These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Beta Maoye
#421 - 2016-03-05 21:33:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Beta Maoye
Let's think about the economic power of an imaginary super player who is strong enough to fight against all odds to hold a Citadel that can replace Jita.
(1)For a monthly volume of 700T, 4% broker fee is 28T each month of income.
(2)He can adjust the pricing scale of broker fee according to an individual's standing with his party. Insider can get better pricing or even total waive of broker fee. Outsider will pay the normal fee of 4%. An insider can be able to make 4% profit on a sale while the outsider cannot be profitable.
(3)He can control who can access his Citadel and who cannot. If he want to, he can fence off competitors who want to compete with the insiders. In other words, he can control price if he want to.
(4)The degree of economic dominance depends on how many market hubs he can control. The more the number of hubs, the more economic power he has.
Of course this is a very difficult task. But if he can, he will have complete dominance in the game. He will have the power of price setting on any item including two most important commodities, PLEX and injector. Every time a seller sell an item or a buyer buy an item, his capital increase. He can pay any number mercenaries to hunt down any opposition power. No one can challenge him.
It goes back to the original starting point, stagnant space, after all the drama, reworking, rebalance, new mechanics. One should be extremely careful in the process of putting power in the hand of players. Once the power is given, taking it back will be tremendously difficult.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#422 - 2016-03-05 21:38:37 UTC
Albert Spear wrote:
Oh, here is a dumb question.

Will the prices in the Market Modules in the Citadels show up in the regional market window or will they be hidden from the regional market window?



If you can dock and use the market or will show up in the regional market

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave
#423 - 2016-03-05 21:40:26 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
It goes back to the original starting point, stagnant space, after all the drama, reworking, rebalance, new mechanics. One should be extremely careful in the process of putting power in the hand of players.


It always does this is the same reason sov needs to be regularly rebalanced so it's nothing new



BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#424 - 2016-03-05 21:49:24 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:

Just to be sure, I went back and checked the number of unique names. Before getting tired I got to about 90 different people saying negative things about the brokers fee and tax increases. I encourage you to go find only 3-4 specific people yelling loudly.


There are more than 3-4 people whop disagree with them, but there a disproportionate is coming from a few people.

Kaivar Lancer for example, is 18 posts complaining by himself.
Sgt Ocker, 9 posts
epicurus ataraxia, 10 posts
Scotsman Howard 9 posts

And that's a few notable glances from the pages I posted on.

So yeah, there are a few people yelling loudly, and a lot more grumbling quietly, but we can't look at the vocal outcry of the few and assume everyone hates it, because a forum thread where the loudest people get the most facetime is not a good representation of the opinions of the playerbase.

And all the people who don't care? They are absent. All the people who like it? They mostly don't bother posting. And that's just out of the very small minority of players who actually use this forum.

I have 9 posts about the new market tax?
I'm pretty sure it was one, which was an aside, included to show some of the drawbacks of trading from a Citadel.

If you wish to use my posts to prove a point, at least make it honest.

Is it any wonder CCP pay no attention to their own forums and decisions are made on a 3rd party site.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#425 - 2016-03-05 22:26:23 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Beta Maoye wrote:
It goes back to the original starting point, stagnant space, after all the drama, reworking, rebalance, new mechanics. One should be extremely careful in the process of putting power in the hand of players.


It always does this is the same reason sov needs to be regularly rebalanced so it's nothing new

Sov is for large rich alliances who have allies (and renters) from one end of nul to the other.

No amount of rebalancing on Devs part will change that, they encouraged it - Sov will remain the realm of large groups renting space to others which can't do anything but create a stagnant nulsec.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#426 - 2016-03-05 22:37:49 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Beta Maoye wrote:
It goes back to the original starting point, stagnant space, after all the drama, reworking, rebalance, new mechanics. One should be extremely careful in the process of putting power in the hand of players.


