| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Athren Soulsteal
   |
Posted - 2003.07.25 17:53:00 -
[1]
Having a Safe on a ship or train is common. These are usually 3"-4" solid steal and almost indestructible so the new secure containers fit as a modern version of them.
Though the miners will complain about the limited space, safes have always had smaller space than a standard container. ThatÆs go with the design of a safe.
The pirates will complain that they can not open the containers. If they stole a safe from a bank, ship or train would they complain to the safeÆs manufactures that they could not open it? (theses pirates would but I digress) ThatÆs what makes a safe a safe, the fact that only the owner can open it.
Ok I titled that the new containers are almost perfect. There need to be 2 things changed quickly.
1.The containers should be able to be scooped up by anyone with room. However destroying the container should result in destruction of the contents.
2.The hacking skill needs to be implemented.
For now the containers can be stored till the skill is available. RPGing this, if a thief stole a safe they would have to hide it till they could find a safe*****er. Therefore the pirates should be able to take the containers back and store them until such time as they guess the password or find a hacker.
|
Molly
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:10:00 -
[2]
Can we start a vote here?
I would like to vote you into the role of our official pirate expert. Each time we need to know something about pirates and opening safes, hijacking trains and ships we would ask you.
I vote [YES].
O wait, considering from real life
that you are almost always able to break a case without damaging ingriedents,
and
that there are people who open safes and they are not the owners of the safe
I vote [NO].
Sorry, but you really need to watch this Clint Eastwood movie where he breaks a lot of safes without damaging the stuff in it.
I will find my own policy for dealing with this. I think for now I will equip a cargo scanner at my ship and try to blow everyone up who tries to hide something in such a container  .
---
"Molly > funny thing is, if they warn me for attacking in 1.0, why does a GM wish me luck doing so?
Jash Illian > perverse sense of humor?
Molly > lol
Jash Illian > honestly tho, because he prolly doesn't know bships" |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:14:00 -
[3]
Ummm, Molly, my tempestuous little wretch, trying to justify something from what you've seen in a movie?
Bad bad bad.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Molly
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:17:00 -
[4]
Joshua do you realize that you have become a fan of Molly. You are so addicted to me, as soon as you see my posting something, you add some worthless **** :-).
I hope you are not Robert De Niro from The Fan.
---
"Molly > funny thing is, if they warn me for attacking in 1.0, why does a GM wish me luck doing so?
Jash Illian > perverse sense of humor?
Molly > lol
Jash Illian > honestly tho, because he prolly doesn't know bships" |
Maarek Steele
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:26:00 -
[5]
So Athren, is your entire Corp full of your Alts, or just a majority share?
Safes, if anything, or easier to open now than ever before. A good *****er can do it in a matter of minutes.
Just as no digital system is secure, neither is any manual system.
-=Maarek Steele=-
Have gun, will travel. |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:27:00 -
[6]
 Quote:
ThatÆs what makes a safe a safe, the fact that only the owner can open it.
That's horsecrap. There isn't a lock or door in the world, except those own by various governments, that cannot be opened by someone other than the owner. And most of those locks or doors owned by govt's aren't so much unopenable as they are "unable to reach alive to even begin attempting to open them".
A safe? Pfft...Joe Locksmith in your local yellow pages can usually open any safe on the market.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Shock
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:34:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Shock on 25/07/2003 18:46:03
Can't wait to see the first sec. cans floating in space for the rest of eternity because the owner forgot the pasword and the can is indestructible.
I really hope these cans show the owner, because he sure is going to be pecked and feathered on the boards LMAO
Quote:
I will find my own policy for dealing with this. I think for now I will equip a cargo scanner at my ship and try to blow everyone up who tries to hide something in such a container
LMAO
You mean as opposite of blowing him up anyway? Like you guys ever use a scanner! You just blow up somebody and see what the wind brings you.
---
soonÖ |
Singular
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:38:00 -
[8]
Molly, didnt you quit? again?
Im Yo Huckleberreh |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:47:00 -
[9]
Quote:
Molly, didnt you quit? again?
Didn't you?
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Viceroy
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 18:58:00 -
[10]
rofl, yeah singular didnt you quit? i believe you were after setec owned you...err. AGAIN.
Or maybe you're out there somewhere holding up merlins for 5k isk. Oh my, i wonder where that came from 
-
|
WindWalker
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 19:01:00 -
[11]
Edited by: WindWalker on 25/07/2003 19:17:59
Edited by: WindWalker on 25/07/2003 19:07:23
Hail Ship Captain Athren,
I have to agree with the others with regards to the first aspect of your post.
A safe is for additional safety. It is most definitely NOT secure when it attracts the attention of a professional.
However, you have cleared that up at the end of your post which it seems the others missed. A safe *****ing skill would a great addition.
The ability to scoop to cargo would have to be fully explored however. One cannot just waltz into a bank and make off with anothers safety deposit box.
Perhaps we must consider station security abilities. Within empire space, if you should attempt to dock with a secure can that does not match your ID, the station will refuse docking. "You are transporting cargo that does not match your ID" would be broadcast.
