That wasn’t a literally catastrophic design change like “no asset safety” is. That doesn’t compare. One is an “oh well big whoop” and the other is a OH ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■!!
I disagree that no asset safety was catastrophic for people who are paying enough attention to deserve concern. In fact, I have more sympathy for someone who lost their mine investment with nothing they can do about it than for someone who voluntarily walked away from EVE and didn’t protect their stuff.
Ah, there’s the rub. Let’s go ahead exclude those who weren’t or who were but were unable to log in for reasons outside their control. Because grandfather mechanics are soooooo damn hard to implement. Those are players too. They deserve to be equally valued as anyone else in the EVE community and ecosystem.
He knew he was running low on fuel and did not refuel it by his own admission…
Just how long a list do you think this is?
(And remember, OP was not one of them.)
Because grandfather mechanics are soooooo damn hard to implement.
It may have been difficult to implement. There could very well be technical reasons preventing CCP from distinguishing between active players and inactive players in station destruction, making a grandfather mechanic more work than it would have been worth.
And? He already said that he was aware of the dangers to his citadel by doing so. But not to his assets.
The point is that he doesn’t count as someone who was “unable to long in for reasons beyond their control”. He was able to log in, he simply didn’t bother to pay attention to the news.
Ah, ok.
It’s not really his assets.
Sending all players with assets in a citadel a notification/mail in-game, along with a new prompt that players have to click through, would have been trivial. If they can do it to advertise their twitch streams and cruddy in-game events, they sure as hell could do it for this, too.
Instead we now have to deal with the new reality that reading dev blogs, or worse yet, mother-■■■■■■■ reddit, to get crucial information about the state of the game is now a requirement.
2 Likes
All I can say is I protect my stuff. After losing a lot, I learned not to keep more than I needed in ANY place I had no control over. The worst threat to me is from Trigs. Meh, pack up correctly or keep your sheet fueled.
Stupidity and neglect should, for the most part, only have consequences as a result of direct combat (and that includes stupid/nonexistent structure fittings and unmanned structures in the sense that it is basically a ship for defensive purposes)
No Asset Safety results in loss that does not arise as a result of direct combat by those who lose assets. Other than, say, market losses from stupidity, or losses by courier (which are totally understandable), this is not in the spirit of EVE.
No, it isn’t. It is extremely easy to implement a boolean “currently fielded structure at time of release” flag that determines if existing asset safety mechanics which still apply to full/low powered structures apply or not to the Abandoned state. This is making cheap excuses. An intern who has only taken two semesters of programming courses could do this it is so damn easy to implement programmatically.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree. But this was preventable to some degree.
And this was a battlefield. One player was just too lazy to show up for it.
No, it isn’t.
Oh really? You have CCP’s code and can say what would and would not work?
It is extremely easy to implement a boolean “currently fielded structure at time of release” flag that determines if existing asset safety mechanics which still apply to full/low powered structures apply or not to the Abandoned state.
That also wouldn’t work. A player who hasn’t logged on in a year would lose their assets if the structure owner was active at the time of the change, and an active player who disregards the warning would get the full benefit of asset safety as long as the owner of the structure hadn’t logged in.
All my assets are in an NPC station.
So safe until CCP decide to blow up NPC stations.
3 Likes
That’s respectable, and is also what the OP did. He was prepared to lose the citadel, and pay the fee for asset safety. The only reason he was punished is for not religiously reading the dev blogs.
I thought that’s what the Trig invasions were for?
Modifying a data structure can be quite hard in big complex systems.
Given how EVE seems to be mostly spaghetti code, I’d not be surprised if they just didn’t bother with it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the owner is active or not. If the owner is inactive and the structure immediately goes to abandoned then asset safety would still apply by virtue of the boolean flag I described. Very simple. If it goes to full power and then goes back to abandoned and gets destroyed, it still gets asset safety. The boolean flag does not discriminate the final state at which it was destroyed, or whether or not it had alternated states prior to destruction, only that asset safety is guaranteed to exist for the duration of the life of the structure (destruction or decommissioning, but not refielding if decommissioned, obviously)
There still should have been more info on all of this. Just seems like a cheep shot by CCP.
1 Like