I’ll post the same response to Salvos as I did in the “About Bumping” thread where he posted things in a similar vein with regards to bumps and tackle.
Bumping != Tackling
The term tackle is commonly understood to mean preventing ships from warping by applying modules designed for that purpose to the target vessel. Google tackle and Eve if you doubt this.
Bumping does none of these things, no modules are applied to the target vessel, nor does it prevent warp. What it does do is alter vector and velocity, making alignment difficult to maintain.
It wont, as I explained above the previous time you brought this up.
Widening the cone towards the warp destination only affects bumping. Both bumped and unbumped ships will still align to the center of the trajectory to the target destination. The cone merely sets the accepted limits of orientation, so as to initiate the warp.
As to achieving the required 75% of nominal speed to engage warp, I propose it does not matter what direction the ship is moving in, as long as its facing in the cone of the warp destination, and is moving at 75% of nominal speed.
This will not impair PvP, but will remove the warp interference of bumping.
Ie:
-A bumped ship that has initiated warp process and is still facing within the cone, and if the bump accelerates it past 75% of nominal speed, will have warp engaged. (Bumps do not rotate a ship)
-Without a bump, the ship will have to turn towards the warp destination and accelerate on its own power to 75% nominal speed, to initiate warp, just as before.
Except you didn’t. You only dealt with the one case of align time for stationary ships, however in pvp ships are rarely stationary.
They are always moving and in many situation people attempt to disengage. This is in all forms of pvp from solo roamers trying to catch farmers, fleets hunting ratters, fleets that are losing a fight and decide to regroup, etc.
There are lots of situations where ships are moving that can be caught because entering warp requires both ~75% of ship speed and a vector in a 1o degree cone.
Your proposal impacts a tonne of pvp situations unnecessarily, and there are other situations.
It’s one of the huge disadvantages of such a broad spectrum approach to change.
If there is a specific problem, then the solution should be specific to that problem, not a general change.
The only type of ship that lacks a velocity vector in any direction is a stationary ship.
OK, as usual, this is going down a rabbit hole because you can’t even be consistent with what you post.
If you won’t even acknowledge issues with your proposal, then there can be no discussion of ways to improve it, or change it to limit forseeable but unintended impacts.
Scipio, ofc a stationary ship cannot initiate warp spontaneously.
Nowhere did I suggest or imply that.
I specifically outlined how that would NOT be the case.
The rabbit hole you refer to is of your own contrivance, and a typical excuse of yours when you know you are losing an argument. Go hide down in your hole then, rabbit.
Nowhere have I claimed anything about instawarp. Ships that instawarp aren’t affected at all by bumping ever anyway, so who cares about them in the context of this thread.
However, that doesn’t change the view that your proposal has a far wider range of impacts than you will admit to.
As a small nitpick (but just a minor comment, not much of a distraction), velocity already include direction. A vector also includes direction, so saying “velocity vecotor, in any direction” is the same as saying “speed and direction, magnitude and direction, in any direction”. It’s kind of dumb (but only as a minor point).
And no, rabbit holes are things you regularly create in the forum, because you are dishonest and inconsistent - both of which are and have been proven in the past.
This is wrong and I’m 100% sure of it. The ship that is trying to warp HAS to be moving in the direction of the object it’s trying to warp to AND be within 5 degrees.
Want to know how I’m so sure? I’ll teach you something here because I’m nice… well not really. Mostly because I feel bad for you.
So lets say you’re bumping a freighter and he logs off. So you tab over to your alt that’ll shoot at him and give him a logoff timer. The freighter will then warp off to another location (that location depends on what the pilot was doing at the time he logged off). So you then combat probe him and you warp to him. The freighter will sit there, waiting for the timer to tick down before the ship vanishes from space.
Lets say you were to warp to the freighter and the pilot logs back on… Well just like logging off in space, the game will force the ship to warp back to the location in which he logged off at. you notice that he logged back in and you start bumping him again… Well that pilot will be stuck in a warp that he cannot cancel at all, all while his ship is trying to align and warp back to that spot in which it was logged off at.
This is the point where I KNOW you’re wrong. The easiest thing to do is position your bump mach between the freighter and where it’s trying to warp to and just continue to push it straight back. Doing so, you can easily get the freighter WELL above the 75% base velocity required to enter warp AND have the freighter pointed straight at where it’s trying to warp to.
You’re welcome. Please send me 5b in compensation. I know that I’ve likely wasted my time typing all that out for you, but on well. I typically try to keep in-depth knowledge of these mechanics out of the minds of those that are competent enough to use them against me, but I don’t fear you, your mind, or you capabilities one bit.
That exploit notification specifically says the case you outlined is actually ok (and a good example of a targeted decision by CCP to prevent one thing, while not affecting other situations through a broad change).
This does not apply to pilots who get legitimately aggressed under normal game mechanics, preventing their ships from disappearing from space. Use safe logoff whenever possible.
Still not something I’ll ever admit to doing since I’m sure it’s one of CCP’s grey areas.
Need to say that i lost couple ships by bumping into objects that didn’t prevent me from warp but my ship stayed there until it dies. Isn’t it strange? Should i make a reimbursement ticket to CCP?
Seriously speaking the whole game of words You use looks pretty strange. Yes, literally bumping is not tackling. Yes, these are different mechanics.
But final result is the same: ship under tackling cannot warp and ship being properly bumped cannot warp too. With different consequences for actor.
A ship needs only be moving at 75% of its nominal max speed. Doesnt matter if its on their own propulsion, or speed/velocity resulting from a bump.
What direction that velocity is applied in, doesnt matter.
In practice, this means that if a ship is facing towards the destination point within the enlarged cone, and reaches 75% of max nominal speed (regardless of cause or direction), and completes align time, warp will be successfully engaged.
For non-bump situations, this will not have impact.
A ship will still have to turn to face the destination within the cone, achieve 75% of max nominal speed, and complete align time.
For bumping it will mean if you bump the ship too hard to accelerate it past 75% of max nominal in any direction, and its currently still facing towards destination in the enlarged cone, and has started the warp command, it will warp off once the align time is finished.
The vector determines facing, not the graphics. So a ship can’t be facing in the same direction if it’s heading in just any direction. The vector needs to be towards the destination, within the allowed tolerance (+/- 5 degrees at the moment).
