These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#381 - 2017-05-30 10:26:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Do you realise this is absurd?


I think anyone objective must recognize that this makes player owned structures very risky to anyone attempting to access them or work in them, that are not its owners.

In the space of a few clicks, they can block you accessing your purchased assets, existing assets there, contracted assets to be moved as well as delivery of assets contracted to that destination.



Risk taken is something calculated. You take risks knowing that you have a chance of positive outcome. Playing roulette implies you have a chance to win. If one side can assure themselves 100% chance of victory through game mechanics regardless of conjuncture and situation it is no longer a risk element but an exploit.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#382 - 2017-05-30 10:56:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Roulette is an RNG game of chance.

Someone attentive blocking your access to your assets, your purchase, or for purposes of pickup/delivery, nigh instantly, is not RNG, its deliberate and systemic.

Yes, I agree that is a problem, if the idea was diverting trade/occupation to player structures.



The best choice of action thus, is never, ever dealing with a player structure that you do not own.

In and of itself, that is well and fine, but it raises questions of why even bother with player structures that you do not own in the first place, to the conclusion that player structures are personal homes that nobody rational would ever use, except yourself as its owner.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#383 - 2017-05-30 11:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Roulette is an RNG game of chance.

Someone attentive blocking your access to your assets, your purchase, or for purposes of pickup/delivery, nigh instantly, is not RNG, its deliberate and systemic.

Yes, I agree that is a problem, if the idea was diverting trade/occupation to player structures.



The best choice of action thus, is never, ever dealing with a player structure that you do not own.

In and of itself, that is well and fine, but it raises questions of why even bother with player structures that you do not own in the first place.



That's exactly the point. If I remember well CCP anouncement was "We intend to introduce game play elements that will allow a market transition from being npc station based towards player owned sturcture based."

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#384 - 2017-05-30 11:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Roulette is an RNG game of chance.

Someone attentive blocking your access to your assets, your purchase, or for purposes of pickup/delivery, nigh instantly, is not RNG, its deliberate and systemic.

Yes, I agree that is a problem, if the idea was diverting trade/occupation to player structures.



The best choice of action thus, is never, ever dealing with a player structure that you do not own.

In and of itself, that is well and fine, but it raises questions of why even bother with player structures that you do not own in the first place.



That's exactly the point. If I remember well CCP anouncement was "We intend to introduce game play elements that will allow a market transition from being npc stations based towards player owned sturcture based."


Paraphrasing and CCPs hype aside, its clear that the existing system will not result in that stated result.

Anyone with any sense should avoid player structures for purchase/sales/storage/pickup/delivery.

Its a bad risk that can severely bite you in the butt just from a few clicks by the structure owner.

I guess we have a new Golden Rule now.

-Never deal with a player structure you dont own.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#385 - 2017-05-30 11:21:31 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Roulette is an RNG game of chance.

Someone attentive blocking your access to your assets, your purchase, or for purposes of pickup/delivery, nigh instantly, is not RNG, its deliberate and systemic.

Yes, I agree that is a problem, if the idea was diverting trade/occupation to player structures.



The best choice of action thus, is never, ever dealing with a player structure that you do not own.

In and of itself, that is well and fine, but it raises questions of why even bother with player structures that you do not own in the first place.



That's exactly the point. If I remember well CCP anouncement was "We intend to introduce game play elements that will allow a market transition from being npc stations based towards player owned sturcture based."


Paraphrasing and CCPs hype aside, its clear that the existing system will not result in that stated result.

Anyone with any sense should avoid player structures for purchase/sales/storage/pickup/delivery.

Its a bad risk that can severely bite you in the butt just from a few clicks by the structure owner.

I guess we have a new Golden Rule now.

-Never deal with a player structure you dont own.



More so, it is not a htfu situation since it can not be solved by playing the game and can only be resolved by not playing it.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#386 - 2017-05-30 11:32:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
TLDR:
Dont buy/sell/store/pickup/deliver @ player owned structures, unless you own it.

