These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

FREEPORT EXPLOIT

Author
Bjorn Tyrson
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2017-02-14 21:38:48 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Neuntausend wrote:
The question is: Why should the owner not be allowed to change docking/tethering rights whenever they want to? It's their citadel/outpost after all. If they want to change it, they should be allowed to do so. Travelers should take care which outposts and citadels they use as mid points. If you do not trust the owner, don't use their infrastructure.


Does the access rights application really need to be instant? I don't mind imprudent people getting locked out but right now, even if you were to be prudent and checked the citadels seconds before jumping, the owner could beat you by swapping the ACL while you are in the jump animation.


if they are watching you so carefully, that they can slam the doors in your face while you are mid-jump animation, then why shouldn't they get the kill?
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#22 - 2017-02-15 01:36:25 UTC
Bjorn Tyrson wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Neuntausend wrote:
The question is: Why should the owner not be allowed to change docking/tethering rights whenever they want to? It's their citadel/outpost after all. If they want to change it, they should be allowed to do so. Travelers should take care which outposts and citadels they use as mid points. If you do not trust the owner, don't use their infrastructure.


Does the access rights application really need to be instant? I don't mind imprudent people getting locked out but right now, even if you were to be prudent and checked the citadels seconds before jumping, the owner could beat you by swapping the ACL while you are in the jump animation.


if they are watching you so carefully, that they can slam the doors in your face while you are mid-jump animation, then why shouldn't they get the kill?
\

^^This. That kind of dedication deserves that level of reward.

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet

Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#23 - 2017-02-15 11:05:57 UTC
Its obviously not a freeport if you die on it.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#24 - 2017-02-15 11:17:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Neuntausend wrote:
The question is: Why should the owner not be allowed to change docking/tethering rights whenever they want to? It's their citadel/outpost after all. If they want to change it, they should be allowed to do so. Travelers should take care which outposts and citadels they use as mid points. If you do not trust the owner, don't use their infrastructure.

Man, I've been agreeing with your all posts for the past few days. Does this mean I've gone over to the dark side?
Wait for it... "Baited on a freeport", lol. Big smile

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#25 - 2017-02-15 12:19:27 UTC
Some people seem to forget that trust is more valuable than ISK when they do logistics ^^

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2017-02-15 12:30:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Trant
I'm amazed that so many people would risk such high value ships on the undock of an unknown Citadel. When I used to do logistics for a low sec corp I wouldn't even trust corp mates to light a cyno for me on an NPC station. I guess this is a case of people just not realising the danger, in time this fact will become wide known and only the occassional fool will do it.

Don't see this as a bug or exploit myself.

I've never tried to jump to a Citadel, but with an NPC station there is a 10 second session timer after the jump before you can dock. Does that apply to Citadel tethers too? Also if you are already tethered and your docking rights are removed, does the tether drop?
Wolfgang Jannesen
Scrapyard Artificer's
#27 - 2017-02-15 14:52:13 UTC
Working as intended. You get +1 for treating CCP the same way college activists treat your local government,

THEY STOOD IDLY BY AND DID NOTHING, MAN
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
#28 - 2017-02-15 18:07:09 UTC
I do wonder if there should be a timer on this sort of thing.

We have a 24 hour timer on switching a corp from friendly fire allowed to not allowed for example. So there is some precedent for not allowing others to catch those who are doing their due diligence due to instantly being able to change settings that put them in danger.

In the example above the fleet did in fact check to see if docking was safe. Having the citadel wait 24 hours (or even one hour) from changing to and from freeport status doesn't seem like a vastly difference concept than waiting to set FOF status in a corp.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2017-02-15 18:49:30 UTC
I wouldn't mind if the friendly fire switch was instant as well. I see no reason for the 24 hour grace period there.

On a citadel, I think it's quite important to be able to make changes to docking rights instantaneously. Who your friend or your enemy is may change, people come, people go, coalitions are formed and they break apart again. And if you are not on friendly terms anymore with a party you are allowing to dock at your structures, then you may want to revoke that right quickly. Having a now neutral or potentially hostile party that is allowed to tether and dock with potentially hundreds of your citadels for another day would be a nightmare. The ability to trap and scam with this mechanic is just a bonus, although in my case a very welcome one.
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#30 - 2017-02-15 18:56:40 UTC
I think it should remain instant. First, it allows for station games, which is a good thing. Second these are privately owned structures of corporations, not NPC structures, people using them are CHOOSING to use them. Third, nobody wants to be able to host a hostile group in their own structure. "we are going to blow up your station, and use it to repair ourselves too!"... uh no.

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet

Yolandar
CSR Strategic Reserves
Citizen's Star Republic
#31 - 2017-02-15 20:14:41 UTC
Give it a 15minute change timer same as the crimewatch or safe logoff timer. Seems a fair compromise.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2017-02-15 21:33:30 UTC
Yolandar wrote:
Give it a 15minute change timer same as the crimewatch or safe logoff timer. Seems a fair compromise.

Why, though?
Scialt
Corporate Navy Police Force
#33 - 2017-02-15 21:58:14 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
Yolandar wrote:
Give it a 15minute change timer same as the crimewatch or safe logoff timer. Seems a fair compromise.

Why, though?


A "realistic" (horrible to use that word for a spaceship video game) explanation would be it takes 15 minutes to communicate the directive of the owner to the grunts running the station.

