Update on Asset Safety values for Supers & Titans

EVE Information Portal Announcements
1

Hey all!

When it comes to asset safety valuation, there are a few methods that are used to determine pricing which generally work just fine. However, for certain items like Supercarriers and Titans, these numbers can sometimes go wonky™.

The Avatar and Wyvern, for example, are currently valued much higher relative to other supers and titans when considering asset safety fees, creating a situation where those fees are skewed higher.

On Monday, December 8th, we will be adjusting the values to be both more consistent and more in-line with the proper values. For unfit hulls - not including rigs and fits - the asset safety value for supercarriers (assuming a 15% fee) will be about ~3 billion ISK, and the asset safety value for titans will be ~10 billion ISK. Remember that there will be some small variance between the hulls as the build costs are not identical, and the fits & rigs themselves will also affect the price.

This adjustment is consistent with where the values have historically been. Namely, the Avatar, Ragnarok and Wyvern will be adjusted down to the rest. The remaining titans will slightly increase in their cost. Supercarriers will be largely unchanged.

For those who have already paid the inflated costs, anytime after 25 November, we will be reimbursing asset safety fees relative to these new adjusted prices. If there’s a situation where the prices increase, the original asset safety fee that was paid will remain the same. To put it simply: if you paid too much, you will be reimbursed. If you paid less, you will not be asked to pay more.

We’ll update in this thread the method and the time for when this adjustment will happen - for now, no action is needed on your side. If you have already submitted a support ticket for this it may be closed, but that won’t preclude you from the reimbursement.

Edit: The payouts were made last week and should be finished as of Jan 12th. If you found yourself in a position where you feel like you should have been reimbursed but missed it, please file a support ticket referencing this thread. Thank you!

16 Likes
パッチノート – バージョン23.02
2

Asset Safety is one of the Cofifn Nails of this game. I wonder when the devs will realize that. Among the top three worst design decision in this game ever…
:man_shrugging:

19 Likes
3

They will realize this as soon as they realize that this version of Upwell as a whole was a huge mistake.

2 Likes
4

Nah, asset safety is one of the best features of this game.
This is a GAME. Not real life to be losing items when you’re not present.
If you want people who are absent to lose items in POS, then become a spy, take ownership, remove the core until it becomes abandoned and shoot down the structure. Don’t be lazy.

Thank you CCP for lowering asset safety prices.

19 Likes
5

I don’t like Asset Safety. Things are called “Loot Pinatas” for a reason. If you store all your assets into a Structure, well… that’s the risk you take. It might not be a good idea to keep storing trophy ships inside something that can go…..

bomb-boom

10 Likes
6

okay then i dock my shiney in a station, oh wait.

4 Likes
7

Isn’t Null all about Risk Vs Reward? I like to call it rISK.

6 Likes
8

LOL assetsafty titan 10 b =15% when marketprices for titans are 200 b… maybe ccp should go back to school?

15 Likes
9

If we go backwards, these asset safety costs represent 15% of 20b for supers, and 67b for titans. Does this reflect the prices CCP is aiming for for supers and titans? if so, when are we getting adjustments because build cost is still at least 2x that.

12 Likes
10

build cost today is 115

1 Like
11

Hail CCP Swift!

Pulled several sups/tits out on the 25th so Ill be happy to get some of that isk back :slight_smile:

12

We’ll never get back there until we go back to building them with only minerals.

2 Likes
13

I think you should just uninstall and give me your stuff, same with @Dyver_Phycad and @Glenduil

Eve is a game and it’s important that there are safe mechanics for your items, there always has been and there should always be those mechanics. One of the dumbest things CCP did was make citadels go abandoned without a safety mechanic for citadel structures anchored before the change. Would have been easy to implement, since they did the same for outposts that got converted and were never unanchored. Was one of the largest events for player distribution of assets ever, and only capitalized by a few people/groups.

Point of this rant is that you should be able to take a break from the game and not overly worry about your assets(always the risk of them being stored in citadels which is fine and nowadays most people are aware of that risk).

12 Likes
14

asset safety removed risk from the game. terrible design choice, now when a group fails or doesn’t get out in time or is strategic about their asset placement theirs no consequences. eve online’s get out of jail free card that shouldn’t be in the game at all.

7 Likes
15

I mean in my eyes the asset safety isn’t the problem here, it’s that CCP is WILDLY undervaluing titans and supers with those costs, so unless CCP wants to give us 66b titans, those numbers need to be corrected

10 Likes
16

Tell me Ninja, are you going to use them in a fight this time or let them go into asset safety again?

1 Like
17

this is just a bailout for horde/ex horde so MORE people don’t quit the game. this is a financial decision not a gameplay decision.

5 Likes
18

And what is the alternative? That people rage quit in the thousands because five years of progress went up in smoke while they were on vacation for a week?

3 Likes
20

@CCP_Swift How is the price of the hulls caculated. I havent seen Supers priced for under 45 bil for a hull. Also the cheapest Titan I have seen in a while is 175B. Can you explain your figures so I can understand where the numbers come from.

7 Likes
21

this opinion is very dismissive of all the mistakes leading up towards the issue at hand. looking at the end result and yelling about it. driving until you’re out of gas and then blaming the gas stations for not being in a convenient spot.