These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Structures that are destroyed

Author
Carl Vinson
Smugglers Run Inc
#1 - 2016-12-21 22:02:20 UTC
What happens to the player ownd property stored inside when a structurer is destroyed?
Paranoid Loyd
#2 - 2016-12-21 22:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Paranoid Loyd
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

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Amanda Creire-Geng
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2016-12-22 20:24:50 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
The economy would be a lot more interesting if they were destroyed, but they're not.


I think what's more likely is no one would use citadels for any kind of serious storage, vastly lowering their strategic value compared to outposts.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#4 - 2016-12-22 20:49:17 UTC
Not if they remove npc stations in the long run.

Remove standings and insurance.

Amanda Creire-Geng
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2016-12-22 21:23:11 UTC
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Not if they remove npc stations in the long run.


And when that happens, I'm sure asset safety will go away, but until then, it's needed to keep citadels competitive.
Nortal Aldent
Hate By Design Inc.
#6 - 2016-12-29 07:01:48 UTC
Wondering, paying the 15% value on the items to obtain them from asset safety, is that based on Jita buy amount?...or which?
Amanda Creire-Geng
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2016-12-29 08:03:54 UTC
Nortal Aldent wrote:
Wondering, paying the 15% value on the items to obtain them from asset safety, is that based on Jita buy amount?...or which?


Jita's regional average, so somewhere between sell and buy order prices.
Salvos Rhoska
#8 - 2016-12-29 10:10:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Amanda Creire-Geng wrote:
Nortal Aldent wrote:
Wondering, paying the 15% value on the items to obtain them from asset safety, is that based on Jita buy amount?...or which?


Jita's regional average, so somewhere between sell and buy order prices.


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.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#9 - 2016-12-29 10:51:32 UTC
AFAIK if its calculated off the estimated price that is not a Jita average but a game wide one.

I also disagree that the recovery rate fee should be more. Though I would enjoy a much higher destruction rate, particularly on ganking, to facilitate more asset destruction. Raising the rate doesnt destroy anything but isk itself, which is inherently alright but it doesnt actually destroy any items at all.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Salvos Rhoska
#10 - 2016-12-29 11:12:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
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.
Eternus8lux8lucis
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#11 - 2016-12-29 13:52:01 UTC
See I disagree, not on really your specific points as they are valid, but in that this is Eve and people want to watch the world burn.Twisted It is this mentality, as a playerbase, that we WILL burn things if there is a good enough reason, such as you are implying with your arguments. In low or null this is fine but high will be the first place to burn and will burn badly. This will lead to people leaving the game, not because of the game but because there is no safe place to store things for even a break. Part of high secs value is in that itself. It can be a place to regroup and reship in extreme burning of any assets or sov or places we call "home" in game. This is necessary for a lot of reasons but also adds the negative that people can stay there and "helicopter" back instead of branching out.

To burn this area would mean too much vulnerabilities and dangers. And this would be a bad BAD thing imo in the long run.

That being said yes we need to see greater destruction, not only of isk but also of items in game in the long run. Not just changing hands at the 50% drop rates either. It is a fine line though and there will be no one answer that will satisfy either extreme or even toe the middle line and satisfy everyone. But I think CCP has much better metrics than any assumptions we have here to measure such things and is doing a decent enough job, even inspite of all the complaining by us.Twisted

So yes I hear what your implying, I think, but I do think that some things need to be thought out more first.

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
#12 - 2016-12-29 15:12:34 UTC
Pretty sure that it all drops in wormholes?

@lunettelulu7

Salvos Rhoska
#13 - 2016-12-29 16:45:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Eternus8lux8lucis wrote:
So yes I hear what your implying, I think, but I do think that some things need to be thought out more first.


1) " In low or null this is fine but high will be the first place to burn and will burn badly. This will lead to people leaving the game, not because of the game but because there is no safe place to store things for even a break. "

HS and LS have particular restrictions on scale and symmetry of warfare (HS in particular), such as no bubbles, no smartbombs, no caps, wardecs required. I dont see why you think structures would burn in HS in particular, if the cost of recovering assets % was increased.

