the bumper and the game machanics. Which I must credit many bumpers they have become extremely good at manipulating the game machanic.

For what end. They say they are saving hi sec, but, in all reality they are greifing for one and two the primary objective is to get the player to low/null sec to either join a greifing corp or be an open target to pad someones kill boards.

It basically makes the game unplayable for those that just want to enjoy the basics, get away and just spend some time in game.

The mechanic is very lopsided, and while a balance in ship powers have been paid much attention. The bumping things is still not addressed. The game losses paying or potentially paying customers every day and it doe not mimic the reality of life in this concern. Honestly, if someone pushed me in real life I would defend myself. But, in game if I do that I go criminal and concorded by the police. What police officer shoots and kills the defender? So really this mechanic only works in favor of the outlaw.

CCP really needs to re-examine this mechanic, because I would punch back if I wasn’t under threat of being Concorded. Lets face it, the ships they are bumping are fairly defenseless and toothless to begin with.

Call it a whine or whatever you wish, but, I am simply pointing out that it is extremely unbalanced and hinges largely to the outlaw. Of course there will the be the greifer that tries to punch this full of holes, but, their only real reason is because they enjoy acting out the anti-social behaviors in game.


(Quelza) #2

I’ll agree, if only because bumping looks incredibly stupid and breaks any immersion left in this game with space-submarines, respawning asteroid belts and planets that don’t orbit.

I’m not sure how they’d differentiate between a collision and an intentional “bump”. I’m kind of interested in how they would even attempt to implement such a mechanic.


(Caolan Carraig) #3

How would that work on a busy station undock or in a large fleet where ships are tightly packed?
The collision mechanics are in game already, if they weren’t, then there would be no way to ‘bump’ people. Adding damage to bumping would be quite a deterrant, but again, how do you work that in fleets or on busy undocks?
In order to get this to work then it would probably need the player to be more in control of the actual flight path of their ship at all times - the game doesn’t really do that well at the moment, but it’s never pretended to be a flight sim.


(JunTuu) #4

We are only talking about capsuleers here and to be honest if we were going to be realistic, friendly fire or other they would still be suspect. Have you ever been bumped innocently enough and had and immediate reaction? That’s what we are talking about suspect, not necessarily criminal…


(JunTuu) #5

Firstly at a station they are tethered so its not an issue. Unless they have done something to not be tethered, which makes them a target anyway.


(Arianwynn) #6

As long as it’s not active near a station or gate it shouldn’t be an issue.


(JunTuu) #7

Well, accidental bumping would make the game interesting as well.


(Caolan Carraig) #8

You didn’t specify where the bumping might attract penalties. Lots of bumping takes place close to stations or gates in order to push players out of docking or jumping range. This seems to be one of the things that the OP is trying to get stopped.

Accidental bumping penalties and ship damage is used to good effect in Elite Dangerous, however as that is very much a space flight sim then the flight path of the ship is very much in the players control.


(JunTuu) #9

Actually, not trying to stop bumping at all. Just saying who ever bumps becomes suspect. I would certainly pause in real life to see who and what bumped me and if it warranted aggression. However, in dock, that would not apply as they are tethered and invulnerable already. However, lets say someone did manage to knock that person off tether, the bumper would become suspect, and lets face it, that is a real act of aggression in the first place. There are few to no good reasons to knock someone off tether.


(Caolan Carraig) #10

Bumping away from a station undock is entirely possible, but the tether is there to prevent bumping out of dockingrange from a citadel etc.
The player at a station, unless he has already aggressed, always has the option to dock up.

If the person is made suspect then it would be quite fun as they would be open to aggro from anyone who chose to fire - not just the person that they bumped into. Imagine the mayhem on the undock of Jita 4/4 - every single person would be suspect at some point and gankers would have easy pickings.


(JunTuu) #11

Well, yes, it would definitely make for some fun game play. But, they could institute that it does not occur withing x of stations or gates.


(Arianwynn) #12

If they simply made it similar to smartbomb activation rules where it would not give you suspect status within X range of a station or gate I would see no problem with it. I would really want CCP to implement something at least because bumpers are currently “abusing” the mechanic for nefarious purposes without the slightest risk on their end.


(Caolan Carraig) #13

There’s no ‘abuse’ of the mechanic, there is simply ‘use’ of it.


(Vokan Narkar) #14

It really doesn’t make a sense that CODE alts can be bumping freighter with their machs for as long until he finally logs off which will only make him easier to kill and loot. All that while there are 20 ppls watching it unable to intervene (meaning sensible - shooting the neutral npc corp mach won’t accomplish nothing except lots of crap talk from CODE)

Bumping and concord pulling are one of the most stupid mechanics in eve.


(Arianwynn) #15

Do you honestly believe CCP implemented collision mechanics for the sole purpose of ramming another person off course? I think not.


(JunTuu) #16

Yes this is exactly my point, no one can defend the person on the ground being kicked. There is a psychological term for the called the “Bystander Affect” where people actually stand by and watch people be raped murdered or beat up.


(Caolan Carraig) #17

What do you mean by ‘unable to intervene’? They have entirely the same mechanics at their disposal. They could quite easily have other players (alts or otherwise) run counter bumping cover to ward off bumpers… Hard, but not impossible.


(Scipio Artelius) #18

Oh, another butt hurt thread. Awesome.

Not necessarily, no. Depends on what you do and where in the World you live. EVE provides a lot more freedom to retaliate than pretty much everywhere irl.

But it’s a game, set 20000 years in the future. We have no clue what will or won’t be allowed then, so CCP’s rules for the game are perfectly fine for the type of game they wanted to create.


(Charley Varrick) #19

I dont think there is any way for the game to determine the difference between accidental or intentional and even if it could it would only be a matter of time before gankers found a way to get around it or turn it on their target. Best thing to do IMO is do away with it completely…disable collision or make warp overide ships direction with a timer. Warp scrams and stabs were put in the game for a reason…bumping is nothing but a cheap copout for gankers that are unprepared and didn’t bring scrams.


(Arianwynn) #20

Disabling it entirely would be the best option in my opinion. Agreed.