| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron
The-Culture
0
   |
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:52:29 -
[1] - 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.
|
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron
The-Culture
2
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:39:34 -
[2] - 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. |
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron
The-Culture
3
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 15:09:56 -
[3] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: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.
So your "this mechanic existed in 0.0 sec for ten years" actually shows that these scams were working perfectly without any danger to scammers.
That's what i was suspecting but hoped for other outcome.
Thanks
baltec1 wrote:
Now with citadels in highsec that small corp can take away that citadel. I'd say that's an improvement no?
Small corp is not going to have any success if this citadel is covered by Merc contracts or belongs to alts or friends of some big entity.
Example: Main Perimeter citadels. Noone attacks it because they are protected.
All in all: the whole mechanics looks like very skewed towards bigger fishes. It was always this way in 0.0 space and now high-sec has fun learning it too. However i don't see reasons to keep it intact. At least in high-sec where there should not be real need to form bigger fishes to survive. |
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron
The-Culture
3
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 17:19:21 -
[4] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:April rabbit wrote: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. From 2009. Quote:Then I got brave (read foolish) and accepted a contract that was supposed to pay out 10 million and the collateral was 40 million. I had to borrow from a friend for this collateral and it was only after I had accepted it that he asked what it was for and told me I had probably just been scammed.
Sure enough, I open the package and it contains an empty small container and the delivery is to a player owened station in 0.0. Up until now I was unaware that player owned stations even existed and that they could deny docking permission to anyone they wanted. So then I pull up the map and see that the system my delivery was to had something like 23 pod kills in the last 24 hours and that the person who made the contract had another 20 or so out with the same ridiculous prices and none showed as being completed.
So I jumped to the last high sec system in the route I had plotted and unloaded every single thing I had on me into the station, entire fitting, cargo, package etc. Then I made the rest of the run to the station I was supposed to deliver at and noticed that there was something like 20 wrecks right by the gate in the 0.0. Of course when I try to dock at the station I get some message in Italian or something telling me that I can't dock.
This story has no end (according to baltec): scammed person gets even and scammer loses his outpost.
This was what i actually asked about.
Thanks for the story. |
April rabbit
Mosquito Squadron
The-Culture
4
|
Posted - 2017.06.01 11:37:46 -
[5] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:April rabbit wrote:
Small corp is not going to have any success if this citadel is covered by Merc contracts or belongs to alts or friends of some big entity.
Example: Main Perimeter citadels. Noone attacks it because they are protected.
All in all: the whole mechanics looks like very skewed towards bigger fishes. It was always this way in 0.0 space and now high-sec has fun learning it too. However i don't see reasons to keep it intact. At least in high-sec where there should not be real need to form bigger fishes to survive.
We got it. It is too much risk for you.
Not for me, LoL 
I'm nullseccer and have nothing in common with high-sec citadels outside of using it for selling my stuff.
Teckos Pech wrote:
Use NPC stations. Citadels were intended to carry some level of risk with them. Even asset safety implies some level of ex ante risk.
This is what was proposed right from the start - ignoring citadels as much as possible. But some strange people argued against it.
Thanks for supporting!
Personally i believe that game mechanics deserved your "do not use it" is not good addition. But to each their own. |
| |
|