These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Player Owned Customs offices in Hi-Sec

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gabriel Locke
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2013-10-02 09:17:26 UTC
Everyone ever wrote:

Abloobloobloo, the GEWNS will take all my stuff.


Having to form up a fleet and deploy to some Highsec backwater every time a bunch of neckbeards want lower PI taxes? Replacing structures all over the universe until Logistics start crying? Yeah, that sounds like a huge amount of fun for a Nullsec alliance.

The only reason I can see for the dreaded Goons going for highsec POCO conquest would be if it made highsec carebears cry in an amusing fashion... OH WAIT, YOU'RE DOING IT ALREADY.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#262 - 2013-10-02 09:26:36 UTC
There are no Goonswarm POCOs in hisec and the wretches are already wailing. Goddamn.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#263 - 2013-10-02 09:48:25 UTC
I want to congratulate biggest alliances with new source of free money. I guess it's time to invest into nanite paste before PI prices skyrocketed.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#264 - 2013-10-02 09:54:14 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
Woo! Feedback time :)

Ahem. *cough cough*

Blink

Seriously, the CSM is also looking forward to hearing player feedback on this one, particularly on the "null-sec take-over of high-sec POCOs" question that's already come up on page one. Can high-sec entities make it more trouble than it's worth to GSF or other null-sec entities to defend against reinforced POCOs over and over again? Or will the cost of the war-dec itself be the primary shield?


If not for the giant war dec fee it would be an excellent feature. The idea of a guerrilla warfare campaign of attrition against GSF (or whatever other nullsec outfit decided to claim hisec customs hegemony) would be something worth playing actively again for, and definitely a reason for hisec wars - But NOT at 500m isk per week pay to play. The profits from PI simply don't come close to making it worth the time and effort. You'd have to be destroying a dozen enemy customs offices a week to make it even and that's not small scale warfare really.

Its the specter of the wardec system that soundwave and soniclover delivered returning to make hisec POCOs an unbalanced feature that will only benefit entities so large as to have an inflated wardec fee which is their strongest shield against attack in this way.



The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#265 - 2013-10-02 10:00:36 UTC
Andre Vauban wrote:
I am not a big fan of requiring you to declare war to take down a POCO. This gives a unfair advantage to large alliances, where the war dec fee is 500M. At that price point, it is not worth it to try and nibble away POCOs. I would prefer anybody can shoot a POCO at anytime and they get a suspect timer.


This would work too. Just use the code for the new deployable structures and make hisec POCO's things you just get flagged for shooting. Lets everyone play. Not as good as revisiting the ridiculous wardec fees mind, but it would be a band-aid on the problem.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#266 - 2013-10-02 10:12:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Chamile Eonic wrote:
Can anyone explain why we need to be at war with the owner of the POCO?

From a game mechanics point of view it makes it much harder for small corps to get involved in the whole POCO bashing thing. While big groups can fight over them until Goons own the majority, wouldn't it be more interesting to have everyone fighting over them?

I assume there is something I am missing to explain why the wardec is needed.



This actually protects the little guys.

If you didn't have to be at war, a large alliance could simply roll through highsec willy-nilly destroying POCO's. By forcing them to wardec each POCO owner they wish to nab, they have to spend time and prepare for the assault. This allows a little guy to call in allies, to setup defense fleets, etc. Furthermore, you could conceivable control 10 planets in a system, each under the ownership of a distinct corp, which stretches the resources required by a large group to claim all of your POCO's. Couple this with the ability to have those 10 POCO's come out every other hour of the day, and it will be an utter nightmare for an opponent to claim all your POCOs.


This isn't really true. Sure the large alliance could roll through highsec killing reinforcing player owned customs offices, but the advantages you ascribe to the wardec scenario for the little guy are many times magnified if its a suspect flag situation. You can still call in allies, setup defence fleets, pretty traps etc because the large alliance fleet hitting the office will be suspect. And you'd be able to do it with some true surprise because lack of wardecs = unexpected escalations. And of course the cost for wardec fee is many times more significant for the little guys than the large alliance. Cost to grief a small outfit out of its POCO? = peanuts. Cost to take it back + hire mercs + fund friend's wardecs (billions a week). No way can that be said to protect any small power.

