These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] Changing NPC taxes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tristan Agion
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#461 - 2016-03-07 03:47:52 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
As far as knowing in advance if you can dock, dunno, CCP has afar as I know not said if there is a docking indicator, but I would guess it will be shown somewhere in the display information.

I think it would be important to have a mechanism by which a citadel clearly signals to a stranger that he is welcome. Relying on potentially outdated word of mouth or prior experience seems a bit iffy... Ideally I would want to know as soon as I enter the system, before even warping into its vicinity.
Oovarvu
C.O.L.D.
#462 - 2016-03-07 03:49:20 UTC
if that brokers fee also applies to modifying orders i expect to hear howls of protest when that goes live.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#463 - 2016-03-07 03:55:05 UTC
Anhenka wrote:


At least according to some of the current stats on Sisi http://imgur.com/a/PTYd7 that's very roughly the same damage application as cruise missiles. Higher explosion velocity, and higher explosion radius, so kind of a tradeoff there on application.

But even if we assume that the structure only has 5 launchers, and 2 lowslot BCU's with equivalent stats to ship BCU's (an I expect this not to be true) and absolutely no bonuses to damage through structure bonuses, and lv 4 on the Structure Missile Systems skill, we are talking a mere 42k damage Alpha, on anywhere from 10 to 20 second cycle time, with the application roughly of a cruise missile, with better damage on painted targets. I would expect this number to be higher when all the mods to the Citadels have been revealed, too.

Of course, the mids will have Webs, Scrams, Damps, Jams, etc. I would be very surprised if a citadel control gunner couldn't do some nasty work post release using Citadel webs, paints, + high missile damage. think blap dreads, but structures.

A deathstar POS is a major threat to a small-mid sized battleship fleet, I would be seriously surprised if a Fotizar was any less dangerous.

Expect some variation on the blap dread concept.

Edit: I fully expect the final result will in no way resemble the current stats on Sisi. Honestly, if they are this weak on launch, I will be severely surprised. This is a sort of "Worst case scenario", where the stats only include the very bare minimum amount of bonuses and mods and skill CCP has revealed.

Try 2 Launchers, 0 BCU's because they can't be fitted, 0 application rigs for a M Citadel. Which is the same as a L POS
The application is also significantly lower than a Cruise, because you are failing to take pilot skills into account when comparing, or the 3-5 application modules that go on missile ships.
Though it's a bit higher than their initial application listing, but that will still only apply about 10% damage with TP included vs a T1 cruiser. Obviously if the cruiser decides to walk into Web range of the citadel that changes, but staying out of citadel web range will be easy.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#464 - 2016-03-07 04:13:16 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Tristan Agion wrote:
Naive questions... say I'm flying in high sec, and I approach and try to dock at a citadel that doesn't want me around. What happens? Simply "docking request denied"? Or can the owner decide to shoot at me? If he can and does, is CONCORD going to do anything? What about low sec? And in null / j-space, where I assume anything goes from the side of the citadel, is there any way of telling in advance whether you would be welcome? Or do you have to fly there and hope to not get shot out of the sky as you approach?


In high sec, nothing. You will just get a generic "This corporation does not permit you access blah blah standings" message. In highsec it can't attack you if you are not a valid target, meaning you are at war with the owner, or have aggression on the structure. In turn, you cannot attack it without being killed by Concord unless you are at war with the owner.

In lowsec, nullsec, WH space it can be set up to free-fire on anyone who does not fit the profile set up by the owner. Do not poke it with a stick.

As far as knowing in advance if you can dock, dunno, CCP has afar as I know not said if there is a docking indicator, but I would guess it will be shown somewhere in the display information.

Keep in mind from what they've said it sounds like citadels won't shoot anything automatically. So basically in low or null you're at the mercy of whoever mans the guns.

