I believe something should be done as well.
1 Like
Again, you’re not thinking it through. I park my PvP ship in front of a mission runner, after X bumps they go yellow and I get to kill them. Or I find a hauler autopiloting to the gate, after X bumps on autopilot they go yellow and I get to kill them. Your mechanic is poorly designed, easily exploited, and has the same flaws as every similar proposal over the years.
And of the person is going to be ransomed? Then what? All they have to do is stall for 3 minutes and then the ransom is shot.
As always, the issue is not that ganks happen. The issue is the mechanics around ganks.
For the ganked person it’s a blink and you miss it event. They just get to suddenly die.
If bumping is added into the mix again once the first bump happens there is no single pilot counter-play, which is very bad since it’s a single pilot bumping you. And they can and do bump empty freighters so it’s not just a ‘carry less stuff’. The mechanic allows them to do it to any freighter.
So solve both of these with a change to how ganks go down. Increase the gank time allowed to several minutes so it’s less of a blink and you miss it thing (& probably also decreases the pilots needed to execute a gank especially against an AFK pilot), and give all the industrial & mining lines real fittings appropriate to ships of their size, which then introduces single pilot counter-play via fittings such as prop mods or small group counter-play against a gank fleet.
1 Like
How about we just kill the bumping mechanic all together then? If it can not be balanced it should not be in the game.
IIRC bumping is part of the core game engine of EVE and removing it would be difficult at best.
Then perhaps instead of ransoming by bumping a person indefinitely until they finally give up you should have a credible threat ready to kill them if they don’t pay fast enough. IOW, stop being bad at ransoms.
1 Like
Bumping is used all across the cluster. It’s only a few players who have a problem with it, in highsec only.
So how about we don’t actually do that. The rest of us have no issue with bumping and would rather it be left alone.
If there is some highsec specific issue, then change it for highsec only (not that there is actually an issue).
When CCP figures out how to get rid of mining bot fleets, then we can talk about changes to bumping. Until then, suck it up buttercup…
I’ve lost count of the number of times we’ve bumped a super, because we don’t have enough points to keep it from warping away. So yea, I agree, there are “legitimate” uses of bumping that would be affected.
Of course… I personally would love to see their warp strength go back down to 1 with everything else. But none the less, we are where we are.
1 Like
Again, the solution is really not to try and engineer bumping out of the game, I can’t imagine it would be a practical or cost effective option to implement.
A module with a 3-5 minute warm up timer would either allow for the insta-warp option or a microjump function which would then give opportunity for a player to align and warp either onward or if they are smart, dock up and assess the situation. Only making it a capital module that can be turned in 0.5 space or higher would make sure it doesn’t become a game breaking capital mechanic elsewhere.
It’s really a simple but elegant balancing option and it likely has a low cost to implement since most of the code is out there and just needs to be re-purposed.
Elegant solutions have counters. For example, the elegant solution to bumping is web or two (which they can counter by fragging your webs if you aren’t fast enough). You should be in warp before they’ve had the chance to bump you. You don’t need to have an alt, you can have a friend.
Your module having such a long spool up would make it exceedingly hard to counter without a clear graphical indication it’s about to activate or someone standing ready with a stopwatch (knowing Eve players, they will have a stopwatch ready for when they see the module spool up). It’s not a counter, it’s a get out of jail free card.
Again, bump and you have unlimited time to form, minutes - hours whatever your heart desires… that sounds broken to me. Maybe you want to finish that level 4, grab a sandwich, run to the store and grab a pack of smokes and then go ahead and start reaching out to your friends to form a fleet? It’s simply not balanced.
If you want to horse trade on mechanics, I really don’t have a problem with a warning going off every 30 Seconds and it the message saying “X Module is warming up - T-Minus Insta-warp is available”
Again 100% for bumping and the very much pro-gank, as someone else so eloquently stated… it’s just fair that the gankers be prepared to gank as much as the freighter is prepared to be ganked.
1 Like
You are misrepresenting how easy bumping is to pull off. It requires near complete and uninterrupted attention. You can’t keep a ship bumped while you run out to buy cigarettes or run missions. You need to interact with the game client every few seconds, continually or the target can just warp off.
It’s fine. The game has existed perfectly well with bump tackling in the game for 15 years. Even with it, freighters are some of the safest ships in the game and a ship class that rarely explodes. It’s easier to avoid being bumped than it is to keep someone bump tackled for any length of time.
I fail to see why you think it is unbalanced. I see the argument it is silly or atypical game play, but I don’t see how it is unbalanced nor why freighters should be made safer by nerfing one of the major strategies used to hunt them.
A solution for your problem as promised a few years ago, but never came. Look at 51:42
2 Likes
Actually fully understand the bump mechanics. I’m talking about the gank fleet.
Freighters aren’t safer… if everyone is formed up and ready to gank, they get the loot pinata. If everyone isn’t - sorry you’ll have to make a choice between being in a gank fleet or running that level 4 20 jumps away or doing whatever else you might be doing…
Eve is always changing, and it’s been changing to make players more engaged like moon mining for example…
That’s contradictory. Of course forcing a gank fleet to be waiting and logged in makes freighters safer. You are increasing the cost and effort required to hunt freighters meaning less people will do it who will, as they will have to choose whether to sit there waiting for someone to stumble into their trap or do something else.
I know it is popular on these forums for players to make self-interested suggestions to make the other guy’s game harder and/or their game easier, so let’s not pretend this idea is anything else. A nerf to bump tackling will increase freighter safety and result in less of them exploding and there is no reason to be disingenuous about this and pretend otherwise. Maybe there is some reason why nerfing pirates (yet again) Is a good idea for the game, but you haven’t presented one other than a vague claim of “balance” whatever that is.
So -1 on this idea I am afraid.
Isn’t that the point though Pedro.
So the players involved with the gank actually need to be committed to ganking rather than double dipping in multiple activities and still reap the benefits of a successful gank because a ship can hold the freighter in-place for an indeterminate amount of time with no counter play?
With the exception of suicide ganking the bumper in an alt, or multiple alts, there are no way in which a freighter can shake off a bumper… Or are we saying people should be rewarded for not actually being logged in?
1 Like
They are already either logged in in Uedama or Isanamo, or ready to log in at any time because they are all alts of the bumpers. The only difference is that you now could not tackle a freighter and have the luxury to travel to the target. You have to be there. That’s not too much to ask for because gankers expect the same from haulers. So, HTFU?
Besides, if the gank fleets are ready at the place of action they can destroy more freighters because they do not need to depend on Machariels to bump a target first. They can just warp to the gate and attack the freigther like in the old days before Gankers turned into whiny incompetent muppets and needed more and more clutches to be relevant.
Only gankers are disingenuous about that indefinite bumping is actually necessary for ganking. It is not, it has never been and only incompetent bot armies need to use it to succeed.
When has piracy been nerfed in EVE? Care to tell me an example? Fitting for freighters has most certainly not nerfed piracy. Neither has the passive hull resist for all ships. In contrast, fitting was a buff to ganking in particular because competent gankers can prepare their targets so that they can gank a freighter with as few as 5-6 ships. The removal of hyper dunking was not a nerf either because it was an exploit of a crime watch defect.
The only disingenuous person here is you and you alone. Moreover, you are not even doing gankers a favor as you support incompetent ganking with your argument, which puts ganking in a bad light and makes the characters doing it look dumb and incapable. By all means, continue to do that, though. As long as gankers insist on indefinite bumping as necessary for ganking, it is a representation of reality after all. 
Just a very easy fix to stay alive and lough about bumper -> use a JF to move stuff… if you dont know what i mean then HAHA pls die quietly