|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18927
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 11:11:55 -
[1] - Quote
This has been the case with null outposts for over a decade, why should the game change to protect people unwilling to take a loss when they take a risk? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18927
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 12:08:24 -
[2] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:Keno Skir wrote:
What like the one i've explained three times, just look back it's really easy..
I understand your point about allowing citadel access. But... What some people in this thread advice is "The counter is simple, don't accept citadel contracts." That's like telling a new player don't go to null there are bubbles instead of advising him to fit a ceptor. That's a bear set of mind. For every form of pvp in the game there is an active way to counter it. If you get baited you can surprise the baiter, if you get dropped you can counter drop, to avoid gate camps you fit a cloak and a mwd or organise a drop...etc. The drop box suggestion is a way to turn a contract scam into an active pvp element that implies some risk for the emitter. Perhaps there are better mechanics to be implemented if given a bit of thought. There are still the major trade hubs local chats for "risk free" shennanigans. p.s. I can come up with the same argument, if you dont want to give everyone access to your stuff then don't emit public contracts.
There are lists of trustworthy and not trustworthy groups/players and stations available. You can always produce a list of your own and take those risks too. We have been dealing with this sort of scam for over a decade, no need to change anything. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18927
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 17:29:12 -
[3] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:baltec1 wrote:
There are lists of trustworthy and not trustworthy groups/players and stations available. You can always produce a list of your own and take those risks too. We have been dealing with this sort of scam for over a decade, no need to change anything.
Yeah I know, I don't haul so don't really care. What bothers me is the lack of consequence for some actions and introduction of fail/risk proof mechanics; like magical structure invulnerability except for a short period when the loot fairy pops up on grid with a rabbit foot in her hand and starts shaking it, puppy leashes that also make ships magically invulnerable etc etc etc. As far as I'm concerned if there is an amount of risk then it should reflect/affect on everyone. Otherwise it is just an overlooked exploit sustained by convenient arguments.
Said citadel can be blown up and the scam tends to only work once as you learn to not ship to that citadel or any other structure owned by the offending corp/alliance. Consequences are realistically higher for the highsec scammers as opposed to the nullsec scams we have had for well over a decade now. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18927
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 18:08:43 -
[4] - Quote
Scialt wrote:Tricia Killnu wrote:The citadel in question that's part of the scam can be destroyed. Go destroy it. Get someone to destroy it. PVP Content I just gave you Please send me isk for such ideas you are all sweet things and you know you want to Doing so will still cost the hauler the collateral. It might make them feel better... but that's it.
Still a dead citadel and they will be added to the list of untrustworthy organisations/players. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18927
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 18:15:06 -
[5] - Quote
Scialt wrote:
Yes. They'll feel better.
They still lost the collateral. And unlike the person who took the contract... those defending the citadel have a chance to defend the citadel. The hauler doesn't have any opportunity to deliver the goods.
And?
Welcome to EVE, a game that allows you to scam, cheat and fight your way to victory. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18927
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 18:41:49 -
[6] - Quote
Scialt wrote:
But delivering a contract when the person locks you out of the delivery destination... is not possible at all.
A thing that has happened from the dawn of owing a station out in null, why should anything change now especially now that the station in question can be destroyed fairly easily?
This is about the only risk a highsec hauler will ever face running contracts and it only works once. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18928
|
Posted - 2017.05.24 20:16:03 -
[7] - Quote
Scialt wrote:
The dynamics changed because with citadels, deliveries could be contracted to player owned structures outside of Null. Other than Providence (and maybe a couple of other places I'm not aware of) most player owned stations are pretty much inaccessible to begin with to anyone not already allied with that alliance.
Didn't stop the exact same scams, VFK was notorious for that. Its exactly the same thing' the only difference is you can blow up the offending highsec station fairly easily. AKA it has a consequence for the scammer.
Scialt wrote: 1. As it is, the ability to lock out those making deliveries (and the scams built around that ability) make it difficult if not impossible to get a hauling contract accepted to a citadel. This hurts those who would like to use courier contracts to supply their citadels who would prefer to have other players willing to accept their contracts.
Given that the vast bulk of manufacturing is now done in citadels getting deliveries isn't hard.
Scialt wrote: 2. The ability to foil a delivery by not allowing them to dock can not be countered in any way... other than by never accepting a citadel courier mission (which feeds back to 1).
Not everything needs a direct counter. Scams only work once and can be sniffed out fairly easily.
Scialt wrote: Having an exterior delivery container seems like something that could be implemented relatively easily (given that we have similar mechanics already in the game). I don't really see how this hurts anyone other than people running one particular scam.
I guess the question is... what's the downside? "Tradition?"
Eliminating content just so you don't have to put in any effort or face any risk is not good for the game. We need more content not less and yes, this scam is content.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18929
|
Posted - 2017.05.25 20:46:29 -
[8] - Quote
Scialt wrote:
You seriously view a scam as... content?
