And rightfully so. Citadels are large structures intended to be used by groups of players not individual players. If you can not defend your own ■■■■, you shouldn’t have it.
This is just dumb. If you can not log into the games days at a time you should be part of a larger group instead of playing solo. The group will help defend your ■■■■.
I am glad you agree they didn’t promise to keep the game as is.
Please elaborate. Why doesn’t it make sense from a business point of view.
I play the game. I am involved in this “new content” just as much as you are. I, however, seem to be better suited to deal with changes, even if you or I don’t like them. Perhaps it is because since the day asset safety was introduced I have been of the opinion it should never have made it into the game to begin with. Asset safety is an abomination in a game where losses matter, or were once.
When could you ever?
Wrong, Im doing fine thanks
The issue with this particular change is that some players were never given an opportunity to deal with it.
No matter how good this mechanic is going forward, or how bad asset safety is in general, the game worked a certain way, and players reasonably expected that if they followed the rules of the game, they could expect certain outcomes. Citadels were created and documented to function in a certain way. If that functionality needs to change, then going forward, that’s perfectly fine.
But what CCP has done here is kind of like the hypothetical scenario of them deciding to halve the hull HP of all ships. Going forward, that might be a reasonable change (or if it isn’t, at least we can say that CCP is the boss, and can decide the stats of ships without our input). But what if CCP also said “oh yeah, we’re making this change retroactive, so any ship that has ever experienced going under half of its current hull HP will be removed from the game to mirror its destruction.” Would that make sense? Would that be acceptable to us? After all, we were never given a chance to deal with/adapt to that change by preventing our ships from going under half of their hull HP. We always operated with the understanding that ships will be destroyed when they reach 0% of their current hull hit points.
Roll back?
Lol, wtf ?
Many actual actives players have now spend hours of gameplay toward the destruction of those citadels.
It is, obviously, ridiculous to think about destroying the efforts of actives players that are currently playing the game as we speak, for the benefit of hypotheticals inactives players who, maybe, care about it, or maybe not.
CCP MAY FIND IT NECESSARY ON OCCASION TO MAKE CHANGES TO OR RESET CERTAIN PARAMETERS OF THE PERSISTENT GAME WORLD MECHANICS, INTERFACE OR FEATURES OF EVE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN GAME BALANCE AND ENHANCE PLAYABILITY OR PERFORMANCE FOR ITS SUBSCRIBERS. THESE CHANGES MAY AFFECT OR CAUSE SETBACKS FOR THE CHARACTERS YOU’VE CREATED.
https://community.eveonline.com/support/policies/terms-of-service-en/
A rollback is highly unlikely, but they might start approving many reimbursement petitions as this starts making it through the gaming news circuits, and affected players start trickling back into the game. The ■■■■-storm hasn’t quite arrived yet.
That’s a Big problem IMO.
Petitions are legitimates when they are about a bug, a connexion problem coming from CCP, this kind of things.
Petitions about not being able to adapt to a change decided by devs must be refused. As soon as you start accepting them you basically forfait your right to lead your game as you want to.
No matter how much some people try to play the emotionnal card, individuals circumstances of very rare players who actually have a real IRL reason for not being able to log into EvE are irrelevant.
Once again, these players were not given a chance to adapt. Had everyone been given an equal opportunity to adapt, there would be no argument.
? They absolutely did, they have access to internet, except maybe some very exceptionnal cases.
Almost all of them can keep themself updated about big updates that might hit EvE. If they choose not to, well, too bad. They had the opportunity to know about it.
Choosing to leave the game and not follow the news about it does not mean that you didn’t had the opportunity to adapt, it just mean that you choose to not give a F until it was too late. You can’t dev your game and your updates around people who not only are not playing, but apparently are not even reading infos about your game anymore.
So they’re going to “trickle back into the game”, a game they’re obviously no longer interested in, in order to claim reimbursment of stuff which can only be used in this game they’re no longer interested in ?
Does not compute 
FFS - will those who want to involve the RL law in this kindly put up (i.e. get yourself a lawyer) or shut up ?
We don’t disagree much, the game should evolve and needs changes.
Business sense: situation = seller assures asset safety, customer believes and acts accordingly. Seller then backtracks.
