These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New dev blog: Player Owned Customs Offices: An update!

First post First post
Author
ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#761 - 2011-12-03 07:39:20 UTC
milandinia wrote:
those pocos are even next to an highsec system, how easy does it need to be? leave highsec, seek isk in lowsec

CCP did nothing wrong, its just that the carebears dont want to go to lowsec where they can get cheap PI, but thats their fault, not CCPs!

/me takes careful stock of milandinia's -9.9 security status....

Seriously, most of the discussion is around it making losec -- not hisec -- more unattractive economically, and you're talking about people not leaving hisec?

If your 5% tax-rate POCOs become the norm, and if people don't get regularly ganked at the CO by the owner, or cut off from access for the hek of it, or your POCO doesn't get blown up with the same effect to the PI guy, and if you make enough ISK from this to be worth your time and replacement cost if and when your POCO gets blown up...

Then this could all work out well. I think the linchpin is whether you can make enough money as a POCO owner to make it a viable business, and whether PI people can have enough trust that they won't get screwed over by the POCO owners.

I think it's kinda weak on both fronts. But the first part is better than it was originally. I'm seriously considering trying it out of pure curiosity, even if I can't justify it as a business risk.

Let's see how you do in a month or two. I'll add you as a contact -- I'd love to hear from you.
Quebber
State War Academy
Caldari State
#762 - 2011-12-03 09:22:29 UTC
This change needed to happen, PI in hisec had no risk v reward ration nothing at all and whether you like that or not this game does not work on that.

It is a welcome change and as the markets have already proved the price hike in PI items really offsets the taxes it just means that people doing PI in nullsec will get More profit for More risk same with lowsec.

So tell me really where is the problem here ?
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#763 - 2011-12-03 09:47:53 UTC
Quebber wrote:
This change needed to happen, PI in hisec had no risk v reward ration nothing at all and whether you like that or not this game does not work on that.

It is a welcome change and as the markets have already proved the price hike in PI items really offsets the taxes it just means that people doing PI in nullsec will get More profit for More risk same with lowsec.

So tell me really where is the problem here ?


Excellent question!

In a word, the problem I see is: supply. I still haven't seen anyone talking about what happens when the stockpiles are exhausted and we are operating on pure production amounts. Omen has been very reassuring that he is at least listening to people who are very sharp when it comes to the values of these goods. I've seen some ugly things happen when the supply of goods start to starve the market and prices jump through the roof.

I'm really only concerned about these goods prices getting so high that it starts to have a severe negative impact on other aspects of the game. I don't expect a response (direct or otherwise at this point), but I suppose if they are watching prices closely enough, they'll at least see the problem when what I'm worried about does happen.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#764 - 2011-12-03 11:45:58 UTC
ZaBob wrote:
milandinia wrote:
those pocos are even next to an highsec system, how easy does it need to be? leave highsec, seek isk in lowsec

CCP did nothing wrong, its just that the carebears dont want to go to lowsec where they can get cheap PI, but thats their fault, not CCPs!

/me takes careful stock of milandinia's -9.9 security status....

You can't PVP in lowsec for long without ending up as -10. The way it's setup means in every fight one of the sides must either be -10 already or losing sec and so end up as -10. Unless you are a dedicated anti-pirate, but then you need -10s to hunt.

Quote:
If your 5% tax-rate POCOs become the norm, and if people don't get regularly ganked at the CO by the owner, or cut off from access for the hek of it, or your POCO doesn't get blown up with the same effect to the PI guy, and if you make enough ISK from this to be worth your time and replacement cost if and when your POCO gets blown up...

Being ganked by the owner is no different from being ganked by randoms at an NPC CO. Nobody goes to that much trouble for a hauler kill. And, because the POCO presumably belongs to a PVP corp, it'll get defended. And if blown up, probably replaced if the fight to defend it was fun enough. As bait, it's not all that expensive.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#765 - 2011-12-03 11:50:41 UTC
Mikron Alexarr wrote:

I'm really only concerned about these goods prices getting so high that it starts to have a severe negative impact on other aspects of the game. I don't expect a response (direct or otherwise at this point), but I suppose if they are watching prices closely enough, they'll at least see the problem when what I'm worried about does happen.


Supply side.

