this is even dumber than I thought you were talking about. This isn’t viable. Theres this group of players who are opposed to ganking, and upon hearing about some idiot who is throwing vindicators at a freighter, they’ll come and repair the damage done to the freighter.
“upon hearing”. Lol.
I was not talking about the ease to do it.
I said it’s the minimum needed. Because bumping is a broken mechanism.
I’ll buy that…
However, you have options on that assuming you are flying properly escorted. Just get someone to repair you between DPS ships and they will never kill you that way.
You don’t even need to have the reps there at the gate, you can call them in and get them working at any time until you explode.
The extended bumping is still an issue there, but if you die to that sort of attack it wasn’t because you were bumped.
You’ll never kill a freighter doing this. People will come and repair the freighter between criminal timers.
Or not. Of course if you do this in uedama and won’t even imagine there are other systems by which freighters go this may not work.
BTW you can use talos too, they have 9% less DPS than a vindi. (10 eff turrets vs vindi 11)
I don’t need to provide an argument.
Under the rules, bumping is not aggression. Full stop.
Under the rules, which was the argument put, that bumping circumvents the rules. If you’d argued about “spirit of highsec” or whatever, that would be different, but the rules are defined by CCP alone and under the rules, bumping is not aggression at all.
Whether you think they chose that because it’s impossible to know what is accidental from deliberate is irrelevant. Under the rules, bumping does not circumvent any rule.
As for tackle not being aggression, I’ll make no such argument. Stop being stupid.
I suppose if you want to be delibriatly obtuse you can say
We have long since covered that tackle is keeping a ship in place and out of warp, rather than the result of using any particular module or mechanic. Tackle is Aggression.
So Bumping is being used as Tackle is aggression, albeit a form the server cannot identify.
This creates a loophole whereby the rules of high sec are circumvented by using bumping to commit an aggressive act in an unlimited (particularly unlimited in duration) fashion.
This is all ground well covered.
I don’t care what you discussed long ago.
You claimed that bumping circumvents the rules of highsec. It doesn’t.
Under the rules, bumping is not aggression and it is not against any rule of the game, highsec or otherwise.
Draw your bow all you like, if you want to say it circumvents the rules, you are wrong.
The rules, coded in the mechanics and the exploits list, are set by CCP alone.
If not, you are beyond the scope of the discussion. You should have your own escorts, and there is no reason those escorts can’t have reps.
Even more outside the scope of this discussion, its a form of assistance available to you that does not need to be there at the moment you jumped the gate. So long as it arrives before you explode you are fine.
The extended bumping is still an issue, they should not be able to tackle you in high sec for an unlimited duration without consequences… But the fact that people shoot at you isn’t a problem.
You do know what ‘circumvents’ means, don’t you?
Claiming no rules were circumvented because no enforcement action was taken seems to indicate you don’t.
1 Like
The aggression rules of highsec aren’t related to tackling as such. They relate to whether you legally or illegally activate an aggressive module against another character.
No rule is circumvented by bumping. Activate an aggressive module illegally and bumping won’t help you.
The aggression rules still perfectly apply and are not affected at all by bumping.
You seem to want to continuously cry about things you think are an injustice and put completely stupid arguments to try to support what you are saying.
No, they are related to aggression, which in most cases relies on the activation of a module.
Those modules include every single other form of tackle.
Ergo, using bumping (which cannot be distinguished as aggression due to technological restrictions) as tackle is aggressive.
Oh sweet lord I am agreeing with Mike; dire times 
Ergo, CCP doesn’t appear to agree with this opinion, currently.
Hence this sort of thread over and over and over; and they still haven’t changed the mechanics.
You do know what technological restrictions mean, right?
Because your posting suggests you only understand about 1 in 5 concepts presented.
There is no evidence that they don’t agree. In fact, that they went so far as to announce a 3 minute timer suggests they do agree, and it’s absence that they are still running into the technological problem of discerning aggression from other uses of bumping.
Absolutely. Do you understand what “in your own fantasy world” means?
Because unless you can link to a post showing that is the reason CCP created the mechanics like that, it’s all just an assumption on your part. No better than fantasy.
There are many other possible reasons CCP chose for creating the mechanics that way.
It might totally be a reasonable assumption, but an assumption is still not a validated truth.
Meh, he was trying to be all arcane and stuff like he knew some deep secret.
Where he gets me is that he’s technically correct— you could kill something that way if they had absolutely no backup. Bumping is still an issue here.
However, It’s also the classic case for your side— get a friend or something, which puts him outside of the discussion, as the solution presented needs a friend---- one that could just as easily fit reps.
You are hanging by a thread there.
We know that bumping isn’t recorded in any logs. It does not trigger any events outside of the physics engine.
Proximity can be recorded, and used to trigger events, but just getting close does not do anything, and even at that the number of proximity triggered events in game is very few.
We know that motion can happen even without player input, and bumping is reliant on at least one of the objects being in motion.
So bumping isn’t recorded, and can happen with zero player input. As such It can’t be used to discern aggression
Here is a clue, if you have to turn yourself inside out to try and make a point, you probably don’t have a point to make.
Not at all.
Link where the design choice shows what you are saying and I’ll fully support it.
But until you can, anything is just opinion that may not at all be the reason. In that case it is no better than any other alternative.
Do I think there is some truth in that being a reason? Seems pretty reasonable. Do I know it is the actual reason. No.
So it is just assumption and not surprisingly, it’s an assumption that adds some validity to your own argument.
Facts are facts. Opinions though, aren’t worth much.
Translation: Unless the fiery finger of God himself writes it on a wall somewhere, you won’t accept it. Unless it agrees with you.
Fact: Bumping isn’t recorded in any log.
Fact:Without tracking an event, it cannot be used as a trigger for another event
Inference: Bumping cannot be used to trigger Consequences for Aggression.
Fact: CCP announced a fix to the very problem presented in this thread
Fact: CCP rarely announces anything until the decision is made and set in stone
Fact:CCP did not implement the announced fix.
Inference: CCP considers this a problem worth fixing
Inference: CCP ran into problems with implementation.