These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kathern Aurilen
#61 - 2017-05-23 06:50:46 UTC
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Just add a 'dropbox'. Solved.

I always wonder why there wasn't a way to drop stuff off at a station without having to enter it. When I'm mining, the turnaround is rough when I play on my laptop, I mine, warp to station, 25 seconds to load station environment, 3 seconds unload my cargo, 50 seconds for the black screen to drop and start moving.

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!

Black Pedro
Mine.
#62 - 2017-05-23 07:43:41 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Was there a good reason to lock the hauler out of the station?

Or was it done SOLELY for the purpose of griefing?
I am pretty sure it was done for the ISK. While there are niche cases of pure griefing (causing harm for no reason but to make another player miserable) that does go on in Eve, this is a clear case of the more standard 'legal griefing' where one player enriches himself in this competitive game at the expense of another. One player used their superior knowledge of the mechanics to part their opponent with some resources to make themselves more powerful and their opponent weaker.

Of course the OP isn't going to like that and may feel some 'grief' over his loss, but it is all intended and allowed. Stealing ISK is clear non-'EULA griefing' reason to inflict damage another player, even if they don't like it or consent to the scam.

That said, I see no reason why CCP shouldn't add a 'dropbox'. It removes no non-scam gameplay that I see and will increase trust in contracts to and from player-owned structures. In fact, if I am not mistaken CCP has indicated they intend to do so. However, this isn't going to make such scams/failures impossible. Players could still make contracts to a citadel that is about to explode, or one that is about to have its private un-deployment timer expire and trick another player into accepting a contract that is still undeliverable.

There could also be cases where failing a contract is entirely warranted. What if I, an innocent trader or builder, set up a contract to a Citadel or EC to move critical goods only to have the structure explode or be taken down by the owner (or made private docking only) without my knowledge? I outsourced the risk of transport and due to factors outside of my control, my goods never made it and are now in the possession of another player. The courier has to take the hit there, or I would never trust my goods to a public contract again.

This is Eve, a player-driven sandbox where other humans are out to get you so buyer beware. Don't enter into a contract lightly, and don't accept a contract you cannot afford to fail. This is one of the golden rules of Eve.
ISD Stall
ISD STAR
#63 - 2017-05-23 08:18:09 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
ISD Max Trix wrote:
Why would CCP change it? It was the same way for Null Stations and Outpost, why wouldn't Citadels be the same way? If you look at the contact destination it says "Destination may not be accessible." or some such thing.


Because it ain't fair man, I mean no one reads that warning anyways, who reads signs now adays? Twisted



I can confirm people don't read warnings!!!!
Watch up to the 6 minute point.Twisted
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#64 - 2017-05-23 09:15:38 UTC
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#65 - 2017-05-23 09:30:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Black Pedro wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Was there a good reason to lock the hauler out of the station?

Or was it done SOLELY for the purpose of griefing?
I am pretty sure it was done for the ISK. While there are niche cases of pure griefing (causing harm for no reason but to make another player miserable) that does go on in Eve, this is a clear case of the more standard 'legal griefing' where one player enriches himself in this competitive game at the expense of another. One player used their superior knowledge of the mechanics to part their opponent with some resources to make themselves more powerful and their opponent weaker.

Of course the OP isn't going to like that and may feel some 'grief' over his loss, but it is all intended and allowed. Stealing ISK is clear non-'EULA griefing' reason to inflict damage another player, even if they don't like it or consent to the scam.

That said, I see no reason why CCP shouldn't add a 'dropbox'. It removes no non-scam gameplay that I see and will increase trust in contracts to and from player-owned structures. In fact, if I am not mistaken CCP has indicated they intend to do so. However, this isn't going to make such scams/failures impossible. Players could still make contracts to a citadel that is about to explode, or one that is about to have its private un-deployment timer expire and trick another player into accepting a contract that is still undeliverable.

There could also be cases where failing a contract is entirely warranted. What if I, an innocent trader or builder, set up a contract to a Citadel or EC to move critical goods only to have the structure explode or be taken down by the owner (or made private docking only) without my knowledge? I outsourced the risk of transport and due to factors outside of my control, my goods never made it and are now in the possession of another player. The courier has to take the hit there, or I would never trust my goods to a public contract again.

This is Eve, a player-driven sandbox where other humans are out to get you so buyer beware. Don't enter into a contract lightly, and don't accept a contract you cannot afford to fail. This is one of the golden rules of Eve.




