These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#521 - 2017-05-31 15:49:12 UTC
Also I should point out that I have lived in very deep 0.0 and it was painful to do the logistics prior to the jump drive nerf, can you imagine trying to evac that, think of Omits and Cobalt Edge as two examples. I suppose you could call that hard core, but....

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#522 - 2017-05-31 15:49:27 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Null is actually fairly vibrant now with activity and it would be a shame to deliver all this stuff on a plate to the same alliances that made null such a boring place prior to the change in sov mechanics, because that will be the result of no safety.


I dont think a <24hr window for someone to get their assets out when a structure owner decides to lock you out, is going to change any of that.

If they choose not to, the same 5-20 day mechanic applies anyways.


So much for "you can still do this scam".
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#523 - 2017-05-31 15:55:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Null is actually fairly vibrant now with activity and it would be a shame to deliver all this stuff on a plate to the same alliances that made null such a boring place prior to the change in sov mechanics, because that will be the result of no safety.


I dont think a <24hr window for someone to get their assets out when a structure owner decides to lock them out, is going to change any of that deleteriously.

If they choose not to do so, the same 5-20 day mechanic applies, anyways.


My comments are directed at your issue with asset safety and are an attempt to give you my perspective on why it is a good thing.

However your proposal means that what you are doing is leaving someone in place to screw over the market and that 24 hour window could be used to do a lot of damage though alliance contracts are a good way around it.

My suggestion was to just put a value estimator on the cargo in terms of a courier contract, so that a hauler player can see the value of the cargo and the value of the collateral and take an informed risk, I have no issue with the scam as such, just the fact that it is massive rewards for no real risk and is in fact just lame gameplay, exploiting a mechanic for massive reward. I personally face palm when I think of this stupidity, but as I will never do courier contracts with a collateral it does not impact me at all. I just think my suggestion is neater.

The locking up of stuff for 5 to 20 days is fine as they took a risk, the clone is a real bummer if they were stupid enough to take that risk, I laughed seeing a ganker lose a very expensive clone to this not long ago, the biggest issue is the loss of the materials in build, which is why I never used public production facilities. Anyway...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Salvos Rhoska
#524 - 2017-05-31 15:57:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Null is actually fairly vibrant now with activity and it would be a shame to deliver all this stuff on a plate to the same alliances that made null such a boring place prior to the change in sov mechanics, because that will be the result of no safety.


I dont think a <24hr window for someone to get their assets out when a structure owner decides to lock you out, is going to change any of that.

If they choose not to, the same 5-20 day mechanic applies anyways.


So much for "you can still do this scam".


You can still run the scam.
Just set distance, deadline, reward and m3 appropriately and hope some idiot picks it up late.
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#525 - 2017-05-31 16:01:06 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Its their stuff. Why should they have to wait 5-20 days to get it out.
IRL they can send in a neutral party to retrieve their property immediately and you have no legal recourse to argue against it.
If you refuse to allow that party access to retrieve the assets, you will be considered as holding their property illegally.

Point being here, sure, you can lock them out of your premises, but a few seconds/clicks is disparate to forcing a 5-20 day denial of access from them to their assets.

A delay in the enacting of an access/standing change is the rational solution.

Essentially equal to stating you have x time to clear out your property, after which you are no longer welcome here.


A 3rd party will still take time to arrive, the same as with a citadel, assuming the 3rd party is allowed entry in the first place, sure you might not be waiting 5 days IRL but its not going to be instant and will normally be the next day, depending on whats there, if you've left more than you can carry then you can't expect to remove it all in one trip and logistics take time to arrange, the same with citadels, yyou're able to leave with whatever you can carry assuming you're already docked, if not you need to arrange a neutral 3rd party (either an alt or a friend) to collect it or arrange a contractor to move it (asset safety) which will have its own timeframe

There is nothing wrong with the delay, again, you CHOSE to put your assets in a station that you can't guarantee you will still have access to, nobody is stopping you from getting that stuff back, they are just adding a delay to it, in reality you can probably contact the owner to arrange a deal to get the assets or you can just remotely sell them and move on, or wait for asset safety to move them for you
Salvos Rhoska
#526 - 2017-05-31 16:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Summary:

An Upwell structure owner, in a matter of seconds, with no limitations, can force a defacto 5-20 day delay in access to assets on any player operating there.

A few SECONDS of effort, to the result of a 5-20 DAYS lack of access to assets for another player.

There is no recourse for the player to mitigate this.
If they blow up the structure, it still takes 5-20 days.
If they Asset Recovery, it still takes 5-20 days.
If the owner un-anchors the structure, it still takes 5-20 days.

Heuristically, this makes it patently stupid to ever operate in an Upwell structure you do not personally own.

You can be locked out with no notice, at any second, with no actionable recourse, to the result of your assets being stuck for 5-20 days no matter what you do.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#527 - 2017-05-31 16:17:19 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Summary:

An Upwell structure owner, in a matter of seconds, with no limitations, can force a defacto 5-20 day delay in access to assets on any player.

A few SECONDS of effort, to the result of a 5-20 DAYS lack of access to assets for another player.

There is no recourse for the player to mitigate this.
If they blow up the structure, it still takes 5-20 days.
If they Asset Recovery, it still takes 5-20 days.
If the owner unanchors the structure, it still takes 5-20 days.




There is no need for recourse when you could protect yourself from it in the first place.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#528 - 2017-05-31 16:20:57 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Null is actually fairly vibrant now with activity and it would be a shame to deliver all this stuff on a plate to the same alliances that made null such a boring place prior to the change in sov mechanics, because that will be the result of no safety.


I dont think a <24hr window for someone to get their assets out when a structure owner decides to lock you out, is going to change any of that.

If they choose not to, the same 5-20 day mechanic applies anyways.


So much for "you can still do this scam".


You can still run the scam.
Just set distance, deadline, reward and m3 appropriately and hope some idiot picks it up late.


Name a place you cant get to in a day.
Salvos Rhoska
#529 - 2017-05-31 16:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Summary:

An Upwell structure owner, in a matter of seconds, with no limitations, can force a defacto 5-20 day delay in access to assets on any player.

A few SECONDS of effort, to the result of a 5-20 DAYS lack of access to assets for another player.

There is no recourse for the player to mitigate this.
If they blow up the structure, it still takes 5-20 days.
If they Asset Recovery, it still takes 5-20 days.
If the owner unanchors the structure, it still takes 5-20 days.




There is no need for recourse when you could protect yourself from it in the first place.


You cant protect yourself against the repercussions of being locked out in a matter of seconds, except by never dealing in Upwell structures you do not personally own.

Whether there should be recourse in someone elses structure, is the question here.

If you cant protect yourself or have recourses in someone elses structure, then rationally there is no reason to operate in someone elses structure, thus defaulting to my observation above.

Upwell structures everywhere. Always build and use your own.
If you dont, you are SOL when they screw you with a lock out at any second.
Salvos Rhoska
#530 - 2017-05-31 16:30:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Null is actually fairly vibrant now with activity and it would be a shame to deliver all this stuff on a plate to the same alliances that made null such a boring place prior to the change in sov mechanics, because that will be the result of no safety.


I dont think a <24hr window for someone to get their assets out when a structure owner decides to lock you out, is going to change any of that.

If they choose not to, the same 5-20 day mechanic applies anyways.


So much for "you can still do this scam".


You can still run the scam.
Just set distance, deadline, reward and m3 appropriately and hope some idiot picks it up late.


Name a place you cant get to in a day.


Name a hauler prepared to spend 24hrs on a single courier contract.
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#531 - 2017-05-31 16:31:56 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Summary:

An Upwell structure owner, in a matter of seconds, with no limitations, can force a defacto 5-20 day delay in access to assets on any player operating there.

A few SECONDS of effort, to the result of a 5-20 DAYS lack of access to assets for another player.

There is no recourse for the player to mitigate this.
If they blow up the structure, it still takes 5-20 days.
If they Asset Recovery, it still takes 5-20 days.
If the owner un-anchors the structure, it still takes 5-20 days.

Heuristically, this makes it patently stupid to ever operate in an Upwell structure you do not personally own.

You can be locked out with no notice, at any second, with no actionable recourse, to the result of your assets being stuck for 5-20 days no matter what you do.


In a matter of seconds a player can destroy everything you own if you're stupid enough to undock with it all in a T1 hauler, this can result in months of work to replace, your 5 to 20 days isn't really that big of a deal, atleast your stuff isn't being destroyed

At the end of the day, there is a minority who think this is an issue and a majority including the developers who do not see a problem, it really is a case of "Don't screw it up in the first place" you are in control of where you dock, you are in control of everything you set out to do in EVE, only issue is you have to deal with other players to do that most of the time, and personally i'm all for separating people from their assets in very pretty and normally explosive ways

You atleast get to keep your assets intact in a citadel, its not CCP's fault you CHOSE to put your assets in a location where they could end up being unavailable for a certain time

Don't blame them for YOUR bad choices
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#532 - 2017-05-31 16:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
I used to wonder how many times the same thing had to happen before people wised up and figured out that maybe doing the same thing over and over doesn't work.

I remember this same exact kind of discussion in 2009. It culminated in CCPs upgrade to contracts in Incursions 1.1. What's funny is that people back then said the same kinds of things.

Paraphrasing those arguments: "People can't be expected to know what is an npc station and what is owned by players, and players can lock you out of their stations after you accept the contract, there needs to be a warning about this". So CCP obliged:

CCP's Devblog wrote:
Other tweaks

Added a "show info" context menu option for search results containing one item.
Create contract wizard has been simplified a bit.
Item Exchange Contracts now have a different icon. We repurposed the "freeform" contract icon for this type of contract.
If you accept any type of contract you should be correctly notified if the station(s) are player-owned and not reachable.
Metalevels of items should now be correctly displayed everywhere in contracts.
You can now preview items from the contracts details window.
Contracts should now open up more quickly than before. No more 'shuffling through the pile'.
A bunch of other small fixes have been added here and there.


And here we are, 6 and a half years later talking about the exact same thing. Nothing really changed except that now player type structures can be in high sec and it's high sec folks complaining instead of null. Now all it will take is just one more tweak and it will be fine. Because of course you can fix stupid with tweaks to video game mechanics. And there is NO WAY that the same folks complaining now will find something similar to complain about again when the next set of tweaks fail...

Sarcasm aside, how many times does the same thing have to happen, really? And how are these long winded 'discussions' that are actually cries for CCP intervention easier than just understanding the in game situation, avoiding it and teaching your friends to do the same?
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#533 - 2017-05-31 16:36:08 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:



Do you realize that as long as NPC stations offer better conditions than player owned structures the market will never be able to make the desired transition?



Risk - reward, dude.



Bud I'm talking about regular market transactions and what makes it impossible to transfer activity from npc owned stations to citadels, not hauling contracts.

I think you are all confused about how a real market functions. It's not like buying pot from the dealer where only trust is required. There are all sorts of rattings involved generated exactly by the ability to guarantee security for a transaction or business. If those guarantees fail to convince you'll only trade within your alliance but the rest of EvE will ignore you. It's not risk that gets rewarded here.


If the trader in the Citadel offers lower prices more people wil come and trade. Same as the tax settings. There is your reward. Youyr risk is yoiu get kicked out of the citadel by the owner. You are the one that is confused.
Salvos Rhoska
#534 - 2017-05-31 16:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Cypherous wrote:
Snip


Result being never do business with an Upwell structure you do not own.

Sure. Lets do that.

They are Asset Safety insured trash anyways.

Everyone build your own.

EVE: Citadels.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#535 - 2017-05-31 16:43:03 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cypherous wrote:
Snip


Result being never do business with an Upwell structure you do not own.

Sure. Lets do that.
It's what I do.

I figure it's not what CCP intended for them, since it makes no sense from a game perspective. But whatever. vOv

It is what it is and citadel owners will pay the consequences for it. Not the narrative warriors pushing their agendas here who will not be affected one way or the other.

Mr Epeen Cool
Salvos Rhoska
#536 - 2017-05-31 16:44:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Lets all enjoy the slippery slope.

Fk it all, right?

Its just a game, after all.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#537 - 2017-05-31 16:50:55 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cypherous wrote:
Snip


Result being never do business with an Upwell structure you do not own.

Sure. Lets do that.
It's what I do.

I figure it's not what CCP intended for them, since it makes no sense from a game perspective. But whatever. vOv

It is what it is and citadel owners will pay the consequences for it. Not the narrative warriors pushing their agendas here who will not be affected one way or the other.

Mr Epeen Cool


All the evidence shows the vast majority are using citadels just fine. Its only a handful of the regular vocal cowards and lazy who seem to be losing their **** a demanding CCP step in to make it risk free for them worrying about this.
Salvos Rhoska
#538 - 2017-05-31 16:57:14 UTC
Its a **** implementation.

But so be it.

Its just a computer game.

Nobody cares anyways.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#539 - 2017-05-31 17:01:48 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cypherous wrote:
Snip


Result being never do business with an Upwell structure you do not own.



People use citadels right now so there obviously are good enough reason to use them without a change to them.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#540 - 2017-05-31 17:11:50 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think there should be some degree of commitment/cost to changing access/standings, rather than being an instant "LOL you are locked out and your stuff is locked in and processes aborted" clickety-click.

A delay would fulfill that, without removing autonomy from the structure owner.

Just as structure owners benefit from definable vulnerability windows to ensure they can react to hostile action, seems equitable to me that players that get locked out should have a window of opportunity to wrap up their business there before they are locked out.


Anchoring a citadel for at least a week is not a commitment/cost?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online