Not quite. I see no need for change. I would support the timer over your initial proposal.
1 Like
If CCP were to hypothetically change ship scanning to be an aggressive action, then then this would affect players in HS much differently than players in NS. It would not, however, change anything about the sector mechanics specifically.
The results, though, would be changing behavior in some sectors, but not in others.
I know you can be bad with (or just have a distaste for?) analogies, but try to work this one through.
It’s applicable to what Scorpio has been saying.
But I have to ask…
After reading 159 new posts, are you actually trying to find a meaningful solution - which means trying to find where it will break and who it will affect - or just trying to win an argument?
–Gadget knows what she’s been reading
7 Likes
That would be a sector mechanic change, as it adds scanning to the list of illegal actions which triggers CONCORD and criminal timer (which are sector mechanics specific to HS).
Ie: That would not be changing scanning itself. Scanning would work the same as before. (For example changing scanning range, would be a change to scanning itself). Your example would be expanding sector mechanics to include scanning as a criminal act.
In a word, yes. (Albeit that is a leading question with a lot of conditionals)
What argument would that be?
That’s well said, it is “warp scramble without a module”.
I see it differently.
Scanning would be changed to be an aggressive act.
The unchanged sector mechanics would react to the module change. The module’s use is what would trigger aggression - same as a point. This would be universal in all sectors of New Eden.
In NS and WH space, a player would earn a weapons timer and both players get the log out timer. That’s about it.
In LS, much the same, but now gate guns will target you.
In HS, All the above and then add in CONCORD.
All described above happens whenever ANY aggressive action is taken regardless of the method of aggression. Therefore, no change in sector mechanics.
CONCORD and Gate guns do not have a list of “things that cause aggression”, they only see the aggression state that the pilot is in. The module’s use on another player is what triggers the aggression. The code checks a few items - Target is a player - module is used - module causes aggression. If these checks come up as YES, then the player earns the player log-off and weapons timers.
Legal and illegal aggression is up to the sector mechanics and involves other checks - which have not been changed - and this is what CONCORD and Gate guns react to. But these entities would react the same if the trigger of aggression was a point, a missile barrage, or (in this example) scanning.
LOL. Story of my career. 
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a good debate, but yesterday (my perspective) it looked more like you might have lost sight of the forest for the trees. Of, course that’s with nearly a day’s distance from the debate at the time, so take that as you will.
Personally on this whole thing, I’ll reiterate and clarify my current opinion.
I’d rather not see any change. I personally see no need.
However, of the changes bandied about, I could support a 20-30 flat nonrenewable bump timer. This would give aggressors (and defenders) time to gather reinforcements. It’s also enough time to figure out if no one (or not enough) is available to come and assist.
The intention of my idea was to avoid potential griefing - not discourage any actual legitimate game play of which bumping plays a part. I see potentially being stuck on grid for hours on end by one person as a problem. Others may disagree, but there you go.
What I don’t want to see is risk challenged pilots be given extra help, but I’m also of the opinion that if the bumped pilot made some sort of miscalculation that put him or her in this position, then the attacker should also be under some constraints - in this case 20-30 minutes to either decide to ■■■■ or get off the pot.
Still, my first preference is to leave well enough alone.
–Explanatory Gadget
2 Likes
This is an excellent summary of my views as well.
Several years ago, this toon was on the way back from an over night POS thump (our POS), and after scrambling to empty everything, i jumped my freighter out there. My lovely Ark, the flagship of our small corp. Everything went well and loaded it up. Jumped out of the system, and because CCP likes you to lose your things some ships bee-lined to my cyno ship in a low sec system (why you can’t jump right in to high sec I still cannot fathom)… anyway… my cyno ship got interdicted almost as i hit ‘jump’. I didn’t, and so my Ark was stuck at the POS. The attackers destroyed my cyno ship when they realised I was not going to jump through, and the attackers of the POS returned and the reinforcement timer was soon to expire. I safely logged off with my Ark, never to log in again. I unsubbed, friends all unsubbed, then my GF and I had a baby, and now she’s 7. So, somewhere out there 7 years ago my Ark is still floating in space lost forever because we’d rather unsub than see all our work over 2 years go up in some lazer fire that no one will probably remember.
Sums it all up really. the biggest mistake: Leaving high sec. Which is firm advice I now give anyone thinking about starting in EvE.
1 Like
Welcome back?
And 7 is a bit young for GF’s in my state… even if it is the deep south.
–Silly Gadget
1 Like
Other option on the table being a re-newable bump timer of shorter periodic duration.
Both work to curtail perma-bumping.
Non-renewable timer would be a concrete limit on it, whereas a renewable timer could still lead to indefinite bumping, but requires refreshing to do so.
From an NS perspective, Id expect a renewable timer is preferred, so as to potentially be able to prevent warp for longer than the hard limit, with a smaller force.
From an HS perspective, a hard timer would be preferred, due to sector mechanics making refreshing the timer more difficult.
Overall, the hard timer is simpler and cleaner. So Ill go with that.
Then its just the duration that needs determining.
Its also an option, that the hard-cap would be different in different sectors, ideally so that it is shortest in HS, and longest in Player NS and/or WHs.
What I would do is have a bump counter against any ship, which after a set number has a random chance of going suspect. Just think of the fun and games around that, and the risk…
PS Freighters, JF’s, Bowheads, Orca’s, DST’s and indys will have unlimited bumps allowed… In other words they will not go suspect. (adding that, thought it was obvious, but…)
PPS Gets re-set after twenty minutes with no bumps, timer stays with ship no matter what you do, only way to get rid of it is package it…
So which ship goes suspect?
The bumper or the bumped?
The wording of your post is unclear on that.
Surely you arent suggesting a target ship can be bumped by others into suspect status, or?
Why would the target become suspect, when its others that are bumping it?
Explain.
The clue is in what I wrote I will link it again, thanks for the bump:
A most elegant solution…
I still dont get it.
What party becomes suspect?
The bumper or the bumped?
Why cant you just answer that simple fking direct question instead of wasting my time with this?
Because you are wasting my time by failing to see something so obvious.
1 Like
There is nothing obvious about it.
Your wording is unclear as to this specific.
Wtf is your problem with answering a simple query to clear that up?
Would the chance of a suspect timer apply to the bumped ship or the bumper?
Im not your BF. Im not dealing with implications and “if you dont understand you dont understand”.
Its a simple, direct, objective question.
Its your proposal, and I asked a question for clarification.
Just answer it.
And it is in the proposal staring you in the face.
WHERE?
I wouldnt have asked 3 times if it was clear to me there.
Would the chance of suspect status effect BUMPER or BUMPED?
Just answer “bumped” or “bumper”.
One word is all the effort it takes.
Since Drac wont explain his own proposal, despite being asked three times, is there someone else that can “obviously” see whether he meant the suspect status chance would apply to the bumper ship or the bumped ship?
The answer is above
But you don’t want to see it (as usual)
Then you get all pissy and stuff because people won’t answer a question that already was answered in a post you ignored.
Stay salty and ignorant Salvos 
3 Likes