CCP also mentioned something about a new Structure Browser in relation to finding out market fees, so I would assume that will also show whether you can dock at a citadel and what services you can use.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#465 - 2016-03-07 04:20:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Try 2 Launchers, 0 BCU's because they can't be fitted, 0 application rigs for a M Citadel. Which is the same as a L POS
The application is also significantly lower than a Cruise, because you are failing to take pilot skills into account when comparing, or the 3-5 application modules that go on missile ships.
Though it's a bit higher than their initial application listing, but that will still only apply about 10% damage with TP included vs a T1 cruiser. Obviously if the cruiser decides to walk into Web range of the citadel that changes, but staying out of citadel web range will be easy.


First off, all of my comments have been related to Fortizar Large outposts, since they are the smallest Citadel capable of fitting a market module, which is the topic of this thread. Medium Citadels I don't care about in the context of this thread.

My 5 highslot figure was randomly taken from CCP's stated comment somewhere in there that Keepstars would have up to 8 highslots, then I just shaved off 3 cause it felt about right. If you have actual numbers for the slots on each size of Citadel, I would love to see them.

Most of the following information taken from here: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/building-your-citadel-one-block-at-a-time/?_ga=1.157147580.680614799.1456414970

BCU's and Guidance units confirmed, along with TP's, Webs, Scrams, ECM, Damps, Nuets, offensive tractor beans, etc, etc, by here http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68671/1/Structuremoduleblueprints.png

Defensive rigs of unknown purpose confirmed here
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68671/1/Structurerigblueprints.png

As far as ranges go, a standard non faction Stasis Webification Battery on a POS has a 150km range, with a -75% speed modification.
A standard Warp Disruption Battery has a 150km Range with a +3 point.
A standard ECM Battery has a optimal range of 200km, with 45/15/15/15 Jam strength
A standard Sensor Damp battery has 150km optimal with 150km Faloff, and a -50% to Targeting range, and a -50% to scan resolution.

And if the TP's scale from standard to structure like the Webs and Scrams do, you are looking at extremely potent sig bloom at very long range.

The Citadel missiles themselves currently have a listed range of 785km. Not outranging those.

If the Citadels inherit this sort of range, and I have absolutely no reason to think otherwise, the only ships attacking from outside Web/Scram range in highsec are LR Battleship snipers, not t1 cruisers. And there's a reason you don't see sniper BS's used anywhere anymore. If an opponent lands on them with short range ships, they fold like a wet paper bag. And in highsec, where you could have a neutral alt cloaked 5km from your snipers preparing a warping for an enemy fleet? Good luck using sniper BS's without significant additional support. In which case you probably massively outnumber your enemy anyway and deserve to win.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#466 - 2016-03-07 04:37:44 UTC
Anhenka wrote:


First off, all of my comments have been related to Fortizar Large outposts, since they are the smallest Citadel capable of fitting a market module, which is the topic of this thread. Medium Citadels I don't care about in the context of this thread.

My 5 highslot figure was randomly taken from CCP's stated comment somewhere in there that Keepstars would have up to 8 highslots, then I just shaved off 3 cause it felt about right. If you have actual numbers for the slots on each size of Citadel, I would love to see them.
As far as ranges go, a standard non faction Stasis Webification Battery on a POS has a 150km range, with a -75% speed modification.
A standard Warp Disruption Battery has a 150km Range with a +3 point.
A standard ECM Battery has a optimal range of 200km, with 45/15/15/15 Jam strength
A standard Sensor Damp battery has 150km optimal with 150km Faloff, and a -50% to Targeting range, and a -50% to scan resolution.

If the Citadels inherit this sort of range, and I have absolutely no reason to think otherwise, the only ships attacking from outside Web/Scram range in highsec are LR Battleship snipers, not t1 cruisers.

And if the TP's scale from standard to structure like the Webs and Scrams do, you are looking at extremely potent sig bloom at very long range.

The Citadel missiles themselves currently have a listed range of 785km. Not outranging those.

Only if you count the long range versions. Which will apply 5% roughly to a T1 cruiser playing games at range.

