These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#441 - 2017-05-31 06:16:16 UTC
Mollie Mormon wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Risk - reward, dude.

Not Applicable


It is the base of this game! in ALL aspects of it.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#442 - 2017-05-31 06:18:02 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Khara Hirl wrote:
You guys are too focused on the whole "Check contracts, don't deliver to citadels, read the red warning" You're obsessing over those facts, but what you're not recognizing is that perpetuating the deliberate use of mechanics to scam someone is killing the game. Most of you won't even come close to carrying the hauls that we do, nor will you ever understand the incredible responsibility that comes with being the blood that keeps eve alive, with out hauling the game would die and prices would skyrocket all over new eden costing you the player hours of unnecessary travel, all WE are asking is that if a person has a contract to a citadel that was put in to replace a POS that we be able to deliver to it.

There are dozens of ways people can scam in this game, and fixing this issue isn't going to break the "this is eve HDTFU" style of the game, but it will make your player base grow knowing that the time they invest and money they invest is safe to the degree that they know if they take a contract to a citadel save from being ganked they can deliver it. Why is that so much to ask for?

This whole "It's been this way in eve forever" is garbage, citadels have not, and you simply can not compare them to player owned stations in sov territory, something 80% of the population of this game never even sees or docks into believe it or not. However citadels are everywhere in the thousands.

If you're against haulers having the ability to deliver a package to a citadel (even if not docked) then you're clearly an abuser/user of the game mechanic and you scam and you want to keep your way of life. However there is a bigger way of life, the haulers way of life. Something CCP and the community does not want to trifle with, with out us, you would have nothing in Jita to buy, so toss us a damn bone and fix this issue.

I've said what I wanted to say and won't be responding further, thank you for reading.

OP OUT.



Be advised you are arguing with dysfunctional people who always take the "HTFU route" even for content they couldn't care less about. These forums are part of their game. Nothing will convince them and the more you try the more they get off on being contrarian.
You made your point: crap scam mechanic with no counter. That's all others will need to know to decide to play something else.



Absolutely yes to both the OP's and Herzog's posts, when all the mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag I stopped mining period in hisec. As there is no realistic counter to freighter bumping apart from docking up and logging off I no longer use freighters, though I will use JF's as an emergency cyno is a counter to bumping. As there is no counter to blocking entry to structures for courier scams for no effort ISK generation I would not haul anything to a player owned structure period.

This is the only way to play Eve, if the game balance is way out of wrack don't do it, if you are a hauler, stop playing until this is fixed, it is the only way to play Eve, I repeat stop playing if the game balance is rubbish and it is in terms of hauling. Then CCP will look at the collapsing market and go oh dear, all these players have left the game, oh what is wrong here, might take about a year for them tro suss it out, but eventually they will get there, it took them two years plus to work out that having no options for tank on mining ships lost them a ton of players, many of which have never come back.

And this is the fun part of Eve, do something else in the game until your preferred area of play is possible again, vote with your feet, it is the only way.

I gave up on null sec when the Dominion system resulted in big alliances stomping everyone in their cartels using overwhelming force, there was no point, I mucked around in hisec, I left hisec for null once i was sure that the sov system was fit for purpose in terms of enabling smaller groups to take and hold space even in the face of these large entities. You have to be flexible in this game, I repeat when the balance is rubbish go and do something else in the game and hauling to player owned structures for me is a no no.

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

Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#443 - 2017-05-31 06:18:12 UTC
Khara Hirl wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Are people still moaning about a mechanic that has been in the game for years simply because it now affects hisec?




OP here:

No, that's not accurate. I can see where you might see the two as mutually exclusive but they are not High sec is not like null and visa versa, also Citadels and Engineering Complexes, unlike Player owned Starbases(that these buildings replaced) can have a contract specifically delivered to them, while players could of had docking permissions removed in Sov space, it was well known to everyone not to take a courier contract out there unless you were blue, that mechanic wasn't used to scam players specifically, it was to keep the enemy from docking in your space.

