# Balancing Hi-Sec Freighter Bump Mechanics **URL:** \ **Category:** Player Features & Ideas\ **Created:** [August 4, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363 "2018-08-04T20:37:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Marcus\_Gideon](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/marcus_gideon/32/141713_2.png) [@Marcus\_Gideon](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Marcus_Gideon)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 4:30pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/281 "2018-08-12T16:30:55Z")
So… so… SO many of these threads stem from “I want to play the game all by myself. I don’t want to make friends. I don’t want social interaction. I don’t want anything to do with the Multiplayer aspect of this MMO.” And then someone starts picking on you somehow whether by Cloaking in your system (so their name in Local just stares right into your soul and makes you wet your pants). Or by bumping your Freighter so you can’t get aligned to warp. And you guys are scared to death to ask for help in game. So instead, you run to the forums and start making useless threads like these. Go… make… friends. Then ask those friends to come help you in times of need. “Hey, can someone come bump this guy off me so I can warp?” or “Can someone come triple/quadruple Web me so any amount of movement in the right direction will let me warp?” ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/282 "2018-08-12T18:51:10Z")
> [@Dom\_Arkaral](#): > > you can get someone to counterbump > you can get a mining permit > you can pay the ransom > you can get someone to gank the bumper, etc, etc Thank you! I did forget to mention the tactic of simply asking them politely to stop. Counter Bump= Lucky Bump. Pay attention. Mining Permit= LOL. Pay Ransom= LOL. Get someone to gank bumper= Suicide in Self Defense. The problem with the Mining Permit or Paying Ransom isn’t that it’s not valid, but rather that it’s the successful conclusion in favor of the ganker. You should not have all day to seal that deal. You bump, you have them under your guns, and they can pay or not as they choose. Pertinent point there being you should not have an unlimited time frame to get that done without your fleet on station. If the fleet is there, they are dead. If the fleet is not there, then you can’t claim it is. ---
**Author:** ![Salt\_Foambreaker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salt_foambreaker/32/280119_2.png) [@Salt\_Foambreaker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salt_Foambreaker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 7:10pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/283 "2018-08-12T19:10:57Z")
So the bottom line is you don’t want to help yourself, you don’t want to work with a team. Go back to SWTOR “Voidstar”. ---
**Author:** ![Dom\_Arkaral](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dom_arkaral/32/462611_2.png) [@Dom\_Arkaral](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dom_Arkaral)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/284 "2018-08-12T20:01:22Z")
> [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > it’s not valid it is your opinion, on the other hand, isn’t (lul) get friends, get gud ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 8:33pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/285 "2018-08-12T20:33:22Z")
I’ll just leave this here. Again… > What is great is that you continue to ignore even suggestions that would limit bumping through the use of escorts… > > Meaning the Hauler wasn’t solo, he was using an alt. > > Such a suggestion would solve the complaint without affecting the ganking of haulers that were flying solo, and probably untanked as well. Those guys still die, and no one still cares, and the only ‘cost’ to the gankers is that a prepared ship with escort got away before they could form up… though they did have a chance since the suggestion even included a few minutes of spool up—far more than would be needed for a prepared crew to take advantage of. > > Because let’s be clear… I’m not arguing that a solo guy should win against a prepared fleet. If only one side of the fight has a fleet, that side will most likely win unless something went spectacularly wrong. What is unreasonable is that a guy without a fleet can hold the other guy an indefinite amount of time until a fleet eventually forms up. > > Every time you mention things like ‘don’t get targeted’ or ‘avoid the first bump in the first place’, you are beyond the scope of the complaint and are deflecting the conversation to your own personal strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 8:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/286 "2018-08-12T20:40:49Z")
