EVE General Discussion

The economy would be a lot more interesting if they were destroyed, but they're not.

https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/208289365-Asset-Safety?flash_digest=46a4a0615d952a7acbd4d50d81f529029de372fb

Not if they remove npc stations in the long run.

Wondering, paying the 15% value on the items to obtain them from asset safety, is that based on Jita buy amount?...or which?

This is a bit crap.

I understand the systemic reason for it, but it "legitimizes" Jita as a "special" hub with special systemic strings attached.
Its one more inch on a slippery slope of Jita becoming systemic center for commerce with special rules, rather than the transient player consensus it is (as are all other hubs, or even specific individual trade points)

I dont like that. Id much prefer if it was calculated off an EVE wide average index (simple), or an algorithm that applies a larger value to prices scaling with proximity for purposes of determining an average.

I dont know whether the system hinges on a region with greatest trade volume (hence, Jita), or Jita outright.
But in anycase, Id prefer a universal EVE wide index value.

---

Its irrational that when a structure is destroyed on the other side of the EVE galaxy, deep in NS or off the charts in J-space, they magically can pay a measly 15% for recovery based on an index from single specific region aeons of light years away, for the benefit of the cheapest aggregate average of any region in the galaxy.

And 15% is low. Very low. Much, much less than the value lost when a ship explodes.
The equity of risk is off between these two forms of asset destruction.
Id have gone for atleast 25%, preferably a flat strong even 50%.

---

I dont think the Golden Rule of "Dont fly what you cant afford to lose" has been sufficiently translated into structures.
You shouldnt place structures, or fill them with assets you cant afford to lose.
Either keep a sufficient reserve of liquid ISK at hand in precaution, defend the asset sufficiently, or store less value in it.
The same applies to ships, per the Golden Rule.

The inability of structures to escape an engagement (as compared to ships) is rationally reciprocated (for convenience of game systems) in that you can buy the recovery of assets within it (which ships, reciprocally, cannot).

But 15%? Really? PI sometimes costs that much just to recover your assets off a planet through a POCO.

1) Oh, its an EVE wide index average? Good!

2) Destruction of isk or material is largely interchangeable. Two sides of the same metaphorical coin.
You are correct in your observation, but whether the material itself or its value in isk is destroyed, has much the same result (albeit leading to that result by different paths).

3) My argument for 15% being low, is in correlation with the Golden Rule.
Do not place structures, or fill them them with assets, you cannot afford to lose.
-Just as with ships, if you dont have the capacity to replace them, or defend them, dont do it.
-Just as with ships, place structures and fill them under the understanding you will invariably lose them.

4) I dont think 15% of value is representative of this, considering ships will regularly lose 100% of value, with no systemic recourse to recover loss (- minus insurance). That's asset recovery for just 1/6 of its value (rounded for simplicity) whereby materials are moved to a safe location with no other action required by the owner.

5) There are arguments for and against such a low rate. Low rate means more structures, and less incentive to defend them, leading to more structure destruction. High rate means less structures, with more defense, ergo less structure destruction.

6) However there is a caveat, and that is the value of assets held in a given structure or its strategic position (most often congruently) which skews the above. A structure with a lot of value in it, or a strategic position, will be attacked and defended anyways. A structure with low value of assets within it, or low strategic importance, will not as likely be either attacked or defended. So the situation equals out, regardless of the % for recovery of assets. So both points 5 and 6 are largely moot in consideration of the % for recovery.

7) Furthermore, structure bashing is a tedious, protracted task with many safeties put in place for defenders to mobilize.I dont think the potential of "more structure destruction" is particularly appealing, especially when you know that it only costs your adversary a pitiful 15% (+value of the structure itself, ofc) of remaining stored asset value to recover. That's not much of a setback.

In conclusion, 15% as cost of asset recovery for structures is not conducive to the Golden Rule.
If you lose the structure, cos you failed to defend it, you only need to pay 1/6 of its stored value to recover it.
This is irrational compared to a ship, where there is no recourse for asset recovery, loss is 100%.
Which means if you lose a ship in an attack, or defense, on a structure, you stand to lose more in proportion than the structures stored asset owners. They only lose 15% value. You lose 100%. Thats not much of an incentive.

Paying only 1/6th of asset value in recovery is not much of an incentive to defend a structure (- minus the structures cost + what you can ship out of it).1/6 of value is a drop in the ocean of isk many entities can afford to retain the remaining 5/6th of value. And detracting your opponent of 15% of value, vs your potential loss of 100% value of your ship (-insurance) is not much of an incentive to attack it.

Pretty sure that it all drops in wormholes?

And there's a good reason why it doesn't follow the Golden Rule. I'll give you a clue: citadels have a lot more in common with stations than they do with ships.

Ill give you a clue: I already addressed this specific point in a previous itemized/numbered post in this thread.

You didnt make an argument. There is nothing else I need to answer in your post.
Come back when you got more ammo, the guns to fire them and the skills to target the issue.

Eternus8lux8lucis

1) Well organized NS/LS/WH shadow orgs have zero interest in your HS citadel cos it doesnt significantly compete with them, claim their space, nor offer any loot/reward for its destruction.Its a lot of time/work for no benefit, except removing your citadel, which is inconsequential to their interests.

2) This can already happen by entirely HS entities. Regardless of NS conspiracies. If someone gets bored enough, or angry enough at you, sure, they might aggress your HS citadel, but there is no profit in it. Then defend your asset, like everyone else.

3) You will incur zero cost and loss: for :free, entirely safe transfer of all your citadel storage to an NPC station in that system, as long as you do so within 5 days.

4) If you where unable to defend the citadel itself due to absenc and/or lack of corp/alliance support, or couldnt activate Asset Safety in those 5 days, or delegate authority for someone else to do so, well, thats your problem and fault.

HS is overflowing with NPC stations, and as I already stated, rules of engagement are restricted. No bubbles, no smartbombs, and no caps.

I dont see your point at all. I think its you whom has not thought your position through.

---

A) Magical, free, safe, complete treleportation of all assets to station/citadel, within 5 days.
B) Pitiful 15% of value cost for recovery after 20 days, after the above.
C) Attackers get nothing except an empty space.

How the **** did this make it through the development process (including community input)?

Am I the only one that sees how these break every rule that makes EVE?