The only aspect you ignore is the citadel owners intending to do "legit" business but can't do nothing to differentiate themselves from the others.

There's no way to tell which is which, so, while haulers or other players accepting citadel contracts can protect themselves by stopping doing it, the other citadel owners, with less dishonorable intentions, are simply pushed out of business through a superficially threated trade mechanic.

The HTFU and adapt philosophy does not apply in this case.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Black Pedro
Mine.
#66 - 2017-05-23 09:46:11 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
The only aspect you ignore is the citadel owners intending to do "legit" business but can't do nothing to differentiate themselves from the others.

There's no way to tell which is which, so, while haulers or other players accepting citadel contracts can protect themselves by stopping doing it, the other citadel owners, with less dishonorable intentions, are simply pushed out of business through a superficially threated trade mechanic.

The HTFU and adapt philosophy does not apply in this case.
This is like every other aspect of Eve: it all comes down to trust.

There are indicators of trust and reliability in the game, contract history for one. Or players can construct lists of honest dealers, and build relationships. Maybe there needs to be more tools to help establish trust but it is all part of the game as CCP Falcon says:

CCP Falcon wrote:
EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.
You are already at the mercy of the Citadel owner. They can take down their market, clone or industry modules on a whim and you can lose real things. That is part of the player interactions that are suppose to exist in the sandbox. Everything cannot be 100% safe and immune to risk or nothing interesting can happen.

If you don't want to risk dealing with an unknown party, then don't. Let that business go to someone braver and more risk-tolerant than yourself. I agree, if you are an up-and-coming citadel owner, you will have trouble proving your trust and establishing yourself as legit, but everyone faces that issue. Those that figure that problem out will become rich and successful as is proper in a game where trust is so valuable a commodity.
Nana Skalski
Taisaanat Kotei
#67 - 2017-05-23 09:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Nana Skalski
And this TRUST thing..... is where CCP failed us repeatedly.

Buggy patches, not finished features... the list goes on and on...
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2017-05-23 10:16:09 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
The only aspect you ignore is the citadel owners intending to do "legit" business but can't do nothing to differentiate themselves from the others.

There's no way to tell which is which, so, while haulers or other players accepting citadel contracts can protect themselves by stopping doing it, the other citadel owners, with less dishonorable intentions, are simply pushed out of business through a superficially threated trade mechanic.

The HTFU and adapt philosophy does not apply in this case.
This is like every other aspect of Eve: it all comes down to trust.

There are indicators of trust and reliability in the game, contract history for one. Or players can construct lists of honest dealers, and build relationships. Maybe there needs to be more tools to help establish trust but it is all part of the game as CCP Falcon says:

CCP Falcon wrote:
EVE is built on the core principle that you are never 100% safe, no matter where you go or what you do. When you interact with another player, you roll the dice on whether they're going to screw you over or not. That's a massive part of the social engineering behind the very basic underpinnings of the EVE Universe.
You are already at the mercy of the Citadel owner. They can take down their market, clone or industry modules on a whim and you can lose real things. That is part of the player interactions that are suppose to exist in the sandbox. Everything cannot be 100% safe and immune to risk or nothing interesting can happen.

If you don't want to risk dealing with an unknown party, then don't. Let that business go to someone braver and more risk-tolerant than yourself. I agree, if you are an up-and-coming citadel owner, you will have trouble proving your trust and establishing yourself as legit, but everyone faces that issue. Those that figure that problem out will become rich and successful as is proper in a game where trust is so valuable a commodity.



Again you look at the issue from the perspective of the hauler and/or of the scammer not of the citadel owner.

There's absolutely nothing an owner can do to build a reputation before running out of business. The contract history is irrelevant since any scammer can issue contracts from a new alt each time and the contracts do not necessary belong to the citadel owners.

It might be spread sheets online but I doubt anyone enjoys completing an entire beaurocratic quest of clicking that results in mostly irrelevant data before accepting a contract. When it can all be fixed by repairing a defective mechanic.

With all the social engineering at work I think there is too much favoritism in this game when it comes to scamming.
Perhaps changing the saying "best ship in Eve is friendship" to "best ship in Eve is Bernie Madoff" is in order, eh?

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Black Pedro
Mine.
#69 - 2017-05-23 10:44:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Gimme Sake wrote:
Again you look at the issue from the perspective of the hauler and/or of the scammer not of the citadel owner.