> [@Dom\_Arkaral](#): > > ![](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/40/13197_1.png) Mike\_Voidstar: > > > it’s not valid > > it is > your opinion, on the other hand, isn’t (lul) > > get friends, get gud You are a special kind of illiterate, aren’t you. Lets see what’s wrong here by going back to the sentence you cherry picked and actually reading the whole thing in context. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > The problem with the Mining Permit or Paying Ransom isn’t that it’s not valid, but rather that it’s the successful conclusion in favor of the ganker. See, if you read that sentence you will note that I’m saying they are valid, but that the ability to hold a ship with bumping, in high sec, for an unlimited time until they acquiesce with no gank fleet actually on station to seal the deal is wrong. It’s one sided—You have a fleet, you win. You don’t have a fleet, you still win. Basically, you are outside the realm of the complaint. The problem isn’t that haulers die or get extorted, The problem is that they are being aggressed in high sec in an unlimited fashion. So to bring the intended balance of High Sec back to where it should be, you should have a limited window to effectively bump, be that through mechanics that allow the ship to continue after a reasonable time or through the intervention of others that does not result in being concorded for self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Dom\_Arkaral](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dom_arkaral/32/462611_2.png) [@Dom\_Arkaral](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dom_Arkaral)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 8:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/287 "2018-08-12T20:55:26Z")
> [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > The problem is that they are being aggressed in high sec in an unlimited fashion. that’s as much a problem as cloaky afk’ing in null or mercs in Jita none of them are issues to the game, people are just weak XD ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/288 "2018-08-12T21:03:26Z")
If it was limited I would agree. The entire point to the ruleset of high sec is that there are limitations on aggression. Tackling with bumping isn’t breaking that, until it starts to last for an extended time because of the lack of counterplay options that don’t end in suicide. Self Defense should not be seen as aggression. If the bumper could be engaged without concord intervention, it would be fine— bumper initiated the fight, and if the hauler brought friends they can deal with it. If the hauler did not bring friends, then he gets dealt with. But, due to the nature of bumping you can’t really get an intelligent indicator of who initiated the hostility. So we go for a different approach— a way to get the ship into warp after a spool up timer. Still requires an escort, does not stop a prepared gank crew. ---
**Author:** ![Dom\_Arkaral](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dom_arkaral/32/462611_2.png) [@Dom\_Arkaral](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dom_Arkaral)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/289 "2018-08-12T21:48:35Z")
> [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > Tackling with bumping bumping isn’t tackling… you can still warp away 😅 ---
**Author:** ![Salt\_Foambreaker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salt_foambreaker/32/280119_2.png) [@Salt\_Foambreaker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salt_Foambreaker)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/290 "2018-08-12T22:04:35Z")
“This topic will close 3 months after the last reply.” One can only hope 🤣 ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:22pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/291 "2018-08-12T22:22:52Z")
> [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > Free because of skill injector farming. That’s not free…you have to give up whatever benefits those SP would have provided. That some people think that trade is acceptable does not make having an Omega character free. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > The person with the double standards is you. You have to pay for at least 2 accounts to keep your freigther safe as none of the ships (freighter or webber) are Alpha enabled. Oh but no! You just said SP farming allows you to have “free” Omega clones. There is no monetary excuse for not having an alt to scout and/or web you now is there? > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > The ganker does not pay for the PLEX, they just use them. So again just complete bovine waste from a clueless person spamming a threat with meaning less dribble. They are paying ISK…which means they are giving up all the other things they could have spent that ISK on. Seriously, opportunity cost is a thing. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > Let us do this step by step: Does that skill farmer pay RL money for the PLEX to buy the extractors? A simple yes or no suffices as answer. No, but it is also quite clear you do not apprehend the concept of opportunity cost either. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > Next step: If someone else pays for the PLEX that you use (which you agreed to) and you do not invest any RL money for the PLEX (which you agreed to), what is the cost of the account maintenance for the characters using the PLEX? The forgone opportunities with your ISK you got from SP farming or the benefits of the SP had you not extracted them for said ISK. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > What it is to you doesn’t matter. What is the cost to the ganker character in both cases? He just told you the forgone opportunities. Scipio understands opportunity cost, you do not. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > They do not subscribe. And they do not pay for the PLEX. So, by your own admission someone else pays for their subscription by making PLEX available to them. No, they are paying for their own subscription by exchanging ISK they have acquired for someone who has bought a PLEX but would rather have the ISK than the game time. They are still paying, just in a more round-about manner. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > If someone else pays for their subscription, they themselves have 0 cost to maintain their accounts. Correct? No. To buy that PLEX you need ISK. To get that ISK you have to give up something. ISK does not magically appear in anyone’s wallet. Something is traded for it and that process typically involves some amount of time. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > We now have established that the cost to maintain a ganker or other purpose character is 0 as long as other people provide the means to make this possible. No, we have only established you flunked basic economics and do not understand opportunity cost. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > And what is the effort? You train the same skill over and over again and do your preferred activity day in/day out while you passively generate your account maintenance money. Okay… So with SP farming there is still a cost. Without SP farming you’d train skills that you deemed worthwhile and would provide some benefits. But with SP you forgo those benefits. That is the cost, those forgone benefits. There is still a cost. You do know that money, in and of itself, is generally useless. It only becomes beneficial when it is used as money–i.e. a method to facilitate transactions. If one looks at the items used throughout history as money it is something that has little or few practical uses. > [@Dyver\_Phycad](#): > > And yes, I use this method, too, to maintain my webbers and I can tell you I have not paid CCP directly any money for them in 1.5 years. The cost to maintain these accounts is 0. No…you have given up something in this process. The fact that you are willing to give up that something does not mean the costs are zero. > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > Stop trying to argue with Scipio, he’s admitted to not even reading posts before replying and is clearly just wanting to bury any reasoned arguments in spam, stop helping him. There is no reasoned argument though. Dyver Phycad’s probelm is he is ignoring opportunity cost. Once that is factored in Scipio is right, Dyver is wrong. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > Personal responsibility is fine, as far as it goes. However victim blaming isn’t a valid tactic for game balancing. Noting that someone made a sequence of really bad decisions is not victim blaming. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > Sure, don’t overload your freighter. That still leaves empty freighters that get bumped and popped for the sheer lulz. Rarely. Please go find one…and tell us how many overloaded ganked freighters you have to pass by on the KB to find it. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > Bumping lasting all day with no recourse is not balanced. First off how often does this happen? Have people contacted CCP about these incidents and what has been the response? People always say this like it is some sort of epidemic or routine occurrence. To be quite honest I think it is total ■■■■■■■■ people trot out to justify changes that work in their favor because they were stupid. > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > However, if someone is being bumped for 23 hours, then yes, I agree that is unreasonable. If there is no ransom paid or gank initiated, then end it. But I’d rather CCP respond to stuck tickets in that case, than set a limit as short as 5 minutes. Exactly. If you want to define this as griefing…I’m fine with it. But to make a change that lets the idiots off the hook, Hell no. > [@Scipio\_Artelius](#): > > It’s not unreasonable to have and alt or a friend. > It’s not unreasonable to prepare so you aren’t a target. > It’s not unreasonable to use webs. > It’s not unreasonable, in the event that something goes horribly wrong, to gank the bump ship. > It’s not unreasonable, in the event that something goes horribly wrong, to get your ship out of space if you can do so. > > It is unreasonable to be a lazy ass that couldn’t care less about trying to be safe and then crying to CCP about the potential for loss, with a request to change someone else’s gameplay. Change your own first. Couldn’t agree more. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > You accept that once bumping begins there is nothing other than a lucky bump or being concorded for self defense that can be done. Again, the gank starts in station…don’t be stupid, don’t get bumped. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:29pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/292 "2018-08-12T22:29:01Z")
