you can keep dreaming.
YOU NOT KNOW
YOU NOT SPEAK
logic.
if you have an issue, and a counter to that issue costs more than this issue costs you, then the counter is not interesting, and can’t be considered as one.
That’s exactly what I am saying to you : you come up with hypothetical “counters” that actually don’t make sense.
Well, for your sake, I hope your claim that you were able to kill people by bumping in High Security space without triggering Concord was a lie. Otherwise, that’s a bannable offense, because you are not supposed to be able to avoid triggering Concord. I hope you understand that this is something that is against the rules, but I don’t believe carebears to fully be aware of the game mechanics that are involved here.
I will simply assume the rest of your post is also a lie, since there’s really not much else to take away from it. 
Very good point…
Indeed. That’s why I said it is working against the design.
It’s not like you had any ability to discuss anyhow. Besides nonsense you brought nothing.
The thing that I have brought is that the status quo, as it currently is, is more than fine. I don’t believe anyone here has made a good enough case to support the argument that this mechanic needs to be changed. But I am always happy to be shown otherwise. The only thing I ask is that specific evidence, statistics, or other hard facts be shown to prove the necessity of the changes, beyond the mere hurt feelings of a couple of carebears. 
status quo is current state.
nope. It goes against concord design, as you already agreed. You can’t allow people to kill other through bump (or even just keep them on grid) and not allow people to use a point in HS. It’s just consistency. Either you say keeping on grid is illegal in HS, or you say it’s legal.
The fact that it’s difficult to resolve without creating more imbalances does not mean it’s fine. It means it’s difficult to resolve without creating more imbalances.
Actually in this thread i suggest a fix very well targeted and who don’t create any imbalances!
The fix is also very easy to implement, as is using mechanics who already exist in game; that is a module who use an spooling up timer to activate and modify the mass of the ship (effects who already exist and are in present implemented as modules).
Also, as any module, it can be restricted to a specific type of ship, to not generate effects outside targeted issue. Plain and simple!
Adding a module to allow escaping from bump does not fix the issue of the bump.
Bumping preventing someone from warping needs to go.
Bumping delaying a warp is fine, as long as it can’t be more efficient than a point for this.
A module that makes everything around less agile is fine, as long as it also makes you a suspect - on the condition that it can’t be used to prevent warp longer than a point.
The module is fixing the issue of being perma-bumped in capital ships like freighters, orcas or bowheads in high sec, as it gives the pilots a counter to that deadlock of being tackled forever (or as long the bumper wants).
The other negative aspects of the bumping can be addressed later in separate iterations, but i highly doubt that that will even happen. So let’s stick to one problem at the time 
it’s not a deadlock.
no it can’t . There’s no use giving a band aid when you have to amputate.
You can ask for the complete removal of bumping in other thread, this one is dedicated for a very specific issue related to bumping mechanic, and that’s adding a counter to the ability of a bumper to tackle indefinitely a capital ship in high sec. Thank you.
So, looking back at your original proposal, I wanted to point out a few unintended consequences.
Reducing a ship’s mass doesn’t automatically get it into warp any faster. It still has to slow down and properly align to its destination, it just becomes considerably easier to do. The problem though is that for that 60 seconds, the ship becomes more vulnerable to being bumped, so it’s entirely possible that a ship using it would be just as stuck as they were before.
Reducing a freighter’s mass by 95% could potentially allow them to enter into wormholes that were never balanced around freighters.
A much more effective way to achieve what you want to do is to modify the ship’s agility instead of its mass: that would help it recover from bumps without making it more vulnerable to being bumped, while also keeping them out of wormholes that they were never intended for.
But of course…that’s assuming that it’s necessary in the first place, which I contend it isn’t.
Hey interesting, never thought of the wh aspect.
Good catch!
Excellent point! That is what i call constructive comment 
Yes because some people prefer to think from time to time instead of just whining about losing their advantages… 
I don’t do high sec PvP, your idea was stupid on the face of it.
Although my stance on bumping may scream “ganker” or “griefer”, it’s based more on a decade or so of min/maxing weird fits to do very specific tasks. (Afterburning AC hull-tanked 'Geddon anyone?) Unintended consequences are kind of my bread and butter.
Something else about your proposal (assuming you change it to reduce agility instead of mass): any freighter would only be able to fit, at most, three of these modules. (Given how CCP has implemented other “destroy-on-use” modules, it’s more likely that you could only fit one, but I’ll go with three for now.) So a truly persistent bump/gank squad would just follow the target until they run out of modules (or, if they’re lucky, land a bump or two while the module is active). In fact, I’d wager that the more clever folks would actually just take to bumping their targets 1-2 systems ahead of where they actually want to gank them to compensate for this.
All the while the freighter is both able to haul less (making it worse from the freighter pilot’s point of view) without any gain in durability from fitting tanking mods instead (also making it worse for the freighter pilot) and only a situational gain in agility compared to fitting inertial stabilizers.
So, whether you believe that bumping is broken or not…I can’t really see this module really being of much use to freighter pilots. All it would do is delay the already inevitable while reducing the durability and hauling ability of freighters.
I think the spool up timer remove the necessity for an one time use module, as it makes very unlikely to be overused. Also can be limited to one module per ship, like a damage control.
The fact that pilot need to trade off cargo space or tank to use this warp assist module, add a layer of balance on using it.
You are fitting wrong. Your low slots should be inertials to make you align faster. No wonder you are whining about bumping.
Ahhh, okay. I saw the funky font on the burn-up part and wasn’t sure you meant to strike that and replace it with the spool-up timer.
What would the cooldown on the module be? If it’s anything like an MJD it would have to be a few minutes at least. Probably longer given the power of the effect it produces. In which case, my previous value assessment is still somewhat valid. Bumpers will start bumping freighters one system ahead of the gankers, freighters will pop this module, warp, jump, and bumpers/gankers in the next system will have an easy time catching them because they’ll have plenty of warning now and the module will still be on cooldown (unless the first system is CRAZY huge). Not really a huge value add for a freighter pilot, although it still leaves two lows for other modules.
How about capacitor usage? Probably not a major driver here, but it’s something to consider.
Also keep in mind, you’re asking a lot from a module that’s limited to 1.25 CPU and 3.75 PG…