At the moment, clones cannot be moved because of the way in which they need to be stored while not occupied. Will there be a patch that when one installs a clone into a station with a clone bay, the clone does not get destroyed and/or the pilot is denied access to their clone? Having a clone(pod) and not being able to access it is keeping an asset from being accessed and losing the ability to use it for what it was intended for. I feel that having a clone safety so it doesn’t get destroyed would be awesome, even if it comes with a little fee.
We need less safety in the game not more. Imho they should remove asset safety from null all together.
1 Like
Good idea… A clone is an asset. Loosing a clone full of implants really sucks…
We need more safety linked to stored items. Or at least the current levels (Though asset safety could use a bigger minimum cost inside the same system to reduce the 50 citadel spam tactic)
Less safety to items actually being used.
And more encouragement to use items (aka training & reprocessing implants are terrible because you are rewarded for not using them in space, skill implants are good because you are rewarded for using them).
Then you get people actually using things of value, without feeling that they are at risk of losing their back up stuff.
If your not willing to defend your assets you should lose them, none of this safety crap. If you want your items to be safe put it in an NPC station.
I understand defending ones assets, however, with the current game mechanics… you can have a clone and not be able to access it.
I aware, why I destroyed mine I couldnt get to
Look, when citadels were becoming a thing, this topic was beaten to death. Repeatedly.
What it boils down to is that without asset safety in place, enough people would refuse to use citadels because the risk is too great. Think of it this way, you’re the guy in a nullsec alliance that has to purchase equipment from incoming cargo deliveries, assemble ships, and get them set on contract for your people.
As things stand right now, that is already a hell of a job. Very time consuming. Now you as a person want to visit your folks for the holidays. Maybe you’ll be away from the game long enough for this to now become an issue. Do you keep your vacations under a few days so you’ll always be back in time to babysit your stuff in case of attack, or do you risk being away and having all your stuff gone when you come back?
That’s a bit of an oversimplification, but there’s a lot of good reasons why we can’t take away asset safety altogether. This is still a video game, that people access in their leisure time; and the minute that it becomes a chore or a job you’re forced to do, you become heavily incentivized to not log in again. Some things will never happen because this is a video game first and certain considerations have to be in place no matter what.
Plus, you know who benefits the most from asset safety removal, right? The people in the game that don’t typically have to worry about losing their staging outposts.
1 Like
Then why don’t wormhole alliances get it?? Your argument is invalid because wormhole alliances have all those same logistical problems and then some, with an even SHORTER reinforcement period.
The thing with wormholes is the fact that they do not have a static door. Where is the nearest npc station for a certain wormhole? That is the PRO and CON of living in a wormhole, not knowing which system is the nearest and not having a static door. I have lived in wormhole space for a little to understand where you are coming from.
You seem to misunderstand me. I’m not arguing with you, I’m explaining the situation to you. If you want to argue about why the game is the way it is, then @ a dev about it.
Its the way it is becaues the null sec groups complain the most and th e loudest on the CSM.
No. It’s because a few large wh groups protested loudly at asset safety and demanded they get to loot everyone else’s wh stuff.
Under the guise of good for the game… AMD the argument that wh never had it unlike every other area of space that had safety under current mechanics.
And then oddly a wh rental empire started being established shortly after upwell structures came out… How strange… Couldnt have been a vested interest in making a manipulatable system…
I’m all for no asset safety, requires players to put their isk where their mouth is. Not the case in null
What no asset safety actually does is force players into mega alliances destroying the small guys.
Wh this wasn’t quite as bad due to the difficulty in power projection between Wh but even then the high end wh rental scheme showed the results.
it has nothing to do with making players put their money where their mouth is.
If you told everyone Delve was a giant loot pinata what do you think could happen?
If asset safety didnt work in just delve… Delve would burn. And become a wasteland. If it didnt work in lol of nullsec, we would likely have the final coalition war at the end of which only one coalition would have a titan force left and they would dictate who got any space in null.
Really, this stuff is obvious.
Ty for your input nostradamos…
Personally I agree with @Khan_Wrenth. It’s a video game, a place to come and enjoy yourself, not to become a second job where everything you own could die in an instant. Removing asset safety would limit people wanting to go to null at a time when people bleat that most people stay in high sec anyway. removing asset safety would further influence people to not take that plung unless they were in a massive coalition. Then that eventially all those coalitions would merge into one (or at least they would become blue to eachother) and so there would be just one bloc in nullsec controlling it all.
It would be interesting to find out where all the people shouting for asset safety to be removed live. I imagine in most cases they do not live in null sec and if they do they are already part of one of the large groups there so they can defend their assets in a meaningful way.
1 Like
what about having intact clones as a trophy for murdering someone’s citadel? that’d be kinda lit.