It always does this is the same reason sov needs to be regularly rebalanced so it's nothing new

Sov is for large rich alliances who have allies (and renters) from one end of nul to the other.

No amount of rebalancing on Devs part will change that, they encouraged it - Sov will remain the realm of large groups renting space to others which can't do anything but create a stagnant nulsec.


First off, my bad on the earlier categorization of you if it was incorrect, my main purpose with the post was pointing out how relatively few people made a disproportionate about of the posts, not that those people in particular were the ones complaining about the broker fee's.

On the current subject, there is a lot of space out there not owned by large groups, unless your cutoff for large groups is rather low.

The current sov mechanics did help splinter space, creating regions where the region is divided between quite a few smaller groups that are not blue to each other.

Just look at Fountain, Delve, Querious, Cloud Ring, Immensea. Lots of inter region conflict with 5-10 separate alliances holding space in each.

Are there big empires with renters, especially in the nowrthwest CFC space and Northeast? Yeah. And there's likely no possible sov system that would prevent people from banding together for safety into giant blobs of low effort goo.

But there's a lot of space out there for small alliances in the 700-1500 member range.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#427 - 2016-03-05 22:50:11 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Beta Maoye wrote:
It goes back to the original starting point, stagnant space, after all the drama, reworking, rebalance, new mechanics. One should be extremely careful in the process of putting power in the hand of players.


It always does this is the same reason sov needs to be regularly rebalanced so it's nothing new

Sov is for large rich alliances who have allies (and renters) from one end of nul to the other.

No amount of rebalancing on Devs part will change that, they encouraged it - Sov will remain the realm of large groups renting space to others which can't do anything but create a stagnant nulsec.


First off, my bad on the earlier categorization of you if it was incorrect, my main purpose with the post was pointing out how relatively few people made a disproportionate about of the posts, not that those people in particular were the ones complaining about the broker fee's.

On the current subject, there is a lot of space out there not owned by large groups, unless your cutoff for large groups is rather low.

The current sov mechanics did help splinter space, creating regions where the region is divided between quite a few smaller groups that are not blue to each other.

Just look at Fountain, Delve, Querious, Cloud Ring, Immensea. Lots of inter region conflict with 5-10 separate alliances holding space in each.

Are there big empires with renters, especially in the nowrthwest CFC space and Northeast? Yeah. And there's likely no possible sov system that would prevent people from banding together for safety into giant blobs of low effort goo.

But there's a lot of space out there for small alliances in the 700-1500 member range.


Hell my alliance held space in scalding pass for a little over a month before they decided wh made more isk and it wasn't even an alliance effort I think it was just 15 guys who asked for a few roles and just went out.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#428 - 2016-03-05 22:54:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

A 6% increase is not going to "destroy the station trading profession" the market will recover and yes it will push people to use citadels once people see they are not as vulnerable add they ate speculating

And this shows a lack of understanding of the problem.
Station trading is not like ratting. A 6% tax is not 6% of your profit like ratting. It's often your entire profit, if it more than the margins some items trade at (relative to their opportunity cost of component parts).

And we all know who will control the major trade hubs, the major null alliances have so much material built up they are impossible to challenge on the combat field long term (Sure you might win a fight or two, but if they care they'll just bury you), the only way big null groups get taken out is via the meta game, and when they control the development of the metagame via their vocal lobby & are a concentration of the oldest players in the game (as shown by CCP Fanfest graphs) it's obvious the surviving groups aren't going to be knocked off by any 'new group'. (So the whole, 'just form your own group to challenge them argument is a joke, has been for years, and everyone knows it).

So the problem is that this much of a big stick being applied to NPC taxes provides a way for those groups to extend the areas of space they control into high sec, which actually creates more metagame stagnation in EVE. It may create a burst of fighting in space, but it further encourages the blue doughnut to form (Don't destroy our markets, we won't destroy yours) and the crushing of any remotely emergent group that could change the political landscape, rather than a group that pays homage & tribute to their 'overlords' to survive.

