# Forsaken Fortress – Coming 26 May **URL:** \ **Category:** Dev Blogs\ **Created:** [April 24, 2020, 4:15pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219 "2020-04-24T16:15:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 46
**Author:** ![Runa\_Yamaguchi](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/runa_yamaguchi/32/197532_2.png) [@Runa\_Yamaguchi](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Runa_Yamaguchi)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 12:43am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/911 "2020-06-04T00:43:59Z")
> [@Brisc\_Rubal](#): > > going out and fighting the guys bashing the abandoned structures. I was bonked by guys in bombers…as I went suspect while scooping loot, they pounced. I gave them a o7 and chucked to myself at my oversight and complacency. It’s not hard people but you do have to try… ---
**Author:** ![Brisc\_Rubal](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/brisc_rubal/32/374307_2.png) [@Brisc\_Rubal](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Brisc_Rubal)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 12:45am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/912 "2020-06-04T00:45:23Z")
> [@Dark\_Lord\_Trump](#): > > Truly you are a born politician, able to ignore the questions I asked in such a clever way. > You can hide behind “lol it’s the players shooting structures” but it was CCP that incentivized them to. If CCP declared that the next coalition to evict INIT from their space would be given t2 BPOs/AT ships/something else of great value, I bet you’d go ballistic about being targeted by CCP. Yet when CCP provides an incentive to target a different group of people you laugh and say “that’s eve. That was the POINT of the asset safety change. To actively incentivize players to go blow these structures up. That was part of the development concept. But in the end, CCP didn’t force anybody to blow these structures up. There are folks blowing up abandoned INIT structures right now. I’m not complaining about it. This wasn’t targeting players for quitting. It was giving existing players content by letting them clear out space trash. I care more about people who are actively playing the game, and providing them with things and reasons to keep playing than I do with an amorphous number of players who have quit and may never come back. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 12:47am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/913 "2020-06-04T00:47:56Z")
> [@Brisc\_Rubal](#): > > They did that specifically because of the complaints of people Ah, so only some peoples complaints matter. Now we get to the heart of your beliefs. It’s great to hear you admit it. Because that’s what you’ve just said by saying that they deserved it because they complained, while also saying the other complaints didn’t deserve it. > [@Brisc\_Rubal](#): > > But now that’s evidence of them doing the wrong thing again? Really? They listened to the feedback and made a compromise and that’s a bad thing? Giving a total pass to certain people who complained by making those structures not ever become abandoned at all while ignoring a whole other section of complaints who are only asking for a one off trigger of asset safety to deal with people who set things up under one set of rules and currently aren’t in a position to change things… Yes that’s a bad thing, it’s clear favouritism to a certain segment of the player base on this issue. And it’s far further reaching than the one off event as well. Honestly, you are just showing how selfish you are at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Brisc\_Rubal](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/brisc_rubal/32/374307_2.png) [@Brisc\_Rubal](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Brisc_Rubal)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 12:55am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/914 "2020-06-04T00:55:31Z")
> [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > Ah, so only some peoples complaints matter. > Now we get to the heart of your beliefs. It’s great to hear you admit it. Because that’s what you’ve just said by saying that they deserved it because they complained, while also saying the other complaints didn’t deserve it. People complained. CCP listened. They altered their plans. They didn’t agree with all the complaints, but they accepted some as valid and altered their plans accordingly. That’s how this is supposed to work. > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > Yes that’s a bad thing, it’s clear favouritism to a certain segment of the player base on this issue. And it’s far further reaching than the one off event as well. > > Honestly, you are just showing how selfish you are at this point. Which segment of the player base got what they wanted and which didn’t? I’m pretty sure the folks complaining about the asset safety removal are the ones who got part of what they wanted. The folks, like me, who like and supported the change, got nothing. I’m fine with that. We get enough without needing the faction forts, too. Nothing selfish here - I haven’t shot a single abandoned structure yet. Don’t expect to loot anything if I do. I just think this is a positive change that will keep folks playing by giving them something new to do. ---
**Author:** ![Jayce\_Fitzpatrick](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jayce_fitzpatrick/32/383289_2.png) [@Jayce\_Fitzpatrick](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jayce_Fitzpatrick)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 1:51am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/915 "2020-06-04T01:51:11Z")
Good stuff. Just shows how bad the citadel spam actually was. Look at the amount of inactive structures. ---
