Player Harassmemt, by bumping

[Salt_Foambreaker]

@Elena_Laskova

Bumping is a good example of something that discourages new(ish) players.

Those newbies with freighters?

/facepalm

[Scipio_Artelius]

@Salt_Foambreaker

Those newbies with freighters?

Yeah, echo that and Black Pedro’s post above.

Not intending to push one of my own posts, because what I write isn’t all that particularly interesting, however for this issue of whether bumping is really a discouragement for new players, it’s only really effective against the larger ships that aren’t really flown by new players. The analysis below last year looked at 2 years of Freighter/Bowhead/Orca ganking and found that it’s mostly vets that fly these ships:

Burn Jita!

Burn Jita targets freighters, Bowheads and Orcas. They aren’t typically new player ships. However, it’s often claimed that this type of ganking is vets targetting new players, so I just went and grabbed the last 6000 highsec killmails (1000 each for Obelisk, Charon, Fenrir, Providence, Bowhead and Orca) and checked the ages of the characters. The data goes back to January 2016, so it covers the last 2 and a bit years completely. Here’s the averages: Summary Average Age (Days) 1749.…

New players are not really affected by bumping.

[Pix_Severus]

Those who are against bumping (old, rich players) will often use the tactic of equating bumping with newbie harassment, to make it appear more of an issue than it actually is. Many use the same tactic against ganking, even though most gankers avoid actual newbies by default because their ships, and subsequently their killmails and potential loot, are worthless.

[Elena_Laskova]

@Karak_Terrel

@Elena_Laskova

You know what form of behavior I described in the original post. You must have carefully selected it for removal to disguise the nature of your post.

The nature of my post is pretty clear. I told you that comparing a monstrous RL crime like torture to something insignificant like losing in a video game is problematic. If you actually have a point worth discussing maybe don’t use such exorbitant exaggerations and people may start taking you serious and read the rest of your post.

Still leaving out the context I see. You’re really determined to wind up what I said by a notch or two so your claim isn’t nonsense.

You’re still just trying to sell a lie.

It’s interesting to see a hair-triggered little snowflake defending EVE player (mis)behavior though. That’s definitely a first

Next time:

• Read the text rather than triggering on one word
• Learn the difference between “AAA is equivalent to XXX”, “A is like XXX”, and “Some aspect of AAA can be compared to some part of XXX”, etc.
• Include enough of the original post so the full context is available. Cherry-picking is a liar’s technique

And something to reflect on:
If this forum had fewer liars and deniers, I would be able to select different words and phrases.

Instead we get posts like this latest surreal burst of “truthy” claims about bumping, such as:

• “New players can’t lose Freighters, therefore they don’t mind that CCP has left it in the game”.
• “New players aren’t bumped much during “Burning Jita” therefore they’re not affected by bumping.”
• …

/lol.

[Elena_Laskova]

Pedro

Nice to see a sane poster among the rest.

My point about bumping isn’t how effective it is in live combat. It’s the message it gives to player: one more things they have no influence over - and this is EVE: of course it’s a griefer/ganker tool.

New players meet it early - because of those nice (NOT folks at minerbumping.com, because they’re actually bumped while mining, because they’re bumped by some dimwit while going to and from from stations, etc. All of those have happened to me.

Just stupid stuff of course, and casual bumpers usually give up soon enough. But EVE makes you careful about different ways your activities can be affected by griefers. The sensible follow-up is to investigate it.

If they ask about it, or look in the forums, they’ll learn about something that obviously doesn’t match the EVE narrative.

Bumping, if needed, should be implemented in a reasonable way:

• Match a “game-reasonable” physics model (proportional to kinetic energy, damages both ships, affected by armor etc
• Be implemented by modules (e.g. one to bump, one to defend from bumping)
• Flag the bumper

Or they could go the other way, and create “Bumping Drones”.

I’d go for the drones myself. Jita would freeze permanently forever, and CCP would have to take their heads out of the sand and make a design decision, instead of their usual “it’s a sandbox, lets have a beer instead” design indecision.

FWIW: I have a longish personal list of pros/cons I consider with EVE: “is bumping gone or a module yet?” is on it because it’s an indicator of how much I can trust CCP.

CODE is on the list too - but they’re a symptom, not the cause. CODE is a live example of what EVE players do with the stupid tricks that CCP leave in EVE.

