CSM Candidates, make your stance known - Asset drop rollback

[ISD_Buldath]

Topic moved to Assembly Hall

[Wadiest_Yong]

Yep, that’s part of the ToS (and @Merin_Ryskin yep, that’s part of the EULA) . As all ToS’s (and EULAs) it is in broad terms to have sufficient freedom for actions they deem fit and for protection of their product and its enjoyment, all reasonable and appropriate. How the company wields the freedom contained in those words - and thus interprets them in certain cases - is an important part of how they build their customer relations. I can imagine that that is always part of a discussion in-house if the case is new, simply because interpretation is necessary and a collaborator was alert and bold enough to ask the question. The fact that interpretation in different directions is possible increases the responsibility and burden in customer relations maintenance.

Another side note about changes In the past that affected virtually everyone. When changes were made to what was built up by players there was some form of compensation: modules replaced, skill points redeemed, skill levels adjusted etc, regardless of the status of the account. (Perhaps even the Asset Safety measure was part of a compensation for a change in mechanics). It was undoubtedely part of upholding customer relations in the spirit of fairness. So what changed that stance ?

[Max_Deveron]

@Wadiest_Yong

(Perhaps even the Asset Safety measure was part of a compensation for a change in mechanics).

Asset Safety was introduced as an idea, then it was refuted…but the CSM, Career Gankers, Wardeccrs, and all of nullsec complained and stood firm that Upwell Structures would not be used if Asset Safety was not a thing.

That is how we got Asset Safety in the first place…the Combat PvP, and Nullblocs demanded it had to be there.

[Brisc_Rubal]

A whopping 3 CSM candidates replied to this post.

Come on, guys.

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Tintallei_Sharan

? 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.

I won’t be able to convince you why that’s not a reasonable expectation. This is something you either see, or you don’t. Or you can disagree with it on principle. All I can say is, for the sake of objectivity, think up of a few scenarios on your own in which rules are changed, and applied retroactively without grandfathering in everything that happened before the changes went into effect. Find examples both within the game, and elsewhere. For example, consider things that were labeled as exploits. That’s what I did. I initially held the same viewpoint you have right now, but when I thought about how it stands up to various litmus tests, I realized that no, it just doesn’t work. And I’m one of the biggest pro-destruction advocates on the forums.

But I’m fully aware that some people will look at this change and think that “yes, this is exactly what should happen - players who stopped playing under the guidance of a specific rule set should retroactively lose their assets after the rule set was changed - it’s their fault for not being active players, who deserve their items instead!” Everyone is welcome to their own viewpoint, but not all viewpoints are going to be objective.

@Dravick_Afterthought

@Destiny_Corrupted

and affected players start trickling back into the game. The ■■■■-storm hasn’t quite arrived yet.

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

You’re equating taking a break with no longer being interested in the game? Okay.

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Merin_Ryskin

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.

This wasn’t written to me, but I’d still like to reply:

We happen to agree on most things. It kind of seems to me that the disagreement here is about slightly different things.

I am all for item loss. Going forward, I think this is a great change. The difference is that we, from this point on, are aware that this sort of item loss can happen. Players who left their items in stations under the guarantee of asset safety (and it was a guarantee - at no point did CCP float the possibility of treating this dynamically, even if we all implicitly know that the rules might change in the future) were never aware of this change.

This item loss applies not just to people who are gone for a long time, but to people who were gone for a long time.

My example with NPC stations was meant to be ludicrous by purpose. But still, extrapolate this change to NPC stations, no matter how bad for the game you think it would be, and evaluate whether your arguments hold up. It’s a good litmus test, because the situations would be very similar, differing only in their scope.

@Merin_Ryskin

@Destiny_Corrupted

The issue with this particular change is that some players were never given an opportunity to deal 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.

This isn’t just a matter of a disadvantage. The things you’ve described, such as missing out on sales, item stat changes, skill efficiency, etc., are all things that affect a player going forward from when they were implemented. This specific change, however, is a change that affects players going back from when it was implemented.

@Merin_Ryskin

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.

The issues you describe are the exact reason why any rule/law changes, be they in EVE or anywhere else, are never applied retroactively. The declaration of new exploits is a very good example of this.

@Merin_Ryskin

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.

“Unwilling” is not the correct term to use here. “Unable,” “unaware,” and even “ignorant of” could all be used, but they don’t mean the same things as unwilling. Going forward, anyone who leaves their items in a citadel (without a contingency plan) can be considered as unwilling to react to this change.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Destiny_Corrupted

even if we all implicitly know that the rules might change in the future

But this is the key part: implicit in every single statement CCP makes about potential changes or game mechanics is the phrase “at this time”. Everyone with any sense is aware that while CCP can make statements about their intent for the immediate future those statements are not binding and CCP’s position can change to reflect changes in the evolving game. If you take anything CCP says as an absolute guarantee that is your foolish mistake.

