The timing of this change feels very biased toward one group of people that actively chose to not preserve their in-game assets by fighting for them, and by instead using asset safety to extract at a later cost. There was literally over a decade of EVE where if you lost control of a station, you lost control of any and all assets you had in that station until you took it back. I feel like incentivizing people to not fight for their in-game assets is against the nature of what makes EVE, EVE.
This feels very different than the old “cowards never win” Elise Randolph of the past.
I think you can try and grab my stuff by force as it was meant to be.
Since the implementation of Citadels, I live in Wormholes where all my assets are free to be looted at any time if I either fail to defend or properly evacuate the station where I have them.
Every wormhole alliance, even the biggest ones with large capital fleets and trillions of assets in their home system prove every single day that living, fighting, growing and playing that game without asset safety is possible. The difference is: they actually teach their members how to fight, how to manage assets properly and how to evacuate even unter hostile pressure if a place cannot be defended. Only the nullbears claim that this “wouldn’t be possible” because they are neihter willing nor able to implement good training routines for their members, they are too greedy to limit themselves to a stockpile of assets they can evacuate in an emergency, too cowardly to actually fight over a place because it’s much cheaper and easier to just magically teleport everything away.
If you want to take a break, stuff all your stuff into your super and log out. And whatever you cannot store, give or sell it to your corp or other active people to use it. And whatever you absolutely want to keep, you bring out to Lowsec to an NPC station. It just is some effort, but who would expect a nullseccer to being able to pull that stunt off…
If you come back after a year, you will still have assets that are worth triple-digit billions to allow you a “fresh start” in to anything you want to do. Stop being so fuckin’ selfish and egocentric.
I was part of the first wave of dreads that landed at zero on the R-AG KS and pushed horde back in, I was also part of the resulting hellcamp
I have no doubt a bunch of folks got their supers and titans out. I also heard the recording of the Horde Alliance meeting (you know) on 11/7/2025 where the director told everyone to asset safety their ships as they weren’t going to fight for a breakout. I saw Alcoholic Satan on Twitch describe the decision to deliberately use asset safety to get supers and titans out instead of fighting for a breakout.
I am just differentiating between folks who were completely away from the game when this went down and folks where were actively playing the game. The former group has my sympathy and I don’t entirely oppose asset safety to account for folks in that situation. The latter group is more of a problem - asset safety was used to get out of a situation of horde’s making. Horde colossally screwed up (the timing of the announcement, the lack of a plan to extract assets, etc, etc) and used a game mechanic (asset safety) to avoid the most severe consequences of those mistakes. It is reasonable to question whether making a change that further minimizes the consequences of that decision is fair, particularly when it is retroactive to your former group. A bunch of goons who were away from the game probably had high asset safety fees when we left Delve to move closer to horde. They don’t get to take advantage of this change. Why is that?
And eve is absolutely touted as a hardcore game that is so good in part because there are real consequences to the in-game actions.
As others have pointed out, this means supers are valued at 20b and titans are valued at 66.67b
@CCP_Swift Could you please provide some context for these numbers? Last time I checked, supercapitals cost 2-3 times these amounts to produce without accounting for the blueprint.
Asset Safety removes the motivation to fight, both for attackers and defenders. The defender will always use Asset Safety to teleport his stuff away rather than risking a fleet that costs 10x more than the Asset Safety Fees. And why shouldn’t he. He can always chose only to fight in a situation he knows he will win convincingly. Because there is nothing at risk in retreating. The “winner” won’t get more loot than a crappy core, some fuelblocks and some station fitting. Peanuts compared to what he has to field.
And that also removes motivation for attackers to even try and siege a station. What do they have to gain? In the worst case, they risked all their ships and lose, gain nothing. In the best case, they win, don’t get a fight, just kill a station and grab peanuts.
Asset Safety is one of the reasons that lead to the year-long political stagnation. The ability to either destroy, loot or cut-off assets from access was THE motivator to do alliance-scale assaults. The attackers knew if they win they could loot big time and weaken to opponents capabilites to wage war. The defenders knew they had to fight else the opponents would get/destroy all the stuff for free. And that is totally gone these days.
