it swings both ways . Eve needs less of intel not more of it . If you can see someone is online and they can see if you are online more likely one of you will stand down or log off . If neither of you know where either of you are you are like to scout each other and find a nice surprise . This is just like me using lvl 4 agents to fight out where dread bombs are even without having to get the system where they are . The world became a better place when watchlists were removed it should be the same with intel generation like zkill , dotlan , locator agents and map data like cynos, active ppl in space etc .
uhm i dont know, there is no NPC station in brave space to my knowledge…?
i think i hafto use the player owned stations… and why shouldent i? the infrastructure an alliance/corp builds should be used?
Whats the point of stations?? might aswell just revert back to those achorable forcefields.
i know ROI on a c5 rattlesnake, in a c5 is not alot of hours… under 24hrs active pve?
And im pretty sure you make the c5 rattlesnake back in time well before you’r station gets destroyed.
Point is what this player writes:
This is true and this is also the wrong approch of CCP. But that is slightley offtopic.
very important on topic thou. Peoples items in player owned structures should not be loot.
it is wrong and also people coming back from break, will not stay in the game, thus this is also bad for eve. if you take a game break whilst living in WH… you know the deal… and its a smaller niche to live in a wh. Its not a small niche with stations, they are everywhere -as adressed here by ccp, as a problem.
Don’t keep all of your stuff in Brave space. Don’t keep all of your stuff in anyone’s space.
But Brave isn’t remotely likely to let any staging citadels go unfueled for this to happen. I’d be surprised if they were incompetent enough to let that happen. Whether or not a structure goes into the abandoned state is a choice of the owner. Any remotely competent owner would unanchor a staging citadel before it reached that point.
1 Like
Upkeep is a reality
Dont wanna live with it?
No station for Neddy.
This doesn’t seem fair. Imagine a neutral player having some officer modules fitted on an alliance tournament ship, parked in an abandoned station and for some real-life reason, that player can’t move his ship. He loses it for nothing. I think that only stuff from the corp and alliance that owns the structure should drop, not everything from everyone.
3 Likes
The people complaining about this change are the people that dont rely on their corp or alliance and typically live in High sec space in a small or solo corp. This will be a non issue for most null sec entities.
1 Like
why would it be parked in that station in the first place?
2 Likes
@CCP_Aurora What will happen to items or ships that are in a pending contract from the abandoned structure upon destruction? This would include courier contracts and expired contracts. Are they lost or will they drop as well? Technically the items are not in personal or corp hangars.
1 Like
When citadels were first introduced - CCP promised that folk’s assets would be safe due to asset safety. It was a big motivation to get people to move into them. Since then, folk have left the game, leaving assets in the citadels under the belief that if they come back - their assets will still be there (unless they are in WH - but that was WH’s deal from the beginning). Strikes me that this is something of a disincentive for folk to return.
2 Likes
I’m having issues with people being so heart broken over “virtual” property…
If you choose to piss away real money on virtual property, that was your choice…whether it be game time played, or Plex…you made the choice. It’s not like this is your home or car we are talking about here.
You quit playing the game, what are they supose to do keep your garbage forever just in case you might decide to comeback and play “SOME DAY”???
We are having an eviction sale here…Granted we are just talking about entries in a database…
Nobody gives a rats ass about the ■■■■ head that ganks assets for giggles because they enjoy playing that way at everyone else’s expense. There’s no “asset safety” for anything else in the game. Just some sorry ass “insurance” system that’s a huge joke.
CCP will deal with the fallout when the time comes.
We didn’t get reimbursed when Corps came into low sec and blasted our Poses to bits and took our moons, back in the day? It was just part of game play.
Fuel your POS network and you won’t have to worry about it…
Shoulda moved to an NPC station and taken your tent down before you left the game…why should you have the right to that spot forever?
You don’t have to be Omega to take your stuff out of the station do you?
We don’t put personal property in “storage” in Real Life, they Sell it at Auction to make the space available.
Just my thoughts…sorry if you don’t agree.
Just a last thought.
