These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Taxation in WH, EVE CCP

First post
Author
Henrayyyyy Andven
Wintergreen Initiative
#61 - 2014-07-25 21:27:34 UTC
I honestly can't tell who's complaining or who's serious or who's roleplaying.
thetwilitehour
Caldari Provisions
#62 - 2014-07-25 21:58:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's not actually a tax, the workers in your Starbase just unionized.


that's like a really cute "lore" explanation, but it's also dumb. Remove the costs for doing industry in wormhole space please. It should be one of the ways that wh space is benefited from it's lack of security and things like sov bonuses to fuel.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#63 - 2014-07-25 22:03:15 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Ok let's sit down and have a chat about the design behind the industry cost scaling in Crius. Obviously there's some confusion. For one thing, the primary goal behind the cost scaling has nothing to do with sinking ISK from the economy (ISK supply growth has remained well within a healthy range both before and after Crius).

First, I'm gonna link CCP Greyscale's recent dev blog on the principles behind the industry changes, as it's valuable reading.
Go ahead and take a quick look.

Back? Ok excellent.

So there are two major philosophical goals in EVE-Online game design that are important for understanding where the cost scaling came from:
  • We want as many areas of the game as possible to contain interesting and meaningful choices, so that players know that their actions matter and that their mastery and clever decision making is rewarded.
  • In general, soft barriers are better than hard barriers. This is why the office bidding system provides better gameplay than the old industry slot system, for instance.

With these goals in mind, we knew coming into the planning for our Industry revamp that removing the hard capped slot limits was going to be a very valuable change. Hard caps on slots scale poorly as the game population grows over time, rely on values dictated by us instead of reacting to player behavior organically, and create the frustrating situation where sometimes the game tells you that you simply can't do the kind of industry you want right now. A soft cap would instead allow players to choose whatever cost level is acceptable to them, based on their other goals and motivations.

Hard caps break the first goal as well. When a player is choosing where to engage in an industrial activity, it's a much more interesting choice to have multiple nuanced factors to consider (such as cost scaling and team availability) than to simply put their job into the nearest open slot.

If we had simply removed the slot limits with no other changes, the optimal gameplay choices would have almost always have been to engage all of EVE's industry within one starbase in Jita. This would obviously have represented a reduction in the number of interesting choices available to industrial players.

The primary goal of the Crius cost scaling is to provide an incentive for players to spread out their industrial operations instead of building everything in one system. When combined with other factors that incentivise concentration (such as the sharing of teams and proximity to trade hubs) this gives players an interesting and evolving set of choices.

The upshot for Wormhole dwellers is that every installation in the game has at least some level of operating cost under the new system, and that the lower per-system population of Wormholes means that these costs will generally be much lower in Wormholes than in most other areas of space.

As most of you have probably realized, the cost scaling was implemented primarily for gameplay and balance reasons, not strictly for role-playing purposes.
Within the fictional universe of EVE Online, these isk charges represent the collective costs of maintaining and operating industrial facilities (including the costs of paying the staff of these facilities). They do not represent a government tax, so those of you who are opposed on principle to paying fictional taxes to fictional governments can rest easy.
It is true that the fact that some other areas of the game (such as starships) do not require upkeep costs and this represents an inconsistency, but adding upkeep costs to ships would not be a beneficial change to the gameplay of EVE at this time. As in any video game a certain level of suspension of disbelief is required to help smooth over these sorts of inconsistencies between the realism of the fictional universe and the requirements of a fun and interesting gameplay experience.

Hopefully this has been at least somewhat helpful in communicating what our goals were with the Crius cost scaling changes, and if you have any more questions feel free to ask.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Shevai Asan
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2014-07-25 22:47:05 UTC
Thats just a wall of copy/pasta with no real value. You're just spitting out non-sense to try and wrap as much sense around something that doesn't make any sense.

Just because you call it a 'fee' and not a 'tax doesn't mean it's any different.

It's still an isk sink, whether it's a tax or a fee. If we own the arrays, and pretty much own the space those arrays are stationed; guess what? There's no reason for the NPC fee.

I made pos fuel the other day, I didn't use a single 'team' to speed up the process; that should mean that I don't pay anyone to do anything, because I put it through the machine myself.

Now should I want an expedited process, then I'd hire a team and they'd work faster, or save me some input materials due to being more efficient; but there's no reason I can't just install the job without a team being assigned to it and be ok if it takes me extra time to get my final product.

You know what tax should matter in WH space? Corp tax-rate. Just like Custom's Offices. I'm not paying anyone to make those commodities, but I don't mind the corp tax on doing PI because those Custom's Offices are player owned.

