With some time left on elections I invite CSM candidates to share their thoughts on the most relevant topic in the game right now, assets dropping from low power structures. I feel many players are gathering momentum with an intention to roll back this mechanic, or in some way compensate individuals who have lost their assets. I’d like to hear from the candidates and get their views on this topic.
@Brisc_Rubal @Vily @Torvald_Uruz @Insidious_Sainthood @Murray_Rothbardo @Stitch_Kaneland to name a few. Feel free to tag other candidates.
2 Likes
You think CCP is going to change their stance after the change has been rolled out? There was a HUGE thread about this exact topic in the feedback post that cited pretty much every argument possible. In the end they went ahead with their plans.
If the CSM and hopefuls want to state their stance then by all means, but I wouldn’t hold your breath on this mechanic changing now.
1 Like
I’m already on record as supporting this change.
6 Likes
I feel many players need to HTFU in that case.
Please tell me all about your billions as I recount days of loosing access to everything in null stations.
reasonsforwar
4 Likes
Asset safety was a mistake.
13 Likes
Even if they did roll back, they wouldnt reimburse the lost loot that already dropped from the citadels and raitarus. So what would be the point?
I am for asset safety but probably for a different reason than most.
Military personal who play the game can be called away and not have time to move all their stuff to an npc station. As such they may return home to find a lot of their stuff gone. Other players may have similar reasons for sudden unplanned absences.
Not the best thing to happen to them and not really conducive to them staying with the game.
Say HTFU all you want but they will probably GTFO
m
17 Likes
I think this is the most prominent argument for some modification to the current mechanic, or even looking at reimbursing people who lost assets with this change. Should CCP consider extenuating circumstances for individual players who were affected by the change? I think this is an active question that CCP and the CSM can address. Thanks Mike!
Here’s a simple solution: if a person hasn’t signed in between the time the patch went into effect and the time the station was destroyed (e.g. “I didn’t sign in for months because my house burned down”), then they can be exempt. In all other cases, not.
Of course the proper way of doing things would have been not having asset safety from the start, just like PoSes have functioned since day one.
1 Like
This is why you build a corporation with other individuals that you trust, so you can share the responsibilities of management. In my personal opinion, citadel structures are not meant for solo players.
If you’re a solo player, you live out of NPC structures.
This argument that some solo player is going to get salty cause they overreached for content that is not intended for them is kinda weak. The citadel spam was bad for the game and looking at the first day of destruction, the numbers just show how many of the structures were unused.
8 Likes
i believe the change is good but not perfect. People are lining up to have issues with it, but in the end its a very effective way to incentive structure destruction.
3 Likes
Simple, fuel it up.
Have corp mates fuel it up.
Then it won’t be abandoned.
2 Likes
Ignoring the fact that STructures are not POS but replacements of outposts and POS. You know what would have really been a solution? Leave outposts in EVE as they helped conflict more than structures and simply replace POS with structures.
Docking should have stayed an exclusive feature of outposts and no supers and titans should be able to dock. The outposts could not be placed in unlimited numbers, they were expensive and, most importantly, people could just leave their dockable assets behind and go on a war, knowing they could always come back and retake the outpost.
POS replacement structures would have gotten the upwell features of easier deployment, setup and management but without docking. You could have introduced tethering as it is to access the structure and use it. This would have also meant that you cannot drop an unlimited number of them in every corner of a system, which is one of the most glaring issues with structures to begin with.
As it stands, asset safety is fine as Upwell Structures are not POS and also not Outposts. You get to keep your assets but not at the location where you left them should a structure get destroyed. The argument that AS is bad or stifles conflict is completely bonkers as assets were safe in the past as well and much more conflict happened over outposts than structures.
What makes AS a little bit of an issue is the fact that there were no limitations placed on structure placement.
2 Likes
Ha.
Haha.
Hahahahahaha
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHWHAHAHAHAHAHA
NEVER.
5 Likes
I was under the impression it was a mechanism you could use at any time.
Why would it need rolled back?
2 Likes
Problem solved.
They not gona change THEIR game for a minority
It’s not the government, they cannot be voted out of power, if you have an alternative product to use, go ahead.
There are situations where activating asset safety isn’t possible - i.e. medical emergencies - and there are players who think they are done with the game but change their mind a few years later. Coming back to nothing will not encourage them to stay - and it isn’t necessary. We can have our cake and eat it to.
Items have a 50% chance to drop as loot - simply send the items that don’t drop to asset safety. Depending on the generosity of the loot fairy, returning players will at least have some of their stuff.
1 Like
Stuff in NPC stations are not safe. CCP has sacrificed a few sacred cows already - system security level, and citadel asset safety. People long assumed that these were inviolable and would never change.
Now nothing is certain. CCP is already doing a test run of altering NPC stations with Jita 4-4. Who knows what more “chaos” they are planning with NPC stations? Maybe make them destructible by Trigs?
CCP clearly don’t care about absent players and their years of hard work, so why would they care about YOU?
- Citadels were ‘sold’ on the basis of asset safety.
- Many players take extended breaks (weeks/months/years) but almost always return.
For those players, asset safety was a given, now their previous efforts are simply loot pinatas - guaranteeing that they will never return
The cancellation of Asset safety (for abandoned structures) should not have been applied retrospectively - the fact that CCP reversed this for certain citadels (because of the sheer quantity of loot breaking the test server, when tested) demonstrates they were aware of the issue, but chose to ignore it
Conclusion: CCP don’t care and will not reverse this or compensate people returning to find their previously ‘guaranteed safe’ stuff returned.
1 Like