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) |
Taoist Dragon
Forced Penetration Reckless Faith
82
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 00:22:00 -
[151] - Quote
high sec miners in the middle of a drama again?
wait...
people want to play eve in high sec? thats why I heven't anything about thing but then again....
DILLIGAF! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Lascivit Mercator
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 00:22:00 -
[152] - Quote
I support bumping as a mechanic of this game 100%. I support having consequences for all actions in this game.
There is a happy medium somewhere out there, but no one in this thread (myself included) has it nailed down yet.
I like to multiply with sheep |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Persona Non Gratis
176
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 00:29:00 -
[153] - Quote
A question for CCP Falcon (or other devs / GMs) - Does your work schedule allow for you to come and spend some time rolling with the agents from the new order, then after (or before, or both) with our "victims"? You could see how we operate, then see how the miners operate. Perhaps you could use your mad Eve skillz and knowledge to give them an example of hope, a beacon of light for them to cling to (ie: you could gank us, wardec us, hire mercs to kill us, buy a permit, or some other devious thing). You could even organise a minor miner uprising, and see for yourself how unwilling many of them are to interact or do anything to save themselves.
They're playing tennis and getting bent out of shape because *they* want to hit the ball with a cricket bat, which begs more questions:
- Why should such people be given any special treatment?
- Isn't it about time the new player tutorials included being ganked and podded as very important lessons?
- What do people seriously think will happen when bumping suddenly becomes a griefing exploit of harrassment?
- Will the inevitable retaliation in the form of suicide ganks be next on CCP's target list?
- What about the obvious awoxing that will come from that change?
- How long before saying hello in local is a Concord offence for harrassment, unless both parties have signed an agreement in triplicate and a 28-day cooling off period has passed?
- Is there a threshold of complaints that triggers a process like this thread? If so, are you willing to share the number? I'd wager far more people have complained about moon goo, which even Goons have said needs fixing.
- What's the ultimate CCP plan for highsec? Is it the removal of Concord in favour of tools that enable players to do the job, or is it a dull wasteland of perfect safety? Is it somewhere in between?
Here's my favourite question: How is temporarily disrupting someone's ability to mine ice because they refuse to buy a 10 million isk permit, where the "victim" always has the option to go elsewhere and lose nothing, different from pointing someone's officer-fit battleship in lowsec and demanding 10 billion isk or you'll permanently deny them their ship and their pod, where they lose everything? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Van Kuzco
Stryker Industries Ocularis Inferno
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 00:34:00 -
[154] - Quote
For all those complaining about health issues and whatnot, just turn off your lasers or dock up.
Even if they do bump you you lose what, less than 5 minutes getting back into position? That hardly rates as even a minor inconvenience.
Why do you bemoan lost isk that you weren't even at your computer to make? |
SaKoil
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 00:41:00 -
[155] - Quote
admiral root wrote: Here's my favourite question: How is temporarily disrupting someone's ability to mine ice because they refuse to buy a 10 million isk permit, where the "victim" always has the option to go elsewhere and lose nothing, different from pointing someone's officer-fit battleship in lowsec and demanding 10 billion isk or you'll permanently deny them their ship and their pod, where they lose everything?
You see, miners believe they are entitled to full invulnerability in high-sec. James 315 wrote an excellent manifesto on the issue back at april, you all should check it out: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1200137#post1200137 These people will not rest until high-sec becomes Trammel or CCP puts its foot down and says enough is enough. |
Diedre Starchasm
Starchasm LLC
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 00:47:00 -
[156] - Quote
I believe that minerbumping.com is the funniest EVE blog I have found.
I believe that the New Order bumping mining ships is "emergent gameplay".
I believe that there are two issues that are getting mixed up together and should be treated differently: 1. repeated bumping 2. repeated speech in Local
The in-game mechanic of bumping should be left alone. If someone wants to bump my mining ship repeatedly, and then follow me to another system and continue to bump me there, this should be permissible. This is in fact a milder form of them suicide ganking me everytime I undock -- and that is behavior I chose to accept when I subscribed. If I ever get tired of someone ganking me or bumping me -- I would go do something else.