Anyway, onto numbers. Citadel slots.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68942/1/Citadelfittings.png
L Citadel which are meant to replace Outposts (Note M Citadel is the size equivalent to a L POS, so expecting a L Citadel to only be equivalent to a L POS in firepower is a downgrade.) H 6 M 5 L 4 Launchers 3

Module stats.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68942/1/Citadeloffensivemods2.png
Webs are 60%, undefined range currently.
ECM is listed as 17 strength, most likely while scripted but possibly while not, again no range.
Sensor damps are 62% when scripted meaning probably half that unscripted, again no listed range.
TP are only 72%, again no range.
Scrams are 2 disruption, no range listed.

So, ok, sure, if they get 150km webs life will be better. A web & TP between them will bring you up to about 20% application using short range missiles (Under 50km effectively to allow for acceleration and chase). Meaning each missile will be 1k volley (0 BCU as no BCU stats yet) They had a 15 sec cycle time listed in the blog so 71 DPS per launcher, or 214 DPS all up from your L Citadel vs a Webbed Painted cruiser.
BCU's might bring that up say..... 40 or even 50% if we are lucky given the limited low slots. So we are now at a L Citadel meant to represent an outpost applying 300ish DPS in 4500 damage volleys to a cruiser that is webbed & painted.

The M Citadel is not permitted to fit BCU's and only has 2 Launchers, so the M Citadel gets to apply 140 DPS to said cruiser, in 2k volleys to a target it's webbed & painted. And that is what is meant to replace the L POS? You really trying to tell me that's remotely equivalent to a L POS Deathstar?
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#467 - 2016-03-07 05:30:49 UTC
Related to the market changes, I assume that most traders will resist the move into citadels. The reliability of NPC stations is just too much to overcome.

If the primary goal is to make Citadels more competitive, then I would recommend a slightly different approach. Keep broker's fees relatively close to where they are now (maybe remove the standing modifier). Instead, change how broker's fees work when modifying orders. Currently broker's fees are a percentage of the "Total change" field in the "Modify Order" window (note that the percentage is .75% with perfect skills and is unaffected by standings). For example, raising a buy order by 100,000,000 ISK will give a broker's fee of 750,000 ISK. Actually this is effectively the only way to incur a fee by changing an order besides the 100 ISK minimum. This is because any negative changes in the "Total change" field will only incur the 100 ISK fee, so lowering a sell order (common) or a buy order (uncommon) are virtually free while raising a buy order (common) or sell order (uncommon) have a sizable fee.

I propose that broker's fee should be based on the new total amount (quantity_remaining * new_price) of the order. Using something similar to my previous example, changing a buy order total from 900,000,000 ISK to 1,000,000,000 ISK would have a fee of 7,500,000 ISK instead of 750,000 ISK. Changing a sell order total from 1,100,000,000 ISK to 1,000,000,000 ISK would have a fee of 7,500,000 ISK instead of 100 ISK.

  • This would raise the amount of ISK paid in broker's fees while maintaining similar margins and avoiding inflated prices from a 5-6% broker's fee. I would expect some inflation but not as much.
  • This would also alleviate some of the frustration from the .01 ISK war. Market bots would lose most of their benefit.
  • This would NOT punish newer players as long as they price their orders competitively and wait.
  • This would allow the citadel owners to influence how often market orders change while receiving a larger revenue stream than is possible under the current system.


If broker's fees are double the transaction tax, that will be a huge incentive to use immediate transactions. This hurts trading by making 3 month buy/sell orders much less viable. One of the best ways to enter trading is to leave 3 month buy/sell orders in low volume/non-competitive markets, but this strategy would no longer be as viable. This creates a huge barrier to entry for market trading. Also, it will be much more important to train accounting and broker relations to 5 along with getting high standings with NPC corps to lower the broker's fees in NPC stations at least. It takes time to train the relevant skills and grind the standings for every corp and faction. Currently, training the relevant skills to 4 and staying neutral towards each corp and faction would be fine for everything except the tightest profit margins. These changes hurt the more average/newer player while older players already have the tools to adapt.