Summer: Hi-sec harvest worlds (P0->P1) earned the owner between 400k and 800k ISK/day. Average of about 600k.
Fall: That went up to 900-1100k ISK/day. Average of 1M ISK/day.
Now: Still making 1M ISK/day, even with the new tariffs.

So nothing changed there for hi-sec harvesting. However, lo-sec harvesting got a lot riskier. The question for the devs is "how much P1 was produced in hi-sec vs low-sec vs NPC-null vs sov-null vs w-space?".

...

PI harvest worlds are still very easy for the new player to get into, at least in hi-sec.

- 3-4 days to train Command Center Upgrades to 4, Interplanetary Consolidation to 4, and optionally train Planetology to 3.
- Setting up a PI harvest world costs about 6.5M ISK for a CCU4 level world.
- Payback for a safe hi-sec PI harvest world is now around 7-10 days (used to be 10-14).
- Reset daily or every other day, 5-10 minutes to reset 5 worlds.
- Haul weekly.

So after that first week, your 35M ISK investment is paying off at 4-5M ISK/day.

We spend a lot of time each week teaching new players how to setup hi-sec PI harvest colonies. They love being in control of a way to make that 4-5M/day. It helps them bankroll getting into other aspects of the game faster. Eventually they might decide to try out doing harvesting at a friendly location in lo-sec, or moving up into the P2/P3/P4 factory worlds. Or they eventually outgrow thinking at 4-5M/day is a lot of ISK and turn to other pursuits. They worry less about losing a tackle frigate in PvP (even though we provide those for free along with the skillbooks to fly them).
Loki ThorrHammer
Ascendent.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#766 - 2011-12-03 12:57:32 UTC
CCP is doing a very intelligent thing but not telling the whole truth, yet again. Incredibly enough, it was very deliberate of them to increase tax and especially base price of the PI items because of other reasons. Simply put, PI thus far was one of the many untapped isk sinks in the game. This was probably because they wanted to get the system rooted and unchangeable when they did force the issue of it being an isk sink. And they've done that extremely well; all T2, POS/Station Construction, POS Fuel, and many other destructible items depend on these items to function/be achieved. Simple enough, the Devs realized that the sink was too little after altering the isk faucets to such a high degree in recent expansions *cough* incursions *cough*.

They changed the "tax" in a subtle way, they "doubled" it while they made an increase in base price (stealthily) to offset current faucets. They didn't harp on the base price change because they understood it would upset those which do intend to use PI to help support other ventures, such as POS and T2 Construction costs, thus making their industries competitive. Instead they decided to look at those which use PI purely as a profit making industry to ship out and not consume. Because this would not highly effect those individuals as they would simply inflate the price to meet the new profit margins and continue on their merry way. SUCCESS for CCP, as they would create a much larger sink for the end user, and the sink would follow through to all the other destructible products which are created by the initial PI making them more expensive. ALSO SUCCESS. It's a domino effect which started at the beginning (Taxation and "base Prices"), inflates and thus helps curve the faucet of their other failed projects. SUCCESS FOR CCP

Though, on the other hand, CCP is very possibly going about this in the most irate manner possible. Instead of clogging up isk faucets like the dreaded 5 minute 10.5 Mil Vanguard Incursion, they instead choose to turn the other cheek and force a cascading inflation inducing isk sink. They've decided to give us all the candy we could ever want, but make it so buying anything worth playing with cost twice as much candy to have. But "Oh well," says CCP, "They'll just use one of our many broken means of making isk to get it all back," figuring in that all items which use T2 mods will simply be payed for by alliances and individuals with loads of incursion isk and mountains of rat loot....

CCP never fails to disappoint with their extremely shortsighted quick fix to everything which they've done wrong.
tengen san
Triton-TC
#767 - 2011-12-03 13:20:39 UTC  |  Edited by: tengen san
pmchem wrote:

A rebalance in 2012 based on market values at that time may end up raising the reference tax values.



This only would occur if the reference Market value is taken inclusive the Tax portion of the market price at the time of evaluation. Of course you have to evaluate on the net market value.

A yearly adjustment rather would support self-regulated median price levels on the market, with assumable lower prices at the end of the year. Speculations still would occur on single Tier Items during the year, but a yearly adjustment keeps the market much more in balance as the level of adjustments is in player’s hands prior to the adjustment.

It may raise it/ it may lower it, from today’s point there is no way to determine
Ogi Talvanen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#768 - 2011-12-03 13:55:31 UTC
Thing is this is in fact high sec incursion tax because CONCORD needs lot of isk to pay for sansha incursions.
Var Redin
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#769 - 2011-12-03 14:24:16 UTC
Well this is 15 a month i wont have to spend anymore.
Leoresdectena
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#770 - 2011-12-03 16:07:22 UTC
Yet Another LIE out of CCP.

You CLAIM you're trying to work on player trust issues, then you pull THIS?


Proof positive that CCP has NOT learned what player trust means.


The blog SPECIFIED that the taxes would double. What is so hard to understand about ballpark 100 TIMES the tax rate not being what you CLAIMED you were doing?

I'm very happy I was already working to get rid of all my PI alts. This change as far as I am concerned makes PI a totally worthless time sink, it was ALREADY marginal on profitability compared to even MINING, now it's far below MINING as a profit-making activity.


I pity the poor folks trying to keep their POS running when the PI materials pricing goes through the ROOF due to yet another NOT THOUGHT OUT change to SCREW THE PLAYERS on CCP's part.
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#771 - 2011-12-03 16:36:09 UTC
Loki ThorrHammer wrote:
CCP is doing a very intelligent thing but not telling the whole truth, yet again. Incredibly enough, it was very deliberate of them to increase tax and especially base price of the PI items because of other reasons. Simply put, PI thus far was one of the many untapped isk sinks in the game. This was probably because they wanted to get the system rooted and unchangeable when they did force the issue of it being an isk sink. And they've done that extremely well; all T2, POS/Station Construction, POS Fuel, and many other destructible items depend on these items to function/be achieved. Simple enough, the Devs realized that the sink was too little after altering the isk faucets to such a high degree in recent expansions *cough* incursions *cough*.

They changed the "tax" in a subtle way, they "doubled" it while they made an increase in base price (stealthily) to offset current faucets. They didn't harp on the base price change because they understood it would upset those which do intend to use PI to help support other ventures, such as POS and T2 Construction costs, thus making their industries competitive. Instead they decided to look at those which use PI purely as a profit making industry to ship out and not consume. Because this would not highly effect those individuals as they would simply inflate the price to meet the new profit margins and continue on their merry way. SUCCESS for CCP, as they would create a much larger sink for the end user, and the sink would follow through to all the other destructible products which are created by the initial PI making them more expensive. ALSO SUCCESS. It's a domino effect which started at the beginning (Taxation and "base Prices"), inflates and thus helps curve the faucet of their other failed projects. SUCCESS FOR CCP

Though, on the other hand, CCP is very possibly going about this in the most irate manner possible. Instead of clogging up isk faucets like the dreaded 5 minute 10.5 Mil Vanguard Incursion, they instead choose to turn the other cheek and force a cascading inflation inducing isk sink. They've decided to give us all the candy we could ever want, but make it so buying anything worth playing with cost twice as much candy to have. But "Oh well," says CCP, "They'll just use one of our many broken means of making isk to get it all back," figuring in that all items which use T2 mods will simply be payed for by alliances and individuals with loads of incursion isk and mountains of rat loot....

CCP never fails to disappoint with their extremely shortsighted quick fix to everything which they've done wrong.


The thing to note here is that by making these ISK faucets so big, one might think CCP is forcing us to take part in those activities. One might also think that this puts the ball in their court, not ours when it comes to deciding how we spend our game time. I personally don't like spending a ton of money in eve (my toys are relatively cheap) and I usually engage in the best effort/isk ratio activities in the game. But I could see this being a concern for those guys that like to PVP in faction battleships and the like.


Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#772 - 2011-12-03 16:40:55 UTC
Leoresdectena wrote:
Yet Another LIE out of CCP.

You CLAIM you're trying to work on player trust issues, then you pull THIS?


Proof positive that CCP has NOT learned what player trust means.


The blog SPECIFIED that the taxes would double. What is so hard to understand about ballpark 100 TIMES the tax rate not being what you CLAIMED you were doing?

