EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2014-09-28 15:17
  • First Forum Visit: 2014-09-29 21:21
  • Number of Posts: 829
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Gimme Sake

Security Status 5.0
  • State War Academy Member since
  • Caldari State Faction

Last 20 Posts

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    What will logs show in this case? "Legit" gameplay.


    Yes.

    It can be a nigh perfect cover for RMT.
    Three+ layers of plausible deniability.

    If its being used that way? I dont know.



    I merely pointed a plausible possibility.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Salvos Rhoska wrote:
    Coralas wrote:
    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.


    Full finished post:

    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 access to the pick up point or delivery point, there is plausible deniability throughout.

    Result:
    1) RMT purchaser issues private contract with collateral to RMT supplier, equivalent to their purchase.
    2) RMT purchaser either contracts 1 carbon, or equivalent equity (as cover), and then blocks access to the pickup point by that private contract receiver (or not' depending on reliability of RMT supplier)
    3) Contract fails, and isk in collateral is delivered to RMT purchaser.
    4) Operation is covered by plausible deniability as:
    --1) Access is controlled by the RMT purchaser to the pickup point, autonomously.
    --2) 3rd party/alts obfuscate the exchange
    --3) Nobody knows the actual value of the cargo in a courier contract until they accept it.

    Did I get that right?



    Contracts are time restricted by the issuer.
    That means the RMT purchaser can actualize the failure in delivery (thus receiving collateral) 24hrs after the RMT supplier accepts it.



    Basically you got it right. You can simply issue a contract on valuable stuff that nobody will bother to deliver (or will mime an attempt to deliver) because it isn't meant to be (delivered) due to collateral being use as rmt payment. As an extra caution measure you can block access to delivery point to make it look like a scam.

    What will logs show in this case? "Legit" gameplay.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Coralas wrote:
    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.




    Yes, but you can always justify with "it was a scam".

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    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.

  • EvE Survival. in EVE Communication Center

    Magnus Jax wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Players who are likely to stay go exploring low, null, wh and of course, due to nature of Eve lose ships. It's not ganking that retains them but the fact that they find eve interesting.

    I've lost a few ships In the first weeks of eve. Went on an fit another each time because I wanted to see more. Losing a dessie to a low sec gate camp, a few rookie ships in null or low and a cruiser due to suspect status had absolutely nothing to do with finding Eve interesting. I perceived it as part of gameplay.

    That is what statistics show, new players losing ships because they find the game interesting or rewarding enough to venture in high risk places.


    Oh come on now, you're using way too much reasoned logic. That won't sit well with the ganking community.



    There's no ganking comunity. Eve is a game where everyone is out to get everyone built upon an economy simulator. Perhaps the presence of the in game economy/currency makes players confused about ethics and morals.

  • EvE Survival. in EVE Communication Center

    Players who are likely to stay go exploring low, null, wh and of course, due to nature of Eve lose ships. It's not ganking that retains them but the fact that they find eve interesting.

    I've lost a few ships In the first weeks of eve. Went on an fit another each time because I wanted to see more. Losing a dessie to a low sec gate camp, a few rookie ships in null or low and a cruiser due to suspect status had absolutely nothing to do with finding Eve interesting. I perceived it as part of gameplay.

    That is what statistics show, new players losing ships because they find the game interesting or rewarding enough to venture in high risk places.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    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.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    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. Cool

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    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".

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    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. Cool

  • Kill Rights in EVE Gameplay Center

    Aaaarrgg wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Aaaarrgg wrote:
    o/

    we all have many hundred kill rights :) that comes with playing the game, but try to sort them and LOL

    the information is there, issuer name , cost, duration etc.


    please put that into sortable columns. I can assure you (my :)) life will be much improved by this small change.

    thread will be moved but dammit make this happen




    At -10 sec status why do you even care about kill rights?


    i care :(, its just annoying to open the KR tab and be presented with an indigestible mass of intel that should just be sortable. most of my many accounts are maybe -10 but not all are.



    Hmmm, why not. More spread sheets and sorting tools sounds like a good idea. Lol

  • [MERC] Perkone in EVE Gameplay Center

    Challenge accepted from SWA. PIck us, we're snugglier!