So in essence no, it doesn't protect the little guys, it actively hinders them. (Which admittedly may be the point of the devblog and feature.)

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Kuni Oichi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#267 - 2013-10-02 11:03:19 UTC
Blondie Jiggles wrote:
Hah this is a joke right?

HS PI is NOT worth fighting over !
The taxes are way too high and the yields of key ingredients are way too low.
The pathetic low yields of HS PI will NOT cover the expenses of fighting over POCO's, certainly for the small corps.
Just save us the trouble and transfer all assets to Goonswarm and delete my account.


Rather than waiting for CCP to get around to your request, I'll gladly take ownership of all your stuff on behalf of Goonswarm. It will be transformed into new player largesse. If you'd like to make any specific request then we could consider options such as 'the Jiggles memorial thunderdome' or perhaps 'Jiggles sponsored miner gank'.
Athena Maldoran
Doomheim
#268 - 2013-10-02 11:25:04 UTC
CCP, why put npc tax on a player owned structure?
Optimo Sebiestor
The New Eden School of trade
Organization of Skill Extracting Corporations
#269 - 2013-10-02 11:36:02 UTC
You just know there will be deployed highsec poco mafia in every highsec region after nov 19'th
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#270 - 2013-10-02 12:07:06 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
CCP, why put npc tax on a player owned structure?


ISK sink, or maby there is more Roll

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#271 - 2013-10-02 12:13:18 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Elemenohpee wrote:
So all that's going to happen is a large nullsec entity hits a whole bunch of highsec customs offices and puts up their own pocos setting 60% tax, meaning I pay 70% tax overall.

It then costs me 500 mill to dec them to hit their poco, which I wont bother doing as to make that back from hisec pi will take months.

So basically your giving large null alliances free isk.

GG

Maybe if you hold sov you shouldn't be able to hold highsec pocos?


Nah, why would we do that? Then no one uses them and we don't actually make any isk for them. Unless you're saying you're dumb enough to pay a 70% tax anyway.

Here's what really happens.

You train the skill right away, lowering the NPC portion of the tax to 5%.

Then, we seize the POCOs right away, at least some of them, and set our own tax to something - probably, as it happens, 5%.

Then RvB or someone contests our pocos and in the ongoing monthlong war, they're constantly being destroyed and reinforced, such that everyone who was using them before moves to different systems.

Lol


LOL.....You really expect people to believe that tripe?

What will happen is that very very few alliances are gong to war dec goons repeatedly for the opportunity to take down your POCO's, at least high sec alliances that would actually use these POCO's. Sure RvB might dec you, once. But the vast vast majority of high sec groups do not have the manpower, cash, or insanity to dec the goons.

Call this what it is: CCP diverting an ISK sink directly into the hands of the cartels.

Plus, we still have the issue where CCP is still reducing the overall ISK sink by lowering tax rates CCP charges.
So what high sec income stream does CCP plan on hitting to counter that?
Green Gambit
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#272 - 2013-10-02 12:22:13 UTC
Elana Maggal wrote:

1. Turning hi-sec into another warzone is just stupid. You have low-sec, faction warfare, and nul-sec for that. A safe industrial base is what many players DEPEND on in order not have to be beholden to a few Alliances. Or players who don't want to deal with being raped by some gank squad or goon BLOB everytime they log online and want to simply sell something.

2. Many hi-sec players will not be able to compete or fight militarily a large alliance. This is just delusional. And if you think spending 500 mil for PI access is worth it - that's just off the charts crazy thinking.


1) Actually the game needs to get away from it's safe industrial base. It's turned the game into spreadsheets online and industrial tasks in-game is little more than applied accountancy.

Industry in Eve needs an overhaul. There needs to be some way for me to gain an edge by maybe doing something different, and there needs to be some risk/reward involved, so that those of us willing to take a little more risk can earn more from it (I'd manufacture in NPC null-sec if it was cheaper than high-sec for one.)

