These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Citadel] Updates to NPC taxes and refining rig bonuses

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#81 - 2016-05-02 11:56:14 UTC
Regnar Avastum wrote:


In theory yes in practice no. Please provide the exact % tax from estimated value. I have done multiple tests with various ore types and couldn't figure it out.

Get standing greater than 6.7 with the corp that owns the station, pay 0 tax.
Not sure anyone ever bothered actually establishing the exact formula for calculating the tax when what really mattered was the point it reached zero. If it was listed it was probably of evelopedia and now gone. It started at 5% with 0 standings though.
Regnar Avastum
#82 - 2016-05-02 13:03:40 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Regnar Avastum wrote:


In theory yes in practice no. Please provide the exact % tax from estimated value. I have done multiple tests with various ore types and couldn't figure it out.

Get standing greater than 6.7 with the corp that owns the station, pay 0 tax.
Not sure anyone ever bothered actually establishing the exact formula for calculating the tax when what really mattered was the point it reached zero. If it was listed it was probably of evelopedia and now gone. It started at 5% with 0 standings though.


The old formula for reprocessing: http://eve-industry.org/export/IndustryFormulas.pdf

Example of the current reprocessing: http://postimg.org/image/k51opu029/

The old 5% tax applied as ISK tax with comparison to the real cost: http://postimg.org/image/4klkr6s41/

♔ ℜegnar's High-End Spreadsheets ♔™
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#83 - 2016-05-02 13:20:55 UTC
Regnar Avastum wrote:


The old formula for reprocessing: http://eve-industry.org/export/IndustryFormulas.pdf

Example of the current reprocessing: http://postimg.org/image/k51opu029/

The old 5% tax applied as ISK tax with comparison to the real cost: http://postimg.org/image/4klkr6s41/

Now try hovering over that 63 isk and seeing what it tells you the breakdown is?
It's certainly in the vicinity of things anyway.
Resgo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#84 - 2016-05-02 18:16:51 UTC
Fozzie, I understand increasing taxes as an ISK sink for the game. Increasing the broker's fee doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That discourages people from putting items on the market in bulk and ties up their funds as well as their items. Also a lot of what occurs on the market involves the .000000001 isk game. Why not consider performing the following changes:

Decrease the up front broker tax to a much lower amount. Maybe .25 percent.

Apply a similar charge for changing the price of listed items or for canceling the market listing ahead of schedule. This both discourages constant 1 isk battles and also puts a real cost for doing it.

Significantly increase the sales tax for once an item that is sold. Perhaps start it at 5 percent before skills/standings.

You want to encourage people to list items and greater quantity makes things more about supply and demand rather than .0000001 isk differences.
Darkwing Fiftytwo
Hookers N' Blow
#85 - 2016-05-03 13:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Darkwing Fiftytwo
Someone commented on a complete overhaul, while not the worst idea its not necessarily required.

There are however some mechanics that they can correct using the stock market as a basis and example.

For example: If the best bid on a stock is $100. And I put in a sell order for $1.00, the trade does not go thru at $1.00, it hits the best bid of $100 and a trade occurs.

Also the minimum unit should be removed or adjusted so that you cant make your minimum quantity equal to some absurb amount of isk. Removes market fraud.

EDIT: I also agree with the guy above me. You can set the minimum tick quantities so that everything is 0.00001 isk.

For stuff priced 0-100 isk use 0.01, 100-1000, use 0.10, for 1000-10,000 use 1 isk, etc etc

for 1B items you should have 1mm increments to post orders.
KEYSTYLES
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2016-05-08 02:04:25 UTC
With EVE being so heavily based on the market, what is the thought behind actively trying to decrease market efficiency? The centralized hub(s) is the reason the market works and is the fundamental back bone of why the game is fun to play for the masses. Think for just a second what this game would look like without Jita (and amarr, rens,etc)... no one wants to spend that much time trying to find all the parts to a ship that is going to get blown up in a mater of hours. I'm just getting back into this game again, ccplease don't break it
Lugh Crow-Slave
#87 - 2016-05-08 18:09:22 UTC
doesn't help that it looks like L citadels are going to settle around 18 bill not the 7b ccp talked about. so there is not going to be as many player markets.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Jitaprice071
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#88 - 2016-05-12 19:07:40 UTC
i completly agree with removing this new tax system,maybe making a new one, why not.

because nothing happened like ccp planned.

Jita is the Heart of Eve, it's also a 13 years-old reflex.

Market is now up and down, even some people seems to be not aware of the new huge tax applied and loose a lot of money
-and make others loose a lot of money too-,producers placing sell orders look like livestock smelling apocalypse.

My job, hub traders, will disappears. Until now, we offered logistic comfort. removing it could seriously affect all players' intention to go on.
Djangus Khant
FARMHOUSE GIRLS
#89 - 2016-05-23 01:03:20 UTC
How is EVE taking more isk a good thing?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#90 - 2016-05-23 05:11:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Jitaprice071 wrote:
i completly agree with removing this new tax system,maybe making a new one, why not.

because nothing happened like ccp planned.

Jita is the Heart of Eve, it's also a 13 years-old reflex.

Market is now up and down, even some people seems to be not aware of the new huge tax applied and loose a lot of money
-and make others loose a lot of money too-,producers placing sell orders look like livestock smelling apocalypse.

My job, hub traders, will disappears. Until now, we offered logistic comfort. removing it could seriously affect all players' intention to go on.


it has help with production i can now make more if i build from scratch rather than just working with the most valuable link in the chain.



But seriously CCP not only can i not Tax compression but so long as i have a refinery i can't block ppl from using it? if they can dock it can be used. This is just dumb and i really wish i could here the argument to why i can't tax a service in my citadel.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Syss7
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#91 - 2016-05-31 17:55:41 UTC
This seems the appropriate forum for this question.

It doesn't appear the the Citadel is taking the RX-804 implant into processing consideration. Is anyone else seeing this issue? Maybe I'm missing something.
Baumarkt
#92 - 2016-06-01 14:33:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Baumarkt
Is it possibile to show more Details in the Wallet-log from wich citdell the reprocessing/Market Tax is comming, ist really confusing if you own more than one to know wich is really profitable.....

BTW. in the Managing Window for Structures should be more functions like Change Names Remote, Shield armor hull status, ppl docked, refining efficiency....

And why ther is no Trade and Contracts aviable???
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2016-06-01 15:56:47 UTC
Remove tax from wormhole and null sec citadels!

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Baumarkt
#94 - 2016-06-01 16:12:12 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Remove tax from wormhole and null sec citadels!


Why they should? Talkt to the owners its their decision...
The Citadells have to get payed, the purchase and online costs....
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2016-06-02 06:04:39 UTC
Baumarkt wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Remove tax from wormhole and null sec citadels!


Why they should? Talkt to the owners its their decision...
The Citadells have to get payed, the purchase and online costs....


I'm talking about the mandatory transaction tax, not the brokers fee.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Kuekuatsheu
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2016-06-05 11:45:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuekuatsheu
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The currently planned market tax values are:

3% Broker’s Fee
  • Reduced to 2.5% with skills and 2% with both skills and max NPC standings
  • Is sunk from the game in NPC stations, is paid to owners in outposts, is customizable and paid to owners in Citadels
  • Skills and standings don’t apply in player structures
Broker’s fee formula: 3% brokers fee - ([Broker Relation skill level]0.1 + [Faction Standing level]0.03 + [Corp Standing level]*0.02)

2 % Transaction Tax
  • Reduced to 1 % with max skills
  • Is sunk from the game in all locations and is not customizable

We intend to tweak these taxes further at a later point after contracts have been added to citadels. The exact values of that next round of tweaks would depend on the metrics after this first release.

Thanks for the change, love you Fozzie!
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2016-06-28 06:41:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec.
You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game.



I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists.

His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more"

With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future.


I absolutely did not say that, although I can understand if you misheard me or misunderstood.

I said that we need to make the changes that are best for the game as a whole; and that although almost all change will cause at least some people to leave the game, good changes will result in more players overall.

And like I told you at the party, if you do decide to quit over this I wish you the very best in the future and want you to know that you're always welcome back if you choose.

I realize that I personally don't know you, Fozzie, but in my in game career here with Eve, I've seen you apparently get 'misquoted' like this quite regularly.

Don't get me wrong, I feel it's a healthy attitude for a business to realize that while no matter what you do, some customers will go, only to be replaced by others....

It just seems to me that quite often, you personally apparently get misquoted to extremes about such things fairly often.