EVE General Discussion

You do realize that you contradict yourself here.

Nobody denies that CCP has created the EULA and TOS, nor do they deny that CCP can change both of those at their discretion. Further, the EULA and TOS are very sparse in terms of what players can and can't do in game.

However, you then go on to note that given the EULA and TOS players go on to develop their own set of "rules" in game. Rules for what is and is not acceptable. For example, where you can rat when you join Alliance XYZ. What is necessary to join corporation ABC, etc. Yes, that stuff may very well change when the EULA and TOS change, but thankfully CCP changes those things infrequently and the last one was with a warning and lead time so players could wind down various activities.

Yes, CCP own everything. But CCP has also been extremely liberal in what people do with "their" stuff. As such, we get all sorts of things happening. And some (most?) of it CCP either did not intend or anticipate.

I do love all this rubbish about risk that certain people sprout forth about.

What I did was move stuff for people I knew well, they trusted me and I trusted them, there was no need for collateral because if I did something wrong I would make it right for them, if I did everything right and they lost their stuff then it was how it was. I never lost a single cargo. The thing is that I moved stuff how I wanted to move it, so if it was a heavy load of expensive stuff I woudl split it up.

I see Jenn arguing like mad that people are asking for:

Quote:

ie have mechanically enforced safeties and guarantees against loss).

But for me being locked into a courier contract like that was a mechanically enforced guarantee of loss and easy pickings for others which is why I did not do it.

People like Jenn and others miss the important thing that mechanics need to have balance, for me being locked into the ship to transport stuff by the size was not acceptable, neither was a system of collateral which had no relation to the items involved, so my finely honed sense of risk said no way.

I had a limited number of clients and I would also move bling ships and stuff especially for people caught in war decs, it was not that well paid as I did it for friends and pretty sporadic, but it added to my wealth and was different game play. During the early period that I did this, I did use freighters, but dropped them completely once I decided that there was no counter to bumping.

So for them deciding that there is no end counter for my situation is risk averse as some sort of cry baby comment, well there you go dumb is dumb... and it is always the same people...

Let me repeat it so even the most idiotic troll can get it.

The courier contract system is a mechanic, that mechanic due to certain restrictions, such as cargo size imposes increased level of risk, most notably that which prevents you from splitting up the cargo into less appetising chunks, for me that simple fact along with the lack of real knowledge on the value of the cargo are failures in this mechanic and thus makes the risk too great.

What we have here is a mechanically enforced increased risk, so my suggestion is of course to offset that imbalance which is simply a game generated assessment of the value of the cargo carried to compare against the collateral, by that means I can assess the risk of being locked out of a citadel, because all I would lose is the difference between the real value and the collateral and if it was too out of wrack I would not take the contract. At the moment this does not allow you to control risk.

I had a good look at the ways to assess risk in terms of hauling to player owned structures and talked to numerous people who did this.


Surely even the most idiotic troll cannot attempt to equate this with a war combat situation, where is the mechanic in Teckos's example that forced the Super into that position, do you mean using it to entosis something or blap a POCO, both can be done with smaller ships, while in my example I am stuck with having to use the most vulnerable ship possible, as I said dumb is dumb and in the case of Teckos even dumber than that.




You really are rather bad at this mate, sometimes I read your posts because I see them as having the same level of looney toons as Jenn and that says something....

And talking about dumb here is a very old very salty useless bitter vet being dumb yet again.

While it's not specifically Red Frog's white list and criteria, the information is publicly available for one of their subsidiaries Black Frog Logistics.

It's probably fairly safe to assume that Red Frog's criteria are similar.

Except I don't live in hisec....

EDIT: I deleted a long rambling as I thought it was opening of an old can of worms.

tl; dr, I contracdict myself becasue I have contradicting feelings. On one hand I feel there's still a lot of freedom in EVE that goes beyond many other games. But on the other hand I feel as below (which is the final paragraph I will leave intact from my post)

"... I feel like quite a few things got hammered away inch by inch. Each time most people felt it was a sensible decision that CCP made, 'for the good of the game'. But after years, with an accumulated list of such little things that got taken away, things do feel a bit different, for me anyways. :p"

Wow, now I am impressed.

Hey everyone, Dracvlad does not live in HS! Aren't you all impressed?

I feel that way too.

CCP and the people who support ever more "tweaks" (nerfs) seem to not see the forest for the trees. On it's own a mailbox to someone else's citadel doesn't seem like a big deal till you realize it is just the next little thing going in the wrong direction. CCP should be opening up ways for people to screw with each other (and get screwed back in turn) instead of adding comfort and safety mechanics.

EVE was a growing game when it was easier to screw with people, and it was easier to screw back because there are always something the 'bad guys' didn't know and a smart player could use that. Safing up the game doesn't make the safety crowd happier (this is impossible, it doesn't stop the 'screw with folks' people (they just figure out new ways to screw with folks) either. Worst of all , safing up the game makes the BAD GUYS safer too...

The people who get shafted are the creative people who lived to find the gankers/scammers/awoxxers flaws and didn't need CCPs help in the 1st place.

DV;DR?