Throw some instability/wars etc into the mix and that's even more opportunities - it just needs a little creative thinking to capitalise on them.

The people complaining to CCP about not changing hi-sec industry remind me of the record companies - rather than moving on and innovating, they're just whining to the legislature to allow them stumble along as-is.

2) Hire people to do the fighting for you then. RvB are high-sec based and very interested in working with high-sec industrialists.
Mangala Solaris
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#273 - 2013-10-02 12:32:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mangala Solaris
Optimo Sebiestor wrote:
You just know there will be deployed highsec poco mafia in every highsec region after nov 19'th


Sorry, RvB just cant be in every system, so no there wont be.


I will however repeat that I am taking donations to be on the 0 tax list for any RvB held pocos following 19th November. Additionally, if you wish to have Goons decced, them I am also empowered to accept donations for that cause.
Ley 'Urhg' Grotman
Justified and Ancient
#274 - 2013-10-02 12:37:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ley 'Urhg' Grotman
Oxide Ammar wrote:
--
I don't know why tax should be payed to NPC, you destroyed their POCO and you placed yours and you still paying to them...this is fail logic.
Irl, when I would import goods bought from a privately owned company, shipped in a container rented from a privately owned company, using the services of a a privately owned shipping company and when arrived stored those goods in a warehouse owned by a privately owned company, I still pay import/export taxes to the government.
As I see it, you don't pay the tax to the former owner of the blown up Customs Office (Interbus), but to the empire governments (or their factions).

There is an interesting story behind Interbus and Customs Offices by the way. They are on the brink of making the same mistake for the second time...Blink
Gabriel Locke
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#275 - 2013-10-02 12:50:15 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Chamile Eonic wrote:
Can anyone explain why we need to be at war with the owner of the POCO?

From a game mechanics point of view it makes it much harder for small corps to get involved in the whole POCO bashing thing. While big groups can fight over them until Goons own the majority, wouldn't it be more interesting to have everyone fighting over them?

I assume there is something I am missing to explain why the wardec is needed.



This actually protects the little guys.

If you didn't have to be at war, a large alliance could simply roll through highsec willy-nilly destroying POCO's. By forcing them to wardec each POCO owner they wish to nab, they have to spend time and prepare for the assault. This allows a little guy to call in allies, to setup defense fleets, etc. Furthermore, you could conceivable control 10 planets in a system, each under the ownership of a distinct corp, which stretches the resources required by a large group to claim all of your POCO's. Couple this with the ability to have those 10 POCO's come out every other hour of the day, and it will be an utter nightmare for an opponent to claim all your POCOs.


This isn't really true. Sure the large alliance could roll through highsec killing reinforcing player owned customs offices, but the advantages you ascribe to the wardec scenario for the little guy are many times magnified if its a suspect flag situation. You can still call in allies, setup defence fleets, pretty traps etc because the large alliance fleet hitting the office will be suspect. And you'd be able to do it with some true surprise because lack of wardecs = unexpected escalations. And of course the cost for wardec fee is many times more significant for the little guys than the large alliance. Cost to grief a small outfit out of its POCO? = peanuts. Cost to take it back + hire mercs + fund friend's wardecs (billions a week). No way can that be said to protect any small power.

So in essence no, it doesn't protect the little guys, it actively hinders them. (Which admittedly may be the point of the devblog and feature.)


Agreed.

I'm going to assume the point of the highsec POCO changes is to give large corps/small alliances that are too small to own Sov something to fight for and to have a stake in (as well as extra income).

If the barriers to entry in the POCO smashing game are low, it would mean that POCOs could only really be maintained by alliances that are deployed in or near that system on a fairly permanent basis. So a large corp/small alliance would be able to hold POCOs in their home system and nearby, but anyone that wasn't deployed there full-time would get pushed out easily.

This would make it almost impossible for large nullsec alliances to hold hundreds of POCOs across highsec, as any one of them could be attacked at any time by any number of smaller alliances that actually live there, and trying to redeploy fleets all over highsec playing whack-a-mole would be completely unfeasable (not to mention boring).

