Why engage then?
You only get a weapon timer when you activate your weapons, not when someone activates a weapon on you. Well, then and when you use a mining command boost.
IMO this is terrible. (1) its just more softening of eve - killing the game by lots of little cuts designed to make it easier/safer for the careless player; (2) why should people be allowed access to stations where they have been specifically prohibited - the station is private property - if the owner has denied a person access, then they shouldnt be allowed to use it in any form, period - that courier contracts cant be completed is not an excuse as there has always been a big warning in red letters that you cant assume that privately owned stations will let you dock; (3) how will this not be abused? - youâre getting hunted or are being ganked on station - just dump your stuff in the citadel and off you go. Also falcon said that this will allow roquel pilots to dump their ore in station that they cant dock at - why are we trying to make roquel pilots more efficient? Dont they make enough isk as it is?
At a very minimum, citadel owners should be allowed to opt out - click a toggle that keeps their stations the way they currently are. Ofc in the courier contract window there would have to be a warning that the citadelâs drop box is closed.
I get the issue with being able to dump cargo while under attack and I agree, that is a bit of a problem.
But why are so many people so bothered by the protection of couriers? This âprotectionâ (if you can even call it that, more of a righting of crap mechanics) will put a hell of a lot more delicious, squishy Indys out there for yaâll to hunt.
Figured you scammers and dark side profit makers would enjoy more haulers to suicide gank.
Not only will gankers ( yes of every security cause courier isnât locked to just highsec) get more targets, the people living in high, low and null who have no haulers in their corporation can actually get things delivered to them! Finally all you pirates can order stuff from highsec! Yay!
PM me once this mechanic goes live, Iâll gladly bring you stuff from highsec. I trained into a blockade runner for a reason 
1 Like
Pretty sure you can explain this without much in the way of lore.
5 Likes
Funny thing is we have those, too, and they let you make withdrawals, too. Maybe if you move the camera a little bit to the left or right youâll find a cash machine.
A bank lets you make a withdrawl through completely separate interface. A night deposit box most certainly does nothing of the sort, be it on a bank, a library, or otherwise.
1 Like
The purpose of the change isnât actually to protect haulers at all, highsec or otherwise.
The purpose of the change is to make citadels compatible with courier contracts. The difference is subtle, but itâs only conferring any degree of âprotectionâ to haulers as a means to an end. We want player owned structures, player owned structures need feature-parity with normal stations, player behavior prevents this because, at present, no reasonable courier decision matrix allows for accepting courier contracts destined for arbitrary player structures.
It would make a lot of sense to limit this to plastic wraps and avoid the unintended consequences.
The problem isnât with how itâs being explained, but that it needs to be explained. Of course I could just explain it like itâs a letter box or a mail slot. And if it was the opposite then I could call it a drive-through or a pickup point. Itâs just not my point. A bidirectional system doesnât need to be explained, but everyone gets that what goes in can also go out. Only when itâs a one-way system will players ask why this is and why it cannot be both ways.
All it does is to fix a couple of isolated problems while weakening the concept of access permissions as a whole by sabotaging an entire pathway.
Take then your deposit box imagine. Does it allow you to store, say, a table or a chair at your bank? Well, the fix seems to allow you to do just that. A freighter can hold more than one million m3 in its cargo. Nobody then can stop you from unloading cargo at a foreign station and put it up for sale when before you could do just that by restricting docking rights.
This to me is a very bad sign for the future. The whole idea reads like something a 2 week carebear would suggest and then argue about.
A little hand holding, forget the damage done to the game.
If the devs are thinking this shallow about EVE, the future is bleak.
Since the feature is already checking for a weapons or criminal timer, it could also reject access to deposit, if the player has ANY timer, including the 15 minute logoff, which you get if someoneâs shooting you
I give CCP a little credit for thinking of uses beyond courier contracts and rorquals, when they make a special bullet point (the last one) saying All structures in All space.
While site-runners deep in unfriendly space may get past gate camps with less loot if they use the option, others may not be willing to give up 15% and wait two weeks. It would not surprise me if CCP hopes this new form of âsafetyâ will INCREASE low and null traffic. More "mobile loot containers"Â running around, is surely a good thing.
1 Like
Itâs not shallow thinking. Itâs just that when a problem isnât owned then it can end up owning you, causing you further problems. Of course anyone who is covered in work may not notice it, but will see followup problems simply as more of the same everyday work. Generally we call this âpatch workâ and itâs not always the best approach to solving issues. I donât really know what the main driving thought behind the fix is, other than to fix the obvious. Itâs on the test server, which means itâs pretty much a done thing.
It is the very definition of shallow thinking, come out with a feature without taking into account the impact on the rest of the software.
As a software engineer for almost 30 years I can tell you this is a very bad sign for EVE.
Not because of an individual thinking of the idea, but because the development process didnât squash it because it was not fully thought out.
EDIT: The only good news is someone must know this idea is not perfect or it would have just been a line item in another thread.
1 Like
Sure, but what 30 years ago was called patchwork do some now call âagile design methodsâ.
Anyhow, itâs drifting off too far into calling CCP Fozzie a shallow thinker, and Iâm not interested in doing that.
Donât make things up.
This mechanic is extremely broken in combat situations:
- chase frigate to hostile structure - you point said frigate - said frigate deposits its loot in hostile structure - said frigateâs contents are safe at no cost
- hauler loots faction sotiyo wrecks - warps to hostile structure - asset safetys bpcs out at 0% risk
- you tackle a rorqual that warped onto an athanor with aggression - he waits out the aggression & 0% risk deposits excavators
- super with fighters out (no aggression) on a structure gets tackled and dread bombed - deposits all refits and fighters into structure 0% risk as he dies
11 Likes
this is somehow worse than most of the ideas i have ever heard of for this game.
2 Likes
I think there could be dozens of examples why dropping stuff without docking is bad bad bad.
Why not just make this a feature of the Complete Mission button which only works if you do not have access to dock.
2 Likes
How about you fix your cashgrab bait âSecrets of the Abyssâ event instead ?
Scammers
This is a great change for haulers and industrialists, and more generally for everyone who relies on items being hauled to Upwell structures.
The impact in combat situations will need to be closely monitored. I share some of the concerns voiced in this thread. Allowing use of the Cargo Deposit only when the player has no timers at all might be a reasonable adjustment.