In support of @Nevyn_Auscent, this approach suggested on reddit, asked for a one-time script to move all player assets to safety, IF they haven’t logged in for a year.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/g7eoim/debate_should_asset_safety_be_automatically/
Lose their stuff.
I think it is clear CCP has decided the benefits of a lootapolooza and the abandoned state in general are more important than the cost of maybe annoying a handful of people who might caught out by this change. The vast, vast majority of these lapsed players aren’t coming back and the boost in excitement and activity to actual paying customers is real.
You can’t be afraid of making good changes to the game because it might annoy a small minority of your players. And you should worry even less if these players aren’t even a customer of yours at the time of the change.
This change is good, and no matter how cautiously they go about it, someone is going to not pay attention or be unlucky and lose some imaginary stuff. Oh well. The game will go on.
2 Likes
The excitement to current players will last a few days at best, then the vast majority of current “abandoned” structures and their afk player’s loot will be gone. The following week the community will be back to complaining that “online structures are too hard to kill.”
1 Like
You clearly didn’t even read my post. Because nothing in it said anything about not making these changes.
It is about an additional bump to address a hole in the change. Because with the exception of WH space it has never been realistically possible to lose all your assets by taking time off.
Outposts you lost access but not the assets themselves. Non WH POS you weren’t storing all your assets in to begin with because space limits and it was stupid to. And Upwell structures specifically had asset safety added to them to replicate that.
So this is a dramatic change and will seriously impact the ability of players to return who made smart choices at the time but a CCP mechanics change causes them to lose everything.
2 Likes
This is an interesting choice, due to the nature of old POS having separate facilities for the storage of ships and personal items. Ships were always available for usage or evacuation while a control tower was reinforced, but the corporate hanger with personal items would be locked. Since citadels are one object storing ships AND items, game designers had to pick one behavior for both.
1 Like
Because dullsec players want to have thier cake and eat it while the rest of Eve’s “irrelevant” players should have more risk and less reward
Aye, but it might fix structure spam, right now its too easy to throw them up and leave them unfuelled because you can always turn up to the second timer
Personally I dont see why low power citadels have tether and repair on the undock
1 Like
It’s still an event, like all the other ones CCP spends resources or pays costs for to drive activity.
The motivation of a jackpot loot drop will continue way past a few days as even in the future you often won’t know how long a structure was there. Regardless, a short term event that many current players can enjoy seems worth the cost of a few lapsed players who might return losing some stuff. I bet even most of this tiny cohort won’t quit the game or anything - you can always get more stuff if you return to the game.
Or you did not read mine.
I said CCP clearly wants a lootapolooza event where people go out and smash things hoping to get a lucky drop. The excitement and reward for that would be lessened to an extreme if everyone knew all the loot had been sent to asset safety, even that of the 95%+ of players who will never come back.
And I agree with CCP on this. The way they planned is better for the majority and the majority of their active players. It will make a more active game.
You clearly DIDN’T read Nevyn Auscent post.
He specifically mentioned those players who for some reason are unable to access the game in time to prepare for the change.
Yes they may be a minority but does that mean they should lose everything they have because of circumstances out of their control and a mechanic change by CCP?
2 Likes
First line should read “wants” not “needs” 
2 Likes
When you are commanding a starship, or a single-shard sandbox game, you sometimes have to make choices for the greater good. That means, sometimes you have to make a choice where you choose the good of the many, over the negative impact on a few.
By not triggering asset safety before this change CCP can provide many hours of content for thousands, if not tens of thousands of their active player base by essentially adding a conflict driver/incentive to the game in the form of a chance of loot drops for no additional work. The number of people who might lose stuff is small - most people who are inactive are going to have had their stuff already moved to asset safety or will still enjoy asset safety as long as their group is active - but there are indeed a handful of edge cases that are going to lose stuff they might have thought was safe. But to add to this equation, these handful of edge-cases aren’t even paying customers anymore.
The correct choice for CCP to make here is that like Spock, these edge-cases should be sacrificed for the greater good of the game. CCP should of course as a business do their best to mitigate these impacts on these lapsed customers, but the fact is the vast, vast majority of the loot drop in June will be from players that are never coming back. Perhaps that means CCP will make some compensation or some other accommodation on a case-by-case basis for returning players who lose things, or perhaps not, and CCP is willing to take the chance the loss of stuff will translate to a loss of a future customer.
Eve will survive either way, but in this case I agree with CCP’s choice to opt for the needs of thousands of their current customers for content over a tiny number of non-paying former players who may eventually return.
2 Likes
And sometimes you don’t. There will still be plenty of loot of active players in abandoned structures. This is not a case of the greater good, this is a case of greedy players wanting even more loot at the expense of others.
No, CCP has to choose here.
They can trigger asset safety, removing all of the loot (including that of the clueless active players you refer to) and deflating almost all the excitement and incentive to clear out these abandoned structures. This benefits the few, lapsed-now-but-still-have-stuff-in-abandoned-structures-who-might-come-back-some-day players out there. However, it hurts all the current players who will be denied any jackpot loot payout and really remove any financial incentive to be a space janitor, and thus the chance to shoot space janitors.
Or they can not trigger asset safety, and let their thousands of current players have some fun and crack open some abandoned structures left behind by ex-players who are overwhelmingly not ever going to return to the game - a massive spring cleaning of abandoned structure across New Eden! Current players will, indeed driven by greed, undock, form fleets and maybe even directly contest these possible loot piñatas enjoying the content this event provides. This hurts the tiny number of people who: a) quit the game, b) somehow left their stuff in an unfueled structure that won’t be taken down or fueled by their group, and c) will come back some day, or I guess alternatively: d) current active players who can’t be arsed to login once and make the single click ‘Send to Asset Safety’ sometime over the next month or otherwise take down their abandoned structure.
Both options have pros and cons, but CCP can’t have it both ways - they have to choose between the many and the few. Any conditional asset safety for some and not for others would likely be complicated to implement (read: more costly) and still have to draw a line somewhere, so it really is one or the other.
Personally, I think the choice is obvious, but it’s not really for you or I to make. Re-reading the OP and the added FAQ of this thread, their choice is clear: they went for content for their many, active players over the danger they could annoy a small sub-set of ex-players that might possibly return someday. They even have added a 24h jitter mechanic to make sure all players in all TZ get an equal chance at the booty!
And as a current, active player, I am happy for it!
1 Like
Of inactive players. That is the request being made here. I have no idea why you keep feeling the need to reduce this to a binary or make straw man arguments against things that no one has ever suggested.
But it’s clear that you aren’t interested in engaging in good faith in this debate the way you keep strawmaning.
Inactive players are where most of the loot is going to come from. This won’t be an event if is just the loot from current active players who forget to click on the asset safety button. Almost all the loot is going to come from players who left the game months or years ago, not from clueless active players. And without loot to stimulate those greedy players to undock, you don’t have an event.
And that incentive to get players to undock comes almost for free for CCP - those inactive players aren’t going to notice the loss of their stuff unless they come back, and almost none of them will. The few that do CCP can deal with and compensate somehow, or not and see if they still stick around, but again there aren’t going to be that many compared to the thousands and thousands of player-hours of content a spring cleaning lootapolooza will provide to the current player base.
I’m not sure why you don’t see this, but I guess it doesn’t matter as CCP does.
Since CCP stated loot drop will be subject to normal drop mechanics, there is an option for a compromise.
Things that RNG would not drop go to asset safety. No loss on the side of instant reward team, they will still get their loot pinatas for a month or so, reduced loses on the side of inactive players.
1 Like
So someone who a given close to 16 years to Eve SHOULD in your opinion lose everything I have acquired simply because - CCP decide to change the way the game is played and Bushfires followed by flooding meant i had to leave where i lived, then Covid 19 hits while I am 2,000 miles from home and i can’t travel due to lockdown, have no reliable internet connection and no access to a computer.
NB; “The greater good” - Never means throwing away paying customers (something CCP is becoming very good at)
Pedro, I’d imagine from this post you never give to plex for good either - Your too self centred to consider what others are going through “important”
2 Likes
Are you honestly suggesting that the entire game be designed around your own personal circumstances?
4 Likes
It’s not about you…