Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Salvos Rhoska
2956
|
Posted - 2017.05.27 19:01:32 -
[301] - Quote
Since much of this has coalesced around the issue of Citadel destruction in revenge, how about addressing that.
Perhaps Asset Safety, window, anchoring changes.
Afterall, these are relatively new implementations and, as usual, hardly arguable as perfect.
For sure, the mushrooming of Citadels especially in HS seems to indicate rate of destruction is not particularly incentivized.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Kixx
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 05:15:16 -
[302] - Quote
Doesn't it seem kind of two faced that someone who owns a Citadel can make contracts that I cant pick up therefore basically being able to keep my belongings, but if I go and blow up his Citadel, I wont be able to take his stuff.
Seeing as how Citadels are a direct replacement for Pos's, one would think they would at least follow the gameplay of a Pos, which they don't, because when you destroy a Pos you get a portion of that players belongings.
I don't see asset security is a thing, they have basically robbed the average person in contracts to provide it to the Ctiadel owners.
This dimmenished EvE overall as it royal deinsentivizes killing Citadels where Pos killing could be a profitable endeavor.
Personally growing up in wormhole space It feels like EvE ruined an entire aspect of gameplay, and the thought of fighting over territory in wormholes now seems just dumb.
Eve shouldn't feel like the devs care about my stuff more than I do, but at this pont it feels that way horribly.
Even in Ultima Online if you lost your house you lost your stuff, I bet Albion will be the same way. Eve, has gone the reverse way, giving you an ability that isn't only bad for EvE but also impossibly stupid to explain in a realistic sort of way.
If a dev makes a decision one way, then makes the next opposite of the first and it is almost on the same subject, then the whole system overall cant be doing well. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6517
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 06:01:00 -
[303] - Quote
Kixx wrote:Doesn't it seem kind of two faced that someone who owns a Citadel can make contracts that I cant pick up therefore basically being able to keep my belongings, but if I go and blow up his Citadel, I wont be able to take his stuff.
Seeing as how Citadels are a direct replacement for Pos's, one would think they would at least follow the gameplay of a Pos, which they don't, because when you destroy a Pos you get a portion of that players belongings.
I don't see asset security is a thing, they have basically robbed the average person in contracts to provide it to the Ctiadel owners.
This dimmenished EvE overall as it royal deinsentivizes killing Citadels where Pos killing could be a profitable endeavor.
Personally growing up in wormhole space It feels like EvE ruined an entire aspect of gameplay, and the thought of fighting over territory in wormholes now seems just dumb.
Eve shouldn't feel like the devs care about my stuff more than I do, but at this pont it feels that way horribly.
Even in Ultima Online if you lost your house you lost your stuff, I bet Albion will be the same way. Eve, has gone the reverse way, giving you an ability that isn't only bad for EvE but also impossibly stupid to explain in a realistic sort of way.
If a dev makes a decision one way, then makes the next opposite of the first and it is almost on the same subject, then the whole system overall cant be doing well.
You just blew up his citadel, clearly he did not get to keep all of his stuff.
"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
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Salvos Rhoska
2958
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 08:17:12 -
[304] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:You just blew up his citadel, clearly he did not get to keep all of his stuff. Meh.. That goes without saying.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Khara Hirl
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 08:34:13 -
[305] - Quote
ISD Max Trix wrote:Why would CCP change it? It was the same way for Null Stations and Outpost, why wouldn't Citadels be the same way? If you look at the contact destination it says "Destination may not be accessible." or some such thing.
Why are you in a thread as a moderator having an opinion? Personally the company that I am from where I am a Senior Game Master we tell our GM's not to post on opinion threads because it makes the company look back or it looks like an official response from the Dev Team.
But to answer your question, just because something happens everywhere or a majority of people agree on something, does not make it right and to say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. We used to euthanize the mentally ill in this nation because the majority of people thought it was ok, and that's just how it was done. It is now not only morally objectionable it's criminal because as time goes on society evolves, games also must evolve as well to adapt to needs of the players, or fall short an fall under.