They can lock you out in a matter of seconds, and you will have to spend inordinate effort to get your stuff out again.
If you contract to an alt or someone else to get your stuff out, they can block all access without standing.
If you attempt blow it up, you must run a long, expensive campaign and they may unanchor.
If you succeed to blow it up, they lose only the structure, their assets are safe, and you have to pick your stuff up somewhere else inconvenient.

Its a crap deal.

Avoid player structures you dont own.



EVE 2017:


"Not my structure? Not my business!"
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#387 - 2017-05-30 12:36:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
TLDR:
Dont buy/sell/store/pickup/deliver @ player owned structures, unless you own it.

They can lock you out in a matter of seconds, and you will have to spend inordinate effort to get your stuff out again.
If you contract to an alt or someone else to get your stuff out, they can block all access without standing.
If you attempt blow it up, you must run a long, expensive campaign and they may unanchor.
If you succeed to blow it up, they lose only the structure, their assets are safe, and you have to pick your stuff up somewhere else inconvenient.

Its a crap deal.

Avoid player structures you dont own.



EVE 2017:


"Not my structure? Not my business!"





Quoting a quote from anothers poster profile:

"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

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#388 - 2017-05-30 13:04:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Well just read the whole thread, with the exception of the trolls that I have blocked, but got the normal flavour from those quoting them. I find it highly amusing that I have had such an impact on Jenn aSnide who dislikes my balance suggestions so much, I can imagine him holding his breath until he goes blue in the face with upset. I should point out to this troll that I have not been involved in any Anti-ganking activity for 3 months and 21 days, instead I have been blowing up ships belonging to one of the better null sec PvP alliances in fleet and small gang combat. I guess that makes me an AG player lol...

baltec1 stated that it was content, what he means by that is that some poor sap with no counter is going to pay for other peoples content, same as bumping freighters and same with this scam. Great content as always isn't it...


Personally I think that people should just not haul to player owned stations of any sort unless they have a very close relationship, for a while I was doing some hauling on my alt for people with no collateral, just my word as my bond and that was the only way I would move stuff to player owned stations. Sorry Citadel owners...

I think the real issue goes back to the ability to fix a massive collateral on a heap of junk, if the contract showed the value of the items carried against the collateral then the system would be self regulating, though of course that could be abused with some effort. Then people could assess risk there and then and not lose their shirt and end up with a full load of Trit for 8bn and those scammers with a brain will be adding in those useless high value items because they can, but at least that is effort...

Gimme Sake and Salvos had a very interesting exchange and I did like the focus on the RMT part, something that I had actually began to suspect myself due to the misuse of the collateral system on courier contracts. Anyway, had fun reading this thread, and that post by baltec1 on content, lol still makes me chuckle that...

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

Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#389 - 2017-05-30 13:15:33 UTC
Coralas wrote:


8 - Not only are you arguing by authority, which is already a logical fallacy, my oldest character is nearly 10 years old. Even though it does not matter in the slightest to any logical debate other than prove how badly constructed your argument is, when its based entirely on points I did not make. READ MY POSTS.

Federal Navy Academy 2007.08.02 08:03 to

both logically incorrect and factually incorrect in the one statement. Congrats!




Yet you're posting on a year old alt, i call BS without evidence mate, post with a main for some actual credibility, if you have PROOF of RMT then report it to CCP, until then nothing needs to be done, as i've said, CCP is already aware of when RMT is done, i mean, you can't honestly think that you're the only snowflake in EVE able to spot RMT :P

If its being used for RMT CCP will already be investigating the accounts involved and punishing them appropriately, nothing needs to be changed with regard sto ingame mechanics just because it "might" be used in a way that breaks the EULA, just punish those that use it to break the rules and be done with it
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#390 - 2017-05-30 13:41:09 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Well just read the whole thread, with the exception of the trolls that I have blocked, but got the normal flavour from those quoting them. I find it highly amusing that I have had such an impact on Jenn aSnide who dislikes my balance suggestions so much, I can imagine him holding his breath until he goes blue in the face with upset. I should point out to this troll that I have not been involved in any Anti-ganking activity for 3 months and 21 days, instead I have been blowing up ships belonging to one of the better null sec PvP alliances in fleet and small gang combat. I guess that makes me an AG player lol...

baltec1 stated that it was content, what he means by that is that some poor sap with no counter is going to pay for other peoples content, same as bumping freighters and same with this scam. Great content as always isn't it...


