On the topic of asset safety

Currently asset safety has you paying 15 percent of the amount if you have no NPC structures in the same system.

This is ridiculous.

…or is it?

In the past, if you were in a system with no npc station, you had to haul it out and send it to another nearby station. This was the cost of doing business in systems that had no stations. Now, we have citadels, and this allows us to store and utilize many different things.

So, what is the 15% going towards?

Well, it goes towards convenience.

You no longer had to restrict yourself by creating a pos or hauling next door in order to do business and industry. This is both a great boon to quieter systems that used to have no use because no one could dock or store items, and to the owner of the citadel, because he can make isk on the side by charging services that didnt exist in that system before.

But this comes at a price. Part of that price, is asset safety. If your citadel gets destroyed, you have to pay 15% to get it back. This makes sense. You want to set up in a system without stations, you risk paying the price. The benefits are huge, but there is an inherent risk attached to it as well.

The other aspect of this, is the fact that this is someone elses citadel.

If you dont like being forced to pay asset safety recovery fees, then plop your own citadel down, and defend it. I gauruntee you will never run into the problem of paying the fee, if you have your own citadel. But if youre using someone elses citadel, then the asset safety fee is completely justifiable. You have no investment in the defense, protection, and upkeep of that citadel. You will not be called on to defend the citadel. So when the owner decides to take it down, or someone comes and destroys it, then you have to pay the fine, and accept the risk of using someone elses property.

Asset safety is a simple risk in the risk vs reward calculation that you have to undergo. I think its perfectly fine.

But, what about 0.0 space? Should the price be different for nullsec, than hisec?

No. In fact, it should be the opposite. It should be higher in Hisec.

The thing about Nullsec asset safety, is that it gets transported to the nearest lowsec station. This is something that can be calculated, and camped, if necessary, after a large scale eviction or destruction of a citadel. There is far more risk in nullsec asset safety than there is in hisec. Its why Black Frog freight charges more from lowsec to hisec transportation, than they do through hisec. If anything, hisec should cost more.

And no, returning players are returning of their own free will. Welcome back to eve, but if you want to access your old stuff, then you gotta pay the price. With Alphas being free to play, there is no excuse for not being able to move and access your items if you want to avoid paying this fee.

Thats my thoughts on the topic, atleast.

Trolls are welcome btw.

1 Like

The good thing about low sec stations is that they are uncampable. Capitals, jump freighters, can all just jump out of the station to another station. At least if you are competent. Which a lot of people don’t seem to be.

It is beyond me why you would store anything in a citadel before you leave EVE. Unless you do so involuntarily, it is extremely negligent to leave something in a place that can be destroyed. And negligence should be punished. Besides, depending on the volumes some people are talking about, the 15% tax is rather cheap considering how much fuel you would otherwise have to spend for JF to get things moved out of a far away place.

Is this not the same conversation that has been closed several times this week? @ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode @ISD_Buldath ?

Yep : Rebalance asset safety

If this is a feature discussion then you could have posted it in the right forum section.

On the topic itself… I prefer the direction where this is going opposed to making it cheaper, but I don’t see why asset safety needs to be tied to the security status in the first place.

When high-sec needs more risk or higher cost associated to it then it shouldn’t be tied to asset safety, where it can only become a hidden detail and as such contribute further to the already steep learning curve of EVE. Instead, it should be regulated through the already existing mechanism (i.e. CONCORD response time, NPC corp taxes, mission payouts, etc.).

Should a change in cost for asset safety be necessary then binding the cost and the recovery time to the travelling distance of the assets is more intuitive as it simulates more closely an actual move of assets by a player.

EVE shouldn’t get more complicated and items shouldn’t have more strings attached. We should better aim for ridding the game of existing strings that make the game as complex as it is, find more intuitive solutions and thereby allow for more players to join the game.

I’m not saying to make asset safety cheaper or more expensive, nor am I saying to change high- or null-sec.

Jumping out is easy. Jumping in, can be hard. Some stations are very poorly oriented and modeled that they risk having you jump in 1500 meters away, which is a death sentence. If youve got a jump freighter already in the station, perfect. Otherwise, even black frog may refuse if the station is camped.

Im in favor of it, so its a different conversation. Plus im civil.

I have yet to find an asset safety station that is a kickout station or has a small docking radius. So far, it seems like CCP manually selected the good stations in a system.

http://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/Odebeinn for instance, has 3 terrible station and one good station and all asset safety packs appear to go to the Kaalakiota station. Lighting a noob ship cyno may be difficult, yes. but apart from that normal caps and JF should not have any issues at all getting in and out.

Obviously, lots of people still die there, but I attribute that to severe lack of knowledge and as an acceptable risk for the easy asset transport from deep null sec. :slight_smile:

Topic moved to the player features category

I agree that the topic is the same, but this is vastly different. This one at least is taking an objective approach on the feature. Contrary to the previous ones by Wesfahrn which was subjective to his immediate experience not being able to pay the fee for his Assets Safety activation.

1 Like

It would be easier to add it to an already existing mechanism, but i fear that this will not change the fact that this will still be a hidden detail. People will generally be ignorant about it, until after they have encountered it.

I talk to new players all the time, and they still miss things that are even pointed out in the tutorial. Most of them go “Oh, right” or “Huh, i missed that”, because they dont pay attention.

Im sure they made it this way because it was a lot easier. Its a lot easier to just set a blanket cost, instead of having it calculate distances. But im fine with the distance thingy too, as long as it costs more in hisec.

@Wesfahrn Youre welcome to my thread BTW.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.