Haulers risk more money on a single haul, then entire fleets combined cost, I on average haul 5b loads, people I know haul 10-20b even more if needed and that's through high sec in a BR or DST. We risk way more money and time, and effort, then what it takes for a 1b citadel to go up and 24 hours later start scamming people out of billions of isk.
The scammers want to keep it, because it helps them. The die hards want to keep it because It's part of "Eve" even though it was just introduced and is not even a finished product, and highly flawed. The Haulers want to be able to deliver to a Citadel if they have a contract to it, via the tether.
The option should be there, there are very few systems in eve that directly allow you to rip off billions of isk and assets from people, this might seem fun and part of "eve" but I don't know if you've noticed eve online has been evolving and more and more people are playing PvE because the brutality of the game goes unchecked.
This is not the 2008 eve online anymore, this is 2017 and it's time to move on past allowing scamming, and down right abuse of game mechanics. You can fix this change very very easily.
If tethered to citadel then right click package to deliver. ezpz I promise if you're skilled at programming ( I know many programmers) that's a 30 minute fix with maybe an hour to compile the code and to check it to make sure it works. In less then 3 hours you could add 1 small feature that would prevent this scam from existing, and it never existed before in high security space, a space that you should if you were smart, keep sacred and a lot safer from scams. |
Singur Augurao
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
13
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 08:37:08 -
[306] - Quote
mmmm'k so what's the breaking news? tabloid press style |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
1472
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 08:46:23 -
[307] - Quote
Khara Hirl wrote:Why are you in a thread as a moderator having an opinion? Personally the company that I am from where I am a Senior Game Master we tell our GM's not to post on opinion threads because it makes the company look back or it looks like an official response from the Dev Team. ISD are player volunteers, not paid moderators.
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6517
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 08:53:05 -
[308] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:You just blew up his citadel, clearly he did not get to keep all of his stuff. Meh.. That goes without saying.
I trained Stating the Obvious to not just 5, but 6.
"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
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Salvos Rhoska
2959
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 09:01:02 -
[309] - Quote
I know its an unpopular opinion, but hauling is frankly too low risk as is due to various systems/mechanics.
This particular scam can easily be avoided, at no cost. Buyer beware. This scam preys on the uninformed and the unprofessional, and will likely be wildly lucrative for a long time to come till haulers wisen up.
The amount of material being hauled around EVE without being destroyed or atleast impeded/slowed is astronomic.
Some disagree but I see that as a real problem for EVE, especially as conducive to creating and strenghtening the Jita monstrosity which drains economic dynamics/content from the rest of EVE.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
514
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 09:03:24 -
[310] - Quote
Khara Hirl wrote:ISD Max Trix wrote:Why would CCP change it? It was the same way for Null Stations and Outpost, why wouldn't Citadels be the same way? If you look at the contact destination it says "Destination may not be accessible." or some such thing. Why are you in a thread as a moderator having an opinion? Personally the company that I am from where I am a Senior Game Master we tell our GM's not to post on opinion threads because it makes the company look back or it looks like an official response from the Dev Team. But to answer your question, just because something happens everywhere or a majority of people agree on something, does not make it right and to say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. We used to euthanize the mentally ill in this nation because the majority of people thought it was ok, and that's just how it was done. It is now not only morally objectionable it's criminal because as time goes on society evolves, games also must evolve as well to adapt to needs of the players, or fall short an fall under. Haulers risk more money on a single haul, then entire fleets combined cost, I on average haul 5b loads, people I know haul 10-20b even more if needed and that's through high sec in a BR or DST. We risk way more money and time, and effort, then what it takes for a 1b citadel to go up and 24 hours later start scamming people out of billions of isk. The scammers want to keep it, because it helps them. The die hards want to keep it because It's part of "Eve" even though it was just introduced and is not even a finished product, and highly flawed. The Haulers want to be able to deliver to a Citadel if they have a contract to it, via the tether. The option should be there, there are very few systems in eve that directly allow you to rip off billions of isk and assets from people, this might seem fun and part of "eve" but I don't know if you've noticed eve online has been evolving and more and more people are playing PvE because the brutality of the game goes unchecked. This is not the 2008 eve online anymore, this is 2017 and it's time to move on past allowing scamming, and down right abuse of game mechanics. You can fix this change very very easily. If tethered to citadel then right click package to deliver. ezpz I promise if you're skilled at programming ( I know many programmers) that's a 30 minute fix with maybe an hour to compile the code and to check it to make sure it works. In less then 3 hours you could add 1 small feature that would prevent this scam from existing, and it never existed before in high security space, a space that you should if you were smart, keep sacred and a lot safer from scams.
