Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Bing Bangboom
Ded End Damage Inc. United Sytems Against Terrorist Opperations
32
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:50:00 -
[271] - Quote
I am quoting nobody and trying to not be too funny on this post as some of my best stuff has been too offensive to survive.
While this is a big world full of all kinds of people I am astonished that people who self-select to be Eve players can consider the following things to be harassment and therefore a reason to eliminate bumping (I put this part in because I want to stay on topic):
1) Talking to someone in local. 2) Speaking English to a non-english speaker. 3) Not stopping your "attack" when someone asks you to. 4) Blogging. 5) Not doing exactly what you say you are doing. 6) Not being in a player corp. 7) Surviving gank attempts. 8) Not congregating in one corporation. 9) Flying Battleships. 10) Not being in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities act.
Before the censor takes this message apart please note that these are all arguments given in this thread for why the New Order of Highsec has to be stopped by CCP action.
As many people have already pointed out , who do you want in Eve? People like James 315 and the Agents of the New Order of Highsec or people who not only believe the things above but are willing to come out in public and actually present them as valid arguments?
I was going to wind up with something inspiring like "Give me bumpage or give me .... you know" but it might be too funny and WHAM! I'm reduced to my first line.
www.minerbumping.com
Bing Bangboom Agent of the New Order of Highsec Beligerent Undesirable |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:55:00 -
[272] - Quote
My two cents:
I have not bumped miners so far nor do I intend to bump miners in the future. If I ever pass by a miner, which happens very rarely- be it in a catalyst - I will start shooting and will lose my ship over it.
Having that said I think miner-bumping as an idea to create content is a good initiative.
I do not know to what degree the agents of the NO(new Order) are linked and organized but as far as I understand it they demand a mining fee and as soon as it is paid a one year allowence is issued and the miner in question is set to blue...hell they even get orca boost as far as I know.
I guess by now miner bumping is not only done by NO affiliates exclusivly anymore and so there will be enough random douchebags bumping players out of range of their rocks no matter if they pay them or not. (I am pretty sure even some miners have made alts to do that to their fellow collueges...). That is not the finest way to treat other people but...life is not fair .
In the real worls one could say: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." To my knowledge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. does not play Eve...
In Eve they say: "Progress... ...what is it? Out here progress is numbers Millimetres, kilometres, Head counts, death tolls This is progress.
Colonies burned Ships destroyed People killed Money earned
It all comes at a price and if the price is right I'll set the universe on fire."
So for the sake of the game we all play and love: Not another lex miner No to bumping changes.
Bumping is not a crime...botting is.
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Murk Paradox
Solenus Directive Rieos Coalition
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:04:00 -
[273] - Quote
R0me0 Charl1e wrote:Anslo wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:So do miners, missioners, etc. I don't see your point. Miners, Missioners etc don't harass players. They engage NPCs (risk of dying to NPC) and mine roids (risk rats, ganks, or other mienrs taking roids) I would like to point out that Miners can "harass" other Miners by stripping clean a system (or more) of roids. That's the PVP of mining, the fight over extracting the limited resources in systems.
Exhumers can also bump exhumers. I've done it. A few times. |
Murk Paradox
Solenus Directive Rieos Coalition
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:23:00 -
[274] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Ahvram wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Anslo wrote:Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what highsec is. Highsec does not mean, has never meant, and ideally never will mean pvp-free. It's considerably safer than other areas, but it is not 100% safe. So you're simply wrong - them being in highsec does not mean they are not valid targets for any form of PVP, including bumping. Last time a checked every action in eve related to PVP there are some cause and effect. You gank concord pops you, You can/wreck flip you get and agression timer. You harass miners/freighters by pushing them around belts/gates you get? You take no risk for full reward. I think miners should stop inhaling veldspar dust, as it's given them a curious blindness related to the words "suicide", "gank", "war" and "dec" Sorry bumpers are War dec proof see NPC corp. As for ganking Ya lets see the option. Gank the bumper (Which for a miner is near impossible) you lose more money trying to gank them than you would paying there risk free extorsion money. Thats a win for sure... Its not and answer to the issue at all. Our option to deal with you requires us to use the pvp system. Your option is to avoid the pvp system and its rules. See how that works. Now if I could gank you without concord interference we would be on the same level. And be real Miner bumpers dont run around in frigs/destroyers they use Machs and other large gank proof battleships to push miners around belts. Last time I check it takes about 10+ Tornados/talos to gank a buffer tank BS. Thats fair right? Only takes one of you completely avoiding all pvp rules to pvp yet it would take nearly 10 pilots all forced to abide by the pvp system to deal with you.
