I’m okay with a 50/50 when I lose my ship.
I can control what engagement I get into, I can pick what modules and charges go on my ship
The same can’t be said for structures.
Beyond that, CCP will never implement OP (and his type of people’s) suggestion, so this is really just nothing more than a thought experiment.
Ahhh, I see what you’re saying.
I think Ugren hit on the answer to this: take the number of service modules that were last active while service modules could be active. Obviously when they all shut down during the structure timer would be a bad time to check.
Thanks for clarifying.
Having giant loot pinyatas in space sounds like a great reason to go to war! The chance for Titans etc to drop, fantastic! Even if the structures dropped only 10% (50% of 50% sounds like more fun though) that’s still a massive payoff for a successful seige.
@Bronson_Hughes’s idea of modifying the drop rate is fine, though I think that 100% safety should not be achievable, something even if it’s not much, should always drop.
Trying to protect your loot, by ferrying it to a nondestructable NPC station, in NPC sov/low/high sec where ancibel jumpgates can’t be anchored creates another oportunity for interdiction, there will be a lot of material moving, JFs, carriers etc with cynos are safer but plenty of people will likely not use those everytime. This did happen when stations were indestructible and only ownership of the station and the ability to access the items changed, firesales and panic hauling, those assests were 100% safe from destruction, they’d just be locked away.
We should have 100% asset safety in highsec, 50% in lowsec, and 0% in null/wh space, after all highsec is easy to evac, lowsec more risky and half of it tends to get blown up, and null/wh is unexplored space, no evac services available.
Then no capital ships in hisec. 
And you want to increase those risks even more, relatively speaking. Why?
I like the additional complexity but I still do not believe it should be possible to reach 100%
Hmm, maybe change how insurance works.
Levels of insurance give you a % chance of asset safety. 100% insurance = guaranteed asset safety.
There your supers are safe, the cost of ownership has increased without needing to nerf them and you are unlikely to insure every ship you own.
Plus there is a bunch of stuff that can’t be insured
The only place where changes make sense is sov null and there it should be removed.
Everywhere else players will just store things in NPC stations making the whole thing a pain in the ass, not in a challenging fun way, in a waste time on mindless ■■■■ way.
They need to but also need to limit npc station storage or else people will just switch back to that.
no? because then nobody will keep anything in any citadels. People will just base out of NPC structures and only keep minimal items in citadels
Fine, then give WH space 100% asset safety.
The rest of the game works on magic gremlins to get your stuff across the galaxy without time or player effort.
Stupid should be consistent at least.
WH space didn’t have permanent stations, therefore didn’t get asset safety. (Thera is just weird and doesn’t count for the purposes of overall space)
Asset safety was because outposts & stations are not destructible, therefore to be a replacement for Outposts, & encourage people out of stations there had to be safety of assets just like in a station.
I’ve often thought that asset safety should be more nuanced, the Interbus freighters that move the goods must have capacity limits and there should be some risk, particularly in lawless regions of space.
Perhaps very large items like capital and super capital ships can only be moved if they are packaged. Everything would have a small, per item chance of being lost in transit. Either dropping as loot if the structure is destroyed or simply vanishing if the move is voluntary. Perhaps a 10% per item chance in highsec increasing to a 25% chance in Null.
Since the chance of loss is per item, not dependent on the value of that item, the loot fairy could still be very generous.
RNG is a terrible mechanic.
Volume isn’t a bad idea though, I could work with volume, where you have a ‘safe hanger’ and an ‘overflow hanger’.
Risk is probabilistic, not deterministic. How do you model that without RNG?
I don’t believe a player should be able to chose what arrives safely at destination and what is lost in transit. Knowing the probability lets a player decide whether to to avoid, mitigate or accept the risk.
The thing is if you go with simple RNG, you give them no control over any kind of prioritising of assets. If you are making the argument that there is limited capacity, then the player should have control over that capacity. As RNG will over a large enough set of rolls, utterly screw someone.
My objective was to set the maximum capacity of an individual freighter - not the number of freighters available to haul your goods to safety. If, for example, the capacity was set to 1.3 million M3, packaged supers and capitals could be saved but titans and assembled capitals could not.
The greater the number of rolls, the closer the results will be to the expected value. I believe asset safety should be about reducing loss, not maintaining wealth. The random element means your million units of tritanium may arrive safely while your Nyx drops as loot. That outcome is unlikely but people play lotteries with longer odds.
Only on an average, not for any specific person.
For specific people, the greater the number of rolls the more likely someone gets badly unlucky.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.