While you are logging on to click “asset safety” how about turning the POS fuel job over to someone that is playing so they can keep the lights on??? Or take the thing down?
o7 Fly Safe.
2 Likes
I cannot wait…
So excited.
I didn’t want to participate in the discussion, because of reasons. But in your case, it would be better that you’ve just stayed quiet.
About the choice thing … that’s true. Every single one of us decide what they do with their time and money.
Yes. It’s been like that since forever, so why would that change now? Since the Citadel update, they have updated their “characters & assets” related articles with a new function for their non-accessible assets after the return. And that function was called “Asset Safety”.
Hell, you would even get your Titan, Super, Rroq, Dread, Carrier, FAX, JF, Black Ops, Freighter moved by the CCP support in case you were “trapped”.
Sure there is. If you keep your stuff in NPC station, your assets should not:
- Get deleted.
- Get removed.
- Get destroyed.
- … You get the picture.
No one has ever said that the POS will offer you asset safety. And that’s the big difference, don’t you think?
Because it was promised by the CCP.
There’s a difference between saying A and then doing B when it comes to the game mechanics. If they tweak the resistance profiles on all of the modules - that’s fine. It’s part of the game cycle. But if they decide to change promised game mechanics … what does that tell you about CCP then?
Here, read the following:
So what’s the takeaway?
- CCP can’t be trusted with any new feature they develop anymore. It just feels like the players who took the break from the game got jebaited.
And I see this as an issue. Not only they have shown that the CCP can’t be trusted with whatever they say and/or promise. But now you can’t even trust them on base game mechanics. If you don’t see that as an issue, I feel sorry for you.
Anyway … to all of you participating in this event: have fun.
4 Likes
and if you bother to watch the fan fest videos of the time they also say. Asset safety wont always be like it is upon introduction. It will probably change over time when mechanics or gameplay dictates. All your doing is quoting how it was upon patch day. Useless information to try to start a fight considering information prior to that destroys it.
2 Likes
Will the changing system security status launch on the same day as this, the 26’th?
Just saw this thread. I’m “happy” with this potential outcome of having an abandoned structure, even if it is imposed on me by RL. That makes it hard for me not to appreciate counter-arguments of @Nevyn_Auscent, or have empathy with @Sgt_Ocker. My internet and power connection crashed and hit the ground. Power long back but internet still being rebuilt. I’m still subbed but have no idea what my fuel situation is since Easter. No kill mail suggests structures still there but this change just increases risk.
Funny thing tho’, it is thought of being able to bash a structure myself in single hit that has made me scramble for any workaround. And this despite fact I’m a solo, non-PvP player who currently has no chance of fielding enough dps to bash anything! (Well, maybe an mtu.) The potential to “re-distribute wealth” via multi-container drops is just too seductive however … I wanna play!
It is going to be real tight to see if I can do anything before first structures are abandoned. Only thing I could add to discussion in meantime is perhaps CCP could offer asset-safety-for-a-fee? Move all contents for 10% of value and separate from fee to get assets out of hock? They could even use this one-off isk sink to invest in PLEX-for-good, as gesture of goodwill on their part?
2 Likes
803 posts so far and I had to add an 804th.
These changes don’t affect me in game, but they will affect my opinion of CCP going forward.
I think that risk management is probably the central fulcrum upon which the rest of Eve game play sits. Even if it is not, I am not sure what the game would be like if people couldn’t manage their risk. The assets stored in Upwells were put there by people who believed those assets to be protected by the asset safety system and the belief that this protection would extend indefinitely is justified. Moving forward, people will be able to take the potential loss of asset safety for a structure going unfueled into their risk assessment, and that is fine. For those who are inactive and will be retroactively affected, I think it represents a violation of trust.
When someone breaks their word, I examine the situation to see which of two categories it falls into. Either that someone was unable to keep their word, or they were unwilling. For those who are unable, I forgive. For those who were unwilling, I do not. I think CCP is in the latter camp with this change, in so far as it affects the outcome of player decisions made before the changes were announced. The seeming unwillingness to help people unable to save their assets due to being impacted by the pandemic adds to the probability this decision is voluntary in the mind of the maker, not a necessary change made reluctantly for the benefit of the greater good.
Making the structures vulnerable and removing their asset safety are two different things. Making them vulnerable is taking a crack at a permanent solution to an existing concern of a wide demographic of the player base. Getting rid of the timers for structures that are not receiving upkeep makes them easier to destroy, reducing the structure spam. The removal of asset safety, though, is not a permanent solution. I think people know the reason these structures have a significant potential to be a loot pinata is because people stored goods in there unaware they could be lost. There may be a few who, in the transition confusion, mistakenly believe their assets safe, but for the rest of us who know better, we will just stop storing our items there or trigger asset safety manually when we need to. I would be unwilling to trade my integrity for around a month of hoopla.
6 Likes
Why don’t you give us a link to a specific timestamp where they tell us that? I’ve just went through few of the 2016 fanfest videos, and didn’t find anything. First, I wanted to tell you to piss off with your suggestion of trying to find the information in the video, instead of well-documented blog entry. But then, I’ve tried anyway.
On the other hand, the way you have written your sentence - it could mean anything. What kind of mechanics are they going to change? As I’ve said, changing properties like resists, or making you pay for the asset safety - is OK.
Here, look how they tackled it:
Do you see that “asset safety is a major part”?
And why do you mean that I’m trying to start a fight? I’m trying to understand why did CCP break their promise? Without the absolute asset safety (regardless of the cost), many players would not even try upwell structures out.
P.S. EvE players are the weirdest bunch of people I have privilege to interact with. Instead of acting/thinking like a community, everyone just thinks about themselves. If the negative change comes to High-Sec, the Null-Sec people start cheering. If the negative change comes to Null-Sec, the High-Sec people start cheering.
As I’ve said, this change does not make any sense. What’s next? New Gallentean attack on NPC stations? “FNS Wandering Saint #2” crashing into Jita trade hub, killing everyone inside, and making everything what’s inside get destroyed and or dropped in space?
Instead of destroying assets which belong to someone else, they could’ve tackled the issue in a different manner - e.g. increasing the cost of the asset safety. If the structure was in an “abandoned” state, one could just increase the cost of the safety. That would be fine too, don’t you think? … Uhm … no, you probably don’t. Because profiteering on someone else’s misery is what makes people tick.
1 Like
I’m still not sure why you take asset safety as a sacrosanct “promise”. Like any game mechanic it is subject to change, adjustment and balance. Asset safety isn’t going away: it is still here in the vast majority of cases. It is also available on demand for any player even from an abandoned structure. The only people who are going to lose assets to drops are the completely absent-minded, or the inactive (and only a tiny fraction of them).
And I get the concern that some people went inactive with the expectation that asset safety would cover their stuff. But what I don’t get are the copious amount of crocodile tears for these players in this thread, for players who aren’t even playing the game still and most of which never will again. This doesn’t affect you, the reader of this forum. You can just login and trigger asset safety if you want. Why are so many people worried about people who have left the game they don’t even know?
Indeed. I don’t get why so many people are coming here, clutching their pearls about how this is bad for the game when it seems to me, they are just terrified about losing some of their space assets. Excess safety isn’t good for this game. It may seem that way to someone who may be horrified at the idea that their virtual assets might go away someday, but destruction = content = economic demand. CCP is just doing what they think is best for the greater game here, not trying to hurt some players intentionally because they don’t like them or something. Think bigger than yourself and your imaginary stuff.
Yes, that means there might be a tiny amount of collateral damage here as with any change. But you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. The increase in activity created by jackpot drops will benefit the current active players, and it is the active players that should be the primary focus of a game designer, not lapsed ones.
The game will be fine.
5 Likes
Eve is supposed to be a cold, dark, harsh , unforgiving, mechanical and cold Universe.
But People want asset safety?
The player-base is going soft.
You’re missing the point. This isn’t just “the game”, this is a change to the game from the devs (ie externally).
…and BTW, they still have asset safety…next week changes one aspect of that.