Just because someone can do something better doesn't mean it's broken.
Also, take a look at how impressive the Stabber is. Fleet issue even more so. Truly an overpowered hull. Even though there's no enforcement of using 1 hull, the Stabber is the bread and butter of Code enforcers. Thank you for the loaded question however, as passive aggressiveness definitely contributes to the thread. (See what I did there?) |
Murk Paradox
Solenus Directive Rieos Coalition
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 16:47:00 -
[275] - Quote
Gladius Codicis wrote:Azran Zala wrote:[quote=MTB BR]what New Order is doing is ingenious, and a great display of creativity by a group of players in finding a way to generate an income by creating a whole new profession "Mining permit sales & inspection". Yes. Rather than nerf bumping because miners hate paying informal "taxes", I'd suggest that CCP go in the opposite direction. Create formalized methods of tax collection in highsec, extending the quasi-sovereignty/taxation concept not just to ice miners, but to all miners and perhaps all professions. Create "ownership" of grids. Then grids become something worth fighting over. Player versus player conflict is created. Conflict is the soul of Eve. Conflict is good. --- For example, consider a system in which a new "player owned tax station" (POTS) is created. A POTS is a small anchorable structure, something like a GSC. Perhaps 200m^3. There is a limit of no more than one of them anchored on any given grid at one time. A POCO, POS, gate or station is considered to have one of them by default, so you cannot anchor one there. (Or maybe you can. Hmm.) Similarly a handful of newbie systems are marked "no taxation" at the system level. However, all other grid locations in highsec may have a POTS anchored if players choose to. Because a corporate role is required to anchor, they cannot be used by players in NPC corps. A POTS stays anchored for no longer than 26 hours. (2 hours more than a day allows for daily maintenance without undue annoyance to the owning players who have real world schedules.) After that time it will automatically unanchor and become free for anyone to take. Thus they require daily interaction to maintain. For lowsec, nullsec, and wspace create permanent POTS akin to POCOs. The owner of a POTS can set its tax rate, which is a flat fee for 15 minutes present on that grid. By default when the thing is anchored make it be, oh, say, 1m ISK per 15 minutes. The owner can change the tax rate to whatever he wants. Allow different rates to be configured according to corporate relations, like POCOs. Any player on the grid is taxed. Every 15 minutes, every player on grid gets a dialog demanding tax payment. (The first minute is free. That's plenty of time to look around and decide if you want to use the grid.) You can hit "yes, pay my taxes" to pay them. There's also a "no" button. The dialog stays up for, say, one minute and then automatically is declined. If a player is still on the grid when he declines to pay, he's a thief and he gets an aggression timer just as if he stole from a jetcan owned by the corp owning the POTS. So you can use a grid for up to 2 minutes for free. For longer periods, you have to pay tax or risk legal aggression. The sovereign over the system in which a POTS is placed can set a taxation rate on POTS taxes, from 0 to 100%. The empire rate is 10%. (Combined with permanent POTS and some sort of logging of declines, this gives nullsec sovereigns a reasonable way to tax mining.) POTS can be blown up. Attacking one when you are not at war with the owner is Concorded. They should killable even against Concord protection by a medium sized ganker gang, so give them freighter-like EHP (150000 or so). Of course if you are at war with the owner, even solo you should easily kill one in a few minutes. Permanent POTS should have significantly more hitpoints. Note how this solves the bumping "problem". Each contested belt will now be "owned" by someone, either by a mining corp or by a miner-exploiting corp. If it's a mining corp, then anyone bumping who stays on grid for more than 1 minute out of 15 must pay taxes, and the corp can set these taxes arbitrarily high on non-corp members (or just those with bad relations) to exclude such "undesirables". I.e. they can set the tax rate to 100 million ISK per 15 minutes or whatever. If a bumper declines to pay, and remains on grid, he aggresses and the mining corp can legally terminate him without Concord interference. Alternatively, a corp desiring to exploit miners may take control of a belt; in this case, they have every incentive to want the miners mining, not bumped. "Farms and fields". Bring them to highsec.