The "it's 2017" argument is a rather lazy way to say "we've learned something from history lessons and desire to avoid making other mistakes". Conveniently used to justify imposing personal opinons it sounds like cheap populism.
To the matter at hand, it is not brutality, unfairness and ruthlesness that is troubling in a game that claims it by design. What is deranging is the multitude of backdoors and game mechanic flaws allowing for easy and safe exploits that can not be countered through in game means.
p.s. Nobody mentions how easy it is to RMT under the cover of scams. You can as well get "scammed" on a huge quantity of plex and/or injectors that were previously purchased outside of the game at a lower price. Logs will show nothing extraordinary because, of course, scamming is a "gameplay element".
Expecting the apparent htfu crowd to pop up and try to divert the topic on towards convenient pastures again.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1704
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 09:13:39 -
[311] - Quote
Khara Hirl wrote:Why are you in a thread as a moderator having an opinion? Personally the company that I am from where I am a Senior Game Master we tell our GM's not to post on opinion threads because it makes the company look back or it looks like an official response from the Dev Team. You're a senior GM at another company and you don't even understand the difference here between an ISD and a GM?
I smell BS in your post.
You're no more a senior GM anywhere than I am empathetic.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Aedaxus
Digital Zone Corp
70
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 09:42:42 -
[312] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:Nobody mentions how easy it is to RMT under the cover of scams. You can as well get "scammed" on a huge quantity of plex and/or injectors that were previously purchased outside of the game at a lower price. Logs will show nothing extraordinary because, of course, scamming is a "gameplay element". Expecting the apparent htfu crowd to pop up and try to divert the topic on towards convenient pastures again. Ah, nice angle. In the old days, RMT-ers just did a 'send ISK'. |
Marek Kanenald
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 09:48:59 -
[313] - Quote
Basically the current mechanics just invalidate the whole courier contract system when it comes to citadels.
The entire feature is pointless if the terms can just be denied by one party after acceptance.
It hurts regular usage a lot more than the damage it causes through the scams.
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1706
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 09:53:08 -
[314] - Quote
Marek Kanenald wrote:Basically the current mechanics just invalidate the whole courier contract system when it comes to citadels. That's a bit melodramatic.
That's like saying contract scams invalidate all contracts. They don't. They just mean you need to be cautious with what courier contracts you accept and there are plenty of Citadels that will never be set to anything other than Freeport.
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Aedaxus
Digital Zone Corp
70
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 09:59:50 -
[315] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Marek Kanenald wrote:Basically the current mechanics just invalidate the whole courier contract system when it comes to citadels. That's a bit melodramatic. That's like saying contract scams invalidate all contracts. They don't. They just mean you need to be cautious with what courier contracts you accept and there are plenty of Citadels that will never be set to anything other than Freeport.
It is possible to take courier contracts and select you do not want destination in low or nullsec. Why no option to exclude player owned stations ?
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18929
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:08:36 -
[316] - Quote
Khara Hirl wrote:
Why are you in a thread as a moderator having an opinion? Personally the company that I am from where I am a Senior Game Master we tell our GM's not to post on opinion threads because it makes the company look back or it looks like an official response from the Dev Team.
I miss the days the GM's here would troll back as hard as we do.
Khara Hirl wrote: But to answer your question, just because something happens everywhere or a majority of people agree on something, does not make it right and to say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest. We used to euthanize the mentally ill in this nation because the majority of people thought it was ok, and that's just how it was done. It is now not only morally objectionable it's criminal because as time goes on society evolves, games also must evolve as well to adapt to needs of the players, or fall short an fall under.
And you go and compare scamming people in a game that advertises you can scam people to euthanizing mentally ill.
We play EVE because its not like other games, if you don't like that EVE does things differently then leave and go play one of the dosens of carbon cops MMOs that do exactly what you like and leave us to enjoy the only MMO that caters to what we enjoy. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18929
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:13:32 -
[317] - Quote
Aedaxus wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Marek Kanenald wrote:Basically the current mechanics just invalidate the whole courier contract system when it comes to citadels. That's a bit melodramatic. That's like saying contract scams invalidate all contracts. They don't. They just mean you need to be cautious with what courier contracts you accept and there are plenty of Citadels that will never be set to anything other than Freeport. It is possible to take courier contracts and select you do not want destination in low or nullsec. Why no option to exclude player owned stations ?
There is, they come with a warning you may not be able to dock. |
Salvos Rhoska
2960
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:27:33 -
[318] - Quote
Aedaxus wrote:Why no option to exclude player owned stations ?
Sounds fair and workable to me.
Or even simpler, add a column to the contract spreadsheet UI to sort vertically by destination structure type.
I like this. Short, sweet, doesnt break the scam and essentially just improves the browsing experience in the UI.
I think we've found a winner.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18933
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:46:17 -
[319] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Aedaxus wrote:Why no option to exclude player owned stations ? Sounds fair and workable to me. Or even simpler, add a column to the contract spreadsheet UI to sort vertically by destination structure type. I like this. Short, sweet, doesnt break the scam and essentially just improves the browsing experience in the UI. I think we've found a winner.
Don't even need that.
Right now in the contract info under the destination station there is a warning in red text that says "Station may be inaccessible". That's a rather clear warning. You can normally tell too if a contract looks like a scam fairly easily but if you want to be sure you can look at the contract history of the guy. |
Salvos Rhoska
2960
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:56:34 -
[320] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Aedaxus wrote:Why no option to exclude player owned stations ? Sounds fair and workable to me. Or even simpler, add a column to the contract spreadsheet UI to sort vertically by destination structure type. I like this. Short, sweet, doesnt break the scam and essentially just improves the browsing experience in the UI. I think we've found a winner. Don't even need that. Right now in the contract info under the destination station there is a warning in red text that says "Station may be inaccessible". That's a rather clear warning. You can normally tell too if a contract looks like a scam fairly easily but if you want to be sure you can look at the contract history of the guy.
That requires clicking the destination or opening the contract details, and doesnt specify the destination structure type.
There is plenty of space to the right of the contract spreadsheet layout to add a column sortable by destination structure type.
This change would just improve the spreadsheet functionality for all contracts.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Marek Kanenald
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:57:09 -
[321] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Marek Kanenald wrote:Basically the current mechanics just invalidate the whole courier contract system when it comes to citadels. That's a bit melodramatic. That's like saying contract scams invalidate all contracts. They don't. They just mean you need to be cautious with what courier contracts you accept and there are plenty of Citadels that will never be set to anything other than Freeport.
A regular contract does what the contract states. The mechanics are solid and do not allow for the altering of terms after it has been accepted.
This is not the case with citadel courier contracts since one party can just instantly withdraw from the contract.
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
515
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 11:01:58 -
[322] - Quote
Aedaxus wrote: Ah, nice angle. In the old days, RMT-ers just did a 'send ISK'.
Yeah, but you can not justify that in certain circumstances. A "donation" makes no sense when comming from an enemy "alliance" and it is easily spotted through an api check. That, of course, if enemy alliances still exist in the current political conjuncture in Eve.
On the other hand you can always claim you were drunk and got "scammed".
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Aedaxus
Digital Zone Corp
71
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 11:05:55 -
[323] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:Aedaxus wrote: Ah, nice angle. In the old days, RMT-ers just did a 'send ISK'.
Yeah, but you can not justify that in certain circumstances. A "donation" makes no sense when comming from an enemy "alliance" and it is easily spotted through an api check. That, of course, if enemy alliances still exist in the current political conjuncture in Eve. On the other hand you can always claim you were drunk and got "scammed". Ah, that is what those "double and triple my ISK" services are for! :D |
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
516
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 11:20:00 -
[324] - Quote
Aedaxus wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:Aedaxus wrote: Ah, nice angle. In the old days, RMT-ers just did a 'send ISK'.
Yeah, but you can not justify that in certain circumstances. A "donation" makes no sense when comming from an enemy "alliance" and it is easily spotted through an api check. That, of course, if enemy alliances still exist in the current political conjuncture in Eve. On the other hand you can always claim you were drunk and got "scammed". Ah, that is what those "double and triple my ISK" services are for! :D
Yeah, but only the legit ones and here's where trust becomes a major game play element.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Salvos Rhoska
2961
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 11:36:40 -
[325] - Quote
This thread isnt about RMT, nor is that related to Citadel contracting. Please start a new one on that topic if you want to discuss it.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
516
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 12:03:08 -
[326] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:This thread isnt about RMT, nor is that related to Citadel contracting. Please start a new one on that topic if you want to discuss it.
You can as well make payments through high collaterals.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Salvos Rhoska
2962
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 12:55:38 -
[327] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:You can as well make payments through high collaterals. Hmm, so deliberately fail a courier contract of carbon, so contractor receives x collateral, to launder the exchange of OOG cash payment for isk ingame.
work in progress. still. thinking. editing soon.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
143
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 13:27:47 -
[328] - Quote
Marek Kanenald wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Marek Kanenald wrote:Basically the current mechanics just invalidate the whole courier contract system when it comes to citadels. That's a bit melodramatic. That's like saying contract scams invalidate all contracts. They don't. They just mean you need to be cautious with what courier contracts you accept and there are plenty of Citadels that will never be set to anything other than Freeport. A regular contract does what the contract states. The mechanics are solid and do not allow for the altering of terms after it has been accepted. This is not the case with citadel courier contracts since one party can just instantly withdraw from the contract.
Market orders fail as well, ie this mechanism is essentially the same as another mechanism in game - ie it has precedent.
The contract mechanism works fine, and the contract selector gives you ample warning of the risk. If there was a contract where docking rights was being sold, then _that_ contract system would be broken if docking rights weren't conferred. These are not that.
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
143
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 13:32:01 -
[329] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:You can as well make payments through high collaterals. Hmm, so deliberately fail a courier contract of carbon, so contractor receives x collateral, to launder the exchange of OOG cash payment for isk ingame. So, in extremis, the contractor/contractee can mask detection of the OOG RMT, by the RMT purchaser issuing a private contract to the RMT supplier, and blocking the recipient from picking up the actual rough equivalent value from the pick up point (as a cover) hence leading to a systemic contract failure, assets/cargo remaining secured, and collateral being delivered to the RMT purchaser. Furthermore, 3rd parties/alts can be used to obfuscate the RMT laundering even further. Furthermore, since courier contractees cant see the contents of cargo before they accept the contract, nor control acces to the pick up point or delivery point, there is plausible deniability throughout. Did I get that right?
A contract hangs around forever, ie its a bad place to launder objects because CCP can see the event months later, and so can we.
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
518
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 13:35:13 -
[330] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:You can as well make payments through high collaterals. Hmm, so deliberately fail a courier contract of carbon, so contractor receives x collateral, to launder the exchange of OOG cash payment for isk ingame. So, in extremis, the contractor/contractee can mask detection of the OOG RMT, by the RMT purchaser issuing a private contract to the RMT supplier, and blocking the recipient from picking up the actual rough equivalent value from the pick up point (as a cover) hence leading to a systemic contract failure, assets/cargo remaining secured, and collateral being delivered to the RMT purchaser. Furthermore, 3rd parties/alts can be used to obfuscate the RMT laundering even further. Furthermore, since courier contractees cant see the contents of cargo before they accept the contract, nor control acces to the pick up point or delivery point, there is plausible deniability throughout. Did I get that right?
Yes.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 22 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |