Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

...People really need to calm down in this thread...
As a "Highsec carebear" who does nothing but mission running and industry I kinda fail to see how these changes will bring Ragnarok to the world of EVE Online.
Sure NPC station trading taxes are gonna be higher than citadels because they are, as long as you know what to do when your trading, prety much a MAXIMUM safety isk making activity.
Why would you ever do any kind of trading in a citadel when the Risk in one is higher than a NPC one? The answer is that you would never do that.
Wich is why CCP had to increase the taxes.
And like the "Big Guys" have said, why would they ever lock anyone out of a citadel when it would mean that they would gain less money form doing such a thing?
Sure the thought of giving my money to someone else dosent really make me feel happy, but lets be honest here. If EVE was real, we would kinda already be giving a bit of our earnings to the NPC people.
So why the shift from NPC to player is aperantly Raganrok to some people I will never know.

And the people who say that they can be locked out and lose a bunch of things need to start reading the god damn dev blogs and they would have found out that as long as the citadel is in the same system as a npc station they can use asset safety to move their things out of that citadel for free.
If there is one thing i dont like its when people dont know what they are talking about becazuse they where lasy and dident read things they probably should have

and if this post was write poorly, sry im kinda drunk of sleeping medecine right now and its 02:44 as im writing this message

You don't have to be double taxed put up and fund your own citadel or pos

And no the only time there is risk hauling in a dst is if you are auto piloting or don't scout outside low sec asking to be able to tax the services I provide is not unreasonable

What buy orders? The louts won;t move if the market doesn't. They are selling instantly, so they don't have brokers fees anyway, so they have no reason to move, and if the big market players don't move, there won't be any orders based there.

Maybe, but again I doubt there will be a massive push to move there from core traders who make up the bulk of plex sales.

True, but the bulk of the game is built around people putting in effort, not people unwilling to do so.

That won't work, because you'll have a button you can click which will simply relocate your stuff to a station in the same system for nothing. If you don't want a nullsec group profiting, then you have to stop them and profit yourself. CCP can't just avoid changes that might benefit null groups because they'd have to avoid pretty much every change. At some point players need to stand up for themselves.

Surely the trade alliance would set up the citadel though, so this change gives them more power to do that. A trade alliance without citadels wouldn't be of much use, which is why they don't really exist right now.

You know that asset recovery only kicks in, when the Citadel gets destroyed? Also the blog still states, you have to pay 10% in order to redeem your stuff into an NPC station instead of a Citadel even in the same system. So if the Citadel owner wants to be nice to you, he can just lock you out of your assets (remove docking and trading rights, or increase fees for you with same effect), and then good luck destroying the citadel to get your stuff back. I would totally do it, create a "serious" local market hub and after traders have settled in ... if I can get a few trillion in ransom.

These are both false. Asset recovery can be initiated at any time and does not require the destruction of citadel (as stated on Reddit). Also, asset recovery to the same system is free (as stated in this thread), and CCP Nullarbor is considering making it free even to another system in Empire space (discussed on Slack) so stationless systems are not at a disadvantage.

All of this wild talk about getting mass booting out of a trade citadel isn't going to happen. Why would I as a PL trade hub operator wan't to remove the entire population of the north east of null sec from my customers?

Well, if you can trade Titans on the open market, I don't see why you'd want to trade them to your enemies...

Unless PL's stopped competing with the CFC on titan numbers, which kinda sinks the game. After all, if everyone has stopped competing, the game has bigger problems.

Unsurprisingly, I knew that. I figured that was obvious too...

I try to summarize why the opportunity to set trade citadels is worse than Incarna. Please try to disprove them:

Option A: someone (a coalition, an alliance, anybody) will get domination of the Perimiter trade citadel. Only his citadel stands and all others are broken down. Everyone else has given up. This case this someone earns about 30T/month. As the total ISK of EVE is 948T, this means that in 15 months he'll have more ISK than everyone else combined. 30T is also about the money that all ratters combined earn, so even if the rest of EVE would unite against him, he couldn't be out-earned. From this money he can obviously pay an undefeatable army. For example he can give out a PLEX to 20000 F1 pushers and still has 8T to RMT away. The game is over, he won, everyone else lost.

