These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#601 - 2016-03-10 00:29:43 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Niko Zino wrote:
[quote=Frostys Virpio]

Now take the smaller group that goes after your sov. They can't afford any of these solutions, not realistically, on top of their expected ship losses. So they won't even try. Less fights, market or pvp wise. Congratulations to the top dogs, they win eve and can rat all day, since there is no opposition. Is that a desirable outcome?


So you won't be able to contest SOV because you have to pay up to 6 mill per jump cone? That is the reason why you would stop going in fleet taking on large SOV owner. For a 6 mill jump clone fee per pilot?

Has been reduced to 900K according to the source

Source


I though it was still 5 to install but jumping had been reduced to ~1.

Oh well, guess people won't come to fight in null over 2 mill for a back and forth jump...
Niko Zino
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#602 - 2016-03-10 00:39:55 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Oh well, guess people won't come to fight in null over 2 mill for a back and forth jump...


What's in it for them? Don't you hand ships out for your deployments anyways (or have SRP which is basically the same thing)?
So right now, they'll join because why not. Then you'll have to convince them, by narrative or incentive.

Again, exact monetary amount aside, I think it's a shame to have to convince people to pay so that they can have fun with what you and I do to have fun. Sounds too much like work, not enough like a game.

CAS, the NPC Corp that Does Stuff™
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#603 - 2016-03-10 02:58:36 UTC
Niko Zino wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Oh well, guess people won't come to fight in null over 2 mill for a back and forth jump...


What's in it for them? Don't you hand ships out for your deployments anyways (or have SRP which is basically the same thing)?
So right now, they'll join because why not. Then you'll have to convince them, by narrative or incentive.

Again, exact monetary amount aside, I think it's a shame to have to convince people to pay so that they can have fun with what you and I do to have fun. Sounds too much like work, not enough like a game.


The fun of it? It's a game after all. If you don't have fun doing it, you won't do it even for free. If you like it, 2mill won't prevent you from doing it.

If you won't try it because of 2 mill? I will not feel sorry for you.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#604 - 2016-03-10 03:32:11 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Niko Zino wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Oh well, guess people won't come to fight in null over 2 mill for a back and forth jump...


What's in it for them? Don't you hand ships out for your deployments anyways (or have SRP which is basically the same thing)?
So right now, they'll join because why not. Then you'll have to convince them, by narrative or incentive.

Again, exact monetary amount aside, I think it's a shame to have to convince people to pay so that they can have fun with what you and I do to have fun. Sounds too much like work, not enough like a game.


The fun of it? It's a game after all. If you don't have fun doing it, you won't do it even for free. If you like it, 2mill won't prevent you from doing it.

If you won't try it because of 2 mill? I will not feel sorry for you.

But if discourages PvP. Every time you make the optimal decision equal sitting in a learning clone instead of switching to a PvP clone you have got the game design wrong. This is bad.

Either get rid of attribute implants or scrap the charges.

I have no problem with a cost being associated with (eg) switching from slaves to snakes. But charging people for leaving their training clone is absolutely terrible game design.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#605 - 2016-03-10 04:09:52 UTC
Zappity wrote:

But if discourages PvP. Every time you make the optimal decision equal sitting in a learning clone instead of switching to a PvP clone you have got the game design wrong. This is bad.

Either get rid of attribute implants or scrap the charges.

I have no problem with a cost being associated with (eg) switching from slaves to snakes. But charging people for leaving their training clone is absolutely terrible game design.

That's a problem with learning clones & attributes in general, not clone jump costs, and as such can't be solved in a thread on NPC taxes.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#606 - 2016-03-10 04:22:05 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Zappity wrote:

But if discourages PvP. Every time you make the optimal decision equal sitting in a learning clone instead of switching to a PvP clone you have got the game design wrong. This is bad.

Either get rid of attribute implants or scrap the charges.

I have no problem with a cost being associated with (eg) switching from slaves to snakes. But charging people for leaving their training clone is absolutely terrible game design.

That's a problem with learning clones & attributes in general, not clone jump costs, and as such can't be solved in a thread on NPC taxes.

