Increase ESI privacy

[Bill_Ramen_REDUX]

Like I said I my previous post, I was up for over 72 hours with no sleep when writing that.

Regarding the fleet esi stuff , in order for an attack of that nature to be successful you would need that specific fleet’s esi link, which is only available to that fleet’s fleet boss, and is only valid for the duration of that fleet. Furthermore regarding the primary piece of 3rd party technology that uses that kind of information (adashboard.Info), that portion of aDashboard is only open to trusted imperium members that have been granted access to the appropriate dashboard. Also, that’s why imperium operations involving capitals and supercapitals are only ever headed by a very small, select group of people, and are always held in special , segregated fleets away from the mainline member fleet. This practice narrows down the list of theoretical attackers tremendously by restricting access to only verified cap/super pilots, and even more so by restricting the authority to call such fleets . The only phesiable way for an esi based sabotage attack on an imperium capital or super capital fleet (or any other alliance that follows this same or similar MO and uses esi based fleet tech) would be under the following conditions:

1. the attacker or attackers would have to have the authority to call for and be allowed to command fleets of that caliber.

2. knowingly or willingly call for AND be the fleet boss of said fleet to be able to gain access to the necessary information with the intent of causing harm to said fleet (awoxing)

3. create or have appropriate access to a 3rd party application that would be able to execute those attacks in the first place (and if used for malicious intent in and of itself would be an egregious violation of ccps third party developer license agreement, as well as as the main eula/tos and which would earn the applications author and any users almost certain ban)

3a) knowingly and/or willingly execute such an attack or willingly give the appropriate information to another party to execute such an attack of this nature with intent to cause harm to said fleet.

Etc…

You can see how the list of people who would and could pull off such a feat dwindles down to only a very small group of people, (and let’s face it, I don’t see mittens awoxing his own fleets ever happening).

Qed this attack is nearly impossible to perform.

[Jas_Dor]

Industrialists live and die by their opsec. Sometimes the blockade runner is empty, other times it’s moving more isk worth of stuff than you would want to put in a freighter. Hell, if I knew who my competitors were, and not just their market cutouts, I’d be tempted to hire folks to kill their structures and gank their haulers.

[Shea_Tzestu]

Much of the ESI should be removed as it simply sterilises the game. Civil wars are as rare as a golden goose & smaller entity are crushed by mega allinces managed by a handful of people with automated hr.

Unplug ESI epically asset & market & watch TQ numbers explode. Naturally conflicts would occur instead of the stage managed “for the lulz” bore fest wars of current.

WWB excluded which is clearly a Villy Mittens king of null sec grudge match, the winner a sad little king on a sad little throne .

CCP will not make such a change so you gota get used to that. Multi accounts and bots are the baseline over unique users or entity. The entire monetisation policy is based around multi accounting n+1 ESI heavy dependency.