All this talk of grand design in EVE? "The Sandbox" - where everything is tied together? Yeah, reach in the hat and tell us what the next expansion is gonna be about.

"Coming this winter to EVE Online: the next great expansion; Isk-sink-ageddon."

"We sunk your Wallet Ship!"
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#65 - 2014-07-25 22:52:32 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok let's sit down and have a chat about the design behind the industry cost scaling in Crius. Obviously there's some confusion. For one thing, the primary goal behind the cost scaling has nothing to do with sinking ISK from the economy (ISK supply growth has remained well within a healthy range both before and after Crius).

Damn, time to abandon the hype train, that darned Fozzie is back from his (well earned) vacation :/

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.

5yndr0m3
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#66 - 2014-07-25 23:04:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
(ISK supply growth has remained well within a healthy range both before and after Crius).



Crius has only been out for a couple of days and still loaded with bugs that need to be fixed. Also, you have to give the market time to adjust. A lot of people built and stockpiled stuff before this expansion.
Kalel Nimrott
Caldari Provisions
#67 - 2014-07-25 23:51:21 UTC
I'm a happy person for not doing Indy.

Bob Artis, you will be missed.

O7

Sakura Nihil
Faded Light
#68 - 2014-07-26 00:18:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Sakura Nihil
Shevai Asan wrote:
I made pos fuel the other day, I didn't use a single 'team' to speed up the process; that should mean that I don't pay anyone to do anything, because I put it through the machine myself.

Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#69 - 2014-07-26 00:38:33 UTC
Shevai Asan wrote:

"Coming this winter to EVE Online: the next great expansion; Isk-sink-ageddon."

"We sunk your Wallet Ship!"

Totally read that last bit with this in mind
Milton Bradley Battleship game Opera TV commercia…: http://youtu.be/VXkVZ0rloio

I'm right behind you

Marox Calendale
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2014-07-26 01:40:35 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The upshot for Wormhole dwellers is that every installation in the game has at least some level of operating cost under the new system, and that the lower per-system population of Wormholes means that these costs will generally be much lower in Wormholes than in most other areas of space.

Thank you CCP Fozzie for this large Explanation of your intentions. And you should be right about the value of the costs. In most cases they seem to be lower than what most other People are telling from their k-space Systems.
But why did you do this awkward way using the corp wallet instead of taking the money directly from the Person who is installing the Job? And why is there a possibility to find out which holes hired industrial team, while you just removed API information about their kills?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#71 - 2014-07-26 04:04:39 UTC
Marox Calendale wrote:

But why did you do this awkward way using the corp wallet instead of taking the money directly from the Person who is installing the Job?


The industry team in Game of Drones are actually adding the ability to pay for starbase jobs with your personal wallet at the moment. They'll have it implemented as soon as possible.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Antihrist Pripravnik
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2014-07-26 04:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik
CCP Fozzie wrote:
For one thing, the primary goal behind the cost scaling has nothing to do with sinking ISK from the economy (ISK supply growth has remained well within a healthy range both before and after Crius).


But it has everything to do with ISK faucets. Added cost of production will be passed to the consumers once the current stocks are out, and where exactly do you think the additional ISK will come from? Well, more ISK grinding, of course. By introducing often outrageous taxes and artificially elevating the cost of production and final products, you are basically forcing consumers (which are the majority population in the game) to grind more ISK in order to be able to afford ships with increased prices.

You are, basically, artificially creating the inflation (not market or activity driven) by taxing the industrial sector, which is a textbook example of what RL dictators use to produce the same effect. I know it, because I live in a dictatorship.


On another topic, is hundreds of millions of ISK of additional taxes and months of added time required compared to the old system in order to do anything meaningful with a capital ship BPO a hard or a soft barrier? I'm talking about players who haven't done industry before and are looking to get into it the natural way - by buying the originals and doing the research themselves... you know... the fun and natural way to explore what this game has to offer? Are you going to pull the same argument as with T2 BPO fiasco? Buy the researched BPO of the contracts?

Haven't you learned anything about pricing stuff back in Incarna? Although this time, it's not only the ISK barrier - it's the time barrier as well.

I would also love to see some statistics about which entity has the most significant amount of already researched capital ship BPOs and whether this should be brought as a topic to CCP internal affairs, because with current research times and costs you are giving a significant endgame advantage to whoever has the researched capital BPOs already. (edit: although that would be pointless if whole CCP is favoring one group/type of players)
peroxide chase
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2014-07-26 04:51:34 UTC  |  Edited by: peroxide chase
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...Within the fictional universe of EVE Online, these isk charges represent the collective costs of maintaining and operating industrial facilities (including the costs of paying the staff of these facilities). They do not represent a government tax.....


