Best way to stop bumping is get rid of concord.
I was thinking a threshold probability that increased after the time limit…the more you bumped past that time limit the riskier it gets.
Of course, my preferred solution is just: status quo.
I know.
As is so often the case, could be an interesting discussion…but our forum culture here makes it hard to have such discussions. And admittedly I’ve engaged in that culture myself. 
That would work, but likely have other implications…
Well going suspect is effectively doing that…
I am sorry but as much I hate ag attacking my alts on gate or bumping them from citadel you are spreading false informations.
So first, what CODE calls “ag” are from 99% killboard/killmail collectors. They have 0 interest in stopping the gank, they just want to tag any ship involved in gank and get a cheesy killmail and possibly bounty. Some of them also tries to grab the loot either the loot from ships involved in ganking or even the loot from ganker’s victim.
There are exceptions but those can be count on fingers of a hand.
And no. The one being toxic is CODE, I never seen ag to mock CODE or post the killmails unless CODE provoked them first and as we all know they are doing this all the time.
PS. I used to do that too, now too busy with ganking.
It should work this way. If a ship A that bumped ship B is suspect/criminal/thu blue one can’t remember the status name or it is excluded from the bump-suspect rule (though I don’t see why) then the bumped ship cannot get suspect if that ship then bumps into ship C, D etc.
So. If a Machariel bumps Skiff, then machariel gets suspect for this and thus that skiff won’t get suspect even if he bumps other ships on the way.
That should basically fix the possible abuse.
How do you determine if collision was intentional? I still am not convinced that perceived issues with bumping can’t be solved with player interaction within the sandbox.
Part of why I’m not convinced is that while bumping allows ample opportunity for the gankers to form, it provides the same amount of time for defenders or help to respond and form. Let the sandbox work itself out here and allow the better and more prepared players emerge victorious instead of trying to force CCPs hand to create a system where emergent gameplay is balanced to another players inability to counter or adequately prepare himself.
Edit: As much as the term “perma-bumping” or “bumping indefinitely” get used it’s just a lie to claim that there are freighters being bumped for hours on a regular basis. I can say this because I’m one of maybe 6-12 people bumping freighters.
3 Likes
Claiming that Ima and I are the same person, or that we have the same agenda, is a new level of ridiculous.
Ima is vehemently against ANY change to bumping.
vs.
I’m the guy that has posted 30% of this thread trying to find/discuss ways to rationalize bumping, against repeated, staunch resistance and endless trolling/derailment/ad hominem.
Ima and I have disagreed on almost everything for years.
You know that. Every GD regular knows that.
I post a lot, but do you really think I have time ontop of that to post for Ima too, let alone on any other supposed alt?
Rest assured, this is the only character I post on.
I asked you a list of reasonable questions for clarification/specifics of your suggestion.
You promptly threw a hissy fit and refused to answer them from me, and started claiming I’m Ima.
You then ended up having to answer the same questions anyways.
You posted a proposal of yours at long last.
You now have to take the heat to defend it and fill in the gaps.
Not as easy as you thought, is it.
Welcome to my world.
-
I see no reason to make any ship class immune. Making bump mechanics ship class specific is a really bad idea.
-
Game mechanics cant discern a player’s intent. EVE doesnt care why you do something. It only cares if you do/dont.
-
10 mins is reasonable, but a 5% chance is very small. Translates to 5 bumps out of every 100 bumps leading to suspect. In practice, it would almost never happen in any individual bumping scenario, because no bump scenario involves anywhere near that many bumps. Imagine if you roll a 20sided dice every time you bump past the timer, and only go suspect if you roll a 1, to give you some perspective.
-
All my suggestions/posts has also been in “good faith”. You didnt believe that of me, why should I believe that of you.
-
If you think you are getting rage/bait posting in response to your suggestion, you have no idea. You are getting treated with kiddy gloves compared to what Ive had to deal with, including from you.
At the moment perhaps you are not doing it, but I came across multiple people who had been bumped for over an hour and one person who might have been exaggerating who claimed to have been bumped for three hours. I came across a couple of people who had actually been bumped long enough for their courir contract to have expired, those were people who were actively hunted and who had tried to get it done one or two hours before the deadline.
The counter is what defines whether it is intentional or not, as I said above the intention is to count the number of bumps which would correspond to 10 minutes of bumping by a Macherial on a freighter as the base amount. That would definately count as being intentional.
Defenders form, do you mean AG well yes, that is why I went for ten minutes worth of bumps? The thing is that if people were protecting their assets they would be formed around the freighter. The simple fact is that bumping as it is now is too strong as a strategic and tactical advantage, it allows the gankers to control the battlespace. And I will point out again that the only realistic end option is to gank the bumper and I will add that this is totally not viable for hisec entities for obvious reasons. That is the end game defence and you need two to three Talos, so how many accounts to I need to counter gankers? Five basically, I run two and that means no counter…
So if I need five accounts merely to counter the gankers in hisec then hisec is not a casual player area is it? And the gankers are in fact Miniluv part of the Goons, a major nullsec coalition, now if CCP balanced nullsec to give more chances to smaller entities why are they ignoring the place which is supposed to be for small and casual players. And that is to explain why suggesting that it should be based on ability to counter or adequately defend themselves is not enough.
@Salvos_Rhoska I have given up on you. That you resorted to insults on another thread when we had opposing views was your error, so I then decided to point out that you did not know what you were talking about and detailed why I think you have not operated in 0.0. In this thread you ignored what I posted and kept asking something which I had already detailed in my initial proposal in a troll like way, this means that I no longer trust your intent. I have you marked down as a troll, same as I have marked Ima and Jonah, which is why I made the joke that you was Ima. In any case I do not believe you are posting in good faith and no longer want to engage with you in anyway.
1 Like
-
So is it a flat 10mins from first bump, or a counter system, that defines when the chance of going suspect per bump begins?
-
Are the counters applied to the bumped ship, or the bumping ships individually?
-
Why would the counter system correspond to how many bumps a Macharial (with what fit?) can perform on a freighter (what freighter and with what fit)?
-
What would that count be specifically?
-
Is the 10min timer applied to the bumped ship, or each individual bumping ship?
-
Why would the timer be removed by packaging a ship? Would counters also be removed?
-
Why is the “intent” important? Surely a bump, is always a bump, regardless of intent?
-
Why should certain ship classes be exempt from this bump mechanic you propose?
-
I dont believe you are posting in good faith. You have insulted me, claimed I am someone else and refused to address direct/simple questions directed at YOUR proposal for clarification.
-
You made the proposal. You are the one that has to explain it.
If you would spend the time you come up with shitty ideas for problems which do not exist to play EVE instead, you would probably have learned the game by now.
3 Likes
"Dont talk about what I don’t like you to!!1 :((("
Nobody is forcing you to participate in discussion on bumping.
There is no discussion. It is you and a couple of other carebears who try to come up with silly solutions for a problem which does not exist.
And yours are especially silly since you don’t even know how the game works and people have to point out details you would know if you actually played the game. So go, install the game and start bumping for a while. Then come back an tell us if you still think it is the same as tackling…
And drac is like the prototype dunning-kruger case. I mean he is crying about the topic for years and yet he still comes up with “solutions” which are so obviously flawed, even Salvos’ ideas look like the work of a genius compared to them. But he is ag, there is no upper limit for the amount of fail and shooting yourself in the foot in that community it seems.
2 Likes
That, I can agree with.
Guy has lost the plot, completely,
That, I dont agree with.
The discussion is here, active and the place to do so on this topic.
You are welcome to continue talking in it as far as Im concerned, but keep it relevant to topic. Outright refuting it, is not an argument.
Or, go post somewhere else.
If ifs a non-issue for you, leave it alone.
It’s a non-issue for 99.9% of the Eve population lmao
It’s been part of the game for 15 years, it would be time you adapted instead of crying for oh it’s just one more nerf™
All I have to say to you Ima is skill injectors, your whining and crying on that thread was comedy gold.
If you have something to add in terms of detailing the obvious flaw then feel free, but I would not expect you too because you are just full of general hot air and whining…
What a lame excuse for a comback.
My “whining” about skill injectors was a statement about how broken this is and how we will abuse the hell out of it.
The actual whining about it can be watched every day in the ag channel when people complain about the solo gank fleets with free omega chars, still completely unaware what the actual reason is for this because they are too dumb to think around one single corner.
The obvious flaw is the simple fact that if you create ANY mechanic that is able to create a suspect flag without the guy requiring the safety on yellow will be abused to hell and back. How is this not obvious to you?
If people find ways to kill 1mil EHP ships in under 20s they will sure as hell find a way to abuse the bumping suspect to kill all sorts of stuff.
And it will not be limited to a few systems where ag can “organize” and sit on the gate to wait for someone to go suspect. It will happen all over the place.
So as I already mentioned, I don’t care if they implement your stupid idea, I will abuse the hell out of it and any other stupid idea you think will give you special rights to kill a bumping ship.
It’s like your brain is completely unable to account for change in behaviour. There is no reason why anyone should listen to your ideas, they are completely worthless and this is completely obvious to everyone, even Salvos who does not even play the game.
2 Likes
So continue with the detail, how you would abuse what I posted above, note that certain ships types will have unlimited bumps and therefore will not go suspect, these are selected because they are easy to bump such as freighters, DST’s, Orca’s, Bowheads, industrials. Remember I said 10 minutes worth of bumps which I estimate would be about 50 bumps so using a DST to bump a BS is not going to happen, and I would exempt the Marauder while in Bastion.
It will be quite interesting to see what you actually do within that.
You say it will be abused to hell and back, is that what you define as detail, you are not a detail man are you?
The rest of your post is pure splurge, I have seen more interesting points raised by someone doing a Technicolored yawn, which is the level of your salty posts.
And just a reminder, I am no longer in AG and have not been involved in any AG stuff for one year and two months and have no idea what goes on in that channel, but you obviously seem to find it riveting stuff, don’t know why… You obviously have a raging boner for AG 
PS I have your thread stored as a favorite and I look at it for a giggle every so often when you start splurging on these forums. Wonderful stuff…
Yeah you know what. There is no point im discussing this.
You are obviously too dense to think around a single corner which prevents you from ever coming up with something useful.
Most people at CCP will see the flaws right away as everyone else, so the chance of one of your ideas seeing the day of light is basically zero. Too bad, would be a lot of fun.
As long as you come to the forums and cry about bumping and the wreck hp buff you are an ag and I will gladly throw you into one pot with dryson and the other paranoia club.
Running away when I asked for detail, how unsurprising. Au revoir you little wall flower…
PS Dyson who you seem to define as a leader of AG for some odd reason, he is as much a leader of AG as Held der Finsternis was, which I seem to recall you also calling a leader of AG when he was not, snigger…