Ooookay.....
Of course it is, someone is getting a great deal of gameplay out of baiting and trapping people via this scam. That's content.
Scialt wrote: I mean I don't really care about the "double your isk" or "Buy gecko's for 1 million" scam in market hubs... but viewing that as content seems... idiotic. I don't think ignoring those folks actually adds anything. I don't think ignoring courier missions to citadels does either... in fact it REMOVES contents as those players will NOT be making those deliveries.
Those players are the people who will find something else to complain about and threaten to quit over. EVE had had a very real problem over the last few years of CCP removing things like this to protect people such as yourself from suffering a loss because of your own greed, naivety or incompetence. This scam is a golden oldie that dates back all the way to the day CCP decided to add a structure players could dictate docking rights on.
There are rather simple ways to spot these scams and if you do happen to fall for one you can very easily ensure that organisation never gets you ever again. This has not been an issue at all for well over a decade, its not an issue now. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18929
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:08:36 -
[9] - 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 -
[10] - 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. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18933
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 10:46:17 -
[11] - 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18934
|
Posted - 2017.05.28 14:57:40 -
[12] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
That requires clicking the destination or opening the contract details, and doesnt specify the destination structure type.
If its in highsec and says the destination may by inaccessible that means its a citadel. If you don't even bother to open the contract to look at the details then frankly you deserve everything that's coming to you.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: There is plenty of space to the right of the contract spreadsheet layout to add a column sortable by destination structure type.
We don't need it, the info is already there.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: This change would just improve the spreadsheet functionality for all contracts.
Its a change for the sake of a change. We already have the info we need. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18934
|
Posted - 2017.05.29 10:06:05 -
[13] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:
20 bucks is 20 bucks. Maybe Bob would be thrilled to earn them. And if Bob's real name is Bobsky maybe he would do it for 5 bucks.
This doesn't happen. There are way easier ways to RMT that don't have a paper trail as long and visible as what you are coming up with. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18934
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 00:02:13 -
[14] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:
Do you realize that as long as NPC stations offer better conditions than player owned structures the market will never be able to make the desired transition?
Most things are now built in citadels, it already happening. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18934
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 00:04:55 -
[15] - Quote
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:15:07 -
[16] - Quote
Here we go again.
Dracvlad wrote:
Absolutely yes to both the OP's and Herzog's posts, when all the mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag I stopped mining period in hisec.
Back in that time ganking of barges was done for profit and you could infact tank the hulk more than you can with the current hulk. The hulk had the same base tank as the heavy assault ships. Today the hulk and mack really struggle to fit a decent tank and the covetor and retriever simply cannot fit a tank at all while the only ganking that happens is random due to it being impossible to turn a profit pirating them. Mining barges are in a much worse position and a large chunk of content is also gone.
Dracvlad wrote: As there is no realistic counter to freighter bumping apart from docking up and logging off I no longer use freighters, though I will use JF's as an emergency cyno is a counter to bumping.
Web ship, counter bump ships, ganking the bumpers, as you said a cyno. There are counters.
Dracvlad wrote: As there is no counter to blocking entry to structures for courier scams for no effort ISK generation I would not haul anything to a player owned structure period.
The counter is to do your background checks on the contract owner and look at the contract info, the scammer wins when you click the accept button.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 09:47:58 -
[17] - 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 11:23:17 -
[18] - 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 -
[19] - 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? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:17:28 -
[20] - 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 -
[21] - 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 -
[22] - 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 -
[23] - 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18935
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:58:46 -
[24] - Quote
Marek Kanenald wrote: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.
What ways are those? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18936
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 13:38:18 -
[25] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Doesnt matter how long that was the case. It no longer is.
Upwell structures and Asset Safety are new, and separate from Outposts. Asset Safety does not apply to Outpost. Outposts are loot pinatas. Outposts will soon be phased out entirely.
Turns out you don't know how outposts work.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: None of which contradicts that spending a few clicks to lock someone out of their assets for 5-20days is disproportionate, even if you destroy the structure.
Again, I have been locked out of a lot of my stuff for upwards of 8 years.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: In the last decade destroying an Outpost earned you its contents. This is not true true of Upwell structures where a magic fairy transports them free for you.
Link me a destroyed outpost. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18936
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 13:54:27 -
[26] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:An Upwell structure owner can block access to a players assets in a matter of seconds, thus forcing them to wait 5-20 days to regain access to their assets at another structure.
Meanwhile, the asset owner is SOL with no recourse to act against it.
If he activates Asset Safety, he has to wait 5-20 days to recover assets.
If he destroys the structure, he still has to wait 5-20 days to recover assets.
If the structure is unanchored, he still has to wait 5-20 days to recover assets.
