Why not? If you’re paying attention to EVE it’s plenty of time fuel your structure and eliminate the risk of loss.
8 Likes
I was just about to ask if wasn’t abandoned state supposed to trigger month after it going low power, but then Ireminded myself that wording was “in low power and over a months since last refueling”
So since OP have just dumped hugeload of fuel at once over a year ago…
I would say that it should track the activity better tho. Just because someone prefers to refuel once in a year should not mean his citadel goes directly into abandoned state while he was still researching bpos in it ffs. Regardless of presence of warning or lack of thereoff, thatshould not be going on. Structure was not “abandonned” if it was running researches on regular basis.
Sure it was. OP had plenty of chances to refuel it, they didn’t bother to keep up with their assets. Why should CCP coddle lazy players and give them credit for unrelated effort?
1 Like
He could have just put it all in asset safety a year ago and not had to bother fuelling or logging in at all
1 Like
Stop, you’re making too much sense.
1 Like
Or move it with the interceptor to the npc-station in the same system, with one trip.
All BPO’s would have easily fit into that one travelceptor. It would have taken me 5min to save everything i owned… The only requirement would be to still be addicted to eve and play and read up every day. That seems to be the basic requirement these days.
If it was so easy why didn’t you bother doing it?
The only requirement would be to still be addicted to eve and play and read up every day.
So says the addict who proudly claims to have spent tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of hours playing EVE and who is acting like the world just ended because your imaginary internet spaceship loot exploded. And TBH, what did you even get from your addiction? A bunch of grinding for meaningless ISK, soulless accumulation of wealth for the sole purpose of making your wallet numbers go up? Did ever even do anything fun in EVE?
Oh, and you spent thousands of dollars buying PLEX to accumulate even more ISK? Yeah, you’re an addict.
1 Like
Reason #54096509843709348570-349876093854760938745603459870934856 to remove Asset Safety: Laziness
1 Like
As much as I feel bad for the OP and think CCP is stupid in not offering some kind of “grandfather” clause, if you log in and see that your that low on fuel and didn’t log back in until you already knew that it would be outta fuel… Oh well…
4 Likes
I completely understand how devastating this would be to anyone who played for a long time. I haven’t read the thread but I’m certain, given the nature of many forumites here, you’ve already been inundated with many “Sux2BU, you shoulda knowed better” replies.
The situation doesn’t apply to me personally because my own schedule is such that I can drop EVE at any time and not return to it for months. Thus, anything that is potentially at risk (eg, not an NPC station) isn’t a place to store value for me.
That said, for CCP to have turned around on a long-standing expectation and well-documented set of game mechanics, and turn those mechanics around to the point of allowing quick and total destruction in a matter of weeks, without doing all kinds of email and discussion and blogs giving 6 months or more of warning, is simply a flat-out “F U” from CCP to their player base.
Of course, they did it to cover their own poor management of Citadels and attack mechanics and timers, which led to the proliferation of structures in space. The only way to cause a ton of destruction quickly was to do what they did: shaft players who owned and depended on Citadels to benefit a few alliances and corps who could quickly go around and explode all the pinatas CCP handed to them.
CCP stopped getting any money from me 10 years ago, when it was already apparent that they considered their player base to be a pack of milkable lemmings who would keep paying them no matter what crap they shoved down your throat.
Glad you’ve stopped being a sucker. Sorry it took so much loss for that to happen. Hopefully other people will learn from your example.
2 Likes
…but CCP was sure that total destruction of everything and throwing more red meat to the panzy 1337s, who don’t have the balls to fight each other or anything that isn’t an industrial or a solo ratting BS/carrier, would make players want to stick around.
1 Like
I still say you should petition CCP for your loss, at this point the worst that they can say is no.
I can personally tell you they do not always say no either.
2 Likes
I doubt I am the only one who thinks that even this might be susceptable in a future patch…
And why not? It is apparent that the rules can be changed.
2 Likes
I had an argument with support a long time ago. In the end, they were right and I was ignorant. They still gave me my ship back! 
You never know till you try.
