Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Lol, narrow minded? Because I don't agree with you that there's nothing players can do to compete? You're suggesting that CCP are putting this change in for a single type of player. I'm the one pointing out multiple ways for people to benefit from the changes, adapt and compete. That really doesn't make me the narrow minded one.

How can I possibly "carry on" with something I've never said? It's your strawman buddy, you keep it.

Hopefully you mean "... of the game" because players like you are damaging to the community. EVE is about adapting and pushing through barriers and interacting with other players, not about sitting alone crying about how you can;t accomplish anything without effort.

I doubt it. Even if a group does dominate the market (which I can't see happening) most people will be completely unaffected by it. It's no difference to the vast majority of players who gets their brokers fees. The only thing it will guarantee is content, and has a fair change of seeing a spectacular outcome like the destruction of a major market hub and the fallout that follows. The only thing CCP need to address is he free asset recovery to the same system. This should not be free if the citadel is reinforced or destroyed, so if something like that does happen it has an impact of players who have their stuff there and thus adds a level of risk.

Hopefully the results of this system won't be a half assed structure mining system designed to give small groups of player ways to make large groups of players waste hours of their life structure mining. From the way they've described it, it looks pretty good so far.

I edited the post.

Remember, if *you* can't see any downsides, it *must* be fearmongering by the other side!

My point was that the market treats everyone equally (and anonymously!)

Is this the point where I point out that no-one has raised an argument why players *must* replace NPCs beyond 'it's cool', or 'that's what CCP has always done'?

We could do circles on this!

What is this ephemeral content that Citadels will provide?

Is it similar to POCOs? A short, sharp flare-up in activity, followed by a speedy decline to irrelevance. Look at the non-central regions where POCOs are often fought over: there simply aren't any left. They might be erected 2 or 3 times, but the return isn't there to keep putting them up. So they don't exist.

Where they do exist, they're often 'let's have a fight' arrangers. People don't use them for the PI, they're there for fighting.

Let me point out: Player Citadels replacing NPC stations is not "their roadmap". Their roadmap is: "more structures in space which can be constructed, controlled and destroyed by players." No mention there of "replacement", or anything like that.

Let's be clear, the idea of competition is a fig leaf. If every Eve player was a 'homo economicus', the move to Citadels would be total. The safety, low risk and low cost of Citadels is designed that way. If CCP were honest, they'd replace 'compete' without 'displace'.

Competing groups fighting over market share and attacking each others citadels. POCOs didn't have it because the income from a POCO is shockingly low, like the vast majority of the one's I've been able to see figures from earn less than 100m/month.

I'd have to watch the video to remind myself the wording, but I'm fairly sure when I was at fanfest that it was stated the goal was to put as much of the game into player's control as possible.

It's only a fig leaf if you've already given up the idea of competing. That's the problem, that people don't even want to try, they just assume they won't be able to compete and complain about that assumption.

Even if the major market hubs are hijacked by massive groups in an OTEC style blob (which I doubt will happen) there's still huge amounts of isk being traded in other areas all of which will be able to be catered to by other corporations. Then there's other features like science, industry, refining, compression, office space, clone jumping, etc all that can be player provided and will need to be quite localised. No group is going to be able to build and hold thousands of citadels in all the places they are needed, so there will be plenty of space for people to give it a try. The safety features allow you to do so, offering billions in assets on sale without as much worry of a big group stomping all over it just to steal it.

It was literally the first line of my post.

Edit: Lucas, I'm going to check some maths and get back with a response to 'thousands', which is just absurd.

Second Edit: just noticed that Eve market data has two Jitas, two Amarrs, 2 Dodixies and so on. This is a problem.

Third Edit: a whole bunch of these are repeated, and I don't know why =-/.

Trying to work out total Broker's fee incurred (given a whole bunch of presumptions) on the sell orders listed. Given the uselessness of this PC (2006 represent!), and the fact that it chugged copy/pasting data, this might be a 'give up' moment.

My aim was to compare incurred broker's fees with the cost of Citadels (it's entirely possible Gevlon's done this already), and then place exactly where a large or XL Citadel would be cost effective. Even on (knowingly inaccurate) data, there are ~5 systems where an XL citadel could earn its cost (150 bil) in broker's fees of 3.5%. (The same as the lowest station rate in future.) (Should the market be relisted in full.) (5 because Rens and Hek are kinda close.)

There are ~36 systems which will raise ~8 billion in broker's fees, hence paying for a large Citadel. There are 44 more systems which pay between ~4 and ~8 billion ISK. So I'm saying that *for market purposes*, those 80 systems are all that's worth Citadelling.

~38 of those are in empire space (bloody repeated stations mean it's probably more like ~20). They represent a large (if not controlling) proportion of all trade in Highsec. Then, I'd lay them out on an Eve map and plot where they were.

It looks like they're just the main missions hubs (or former hubs), so they're reasonably well distributed.

But yeah, anyway, there's no way there'll be "thousands" of market stations (though I realise that wasn't what you were meaning, but it looked worthwhile to explore for me). If someone or some coalition did decide to organise a Guild/whatever, 20 Citadels really isn't that hard to coordinate. Especially if you designate regions to their physically closest groups!

Well, I did say there were a lot of assumptions :P. In fact, I acknowledged pretty much all that you said.

I have to say, it's worth pointing out that those 25 (I counted in the end) systems are *the only ones worth Citadelling* if you want even half a return on your investment *from the market.* (Presuming all the things I mentioned earlier). If I was feeling really really peevish, (as CCP), I'd cancel all current market orders after Citadel. I'd redeem the taxes and stuff, and then get people to list them again. I'd transfer the market module to a different node to give a good reason. Then we could see exactly how the system will work.


But that's not going to happen.

Considering the lack of other attractors to Citadels, I wonder if CCP will hike the taxes at the start to get people into them, then lower them as the the other features are included..

Tearing down a POS in highsec is common practice if you don't have the resources to defend or if you don't have any running jobs. Particularly if you are using a small instead of a medium or a large.

I would like to make one distinction. Drago may not have the choice to use something that is a benefit because there is no opportunity given what he may be doing. You said Drago was overlooking benefits of citadels when maybe he wasn't because he couldn't take advantage of them.


I do not think we will agree on what EVE is, and I am fine with that. This is not the place for that debate.

I do not think it is "unreasonable" to say that the brokers fee is too high. Even the CSM thinks it is too high. I believe that brokers fees should rise, but this is too much.

Remember that "ensuring" content for players is very different than making content accessible. Most of the content in EVE is accessible even to single players. However, there are mechanics that reward groups so that single players can not compete in some areas. Trading is not an area that rewards playing in a group (its safer to handle all of your assets yourself). I understand your point of view, but not everyone wants to be required to join a group. Why do you feel that everyone must play according to your style in order to succeed?