However.
I do not ice mine, and my only information is based on blog posts and this thread. If it is in fact the case that players are engaging in harassing speech in Local (or private chat), then it should be subject to the same oversight and review by CCP as any other sort of conduct prohibited under the EULA.
If CCP follows this policy, it might mean that James 315 would need to modify his Code in ways that others have pointed out upthread. And I'm sure I'll be rolling on the floor laughing at how he justifies the changes. |
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 01:42:00 -
[157] - Quote
CCP Falcon wrote:As of now, policy on bumping is as follows:
- Bumping in itself is not considered an exploit.
- Bumping in itself is a valid game mechanic.
- If players feel they are being repeatedly harassed despite trying to avoid this practice by all necessary means, they are free and encouraged to file a petition.
And your future policy should remain the same. Thank you. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1205
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 01:47:00 -
[158] - Quote
SaKoil wrote:admiral root wrote: Here's my favourite question: How is temporarily disrupting someone's ability to mine ice because they refuse to buy a 10 million isk permit, where the "victim" always has the option to go elsewhere and lose nothing, different from pointing someone's officer-fit battleship in lowsec and demanding 10 billion isk or you'll permanently deny them their ship and their pod, where they lose everything?
You see, miners believe they are entitled to full invulnerability in high-sec. James 315 wrote an excellent manifesto on the issue back at april, you all should check it out: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1200137#post1200137These people will not rest until high-sec becomes Trammel or CCP puts its foot down and says enough is enough.
Pretty much. They don't even try to hide it anymore or claim it's for balance. I couldn't be bothered counting the amount of times I've seen a miner demand a nerf under the premesis of "you should go back to lowsec/nullsec/W-space for PvP, leave me alone". 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 |
Talona Vemane
Precision Engineering Peregrine Nation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 02:42:00 -
[159] - Quote
We all know that minerbumping while annoying, cause no damages to ships. When I asked about this, I was informed that it does not because of ships undocking from stations in areas such as Jita, it would cause headaches and such. Now what I am purposing is that CCp tweak the areas around stations to allow bumping, (sorta like a warp scram bubble, placed around gates in low sec for instance) that allows it. While allowing it to cause damage and be seen as an act of aggression elsewhere, therefore the NON afk miners can react..with teeth, fangs..or whines..what have you.....and the AFK miners, and semi bots ( i believe they are called) can be crushed, salvaged and taught a lesson. That way the Miners will be forced to adapt their style, the NO would be forced to adapt their style..the gameplay has evolved even more. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1207
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 03:01:00 -
[160] - Quote
Talona Vemane wrote:We all know that minerbumping while annoying, cause no damages to ships. When I asked about this, I was informed that it does not because of ships undocking from stations in areas such as Jita, it would cause headaches and such. Now what I am purposing is that CCp tweak the areas around stations to allow bumping, (sorta like a warp scram bubble, placed around gates in low sec for instance) that allows it. While allowing it to cause damage and be seen as an act of aggression elsewhere, therefore the NON afk miners can react..with teeth, fangs..or whines..what have you.....and the AFK miners, and semi bots ( i believe they are called) can be crushed, salvaged and taught a lesson. That way the Miners will be forced to adapt their style, the NO would be forced to adapt their style..the gameplay has evolved even more.
Except for the fact that the miners would be crying when we start suiciding frigates in to their barges. 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 |
|
Gladius Codicis
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 03:10:00 -
[161] - Quote
Risk to reward. Skills to reward. Player effort to reward. Competition. Every profession in the game should be thought of in these terms.
Ignore the question of balance between highsec and null/low/wspace. Just focus on highsec. Everything you can do outside of a station to earn money has some risk, because everyone can be suicide ganked. So that is the baseline that everyone accepts. Similarly there is no passive income. You must exert yourself to earn any isk.