If this is really the case why is install cost calculated off the value of the item build rather than just a flat time cost related to slot usage and system activity. A cost related to the value of a final product (eg t2 ship) sounds like a tax to me, x hours of effort should cost x isk, if this number scales with end product values its no longer a usage fee but a tax.

Tax is defined as :
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

isk demanded by npc's for their support of industrial facilities and services, levied upon property (end production product) value.

It's a tax please stop trying to claim its a fee or anything other than a tax.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#74 - 2014-07-26 04:56:39 UTC
peroxide chase wrote:
lastly distributed industry in highsec isn't something anyone wants, no one wants to haul more jumps. no one championed for more hauling of goods, ever.


I disagree on this point. More ships moving in space is something I want. They are much more interesting than the ones which are in station or at a pos.
beatlebutt
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2014-07-26 06:33:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok let's sit down and have a chat about the design behind the industry cost scaling in Crius. Obviously there's some confusion. For one thing, the primary goal behind the cost scaling has nothing to do with sinking ISK from the economy (ISK supply growth has remained well within a healthy range both before and after Crius).

First, I'm gonna link CCP Greyscale's recent dev blog on the principles behind the industry changes, as it's valuable reading.
Go ahead and take a quick look.

Back? Ok excellent.

So there are two major philosophical goals in EVE-Online game design that are important for understanding where the cost scaling came from:
  • We want as many areas of the game as possible to contain interesting and meaningful choices, so that players know that their actions matter and that their mastery and clever decision making is rewarded.
  • In general, soft barriers are better than hard barriers. This is why the office bidding system provides better gameplay than the old industry slot system, for instance.

With these goals in mind, we knew coming into the planning for our Industry revamp that removing the hard capped slot limits was going to be a very valuable change. Hard caps on slots scale poorly as the game population grows over time, rely on values dictated by us instead of reacting to player behavior organically, and create the frustrating situation where sometimes the game tells you that you simply can't do the kind of industry you want right now. A soft cap would instead allow players to choose whatever cost level is acceptable to them, based on their other goals and motivations.

Hard caps break the first goal as well. When a player is choosing where to engage in an industrial activity, it's a much more interesting choice to have multiple nuanced factors to consider (such as cost scaling and team availability) than to simply put their job into the nearest open slot.

If we had simply removed the slot limits with no other changes, the optimal gameplay choices would have almost always have been to engage all of EVE's industry within one starbase in Jita. This would obviously have represented a reduction in the number of interesting choices available to industrial players.

The primary goal of the Crius cost scaling is to provide an incentive for players to spread out their industrial operations instead of building everything in one system. When combined with other factors that incentivise concentration (such as the sharing of teams and proximity to trade hubs) this gives players an interesting and evolving set of choices.

The upshot for Wormhole dwellers is that every installation in the game has at least some level of operating cost under the new system, and that the lower per-system population of Wormholes means that these costs will generally be much lower in Wormholes than in most other areas of space.

As most of you have probably realized, the cost scaling was implemented primarily for gameplay and balance reasons, not strictly for role-playing purposes.
Within the fictional universe of EVE Online, these isk charges represent the collective costs of maintaining and operating industrial facilities (including the costs of paying the staff of these facilities). They do not represent a government tax, so those of you who are opposed on principle to paying fictional taxes to fictional governments can rest easy.
It is true that the fact that some other areas of the game (such as starships) do not require upkeep costs and this represents an inconsistency, but adding upkeep costs to ships would not be a beneficial change to the gameplay of EVE at this time. As in any video game a certain level of suspension of disbelief is required to help smooth over these sorts of inconsistencies between the realism of the fictional universe and the requirements of a fun and interesting gameplay experience.

Hopefully this has been at least somewhat helpful in communicating what our goals were with the Crius cost scaling changes, and if you have any more questions feel free to ask.


Well thats all well and good but what about taking years to Cap BPO research and costing multiple billions. I have more a problem with the time then the cost. Especially on carrier BPO's which I had perfect before and now It will be sometime in 2016 before they are perfect again and meantime I can't use them.
beatlebutt
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2014-07-26 06:36:59 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
For one thing, the primary goal behind the cost scaling has nothing to do with sinking ISK from the economy (ISK supply growth has remained well within a healthy range both before and after Crius).


But it has everything to do with ISK faucets. Added cost of production will be passed to the consumers once the current stocks are out, and where exactly do you think the additional ISK will come from? Well, more ISK grinding, of course. By introducing often outrageous taxes and artificially elevating the cost of production and final products, you are basically forcing consumers (which are the majority population in the game) to grind more ISK in order to be able to afford ships with increased prices.

You are, basically, artificially creating the inflation (not market or activity driven) by taxing the industrial sector, which is a textbook example of what RL dictators use to produce the same effect. I know it, because I live in a dictatorship.


