These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Citadel worm hole tax
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lugh Crow-Slave
#1 - 2016-01-09 21:01:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Unlike k-space citadels where the only incentive to have a larger one is to run a market out of will be the lower tax; worm hole citadels will need to be larger to lower the risk of losing everything in them. At the same time worm hole citadels will be much more risky and they will be advertising what the rewards are for killing it.

they also do not need this tax to keep markets competitive like the HS ones will

Removing the market tax from these citadels will reward the risk fir setting up shop in not only a more risky but more remote location.

The lore reason can be concord and the empires can't monitor and thus tax.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Xavindo Sirober
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2016-01-09 21:19:53 UTC
Sleepers gotta get their money from somewhere
Lugh Crow-Slave
#3 - 2016-01-09 21:29:34 UTC
Xavindo Sirober wrote:
Sleepers gotta get their money from somewhere

Lol they can set up shop in the citadels then

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2016-01-09 21:32:56 UTC
My argument against this is, you are still using Isk that means you have some kind of connection to SCC which means they will tax you.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#5 - 2016-01-09 21:36:05 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
My argument against this is, you are still using Isk that means you have some kind of connection to SCC which means they will tax you.


Do you have a game play reason?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2016-01-09 21:55:05 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
My argument against this is, you are still using Isk that means you have some kind of connection to SCC which means they will tax you.


Do you have a game play reason?

Maintaining ISK sinks.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#7 - 2016-01-09 22:19:58 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
My argument against this is, you are still using Isk that means you have some kind of connection to SCC which means they will tax you.


Do you have a game play reason?

Maintaining ISK sinks.


The isk sinks will be maintained by the k space holes as well as potentially lost loot and I highly doubt they will be used enough to subvert the sinks to any significant margin

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-01-09 23:21:44 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
My argument against this is, you are still using Isk that means you have some kind of connection to SCC which means they will tax you.


Do you have a game play reason?

Maintaining ISK sinks.


The isk sinks will be maintained by the k space holes as well as potentially lost loot and I highly doubt they will be used enough to subvert the sinks to any significant margin

If that is truly the case then why does the tax need to be removed?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#9 - 2016-01-09 23:31:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tbh, what we know about Citadels, the Medium seems perfectly fine.

To me, the reason to have a larger one is to access the AOE defensive weapons, as well as a market.

Mediums can't use AOE weapons, only targeted ones. At the same time, they are only vulnerable for 3 hours each week and will involve attackers being on grid for a minimum of 30 minutes in that 3 hour period (with the start of those vulnerability periods chosen by the defender).

Surely a Corp can defend its Medium Citadel for 3 hours each week, or alternatively 7 hours (large) or 21 hours (X-large) where you gain access to AOE defences as well as targeted?

They are going to be less vulnerable than a POS is now.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#10 - 2016-01-09 23:34:43 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
My argument against this is, you are still using Isk that means you have some kind of connection to SCC which means they will tax you.


Do you have a game play reason?

Maintaining ISK sinks.


The isk sinks will be maintained by the k space holes as well as potentially lost loot and I highly doubt they will be used enough to subvert the sinks to any significant margin

If that is truly the case then why does the tax need to be removed?

To encourage active markets in wh systems where they only bring vulnerability

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#11 - 2016-01-09 23:36:02 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tbh, what we know about Citadels, the Medium seems perfectly fine.

To me, the reason to have a larger one is to access the AOE defensive weapons, as well as a market.

Mediums can't use AOE weapons, only targeted ones. At the same time, they are only vulnerable for 3 hours each week and will involve attackers being on grid for a minimum of 30 minutes in that 3 hour period (with the start of those vulnerability periods chosen by the defender).

Surely a Corp can defend its Medium Citadel for 3 hours each week, or alternatively 7 hours (large) or 21 hours (X-large) where you gain access to AOE defences as well as targeted?

They are going to be less vulnerable than a POS is now.


But you can't see what's going to drop out of a pos like toy will be if you set up a market. You also won't have randoms inside your pos

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#12 - 2016-01-09 23:57:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tbh, what we know about Citadels, the Medium seems perfectly fine.

To me, the reason to have a larger one is to access the AOE defensive weapons, as well as a market.

Mediums can't use AOE weapons, only targeted ones. At the same time, they are only vulnerable for 3 hours each week and will involve attackers being on grid for a minimum of 30 minutes in that 3 hour period (with the start of those vulnerability periods chosen by the defender).

Surely a Corp can defend its Medium Citadel for 3 hours each week, or alternatively 7 hours (large) or 21 hours (X-large) where you gain access to AOE defences as well as targeted?

They are going to be less vulnerable than a POS is now.


But you can't see what's going to drop out of a pos like toy will be if you set up a market. You also won't have randoms inside your pos

You don't have to have randoms inside your Citadel either. You can create a market that is effectively for your own Corp/Alliance/Blues.

Even if your concern is about randoms seeing what is on the market, how does lowering tax address this?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#13 - 2016-01-10 00:08:47 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tbh, what we know about Citadels, the Medium seems perfectly fine.

To me, the reason to have a larger one is to access the AOE defensive weapons, as well as a market.

Mediums can't use AOE weapons, only targeted ones. At the same time, they are only vulnerable for 3 hours each week and will involve attackers being on grid for a minimum of 30 minutes in that 3 hour period (with the start of those vulnerability periods chosen by the defender).

Surely a Corp can defend its Medium Citadel for 3 hours each week, or alternatively 7 hours (large) or 21 hours (X-large) where you gain access to AOE defences as well as targeted?

They are going to be less vulnerable than a POS is now.


But you can't see what's going to drop out of a pos like toy will be if you set up a market. You also won't have randoms inside your pos

You don't have to have randoms inside your Citadel either. You can create a market that is effectively for your own Corp/Alliance/Blues.

Even if your concern is about randoms seeing what is on the market, how does lowering tax address this?


The point is to incentives talking the risk of an open market not a private one

and you would be better off just using contacts for a private one not to risk giving free intel

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#14 - 2016-01-10 00:42:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tbh, what we know about Citadels, the Medium seems perfectly fine.

To me, the reason to have a larger one is to access the AOE defensive weapons, as well as a market.

Mediums can't use AOE weapons, only targeted ones. At the same time, they are only vulnerable for 3 hours each week and will involve attackers being on grid for a minimum of 30 minutes in that 3 hour period (with the start of those vulnerability periods chosen by the defender).

Surely a Corp can defend its Medium Citadel for 3 hours each week, or alternatively 7 hours (large) or 21 hours (X-large) where you gain access to AOE defences as well as targeted?

They are going to be less vulnerable than a POS is now.


But you can't see what's going to drop out of a pos like toy will be if you set up a market. You also won't have randoms inside your pos

You don't have to have randoms inside your Citadel either. You can create a market that is effectively for your own Corp/Alliance/Blues.

Even if your concern is about randoms seeing what is on the market, how does lowering tax address this?


The point is to incentives talking the risk of an open market not a private one

and you would be better off just using contacts for a private one not to risk giving free intel
What is going to be the market tax on a Citadel in J-Space?

Until we know that, it seems a bit premature to be asking for them to be reduced to provide an incentive, because we can't quantify anything in order to understand whether it would be relevant as an incentive.

This seems like an idea that at this point belongs in the official CCP Citadels thread where they are asking for comments, rather than as its own thread here.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#15 - 2016-01-10 00:59:02 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
What is going to be the market tax on a Citadel in J-Space?

Until we know that, it seems a bit premature to be asking for them to be reduced to provide an incentive, because we can't quantify anything in order to understand whether it would be relevant as an incentive.



This is a valid point but ccp has a bad habit of releasing this type of information to late to have discutions about it

And I'm not looking for a place to inform ccp of this idea I'm looking for a place to refine am idea I do not believe to be complete

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#16 - 2016-01-10 02:20:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
What is going to be the market tax on a Citadel in J-Space?

Until we know that, it seems a bit premature to be asking for them to be reduced to provide an incentive, because we can't quantify anything in order to understand whether it would be relevant as an incentive.



This is a valid point but ccp has a bad habit of releasing this type of information to late to have discutions about it

And I'm not looking for a place to inform ccp of this idea I'm looking for a place to refine am idea I do not believe to be complete

Which would surely be the official comments thread that CCP have asked for feedback in and where we know from their responses that they are reading it.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#17 - 2016-01-10 12:56:53 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
What is going to be the market tax on a Citadel in J-Space?

Until we know that, it seems a bit premature to be asking for them to be reduced to provide an incentive, because we can't quantify anything in order to understand whether it would be relevant as an incentive.



This is a valid point but ccp has a bad habit of releasing this type of information to late to have discutions about it

And I'm not looking for a place to inform ccp of this idea I'm looking for a place to refine am idea I do not believe to be complete

Which would surely be the official comments thread that CCP have asked for feedback in and where we know from their responses that they are reading it.


Not much feed back is given on individual ideas in those threads also I can't even find one the devs have on citadels mind pointing me to it so I can catch up on that discussion

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#18 - 2016-01-30 23:40:00 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
My argument against this is, you are still using Isk that means you have some kind of connection to SCC which means they will tax you.


Do you have a game play reason?

Maintaining ISK sinks.


The isk sinks will be maintained by the k space holes as well as potentially lost loot and I highly doubt they will be used enough to subvert the sinks to any significant margin

Loot is not an isk sink. In fact destroyed ships generate isk not remove it

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin
Lugh Crow-Slave
#19 - 2016-01-31 01:23:02 UTC
Noragen Neirfallas wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
My argument against this is, you are still using Isk that means you have some kind of connection to SCC which means they will tax you.


Do you have a game play reason?

Maintaining ISK sinks.


The isk sinks will be maintained by the k space holes as well as potentially lost loot and I highly doubt they will be used enough to subvert the sinks to any significant margin

Loot is not an isk sink. In fact destroyed ships generate isk not remove it


Not if they ate lost while no one is piloting them and the potential value of the blue loot last is indeed an isk sink

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#20 - 2016-01-31 03:50:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Arya Regnar
Apparently XL citadels will have 400m ehp through all 3 layers and the medium ones will have 100m+ from what I've heard (through all 3 layers).

I absolutely do not look forward to that grind.

I think their EHP is a sufficient incentive.

PS: Not ad-hominem but please... It's wormholes and feedback not worm holes and feed back.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
12Next page