These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#161 - 2017-05-23 20:33:51 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Doesn't the same apply to a Jita local scammer?
Sure. There should always be an out.

There's a simple one for Jita spam scammers.

Don't be a moron. Or if you can't manage that, then close local. And while you can do what I suggested way back on page one and simply not accept couriers to citadels. It's not a very elegant or balanced solution.

Scamming the scammer is much more fun.

Mr Epeen Cool



Isn't that the same here...don't be a moron...or more politely, if you are not up for that level of risk...don't take it on?

Why have Mama CCP come fix things?

"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
#162 - 2017-05-23 20:38:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Epeen
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Doesn't the same apply to a Jita local scammer?
Sure. There should always be an out.

There's a simple one for Jita spam scammers.

Don't be a moron. Or if you can't manage that, then close local. And while you can do what I suggested way back on page one and simply not accept couriers to citadels. It's not a very elegant or balanced solution.

Scamming the scammer is much more fun.

Mr Epeen Cool



Isn't that the same here...don't be a moron...or more politely, if you are not up for that level of risk...don't take it on?

Why have Mama CCP come fix things?
Not fix. Balance.

You know, the same thing they've been doing since day one. Can you imagine what the game would be like if they left all their mistakes and player discovered exploits in for the last thirteen years?

No. You can't. It would have shut down ten years ago.

Mr Epeen Cool
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#163 - 2017-05-23 20:41:15 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jones Beach wrote:

There is a big red warning that you get when you consider accepting this type contract telling you that you might not be able to complete it because the destination is player owned. What more do you need?


Apparently, that big red WARNING is not enough lol.


Watch this video and notice how many warnings there are of the bridge height, and how it doesn't help. If they raised the bridge, problem solved.

This is relevant to eve where many mechanics exist to trip you up, with some warning, where a better solution would be fixing the mechanic in question.


This is exactly the kind of thinking that is disastrous in a video game. Why can't you see it, why can't you see that DEVs trying to make it easier for people does not work? What has happened in the past is CCP tried to fix the game for dumb people and the dumb people kept being dumb and the smarter people got bored (and some left).

And why do you want a game full of stupid people that can't figure out how to read a sign like the people in your video?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#164 - 2017-05-23 20:45:19 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jones Beach wrote:

There is a big red warning that you get when you consider accepting this type contract telling you that you might not be able to complete it because the destination is player owned. What more do you need?


Apparently, that big red WARNING is not enough lol.


Watch this video and notice how many warnings there are of the bridge height, and how it doesn't help. If they raised the bridge, problem solved.

This is relevant to eve where many mechanics exist to trip you up, with some warning, where a better solution would be fixing the mechanic in question.


"They" can't raise that bridge because the entity that own the bridge does not give one **** about it. It's a railway bridge so that mean it's owned by the rail line and to them, the only issue this actually bring is they have to have a crew check the solidity of the bridge more often because there are crash every month or so. This mean the bridge will never get raised unless it falls because the cost will pretty much never be justified from their point of view.

The only thing the city/county/state could have tried is lowering the street under the bridge except apparently, there is a sewage line underneath it that prevent the street from getting lower.

The countless accident aren't because the signs are bad or the street/bridge combo design but because drivers are too stupid to know how tall their trucks are.
Dungheap
DHCOx
#165 - 2017-05-23 20:46:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Dungheap
Mr Epeen wrote:
I've seen some videos where pilots accept scam courier contracts and flip them on the scammer for laughs and profit.
If that can be done in high sec with citadel contracts then all is fine. If the only option is to lose, then CCP might want to have a closer look at the mechanic.
Mr Epeen Cool


yes , in null-sec , there's a big difference . and the reason the red warning is on courier contracts ..
but you're not going to deny all docking rights to a null-sec station , your corp / alliance needs that access . a privately owned citadel is a different story , and there's no consequences to flipping access on and off .

imo people have been looking at a "lock-box" mechanic in the wrong light ; it's not something that should be imposed on station owners . offer it as an extra-cost module the owner buys , and installs . holding 24 hours fuel , it's purpose to allow delivery if the station runs out of fuel . a "show info" on the station will show it's status , and it will have a 24 hour timer if the owner decides to take it down , as well as other safeguards to prevent abuse .

let owners offer this as an extra feature , and incentive , to do business at their station instead of the many competitors .
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#166 - 2017-05-23 20:54:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Doesn't the same apply to a Jita local scammer?
Sure. There should always be an out.

There's a simple one for Jita spam scammers.

Don't be a moron. Or if you can't manage that, then close local. And while you can do what I suggested way back on page one and simply not accept couriers to citadels. It's not a very elegant or balanced solution.

Scamming the scammer is much more fun.