Of course it belongs in this thread. They are adding to the problem by charging people every time they want to jump clone.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#607 - 2016-03-10 05:31:45 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Either get rid of attribute implants or scrap the charges.


But there's nothing wrong with attribute implants. There's something wrong with the jump clone system. Don't cut off your nose in spite of your face.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#608 - 2016-03-10 06:26:33 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Either get rid of attribute implants or scrap the charges.


But there's nothing wrong with attribute implants. There's something wrong with the jump clone system. Don't cut off your nose in spite of your face.


Attribute implants are the spawn of satan. That is all.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#609 - 2016-03-10 06:34:57 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Either get rid of attribute implants or scrap the charges.


But there's nothing wrong with attribute implants. There's something wrong with the jump clone system. Don't cut off your nose in spite of your face.


Attribute implants are the spawn of satan. That is all.

This is accurate. And what's more, the devs have said that they want to get rid of them.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#610 - 2016-03-10 06:55:29 UTC
Somehow I doubt that they will now. You can make up for suboptimal training speeds by buying skill injectors now, after all.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#611 - 2016-03-10 07:07:40 UTC
Zappity wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Either get rid of attribute implants or scrap the charges.


But there's nothing wrong with attribute implants. There's something wrong with the jump clone system. Don't cut off your nose in spite of your face.


Attribute implants are the spawn of satan. That is all.

This is accurate. And what's more, the devs have said that they want to get rid of them.


Which would be a terrible idea. Attributes are terrible. Remaps are terrible. Get rid of both, and implants become the new "remaps". Attribute implants are great. If there's a psychological problem with them, we address that with the players. There's no gameplay problem with implants.

The problem is the barriers with jump clones. Jump clones have very strict barriers set in place that no longer need to exist. If we fixed jump clones and removed some more barriers with them, nobody would have to complain about implants (attribute or skill hardwire) because they'd be able to access them at need.

I've said it before, it bears repeating here. Jump clones need to be iterated upon akin to jump ranges. But instead of lightyears being the measure for cooldown, we measure stargate jumps between source and destination. The game already measures that for various purposes, so there's no new coding required on that front.

Keeping it simple: each jump between source and destination adds eight hours of cooldown (we can debate numbers, but for starters...), up to the max of 24 hours (same star system = no cooldown). We currently have a skill already in the game to reduce cooldown. If you train that to level five, that brings each jump down to three hours per, up to the max of 24 hours. That's still more strict than jump drive fatigue, and it allows people to switch out clones a lot quicker so they can freely use whatever implants they need.

Devs may get rid of attribute implants in the future, but they do so in spite their face. You don't prop up a bad system with other bad systems. You fix it and stop using "but we have other bad systems in place!" as an excuse to keep another bad system in place.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Niko Zino
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#612 - 2016-03-10 08:17:09 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Niko Zino wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Oh well, guess people won't come to fight in null over 2 mill for a back and forth jump...


What's in it for them? Don't you hand ships out for your deployments anyways (or have SRP which is basically the same thing)?
So right now, they'll join because why not. Then you'll have to convince them, by narrative or incentive.

Again, exact monetary amount aside, I think it's a shame to have to convince people to pay so that they can have fun with what you and I do to have fun. Sounds too much like work, not enough like a game.


The fun of it? It's a game after all. If you don't have fun doing it, you won't do it even for free. If you like it, 2mill won't prevent you from doing it.

If you won't try it because of 2 mill? I will not feel sorry for you.


This is pointless. Everytime I argue money - because noobs are my crowd, and 2M can be considered a lot of monies for them, or for me if I have to pay the fee for 100 pilots on the game time I use for myself rather than them -, someone argues psychology (but paying 2mil to have fun is NOTHING!!!), and every time I argue psychology - and I think that the effect is psychological, not so much monetary -, someone will argue money (if you feel bad about spending 2M, suck it up).

Either way, good job, you made a point! check that off your bucket list.

It still doesn't address the issue that for newbie oriented groups, it's less fun and more work. And if you don't want people trying to vary their eve life, and in my particular case don't want them as fresh blood for YOUR pvp, there is something wrong with the way you look at things, imo.

