Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Grr blobs. I have 16 accounts of which one single character is in SMA. They could literally come out and say "we're putting in citadels and banning anyone in the Imperium from owning one in highsec" and I'd still agree with these changes. Hell, I've wanted increase trading taxes and more trading risk as far back as I can remember caring even remotely about the market (which is far longer than my membership of SMA).

Amusingly you say "not everyone has a few billion to pay Tishu", but look at the size of tishu. If there was an Imperium citadel in highsec and people really wanted it gone, it would be. I think what scares you more is that Imperium would put up a reasonably priced citadel with no trick and make a fortune while people would be too busy benefiting from it to attack it.

But they won't be stealing anyone's isk. If they played tricks, people would recover their stuff to the same system - for free - and then not use the citadel, then they'd have a massive citadel doing nothing. It's in their their best interest to not do anything bad and reap the rewards of running a quality market hub.

No, it's really not, that's just you failing to understand how markets work.

No, like CCP I think they should be able to be owned and attacked by anyone, and it's up to players to decide who should have them. Yes, when people work together they achieve more and because of that and the utter lack of effort from people who hate us, the Imperium and groups like us are likely to thrive. There is no real reasonable way to twist game mechanics so that cooperation doesn't grant a benefit, but at the same time it doesn't take a giant to slay a giant, it takes a dude with a well placed stone. Unfortunately most people are too busy throwing stones at each other, at other stones, and strangely at themselves while screaming "CCP BAN GIANTS".

But they aren't manipulating it, they are changing some base fees, that is all. The market will have a quick flex and straighten itself out in no time.

Ok, maybe I was thinking of someone else. (I looked through the thread, but the search function sucks!)

1) It was 'total tax', not just broker's fees. (And if this were Reddit I could *so* easily point you to the comment.)

2) Most people aren't paying 0.1875% broker's fees, they're paying more. 0.9% was a figure someone raised as a 'lowest current tax rate'.

3) It wasn't a question of 'do you shift for this or that tax', it was a question of "would a tax decrease be an incentive to moving to Citadels", which we agree it would be.

Hence, there's a gap in which taxes can be lowered which is greater than 0. This is observable currently.



I wasn't aware that I was putting in any quantifiers on the list. I was saying that these things will happen. I wasn't saying "THIS WILL END NPC MARKETS", that's the other guys :P.




If we count the CFC as ~40,000 people, and presume them 'the strong', (I know this is wrong, but let's presume it's right), the revenue they would provide to CCP would be 40,000 x $130 = $5,200,000.

It appears that the costs of running the game are ~$30 million. So, with no 'weak', there are no 'strong'.

Problems with this: no public financial disclosure recently, dated analysis from 2014 and before, more than 40k 'strong'. My point is that the weak make the game possible, which I don't think can be disagreed with.

Anyway, can I just say how bloody hard it is to format a sensible answer in this forum.

OK, but sales tax will be the same and doesn't go to the citadel owner, so still irrelevant.

Most people trading anything resembling a regular basis will at lest have the skill which takes like 10 days tops to train, so 0.75%. The thing is, you're not talking about random louts on the market, you're talking about major market players, because if core traders don't move, the hub doesn't move. That's who has to be incentivised to move.

We agree that a tax decrease would be an incentive to move, but you seem to believe that any amount is an incentive, and what I'm saying is that it would need to be an amount that would be unachievable with the current system. I have thousands of open orders and you're having a laugh if you think I'm shifting them to save myself up to 0.1875%. Like £100 would be a good incentive to make me run a mile, £1.50 wouldn't.

Fair enough.

I think the problem here is we have wildly differing opinions of what the weak are. In the context of this thread, the weak are the ones who will huff and puff and ragequit if the change goes through and citadels start rolling out from null groups. I believe that would be a minimal number of players. The strong would be people who knuckle down and adapt to the change, be that through diplomacy or aggression.

@Anhenka

In my stupidly un-detailed post, I was presuming that 'non Goons' would be locked out from 'Goonswarm' citadel, and that this would be a drag due to harder logistics, limited market access,

I'm not saying there wouldn't be other access to a market, or that wouldn't be other ways to get replacement ships, just that the increased hoops to jump through would inhibit conflict against the owners of the Citadel.

I disagree with the idea that players would *want* their enemies to come to this proposed 'Highsec Citadel Jita' though. The difference in difficulties of Logistics between Pseudo-Jita and Pseudo-Dodixie are pretty large.

It doesn't? I thought that that was the point of the new Citadel? Shame.



I think this is a thing where you might be wrong: yes, the incentive to save 0.2% (rounding to save my sanity) is limited, but you've not included the incentive that is access to the 'louts' who sell to buy orders, underprice their crap and dump to the worst buy orders there are. If people do move to Citadels en masse, then the demand will be there for the traders to move as well. Even if there's no significant incentive for you personally.

I think people will move to Citadels just to avoid the taxes on PLEXes and the like, where it can be a large amount for a new/young player. (It was ~30 mil for me when I started, and PLEX prices have doubled? since then.) So, sure, for you personally, but for them , as a group, it will be attractive enough even with no tax increase.

(Gevlon's hatred of 'mouth breathing sell-to-buy-orders people' aside, it's a reasonable ISK maker.)



Yeah, I know it was a terribly flawed thing to say, but CCP needs some of the 'weak' less engaged to subsidies development for the 'strong'. It'd be nice if the 'weak' got some stuff developed for them too.

(And I'm still convinced Citadels will do fine without a tax increase for NPC stations.)

(Being less engaged isn't a bad thing, the thing I typed first was)

You need to stop with logical fallacies and fearmongering. Pro-sentiment is in majority and against sentiment is basically traders yearning to withhold on the current risk-free easy ISK making play style.

You have been called out on the fact that, so far, you have failed to give one logical, rational argument under this thread as to why making citadels trade hotspots is a bad idea, aside from the fact that you are going to lose your risk free, easy ISK making play style. If you aren't capable of that, the least you can do is to refrain from ad hominems.

They can start their own trade citadel, NPC stations will still exist. Ever heard of residual demand? Competition is a good thing and if an alliance wants to limit their customer base for a HS trade citadel that their problem.

With neutral noob corp alts this is a nonsensical post.

And alts in neutral HS corps.

Why not? There will be nothing stopping an alliance forming based on building a trade citadel. In fact that was my first thought on reading the propsed changes. A trade alliance might form. That would be quite interesting.

And damn you for making me like a post by Lucas.