1 Like
They did do this.
shaft players who owned and depended on Citadels
Nobody depended on citadels, not when NPC stations exist. They are 100% a luxury thing you build because it would be fun, and you should assume anything involved with it will be lost. Don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose, even if your ship is a citadel moving at 0m/s.
1 Like
All of us do this. Our items are stored somewhere. Most commonly in NPC stations. CCP could decide to change that too. So does the argument become “if you start playing EVE, then you always have to keep up with it, or you can’t blame anyone if you stop for a while, and come back to find things gone”? I’d say not, because certain degrees of permanency have always been an institution in the game. For example, should all of us constantly check up on EVE to ensure that CCP doesn’t do something that makes our skill points go away?
The OP did everything correctly in terms of the consequences he was aware of and prepared to face. He doesn’t sound lazy, or like a carebear. We have to argue for the sake of PvP, destruction, and keeping EVE a harsh game in general, but taking such an extreme position, just like in real-life politics, is likely to be highly polarizing. Putting the onus on players to keep up with patch changes, and then preemptively act on them, over everything else is going to be self-defeating. No one’s going to want to play a game if it’s possible to lose so much from mere inaction if you have to visit grandma in the hospital for a week, or whatever.
The issue here isn’t that they implemented this mechanic, but that they didn’t afford players a proper opportunity to adjust to it. None of this has anything to do with laziness, or difficulty. I basically live in the plaguelands, and can wind up on a ventilator any day. If I were unlucky enough to be called up for disaster relief, or in the hospital with the 'rona, during the window of time in which CCP announced a change of this nature, implemented it, and then players acted on it, I’d be rightfully pissed too. What’s my solution, then? To go live somewhere where I don’t have to worry about those things so that I can dedicate myself to ensuring that my EVE crap doesn’t get surprise-reallocated somehow? That’s unfair on a different level than just the game being unfair in itself.
Technically, it is the OP’s fault. Just saying.
1 Like
Yes, unless you walk away from EVE and don’t care if you lose everything. CCP could even decide that they’re no longer keeping inactive accounts and delete any account that hasn’t logged in for 30 days. Either care enough to pay attention to EVE or don’t care and shrug off the loss if something bad happens. You can’t expect to have it both ways.
The OP did everything correctly in terms of the consequences he was aware of and prepared to face.
And yet OP failed to be aware of everything they needed to be aware of.
No one’s going to want to play a game if it’s possible to lose so much from mere inaction if you have to visit grandma in the hospital for a week, or whatever.
I think I missed the part where the change was implemented only a week from the first announcement?
And let’s not ignore the fact that the OP was still active enough to log in and deal with their industry jobs. There was nothing preventing them from saving their assets except their own laziness and refusal to pay attention to updates.
but that they didn’t afford players a proper opportunity to adjust to it.
Sure they did. They gave weeks of notice before implementing the change, and all you had to do to save everything was put some fuel in your structure. At some point CCP has to say that they’ve given enough warning and if someone is ignoring EVE for weeks at a time then it’s their fault.
What’s my solution, then?
To stop caring about imaginary internet spaceship pixels. Who cares if your stuff explodes? It’s a PvP game, that’s what you should expect. Build some more stuff and get back to wrecking other people’s stuff. Or just accept that you had your fun with EVE and move on.
Or you could acknowledge that stations are supposed to be a collective effort by a group of players, in which case even if one player has an individual real life interruption the corp as a whole can still keep the structures active.
2 Likes
Okay.
I get that CCP can decide what to do in their own game (applicable to the extent of the law - they, for example, can’t remove cash-bought items/services from player accounts just because they want to, as long as the players are following the rules of the game). I don’t think anyone is arguing against that.
So the question is, do you think that this is how things should be? Would you be in favor of, as in your example, CCP deciding to delete accounts inactive for 30 days? Would this add to EVE, somehow?
I disagree with this. The ease of setup/use, and the very low cost, of Upwell structures is wholly manageable by a single player. Also, this isn’t even what the debate was about. It seems that the OP was actually fully prepared to lose the station itself.