But what are the relative rankings?
Ice mining is lowest. No risk outside of gank. Low pay, but almost no work for the player. You can AFK mine and most do at least part of the time they are mining. There is no competition at all.
Next is asteroid mining. Same low risk, better rewards, but requires clicks every few minutes. There is trivial but nonzero competition.
Then missioning. There is nonzero risk here, from rats. This will be mitigated by player skill. Pay is better than mining. Takes actual presence at keyboard and constant keypressing almost all of the time except possibly with droneboats. There is very little competition, but you are possibly subject to ninja salvagers and thieves.
Then exploration. Better isk than missioning once you know what you are doing, but requires more skills and knowledge. And the competition is intense. Newbs won't make the big scores because Tengus will beat them.
Then trade at Jita. Zero risk, but player-skill intensive, moderately character skill intensive, and just chock full of monitoring. You can earn while AFK, but the competition is fierce. Invention and production are similar but with escalating skills and better pay.
Note the general balance in all of the professions. The market creates this. But there is one large imbalance here: only the ice miner can earn money AFK without any competition. And that is why carebears want to do it.
This brings us to the bump. I do not really like the bumping mechanics of EVE, from a "realism" POV. (A guy a few pages back posted an interesting take on this -- there is a lot of energy in a 10 million kg ship travelling 1000m/s.) That said, I find the mechanic highly valuable because it creates a way to interact with ice miners. This enriches the game. The ice miner must make a choice: possibly risk interacting with a bumper, or go mine something else. How about tritanium, guys? You earn more; then only downside is you actually have to be at your computer. Is this so much to ask?
|
Gladius Codicis
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 03:22:00 -
[162] - Quote
As I said, I don't really like the bumping mechanic because I find it "unrealistic". What would I prefer to the current system?
- create ice fields that can be found via probing, just like the current gravitational sigs. This gives the rebel miner a skillful way to get a quiet place to mine -- though the New Order can scan, too.
- change the bump mechanics to favor larger ships more. A far more massive ship should not be dramatically moved by a much smaller one unless it is going very fast.
- add damage and a criminal flag for sufficiently high speed bumps. Damage should apply to both ships, with the smaller ship getting the worse of it.
- create a new non-criminal way to interfere with mining. I.e., if you get into a miner 's beam, it shuts off his miner. This allows the "bumping" to continue, without causing very much difficulty at all to the non-AFK miner.
But such changes require dev work, particularly balancing the third. Just stick with the current system. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1208
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 03:42:00 -
[163] - Quote
Trading is very risky, what the hell are you talking about?
Gladius Codicis wrote:change the bump mechanics to favor larger ships more. A far more massive ship should not be dramatically moved by a much smaller one unless it is going very fast.
Bumping already works this way. 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 |
R0me0 Charl1e
Easy A Industries
45
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 04:10:00 -
[164] - Quote
Gladius Codicis wrote:
add damage and a criminal flag for sufficiently high speed bumps. Damage should apply to both ships, with the smaller ship getting the worse of it. YES! Make this a feature CCP, I want to destroy barges with my BS!
|
MTB BR
Mining Cartel high
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 04:57:00 -
[165] - Quote
[quote=M0N0]Plenty of pilots asking for a effective counter to bumping...
Can I ask on behalf of everyone else for an effective counter to afk mining ect? A few suggestion: Being afk for 3 minutes or more gives you an aggression timer. Introducing a module that delays concord. Making afk against the rules. Allowing ore bays to be stolen from.