Missile Rebalance
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#468 - 2016-03-07 06:28:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
~Snip~


First off, no I never expected the M citadel to replace a large POS deathstar, I have during this entire thread, been referring to the Foritzar Large Citadel, because it was stated that it was the smallest Outpost capable of fitting a market module, and this was supposed to be a market tax discussion thread.

No I do not consider a large Citadel that has the same defensive abilities as a large POS to be a downgrade, since it comes with all those small bonuses like markets and refining and labs and unlimited storage, and cloning.

On that note, Large citadels are able to fit Large Missile and Application Projection rigs, which increase Explosion Velocity by 12.5%, as well as the BCU's and Missile Guidance Thingies's with the currently unknown stats.

In addition, those raw numbers are most likely do not including the 25% role bonus for Citadels (Remember it's quite likely many of these mods will be later fit on other objects, like player made stargates, and thus stat charts do not include inherent Citadel bonuses) and the new 2% per level Starbase defense management skill, for another 10% increase in damage. BTW that's a rank 2 skill, LV 5 is a good assumption. With say 2 BCU that only impart a 10% damage bonus each, that's 5720*1.25*1.1*1.1*1.09(accounting for second BCU effectiveness falloff) = 9430 a missile, rounding to 9433 for ease, or 28300 damage per volley. This is not insignificant.

As far as what they are firing at, I'm kind of confused as to why you are using a t1 cruiser at over 150 KM as your basis for application stats. Are t1 cruisers expected to be the ideal attacker when seiging a structure with a minimum of 27 million shield EHP, and probably a hell of a lot more with the scripted resistance modules? http://i.imgur.com/4VH7301.jpg

If you could manage to cram 4 of those onto a Fortizar you would be looking at 132 million EHP in one defensive layer. Of which there are 3, although only shield and armor could probably be hardened.

Maybe the citadel will be ineffective against t1 cruisers by itself. I still rather doubt it will end up that way, but if that's actually the way the numbers go, we can run with it for now.

A t1 100mn AB Vexor being effected by friendly perfect Loki Skirmish Links, and targeted by Two Web, one scram, one TP from a Fortizar Citadel with one Large Missile and Application Projection II rig has a signature of roughly 170 Vs the 400 of the Missile, and 230m/sec against the 120m/sec explosion velocity. So indeed, there's probably only roughly 20-25% damage being applied. If unopposed, a group of 100mn AB RR Vexors could tank the citadel with ease, at least on paper.

And I guess that's a good thing if CCP wants people to show up and defend them in case of attack.

Speaking of showing up to defend against an attack, want to do the math on what happens when the Vexor is hit with a Webbing/TPing Hughin or Loki, and then hit with a Citadel missile/web/scram/TP volley?

It splats, suddenly and violently, and all over the place. Yay defenders.

I'm going to stop here, because we have been number crunching based on hazy very very early data on structures that are not even on the test server, with weapons so early the launcher doesn't even have a database entry, against hypothetical ships. I'm fairly sure my potential margin or error here is over 100%.

Long story short though, I don't think the Large citadel's will be as weak as everyone has been theorycrafting when they finally hit the servers. I really don't.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#469 - 2016-03-07 06:30:42 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
Related to the market changes, I assume that most traders will resist the move into citadels. The reliability of NPC stations is just too much to overcome.

If the primary goal is to make Citadels more competitive, then I would recommend a slightly different approach. Keep broker's fees relatively close to where they are now (maybe remove the standing modifier). Instead, change how broker's fees work when modifying orders. Currently broker's fees are a percentage of the "Total change" field in the "Modify Order" window (note that the percentage is .75% with perfect skills and is unaffected by standings). For example, raising a buy order by 100,000,000 ISK will give a broker's fee of 750,000 ISK. Actually this is effectively the only way to incur a fee by changing an order besides the 100 ISK minimum. This is because any negative changes in the "Total change" field will only incur the 100 ISK fee, so lowering a sell order (common) or a buy order (uncommon) are virtually free while raising a buy order (common) or sell order (uncommon) have a sizable fee.

