Forsaken Fortress – Coming 26 May

Sure, but those structures were always at risk and people knew that and still abandonded them. This highlights the reality that 99.9+% of players just go away never come back. If a significant fraction did return, even for a short bit, Eve would have a million concurrent users given how many people try Eve each month. These owners just quit the game and didn’t care enough to take down their structure and will never visit New Eden again.

The fact is the vast majority of people aren’t coming back. Of those that do, most will still have their stuff either safe in a NPC station or in an active station fueled by their group. A few people will lose things, but even of those, most will only lose a small fraction of their wealth and not really care, and even of those few unlucky ones who lose almost everything, I bet many of them will just continue playing.

I don’t know for sure, but I really think the number of players that will come back in the next couple years and decide not to resume playing because they lost stuff will realistically only be in the dozens or maybe low hundreds. Contrast that against the thousands or tens of thousands of active, paying customers enjoying the game and the decision is a no-brainer for CCP.

CCP did what they reasonably could to get the word out and now the chips will fall where they may. It will be very hard to quantify what impact this has, but I trust CCP looked at the numbers and data and made an informed decision here and their interest is a better game for all.

In the last year or so, selling progression to compulsive grinders and hoarders seems to have fallen out of fashion at CCP. Pandering to that demographic wasn’t working, and all the concenssions to wealth and safety CCP bribed players with need to be remedied. Citadels were way overbalanced and changes were needed. Yes, how CCP handles those changes is important, but a lot of people also left the game because of how stifling and safe CCP made the game.

People quitting the game over losing stuff while they are away is going to be so small a group that it will be in the noise of all the other reasons people stop or continue playing Eve. I don’t have the data nor can see the future to tell how many people that will be, but I can see and feel that New Eden is more exciting and dynamic than it has been in half-a-decade because of the renewed courage CCP has found to challenge players and the established dynamics of the game. This is a good thing.

1 Like

I would like to point out…

I had a mission runner dock while i shooting down a structure. He left in his pod and came back just as it exploded. Local was funny, I gave him back his pauper Gila.

Point is… even current player ignore patch notes… they just don’t care until it effects them.

I dont care either that others are angry at the change. I had to suck up changes to my gameplay over the years because of nerfs. Now… I am making a bit of isk. Win Win

However even I would be stupid not to admit that this is a dick move by CCP. But one I will happily take advantage off.

The dude that left the game and extracted his SP higher up in this thread… I made more isk from him giving me his stuff in 30 minutes than i have in the past 5 years of eve. That is sad, and I told if he comes back to reach out to me. Will help him get back on his feet.

2 Likes

EVE is the only game in existence where reading the patch notes is virtually “mandatory”, and that’s ■■■■■■■■. Yeah, sure it is most certainly in your best interest to do so that when you log in and see epic mechanics or rebalance changes (where’d my high slot go? what the hell is Upwell and why are there these structures all over the place now?) you don’t have a heart attack when trigs drop on you in belt’s or HS systems turn into LS. For those who don’t read the patch notes the experience is and should be very rough, but not implementing a grandfather mechanic was downright cruel even for those who do read them regularly.

3 Likes

That’s really the crux of the debate for me. People trust someone until they reneg on their word. That is a burned bridge.

Oh well, it is what it is.

4500 Upwell structures destroyed so far in June…
burn them all.

2 Likes

I wonder how many subs will be burned, both of active players and returning players who will see what they lost and choose not to resub after feeling betrayed whereas they would have resubbed otherwise :thinking:

Fun facts:

  • Not implementing “no asset safety” = no controversy = no subs burned
  • Implementing “no asset safety” = highly controversial = guaranteed to burn subs unnecessarily and without any real benefit

I’m not inclined to believe that there are any real benefits to “no asset safety” at all whatsoever, let alone to offset the unsubs. Like I said before, there are so many other ways to make it easier to burn structures - the Abandoned state alone advances that cause.

(I’m not disagreeing with Wanda, I’m just applying the “burn structures” theme to “burn subs”)

1 Like

This is wrong.
The implementation of no asset safety & fast structure kills is a good thing. Going forward players can make informed decisions about risk of their assets, and can manually trigger asset safety whenever they want to move assets out of Upwell structures into a station.
But the extra destruction of Upwell structures and the need to keep them active or take them down is a necessary part of EVE.

The problem is in the transition mechanic, where players who made informed decisions based on the old rule set end up badly damaged because of the change.

Please don’t confuse the two.

2 Likes

Have to agree with you here…that’s why in most institutional changes, there is always a grace period or grandfathering rule or some mechanic that doesn’t catch people out in the cold for whatever reason.

Archer is right too as he is referring directly to the transitional phase which has and will cause players to leave or not return once they realize they have lost all their stuff.

Great new mechanic implemented poorly IMO…

4 Likes

Yep, pretty much this.

1 Like

I did not :upside_down_face:

I am opposed to “no asset safety” on a standalone basis, even if there was a grandfather mechanic in place. HOWEVER, I would not have been outraged and instead would have just been “this sucks but whatever moving on” :-1: :man_shrugging: . At that point I’d be too busy raging about how CCP is introducing yet a new faction of ships that we don’t want or need on top of the Trig faction of ships we didn’t want or need. I’ve got better things to rage over :wink:

We need to talk about our relationship… I don’t know if it’s working out… :broken_heart::no_entry_sign::gorilla::facepalm::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::nauseated_face::face_vomiting::ice_cream::sob:

The problem here is you claimed no real benefit. There is a clear benefit to no asset safety on abandoned structures going forward. It provides a number of incentives to players to use only the structures they need, plan ahead, and provides in space content in the form of people moving items or isk sinks if people safety them, as well as potential conflict over abandoned structures where the alliance is still active and forms up to try and contest an attack.

