These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#541 - 2017-05-31 17:14:41 UTC
April rabbit wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.


Why? This is exactly the way it has worked with null outposts for well over a decade and nobody has had an issue with that. The risk as pointed out is that you can do this to the wrong guy who then comes and burns your house down.

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.



From 2009.

Quote:
Then I got brave (read foolish) and accepted a contract that was supposed to pay out 10 million and the collateral was 40 million. I had to borrow from a friend for this collateral and it was only after I had accepted it that he asked what it was for and told me I had probably just been scammed.

Sure enough, I open the package and it contains an empty small container and the delivery is to a player owened station in 0.0. Up until now I was unaware that player owned stations even existed and that they could deny docking permission to anyone they wanted. So then I pull up the map and see that the system my delivery was to had something like 23 pod kills in the last 24 hours and that the person who made the contract had another 20 or so out with the same ridiculous prices and none showed as being completed.

So I jumped to the last high sec system in the route I had plotted and unloaded every single thing I had on me into the station, entire fitting, cargo, package etc. Then I made the rest of the run to the station I was supposed to deliver at and noticed that there was something like 20 wrecks right by the gate in the 0.0. Of course when I try to dock at the station I get some message in Italian or something telling me that I can't dock.

"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

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#542 - 2017-05-31 17:18:38 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
From eight years ago
LOL!

You are reaching more than Jenn on that one.

Mr Epeen Cool
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#543 - 2017-05-31 17:18:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Cypherous wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


C) This just applies a delay to standing/access changes to involve some form of commitment, rather than being as easy as a few clicks in a few seconds to force someone to wait 5 days for their assets to be accessible.



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


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?)

3) The spies and alts will be unable to access the structure once the delay is complete.
Maybe you should have been more careful whom you gave access to?

4) Structure access/standings is separate from corp access/standings.
You can block anyone from accessing corp assets with the usual corp controls, instantly, by kicking them out or restricting their access, as usual.


People in HS commit more that people who run scams out of outposts in NS. In NS I could runt he scam without even having rights to turn access on and off. I just toss up the contract and wait for a gullible fool to take it even though he was locked out all along.

With citadels a scammer is putting more at risk as he can't unanchor for 7 days and could lose the citadel, whereas a scammer doing it out of NS could pick an outpost where I have zero assets and you'd need to engage in a full scale invasion to go and take it from the offending alliance.

"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

April rabbit
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#544 - 2017-05-31 17:19:21 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
April rabbit wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
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.


Why? This is exactly the way it has worked with null outposts for well over a decade and nobody has had an issue with that. The risk as pointed out is that you can do this to the wrong guy who then comes and burns your house down.

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.



From 2009.

Quote:
Then I got brave (read foolish) and accepted a contract that was supposed to pay out 10 million and the collateral was 40 million. I had to borrow from a friend for this collateral and it was only after I had accepted it that he asked what it was for and told me I had probably just been scammed.

Sure enough, I open the package and it contains an empty small container and the delivery is to a player owened station in 0.0. Up until now I was unaware that player owned stations even existed and that they could deny docking permission to anyone they wanted. So then I pull up the map and see that the system my delivery was to had something like 23 pod kills in the last 24 hours and that the person who made the contract had another 20 or so out with the same ridiculous prices and none showed as being completed.

So I jumped to the last high sec system in the route I had plotted and unloaded every single thing I had on me into the station, entire fitting, cargo, package etc. Then I made the rest of the run to the station I was supposed to deliver at and noticed that there was something like 20 wrecks right by the gate in the 0.0. Of course when I try to dock at the station I get some message in Italian or something telling me that I can't dock.

This story has no end (according to baltec): scammed person gets even and scammer loses his outpost.
This was what i actually asked about.

Thanks for the story.
Deadmeat Zukalick
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#545 - 2017-05-31 17:20:54 UTC
One question for the OP, since when does your opinion qualify as "Breaking News"? The term clickbait comes to mind.

