There is nothing you can do to prevent a ship flying at you, and colliding with you.
If they are faster than you, you cant avoid/prevent it happening.
I dont see any way how it could.
Do you?
As above, if you are a slower ship, there is nothing you can do to prevent a bump.
If I am moving faster than you, sooner or later, I will reach you and bump you.
Because what a bump does, and how it functions, is to displace a ship.
A bump is a collision between two ships, and because they cant exist in the same place, one or the other must be repelled.
Thats what a bump does.
The align interference which leads to warp failure, is completely unnecessary and superfluous to that, and contingent on a different mechanic.
My proposal reconciles that difference, such that bumping ONLY displaces a ship, and has no other adverse effect on anything else except bumping for the purpose of fking align/warp.
There is a petition with CSM for a bump timer for all ships. Effectively, after a certain amount of time of being bumped, the ship can warp off. For some reason CCP has decided not to implement this. It could be technical, or it could be unwillingness - they didn’t say. Their reasoning could change the whole bumping debate.
BTW, this was my preferred fix if one was needed at all. This would prevent a player from taking an acceptable tactic and using it to cross over into griefing territory.
–Gadget implores CSM to find out why the timer was not implemented
What is at issue, is the additional align/warp interference element.
My proposal wont change that for anyone else, other than a bumped ship,
The specifics of the changes in the proposal are such, that literally nobody else except a bumped ship will experience any change from it.
All it does, is remove the align/warp interference from being bumped.
It changes absolutely nothing else, for anyone else.
The way that that is possible, is because bumping is a unique effect in EVE that causes a ship to move sideways/backwards in ways NO ship can without being bumped.
As a result, the change will ONLY affect bumped ships, in terms of align/warp interference.
No one, and nothing else.
It will still bump the ship to displace it.
Also bumping into warp will also still be possible
See the diagram I posted above to help you conceptualize that.
So, the intention of your change is to remove the warp interference element of the act of bumping from the game? Can I surmise then that you think the game would be better off if capital ships were immune to being bump-tackled and that this the primary reason for your change then?
No, as this is not specific to any ship class, whether cap or any other.
Its specific to bumping having the additional, superfluous effect of fking align and thus preventing warp (essentially, a tackle).
As I pointed out before, there is no way to prevent being bumped by a ship faster than you. You cant outrun them, and you cant outmaneuver them. That’s fine for purposes of displacement, but indefensible as what additionally amounts to a tackle (for which there are scrams/disruptors/bubbles dedicated to that function.)
If you want to displace a ship (whether miner/freighter/cap), then bump it.
If you want to prevent if from warping, then point/bubble it.
Thats why points/bubbles exist.
In my proposal, nobody except the bumped target will be effected.
The specifics of the proposal are such, that they only “activate” when its a bumped ship in question, because bumped ships move in space in ways no other un-bumped ship can (ie: sideways/diagonally/backwards etc.)
No un-bumped ship will be effected by my proposal, in any way, because they cannot move in space the way a bumped ship does, as a result of a bump.
It kinda is, as those are the only ships affected by bumping. But ok, can I surmise that you think the game would be better off if all ships were immune to being bump-tackled? If so, can you give me an example or two of how game play would be improved is this was the case?
Universally:
-It would return points/bubbles to their dedicated role for which they exist.
-EVE stops being a stupid game of bumper cars.
-Bump targets will simply be displaced, but not prevented from warping.
Do you uselessly best your head against a brick wall everyday?
@ISD_Buldath at which point is a thread like this closed down for being not only repetitive, but useless as well? The OP has done nothing but demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the subject and refuses to listen to others that clearly are more evenly keeled than he is.
@Salvos_Rhoska you are still convinced that there’s a problem that needs to be solved. If CCP wants to fix bumping they will choose to do so. They don’t need your half-hatched ideas and silly ignorance.
Bumping does not prevent warp because the ship can easily choose to align to something in a different direction and catch warp. Wanna know how I know this? Because I’ve messed up while bumping and had freighters catch warp to an interceptor or bookmark before. You are wrong.
This is your redundancy argument. I still don’t get why this is a problem given so many other things have overlapping functions, often intentionally, but I’ll accept you think it some aesthetic issue.
This also could be interpreted as more aesthetic issue, but I’ll accept that as well at face value. Do you agree though that removing bump-tackle in highsec creates problems given it being the only current form of tackling that is not subject to CONCORD intervention and lack of bubbles in highsec? Do you think that if your suggestion was implemented, there might need to be some additional, compensatory changes needed since the remaining forms of tackle are not useable, or barely usable as a replacement? Or do you think the other forms of tackle are indeed sufficient as a replacement for where bumping is currently used?
Bumping is a ship physically displacing another ship in space by impacting it with sufficient mass compared to theirs. Thats what bumping is, boiled down. The align/warp interference effect is secondary and superfluous.
My proposal demonstrates it is a secondary superfluous effect, as I was able to remove it from bumping, without changing displacement nor effecting any non-bumped ship,
I do not agree it creates problems.
They can use point instead.
Points are legal with a wardec.
Nothing prevents use of tackle in HS.
Using it without wardec will however result in a CONCORD response.
Yes, I think point/bubbles are indeed sufficient for preventing a ship from warping,
They dont “replace” bumping. They are dedicated effects which exist specifically for the purpose of preventing warp.
Other then a few posts here and there, this thread seems to be largely on topic. It matters not if OP or whoever is repeating themselves, they are still on topic. I see no reason to intervene.
Even if it is, It’s consolidated to one thread. There is no harm.
We were asked with the new forums to lay back on Moderator actions. This may be mildly annoying to some players, but this is not a threat to the health of the forums.
Edit: I should be specific. It is not Currently a threat to the health of the forums.
But as you convinced us of earlier, one of the major purposes of gankers using bumping is to prevent warp of a target. So I agree, the modules don’t replace bumping at all. Bumping is used to prevent a ship from entering warp without a CONCORD response, something that the other options cannot be used for. Therefore removing bump-tackle will shift the balance of the game, giving ships more ability to evade and escape attackers.
Surely you can see that, and know the difference between ganking and wardeccing, so I can only surmise you would think the game better off if freighters were made safer to criminal attack. That’s fine, it’s just too bad you couldn’t have admitted that that was your intention, or at least a likely outcome/side-effect of your proposed changes.
In the end, I think your redundancy argument is absurd (and not even internally consistent given the self-evident difference in CONCORD response to the two forms of tackle), and your aesthetic dislike of “bumper cars” a rather weak reason to change the game. Aside from not having to witness the site of a freighter being bumped backwards (like seriously, who gets triggered by this?), the only likely outcome of this change I see is more capital and super-capital ships successfully escaping tackle, meaning less fights, less escalation and therefore less content.
Eve needs more ways to force fights, not changes to make ships, especially the largest and most powerful ships, more slippery.
But thanks for your time. It took 550+ posts, but I can finally give your idea the evaluation it deserves.
