Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

What's the actual point of the 5 mil jump fee for NPC stations?

This "covering costs" thing is obviously ridiculous since NPCs don't have costs or wallets or ISK... or am I missing something here?

It will be detrimental to PvP. In RvB we primarily stay in high sec but often have low or null sec roams. Everyone jumps into their clean clone, naturally, not wanting to risk their implants. With a 5 mil fee, and another 5 mil to jump back into their implanted clone, many people will simply not bother. I'm sure other groups who occasionally go to low or null for roams will be similarly affected.

I am failing to see the point whatsoever. It seems like all con and no pro. What's the pro's of this change, from any angle? Who is it meant to help?

citadels should not be pushed by nerfing npc stations.

the current proposal is a overall price rise and risk increase for null in total. a market tax of total 8,5 % !!!!!!! is a huge blow. so you pay basically a security tax since a NPC doesnt get blown up, versus a citadel with a 10 % loot drop fine to retreive ALL your items.

Hitting someone with a stick is never wise. U force peopel now to use a citadel. Null sec hubs are stocked by players with high isk volume invested and work, i own 4 toons doign 1200 lines, updating it, stockign ,and keepign up is already hard work, volume isk varies 300-500 bill.

8,5 % combined market for npc is huge, so **** stocking null in NPC. however noone in his right mind will put 300 bill market in a citadel, with a 30 bill risk too lose, and only marginal profits, else the whole allaince starts to moan.

This is a big blow to null market hubs, which drive content. U wantto logon and start to play, not go pick up ship fits alll over since noone bothers to stock a region properly in volumes that sustain a doctrine. contracts cant take over this part, both on work, volume and even so cause its not launched with citadels atm. its a big nerf bat which will lower content even more.

I understand the need to psh people from NPC too player owned. However, most stations are not NPC but player dropped. Does ccp see a difference too npc and current player dropped outposts ? i deployed the egg, hatched the fuckignthing invested 40-60 billion isk, and now the market fees are driven up, in a station i build and own ??? plz ccp how u see that ? how does my current player build station also gets a punishment for what i invested too build it. ? please answer:

think positive things,remove 90 days max expiration on markets in citadel (big work for bulk traders), remove all cost of cloning. let a owner decide if fee is good or isk. I liek the minerals over isk, minerals i can build with, isk means i have too jump **** in and buy it. he move too isk fees is a nerf also.

looking ar myself i am going too stop stockign null sec regions for others. liquidize 500 bill, buy of other poor souls , and have **** all fleets cause noone ever has the right ships and volumes too have a doctrine going.

Null doesnt have many blocks left, btw, PL and goons will use the tools we all use too watch at the list of stations with most isk in market. and ransom them or blow them up. U are creating the biggest disatisfier EVER in null. NOONE can defend themselvesfrom pl or goon superblob, which will ransom or destroy any hub in citadel that builds something up worth destroying.

its the virtual end and reverse achievemtn of current breakign up of null into smaller parts with fun pvp without everyone butting in. you are now breaking null. through logitic nerfing indireclty.

keep npc as is, give citadels unique benefits and features.and if u don, then refund me my station, cause its not what it is anymore when i bought it, by law you need too buy it back.

The point is that running a Clone Bay in a Citadel will have a cost (in the new fuel-blocks) which, as suggested in the OP, is currently around 157m per month.

Citadels cost a lot and running them will cost - EVE is a business game and like any business the investment of the isk is supposed to have a return (if you're doing it right).

There needs to be a mechanism for charging that makes that sensible. The fee for NPCs 'needs' to be set at a level that players can undercut to make it cheaper to use Citadels whilst still covering their costs.

In Red vs Blues case - both Red & Blue should put up their own Citadels and charge peanuts instead. Likewise Null Sec Alliances can offset their costs through other taxes and perhaps charge little if anything at all.

So remove the fuel cost for the clone bay. Problem fixed.

You're assuming that all areas of space need to be treated equally in respect to module demand. However I contend that not all areas of space need to find equal attraction in the modules.

Let's take wormholers for example, even if nothing else was changed these guys will fall over themselves to have this facility because it is a game changer, costs be damned.


Not everything needs to be held at the same perceived value point for it to be a good feature. It's ok for some areas to not want to use things and others to want them a great deal.

In addition as I said, this whole thing is odd, it is as if the fuel cost is a constant and cannot be altered. It could easily be altered and/or additional attractive features attached to the use of such a facility.

---

Ed: And for the record I do not believe Jita 4-4 will go anywhere as a result of these changes, just things will be marked up. Which is fine, but there's simply too much implicit value in the stability of that location.

Different citadel modules have different impact on gameplay and are balanced differently. Why does a cyno need fuel, but a point only needs cap? Both are ship modules after all.

I am seeing an assumption that CCP believes we need to have our behaviour modified to make Citadels work.

You need to look a little more closely into the thought that players will automatically resist change, and have done historically.

Whilst this assumption is not technically incorrect, you will find that mass resistiance occurs when CCP are using negative reinforcement, or punishment, to drive different behaviours. "the players need to be educated and forced to use the new xxxx"

When we have seen positive reinforcement or "Dear God, but thats better, fantastic!” we DO NOT HAVE RESISTANCE. in fact we welcome the change with open arms.

So CCP if you want to carry the playerbase on the journey with you, delight and surprise us. This is what CCP Seagull promised, and we have stayed because of this, Hopeful.

If you want outright war between CCP and the playerbase, even though the journey is a good one, just punish us and whip us to make us change.

I did think that you had learned this lesson, and we were past this thinking.

Actually, it's the cost of a fully t2 fit frig. I say this because it cost 5 mil to jump to a clean clone, then the next day 5 mil to jump back. That is steep and gets back to the whole "clone costs more than the ship I lost" dilemma.

Will ccp give us a chance to refund implant cost on the jump clones That will now just collect dust?

Holy crap! This is just 5 mil ISK! Stop ranting and go kill a rat in a belt!
CCP eliminated med clone costs, it should have made PVP bloom. But guess what? It didnt. CCP invented entosis links to reduce entrance threshold to nullsec. Neither hisec bears nor renters gave a single ****. Go figure.

Cost is not a factor to determine your lifestyle. There's just too much ISK out there. But when you make some features free - you shrink the playground for those who enjoy EVE's player-driven economy. How dare you.

Jump clone fatique in NPC stations:
>24 hours = 5 ISK
23 hours = 500 ISK
22 hours = 50 000 ISK
<21 hours = 5 000 000 ISK

And please reduce the fuel cost of clone facility. 150 milions is just plain too much. IMHO fuel cost for running all service modules in Astrohaus should be about 100 - 120 milions all together, just as costs for small POS right now.