@Black_Pedro and @Teckos_Pech are both on record as supporting the proposal.
Proposal that CCP didn’t put in motion
Stop beating a dead horse
2 Likes
Well I’m not either of those people, so thankfully I can have my own view.
And to summarise it, it isn’t needed because it rewards the lazy and reduces competitive advantage for competent freighter pilots, it has affects on pvp tactics that are not needed in other areas of space aside from highsec, however if any change is needed (not in my view), then it is the best option available.
The current system rewards the lazy.
Just bump a ship, forever.
You are a liar and dishonest.
Anyone that reads your replies here can see that.
Ive wrecked your arguments, but in your mind, you cant be beat if you dont admit it.
Unfortunately for you, thats not how it works.
1 Like
I hope people do read all the replies (though we have carried on a long time in a circle), and they are all smart enough to draw their own conclusion on that.
I’m confident others won’t see what you are somehow seeing, but that’s fine. I’m comfortable that I’ve been honest and consistent right through.
But 
, if they don’t then that’s on me.
The proposed change is not sector specific, its universal.
It does not change the rules of any sector, only how bumping functions, in all of them.
It doesnt “nerf” any sector, nor the capacity to bump in any of them.
It simply puts a cap on how long that can be done without placing a point.
The 3min timer was proposed by CCP, and the community appended the timer to be reset by a point placed on bump target.
And they didn’t implement it
You’re so obtuse rn
1 Like
Time to re-open the discussion on it.
Clearly there is support for it.
They didn’t go forth with it for reasons bigger than yourself
And if they didn’t go forth, the reasons were pretty good
Idk the reasons, idc, the system is working just fine
1 Like
The forum has never been a good yardstick of community attitude. We are just a very small, very committed group of nerds that speak loudly as though we somehow matter.
Other forums often hold the exact opposite view of the things we crow about here.
3 Likes
Bumping mechanics them self are not changed by this proposal, in any sector, except to put a max duration on it preventing warp.
That’s why a point restarting the timer is included.
That can be done anywhere, within the existing rules of that sector.
Hmmm thats very interesting thought. I am not sure it is a good idea, but I would probably vote yes just for the reason that while it is not allowed by rules, it seems that CCP is unable to enforce it. There surely are players utilizing multiple devices or VM to bypass this restriction.
As far as arguments others used against this:
@Jasmine_Deer “From afar, there is an assumption that players will behave rationally. I’m more inclined to think some solo casual hisec players will resent feeling they have to use their free alpha to keep up with everyone else.”
You got a point however when I started playing EVE I soon realized it is game of alts and I made the decision to pay second account to keep up with everyone else. You are already in disadvantage to anyone with 2+ accounts.
@Salvos_Rhoska "Think of what you are saying.
If each player can field an Omega/Alpha simultaneously, the freighter can fly its own alpha on the side, but the gankers will DOUBLE their amount of ships per player.
Instead of say 10-20 Omegas, you will be dealing with 10-20 Omegas PLUS another 10-20 Alpha alts of the SAME PLAYERS."
That makes no sense. Only 1 alpha should be allowed per computer along with any number of omegas. And no it isn’t crap deal to omega users.
1 Like
You have the option to do that, I hear you, the odd thing is that a lot of players do not think that players like you exist. o7 and respect for playing on hard mode.
As long as it is not a falcon. People can use eyes to make it more difficult for people to get the drop on them, an Alpha has value in PvP, but for most players doing small ship PvP combat they can only use one character effectively. Personally it ain’t going to make a huge amount of difference.
@Vokan_Narkar, you get it. I wish Salvos would think it through, but never mind…
The TOS/EULA is not per computer.
Its per player that signed it.
Read carefully and try to understand.
Lets say X gank fleet currently has 10 individual Omegas, as 1 per player.
That means, currently, they can only field 10 Omegas.
If Dracs suggestion happens, those same 10 Omega players can field another 10 Alphas at the same time, leading to 20 ships (20 accounts) in the gank fleet.
Do you understand now?
right, but thats the biggest flaw in the rules as it seems un-enforceable, nvm you are right
I don’t see a problem. While I am gank multiboxing myself, if there are fleets with real players using single account, then fine let them double their count. This will be nice buff to such small groups and might increase a number of freighterrs ganked (which I am all for, I just don’t like the continuos bumping mechanic code (ab)uses.
CODE are multiboxing so it won’t help them much.
Either way. This is hardly going to happen. It would be very radical change and nobody can foresee consequences of it. So there is little point of discussing this.
IDK Salvos how you are able to argue so passionately about anything that might or might not be. Like the PEG, I am fairly certain that CCP made EVE rules the way they are from combination of technical and gameplay reasons. And only after that, someone made the PEG theory to kinda explain the given rules via lore/roleplay. Thus those whole 300 or how many posts about PEG are complete waste of effort.
You dont see a problem with 10 Omega player fielding another 10 Alphas alongside them, leading to 20 ships to deal with as opposed to only 10?
Are you pulling my leg, or do you really not see the problem not just related to ganks, but throughout EVE?
Absolutely not. I find that much healthy than being ganked by fleet of 20 characters using same surname and same portrait.
And from small group ganker perspective. Killing those bloody afk Orcas with DCU2 and bulkhead2 (and freighters too) is near impossible. Such change would help us big time.
Wtf does surname or portrait have to do with anything?
Do you not understand, that Dracs suggestion will double the size of the gank fleet, without doubling the amount of players involved?
Considering majority of gank fleets are multibox alt based thats not true. Those using real players are minority and if it buffs them I am fine with it.
Eitherway, nobody can foresee what such change would brought. It is not limited to ganking, so its unlikely CCP would even consider it. As such there is little point in arguing about it, unless we receive an information that CCP might be interested about this.