I propose that broker's fee should be based on the new total amount (quantity_remaining * new_price) of the order. Using something similar to my previous example, changing a buy order total from 900,000,000 ISK to 1,000,000,000 ISK would have a fee of 7,500,000 ISK instead of 750,000 ISK. Changing a sell order total from 1,100,000,000 ISK to 1,000,000,000 ISK would have a fee of 7,500,000 ISK instead of 100 ISK.

  • This would raise the amount of ISK paid in broker's fees while maintaining similar margins and avoiding inflated prices from a 5-6% broker's fee. I would expect some inflation but not as much.
  • This would also alleviate some of the frustration from the .01 ISK war. Market bots would lose most of their benefit.
  • This would NOT punish newer players as long as they price their orders competitively and wait.
  • This would allow the citadel owners to influence how often market orders change while receiving a larger revenue stream than is possible under the current system.


If broker's fees are double the transaction tax, that will be a huge incentive to use immediate transactions. This hurts trading by making 3 month buy/sell orders much less viable. One of the best ways to enter trading is to leave 3 month buy/sell orders in low volume/non-competitive markets, but this strategy would no longer be as viable. This creates a huge barrier to entry for market trading. Also, it will be much more important to train accounting and broker relations to 5 along with getting high standings with NPC corps to lower the broker's fees in NPC stations at least. It takes time to train the relevant skills and grind the standings for every corp and faction. Currently, training the relevant skills to 4 and staying neutral towards each corp and faction would be fine for everything except the tightest profit margins. These changes hurt the more average/newer player while older players already have the tools to adapt.


It seems you are saying modifying prices should incur broker fee's at the same amount as if removed the order entirely and relisted it at the new price. That seems really excessive and would actually backfire in terms of how bots would be able to play the market.

A human with a lot of product to sell will list a few large order, then leave them alone since they cannot change them without incurring penalties, and hope that the market will increase/decrease and fulfill his order.

A bot on the other hand, will place many small individual orders as the market price rises or falls, tracking the price so that if the price drops suddenly, the bot does not have much trapped in higher sell orders, and will place many smaller sell orders as the price is rising, dumping product rapidly, but not having more than one or two orders riding the top of that crest in case it drops back again.

This allows the bot to more effectively sell/buy products by utilizing multiple smaller orders, while never actually changing any of the broker fee's, but still reaping in the benefits of following the market curve closely.
Erik Kalkoken
The Congregation
OnlyFleets.
#470 - 2016-03-07 09:36:06 UTC
The cost increase for market transactions is a bad idea. Such a huge increase will diminish profits and choke the Eve markets. If you must, increase it in smaller increments over time. Give people and the market time to react to this new world.

Alliance Facebok page - Check out my blog - Find me on zKillboard
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#471 - 2016-03-07 10:29:34 UTC
I might have missed the answer and asked several times


Where does this put current player owned stations. Will they get same tax changes and how will it affect the services offered. My fear is ccp will change the fees, else player owned structures will be able to compete with citadels. Or ccp plans to tranfrom them into citadels which is unacceptable. I would like a clear answer too that specific subject
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#472 - 2016-03-07 10:58:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Anhenka wrote:

As far as what they are firing at, I'm kind of confused as to why you are using a t1 cruiser at over 150 KM as your basis for application stats. Are t1 cruisers expected to be the ideal attacker when seiging a structure with a minimum of 27 million shield EHP, and probably a hell of a lot more with the scripted resistance modules? http://i.imgur.com/4VH7301.jpg

If you could manage to cram 4 of those onto a Fortizar you would be looking at 132 million EHP in one defensive layer. Of which there are 3, although only shield and armor could probably be hardened.

