Yes it’ll only work if you can get everyone to do it and everyone will benefit from it, otherwise 1 guy will ruin it for the rest, which is why it anouys me so much.
1 Like
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. - Sun Tsu.
2 Likes
That’s fair. And if that ends up being the rationale for leaving it the way it is, okay.
But Eve isn’t a pure sandbox – it’s a game. Things are tweaked all the time in order to balance competition with actually being fun. Personally, I think scanning down a site only to discover it’s already looted and nearly worthless isn’t all that much fun, and it’s worth considering where the “fun” balance lies. If a handful of players are gaining a competitive edge by making things boring for hundreds of players, that would suggest the “fun” balance is off. That may not be the case here, but it’s something that should be taken into account.
3 Likes
Not looting the whole site is NOT an asshole thing to do. It’s a strategy older explorers use to slow down their competitors who might be coming in behind them.
It is not up to CCP to neuter a strategy you dislike, just like it’s not up to individual explorers to take extra time just to despawn a site so other explorers can be happy.
■■■■ other explorers. I want them to feel miserable and quit so I can get more dank loot out of Paragon Soul all by myself, thanks.
Removing the ability to cargo scan a site won’t lead to more sites being completed, it will result in less cans being hacked.
As was discussed during the hacking overhaul years ago, with out the ability to scan the can most players will go to the best named can in the site and hack that one and move on.
Edit: Also the de spawn timer triggers as soon as the first can is hacked and takes around 2 hours as other have stated.
1 Like
The fun is when getting all the good stuff and watching the other one who come after get all the crap.Especially when I can get the fattest cans and seeing the one behind try to catch me cuz he pissed off XD
The fortune of someone is the unfortunate of other
Don’t make the fun become the boring grinding like mining XD
P/s this is the big @@@@ game, move to the dangerous places or the unpopulated, don’t sit in the safe zone and whining
Where do you hack? I can come bring the fun to you 
3 Likes
I hack inside the wormholes
Come
I’ll show you the whole new world
1 Like
3 Likes
Back when I hacked a lot, I’d always leave one can unhacked.
I see it as a form of exploration pvp. By forcing the scanner after me to spend more time scanning down worthless sites I make sure I get all the good loot for myself, and drive up the market price (by reducing supply) so that my loot is more valuable.
Also, the more time they spend scanning, the higher the chance I spot them and can shoot them.
4 Likes
Skyrim had the same problem when they made it multiplayer.
Sites and quests would be partially or wholey finished before they completed it or even left the starting point.
They never did solve that problem completely.
One thing they did was to limit the number of players on the multiplayer instance.
That will not work for EVE.
The idea I have would be that every 10 minuets after the original runner of the site leaves, he gets a pop up saying “Are you finished with this site Yes/No” and if he hits Yes it disappears, if he hits no, it stays for another 10 minuets ad infinity until the 2 hour auto despawn kicks in, if he chooses neither option for 15 seconds the site auto despawns immediately.
That way you can leave a partially picked site hanging around to slow others or ambush them, but when you get tired, they disappear and everyone is happy. 
2 Likes
The implication you’re making is that someone is cherry-picking to deny resources to individuals targeted for running specific sites, individuals a person or corp do not want to profit. Otherwise it’s a poor use of martial philosophy to justify pig-headed laziness and rudeness, you are literally ham-stringing yourself out of more good loot by avoiding the hacking minigame which is simpler than a very easy game of minesweeper. Now if you are doing this sort of thing to screw someone else, specifically someone else, not other people at large, then you’re clever, but it seems like a major waste of time for the gains reaped. Otherwise you’re an idiot trying to seem clever, and you can put lipstick on a pig but it’ll still be a pig- unless you drink six beers, then that pig might be a princess
3 Likes
You had me agreeing with you and rethinking my conceits up until the last line.
1 Like
Plato’s Ring of Gyges
Plato’s Ring of Gyges
Relies on the supposition that one ought not act immorally for fear of persecution.
Let’s suppose this, the name of any explorer that opens a site and leaves is plastered over the entrance as a scannable/hackable signature until it despawns.
1 Like
Glaucon asks whether any man can be so virtuous that he could resist the temptation of being able to perform any act without being known or discovered.
So not exactly relying on the supposition that one ought not act immorally. Relies on them not being caught.
Now the problem lies in who is watching for the person who leaves a site like this. The question is not can it be done but can it be made easier for me to take advantage of so that I know who is exactly messing with these sites at zero risk?
You now break ganking with your fix.
1 Like
If you’re going to source wikipedia, at least quote the entire relevant portion of the text. Glaucon does suppose that one ought not act immorally to avoid persecution. Socrates replies with an equally preposterous “evil men cannot be happy because their immorality enslaves them in the service of evil”. Which would equate to “evil isn’t fun, it’s self-abuse”.
In Republic, the tale of the ring of Gyges is described by the character of Glaucon who is the brother of Plato. Glaucon asks whether any man can be so virtuous that he could resist the temptation of being able to perform any act without being known or discovered. Glaucon suggests that morality is only a social construction, the source of which is the desire to maintain one’s reputation for virtue and justice. Hence, if that sanction were removed, one’s moral character would evaporate.
Glaucon posits:
Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men.
Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust.
For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.
— Plato, Republic, 360b–d (Jowett trans.)
Though his answer to Glaucon’s challenge is delayed, Socrates ultimately argues that justice does not derive from this social construct: the man who abused the power of the Ring of Gyges has in fact enslaved himself to his appetites, while the man who chose not to use it remains rationally in control of himself and is therefore happy. (Republic 10:612b)
The current alternative is to stake out sites, observe the player exiting and them inspect the site to check and see if they left it trashed and then move on to gank-punish them. Alternatively, the aggrieved could web and scan a target and then, observing the quality of loot, decide whether the player is likely to have been cherry-picking and finally make the decision of whether or not to execute them and either capture or more morally, since we’re talking about manners-police, destroy the loot.
So we’re left with three penultimate options it seems, four if you count ‘do nothing’ as an option:
First: deal evil unto evil and make the game less fun for (almost) everyone.
Second: provide a mechanic that makes trashing sites mildly risky when it would be otherwise nearly riskless for the effort required to intercept the behavior.
Third: despawn sites with no population quicker.
Which of these provides the greatest utility? Is this even a widespread problem that needs addressing? Do I care? No, I don’t really care, I just find the thought experiment useful to my own purposes.
2 Likes
Like I care when you stopped agreeing with me
Well it hasn’t been addressed in years. What’s making it needing address now?
From the way-back machine:
Rocks, gas, blueprints, mutaplasmids, whatever… all the same. Someone did something I don’t like. They must pay. Now someone else do it for me because I’m too lazy to do it myself.
You care enough to leave a sarcastic reply, so that’s something.
Isn’t that nine-tenths of the entire economy? Except in this case the plaintiff has no money nor social status to leverage. I still think it’s rude and hurts the trasher’s own financial gain in the end- it’s an attempt at turning an infinite game with severe inflation issues into a zero sum game fighting that inflation, you don’t win, you don’t even gain any ground, in fact, your efforts cause you to lose ground to the rest of the market’s inertia, and eventually everyone loses regardless by exiting the game.
1 Like