Personally I think that people should just not haul to player owned stations of any sort unless they have a very close relationship, for a while I was doing some hauling on my alt for people with no collateral, just my word as my bond and that was the only way I would move stuff to player owned stations. Sorry Citadel owners...

I think the real issue goes back to the ability to fix a massive collateral on a heap of junk, if the contract showed the value of the items carried against the collateral then the system would be self regulating, though of course that could be abused with some effort. Then people could assess risk there and then and not lose their shirt and end up with a full load of Trit for 8bn and those scammers with a brain will be adding in those useless high value items because they can, but at least that is effort...

Gimme Sake and Salvos had a very interesting exchange and I did like the focus on the RMT part, something that I had actually began to suspect myself due to the misuse of the collateral system on courier contracts. Anyway, had fun reading this thread, and that post by baltec1 on content, lol still makes me chuckle that...



You too are being subjective.

Anti ganking, scamming, RMT... is NOT the topic of this thread.


The topic of this thread is a certain mechanic (or lack off) introduced with the citadel patch that renders the intended (or some of the intended) purpose of player owned structures non functional. If you have any subjective observation regarding the mentioned please strip it off examples of valid game play elements you may dislike and consider unethical or unfair. We're not discussing EvE's nature but mechanics. It's reather simple, do they function as intended or not?



"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#391 - 2017-05-30 13:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
A) Improving the Contract spreadsheet UI with sortable pickup/delivery structure type columns has two effects:
--1) Clued players can easier sort the interface to avoid certain structures, which is available info anyways.
--2) Scammers have more credibility, as they can argue "why didnt you use the UI to check the pickup/destination type, st00pid nob".

B) I dont like that access/standings can be changed immediately. Its too easy for how significant it is over someone elses assets. I recommend a delay to it being enacted. Anywhere between 1-24hr works for me. Just so there is atleast an opportunity to react.

C) I abjectly hate Asset Safety, and find it completely contrary to EVE principles. Although that issue is adjoined here as the only recourse for someone to exact revenge on someone preventing access to their assets, its a matter for a separate dedicated topic.

D) As Gimme points out, the current, smartest status quo, is avoiding dealing with player structures altogether.

Its too high a risk, when the owner can investigate much of your data, and immediately block your access with just a few clicks, locking you out of access to assets/processes/contracts.

I get that there is a meta of a structure owner sitting like a spider in a web of contracts they extend through space to bait people in, but the immediacy and instancy of their control of access is out of whack. Just clicking a few times is too easy.

Result: Its heuristically stupid to do business/reside in player structures.
This contradicts the apparent purpose of player owned structures as a conducive step away from NPC ones.

As it is now, its categorically stupid to reside in or trade in a player structure you dont own.
They can lock you, your alts, and any contractor out with no notice, in a matter of seconds, separating you from your assets with no overt recourse to recovering them except destroying the structure.
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#392 - 2017-05-30 14:35:42 UTC
Sake, it's impossible to know if the mechanics work as intended since we cannot know CCP's intentions and so how do you evaluate it?

Imo scamming promotes a general lack of content due to mistrust, more than the 'content' the scam itself provides, especially since the scam will only work once unless the victim needs multiple examples to learn a lesson.

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

Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#393 - 2017-05-30 14:39:56 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) Improving the Contract spreadsheet UI with sortable pickup/delivery structure type columns has two effects:
--1) Clued players can easier sort the interface to avoid certain structures, which is available info anyways.
--2) Scammers have more credibility, as they can argue "why didnt you use the UI to check the pickup/destination type, st00pid nob".


The UI already has both a red < ! > on the contract search window and red text on the contract window stating that you might not be able to dock at the destination, people already have to ignore BOTH of these things in order to accept the contract, idiots will be idiots, i saw a guy in jita local yesterday keep buying fake navy vexors on contracts linked in
Aedaxus
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#394 - 2017-05-30 14:42:47 UTC
Cypherous wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) Improving the Contract spreadsheet UI with sortable pickup/delivery structure type columns has two effects:
--1) Clued players can easier sort the interface to avoid certain structures, which is available info anyways.
--2) Scammers have more credibility, as they can argue "why didnt you use the UI to check the pickup/destination type, st00pid nob".