Its 5-20 days no matter how you cut it.
And all this, just cos the Upwell structure owner spent a few seconds/clicks. That is disproportionate. Few seconds vs 5-20 days.
A delay in access/standing changes is justified to allow the player to wrap up their interests there, just the same as the Upwell structure owner has time to react to attacks during vulnerability window .
Quid pro quo.
Structure owner gets time to react to action against them, so too should players operating with the structure.
It's not justified at all. The only reason you want to change this is because you cannot be bothered to look at the contract information or do basic background checks on the issuer before clicking the accept button. That does not justify ******* over the likes of providence. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18937
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 14:23:34 -
[27] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
1) "You" I dont haul courier contracts. This has nothing to do with me.
Its your idea.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 2) The scam itself is fine, as Ive said over and over and over and over. Nor does a delay on access/standing defunct the scam. Send them from further, with tighter deadline and more m3.
If the scam is fine and this does nothing to it then that's another reason to not do it.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: 3) None of which is relevant to the discrepancy of an Upwell structure owner spending a few seconds/clicks to FORCE a 5-20 day wait to access assets on any player there. That is fked.
No that makes perfect sense and was one of the things most of the people who own one wanted.
Salvos Rhoska wrote: No matter what that player does, from activating Asset Safety, to destroying the structure, to the owner unanchoring, changes that its still a 5-20 day delay to access their own assets.
Structure owner spends a few seconds/clicks, player receives 5-20 lockout of their assets no matter what they do.
That doesnt make sense. Few seconds of action by owner vs 5-20 days for random player is whacked.
It makes perfect sense, same as how locking people out forever made sense for outposts. The last thing you want is to be forced to watch someone who has just stolen the corps fleet hanger making off with the goods while the block is counting down. Or someone who just wiped a mining fleet docking to get his stuff out of your station before the ban happens.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18937
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 14:51:58 -
[28] - Quote
Gimme Sake wrote:
If you buy from the market inside a citadel, 50 machariels for example, you need to have the freighters already docked and ready for transport, to prevent them from being frozen. Hiring a hauling company to deliver them is impossible because they would refuse citadel contracts.
In reality haulers are quite happy to haul stuff to and from a citadel. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18938
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 15:38:17 -
[29] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Mr Epeen
The contract market and the fact that looking at completed contracts over the last few days shows a huge number of completed contracts to citadels. Also the utter lack of evidence people are avoiding shipping to and from citadels. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18938
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 15:41:13 -
[30] - Quote
April rabbit wrote:
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
The danger with this scam before citadels was the scam failing. Now the danger also includes your station getting deep fried.
baltec1 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.
Have you tried?
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18938
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 15:49:27 -
[31] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Null is actually fairly vibrant now with activity and it would be a shame to deliver all this stuff on a plate to the same alliances that made null such a boring place prior to the change in sov mechanics, because that will be the result of no safety. I dont think a <24hr window for someone to get their assets out when a structure owner decides to lock you out, is going to change any of that. If they choose not to, the same 5-20 day mechanic applies anyways.
So much for "you can still do this scam". |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18938
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 16:20:57 -
[32] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:baltec1 wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Null is actually fairly vibrant now with activity and it would be a shame to deliver all this stuff on a plate to the same alliances that made null such a boring place prior to the change in sov mechanics, because that will be the result of no safety. I dont think a <24hr window for someone to get their assets out when a structure owner decides to lock you out, is going to change any of that. If they choose not to, the same 5-20 day mechanic applies anyways. So much for "you can still do this scam". You can still run the scam. Just set distance, deadline, reward and m3 appropriately and hope some idiot picks it up late.
Name a place you cant get to in a day. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18938
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 16:50:55 -
[33] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Result being never do business with an Upwell structure you do not own. Sure. Lets do that. It's what I do. I figure it's not what CCP intended for them, since it makes no sense from a game perspective. But whatever. vOv It is what it is and citadel owners will pay the consequences for it. Not the narrative warriors pushing their agendas here who will not be affected one way or the other. Mr Epeen
All the evidence shows the vast majority are using citadels just fine. Its only a handful of the regular vocal cowards and lazy who seem to be losing their **** a demanding CCP step in to make it risk free for them worrying about this. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18940
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 17:43:25 -
[34] - Quote
April rabbit wrote: 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.
I'm sure there is a story about someone who got scammed and ended up up with him stealing the alliance dreadnought cache in revenge. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18942
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 23:42:14 -
[35] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:
Never mind using the following rule: if it looks too good to be true it probably is.
Aye. There's the rub. It doesn't have to look too good to be true. It just has to look like any one of the other thousand public contracts up at any given time. There's only one solution. Don't deal with citadels. Period. Mr Epeen
Or do basic background checks which will flag up a scammer. |
|
|
|