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) |
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
545
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:23:44 -
[451] - Quote
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.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:47:58 -
[452] - Quote
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
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
0
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:52:29 -
[453] - Quote
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
545
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:56:10 -
[454] - Quote
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
2988
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:57:18 -
[455] - Quote
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.
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.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2988
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 10:04:14 -
[456] - Quote
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. 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.
A) Asset safety didnt exist before, nor did these structure types.
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.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
237
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 10:05:29 -
[457] - Quote
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"... 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
|
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
238
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 10:21:03 -
[458] - Quote
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
2988
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 10:32:02 -
[459] - Quote
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, a delay does not prevent the scam. Go ahead and make contracts from further away 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?
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
3182
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 10:39:37 -
[460] - Quote
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
|
|
Salvos Rhoska
2988
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 10:46:41 -
[461] - Quote
Summing up:
The current mechanics mean an Upwell structure owner can immediately block a player from accessing any of their assets, within the span of a few clicks and a few seconds, thus forcing them to wait atleast 5 days to Asset Safety their property out.
They can also block all alts and all courier contractees from recovering the assets.
At worst, there are no NPC stations or all other Upwell structures in that system are held by by the same owner/allies, leading to a 20 day wait and a 15% cost to recover assets from the closest NPC station.
Even if they destroy the structure, they will still have to wait 5 days, IF there is another Upwell structure or NPC structure in thatvsystem, or it will be 20 days wait and 15% cost to recover from the closest NPC station.
Even if they unanchor the structure, the same above still applies.
So in a few seconds, a few clicks, a structure owner can force an incontrovertible 5 day delay, at least, on another player to access their assets, with them having zero recourse to get around that.
A few seconds and a few clicks to block someones access to their property for 5 days....
Hmmm...
I think a delay on standing/access changes to Upwell structures is validated considering the above, for them to atleast attempt to wrap up their operations there before atleast a 5 day delay to access their assets is FORCED on that player.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
546
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:06:36 -
[462] - Quote
Cypherous wrote:
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
Spais have always been and will be a part of EvE gameplay. Why would CCPlease protect you from spais through arbitrary mechanics?
Otherwise it is not allowing immediate access the real issue. Cutting access in a few seconds is.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Salvos Rhoska
2988
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:12:36 -
[463] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:Spais have always been and will be a part of EvE gameplay. Why would CCPlease protect you from spais through arbitrary mechanics?
Spies cant do jack except observe who is in station (which is pointless as Local provides much of that info for free anyways) whilst the standing/access change delay runs down.
If they aggress outside the station, they can be dealt with per usual, and will be unable to re-dock/tether due to weapons timers.
If the spy is a corp member, you can kick him out or restrict his access to corp holds and data using the standard corp controls, as per usual.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
Salvos Rhoska
2989
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:20:50 -
[464] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: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...
Its the third time this has happened. I dont know if its just his faulty post formatting or some weak attempt to sabotage quote chains.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:23:17 -
[465] - Quote
April rabbit wrote: 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.
Old Goon recruitment and hauling scams. As has been said this scam isn't new, its been around for as long as there have been player controlled dockable stations. Had a drink with a guy at vegas that I scammed a few years before. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:31:46 -
[466] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:
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.
That's what provi block have been doing for years.
It's already easy to find out if a contract is a scam or not, why must the game be changed, negatively impacting a lot of other areas, just so you don't have to check a contract and do basic background checks? |
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
546
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:35:42 -
[467] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:April rabbit wrote: 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.
Old Goon recruitment and hauling scams. As has been said this scam isn't new, its been around for as long as there have been player controlled dockable stations. Had a drink with a guy at vegas that I scammed a few years before.
But that guy never had access to anything in the first place.
Admit it, ya'll tryin'to protect yerself from spais with those mechanics. Ye space cur landlubears.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Salvos Rhoska
2989
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:38:04 -
[468] - Quote
It needs to be changed because spending a few seconds and clicks to block someone from access to their assets for 5-20 days is disproportional.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
2
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:39:34 -
[469] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:April rabbit wrote: 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.
Old Goon recruitment and hauling scams. As has been said this scam isn't new, its been around for as long as there have been player controlled dockable stations. Had a drink with a guy at vegas that I scammed a few years before. Okey. But i've actually asked about the whole story: - starts with scam - ends with outpost owners to lose it's outpost
You know: the thing you propose about high-sec citadel scams. |
Salvos Rhoska
2989
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:57:48 -
[470] - Quote
Inb4 posts attempting to misdirect from the FACT that an Upwell structure owner can incontrovertibly block a players access to their assets for 5-20 days, in just a few seconds and a few clicks.
A delay on Upwell structure access/standings changes is justified.
Players should have an opportunity to wrap up their business before being forcibly locked out of their assets for 5-20 days, just cos structure owner spent a few seconds and a few clicks to force that.
PvE v PvP
<>
Old School Exploration
<>
CODE Licenses
<>
CODE Special Agent
|
|
Mollie Mormon
Interstellar Consciousness
31
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:04:19 -
[471] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:
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.
That's what provi block have been doing for years. It's already easy to find out if a contract is a scam or not, why must the game be changed, negatively impacting a lot of other areas, just so you don't have to check a contract and do basic background checks? You never have anything positive or intelligent to contribute.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:17:28 -
[472] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:
But that guy never had access to anything in the first place.
Actually he did.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:18:44 -
[473] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:It needs to be changed because spending a few seconds and clicks to block someone from access to their assets for 5-20 days is disproportional.
As opposed to the the decade of losing access instantly forever? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:20:44 -
[474] - Quote
April rabbit wrote: Okey. But i've actually asked about the whole story: - starts with scam - ends with outpost owners to lose it's outpost
You know: the thing you propose about high-sec citadel scams.
Frankly a small corp wasn't going to take down VFK at the height of the power of the CFC.
Now with citadels in highsec that small corp can take away that citadel. I'd say that's an improvement no? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:23:06 -
[475] - Quote
Mollie Mormon wrote: You never have anything positive or intelligent to contribute.
I do have a nasty habit of punching holes in the arguments of people who want to remove content from this game just so they don't have to bother with things like reading and doing things to protect themselves. |
Marek Kanenald
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:34:07 -
[476] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:It needs to be changed because spending a few seconds and clicks to block someone from access to their assets for 5-20 days is disproportional. As opposed to the the decade of losing access instantly forever?
Change is bad, re
Also its a stupid argument since citadels are widely more widespread and are used in ways that the old structures never were.
|
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
148
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:35:34 -
[477] - Quote
Mollie Mormon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:
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.
That's what provi block have been doing for years. It's already easy to find out if a contract is a scam or not, why must the game be changed, negatively impacting a lot of other areas, just so you don't have to check a contract and do basic background checks? You never have anything positive or intelligent to contribute.
you could refute a point instead of posting ad hominem.
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
546
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:37:38 -
[478] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gimme Sake wrote:
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.
That's what provi block have been doing for years. It's already easy to find out if a contract is a scam or not, why must the game be changed, negatively impacting a lot of other areas, just so you don't have to check a contract and do basic background checks?
Not talking about contracts but market orders.
You'll have to do it all while docked inside a citadel because otherwise your assets get frozen. Setting up orders from distance and any other operations or speculations involving other citadels become impossible. Market pvp gets a severe disadvantage and requires tons of beaurocratic work and an army of alts to simply purchase and sell stuff.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty
239
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:44:20 -
[479] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
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?)
Seeing as citadels can be unanchored and only take 24 hours to deploy and can be purchased for a fairly minor sum and not need any fuel its not really hard to just go pick something 10 jumps from jita and stick a bunch of empty cargo containers in a contract to bump it over the m3 needed to make it a freighter run, sure it takes 7 days to take the old one down but considering the money you already made from it its not really hard to just drop the ISK on a raitaru to deploy somewhere else :P |
Mollie Mormon
Interstellar Consciousness
31
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:47:15 -
[480] - Quote
Coralas wrote:you could refute a point instead of posting ad hominem. I could, but I chose to direct it at him. |
|
|
|
|
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 |