And within 2 months you'll have miners crying for the freewill to have open belts. Because this is empire space. IE; npc enforced. |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
205
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:17:00 -
[276] - Quote
Last post on minerbumping.com is a mini guide what to train and how to fit a nice ganking catalyst. But you know, miners can train for those too. Can you imagine how much propaganda you could spin after suicide ganking bumping crew? But to do it you would need that thing, how is it called? Oh, I know: BALLS! I am not my skills but... http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:19:00 -
[277] - Quote
Would take about 3 BC to gank a stabber (if the stabber pilot is worth anything). So 3 pilots at around 100 mill EA + sec status loss is = to A stabber and you right back at bumping with all reward no risk and free kill rights. Ya thats balanced.
It always comes back to the victims has to risk much and the bumpers risk nothing. Its nothing but a form of pvp that allows you to dodge pvp mechanics to force other pilots to your will. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1224
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:21:00 -
[278] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Goody, I've been targeted. Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:Wardecs should allow miners to fight back (and they do, in the case of every single bumper other than James). They're broken at the moment. Any bumper will tell you that. That's the whole point of James' antics with decshield and corp switching.
The issue still lies with wardecs, not bumping or whether it constitutes harassment. Yes it does lie in harassment. Miners can't give you risk for your behavior, thus its harassment, as there is no way to stop you. TheGunslinger42 wrote:Oh I get it now: You want one set of rules for yourself, and another set of rules for everyone else. LMAO, get real. You people always run around with risk vs reward decries. Where is your risk in this behavior? I want rules to give you risk. SaKoil wrote:See, this is a problem. You want one set of rules for yourself and another ruleset for others.
Miners participate in mining/market PVP all the time when they fire their lasers. Refusing to understand this point does not make it less true.
In my opinion we should not go around changing the basic philosophy of whole Eve based on what you want. See above. I want your behavior put at risk. There is no risk. Just harassment, targeted harassment. And stop using semantics saying they "pvp" when they mine, it's very unbecoming. Also, it is not what I want, it's what the miners want. Otherwise this thread would not exist. And situations need to change to adapt to harassment and abuse of things.
We're at risk of missing, being ignored & being suicide ganked. People choose not to do these things & by default, choose to be a victim.
Crimewatch 2.0: Protecting stupid people & rewarding lazy people. This hurts the smart & industrious people by making their intelligence & industry provide them with less benefit over the stupid & lazy people. ~ Ruby Porto |
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:28:00 -
[279] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:Last post on minerbumping.com is a mini guide what to train and how to fit a nice ganking catalyst. But you know, miners can train for those too. Can you imagine how much propaganda you could spin after suicide ganking bumping crew? But to do it you would need that thing, how is it called? Oh, I know: BALLS!
In the past few months, I've seen one miner fit a competent catalyst and attempt to gank the lesser tanked stabbers roaming the ice fields. She took out 2 of them if I recall correctly(2 out of 2 tries, so 100% success rate), but didn't follow the bumpers on their next move as most of the anti-bumpers posting in this thread do, so I haven't seen her since. This both proves that ganking is a real risk for the bumpers, if any miner were willing to attempt it and spend the 20 minutes fitting a proper catalyst first; and also proves that 99.9% of miners aren't willing to put forth any real effort defending themselves properly. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1224
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:29:00 -
[280] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Ahvram wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:Anslo wrote:Except it does. They're in highsec doing that because they don't want to PvP. They don't force missioning et al on you, why should you force PvP on them? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what highsec is. Highsec does not mean, has never meant, and ideally never will mean pvp-free. It's considerably safer than other areas, but it is not 100% safe. So you're simply wrong - them being in highsec does not mean they are not valid targets for any form of PVP, including bumping. Last time a checked every action in eve related to PVP there are some cause and effect. You gank concord pops you, You can/wreck flip you get and agression timer. You harass miners/freighters by pushing them around belts/gates you get? You take no risk for full reward. I think miners should stop inhaling veldspar dust, as it's given them a curious blindness related to the words "suicide", "gank", "war" and "dec" Sorry bumpers are War dec proof see NPC corp. As for ganking Ya lets see the option. Gank the bumper (Which for a miner is near impossible) you lose more money trying to gank them than you would paying there risk free extorsion money. Thats a win for sure... Its not and answer to the issue at all. Our option to deal with you requires us to use the pvp system. Your option is to avoid the pvp system and its rules. See how that works. Now if I could gank you without concord interference we would be on the same level. And be real Miner bumpers dont run around in frigs/destroyers they use Machs and other large gank proof battleships to push miners around belts. Last time I check it takes about 10+ Tornados/talos to gank a buffer tank BS. Thats fair right? Only takes one of you completely avoiding all pvp rules to pvp yet it would take nearly 10 pilots all forced to abide by the pvp system to deal with you.