But still, extrapolate this change to NPC stations, no matter how bad for the game you think it would be , and evaluate whether your arguments hold up.

But the point is that I can’t evaluate whether or not my arguments hold up because this hypothetical change would be so catastrophic. It doesn’t matter what impact it might have on people taking a break from the game if EVE no longer exists.

This specific change, however, is a change that affects players going back from when it was implemented.

No, it doesn’t. CCP did not go back into the past and make any changes based on “what should have been happened”. They didn’t, for example, go back to old station kills and award loot based on what would have happened if asset safety hadn’t applied. Everything about this only applies going forward. The mechanic changed after a significant warning period and all item loss is happening after the change was made.

“Unwilling” is not the correct term to use here.

Of course it is. Outside of some weird and probably nonexistent situation where a former player is literally unable to access any computer with internet access every case of item loss is the result of a player making a deliberate choice to walk away from EVE and not make any effort (including keeping up with EVE news) to protect their assets.

[Liberty_Tsun]

Someone from CCP sent out 150,000 e-mails warning players to take their stuff out of citadels.

That person knew what CCP was doing was WRONG and that innocent players needed to be warned. But the head honchos at CCP went ahead anyway.

How you can trust a company with such a split personality?

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Merin_Ryskin

Outside of some weird and probably nonexistent situation where a former player is literally unable to access any computer with internet access

It’s not non existent. We had at least one player directly impacted in this manner in the dev blog thread. Due to covid lockdown.
You keep pretending that these people don’t exist, it’s honestly disgusting.

[Merin_Ryskin]

They don’t exist in meaningful numbers. How many people do you think there are who had no access whatsoever to a computer during the entire warning period leading up to the change, had nobody to keep their stations active, and still care about EVE and would be significantly hurt by the potential destruction of some of their assets? I get that it sucks for the one person who lost their stuff but you can’t make game design decisions based on a tiny handful of players.

And let’s keep some perspective on this: this is imaginary spaceships being destroyed, not someone losing their retirement fund. Spare us the hyperbole about how “disgusting” it is to accept the losses as the cost of implementing a positive change.

[Nicolai_Serkanner]

@Wadiest_Yong

Yep, that’s part of the ToS (and @Merin_Ryskin yep, that’s part of the EULA) . As all ToS’s (and EULAs) it is in broad terms to have sufficient freedom for actions they deem fit and for protection of their product and its enjoyment, all reasonable and appropriate. How the company wields the freedom contained in those words - and thus interprets them in certain cases - is an important part of how they build their customer relations.

This is a whole different subject. My point was CCP is at liberty to change the game as they see fit.

If you would like the discuss the part of your post I put in Italics, feel free to start a new topic about it.

@Wadiest_Yong

Perhaps even the Asset Safety measure was part of a compensation for a change in mechanics

@Max_Deveron

Asset Safety was introduced as an idea, then it was refuted…but the CSM, Career Gankers, Wardeccrs, and all of nullsec complained and stood firm that Upwell Structures would not be used if Asset Safety was not a thing.

Max is correct. Although primarily an F1 monkey I never was in favour of asset safety (and still am not). Therefore I welcome the changes now implemented even though I think AS should be removed completely.

[Wadiest_Yong]

@Nicolai_Serkanner

This is a whole different subject. My point was CCP is at liberty to change the game as they see fit.

If you would like the discuss the part of your post I put in Italics, feel free to start a new topic about it.

Your point was never contested. Some posters like to mention EULA/ToS in the sense of “they can do what they want, it says so in EULA/ToS”, when other posters challenge the sense and sensibility of what they feel are questionable or controversial changes . Those documents are not subject of discussion or criticism in my posts or those of any other poster on this thread.

You asked earlier for elaboration on the business side and I replied with three points and a side note, inevitably with the focus on the customer relation - which is the heart of the matter when asset safety is revoked for abandoned structures retroactively. What you italicized from my last post is the (start of the) link between customer relation/satisfaction and EULA/ToS, which makes the circle complete, which I wrote to satisfy the posters who … like to mention EULA/ToS… No need for another thread, it’s interwoven and in fact was from the very beginning, which I thought was understood.

Again, we only differ on one single point, the retroactive cancellation of asset safety.

I hope some more CSM members/candidates will let us know what they think, but this looks like a subject most of them wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot-pole. At least two of the courageous responders received a vote from me

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Wadiest_Yong

Again, we only differ on one single point, the retroactive cancellation of asset safety.