If a miner wants to be AFK is not no one else problema his ore bay will be full and the miners will stop working. but when some one else thinks he has the right to bump our kill any one that don't pay him our his friends to be safe AKF our not thats direct affect more than his own. the prices are low not couse the AFK miners the price are low couse People looks to by shipper stuff. and only pay for the shippest. bump neider gank will not solve this problema. For exemple i had more than 12k units of ice and i was planing to save it to my on use in a POS. but after got bumped even when i was not afk and killed and poded just cause i din't pay NO, i had to put some of it in market for a lower price to sell and get me another Ship. and implants.
|
Alana Charen-Teng
Let's Just Be Friends
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 04:59:00 -
[166] - Quote
My understanding is that this thread is for discussing whether miner bumping (especially as conducted by the so-called 'New Order of Highsec'), qualifies as griefing or harassment.
With that said, I'd like to respond to a few of 87102-6's points, especially regarding his sensitivity towards non-English speakers and persons with physical ailments/disabilities. The arguments put forth by 87102-6 could be applied to *any* time-sensitive player interaction in this game, and applying them to another situation may help underscore how absurd these arguments are.
Imagine you have been tackled by a pirate (hostile pilot) somewhere. There is no escape - you are hopelessly outmatched. The pirate opens a chat window and demands a payment of ISK within 30 seconds or he will destroy your ship and pod.
87102-6 wrote: - Short durations of time do not give non-English-speaking players proper amount of time to respond (in any language), which could be construed as harassment. This also makes the assumption they can read/understand English to begin with. EVE is officially supported in English, Russian, German, and Japanese.
Suppose the unfortunate pilot being ransomed is not fluent in English and his hesitation leads to his destruction. Is that harassment? Suppose the pirate is Russian and the pilot being ransomed cannot understand Russian. Is that still harassment? Language barriers exist in EVE, but no player is obligated to expend the effort in overcoming those barriers. Failing to do so is hardly 'harassment'. In fact, would you consider it harassment if no words were exchanged at all before the shooting started?
87102-6 wrote: - Failure to respond could be one of many non-technical reasons, such as:
** Bio (restroom/bathroom) breaks (more on that in a moment) ** Player not watching Local chat (minimised window, etc. -- all permitted) ** Health issues (examples include IBS, IBD, Chron's disease, diabetes, etc.) ** Real life emergency situations (too many to list here) ** Recipient does not understand/cannot read English
- CCP does not have any rules against players with the above disabilities not being permitted to play EVE. Meaning: players cannot be *expected* to be at their computers at all times.
Suppose the unfortunate pilot being ransomed is AFK or otherwise unable to respond - perhaps he is attending to any number of possible physical ailments or social obligations. The pirate subsequently destroys him after failing to receive a response. Is this harassment? You seem to believe that the rest of EVE should pause itself for your benefit, or else it constitutes 'harassment'.
Our unwillingness to overcome language barriers or to accommodate your out-of-game obligations absolutely do not constitute 'harassment'. They are, in fact, the norm in this game. If miner bumpers were targeting you *specifically* because of your language, race, or physical infirmities, then perhaps there would be a problem. You seem to imagine that they are, but I am confident that this is not the case. |
Heavy Met4l Queen
Dark Corner Projects
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:00:00 -
[167] - Quote
Ive had some thoughts on this and i figure this is as good of a place than any to dump them.
i think bumping is fine. it has been used as a primitive means of disrupting warp and keeping targets on grid since as long as i have known in eve. it is a sound part of eve that does not need to be changed mechanic wise.
however, there has been talk of an anti bump module and from my view i think it would be interesting to bring this into eve. allow me to explain.
for warp disruptors, we have, warp stabilizers. for jammers, we have sensor backup arrays. why not have a module that allows you temporary immunity to bumping? at least as a prototype module in an update. this module will have a few uses in eve such as, keeping miners stationary, allow freighters to be immune to bumping, and allow freighters and transport ships an added safety measure of not being able to be bumped while transporting goods.
a few things i would like to point out for discussion:
1. this module would most likely become a highslot module
2. this module would not "anchor" the ship in space, but would remain on course when bumped. in addition, it cannot change course while the module is active. it will follow the last directional command given to it. ex: warp, orbit, alighn.
