Asset Safetry

I can’t find an older forum post or other internet informational post about this topic as regards: Sitting in a ship, and that ship not being able to be moved via asset safety.

Literally 4 years ago I had a carrier out in Null Security, and had to stop playing. I knew that asset safety would protect my items if I didn’t get back, which is the case. Now four years later I’ve learned of a huge design flaw in the game.

Everything was moved to low-sec, as expected. Except the ship I was in. Why? What’s the point of that? Had I clicked a single button (“leave ship”) this wouldn’t even be an issue. Customer support told me this is “working as intended” but wouldn’t explain why.

Why am I being penalized today for having not clicked a single button four years ago? CCP’s official customer support position is really alienating me from playing the game again.


Ships that are boarded by a capsuleer will not be moved into asset safety. They will be undocked or be in space on the pilots next log in after the structure has been decommissioned or destroyed.

Yes, that is the quote I was given by customer support. It does not address my questions.

Well the simple answer is that the onus was on you to configure things properly before you went on a hiatus.

That’s mostly fair, but still ignores my questions.

This is a “grandfathering” issue: there is no grandfathering mechanic/policy, so players who were in ships before the introduction of that mechanic are penalized even though they might not have known about that mechanic or might not have been able to log into the game in time to do anything about it.

The upcoming “no asset safety” mechanic (which I’ve suggested be replaced with a 20-day manual release as an alternative - 20 days is a long time in EVE!!!) also lacks a grandfathering mechanic/policy: players who are ignorant of the upcoming change or are unable to log into the game to do anything about it (or are simply inactive) who had 100% right to assume 100% asset safety was still a thing since that was what was promised to them at the time are now going to be penalized instead of getting a one-time pass for existing assets.

Why do you feel like this is penalizing you?


The grandfathering issue you address is the higher level (and better) example of what I’m sad about. Yes, people who were playing and put the work in came come back later and find themselves forcibly set back through no fault of their own. This may not apply the same to everyone (eg my situation) but it will apply to many.

As to why I feel penalized, CCP’s own rules say they can move my ship for me. There is a single sentence that says carriers are excepted in the current help page. They can only jump 3.5LY so still cannot get to safety solo. Had I been in any other ship, say a Tech1 BS worth a trillion ISK in deadspace modules, everything would be fine and CCP would move my ship. I just happened to be in the one single state that they won’t help me in. I feel penalized because the rules lawyers say I should have clicked a single button, and now too bad buddy.

It’s just disheartening, because it means it erases a very big chunk of playtime, and not due to any actual player content. Just very badly documented and explained arbitrary rules.

Why don’t you ask some people to help you move that Carrier safely?

Also, 3.5LY seems awfully short for a Carrier. That part seems like it’s more of an issue with your poor skills choice, only getting Level 1 in Jump Drive Calibration. That’s a risk you took only training it to that level, and now the risk has been realized.

Uh, I don’t know about this. It pretty clear when they introduced it and haven’t touched it since (beyond the slightly higher fees for withdrawals). If you feel like something was “very badly documented and explained”, that’s on you man.

Besides, I’m not sure what the whole point of this thread is. The rules are the rules and they’ve been in place since Asset Safety was introduced. Failings of understanding are on you. Are you just looking for attention or what?

Are you just venting? Is this thread an attempt to get CCP’s attention so that they make an exception for you after they see your frustration? Like, the rules are there. What’s done is done.

If the point you’re trying to make is “well if I did this one thing in the past, it’d be better now”, that’s just your hindsight bias kicking in.

1 Like

Maximum jump range for a carrier with perfect skills is 5LY (edit: I had the wrong numbers in my head), which is still shy of getting to low-sec in any safe fashion.

But yes, it is partly venting. I also couldn’t find any reason why the rules are as they are, not for lack of searching. I hoped someone could point me to why this one thing is different. Why was this decision made that everything EXCEPT a carrier can be magically GM-Teleported even though carriers suffer the same problems as other ships in deeper null sec? As is, it seems like an intentional snub to people, and really does not encourage return customers.

I’d be fine if there was no asset safety, but this middling half measure is weird.

7LY, but sure.


Asset Safety worked the way it was intended.

If you were piloting a ship (especially one that’s jump drive capable) you weren’t getting moved. That’s how it works. This isn’t a “middling half measure”. It’s how the system is intended to work.

A not-unreasonable argument can be made for the mechanics/policies to be changed to improve the game experience for everyone; that’s what this thread is about. There are plenty of whine threads on the forums, but this isn’t one of them: OP is fairly level-headed and well-tempered here.

The considerations are:

  • When a change like this happens (such as the upcoming “no asset” change), should there be a grandfather mechanic and/or policy (ie. one-time pass for things that are affected such as existing assets at structures)?
  • Should there be an alternative altogether? (Example for the upcoming change: I had suggested a 20-day manual release would be better than “no asset safety” since 20 days is a harsh long time to be without assets in EVE without being as unnecessarily severe as losing them altogether)

It’s worth discussing.

I don’t understand where you’re getting this “grandfather mechanic” thing. OP came in with the understanding that Asset Safety would preserve his items. He was playing during a time when Asset Safety was already existing. I don’t understand why you keep bringing up “grandfather mechanic” when nothing here relates to grandfathering anything.

The alternative is that he losses his ship.

Player ships are safely impounded and saved, along with all their fittings and rigs. We considered destroyed the active ship as well, but that would only lead to further hassle where players would always have to remember to exit their active ship when docking at one of those new structures.

So now he gets to enjoy the fact that his ship is preserved and his pod/clone isn’t just killed right off. The problem here is that he feels like he’s been inconvenienced since now he has the burden of trying to move it safely.

1 Like

Ah ha! That’s a solid link, and the kind of information I am searching for. Still nothing there about why the decision in programming was that taking you out of a ship was impossible. It’s simply boolean state. =P

And thank you Archer for being much more eloquent than I was.


“Ships sporting their own jump drive are assumed to be capable of jumping themselves out quickly without the usage of a gate and no exception or move will be granted to these ships:”

The reason the ship you are in is not moved into asset safety is because you are in it. It is assumed that you wanted that ship to stay there.

You are welcome


No, it is you being a dumbass. Of Course they didn’t asset safety the ship you are in: you are in it!!!


But it IS your fault FFS!

1 Like


1 Like

They Probably preferred to be a cold corpse floating in space

1 Like

It actually is. Read it again.