# Gankers and freighters, a request for discussion. Not a BJ RANT **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [March 5, 2018, 3:42pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236 "2018-03-05T15:42:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Scipio\_Artelius](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/scipio_artelius/32/408264_2.png) [@Scipio\_Artelius](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Scipio_Artelius)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 9:34am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/575 "2018-04-10T09:34:11Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > The vector of velocity does not determine facing, it merely determines in what direction the ship is moving, and with what velocity. Oh god. You can draw all the illustrations you like, it’ll be wrong based on how the game actually works. It would be easier to write the code in this thread, that determines the angle between the vectors, so that the server knows when the ship is aligned (75% of maximum speed and +/- 5 degrees). ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 9:58am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/576 "2018-04-10T09:58:41Z")
Here is my proposal in a diagram: ![Bumping](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/1/8/18b79bdbb8274bb8223bb437e28b0ffaa384a1de.jpg) As you see, the facing is not rotated by the bump. Ships dont “spin” after being bumped, and the destination can potentially remain within the cone, thus fulfilling that requirement for warping. ---
**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:** [April 10, 2018, 10:16am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/577 "2018-04-10T10:16:06Z")
for the hundreth time, you can’t go forward if you’re going sideways Just stop with your nonsense ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 10:19am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/578 "2018-04-10T10:19:02Z")
In my proposal, it doesnt matter what the velocity vector is. All that matters, is that you are still aligned facing towards destination within the cone, reach 75% of max nominal speed (on your own power or after being bumped), no matter what the direction you are moving in at that speed, and you complete align time. **This will have no impact/change on a non-bump situation.** You cant turn 180 degrees in EVE to change your facing, so as to align to that destination, without de-accelerating. Thats how EVE works, whereas IRL turning 180 degrees would have no effect on velocity vector. You would simply turn your nose to the destination, and still continue flying “backwards”. Bumping is unique in that it can cause a ship to move sideways, or even backwards, which is otherwise completely impossible to replicate on a ship, without being bumped. You cant cause your ship to move sideways, backwards or change facing or velocity vector without de-acceleration. **This change would only effect bumping to prevent warping.** **It wont prevent bumping a ship into warp.** **It wont effect any non-bump situation.** **It wont prevent bumping from displacing a ship.** ---
**Author:** ![Faylee\_Freir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/faylee_freir/32/439750_2.png) [@Faylee\_Freir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Faylee_Freir)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 11:15am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/579 "2018-04-10T11:15:03Z")
There is literally nothing wrong with warp mechanics right now. I don’t see CCP completely reworking warp mechanics when they can’t even take the time or care to fix little bugs and exploits. So you can dream big all you want and say “it should work this way” but the honest truth is that changing warp mechanics is probably not worth their precious dev time. This thread is over dude. Let it rest. ---
**Author:** ![Avaelica\_Kuershin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/avaelica_kuershin/32/478139_2.png) [@Avaelica\_Kuershin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Avaelica_Kuershin)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 11:24am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/580 "2018-04-10T11:24:26Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > Ships dont “spin” after being bumped, and the destination can potentially remain within the cone, thus fulfilling that requirement for warping. But how much code would need to be rewritten for this to work? ---
**Author:** ![Ima\_Wreckyou](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ima_wreckyou/32/235531_2.png) [@Ima\_Wreckyou](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ima_Wreckyou)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 11:24am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/581 "2018-04-10T11:24:46Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > My proposal: I vote No It does not matter what you propose. You failed to demonstrate that there is actually a problem to fix here. ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 11:31am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/582 "2018-04-10T11:31:46Z")
> [@Faylee\_Freir](#): > > This thread is over dude. Let it rest. Did you miss this post to you? > [@Gankers and freighters, a request for discussion. Not a BJ RANT](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/569): > > You misread. It was a proposal of how it could be, not a description of how it is now. Go back and re-read the quote and you will readily see that. **Still waiting for a reply to that.** > [@Faylee\_Freir](#): > > I don’t see CCP completely reworking warp mechanics when they can’t even take the time or care to fix little bugs and exploits. The change I propose wont effect anything, except bumping preventing warp. Nothing else. > [@Avaelica\_Kuershin](#): > > But how much code would need to be rewritten for this to work? Not much. > [@Ima\_Wreckyou](#): > > You failed to demonstrate that there is actually a problem to fix here. Bumping should simply displace a ship, not prevent it warping, The problem with it doing both, is it makes point/bubbles more redundant despite them being dedicated modules/effects for that purpose. If you want to displace a ship, bump it. If you want to prevent it warping, point or bubble it. My proposal does that, and effects nothing else except bumping preventing warp. ![Bumping](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/1/8/18b79bdbb8274bb8223bb437e28b0ffaa384a1de.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Ima\_Wreckyou](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ima_wreckyou/32/235531_2.png) [@Ima\_Wreckyou](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ima_Wreckyou)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 11:44am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/583 "2018-04-10T11:44:17Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > Bumping should simply displace a ship, not prevent it warping, > The problem with it doing both, is it makes point/bubbles more redundant despite them being dedicated modules/effects for that purpose. This is not true and we refuted it multiple times in this thread already. Bumping does not disable the warp drive. Bumping interferes with alignment. There is no module that interferes with alignment. Your claim that there is redundancy is complete BS. There is no reason for this change. ---
**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:** [April 10, 2018, 11:56am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/584 "2018-04-10T11:56:03Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > Not much. Are you a coder now as well? I’m pretty sure they’d need to rewrite the whole thing just to satisfy your carebear ambitions ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:02pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/585 "2018-04-10T12:02:49Z")
> [@Ima\_Wreckyou](#): > > Bumping interferes with alignment. Which prevents warping. And in my proposal, it wont. Bumping will simply displace a ship, which is all a bump should do. * * * From a coding perspective, its clear that the mechanic to bump a ship into warp already exists, as does the value of the align cone. Thus all that is needed, is to widen the cone degree figure, and include velocity in any direction to meet the 75% of max nominal speed for warping. ---
**Author:** ![Ima\_Wreckyou](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/ima_wreckyou/32/235531_2.png) [@Ima\_Wreckyou](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Ima_Wreckyou)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:08pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/586 "2018-04-10T12:08:12Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > Which prevents warping, No it does not, it prevents alignment into a specific direction. You can still warp if you for example send an interceptor into the direction you are aligned or if there is another warpable object/sig/whatever… It also does not prevent MJD. > [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > And in my proposal, it wont. No one cares about your proposal since you failed to demonstrate that there is a need for it. Your only reason for this is some “redundancy” you claim with modules which does not hold as demonstrated many times over. ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/587 "2018-04-10T12:14:02Z")
> [@Ima\_Wreckyou](#): > > No it does not, it prevents alignment into a specific direction You cant warp without aligning, Thus preventing alignment, prevents warp. > [@Ima\_Wreckyou](#): > > No one cares about your proposal since you failed to demonstrate that there is a need for it. Plenty of people care. Ive demonstrated that a bump should just displace a ship, and not additionally prevent it warping. Ive also demonstrated how that can be achieved without effecting anything else. Non-bumped ships will not be affected. Bumping into warp will not be effected. Bumping displacing a ship will not be effected. Only thing that will be effected, is the capacity of a bump to fk align and hence prevent warp. > [@Ima\_Wreckyou](#): > > It also does not prevent MJD. MJD would not be impaired by a bump in my proposal either. MJD is not a proper warp to a distant point. Its a sequence of micro warps enabled by having fit the module to do so with. If you like the “module” approach, then CCP can inplement an “anti-bump” module, that prevents a bump disrupting its aligning to warp. Thats fine by me too. ---
**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:** [April 10, 2018, 12:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/588 "2018-04-10T12:32:56Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > MJD would not be impaired by a bump in my proposal either. Mjds aren’t affected by bumping lmao It appears you don’t even play the game 😂😂😂 ---
**Author:** ![Gadget\_Helmsdottir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gadget_helmsdottir/32/374037_2.png) [@Gadget\_Helmsdottir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gadget_Helmsdottir)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:38pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/589 "2018-04-10T12:38:49Z")
There is no problem to fix. Having multiple options is perfectly fine. That’s why point, scram, AND bubbles exist, not just ONE way of disabling warp. And I’m positively sure that the modules’ feelings won’t be hurt. And their station in life hasn’t been affected, my bottom line tells me so. Points might as well be ammo. Bumping and warping interact well together, likely as intended. CCP has already stated that the “bump-tackle” tactic is acceptable. You risk damaging code of one of the core mechanics of EvE that makes the game playable and touches all professions in EvE _ **for no reason** _. It’s not about the mechanics of your proposal. Though, if you just wanted to accomplish the effect your changes are appear to be trying to achieve, then just having a base time to warp would be more effective. No need for vectors and speed. No, the point is that there is **no change needed** at all. The requested change is superfluous, a waste of resources, and potentially damaging to the base warp mechanics. You have yet to show a rational reason why your changes are even needed. I’ve heard redundancy and equity from you, and both make no sense. Redundancy in a game with 30 different variations of the same module? But, if they’re all variations - and therefore all do something slightly different - then they aren’t redundant, they just fill a different niche. On equity… of inanimate “objects”. What does fairness and impartiality have to do with this? As stated above, the modules that can stop any attempt at warp-off are not in any way threatened by the existence of a tactic that can possibly reset a warp-off. One is a niche tactic, the other is a set of items that always work unless someone deploys a hard counter. Many players will use BOTH. Good pilots use the right tool at the right time. So no, I’m still not understanding why you would **risk damaging the whole game** for a change that would only benefit only a tiny few, who already have counter tactics against “bump-tackles”. –Gadget, still not sold ---
**Author:** ![Salvos\_Rhoska](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/salvos_rhoska/32/14128_2.png) [@Salvos\_Rhoska](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Salvos_Rhoska)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:43pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/590 "2018-04-10T12:43:34Z")
> [@Gadget\_Helmsdottir](#): > > There is no problem to fix. Then why is bumping so hotly/frequently disputed? Btw, there is no way to prevent bumping ingame by player action, nor its effect on aligning so as to warp. Bumping should just displace a ship, as is what it actually does. The warp prevention result is superfluous and unnecessary. > [@Gadget\_Helmsdottir](#): > > I’m still not understanding why you would risk damaging the whole game for a change that would only benefit only a tiny few. My proposal wont “damage” anything else. Will not effect a ship bumping to displace another. Will not effect any non-bump situation. Will not remove bumping a target into warp. The only thing it will effect, is bumping preventing warp. ---
**Author:** ![Matt\_Spangher](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/matt_spangher/32/207271_2.png) [@Matt\_Spangher](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Matt_Spangher)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:47pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/591 "2018-04-10T12:47:13Z")
Would it be worthwhile posting this to Assembly Hall ? Might reach a wider audience. ---
**Author:** ![Gadget\_Helmsdottir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gadget_helmsdottir/32/374037_2.png) [@Gadget\_Helmsdottir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Gadget_Helmsdottir)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:50pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/592 "2018-04-10T12:50:42Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > Btw, there is no way to prevent bumping, nor its effect on aligning so as to warp. There is a whole thread about how to avoid or mitigate the bumping. > [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > My proposal wont “damage” anything else. Your proposal has the potential to completely disable the fundamental warp mechanics. I’m sure CCP will fix them once broken, but the possibility is there, and after this past deployment, my confidence that such a change will be deployed successfully is well below 95% (and for something as crucial to even playing at all, like warp mechanics, it needs to be in the 99% range). > [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > Then why is bumping so hotly/frequently disputed? Squeaky wheels that don’t understand the counters. > [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > The warp prevention result is superfluous and unnecessary. WHY? –Gadget points to that last question as most important. ---
**Author:** ![Vokan\_Narkar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/vokan_narkar/32/326293_2.png) [@Vokan\_Narkar](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Vokan_Narkar)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:52pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/593 "2018-04-10T12:52:41Z")
I propose to change freighters in way, without any specifications for now, so that they will be able to avoid continuous bumping, for the costs of lowering freighter ship class ehp, no specific numbers. My suggestion will: - still allow to bump ships while giving a possibility to the pilot being bumped to release from the bump chain - make freighters ganking require less dmg thus less pilots Without any specific numbers, is there anyone against this? If so, why? As for specifics, I am not sure how exactly allow freighters to release from bump chain, obviously we can’t give them prop mod as that would make them much faster, so I will need a help here. As for ehp, -10% ? I don’t have broad experiences with taking them down so again help me suggest the drawback. EDIT: im aware of the method of having gazilion bookmarks that was presented by someone, somewhere on this forum, and no I don’t consider that as a good way of getting out from bumper… ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Pedro](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/black_pedro/32/257285_2.png) [@Black\_Pedro](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Black_Pedro)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2018, 12:57pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236/594 "2018-04-10T12:57:01Z")
> [@Salvos\_Rhoska](#): > > Then why is bumping so hotly/frequently disputed? Ok, so your proposal is to address the complaints of those who don’t like bumping as a game mechanic? See, that would be an actual reason to tinker with the mechanics. Is that what you are trying to do? > [@Gadget\_Helmsdottir](#): > > WHY? Because, as Gadget says, you are fixated on changing the game to something else that might indeed be a viable rule set for how a ship enters warp, but have obstinately refused to articulate why this should be done. Please, just tell us how you think this would be better for the game. Pretty please? [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236.md?page=26) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/gankers-and-freighters-a-request-for-discussion-not-a-bj-rant/61236.md?page=28)