2) "Part of high secs value is in that itself. It can be a place to regroup and reship in extreme burning of any assets or sov or places we call "home" in game. This is necessary for a lot of reasons but also adds the negative that people can stay there and "helicopter" back instead of branching out."

This is nonsense. HS is filled to brimming with NPC, unaggressable stations for material storage or regrouping points. Also additionally to which, uniquely to HS, material can be shipped out on neutral alts under CONCORD safety.

Furthermore, asset transfer from a destroyed citadel to another citadel or NPC station in the same system is FREE within 5 days. This makes it a free, trivial issue in most of HS/LS. Your stuff will get moved FREE, safely, with no effort on your part. Zero cost, zero effort, zero loss, except that of the citadel itself you lost.



Im a little bit surprised and disappointed that you state my position was "not thought through", yet your rebuttals to it are so easily and automatically negated as in the above two points. No disrespect intended, but did you not realize that HS has different engagement rules and is flooded with NPC stations for safe indestructible storage of material whixh can be shipped out on neutral alts under CONCORD protection, or under the Asset Safety program to another citadel/npc station for FREE with no loss or effort?



3) "That being said yes we need to see greater destruction, not only of isk but also of items in game in the long run. Not just changing hands at the 50% drop rates either. "

This can be achieved by either increasing the % isk cost of recovering materials, or causing a % of the material to be dropped/destroyed, or both.



Frankly it is categorically stupid and anti-EVE ethos, that when you destroy something, you cant loot it, and all assets are retained by their owner.

It boggles my mind how the current system ever made it all the way through the development and community feedback process to implementation.

Free, safe, magical asset transport? Really...?
Cos you failed to defend a structure or filled it with value you cant afford to lose?
Only pay 15% of its market value to recover it, when the victorious attackers get nothing for their efforts?

The more I look into this, the angrier Im getting.
This system breaks every rule that has ever made EVE, EVE.
Amanda Creire-Geng
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2016-12-29 17:05:35 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
In conclusion, 15% as cost of asset recovery for structures is not conducive to the Golden Rule.


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.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#15 - 2016-12-29 17:23:25 UTC
I'll live out of one or two supercarriers when I'm out in space again. I did it with two carriers at one point but the ship storage gets a little tight.
Salvos Rhoska
#16 - 2016-12-29 17:33:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Amanda Creire-Geng wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
In conclusion, 15% as cost of asset recovery for structures is not conducive to the Golden Rule.

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
Guardians of the Gate
RAZOR Alliance
#17 - 2016-12-29 17:52:17 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
[quote=Eternus8lux8lucis]***Snip***.


Why I think structures in HS would burn? Because for the most part it will be stupidly simple to pay the war dec fee by well organized low, null or WH dwellers and the vast majority of players in high sec would never actually be able to defend against it. Which would make it null 2.0 with the exact same cartel-like ownership. This is a bad thing because many of the people in high sec are specifically looking for an area without that, more freedom from control.

The other portion is that say I go on summer or Christmas holidays. I dont log in for a week or two. This would mean that during this time anything I personally might own would be burned to the ground, or, if my corp/alliance loses something, that I would automatically be forced to have the 15%, or more in your case, sitting in my wallet at all times even if I go to the extreme route of evac to high sec. What of those on extended breaks?

This part of the post is in relation to the idea that if citadels would be the ONLY way to store anything. Blink



It made its way through implementation particularly because it would be too harsh and far to easy to burn stuff and there are big enough groups would simply would steamroll anyone in high sec. Which makes player retention harder and forcing returning players to do what? Buy plex and sell it to get their assets out of hock after a few years? Yeah thatd do wonders to get people back into the game.Roll

Have you heard anything I've said?

You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?

That's right.

Had to end sometime.

Salvos Rhoska
#18 - 2016-12-29 18:30:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
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?