If you don’t want to try such a simple thing, why are you even voicing your opinion ?
You don’t even understand what is the design of the point, how do you expect to understand something that talks about the design ?
It isn’t a simple thing, because there is no location anywhere in EVE’s history that anything has been written or mechanics changed that suggests the current mechanic is forbidden by design.
It isn’t forbidden by design. It’s perfectly allowed within the current design and has been for 16 years.
The claim doesn’t match the reality of the game design.
Whether that’s the way it should be or not is a different thing. But the claim that it provides access to something that is forbidden by design is just false.
use a point, you’ll notice you are wrong.
No remove bumping and you have no other way to prevent someone from warping than pointing him.
Since bumping is “emergent gameplay” by CCP terms, then it is not in eve design (it’s the definition of emergent gameplay). That emergent gameplay allows something that is not allowed in the design (=if you remove that bumping) . Especially, pointing someone makes you criminal ingame, meaning it’s against the (game) law to prevent someone from warping. In CCP description of CONCORD they say you can go criminal but must accept to face the consequences. the bumping allows to you have the same effect as a module that makes you criminal, without facing the consequences. This means it goes against the design of CONCORD.
That’s something already explained.
1 Like
We aren’t talking about a point. You’ve claimed that the current bump mechanics give access to something that is forbidden by design.
It isn’t. the claim is false and is easy to see that it’s false. This thread, and every other thread on bumping, and the ability to go in game and do it, is all the proof anyone needs to see that there is nothing forbidden by design, about the current mechanics. That’s sort of the whole point of this thread and the many others. Some people want it to be forbidden by design, when it currently isn’t.
Trying to deflect to use a point, isn’t related to the claim that the current bump mechanics. That’s a different mechanic under the game design, even if the aim of doing either is the same. The mechanics are not forbidden.
If the point was not triggering CONCORD then there would be no issue with bumping.
This makes no sense. Mechanism are never forbidden, they are removed.
1 Like
That is different to the point you’ve made.
As above, the whole reason for this thread and the many others is that some people want the current mechanci changed so it is forbidden by design, because it currently isn’t.
You’ve claimed the opposite of what the actual current truth is.
that’s exactly the point I made, and you would have understood it if you had tried to use a point.
You’ve said nothing but “it’s already like this so it is good” which is the dumbest way to have a discussion.
1 Like
It isn’t. It’s what you wrote has nothing to do with a point. What you wrote is that bumping gives access to something that is forbidden by the mechanics.
That not only can’t be a true statement, it’s the opposite of the current situation.
No matter which way it’s siced and diced, the current bumping mechanics do not give access to anything that is forbidden by design.
Go do it, you’ll see how false that statement is.
try to use a point for 5 min and say that again.
1 Like
Why, that isn’t relevant. Using a point without a legal right to do so has a completely different effect.
That is not relevant to a claim that bumping gives access to mechanics that are forbidden by design. The whole reason we have the suggestions for change in the forum that we do, is because there is nothing forbidden about what bumping currently gives access to.
It’s both present in the game and ruled by CCP as allowed. That is not the definition of forbidden.
no it does not.
The use of the point is the same as the use of the bump.
However the point is not allowed.
1 Like
So is the bump?
Under the current mechanics, is bumping possible and is it allowed?
If that’s the case, it can’t give access to something forbidden by design. It’s self evident.
Some people can hope that it was like a point, and not legally allowed. But it is.
The bump is allowed, since it does not trigger CONCORD -.- And since it allows to do something that is illegal (as it’s the only use of the point) it allows an effect that is not allowed in the design(of concord). Since bump-pointing is not by design from CCP it can’t be considered as being in the design (goh…) and since it make possible something that is not otherwise, it goes agaisnt the design.
Just like if nullification was not designed by CCP as part of a few ships, but a side effect, it would go against the design (no other ship can warp through bubble).
So when people say it is “by design”, this is completely false. This is on the opposite against the design, as this is the only exception to concord reacting to someone preventing a warp and it is was NOT designed by the devs as the term “emergent gameplay” explicitly states.
No, adding people gives advantage, that is normal, if you don’t add people it is a stalemate.
But in any case this is why I keep saying to focus on miner bumping, miners are a bonafide solo, bonafide new player activity and for them there is no counter.
The devs might look at that, no one cares about freighter bumping, that is why they give us garbage threads.
This is not related.
In a first step you affirmed that it is balanced because the bumper can’t warp or the bumped can warp too.
In a second step you affirmed that the bumper can’t do anything alone and needs an escort. Which means, it’s not balanced in 1v1 as the bumped has no way to get out by himself.
I say, in that case you have to pick only one of the two. Either the bump mechanism is balanced and the bumped can do something, or the bumped can’t do anything and so bumping is imbalanced . I personally think it’s and asymmetric action and as such imbalanced by essence. And it’s imbalanced by definition, as something a player can’t deal with. Actually, the fact that gankers cry so much salt when people ask to remove it, is a proof it’s so imbalanced that they can’t even imagine playing the game without - making it a very strong replacement to the point.
1 Like
The answer to all capital ship pilots remains the same.
get escorts
/thread
1 Like
“Get escorts” will be a valid response when freighters get the same offense and defense as true capital ships, instead of being capital ships in name only.
1 Like
I would like to see more constructive comments about the fix i suggested than about your personal feeling toward losing or not some iwin button.
Do you think that 200 second spooling time is to much? How long is reasonable to pin down a freighter/bowhead/orca until the release mechanic must kick in?
Don’t forget that we are talking about a tackling mechanic who allow the aggressor to hold a ship indefinitely and does not require or generate aggression… 
2 Likes
0s
bumping as a mean to avoid concord must go.
You point, or you let go.
No balls, no benefit.
(I would have said no reward with no risk if they were not crying on the forum so much)
1 Like
Sorry you are wrong.
There are always more than 1 way to do things in eve.
So a point isn´t the only way to stop someone without any afford (and get killed by CONCORDE) you could also bump, which needs some skills and afford but doesn´t get you killed.
It´s like fitting an passive targeting device to avoid yellowboxing.