> [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > > You accept that once bumping begins there is nothing other than a lucky bump or being concorded for self defense that can be done. > > Again, the gank starts in station…don’t be stupid, don’t get bumped. With this, you are outside of the complaint. The Conversation begins with the bump happened, you are trying to deflect yet again… either get a gank fleet on station in reasonable time (5 mintues being more than reasonable), or stop pretending this is a fleet exercise. ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/293 "2018-08-12T22:32:12Z")
> [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > With this, you are outside of the complaint. The Conversation begins with the bump happened, you are trying to deflect yet again… either get a gank fleet on station in reasonable time (5 mintues being more than reasonable), or stop pretending this is a fleet exercise. Yes, if you want to ignore all the stupid that lead up to that moment the bumping started sure…but that is a fundamentally dishonest discussion. Freighter ganking _is_ a fleet exercise. Freighter ganking always involves a fleet. Always. You want to chop up an emergent process into distinct and irrelevant parts and excuse stupid behavior. Sorry Mike…that’s just crap. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/294 "2018-08-12T22:40:48Z")
You are trying to set up a strawman. I’m not against freighter ganking. As far as I am concerned the only valid point the haulers had was that the bumper didn’t have a fleet on station. You can’t claim you have a 10 to 1 situation when 9 of them are not there, nor even yet on the way. The only problem with bumping is that it is effectively unlimited aggression in an environment specifically set up to limit aggression. The result is that even if escorts are present they have no valid counterplay other than to suicide in self defense or get very lucky. If you want to frame it as Fleet vs. Fleet, that’s fine. The mechanic I supported was something that goes on the escort ship with a spool up timer. Now, if the hauler wants to fly alone with support on standby should he run into trouble we are back on an even playing field. Bumper can’t gank without gank fleet, hauler can’t get away to haul without hauling fleet. Whomever’s fleet arrives first wins the day and it’s still weighted to the ganker because the mechanic I suggested spools for several minutes before it can be used. The hauler would have to get his help in place several minutes before the gank fleet arrived or he still died. So stop dragging in extraneous elements in an attempt to deflect. ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:45pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/295 "2018-08-12T22:45:33Z")
> [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > You are trying to set up a strawman. > > I’m not against freighter ganking. As far as I am concerned the only valid point the haulers had was that the bumper didn’t have a fleet on station. Nonsense. I never claimed you were opposed to freighter ganking, I did say you want to let people who have been serially stupid off the hook…which is true. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > You can’t claim you have a 10 to 1 situation when 9 of them are not there, nor even yet on the way. Are they in fleet? Is the fleet on the way? Then it is a fleet exercise. Depending on the size of the fleet bumping can happen in different systems, so the fleet is often in a central location and burns to the bumped ship and kills it. That is a fleet exercise. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > The only problem with bumping is that it is effectively unlimited aggression in an environment specifically set up to limit aggression. Again, if you want to claim bumping for an excessive time frame is bad, fine. Make that argument, don’t use it as a Bravo Sierra excuse to let people be stupid and get away with it. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > So stop dragging in extraneous elements in an attempt to deflect. The point that a gank starts in station with the stupid freighter pilot is not “extraneous”. It is looking at the entire process and seeing your request for what it really is, lowering the consequences for being dumb. ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/296 "2018-08-12T22:47:13Z")
Frankly I don’t get this complaint about lack of fleet. For crying out loud if the fleet is going to take 10 or 15 minutes to get there, that is just more time to try and find a way out. But nope, lets do something so that people will have _less_ of a chance to get away. Can we call your request Mike, “Hurry up and kill me faster?” 🙄 ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:53pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/297 "2018-08-12T22:53:31Z")