Maybe the citadel will be ineffective against t1 cruisers by itself. I still rather doubt it will end up that way, but if that's actually the way the numbers go, we can run with it for now.

I've been using T1 cruisers because the current Meta in most places is Cruisers online, so a T1 cruiser is a sensible place to look at when talking about defences against subcapitals.
And a fleet of them are what is most likely to be encountered when not fighting one of the super rich super groups.
I also assumed no web because indications are CCP is designing the Ewar modules with much more ship type ranges rather than POS type ranges. Since they have scaled back the bonuses to be in line with ships.
So I wasn't assuming 150km+ but 40-60km as outside web range. If the webs are actually 150+ KM then yes, The application is a bit better, though still pretty weak.
Taking your 28k a volley, it is insignificant as soon as application comes into the question. It's not enough to break a basic logistics set up, it's not enough to break a marauders local tank, and with application issues it's barely enough to break a T1 cruisers local tank.

Sure, if defenders are added to the mix on a 1 to 1 basis it's fine, but if we are adding T2 cruisers in to specifically counter someone attacking with T1 cruisers as required for effective defence..... Then the citadels are too weak. A L citadel as far bigger and meant to be better defended than a L POS should be quite happy standing off a subcap fleet of 10-20 on it's own, not struggling to threaten T1 cruisers. And should also make 10 defenders a real challenge for 30 attackers.

Currently it is failing.
And while I do believe CCP are possibly going to change this up, now is the time to really hit them hard about it. not in another 2 months time when it's too late and we wasted time on 'they might make it better'

And for why this is so important, because the ability of the Citadel to defend itself, and to be defended by a small group against a larger group is critical to the success of Citadels as Markets and storage points for High Sec corps. If you have to field a 1 to 1 fleet against any attacker, and field a fleet as soon as 2 or 3 cruisers land on grid because the citadel can't deal with them on it's own, then they simply won't take off because it will be too easy for the larger groups to harass and blob anyone else. If they instead have good capabilities, then it's possible for them to see more use and take off.
Idame Isqua
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#473 - 2016-03-07 11:54:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Idame Isqua
This whole 5M every time you jump is ********, and you need to not do that please.
As are increasing NPC fees in general but to a lesser extent.

It shows how insecure CCP is about releasing citadels.
It shows how they think they might be a giant flop.

You can't force people into Citadels by ruining any other play style.

And your entire logic on this matter is screwed.

None is making anyone pay to install and maintain a clone bay.

If it costs 160M a month, that's what it god dam costs, I hate to go on a free market rant but seriously if you force people to play a certain way pay a certain way people will leave eve will loose its sandbox appeal.

The realistic explanation which CCP never gives, would be your still getting nagged at / regretting the stuff up that gave jump clones to the masses previously.
Which despite those people whispering in your ear, was a huge logical improvement to everyones lives.
Forcing people to grind PvE missions to gain a basic quality of life "my lifes better your lifes better eves better" function, was clearly a overly conceptual brain fart in the first place.

Just like the dscan "feature" was a "accident".

Making everyone support other peoples Citadel habits is screwed.

Also I missed the memo CCP is killing off FW from the game?
I probably should of read that memo as thats the only reason I have ever played eve,.
I have tried most other play styles but myself and many others (infact the majority of PvP'ers and therefore real content in Eve).
And woe behold if I'm forced to change my play style.
System control and station lock downs are the corner stone of FW.
If templis and rapid both move into citadels we will have nothing to fight over, which will result in 99% of eves PvP content disappearing over night.
O how sad Elise Randolf will be when he visits his favorite FW system and dosn't have me to shoot at.

Their will be nothing we want to fight over anymore
As god be dammed if I'm forced into structure gridings aka how nullsec was on top of existing FW mechanics.

Please explain.

Also while I'm here "We have made grids huge eve is awesome"- CCP
Meanwhile for people that actually play eve
Trying to maintain a cap chain of Templis Ospreys, Eves preeminent apex fleet, with the grid collapsing around pocos and gates is hardwork.
It also makes it hard work for our tackle when our enemies are skirting the fold on the grid.
Could you fix this very basic game play "feature"?