(I apologize if this point has already been brought up, but I have no intention on trawling through another Mega-Whine Thread)

Behold the horror that is my sense of humour

Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#546 - 2017-05-31 17:26:37 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
From eight years ago
LOL!

You are reaching more than Jenn on that one.

Mr Epeen Cool



For those of you who don't speak Epeenish (the official language of Peenistan, but mostly spoken in it's capital city of Dickenburg), let me translate:

"I've run out of things to say, so I troll you"!.
Salvos Rhoska
#547 - 2017-05-31 17:34:06 UTC
Who cares.
EVE is perfect.
Its just a game anyways.
Everything is fine.

Please ignore the slippery slope.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#548 - 2017-05-31 17:35:51 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
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


With the current scam neither did you, not if you were planning on taking that contract. At best any docking rights before you accept the contract is a lure.

And lets also get this situation correct:

You are sitting there looking at courier contracts (lets say just to citadels for the moment).

You must make a decision, accept on and haul it and take a chance or not, and go watch television. For the sake of discussion you accept one. Now, we move to a second decision node. At this decision node we have "nature" and "nature" will roll a die and decide "scammer/not scammer" with probabilities p and 1-p. Note this is a standard way of structuring game theory decision trees. Now, if you get a scammer you have no access rights. If you don't you do have access rights. Thus, ex ante--i.e. before you make a decision you are facing risk. After (ex post) you make a decision you either have access or you don't so there is no more risk (setting aside the issue of suicide ganking).

To those saying there is no risk or no chance of success, that is only true ex post and if you were unlucky and got a scammer.

To those complaining about lack of risk for the scammer, working as intended. If you take a risky action, there is nothing that says those taking advantage of your risky behavior must face similar risk. There examples of this in game are legion. If you blind jump to a beacon and there is a hictor there and you get bubbled and 50 capitals cyno in...the other side is going to face little or no risk while you obviously are facing considerable risk. Once a freighter is being bumped--i.e. made a number of really bad decisions that increase the risk--the suicide gankers face very little risk. If you jump solo into Tama you are taking on considerable risk whereas the gate camp sitting on the other side is not. If you see a buy order for a given good for 5 billion, and conveniently the exact same item is on sale for 2 billion (100% more than the regional price) you are taking on considerable risk as that is almost sure a margin trading scam. Jita local contract scams are pure risk for the person accepting, zero for those spamming them.

Risk is a function of the actions you take in game. Some actions will increase your risk, others will decrease them. For example, putting 6 billion ISK in your freighter increases your risk. Using a scout with webs will lower your risk. Using a JF with an exit cyno will reduce it even more.

There is this bizarre notion that if player A takes a risky action and player B notices and goes to take advantage of it, that the risk must be "balanced". How does that work? A is being risky, even foolish. B is being prudent....why should B face higher risk by being prudent?

This notion that risk must be balanced between the imprudent and the prudent is just not true and would actually result in an imbalance in the game.

"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

Salvos Rhoska
#549 - 2017-05-31 17:38:23 UTC
Teckos, bro, why do you bother with the essays?

Nobody cares.
Everything is fine.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#550 - 2017-05-31 17:40:00 UTC
Cypherous wrote:
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


We have been over this, a citadel unanchors for 7 days. Get some buddies and go shoot it. Hire some mercs and have them shoot it. Go impose costs and risk on the scammer Roll

"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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#551 - 2017-05-31 17:43:25 UTC
April rabbit wrote:

This story has no end (according to baltec): scammed person gets even and scammer loses his outpost.
This was what i actually asked about.

Thanks for the story.


I'm sure there is a story about someone who got scammed and ended up up with him stealing the alliance dreadnought cache in revenge.
Salvos Rhoska
#552 - 2017-05-31 17:44:35 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
We have been over this, a citadel unanchors for 7 days. Get some buddies and go shoot it. Hire some mercs and have them shoot it. Go impose costs and risk on the scammer Roll


Go wreck it and still wait 5-20 days for access to assets, as if you hadnt.

No problem

Everything is fine.
EVE is perfect.