You have plenty of options available, yet you blatently choose not to use them. Plus, most of your claimed 'facts' on bumping & suicide ganking are completely false.
Crimewatch 2.0: Protecting stupid people & rewarding lazy people. This hurts the smart & industrious people by making their intelligence & industry provide them with less benefit over the stupid & lazy people. ~ Ruby Porto |
|
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:32:00 -
[281] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Ahvram wrote:Would take about 2/3 BC to gank a stabber (if the stabber pilot is worth anything). So 2/3 pilots at around 100 mill EA + sec status loss is = to A stabber and you right back at bumping with all reward no risk and free kill rights. Ya thats balanced.
It always comes back to the victims has to risk much and the bumpers risk nothing. Its nothing but a form of pvp that allows you to dodge pvp mechanics to force other pilots to your will. You do know that a bumping fit stabber has minimal defensive and offensive capabilities?, you have to nerf the hell out of it to get the oversized MWD on, and if it's taking you 2 or 3 BCs to gank a cruiser, you're doing it wrong, I've seen a single destroyer take down a stabber in the past before concord turned up.
A 10mn Stabber does a fine job pushing a mining ship around a belt. You guys are great the defense gets weaker and weaker the more its pulled apart. Why cant you just say "We like to pvp without acctually having to follow pvp mechanic because that would be to hard for us" |
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:35:00 -
[282] - Quote
You have plenty of options available, yet you blatently choose not to use them. Plus, most of your claimed 'facts' on bumping & suicide ganking are completely false.
Says a Goon lol. The "Facts" most come from your little forum posts and the bumper blogs. So sad you have ran out of good arguments at this point to defend this pathetic exploit. Again im sure you guys love risk free pvp I mean doing it the right way isnt the goon way after all. |
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:37:00 -
[283] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:
A 10mn Stabber does a fine job pushing a mining ship around a belt. You guys are great the defense gets weaker and weaker the more its pulled apart. Why cant you just say "We like to pvp without acctually having to follow pvp mechanic because that would be to hard for us"
Have you personally ship scanned and attempted to gank minerbumping ships? I'm claiming that I've witnessed one (1) single catalyst gank minerbumping stabbers with great success. Have you tried and failed? Perhaps we could help you with your fit/skills? (This serves 2 purposes: first, adds challenge to bumping, second, there's a better than even chance that after you train someone to gank a stabber, he'll realize that afk macks are more deserving of ganks.) |
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:42:00 -
[284] - Quote
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Ahvram wrote:
A 10mn Stabber does a fine job pushing a mining ship around a belt. You guys are great the defense gets weaker and weaker the more its pulled apart. Why cant you just say "We like to pvp without acctually having to follow pvp mechanic because that would be to hard for us"
Have you personally ship scanned and attempted to gank bumping ships? I'm claiming that I've witnessed one (1) single catalyst gank bumping stabbers with great success. Have you tried and failed? Perhaps we could help you with your fit/skills?
Ive never stepped foot in and Ice belt and when I do mine I have dealt with bumpers before. Honestly I would not even be in this thread if CCP falcon had not closed the other thread about freighter bumping. Im agaist bumping as a whole seeing as its going to be the only way to stop goons from exploiting freighters for easy kills. I agree with it as a game mechanic and it does have its uses but if it being in game means the goons get free warp scrams on any freighter they single out im all for putting and end to it.