The UI already has both a red < ! > on the contract search window and red text on the contract window stating that you might not be able to dock at the destination, people already have to ignore BOTH of these things in order to accept the contract, idiots will be idiots, i saw a guy in jita local yesterday keep buying fake navy vexors on contracts linked in

So, about an hour ago I gave someone 4 million ISK because he just needed that to buy something and would give it back 'soon' :D
I guess I won't see those 4 millions back any time.
Salvos Rhoska
#395 - 2017-05-30 14:44:56 UTC
Cypherous wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) Improving the Contract spreadsheet UI with sortable pickup/delivery structure type columns has two effects:
--1) Clued players can easier sort the interface to avoid certain structures, which is available info anyways.
--2) Scammers have more credibility, as they can argue "why didnt you use the UI to check the pickup/destination type, st00pid nob".


The UI already has both a red < ! > on the contract search window and red text on the contract window stating that you might not be able to dock at the destination, people already have to ignore BOTH of these things in order to accept the contract, idiots will be idiots, i saw a guy in jita local yesterday keep buying fake navy vexors on contracts linked in


But that doesnt allow for sorting of pickup or destination by structure type on the spreadsheet.

The info is already free and available.
Adding 2 columns to the Contract spreadsheet is just a UI improvement.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#396 - 2017-05-30 14:55:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Cypherous wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) Improving the Contract spreadsheet UI with sortable pickup/delivery structure type columns has two effects:
--1) Clued players can easier sort the interface to avoid certain structures, which is available info anyways.
--2) Scammers have more credibility, as they can argue "why didnt you use the UI to check the pickup/destination type, st00pid nob".


The UI already has both a red < ! > on the contract search window and red text on the contract window stating that you might not be able to dock at the destination, people already have to ignore BOTH of these things in order to accept the contract, idiots will be idiots, i saw a guy in jita local yesterday keep buying fake navy vexors on contracts linked in



Some people cling to the idea that you can fix stupid. They never let that idea go for some reason. Oh, and people do not read signs at all. Right after college I went to work for a Hospital as a security guard. The ER had 2 entrances, one automatic for people/patients and a big entrance for ambulance crews and patients on stretchers accessible by keypad only. the Ambulance entrance had BIG RED LETTERS on it saying "not an entrance".

I spent a year and a half watching people who weren't even in a hurry walk right up to that door and stop, turn around , look at me and ask me what was wrong with the door...while standing next to the BIG RED LETTERS that said "not an entrance".


This is why EVE online is now chocked full to the gills with safety measures (actual safeties, and pop ups telling you to not do things, etc) and yet people still can't figure it out. I experienced this just last night, I had some stuff from corp accidentally delivered to my alt so I opened up the inventory so I could put the stuff in a corp hangar I don't have access too.

I got a pop up telling me that if I put it in there I won't be able to get it back out. WELL DUH, you mean to tell me that the corp hangar WITH THE BIG BED X OVER IT is a place where I can't get stuff back from if I put it there? What form of injustice be this???
Of course, the real injustice is that this pop up can only exist because multiple people complained over the years that they put stuff in hangers without checking to see if they could get it out when they wanted so CCP needs to do something about that..

We hope for such big things and progress for humankind when at the same time those humans can't figure out a video game...
Salvos Rhoska
#397 - 2017-05-30 14:57:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Just add 2 columns to the Contract spreadsheet UI.

That is an improvement to the UI.
Its free and available info.

Simple as that.

No need to get upset about it.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#398 - 2017-05-30 14:57:59 UTC
Cypherous wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
A) Improving the Contract spreadsheet UI with sortable pickup/delivery structure type columns has two effects:
--1) Clued players can easier sort the interface to avoid certain structures, which is available info anyways.
--2) Scammers have more credibility, as they can argue "why didnt you use the UI to check the pickup/destination type, st00pid nob".


