It’s a good thing I know this is hyperbole otherwise I might think you actually believe this…
The reason they wouldn’t add such a module is because a freighter/jump freighter is a corp-level asset. From the very moment they were designed, they were designed to require an escort of some kind. The ship CAN be flown solo, but the intention has always been that it be best operated with an escort. WITH OTHER PEOPLE. Their design intentions for the ship are not going to change. Instead, you’re meant to learn that the ship is not able to defend itself, and you’re subsequently meant to learn to take friends when you do freighter runs.
Instead of learning, however, most people would rather whine. Which is fine, whine away. Give CCP your ‘feedback’ so they can ignore it and continue developing the game in such a way that it doesn’t make hauling through high-sec an uneventful affair free of risk. Because that’ll simply never ever happen.
I’m not trying to by argumentative here, but you seem to be starting from a place where all ships are guaranteed free passage in highsec. I see no reason why capital ships have to follow the standard paradigm of falling under the protection of CONCORD and can’t serve as a high-risk/high-reward option for players much like personal deployables do. In fact, if CCP ever attempts to reach their stated goal of letting the other capitals into highsec, they are going to have to find a way to reduce or remove CONCORD protection for these powerful ships.
Freighters are optional, and designed as corp level assets and don’t have to be used by anyone. In fact, there is post in the old, old forums from when Freighters were being implemented from devs mulling over whether the should only be flyable by capsuleers in player corporations, not ones in NPC corps. I’ll see if I can dig that up again.
That said, I do agree that perma-bumping is a less than ideal mechanic. Being able to clear tackle with guns would be preferable but a more major rework of CrimeWatch would be needed for that. Maybe some bump timer that would force the tackler to expend ships from time to time is a better solution and add some cost and a little more complexity to tackling a capital ship in highsec is a more realistic solution.
That’s a Jay Wilson quote, isn’t it? I am 99.99% positive it was Jay Wilson that said; “They would rather whine than play the game the way we designed it to be played!” Jay (f than loser) Wilson is the biggest moron ever! And, in case this reference escapes you, I’m saying that thinking that you can bully, berate, or endlessly gank players into playing something the way it was “intended” is the height of stupidity! And only absolute morons would think they could do that! And if you say that’s what CCP is thinking, I’ll believe that!
A reputable company, with competent developers, a company that WASN’T trying to provide victims for Suicide Gankers, would ask why a certain object designed to be used in a specific way wasn’t being used the way it was intended, and then begin a series of iterations, buffing, nerfing, tweeking, changing, until the desired gameplay was brought about. We know the companies that do this, (RITO, GGG) and we know its a successful strategy. Why isn’t CCP doing this??? How can CCP ignore feedback on this issue???
Clearly, the problem is too complex for CCP and its developers(though, I think maybe HENCHMEN is the more accurate term) And its too complex for you and Jay Wilson
Oh yes, and the highest elected official in Iceland came to an EVE Online convention and he said "… apparently some people don’t know as much about EVE Online as they pretend to … " No Hyperbole its all Fact.
I don’t know what a Jay Wilson is, but if I’m going to quote someone, I’ll put it in quotations.
CCP is trying to make a game, and have performed a lot of balance passes that vastly improve the chance of miners and haulers to survive suicide gank attempts over the last few years. It is much easier to survive in high sec than it was five years ago. “Trying to provide victims for suicide gankers” is hyperbole. Also, the term ‘suicide ganker’ contains no proper nouns, so please stop capitalising those words like an illiterate twit.
“…until the desired gameplay was brought about.”
Desired by who? Weaklings like you? Try Hello Kitty Online.
They don’t, no ship does nor do I think they should. Other players have the choice to turn their tackle mods and guns on them. Why should it be different for freighters in HS where a tackle mod is not needed? To me it shouldn’t be. Scrams can stop any ship and enough DPS can kill any ship. That’s what should be needed to stop a freighter as well. The exploit allows one of those conditions to be removed when dealing with freighters.
The bumping technique is specific to a certain class of ships (freighters) that is effective in specific space (HS) and that to me is what makes it an exploit. The rules work for all other ship types except freighters.
Fozzie actually said they were going to do this at fanfest 2 years ago. He’s on video saying it but it never came. I was then admitted into a focus group from CCP about courier contracts where I asked him about it. He said it didn’t get implemented due to lack of discussion and/or interest from the community. At about that time CSM member Jin’Tann did a focus group about ganking that I was admitted into. There it was discussed that the bump timer does not add any meaningful gameplay for either party and it would be preferred to give freighter more options to make meaningful fitting and piloting choices.
Except it’s not, everything in that sentence is wrong.
It’s not specific to freighters, and it’s not specific to hisec; it’s used elsewhere in the game on many classes of ship for various purposes, including the purpose it is used for in hisec.
Above all it’s not considered to be an exploit by CCP.
I still see no reason why freighters shouldn’t be subject to greater risk, including bumping or some other risk of interdiction, than the sub cap haulers. They are immensely powerful haulers - both in terms of cargo capacity and raw HP - and that must come with trade-offs, specifically they are slow and vulnerable to bumping. Otherwise, no one would fly anything else.
If you want to give them some MJD fitting option, that comes at a significant fitting cost, I wouldn’t object. I would say though that you are pretty much then just giving them an option to be turned into a Deep Space Transport which you should already be flying if you are solo and/or concerned about being interdicted by a bump tackler. I’m not sure that is new or interesting gameplay worth much development time.
I would still like to see new highsec interdiction mechanics for freighters, ones that have more obvious and direct counters, and ones that possibly could let other capitals into highsec. But that is still a far off dream I am afraid.
Concord are there to provide punishment for the only “crime” a player can commit in hisec, an act of unsanctioned aggression, aggression having a very specific meaning in Eve.
They are not there to save your ass when you’re being bumped, bumping is not aggression for a very good reason, there is no way for the game to detect whether it was deliberate or not. If bumping was to fall under Concord’s remit I can flat out guarantee that you won’t like what happens next.
That’s fair, I missed that while composing my post.
I do disagree about it being an exploited mechanic, combining two complementary mechanics is good tactics. Freighter pilots can also combine mechanics to outwit the bumpers, for example combining the way that entering warp works with how webifiers work can sling a freighter into warp before the bumper lands their initial hit.
How do you raid the supply lines of nullsec when they’re using NPC alts to haul?
NPC corps are the counter to wardecs, suicide ganking is the counter to NPC alts.
Speaking of alts, I see that you have another one
Did you get banned again, or does your social life consist of making a fool of yourself on the forums?