Due to high security space containing most of the playerbase, and it's where all the business of the game takes places, haulers and contractors alike are here in plenty allowing a higher opportunity to scam people. The mechanics of a citadel to lock players out is necessary however it was also used to prevent people from using your stations to deliver a courier contract (Contract is the key word here)

The argument here is that players who own a citadel who engage in a courier contract with a hauler, should not have the option to prevent that player from delivering the package, short of destroying his vessel while he or she takes the package to the intended destination, the hauler should not necessarily need to dock at your station ( to prevent people from using your stuffs) but a mail box type system outside of citadels and plexes is absolutely necessary, if you're looking to introduce more people to more content, one scam from a hauling contract can, will and does often times mean the end of a players career in eve online.

If a player wants to haul through low sec or null sec, the risks are clear, however a player hauling to a citadel anywhere shouldn't be prevented by a game mechanic from completing it, unless that game mechanic happens to be a welping number of players destroying you on your way to your destination, or you choose to keep the courier contract for yourself.

While eve is a tough game, and we want to keep it niche if changes are not made to make the game better, and more safe for players they will exit the game and the game uptil Alpha/Omega clones was dying, and we can't deny that fact.

I'm not asking for everything to be easy because honestly at the end of the day, these things are what make eve great however, you have a flip side a true abuse of game mechanics, all the warnings are in game sure but that doesn't make it ok. I feel the warnings were put into the game because they were being lazy or were not sure what to do about courier contracts.

I would like to see a change to this system, by allowing delivery to any citadel or station honestly that is marked on the courier contract, after all a contract is not a contract if both parties do not honor it.




You are still wrong. Works as intended.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#444 - 2017-05-31 06:23:05 UTC
Khara Hirl wrote:
You guys are too focused on the whole "Check contracts, don't deliver to citadels, read the red warning" You're obsessing over those facts, but what you're not recognizing is that perpetuating the deliberate use of mechanics to scam someone is killing the game. Most of you won't even come close to carrying the hauls that we do, nor will you ever understand the incredible responsibility that comes with being the blood that keeps eve alive, with out hauling the game would die and prices would skyrocket all over new eden costing you the player hours of unnecessary travel, all WE are asking is that if a person has a contract to a citadel that was put in to replace a POS that we be able to deliver to it.

There are dozens of ways people can scam in this game, and fixing this issue isn't going to break the "this is eve HDTFU" style of the game, but it will make your player base grow knowing that the time they invest and money they invest is safe to the degree that they know if they take a contract to a citadel save from being ganked they can deliver it. Why is that so much to ask for?

This whole "It's been this way in eve forever" is garbage, citadels have not, and you simply can not compare them to player owned stations in sov territory, something 80% of the population of this game never even sees or docks into believe it or not. However citadels are everywhere in the thousands.

If you're against haulers having the ability to deliver a package to a citadel (even if not docked) then you're clearly an abuser/user of the game mechanic and you scam and you want to keep your way of life. However there is a bigger way of life, the haulers way of life. Something CCP and the community does not want to trifle with, with out us, you would have nothing in Jita to buy, so toss us a damn bone and fix this issue.

I've said what I wanted to say and won't be responding further, thank you for reading.

OP OUT.


Dude, it isn't an issue. Learn to play the game.
Salvos Rhoska
#445 - 2017-05-31 06:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Boiled down, I think what is left over is mechanics/details of changing standings/access to player structures.

Argument for, is its a player owned structure and they should have as much autonomy over it as possible.

Argument against, is whether changing standing/access so immediately and easily, which is a very powerful tool to interrupt all manner of non-owner player activity related to the structure with no recourse for the non-owner, "fits" into EVE.

I tend to side with the against argument, seeing as other player structure related mechanics almost all involve a delay of some sort, such as de/anchoring, vulnerability windows, asset safety etc.

I think a delay on standing/access changes is reasonable.
Not sure how much delay though, or whether impending change is communicated to the player/corp.

This allows players operating at the structure some degree of time to wrap up their business/activities, but does not impede the owners autonomy over the station.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#446 - 2017-05-31 07:33:29 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Boiled down, I think what is left over is mechanics/details of changing standings/access to player structures.

Argument for, is its a player owned structure and they should have as much autonomy over it as possible.

Argument against, is whether changing standing/access so immediately and easily, which is a very powerful tool to interrupt all manner of non-owner player activity related to the structure with no recourse for the non-owner, "fits" into EVE.

I tend to side with the against argument, seeing as other player structure related mechanics almost all involve a delay of some sort, such as de/anchoring, vulnerability windows, asset safety etc.

I think a delay on standing/access changes is reasonable.
Not sure how much delay though, or whether impending change is communicated to the player/corp.

This allows players operating at the structure some degree of time to wrap up their business/activities, but does not impede the owners autonomy over the station.




A delay won't matter if bumping freighters is not fixed. Being able to perma-bump a freighter, something CCP said they would fix (but apparently are too afraid to do), without any aggression or consequences, would make a timer useless. In fact the scammers would like it. They will pretend and put on big show about how it's some kind of nerf and how CCP coddles carebears and all that crap, then go permabump freighters until the timer expires, and then declare that they are so leet because they adapted when it was the plan (gaming the mechanics) all along.

No "timer" until no-consequence warp scrambling is solved.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#447 - 2017-05-31 08:52:02 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:



Do you realize that as long as NPC stations offer better conditions than player owned structures the market will never be able to make the desired transition?



Risk - reward, dude.



Bud I'm talking about regular market transactions and what makes it impossible to transfer activity from npc owned stations to citadels, not hauling contracts.

I think you are all confused about how a real market functions. It's not like buying pot from the dealer where only trust is required. There are all sorts of rattings involved generated exactly by the ability to guarantee security for a transaction or business. If those guarantees fail to convince you'll only trade within your alliance but the rest of EvE will ignore you. It's not risk that gets rewarded here.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#448 - 2017-05-31 09:03:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
baltec1 wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:



Do you realize that as long as NPC stations offer better conditions than player owned structures the market will never be able to make the desired transition?



Most things are now built in citadels, it already happening.



Industry builds stuffs.
Market sells stuffs.

Economy - the environment in which stuffs get build, sold and rekt.
NPC stations - the guarantee stuffs survive Economy aka where your stuffs get delivered by CCPlease when your "already happening" blows up.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#449 - 2017-05-31 09:15:07 UTC
Here we go again.

Dracvlad wrote:


Absolutely yes to both the OP's and Herzog's posts, when all the mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag I stopped mining period in hisec.


Back in that time ganking of barges was done for profit and you could infact tank the hulk more than you can with the current hulk. The hulk had the same base tank as the heavy assault ships. Today the hulk and mack really struggle to fit a decent tank and the covetor and retriever simply cannot fit a tank at all while the only ganking that happens is random due to it being impossible to turn a profit pirating them. Mining barges are in a much worse position and a large chunk of content is also gone.

Dracvlad wrote:

As there is no realistic counter to freighter bumping apart from docking up and logging off I no longer use freighters, though I will use JF's as an emergency cyno is a counter to bumping.


Web ship, counter bump ships, ganking the bumpers, as you said a cyno. There are counters.


Dracvlad wrote:

As there is no counter to blocking entry to structures for courier scams for no effort ISK generation I would not haul anything to a player owned structure period.


The counter is to do your background checks on the contract owner and look at the contract info, the scammer wins when you click the accept button.

Salvos Rhoska
#450 - 2017-05-31 09:21:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
I think there should be some degree of commitment/cost to changing access/standings, rather than being an instant "LOL you are locked out and your stuff is locked in and processes aborted" clickety-click.

A delay would fulfill that, without removing autonomy from the structure owner.

Just as structure owners benefit from definable vulnerability windows to ensure they can react to hostile action, seems equitable to me that players that get locked out should have a window of opportunity to wrap up their business there before they are locked out.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#451 - 2017-05-31 09:23:44 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think there should be some degree of commitment/cost to changing access/standings, rather than being an instant "LOL you are locked out and your stuff is locked in and processes aborted" click.

A delay would fulfill that, without removing autonomy from the structure owner.



Perhaps only the market module inside a citadel needs a bit of tweeking. Although I'd completely remove asset safety to preserve the ...ahem ... risk element everybody loves so much. Cool

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#452 - 2017-05-31 09:47:58 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think there should be some degree of commitment/cost to changing access/standings, rather than being an instant "LOL you are locked out and your stuff is locked in and processes aborted" clickety-click.


Why? This is exactly the way it has worked with null outposts for well over a decade and nobody has had an issue with that. The risk as pointed out is that you can do this to the wrong guy who then comes and burns your house down.

Dracvlad wrote:

A delay would fulfill that, without removing autonomy from the structure owner.

Just as structure owners benefit from definable vulnerability windows to ensure they can react to hostile action, seems equitable to me that players that get locked out should have a window of opportunity to wrap up their business there before they are locked out.


AKA, you want CCP to step in to protect you from the scammer by effectively destroying the ability to carry out the scam.
April rabbit
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#453 - 2017-05-31 09:52:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think there should be some degree of commitment/cost to changing access/standings, rather than being an instant "LOL you are locked out and your stuff is locked in and processes aborted" clickety-click.


Why? This is exactly the way it has worked with null outposts for well over a decade and nobody has had an issue with that. The risk as pointed out is that you can do this to the wrong guy who then comes and burns your house down.

Just curious: can you provide any real story related to null-sec outpost owners?

I'm not asking about alliance stuff. Rather about case similar to high-sec citadels when 'small guy' gets screwed.

Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#454 - 2017-05-31 09:56:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think there should be some degree of commitment/cost to changing access/standings, rather than being an instant "LOL you are locked out and your stuff is locked in and processes aborted" clickety-click.


Why? This is exactly the way it has worked with null outposts for well over a decade and nobody has had an issue with that. The risk as pointed out is that you can do this to the wrong guy who then comes and burns your house down.



Because you already have all the tools you need to previously restrict or allow access. No need to peep between the picket fences to see who's coming then and run to lock the door.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Salvos Rhoska
#455 - 2017-05-31 09:57:18 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think there should be some degree of commitment/cost to changing access/standings, rather than being an instant "LOL you are locked out and your stuff is locked in and processes aborted" click.

A delay would fulfill that, without removing autonomy from the structure owner.

Perhaps only the market module inside a citadel needs a bit of tweeking. Although I'd completely remove asset safety to preserve the ...ahem ... risk element everybody loves so much. Cool


When you get locked out:
-Your assets are locked in.
-You are potentially stranded outside of it instantly in whatever you are flying atm.
-Your processes there are aborted (iirc)

If they set settings correctly, they can effectively block you from recovering your assets even with alts or courier contracts.
-Pretty much all you can do is Asset Safety your stuff out somewhere inconvenient, after waiting 5 days.
-Spend a week+ attacking the structure in righteous revenge, in which case your assets still require 5 days to be moveable to somewhere inconvenient.
-Even worse, albeit situational, if there isnt another NPC/structure in the system, you have to wait 20 days and pay 15% days to buy them out.
-Even worse, if you get locked out of the next structure in the chain by the owner there too, you are in for another 5 days of waiting

All this resulting from a few clicks in the space of a few seconds by the structure owner.

TLDR:

-In a few clicks in a few seconds, the structure owner can completely block a player/corps access to their assets for 5 days, after which they maybe locked out for another 5 days if the owner blocks them, or at worst having to wait 20 days and paying 15% to buy them out of the nearest NPC station (which could be in very dangerous space)

That seems a bit unfair to me for so little effort on the part of the structure owner, and with so little recourse on part of the player operating there.


Salvos Rhoska
#456 - 2017-05-31 10:04:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
baltec1 wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I think there should be some degree of commitment/cost to changing access/standings, rather than being an instant "LOL you are locked out and your stuff is locked in and processes aborted" clickety-click.


Why? This is exactly the way it has worked with null outposts for well over a decade and nobody has had an issue with that. The risk as pointed out is that you can do this to the wrong guy who then comes and burns your house down.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:

A delay would fulfill that, without removing autonomy from the structure owner.

Just as structure owners benefit from definable vulnerability windows to ensure they can react to hostile action, seems equitable to me that players that get locked out should have a window of opportunity to wrap up their business there before they are locked out.


AKA, you want CCP to step in to protect you from the scammer by effectively destroying the ability to carry out the scam.


A) Asset safety didnt exist before, nor did these structure types.
Asset safety only applies to Upwell structures, not Outposts.
Outposts pop like a pinata. Upwell structures do not.