Or is this a very poorly conceived attempt at reducing inflation?

O and I forgot why I was hear in the first place, the eve launcher face planted and I had to strip everything out and reinstall it. Which was quite painless because baking up the shared cache and the client settings its easy to do, so theirs that.
Kaivar Lancer
Doomheim
#474 - 2016-03-07 12:23:51 UTC
Low sec traders will especially suffer under increased NPC broker fees.

1) Few entities will bother putting up a large citadel in low sec.
2) Of the few who do, you can bet your backside that they'll be NBSI. Even if they're not, as a neutral trader, you're at the complete mercy of the citadel defenders blapping you or not. Most traders will err towards caution and stay clear of citadels.
3) The only option left are NPC stations.
4) Since goods at NPC stations are going to cost more for customers, and profit margins reduced for traders, low sec trade can only decrease. Low sec hubs like Vlillirier will probably disappear and FW (and low sec in general) will suffer.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#475 - 2016-03-07 15:50:23 UTC
Axhind wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


If people ignore citadels markets then that will be evidence that the npc trading taxes have been set too low...


This is more a matter of CCP's philosophy than of CCP's science...

[...]

Personally, beating people with a stick is something CCP was told was awful when it affected Null. Obviously people believe that beating High and Low with a stick is somehow more acceptable...


Considering how OP NPC stations in low sec are I don't really see what the problem is with nerfing the ever living **** out of them. If you are such an elite PvP force I'm sure you can keep a citadel alive.


I don't see anyone mention elite PvP but you, so how exactly did that come into it?

But, since you're obviously looking for an argument: here it is.

Bring 50 guys for a mirror-match and we'll win. Bring 1250 guys vs our 250 [the 'All Lowsec shows up idea] and you'll win. Unless a Citadel is worth ~1250 players, (which it absolutely won't be) you're going to win every time. So that leaves us where?

My station in LS is a) undamageable, b) open to everyone, c) not a secure place to host a market, d) very lightly defended (against active criminals only).

My citadel is a) easily destroyable, b) open to my alliance and me) c) secure-ish, d) heavily defended.

The advantages of a station are advantages to everyone. The advantages of a Citadel are only there for a few.

So, what's it gonna be CCP? Ratting is now done majority in null-sec. We've seen what a success
 that has been. If your ecosystem is unhealthy, feed all space, not the fattest area.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#476 - 2016-03-07 16:03:11 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
If a 100 man mission running corp all donated an hour of time worth of ratting rewards, they could purchase a large Citadel egg. And an active 100 man corp could easily defend one too.

And the fears about nullsec groups storming in, declaring war on everyone else with a citadel and tearing them down to try an maintain control of Citadel markets? Total tinfoil. We are a lazy bunch. It's hard to get us to go bash towers or entosis systems in nullsec, much less heavily defended citadels in highsec.

That's enough to run a Citadel or POS, utilize labs and manufacturing, refining, and have enough people who can show up during the very short window in which a POS is vulnerable. Especially in highsec where it requires a war declaration to tear one down and the defender can call in allies. And even then, the attackers have to successfully siege the Citadel three times, and then only during the small predefined blocks that the owner sets. Seriously, the medium citadel is only vulnerable for 3 hours a week.

But me? I'm putting up a Fortizar (Large) citadel on day 1, with my 6 hour a week vulnerability window split between 06:00 and 09:00 Wednesday and Thursday. I don't honestly expect any hostility towards it. Because that would require someone to have a reason to kill it, and the strength to do so. Oh and a fleet of BS's that can take out 4-5 RR Sentry domis sitting under a structure capable of nearly instablapping a BS. Not concerned.



Know many 100 man mission running corps do you? How many of them are selfless and active PvPers?