3. the module would require a mild amount of capacitor to be activated. enough that it would allow a ship to get out of a tough situation, but not remain activated indefinite. approx 15-45 seconds depending on ship.
4.whether this module may be fully active or cycle once then need to be activated again. its something to be discussed. keep in mind the capacitor should drain fairly quickly if fully active.
5. the module should require some kind of fuel. similar to a cyno module.
6. the module should take a bit of time to train up to use. about 15-20 days in my opinion. additional training of the skill required to use the module should decrease the capacitor use rate or increase the cycle time by %5.
7.if this module is to be brought into game for freighters, the freighters themselves would need a makeover. a highslot and enough cpu/powergrid to fit the module.
above all else, keep in mind. this module will only work if a player chooses to put one on his/her ship by sacrificing a highslot. it will not change the fundamental mechanic of bumping in eve. please discuss these thoughts and ideas, and if you have any criticism please make it constructive and detailed as to why you disagree. |
gizzmasterzero
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:06:00 -
[168] - Quote
Gladius Codicis wrote:As I said, I don't really like the bumping mechanic because I find it "unrealistic". What would I prefer to the current system?
- change the bump mechanics to favor larger ships more. A far more massive ship should not be dramatically moved by a much smaller one unless it is going very fast.
I pledge to purchase EVERY agent a phoon if this happened....basically, what I'm getting at is that it really doesn't matter what ccp does as long as they don't outlaw bumping...we will deactivate your mining lazorz one way or the other.
|
MTB BR
Mining Cartel high
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:07:00 -
[169] - Quote
Dramiel Dan wrote:I just wanted to get my say in real fast. 1. Miner bumpers stay in NPC corps, so there is no recourse the miners have, short of hiring someone who doesn't mind using alts to end up with CONCORDed ships at every attack. They are abusing and exploiting the mechanics of the game by hiding behind the skirts of NPC corps, because they cannot be wardec'd. 2. Miner bumpers claim to be going after afk miners and bots, but I see them griefing the same active, at keyboard miners for hours on end, day after day. This is griefing. It is harassment. Period. 3. Game mechanics have been changed many times due to the brilliance of groups such as the Goons. It needs to be changed for the miner bumping exploit as well. These carebear players are, yet again, getting bullied. Only this time they have no built in recourse. One needs to be made for them.
Remember, the more the carebears are hindered, the more your costs go up. "
My alt got bumped hundreds of times even when i was here present in key board. I even use an other ship to bump the bumpers and make harder to then to bump my mack. and start to making it fun couse i dont do ice mine to live here in eve. but 4 days ago they gank my mack and pod kill me insted of bump just couse i block them in local to stop fload my chat with "pay me stuff"
And that s stop to be fun |
Alana Charen-Teng
Let's Just Be Friends
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:17:00 -
[170] - Quote
87102-6 wrote: ** Recipient cannot feasibly declare wardec on every corporation when being harassed by multiple NOA simultaneously -- success rate here is roughly 0.01% by my guess (just pulling numbers out of my butt) ** Wardec situation can be worked around by disbanding corporation (and this has been done by James 315 himself multiple times and admitted on his blog at that). Another method is described by an uninvolved corporation (tag: R-RIN). Quoting: "... and if wardec'd, it takes 24 hours for the wardec to go into effect, and it takes 24 hours to let the dummy account take over the corp as it's sole member.. Yeah, do the math.. if someone wants to waste their money wardecing us, it's their decision to do so.. Like I said, we have no interest in that type Gameplay and we have a plan to ensure that we can continue to play regardless ..."
