These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Paradox
#281 - 2013-10-02 13:25:02 UTC
Athena Maldoran wrote:
CCP, why put npc tax on a player owned structure?


The tax is paid directly to CONCORD, for the structures protection in High-Sec. Compare with Low-Sec, no tax paid to CONCORD, no protection from CONCORD.

Players who invest time to train themselves in Customs Code Expertise will eventually be able to barter for better tax rates from CONCORD, though not eliminate them completely.

CCP Paradox | EVE QA | Team Phenomenon

Space Magician
None ofthe Above
#282 - 2013-10-02 14:06:17 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Athena Maldoran wrote:
CCP, why put npc tax on a player owned structure?


The tax is paid directly to CONCORD, for the structures protection in High-Sec. Compare with Low-Sec, no tax paid to CONCORD, no protection from CONCORD.

Players who invest time to train themselves in Customs Code Expertise will eventually be able to barter for better tax rates from CONCORD, though not eliminate them completely.


Apparently Interbus isn't going to be paying that tax. Too bad for them. :P

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Rengerel en Distel
#283 - 2013-10-02 14:29:07 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Athena Maldoran wrote:
CCP, why put npc tax on a player owned structure?


The tax is paid directly to CONCORD, for the structures protection in High-Sec. Compare with Low-Sec, no tax paid to CONCORD, no protection from CONCORD.

Players who invest time to train themselves in Customs Code Expertise will eventually be able to barter for better tax rates from CONCORD, though not eliminate them completely.


The CONCORD protection comes from needing to wardec to take down a POCO in high sec. Placing the 10% tax and adding yet another skill just nerfs high sec POCOs before it even starts. Not sure what the point is to pay 5% tax after the skill, instead of just working in low/null/WH. The people that can take a high sec POCO and keep it are the same ones that can do it already.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Lady Gwendolyn Antollare
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2013-10-02 14:34:47 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:


The tax is paid directly to CONCORD, for the structures protection in High-Sec. Compare with Low-Sec, no tax paid to CONCORD, no protection from CONCORD.

Players who invest time to train themselves in Customs Code Expertise will eventually be able to barter for better tax rates from CONCORD, though not eliminate them completely.


So I can see the meeting now...

Well we said that we were not going to force people out of hisec but hey that guy is leaving the company so lets do this:

"The NPC tax will continue for hi sec POCOs (as we want low sec POCOs to still be competitive). The tax rate stays the same, at 10% for export and 5% for import. This is then in addition to whatever tax the player owner sets."

Once again we nerf hisec to force our players into a play style that they don`t want to play, they just need to HTFU and get to 0.0 and losec...and oh yeah lets really screw the new players by taking away any chance of them making isk to play the game...

Nerfing Hisec has never fixed Losec or Nullsec
King Victor
Xenomine Industries
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#285 - 2013-10-02 14:39:47 UTC
I feel this will ruin high sec PI for new players and small corps. What's to stop large corps from capitalizing on this? They will corner that market and the fight will be only against the larger corps once again while the little guys are at the mercy of there taxes because they're too small to afford or succeed on war decking a large corp. I think it's a bad idea. It will cause the small corps, the loners, the beginners to forget about PI when it gets to that point where it's all taken by the large corps.
Anyway, that's my take on it whether you like or not.

KV
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#286 - 2013-10-02 14:44:07 UTC
Elana Maggal wrote:

Yeah - why balance anything in the game right? Why should ships be balanced? Anyone who has a trillion bucks should be able to push an I win button and that will make it fun for all new subscribers and all the rest of the players in the sand box.

Thank you Einstein - let me ring you up when I'm thinking about building a new fun and varied MMO.

looks like balance to me, it seems you think balance is that in a cold and harsh game the deliberately helpless and weak should simply have things handed to them

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
None ofthe Above
#287 - 2013-10-02 15:32:11 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Elana Maggal wrote:

Yeah - why balance anything in the game right? Why should ships be balanced? Anyone who has a trillion bucks should be able to push an I win button and that will make it fun for all new subscribers and all the rest of the players in the sand box.

Thank you Einstein - let me ring you up when I'm thinking about building a new fun and varied MMO.

looks like balance to me, it seems you think balance is that in a cold and harsh game the deliberately helpless and weak should simply have things handed to them


While you seem to think that things should be handed to the big guy.

I believe he and others don't want to see the system itself simply pull something they have out of their hands and handed over to the biggest alliances.

Given those opposing views, taking a stance somewhere in the middle would be the way to find balance, no?