  • Kill Rights in EVE Gameplay Center

    Aaaarrgg wrote:
    o/

    we all have many hundred kill rights :) that comes with playing the game, but try to sort them and LOL

    the information is there, issuer name , cost, duration etc.


    please put that into sortable columns. I can assure you (my :)) life will be much improved by this small change.

    thread will be moved but dammit make this happen




    At -10 sec status why do you even care about kill rights?

  • Do you actually enjoy playing EVE? [Poll] in EVE Communication Center

    Eve has its moments of grace. But they stay docked most of the time.

    p.s. Don't believe the dark side when they say "Join us! We have cookies!".
    It's not cookies, it's blue donuts.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Keno Skir wrote:


    What? That argument has nothing to do with anything i said.

    My workaround is to take your alt to the destination before accepting the contract, while citadel still open. Once you accept contract and citadel docking access is revoked you still have a man on the inside. A quick contract means your unknown alt can move the package into space for you, and you can gobble up that nasty scammer's ISK.

    You and others keep suggesting that there is no risk / work for the scammer, and no way around the issue for the target. Both of your points are wholly incorrect and are the reason you aren't being taken seriously. The scam is easy to avoid, to the point ANYONE can scam the scammers if they want. The scammer has to erect a Billion ISK Structure which is absolutely risk, probably more risk than the haulers are taking to be honest.



    Anyone with hauling experinece else can confirm this? Because maybe the citadel was never open to beggin so. Maybe there's a sick little person there that only opens it to certain players in certain circumstances.

    Because if planting an alt or friend there that can pull that maneuver is valid game play option I'm totally fine with it.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:




    I'm not losing anything, I objectively stick on to a topic. You and others, and since it is the same subjective discourse you all employ I'm going to suspect alts at work, keep diverting it towards a different meaning. Lacking logical arguments and making comparisons only valid to your biased perspective.

    If you don't scam why are you posting here at all?


    There is something wrong with you. You just said that if I don't scam why am I talking about this.

    Did you forget that in this thread you typed the words "I don't haul"? Why are YOU talking about it then?

    You're a hypocrite, and any respect I once had for you is gone.

    Quote:

    My pov on this thread is debathing wether there's a risk element that affect both parties involved in a pvp activity. Simple and succint. Please bring up objective arguments that support the reason for which an involved party should be invulnerable and don't pull up subjective comparisons. The fact that we liked other posts means just that our opinions converged on other subjects but it doesn't mean they can't differ.


    We are not differing. You are wrong and refusing to acknowledge it despite the fact that it's been explain to you. Don't worry, I know you aren't worth replying to further.



    Yes I don't haul. I regard the matter at hand as a pvp activity.

    Please argument your "You are wrong!" affirmation.

    If you were a hauler and the game gave you the oportunity to pay back a scam attent would that option bother you that much?

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:


    In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.


    ". That is just one sided gameplay". Which is the other thing you are doing that is like the anti-gankers.

    People that hate something ALWAYS focus on the 'lack of cost and one sided unfairness" of the thing they dislike.

    You and I both have been telling the anti-gankers "it doesn't matter what it 'cost' the ganker, your job is to not get ganked in the 1st -place, USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE instead of running to CCP for help" for several years now, which is why I'm shocked to see you using the anti-gankers playbook about an issue/game mechanics you don't like.

    It smacks of hypocrisy TBH.




    "There is no risk for the ganker, the catalyst getting CONCORDED is insignifigant"


    You just mentioned a loss. Insignifiant YOU SAY, but a LOSS none the less.

    SO it is YOU the one who considers losing a catalyst insignifiant. Not me.


    All your preconceptions about my posts come from comparing my arguments with antigankers' and that is all the demeanor of your posting. You want to divert an eventual debate about game mechanic exploits towards a certain zone oozing of subjectivity.

    I can do that too you know. I can compare you with the people in the T3c rebalance thread where the supreme argument is CCPlease dun nurf mah pwnmobile.

    Because basically that's what you, your alts and other two or three players are trying to do in this thread:

    Crying CCPlease dont nerf my scam mobile.


    WTF is wrong with you man? You can't be serious. And you know I don't do scams (or ganking or other bad guy stuff). Hell, i don't do high sec at all.

    And alts? Again, WTF man, I don't post on my alts here?, you think that the people telling you you are wrong about this are my alts? You think I'd stoop to doing the thing I laugh at others for doing?