There's absolutely nothing an owner can do to build a reputation before running out of business. The contract history is irrelevant since any scammer can issue contracts from a new alt each time and the contracts do not necessary belong to the citadel owners.

It might be spread sheets online but I doubt anyone enjoys completing an entire beaurocratic quest of clicking that results in mostly irrelevant data before accepting a contract. When it can all be fixed by repairing a defective mechanic.

With all the social engineering at work I think there is too much favoritism in this game when it comes to scamming.
Perhaps changing the saying "best ship in Eve is friendship" to "best ship in Eve is Bernie Madoff" is in order, eh?

I specifically acknowledged it is an issue for station owners.

You act like there is nothing you can do though. Several of the initial station owners cut deals with the major hauling companies to help get people to use their stations. Be creative or if you aren't, persevere and establish a track record that players will trust.

Still, no matter what you do, player stations will always have some risk attached to them. The owners could go AFK and they could run out of fuel, they could get exploded, or the owners could decide to cash out and fold-up their structures with no warning to the users. Most of your assets are protected, but you could still get caught out and lose a clone or some materials (or collateral on a hauling contract) plus have to deal with moving your stuff to a new base of operations. That's life in New Eden. You either HTFU and take your chances (or better yet find and establish trust with another player who owns a station) for the benefits, or keep your operations in an NPC station and 100% safe and pay more for that privilege.

I don't think there is any danger of citadels/ECs/platforms being considered too risky by the player-base. CCP bent over backwards to make them as safe as possible so they would be used, probably too safe given how fast they are proliferating and how few are being exploded. This over-abundance of competition and choice is hurting aspiring structure owners in attracting paying clients much more than the small, and largely avoidable with some research, risk of being scammed in a hauling contract. I mean, when the fees charged for services immediately trend to the lowest amount allowed by the UI (0.1%/0.01%, even 0%) you know they are far, far too safe as viewed by the free market.

But sure, as I said, let's add a 'dropbox'. That isn't going to suddenly make Citadel contracts 100% safe for haulers, but if it helps structure owners attract users somewhat, then add it to the list of all the other player-owned structure improvements CCP wants to get around to implementing.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#70 - 2017-05-23 10:58:31 UTC
Actually, it appears that I am wrong, at least in K-space:

Quote:
Courier contracts with the wormhole-space citadel as a destination are failed (the hauler keeps the item, but loses the collateral). Active contracts inside the wormhole-space citadel are canceled and their content included in the loot.

If your Citadel is not in wormhole space, the Asset Safety system will automatically trigger. This includes the content of active contracts inside the Citadel. Courier contracts with the known-space Citadel as a destination are NOT canceled. Instead, their destination is moved to the default destination (= top station) of the Asset Safety.


A 'dropbox' would therefore eliminate all risk of contract scamming at citadels, at least without having to gank/explode the hauler. That makes it more useful and thus more of priority to implement.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#71 - 2017-05-23 11:05:22 UTC
Khara Hirl wrote:
The ability for someone to lock you out of a plex/citadel after accepting a courier contract, in my opinion is absolutely abuse of a game mechanic.

To me this is straight up mechanical abuse and the fact that CCP lets this type of activity go on, is absolutely disparaging to new players and disgusting to old players. This is NOT how to run a game, just because scamming is allowed doesnt mean you allow/design game mechanics to specifically allow scamming.

I have a solution and it's very very simple, allow couriers to right click their package with in 2500m of the citadel/plex and select deliver.

Why would CCP continue to allow this type of abuse, aren't you wanting new players to come into your game and stay? This isn't part of the whole "eve is hardcore, rah rah rah, get used to it rah rah rah, salt salt salt" Take this lesson to heart because you nearly killed your game by not listening to the silent majority but listening to the vocal minority when it comes to crap like this.


FIX DELIVERING TO PLEX/CITADELS IMMEDIATELY!


Works as intended. Learn to EvE.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#72 - 2017-05-23 11:09:29 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:
because choosing "not to play" should never be a design goal...


Ha, good luck getting anyone to agree to that statement here. Sometimes I seriously believe that the 'leave-everything-as-it-is' crowd is just depressed and hopeless that EVE could ever grow large. Its either that or playing eve feeds a superiority complex, but in truth EVE is easy, you guys are no different or better than any other MMO community.



