Apparently not
Can confirm, CCP fails
I STILL talk to people who are active who HAD NO IDEA about this… T-O-D-A-Y
They claim to have sent notices to those who where UNsubscribed, but done jack and s*** for those who where subscribed! I literally subscribed 2 years for training and only logged in (didnt read changelog) for skill queue, had I come back later to this BS, ya, anyone who leaves or seeks legal action, more power to you, CCP screwed the pooch.
Hardly a BANNER or NOTICE on the launcher, nothing in huge STOP AND READ text for those who have daily plans, hell, even an EVE Mail, but alas, N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Side note, for those subscribed but working during Covid-19 and Protest times, (of which I have several corp mates and enemy’s) who lost stuff in citadels due to this, I am sorry that CCP thinks you can go f*** yourself while supplying essential services during these trying times (military, medical, truckers, etc)
2 Likes
No, because as far as I can tell it wouldn’t add anything to the game. In the old days of gaming there used to be storage space constraints that could make deleting old accounts beneficial, but not in 2020. The only effect of this change would be to make returning players angry.
Contrast this with the asset safety change, which nerfs a mechanic that never should have been implemented at all and generates in-game content for active players.
I disagree with this. The ease of setup/use, and the very low cost, of Upwell structures is wholly manageable by a single player
Apparently not, since you’re claiming that real life interruptions are such a hazard for solo station owners.
Also, this isn’t even what the debate was about. It seems that the OP was actually fully prepared to lose the station itself.
What’s your point? You claimed that this change makes stations an unreasonable risk and burden, I pointed out that this isn’t a problem if you have a corp running the station.
2 Likes
There’s your problem. If you’re too lazy to keep up with impending changes you forfeit your right to complain about the effects of those changes.
seeks legal action
That would be an idiotic waste of money. There is zero chance of any legal action against CCP succeeding, the only thing you can possibly hope to achieve in court is getting the court to force you to pay CCP’s legal expenses because you filed a frivolous lawsuit.
Side note, for those subscribed but working during Covid-19 and Protest times, (of which I have several corp mates and enemy’s) who lost stuff in citadels due to this, I am sorry that CCP thinks you can go f*** yourself while supplying essential services during these trying times (military, medical, truckers, etc)
Oh boo hoo. Working doesn’t prevent you from logging in for 15 minutes to fuel your station, and OP admits that they had time to log in and manage their industry jobs.
2 Likes
Clearly a troll and clearly never worked an essential job in your life.
Grow up
EDIT: for example, I live in a medical center, I know of nurses here who literally come home, sleep, then go back out to work and shower at work, but ya, 15min to even eat, go ahead, EVE it up!
2 Likes
the medium ground would have been to leave long dormant accounts alone, and then kick off a timer when they logged in. This would have been the “grandfathering” that would have prevented things like this.
But… someone probably said “this is Eve hurr durr”.
Goes to show how much of a mess everything is going to be with heads full of narrative instead of thought.
Wrong. I even have my very own letter to the police explaining that my job is essential and that I am exempt from any “stay at home” order.
EDIT: for example, I live in a medical center, I know of nurses here who literally come home, sleep, then go back out to work and shower at work, but ya, 15min to even eat, go ahead, EVE it up!
That sounds like a pretty miserable life. But how are they playing EVE in the first place, if they have literally 15 minutes a day of free time and no weekends?
(And, again, OP was not in that position. They had time to log in and manage their industry jobs, they were just too lazy to pay attention to upcoming changes.)
Why is this something that needs to be prevented?
Also, it wouldn’t have prevented anything as OP was an active player and logged in right before the change. They were just too lazy to pay attention to upcoming changes.
Head full of narrative instead of thoughts. Right there.
1 Like
Ah yes, because anyone who doesn’t agree with you or points out errors in your claims must not be thinking.
1 Like
I do argue for the elimination of asset safety. However, that’s not what this change did.
This change was made to address the “clutter” (which is, ironically, contrary to the argument above, since EVE space doesn’t exactly have storage space constraints). Furthermore, this change generated “content” in a once-off, front-loaded manner. Going forward, very few players will be affected by it due to knowledge of the mechanic involved, and as such, there will be little content to be had from this change in the future. I used to hunt space for abandoned PoSes a long time ago. It was a very rare occurrence to find one that wasn’t just the tower and some low-value guns, that were abandoned because the owner simply didn’t care.
And when you say that “the only effect of this change would be to make returning players angry,” well, that’s exactly what this change did. Yes, it created some destruction, and yes, some active players profited from it. But deleting inactive accounts would have similar effects on the economy overall (the scope might be vastly different, however), in that active players benefit from the losses of inactive ones.
All station owners consented to the possibility of losing their stations.
No one, outside of wormhole dwellers, consented to the possibility of losing the assets stored within, because that possibility was not on the table when they played.
Once again (because I feel that this is something that will be brought up again), I’m not arguing against CCP’s prerogative to implement changes; I’m only arguing that this specific change was poorly implemented.
It makes stations an unreasonable risk and burden going forward, in which case, yes, the paradigm of station ownership changes. This can be a nice, welcome change, or it might not be (we won’t know until some time passes). However, station ownership wasn’t an unreasonable risk and burden before this change, as long as you were prepared to lose the station itself.
Had the OP complained about losing the station itself while he was away, I too would have said “tough luck, you knew the risks.”
1 Like
No, but it was certainly a nerf. Now asset safety is something that must be actively maintained or it is lost, which is at least a step in the right direction.
Contrast this with deleting accounts, where there is no in-game activity or value involved. The thing at risk is an out of game object, and it is being deleted or maintained because of out of game activity (or lack thereof).
No one, outside of wormhole dwellers, consented to the possibility of losing the assets stored within, because that possibility was not on the table when they played.
They 100% consented to it: either by seeing the news of the change and deciding to allow their assets to remain at risk, or by voluntarily deciding to stop paying attention to EVE news and accept whatever happened in their absence. Walking away from the game is consent to whatever happens while you are gone, you don’t get the right to come back and individually consent to each change that you missed.
1 Like
There was no in-game activity involved with the losses stemming from this change, too. The losses didn’t come from some kind of player action, a player decision, or even a lack of a decision. The rules were “station in danger, assets safe.” The players didn’t decide “well, you know what? I need to go on a break, so I don’t care about what happens to my ships and items inside the citadel!” It was never even a consideration.
I sincerely doubt there is even a single person who voluntarily decided to allow their assets to remain at risk, barring cases where the assets are insignificant.
That might not be voluntary. If someone gets into an accident and is in a coma, they are unable to act on this despite their most sincere intentions to do so. Being unable to deal with some kind of change (such as, for example, bu virtue of CCP saying “our game, our rules, deal with it”) is not the same thing as consenting to it. You accept the (hopefully nonexistent) possibility that someone will shoot you in the face when you leave your home, but you don’t necessarily consent to it. Consent would be more along the lines of there being a gang war outside your front door, but you decide to go to the bodega for a 40 and a pack of smokes anyway.
1 Like
Oh really? I guess I’m just imaging the part where all of the losses were the direct result of a player choosing not to fuel their in-game station, followed by other players attacking that station in the game, destroying it, and looting the wreck? If CCP did in fact just wipe the OP’s assets from the database without any in-game activity then I am opposed to that change.
The players didn’t decide “well, you know what? I need to go on a break, so I don’t care about what happens to my ships and items inside the citadel!”
Yes they did. If you walk away from EVE and decide not to pay attention to news about upcoming changes then you consent to every single thing that could possibly happen, up to and including CCP deleting your entire account. If you care about your assets pay attention.
I sincerely doubt there is even a single person who voluntarily decided to allow their assets to remain at risk, barring cases where the assets are insignificant.
I disagree with that. I’m sure plenty of people heard about the change, shrugged, and continued not caring because they don’t play EVE anymore and don’t care about their former assets.
If someone gets into an accident and is in a coma, they are unable to act on this despite their most sincere intentions to do so.
Can we stop bringing up unrealistic situations* that may or may not even happen once in all of EVE history? Especially when it has nothing to do with the OP’s loss? OP wasn’t literally unable to access EVE, they had no problem logging in to update their industry jobs. They just didn’t care enough to pay attention to upcoming changes.
*What’s next? Complaining that CCP doesn’t have any kind of inheritance policy to pass your assets on to your heirs if you die?
1 Like
I’m sorry for you. If I lose so much in the most unlucky two weeks, I would quit as well.
Anyway, CCP is driving out some players recently. Moon mining is gone, my mission system is turning to a low sec. It is harder and harder to find fun in eve for myself.
1 Like
Perhaps you should try something besides highsec farming, the least fun part of EVE?
The losses of the station, its rigs, modules, ammo, et cetera were the direct result of the player choosing not to fuel their station in a timely manner.
Not arguing against that. And if CCP wants to push that line, they can, and should, instead of having players interpret their intent for them on their own forums. CCP can do those things, but like other companies trying to sell a product, they won’t, because the customers will go away.
Except now they did, and this may or may not come back to bite them in the ass. All that we, as players, are able to do about this is have a discussion about it.
Granted. The argument applies to players who are/were inactive but had the intent to keep playing, and not those who quit permanently.
It’s a valid example. Your argument was that being away from the game for any reason is consent to whatever happens. You didn’t categorize any possibilities. My example dealt specifically with your argument.
That can’t be next, because according to the rules, we know that accounts can’t be shared or transferred, and as such, it is the responsibility of all players to transfer their in-game assets as they see fit in person only.
Now, if CCP actually had a rule in which allowing someone to inherit items was a possibility, and then suddenly reneged on that rule, they would do a big disservice to players who acted accordingly to that rule, but are unable to adapt to it (for example, they are terminal and unable to log into EVE and transfer their items manually). Could CCP do that? Of course. It’s their game. But that doesn’t mean that it would be a good change, and one that shouldn’t be spoken against.
I tried, and I don’t like them. Do not judge what is fun for others please.
I’m sorry about your bpo’s but seriously you say you’ve been playing for 13 years but you didn’t know you don’t tether on an Azbel if you don’t have docking rights? And codes been shooting ppl in hisec for like 2 years now, remember hulkageddon?
Why were you carrying all that stuff anyway, 10 years worth of fuel blocks and bpo’s, maybe sell some of it and buy docking rights along your travel routes to have tether pit stops.