These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#81 - 2017-05-23 12:26:15 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yaosus wrote:
Free will =Progress.

Some citadels will become well known for honest trading while other will be avoided or blown up... you never know who are you scamming :)



As it should be. If a citadel owner is doing 'nefarious' things players should be using the tools they already have (ie communicating with others about the activities, war decs, hiring groups to destroy the citadel etc etc) rather than running straight to mommy CCP asking for a fix.

Why are we playing a game if we want the developers to play it for us?



Gameplay wise you have a dude posting memes on reddit while turning on and off a switch. Do you consider that challenging gameplay? Or gameplay at all?


I'm sorry bro but you're sounding like those anti ganker types who "don't mind ganking but think it should not be as easy to do". You and I both know that when they say that they are really saying "ganking should go away and I should be left alone". Don't be one of them bro.

The difficulty or lack thereof of what someone else is doing is none of your business or mine, your business and mine is not falling for the trap, and/or using the tools we as players already have to retaliate is appropriately brutal fashion if we do fall for the trap.
Marek Kanenald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2017-05-23 12:27:21 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yaosus wrote:
Free will =Progress.

Some citadels will become well known for honest trading while other will be avoided or blown up... you never know who are you scamming :)



As it should be. If a citadel owner is doing 'nefarious' things players should be using the tools they already have (ie communicating with others about the activities, war decs, hiring groups to destroy the citadel etc etc) rather than running straight to mommy CCP asking for a fix.

Why are we playing a game if we want the developers to play it for us?



Because there should be a balance between mechanics and player interactions.

Having ****** courier mechanics is on the wrong side of that balance. Trade is a basic function of the game and this mechanical abuse is contrary to CCP's stated goal of moving trade to citadels.


Why not give citadel owners the ability to just confiscate everything in their citadel? Simple, it would be **** and nobody would use citadels. But of course you would have your super 1337 pro player interactions.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#83 - 2017-05-23 12:27:34 UTC
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Barricading your house so the mail delivery man can't give you a package and then suing him because he didn't deliver that package should not be a thing.



in a game like EVE it sure as hell should be, as is blowing up the house of the guy that sued you.
Marek Kanenald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#84 - 2017-05-23 12:36:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Barricading your house so the mail delivery man can't give you a package and then suing him because he didn't deliver that package should not be a thing.



in a game like EVE it sure as hell should be, as is blowing up the house of the guy that sued you.


Yeah perhaps if it actually took effort to do so and not just have a magical button deny the delivery.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#85 - 2017-05-23 12:36:51 UTC
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yaosus wrote:
Free will =Progress.

Some citadels will become well known for honest trading while other will be avoided or blown up... you never know who are you scamming :)



As it should be. If a citadel owner is doing 'nefarious' things players should be using the tools they already have (ie communicating with others about the activities, war decs, hiring groups to destroy the citadel etc etc) rather than running straight to mommy CCP asking for a fix.

Why are we playing a game if we want the developers to play it for us?



Because there should be a balance between mechanics and player interactions.

Having ****** courier mechanics is on the wrong side of that balance. Trade is a basic function of the game and this mechanical abuse is contrary to CCP's stated goal of moving trade to citadels.


Why not give citadel owners the ability to just confiscate everything in their citadel? Simple, it would be **** and nobody would use citadels. But of course you would have your super 1337 pro player interactions.


People like you mean well, but you think CCP can game mechanics away human nature.

Let me tell you what's gonna happen if/when CCP 'fixes' the situation to your satisfaction. The scammer types that you think are being nerfed are going to find another way to screw you and everyone else over, and CCP is going to have to try to fix that too.

Look at the histroy of this game. EVERY time CCP tries to do what people are asking for in this thread (ie 'fix' a game mechancis to 'make it better'), it got worse.

The buffed exhumers, more miners died. The added anchor rigs, more people got bumped. They added that awoxxing switch, awoxxers got craftier. They added safety pop ups and mission guides and people STILL can't figure out how to do things. They made gameplay and the UI more 'user friendly' and people are complaining more loudly than ever.


