And that’s why you lost your ship. Had you been with friends, your ship wouldn’t be ganked.
1 Like
And they are, even if bumping was removed. Just taking more time to align makes it easier to point them. Making them slower to warp make it easier to intercept them on the next jump.
Bumping does not make them “more susceptible”. Bumping make them the sole target that can be kept on grid without concord interfering.
When you can’t accept people arguments because you WANT them to have a hidden agenda, it only talks about yourself.
Basically it means you are stupid and you have no argument whatsoever against the idea proposed, but YOUR hidden agenda makes it you can’t accept it.
I’m sorry but if you want to discuss with people you can’t assume they have a hidden agenda. This forum is for discussion, not for trolling people whom you disagree with.
IF they have an hidden agenda, it’s none of your concern. If you can’t stay on the topic, you accept to be wrong and actually agree that they are right. That’s why I say you are stupid.
Not the issue. I accept being ganked. I knew the risk. To me it’s profoundly broken that gankers who claim to have so much friends and claim to enforce activity in game are not able to arrange a ganking fleet in under one hour.
The sight, is the sense of directly seeing something, i.e. the code within EVE that specifically states how Concord will act in Hisec, or being able to see someone directly.
All your other senses are the other ways you can confirm that the person is there, or confirm what the code is within EVE as to how Concord will act in Hisec.
We use other senses, i.e. our evidence-based testing and confirmation to determine what the rules, how Concord is coded within the game.
And yes, this is a confirmation. It isnt a supposition or assumption. It is based on evidence that was repeated and confirmed.
So, youre saying that Bumping isnt actually a rule/code for concord and that new players realize this?
1 Like
I imagine it’s not so hard to create code that recognizes if of two ships bumping into each other one has been trying to get into warp for a specified amount of time while the other has not.
And in game logic tells me, that if a law enforcement entity witnesses such behaviour it should raise flags.
1 Like
And again I said it’s not about which sense you use. Read again the first post your replied to, with that in mind.
This is not a sense, this is deduction. You have a logical perception of something, that is lead by the information your physical senses brought to you.
Players infer there are rules that made the game (because you need them as a player). They don’t sense those rules, unless those rules are presented in the game directly.
Is a mechanism, that allows players to interact with other players in a way that should be sanctioned by concord, as it is in opposition to the rules that drive concord reaction.
Anything else is not what I said.
yes it is. This can produce so many edge cases that COULD be abused even more.
If you think it’s so easy, please make your own video game and show us how good it remains after such a modification is implemented.
I take it you are a developer then.
It’s not my job to tell the people at CCP how to code their really enormous and fantastic game. It really is.
But my boss wouldn’t let me get away with that kind of answer. And I was under the impression this forum should spawn ideas.
I could have formulated better. I think it is doable.
This is irrelevant.
Then your boss is stupid. When something is not doable it’s not doable. It’s just that simple.
If you were a (correct) dev you would have the ability to explain to your boss why it’s not doable - assuming he understands a bit of what is informatics, which even boss of IT firms may not.
Yes, you’re right. She would expect me to explain why - she wouldn’t take your kind of answer. Since you stated it impossible I would like to know why, if I were in a position to greenlight it. Which I’m not.
And if management doesn’t understand informatics they understand finance. Then you would have to quantify “impossible” and tag a price on it.
The other side of the equation would be possible gains. And since I am only one annoyed guy out of thousands of players (and their multiboxes alts) perhaps there is not much to be gained.
I just thought I should provide feedback.
This is a ridiculous statement. And that is me being very kind.
1 Like
Why? Honestly curious.
From what I see on my end, CODE is based in system. Is it ridiculous to assume they can get ready for gank in under one hour?
Why is it ridiculous to feel a mechanic that allows to hold a ship indefinitely without consequence is broken?
1 Like
The issue is that “impossible” is “impossible” to financially quantify with correct measures.
When we don’t have the ability to do something, we most often don’t have ANY idea of the cost to get this ability.
Just remember that IT projects can reach 5 times the original cost, and ALWAYS exceed the original estimated cost. And that is for things that people are specialized in, and know how to do.
Creating something can be easy, but until you do it you don’t know. Very often IT projects are bugged because it takes a huge time to ensure it is not. So optimistic evaluation are always wrong, by a factor of ten.
And you have no idea how many “impossible” things were quantified, payed for, and never delivered.
Science is a ■■■■■, you pay for it and then you pay again, it’s just a distant illusion, you pay to keep it close but the more you advance, the further it is.
1 Like
I get behind that.
We tend to look at the cost side of the equation while management often understands the gain side better. If we can’t quantify the cost side well, we get doomed projects because we failed to provide a good basis for a decision.
I feel CCP has been very considerate with changes to the game mechanics. I also feel this is one that needs to be evaluated.
The neutral reps are finally adressed so one can still hope.
That’s why you have R&D division to be able to quantify some costs.
R&D try to give you answers to question that you can’t answer yet, but that has a constant cost and no insurance of the success.
I bet CCP has R&D.
That’s why I thought it useful to add to the gain side of the equation by posting here. It was an error to state it can’t be so hard to implement.
I bet they do not have
Keep repeating your idiocy and you will figure it out yourself perhaps.
1 Like
You were probably a lower priority target. Perhaps the other targets were worth more or could not be bumped so easily. You could also take this to indicate that there are not that many gankers operating.
I know our fleets don’t tend to be large (except during the yearly event)
1 Like
Let’s play the how would I abuse this if I had evil intentions-game.
I pick a ganking ship, fly it to one side of a freighter, align towards some bookmark, site, station or gate behind my victim and press warp just long enough for the ‘specified amount of time’ to fall within the rules you’re trying to set, while bumping the freighter.
I’m not sure which flags you wanted to raise when someone ‘bumps’ a ship that only tried to warp away, but does this mean the freighter victim now gets flagged and concordokken? Or is it just a suspect timer for the freighter, allowing ganking ships to kill it without repercussions?
Really, keep in mind that unless the mechanics are simple, almost every extra rule to make a situation more complex adds extra edge cases for people to abuse.
2 Likes