On another topic, is hundreds of millions of ISK of additional taxes and months of added time required compared to the old system in order to do anything meaningful with a capital ship BPO a hard or a soft barrier? I'm talking about players who haven't done industry before and are looking to get into it the natural way - by buying the originals and doing the research themselves... you know... the fun and natural way to explore what this game has to offer? Are you going to pull the same argument as with T2 BPO fiasco? Buy the researched BPO of the contracts?

Haven't you learned anything about pricing stuff back in Incarna? Although this time, it's not only the ISK barrier - it's the time barrier as well.

I would also love to see some statistics about which entity has the most significant amount of already researched capital ship BPOs and whether this should be brought as a topic to CCP internal affairs, because with current research times and costs you are giving a significant endgame advantage to whoever has the researched capital BPOs already. (edit: although that would be pointless if whole CCP is favoring one group/type of players)


My problem with the carriers is there was no reason to get them to ME10. So now what was before perfect, even for the drone bays are not. So I can't see there being very many ME 10% carrier bpo's in existence because of the change.
Agilis Andedare
The Explicit Holdings
The Explicit Alliance
#77 - 2014-07-26 08:07:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Agilis Andedare
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hopefully this has been at least somewhat helpful in communicating what our goals were with the Crius cost scaling changes, and if you have any more questions feel free to ask.


At what point are you willing reassess your goals?

From a player perspective, and maybe an role playing/lore POV, who does that tax go to? As an alliance leader, there is very little value in putting up a new station for these particular things anymore. This is because where you MIGHT have made SOME money before on fees, now you have services that you're just taxing a tax. Maybe you don't want Outposts, and I'm missing the message. I don't understand why the fee/tax/isk sink isn't paid to the SOV HOLDER rather than some (supposedly not an ISK SINK) tax. Obviously I have a dog in the conversation.

If you were to have the fees be paid to the SOV holder, things in high/low/npc 0.0/wh space would still be paid to the tax/sink/etc. In 0.0 sov space, these fees SHOULD BE PAID to the Alliance because, in some cases, they put up/conquered the station. These entities defend/conquer/deal for this territory & these outposts. It's 0.0, CONCORD doesn't control anything other than acknowledging the sov claim.

There is actually a precedent for this proposal: outpost owners get the broker fees from sales in their station. In non-sov space, the game gets that fee, it goes into ISK sink heaven.

Maybe require the station owner to set a minimum of 50-90% of the formula to be paid to the alliance (so they can't just set it to 0) but allow them to ACTUALLY control some aspect of this mechanic, rather than just putting in a tax that is sent into thin air.

The TL;DR version of this is that Outpost owners should get the fee, just like they get the fee for being a broker in sales.
Dhrastette Lazair
Somnium Vita
#78 - 2014-07-26 14:26:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Dhrastette Lazair
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wall of text


This reads more like CCP realized Crius is better spelt Crisus (not my idea sadly) and we better say something to calm the troops.

Its appalling badly QA'd FFS it was released on the 22 July and there are STILL major issues coming up (issues thread to 40+pages). And this is not counting the bad design that is well, bad by design.

There are massive changes to prices which are really not going to go down well when the non-industrial base sees all there shinys going in price, up big time.

And EVE indutry is now become EVE second job with none of the benefits. I love how Crius needs to be more realistic because its industry , but spacehips arn't cause its like a game dude? (Crews et al here)

I'm frankly amazed (but not surprised given CCP's recent release record) that management at CCP thinks this is a good time to **** up the economic backbone of EVE with actual competitors on the horizon. CCP's behaviour tells me more about who's funding all those space game kickstarters than anything else.

And when FFS did crews suddenly become a thing in EVE? This game has no crews anywhere in anything despite it obviously having them. Now they become a thing? You intend to bugger up PI, Ships and everything else with this S**t? Good luck, I'll find a game that, you is like fun?
Elmonky
Titans of The Short Bus
#79 - 2014-07-26 14:58:36 UTC
First of all this thread needs more Dusettes.

Secondly ''OHNOES A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF ISK PER JOBS'' despite the fact you can actively now tax each array used for manufacturing.


Do what any normal capitalist would do... THROW IT ON THE COST OF THE SALE OF THE ITEM


Without a team it costs just over 300k to make a single Drake at -10% and -20% in the Medium Array. What will happen is the market will adjust to allow for this additional ''cost'' but is literally a pissant amount in the grand scheme of things



TL:DR **** the 0.01isk traders
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#80 - 2014-07-26 17:17:22 UTC
Probably one of the best expansion in years and people don't even know it.

Keep up the good work CCP.

The Tears Must Flow