I'm sorry you continue to be unhappy with EVE and apparen'ty unhappy about the fact that more people aren't jumping on your 'progress' bandwagon, but that's a personal problem.

Some of us like what it is and want that continue rather than watch CCP stupidly chase the masses that won't come no matter what they try to do. Our experience so far with EVE (and other games) is that the choice is not between more people or less people, it's between people who like what EVE (and other sandboxy adult oriented games) is (which is a unique game that isn't for everyone one), and no people at all.


Jesus man how many times do I need to repeat to you that I don't want to ruin your game before it gets through to you. I have no power over the course of the games development more than my voice on these forums, here I can influence others.

Stop stalking me dude.


No one is stalking your unhappy with a video game...self. Simply trying to explain to you that your incessant crying about a game you don't like and according to you barely play is pretty stupid. As I explained to you before, just because people aren't all gung ho about your 'change' ides doesn't make those people have bad ideas, it's your ideas that are bad.

As long as you post on an open discussion board I'm going to respond to your nonsense. If you don't like it stop posting crap.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#73 - 2017-05-23 11:24:45 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Again you look at the issue from the perspective of the hauler and/or of the scammer not of the citadel owner.

There's absolutely nothing an owner can do to build a reputation before running out of business. The contract history is irrelevant since any scammer can issue contracts from a new alt each time and the contracts do not necessary belong to the citadel owners.

It might be spread sheets online but I doubt anyone enjoys completing an entire beaurocratic quest of clicking that results in mostly irrelevant data before accepting a contract. When it can all be fixed by repairing a defective mechanic.

With all the social engineering at work I think there is too much favoritism in this game when it comes to scamming.
Perhaps changing the saying "best ship in Eve is friendship" to "best ship in Eve is Bernie Madoff" is in order, eh?

I specifically acknowledged it is an issue for station owners.

You act like there is nothing you can do though. Several of the initial station owners cut deals with the major hauling companies to help get people to use their stations. Be creative or if you aren't, persevere and establish a track record that players will trust.

Still, no matter what you do, player stations will always have some risk attached to them. The owners could go AFK and they could run out of fuel, they could get exploded, or the owners could decide to cash out and fold-up their structures with no warning to the users. Most of your assets are protected, but you could still get caught out and lose a clone or some materials (or collateral on a hauling contract) plus have to deal with moving your stuff to a new base of operations. That's life in New Eden. You either HTFU and take your chances (or better yet find and establish trust with another player who owns a station) for the benefits, or keep your operations in an NPC station and 100% safe and pay more for that privilege.

I don't think there is any danger of citadels/ECs/platforms being considered too risky by the player-base. CCP bent over backwards to make them as safe as possible so they would be used, probably too safe given how fast they are proliferating and how few are being exploded. This over-abundance of competition and choice is hurting aspiring structure owners in attracting paying clients much more than the small, and largely avoidable with some research, risk of being scammed in a hauling contract. I mean, when the fees charged for services immediately trend to the lowest amount allowed by the UI (0.1%/0.01%, even 0%) you know they are far, far too safe as viewed by the free market.

But sure, as I said, let's add a 'dropbox'. That isn't going to suddenly make Citadel contracts 100% safe for haulers, but if it helps structure owners attract users somewhat, then add it to the list of all the other player-owned structure improvements CCP wants to get around to implementing.



I'm not having an issue with risk resulting out of player intention. I'm having an issue with mechanics being being flawed and allowing easy exploits. If it is ruthless, as intended, then should be ruthless for everyone.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Yaosus
Draconis Impalers
#74 - 2017-05-23 11:34:43 UTC
Free will =Progress.

Some citadels will become well known for honest trading while other will be avoided or blown up... you never know who are you scamming :)
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#75 - 2017-05-23 11:36:11 UTC
Khara Hirl wrote:
[quote=Shawn en Tilavine]BREAKING NEWS: CCP makes the game; players make the rules. Whatever rule CCP chooses to impose, good players will find ways to exploit it to their benefit. Nothing new here. Works as intended.

Uh no... I am a Senior Game Moderator and have been for 3 years on another mmorpg and no matter how much you want to think that you make the rules as a player, I can tell you the Dev team has the final say on everything. Also this is clearly not working as intended, if it is, ccp is out of their minds thinking this is even close to tolerable in an mmorpg in 2017. Times have changed, and I will stick by my original statement it's abusing a game mechanic that maybe they didn't realize would happen.