Why are you guys even arguing?
Whats the point?
CCP knows best.
Everything is fine.
Salvos Rhoska
#553 - 2017-05-31 17:46:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
April rabbit wrote:

This story has no end (according to baltec): scammed person gets even and scammer loses his outpost.
This was what i actually asked about.

Thanks for the story.


I'm sure there is a story about someone who got scammed and ended up up with him stealing the alliance dreadnought cache in revenge.


Stories are nice.

Do you have a story to tell us, baltec1?

Everything is fine.
Lets tell stories.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#554 - 2017-05-31 17:47:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
April rabbit wrote:

Small corp is not going to have any success if this citadel is covered by Merc contracts or belongs to alts or friends of some big entity.
Example: Main Perimeter citadels. Noone attacks it because they are protected.

All in all: the whole mechanics looks like very skewed towards bigger fishes. It was always this way in 0.0 space and now high-sec has fun learning it too. However i don't see reasons to keep it intact. At least in high-sec where there should not be real need to form bigger fishes to survive.


We got it. It is too much risk for you.

Use NPC stations. Citadels were intended to carry some level of risk with them. Even asset safety implies some level of ex ante risk.

"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

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#555 - 2017-05-31 17:48:37 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
From eight years ago
LOL!

You are reaching more than Jenn on that one.

Mr Epeen Cool



For those of you who don't speak Epeenish (the official language of Peenistan, but mostly spoken in it's capital city of Dickenburg), let me translate:

"I've run out of things to say, so I troll you"!.
Complaining about trolling while trolling.

You mad, bro?

Mr Epeen Cool
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#556 - 2017-05-31 17:49:57 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
We have been over this, a citadel unanchors for 7 days. Get some buddies and go shoot it. Hire some mercs and have them shoot it. Go impose costs and risk on the scammer Roll


Go wreck it and still wait 5-20 days for access to assets, as if you hadnt.

No problem

Everything is fine.
EVE is perfect.

Why are you guys even arguing?
Whats the point?
CCP knows best.
Everything is fine.


I didn't say perfect or fine. Funny how everyone says, "EVE is about risk and reward, it's great!" Then they are facing the risk and they show up here whining wanting things like the drop box.

"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

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#557 - 2017-05-31 17:51:11 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
From eight years ago
LOL!

You are reaching more than Jenn on that one.

Mr Epeen Cool


What somebody wanted an example of such a scam, I found one. I know facts are bad to you, but sheesh you really are getting to be a pathetic whiner.

"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

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#558 - 2017-05-31 17:52:43 UTC
April rabbit wrote:

This story has no end (according to baltec): scammed person gets even and scammer loses his outpost.
This was what i actually asked about.

Thanks for the story.


Where did baltec say the scammer loses the outpost? Please post a link.

"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

Salvos Rhoska
#559 - 2017-05-31 17:53:34 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Use NPC stations.

STFU and use NPC stations.

Everything is fine.
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners
Already Replaced.
#560 - 2017-05-31 17:54:05 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Cypherous wrote:
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


We have been over this, a citadel unanchors for 7 days. Get some buddies and go shoot it. Hire some mercs and have them shoot it. Go impose costs and risk on the scammer Roll


A suggestion which goes against everything people who complain want and think. If someone is complaining, it's because the think something is unfair. If it's unfair and they themselves didn't cause the unfairness, then they think "why should I do anything, I didn't cause this!" So they go to the people who did cause it (in this case, it's the people who made/own the game) and say "fix this because it's unfair". To be honest it's not unusual, Lots of reasonable people think this way

Excuse me for speaking for you but I'll take the liberty. You and I see the same situation and don't care about who caused it. It just IS, and it's something to be dealt with instead of waiting and hoping that the powers that be will fix it (it helps that we know that when the powers that be 'fix' things, other things tend to get messed up by accident, best to handle it ourselves) So we use the tools we have, fix the situation for ourselves ie avoid the situation or make someone pay for doing it to us etc, and go on about our business.

Discussions like this aren't a difference of opinion, they are differences in worldview and preference.