[Galaxy_Pig]

@Elena_Laskova

Still leaving out the context I see.

This summation of your posting is accurate. You did compare certain gameplay to torture in a really tone-deaf way. It was funny. I laughed.

The rest of this post is just more tears about how mean EVE players are and how unfair and hard the game is, which is also funny.

[Elena_Laskova]

Galaxy Pig

You’re just adding to the first lie, then you included another.

I don’t remember ever saying “EVE is unfair”. EVE is a game.

… but … EVE supports and permits behavior that some people won’t put up with. Experienced EVE players frequently drive away new players via such behaviors. Sometimes it’s indifference, sometimes deliberate. But who can tell?

This is interesting because it’s clear to me that many new players who could find a place in EVE, and would enjoy playing it long-term, leave because the startup process exposes them to the worst and most arbitrary aspects of EVE and its players.

Daring to point out such a possibility here is a good way to demonstrate that EVE’s retention problem is significantly due to EVE’s players /lol.

BTW I have a vague memory of speaking to you before. Aren’t you part of CODE? Didn’t you get demoted to just “Pig” for doing something stupid?
If so, it would have been a reference to “Pig Wrestling”, and done as I switched to a “evasion” strategy.

[Dracvlad]

@Xan_Staraider

So 233 comments later I still don’t see the problem. If ganks can be prevented (as the anti-gankers claim) then why change the mechanics?

He was being lazy or incompetent, in that he was not tagging targets.

[NotTheSmartestCookie]

Speaking of Burn Jita, I know of multiple new players who had the time of their life, scoring high value kills vs veteran players. With good guidance/advice available on various forums and free ships being handed out the event is a showcase for new players how they may lack in Skill Points or ISK, but that showing up for the fight is the best way to make a difference in EVE.

[Cypr3ss_Deteis]

@NotTheSmartestCookie

showing up for the fight is the best way to make a difference in EVE.

If you keep posting statements like this in public, you may have to change your char name.

Regards,
Cypr3ss.

[Galaxy_Pig]

@Elena_Laskova

You’re just adding to the first lie, then you included another.

I bet you’re a blast at parties.

<3 Thanks for this recent wall of tears. Quality stuff. This is actually why I come to these forums. To harvest the wailings of the severely butthurt.

[Elena_Laskova]

@Galaxy_Pig

@Elena_Laskova

You’re just adding to the first lie, then you included another.

I bet you’re a blast at parties.

<3 Thanks for this recent wall of tears. Quality stuff. This is actually why I come to these forums. To harvest the wailings of the severely butthurt.

What “wall of tears”?

Responding to liars is just a technical matter. I don’t communicate with liars - it’s self-evidently pointless.

I see I remembered correctly about Pig Wrestling though

[Black_Pedro]

@Elena_Laskova

My point about bumping isn’t how effective it is in live combat. It’s the message it gives to player: one more things they have no influence over - and this is EVE: of course it’s a griefer/ganker tool.

But isn’t the point of playing a competitive and multiplayer MMO like Eve is that you don’t have influence over everything? The fact that other players can shoot you, steal from you, race you to a site or some ore, scam you or declare war on you is part of the game and I don’t see why you would want to shield players from that full stop. Sure, you want the players to feel like they have some agency and there is reason behind things, but the message that capital ships can be bump-tackled by people who want to do you harm is an accurate message that describes the game play that goes on in this game.

I’m for revisiting bumping in principle not because the most powerful ships in the game are vulnerable to having their navigation interfered with, but rather because the mechanics behind it are rather contrived and arcane and not always intuitive to a player encountering it for the first time. But capital ships in highsec are overpowered given CONCORD does not scale with EHP (which is the primary reason all the others were banished from highsec) so I am all for your suggestion that bumping be replaced with some sort of ‘capital interdiction module’ that say tackles a capital ship in higsec without invoking a CONCORD response, but turns the tackler suspect. That would keep game balance and allow a way for someone to clear tackle with guns without CONCORD getting in the way.

But that doesn’t mean bumping is a ‘new player issue’. As we all know new players don’t get bump-tackled aside from the edge case of the credit-card warrior who injects/PLEXes there way into a freighter on day 1. If you are serious about your claim that it is just the “message” sent to new players, you have a much bigger issue. Eve is a competitive PvP sandbox game built from the ground up to make you vulnerable to the other players no matter where you go or what you do. That message - that even your massive freighter is not safe in highsec - is a valid and intended one that new players need to hear, not be protected from or lied to about.

I think CCP would love to redo their physics engine but it is a massive project, maybe not feasible with current resources. I am sure if they could redo it, they would limit or remove bumping in some way, but I am also sure they would make compensatory changes so capital-class haulers are still reasonably vulnerable in highsec, like say nerfing their EHP or adding a new tackle module specifically for them. I still don’t see any fundamental difference in the “message” that new players will receive under the current system and this hypothetical new version where freighters have other vulnerabilities than bump-tackling.

They are suppose to be vulnerable to the other players. That’s Eve.

[Karak_Terrel]

@Elena_Laskova

Still leaving out the context I see. You’re really determined to wind up what I said by a notch or two so your claim isn’t nonsense.

You’re still just trying to sell a lie.

What lie am I trying to sell? I simply pointed out that your comparison of torture with a conversation with a player who bested someone in a game and offers advice is problematic.

I’m not triggered, I simply find it distasteful and I generally disregard the rest of the post if it becomes apparent that the writer relies on extreme exaggeration instead of real arguments.

As to your suggestions:

@Elena_Laskova

Match a “game-reasonable” physics model (proportional to kinetic energy, damages both ships, affected by armor etc

So I can kill a ship by bumping it? Ok

@Elena_Laskova

Be implemented by modules (e.g. one to bump, one to defend from bumping)

Why should ship collision depend on a module? You know, objects collide without a module.

@Elena_Laskova

Flag the bumper

Which one? A bump involves two ships and bumps happen accidentally. I think this was discussed and the problems with this idea where shown a gazillion times over the years. Why don’t you use the search bar to check before you start with the same futile idea all over again?

@Elena_Laskova

CODE is on the list too - but they’re a symptom, not the cause. CODE is a live example of what EVE players do with the stupid tricks that CCP leave in EVE.

CODE is mainly ganking this days and that is a deliberate game mechanic designed and put into the game on purpose by CCP. It’s a feature not a stupid trick.

[Xan_Staraider]

@Siddharta_Bheskagor

I don’t want to stop bump-ganking, I want to even the playing field once the game is on - as it is it’s not very challenging gameplay.

Bumping a freighter is not easy. You should try it for a few hours and see for yourself.

Even if a gank fleet is or is not on it’s way, bumping is a legit tactic. You even said so yourself. And Concord is programmed to react the way it does intentionally.

Is bumping taking too much of your time? Here are some options:

• Pay the ransom.
• Eject from your freighter and surrender it to the bumper.
• Stop being bad at Eve.

The playing field is even.

Seriously, you’re the biggest cry baby on this forum. Man up and get gud. Players like you are part of the reason why I left anti-ganking. All talk, no action. Just wah wah wah.

[Xan_Staraider]

@Karak_Terrel

Flag the bumper

Which one? A bump involves two ships and bumps happen accidentally. I think this was discussed and the problems with this idea where shown a gazillion times over the years. Why don’t you use the search bar to check before you start with the same futile idea all over again?

They want to flag the bumper that isn’t them.

[Elena_Laskova]

@Karak_Terrel

What lie am I trying to sell? I simply pointed out that your comparison of torture with a conversation with a player who bested someone in a game and offers advice is problematic.

I’m not triggered, I simply find it distasteful and I generally disregard the rest of the post if it becomes apparent that the writer relies on extreme exaggeration instead of real arguments.

Learn to read, or quote the text of interest including the context, and I’ll help you.

If you read and understood it, you might still get triggered, and you could say so. I don’t mind.

But claiming to be triggered by something other than what I wrote is another matter. You’re triggering on something you made up for your own entertainment.

[Xan_Staraider]

Let’s try to stay on topic and not be mean. Just because you failed a debate doesn’t mean you need to get angry.

You just need to calm down and do some self-reflection. Maybe it’s time for a paradigm shift.

[Karak_Terrel]

If you get so angry if people point out your extreme exaggerations maybe you should stop making them

[Elena_Laskova]

Read what I wrote for the Pig. I’m not engaged in this - dealing with liars is just a technical matter.

BTW - are you hoping that I don’t know what I wrote just before the section you sliced out? I know what I said.
But it’s on you to find it and quote it, not me.