CAS, the NPC Corp that Does Stuff™
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#613 - 2016-03-10 08:29:13 UTC
Niko Zino wrote:
As an aside, I'm flabbergasted that most of the people advocating against the change tend to say variations on the "it doesn't affect me much personnally, but here's a list of people and mechanics it will upset", while most people in favor of the change tend to say "it doesn't affect me much so it can't be that bad". I have yet to see someone pointing at anything that can be construed as positive for the game as a whole. I just can't see that being a good sign.



The majority of people saying 'it won't be that bad' are the same people who stand to gain the most from expulsion of players to their citadels: look at their alliances and corps to see exactly who I mean.

If you want a "it does affect me and here's who it will also upset", here it is.

I jump clone regularly, roughly once a day. I'm not going to ever put expensive clones in a Citadel just because the process of removing clones as a player is hard, and the process for destroying my clones (about which I can do nothing) is so easy.

This is a tax on my activity in the game, just because CCP wishes a Citadel to be the only, best way for players to live.

I did my grinding for Jump Clones and I enjoyed it. It isn't often PVE gives direct, real advantages for players which can't be replicated by PVP action. It was a real motivator. Of course, CCP then caved into the whining crowds and gave everyone access to the thing I had grinded for. (Considering they failed to break the 'have a standing corp, get a free jump clone' system that null-sec alliances cheated with, it's nice to see exactly who they're playing for right now.)

And now I'm being taxed for something I previously got for free.

So what this is a punishment for previous activity, a tax on current and future activity and an incentive not to play all rolled into one thing!

Good job CCP, really convincing me to keep playing right now...
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#614 - 2016-03-10 08:58:29 UTC
Niko Zino wrote:

This is pointless. Everytime I argue money - because noobs are my crowd, and 2M can be considered a lot of monies for them, or for me if I have to pay the fee for 100 pilots on the game time I use for myself rather than them -, someone argues psychology (but paying 2mil to have fun is NOTHING!!!), and every time I argue psychology - and I think that the effect is psychological, not so much monetary -, someone will argue money (if you feel bad about spending 2M, suck it up).

Either way, good job, you made a point! check that off your bucket list.

It still doesn't address the issue that for newbie oriented groups, it's less fun and more work. And if you don't want people trying to vary their eve life, and in my particular case don't want them as fresh blood for YOUR pvp, there is something wrong with the way you look at things, imo.



It's in their interests to flood the thread with circular arguments and anti-logic. It inhibits the 'constructive feedback' CCP is looking for, which might change their minds.

The changes are deliberately harmful, intended to destroy NPC station trading and living just so CCP can call the expansion a success.

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#615 - 2016-03-10 09:22:00 UTC
Everybody in the station will have the same transaction costs (more or lrss) as you do. And if there is a nearby citadel which is out-competing the station just move your stuff and sell there instead.

You could even set one up yourself...

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#616 - 2016-03-10 09:40:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
Zappity wrote:
Everybody in the station will have the same transaction costs (more or lrss) as you do. And if there is a nearby citadel which is out-competing the station just move your stuff and sell there instead.

You could even set one up yourself...



I live in Lowsec, and no amount of punishment is going to move me out of an NPC station, unless it becomes physically impossible to live there (in which case, I'm quitting.)

DT has ~600 characters, of which ~300 are real people. We can muster ~100 people in fleet on our best day.

100 people + 1 XL Citadel just won't be enough to counter the ~1000 players a CFC attack can bring. That's the simple truth. My assets won't be safe, nor will they be defensible. So, really, as an alliance we've dropped ISK on a 70 billion loot piñata that's impractical and burdensome. Even better, it's something we'll have to build another of to get our super/titans out...

So market taxes punishments and jump clone punishments are never going to move me or my alliance out into a citadel, and basic logic tells us that. Safety is the only consideration.

And the argument is repeated with mediums and larges. There's no point using a citadel because the downside are greater than the punishments of living in an safe NPC station will ever be.



So, CCP, that raises the question: if we're never going to move, why punish us? That's essentially what the changes will be: a 'We don't like how you want to play, so you should suffer' declaration.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#617 - 2016-03-10 10:02:50 UTC
These seem like some pretty terrible changes.

