Wormholes

I honestly can't tell who's complaining or who's serious or who's roleplaying.

Ok let's sit down and have a chat about the design behind the industry cost scaling in Crius. Obviously there's some confusion. For one thing, the primary goal behind the cost scaling has nothing to do with sinking ISK from the economy (ISK supply growth has remained well within a healthy range both before and after Crius).

First, I'm gonna link CCP Greyscale's recent dev blog on the principles behind the industry changes, as it's valuable reading.
Go ahead and take a quick look.

Back? Ok excellent.

So there are two major philosophical goals in EVE-Online game design that are important for understanding where the cost scaling came from:

• We want as many areas of the game as possible to contain interesting and meaningful choices, so that players know that their actions matter and that their mastery and clever decision making is rewarded.
• In general, soft barriers are better than hard barriers. This is why the office bidding system provides better gameplay than the old industry slot system, for instance.

With these goals in mind, we knew coming into the planning for our Industry revamp that removing the hard capped slot limits was going to be a very valuable change. Hard caps on slots scale poorly as the game population grows over time, rely on values dictated by us instead of reacting to player behavior organically, and create the frustrating situation where sometimes the game tells you that you simply can't do the kind of industry you want right now. A soft cap would instead allow players to choose whatever cost level is acceptable to them, based on their other goals and motivations.

Hard caps break the first goal as well. When a player is choosing where to engage in an industrial activity, it's a much more interesting choice to have multiple nuanced factors to consider (such as cost scaling and team availability) than to simply put their job into the nearest open slot.

If we had simply removed the slot limits with no other changes, the optimal gameplay choices would have almost always have been to engage all of EVE's industry within one starbase in Jita. This would obviously have represented a reduction in the number of interesting choices available to industrial players.

The primary goal of the Crius cost scaling is to provide an incentive for players to spread out their industrial operations instead of building everything in one system. When combined with other factors that incentivise concentration (such as the sharing of teams and proximity to trade hubs) this gives players an interesting and evolving set of choices.

The upshot for Wormhole dwellers is that every installation in the game has at least some level of operating cost under the new system, and that the lower per-system population of Wormholes means that these costs will generally be much lower in Wormholes than in most other areas of space.

As most of you have probably realized, the cost scaling was implemented primarily for gameplay and balance reasons, not strictly for role-playing purposes.
Within the fictional universe of EVE Online, these isk charges represent the collective costs of maintaining and operating industrial facilities (including the costs of paying the staff of these facilities). They do not represent a government tax, so those of you who are opposed on principle to paying fictional taxes to fictional governments can rest easy.
It is true that the fact that some other areas of the game (such as starships) do not require upkeep costs and this represents an inconsistency, but adding upkeep costs to ships would not be a beneficial change to the gameplay of EVE at this time. As in any video game a certain level of suspension of disbelief is required to help smooth over these sorts of inconsistencies between the realism of the fictional universe and the requirements of a fun and interesting gameplay experience.

Hopefully this has been at least somewhat helpful in communicating what our goals were with the Crius cost scaling changes, and if you have any more questions feel free to ask.

Damn, time to abandon the hype train, that darned Fozzie is back from his (well earned) vacation :/

I'm a happy person for not doing Indy.

Totally read that last bit with this in mind
Milton Bradley Battleship game Opera TV commercia…: http://youtu.be/VXkVZ0rloio

The industry team in Game of Drones are actually adding the ability to pay for starbase jobs with your personal wallet at the moment. They'll have it implemented as soon as possible.

If this is really the case why is install cost calculated off the value of the item build rather than just a flat time cost related to slot usage and system activity. A cost related to the value of a final product (eg t2 ship) sounds like a tax to me, x hours of effort should cost x isk, if this number scales with end product values its no longer a usage fee but a tax.

Tax is defined as :
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

isk demanded by npc's for their support of industrial facilities and services, levied upon property (end production product) value.

It's a tax please stop trying to claim its a fee or anything other than a tax.

Well thats all well and good but what about taking years to Cap BPO research and costing multiple billions. I have more a problem with the time then the cost. Especially on carrier BPO's which I had perfect before and now It will be sometime in 2016 before they are perfect again and meantime I can't use them.

At what point are you willing reassess your goals?

From a player perspective, and maybe an role playing/lore POV, who does that tax go to? As an alliance leader, there is very little value in putting up a new station for these particular things anymore. This is because where you MIGHT have made SOME money before on fees, now you have services that you're just taxing a tax. Maybe you don't want Outposts, and I'm missing the message. I don't understand why the fee/tax/isk sink isn't paid to the SOV HOLDER rather than some (supposedly not an ISK SINK) tax. Obviously I have a dog in the conversation.

If you were to have the fees be paid to the SOV holder, things in high/low/npc 0.0/wh space would still be paid to the tax/sink/etc. In 0.0 sov space, these fees SHOULD BE PAID to the Alliance because, in some cases, they put up/conquered the station. These entities defend/conquer/deal for this territory & these outposts. It's 0.0, CONCORD doesn't control anything other than acknowledging the sov claim.

There is actually a precedent for this proposal: outpost owners get the broker fees from sales in their station. In non-sov space, the game gets that fee, it goes into ISK sink heaven.

Maybe require the station owner to set a minimum of 50-90% of the formula to be paid to the alliance (so they can't just set it to 0) but allow them to ACTUALLY control some aspect of this mechanic, rather than just putting in a tax that is sent into thin air.

The TL;DR version of this is that Outpost owners should get the fee, just like they get the fee for being a broker in sales.

First of all this thread needs more Dusettes.

Secondly ''OHNOES A RELATIVELY SMALL AMOUNT OF ISK PER JOBS'' despite the fact you can actively now tax each array used for manufacturing.


Do what any normal capitalist would do... THROW IT ON THE COST OF THE SALE OF THE ITEM


Without a team it costs just over 300k to make a single Drake at -10% and -20% in the Medium Array. What will happen is the market will adjust to allow for this additional ''cost'' but is literally a pissant amount in the grand scheme of things



TL:DR **** the 0.01isk traders