A good mechanic abused by people who need exploits to achieve there goals. |
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:46:00 -
[285] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Ahvram wrote:
A 10mn Stabber does a fine job pushing a mining ship around a belt. You guys are great the defense gets weaker and weaker the more its pulled apart. Why cant you just say "We like to pvp without acctually having to follow pvp mechanic because that would be to hard for us"
Have you personally ship scanned and attempted to gank bumping ships? I'm claiming that I've witnessed one (1) single catalyst gank bumping stabbers with great success. Have you tried and failed? Perhaps we could help you with your fit/skills? Ive never stepped foot in and Ice belt and when I do mine I have dealt with bumpers before. Honestly I would not even be in this thread if CCP falcon had not closed the other thread about freighter bumping. Im agaist bumping as a whole seeing as its going to be the only way to stop goons from exploiting freighters for easy kills. I agree with it as a game mechanic and it does have its uses but if it being in game means the goons get free warp scrams on any freighter they single out im all for putting and end to it. A good mechanic abused by people who need exploits to achieve there goals.
You've never stepped foot in an Ice belt before? Why didn't you say so before making 30 posts on bumping miners in ice fields? That completely changes my earlier responses to you, here's their new version:
|
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:53:00 -
[286] - Quote
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Ahvram wrote:Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Ahvram wrote:
A 10mn Stabber does a fine job pushing a mining ship around a belt. You guys are great the defense gets weaker and weaker the more its pulled apart. Why cant you just say "We like to pvp without acctually having to follow pvp mechanic because that would be to hard for us"
Have you personally ship scanned and attempted to gank bumping ships? I'm claiming that I've witnessed one (1) single catalyst gank bumping stabbers with great success. Have you tried and failed? Perhaps we could help you with your fit/skills? Ive never stepped foot in and Ice belt and when I do mine I have dealt with bumpers before. Honestly I would not even be in this thread if CCP falcon had not closed the other thread about freighter bumping. Im agaist bumping as a whole seeing as its going to be the only way to stop goons from exploiting freighters for easy kills. I agree with it as a game mechanic and it does have its uses but if it being in game means the goons get free warp scrams on any freighter they single out im all for putting and end to it. A good mechanic abused by people who need exploits to achieve there goals. You've never stepped foot in an Ice belt before? Why didn't you say so before making 30 posts on bumping miners in ice fields? That completely changes my earlier responses to you, here's their new version:
Because Miner bumping only happen in ICE belts right? I mean there is no one who goes around bumping the ABC ore miners and demanding ISK?? You reply is on par with the goon. Empty and pointless |
Murk Paradox
Solenus Directive Rieos Coalition
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:02:00 -
[287] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Ahvram wrote:
A 10mn Stabber does a fine job pushing a mining ship around a belt. You guys are great the defense gets weaker and weaker the more its pulled apart. Why cant you just say "We like to pvp without acctually having to follow pvp mechanic because that would be to hard for us"
Have you personally ship scanned and attempted to gank bumping ships? I'm claiming that I've witnessed one (1) single catalyst gank bumping stabbers with great success. Have you tried and failed? Perhaps we could help you with your fit/skills? Ive never stepped foot in and Ice belt and when I do mine I have dealt with bumpers before. Honestly I would not even be in this thread if CCP falcon had not closed the other thread about freighter bumping. Im agaist bumping as a whole seeing as its going to be the only way to stop goons from exploiting freighters for easy kills. I agree with it as a game mechanic and it does have its uses but if it being in game means the goons get free warp scrams on any freighter they single out im all for putting and end to it. A good mechanic abused by people who need exploits to achieve there goals.
This knife is great, I can also use it as a screwdriver. Please don't take the ability for me to use my thumbs because I used something other than what it was intended for.
Or why not instead of saying "exploit" (because it is NOT an exploit, the freighter can do a double login, which IS an exploit, and from what I've read concerning Goon response to that, most understand the use and don't cry foul) But this is about miners being bumped, not freighters. Your #firstworldproblems don't belong in this thread.
And no, no you aren't being forced to jacksquat. Except pay your mining fee if you enter Code enforced Hisec. Or you risk bump. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details. |
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
37
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:04:00 -
[288] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:
Because Miner bumping only happen in ICE belts right? I mean there is no one who goes around bumping the ABC ore miners and demanding ISK?? Your reply is on par with the goon. Empty and pointless
And lets not forget I didnt ask to post here I was forced to post here by CCP.
