Come on, Brisc… I saw you talking with the Australian who can’t get into his account to do that, even as an alpha. It may not be the norm, but there are people out there who shoulda woulda if they coulda logged in to asset safety their stuff but they couldn’t.
And this is aside from the August 2015 article multiple people have quoted saying what CCP’s original citadel statements said, this is just… plain empathy for people impacted by natural disasters and pandemics IRL who want to save their space pixels but can’t.
There are always going to be edge cases, and I think CCP should allow for players who legitimately can’t get into the client to petition to have their stuff moved.
But I am not going to support denying content to existing players on the off chance that somebody who may never return to the game might be inconvenienced.
For sure. I’m just saying it would have been nice if CCP had instructed their CSMs (such as that GM who told the Aussie dude in question to have a friend or corpmate log in to his account for him (!?!?) to hit the asset safety button for him since he can’t do it) to asset safety the stuff for people who clearly want to do it, have heard about the incoming change, and can’t do it.
But… they didn’t. So… yeah. Anyway, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I own no structures, the only citadels I keep stuff in are in WH space where there’s no asset safety promised anyway (from the get go, as it should have been), and I’m just feeling for peops like that Aussie dude… because if CCP ever pulls the same thing with NPC stations in high/low/NPC null… well, that’s gonna be one bridge too far.
But there was no denial of content needed.
You keep trotting out this irrelevant strawman here, when the content could have been provided to players without the damage to currently inactive players.
There were solutions which could have been used.
And considering CCP did deny content over faction citadels, it’s also an irrelevant strawman.
It’s not a strawman. I see the content here being the hunting for abandoned structures, with the goal of seeing what drops when they die. That’s what is motivating people to go out and hunt these. We’ve had multiple stories of major loot drops that has stoked the imaginations of players across the game, forced large groups to go blow up their own stuff, etc. That’s all content, and it wouldn’t be happening if the system didn’t include the dropping of loot, or moved everything to asset safety automatically.
Faction citadels, since they were created from the prior system, was a fair compromise. Not sure why you’re pointing out that they actually did try to mitigate the impact on some inactive players, as that kind of blows up part of your argument.
Which still would have happened with inactives given a pass. Active players would still have loot in citadels that would be there for the taking. None of this content you are listing would have been removed, with the possible exception of people looting their own main holding structures, which I wouldn’t consider content.
The point is that Citadels in general were intended to take on some Station/Outpost characteristics. By acknowledging this with Faction Citadels but not with all Citadels they’ve shown clear favouritism towards which group of players get a pass for being inactive and which don’t. It doesn’t blow my argument out of the water, it reinforces it because they felt the need to do it for some people, so clearly it doesn’t matter if content is reduced in order to protect inactive players. (not that I believe it is, but if you want to try and claim it is).
Which means that not doing it for all inactive players is either outright favouritism, or outright bad development & laziness.
Unlikely. This assumes that active players with a lot of stuff to lose would simply not care about where their stuff was, and ignore the little red lightning bolt in their inventories telling them their stuff was at risk. I don’t think that’s very likely. Throw in the fact that players would have known ahead of time that the chances of their getting a big haul was significantly reduced, it would have lowered the tempo at which these structures were killed. Kill mails are great, but the gold rush that occurred is unlikely to have happened if the amount of potential loot was cut back as dramatically as the automatic asset safety of inactive players stuff would have likely caused.
Yes, they’ve said that if you were inactive for longer than four years, then your stuff should probably be safer. I think that’s a fair compromise.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line is always going to be viewed as arbitrary by somebody.
Again, I think that denial is more justifiable. Players who left before the asset safety mechanic existed, who have no experience with citadels and only know that if you keep your stuff in a station - whether a player built outpost or an NPC station - that it was safe, those players have a more legitimate complaint about their stuff being gone than someone who has played in the era with destructible citadels.
Which would have also been solved by a one time only asset safety trigger for everyone, without denying all the rest of the content you so desperately want to invoke involved with faction citadels.
So… yep. Still looking like CCP played favourites over the transition here.
Sure, it would have solved it. It would also have vacuumed up a ton of other assets that could have dropped from players who were aware of citadels, how they worked, and knew there was a risk associated with leaving their stuff in them, thus defeating the purpose of creating loot pinatas to get players to go kill them.
They drew the line where they felt it made sense. You can call it playing favorites, but in the end, it’s simply where they chose to draw the line.
What risks?