Could we have some kind of justification for them, because it's difficult to give constructive feedback to changes like these when it's unclear what the designer was attempting to achieve with them.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#618 - 2016-03-10 10:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Rob Kaichin wrote:

100 people + 1 XL Citadel just won't be enough to counter the ~1000 players a CFC attack can bring. That's the simple truth. My assets won't be safe, nor will they be defensible.
Your assets are 100% safe. This is a major feature of citadels. In fact, CCP Nullarbor seems to be leaning towards removing even the 10% asset recovery fee in Empire space. And we haven't even seen the final balancing on how strong these structures will be and you are already declaring them indefensible.

Yes, you will have to defend your citadel. And yes, someone bigger than you might knock it over. But if the worst happens, your stuff will magically appear in a nearby NPC station a few days later, intact and probably without any cost to you.

NPC stations will continue to exist. If you or your corp are too timid to risk deploying a structure, that is your choice, but don't begrudge other groups braver than you are willing to take the moderate risk for the significant benefits these citadels will offer.

It's nice to see CCP finally restoring some risk vs. reward back to the game after years of just making everything safer and easier.

But to the OP, I see two major problems from my perspective which will prevent the majority of trading moving into citadels: contracts and CREST market data. My understanding is both of these will not be available on launch for citadel markets. Many traders rely on contracts to move goods, and most serious traders use the API market data to guide their trades. Lack of both will keep professional traders in NPC stations for the time being.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#619 - 2016-03-10 10:48:28 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:


NPC stations will continue to exist. If you or your corp are too timid to risk deploying a structure, that is your choice, but don't begrudge other groups braver than you are willing to take the moderate risk for the significant benefits these citadels will offer.

It's not brave if you are the biggest group in the game or pay them protection money to put up a structure knowing you can outblob the other guy. Don't try and paint it as such.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#620 - 2016-03-10 10:50:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
Black Pedro wrote:
Your assets are 100% safe. This is a major feature of citadels. In fact, CCP Nullabor seems to be leaning towards removing even the 10% asset recovery fee in Empire space. And we haven't even seen the final balancing on how strong these structures will be and you are already declaring them indefensible.

Yes, you will have to defend your citadel. And yes, someone bigger than you might knock it over. But if the worst happens, your stuff will magically appear in a nearby NPC station a few days later, intact and probably without any cost to you.

NPC stations will continue to exist. If you or your corp are too timid to risk deploying a structure, that is your choice, but don't begrudge other groups braver than you are willing to take the moderate risk for the significant benefits these citadels will offer.

It's nice to see CCP finally restoring some risk vs. reward back to the game after years of just making everything safer and easier.



It's nice to see a highsec ganker tell me about timidity, risk and reward when he engages in an activity which has no risk, only cost.

Viz. 'final balancing', it's a matter of logic:
  • CCP intends these structures to be destroyed, otherwise there's no reason in allowing people to shoot them.
  • A CFC attack of ~1000 ships is the upper limit of organisation that we've seen so far. If an XL Citadel can defend against that easily, then they're effectively indestructible.
  • CCP's initial numbers don't allow a fleet to defend against an attack by 1000 ships.

    • So, it follows that the XL Citadel won't make such a defence possible.

    At which point, it comes down to an economic question: will my Citadel which costs me ~70 billion ISK provide ~70 billion ISK's worth of 'value'?

    I don't see a quote from CCP Nullabor on no asset recovery fee, but let me remind you: Supers and Titans will be locked in the wreck. Clones are destroyed. Industry jobs will drop the materials. Rigs and Service modules are destroyed. (And none of that mentions the massive time cost of Market seeding, or shipping multiple billion m3 of ships and assets into the new citadel.)

    Even if all assets are safe, it's still worth ~10 bil and strategic denial of Titans to kill the XL.

    Finally, try and enumerate to me the 'significant advantages' a Citadel brings. Are any of them worth the cost of losing a Citadel?

    Edit: and I just noticed that XL rigs are going to cost ~80 billion ISK according to the Dev blog. So now a Citadel needs to provide ~150 billion ISK's worth of value...