Skipping over that fantastical idea, we'll touch on the idea that null-sec people don't bash PoSes because they're lazy. Not only is it demonstrably wrong, it is the anti-thesis of what actually happens. C02 came all the way from Tribute to bash 15 DT towers for no reward. Citadels have a guaranteed reward. Pretending that people won't bash them 'because it's too hard' is stupid.

Finally, I congratulate you on picking the least active time to set your vulnerability window. It's great there are only one or two groups who could pull a large enough fleet to kill a Citadel, and all of them are in nullsec. Congratulations again.

For the rest of us, CCP obviously believes leeching is the only form of medicine: bleed, bleed and bleed again. It didn't work in the past, and it won't work now.

Perhaps it's time for CCP to check which players have been unsubscribing, and which players, if any, have been resubscribing. Activity is going down measurably, and CCP should look at addressing that.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#477 - 2016-03-07 16:06:49 UTC
Well given how disgustingly powerful said citadel is and the losses they WILL incur hitting them, it is likely that trivial or assaults for the lols will be few and far between. This isn't like ganking an empty freighter for funsies, citadels have serious, serious teeth.

Plus in highsec you know 100% that it is safe to fit it as dedicated subcap killing monster as it's speciality because you can't hit it with caps.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#478 - 2016-03-07 16:18:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
Just a reminder to you Morrigan that we've not seen any playtesting of Highsec Citadels. If they get none of the AoE weapons, none of the 'good' launchers and none of the DDs, it's going to be a very different type of ballgame.

Anyway, a certain 7 billion drop is nothing to sneeze at.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#479 - 2016-03-07 16:25:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
In the spirit of CCP's incentives programme, I'd like to propose a modest, easy to implement solution to the Citadel issue.

Don't develop them.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#480 - 2016-03-07 16:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Rob Kaichin wrote:

Know many 100 man mission running corps do you? How many of them are selfless and active PvPers?

Skipping over that fantastical idea, we'll touch on the idea that null-sec people don't bash PoSes because they're lazy. Not only is it demonstrably wrong, it is the anti-thesis of what actually happens. C02 came all the way from Tribute to bash 15 DT towers for no reward. Citadels have a guaranteed reward. Pretending that people won't bash them 'because it's too hard' is stupid.

Finally, I congratulate you on picking the least active time to set your vulnerability window. It's great there are only one or two groups who could pull a large enough fleet to kill a Citadel, and all of them are in nullsec. Congratulations again.

For the rest of us, CCP obviously believes leeching is the only form of medicine: bleed, bleed and bleed again. It didn't work in the past, and it won't work now.

Perhaps it's time for CCP to check which players have been unsubscribing, and which players, if any, have been resubscribing. Activity is going down measurably, and CCP should look at addressing that.


The point was not that it had to be a 100 man mission running corp, the point was that it takes a relatively low amount of cooperative effort and contribution to pool enough to afford one.

A 15% tax on a 20 man mixed PvE/mining corp would pay for a large citadel in a month or two. And corps like that are a dime a dozen.

As for the whole tower bashing, A: Your towers are in lowsec, and thus don't require wardeccing your group to attack them, B: Can be attacked whenever someone wants, and not on your schedule, and C:

Co2 is soft in the head. Seriously, sandwiched between a blue region on one, side, a blue region on another side, and a sparsely inhabited region on the last, the only way they get anything to shoot is by traveling a long way for it. Your leadership probably managed to **** them off over some tiny trivial thing and then got crusaded in an effort to keep up player engagement. Rah rah narrative rah rah, they are big on that. Bad luck to you on that one.

But most of the nullsec groups have their hands full just dealing with stuff close to their own space, maybe fighting over losec moons within a couple cap jumps of them.

Citadels are still heavily guarded structures with double reinforcement timers, and the lowsec citadels look like they are going to pack some serious firepower with the guided bomb weapons. All those fun toys the highsec towers don't get.

My previous statements were mostly in context of highsec citadels though, I honestly don't know enough about the politics and sizes of lowsec groups outside of those near where I live.