B) This change would not be CCP protecting people from a scam.
You can still run the scam, and lock them out.
The mechanics of the scam are not changed.

C) This just applies a delay to standing/access changes to involve some form of commitment, rather than being as easy as a few clicks in a few seconds to force someone to wait 5 days for their assets to be accessible.

PS: You misquoted me as Dracvlad, again. I corrected you in the quote above.
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#457 - 2017-05-31 10:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Cypherous
Wanda Fayne wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Wanda Fayne wrote:
Hevymetal wrote:


My humble advice for what it's worth is check your docking rights to the station in question BEFORE accepting the contract.


Logical answer.
+1


But it won't prevent the contract being invalidated when the citadel owner revokes your access IMMEDIATELY after accepting the contract.

That's the issue I have with it.


By that point you have fallen for the scam.

Its rather easy to sniff these scams out, people have not had an issue with this scam for well over a decade.


The mechanic may be old, but the structure is new and the location is new.

CCP's stated goals are already presented in this thread, I won't rehash them. If this is what CCP intended (or sanctions) with the Citadels, then add it to the FAQ.

And +1 for not saying "stupid"...Blink I appreciate your candid posts.


"The delivery time frame set on the contract has passed without the package being delivered. The contract will remain in the "In Progress" state until the creator explicitly fails it. Until then, the package can still be delivered."

Not being able to dock means that this is the reason the contract will be failed, you don't need to add text stating that it could be failed due to docking rights being changed as the contract window very clearly states the station may be inaccessible, people just refuse to read, and if they aren't reading the red text warnings ingame what makes you think they would read the FAQ or do any kind of research :P

Khara Hirl wrote:
but what you're not recognizing is that perpetuating the deliberate use of mechanics to scam someone is killing the game.


WOW, did you really just post this? you do realise that deliberate use of mechanics to scam someone has existed since the very beginning of EVE and has been one of the things that has remained unchanged? its a core part of EVE, now, you might not agree with that, but that thankfully isn't your choice to make, if people are too stupid to read and do research on something then there isn't much we can do to help them, EVE isn't a mainstream MMO with handholding and participation rewards, this isn't WoW and it NEVER will be
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#458 - 2017-05-31 10:21:03 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


C) This just applies a delay to standing/access changes to involve some form of commitment, rather than being as easy as a few clicks in a few seconds to force someone to wait 5 days for their assets to be accessible.



Delays firstly won't help as people will just make the contract be further away and large enough that you need a slow ship to make the trip and you'll fail to get there in time anyway, secondly, it means you won't be able to use citadels as staging locations for public fleets as you would have a delay on allowing them access to the station which could ruin an OP, it also means that you have a massively delayed ability to protect your structure from spies and alts getting in to it, you would cause more problems than you solve by adding an arbitrary timer
Salvos Rhoska
#459 - 2017-05-31 10:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Cypherous wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


C) This just applies a delay to standing/access changes to involve some form of commitment, rather than being as easy as a few clicks in a few seconds to force someone to wait 5 days for their assets to be accessible.



Delays firstly won't help as people will just make the contract be further away and large enough that you need a slow ship to make the trip and you'll fail to get there in time anyway, secondly, it means you won't be able to use citadels as staging locations for public fleets as you would have a delay on allowing them access to the station which could ruin an OP, it also means that you have a massively delayed ability to protect your structure from spies and alts getting in to it, you would cause more problems than you solve by adding an arbitrary timer


1) As I said, and you agree, a delay does not prevent the scam. Go ahead and make contracts from further away, with tight deadline and with more m3.

2) It just means you have to commit to the staging location in advance, IF you have not already given access to participants (which you did do, right?)

3) The spies and alts will be unable to access the structure once the delay is complete.
Maybe you should have been more careful whom you gave access to?

4) Structure access/standings is separate from corp access/standings.
You can block anyone from accessing corp assets with the usual corp controls, instantly, by kicking them out or restricting their access, as usual.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#460 - 2017-05-31 10:39:37 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
PS: You misquoted me as Dracvlad, again. I corrected you in the quote above.


LOL, that is funny, they see me everywhere. What makes me laugh is that baltec1 is talking about something being like that for ten years, just like wreck EHP? Sorry could not resist...

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