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#288 - 2013-10-02 15:40:10 UTC
Elana Maggal wrote:
The problem with one custom office per planet - is it allows a monopoly of the planet by Big Alliances. Now if a player had several custom offices to choose from, there would be actual competition like in a real economy.

Tthe new proposed changes is the ability of the controlling Big Alliance (and don't fool yourself, the more valuable custom offices like Lava planets will be taken over within weeks by the Big Alliances) - imports can be shut down completely except those they choose to include, and ridiculous rates can be charged for exports (although hi-sec players can avoid this by making PI an even more laborious grind by simply bypassing the customs altogether - but given just how unpleasant PI is already, who's going to want to grind even more - given you can no longer import??)

This pretty much is a handover of more power to the Big Players/Alliances in the game - and fails to recognize the number of players who play EVE as a sand box who have alts in hi-sec specifically to avoid the nul-sec gameplay or the power so many of the already rich players have in Eve.

Another side-effect will be the cost of maintaining small POS's in hi-sec by smaller corporations will go up considerably - as PI fuel supplies will be MONOPOLIZED by the BIG ALLIANCES.

This change is a one-sided change - does not benefit all players in Eve. It benefits by a LION'S SHARE the big power players. It leaves small solo players and small corporations OUT IN THE COLD.

Hi-sec is where all new players start off. IT ISN'T A FUKKKING SAND BOX IF ALL THEY CAN DO IS WHAT SOME BIG ALLIANCE FORCES THEM TO DO WHEN THEY START PLAYING EVE - IS IT?

MORONS.


I like the idea of more than one POCO being able to be anchored around a planet. That is very.......capitalist. Smile
Callic Veratar
#289 - 2013-10-02 15:40:32 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
The tax is paid directly to CONCORD, for the structures protection in High-Sec. Compare with Low-Sec, no tax paid to CONCORD, no protection from CONCORD.

Players who invest time to train themselves in Customs Code Expertise will eventually be able to barter for better tax rates from CONCORD, though not eliminate them completely.


But, the person doing PI is paying the tax, not the owner of the POCO. At the same time, POS owners aren't paying a per-use tax to have CONCORD protection. I don't have to pay per-use tax to CONCORD for protection of my ship.

CONCORD should take a fixed percentage of the POCO owner's income. The put the skill in the corporation tree and let corp directors train it to reduce the tax. If the issue is still that players might get PI goods for free in highsec, cap the minimum tax rate at 5%.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#290 - 2013-10-02 15:52:41 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


Is it just me or does it seem rather unsettling and/or corrupt for Mynnna to be both on the CSM, a major stakeholder in the GSF, and talking about possible GSF tactics regarding POCOs in high sec ? It seems to remind me of RL situations involving union reps also holding sub-management positions in companies and conflicts of interest deriving from the combination of posts/telling employees & union members what to do.
(I won't go any further into that RL situation lest I land myself in RL trouble. ) Blink
Hoofd Klant
GweNosCo
#291 - 2013-10-02 16:10:40 UTC
Methinks the Goons doth protest too much
Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#292 - 2013-10-02 16:21:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Elana Maggal
Andski wrote:
There are no Goonswarm POCOs in hisec and the wretches are already wailing. Goddamn.


I suppose some of us Eve players would like to see Eve make something of itself, instead of turn into one giant Goon turd.
Wyn Pharoh
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#293 - 2013-10-02 16:24:37 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
The tax is paid directly to CONCORD, for the structures protection in High-Sec. Compare with Low-Sec, no tax paid to CONCORD, no protection from CONCORD.

Players who invest time to train themselves in Customs Code Expertise will eventually be able to barter for better tax rates from CONCORD, though not eliminate them completely.


But, the person doing PI is paying the tax, not the owner of the POCO. At the same time, POS owners aren't paying a per-use tax to have CONCORD protection. I don't have to pay per-use tax to CONCORD for protection of my ship.

CONCORD should take a fixed percentage of the POCO owner's income. The put the skill in the corporation tree and let corp directors train it to reduce the tax. If the issue is still that players might get PI goods for free in highsec, cap the minimum tax rate at 5%.


A dev gives nice 'Lore' balanced feedback and you ignore all of the other feedback that DEMANDS that Hisec POCO's be taxed, directly by the user, in order for Null and Lowsec POCO's to remain competitive? Sigh, Ty CCP Paradox. Ty for trying.
None ofthe Above
#294 - 2013-10-02 16:29:14 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
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


Is it just me or does it seem rather unsettling and/or corrupt for Mynnna to be both on the CSM, a major stakeholder in the GSF, and talking about possible GSF tactics regarding POCOs in high sec ? It seems to remind me of RL situations involving union reps also holding sub-management positions in companies and conflicts of interest deriving from the combination of posts/telling employees & union members what to do.
(I won't go any further into that RL situation lest I land myself in RL trouble. ) Blink


Actually I find his perspective invaluable. I do have to read between the lines and consider the source, but I am very glad he's there on the CSM. I am also very glad his perspective is not the only one on the CSM.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#295 - 2013-10-02 16:32:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Elana Maggal
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.)