The UI already has both a red < ! > on the contract search window and red text on the contract window stating that you might not be able to dock at the destination, people already have to ignore BOTH of these things in order to accept the contract, idiots will be idiots, i saw a guy in jita local yesterday keep buying fake navy vexors on contracts linked in



You can buy from the market as well. The citadel owner can lock you out and freeze your assets. The only sollution to avoid it is not to buy from Citadels.


"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#399 - 2017-05-30 14:59:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Sake, it's impossible to know if the mechanics work as intended since we cannot know CCP's intentions and so how do you evaluate it?

Imo scamming promotes a general lack of content due to mistrust, more than the 'content' the scam itself provides, especially since the scam will only work once unless the victim needs multiple examples to learn a lesson.




As stated by CCP the intention was to shift market activity from npc stations to player owned structures.

AFAIK

"Trust no one"
is one of EvE mottos.

"Trust no mechanic"
would be something new.

"Don't buy something you can not collect"
would be another.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#400 - 2017-05-30 15:20:46 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Well just read the whole thread, with the exception of the trolls that I have blocked, but got the normal flavour from those quoting them. I find it highly amusing that I have had such an impact on Jenn aSnide who dislikes my balance suggestions so much, I can imagine him holding his breath until he goes blue in the face with upset. I should point out to this troll that I have not been involved in any Anti-ganking activity for 3 months and 21 days, instead I have been blowing up ships belonging to one of the better null sec PvP alliances in fleet and small gang combat. I guess that makes me an AG player lol...

baltec1 stated that it was content, what he means by that is that some poor sap with no counter is going to pay for other peoples content, same as bumping freighters and same with this scam. Great content as always isn't it...


Personally I think that people should just not haul to player owned stations of any sort unless they have a very close relationship, for a while I was doing some hauling on my alt for people with no collateral, just my word as my bond and that was the only way I would move stuff to player owned stations. Sorry Citadel owners...

I think the real issue goes back to the ability to fix a massive collateral on a heap of junk, if the contract showed the value of the items carried against the collateral then the system would be self regulating, though of course that could be abused with some effort. Then people could assess risk there and then and not lose their shirt and end up with a full load of Trit for 8bn and those scammers with a brain will be adding in those useless high value items because they can, but at least that is effort...

Gimme Sake and Salvos had a very interesting exchange and I did like the focus on the RMT part, something that I had actually began to suspect myself due to the misuse of the collateral system on courier contracts. Anyway, had fun reading this thread, and that post by baltec1 on content, lol still makes me chuckle that...


You too are being subjective.

Anti ganking, scamming, RMT... is NOT the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread is a certain mechanic (or lack off) introduced with the citadel patch that renders the intended (or some of the intended) purpose of player owned structures non functional. If you have any subjective observation regarding the mentioned please strip it off examples of valid game play elements you may dislike and consider unethical or unfair. We're not discussing EvE's nature but mechanics. It's reather simple, do they function as intended or not?


I will bite, not subjective, merely observational on the response that you had from some people, for example Jenn was aiming that point about an AG position at me and Herzog, not sure why it was important to Jenn, but he is rather crazy. I merely commented on the potential RMT angle of this scam as being something that I had wondered about.

I have always focused on game balance, I prefer not to get into unethical in a game where you can chose to be good , bad or both as the mood takes you, even unfair is a bit naff as a concept, but game balance is very important.

I suggested that the real issue here is the lack of information on the real value of the goods within the courier contract, if there was a calculated value placed on the items to enable the hauler to compare against the collateral then there would be no real issue. I am very aware that smart players will manipulate it using margin trading on certain blue items, but that requires effort and for me that game balance is about right.. With that change the issue would become less stark because it would not be the vast sums scammed that we have now and therefore less value in doing it, but still allowing smart people to scam and maintain the current mechanics around citadel docking.

As people have quite rightly suggested there is currently no counter, I suggested a way to check the value of the contract so the hauler only has the difference between the real value of the cargo and the collateral and he can chose to take that risk. Easy fix in my opinion.

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