No, go away.
2 Likes
There is your problem.
2 Likes
OP has a perception problem: citadels are POSes replacement, with different capabilities, that you can make public, not stations.
2 Likes
When you stop falling for it.
4 Likes
OP, it is silly game design I agree in that you have no post box so to speak, however you have one simple thing to do, only do contracts to NPC stations.
But the next part is up to you as a player. Note the people who do contracts to those locations with no issues, assume that they are linked to the people doing this, then try to do the same back to them.
And nobody in his right mind would accept couriers to player owned structures (exceptions apply).
Nice way to introduce players to player owned structures isn’t it?
1 Like
You can fix this issue for yourself in about 10 minutes.
Block everyone who does a courier contract to a structure.
( because 98% of them are scams )
Problem solved.
no, the problem is not solved. You just showed there is a problem.
2 Likes
A perception problem that make you think citadels are safe as stations.
Completely wrong.
Me as client of courier services (too lazy to haul my stuff by myself) is a victim of this “mechanics” too: i cannot use citadels as points for my contracts. Because these contracts usually end up expired. But once i move stuff to the nearest NPC station contracts usually take few days to complete.
So yes, even if it is “perception problem” it affects both services and clients. And reason for this? Badly thought mechanics (“let’s stick it together”) and lazy developing (“we will find solution somewhere in future”).
3 Likes
The easiest alternative would be to simply not support courier contracts in combination with structures. However, then you get complaints on why it’s not possible to have them. So now it’s a compromise.
A grace period for access right changes would make things a lot easier and shift the problem from many players (the users of the structure) onto the owner if the structure.
Or is there a good reason why owners need to be able to change access rights instantaneously? Is there some other fundamental problem behind this, which only I don’t see?
Yes, in order to make your contracts work you need to find someone who trust you. If you want to take contracts to citadels, you need to trust the owners. Forget public contracts.
Here is a solution that doesn’t take away a player’s freedom to decide who can dock at their station. It’s even one CCP says they are working on, as recently as Eve Downunder if I recall. Feel free to remind CCP there is interest in this change, but the hysterics in this thread are a little much.
If hauling to private structures is too risky, then don’t do it or charge the appropriate risk premium. Like so many things in Eve, navigating the risks (and rewards) of public contracts is the main gameplay for a professional hauler. Don’t do the risky things, mitigate the risk by establishing trust in other ways, or make sure you are paid well for such risks. Complaining to CCP that they should legislate the risk away isn’t playing the game.
If anyone should be complaining here, it is the structure owners that are unable to get people to take their contracts because the current contract system doesn’t provide a sufficient level of trust. That is a valid reason for CCP to spend some effort on this change, and hopefully get more people into using destructible structures, but this whining that the game is unfair because it is possible to lose to another player is silly. Docking right scams have been in the game for years in nullsec, and the chorus of shrill whining only reached a crescendo once the feature came to highsec.
Players are still going to get scammed by courier contracts even after a ‘dropbox’ is implemented, although I agree at a much lower rate. That will be good for Upwell owners who will have access to more peons to do their grunt work for them as well as the bad haulers who will be safer, but not so good for the competent haulers who are navigating the more risky contract market successfully today. The will face increased competition by bots and unthinking players who will cut prices for hauling to private structures immensely.
TL;DR This thread is redundant and CCP is working on it. Deal with the risk until then.
1 Like
There are some cases where this is very usefull. Some people organise public fleets and open their citadels clone bays for the fleet duration.
1 Like
I can see how it’s helpful to open a Citadel instantly, but closing access instantly would likely be just as problematic as it’s with everything else. Still, that’s a good point.
Just Frog ItTM?
1 Like
Wouldn’t be fun if, when you handle sov of one of your structure to reds, they couldn’t completely instantly shut all access to it. Remember the CO2 keepstar theft.
Yes, and they made hauling to sov null sec a massive success … Oh wait, no, no one hauled to sov null sec except for blues. It reached a crescendo because in high sec people actually haul and CCP introduced this failure of a feature (docking rights controls) without giving it any thought at all.
Where is the difference to a hauler complaining about the current system because they cannot take citadel contracts because they do not offer a sufficient level of trust? 
It is nothing but the other side of the same medal.
No thread about clubbing CCP’s thick skulls over an actual gameplay issue is redundant (except for AFK camping because that thing has an official main topic already).
There is no navigating. It’s blocking issuers or ignoring unclear destinations until the history shows a clear trend. For competent haulers there is no middle ground, instead the entire feature adds nothing but frustration and tedium for competent haulers because they need to sift through all sorts of contracts for extended periods of time to figure out whether a contract or issuer is legit-ish or not.
The drop in rates would not matter a lot because the risk would be gone and delivering to a structure would be just as flawless as delivering to an NPC station. Not to mention that rates even of scams have already gone down a lot because of competition due to available scam contracts and available haulers.
Coincidentally, RF/BF does not allow contracts to citadels in general, except for a handful of trusted structure holders. Goes to show what a good experience structures are. Unless you trust them with your goods for 0 collateral.
4 Likes
A hauler can navigate the trust factor. It is game play to decide which contract to take, which one to take but secure trust another way, and which ones to avoid. The station owner just has to deal with the fact his or her station is viewed as an untrustworthy place and pay more, or use other methods to make a deal with a hauler.
It’s true, they are different sides of the same coin but the structure owners aren’t the ones in hysterics about the lack of trust afforded by courier contracts. Presumably they are just playing the game, using alternate means to make arrangements with good couriers. It’s generally the bad and/or lazy couriers who are so shrill about how the game has to save them from their bad business decisions. At least, that is the impression these forums give one.
Emphasis mine. There are other ways to secure trust and the players who do this, both haulers and the contract issuers/station owners, benefit from being able to conduct business amongst a background of players, both haulers and contract issuers, who are unable to do so. Risk like this separates bad players from good players, or at least those who spend more effort from the lazy.
That is game play. Yes, there are reasons we might want to make courier contracts more secure and thus more accessible to everyone, but they are not broken because you can fail them or tricked into a bad business decision. That’s what makes things interesting and even with this dropbox, players are going to on occasion find their cargo undeliverable or not make it to their destination.
Why should it, its a learning experience, its like me telling you to deliver something to mars, you can’t do it and you should know you can’t before you accept it, CCP doesn’t need to fix this learning experience as its something players should learn, it teaches them that they actually need to use their brains in this game
1 Like