Again, there’s nothing retroactive about it at all. Asset safety existed in the past. It doesn’t exist anymore going forward. But at no point is CCP going back to old structure kills and awarding loot to the people who destroyed it because “it wouldn’t have been in asset safety”.

[Wadiest_Yong]

Okay, time out for an explanation about the word retroactive in my and other people’s posts: Merriam-Webster’s definition of retroactive
In this thread retroactive is used because all old structures are affected and not only the ones installed after the roll out (hence retro), negating the statements made earlier about asset safety.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Wadiest_Yong

In this thread retroactive is used because all old structures are affected and not only the ones installed after the roll out (hence retro ), negating the statements made earlier about asset safety.

But by that definition virtually every change CCP makes is retroactive and the term has no meaning. If CCP nerfs a ship from 10% damage per level to 5% damage per level you don’t get to keep the old damage bonus on ships that were built prior to the change.

[Mkikaden_Tiragen]

It’s being called retroactive because it applied to assets already stored in player stations, not just those stored in stations going forward, with an extremely short notification window and no significant attempts to reach out to the majority of impacted players (those not currently active for whatever reason). This placed an undue burden on the presently inactive players to take action simply to protect their existing assets - unlike any other balance change in the past, which only required players to adapt to new gameplay mechanics in active engagements (ship fittings, market behaviors, etc) to protect ongoing revenue streams.

Likening any other mechanics change to the asset safety change is not a fair comparison due to the sheer difference in functionality and scope.

[Nicolai_Serkanner]

@Wadiest_Yong

Your point was never contested. Some posters like to mention EULA/ToS in the sense of “they can do what they want, it says so in EULA/ToS” … Those documents are not subject of discussion or criticism in my posts

But it was contested, by yourself:

@Wadiest_Yong

Alright. Where in the TOS/EULA does it say that the goods you acquired may or may not be forfeited - as a whole in this case ? It doesn’t. Deal with it.

See?

@Wadiest_Yong

customer relation - which is the heart of the matter when asset safety is revoked for abandoned structures retroactively .

It is you who thinks it is in the heart of the matter. I am of the opinion it doesn’t ■■■■■■■ matter because the ones involved aren’t playing the game and therefore not important at all! To me the heart of the matter is CCP sees and accepts introducing asset safety was a mistake and they are partially fixing it.

@Wadiest_Yong

Again, we only differ on one single point, the retroactive cancellation of asset safety.

I think it is more than just asset safety changes. We disagree about it indeed. We also disagree about how the TOS and EULA relate to customer relations in a broader sense. I think that difference of opinion warrants a separate topic. If you don’t want to discuss the subject that is perfectly okay with me.

@Wadiest_Yong

I hope some more CSM members/candidates will let us know what they think, but this looks like a subject most of them wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot-pole.

They should indeed. If they consider this a topic too dangerous to handle, they shouldn’t be in the CSM or run for a position. They are supposed to be representatives of the players opinions. The best way to get to know those opinions is to talk about it, not cower in fear and stay quiet.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Mkikaden_Tiragen

It’s being called retroactive because it applied to assets already stored in player stations , not just those stored in stations going forward

Again, by that standard virtually every change is “retroactive”. Ship stat changes apply to ships that are already built, not just those that are built going forward. Why should the act of storing an item in a station be treated differently from the act of building a ship?

with an extremely short notification window

The window was more than long enough for anyone who cared about their assets to do something to save them. Remember, they didn’t have to move anything, merely bringing the station back to active status would be sufficient to restore asset safety.

and no significant attempts to reach out to the majority of impacted players (those not currently active for whatever reason)

Why is this CCP’s job? If you’re inactive you deal with the consequences of not paying attention to the game. If you don’t want to risk something bad happening while you’re gone then pay attention.

This placed an undue burden on the presently inactive players

Define “undue burden”. What exactly is this massive burden that inactive players were required to cope with?

[Wadiest_Yong]

@Nicolai_Serkanner

We also disagree about how the TOS and EULA relate to customer relations in a broader sense. I think that difference of opinion warrants a separate topic. If you don’t want to discuss the subject that is perfectly okay with me.

Feel free to start a thread about it. If I don’t have to repeat what I already wrote about that subject and have something new to add I will join in. To be honest, sounds more like a discussion to have over a pint of beer than on a forum. Also gives an opportunity to give plenty of free beers and Jägerbombs to CSM’ers and hear what they really think…

[z0ra_Berg]

@Wadiest_Yong

Jägerbombs

Red Bull and Jägermeister?