Well, to be honest, yes, I did think there was literally no one going around bumping ABC ore miners and demanding ISK. Are you claiming that there are? If so, do you have proof of this assertion?
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Holistic Materials Research Council
3909
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:06:00 -
[289] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:
A 10mn Stabber does a fine job pushing a mining ship around a belt. You guys are great the defense gets weaker and weaker the more its pulled apart. Why cant you just say "We like to pvp without acctually having to follow pvp mechanic because that would be to hard for us"
You're right a 10mn MWD stabber will do the job, however it can take several bumps to remove a miner from mining range, a 100mn MWD, this is the oversize MWD fit I was talking about, stabber is much more effective, less time consuming and an absolute hoot to fly. There's a big difference between being able to do the job and excelling at doing the job, to excel you have to compromise on both defence and offence.
|
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:28:00 -
[290] - Quote
Ahvram wrote: Last time a checked every action in eve related to PVP there are some cause and effect. You gank concord pops you, You can/wreck flip you get and agression timer. You harass miners/freighters by pushing them around belts/gates you get? You take no risk for full reward.
You mine, you attract the attention of money hungry protection racket. |
|
Ross Sylibus
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:35:00 -
[291] - Quote
Ross Sylibus wrote: Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
This was put in place of my post about miner bumping and how it is simply a symptom of a larger problem, and I described the relationship of miner bumping to this problem and suggested actions that should be taken related to miner bumping. The post was "liked" by 11 individuals and quoted by several others.
I don't know who "ISD Tyrozan" is but I would like a higher level GM to review his editing, as the post was previously reviewed by several CCP employees (I know because the thread was locked, cleaned and unlocked with my post still there) and deemed to be acceptable.
We cannot have an intelligent conversation if "ISD Tyrozan" here is going to eliminate any posts that do not follow his own point of view. I appreciate the need for forum moderation, and I'm not attempting to suggest that we should not have it, but editing the whole thread in order to leave only the comments that support his own personal views is NOT moderation - it is somebody's attempt to only have his own world view be considered by CCP in this discussion thread. |
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:40:00 -
[292] - Quote
Ross Sylibus wrote:Ross Sylibus wrote: Edit: Rule 24 Off topic posting is prohibited - ISD Tyrozan
This was put in place of my post about miner bumping and how it is simply a symptom of a larger problem, and I described the relationship of miner bumping to this problem and suggested actions that should be taken related to miner bumping. The post was "liked" by 11 individuals and quoted by several others. I don't know who "ISD Tyrozan" is but I would like a higher level GM to review his editing, as the post was previously reviewed by several CCP employees (I know because the thread was locked, cleaned and unlocked with my post still there) and deemed to be acceptable. We cannot have an intelligent conversation if "ISD Tyrozan" here is going to eliminate any posts that do not follow his own point of view. I appreciate the need for forum moderation, and I'm not attempting to suggest that we should not have it, but editing the whole thread in order to leave only the comments that support his own personal views is NOT moderation - it is somebody's attempt to only have his own world view be considered by CCP in this discussion thread.
Ya The freighter bumping thread was locked and we where told to post here. Then all the post reguarding freighter bumping where deleted for being off topic. Something isnt right in CCP land. |
Ross Sylibus
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:47:00 -
[293] - Quote
This was posted previous, quoted by several others and commented on. I am re-posting it now, as it is not off topic. The topic is how CCP should handle the miner bumping situation, and I believe my post speaks to this specifically:
Quote:I think this comes down to a matter of goals.
If the goal is to make high sec completely free of all non-consensual PvP, and enable players to play the game without any non-consensual interaction, then miner bumping is griefing in that context and should be treated as such.
If EVE is meant to be built around the concept of conflict between players, then CCP needs to re-think the previous nerfs to high sec ganking - if ganking of miners had not been nerfed than miner bumping would not be "a thing", pure and simple - this is merely a result of travelling down a rabbit hole created as an unforeseen consequence of previous actions.