It...does....not...work.... It being the idea that you can fix your way our of people being lazy and stupid enough to fall for something they shouldn't. Sure it sucks to be locked out of a citadel after you have accepted a courier contract (I guess, I wouldn't know, I avoid high sec where this kind of bullshit and the bullshit complaints always come from), but that just means you were stupid for not planting a "security alt" *ie use one of the other 3 slots you get on your account to have a one day old alt with contracting 1 just in case of shenanigans) there before accepting.




People already have all the tools they need to not get got. CCP changing things around isn't going to help you, and if history is the judge, CCP tinkering with the system too much will just lead to even more frustration.
Salvos Rhoska
#86 - 2017-05-23 12:38:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Works fine.

Not exactly intuitive though, and a serious risk to both courier and potential hapless contract issuer.

However couriers can avoid it by being informed/professional, and contract issuers that find their delivery blocked can negotiate another exchange directly with the courier.

Dropbox idea causes a lot of secondary exploitation problems that would be even worse and more complicated.



PS: Citadel asset safety really sucks. As is stated here, since Citadels are players own property, which justifies the capability to restrict entry, they should also carry full responsibility for what is held within. No nonsense magic free teleportation of contents.

If you get scammed on a courier deal, and make it your lifes purpose to enact revenge, the worst you can do is blow up only the structure after bashibg on it over and over. They dont even have to fly their own assets out, they just laugh as all their assets get transported out by magical teleportation fairies.

Christ, I really hate asset safety. Still cant believe it got implemented the way it has.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#87 - 2017-05-23 12:43:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Barricading your house so the mail delivery man can't give you a package and then suing him because he didn't deliver that package should not be a thing.



in a game like EVE it sure as hell should be, as is blowing up the house of the guy that sued you.


Yeah perhaps if it actually took effort to do so and not just have a magical button deny the delivery.



What you are saying has a name. It's called "that other guy has it too easy" syndrome. It's when people focus on the perceived lack of effort another person has when doing something the 1st person already dislikes.

It's a lie, it's basically you saying "this would be ok if it were harder for that other guy to do". And that isn't true, even if it took monumental effort and years of time you STILL would not like the outcome of the action the person is taking.

As I said in my previous post, the most common form of this on this forum is when people who hate ganking say "ganking is ok but it should be harder". They are lying (to themselves if no one else), gankers could be sacrificing Super-Carriers with every gank of a t1 hauler and the people who hate ganking would still find a way hate ganking (while calling for nerfs to the ganking ability of Suicide Super-Carriers).
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#88 - 2017-05-23 12:48:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yaosus wrote:
Free will =Progress.

Some citadels will become well known for honest trading while other will be avoided or blown up... you never know who are you scamming :)



As it should be. If a citadel owner is doing 'nefarious' things players should be using the tools they already have (ie communicating with others about the activities, war decs, hiring groups to destroy the citadel etc etc) rather than running straight to mommy CCP asking for a fix.

Why are we playing a game if we want the developers to play it for us?



Gameplay wise you have a dude posting memes on reddit while turning on and off a switch. Do you consider that challenging gameplay? Or gameplay at all?


I'm sorry bro but you're sounding like those anti ganker types who "don't mind ganking but think it should not be as easy to do". You and I both know that when they say that they are really saying "ganking should go away and I should be left alone". Don't be one of them bro.

The difficulty or lack thereof of what someone else is doing is none of your business or mine, your business and mine is not falling for the trap, and/or using the tools we as players already have to retaliate is appropriately brutal fashion if we do fall for the trap.




Perhaps the absence of big wars in eve is justified by the presence of petty shennanigans like the ones you defend, and pass as "ruthless and harsh gameplay", considered that?

The tools we, as players have are broken. Citadels are too cheap and easy to build and losing one means absolutely nothing. Due to game mechanics you can build 10 other citadels under the comfortable anonymate of other alts, while one is being destroyed.

The difficulty or lack thereof is exactly our business if the game does not offer the means to effectively counter it.

The "you sound like" argument you come up with is pathetic to say the least.