Note, this is not saying those groups have not worked to get there, but game mechanics should not further encourage a single group, or a few groups holding dominion over everything (Directly or via proxy alliance), and this game mechanic does do that.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#429 - 2016-03-05 23:09:10 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

A 6% increase is not going to "destroy the station trading profession" the market will recover and yes it will push people to use citadels once people see they are not as vulnerable add they ate speculating

And this shows a lack of understanding of the problem.
Station trading is not like ratting. A 6% tax is not 6% of your profit like ratting. It's often your entire profit, if it more than the margins some items trade at (relative to their opportunity cost of component parts).

And we all know who will control the major trade hubs, the major null alliances have so much material built up they are impossible to challenge on the combat field long term (Sure you might win a fight or two, but if they care they'll just bury you), the only way big null groups get taken out is via the meta game, and when they control the development of the metagame via their vocal lobby & are a concentration of the oldest players in the game (as shown by CCP Fanfest graphs) it's obvious the surviving groups aren't going to be knocked off by any 'new group'. (So the whole, 'just form your own group to challenge them argument is a joke, has been for years, and everyone knows it).

So the problem is that this much of a big stick being applied to NPC taxes provides a way for those groups to extend the areas of space they control into high sec, which actually creates more metagame stagnation in EVE. It may create a burst of fighting in space, but it further encourages the blue doughnut to form (Don't destroy our markets, we won't destroy yours) and the crushing of any remotely emergent group that could change the political landscape, rather than a group that pays homage & tribute to their 'overlords' to survive.

Note, this is not saying those groups have not worked to get there, but game mechanics should not further encourage a single group, or a few groups holding dominion over everything (Directly or via proxy alliance), and this game mechanic does do that.



First i know how the market works is how I make the majority of my isk. And 6% will not kill it in fact in some areas like industry it will actually improve profit margins for the more dedicated manufactures.


Second the large groups may control the highest traffic areas but they will not control every market. They ate not going to shown the time and the energy just going around structure grinding for little to no gain

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#430 - 2016-03-06 01:57:36 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

A 6% increase is not going to "destroy the station trading profession" the market will recover and yes it will push people to use citadels once people see they are not as vulnerable add they ate speculating

And this shows a lack of understanding of the problem.
Station trading is not like ratting. A 6% tax is not 6% of your profit like ratting. It's often your entire profit, if it more than the margins some items trade at (relative to their opportunity cost of component parts).

And we all know who will control the major trade hubs, the major null alliances have so much material built up they are impossible to challenge on the combat field long term (Sure you might win a fight or two, but if they care they'll just bury you), the only way big null groups get taken out is via the meta game, and when they control the development of the metagame via their vocal lobby & are a concentration of the oldest players in the game (as shown by CCP Fanfest graphs) it's obvious the surviving groups aren't going to be knocked off by any 'new group'. (So the whole, 'just form your own group to challenge them argument is a joke, has been for years, and everyone knows it).

So the problem is that this much of a big stick being applied to NPC taxes provides a way for those groups to extend the areas of space they control into high sec, which actually creates more metagame stagnation in EVE. It may create a burst of fighting in space, but it further encourages the blue doughnut to form (Don't destroy our markets, we won't destroy yours) and the crushing of any remotely emergent group that could change the political landscape, rather than a group that pays homage & tribute to their 'overlords' to survive.

Note, this is not saying those groups have not worked to get there, but game mechanics should not further encourage a single group, or a few groups holding dominion over everything (Directly or via proxy alliance), and this game mechanic does do that.



First i know how the market works is how I make the majority of my isk. And 6% will not kill it in fact in some areas like industry it will actually improve profit margins for the more dedicated manufactures.


Second the large groups may control the highest traffic areas but they will not control every market. They ate not going to shown the time and the energy just going around structure grinding for little to no gain

Exactly; people are over-reacting. Taking skills and standings into account your still looking at only a 2% broker fee and 1.25% tax, so overall its rising from around 1% to 2.25%. The higher broker fee will make trading for quick profits less efficient as you will be paying two lots of broker fees which up until now has been negligible. Despite this there will be only a minor impact for most people, the only players hurt will be prolific traders who will now have to be a bit more careful with their investments.

I think that people still will be reluctant to use citadels even if the broker fee is set to nothing purely due to the risk factor and uncertainty.
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#431 - 2016-03-06 02:24:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
Moac Tor wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

A 6% increase is not going to "destroy the station trading profession" the market will recover and yes it will push people to use citadels once people see they are not as vulnerable add they ate speculating

And this shows a lack of understanding of the problem.
Station trading is not like ratting. A 6% tax is not 6% of your profit like ratting. It's often your entire profit, if it more than the margins some items trade at (relative to their opportunity cost of component parts).

And we all know who will control the major trade hubs, the major null alliances have so much material built up they are impossible to challenge on the combat field long term (Sure you might win a fight or two, but if they care they'll just bury you), the only way big null groups get taken out is via the meta game, and when they control the development of the metagame via their vocal lobby & are a concentration of the oldest players in the game (as shown by CCP Fanfest graphs) it's obvious the surviving groups aren't going to be knocked off by any 'new group'. (So the whole, 'just form your own group to challenge them argument is a joke, has been for years, and everyone knows it).

So the problem is that this much of a big stick being applied to NPC taxes provides a way for those groups to extend the areas of space they control into high sec, which actually creates more metagame stagnation in EVE. It may create a burst of fighting in space, but it further encourages the blue doughnut to form (Don't destroy our markets, we won't destroy yours) and the crushing of any remotely emergent group that could change the political landscape, rather than a group that pays homage & tribute to their 'overlords' to survive.

Note, this is not saying those groups have not worked to get there, but game mechanics should not further encourage a single group, or a few groups holding dominion over everything (Directly or via proxy alliance), and this game mechanic does do that.


First i know how the market works is how I make the majority of my isk. And 6% will not kill it in fact in some areas like industry it will actually improve profit margins for the more dedicated manufactures.


Second the large groups may control the highest traffic areas but they will not control every market. They ate not going to shown the time and the energy just going around structure grinding for little to no gain

Exactly; people are over-reacting. Taking skills and standings into account your still looking at only a 2% broker fee and 1.25% tax, so overall its rising from around 1% to 2.25%. The higher broker fee will make trading for quick profits less efficient as you will be paying two lots of broker fees which up until now has been negligible. Despite this there will be only a minor impact for most people, the only players hurt will be prolific traders who will now have to be a bit more careful with their investments.

I think that people still will be reluctant to use citadels even if the broker fee is set to nothing purely due to the risk factor and uncertainty.

Ok, but what does it look like when prolific traders are more careful? I'm thinking about how they would change their behavior and I can't think of any way that's not bad for the market. They could choose to not deal in volatile or low volume items, meaning less orders, less competition, and worse prices and availability. Or they could ignore smaller markets where they might not get enough business in favor of larger hubs, again decreasing availability of items. Or they could just quit, taking all their items and orders out of the market, again making it ever so slightly harder to buy and sell stuff.

Also keep in mind that a change like this would hurt people who want to dabble in the market a lot more than people with max skilled trade alts. That means effectively locking many new or casual players out of the profession while angering established traders, many to the point of quitting. I wouldn't be surprised if after the market adjusts to the changes Jita is worse than Amarr, Amarr is like Dodixie, Dodixie is like Hek, and Rens and Hek are dead. The changes are directly targeted at those who invest their time and isk into buying our unwanted items and making them available to the rest of us. Making life harder for them just makes buying and selling stuff harder for all of us. It also heavily penalizes manufacturers who don't produce all the base items themselves, and for T2 and T3 production that's an unreasonable thing to try.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#432 - 2016-03-06 02:29:37 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
It also heavily penalizes manufacturers who don't produce all the base items themselves, and for T2 and T3 production that's an unreasonable thing to try.



It also rewards those who do build things from the ground up something that currently makes less isk than just producing one step in most cases

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
CK-0FF
Intergalactic Space Hobos
#433 - 2016-03-06 03:19:15 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
It also heavily penalizes manufacturers who don't produce all the base items themselves, and for T2 and T3 production that's an unreasonable thing to try.



It also rewards those who do build things from the ground up something that currently makes less isk than just producing one step in most cases


Let's take a look at a Sabre for example.
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#434 - 2016-03-06 07:44:36 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Wimzy Chent-Shi wrote:
Would it be possible to compensate for the market tax changes by further increasing the effect of standings/skills most of traders spent quite a lot of time and effort getting?


So can we reballance market taxes but make those reballances only effect new players?

Since the effect of skills and standings ate % based the effectiveness is already being increased


Alright, I see your point, so the difference between newbies and established traders will actually go even further, unless trading moves to a citadel, which it could but probably won't, so all we are getting is more harsh trading environment and a motive to risk assets in a citadel that will be wardecced 24/7. And all that for one more structure to dec and grind down.

I am just sad to see all that time spent flying two toons through countless missions potentially go to waste over someone building a citadel 100 km next to Jita where skills are suddenly close to irrelevant and standings are irrelevant completely, while being unable to extract a thing due to the "lowish" SP requirements of trading itself.

Will just have to hope they will wardec and shoot them down often enough, introducing structure grinding, now also in highsec, as if it has never been there so before, quoting trailer: "yey so much fun".

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#435 - 2016-03-06 07:51:28 UTC
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
It also heavily penalizes manufacturers who don't produce all the base items themselves, and for T2 and T3 production that's an unreasonable thing to try.



It also rewards those who do build things from the ground up something that currently makes less isk than just producing one step in most cases


Let's take a look at a Sabre for example.


People don't do it for a reason, that reason being inefficiency, but there is nothing stopping you from creating a Sabre production consortium where you throw things around through trade windows, yehey, everyone wins! Let's talk up those miners from another TZ!

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#436 - 2016-03-06 10:17:38 UTC
Wimzy Chent-Shi wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
It also heavily penalizes manufacturers who don't produce all the base items themselves, and for T2 and T3 production that's an unreasonable thing to try.



It also rewards those who do build things from the ground up something that currently makes less isk than just producing one step in most cases


Let's take a look at a Sabre for example.


People don't do it for a reason, that reason being inefficiency, but there is nothing stopping you from creating a Sabre production consortium where you throw things around through trade windows, yehey, everyone wins! Let's talk up those miners from another TZ!

Sorry but miners will do you little good building a Sabre, or anything else T2 for that matter.

You can of course talk up the local miners so you can build thrashers, I doubt it will be very profitable if you start throwing things around through trade windows.

What you'll need to build A Sabre - Approximately 12 different moons (the right sort of course from all over new eden) reaction towers and a reasonable amount of PVP'rs you can call on to protect them. You will then need enough isk to build at least a large Citadel, unless you want to be at the whim of someone else who could exclude you from docking at theirs or putting docking right fees up or any of the other charges that will come along with destructible structures.

Get the idea yet?
There is more to building a single sabre than you might imagine - why do you think they cost what they do?
Oh lastly, profit margin on them is not very good.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Wimzy Chent-Shi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#437 - 2016-03-06 11:14:22 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Wimzy Chent-Shi wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Miss 'Assassination' Cayman wrote:
It also heavily penalizes manufacturers who don't produce all the base items themselves, and for T2 and T3 production that's an unreasonable thing to try.



It also rewards those who do build things from the ground up something that currently makes less isk than just producing one step in most cases


Let's take a look at a Sabre for example.