I'd like to make a few comments regarding wardecs - particularly whether miners may use them as a deterrent against miner bumpers. Obviously, wardecs do not serve as a meaningful deterrent for miner bumping (or almost any activity in highsec). Wardecs are laughably easy to evade, and wardec evasion will continue being abused. This does not mean that miner bumping should be considered harassment or exploitation of a game mechanic - instead, wardecs should be changed so as to give miners a useful tool to protect themselves with. Wardec evasion should not be possible - I believe it was once considered an exploit, and should return to being considered an exploit. The reason why miner bumpers repeatedly evade wardecs is to draw attention to how ridiculous war evasion is. |
|
MTB BR
Mining Cartel high
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:22:00 -
[171] - Quote
87102-6 wrote:[quote=Bing Bangboom] * With all the above in mind: no matter what the situation, be reasonable at some point in time and move on to someone else. I know this is probably a bad example (please folks don't let this spiral out of control I'm just giving an example!), but you should have left Capt Lynch alone after 2 weeks. Seriously. That situation I think is the best, and most public, example of that what NO is doing is in fact harassment. NO (in my experience) does not know when to let a dead dog lie. There's a very obvious breaking point for people (not referring to Capt) -- and I think forcing people to reach that point is what NO tries to do. That isn't "griefing": that's harassment.
Just to complete they follow me for 28 jumps to treat me and my alt after pod kill my alt just couse i dint anwer then in local. i consider it as a harassment to. |
gizzmasterzero
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:23:00 -
[172] - Quote
MTB BR wrote:My alt got bumped hundreds of times even when i was here present in key board. I even use an other ship to bump the bumpers and make harder to then to bump my mack. and start to making it fun couse i dont do ice mine to live here in eve. but 4 days ago they gank my mack and pod kill me insted of bump just couse i block them in local to stop fload my chat with "pay me stuff"
And that s stop to be fun
So, you escalated the situation and was ganked for your insolence as reward? Did I read that correctly?
|
gizzmasterzero
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:27:00 -
[173] - Quote
Also...we are winning even when we aren't paid by a crybaby in local.
We are, at the very least, making sure they're at their keyboard.
|
Nathalie LaPorte
Republic University Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:29:00 -
[174] - Quote
MTB BR wrote:87102-6 wrote:[quote=Bing Bangboom] * With all the above in mind: no matter what the situation, be reasonable at some point in time and move on to someone else. I know this is probably a bad example (please folks don't let this spiral out of control I'm just giving an example!), but you should have left Capt Lynch alone after 2 weeks. Seriously. That situation I think is the best, and most public, example of that what NO is doing is in fact harassment. NO (in my experience) does not know when to let a dead dog lie. There's a very obvious breaking point for people (not referring to Capt) -- and I think forcing people to reach that point is what NO tries to do. That isn't "griefing": that's harassment. Just to complete they follow me for 28 jumps to treat me and my alt after pod kill my alt just couse i dint anwer then in local. i consider it as a harassment to.
28 jumps? to where? Your story doesn't make any sense.
I have to admit, I always bump you more than anyone else, but it's not harassment, I thought you wanted to be bumped. Why else would you name your pilot 'Miner To Be Bumped Repeatedly' ? |
Alana Charen-Teng
Let's Just Be Friends
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:37:00 -
[175] - Quote
Larkall wrote:I think that the problem is not with bumping itself. In my opinion the problem lies with the mining mechanism, it is an activity that requires zero user input for extended periods of time. As a result, people go afk and do other stuff while leaving their lasers running in the belt. If anything should be changed it should be the basic mining mechanics that promotes players to be play the game afk.
Bumping itself is a crucial mechanic for PvP, it allows you to buy precious seconds to prevent a target from making it back to gate or before warping off. It also allows for spies/infiltrators to bump caps and supercaps out of a PoS shield, making for great emergent game play. If you use it in high-sec to bump miners and demand isk it is just another form of emergent game play, they can go to low/null/Wormhole space if they want to be able to fight back.
TL:DR: Bumping is a good and working mechanism. Fix mining instead.