Mr Epeen Cool



Isn't that the same here...don't be a moron...or more politely, if you are not up for that level of risk...don't take it on?

Why have Mama CCP come fix things?
Not fix. Balance.

You know, the same thing they've been doing since day one. Can you imagine what the game would be like if they left all their mistakes and player discovered exploits in for the last thirteen years?

No. You can't. It would have shut down ten years ago.

Mr Epeen Cool


You are not balancing you are removing risk. People's tolerance for risk varies. People should be allowed to engage in risky behavior if they wish.

Somebody pointed it out. If over time this kind of thing becomes an issue the rewards for courier contracts to citadels will rise. Thus the reward goes up along with the risk. However, if you are imprudent and just accept a contract after closing the warning popup and not reading it....well that person was imprudent. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

I think I’ll keep putting this into my responses in this thread: Whatever risk a player faces, that risk is largely determined by that player’s actions. If you take imprudent and foolish actions and your risk goes up, then do not take the foolish and imprudent actions. And don’t blame the players who are taking advantage of your imprudence and foolishness…that is pretty much what the game is about after all.

"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
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#167 - 2017-05-23 20:56:09 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jones Beach wrote:

There is a big red warning that you get when you consider accepting this type contract telling you that you might not be able to complete it because the destination is player owned. What more do you need?


Apparently, that big red WARNING is not enough lol.


Watch this video and notice how many warnings there are of the bridge height, and how it doesn't help. If they raised the bridge, problem solved.

This is relevant to eve where many mechanics exist to trip you up, with some warning, where a better solution would be fixing the mechanic in question.


"They" can't raise that bridge because the entity that own the bridge does not give one **** about it. It's a railway bridge so that mean it's owned by the rail line and to them, the only issue this actually bring is they have to have a crew check the solidity of the bridge more often because there are crash every month or so. This mean the bridge will never get raised unless it falls because the cost will pretty much never be justified from their point of view.

The only thing the city/county/state could have tried is lowering the street under the bridge except apparently, there is a sewage line underneath it that prevent the street from getting lower.

The countless accident aren't because the signs are bad or the street/bridge combo design but because drivers are too stupid to know how tall their trucks are.


You can't patch out stupid.

As a result everyone wanting to remove this mechanic are implicitly rewarding stupid.

Good job.

"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

tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Northern Coalition.
#168 - 2017-05-23 21:01:01 UTC  |  Edited by: tiberiusric
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!



See the thing here is Vets dont want new players to stay, thats why youre getting trolled. They know that really it shouldnt happened but hey they will argue against it, why well because they are trolling. See Vets dont like change, and the people here in this thread love trolling new players, and well ultimately driving them away from the game, hence why newbies leave. What you see here, sad as it is, is the worse part of the community, the angry part who really dont want to help but just like to troll the forums. So dont take it to heart just well ignore them tbh. They maybe right in what they say, but anger is their only way to communicate. Eve does that.

But in your instance citadels and stations are player owned, they can do what they want, you actually probably didnt have access to it in the first place, if you see the 'might not be accessible' next contract proceed with caution, in fact don't even risk unless your damn sure you have access.

Always always read contracts thoroughly 10x over if need be....

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#169 - 2017-05-23 21:01:41 UTC
Dungheap wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
I've seen some videos where pilots accept scam courier contracts and flip them on the scammer for laughs and profit.
If that can be done in high sec with citadel contracts then all is fine. If the only option is to lose, then CCP might want to have a closer look at the mechanic.
Mr Epeen Cool


yes , in null-sec , there's a big difference . and the reason the red warning is on courier contracts ..
but you're not going to deny all docking rights to a null-sec station , your corp / alliance needs that access . a privately owned citadel is a different story , and there's no consequences to flipping access on and off .

imo people have been looking at a "lock-box" mechanic in the wrong light ; it's not something that should be imposed on station owners . offer it as an extra-cost module the owner buys , and installs . holding 24 hours fuel , it's purpose to allow delivery if the station runs out of fuel . a "show info" on the station will show it's status , and it will have a 24 hour timer if the owner decides to take it down , as well as other safeguards to prevent abuse .

let owners offer this as an extra feature , and incentive , to do business at their station instead of the many competitors .



Consequences should be imposed by players. Start up a blacklist for citadels that do this. Go destroy the citadel. If you and other players are unwilling to impose consequences...that is on you.

"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
#170 - 2017-05-23 21:02:09 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
You are not balancing you are removing risk.


There should be no risk for scammers?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Mine differs from yours. I'd like to see risk for all parties. Not just the filthy carebears.

Mr Epeen Cool
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#171 - 2017-05-23 21:07:02 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
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!