First off, changing a very fundamental rule, namely that one doesn’t lose what was stored in a player owned structure - with all the provisos - even if that structure is destroyed, into a rule that is obviously aimed at currently inactive players creates a sense of unfairness that is very different from the usual “unfairness” we as players create/experience/enjoy/hate in the game itself. One was led to believe that what is stored is safe, until one day ccp decides to pull this stunt, which may be amusing to those that gather the loot, true. But trust is broken, at the least. There have to be rules you can rely on, fixed rules. Businesses exist by grace of trust in the product and the communications from the company.
Second, a game where (despite official assurances/statements via official web pages etc) one can lose what was built up is a very different game than what one signed up for initially. Yes, everyone who is currently active can adapt/adjust, but only up to the point where ccp doesn’t pull another stunt. And even when they give new reassurances they have lost, through this one act, credibility. Next up, npc stations, skill points, isk, who knows ? Why not simply delete titans from the game, eh ? Adapting to changing mechanics is one thing, adapting to ‘hey, we just gave your stuff away’ is not possible. Anyone who is okay with what is happening should realize that once that line is crossed and accepted anything goes.
Third, more of a side note really. One doesn’t “own anything in the game”. True… but with an interesting question. Not the intellectual property, design, artwork etc for sure, but what about the results of your efforts ? Those results were not company produced, only facilitated. As an example for those who like fat killboards, how about deleting all entries, no trace of your adventures and fun, no reputation etc. Just to exemplify that those would be serious losses for those players too, not caused by player interactions in the game, but by the company itself. That affects not only how one experiences the game as a whole but likely also the amount of effort and subscription one is willing to invest.
Fourth. One could not have found a better and more dramatic way (bar taking away sp) to kick potentially returning veteran players in the shins and drive them away. A warm welcome back indeed… Congrats, you just lost part of a customer base who were willing to reinvest.
I have no problem with a new “no asset safety in player structures when abandoned” rule, none whatsoever. Because there is a way out - at least for as long as the current “assurance” holds perhaps, coz now we don’t know anymore what the value is of such an “assurance”. What I do have a problem with is that inactive players do not have that same way out. Their stuff has been confiscated and scattered. Again, they should have been exempt. Fair is fair.
Where it says that you own nothing in EVE, everything about your character can be changed or deleted at the whim of CCP.
The last thing we need is for EVE to start giving magic immunity to loss just because someone has taken an extended break from the game. Remember that this item loss only applies to people who are gone for a long time, someone like you who gets to play regularly but on an unconventional schedule will have no problems with it.
But why does this matter? If you take a long break from a game common sense says that things in that game may happen while you aren’t keeping up with it, and you may be at a disadvantage as a result. You miss the “50% off a 1-year subscription” sale, skills/items/etc change stats and your character is no longer effective, etc. By walking away you forfeit your right to have any say in what happens while you are gone, and should be glad that your account is maintained at all.
Would that make sense?
No, because revisionist history like that creates nonsensical outcomes. If my ship is deleted because it “should have died” does CCP also respawn the ships that I killed with it after its “destruction”? Do we go by HP at the time or should my extra 5% hull HP skill level be applied retroactively as well? What about ships that had their hull values adjusted prior to the change, do we use their HP at the time or their post-buff/nerf stats? Etc.
But in this case it isn’t a retroactive change. CCP is not going back and taking stuff out of asset safety for structures that were destroyed prior to the change. The new mechanic only applies to events happening after it is implemented, and the fact that some players are away from the game and unwilling to properly react to the change doesn’t make it a retroactive change.
The last thing we need is to lose that. We had it with outposts and much more conflict happened back then than now. Structures as they are were a huge mistake and CCP knows that. Tgey are just not competent enough to fix the issue.
A CSM who doesn’t want to get voted is a CSM who wants this rolled back. Fat chance of that happening.
And for players actually playing the game it is all fine. I really don’t give a flying ■■■■ about people who are not playing the game but might in the future. Change is everywhere and always. You can not just leave the game for any amount of time and expect all will be the same when you return.
And they shouldn’t. You either play the game or you don’t.
Thank you.
They we given a change by either playing the game or paying attention to news about the game. Ignorance is no excuse.