Miner bumping is, I believe, a separate issue from how engaging the activity of mining actually is. I absolutely agree that mining should demand greater involvement from the miner. But even if it did, there would (or at least, should) still be ways for other players to disrupt the miner's effectiveness. In our EVE, one of these ways happens to be miner bumping. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Persona Non Gratis
183
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:39:00 -
[176] - Quote
MTB BR wrote:My alt got bumped hundreds of times even when i was here present in key board
We consider AFK mining to be very bad for the game and extremely unfair to miners who remain at their keyboard and who pay attention while mining.
MTB BR wrote:4 days ago they gank my mack and pod kill me insted of bump just couse i block them in local to stop fload my chat with "pay me stuff"
While I was one of those involved in ganking you I still sympathise with the loss of your ship. However, you chose to block us and you chose not to purchase a permit. You also chose not to mine elsewhere, not to gank us, not to pay mercs to hunt us down, not to wardec us (contrary to popular mis-information, we're not all in NPC corps) and you also chose not to join our cause and take up the holy quest of purging highsec of infidels.
Given that you made all these choices, please could you explain how you feel our reaction constitutes harassment bearing in mind that all of Eve is meant to be a cold, harsh place that depends on interaction of all kinds, especially the ship-asploding kind, between players.
You chose to risk 318 million isk for the sake of 10 million, and that certainly is your right, but where you genuinely lose me is when you claim our inflicting consequences for your actions amounts to anything more than acceptable gameplay. The reason people like Goons and Test hold huge amounts of nullsec is because they take it by force and then use force to defend it. Within the confines of the EULA, justice and rights in Eve extend only as far as your skullduggery and weapons can reach. Highsec is currently not immune from this, and hopefully never will be.
Also, look on the bright side - we feinted at your orca while destroying your mack. It could easily have been the other way around. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
MTB BR
Mining Cartel high
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:50:00 -
[177] - Quote
I do realy think that the best solution to bump is this:
About bump in Hi sec: transform it in a semi illegal practice. For example : during the day 24h 1st bump the bumper gests a warning. Second bump e turns in to a outlaw and 3 bump concord takes action against him. The bumped player has the right to forgive the bumper so in case of accidental bump the bumper donGÇÖt take penalty. In fleet it do not get penalty to. Cause its normal to be bumped in fleet warping.
Any one can bump but if they do it a lot with no war dec. in hi sec he will face the consequents. in low and null sec it wont make any difference. It will break the idea of an alt kill the bumper to get the money of a bounty, it will finish the harassment of excessive bumping, and if you bump some one by mistake the bumped one can scuse the bumper and hi don't be penalized for it. This will force bumpers to joing a Players comp and Spend isk to wardec some one that they wanna bump. |
|
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
22
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:52:00 -
[178] - Quote
A significant number of posts have been edited for off-topic posting and trolling. Please confine your posts to Miner Bumping: Discussion & Questions.
ISD Tyrozan Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Sara XIII
The Carnifex Corp
114
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 06:12:00 -
[179] - Quote
Miner Bumping.
Every bump is a player to player interaction. Every post in local from either side is a player to player interaction.
Why stop or hinder this?
This is a great game. It's really solid at every level a highsec bear like me operates in. What blows my mind is the freedom of player interactions. From Kannibal Kane running a WH corp I was in back to highsec by himself to a Frigate battle in RvB that lasted almost a half hour that I re-shipped for until I had no ships left..... some great times. And I lost in both cases!
So when I bump a miner to the non-compliant sectiom of an Ice belt and he comes back and apologizes for being AFK because: "He just got done ******* my Mom" it's a victory for EVE.
- John Between Ignorance and Wisdom |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Persona Non Gratis
183
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 06:14:00 -
[180] - Quote
MTB BR wrote:I do realy think that the best solution to bump is this:
About bump in Hi sec: transform it in a semi illegal practice. For example : during the day 24h 1st bump the bumper gests a warning. Second bump e turns in to a outlaw and 3 bump concord takes action against him. T
Why is this a good solution? What, exactly, is the problem that it is meant to solve? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
|
|
|
|
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 |