If you dislike no asset safety that’s fine. But don’t ignore the benefits it does bring.

I’m not convinced that it is going to incentivize bashing abandoned structures - that was going to happen anyway with the Abandoned state by itself. Players like griefing and decorating their killboards. This was already true with Low Powered structures, and whenever players scanned structure fits to see if they were ■■■■-fitted even if they were at full power. “Oh look, here is a unfitted Fortizar” - such structures will be bashed even at full-power; there is no shortage of such killmails on zKill. If CCP introduced a mechanic where you don’t need wardecs to bash abandoned structures, but bashing them would make you suspect, everyone would have jumped in on that, too, since it would cost them little to nothing in Hisec.

(Of course, if that were to happen, CCP may first need to address an edge case in the prohibition of neutral logi where presently you cannot logi someone [without being CONCORDED] who is engaged with a suspect/criminal without other criteria being satisfied. That is to say, if someone fleetmate is in combat with a criminal, that criminality arguably should be sufficient criteria for logi to be legal, but presently this is not the case.)

This I consider to be a disadvantage, and here’s why: CCP has been desperately trying to wean players off of NPC stations and onto Upwell structures. This severely cuts back and possibly reverses the already-too-slow NPC-to-Upwell migration. A not-insignificant block of players now are going to be reluctant to use structures on the off chance that something is going to happen in their lives where they can’t log in even to trigger asset safety. And as players get burned going forward, you’re going to have an increasing number of players be reluctant to use structures. No one is going to be more likely to use structures because they risk losing their assets, but an increasing number of players will be less likely to use them because of that risk - this is not how to encourage NPC-to-Upwell migration.

The fact that asset safety can be triggered remotely within 5 seconds of logging in pretty much illustrates the absurdity of it not automatically triggering prior to destruction. If I can manually remotely trigger asset safety for assets in an Abandoned structure 5 seconds before it is destroyed, why can’t it automatically trigger automatically like it would normally? There is no sensible or realistic reason for this discrepancy. The only way for this discrepancy to be bridged is if asset safety couldn’t be triggered at Abandoned structures at all - and I’m not advocating this!

There’s nothing to contest if the structure is abandoned. If the structure is abandoned, the chances of any force worth mentioning defending it, if any show up at all, are near nonexistent. If the structure was worth defending to begin with then someone would have smuggled in enough fuel in an Astero to trigger a single service module cycle and bring it up to Low Powered for a week - or actually keep it powered.

If a structure can be defended by a formidable defense fleet, then it can be fueled. There’s this other thread going on about this ridiculous idea for an Upwell fuel siphon, and one of the arguments was along the lines of “oh well it’s hard to attack a structure with 200 Munnins defending it and having a fuel siphon bring it down to Abandoned makes it easier”, but if it had that many Munnins defending it then it would have been kept fueled in the first place.

Seriously: what are the chances you will be contested at a structure that a formidable foe cared about to begin with?

Okay, so you might say “well, that’s where the asset drops come in”, and sure, that is 100% valid because then you have a race for the goodies and even the attackers attacking each other to stake claim to the goods, but it still doesn’t address

  1. the reversal of NPC-to-Upwell migration
  2. the asset loss for the original owners
  3. the insult-to-injury of those assets going to other players
  4. the existence of other ways CCP could have incentivized bashing and make it easier for structures to fall.

There’s no shortage of ways - this did not have to be one of them.

I am at fault here, yes. There are “benefits”, and I was wrong to suggest there aren’t any. I feel that the benefits, however, are outweighed not just by the disadvantages, but by the existence of alternatives that CCP didn’t even consider.

Fair enough. I have to disagree and think the benefits are worth it. But at this point that’s just opinion as to which potential benefits are of more value than others.

I do agree some will go back to stations, but I think CCP also tried too hard to kill stations. If they want to promote upwell structures then most NPC stations being limited or no docking but instead interacted with in different ways would be more valuable. If the nearest full station is 3 jumps away from where you want to base your Corp is more likely to drop structures and also to fight for them.
I don’t have a good replacement mechanic for how npc stations should be valuable points of interest in mind yet, but that’s a far better direction to approach that kind of idea from.

1 Like

Fine…you get the kids, I keep the dog…and the collection of 70’s soul LPs.

1 Like

What I learned here is that between Triglavians flipping systems, and Abandoned structures, I can’t be sure of the safety of my assets ANYWHERE in EVE.

So why bother accumulating assets if I can’t be sure they’ll be safe? And if I am not bothering to accumulate assets, why bother playing?

There needs to be a base line level of trust in a game company that the things you work for won’t be stolen by them on a whim. CCP has put that in jeopardy.

4 Likes

You know that is not true.

I mean I know for a fact, my assets are always safe in a NPC structure. Or in one of my structures I always keep fueled.

The issue people are describing is not about is it safe? Your assets are always as safe as you choose it to be… but the little warning those that are out of the game got to respond to the change. I am not sad for them either… I will spend their isk well.

1 Like

You’re absolutely right !!!
Erm… Can I have your stuff ??

If you don’t give it to him, give your stuff to me please! :smiley:

Geroff - what do you think this is, a game where people steal stuff from other people ?! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

As a matter of, I do! :wink:

Wow, gotta say I’m surprised, envious and impressed…