**Author:** ![Uriel\_the\_Flame](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/uriel_the_flame/32/490165_2.png) [@Uriel\_the\_Flame](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Uriel_the_Flame)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 11:03am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/916 "2020-06-04T11:03:34Z")
> [@Sinead\_O\_Carroll](#): > > CCP reneged on their bargain. [![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/4X/a/d/d/add3ecd17458e2748328ccadfc730f69de8e9bb3.jpeg "I Am Altering The Deal") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g) ---
**Author:** ![Tiger\_space\_Thedark](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/tiger_space_thedark/32/373728_2.png) [@Tiger\_space\_Thedark](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Tiger_space_Thedark)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 11:09am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/917 "2020-06-04T11:09:09Z")
First time in 5 years that i enjoin bashing ---
**Author:** ![Imiarr\_Timshae](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/imiarr_timshae/32/391323_2.png) [@Imiarr\_Timshae](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Imiarr_Timshae)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 6:26pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/918 "2020-06-04T18:26:51Z")
I can imagine people putting over a decade of their lives into this game and then losing those assets because they trusted CCP’s assurances that assets in citadels would be protected by Asset Safety. I’ve not lost anything, I don’t like or store anything in citadels, but I’m disgusted at the implementation of this feature. What possible reason exists to not have existing assets sent to safety, and abandoned citadels not having safety only working from now onwards? Instead you’ve got players who have dedicated significant portions of their lives to this game who lose assets while they aren’t even playing. Atrocious. ---
**Author:** ![Jayce\_Fitzpatrick](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jayce_fitzpatrick/32/383289_2.png) [@Jayce\_Fitzpatrick](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jayce_Fitzpatrick)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 7:20pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/919 "2020-06-04T19:20:45Z")
So amusing these “disgusted” comments throughout this thread. Citadels where flawed to begin with. A portion of the playerbase have told CCP from the start that citadels were too easily spammed and there were no incentives for contesting. However, CCP have coddled the playerbase into thinking that every carebear around need their own personal citadel for whatever reason. They were never meant as expendable structures to be thrown around in space. They were meant to be conflict drivers. Beacons for cooperation and competition. > **Encourage interaction between groups of players:** Partly covered before, we want our new system to greatly favor player interactions via cooperative or competitive gameplay. This not only means structures should matter to be considered primary targets, but also promote public participation if needed. > **[Back Into the Structure | EVE Online](https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/back-into-the-structure)** > > Greetings, dear space friends extraordinaire, my name is CCP Ytterbium and I’m here to talk about our future plan for structures in EVE Online on behalf of team Game of Drones. We have been collectively working on this particular feature prototype... ---
**Author:** ![Archer\_en\_Tilavine](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/archer_en_tilavine/32/461718_2.png) [@Archer\_en\_Tilavine](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Archer_en_Tilavine)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 7:52pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/920 "2020-06-04T19:52:46Z")
Objectively speaking, “no asset safety” was not required to make it easier nor to incentivize clearing up abandoned structured. The “Abandoned” state alone helped advance that cause. There were so many other ways in which Upwell POSes could (and still can) be rebalanced to make them less permanent than they are now and further drive conflict - removing asset safety did not have to be one of changes. At the barest of minimums, CCP should have introduced a grandfather policy/mechanic on assets in currently fielded structures so that they aren’t affected, but they would be affected on new ones, thereby making the transition smoother and eliminating the “I was ignorant/I was unable to log in and trigger asset safety” claim as an excuse. Without such a grandfather policy/mechanic, that claim is a 100% legitimate excuse for those who have been away from EVE while this patch rolled out and basically have been betrayed by the promise that asset safety was a thing and now it no longer is. Nobody can give me any ■■■■■■■■ saying “CCP never promised asset safety would be forever / digital assets don’t have any real value / you don’t own digital assets CCP does / etc” because it doesn’t change the fact that these assets mean a lot to players, and they are going to feel deprived of everything they worked so hard for due to an unnecessary, ■■■■■■■■ mechanic that makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker instead of empowering players to learn and become better. Players should lose items as a result of direct combat - not indirectly in their sleep by some ■■■■■■■■ like this. If CCP really felt depriving assets was worth it, I had proposed a sensible alternative that has a similar effect, and is similar to existing asset safety mechanics without the “loss” being so permanent: a lengthy manual release. Right now k-space asset safety mechanics in hisec dictate that after 5 days you can manually deliver items an NPC station or that they would be automatically delivered after 20 days; I suggested that assets at a blown-up Abandoned structure be placed into asset safety that could be manually released after a lengthy delay such as 20 days, which is a LOOONG time in EVE, but even 60 days or 90 days would have been fine. Players would rather have their assets back after 90 days then never see them ever again. Or CCP could have restricted the “no asset” mechanic to nullsec, where it makes sense to have such a risk factor (especially in player sov regions). And yes, Abandoned structures would still be bashed without loot drops because people like to grief and decorate their killboards - same reason low powered structures were also bashed; it just so happens that now it’s even easier and more appetizing to do so. I am vehemently against the changes as they are now, and so is my Discord server. The outrage is real. The absurdity is real. I anticipate there will be a fierce backlash, namely from the usually silent majority (ie. not forum/Reddit regulars), I anticipate the backlash is going to be louder than when Incarna rolled out, and for once I think the claims of “mass unsubscribe after every patch” are going to be backed up by the numbers this time around. I have never been more disappointed with CCP. ---
**Author:** ![Jayce\_Fitzpatrick](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jayce_fitzpatrick/32/383289_2.png) [@Jayce\_Fitzpatrick](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jayce_Fitzpatrick)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 7:57pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/921 "2020-06-04T19:57:29Z")
> [@Archer\_en\_Tilavine](#): > > I have never been more disappointed with CCP. Well, now you know how we’ve been feeling through 5 years. CCP giveth and CCP taketh. ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Pedro](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/black_pedro/32/257285_2.png) [@Black\_Pedro](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Black_Pedro)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 8:23pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/922 "2020-06-04T20:23:08Z")
> [@Archer\_en\_Tilavine](#): > > I am vehemently against the changes as they are now, and so is my Discord server. The outrage is real. The absurdity is real. I anticipate there will be a fierce backlash, namely from the usually silent majority (ie. not forum/Reddit regulars), I anticipate the backlash is going to be louder than when Incarna rolled out, and for once I think the claims of “mass unsubscribe after every patch” are going to be backed up by the numbers this time around. There will be no backlash. People are getting outraged because of the fear of losing their own pixels. Most of the loot spewing into space is from people who have long got over their attachment to some virtual items in a game they no longer play. Yes, there will be a hand full of sob-stories over the next few months and years, but even here I bet most people will get over it and keep playing. Eve isn’t only about stuff and all the rest of what it offers is still there. But there will be no real outrage because those still playing won’t lose anything. Assets safety is an easily accessible function that prevents any real loss by any current player. It’s pretty hard to have actual widespread outrage when no active player is affected. This concocted indignity for players no one can actually name - just hypothetical war heroes and jobless folks - isn’t going to go anywhere. This is just a manifestation of _pixel fear_ over losing fake stuff in a video game. The game will go on and those most attached to their imaginary assets will keep on paying CCP to keep feeding their need to compulsively grind and will still enjoy complete asset safety. There will be no protest or carebear exodus. So get out there people and have some fun cleaning up New Eden! ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 8:56pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/923 "2020-06-04T20:56:49Z")
> [@Black\_Pedro](#): > > This concocted indignity for players no one can actually name Except you know, the people in this thread actively saying it impacts them due to lack of EVE access atm. Who I know you know about since you were involved in that discussion. Lovely of you to pretend that they don’t even exist now in order to make a pretend point. When we have specific in thread examples it’s entirely reasonable to assume they are not alone in this state, and as recent events have shown players also often return from being inactive. Sure the game will go on, but that doesn’t make this any less of an avoidable mistake by CCP. ---
**Author:** ![Archer\_en\_Tilavine](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/archer_en_tilavine/32/461718_2.png) [@Archer\_en\_Tilavine](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Archer_en_Tilavine)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 9:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/924 "2020-06-04T21:48:53Z")
Even CODE PRINCESS Aiko of all people agrees that the manner in which “no asset safety” was rolled out was ■■■■■■ up 😐 … > [@Era of Chaos Loot Extravaganza!](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/era-of-chaos-loot-extravaganza/246744/7): > > any reasonable person can see that a grandfather clause of some kind is appropriate in this situation. It’s like CCP created a parking garage, and then overnight they decided that any cars left in their parking garage are now the property of CCP. > > There are some people who lost a lot of isk, not because they got outplayed, but because CCP done ■■■■■■ them. I feel bad for those people > [@Era of Chaos Loot Extravaganza!](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/era-of-chaos-loot-extravaganza/246744/10): > > I think that was a terrible business decision, people aren’t going to pay real money to CCP if they don’t trust the developers. I’m certainly not inclined to pull out my credit card. Fellow CODEite Xeux agreed > [@Era of Chaos Loot Extravaganza!](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/era-of-chaos-loot-extravaganza/246744/9): > > It is preposterous that CCP didn’t factor in items that were left in citadels before the update. They could have done it in any number of ways. Eve is famous for being a game that people take long breaks from, then come back and pay CCP hundreds of dollars to resub characters and get back in the game. Now, those guys with 18 accounts will come back and be all “WTF happened to asset safety? All my stuff is vaporized?” I have a feeling those people will be inclined to just uninstall the game at that point and never think about it again. > > The abandoned state is meant to get rid of citadel spam; I don’t understand why they felt the need to make it piñata mode. It would have been even more effective if they just gotten rid of Concord protection of abandoned structures and kept asset safety intact. ---