Also, it doesn't make sense that Concord would defend a POCO that is essentially defying Empire tax collection.


Oraac Ensor
#276 - 2013-10-02 12:50:50 UTC
Oxide Ammar wrote:
I don't know why tax should be payed to NPC, you destroyed their POCO and you placed yours and you still paying to them...this is fail logic.

+1
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#277 - 2013-10-02 13:07:18 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
Oxide Ammar wrote:
I don't know why tax should be payed to NPC, you destroyed their POCO and you placed yours and you still paying to them...this is fail logic.

+1

When someone privately buys some wine in Europe, flies to America in a private jet and goes through customs, what happens? Payment of duty on the wine happens.

Having to war dec before shooting a POCO has the advantages that it allows the defenders to be in position before even one shot is made, allowing the defenders to attack the agressors before they arrive in system, and its an ISK sink. Also if there is a war, then the POCO becomes a war target and the rules about applying RR to a war target could apply to any neutral trying to RR the POCO.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Ayesha Arkaral
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2013-10-02 13:11:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayesha Arkaral
Ayesha Arkaral wrote:
Some thoughts:


  1. Penalize alliances for "spreading thin" their POCO empire, ie having too many, while keeping it attractive.

    • For example, make the cost to wardec inversely proportional to the number of POCOs an alliance owns in hisec. The more they own, the cheaper it is to wardec for POCO control.

    • Or, require that a planet that they want a POCO at needs to have at least one command center owned by an alliance member. CCs can be placed before a POCO is placed. A simple enough task, but requires a little more motivation on a large scale.

  2. Or, Force attentiveness. Again, nothing too crazy, keep it attractive.

    • For example, add a mechanic that would allow another entity to begin placing a POCO at a planet where there already exists one. Send a notification that within 5 days if no action is taken, their POCO will be replaced by the challengers. With the required action simply to go to the planet and click a button. The challenger loses their materials invested.

    • Or, make it so that a POCO's orbit needs to be "corrected" every 20 days. The owner must go to the POCO and click a button to correct the POCOs orbit, or it will burn up in the atmosphere.




Or, create a new "POCO mesh topology" mechanic. I can think of a couple of ideas here (hisec only of course):


  1. Create new POCO offices in NPC stations and require that a POCO must be built within 4 jumps from that station. More than one office can be rented, but perhaps each new one costs more isk.

  2. Or, make it such that any POCOs built by the same entity must "communicate" logistics information between eachother and as such must be built within _ jumps from eachother. If a POCO is taken that breaks this chain, then the POCOs left hanging for more than _ days can be [destroyed without a wardec/disappear/go back to Interbus]. This requires that one POCO/system be designated as the main node. For example given the setup [1] - [2] - [3] - [4] if 2 is the main hub and 3 is destroyed, then after _ days 4 would be lost if not brought back into the mesh network limits.


Number two on my list there really grew on me as I typed it because it creates some interesting strategy and interactions. See it isn't hard to think of some reasonable ideas and communicate them in a civilized manner. I really like the opening up of hisec POCOs, I think it just needs a tiny bit more thought here..
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
#279 - 2013-10-02 13:18:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
What will happen is that very very few alliances are gong to war dec goons repeatedly for the opportunity to take down your POCO's, at least high sec alliances that would actually use these POCO's. Sure RvB might dec you, once. But the vast vast majority of high sec groups do not have the manpower, cash, or insanity to dec the goons.

Quick check on their War History..
2 active wars, 2 pending wars, 537 finished wars (dating back to 05/2010)
Just last month they were on average decced by two entities every day. And that's without any chance to grab POCOs.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#280 - 2013-10-02 13:22:16 UTC
The whole point of the POCO change is to remove some of the wool from hisec and incentivize interaction, so they're not going to pad the change by adding features that totally reverse the whole point of the exercise.

This crying has gone from hilarious to pathetic. I have nothing but disgust for people who go from being spinesless in life to spineless in a videogame. Grow some gd balls.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal