Salvos, the number of ships needed to gank them means that you have to gather people. I don’t like it as much as you, but I understand their POV.
And dropping it to 3 minutes or 90 seconds would perhaps require a reduction in EHP, people could of course use bumping to slow people up, but only idiots would keep trundling along. EDIT: I should point out that the point should not reset the timer…, if it does no EHP reduction!
3 minutes was what CCP proposed. I am fine with that, if as likely, you can reset that warp attempt with a suicide point. That would add a cost (small in ISK, higher in attention/players/skill) that would make bumping someone for hours have more of a cost than just constant attention.
If it is a hard time limit then 3 minutes is nowhere near enough. That is barely enough time to get a fleet sitting there waiting undocked and across a system bouncing a few safes, and definitely not enough time to travel anywhere. Something more like 5-15 minutes would be more reasonable to get people to a fight.
I don’t understand this entitlement that freighters should be immune to being even delayed. A (reasonable) delay is good as it allows both sides to call for help and the fight to escalate. Being delayed 5-10 minutes isn’t going to ruin anyone’s day.
Require them to remain on-call during operation hours. That is a fleet organisation matter, not a bump matter.
Why?
Bumping has no effect on EHP.
Which is why I am a bit wobbly on this too…
It is balance on what is doable…
Sounds good to me.
Keeps bumping in the game, and returns significance to an actual point as well.
3mins is tight to bring another bumper/suicide tackler, but doable if working in groups or have ships/medical clone ready nearby.
Can also leave ships empty in space to warp capsule back into, or re-ship out of a ship carrier.
I would love to know why CCP has not implemented it?
Takes CCP years to implement anything.
Reducing EHP would effect non-bumped ships as well.
Are you returning to the “ramming” proposal?
Balance, because a throw away suicide pointer is not exactly bank breaking or much of an effort so if the timer gets reset it changes little. How you decided I was referring to ramming from that is beyond me., do not go there… OK let me say that I won’t be going there, so if you post something trying to get me involved in that idea I will just ignore it.
PS What I mean is fecking obvious, if you don’t get it then it is your problem, seriously mate…
How would reduced EHP change that?
What about the EHP of non-bumped ships?
I presumed you meant “ramming” cos that would reduce the EHP of a bumped ship, by damaging it, as was what you suggested as reduced EHP.
You suggested lowered EHP, not I.
I’m just asking you to explain that.
Its not obvious at all.
This kind of backpedalling wont work.
Explain your suggestion of reduced EHP.
Perma bumping is really annoying. I remember once I flew almost empty freighter (like 100m in cargo) and some macharial started bumping me demanding ransom. I refused and after like 15 mins trying to warp away I logged out. Next day I was amazed my freighter is still alive and I could continue journey.
Well bumping should damage ships - however to avoid other exploit - like moving in a way of freighter so he bumps you and get concorded there should be some exceptions. Easiest would be to use current safety setting - if enabled in case possible collision ship computer change direction to avoid it.
I have never seen a better list of reasons for why bumping shouldn’t be a thing to be honest. Not your intention I am sure.
So bumping essentially hand-holds the gank fleet to such a degree that they don’t even need to be ready for their target? I’m sorry, but if you are not ready for a target then surely you don’t get to attack that target?
I’ve played a lot of games, and in just about all of them, if I am not ready for my target, either they kill me or I miss them and they escape.
All these things:
We aren’t ready
Fleet composition is wrong
Target went wrong pipe
Target saw he got scouted and wants to dock
+dozens of other reasons
… are all reasons the gank should fail, no?
Reasons the target should get away?
Surely all of those situations should not be fixable in your favour by flying a Machariel into the target over and over?
Really? 
Wording it like this, the whole thing just seems horribly, stupidly, brokenly, laughably wrong.
It’s like being out of ammo in Battlefield 1 but being able to force the enemy player to remain powerless in front of you until you have reloaded.
I can’t help feeling this would be considered an exploit in any other game. Cue the ‘this is EVE not other games’ defence force.
I love that ganks can happen at any time, the danger needs to be there, the threat needs to be real, you guys need to be able to operate, but not like this.
While there is little more glorious than the sight of a huge gank fleet warping into a System and taking down a Freighter it just makes me sad that such a cheap tactic makes it possible.
15m being bumped and you call it being perma-bumped?
After experiencing that, what do you think you could have done to prevent that or get yourself out of being bumped? If you can’t think of anything then you deserve to be bumped until you come up with a strategy on how to not be bad.
How can we be ready if the targets 1 or 2 jumps out and we only then see him, what ship it is, what his fit is, what ships we need to get the dps to kill it. Just sit in ships and hope we are lucky enough to have the right composition? You obviously have no idea and think everythings so easy.
Ganks would never happen if we didn’t have time to prepare for them. You cant just jump in any ship and just expect to kill a freighter with its giant health.
Remove bumping and you remove ganking, the danger wouldn’t be there without it.
There are other gankers and then there is CODE.
The main difference is that the CODE is the one crying on forums about any single suggestion against ganking. They are just about same whiners as carebears that loses retriever to them and visit forum to write some suggestion against ganking.
But there is a difference. While the typical carebear starts suggesting some new mechanics or change of existing. Typical CODE. member will not even read a word of any such suggestion and start writing toxic and offensive post, mocking OP and claiming how CODE is superior and OP has no knowdledge of game. Just look at the Australian Excellence posts in this thread. Information value 0.
It is sort of true ingame, sure there are normal players in CODE, but majority of them just spread the toxic gameplay, offensive local chat spam, mocking, htfu.
Organization wise, most other gankers doesn’t gank 24/7, it is either secondary activity for them, or they are only able to gank in few hours a day since they don’t multibox and without multiboxing gather enough players is quite dfificult. They are also usually locked on 1-3 sectors as they don’t have the resources CODE has. They can’t afford to travel 6 jumps to target and they rarely can afford to take down freighters in 0.8 and above too.
CODE has the numbers for all that and so they are using the continuous bumping to catch the biggest fish. Any change to bumping that would lead to inability to hold freighter hostage for long period of time will mess their gameplan. And so they will never agree to any such change. In fact they are automatically posting all the same no matter what would be in post. I am quite certain that if you start a topic with name “Nerf ganking” and into body you type a suggestion that will buff ganking hard, the first post you will see will be from one of the CODE member with the typical crying response how is ganking hard and doesn’t need nerfs.
That was not implemented and dismissed by CCP for whatever reason.
So no
Yeah, we’re the top dogs.
hahaha you’re such a shitter. Go fail to save freighters with your griffin and its 1 ecm drone
Your tears, they’re so delicious all pooled up on the uedama floor as you watch us dunk freighters one after the other 
thanks for proving my point 
whats ur main? which one of those antigankers that follow us around all day are you?