Dude you should stop adding “r” to the “isk investment”. It makes your sentence make no sense at all.
Risk = isk lol
Just like gambling…
Exactlylike gambling in fact
1 Like
Frank H. Knight would be proud. 
No. This is yet another load of intellectual dishonesty from you.
At a fundamental level the issue is behaviors. And those behaviors determine things like risk. Some behaviors are more risky than others. And that is the way it should be.
Your entire position boils down to:
When a player whose behavior puts him at substantial risk of loss at the hands of other players those other players who will impose the loss should face restrictions on their behavior which is not imposing a risk of substantial loss.
That is the justification for your new module and it is crap. Pure unadulterated crap. It is crap because the same outcome can be achieved by altering behavior, not adding a module that reinforces the risk taking behavior.
You do not want to look at behavior because the behaviors is clearly perverse in the case of the freighter pilot. If you are getting bumped, the vast majority of the time it is the freighter pilots behavior prior to bumping that put him in that situation. Hence the statement, “Every gank starts in station.”
The “problem” with bumping is that it demonstrates poor choices and decisions of the freighter pilot. And that really isn’t a problem at all in this game. Make bad decisions; get bad outcomes. Working as intended.
2 Likes
And the problem extended bumping demonstrates is poor choices and decisions of the gankers.
Nope. Working just fine. If a gank fleet has 2 freighters they are bumping each with 10 billion ISK in cargo value and it takes less than 20 minutes to gank both…seems like a damn fine set of decisions and choices. What you want to do is mechanically undermine this.
There is no need. If both freighter pilots had not overloaded their freighters or use a JF or brought an appropriate escort fleet, they’d have been fine.
Requested module is unnecessary.
1 Like
It’s bumping, not ganking.
A freighter being caught by a bumper is overwhelmingly because the freighter pilot made bad choices.
If the bumper is lazy/incompetent, then the freighter will get away. No issue.
If the bumper is good, then the freighter is paying the consequence of the poor choices, or in rarer cases, just bad luck.
It’s a non-issue.
Good freighter pilot v good bumper: freighter pilot wins, because they don’t even get bumped
Good freighter pilot v bad bumper: freighter pilot wins
Bad freighter pilot v good bumper: bumper can demand what they want and the freighter pilot pays for their poor choices
Bad freighter pilot v bad bumper: variable, but who cares. They are both incompetent anyway, but if the bumper is bad, they’ll have a tough time maintaining a bump in anything but an AFK, autopiloting freighter.
In the case of bad luck, it is not a non-issue.
Suggested solution does not affect unprepared, lazy haulers, does affect unlucky yet prepared haulers.
Yes it is. That bad luck is actually pretty rare. It is no different than getting caught while ratting due to bad luck. The losses are totally swamped by the benefits.
Not a problem.
Which isn’t even a problem worth developer time at all.
Looking at the last 8000 freighter losses in highsec (last 2000 each for the 4 freighters):
| untanked | one bulkhead | two bulkheads | fully tanked | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charon | 1374 | 162 | 193 | 271 |
| Obelisk | 1226 | 172 | 231 | 371 |
| Fenrir | 1414 | 181 | 172 | 233 |
| Providence | 1393 | 169 | 199 | 239 |
| Mean: | 1352 | 171 | 199 | 279 |
| Percent: | 68% | 9% | 10% | 14% |
That’s not even just trying to isolate out the ganks, so it includes those caught in wardec, duals (for those silly enough), killright activations and the occasional low sec status guy that gets killed by NPCs.
Only 14% of freighters that die in highsec are fully tanked. If that was isolated to those that end up having been bumped before their death, it’s likely to be even less; and on top of that, older posts have shown the risk of running into trouble when hauling in a freighter is less than 1% of movements to begin with (can’t find the details right now). Not all of these losses involve bumping first.
Those figures don’t show of course, the prepared Freighters that do end up bumped, but then escape anyway, which needs no change anyway.
It’s just not an issue that prepared freighters being unlucky is worth any attention at all.
1 Like
Yeah how you gonna get the jf back to jita, lighting a cyno?
Looks like you dont know how to use a JF ? xD
1 Like
what is really funny here…
People get upset when they have to sit for hours cause they can not play the game, and it is impossible for them to pay for a 2nd account…and if they are veteran enough to fly a T1 Freighter…and like doing that…then they are sick of the garbage that flows from other so called leadership.
Then we have someone like Scipio here that says the only to play “a game” is to pay for more than 1 acount…
Really??
Scipio your full of ■■■■, you sound like some Elitist WoW raid runner…
Wait what?
No. My position is and always will be, people have choice. Make them and then own them.
If the choices we make don’t work out, then that’s not the fault of someone else and crying to CCP to change their gameplay isn’t the way to go.
As for WOW. I’ve never played, but it seems pretty popular (or was at some point), so I’m guessing it must be pretty reasonable.
Though full of ■■■■ is also true based on perspective. The good thing about opinions is they are all valid to some extent. What’s full of ■■■■ to some is perfectly valid to others, and vice versa.
2 Likes
So after dragging in a whole huge load of stuff that has nothing to do with the mechanics…
Can we get back to discussing that?
Do you have anything at all based in the mechanics of bumping, or are you just going to continue to double down on extraneous stuff to deflect from a conversation you don’t like?
What extraneous stuff?
Bumping is fine? That’s pretty much on topic and there is no issue associated with prepared freighter pilots being bumped that requires change.
Bumping mechanics are flawed.
They allow unlimited tackle with concord protection in high sec.
What is needed is a way to limit that tackle to make it consistent with high sec.
Due to technological restrictions we cannot tell aggressive tackle from accidental collision.
That being the case, we need an intentionally applied limiter.
By your own numbers, nearly 15% of the freighters ganked were fully tanked, presumably of the sort that ‘never’ gets caught. You are declaring that a non-issue. The non-issue here is that you even brought those numbers out to be discussed, because the thread isn’t about who got ganked or why. It’s about the mechanics.
No, we need nothing. You want an intentially applied limiter.
There are clearly others that agree and those that don’t.
There are a large majority of players who don’t even come to the forum at all to whinge and whine about the existing mechanics and that just play.
At one point we know CCP was looking at a time limited bump mechanic, but in the couple of years since they discussed that, they’ve done nothing to implement it, so seem to have backed away from it, at least in terms of any sort of further discussion.
That’s where we stand and from my perspective, a want doesn’t mean anything is needed. It’s just as easy to say that people should HTFU and deal with the choices they make.
If they get bumped then more fool them, or just bad luck. That’s the game and it’s the game many of us enjoy. We don’t want to a game that wraps players in cotton wool to protect them from the wolves. It’s the wolves that make the game exciting.
True as far as it goes I guess.
I want balance, and balance means fixing bumping mechanics.
You don’t seem to care about balanced mechanics, so you need nothing.
You want to change the current balance to something new and I don’t agree with the need for that. But there is no single view of what balance is and claiming anyone doesn’t want balance is weak sauce.
It’s only different balance and my view is always (just as it is above about owning choice), that one of the big issues in the forum is that people only ever seem to propose changes that move the balance in their own favour.