I’ve long thought that the current asset safety system for Upwell structures far too heavily favors structure owners outside of wormhole space. While I understand the motivation behind it, it also flies in the face of the whole “risk vs reward” dynamic.
I don’t want to see it done away with completely (as I said, I do understand the motivation), but I think maybe it could use another look at.
Here’s what I propose:
Upon destruction of an Upwell structure, each item contained within will have an chance of going into asset safety. The base percent chance would depend on the size of the structure, with Medium structures having a base 70% chance, Large structures having a base 50% chance, and XL structures having a base 30% chance. Items going into asset safety would behave exactly as they do currently.
For each service module active at the time the final reinforcement timer starts (that is, for each service module active at the last moment they can be active), the chance of each item going into asset safety increases by 10%. This increase would be additive, not multiplicative, so an Astrahaus with a single service module running would give items an 80% chance of going into asset safety, whereas a Fortizar would need to have three service modules running in order to reach 80% asset safety, and a Keepstar would need to have five service modules running to reach 80%.
Any item not going into asset safety gets handled like a normal loot drop (i.e. roll against the loot fairy).
This would allow any structure with its full capacity of service modules running to provide full asset safety that structure owners currently enjoy, but for every empty service module slot a structure has, there is increased risk of items inside not making it into asset safety. This would allow for station owners who are fully invested in their station to continue to provide asset safety for folks using it, but people tossing up throwaway structures wouldn’t get the same protections.
In other words, if you want full asset safety you would have to pay more than the cost of the structure for it.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Clarified when the number of active service modules would be checked.
As always, this would just cause people to not store stuff in upwell structures.
Oh and introduce a new undetectable scam of getting people to put stuff in a structure then blocking access and low powering it.
The downsides to not having asset safety are quite simply worse than the benefits.
Anyone who is paying attention would just anchor a Medium structure and shuttle their goods over to it before the XL structure dies.
Also, fuckanyone who goes AFK during the time right? Sucks to be them for putting their assets into an XL structure. How dare they have a busy period in their lives and get pulled away due to work and family issues! Where’s the “risk vs reward” there? The risk is you lose 70% of your ■■■■, what’s the reward?
Again, people paying attention would put all their stuff into an Astra for 100% safety.
Everyone else gets royally fuckedover.
So massive groups with tons of resources that can easily afford a fully active and online’d structure get no drawback, and everyone else is out of luck? Also, let’s just fuckover all of the industrialists who build capital ships.
As I said Bronson if you made a separate thread for this i would follow it.
I think it would be nice comprise change between the 2 sides that a.) want Asset Safety to go away. and B.) the ones that do not.
However i think one issue at glance with the proposal, Active Service Modules…these go offline and deactivate when forced into low power.
How about the fact they are even installed?
IMO this is an even worse idea than just removing asset safety entirely. (which is still a terrible idea) It’s like asset safety removal, but only for people who stop playing while their stuff gets exploded. Everyone actively playing the game moves all their ■■■■ into a lifeboat raitaru with 3 service modules running and poof, no assets lost.
I do like the idea of having things drop from a structure. I think it would be a good conflict driver, to that end, I do not think that 100% asset safety should be achievable, modifiable perhaps but not to 100% as that would remove the insentive to crack open the lovely structure.
ok well in that case, if a player is going to stop playing for while. That player should move their stuff or manually asset safety it to a NPC station.
So that player really does not matter in the context of this.
It seems like a really bad idea to add in a barrier to not only quitting the game but also coming back.
If I want to quit I not only have to ship all my crap to the nearest non-explodable station, which is going to be my last memory of the game for the foreseeable future, but I also know that if I want to return to the game my stuff needs to be moved back. It’s not like there isn’t a penalty already. Outposts required you to join/get a spy alt into the controlling alliance to recover your stuff, or firesell it to the new owners, and citadels require you to recover your stuff from lowsec after paying a fee. Now you’re telling me that I come back and half my stuff is straight-up gone too?
Yes sure, I guess that is the consequences of choice as EvE has always been.
about the outposts, yep what you say is true…more often than not you didnt get your stuff back for months or even years or ever until asset safety was a thing. you either sold it or let it rot in place.
Your worried about nullsec, got it. You touched on the fact of moving things when 1 station is under fire…thats fine. That does not be addressed.
In HS though, this gives some responsibility to the line pilots to secure their stuff, and it gives responsibility to CEO’s to provide an active safety net by ensuring their stations have the slots filled. Want to put skin in the game fine, but dont let it go lowpower and give your ppl the higher safety net by properly fitting it.
what would be hilarious, IMO, if there is a timer that after 30 days of no activity, your stuff is move. day 29 of no activity, pinata goes caboom. Stuff gone.
Wormholes are not like other areas though, all taking asset safety away does is force people back into storing everything but the bare minimum in stations. It utterly kills trade hub citadels for example, once you hit a certain size trade hub you are such a loot pinata everyone will want to kill you. And sure this is a “great content creator” except the ones suffering the risk are the traders here, not the shooters, so they just won’t.
Maybe, maybe not. I don’t personally think that’s the case, especially in nullsec where stations aren’t distributed outside NPC areas anymore.
Lots of systems that don’t have stations, but do have plenty of Upwell structures in them. If people are using them, I believe they still will.
That’s one view. I don’t believe so and we have 0 evidence anyone can point to one way or the other, because CCP chickened out even before Citadels came out and added asset safety.
But ultimately, people can defend their stuff or they can’t and only those that can, can offer a stable service to others in game. Seems very EVE like as far as I’m concerned.
I agree that the current asset safety mechanic is a bit too safe - there should be an element of risk - but I don’t think the solution needs to be complicated. A simple, per item probability of successful transfer - perhaps 95% for both voluntary and involuntary transfers - would inject a reasonable element of risk. People unwilling to accept that risk still have the option of using NPC stations. There is risk when using player ships to transport goods - why should using NPC haulers be 100% safe?
Just to point out a technical flaw, a structure that loses armor has all its modules offlined, so all structures will have no service modules operational when destroyed.