962 replies, no changes to game mechanics, no players have changed their opinions on the matter. Well done, all!
It’s ag, they don’t have caps
Ty
1 Like
We aren’t the game designers or developers, so we can’t actually change game mechanics. It’s just a discussion forum, however if you read through the entire thread, there are some changed opinions in it.
So not much use for the passive aggression.
To me, I see is as we have 3 group of forum discuters. The normal ones who can change their opinion, CODE and trolls (salvos, dysonbennington). Though the only difference between last 2 groups is that they only belong to different group.
1 Like
You forgot that the 2nd is also more informed about the game and its mechanics than the third by a huge margin 
1 Like
Thats a bit overstatement that cannot be backened by facts. Yes CODE discuteers knows a lot about ganking, probably everything there is to know. If they know anything about ls/ns/wh/fleet fights/structure fights is unknown.
Hs mechanics and basic game mechanics ofc
I’m sure there are some with further knowledge, but as an example I know ■■■■ all about null stuff (it’s not interesting to me lol)
1 Like
When I was in AG I had an Archon sitting in Stain, so you are wrong, so I will go with caps 
How ironic.
You ran away instead of answering the questions put to you on your proposal on bumping:
-
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?
My God…how dare you make me like Dracvlad more and more. (j/k)
Seriously Salvos just drop this please.
I understand Dracvlad’s position better now. I can even see a point to limiting how long a freighter can be bumped. Would I be butturt if bumping was limited to say 20 or 25 minutes…then no matter what the ship warps off? No. Fine. Not my preferred outcome but I wouldn’t be on the forums screaming about it. At most I’d lodge a “point of order”–e.g. don’t be an idiot and your risk of being bumped is very small.
You just seem determined to make this an argument no matter what.
That’s not what Drac proposed.
His involved elements like timer immunity on some ships, and bump “counters” which result in chance of going suspect. He hasnt answered to the specifics of his unique suggestion.
Asking him to answer questions on his proposal, is not “making this an argument”.
This thread for the several last hundred posts has been about bump mechanics.
Those are what we are discussing and “arguing” here.
Drop what, exactly?
If you mean asking him to answer my questions on his suggestion, yeah, Im stopping that. Twice was often enough. He clearly cant or wont answer them.
Salvos asked me multiple times a question which was obvious in the proposal I had made. The conclusion I came to on that was that he was trolling and therefore not worth while replying to. It was so obvious that it was almost painful to see someone who I thought had something about him prove otherwise. This is most notable in the delay local thread.
A number of the questions asked in the post above mine have also been answered within the proposal and subsequent posts and are in fact obvious, for example the point about packaging is confirming that session timers such as docking changing systems etc. do not remove the counter and that the only way would be to repackage. Again showing a lack of understanding on Eve mechanics.
- Has been answered
- Obvious
- Why does that matter when you define a counter based on a general figure
- detailed above
- There is no timer
- Eve mechanics defining that this is the only thing that removes the counter and its removal timer of 20 minutes.
- Irrelevant and obvious
- Obvious
I wouldnt ask, if it was obvious to me from your posts. Why would I waste my time and yours asking something I know the answer to?
They are legitimate queries so I can understand your suggestion specifics clearly.
Call me an idiot if you want, but I still am none the wiser as to the specifics of your suggestion than before your above obtuse answers.
I suggest you write up a coherent proposal that covers all the specifics clearly, so even an “idiot” like I can see and understand all of it.
It’s really amusing to see how you, time and time again, try to declare a random dude, who happens to be in the channel, as “a” or “the” leader of Anti-ganking.
As you apparently still haven’t figured this out after almost 5 years: Anti-ganking is just a channel. There are no “leaders of Anti-ganking” and that is fully intentional.
1 Like
This thread is hilarious. All this impotent rage and anger!
Amazing!
-
There is a bump counter, it is set to 50 allowed bumps, after that there is a 5% chance of going suspect, the counter resets after twenty minutes with no bumps. The ten minutes was what I suggested as a reasonable time for a bumper to operate and is in fact the 50 bump count.
-
To both and individually, the issue here is that the gankers would likely gather up a ton of ceptors and multiple bump a target in short order and make them go suspect, so the idea was to create a counter with each bumper as an event. As it happens so infrequently I expected this would not be an issue to build in. to the game. That is why I tied it to the ship. Yes this is not obvious, so apologies for that.
-
It was to work out the number of bumps to get to what would allow them to form in a reasonable amount of time, 10 minutes seemed fine for me.
-
50 is what I calculated
-
There is no timer, the ten minutes was what I had in mind as the time I was wanting to allow and what the counter should be set to be around. The only timer is the re-set timer of twenty minutes from the last bump. Which is why I wanted to tie it to the ship.
-
That was more of a comment that the only way to remove the counter and twenty minute cooldown was to repackage the ship, no other session changes would work.
-
People bump when leaving stations, there is no intent to bump someone as such.
-
Those ships are the targeted ships, Freighters, Jump Freighters, Orca’s, Bowheads, DST’s, and Industrials. Most of them could be held in place by bumpers and have a suspect status forced on them and they could not do anything about it. So they are allowed unlimited bumps, so do not go suspect.
Potential exploits
A DST could be fitted to bump
People could park freighters and stuff to block certain undocks causing bump timers on ships however 50 bumps is a lot.
If someone is bumped numerous times in their BS by a ceptor in hisec then they ought to think about docking up, that would give people a way to force a fight on the unwary in hisec and is the main issue with this suggestion.
It could also be used to harass the hell out of mining ships, so I would add all mining barges and exhumers to the exempt list, mining frigates would not be added as they should be orbiting anyway.
We could have situations where people use this to get into fights, I wondered if that would be a bad thing. For example if PIRAT was fighting someone and a swarm of interceptors came in and started bumping their bling BS’s. Would be interesting to watch…
There are issues with my proposal without any doubt .
Is it doable, and the main issue is server load, I don’t think that CCP differentiates between different areas of space in its main mechanics as such. I would only apply this to hisec for example.
Anyway an honest try to find a compromise and rebalance.
1 Like
Thank you for your effort and good job.
To reciprocate your work, would you like my feedback/critique, or not?
I will abide either way.
Go ahead, the idea is to be dissected and beaten to death if that is what it deserves and you are good at dissecting ideas.
1 Like
''leader of ag" or “rebel leader” is a honorary title given out for exemplarary fail which overshadows the usual daily non-stop fails of the regular ag grunt. It also has to have a certain comical value, so you don’t qualify, your just come over as angry all the time.
It is reserved for people like Dryson, JTCloneAres, Russel and Dracvlad.
I’m sure I forgot someone important.
1 Like
Ooooooh I am a leader of a chat channel in the mind of Ima, how sweet…