No idea if it's needed or not... but you'd think shutting down public access to a giant space station or opening it up again would take at least a few minutes.
Gaius Clabbacus
Control Alt Delve
Goonswarm Federation
#34 - 2017-02-15 22:09:25 UTC
Scialt wrote:
Neuntausend wrote:
Yolandar wrote:
Give it a 15minute change timer same as the crimewatch or safe logoff timer. Seems a fair compromise.

Why, though?


A "realistic" (horrible to use that word for a spaceship video game) explanation would be it takes 15 minutes to communicate the directive of the owner to the grunts running the station.

No idea if it's needed or not... but you'd think shutting down public access to a giant space station or opening it up again would take at least a few minutes.


Well, if the owner is planning a trap then it stands to reason that protocols are in place to ensure the change is implemented near-instantaneous by the docking managers.

By the time the average player can afford a JF he should be smart enough not to fall for the obvious tricks.
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2017-02-15 22:14:58 UTC
Scialt wrote:
A "realistic" (horrible to use that word for a spaceship video game) explanation would be it takes 15 minutes to communicate the directive of the owner to the grunts running the station.

Sure, but then it would also "realistically" take 15 minutes to communicate and process a docking request, and another 15 minutes until the hunchbacked docking port operator has opened/closed the cast iron airlock via manual handcrank after receiving the order to do so via tube mail. Or it takes the central station computer 15 nanoseconds to broadcast the new system policy to its docking subsystems.

When I'm asking "why?" then I'm asking gameplay reasons. And the only gameplay reason that comes to mind would be to prevent bait and switch type courier scams and capital traps from happening. However, this is Eve, and scams and traps are considered content. Adding a delay there would therefore remove content from the game, only to add a bit of convenience to players who want to move their caps through neutral space and don't want to make sure the route is safe. Not a good tradeoff in my book.
Yolandar
CSR Strategic Reserves
Citizen's Star Republic
#36 - 2017-02-16 00:21:23 UTC
Neuntausend wrote:
Scialt wrote:
A "realistic" (horrible to use that word for a spaceship video game) explanation would be it takes 15 minutes to communicate the directive of the owner to the grunts running the station.

Sure, but then it would also "realistically" take 15 minutes to communicate and process a docking request, and another 15 minutes until the hunchbacked docking port operator has opened/closed the cast iron airlock via manual handcrank after receiving the order to do so via tube mail. Or it takes the central station computer 15 nanoseconds to broadcast the new system policy to its docking subsystems.

When I'm asking "why?" then I'm asking gameplay reasons. And the only gameplay reason that comes to mind would be to prevent bait and switch type courier scams and capital traps from happening. However, this is Eve, and scams and traps are considered content. Adding a delay there would therefore remove content from the game, only to add a bit of convenience to players who want to move their caps through neutral space and don't want to make sure the route is safe. Not a good tradeoff in my book.


exacly why I gave up doing courier contracts. no confidence at all in the citadel system.
just look at how the commercial hauling corps are dealing with this for your answers.

npc stations will never be allowed to go away until things like this get adjusted.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#37 - 2017-02-16 00:27:02 UTC
Yolandar wrote:
exacly why I gave up doing courier contracts. no confidence at all in the citadel system.
just look at how the commercial hauling corps are dealing with this for your answers.

npc stations will never be allowed to go away until things like this get adjusted.

This is unfortunately an entirely separate issue (if still related). Short of completely overhauling how access works - I'm not sure this is going to be something easily remedied. I guess it's become commonplace in EVE to figure out how to f**k over players every time a new feature is introduced.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2017-02-16 00:31:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Neuntausend
NPC stations can't go away for quite some time yet anyway. Where would they put Agents? Where would they seed blueprints? And I do not think removing NPC stations is even on the radar for CCP. It would not make a lot of sense lore-wise either. Why would the empires not have stations?

But let's imagine they went away all of a sudden - poof! A market develops on a citadel and people want to deliver stuff there on contract, so it can be sold in that new market hub. What would be the smart thing to do for the owner? Block access to scam some random space trucker out of 2 bil, thereby making himself untrustworthy as the owner of a market hub citadel, or just let everyone dock, let his market grow and get rich off taxes without moving a finger ever again?

It's quite the same both with the courier contracts and the mid points: Check if you can trust the holder of the target citadel before commiting anything.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#39 - 2017-02-16 00:33:37 UTC
Neuntausend - you raise a very valid point. Trust and accountability are going to be very prized commodities down the road.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#40 - 2017-02-16 02:27:39 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Neuntausend wrote:
The question is: Why should the owner not be allowed to change docking/tethering rights whenever they want to? It's their citadel/outpost after all. If they want to change it, they should be allowed to do so. Travelers should take care which outposts and citadels they use as mid points. If you do not trust the owner, don't use their infrastructure.

Man, I've been agreeing with your all posts for the past few days. Does this mean I've gone over to the dark side?
Wait for it... "Baited on a freeport", lol. Big smile

I think you have to have a certain amount of dark side already in you to properly enjoy Eve. I've been a mostly upstanding citizen for the last bunch of years but I always enjoyed the pvp and non-consensual aspects of the game, and still enjoy hearing others experiences on the "dark" side.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Previous page123Next page