"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Marek Kanenald
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2017-05-23 12:51:29 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Marek Kanenald wrote:
Barricading your house so the mail delivery man can't give you a package and then suing him because he didn't deliver that package should not be a thing.



in a game like EVE it sure as hell should be, as is blowing up the house of the guy that sued you.


Yeah perhaps if it actually took effort to do so and not just have a magical button deny the delivery.



What you are saying has a name. It's called "that other guy has it too easy" syndrome. It's when people focus on the perceived lack of effort another person has when doing something the 1st person already dislikes.

It's a lie, it's basically you saying "this would be ok if it were harder for that other guy to do". And that isn't true, even if it took monumental effort and years of time you STILL would not like the outcome of the action the person is taking.

As I said in my previous post, the most common form of this on this forum is when people who hate ganking say "ganking is ok but it should be harder". They are lying (to themselves if no one else), gankers could be sacrificing Super-Carriers with every gank of a t1 hauler and the people who hate ganking would still find a way hate ganking (while calling for nerfs to the ganking ability of Suicide Super-Carriers).


And like I said there SHOULD be a balance.

Do you think it would be fine if I could gank a freighter in an Ibis?

People like you pretend oversights and balance issues do not exist ever. Everything is fine and nothing should ever change.

CCP should look at this themselves and determine if these mechanics are in line with the role they intend for citadels.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#90 - 2017-05-23 12:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Gimme Sake wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Yaosus wrote:
Free will =Progress.

Some citadels will become well known for honest trading while other will be avoided or blown up... you never know who are you scamming :)



As it should be. If a citadel owner is doing 'nefarious' things players should be using the tools they already have (ie communicating with others about the activities, war decs, hiring groups to destroy the citadel etc etc) rather than running straight to mommy CCP asking for a fix.

Why are we playing a game if we want the developers to play it for us?



Gameplay wise you have a dude posting memes on reddit while turning on and off a switch. Do you consider that challenging gameplay? Or gameplay at all?


I'm sorry bro but you're sounding like those anti ganker types who "don't mind ganking but think it should not be as easy to do". You and I both know that when they say that they are really saying "ganking should go away and I should be left alone". Don't be one of them bro.

The difficulty or lack thereof of what someone else is doing is none of your business or mine, your business and mine is not falling for the trap, and/or using the tools we as players already have to retaliate is appropriately brutal fashion if we do fall for the trap.




Perhaps the absence of big wars in eve is justified by the presence of petty shennanigans like the ones you defend, and pass as "ruthless and harsh gameplay", considered that?

The tools we, as players have are broken. Citadels are too cheap and easy to build and losing one means absolutely nothing. Due to game mechanics you can build 10 other citadels under the comfortable anonymate of other alts, while one is being destroyed.

The difficulty or lack thereof is exactly our business if the game does not offer the means to effectively counter it.

The "you sound like" argument you come up with is pathetic to say the least.




You're better than this.

Do something for me. Change the word "citadels" (that I underlined) in your post to the word "catalysts". Then re-read your post to yourself and tell me what you see.

I never said anything was 'ruthless and harsh' gameplay. Even if it is or isn't, that's none of your business anyways. I said people should use the tools they have to do the things they want, not ask CCP to go down another rabbit hole that YOU already know won't work. You've been here as long as I have, and frankly I'm shocked to see this kind of talk come from you.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#91 - 2017-05-23 13:04:04 UTC
Marek Kanenald wrote:

And like I said there SHOULD be a balance.

Do you think it would be fine if I could gank a freighter in an Ibis?

People like you pretend oversights and balance issues do not exist ever. Everything is fine and nothing should ever change.

CCP should look at this themselves and determine if these mechanics are in line with the role they intend for citadels.



Why do people like you always fall back on the "you don't like change" thing?

No one said anything about never changing anything. But they WHY is important. No one in this thread has given a single good reason why CCP intervention is necessary over simply asking people to use the tools they already have.

It's a mistake to call for modifications to something when you yourself could fix your problem with a tiny bit of fore thought, because this causes other problems down the line. Scroll up a bit and you will see that even Salvos Rhoska understands this (no offense Salvos lol).

People get emotional when they think something is unfair and should be changed, but what I honestly think happens in these cases is that you dislike it so much you don't recognize the risk that it could get worse if CCP tinkers with it. there are Soooo many examples of this, like Dominion Sov where people were predicting that the changes would make things harder for people like goons when in fact it enabled Goon Dominion over much of null.

CCP intervention is just not the way to go most of the time.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#92 - 2017-05-23 13:05:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Gimme Sake
Jenn aSide wrote:


snip




There are ways to effectively counter the profit from ganking. There are no ways to counter a design flaw.

Why do you try to divert the conversation towards ganking because it isn't the same issue.

In a gank there are only two involved parts.

In the matter we discuss there are three, and currently there is no way for a legit entrepreneur (or for an entrepreneur with malign intentions) to build a long term project, due to the certain mechanics. CCP staff has mentioned they would like to induce a transition of trade from npc stations to player owned structures, with all the risk resulting from it. In the current environment the transition is practically impossible.

Please do take your time and consider that point of view.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#93 - 2017-05-23 13:15:22 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


snip




There are way to effectively counter the profit from ganking. There are no ways to counter a design flaw.

Why do you try to divert the conversation towards ganking because it isn't the same issue.

In a gank there are only two involved parts.

In the matter we discuss there are three, and currently there is no way for a legit entrepreneur (or for an entrepreneur with malign intentions) to build a long term project, due to the certain mechanics. CCP staff has mentioned they would like to induce a transition of trade from npc stations to player owned structures, with all the risk resulting from it. In the current environment the transition is practically impossible.

Please do take your time and consider that point of view.


You can't put an alt from another account (or the same account if you only have one) in the citadel you are doing business with as a precaution? What mechanic prevents this? What prevents an alt from docking with the delivery unless the citadel owner closes the citadel to all traffic.

And what stops you from blowing it up or paying someone to?

And that's the whole point, the people complaining about game mechanics haven't used ANY of the available already existing tools to alleviate their problem. No, it's straight to the forum and "CCPLEASE halp".CCP does always eventually try to 'fix' these things. They will try here to, and it will probably fail while making life more difficult for everyone else in the process.


How many times does this have to happen before the people here learn that it's best to figure it out for yourself than run to CCP?
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#94 - 2017-05-23 13:19:32 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


snip




There are way to effectively counter the profit from ganking. There are no ways to counter a design flaw.

Why do you try to divert the conversation towards ganking because it isn't the same issue.

In a gank there are only two involved parts.

In the matter we discuss there are three, and currently there is no way for a legit entrepreneur (or for an entrepreneur with malign intentions) to build a long term project, due to the certain mechanics. CCP staff has mentioned they would like to induce a transition of trade from npc stations to player owned structures, with all the risk resulting from it. In the current environment the transition is practically impossible.

Please do take your time and consider that point of view.


You can't put an alt from another account (or the same account if you only have one) in the citadel you are doing business with as a precaution? What mechanic prevents this? What prevents an alt from docking with the delivery unless the citadel owner closes the citadel to all traffic.

And what stops you from blowing it up or paying someone to?

And that's the whole point, the people complaining about game mechanics haven't used ANY of the available already existing tools to alleviate their problem. No, it's straight to the forum and "CCPLEASE halp".CCP does always eventually try to 'fix' these things. They will try here to, and it will probably fail while making life more difficult for everyone else in the process.


How many times does this have to happen before the people here learn that it's best to figure it out for yourself than run to CCP?



I don't see how a delivery box would make life difficult for anyone. Or how would it make it safer for the rest. It only removes an exploit.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Kathern Aurilen
#95 - 2017-05-23 13:19:37 UTC
Shawn en Tilavine wrote:

The tools are available in game to avoid being scammed. One only need avail themselves of them to avoid being taken advantage of. That you have failed to grasp that concept is on you, and only you.

This game was succeeding long before you showed up and will continue to thrive long after you're gone.
Good Luck!

Respectfully Submitted

How does one check ahead that that a station, 30 jumps out, is going to lock them out or not, I want to know that one? I never heard of a way to check ahead.