Of course, the newly introduced "impersonation" skill would allow you a chance to safely dock in secure space without raising the ire of Concorde. *note "impersonation" is NOT a skill yet in case you're asking...it is only a thought.
Pirate stations would have no such problem, but would of course demand a bigger cut of the profits from said secure can.
Finally, we then run into the problem of the sharing of secure cans between friendly players. Hmmm. Anyone got an idea on how to circumvent that potential problem?
____________________
Keep your hands on your isk and your eyes on your six
|
The Wretch
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 19:14:00 -
[12]
The new containers are so perfect that a ship must now be destroyed to get the fitted goods on it.
I forsee a lot more exploding ships at hold ups in the future  .
The Wretch
Cyberdyne Systems CEO
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 19:41:00 -
[13]
Quote:
However, you have cleared that up at the end of your post which it seems the others missed. A safe *****ing skill would a great addition.
I didn't miss it. I ignored it. CCP says a lot when/how they implement things. Implementing a perfectly safe way to carry goods without implementing a way for people to break into them in a game where such theft is part of the gameplay says a lot.
It says where their priorities are: satisfying the furbearing miners and travellers that refuse to take any precations that CCP doesn't provide for them to be 100% safe.
How do you implement a lock with no way to pick it when there's a portion of your players that rely on the goods inside for income? You don't unless you either don't give a damn or you don't think past the Programmer's Orgasm of successfully coding something.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 19:47:00 -
[14]
"The new containers are so perfect that a ship must now be destroyed to get the fitted goods on it."
Actually, they are so perfect i expect a brand new type of ship appear soon on the market, made simply by strapping a pair of AFBs onto one of these containers...
|
Gravedancer
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 19:50:00 -
[15]
Nevermind the fact that the containers have more HP than your typical space station. Yeah theres realism for you.
While I dont have a problem with the introduction of secure containers, i do think that there should be SOME counter to them. They should either be able to be destroyed (even if it resulted in destruction of the contents, pirates should at least be able to destroy the can in frustration over encountering it), or there should be a lockpick skill or something so that a properly skilled and equipped person could ***** the lock.
|
Lexington Cabot
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 19:52:00 -
[16]
They are secure so people won't steal from them. Having people be able to take them defeats the purpose doesn't it? 
|
Hematic
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 20:03:00 -
[17]
With newer technology I would suppose that one could rig them to explode. Intentionally sending an indy to it's death at a blockade rigging the thing to blow when some greedy pirate began trying to open it. Destroying his ship and anything else within the blast radius.
For that matter why can't I load up a badger or some such with 5000 cargo holds of hydrogen bombs and rush a blockade to clear it? Kamikaze has been around since at least WWII how is this concept not valid 23k years later?
|
Jojin
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 20:12:00 -
[18]
Security containers with passwords will make them inaccessible to the ordinary thief.
They should be able to be destroyed with less effort than a ship and release the contents in the same manner in which destroyed ships release content. With the current level of armor/resilience of the containers, it would be near impossible to access the goods within through force. It may be a bit sarcastic, but with the current settings I would feel safer ejecting from my ship in a secure container than I would my escape pod.
The reaction of the Military and Concorde forces to hostile actions should be more than enough to offer protection to container destruction. Having these agencies reacting to attacks on secure containers, will also allow for scaled protection to coincide with area the containers are located.
|
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 20:13:00 -
[19]
Quote:
They are secure so people won't steal from them. Having people be able to take them defeats the purpose doesn't it?
The point in any game isn't to completely remove risk. Especially not in a game with PvP elements.
The point is to discourage the lazy from taking advantage of others. Before, anyone with an industrial could fly up and rip off another person. It didn't take any skill, trained nor real. A proper implementation would remove the vulnerability to those type of people while leaving a method for someone who invested in the skills/tools required a means of access. Though that means would't necessarily be 100%.
It's the partial implementation of features that will kill CCP faster than any bad reviews. Implementing half of a solution will always end up screwing part of the playerbase. Do it often enough and they end up eventually screwing everyone at least once.
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Athren Soulsteal
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 20:40:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Athren Soulsteal on 25/07/2003 20:49:33
Jash, Exactly..
Yes ppl there are specalist that can open any safe now. But when safe were first introduced no one could. The that was the selling point.
All that needs to be fixed now is the ability to scoop up the container. Opening it can wait till the hacking skill is introduced. Keep in mind that it was years after the introduction of safes before the first safe *****ers started to show up, so a few weeks or months in EVE is relistic. Just store your I'll gotten booty until you find a good hacker (hopefully the skill will be as rare as reverse)
Oh and meric no, there are only 2 of the players with alts (refiners). We area an old "literaly" Star Siege Clan that branced off into tribe, D2, CS, JG, RS and other (gasp) PVP games. I love PVP but have no time for gankbears.
My husband playes the male avatar.
My 12 year old daughter is Iva.
By the way, you never answered. The last time we met in F6 I asked you in local "Hey are you actually tring to hit me or are those supposed to be warning shots across my bow?" 
|
Lexington Cabot
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 21:42:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Lexington Cabot on 25/07/2003 21:44:27
"The point in any game isn't to completely remove risk. Especially not in a game with PvP elements. The point is to discourage the lazy from taking advantage of others..."
Yes I understand that, but how much harder would it be to fly in and simply take the container? Your still gonna have the same problem of being ripped off in empire space without the ability to fight back if people are allowed to take and then open the container.
EDIT: Sorry forgot to add that while it may take a skill, any skill is nothing but time to train. What's a week or two if it means you can rip people off left and right as easily as it could be done before?
Your still encouraging people to be lazy. A tiny bit less perhaps, but still an easy steal.
|
EaglesFire
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 22:01:00 -
[22]
Then don't make the skill to open them 100%, and make the contents be unusable to you if you fail to open the safe the first time. IE only one shot to open it.
"Knowledge is power, and the uninformed SHALL be punished!"
|
RazorDreamz
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 22:09:00 -
[23]
The current containers make things a little to easy now. Want to transport a valuable BP, put it in a sec container on your ship. Even if it drops the pirates can't take it. And at a million hp it will take forever/too much ammo to blast so they will leave it.
Sort of takes the risk out of transfering BP's now doesn't it..
They should allow pirates to scoop the cans but not open them. (opening them forcefully should make it self destruct) This would allow pirates to hold cargo containers for ransom. Since they do not know the contents it would be very interesting on both sides to try to barter to determine the worth of the can to the owner.
---------------------------------------
CSM Chat Log September 25, 2003:
Fuhry> Some things we simply cannot test, and therefore we just put it on Tranq. cross our fingers and then get into panic m |
Varsuuk
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 22:26:00 -
[24]
First my question:
I am inferring from this that these secure containers are passworded (ok that I knew) and cannot be opened without the password (that I knew) and:
1. Can they be scooped to cargo by the owner (with password?) - I assume this is the case or they would be only a. Transport security (spite) vs player pirates or b. TINY ore holders for no good reason to deploy ONCE - why not just fill them in your cargo and bring it home
2. They CAN'T be scooped by non password holders?
And finally, my comment:
LOL... like pker...err pirates speak or ask for cargo? I've been locked on 4 or 5 times but never once has anyone asked for cargo nor been able (my luck and abs) to scramble me prior to jumping.
Pirating is a cool idea, but what the EVE mechanics really only allows is faking being a pirate and not actually being very successful but at least you can RP or being a PK. In fact, most just shoot anthing they see (smaller than them of course!) and then a good amount toss in podkilling (the majority)
lol... so all these containers do (if work as I understand) is toss the middle finger at the pkers that kill ya. Cos they WERE going to kill ya.
If they worry they can't OPEN them then OBVIOUSLY (think before you type children) didn't negotiate/strongarm the cargo from the ship - they DESTROYED the ship.
So it's an empty threat. Be diff if you hijacked rather than pored thru the wreckage. Just cos I agree that you are not really ABLE to, doesn't mean I don't catch the childish hypocrisy of that threat.
|
Maarek Steele
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 22:45:00 -
[25]
Man, I love it when clueless noobs make long replies which make about 0 sense.
keep up the good work.
-=Maarek Steele=-
Have gun, will travel. |
Jash Illian
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 22:56:00 -
[26]
Sec containers couldn't be scooped without the password being used when I toyed with them.
They are, essentially, unbreakable. Unless you want to spend the ammo/cap doing about 1m damage to one...
I mean its like you want corporations to oblige each other like its sex or something. Pffft I would rather **** my enemy.- Rohann
Be careful out there. That other guy waiting in the queue for the gate MIGHT be a baby-munching frock-burner, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW!- Lallante |
Trinket
|
Posted - 2003.07.25 23:01:00 -
[27]
Athren & Molly, Get a room....
|
Entity
|
Posted - 2003.07.26 00:48:00 -
[28]
Note:
1. Scanning a container reveals contents.
2. Scanning a ship carrying containers will display what the ship is carrying as if the containers arent even there, the scanner happily shows whatever is inside the containers in the scan results.
So much for the "pirates don't know the contents" and "blow up ships trying to hide stuff in containers" ideas :)
 |
Quantum Gopher
|
Posted - 2003.07.26 12:23:00 -
[29]
Seeing as how containers now remember who their owners are, it would seem logical for the owner to have full access without a password. Passwords would only be required for non-owners.
Passwords could also be changable by the owner on-the-fly to improve security and (more likely) to replace a forgotten password.
My 0.02 ISK.
Q. Gopher
__________
I know...it's only ROCK and roll, but I like it!! |
Tilihad
|
Posted - 2003.07.26 15:20:00 -
[30]
I still vote to just take secure canisters out of the game and make jettisoned canisters property that, if stolen, mark the thief as attackable without police intervention to the owner. God, why must computer games add 20 new problems in a attempt to fix 1.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |