EVE Search - Citadels are stealing our clones

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Citadels are stealing our clones

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jin Kugu Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 52	Posted - 2017.05.07 10:33:14 - [1] - Quote 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
Nicolai Serkanner Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 681	Posted - 2017.05.07 10:35:10 - [2] - Quote 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.
Jin Kugu Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 53	Posted - 2017.05.07 10:37:27 - [3] - Quote Nicolai Serkanner wrote: Works as intended. That's why I'm not filing a bug report but posting about it.
Firnen Bakru Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1	Posted - 2017.05.07 10:40:17 - [4] - Quote you should just stop being a poor and get another snake pod just meme around saying it's already replaced
Jin Kugu Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 53	Posted - 2017.05.07 10:41:11 - [5] - Quote Firnen Bakru wrote: you should just stop being a poor and get another snake pod just meme around saying it's already replaced Buy me a new set or I'm never bumping for you again.
Scipio Artelius The Vendunari End of Life 47738	Posted - 2017.05.07 10:43:21 - [6] - Quote 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 feel your pain; and for me, it was my own Alliance (and I'm a Director....doh).
Sgt Ocker What Corp is it 1351	Posted - 2017.05.07 10:44:54 - [7] - Quote 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.. 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.
Mara Pahrdi The Order of Anoyia 1619	Posted - 2017.05.07 11:07:49 - [8] - Quote 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.. Or they thought about it and just didn't care that moment and went down the SoonGäó road. Just like they did with so many things that are waiting years on getting fixed. Remove standings and insurance.
David Therman CAStabouts 178	Posted - 2017.05.07 11:19:57 - [9] - Quote Pretty much the same problem I brought up last year; albeit not nearly as much was lost; https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6568245#post6568245 It is pretty absurd though, at the very least you should be able to jump back to that clone and leave with it. I mean that's, what, 2.6+ billion isk down the drain? I would certainly like to hear CCP's reasoning on this "feature", a quick google search yielded nothing.
Firnen Bakru Caldari Provisions Caldari State 2	Posted - 2017.05.07 11:28:28 - [10] - Quote also I know your pain: http://i.imgur.com/QGPxpJQ.png can use my nomads since they got deadzoned half a year ago :p

Dracvlad Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy 3129	Posted - 2017.05.07 11:29:46 - [11] - Quote David Therman wrote: Pretty much the same problem I brought up last year; albeit not nearly as much was lost; https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6568245#post6568245 It is pretty absurd though, at the very least you should be able to jump back to that clone and leave with it. I mean that's, what, 2.6+ billion isk down the drain? I would certainly like to hear CCP's reasoning on this "feature", a quick google search yielded nothing. Ask the question on Reddit.... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour. Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3702	Posted - 2017.05.07 11:50:45 - [12] - Quote Tried contacting the owner to put in some more fuel? ... and there are still NPC stations. But again, this happens when mechanics intended for closed group play are applied to highsec, with mostly solo or loosely coupled players. Citadels and Co. are not designed as public infrastructure. I'm my own NPC alt.
Jin Kugu Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 53	Posted - 2017.05.07 11:52:52 - [13] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Citadels and Co. are not designed as public infrastructure. That's total bullshit.
Nicolai Serkanner Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 681	Posted - 2017.05.07 12:17:05 - [14] - Quote 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.
Jin Kugu Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 53	Posted - 2017.05.07 12:19:48 - [15] - Quote 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.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1516	Posted - 2017.05.07 12:49:21 - [16] - Quote Tbh I think they DID think about it and they wanted it exactly this way to increase losses, mistakes and therefore player interactions and conflicts. 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.
Yebo Lakatosh KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 260	Posted - 2017.05.07 12:51:43 - [17] - Quote I approve every feature that has the potential of separating people from their assets if they aren't doing their homework. It's hearthy for the economy, and healthy for the souls of the readers when a thread is made. Elite F1 pilot since YC119, incarnate of honor, integrity and tidi.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1517	Posted - 2017.05.07 12:57:52 - [18] - Quote Yebo Lakatosh wrote: I approve every feature that has the potential of separating people from their assets if they aren't doing their homework. It's hearthy for the economy, and healthy for the souls of the readers when a thread is made. "Goo"dness and Joy shall pour forth from the pods of goo as they are cracked open like Easter Eggs to be sucked dry by the childlike masses. Though many are salty some are sweet sweet nectar turned to ambrosial wine. 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.
Nana Skalski Taisaanat Kotei 33105	Posted - 2017.05.07 13:10:23 - [19] - Quote Only NPC stations can guarantee accessibility to assets and supreme security. Choose NPC stations, always. n+Ñn+ûn+àn+Æn+Ö n+Én+ün+Æn+ö n+Ån+å n+ü n+çn+ün+ìn+à n+ên+àn+în+Én+ô n+ön+Å n+ön+àn+în+î n+ü n+ôn+ön+Ån+Æn+Ö =ƒôò n++n+ên+àn+Æn+à n+ën+ô n+ín+Än+çn+Æn+Ö n+ún+»n+«n+ún+»n+¦n+ñ n+çn+òn+Ö n+ùn+ên+àn+Ä n+Ön+Ån+ò n+Än+àn+àn+ä n+ên+ën+ì n+»n+ôn+Én+Æn+àn+Ö =ƒÜÇ GëíGïüGëí GÖÑ
Sir BloodArgon Aulmais Fortis Fortuna Adiuvatt Dot Dot Dot 114	Posted - 2017.05.07 13:36:37 - [20] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: This is ****** design because it basically forces every single player to drop a cloning citadel they control. Pretty funny I've yet to be required to use a citadel for clones. NPC stations work just fine. Knowing the risks of public citadels, why oh why would you keep such an expensive clone in one for a long period of time. What, is docking at Jita4-4 too hard?

Eugene Kerner TunDraGon Lost Obsession 1662	Posted - 2017.05.07 14:08:27 - [21] - Quote 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 =ƒÿü TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] " -á CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a di++k joke."-áRobin Williams - RIP
Sitting Bull Lakota Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 312	Posted - 2017.05.07 17:45:58 - [22] - Quote 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 =ƒÿü 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 3702	Posted - 2017.05.07 17:49:10 - [23] - Quote 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. I'm my own NPC alt.
Nicolai Serkanner Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 681	Posted - 2017.05.07 18:05:48 - [24] - Quote 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 186	Posted - 2017.05.07 18:38:21 - [25] - Quote 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 Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 54	Posted - 2017.05.07 19:03:10 - [26] - Quote 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 Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 508	Posted - 2017.05.07 19:08:15 - [27] - Quote 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 Oberon Confederation 15	Posted - 2017.05.07 19:27:13 - [28] - Quote This was obviously something CCP overlooked. A clone is an asset, and should be subject to some type of asset safety.
Nicolai Serkanner Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 681	Posted - 2017.05.07 19:40:00 - [29] - Quote 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 Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 681	Posted - 2017.05.07 19:41:45 - [30] - Quote 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 Oberon Confederation 15	Posted - 2017.05.07 19:43:05 - [31] - Quote 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.
Linus Gorp Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker 1369	Posted - 2017.05.07 19:46:30 - [32] - Quote 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 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 209	Posted - 2017.05.08 06:07:53 - [33] - Quote 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 The Vendunari End of Life 47743	Posted - 2017.05.08 06:25:44 - [34] - Quote 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 32535	Posted - 2017.05.08 07:08:23 - [35] - Quote 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 3705	Posted - 2017.05.08 09:13:51 - [36] - Quote 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 1353	Posted - 2017.05.08 10:57:36 - [37] - Quote 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 Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation 45	Posted - 2017.05.08 16:20:05 - [38] - Quote 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 Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation 45	Posted - 2017.05.08 16:29:29 - [39] - Quote 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 Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 686	Posted - 2017.05.08 17:28:02 - [40] - Quote 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.

Nicolai Serkanner Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 686	Posted - 2017.05.08 17:30:09 - [41] - Quote 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 Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 686	Posted - 2017.05.08 17:31:14 - [42] - Quote 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 Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 686	Posted - 2017.05.08 17:33:54 - [43] - Quote 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 EVEolution. 627	Posted - 2017.05.08 18:50:40 - [44] - Quote 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.
Zarek Kree Lunatic Legion Holdings 214	Posted - 2017.05.08 20:06:01 - [45] - Quote xxxTRUSTxxx wrote: 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. 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 Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation 45	Posted - 2017.05.08 20:46:20 - [46] - Quote 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 Blacksteel Mining and Manufacturing Renaissance Federation 45	Posted - 2017.05.08 20:53:55 - [47] - Quote 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 Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 523	Posted - 2017.05.09 01:34:29 - [48] - Quote 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 1356	Posted - 2017.05.09 02:59:07 - [49] - Quote 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 The Vendunari End of Life 47745	Posted - 2017.05.09 08:35:54 - [50] - Quote 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 is convenient.

Falken Falcon 32536	Posted - 2017.05.09 09:15:33 - [51] - Quote 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


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.