    You've known me on this forum for years, we've liked each others posts over and over, we've jointly confronted the whiney entitled losers who can't play a video game to the point of asking for help from CCP. You know better.

    You really need to take a break, you're losing it.




    I'm not losing anything, I objectively stick on to a topic. You and others, and since it is the same subjective discourse you all employ I'm going to suspect alts at work, keep diverting it towards a different meaning. Lacking logical arguments and making comparisons only valid to your biased perspective.

    If you don't scam why are you posting here at all?

    My pov on this thread is debathing wether there's a risk element that affect both parties involved in a pvp activity. Simple and succint. Please bring up objective arguments that support the reason for which an involved party should be invulnerable and don't pull up subjective comparisons. The fact that we liked other posts means just that our opinions converged on other subjects but it doesn't mean they can't differ.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:


    In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.


    ". That is just one sided gameplay". Which is the other thing you are doing that is like the anti-gankers.

    People that hate something ALWAYS focus on the 'lack of cost and one sided unfairness" of the thing they dislike.

    You and I both have been telling the anti-gankers "it doesn't matter what it 'cost' the ganker, your job is to not get ganked in the 1st -place, USE THE TOOLS YOU HAVE instead of running to CCP for help" for several years now, which is why I'm shocked to see you using the anti-gankers playbook about an issue/game mechanics you don't like.

    It smacks of hypocrisy TBH.




    "There is no risk for the ganker, the catalyst getting CONCORDED is insignifigant"


    You just mentioned a loss. Insignifiant YOU SAY, but a LOSS none the less.

    SO it is YOU the one who considers losing a catalyst insignifiant. Not me.


    All your preconceptions about my posts come from comparing my arguments with antigankers' and that is all the demeanor of your posting. You want to divert an eventual debate about game mechanic exploits towards a certain zone oozing of subjectivity.

    I can do that too you know. I can compare you with the people in the T3c rebalance thread where the supreme argument is CCPlease dun nurf mah pwnmobile.

    Because basically that's what you, your alts and other two or three players are trying to do in this thread:

    Crying CCPlease dont nerf my scam mobile.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Gimme Sake wrote:


    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.


    I don't know why you can't see the flaws in what you are saying, you used to be one of the clear thinkers.

    Look at your own example. In that one you're telling the new player to take INDIVIDUAL ACTION (fit a ceptor) for their own benefit.

    But with this courier stuff you are telling people "don't even try to take individual action" (like avoiding citadels while you still can), you are saying that the ONLY answer is CCP intervention (new mechanics/drop boxes), which would be just like telling a new player "if you want to go to null, don't, even interceptors can die, just beg CCP to magically teleport you and your asset to null sec"...



    It is not me telling players not to take individual action; check the thread and see which posters have made that affirmation. "Avoiding scams is easy, don't take citadel contracts".

    I only suggested that, instead of giving that advice maybe they should consider a change in mechanics.

    In Frosty's words "There's no risk for the scammer other than messing up a contract". That's just one sided gameplay.

  • Breaking News: Citadel/Plex Contracting. in EVE Communication Center

    Jenn aSide wrote:
    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.



    This answered my question. You don't like citadels to begin with, and that dislike is coloring your judgement and making you post things that make no sense.

    That's why what you are saying looks so much like what the anti-ganker types say, because they are also responding emotionally to something they can't stand (not just ganking, but the idea that the activity doesn't have any risk for the ganker AND the false idea that ganking also negatively affects both new players and the general amount of players).

    Put that emotion aside for a second and look at the things you are posting. I'm serious, go back to that one post and replace the word "Citadel" with the word "Catalyst" and read it to yourself again. You're too smart to be reacting this way.




    No, I dont dislike citadels, only some mechanics that were introduced along.

    The ganker argument is false. Gankers lose their ships in the process, lose security status and have to avoid local gate/station station police to travel. There is a consequence to their actions and there are ways to prevent or even counter being ganked.

    The argument of antigankers is probably catalysts are cheap but so is replacing a retriever. I'm pretty sure a bot miner doesn't really care about losing a ship or two because the profit makes it inconspicuous. There's nothing that can't be solved in Eve through the hardening the f up and making another alt. This highly intelligent adaptive process is available to both gankers and miners.

    Why do you keep comparing me with the antigankers?

Forum Signature

"Never not blob!" ~ Plato