Are you a child then?
1 Like
Who knows?
I’m still better informed than you either way 
You dont know if you are a child, or not?
PS: I shouldnt have responded to your trolling.
Salvos Salvos Salvy
Cant reason with Codie dropkicks, just a waste of your precious time. Just hit them with a bat n make em cry. Codie tears best tears.
Rick is your typical Ganker n Vyvians approach tis the best: Roll the demo tape…
2 Likes
I know they announced that over a year ago and it never materialized. Or is it already 2 years, completely lost track of all the bs CCP tells on fanfest.
It may interest you that that announcement coincided with the bumping and ganking of some of Fozzies former friends who was hauling insane amount of stuff without escort while being director of a seriously big alliance with hundreds of people. There is even a screencast where he cries about it and how he told their CSMs to get rid of bumping.
And this is the general issue here. People expect highsec to be secure. They don’t want to put effort into protecting their stuff, they rather just want to AFK all the stuff around without risk.
And you completely fall for it all the time. This is not about “balance” or “boring game mechanics” or “easy ganks” or whatever they told you. This is simply about getting rid of freighter ganking.
It will obviously not remove it, as people will adapt. But some will not because they can’t, don’t have the dedication or the people. And the result will be less freighters getting ganked.
But since that wasn’t the goal, which was to get rid of ganking they will be back on the forums crying for the next nerf, like they always do.
And you Salvos, it seems like you fall for this little charade all the time, which is pretty sad. You claim you want more stuff killed, then why do you advocate for a change that will reduce it?
1 Like
Hey Nitshe, wasn’t your main banned from the forums?
Haven’t been with CODE. for what, a year now?
Lol
Rational mechanics are more important.
Once bumping is rationalized, other changes can be made to the rest of EVE, in future, for more stuff exploding.
Cant build a house on broken bricks.
Yeah I agree. Mechanics which reflect the physical laws which make big fat ship vulnerable to bumps are rational.
Special bumping timers are not
1 Like
The current mechanics of bumping are neither rational, nor reflect any physical law.
You would compare me to a summer’s day?
Nitshe art more lovely and more temperate.
…but I will take any compliment you would throw
They are a perfect simulation of how objects behave if they collide. Everything you proposed in this thread however does not.
So you must be either dense or trolling or both.
They are not.
A ship of smaller mass should completely disintegrate on impact with a more massive one, also causing damage to that.
When I say "rationalization"of bumping, it carries still the same EVE fiction of bumps not causing damage, as now. It applies to the actual ingame use of it for perma-bumping so as to apply a hard cap for how long it can be done without an actual tackle.
Ok, you are just dense
1 Like
That’s the shittiest rebuttal Ive ever seen on this board, and Ive seen a lot.
If that is all you have to offer, you might as well go for a walk and not come back till you figure out something worthwhile reading.
I think I will just mute the thread and let you cry for nerfs on your own
A cap on bumping, is rational.
A bumps primary function is to displace a ship. The “soft tackle” aspect is secondary.
If you want to indefinitely prevent a ship warping off, use a point.
That’s what points exist for, and only for.
Rationality in a
Video game
About space submarines
There are a plethora of timers in game. Their durations are different in many cases, some are even dynamic. So saying 15 minutes is standard based on three timers is a bit much.
Nor me, thanks.
Edit: damn phone and typos…
1 Like