It is clear that there is a portion of EVE that wants the game to be about conflict and interaction between human beings. There is also a portion of EVE that wants the game to be about 'empire building' in the form of collecting minerals, isk etc and continued growth. Obviously these are not mutually exclusive as most players want some of both.
CCP is not being clear about their goals related to how the experience of EVE is to evolve, and this lack of clarity I think pervades their own ranks - it isn't a matter of not wanting to communicate this vision to the player base, they simply cannot agree themselves. I think any decision on this topic needs to be based on first determining what that vision is for the player experience in high sec and then acting accordingly
This debate is not at all about the actual function of the bumping mechanic - it is about what kind of game EVE is. If CCP has such a vision they should simply consult it and act accordingly related to this particular issue - if they don't, then broader discussion needs to first occur to determine the answer to that larger question before we continue down this path of tweaking minor details that only serve to embody the actualization of that vision. |
Hyperspatia Lee
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:48:00 -
[294] - Quote
I do support a change to Eve bumping mechanics to make them more closely approximate real life physics.
A ship of relatively small mass bumping a much larger ship should bounce off with a relatively smaller effect on the inertia of the larger ship.
What players choose to bump, and when and why, does not in my humble opinion need to be addressed or changed.
|
Ahvram
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:50:00 -
[295] - Quote
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Ahvram wrote:
Because Miner bumping only happen in ICE belts right? I mean there is no one who goes around bumping the ABC ore miners and demanding ISK?? Your reply is on par with the goon. Empty and pointless
And lets not forget I didnt ask to post here I was forced to post here by CCP.
Well, to be honest, yes, I did think there was literally no one going around bumping ABC ore miners and demanding ISK. Are you claiming that there are? If so, do you have proof of this assertion?
Idk let me log on and check my 2 miners ships for Machariel paint scratchs and ill get back to you.... The most infamous bumping is in the ice fields but it happens to the ABC miners all the time.
If anyone has a good solution to make everyone happy im all for it. Like Ive said the miner bumping isnt my biggest issue they have some options. But since CCP has roped freighter bumping into the same thread im here to be and advocate for the pilots who want something done about it. 3 day old dessie pilots should not be able to perma lock a freighter down by simply running into it and loling. |
87102-6
Mining Cartel high
28
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:52:00 -
[296] - Quote
Well I've had my chance to review the last 3-4 pages of posts. I also went back and read pages 4-8 for context (well, what hadn't been edited out by ISD, but I think I remember what folks said). I appreciate people trying to stay on topic per CCP Falcon's requirements, and I've already stated my two cents repeatedly, as have folks on the other side of the fence.
I've effectively tried to meet NO folks half way (so-to-speak) with a list of recommendations on how to to "settle down" (as in keep extorting but to tone very specific aspects down so that they might not be classified by some (including me) as harassment) -- and remember, I'm one of the few miners who would rather be ganked and blown up than bumped repeatedly while being condescended up in Local -- but have yet to see the same done in return.
But the straw that broke the camel's back was the following:
Quote:Besides, you don't dictate how I play, or how I speak/converse with others. It's my game. Not yours. There is absolutely nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING -- constructive or positive about a player base where people insist "you cannot dictate how I play/what I say" while in the exact same thread witnessing an entire organisation of individuals who spend their time in-game doing exactly that.
Needless to say -- and please don't take this as the action of a martyr -- I will be cancelling my subscription after making this post. This conflicts with what I said in my Assembly Hall thread (2nd-to-last paragraph), but the situation there was only heated, not downright utterly ignorant to the point of nausea. I had the same happen when I witnessed one NO member in this thread proposing that another player need provide an API key to validate some argument/point -- just that proposition itself encapsulates the malicious spirit of NO.
Remember: extortion is done for financial or material gain, and its been repeatedly stated by all NOA and James that the modus operandi of NO is not that. No amount of spin-doctoring can trump common sense.
I had higher hopes that the EVE community in general had somehow achieved the ability to be what the real world calls "reasonable" -- i.e. being able to disagree with another person and say "well I guess we just see it differently and that's okay". Being reasonable is not pompous, type-A, or borderline sociopathic. (Note: for some reason I'm now thinking of King Missile quotes: "Love is not a shipload of slaughtered pigs rotting and festering in the bleating desert" :D ). Those hopes were my own, so I guess you could say the only person I have to blame for that is myself. C'est la vie.