Option B: no one gains domination and fighting between groups ensues for the domination. This case EVE is not destroyed, but reduced to Perimiter fights. Every time the citadels of the contestants are vulnerable, 6VDT-style battle happens, with 10K participants and nothing ever happens anywhere else. Of course, unless there is some conspiracy or CCP intervention, someone will get the upper hand and win, returning to option A.

I'd like to clarify, that I don't care about the size of the broker fee or sales tax, as all my competitors pay the same. CCP sets whatever they need to balance sinks vs faucets. The disastrous thing is the option to hijack this enourmous ISK and get into someone's hand. I'd suggest to disallow setting the broker fee on citadels lower than NPC minimum + 0.5% (4% broker fee with current numbers). So people can set up their trade citadels and get the broker fees, but Jita is cheaper. This way only blues could be persuaded to use the citadel to help the alliance, while neutrals will go to Jita. Alliances could also give discounts from their own production to lure people to their citadel, for example Goons selling moongoo on Goon citadel 0.5% cheaper than Jita, so people go there, this way they keep the broker fee. That's fair too. This would allow alliances to capitalize on their members and production, but not on the members and production of all EVE.

It's not really that easy to disprove conjecture until the events actually occur (or fail to) but I'll take a crack.

Well first off there's the 30T. Where is this figure from? It's pretty much in line with what you get if you take the market share of the forge region, divide the total brokers fee of february by that, then multiply it by the factor of the increase in brokers fee. While that sounds fine on paper, it makes multiple assumptions:
1. That all trade in the whole of the forge will move to this one citadel
2. That there are no associated costs to running the citadel
3. That the tax on the citadel will be about the same as an NPC station.

When you consider that a lot of people won't move, either because it's not worth it to them, because they don't like the additional risk, because they don't agree with the citadel owner, and you consider that even to entice people who would move you'd have to set the fees a hell of a lot lower than NPC fees, the amount that is realistically likely to be earned drops substantially. If someone manages to pull that all off, they deserve to be richer than the rest of the playerbase, because they've won EVE anyway.

Your tinfoil theories that they'll then RMT it away don't really need to be addressed, but let's just say I imagine someone earning 8T per month would be quite heavily scrutinised by CCP. Again though, if they manage it well done them.

This sounds like content, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Traders would be unlikely to shift to the citadels if they were under constant heavy fire so I imagine we'd just be trading from NPC stations.

You also missed option C though, that multiple groups would set up multiple citadels dotted around and trade locations would diversify based on competitive fees and alliance affiliations. As usual your problem is that you've come up with a couple of conclusions and decided that they are the only likely outcomes, when the reality is there's hundreds of outcomes we haven't even considered.

You certainly seem to care, and it will make your style of trading more difficult as you appear to do more grindy trading than anything else.

Why would they do that? the whole idea is they want to encourage people to move to citadels, and I imagine in the long run NPC stations will be for the most part decommissioned.

To be honest is sounds like your problem is that you realise that if someone does manage to capitalise on it, it won't be you. There's no reason mechanically why it couldn't be you, but as you refuse to cooperate with others you won't be able to achieve it. I think that's why you dislike goons too, because they can leverage additional players to achieve more than you can achieve solo, and by EVE being a multiplayer sandbox, the direction they are taking the game in is rewarding more social playstyles (as well it should) and you don't like that. I think that you'd prefer if it were like WoW that a solo player can achieve just as much by exploiting randoms as players in organised groups, but that doesn't work as well here. If you were to sit down, drop your bias and objectively look at the changes and how they will affect the game as a whole, you'd see them as pretty positive changes that should create some pretty entertaining content.