CCP stated “There is asset safety because we want you to use these structures”
Any inactive player clearly is not aware of the NEW risks to structures, and under the rules at the time their stuff was perfectly safe. You’ve sided with people who put stuff in a structure they could have been locked out of at any time, that’s actually MORE risk than the asset safety mechanic exposed people to. The largest risk they had was inconvenient station camps on common asset safety destinations in low sec.
Your own arguments surrounding those players happens to actually support protecting the inactive people.
Sure, CCP made a decision, life goes on, probably very few will quit over it, and not that many won’t return over it. But that doesn’t mean we should excuse them from their poor decision over how to handle the transition, as that just ensures that in future transitions they will also make poor decisions.
Asset safety is a risk. Your stuff is teleported to a low sec structure that every pirate in the game is aware of, and you’re charged a 15% tax on the value of the stuff to get it out of asset safety. You’re penalized (you could also look at it as you’re being charged for the service), and your stuff is now in a place where extracting it can be difficult and risky.
Not really, because the stuff was still there, and there was always a chance that you could retrieve it.
I’m not arguing in favor of CCP’s grandfathering of the faction fort thing, I’m simply saying they did it and I can understand their justifications for doing it.
Have they ever made a decision you didn’t think was a poor one?
Getting locked out was also a risk. Your stuff is now in an enemy station where they are aware of the fact it was a staging post.
Which is… True with asset safety also though. Your stuff is still there, there is a chance you can retrieve it. As I said, it’s more of a chance since you aren’t locked out of the station so don’t have to come up with work arounds.
Uh, Plenty? Like, the whole lack of asset safety on abandoned structures ‘going forward’ for a pertinent example. Trying to claim that I always find fault with anything CCP does is just silly Brisc. You are being a modern politician and trying to attack me now.
Sure, it was a risk. Still is. That hasn’t changed.
It is true with asset safety, yes.
Not attacking you. I just can’t believe the “CCP made a poor decision here, and that undermines our faith in their making good decisions in the future” when I rarely, if ever, see you praising them for anything. That’s my perception at least. Maybe I’m wrong.
Which… is why your whole argument of ‘But they didn’t know their assets were at risk in an outpost’ is a silly argument to make when people in Citadels also didn’t know their assets were at risk since CCP had specifically said they were including asset safety at the time Citadels launched in order to make them viable to use.
It’s even more of a dramatic change for older Citadels than it is for Outposts. So any argument that justifies protecting assets left in an Outpost also justifies protecting older assets in a Citadel.
Maybe that just indicates which threads you bother to read on here for a start.
Though yes, I probably do speak out a little more when it’s negative feedback, because it’s generally more important to make that sort of feedback known. Silence tends to indicate at least a certain level of contentment after all. But at the same time on this topic, I’ve been very clear that I think the change is great. The content of abandoned structures is good. It’s only how they’ve handled the transition that I think was very poor. And I’ve given clear reasons why as well with logic behind them… something your argument against those reasons has been a bit lacking in.
I disagree. The risk is different. Citadel players knew the citadel their stuff was in could explode, and their stuff could be moved. Outpost players knew, at worst, they could be locked out of the citadel. Once it was up, it was up. The location of their stuff wouldn’t change.
That’s a different kind of risk.
My argumentation and logic is sound. I’ve explained why I agree with what was done and why I think the transition wasn’t as poorly thought out as you do. We can disagree. Nothing wrong with that.
Guys just remember you can still aseety safetly move them as long the citadel is there
You also get a notification when the citadel go in low power
so don’t write post that said “uh ccp dosn’t care” when they GIVE YOU multiple advise that your citadel is going in low power and could go in abbandon mode
There was still no risk of the stuff ever being lost, and the stuff was always accessible.
No it’s really not, your logic actually supports all assets getting safetied, not just the outpost assets.
Especially since Faction citadels protect a whole bunch of people who put assets in them or left assets in them AFTER they became Citadels. And even people going forward in the new era of not reliable asset safety still get perfect asset safety in Faction citadels as well.
That’s really helpful if you are currently inactive or unable to get to an EVE capable computer due to Covid lockdowns… The issue is not going forward, the issue was the transition handling.
Yes, there is - once you try to move it. And it wasn’t accessible unless you were physically present in the station where the stuff was moved to.
The fact that I don’t have an issue with the faction fort stuff being protected by the mechanic of not allowing them to go into abandoned state does not mean that I support actively asset safetying every inactive players stuff.
Anyway, I don’t have a dog in this fight, I own no structures, the only citadels I keep stuff in are in WH space where there’s no asset safety promised anyway (from the get go, as it should have been), and I’m just feeling for peops like that Aussie dude… because if CCP ever pulls the same thing with NPC stations in high/low/NPC null… well, that’s gonna be one bridge too far.