People don't do it for a reason, that reason being inefficiency, but there is nothing stopping you from creating a Sabre production consortium where you throw things around through trade windows, yehey, everyone wins! Let's talk up those miners from another TZ!

Sorry but miners will do you little good building a Sabre, or anything else T2 for that matter.

You can of course talk up the local miners so you can build thrashers, I doubt it will be very profitable if you start throwing things around through trade windows.

What you'll need to build A Sabre - Approximately 12 different moons (the right sort of course from all over new eden) reaction towers and a reasonable amount of PVP'rs you can call on to protect them. You will then need enough isk to build at least a large Citadel, unless you want to be at the whim of someone else who could exclude you from docking at theirs or putting docking right fees up or any of the other charges that will come along with destructible structures.

Get the idea yet?
There is more to building a single sabre than you might imagine - why do you think they cost what they do?
Oh lastly, profit margin on them is not very good.



Ok, let me revise that silly inexplicit statement of mine - ok, miners, T2, T3 component producers and all possible manufacturers in the game that do make a product that can be further used in manufacturing. happy? I think you are happy. There is a picture in the quote I think we all can see it.
Yes it is stupid, yes it's unreasonable, no it's not impossible, yes it was sarcasm, best yet, you should totally get them in one corp/alliance so they have one common private chatroom and shared poses and you can wardec them all together.

Come get some cancer @ my blog !

"This clash of opinions is like cutting onions. We are creating something here, that's productive, ...and then there is also salt." -Wimzy 2016
Axhind
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
#438 - 2016-03-06 11:51:38 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Malcanis wrote:


If people ignore citadels markets then that will be evidence that the npc trading taxes have been set too low...



This is more a matter of CCP's philosophy than of CCP's science...

Does CCP want Citadels to be used? Yes.

How much do they want them to be used? Currently to the range of 5-6% taxes.

Personally, beating people with a stick is something CCP was told was awful when it affected Null. Obviously people believe that beating High and Low with a stick is somehow more acceptable...



Considering how OP NPC stations in low sec are I don't really see what the problem is with nerfing the ever living **** out of them. If you are such an elite PvP force I'm sure you can keep a citadel alive.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#439 - 2016-03-06 12:26:14 UTC
Wimzy Chent-Shi wrote:


Ok, let me revise that silly inexplicit statement of mine - ok, miners, T2, T3 component producers and all possible manufacturers in the game that do make a product that can be further used in manufacturing. happy? I think you are happy. There is a picture in the quote I think we all can see it.
Yes it is stupid, yes it's unreasonable, no it's not impossible, yes it was sarcasm, best yet, you should totally get them in one corp/alliance so they have one common private chatroom and shared poses and you can wardec them all together.

I'm really sorry, wasn't trying to rain on your parade but having been in industry for a long time in eve, it is not as simple as you might like to think. It isn't impossible but talk to people who have tried it (there are many) and you will see why Jita and Amarr are so important to anything other than T1 that is built in new eden.



NB; wardecs are only any use in highsec - your not going to do the sort of thing your suggesting in some citadel in highsec, without a rather large alliance in nulsec, worm space and lowsec to supply you.

You can however with a relatively small group start a trade room in chat and gather those who have what you need into one place, just be very careful who you invite. Some people in eve like to befriend or offer to help others simply to infiltrate their organisation for not so friendly reasons.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#440 - 2016-03-06 13:49:43 UTC
-1 to the idea of a five million ISK charge each time someone wants to use a jump clone. That charge is probably too much as well to actually set up a jump clone in the first instance. Especially for new players - we all no doubt remember when we first started playing EVE that a million ISK was a lot of dosh. Smile

-1 to other excessive taxes such as 6% broker fees. Especially if, as it sounds like will be the case, that player market services will not be available in high sec.

I'm glad you're not the RL chancellor in a government. Inflation related increases are much fairer unless you wish to provoke riots.