Well we don’t have any tractor beam that can push yet so “cargo tractor beam” sounds perfect.
“With security and safety designs in mind the Upwell Cargo Deposit only has a smart tractor unit installed inside the Upwell Structure to keep itself from being destroyed by outside factors like enemy’s fire.” or something like that.
Maybe it then should be a tractor beam and one has to jettison it so the structure pulls it in and collects it just like an MTU does.
Yeah I think that’s good too. Though I kinda wanted it to work just as-is to make it less of a hassle and make it work together with other timer stuff like the Tractor Unit will refuse to take in any stuff from someone that’s engaged or scram’d.
Could be solved with a slow tractor beam, one which pulls only with 100 or 250 m/s instead of 1000 m/s. Dropping off a courier package at a structure at 1 km distance would then mean the package is accessible to anyone within range for 10 seconds. Drop it off at 10 km and it’s going to be 100 seconds.
A service module could be installed to make this go faster and/or to have more range.
That’d make it kinda too easy for scammers to deny the contract from getting completed if they happen to see the hauler in action in my opinion.
Though I’m not sure if I can think of anyway to make it work with effort to make the contract fail factored in. Even a frigate tackle could make the contract fail easily if we go with a “scram prevents Cargo Deposit to work” as aggressor could get a new ship from the same citadel.
There is no reason why it needs to be 100% perfectly safe. All that it needs is to stop scams from working 100%. If there is a little bit of risk involved, one which includes a bit of space ship bumping, then it shouldn’t really be seen as an issue.
That it got fixed by making it 100% safe for couriers to drop their deliveries off while also wrecking the docking permissions is what ends up getting used against CCP for being too nice to one group in EVE while nuking it completely for another group.
I’d love to see CCP solve problems more often in a solomonic way. The good, old “split the baby in half”-method. 
But with that said, a cargo deposit does leave a chance for a scammer to bump a freighter away from the station when the pilot doesn’t have docking rights. So it does have a window of opportunity.
The problems with this idea are worse than the user error the idea is trying to hand hold the user for.
It’s really not. The “user error” you speak of made most structures basically impossible to use with public courier contracts. CCP ensured all industry is now in structures (90%+ by their last numbers over a year ago?)… yet the courier contracts are promising to be a “contract” yet rely 100% on the issuer not screwing the player accepting over. It’s 100% based on trust, which defeats the point of the contracts in the first place as a neutral game mechanic to hold both parties to a set of rules.
What you call “hand holding” is really just fixing the mechanic so that it’s not one playstyle (scammers) having massive unintended benefits and heavily impairing every other playstyle the mechanic was actually intended for - haulers, industrialists and people needing things moved without anyone to “go” to. As is, the contract system should be a contract holding both involved parties to a clear set of rules, but instead one party can forego the rules entirely and thus it turns to being a matter of trust, in which case the contract system could be ignored in the first place since you apparently trust each other enough anyway.
I won’t say it’s ideal (just limiting it to contract wraps would work perfectly IMO, or split it by security so it’s a highsec system), but at this point i think a solution is better than the nothing that has been done to the very flawed system for two years. I think it would be far better to offer constructive criticism at CCP and hope (and continually remind them…) to actually iterate on this if there are indeed issues, rather than saying “no this is terrible don’t do anything”.
I see why you are confused.
Having the vast majority of haulers be uninterested in hauling to the vast majority of citadels does feel like an extreme to me.
I recently created my first courier contract, thinking I’ll save myself some time. Due to war reasons & tethering, it was important to haul a bunch of ships to a citadel far off the beaten path. I was told reward was good, but most wouldn’t accept it due to the citadel not being whitelisted. Result was that I decided to just haul it myself.
With this welcome change, I’m probably much more likely to create more courier contracts in the future.
You mean of the TINY MINORITY of haulers that do contracts, mostly new players.
The vast majority of haulers are doing private work for their corps and friends.
Not because of station issues but because the contract risk is all on the hauler, nothing on the shipper.
Lets say you want to ship something worth 50 million. You make the deposit 50 million and the haul pays like 5 million. Why would anyone risk a ship and 50 million to make a lousy 5? But that is what these contracts are doing. I got PI alts that do better than that and they only undock once a month or so.
On top of all that there are dozens of different hauler contract scams, there is no point to fixing just one especially if it breaks other parts of the game.; eg No Dock Unload.
I have to point out that what you call “a tiny minority” is actually a lively community. If you check out “haulers channel” ingame, you’ll notice anywhere from 150-300+ different people active there depending on times and it used to be many more lurking less actively (but unfortunately, channels are buggy in regards to corp/alliances being banned…). Sure, plenty of these will be contractors, and some will be ganker alts in there for intel, but the point is that there are in fact hundreds of people who use this mechanic actively enough to be consistently in a channel when they play and interact with the people in it. I don’t think it’s really fair to say the playstyle of hundreds of people doesn’t matter just because you personally don’t enjoy it and don’t consider it important.
Why would anyone risk a ship and 50 million to make a lousy 5
actually, it’s about scale. If you can do this quick contract in 10 minutes, then another, and another, etc. you can make decent isk in an hour of playtime. Those that specialize in higher collaterals or risky hauls will earn even more per contract. it’s very high risk, but it also does reward - so long as the mechanics hold up the courier contract. I know a good number of haulers who make a few billion hauling for people in a single day, so it’s not like they’re wasting their time even if it is not “the best” way to earn isk in the game.
On top of all that there are dozens of different hauler contract scams, there is no point to fixing just one especially if it breaks other parts of the game.; eg No Dock Unload.
The point isn’t removing scams, but in this case providing a fix for a scam caused by poorly thought out game mechanics. I doubt CCP ever thought of people using the access list to instantly break a “contract”, and how that negates the contract system entirely when it comes to structures. The scamming with structures involved nothing but a few button presses on the scammer’s side, “risking” a 800m structure nobody will attack and providing no counterplay at all. It shouldn’t be fixed on the basis of being a scam, but on the basis of simply being lazy design that breaks the intended use of the mechanic.
And all the other bad side effects listed are ok to solve this one thing which was never a big deal in the realm of scams in the first place.
Funny thing is when we can mine directly to station we won’t need ore haulers anymore.
I would like to buttress this point by adding haulers probably don’t haul just a single cargo bucket for each trip. Likely they take on a dozen or so if they can. Many routes are probably common and thus you could have five or six buckets going to the same place. So that 5 mil a jump turns into 30 mil per jump. The rest of the buckets are likely on the way or also close in destination, so drop off six here, two at the system next door, etc. It would be fallacious to think of an individual contract being the only thing in cargo. Nominally that would certainly happen but would be the exception, not the rule.
Also a bit more on the main topic, structure owners struggling to get supplies shipped where they need them is an ongoing issue. I’ve been in comms where leadership in my corp has been frustrated by this, and needing to ship stuff to nearby NPC stations as a workaround. Often direct-to-player-structure contracts have been handled in-house; which is less of an issue for larger corps with a larger manpower pool to draw from.
When this goes live, can we expect to see more upwell structures without docking rights once the owners realise they don’t need to let the riff-raff in for the contract to be delivered?
bad change, really spoils the sandbox of eve online and is extremely unrealistic.
As Many Have Pointed Out So Far, If The “Capsuleer Log-Off Timer” Is Not Added To This List It Will Negatively Impact The Game In Many Ways. This Is A Fair Solution If This Mechanic Is To Be Introduced.
The impact this mechanic will have on rorqual mining and general combat needs to be considered, as even adding the Capsuleer Log-Off Timer restriction does not phase out entirely broken asset protection. This would also allow rorqual botters to simplify their process by simply warping and dumping in a structure; same goes for botting supers.
thanks CCP for creating a solution for hauling services😂 as if every hauler must have access to any structure (dumb dumb)
thanks even more for creating a mechanic to abuse even more
Lol, all this scammer salt. 
Good point. Maybe there should be a fee paid to CONCORD or a small fuel consumption for keeping your high-sec citadel closed.
I really like the change from a hauler perspective.