To CCP Falcon -- thank you for making this thread (and our conversation!) and giving folks a chance to air their views. I didn't expect anyone to do that, so that's at least one positive thing I can take away from this experience. Takk fyrir. |
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:52:00 -
[297] - Quote
Hyperspatia Lee wrote:I do support a change to Eve bumping mechanics to make them more closely approximate real life physics.
A ship of relatively small mass bumping a much larger ship should bounce off with a relatively smaller effect on the inertia of the larger ship.
What players choose to bump, and when and why, does not in my humble opinion need to be addressed or changed.
Just fyi, realistic physics would involve a mining barge exploding all over the place when even a frigate or destroyer with an overheated MWD hit it.
4000m/s is very fast in the real world.
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1226
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:54:00 -
[298] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:
You have plenty of options available, yet you blatently choose not to use them. Plus, most of your claimed 'facts' on bumping & suicide ganking are completely false.
Says a Goon lol. The "Facts" most come from your little forum posts and the bumper blogs. So sad you have ran out of good arguments at this point to defend this pathetic exploit. Again im sure you guys love risk free pvp I mean doing it the right way isnt the goon way after all.
Funny how we've been putting these facts in to practice for years now. There is no right way to PvP. You need to get this idea out of your head, because every action in this game is PvP, even mining & mission running. the only one that has run out of arguments is you, since you keep referring to a valid game mechanic as an emploit what it's not.
Take active measure to defend yourself & stop playing the victim card. Crimewatch 2.0: Protecting stupid people & rewarding lazy people. This hurts the smart & industrious people by making their intelligence & industry provide them with less benefit over the stupid & lazy people. ~ Ruby Porto |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1226
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:56:00 -
[299] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:Nathalie LaPorte wrote:Ahvram wrote:
A 10mn Stabber does a fine job pushing a mining ship around a belt. You guys are great the defense gets weaker and weaker the more its pulled apart. Why cant you just say "We like to pvp without acctually having to follow pvp mechanic because that would be to hard for us"
Have you personally ship scanned and attempted to gank bumping ships? I'm claiming that I've witnessed one (1) single catalyst gank bumping stabbers with great success. Have you tried and failed? Perhaps we could help you with your fit/skills? Ive never stepped foot in and Ice belt and when I do mine I have dealt with bumpers before. Honestly I would not even be in this thread if CCP falcon had not closed the other thread about freighter bumping. Im agaist bumping as a whole seeing as its going to be the only way to stop goons from exploiting freighters for easy kills. I agree with it as a game mechanic and it does have its uses but if it being in game means the goons get free warp scrams on any freighter they single out im all for putting and end to it. A good mechanic abused by people who need exploits to achieve there goals.
So you think it's a valid mechanic & an exploit at the same time? You need to brush up on your definition of an exploit.
Ahvram wrote:
Idk let me log on and check my 2 miners ships for Machariel paint scratchs and ill get back to you.... The most infamous bumping is in the ice fields but it happens to the ABC miners all the time.
No, ABC ore miners get blown up. Do you really have any idea of what you're talking about, or are you jumping on the anti-goon bandwagon just because? Crimewatch 2.0: Protecting stupid people & rewarding lazy people. This hurts the smart & industrious people by making their intelligence & industry provide them with less benefit over the stupid & lazy people. ~ Ruby Porto |
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
40
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 18:57:00 -
[300] - Quote
Ahvram wrote:
Idk let me log on and check my 2 miners ships for Machariel paint scratchs and ill get back to you.... The most infamous bumping is in the ice fields but it happens to the ABC miners all the time.
If anyone has a good solution to make everyone happy im all for it. Like Ive said the miner bumping isnt my biggest issue they have some options. But since CCP has roped freighter bumping into the same thread im here to be and advocate for the pilots who want something done about it. 3 day old dessie pilots should not be able to perma lock a freighter down by simply running into it and loling.
I still don't believe you, as you've provided no proof, and your story is highly improbable. If you're mining ABC ores, why wouldn't that alleged Machariel pilot just jump in a Talos or Cat and blow you up quickly and safely, holding you in place with a reliable warp scram? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |