# CCP - Need to look at neutral bumping alts **URL:** \ **Category:** Warfare & Tactics\ **Created:** [March 17, 2021, 1:14am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872 "2021-03-17T01:14:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Hidden\_Markov](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/hidden_markov/32/260260_2.png) [@Hidden\_Markov](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Hidden_Markov)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 5:28am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/209 "2021-05-03T05:28:26Z")
> [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > Because it is now gameable to stay just under the threshold, and any MWD Battleship would also trigger it. And gankers if really bored would find a mission runner, park on flight path and say thank you! Missions like worlds collide would be death traps lol. One gate or the other…you are pushing the MWD on a BS. Straight line. Its not like you can spiral in a marauder here like an interceptor spirals. See my kronos going wide open throttle after a pocket clear its pretty easy to work out where to be a speed bump. I am trucking straight line from the gurista pocket to the gate 50km’s away after my MJD to hit the pocket, This is just too easy a give away to start open season. ---
**Author:** ![Renly\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/renly_rohan/32/402846_2.png) [@Renly\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Renly_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 6:09am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/210 "2021-05-03T06:09:25Z")
> [@Hidden\_Markov](#): > > And gankers if really bored would find a mission runner, park on flight path and say thank you! I would love to see it happen with any sort of consistency. Effective bumping takes real skill. I really cannot see anyone being able to pull off turning unwitting pilots into accidental bumpers. So get a friend to try and trick you into bumping him at your full WMD open throttle speed. Heck, just put yourself at say 200 km from a station, say go, have your friend undock and warp 150 km from the station in your general direction (to a jet can or something), then you align to the station and see if he can get you to bump him with your nose applying full velocity and momentum to his ship. That while you are obviously aware and trying to avoid it. Or even go on an actual mission and see if your friend can do it. By basic logic known to everyone I cannot prove the negative of “its never gonna happen” so logically this is in the court of those who say its possible. I want to see this proven. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 6:21am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/211 "2021-05-03T06:21:54Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > Obviously ships do have a tail given that ships are propelled away from it. The opposite of that is the nose of the ship. obvious != truth. It’s obvious that the sun orbits the earth. In Eve, items in space in general(locations) are only spheres. No tail, no nose. The thing that you believe is tail/nose is a representation of the space by your capsule. Note that someone else might have a different representation, which leads to the funny part where someone lands on grid, is notified that all the ships have a hardener on, and thus cycle the hardener on the same time, so he claims they are bots. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 6:24am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/212 "2021-05-03T06:24:52Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > By basic logic known to everyone I cannot prove the negative of “its never gonna happen” so logically this is in the court of those who say its possible. I want to see this proven. nonsense. Wen can’t prove that something will happen. However “it’s possible” is enough, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Renly\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/renly_rohan/32/402846_2.png) [@Renly\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Renly_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 6:49am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/213 "2021-05-03T06:49:09Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > Wen can’t prove that something will happen. Stop putting words in my mouth. Its stupid and rude. I never said anything “will happen”. > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > However “it’s possible” is enough, yes. Its only proven possible when someone does it. > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > In Eve, items in space in general(locations) are only spheres. No tail, no nose. You can call the geometric opposite end of the point of thrust whatever you want. But the point of thrust exists and stop trying to act like it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Hidden\_Markov](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/hidden_markov/32/260260_2.png) [@Hidden\_Markov](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Hidden_Markov)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 7:02am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/214 "2021-05-03T07:02:05Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > You can call the geometric opposite end of the point of thrust whatever you want. But the point of thrust exists and stop trying to act like it doesn’t. The game works off a very broad spherical collision mesh. This is seen in a few drone missions you will “collide” with the drone structure and you are nowhere it physically. Back before scarcity this is how you danced with larger rocks as well. You’d be going I ain’t near the damn rock. Your collision mesh is large, rock is large too…enter the rock dance. Its also been the basis for other fun games in eve. Like grazing a cyno into pos. YOu see its always been against the rules to approach a cyno at full speed with cooked prop mods to bump into then pos shields. Now if you happen to be doing manually orbits, mess it up and graze the bump its the sphere collision meshes that did it. ON an orbit that missed the cyno boat physically. And by mere luck the cyno went into the pos shield…cough. ---
**Author:** ![Renly\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/renly_rohan/32/402846_2.png) [@Renly\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Renly_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 7:09am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/215 "2021-05-03T07:09:15Z")
> [@Hidden\_Markov](#): > > The game works off a very broad spherical collision mesh. It would be great if you can just understand that if you put a point on sphere then you can put on other point on the opposite end of that sphere and also make a 30 degree cone from the orginal point centered on the opposite point. You can call the circle around the opposite point created by the cone anything you wish. I am calling it a nose since it will behave like one. I am not saying that current EVE physics can account for this. But I am suggesting that it surely could…unless the spaghetti code is in yet another Gordian Knot. ---
**Author:** ![Hidden\_Markov](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/hidden_markov/32/260260_2.png) [@Hidden\_Markov](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Hidden_Markov)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 7:20am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/216 "2021-05-03T07:20:00Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > I am not saying that current EVE physics can account for this. But I am suggesting that it surely could…unless the spaghetti code is in yet another Gordian Knot. Ever hear the story about why billboards were a pita the devs hated them so much? For the longest time every time they tried to touch them…stuff not even related to the billboards in any way broke. That is why long ago they just moved them far way from common places. They couldn’t remove them as it broke the game. Nor did they want campers nos’ing them for free cap lol. Seeing the new billboards in the new setup of eve I’d say they worked it out. Jsut took em the 9 years i played and whenever they redid stations in my 4-5 year absence to do it lol. So to be nice and I do like the spirit of these ideas…maybe they can one day. As I do agree this bumping stuff is crap. I recall an idea or promise of if people are going for an hour of this crap it give a log off option to clear it. that seems to have not happened. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 10:13am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/217 "2021-05-03T10:13:41Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > But the point of thrust exists and stop trying to act like it doesn’t. It does not. It’s not “try to act like”, it just does not. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > Stop putting words in my mouth. Its stupid and rude. I never said anything “will happen”. I did not write you said it. So I’m not putting words in your mouth. That would be unhygienic. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > Its only proven possible when someone does it. No. if the model is good enough, you can prove that something is possible. (whithin the model boundaries). Is it possible to bump people into someone else ? Yes, therefore it is possible to abuse a system that makes suspect someone who bumps with a propmod. And, even without that specific example, there may be issues even if we don’t see them. ---
**Author:** ![Renly\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/renly_rohan/32/402846_2.png) [@Renly\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Renly_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 10:36am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/218 "2021-05-03T10:36:59Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > No. > if the model is good enough, you can prove that something is possible. (sigh) Eve is effectively a simulation ie its already a model. And no one is making a model of the model here. Until either is done, the “it can be done side” loses the argument. > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > It does not. Then our ships would point in random directions all the time. No. Clearly our ships tend to align via the point of thrust. Even after being bumped and traveling sideways the ships eventually align according to the point of thrust and the rest of the ship OR a point on the nose. We don’t spin around like ping pong balls all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 10:46am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/219 "2021-05-03T10:46:04Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > You can call the geometric opposite end of the point of thrust whatever you want. But the point of thrust exists and stop trying to act like it doesn’t. There is no thrust. EVE ships are spheres with a directional vector. Bump it and that vector points in a different direction. You could use that vector to define the ‘front’ and ‘back’ of the ship. And so can the bumpers, by bumping your ship in a direction, which changes your ship’s vector. The fromt of the ship model follows that vector, with some delay, which is why ships seem to get into warp sideways if they align fast enough. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > I would love to see it happen with any sort of consistency. Effective bumping takes real skill. I really cannot see anyone being able to pull off turning unwitting pilots into accidental bumpers. This sounds doable. Sit on an expected shortest route in a mission towards a gate, _cloaked_ and make sure you’re on his path. Uncloak at the right time and you’ve flagged a mission runner! ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 10:57am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/220 "2021-05-03T10:57:47Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > And no one is making a model of the model here. Actually, that’s the devs jobs. And you are proposing a change that the devs should implement. A **program** is a model of execution of a **process**. A process is a list of instruction, associated to its current state (stack, CPU, shared libs access etc). A code project is a set of resources, that need to be translated into a program. An Eve instance (a “server”) runs a simulation of the game, the execution contains the rules (mechanism) of that model. The dev codes the formal rules that will be later translated into execution rules and applied by the simulator. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > Then our ships would point in random directions all the time. No. Clearly our ships tend to align via the point of thrust. No, they don’t. They are spheres, and as such do not point towards anything. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > We don’t spin around like ping pong balls all the time. Ships don’t have rotation. No orientation, no rotation : just xyz location and speed. You are just spoutting nonsense. Ships in Eve are balls. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Renly\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/renly_rohan/32/402846_2.png) [@Renly\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Renly_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 11:07am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/221 "2021-05-03T11:07:22Z")
> [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > There is no thrust. Unnecessary overtechnical detail of Eve lore. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > EVE ships are spheres with a directional vector. Bump it and that vector points in a different direction. Yeah. Then they align again. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > You could use that vector to define the ‘front’ and ‘back’ of the ship. And so can the bumpers, by bumping your ship in a direction, which changes your ship’s vector. So? Vector is not the same as the ship’s standard alignment. I have clearly been saying its the standard/usual alignment that should be used and NOT the current motion vector all along. Nobody intentionally bumps sideways or backward, nor could they. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > This sounds doable. Sit on an expected shortest route in a mission towards a gate, _cloaked_ and make sure you’re on his path. Uncloak at the right time and you’ve flagged a mission runner! For one thing it would be near impossible to get in such a position in a cloaked ship vs. an WMD fit and active ship. For two bumper ships are, AFAIK, specially fit to achieve high velocity and momementum. Naturally the velocity and momentum numbers would be set between the numbers for mission runner fits and bumping fits. And if someone tries using a bumper fit below that threshold he will be so ineffective no one will care if he is trying to bump and does not get flagged. ---
**Author:** ![Renly\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/renly_rohan/32/402846_2.png) [@Renly\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Renly_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 11:14am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/222 "2021-05-03T11:14:31Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > Actually, that’s the devs jobs. And you are proposing a change that the devs should implement. Its your suggestion bro. I don’t care about it mostly for the fact its so unlikely. My suggestion was for the people claiming it can be done to do it with what they have right now. My prediction is that most attempts will miss and actual bumps will not result in significant increases in velocity or momentum of the bumped ship. > [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > They are spheres, and as such do not point towards anything. You can damn well mark a point on a sphere and hold in while running around the house ensuring that point is always generally facing the direction of motion. It need not be elongated to effectively be the nose for intents of motion. Are you just bored and contradicting for the fun of it? ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 12:26pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/223 "2021-05-03T12:26:58Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > You can damn well mark a point on a sphere and hold in while running around the house ensuring that point is always generally facing the direction of motion. It need not be elongated to effectively be the nose for intents of motion. > > Are you just bored and contradicting for the fun of it? And still in Eve your ships are spheres, and you can’t “mark a point” on it because then this would require to have “markable sphere” which they are not. You are just, plainly, factually, wrong. In Eve, your ship don’t have a nose, period. Its not about lore, it’s about the game mechanism. Claiming your ship have a nose is wrong. I’m contradicting you because you are wrong. It’s funny, because you are actually the one trying to put false reasons in my mind and then claim I am putting words in your mouth. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > it would also be easily avoidable with a little programming that makes it so that the trigger momentum and velocity must be within a 30 degree cone of the nose of the ship. This is just wrong, for the reason the ships don’t have a nose. So it’s not “a little programing” that you need, but actually a huge lot. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > Its your suggestion bro. It’s not. I suggested nothing, just try to understand. If many people make such a mistake, maybe there is something not clear. IMO the issue, as I already wrote, is the bumping mechanism all by itself. Bumping someone should at the very least require to be suspect - possibly adding a new module to help bumping while ensuring you are suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 1:20pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/224 "2021-05-03T13:20:20Z")
> [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > So? Vector is not the same as the ship’s standard alignment. I have clearly been saying its the standard/usual alignment that should be used and NOT the current motion vector all along. Nobody intentionally bumps sideways or backward, nor could they. There is no ‘standard/usual alignment’. Ships are spheres with an alignment vector. Change that vector (by bumping) and they ‘face’ a different direction. There also is an ‘intended alignment vector’, which the alignment vector of the ship tries to replicate as well as it can once you order a move command, restricted only by how fast the ship can turn and set back by bumps into objects and ships. The face of the ship could be considered to be in the direction of the alignment vector. ---
**Author:** ![Renly\_Rohan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/renly_rohan/32/402846_2.png) [@Renly\_Rohan](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Renly_Rohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 1:36pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/225 "2021-05-03T13:36:28Z")
Dude, if you want to assign your own terminology to everything I am saying, that’s fine. It would just be nice if you simply acknowledged you are doing that…that you prefer other terms or got those terms from somewhere rather that saying “no” like you are some kind of special authority. ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 1:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/226 "2021-05-03T13:48:32Z")
> [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > with an alignment vector. Speed vector. Alignement is something else. Ships have a speed vector, not an alignement vector. The alignement representation is a client deduction from the historical speed change of the ship. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > There also is an ‘intended alignment vector’, There is not. There is a target, and an order, but those are handled each tick in the model by changing the direction of the acceleration. example if I ask to move to a point, this is not an intended alignement, but an intended position. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > if you want to assign your own terminology to everything I am saying, It’s the opposite. You are using terms that actually don’t exist. Shis in Eve have no nose. We are not special authority. CCP is, and this is actually their words : Ships in Eve are spheres. ---
**Author:** ![Gerard\_Amatin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gerard_amatin/32/481361_2.png) [@Gerard\_Amatin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gerard_Amatin)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 2:01pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/227 "2021-05-03T14:01:16Z")
> [@Anderson\_Geten](#): > > Speed vector. Alignement is something else. > Ships have a speed vector, not an alignement vector. Speed vector, alignment vector, whatever you want to call it. Point is that it’s a vector with a magnitude and direction. EVE ships are spheres with a vector for movement. > [@Renly\_Rohan](#): > > Dude, if you want to assign your own terminology to everything I am saying, that’s fine. It would just be nice if you simply acknowledged you are doing that…that you prefer other terms or got those terms from somewhere rather that saying “no” like you are some kind of special authority. The intention of my previous post is not to assign my own terminology. The intention was to show there is a difference between: 1. _The intended vector_, based on your last movement order 2. _The current vector_ of your ship, which attempts to replicate (1) as quick as your ship’s agility and absence of bumpable objects allow. If you wish to use other terminology that’s fine (although a bit confusing), as long as we’re both talking about the same things. If we’re talking about the ‘face’ of a ship, we could use number 2, the current vector of the ship as the face. The ship may be a sphere with a direction, but if you want to let this ship have a face, let’s define ‘face’ as the direction the ship currently goes. This is something different from the intended vector, number 1, which you want to use when you’re talking about using the ‘standard/usual alignment’ to determine the face of the ship. We could also use the intended vector (1) to determine the face of the ship, which means the ship can move sideways. Also, as this ship face is determined by intention and not by the current situation, you can turn your ship’s face instantly: if I align the opposite direction, the face of my ship is instantly turned 180 degrees. So which of the two vectors do you wish to take as the ‘face’ of the ship? ---
**Author:** ![Anderson\_Geten](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/anderson_geten/32/390041_2.png) [@Anderson\_Geten](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Anderson_Geten)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2021, 2:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872/228 "2021-05-03T14:14:27Z")
> [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > Speed vector, alignment vector, whatever you want to call it. Point is that it’s a vector with a magnitude and direction. Vector is direction and magnitude. Speed vector is a vector that represents the difference in position over time. Alignment is not a vector. It’s just a direction, does not contain a magnitude. So, no, ships have a speed vector, and that’s it. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > _The intended vector_, based on your last movement order Again : this can not be used as an intended vector, for the case where you are asking to orbit something, or when you stop, or try to approach a point. > [@Gerard\_Amatin](#): > > _The current vector_ of your ship That’s speed ? it does not try to replicate (1) because (1) does not exist. If I ask to orbit a stationary point, there is no speed vector that it tries to replicate. In the physics of Eve, ships are only sphere, with a speed. Each tick, the acceleration vector is changed based on its order, which is integrated in the next tick to update the next tick position and speed. There is no alignment. There is no “intended vector”. There is only speed and position. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872.md?page=10) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/ccp-need-to-look-at-neutral-bumping-alts/300872.md?page=12)