**Author:** ![Jayce\_Fitzpatrick](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jayce_fitzpatrick/32/383289_2.png) [@Jayce\_Fitzpatrick](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jayce_Fitzpatrick)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 10:17pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/925 "2020-06-04T22:17:43Z")
¯\_(ツ)\_/¯ CODE are approximately as soft as the carebears they farm. Not sure why these specific individuals should command any influence. ---
**Author:** ![Xeux](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/xeux/32/428022_2.png) [@Xeux](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Xeux)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2020, 10:17pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/926 "2020-06-04T22:17:55Z")
Even James 315 allows players to dock up. ---
**Author:** ![Black\_Pedro](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/black_pedro/32/257285_2.png) [@Black\_Pedro](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Black_Pedro)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2020, 6:08am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/927 "2020-06-05T06:08:17Z")
> [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > Sure the game will go on, but that doesn’t make this any less of an avoidable mistake by CCP. It’s not a mistake to prioritize your active playing customers over a handful of lapsed customers. It’s a choice. But we’ve gone over this. Maybe the warning period could have been longer, but the situation would be almost the same with the exact same people clutching their pearls for the invented other players in unusual circumstances they have created in their head no matter how long a transition period. In either way, the number of real people we are actually talking about is infinitesimal compared to the active players who are actually undocking, interacting and paying CCP today. There will be no backlash as almost no one is affected. And I feel bad for the couple people who are in such an extreme circumstance they will get caught up in this, but these changes are better for the real “silent majority” of players here - which are the current Eve players looking for fun and purpose in this sandbox game. People reading this: your pixels are safe even after this change. Don’t worry and stop projecting your fear of losing some virtual items on made up people in your head. ---
**Author:** ![Wanda\_Fayne](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/wanda_fayne/32/377654_2.png) [@Wanda\_Fayne](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Wanda_Fayne)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2020, 6:31am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/928 "2020-06-05T06:31:12Z")
> [@Black\_Pedro](#): > > There will be no backlash as almost no one is affected. And I feel bad for the couple people who are in such an extreme circumstance they will get caught up in this While I don’t have a side in this debate, it would be unfair to not point out that THOUSANDS of structures are affected and being eliminated. Daily. It is highly unlikely that “the couple people” is not also in the THOUSANDS. It does seem that CCP has (by design or accident) burned a bunch of bridges with people losing their stuff in such a mass transfer of inventory. When they left they were under the premise it was safe and would be asset safetied out if the structures were destroyed. ---
**Author:** ![Runa\_Yamaguchi](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/runa_yamaguchi/32/197532_2.png) [@Runa\_Yamaguchi](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Runa_Yamaguchi)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2020, 6:47am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/929 "2020-06-05T06:47:23Z")
I really wish CCP had chosen to initially remove asset safety from the assets themselves rather than from just whatever is in the stations. If that had that system then they could have grandfathered asset safety on assets in stations before the 26th vs assets after the 26th. - People not playing now would still have their stuff even if a station was destroyed - Stations would still fall the same way (NE cleaned-up) - Anything put in a station from the 26th would then lose asset safety by default I like _hard mode_ but it seems CCP choose _mean mode_. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2020, 6:50am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219/930 "2020-06-05T06:50:30Z")
> [@Runa\_Yamaguchi](#): > > really wish CCP had chosen to initially remove asset safety from the assets themselves rather than from just whatever is in the stations. If that had that system then they could have grandfathered asset safety on assets in stations before the 26th vs assets after the 26th. They could have just triggered a forced asset safety on all inactive accounts. Means it’s not a freebie, but it’s nowhere near as harsh then. Active accounts could have triggered themselves, so might suck if someone forgot, but eh. The idea is to protect those unable to fix the problem themselves, not the dumb. Still, too late now, life will go on. It just does suck for some and wasn’t CCP’s finest hour in decision making. Especially given the favouring to the null blocs with their Faction Forts. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219.md?page=45) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/forsaken-fortress-coming-26-may/235219.md?page=47)