These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

Citadels are stealing our clones
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#41 - 2017-05-08 17:30:09 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.


You calling somebody narrow-minded is THE joke of the year.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#42 - 2017-05-08 17:31:14 UTC
Fish Hunter wrote:
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.


No, a citadel is not a station or outpost. Try again.
Nicolai Serkanner
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#43 - 2017-05-08 17:33:54 UTC
Fish Hunter 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.


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.


When Outposts and POSes are removed there is no need for asset safety any more because you can not chose to use an alternative. I agree the game should get rid of asset safety altogether. It is a horrible "feature" and has been from the beginning.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#44 - 2017-05-08 18:50:40 UTC
ok, so, citadel owner is not around, so nobody to defend it Roll hmmmmmm, how to get stuff back,,, hmmmmmm Roll

blow it up, players stuff gets sent to station, assets recovered.
Zarek Kree
Lunatic Legion Holdings
#45 - 2017-05-08 20:06:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarek Kree
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
ok, so, citadel owner is not around, so nobody to defend it Roll hmmmmmm, how to get stuff back,,, hmmmmmm Roll

blow it up, players stuff gets sent to station, assets recovered.



Asset safety doesn't apply to clones - which is the topic at hand in this thread.

And you don't have to blow up a citadel to trigger asset safety for the items it does apply to. You can activate manually.
Fish Hunter
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2017-05-08 20:46:20 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Fish Hunter wrote:
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.


No, a citadel is not a station or outpost. Try again.



An outpost is the most relative comparison, Try again.
Fish Hunter
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2017-05-08 20:53:55 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Fish Hunter 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.


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.


When Outposts and POSes are removed there is no need for asset safety any more because you can not chose to use an alternative. I agree the game should get rid of asset safety altogether. It is a horrible "feature" and has been from the beginning.


Removing asset safety is how you get industry back into empire space and lowsec. Building ships like jump freighters for market is already not really worth the risk compared to the safety of highsec. Get one ship blown up per year per line, and you might as well have kept the manufacturing in highsec.
Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#48 - 2017-05-09 01:34:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Shallanna Yassavi
This problem hurts corporations who provide this service. It makes citadels a lot less attractive to anyone who might want to use them, especially when there's an NPC station nearby.

Question: If you store a clean clone in a citadel and jump into it from an NPC station, do you get charged by the citadel or the station? What about the other direction?

Edit: and there's always the almost-rich-kid solution: use a Rorqal and store your clones in the clone vat bay. Never undock it for anything else. Or you could use a Titan if you wanted.

A signature :o
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#49 - 2017-05-09 02:59:07 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.


You calling somebody narrow-minded is THE joke of the year.
LOL, Whats up nici - Being shown you're wrong hurts your ego so you feel the need to lash out.

Please show me where i am narrow minded - I looked at your post, saw you were totally wrong and pointed it out to you. If that makes me narrow minded - So be it..

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.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#50 - 2017-05-09 08:35:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Sgt Ocker wrote:

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.

I live out of Citadels quite happily in wormhole space with no asset safety. Many people do.

Feel free to contract me all your stuff whenever ii's convenient.
Falken Falcon
#51 - 2017-05-09 09:15:33 UTC
Tipa Riot wrote:

... 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.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.

I definitely would, but alot of people would not and that is why I said I understand why it is so.

If this would happen (hypothetically ) and no one current living in null/w-space would not adapt and just leave to low or high for the fear of losing isk, it would just leave them up for grabs for those who dont fear and know how to adapt

Aye, Sea Turtles
Previous page123