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#96 - 2017-05-23 13:21:39 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:



I don't see how a delivery box would make life difficult for anyone. Or how would it make it safer for the rest. It only removes an exploit.


That's the point, you don't see how. But someone else will find a way to make it so. You know they will, because people in this game do nothing BUT figure out ways to do that.
Gimme Sake
State War Academy
Caldari State
#97 - 2017-05-23 13:26:11 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:



I don't see how a delivery box would make life difficult for anyone. Or how would it make it safer for the rest. It only removes an exploit.


That's the point, you don't see how. But someone else will find a way to make it so. You know they will, because people in this game do nothing BUT figure out ways to do that.



That's perfectly fine.

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato

Sasha Nemtsov
Meteoros
#98 - 2017-05-23 13:28:00 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:

An entrepreneur with malign intent inflitrates an organization and subverts it from inside. That's a difficult task and requires extensive planning, dedication, earning trust of the members etc.


I dont understand why you consider turning on and off a switch a great enterprise. Any cheeky baboon can do that and it does not make it harsh, rutheless gameplay, it makes it an annoyance easily avoided.

I don't see why you compare it to ganking because that requires a certain effort and timed dedication from the ganker. Nobody asked CCP to make it easier or to remove the intended risk element, the request is the removal of an exploit introduced by poorly implemented mechanics.


You 'don't understand' and you 'don't see'. There is therefore not a great deal I can do to disabuse you of the curious notions contained in your post.

Presumably, what you mean to say is that the citadel 'exploit' requires no effort and is therefore not to be considered equal with awoxing and ganking.

In terms of the effort required, I've no doubt that citadel/contract stuff is a piece of cake (I don't 'do' citadels). However, I'm more interested in the outcome, the effect of the activity - and that is fully in keeping with the PvP flavour of EVE Online (and of Highsec, in particular).

It's wise to engage the brainbox before mounting the soapbox...
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#99 - 2017-05-23 13:35:08 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:



I don't see how a delivery box would make life difficult for anyone. Or how would it make it safer for the rest. It only removes an exploit.


That's the point, you don't see how. But someone else will find a way to make it so. You know they will, because people in this game do nothing BUT figure out ways to do that.



That's perfectly fine.


No it's not, because those unintended consequences affect everyone, not just the people advocating for game mechanics changes because they can't use the tools they already have.

This is the point of my opposition to people begging CCP for ever more 'game mechanics tweeks' or whatever they want to call them. It's just people being too lazy in a video game to figure things out for themselves, and then CCP responds to this laziness with game mechanics changes that intended to do good things but failed while introducing more bugs, exploits and generally bad crap.

Again I ask, how many times does that have to happen before people learn?
Salvos Rhoska
#100 - 2017-05-23 13:43:30 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
It's a mistake to call for modifications to something when you yourself could fix your problem with a tiny bit of fore thought, because this causes other problems down the line. Scroll up a bit and you will see that even Salvos Rhoska understands this (no offense Salvos lol).


No offense taken.
I think you know me by now that I am hardcore when it comes to maintaining danger/risk in EVE, even though I avoid risk ingame like the plague (as do you).



There are many courier scams, and this just happens to be a new one that people havent wizened up to yet.
It can be avoided, but only if you've a) done your homework and b) take precautions.

For scams to succeed, it depend on a "fool" falling for them.
Scams prey on the ignorant, and this case is no different.

Though there are scammer Citadels, YOU can set up a Citadel that never, ever scams.



As to changing Citadel mechanics, Im strongly against any restrictions on players control of their own installations.
Its theirs, they built it and paid for it, they operate it, they defend and own it.

Its key that they can control access, set favored players, adjust rates etc.

The good side of that, is Citadels have created more player opportunity to define their own presence in a system.
Citadels with good reputations, offer good services, low rates, good customer service, are well placed/defended etc will likely do well.

The bad side is fking Citadels proliferating everywhere, and due to ludicrous asset safety, protracted bash mechanics and relatively low cost, that Citadel owners/residents are at quite small risk themselves.