All that matters in regards to velocity vectors, would be that the ship is traveling at 75% of its max nominal speed.
Doesnt matter in what direction, as long as its at 75% of nominal speed.
You already can bump a ship into warp.
@ISD_Buldath can we have this thread locked?
Salvos’ repeating bot seems broken 
This isn’t even about bumping. It’s about making the game easier. Please justify further dumbing down the game with this change.
1 Like
Its only about bumping.
Bumping a ship should just be displacing it.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Still not a fan.
Bumping ain’t broke.
It doesn’t need a fix.
The only thing I would go for is a bump timer to avoid edge cases of ‘legitimate’ griefing.
I view this as an extra safety feature that won’t interfere with the mechanics.
The only drawback to game play I currently see is for unprepared attackers.
–Gadget prefers the status quo (on this)
2 Likes
Bumping should just bump a ship.
The entire align/warp interference is entirely superfluous and the purpose of scrams/disruptors/bubbles.
They go hand in hand
And like Gadget said,
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it
If you want to bump a ship, bump it.
If you want to prevent warp, use scram/disruptor/bubble.
But it doesn’t work that way, so what’s the point of this?
“It should only be this way”
If I had my way you wouldn’t have access to TQ. It should be that way man! You want to buff warp requirements because you’re upset about bumping. Neat.
Bumping DOES just bump a ship.
The fact that you can knock it out of alignment is a separate issue.
You are asking to broadly change warp mechanics to stifle the interaction of bump and warp mechanics.
This is dangerous and unneeded.
A timer would suffice to keep bumping from lasting indefinitely, but without affecting warping itself for ships not being bumped.
–Gadget bumps the thread a bit more
1 Like
It should work that way.
A bump does what a bump does, displaces the ship.
Nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to prevent it warping, use the dedicated tools, as scrams/disruptors/bubbles, none of which can bump a ship.
Why is it so important for you, that bumping a ship has the same effect in terms of preventing warp, ontop of displacing it, as dedicated modules for warp prevention?
Why not just bump with your ship, and prevent warp with modules?
You are just repeating yourself over and over. Do you do it in hopes that it will just be true eventually? The game wasn’t designed that way,… so it isn’t how you would prefer it be.
You still never justified why you would make the game easier just because you’re whining about bumping. Saying that bumping should just displace the ship does nothing here in this argument.
I want you to plainly tell me why you’re in favor of making the game easier. If you can’t do this, then just stop posting.
1 Like
If you keep asking the same question, you will receive the same answer.
Why is it so important for you, that bumping a ship has the same effect in terms of preventing warp, ontop of displacing it, as dedicated modules for warp prevention?
Why not just bump with your ship, and prevent warp with modules?
Surely requiring using scram/disruptor/bubbles to prevent warp, and bumping just bumping, does not make the game easier?
Just use scram/distuptor/bubble to prevent warp.
Use bumping to displace a ship,
How does that make anything easier?
Because you’ve still not answered why you want to make the game easier.
It’s not important to me, really. It’s just always been that way and there’s really no issue with bump tackling.
Because you also lower the requirements for getting into warp which means that players that would normally be punished by certain decisions no longer are as vulnerable.
Bumping itself does not prevent warping.
If I want to completely stop a ship from warping then I would use a module.
However, if a ship is displaced off its cone, then it will have to start the warp process over.
But, if the ship has bookmarks in multiple directions, the bump may give it the speed to jump aster should the ship choose a new heading that is in it’s new cone.
Theoretically, you could make a bump-proof scenario if you took the time to create bookmarks in all directions. When bumped the pilot would just chose the bookmark in the direction bumped and warp off (presumable helped to speed by the bump).
Bumping and warping are two separate mechanics.
It’s the interaction between the two that makes bump-tackling possible.
Changing the warp mechanics in order to affect bump-tackling is dangerous and unneeded.
–Gadget might try her experiment when time allows
Nonsense.
Bumping to displace does not make the game easier.
Using scram/disruptor/bubble to prevent warp does not make the game easier.
There is.
It supplants dedicated warp prevention modules like scram/distuptor/bubble.
Does no such thing.
Simply scram/disrupt/bubble them instead.
A ship bump, should be just a bump.
It displaces the ship from its current location.
That’s what it does.
No module can do that.
As to warp prevention, scrams/disruptors/bubbles exist specifically for that purpose.
Nor can any of those displace a ship.
This is not rocket science. Its very simple.
If you want to displace a ship, bump it.
If you want to prevent it warping, use scram/disruptor/bubble.
At least one module can, IIRC. Command destroyers can carry it.
No, It’s politics. And politics is rarely “very simple”.
–Gadget votes NO
2 Likes
Actually this poses an interesting situation. One where you are wrong.
A command destroyer can displace a whole grid of ships by activating its mmjd, displacing people 100km away.
My question is if you have both the Command Destroyer and another ship headed straight towards each other and the mmjd happens, will the other ship maintain forward velocity and still be able to enter warp if he was within 5 degrees, but only at like 60% velocity?