That’s why I say that they need to realize that Upwell was a mistake before they can realize that AS is a mistake. We need to go back to conquerable outposts for a more enjoyable, less frustrating and more dynamic game. You are from 2007, you should know that we had a much better time in EVE than this farce we are living in now.
‘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.”
Are you for real? o.0 What about those people who paid insane prices for decades? CCPlease… your “NOT” favorite ally suffered from Assets Safety prices, and now you’re pointing out the problem, you have some double standards (again).
Maybe you should announce a new rare ore that will be exclusive to the Horde staging region and make them rich again (like technetium in old days).
my Assets Safety end up in Misaba system, where undockin range is so small when anyone undock and up on KB, easy end up out of range of a docking range, its eufemizm of safety. That’s ok?
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.
Dude I came here to RAAAAGE at you so hard and then saw this paragraph and now your my fav person.
You are awesome.
Signed every horde member / ex horde members wallet.
What about when goons had to do the same after wwb2 with same prices and nothing was done? Will you be refunding that far back as well? Or just catering to horde when they didnt fight?
It absolutely does effect other groups. What about Goonswarm and Initaitve that were under siege for 2 years and had to pay to get their ships out of asset safety? That ISK cost set many of their players back by months if not years. The same should especially apply to PH because their leadership didn’t even attempt to defend their space.
Nobody would bat an eye if you handled this like a normal bug fix:
“Hey guys, we found a bug in the asset safety calculation formula, it will be adjusted on 8 DEC. If you want, you can wait with withdrawing your ships until then.”
So why the retrospective payback?
Why only back until 25 NOV — conveniently when Horde keepstar blew up? Bug was present in the system for years, not for just last 2 weeks.
You couldn’t be more obvious even if you tried. Don’t embarrass yourselves, just do a straightforward bugfix without any retro adjustment.
I’ll gladly provide some context. Historically the values have been quite similar, but the Avatar, Ragnarok, and Wyvern were recently inflated beyond the rest which is what this change looks to address.
This is a great question. This change goes to bring the Avatar, Rag, and Wyvern to a similar level to where the asset safety values were then. The asset safety fees were less back then and have since gone up, even with this change.
Thank you @CCP_Swift , for the communication and for taking action to address the skewed asset safety fees for Supercarriers and Titans. Adjusting the values to be more consistent and reimbursing those who overpaid is a welcome change.
I would like to respectfully raise a few points for consideration:
While this intervention is welcome, it highlights a recurring issue where asset safety fees can become disproportionately high. Many players recall past incidents where large groups faced similar inflated costs without a retroactive adjustment. This creates a perception of inconsistent application of policy. Moving forward, could a more robust or automated system be considered to prevent these “wonky™” valuations from occurring in the first place, ensuring fairness for all players equally?
The reimbursement for fees paid after November 25th is appreciated. However, this leaves out pilots who incurred similarly inflated fees in the past, or recently (this year). Would the team reconsider reviewing the possibility of extending the reimbursement window further back? This would demonstrate a strong commitment to fair play and help heal community trust by addressing the root issue, not just its latest occurrence.
The stated figures of ~3 billion ISK for a supercarrier and ~10 billion ISK for a titan (at 15% fee) suggest a base hull valuation significantly below their common market and build costs. Could you provide additional clarity on the exact methodology used for these “proper values”? Understanding that this is for unfit hulls, it would be reassuring to know how this baseline is determined and if it’s periodically reviewed to maintain alignment with the game’s economy. This transparency would help the community understand the rationale and feel confident in the system’s fairness.
Thank you again for your work and for listening to community feedback. I hope these adjustments are part of a broader effort to ensure the asset safety system is predictable and equal for all capsuleers.
Items shouldn’t be safetied. They should be ejected into space to appear as salvage sigs over the weeks and months. This would mean no more loot pinata too. It would create a whole new aspect to the salvage industry, recovering lost ships and equipment from major battles involving stations. It would temporarily inject a heavy living element to systems where major battles have taken place.
A move like this would create a more realistic situation to a destroyed station. There should be a chance the ships and equipment itself is destroyed outright when the station blows. There’s a high chance to lose the stuff in asset safety already, to gankers waiting in those systems where so much wealth get’s syphoned.