I'm very happy I was already working to get rid of all my PI alts. This change as far as I am concerned makes PI a totally worthless time sink, it was ALREADY marginal on profitability compared to even MINING, now it's far below MINING as a profit-making activity.


I pity the poor folks trying to keep their POS running when the PI materials pricing goes through the ROOF due to yet another NOT THOUGHT OUT change to SCREW THE PLAYERS on CCP's part.


This is fairly short sighted. You're really missing the key gripes that have been discussed ad vomitum. I would comment on the mistake being less of a trust issue and more of a simple communication issue or oversight. The players would find out anyway if it was purposeful to hide the fact that taxes would go up.

But if you'd like to be part of the discussion too, I'd strongly encourage you to go back through the other 100+ pages of comments that have already been put forth on what to do about the situation.
Vigoth Ritic
Frozen Corpse Inc.
#773 - 2011-12-03 16:57:42 UTC
Time to BURN the PLACE DOWN!!!!!

Burn every low sec and 0.0 OFFICE. never allow CCP to get the tax, never put a new office up, Let the prices go up. BURN EVE BURN

I got my Pitch fork ready !!!!
Lone Gunman
Forhotea Corporation
#774 - 2011-12-03 17:43:11 UTC
I know it's been less than a week ...BUT. I just checked the 40 low systems in Black Rise and there is a grand total of 2 PCO's. I then checked the closest low system to my home high sec system and there was one PCO around, you guessed it, the PLASMA planet and it was in reinforced.

Please tell me this is a Joke?
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#775 - 2011-12-03 19:05:28 UTC
Lone Gunman wrote:
I know it's been less than a week ...BUT. I just checked the 40 low systems in Black Rise and there is a grand total of 2 PCO's.

It's too early, many people were not aware of the POCO introduction, and gantries are perceived to be expensive on the market at the moment.

Quote:
I then checked the closest low system to my home high sec system and there was one PCO around, you guessed it, the PLASMA planet and it was in reinforced.

Working as intended. You can still use the POCO while it's reinforced.

Quote:
Please tell me this is a Joke?

What? You disapprove of fighting over resources? In EVE?

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#776 - 2011-12-03 19:31:23 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
Lone Gunman wrote:
I know it's been less than a week ...BUT. I just checked the 40 low systems in Black Rise and there is a grand total of 2 PCO's.

It's too early, many people were not aware of the POCO introduction, and gantries are perceived to be expensive on the market at the moment.

Quote:
I then checked the closest low system to my home high sec system and there was one PCO around, you guessed it, the PLASMA planet and it was in reinforced.

Working as intended. You can still use the POCO while it's reinforced.

Quote:
Please tell me this is a Joke?

What? You disapprove of fighting over resources? In EVE?


This is the kind of instability that I was thinking would drive a lot of people from low sec either into high sec or out of the PI market entirely. There will be people around that will want to make this work, but there will be a large portion of the population that will shoot these things simply because they can Ugh. It's not been a big deal all over yet because of the sparse population in some areas. It's simply the nature of the population in low sec that makes these kinds of defenseless structures targets. Defending all of the POCOs, repping all of the POCOs, replacing all of the POCOs in even one region I believe will be more than the current low-sec population will tolerate.

This was the mechanic that I was suggesting get looked at so that the impending supply shock doesn't kill the economy X
Kblackjack54
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#777 - 2011-12-03 20:55:54 UTC
Mikron Alexarr wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
Lone Gunman wrote:
I know it's been less than a week ...BUT. I just checked the 40 low systems in Black Rise and there is a grand total of 2 PCO's.

It's too early, many people were not aware of the POCO introduction, and gantries are perceived to be expensive on the market at the moment.

Quote:
I then checked the closest low system to my home high sec system and there was one PCO around, you guessed it, the PLASMA planet and it was in reinforced.

Working as intended. You can still use the POCO while it's reinforced.

Quote:
Please tell me this is a Joke?

What? You disapprove of fighting over resources? In EVE?


This is the kind of instability that I was thinking would drive a lot of people from low sec either into high sec or out of the PI market entirely. There will be people around that will want to make this work, but there will be a large portion of the population that will shoot these things simply because they can Ugh. It's not been a big deal all over yet because of the sparse population in some areas. It's simply the nature of the population in low sec that makes these kinds of defenseless structures targets. Defending all of the POCOs, repping all of the POCOs, replacing all of the POCOs in even one region I believe will be more than the current low-sec population will tolerate.

This was the mechanic that I was suggesting get looked at so that the impending supply shock doesn't kill the economy X



Players do not 'Disapprove' of fighting over resources, what they disapprove of is a small number of players dictating to all what they can and cannot do in EVE.

POCO's were when first announced a bad idea poorly thought through but influenced by certain large alliances using there current contacts in CCP.

Now they have become a reality, one the influence of which has yet to be fully understood but first indications are that this one item will cause a cascade effect through out EVE to the detriment of player enjoyment of the game.

Prediction: Empire space is going to become very crowded indeed, T1 is going to become the norm fit, if you can afford a ship to fit them on, PoS are going to become a thing of the past and 0.0 is going to become the mono culture that certain Alliances wanted.

Other than that Great Update guys, true to every Nuance that CCP stands for......UTTERLY SCREWED.
LarpingBard
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#778 - 2011-12-03 21:23:43 UTC
So basically Hi Sec will do fine after the market recovers, Lo Sec is screwed due to no way to defend pco properlly, Null sec will survive but with larger alliances able to support pcos screwing the smaller alliances.

How does this balance or improve anything?
Ingvar Angst
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
#779 - 2011-12-03 21:40:03 UTC
LarpingBard wrote:
So basically Hi Sec will do fine after the market recovers, Lo Sec is screwed due to no way to defend pco properlly, Null sec will survive but with larger alliances able to support pcos screwing the smaller alliances.

How does this balance or improve anything?


I hate to use the analogy, but if you consider "balance" giving more to the 1% and taking it from the 99% to do so, then you'll have thier idea of balance.

* Forgive the political analogy, best I could come up with.

Six months in the hole... it changes a man.

ZaBob
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#780 - 2011-12-03 22:22:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ZaBob
Jack Dant wrote:
ZaBob wrote:
milandinia wrote:
those pocos are even next to an highsec system, how easy does it need to be? leave highsec, seek isk in lowsec

CCP did nothing wrong, its just that the carebears dont want to go to lowsec where they can get cheap PI, but thats their fault, not CCPs!

/me takes careful stock of milandinia's -9.9 security status....

You can't PVP in lowsec for long without ending up as -10. The way it's setup means in every fight one of the sides must either be -10 already or losing sec and so end up as -10. Unless you are a dedicated anti-pirate, but then you need -10s to hunt.



Yes, of course. milandinia's clearly an established pvper. Useful data. But in this context, I meant it as a little half-jest: "what hisec carebear is going to trust you".


Jack Dant wrote:

Quote:
If your 5% tax-rate POCOs become the norm, and if people don't get regularly ganked at the CO by the owner, or cut off from access for the hek of it, or your POCO doesn't get blown up with the same effect to the PI guy, and if you make enough ISK from this to be worth your time and replacement cost if and when your POCO gets blown up...

Being ganked by the owner is no different from being ganked by randoms at an NPC CO. Nobody goes to that much trouble for a hauler kill. And, because the POCO presumably belongs to a PVP corp, it'll get defended. And if blown up, probably replaced if the fight to defend it was fun enough. As bait, it's not all that expensive.


One thing that's not clear to me yet is how much information the POCO gets about their customers, how that information will be handled within the corp, whether bored corp members might use that to go "Oh, that's FreddyBear; he's going to the CO at Planet X, let's go gank him for giggles". I don't think that'll happen a lot, but what will matter is whether FreddyBear thinks it does. If that information isn't available, then no change.

But regardless, I think you slightly misinterpret my remarks. I wasn't arguing that all -- or even any -- would be why this will fail. I was saying that if none of those factors derail it, it might succeed.

So if you want to earn money from your POCO taxes, don't gank your customers - consider protecting them instead. Protect your POCOs, with firepower and diplomacy.

I'm pretty sure the fight to defend it would be a lot more fun than the fight to take it down. :) Personally, I don't expect a lot of that, though. But I'd say it's an open question whether anyone BUT a corp with a strong PvP contingent can keep one up for long.