Except this is exactly how EVE has, and will continue to work, i mean, i appreciate you're new to this game, but EVE is harsh, not harsh like those games that claim to be harsh but secretly aren't, this game requires brains, it requires people to pay attention, its not going to hold your hand and protect you

Its best you learn this now rather than later https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvM7av1o1Q golden oldie that still applies very much :P
Sasha Nemtsov
Meteoros
#76 - 2017-05-23 11:38:28 UTC
ISD Max Trix wrote:
Why would CCP change it? It was the same way for Null Stations and Outpost, why wouldn't Citadels be the same way? If you look at the contact destination it says "Destination may not be accessible." or some such thing.


It seems to be a Highsec thing. Citadels are seen as 'your own little piece of sov' in an area of New Eden where there is no sov as a Nullsec dweller would understand it.

Unlike Nullsec though, the intermingling of 'neutrals' and others on a system-by-system basis in Highsec is entirely the norm, and thus the opportunity to scam the daylights out of players has introduced new opportunities for the entrepreneur of malign intent.

In my (heavily jaundiced) view, it doesn't make up for the clubbing to death of can-flipping and awoxing, which afforded the added attraction of making a public spectacle of the target, but it does go some way to preserving the PvP environment of Highsec.

In the same way that it's easy to avoid being ganked, it is simplicity itself to ward off the would-be contract scammer. As usual, only those will fall prey to such shenanigans as are likely to deserve to do so.

Carry on, CCP.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#77 - 2017-05-23 11:59:26 UTC
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
ISD Max Trix wrote:
Why would CCP change it? It was the same way for Null Stations and Outpost, why wouldn't Citadels be the same way? If you look at the contact destination it says "Destination may not be accessible." or some such thing.


It seems to be a Highsec thing. Citadels are seen as 'your own little piece of sov' in an area of New Eden where there is no sov as a Nullsec dweller would understand it.

Unlike Nullsec though, the intermingling of 'neutrals' and others on a system-by-system basis in Highsec is entirely the norm, and thus the opportunity to scam the daylights out of players has introduced new opportunities for the entrepreneur of malign intent.

In my (heavily jaundiced) view, it doesn't make up for the clubbing to death of can-flipping and awoxing, which afforded the added attraction of making a public spectacle of the target, but it does go some way to preserving the PvP environment of Highsec.

In the same way that it's easy to avoid being ganked, it is simplicity itself to ward off the would-be contract scammer. As usual, only those will fall prey to such shenanigans as are likely to deserve to do so.

Carry on, CCP.



An entrepreneur with malign intent inflitrates an organization and subverts it from inside. That's a difficult task and requires extensive planning, dedication, earning trust of the members etc.


I dont understand why you consider turning on and off a switch a great enterprise. Any cheeky baboon can do that and it does not make it harsh, rutheless gameplay, it makes it an annoyance easily avoided.

I don't see why you compare it to ganking because that requires a certain effort and timed dedication from the ganker. Nobody asked CCP to make it easier or to remove the intended risk element, the request is the removal of an exploit introduced by poorly implemented mechanics.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#78 - 2017-05-23 12:17:12 UTC
Yaosus wrote:
Free will =Progress.

Some citadels will become well known for honest trading while other will be avoided or blown up... you never know who are you scamming :)



As it should be. If a citadel owner is doing 'nefarious' things players should be using the tools they already have (ie communicating with others about the activities, war decs, hiring groups to destroy the citadel etc etc) rather than running straight to mommy CCP asking for a fix.

Why are we playing a game if we want the developers to play it for us?
Marek Kanenald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2017-05-23 12:17:37 UTC
Barricading your house so the mail delivery man can't give you a package and then suing him because he didn't deliver that package should not be a thing.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#80 - 2017-05-23 12:21:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yaosus wrote:
Free will =Progress.

Some citadels will become well known for honest trading while other will be avoided or blown up... you never know who are you scamming :)



As it should be. If a citadel owner is doing 'nefarious' things players should be using the tools they already have (ie communicating with others about the activities, war decs, hiring groups to destroy the citadel etc etc) rather than running straight to mommy CCP asking for a fix.

Why are we playing a game if we want the developers to play it for us?



Gameplay wise you have a dude posting memes on reddit while turning on and off a switch. Do you consider that challenging gameplay? Or gameplay at all?

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato