These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] Changing NPC taxes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#181 - 2016-03-03 23:59:03 UTC
Niko Zino wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
So it is not good because it doesn't allow players instant gratification and means their choices have consequences... I guess I can't blame you as it seems to be the path eve has been following lately.


Heaven knows Vic and I aren't always on the same side of every issue, but seriously, you should read what he writes before typing.


Vic Jefferson wrote:
The faster and easier it is to get to content, the better experiences players have, and the more the wheels of the economy are greased, which in turn is more content for people.

Can you explain which part of his post that you believe I misread?
its my cyno
Doomheim
#182 - 2016-03-04 00:00:30 UTC
If citadels wont be that profitable and appealing and you need to change NPC services and taxes to make it so then you are doing it wrong. Go back to the drawing board and ask what can I do to make them better then NPC stations without changing NPC. If you cant then you failed and scrap the whole idea. There is only so much change the player base will take before they say this game sucks. To make a part of the game suck to make another part appealing because it sucks isn't the answer. How did the new sov changes work out? yeah thought so....I am starting to wonder if CCP hired a bunch of engineers to replace developers. "If it isn't broke don't fix it", changing it for the better could actually break it to where its not repairable.

If the owner cant find a way to compete with NPC services and taxes then they truly shouldn't own a citadel anyways. Maybe you should change the fee amounts to the owners to maintain the services. Citadel owners are going to own citadels because they want to show how much further they measure on the stick then others and not because they want to compete with NPC or markets. If you don't know why the markets thrive they way they do then I suggest actually playing the game once in awhile. I will also bring up the "think of the wormhole children".... ohh wait nvm I forget they are like the belters in "The Expanse" that have to deal with the power struggle between Mars and Earth.



There is too much slope for these changes to be good. This will not be new player friendly and how many more lost subs can CCP absorb?

What is the point of a sandbox game if you keep removing the sand.
Niko Zino
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2016-03-04 00:05:58 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Can you explain which part of his post that you believe I misread?


I can. He's arguing that it won't make a difference for people who are entrenched in 'their' space, where their citadel is. But for the content that should come their way, be it gangs who want a change of scenery or new-ish people, it will.

So the question is, who do you want to favor here? the person who goes out of their way to create content, or the person who's happy to sit like a big fat toad near their most valuable assets?

Vic and I are coming from different sides on this, but we both encourage people to a/ fish and b/ fish further than 2j away.

CAS, the NPC Corp that Does Stuff™
Lugh Crow-Slave
#184 - 2016-03-04 00:11:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
its my cyno wrote:
If citadels wont be that profitable and appealing and you need to change NPC services and taxes to make it so then you are doing it wrong. Go back to the drawing board and ask what can I do to make them better then NPC stations without changing NPC. If you cant then you failed and scrap the whole idea. There is only so much change the player base will take before they say this game sucks. To make a part of the game suck to make another part appealing because it sucks isn't the answer. How did the new sov changes work out? yeah thought so....I am starting to wonder if CCP hired a bunch of engineers to replace developers. "If it isn't broke don't fix it", changing it for the better could actually break it to where its not repairable.

If the owner cant find a way to compete with NPC services and taxes then they truly shouldn't own a citadel anyways. Maybe you should change the fee amounts to the owners to maintain the services. Citadel owners are going to own citadels because they want to show how much further they measure on the stick then others and not because they want to compete with NPC or markets. If you don't know why the markets thrive they way they do then I suggest actually playing the game once in awhile. I will also bring up the "think of the wormhole children".... ohh wait nvm I forget they are like the belters in "The Expanse" that have to deal with the power struggle between Mars and Earth.



There is too much slope for these changes to be good. This will not be new player friendly and how many more lost subs can CCP absorb?

What is the point of a sandbox game if you keep removing the sand.


Pretty sure the idea is so that markets are forced out of npc in order to remove just one more non player element from the game if that's the case the changes make seance. Except the 5 mil to jump a cone that seems a bit excessive

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#185 - 2016-03-04 00:32:12 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Pretty sure the idea is so that markets are forced out of npc in order to remove just one more non player element from the game if that's the case the changes make seance. Except the 5 mil to jump a cone that seems a bit excessive


We have seen what happens when players have too much control, or too much potential for control. Do you really want what happened with Sov to happen with markets...to a further extent than it already does?

Honestly if I was in the CFC et al, I'd be rejoicing at this so hard; who wants to have to run a renter empire when you can make more cash with less effort by controlling one station?

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Not my fault if you live to far away from content maybe try dropping a few blues


Rote Kapelle has no blues.

Syndicate is dead. Why? CCP hates NPC nullsec basically, but this is another topic. There is no content to be had because the development emphasis is on sov entirely, despite Low and NPC null being healthier innate designs. Hence why one has to jump clone every play session just to find content.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#186 - 2016-03-04 00:36:29 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Pretty sure the idea is so that markets are forced out of npc in order to remove just one more non player element from the game if that's the case the changes make seance. Except the 5 mil to jump a cone that seems a bit excessive


We have seen what happens when players have too much control, or too much potential for control. Do you really want what happened with Sov to happen with markets...to a further extent than it already does?

Honestly if I was in the CFC et al, I'd be rejoicing at this so hard; who wants to have to run a renter empire when you can make more cash with less effort by controlling one station?

Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Not my fault if you live to far away from content maybe try dropping a few blues


Rote Kapelle has no blues.

Syndicate is dead. Why? CCP hates NPC nullsec basically, but this is another topic. There is no content to be had because the development emphasis is on sov entirely, despite Low and NPC null being healthier innate designs. Hence why one has to jump clone every play session just to find content.


What do you mean I don't need to just for content at all the systems near me are full of them and if I need to move to another array is generally 10-15 mins to find a while chain

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#187 - 2016-03-04 00:46:02 UTC
Charging a Tax on ore refining, when it is potentially possible that the player may not have the funds to cover the act? Can I a have "marginal refining tax" skill please.
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#188 - 2016-03-04 00:47:04 UTC
Keep the mineral based tax for Citadels. Make it so when you reprocess, the Citadel owner gets the "tax" portion of the refined ores/gases/ice. It will still be useful to them as much as isk, and in Null and W-Space maybe more valuable than isk.

That's my only input, rest sounds good to me.
Captain IQ
Innocent Traders Ltd
#189 - 2016-03-04 00:54:18 UTC
Anchor a citadel, make it attractive, build it then they will come, what's so hard?
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#190 - 2016-03-04 00:54:23 UTC
Overall I support adding more isk sinks / reducing faucets, and am fine with adding some added taxes to NPC stations, but the 5m fee for jumping into a clone is not the way to do it. The change contradicts many of the changes CCP has made over the years to avoid punishing undocking--removing clone grades / costs, removing skill loss, removing standings for jump clones, etc.

Adding a 5m fee for jump clones--which will often involve jumping into a completely empty clone for some players, like myself--will not push many players toward using Citadels, but toward playing the game less. Furthermore, it also hurts primarily new players, who keep an empty clone to jump into for PVP. Making them pay 5m just to jump into their PVP clone is really a step in the wrong direction for EVE, even if the game DOES need more isk sinks.
Beta Maoye
#191 - 2016-03-04 00:56:11 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


  • Market: markets currently have two taxes, transaction's tax, applied for sold items, and broker's fee for non immediate orders, which are set at 1.5% and 1% respectively. To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% and the broker's fee to 5-6%. Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels.
  • Contracts: while Contracts will not be available in Citadels for the first release, the transaction's tax and borker's fee will also go up by the same amount than markets as mentioned above.

Please remember those are still work in progress changes (especially the market broker's fee tax amount), so please use constructive feedback in your replies.


High transaction cost is not good for free market. Low transaction cost encourage more buyers and sellers to participate in the market which allows efficient bargaining and thus facilitates price fixing. The less buyers and sellers in a market, the more likely the price will be deviated from a fair price. Inefficient market will lead to other problems such as low productivity, price manipulation, inefficient allocation of resources. That means less fun for market participants. I want the tax and broker fee to remain low to allow efficient market and fair price.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#192 - 2016-03-04 01:01:43 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:

GSF used to be the good guys

This is false.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#193 - 2016-03-04 01:03:14 UTC
Elyia Suze Nagala wrote:
Keep the mineral based tax for Citadels. Make it so when you reprocess, the Citadel owner gets the "tax" portion of the refined ores/gases/ice. It will still be useful to them as much as isk, and in Null and W-Space maybe more valuable than isk.

That's my only input, rest sounds good to me.


I prefer this as well new players may not have isk but everyone will have the minerals they are refining.

Also it means a bit more effort has to be taken by the owner.


And again will I be able to let people refine in my citadel but not compress?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#194 - 2016-03-04 01:05:04 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Querns wrote:
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Querns wrote:

You can use someone else's citadel, without having to belong to their corporation or alliance.


Only if they let you.

Odds of that happening?

Pretty close to zero. Like anybody is going to pay for and take the risk of continuing to pay for a citadel just to let the bad guys use it.

This will kill casual/newbro PVP dead and probably empty out a lot of lowsec and NPC null as well. Won't effect the big sov null blobs at all.

EDIT: Except for making their space even more secure, that is.

You don't think people will make free-for-all docking citadels in empire, especially with the prospect of being able to reap tax income from them? If you think they won't exist, you're nuts.

Dibs on niarja/uedama

Eh, "dibs" is kind of an archaic ritual to use, here. Clearly, we need to do battle in the arena of cutthroat capitalism.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#195 - 2016-03-04 01:06:33 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:

I am sorry but this game play is forced, and in a bad way. You want to enable players and small groups, and these changes do the opposite.

No, you want to enable players bonding together into corporations. Retention is a lot higher among those who find a strong corporate identity in Eve. Solo players are basically a rounding error.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#196 - 2016-03-04 01:07:38 UTC
Querns wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:

GSF used to be the good guys

This is false.


They were when it was them or Bob :p

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
#197 - 2016-03-04 01:08:38 UTC
Oddsodz wrote:
5m isk to jump to one of my "Clone Heads" is a bit of a stinker. Not the end of the world, but still a stinker. Now if you was to say make it 10m but there was no time limit to switch from one clone to the next. Then I would be very happy.

I myself don't care for having jump clones all over the place (but that is how there right now). But what I would love is for me to be able to say "hey I am going to fly my super fast Fed navy comet today, I think I would be a good idea to have my snake implants in my head". I then go out and have me some Pew Pew. Come home and say, "Humm I fancy me some Enyo fun, Maybe it's time to fly with some Slave implants". But I can't do that due to time limit on clone jumping. Sure we have all loved with that for a long time. But I really do think it would a deal winner for Citadels to have that "Bonus" selling point. Wormhole implant users will love you for ever and ever. Right now they can't even choose in a timely manner at all. They get no real chance to switch to what is needed if the invading force comes a knocking. Citadels would give them that if there was no time limit.

Anyway. That's my feedback

Hope it helps



Been looking through the posts till I ran across this one. There was also one that mentioned something about incentives work much better than arbitrary penalties. And yet another post eloquently composed a golden rule: If you have to use punishment to get players to use a new feature then, you need to re-think said feature. I would like to thank all of you and humbly echo your ideas. I especially love the idea above that does just what the golden rule calls for; drop the arbitrary punishment (i.e. the completely bonkers jump clone use fee of 5 million every single dang blasted mother trucker time you jump) and instead use the opportunity to eliminate the jump clone timer for those that choose to use the citadel JC service. It provides an avenue for the citadel owner to re-coup costs (people would gladly pay to get that kind of bonus) without forcing the entire JC using public to pay twice (i.e both in terms of time and in isk). Hello CCP are you listening? Rational well thought out and constructive idea....is this thing on??? {drops mic...feedback squeaks}ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedRollRollRollRollRollRollRoll

No, of course they are not listening and even if they were it would probably cost them way too much in terms of reworking the citadel features or, some other made up technical argument that leaves us right back to what they want to do anyway....damn it!!!! Why bother...it's just a waste....frustration....fozzy sov....skill injectors....grrrrrr.
its my cyno
Doomheim
#198 - 2016-03-04 01:08:51 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
its my cyno wrote:
If citadels wont be that profitable and appealing and you need to change NPC services and taxes to make it so then you are doing it wrong. Go back to the drawing board and ask what can I do to make them better then NPC stations without changing NPC. If you cant then you failed and scrap the whole idea. There is only so much change the player base will take before they say this game sucks. To make a part of the game suck to make another part appealing because it sucks isn't the answer. How did the new sov changes work out? yeah thought so....I am starting to wonder if CCP hired a bunch of engineers to replace developers. "If it isn't broke don't fix it", changing it for the better could actually break it to where its not repairable.

If the owner cant find a way to compete with NPC services and taxes then they truly shouldn't own a citadel anyways. Maybe you should change the fee amounts to the owners to maintain the services. Citadel owners are going to own citadels because they want to show how much further they measure on the stick then others and not because they want to compete with NPC or markets. If you don't know why the markets thrive they way they do then I suggest actually playing the game once in awhile. I will also bring up the "think of the wormhole children".... ohh wait nvm I forget they are like the belters in "The Expanse" that have to deal with the power struggle between Mars and Earth.



There is too much slope for these changes to be good. This will not be new player friendly and how many more lost subs can CCP absorb?

What is the point of a sandbox game if you keep removing the sand.


Pretty sure the idea is so that markets are forced out of npc in order to remove just one more non player element from the game if that's the case the changes make seance. Except the 5 mil to jump a cone that seems a bit excessive


Yes quite aware of the forced part. The markets are player driven its just done in NPC stations for its low risk and location convenience. Any red, orange, purple, blue, green capsuler can use the market that players control. CCP wants to sell the citadel idea by forcing players to change to what they want and where the markets are. This in return will benefit a few and screw over the rest.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#199 - 2016-03-04 01:09:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Beta Maoye wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


  • Market: markets currently have two taxes, transaction's tax, applied for sold items, and broker's fee for non immediate orders, which are set at 1.5% and 1% respectively. To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% and the broker's fee to 5-6%. Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels.
  • Contracts: while Contracts will not be available in Citadels for the first release, the transaction's tax and borker's fee will also go up by the same amount than markets as mentioned above.

Please remember those are still work in progress changes (especially the market broker's fee tax amount), so please use constructive feedback in your replies.


High transaction cost is not good for free market. Low transaction cost encourage more buyers and sellers to participate in the market which allows efficient bargaining and thus facilitates price fixing. The less buyers and sellers in a market, the more likely the price will be deviated from a fair price. Inefficient market will lead to other problems such as low productivity, price manipulation, inefficient allocation of resources. That means less fun for market participants. I want the tax and broker fee to remain low to allow efficient market and fair price.


It honestly sounds like you regurgitated a bunch of marketing technobabble with no connecting thoughts or explanations. Why exactly does higher broker fee's somehow discourage people from participating in the market? Are people going to magically stop buying things?

There will be a larger gap between buy and sell orders due to the new fee's, yes. The price of items will adjust so that manufactures are still making a profit, and the market people will make whatever orders still allow them to make money in the process.

The people significantly harmed here are the people who roll up to jita and blanket multisell all their junk, as they will be dealing with a slightly lower return. But who cares about them, they didn't actively participate before, they won't after.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#200 - 2016-03-04 01:10:48 UTC
its my cyno wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
its my cyno wrote:
If citadels wont be that profitable and appealing and you need to change NPC services and taxes to make it so then you are doing it wrong. Go back to the drawing board and ask what can I do to make them better then NPC stations without changing NPC. If you cant then you failed and scrap the whole idea. There is only so much change the player base will take before they say this game sucks. To make a part of the game suck to make another part appealing because it sucks isn't the answer. How did the new sov changes work out? yeah thought so....I am starting to wonder if CCP hired a bunch of engineers to replace developers. "If it isn't broke don't fix it", changing it for the better could actually break it to where its not repairable.

If the owner cant find a way to compete with NPC services and taxes then they truly shouldn't own a citadel anyways. Maybe you should change the fee amounts to the owners to maintain the services. Citadel owners are going to own citadels because they want to show how much further they measure on the stick then others and not because they want to compete with NPC or markets. If you don't know why the markets thrive they way they do then I suggest actually playing the game once in awhile. I will also bring up the "think of the wormhole children".... ohh wait nvm I forget they are like the belters in "The Expanse" that have to deal with the power struggle between Mars and Earth.



There is too much slope for these changes to be good. This will not be new player friendly and how many more lost subs can CCP absorb?

What is the point of a sandbox game if you keep removing the sand.


Pretty sure the idea is so that markets are forced out of npc in order to remove just one more non player element from the game if that's the case the changes make seance. Except the 5 mil to jump a cone that seems a bit excessive


Yes quite aware of the forced part. The markets are player driven its just done in NPC stations for its low risk and location convenience. Any red, orange, purple, blue, green capsuler can use the market that players control. CCP wants to sell the citadel idea by forcing players to change to what they want and where the markets are. This in return will benefit a few and screw over the rest.


Exactly now you just have to pay more for that low risk or have a better magen but worth more risk added

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble