(Proposal) Anchoring ships

(Aranea Utrarius) #1

I noticed there are a lot of griefers out there who like to bump ships out of shielded areas like Player owned stations of the like. As well as the constant harassment while mining in any belt when Suicide gankers fail to kill you. If there was a module I could put on my ship that would allow me to anchor my ship in space That had no special boosts ( I didn’t have any in mind ). A penalty could even be thrown on it for a cool down in order to go Anywhere after it is deactivated. Or maybe even have a certain amount of distance away from any objects in order to be Activated.

(Dravick Afterthought) #2

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that bumping is a perfectly legitimate tactic - I wonder if adding a Higgs rig would help ?

(Makshima Shogo) #3

Why not just dock? Back in the good old days if you where outside station there was no tether and you could be shot :].

(Dragos Highwind) #4

Hmm, this actually isn’t a terrible idea. Bumping while a “legitimate” tactic is basically just sanctioned griefing because it’s probably too hard to code proper aggression mechanics behind it. Having a “Higgs Inertial Dampener” that impedes your own velocity by 100%, but costs a huge amount of cap and has a long cycle time in which it’s effect can’t be stopped could be a potential solution. I’d be interested to hear issues it may cause outside of “we like to bump industrial ships”.

(Maria Loudon) #5

I’d have to disagree with you on this and argue current tether mechanics are well balanced. The tether mechanic could easily immobilize your ship but it doesn’t and I think there is a good reason for that. It would seem to me that the tethering is a risk reward trade off. Being tethered enables you better vision of space and the ability to react immediately to events. The trade is the risk that you somehow become untethered and then killed. It isn’t meant to be something where you just sit there tethered AFK. So if you are not AFK, just dock if someone is trying to bump. If you do need to go AFK, dock up. Current mechanics provide an advantage to the tethered side as well as a way to counter that advantage if the attackers are willing to put in the work. However that counter can be countered by the tethered player being alert and docking. This combines into a fairly well balanced dynamic.

(Aranea Utrarius) #6

I’m learning the new tether mechanics as we speak. However it still doesn’t speak for industrial ships in an ice belt or roid belt. The kind of Anchor I had mind is it one that you couldn’t use near a station Or citadel. Something that you could use out away from MPC structures as well as player made structures. CCP has made counters to every problem in eve. Every cure comes with a price of course. Be it a trade off or straight sacrifice. It would be great to have some kind of defense against sanctioned Grefiing of this manner.

(Maria Loudon) #7

How would this help in belts? If you are anchored you can’t warp so why does bumping cause any problems? I’m not sure I understand the problem this is trying to solve. Is it simply people bumping you off the roid? Can’t you just orbit then? Bumping isn’t easy and if you are moving in an orbit path? Forgitabout it.

(Aranea Utrarius) #8

Bumping Isn’t easy? Tell that to the mercurial flying heavy constantly bumping my orca out of the belt completely. The ships on belts don’t orbit anything fast enough. I’m very active in the belts and I don’t AFK mine so with even my full attention It is unstoppable and completely unpreventable. They bump my ships out of range of logi or any boosts my orca could give. You asked how would that fix that?. It’s obvious. The ability to anchor a ship That is slow As hell anyways Would put an extreme damper on would-be bumpers. Last I heard and anchored ship can’t be bumped. I understand Bumping is a completely legal and irritating move. However just like everything else there should be some kind of defense Against it.

(Maria Loudon) #9

Hmm might make sense to allow the Orca to fit a MJD. It is basically the right size class for it more or less.

(Do Little) #10

A polarized anchor might be acceptable from a balance perspective and opens up some interesting options but I don’t think it’s worth the development effort - there are higher priorities.

(Black Pedro) #11

There are already modules and rigs that increase your mass if you want to make yourself more resistant to bumping as mentioned above. There are also ships and fits, most in fact, that are agile enough to invalidate bumping as a useful tactic when actively piloted. You are asking for a straight up hard counter to the tactic, with no meaningful trade-off, which doesn’t seem an especially good game design idea.

Large ships are susceptible to bumping. This only is an issue for capital ships, like freighters, and proto-capital ships like the Orca. They are very powerful ships with many benefits, so it doesn’t seem a big problem to me that they have some downsides such as being susceptible to bumping. If it deemed necessary to add some counter to bumping, then it really needs to have some meaningful trade-off, like less tank or yield to offset the increase in utility, or you just make the probably already overpowered and overused capital ships (+Orca) even more attractive and oppressive in the game’s meta.

(Aranea Utrarius) #12

In order to survive you have to make them as tanky as possible. Which completely removes any idea of trying to make them any faster, Especially when the ships that are being used to bump are Extraordinarily faster. an anchor already has its drawbacks. It would be pointless for me to state them. There are similar modules that already exist that have hefty drawbacks as well as some buffer. A normal anchor would offer no buffer. But yes a direct counter to the annoying sanctioned griefers. When they can’t kill you they bump you. If this thing existed at the very least For the orca and ships like it… It would most definitely be a game changer.

(Black Pedro) #13

This is the whole point of fitting choices - you have to make decisions none of which is ideal. If you want to be resistant to bumping you need to give up some tank. If you want maximum tank, you have to give up some agility. Neither is the perfect solution, but you have to choose.

But really, you can fit a Procurer or Skiff with an afterburner that makes you essentially bump proof with very little trade-off in raw EHP. In fact, if you keep up a transversal the extra speed probably offers better damage mitigation than another shield mod. Also, the speed of these ‘defensive’ mining ships was already purposely increased to make them harder to bump and to give a minerbumping-resistant option. I would consider to the claim it isn’t sufficiently bump-proof even when fit for it and they need a buff somehow (although I see no evidence of that) but to claim all mining ships should be made bump-proof for no cost isn’t really balanced at all, nor does it offer new game play. It just tilts the balance of the game in one direction.

Definitely though, the Orca doesn’t need such a buff at this time. It is fast becoming the only mining ship seen in highsec. If anything, it needs more trade-offs against its massive tank, huge ore hold, and AFK-ability. It is better in almost all respects than the other mining choices other than perhaps cost and raw yield (although not yield-per-click) and could use some more drawbacks, not more buffs.

(Aranea Utrarius) #14

I noticed you say this several times. Offering a module that doesn’t have any drawbacks. You can’t move or warp or warp away. That right there is a boon and a bane. Not to mention the massive power needed to support it.

(Black Pedro) #15

It’s a pretty marginal trade-off that you have to be stationary when the whole point of the module is to prevent you from moving. Sure, perhaps it could be balanced with a massive fitting cost that made it so it could fit much less tank, or some other real trade-off that just doesn’t make Orcas even stronger.

So sure, if there is some significant downside for fitting such a module, it might work, but I question how many people would bother or if it worth the development time. Not my call though, so perhaps the CSM will relay your request on.

(Aranea Utrarius) #16

I hear people talking about this all the time. This subject isn’t originally my idea. I’m just surprised I didn’t see it on here before I brought it up.

(Brisc Rubal) #17

Bumping folks out of shielded areas is a basic form of PvP. It should never be 100% safe to go AFK anywhere in EVE (and yes, I think that should include cloaky camping).

I also think you’re probably not really going to want a module that makes you unable to move while mining, even if you’re not bumpable. But again, this strikes me as something designed to make it easier to go AFK while doing something, and I don’t particularly like that kind of thing.

(Aranea Utrarius) #18

Im never afk. I never once said anything about AFK anything. As a matter of fact anywhere I have ever mined im probably the only person that isn’t AFK. I don’t take that kind of risk when mining anywhere. It’s not worth it.

(Marcus Gideon) #19

When you’re talking about being bumped while mining, it sure sounds like you’re AFK. Otherwise, you’d be awake enough to just fly back.

Put a prop mod on your ships if they’re getting knocked further / faster than you can slow boat back into position.

Set all your folks to Orbit something. Or set them all to Approach the Orca, and set it to Orbit something. Then the whole fleet will be flying in circles, and anything bumped out of formation will already be trying to catch back up to the Orca.

(Marcus Gideon) #20

Careful, you’re about to completely derail the thread. And then you’d have to take a whole bunch of unrelated comments and dump them in the Boo Hoo Cloaking dumpster fire. =)