Getting bumped in a freight highsec should make the bumper flagged

[Solonius_Rex]

Im sorry, but this was just so amazing, it blew my mind.

And not in a good way.

@Anderson_Geten

Actually no rule is written for concord.

Well, yes, actually, it is written. As Code. In the game.

Its not as if theres a chance that concord will come and blow me up just for activating my MWD. The spawning, and aggression of Concord is written into the game as code, in response to “X” action. And we can list the actions that will cause Concord to spawn and destroy you. We can list the full list, of every instance.

The only time it wouldnt, is if it were a Bug, which CCP would quickly fix, and punish those who try to exploit it.

I dont understand why you posted this. Whats the context, here?

[Solonius_Rex]

@Nevyn_Auscent

I mean you could equally say that it’s been lobbied for high sec to be removed therefore anyone who doesn’t want to let bumped ships eventually warp wants high sec removed.

It was a joke, but thanks for playing.

@Nevyn_Auscent

The way bumping works is an issue, because it takes control away from the player in a way almost nothing else does. Webs, Scrams, none of these things actually remove control, they limit actions but they don’t deny actions.

If you ganked the bumper, that would deny him from bumping you, would it not.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Solonius_Rex

If you ganked the bumper, that would deny him from bumping you, would it not.

It doesn’t deny them from acting though, because they can get right back in a ship and back to doing something (probably bumping). An option which a bumped freighter pilot does not have.
Do note, I am not against ganking. I am against lopsided gameplay, and gameplay that promotes heavy usage or requirement of alts.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Solonius_Rex

Whats the context, here?

read the post. I’m talking about general rule, not the way it’s coded. People infer a general rule for concord.
Because AFAIK we don’t have access to the code. So saying “there is a rule somewhere but we don’t see it” is just completely useless.

[Jonah_Gravenstein]

@Anderson_Geten

So saying “there is a rule somewhere but we don’t see it” is just completely useless.

You mean this, which lists all of the flags and their consequences?

[Anderson_Geten]

@Jonah_Gravenstein

You mean this, which list all of the flags and their consequences?

A rule, which dictates why something generates a suspect/criminal flag.
A enumeration of the things you can do and the results is not a rule, it’s an case enumeration. I was talking about how people infer rules - typically from the enumeration of cases they experienced.

[DrysonBennington]

It’s called a collider box to begin with.

Try creating a game using the Unity Engine and you will soon learn how colliders work.

CCP could create script based on the following parameters rather easily.

Unity Engine Collider Manual

https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/CollidersOverview.html

Collision callbacks for scripts

When collisions occur, the physics engine calls functions with specific names on any scripts attached to the objects involved. You can place any code you like in these functions to respond to the collision event. For example, you might play a crash sound effect when a car bumps into an obstacle.

On the first physics update where the collision is detected, the OnCollisionEnter function is called. During updates where contact is maintained, OnCollisionStay is called and finally, OnCollisionExit indicates that contact has been broken. Trigger colliders call the analogous OnTriggerEnter , OnTriggerStay and OnTriggerExit functions. Note that for 2D physics, there are equivalent functions with 2D appended to the name, eg, OnCollisionEnter2D . Full details of these functions and code samples can be found on the Script Reference page for the MonoBehaviour class.

With normal, non-trigger collisions, there is an additional detail that at least one of the objects involved must have a non-kinematic Rigidbody (ie, Is Kinematic must be switched off). If both objects are kinematic Rigidbodies then OnCollisionEnter , etc, will not be called. With trigger collisions, this restriction doesn’t apply and so both kinematic and non-kinematic Rigidbodies will prompt a call to OnTriggerEnter when they enter a trigger collider.

The call back in this case would be a timer set on the Bumpers ship identification number, since all objects in the game are coded with unique item numbers similar to how worm holes are labeled WWR-045, TGD - 871, etc. when the timer reaches a certain number of hits within a certain period of time with the same object where the other object is moveable, unlike an asteroid or a station, the script would flag the Bumper as suspect for 15 minutes.

The script can be written.

[Dravick_Afterthought]

“When I use a word ,” Humpty Dumpty said , in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean —neither more nor less.”

[Karak_Terrel]

@Nevyn_Auscent

However… there isn’t really a viable solution that also keeps any immersion which doesn’t equally have worse issues, so bumping is what we have to live with.

Oh yes, there certainly is a viable solution. It is called industrial ships. Bumping is only really effective against capital type ships which have extremely big mass and size. But luckily there are like 20? or something other ships that don’t suffer from that drawback. They may have other drawbacks, like not an hull that goes near the million HP, but there obviously always has to be a trade-off.

To be vulnerable to bumps is about the only drawback a freighter has in highsec. If you would work around that with game mechanic changes, what reason would there be to use anything else? Those other options are there for a reason I think.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

Because speed and not a huge cargo?
Industrials are not a viable option if you are moving that much cargo. It would take a silly number of trips to haul it all. Not to mention how insanely vulnerable industrials are.
You can keep throwing out all the excuses you want, but it really is a bad mechanic, and bad gameplay.

[Karak_Terrel]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Because speed and not a huge cargo?

Different ships have different trade-offs. I thought so much is obvious

@Nevyn_Auscent

Industrials are not a viable option if you are moving that much cargo. It would take a silly number of trips to haul it all.

Yes, different options have different drawbacks. It was always that way. Every ship has it’s strengths and its weaknesses. The Freighter has a huge cargo hold and huge hull HP and is therefor slow and vulnerable to bumps. Industrials have a lower cargo hold, have less hull HP and are faster and not extremely vulnerable to bumps.

@Nevyn_Auscent

Not to mention how insanely vulnerable industrials are.

The t2 options when flown correctly are impossible to catch. And they are also capable of fitting a respectable tank. And the t1 options can fit some nice tank too that makes them pretty expensive to kill in Highsec.

@Nevyn_Auscent

You can keep throwing out all the excuses you want, but it really is a bad mechanic, and bad gameplay.

Yeah look, I get that being on the receiving end of a bump or gank is super frustrating and not fun. Losing in a game is sometimes frustrating especially if there is something on the line and also much to win. If you end up in a bump lock with your freighter and have no way to escape and no friends to help there is still the chance that the bumper gives up, it is also his time he is wasting if he doesn’t gank you. If you think you have no chance of escape anyway and don’t want to waste time waiting for the eventual end go self-distruct. But in the end it was the freighter pilots fault for ending up in that situation. He chose the wrong ship with to much cargo to take the wrong route at the wrong time.

Bumping is in the end just a tool. It isn’t really powerful and only works against a small range of ships that are otherwise pretty overpowered. So I think bumping is actually balancing them quite nicely.

With your full post addressed, may I ask another question:

I wonder, do you think there should be no piracy in highsec? Or should there be less?

[Nevyn_Auscent]

And there is evidence you haven’t bothered what I wrote and are just arguing against a strawman. Go and read my posts and then come back.

[Karak_Terrel]

There you go, I addressed your full post

[Solonius_Rex]

@Nevyn_Auscent

It doesn’t deny them from acting though, because they can get right back in a ship and back to doing something (probably bumping). An option which a bumped freighter pilot does not have.

Thats kind of a ridiculous response, dont you think? Couldnt you self destruct your freighter and go back to piloting a freighter? Does bumping prevent you from doing that?

And while they are busy reshipping, you can warp away with your freighter and survive. Im guessing it would take more than 15 seconds to reship into a battleship, warp back and start bumping again, which it would, so thats plenty of time to be webbed and warp out.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

Because AFAIK we don’t have access to the code. So saying “there is a rule somewhere but we don’t see it” is just completely useless.

But we do see it. Its an actual thing that can be tested to confirm how it operates.

Its like saying “you cant know that oxygen exists because you cant see it with your naked eye”. No, we can run tests that confirm its existance.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Solonius_Rex

But we do see it. Its an actual thing that can be tested to confirm how it operates.

Since you need to experiment for it, means it’s not visible. So no, you don’t see it.
And yes, you assume there is oxygen because you are still alive - yet you don’t see it. People can be kept alive using respiratory fluid, and they believe there is still oxygen in the air.

In the game, the rule of concord, which is not written for players, seems to be the one I wrote above. So people infer this is the rule of concord (the rule that dictated this table . Bumping is the only exception of CCP allowing a mechanism to prevent someone from warping/moving without giving the user a criminal timer. That’s why it is against this rule. Which we don’t have access to, so which we infer.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

Since you need to experiment for it, means it’s not visible. So no, you don’t see it.

Vision is not the only sense we have at our disposal.

@Anderson_Geten

And yes, you assume there is oxygen because you are still alive - yet you don’t see it. People can be kept alive using respiratory fluid, and they believe there is still oxygen in the air.

No, we dont assume it. This is as close to knowledge that we can get, based on the evidence.

There is no assumption, no supposition. And any scientist would tell you this.

It is not assumed, it is demonstrated.

@Anderson_Geten

In the game, the rule of concord, which is not written for players, seems to be the one I wrote above. So people infer this is the rule of concord (the rule that dictated this table .

They are written. Whether we are able to see the code itself, is irrelevant, because we can directly demonstrate the rules. If my safety is on green, i cannot commit a criminal act. It is impossible(without bug or hacking) for me to shoot another ship that is not under a specific flag while my safety is set to green. If I kill another person while my safety is set to red, and the opponent is not flagged in any way, i will be killed in hisec. This is a fact, it is a rule, and it is written.

Infact, I could probably bring CCP Falcon here and have him say this as well, and he will write the same thing.

I havent read the Baghvad Gita, but i know it is written down somewhere. The fact that we havent read, or cannot read another book, in another language, or a code in a game, doesnt change this fact.

@Anderson_Geten

Bumping is the only exception of CCP allowing a mechanism to prevent someone from warping/moving without giving the user a criminal timer. That’s why it is against this rule. Which we don’t have access to, so which we infer.

What “Rule” are you referring to?

[Anderson_Geten]

@Solonius_Rex

Vision is not the only sense we have at our disposal.

How does this relate to the point I made ?
I’m not talking about which sense you use. I’m saying when you don’t have a direct way to observe something, then you can’t say you sense it.

If you see a shadow with the shape of a man, you assume there is a man - even if it’s wrong and its just a scarecrow.
In Eve, players, because they are players, are suggested a rule for concord to act - because playing a game with no rule but an enumeration of specific cases is just no fun. They don’t see that rule. Nobody can see it. It is not present in the game. You thus must infer it.

The code of the game is just this : a code. Not a rule.

@Solonius_Rex

What “Rule” are you referring to?

The one I explained in previous post and linked in the one just before.
If you want more information, you’re free to read my posts. Just don’t answer it unless you try to seriously understand what I’m saying, otherwise you’re just wasting your own time.

[Nicolai_Serkanner]

@Anderson_Geten

And then YOU make it something personal. And talk about vested interest. Ho the irony.
And you aggress people, and you make strawman here and there, and you troll.
If you ever had a point, this attitude of yours is not giving it any credit.

Why are you always so angry?

[Galaxy_Pig]

@Anderson_Geten

FWIW people CAN have a discussion about a topic without having a vested interest in it

Yeah okay, but that’s clearly not you. You clearly have a carebear agenda. You have no idea how many years we’ve all sat here and watched people like you bring their carebear agenda to the forums and lobby for nerfs because they think game is too hard or mean or whatever.

You’re nothing new, brother.