EVE General Discussion

I don't know why you can't see the flaws in what you are saying, you used to be one of the clear thinkers.

Look at your own example. In that one you're telling the new player to take INDIVIDUAL ACTION (fit a ceptor) for their own benefit.

But with this courier stuff you are telling people "don't even try to take individual action" (like avoiding citadels while you still can), you are saying that the ONLY answer is CCP intervention (new mechanics/drop boxes), which would be just like telling a new player "if you want to go to null, don't, even interceptors can die, just beg CCP to magically teleport you and your asset to null sec"...

Or just you know blow up the citadel.

It is not me telling players not to take individual action; check the thread and see which posters have made that affirmation. "Avoiding scams is easy, don't take citadel contracts".

I only suggested that, instead of giving that advice maybe they should consider a change in mechanics.

In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.

"There is no risk for the ganker, the catalyst getting CONCORDED is insignifigant. That is just one sided gameplay". Which is the other thing you are doing that is like the anti-gankers.

People that hate something ALWAYS focus on the 'lack of cost and one sided unfairness" of the thing they dislike.

You and I both have been telling the anti-gankers "it doesn't matter what it 'cost' the ganker, your job is to not get ganked in the 1st -place, USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE instead of running to CCP for help" for several years now, which is why I'm shocked to see you using the anti-gankers playbook about an issue/game mechanics you don't like.

It smacks of hypocrisy TBH.

WTF is wrong with you man? You can't be serious. And you know I don't do scams (or ganking or other bad guy stuff). Hell, i don't do high sec at all.

And alts? Again, WTF man, I don't post on my alts here?, you think that the people telling you you are wrong about this are my alts? You think I'd stoop to doing the thing I laugh at others for doing?

You've known me on this forum for years, we've liked each others posts over and over, we've jointly confronted the whiney entitled losers who can't play a video game to the point of asking for help from CCP. You know better.

You really need to take a break, you're losing it.

There is something wrong with you. You just said that if I don't scam why am I talking about this.

Did you forget that in this thread you typed the words "I don't haul"? Why are YOU talking about it then?

You're a hypocrite, and any respect I once had for you is gone.



We are not differing. You are wrong and refusing to acknowledge it despite the fact that it's been explain to you. Don't worry, I know you aren't worth replying to further.

Well said.

Thing is is it possible to avoid scams even this one. I deal with the issue IRL (scammers always go after the vulnerable, people in financial trouble, "pie in the sky" get rich quick types, desperate people trying to find 'love' and the elderly).

We TEACH them how to avoid scams, for example with the elderly we tell them that if someone calls saying they represent a loved one and need money, call the loved one directly to see if it's true (it always isn't).

We tell people to never send money to people they met on the internet who "were on their way to the airport but had a car crash and are in the hospital and now need money for treatment". That actually happens btw.

We tell people to not give out passwords to people who call and say "I'm with your phone/internet provider and there is a problem", because real phone companies/ISPs NEVER ask you for your password over the phone and never call you about a problem like that anyways.

In game as IRL it's as simple as giving people knowledge of the tools you already have to keep yourself safe. But the same way the government (people like me) can't keep people 100% safe from IRL scams despite all the laws we have against them, CCP can't prevent players from falling from scams that rely on them not reading a safety pop up.

My main issue with this is that it's kind of an action without a counter. At it's heart I view Eve as a "rock/paper/scissors" type game. There is almost always a way to succeed (though you may not have the resources to make it happen).

In the case of this particular issue... there really isn't one. If you read the contract, check your access... do everything right... and then after you accept the contract your access gets dropped... you're left without options. The only way to "win" that exchange is to not play.

Having an exterior "drop box" (like you have at a library where you can drop your books off even when the building is not open)... seems to add that. You can still create contracts in low-sec or null and try to gank the delivery person... but it becomes a contest between the hauler and the ganker/contract maker... which is GREAT. What we have now doesn't add content... because the delivery man is unable to make the delivery.

And yes... it can be avoided by never taking a courier job delivering to a citadel. But that action (once everyone finally figures out that is the only response to this that will work) results in no courier deliveries to citadels being possible. I can't see how that is a good thing. If the successful action is to not play a part of the game... you have a problem.

Can we say way over simplified.

The solution is thus: IF you do not want that kind of risk, then do not take that kind of risk.

The point is each player should evaluate how much risk they want and are willing to take on and then act accordingly.

And no, not every form of PvP has an active counter.

Consequences in this game generally should not be imposed mechanically, but instead by players. This is the problem, by and large, with the anti-ganking community. They do not want to impose any consequences they want said consequences to be an automatic part of the game. As such they want HS to be safer than it currently is.

And you have to bear in mind that risk is also not something imposed by mechanics. In fact, one could even argue mechanics cannot impose risk. Risk entails randomness how can something mechanical—i.e. deterministic—result in random. It cannot. That is why every “random” number generator is in fact a pseudo-random number generator. The output looks random at a casual glance, but in fact it is not when you look more closely (or have sufficient data). For there to be risk you need randomness, and about the only source of randomness in game are…players.

For example, one mechanical consequence is the CONCORD response to illegal aggression in HS. Is that a “risk”? No. Why not? Because we know it will happen with certainty. The probability of a response is 1. Thus, there is no risk there. It is a given that anyone engaging in illegal aggression in HS will lose their ship. CCP does try to simulate risk to some degree in certain mechanics by using pseudo-random number generators. However, players are very adept at managing that risk which is why ratting and missions are so boring. Players develop strategies to min-max those activities in short order.