Changing for more risk

I want to talk a little bit about Citadels and Asset Safety under the idea of having risk or something of value being at risk. We know that this game was originally created to have a balance between risk and reward. CCP Hilmar had said in the 2nd Talking in Stations podcast interview a few months back that he wants things to be harder for veterans and easier for new players. In a later interview featuring CCP Falcon also run by Talking in Stations, Falcon remarked something to the effect of wanting asset safety changed, and his personal view was that it should be removed entirely but knew that people would see it as too harsh.
It is true that there should be risk. Deploying any Upwell Structure or undocking any ship outside of say, a shuttle, means that a player should internally be saying to themselves and acknowledging to everyone who plays that they are willingly accepting of the risk of their ship or structure being destroyed.
Here is what i think would be a good ad healthy change.
We can change asset safety a bit to reflect the above need for there to be a more fitting balance of risk and reward. If an individual or group has gathered enough isk to build something as expensive as a Keepstar or Titan, this would mean they are seemingly well off enough to accept and acknowledge that there is the risk of those 2 things getting destroyed.
Here is the change i am proposing.
We should turn off asset safety for all Capital and Super Capital ships and Capital ship parts in Null-Sec and ow-Sec and “maybe” extend this to BPO/BPCs of the same ships and ship aprts.
This is because having a big expensive ship comes with the risk of people wanting to destroy them and that would create a good content driver because if this happened, people would be more open to trying to destroy KeepStars to have a chance at reducing the Capital Fleet of a group.
A frigate pilot accepts the risk losing the isk sunk into the hul and parts, so the same type of principal of being at t risk or owning big ships to be a risky prospect should apply to the biggest ships and structures as well.

4 Likes

Not more LESS risk is the way to go…casuals are leaving and ccp make it worse?

This is suicidal…

1 Like

Hello Cardcaptor Sakura and welcome to our community!

I think you’re on the right track with your idea, though I believe that everyone and not just low/null seccers should be at risk more than they are now. Also, please, use proper paragraphs. That’s 2x ENTER. They make text much more readable! Thank you!

:slight_smile:

1 Like

nah, gettin rid of asset safety would be best because then you won’t have idiots who can’t play in null wasting all their effort moving into null just to get their arses kicked and then concurrent waste of time moving out of null and using asset safety when your so terrible at this game in null you aren’t even capable of leaving with your crap.

Real risk

2 Likes

EVE Online does not need casuals.

Casuals need EVE Online.

2 Likes

Hmmm

How about insurance of some kind?

Insurance for capitals, tech2 and faction ships is bad, but it’s decent for tech1 stuff. Could we apply that to things other than ships?

No, horrible idea. The game needs less faucets, not more.

What EvE needs is the risk vs reward to be balanced better. They are working on Null and still need to add more risk and have done some work on Hi-Sec, next they need to make it harder for criminals in hi-sec, so they cannot just stay safe and docked until the last second before a gank. These people need to be at risk.

Same as WH space needs more rewards and the ability to support more people.

This way people can choose their space and in so doing choose their level of risk.

3 Likes

Right now we are running a huge deficit.

If insurance was realistic it would be expensive as hell, pay out better and only cover losses in high security space. If you we’re prone to PvP in lowsec and null insurance companies would cancel your coverage and blacklist you.

1 Like

This isn’t an argument.

Right now we’re in a deficit - because we need to be, in order to correct the massive and unmitigated inflation of the past 10 years.

What I said still stands - we need less faucets, not more.

1 Like

We’re in a deficit because of current mechanics and behaviour. The deficit will continue until one of those changes.

I’m simply suggesting what one mechanical change may be.

Which CCP implemented to save the economy. Again, we don’t need more faucets. We need less.

in regards to insurance, I think it would also be a relatively fair idea to remove ship insurance fr Capital and Super Capitals. A balanced financial system needs an equal level of inflowing and outflowing isk. I think that piloting such big ships, you’re at a high enough level of game experience and monetary support to accept that you’ll be a sought after killmail, and so you’re knowingly acknowledging and accepting the risk.

Let’s pretend i had a Titan and it died for any random reason you could think of. The ship belonged to me, I was responsible for being the sole pilot of the ship, and I was out in space knowing the I could easily be attacked. That is the risk that I should be ok with having as the benefits of owning a Titan and its capabilities entails as an individual level and on a group level.

Getting a tiny “refund” through the insurance system feels like the highest amount of pity being given to a Titan pilot because I grinded out the isk to own and pilot one. I would see it as a slap in the face of the amount of work involved to be rewarded with the Titan. What I would do is just march right back to making isk for the next one and to just farm the isk on my own hard work and sweat. That is the more manly or mature way.

Insurance is a cheap sort of pity and cop-out of reducing the cost of my next few Titan purchases.

But at some point were gonna have to turn the faucets on again.

It’s true the current situation is a correction. But it is not sustainable long term.

Killing asset safety would be the game’s absolute death knell. It’s dumb enough that you have to fly to some lowsec station to unwrap your stuff; losing your stuff entirely is just telling nullsec guys to turn their 1-2 year breaks from the game into permanent ones.

WHers deal with it just fine.

Not sure why you can’t just evac your stuff like people … always did.

1 Like

Are you serious? From the outset, you knew quite well that nothing you take into a wormhole is guaranteed to be there forever, whereas with nullsec stations, the most that could happen was being locked out of a conquered station and at most you’d set up firesale contracts to get some ISK.

Stop drawing dumb comparisons between wormholes and nullsec. The two are completely different parts of the game.

Are you serious? From the outset, you knew quite well that nothing you take into NullSec is guaranteed to be there forever. If that’s too much for you to handle, then by all means, quit and stop posting. God knows this game needs more people who can HTFU and less people who are just whiny children.

Stop pretending that NullSec is just HiSec without CONCORD.

Conquerable stations were not destructible, you could only ever lose docking rights at most. So, yes, it was guaranteed to be there forever.