I think there is this underlying assumption that Eve gameply in hi-sec - and those players who play Eve in hi-sec (some exclusively) want this kind of WAR activity.

I think it is a projected view by nul-sec CSM members - upon Eve that takes sand away from the sand box that should include everyone. There are players who would like to play Eve without having to guerilla warfare a nul-sec Alliance just so they can do PI in hi-sec.

The idea for hi-sec was to make it relatively safe but the rewards little compared to the risks. This current plan for POCOs turns this design on its head and makes PI untenable for hi-sec Industrialists who really don't feel like having to fight over PI scraps (and most won't given just how penny anti the whole system is as it is).

So yes - hi-sec players like you say, could guerilla warfare the nul-sec Alliances over PI - given some fix was done to the ridiculous WarDec mechanic (which even that appears to be unlikely.) But really - the question is, how many hi-sec players (or players with hi-sec alts) will want to spend their time doing that kind of crap in hi-sec over PI? The whole point of hi-sec is not to have to spend every minute of your time worrying whether some Goon swarm BLOB turd will show up unexpectedly ...

This POCO plan as it stands just makes the sand box smaller - gives more power and play to the nul-sec alliances, and leaves hi-sec players known as "carebears" out to pasture. This might sound like a great idea of you are running an Alliance or are a nul-sec player - but a sand box is suppose to include all kinds of players - allow tools for all sorts of game play, this doesn't do it. It restricts how some people want to play Eve - it FUKKS over independent hi-sec Industrialists and Eve solo players.

But I guess CPP doesn't give a hoot about solo play becuz, apparently, Eve has no Solo players or players who really would like to play Eve without dealing with GOON nul-sec turd swarms in hi-sec.
None ofthe Above
#296 - 2013-10-02 16:33:05 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:


I like the idea of more than one POCO being able to be anchored around a planet. That is very.......capitalist. Smile


Yeah that idea is growing on me as well. Either the "challenger" proposal where one takes over after a time if the challenge is left unanswered, or simply allowing players to access their launchpads through the POCO of their choice.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#297 - 2013-10-02 16:47:58 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:

While you seem to think that things should be handed to the big guy.

I believe he and others don't want to see the system itself simply pull something they have out of their hands and handed over to the biggest alliances.

Given those opposing views, taking a stance somewhere in the middle would be the way to find balance, no?

nothing is handed to us, we are merely the best and everyone is recognizing they will lose opposing us in a fair fight and is crying to be given a handicap rather than trying to beat us on a level playing field

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#298 - 2013-10-02 16:51:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Elana Maggal
Green Gambit wrote:
[quote=Elana Maggal]

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.



I think here is the problem in a nutshell. The idea that Eve must "get away from it's safe industrial base." I disagree. I think there is room in the sand box for both types of play. There is plenty of PvP in low-sec and nul-sec. Not every player in Eve wants to PvP - some actually want to build stuff, and do it in the relative safety of hi-sec.

The problem has been this insistence that the Builders of Eve must also be PvP'rs. I think that makes the sand box smaller.

There is plenty of ways to expand the game and make the game more exciting for nul-sec alliances other than just opening up hi-sec to them. It's just too bad CPP doesn't have the imagination or creativity to think of better ways than this idiotic hi-sec POCO plan (at least the way it stands now.)
Liberty Belle
Yulai Heavy Industries
#299 - 2013-10-02 16:56:51 UTC
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?

so what you're saying is that null sec corps will waste time and resources for high sec poco hunting....

I see some other behaviors and opportunities to come from this
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
#300 - 2013-10-02 17:05:49 UTC
Love the idea and looking forward to seeing what it does to HS, BUT I'm a bit confused regarding the skill.
I've never dealt with POCOs but my assumption is that there is ALWAYS a certain amount of NPC tax even on player owned POCOs, right? Otherwise the new skill doesn't make sense as the NPC POCOs will be wiped out within a couple of years and the skill will be useless.

The CSM XI Election are now open until March 25th, 2016. Consider Niko Lorenzio for CSM XI.

CSM matters, your voice matters, your vote matters!