I think we might get to every integer from 3-25 before the end of this thread.
You are just one person.
The Miniluv doc suggested 15 mins, and this panel largely agrees to 25 mins.
20 mins is the compromise.
Do you have anything to add?
You assume this thread will ever end. 
2 Likes
Yeah, what panel?
Us, here.
Do you dispute the Miniluv 15min suggestion and/or the wide consensus here for 25mins?
If so, on what basis?
If this is still about bumping freighters… At least make suggestions that are neutral to who and what gets bumped, or it will just stay a tears thread.
It’s obvious that bumping can be used to the same effect as scramming. My suggestion would be to make repeated bumps an aggression in high-sec and only there. The rule shall be the same as for naval traffic, where the larger ship gets the right before smaller ships.
None of this warp out nonsense that is only meant to give protection. Rather make it an aggression and have explosions and regardless if this is CODE, Goons or your holy army of white knights.
Keep bumping a larger ship for 5 minutes and you become a suspect (yellow), which might already be more than enough for the common choke points in high-sec. Keep bumping for 10-15 minutes and you turn red. If then no one is around, still, then that’s bad luck for the bigger ship. I just don’t see why the bigger ship should get a free warp out. You don’t get a free warp when you’re being scrammed either.
1 Like
My thoughts haven’t changed from what was outlined earlier in the thread. It’s all up there somewhere.
I dispute that there is wide consensus for anything at the moment.
There’s you claiming wide consensus, but my reading of the thread suggests anything but, and the group involved in this discussion is very small. Too small to be be able to imply anything statistically at all. So no, there is no wide support based on this thread.
We have the Miniluv doc provided by experts in bump/ganking, which suggests 15mins.
We have multiple posters here agreeing to a 25min hardcap.
We have proof CCP was working on capping bumping, before the team was laid off due to cut-backs.
You are just one person.
Have your say and make your peace.
And yet, you’ve now settled on 20 minutes.
Totally an expert decision I’m guessing.
Like I wrote, there isn’t wide consensus at all. Even you are in disagreement this current minute, with the values you just quoted.
Ok, so that was your statement on the issue.
Unfortunately, none of it had to do with the Miniluv suggestion or the consensus on a hardcap and its duration as expressed here in this thread.
Instead, you think attacking me, changes any of the above.
It does not.
I suggested 20mins as a compromise between Miniluv report and this panel.
Inb4 you backpedal some more, Mr.Dishonesty.
Oh diddums:
You give, but can’t take. Suck it up buttercup.
My thoughts on the proposal are up above. Scroll up if you want to read them. They haven’t changed.
They also aren’t at odds with the doc from the member of miniluv, that no change to bumping is needed.
Like I wrote above, while no change is needed, a timer is infinitely better than the earlier crap you were on about with a 90 degree cone proposal, and the stupidity before that about bumping not affecting aligning at all, before you finally settled on the timer approach, though where that will end up is anyone’s guess. It’ll change again soon enough.
1 Like
Miniluv says 15mins.
This board says 25mins.
Both agree a hardcap is reasonable to implement.
20mins is equidistant to both.
I dunno what you are whining about.
No they don’t. That is BS.
Nowhere, even in the doc from the one member of miniluv that you are using, does the author indicate that a hardcap is reasonable to implement.
The document largely argues the opposite.
With the suggestion of 15 minutes, there is no support that the hardcap is reasonable, just that if it was going to happen (back in 2016), then 15 minutes was the suggestion if CCP wouldn’t go back to no change (which is the preferred argument presented in the document).
As for this “board”, or “panel”, or whatever (maybe gaggle is better), there is no agreement. If there was, we wouldn’t be having this dis ussion right now.
You are lying, again.
The above is a verbatim quote from the document.
You are only one person, and one that furthermore has not argued the topic itself.
A hardcap was agreed to here as reasonable, and 25mins as its duration thereafter. Arguments where issued and dealt with.
If you think a hardcap is unreasonable, or disagree with the duration, then address that.
What’s the suggestion before Suggestion 2?
What’s the title of the section starting on page 3?
What’s the title of point 5 at the start of page 4?
There’s no lie Salvos. That document argues for no change first.
That you can’t see that is either deliberate (this is my suspicion), or there is some other weird thing going on (I don’t think this is the case).
The suggestion is there should CCP choose to implement a bump hardcap, which clearly was their interest when they setup a team to work on that, which was unfortunately laid off due to cut-backs.
Many here have agreed a hardcap is reasonable.
If you think it is not, then make your case.
PS: Suggestion 1 is made redundant by Suggestion 2, which makes clear at length why/how a 15 min timer would be workable.
I suggest that all posts created by Salvos are automatically removed after 5min. There is extremely huge support for this hardcap.
5 Likes
Mine is already above. You’ve read it (I don’t know, somewhere abour 600 odd posts ago somewhere), but so what? My opinion is no more relevant than anyone else’s. No less relevant either.
All our opinions in this thread are equally irrelevant, because they only opinion that matters is CCP’s, and they haven’t implemented a timer.
Link it.
Scroll up.