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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ok, so, citadel owner is not around, so nobody to defend it hmmmmmm, how to get stuff back,,, hmmmmmm

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

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

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.

You calling somebody narrow-minded is THE joke of the year.

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.

... 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.

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.