> [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > Are they in fleet? Is the fleet on the way? Then it is a fleet exercise. Depending on the size of the fleet bumping can happen in different systems, so the fleet is often in a central location and burns to the bumped ship and kills it. That is a fleet exercise. Too bad. Part of the complaint is that the Hauler Fleet must be present at the gate, every gate, while the bumper fleet can be 15 minutes away or not even logged in. Thus we discuss reasonable timeframe to get the gank fleet on station. If the means to escape bumping are on an escort ship and can be applied after bumping begins, we are back to a level playing field. If it’s OK for Gank Fleet to be elsewhere, then it’s OK for Hauler Fleet to be elsewhere, and whoever shows up first wins… and it’s still in favor of the gank fleet since they can shoot immediately while Hauler Fleet have to spool up. > [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > Again, if you want to claim bumping for an excessive time frame is bad, fine. Make that argument, don’t use it as a Bravo Sierra excuse to let people be stupid and get away with it. That is exactly what I’m doing. I’m not excusing those who are truly alone, and my suggestion to address it does nothing for them > [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > The point that a gank starts in station with the stupid freighter pilot is not “extraneous”. It is looking at the entire process and seeing your request for what it really is, lowering the consequences for being dumb. The point is we aren’t talking about a Gank, We are talking about “Balancing Hi-Sec Freighter Bump Mechanics” They cry about getting popped while alone, and I don’t care. They make the point that they are tackled for unreasonable time without counterplay options other than ‘stop playing’ while a gank fleet eats dinner or finishes their missions… I suggest a way to get the freighter into warp using a second ship and a spool up timer to move the engagement along to its conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:55pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/298 "2018-08-12T22:55:57Z")
Sure. I’m fine if they explode. I’m not fine with using bumping as unlimited tackle. Finish it, one way or the other. You got a lot of gankers in this thread whining that they must have 15 minutes to several hours to get on station or it’s an unreasonable burden to them. ---
**Author:** ![Teckos\_Pech](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/teckos_pech/32/375283_2.png) [@Teckos\_Pech](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Teckos_Pech)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 10:58pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/299 "2018-08-12T22:58:14Z")
> [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > Too bad. > > Part of the complaint is that the Hauler Fleet must be present at the gate, every gate, while the bumper fleet can be 15 minutes away or not even logged in. Not true. If a ship is getting bumped then the freighter pilot can call in his buddies for help. The longer the bumping the more time for help to arrive. It is prudent to have the fleet nearby or even present, but it is not a requirement. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > If it’s OK for Gank Fleet to be elsewhere, then it’s OK for Hauler Fleet to be elsewhere, and whoever shows up first wins… and it’s still in favor of the gank fleet since they can shoot immediately while Hauler Fleet have to spool up. Yes…like it is now…except most people who use a freighter an get ganked are stupid so they don’t have said fleet to come help them. Trying to fix mechanically a social/player failing is not good game design. > [@Mike\_Voidstar](#): > > I’m not fine with using bumping as unlimited tackle. Again, make that argument. Do not suggest a module that will let stupid players off the hook. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Voidstar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_voidstar/32/280496_2.png) [@Mike\_Voidstar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Voidstar)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2018, 11:04pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363/300 "2018-08-12T23:04:30Z")
> [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > Not true. If a ship is getting bumped then the freighter pilot can call in his buddies for help. The longer the bumping the more time for help to arrive. > > It is prudent to have the fleet nearby or even present, but it is not a requirement. But all they can do is suicide in self defense or get very lucky with a counter bump. > [@Teckos\_Pech](#): > > > I’m not fine with using bumping as unlimited tackle. > > Again, make that argument. Do not suggest a module that will let stupid players off the hook. That Is the argument, and the proposed solution. They aren’t being let off the hook. The balance problem is unlimited tackle in high sec with concord protecting it. The Solution is a module that an escort can use to get the ship into warp, with a reasonable spool up before that happens. Considering it’s High Sec, 5 mintues is overly generous. If we really wanted to discuss proper balance the spoolup would be no greater than the maximum base of the targeted ship. If you want to keep it out of warp, use a point or have your fleet present and forgo tackle completely. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363.md?page=14) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/balancing-hi-sec-freighter-bump-mechanics/95363.md?page=16)