See the thing here is Vets dont want new players to stay, thats why youre getting trolled. They know that really it shouldnt happened but hey they will argue against it, why well because they are trolling. See Vets dont like change, and the people here in this thread love trolling new players, and well ultimately driving them away from the game, hence why newbies leave.

But in your instance citadels and stations are player owned, they can do what they want, you actually probably didnt have access to it in the first place, if you see the 'might not be accessible' next contract proceed with caution, in fact don't even risk unless your damn sure you have access.

Always always read contracts thoroughly 10x over if need be....


Please go full stupid.

"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
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#172 - 2017-05-23 21:09:05 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
You are not balancing you are removing risk.


There should be no risk for scammers?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Mine differs from yours. I'd like to see risk for all parties. Not just the filthy carebears.

Mr Epeen Cool


You are removing risk from courier contracts or at least reducing it.

And a prudent scammer should face little risk. For example, what risk is there for the Jita scammer using contract links in local? Not much.

And as a corollary, careful what you wish for, a top down imposed reduction to risk like this will reduce the rewards that accrue to courier contracts.

"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

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#173 - 2017-05-23 21:18:27 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


You can't patch out stupid.

As a result everyone wanting to remove this mechanic are implicitly rewarding stupid.

Good job.


Which is exactly the point of my opposition. I watch stupid get rewarded all day in real life , then I found EVE, a game that punished stupid.

And then I met people on the EVE forum that want to reward stupid. Which is stupid lol.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#174 - 2017-05-23 21:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
tiberiusric wrote:
See the thing here is Vets dont want new players to stay, thats why youre getting trolled.
That's bollocks, of course older players want new players to stay, but we want them to stay because they like Eve for the niche game that it is, not because it's been watered down into WoW in space due to the demands of those that can't take responsibility for their choices and actions in Eve.

Quote:
They know that really it shouldnt happened but hey they will argue against it, why well because they are trolling. See Vets dont like change,
Pointless change is what we don't like, there are already ways and means around virtually every perceived problem that people have with Eve, many people are just too damn lazy to use them.

Thinking before doing and expending a little effort means that most of the changes demanded by people aren't actually needed at all; apparently that's too much to ask Roll

Quote:
and the people here in this thread love trolling new players, and well ultimately driving them away from the game, hence why newbies leave. What you see here, sad as it is, is the worse part of the community, the angry part who really dont want to help but just like to troll the forums. So dont take it to heart just well ignore them tbh. They maybe right in what they say, but anger is their only way to communicate. Eve does that.
You have proof that newbies leave because they get trolled, or are you just blowing hot air through your sphincter?

Quote:

But in your instance citadels and stations are player owned, they can do what they want, you actually probably didnt have access to it in the first place, if you see the 'might not be accessible' next contract proceed with caution, in fact don't even risk unless your damn sure you have access.

Always always read contracts thoroughly 10x over if need be....
The only sensible and factual part of your post, congratulations.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Orin Solette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2017-05-23 22:00:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:
It's a pretty stupid mechanic that forces citadel owners to lug items from an NPC station to their citadel instead of having it directly delivered.

But, like every horrible design decision in EVE, we have people defending it because it oughta teach those hopeless carebears what's what. Kinda sad.

But yeah, bad mechanic. A dropbox sounds like a great solution. If you wanna grief a hauler there are other ways to do it. But that would require you to put some effort into it.


It is the same mechanic that has been around for player owned stations and outposts. Everyone in NS and who do business there know not to accept them unless you have access and are highly likely to retain said access.

HS players just don't pay attention and want to shift the risks they take onto others or even better have CCP simply remove that risk entirely.

Which is truly hilarious in that the very same people complaining about risk vs. reward want to remove risk...for themselves.


"It's been around forever" is not an argument for keeping things the way they are.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#176 - 2017-05-23 22:09:28 UTC
Orin Solette wrote:
"It's been around forever" is not an argument for keeping things the way they are.
People choose to take courier contracts to citadels, they choose to ignore the warning that the destination may not be accessible, and then they whine on the forums about it.

Given that there are already ways to not get caught by it, and that those who do get caught by it are warned beforehand about it, why shouldn't the owners of a citadel/outpost remain able to lock people out of it?

Your choices have consequences here; especially foolish choices. One of the possible consequences of taking a courier contract to a player owned structure is that you might not be able to complete the contract.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#177 - 2017-05-23 22:11:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Orin Solette wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:
It's a pretty stupid mechanic that forces citadel owners to lug items from an NPC station to their citadel instead of having it directly delivered.

But, like every horrible design decision in EVE, we have people defending it because it oughta teach those hopeless carebears what's what. Kinda sad.

But yeah, bad mechanic. A dropbox sounds like a great solution. If you wanna grief a hauler there are other ways to do it. But that would require you to put some effort into it.


It is the same mechanic that has been around for player owned stations and outposts. Everyone in NS and who do business there know not to accept them unless you have access and are highly likely to retain said access.

HS players just don't pay attention and want to shift the risks they take onto others or even better have CCP simply remove that risk entirely.

Which is truly hilarious in that the very same people complaining about risk vs. reward want to remove risk...for themselves.


"It's been around forever" is not an argument for keeping things the way they are.


That was not my argument. I'll be more precise:

1. This mechanic has long been part of NS.
2. NS players have adapted to it.
3. The adaption is to not take such contracts, no matter how lucrative they appear unless you have access and are quite confident you are going to retain said access.
4. HS players do not pay attention to these kinds of fine points and want to either shift such risk to other players or even better remove it.

The solution is for HS players to adapt to this mechanic.

This is a game of choices and consequences. Make good choices you’ll do well. Make bad choices and you won’t. Loses players incur for making bad choices are via other players noting the bad choice and taking advantage of it. That is pretty much the core of the game. You make a mistake and then another player exploits it if they notice it. Not paying attention to local while ratting…oops that T3 cruiser has you now. Blind jumping to a beacon in your capital ship…oops now you are caught in a bubble and a cyno is going up. Over loaded your freighter that you fit with cargo expanders….oops now you are being bumped and the gank fleet just landed.

"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

Wanda Fayne
#178 - 2017-05-23 22:12:48 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Orin Solette wrote:
"It's been around forever" is not an argument for keeping things the way they are.
People choose to take courier contracts to citadels, they choose to ignore the warning that the destination may not be accessible, and then they whine on the forums about it.

Given that there are already ways to not get caught by it, and that those who do get caught by it are warned beforehand about it, why shouldn't the owners of a citadel/outpost remain able to lock people out of it?

Your choices have consequences here; especially foolish choices. One of the possible consequences of taking a courier contract to a player owned structure is that you might not be able to complete the contract.


The only way to not get caught is to just not do courier contracts to citadels.

There is no other way to avoid this.

Great gameplay...

"your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic" -Lan Wang-

  • - "hub humping station gamey neutral logi warspam wankery" -Ralph King-Griffin-
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#179 - 2017-05-23 22:34:40 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jones Beach wrote:

There is a big red warning that you get when you consider accepting this type contract telling you that you might not be able to complete it because the destination is player owned. What more do you need?


Apparently, that big red WARNING is not enough lol.


Watch this video and notice how many warnings there are of the bridge height, and how it doesn't help. If they raised the bridge, problem solved.

This is relevant to eve where many mechanics exist to trip you up, with some warning, where a better solution would be fixing the mechanic in question.


This is exactly the kind of thinking that is disastrous in a video game. Why can't you see it, why can't you see that DEVs trying to make it easier for people does not work? What has happened in the past is CCP tried to fix the game for dumb people and the dumb people kept being dumb and the smarter people got bored (and some left).

And why do you want a game full of stupid people that can't figure out how to read a sign like the people in your video?


Disastrous how? You just repeat yourself that 'catering to the stupid' is going to kill eve. This video proves the world is full of stupid people, who don't read warnings. They'll still complain when their reality comes crashing down. If you don't want the complaints in the first place, you design to tolerate 'stupid' people. Now of course, this is not to say 'make eve simple', but it is to say that there should be a shallow end where stupid people can be themselves and have a good time.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#180 - 2017-05-23 23:08:56 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Jones Beach wrote:

There is a big red warning that you get when you consider accepting this type contract telling you that you might not be able to complete it because the destination is player owned. What more do you need?


Apparently, that big red WARNING is not enough lol.


Watch this video and notice how many warnings there are of the bridge height, and how it doesn't help. If they raised the bridge, problem solved.

This is relevant to eve where many mechanics exist to trip you up, with some warning, where a better solution would be fixing the mechanic in question.


This is exactly the kind of thinking that is disastrous in a video game. Why can't you see it, why can't you see that DEVs trying to make it easier for people does not work? What has happened in the past is CCP tried to fix the game for dumb people and the dumb people kept being dumb and the smarter people got bored (and some left).

And why do you want a game full of stupid people that can't figure out how to read a sign like the people in your video?


Disastrous how? You just repeat yourself that 'catering to the stupid' is going to kill eve. This video proves the world is full of stupid people, who don't read warnings. They'll still complain when their reality comes crashing down. If you don't want the complaints in the first place, you design to tolerate 'stupid' people. Now of course, this is not to say 'make eve simple', but it is to say that there should be a shallow end where stupid people can be themselves and have a good time.


Then let the stupid whine and complain, but don't change the game to accommodate stupid.

"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