These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Citadels are stealing our clones

Author
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2017-05-07 14:08:27 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
I just got owned.

http://imgur.com/a/F2tMT

Not by some smart player or my own mistake. I got owned because someone providing a high sec service went afk.

I now have a pod stuck in a citadel that has run out of fuel. I left my HG snakes there yesterday and today I can't jump back to it. This is ****** design because it basically forces every single player to drop a cloning citadel they control. There's no way for a me to find out when a citadel I have a clone in might go offline due to afk owners.

Now if the player had locked me out and asked me to pay him or just to **** me, that's fair game. He runs a service and scams me, whatever. This is not the case though and I feel it needs a change. Any ideas?

tl;dr pour one out for my HG snake set

Lol 😁

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP

Sitting Bull Lakota
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2017-05-07 17:45:58 UTC
Eugene Kerner wrote:
Jin Kugu wrote:
I just got owned.

http://imgur.com/a/F2tMT

Not by some smart player or my own mistake. I got owned because someone providing a high sec service went afk.

I now have a pod stuck in a citadel that has run out of fuel. I left my HG snakes there yesterday and today I can't jump back to it. This is ****** design because it basically forces every single player to drop a cloning citadel they control. There's no way for a me to find out when a citadel I have a clone in might go offline due to afk owners.

Now if the player had locked me out and asked me to pay him or just to **** me, that's fair game. He runs a service and scams me, whatever. This is not the case though and I feel it needs a change. Any ideas?

tl;dr pour one out for my HG snake set

Lol 😁
F

Maybe don't leave your clones in a citadel that isn't owned by a nullsec empire? They don't tend to go dark without warning.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2017-05-07 17:49:10 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Citadels and Co. are not designed as public infrastructure.


That's total bullshit.

Says the person complaining about one consequence of exactly that point. Blink

I'm my own NPC alt.

Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#24 - 2017-05-07 18:05:48 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Jin Kugu wrote:
I just got owned.

http://imgur.com/a/F2tMT

Not by some smart player or my own mistake. I got owned because someone providing a high sec service went afk.

I now have a pod stuck in a citadel that has run out of fuel. I left my HG snakes there yesterday and today I can't jump back to it. This is ****** design because it basically forces every single player to drop a cloning citadel they control. There's no way for a me to find out when a citadel I have a clone in might go offline due to afk owners.

Now if the player had locked me out and asked me to pay him or just to **** me, that's fair game. He runs a service and scams me, whatever. This is not the case though and I feel it needs a change. Any ideas?

tl;dr pour one out for my HG snake set


Works as intended.

Nah, working as designed, not intended.

Like much of what CCP has done lately, this is another of those things that just wasn't thought through very well.
I don't think CCP ever intended for a player leaving the game or going AFK for a long period to cause active players to lose things. They just never thought about it..


I disagree.


What a well reasoned argument. The design is **** whether ccp thought about it or not.


I disagree.
000Hunter000
Missiles 'R' Us
#25 - 2017-05-07 18:38:21 UTC
sooo... u put your expensive item inside a destroyable player owned item and now your complaining you lost it huh?

This is risk vs reward i think. Did u have any benefit of putting the clone in this citadel?

I do agree though, that ccp could arrange it that your clone is transfered to the nearest usable cloningstation.
Jin Kugu
Make Luv Not War
Goonswarm Federation
#26 - 2017-05-07 19:03:10 UTC
The design flaw is pretty obvious though.

1. Having clones in citadels has a lot of benifits
2. You have no idea when someone might go afk(ignoring the risk of getting scammed outright)
3. You are forced to only use personal clone citadels

I just dropped a personal citadel 1j from Jita and you should do it too. Bonus points if you freeport it to intensify the overview spam.
Dark Lord Trump
0.0 Massive Dynamic
Pandemic Horde
#27 - 2017-05-07 19:08:15 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
The design flaw is pretty obvious though.

1. Having clones in citadels has a lot of benifits
2. You have no idea when someone might go afk(ignoring the risk of getting scammed outright)
3. You are forced to only use personal clone citadels

I just dropped a personal citadel 1j from Jita and you should do it too. Bonus points if you freeport it to intensify the overview spam.

1. Yes. This entices you to risk a citadel.
2. This falls under trust. Not only do you have to consider someone trying to scam you, but you also have to ask yourself, "Do I trust this guy not to go AFK and let his citadel run out of fuel?"
3. No you're not. You can use NPC stations just fine.

I'm going to build a big wall that will keep the Gallente out, and they're going to pay for it!

Obsidian Blacke
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2017-05-07 19:27:13 UTC
This was obviously something CCP overlooked. A clone is an asset, and should be subject to some type of asset safety.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#29 - 2017-05-07 19:40:00 UTC
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
This was obviously something CCP overlooked. A clone is an asset, and should be subject to some type of asset safety.


Obviously not. A clone is not an "asset". You can neither transport or sell/buy it. OP was dumb to leave a clone in a place out of her control and now blames CCP for it.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#30 - 2017-05-07 19:41:45 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
The design flaw is pretty obvious though.

1. Having clones in citadels has a lot of benifits
2. You have no idea when someone might go afk(ignoring the risk of getting scammed outright)
3. You are forced to only use personal clone citadels

I just dropped a personal citadel 1j from Jita and you should do it too. Bonus points if you freeport it to intensify the overview spam.


You making a dumb mistake doesnt make this a design fault.

1. Indeed.
2. Indeed, so how do you deal with such a situation?
3. Nonsense!
Obsidian Blacke
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2017-05-07 19:43:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Obsidian Blacke
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
This was obviously something CCP overlooked. A clone is an asset, and should be subject to some type of asset safety.


Obviously not. A clone is not an "asset". You can neither transport or sell/buy it. OP was dumb to leave a clone in a place out of her control and now blames CCP for it.



A clone is obviously an asset. Also, you can sell and buy them. It happens all the time. Clones have value, and replacement value. Learn to Eve, bra.


Not related to your post, the trust argument is nonsensical, since by that reasoning, asset safety should not exist at all.

Edit: It's actually Rule 8 of the Character Bazaar:

Items cannot be listed among the character's valuable assets, only skills, implants and reputation. You are buying/selling the character ONLY and nothing else. Ships and items can be readily bought or sold on the market for ISK.

So, according to CCP, skills, implants, and reputation are assets. So I mean if you want to argue that her clone isn't an asset, you'd have to take the position that the implants are separate from the clone, in which case, you should have no problem with the implants being asset safetied, but the clone being left to languish.

Actually, I'm sure that'd be an acceptable solution for all involved :p
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#32 - 2017-05-07 19:46:30 UTC
Jin Kugu wrote:
Firnen Bakru wrote:
you should just stop being a poor and get another snake pod

just meme around saying it's already replaced Cool


Buy me a new set or I'm never bumping for you again.

#nopoors

Regards,
A trillionaire

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.

Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#33 - 2017-05-08 06:07:53 UTC
There is no free lunch. If you want the benefits that citadels offer for clone storage, then that entails risk. If you don't want the risk, then use NPC stations and lose the benefits. Sounds like every other part of EVE to me.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#34 - 2017-05-08 06:25:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
... asset safety should not exist at all.

I agree. Remove it completely.

It wasn't part of the original design for Citadels and there is no gameplay involved in everything going to safety.

Having lost an expensive clone in a similar manner to the OP, it's a risk we take if we store expensive clones in Citadels we don't own (or in my case, we do). More fool us, if we suffer consequences of that choice.
Falken Falcon
#35 - 2017-05-08 07:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Falken Falcon
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
... asset safety should not exist at all.

I agree. Remove it completely.

It wasn't part of the original design for Citadels and there is no gameplay involved in everything going to safety.

Having lost an expensive clone in a similar manner to the OP, it's a risk we take if we store expensive clones in Citadels we don't own (or in my case, we do). More fool us, if we suffer consequences of that choice.

I actually agree with scipper here.

No asset safety got me very exited back in the day. The citadels would have felt more like your shack far in the void that you must defend when some dude comes knocking or you would lose your ship and the shack. Now its just the value of the shack while you can just courier your stuff somewhere by paying the loot fairy a small fee while she keeps your stuff safely in her trunk.

I got alot of crap I can keep around without any worry of actually losing it. Worst case is I just find them at some borderline highsec system

Dont get me wrong i do understand why CCP added the asset safety, but the 15% magic courier cost is bit low as it does not feel like I should be worried about if a station I got stuff in goes boom

Aye, Sea Turtles

Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2017-05-08 09:13:51 UTC
Falken Falcon wrote:

I should be worried about if a station I got stuff in goes boom

... what is the consequence of "worrying about"? Players adapt. Not use structures for stuff. Not live in areas where only such structures exist.

That is certainly not what CCP wants to achieve.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#37 - 2017-05-08 10:57:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Falken Falcon wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
... asset safety should not exist at all.

I agree. Remove it completely.

It wasn't part of the original design for Citadels and there is no gameplay involved in everything going to safety.

Having lost an expensive clone in a similar manner to the OP, it's a risk we take if we store expensive clones in Citadels we don't own (or in my case, we do). More fool us, if we suffer consequences of that choice.

I actually agree with scipper here.

No asset safety got me very exited back in the day. The citadels would have felt more like your shack far in the void that you must defend when some dude comes knocking or you would lose your ship and the shack. Now its just the value of the shack while you can just courier your stuff somewhere by paying the loot fairy a small fee while she keeps your stuff safely in her trunk.

I got alot of crap I can keep around without any worry of actually losing it. Worst case is I just find them at some borderline highsec system

Dont get me wrong i do understand why CCP added the asset safety, but the 15% magic courier cost is bit low as it does not feel like I should be worried about if a station I got stuff in goes boom

For the 2 narrow minded posters.

Just how many players do you think would use Citadels to live out of without asset safety?
I would bet every asset i own neither of you would.

Falcen, I think you might want to go have a look at how asset safety works. Your stuff won't end up in "some highsec station" unless it originates in highsec. Best case IF you live in nul, it will end up in some random Nul NPC station. If you live in lowsec, it will go to the nearest Lowsec NPC station.

Scipio - There is a big difference in losing a clone because you can't defend your citadel and losing one because the owner leaves the game.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Fish Hunter
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#38 - 2017-05-08 16:20:05 UTC
000Hunter000 wrote:
sooo... u put your expensive item inside a destroyable player owned item and now your complaining you lost it huh?

This is risk vs reward i think. Did u have any benefit of putting the clone in this citadel?

I do agree though, that ccp could arrange it that your clone is transfered to the nearest usable cloningstation.


No, CCP has stated that when citadels go boom so does your clone so there's your risk. The clones should work like outposts, you can be kicked from docking and having it as your home station but can always jump to the clone to retrieve it. There's no warning to anyone but station owner when fuel runs out or removing the clone module, when its being attacked everyone gets to see its reinforced.
Fish Hunter
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#39 - 2017-05-08 16:29:29 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
... asset safety should not exist at all.

I agree. Remove it completely.

It wasn't part of the original design for Citadels and there is no gameplay involved in everything going to safety.

Having lost an expensive clone in a similar manner to the OP, it's a risk we take if we store expensive clones in Citadels we don't own (or in my case, we do). More fool us, if we suffer consequences of that choice.


Asset safety is there because CCP decided thats what it would take to move industrialists into citadels completely. As well they're removing outposts in which assets are immune though possibly stuck for eternity, and you might say its a fair trade.

Players at first used citadel clone services because it was easy and often cheaper. Now that everyone is realizing how dangerous it is players are stopping use of them which is the opposite of what CCP wants.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#40 - 2017-05-08 17:28:02 UTC
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
This was obviously something CCP overlooked. A clone is an asset, and should be subject to some type of asset safety.


Obviously not. A clone is not an "asset". You can neither transport or sell/buy it. OP was dumb to leave a clone in a place out of her control and now blames CCP for it.



A clone is obviously an asset. Also, you can sell and buy them. It happens all the time. Clones have value, and replacement value. Learn to Eve, bra.




Please contract me one of your clones.
Previous page123Next page