These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting.

First post
Author
Salvos Rhoska
#461 - 2017-05-31 10:46:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Summing up:

The current mechanics mean an Upwell structure owner can immediately block a player from accessing any of their assets, within the span of a few clicks and a few seconds, thus forcing them to wait atleast 5 days to Asset Safety their property out.

They can also block all alts and all courier contractees from recovering the assets.

At worst, there are no NPC stations or all other player structures in that system are held by by the same owner/allies, leading to a 20 day wait and a 15% cost to recover assets from the closest NPC station.

Even if they destroy the structure, they will still have to wait 5 days, IF there is another player structure or NPC structure in that system, or it will be 20 days wait and 15% cost to recover from the closest NPC station.

Thus if there is no other structure in the system, whether you destroy it or not, still results in a 20 day delay on Asset Recovery +15% cost.

Even if they unanchor the structure, the same above still applies. 5 days minimum.



So in a few seconds, a few clicks, a structure owner can force an incontrovertible 5 day delay, at least, on another player to access their assets, with them having zero recourse to get around that.

A few seconds and a few clicks to block someones access to their property for 5 days....

Hmmm...

I think a delay on standing/access changes to Upwell structures is validated considering the above, for them to atleast attempt to wrap up their operations there before atleast a 5 day delay to access their assets is FORCED on that player.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#462 - 2017-05-31 11:06:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Cypherous wrote:


Delays firstly won't help as people will just make the contract be further away and large enough that you need a slow ship to make the trip and you'll fail to get there in time anyway, secondly, it means you won't be able to use citadels as staging locations for public fleets as you would have a delay on allowing them access to the station which could ruin an OP, it also means that you have a massively delayed ability to protect your structure from spies and alts getting in to it, you would cause more problems than you solve by adding an arbitrary timer


Spais have always been and will be a part of EvE gameplay. Why would CCPlease protect you from spais through arbitrary mechanics?

Otherwise it is not allowing immediate access the real issue. Cutting access in a few seconds is.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#463 - 2017-05-31 11:12:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Gimme Sake wrote:
Spais have always been and will be a part of EvE gameplay. Why would CCPlease protect you from spais through arbitrary mechanics?


Spies cant do jack except observe who is in station (which is pointless as Local provides much of that info for free anyways) whilst the standing/access change delay runs down.

If they aggress outside the station, they can be dealt with per usual, and will be unable to re-dock/tether due to weapons timers.

If the spy is a corp member, you can kick him out or restrict his access to corp holds, station operation and corp data using the standard corp controls, as per usual.
Salvos Rhoska
#464 - 2017-05-31 11:20:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Dracvlad wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
PS: You misquoted me as Dracvlad, again. I corrected you in the quote above.


LOL, that is funny, they see me everywhere. What makes me laugh is that baltec1 is talking about something being like that for ten years, just like wreck EHP? Sorry could not resist...


Its the third time this has happened.
I dont know if its just his faulty post formatting or some weak attempt to sabotage quote chains.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#465 - 2017-05-31 11:23:17 UTC
April rabbit wrote:

Just curious: can you provide any real story related to null-sec outpost owners?

I'm not asking about alliance stuff. Rather about case similar to high-sec citadels when 'small guy' gets screwed.



Old Goon recruitment and hauling scams. As has been said this scam isn't new, its been around for as long as there have been player controlled dockable stations. Had a drink with a guy at vegas that I scammed a few years before.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#466 - 2017-05-31 11:31:46 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:


Because you already have all the tools you need to previously restrict or allow access. No need to peep between the picket fences to see who's coming then and run to lock the door.


That's what provi block have been doing for years.

It's already easy to find out if a contract is a scam or not, why must the game be changed, negatively impacting a lot of other areas, just so you don't have to check a contract and do basic background checks?
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#467 - 2017-05-31 11:35:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
April rabbit wrote:

Just curious: can you provide any real story related to null-sec outpost owners?

I'm not asking about alliance stuff. Rather about case similar to high-sec citadels when 'small guy' gets screwed.



Old Goon recruitment and hauling scams. As has been said this scam isn't new, its been around for as long as there have been player controlled dockable stations. Had a drink with a guy at vegas that I scammed a few years before.



But that guy never had access to anything in the first place.


Admit it, ya'll tryin'to protect yerself from spais with those mechanics. Ye space cur landlubears. Pirate

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#468 - 2017-05-31 11:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Snip


It needs to be changed because spending a few seconds and clicks to block someone from access to their assets for 5-20 days is disproportional.
April rabbit
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#469 - 2017-05-31 11:39:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
April rabbit wrote:

Just curious: can you provide any real story related to null-sec outpost owners?

I'm not asking about alliance stuff. Rather about case similar to high-sec citadels when 'small guy' gets screwed.



Old Goon recruitment and hauling scams. As has been said this scam isn't new, its been around for as long as there have been player controlled dockable stations. Had a drink with a guy at vegas that I scammed a few years before.

Okey. But i've actually asked about the whole story:
- starts with scam
- ends with outpost owners to lose it's outpost

You know: the thing you propose about high-sec citadel scams.
Salvos Rhoska
#470 - 2017-05-31 11:57:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Inb4 posts attempting to misdirect from the FACT that an Upwell structure owner can incontrovertibly block a players access to their assets for 5-20 days, in just a few seconds and a few clicks.

A delay on Upwell structure access/standings changes is justified.

Players should have an opportunity to wrap up their business before being forcibly locked out of their assets for 5-20 days, just cos structure owner spent a few seconds and a few clicks to force that.

Upwell structure owners get to set vulnerability windows to have time to arrange a reaction.
I dont see why players operating at the structure should not also have some time to wrap up their activities there without instantly being denied access to their assets/interests there for 5-20 days just because the owner spent a few seconds and clicks.
Mollie Mormon
Doomheim
#471 - 2017-05-31 12:04:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:


Because you already have all the tools you need to previously restrict or allow access. No need to peep between the picket fences to see who's coming then and run to lock the door.


That's what provi block have been doing for years.

It's already easy to find out if a contract is a scam or not, why must the game be changed, negatively impacting a lot of other areas, just so you don't have to check a contract and do basic background checks?

You never have anything positive or intelligent to contribute.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#472 - 2017-05-31 12:17:28 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:



But that guy never had access to anything in the first place.


Actually he did.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#473 - 2017-05-31 12:18:44 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Snip


It needs to be changed because spending a few seconds and clicks to block someone from access to their assets for 5-20 days is disproportional.


As opposed to the the decade of losing access instantly forever?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#474 - 2017-05-31 12:20:44 UTC
April rabbit wrote:

Okey. But i've actually asked about the whole story:
- starts with scam
- ends with outpost owners to lose it's outpost

You know: the thing you propose about high-sec citadel scams.


Frankly a small corp wasn't going to take down VFK at the height of the power of the CFC.

Now with citadels in highsec that small corp can take away that citadel. I'd say that's an improvement no?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#475 - 2017-05-31 12:23:06 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Mollie Mormon wrote:

You never have anything positive or intelligent to contribute.



I do have a nasty habit of punching holes in the arguments of people who want to remove content from this game just so they don't have to bother with things like reading and doing things to protect themselves.
Marek Kanenald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2017-05-31 12:34:07 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Snip


It needs to be changed because spending a few seconds and clicks to block someone from access to their assets for 5-20 days is disproportional.


As opposed to the the decade of losing access instantly forever?


Change is bad, re

Also its a stupid argument since citadels are widely more widespread and are used in ways that the old structures never were.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#477 - 2017-05-31 12:35:34 UTC
Mollie Mormon wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:


Because you already have all the tools you need to previously restrict or allow access. No need to peep between the picket fences to see who's coming then and run to lock the door.


That's what provi block have been doing for years.

It's already easy to find out if a contract is a scam or not, why must the game be changed, negatively impacting a lot of other areas, just so you don't have to check a contract and do basic background checks?

You never have anything positive or intelligent to contribute.


you could refute a point instead of posting ad hominem.



Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#478 - 2017-05-31 12:37:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
baltec1 wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:


Because you already have all the tools you need to previously restrict or allow access. No need to peep between the picket fences to see who's coming then and run to lock the door.


That's what provi block have been doing for years.

It's already easy to find out if a contract is a scam or not, why must the game be changed, negatively impacting a lot of other areas, just so you don't have to check a contract and do basic background checks?



Not talking about contracts but market orders.

You'll have to do it all while docked inside a citadel because otherwise your assets get frozen. Setting up orders from distance and any other operations or speculations involving other citadels become impossible. Market pvp gets a severe disadvantage and requires tons of beaurocratic work and an army of alts to simply purchase and sell stuff.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#479 - 2017-05-31 12:44:20 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


1) As I said, and you agree, a delay does not prevent the scam. Go ahead and make contracts from further away, with tight deadline and with more m3.

2) It just means you have to commit to the staging location in advance, IF you have not already given access to participants (which you did do, right?)


Seeing as citadels can be unanchored and only take 24 hours to deploy and can be purchased for a fairly minor sum and not need any fuel its not really hard to just go pick something 10 jumps from jita and stick a bunch of empty cargo containers in a contract to bump it over the m3 needed to make it a freighter run, sure it takes 7 days to take the old one down but considering the money you already made from it its not really hard to just drop the ISK on a raitaru to deploy somewhere else :P
Mollie Mormon
Doomheim
#480 - 2017-05-31 12:47:15 UTC
Coralas wrote:
you could refute a point instead of posting ad hominem.

I could, but I chose to direct it at him.