These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#721 - 2016-03-11 00:28:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Deck Cadelanne
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I like how everybody word it as a punishment for them and not as a new baseline with benefits for us for using a citadel. It sure make their whining look more worthwhile if it's against a punishment than against not having all the benefits of other solution proposed in the game.


Added some context you seem to have missed.

I like how the only people saying the proposed cudgel to force the economy into player owned citadels are members of the huge blue doughnut alliances while pretty much everybody else is clearly saying it's a bad idea to try and force the whole playerbase to do something that will only benefit a chosen few.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#722 - 2016-03-11 00:57:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I like how everybody word it as a punishment for them and not as a new baseline with benefits for us for using a citadel. It sure make their whining look more worthwhile if it's against a punishment than against not having all the benefits of other solution proposed in the game.


Added some context you seem to have missed.

I like how the only people saying the proposed cudgel to force the economy into player owned citadels are members of the huge blue doughnut alliances while pretty much everybody else is clearly saying it's a bad idea to try and force the whole playerbase to do something that will only benefit a chosen few.


Funny thing about nullsec players is that they are quite often the most knowledgeable section of the playerbase in terms of practically everything.

You don't get engaged enough to play this game for the considerable amount of time and effort that it takes be be active in nullsec and not pick up quite a lot about the game. Herd enough nerds, deal with enough alliance logistics, watch enough groups rise and collapse and it's fairly easy to talk simple cause and effect economics in terms of how players will react.

As far as everyone explaining why it will be this way being from a massive blue doughnut... In the last 4-5 pages we have me, a member of a 1200 man alliance so poor we don't even have SRP, Baltec1 from PL, and I really wouldn't call them blue doughnut on account of them murdering anyone not NC or Horde, and Frosty, who while certainly a member of a giant blue donut, seems to have the sole purpose in the thread of trying to force into peoples heads the idea that making a trade citadel under the Goon flag and then making it unavailable to the people you want to get money from would be completely pointless. Something which should be obvious to anyone with a functioning frontal lobe.

Or maybe our comments are coming from the part where all three of us have significant experience with moving massive amounts of isk and materials as part of alliance logistics, and thus have a really good idea on the probable market effects of tax changes.

But you can tinfoil if you want, assuming that just because we are the most engaged section of the eve playerbase, that everything we say is a sinister plot to make people kneel before us. Well the other two at least, I'm too busy picking pennies out of gutters atm.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#723 - 2016-03-11 01:11:08 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

Funny thing about nullsec players is that they are quite often the most knowledgeable section of the playerbase in terms of practically everything..

Except they aren't.
They may be highly familiar with game systems, that does not mean they are highly familiar with what game play is like for anyone not part of the giant null groups. The two are totally different things, and often mean that said people take a very biased view on what the game systems should be like because of their experiences and the attitude that is pervasive in null culture in EVE.

And dismissing the experience of everyone else is exactly symptomatic of that null culture, which is designed around screwing over everyone but your select group for your benefit. Hence why the scepticism over how the loudest voices in support of this are coming from people like baltec who is well known for wanting to use a massive stick in all areas of gameplay to drive people to do exactly what he wants them to do, either as team mates, market serfs or prey.

But if CCP want to keep listening to those voices and ignoring all the moderates because enough circular arguments are used, then it's their game.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#724 - 2016-03-11 01:34:30 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

Funny thing about nullsec players is that they are quite often the most knowledgeable section of the playerbase in terms of practically everything..

Except they aren't.
They may be highly familiar with game systems, that does not mean they are highly familiar with what game play is like for anyone not part of the giant null groups. The two are totally different things, and often mean that said people take a very biased view on what the game systems should be like because of their experiences and the attitude that is pervasive in null culture in EVE.

And dismissing the experience of everyone else is exactly symptomatic of that null culture, which is designed around screwing over everyone but your select group for your benefit. Hence why the scepticism over how the loudest voices in support of this are coming from people like baltec who is well known for wanting to use a massive stick in all areas of gameplay to drive people to do exactly what he wants them to do, either as team mates, market serfs or prey.

But if CCP want to keep listening to those voices and ignoring all the moderates because enough circular arguments are used, then it's their game.


The moderates are the ones who realize that this change is necessary. I'm going to get impacted by this change just as much as anyone as a good chunk of my income comes from manufacturing and selling in jita. Not only that but all of my ships come from jita so this is going to hit my wallet. The reason I am ok with this is because it has to happen if citadels are to work. The current market taxes are rock bottom, they have to go up because you cant get any lower.
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#725 - 2016-03-11 01:38:20 UTC  |  Edited by: GreyGryphon
EVE is a sandbox that needs engaging choices, but the current changes feel punitive in nature. I am not particularly against raising taxes, but the implementation is lazy and unimaginative and possibly damaging. I have even suggested in this thread that taxes should be increased by distributing them across order creation and modification (practically free) instead of a flat increase from 1% to 5%.

A change in NPC taxes will NOT hurt the wallet of high-volume traders as much as the wallet of the average player. Any trader that calculates their margins will factor in the higher taxes which will inflate the price of everything on the market. Also the current changes are a massive push towards immediate transactions (no broker's fee) which are much more cumbersome than 3 month orders.

If traders manage to pass off the taxes to someone else, why would they trade in a citadel when there is nothing to stop the owner from raising the broker's fee? Imagine the ganking potential when when billions or potentially trillions of assets suddenly need to be moved out of system. Since asset recovery is only free for transfers to a NPC station in the same system, there would be some potential for assets to be "trapped" in a system. We even have precedent for something like this happening in "Burn Jita". The alternative is paying a fee that is likely to ruin most profit margins to move everything out of system. NPC stations will always benefit from being indestructible and the neutrality of the managing entity. If CCP wants to force traders into citadels, the new taxes must be high enough to force traders to exchange the higher taxes for the inherent risk of citadels into their margins, but that will cause inflation.

Now for a crazy idea. Lets say Chribba or anyone with enough capital wants to build an XL Citadel in high-sec. After spending 100 Billion ISK to construct the citadel, Chribba decides to rent offices in his citadel for between 0.1 and 1 Billion ISK per month. For every 0.1 Billion ISK paid towards the corp office, the renter gets one share of the citadel out of 100. Every share gets a vote in deciding the citadel broker's fee (a poll like a general vote for corps). Every share earns 1% of the Broker's fees from the Citadel for that month and now has a vested interest in the continued operation of the citadel. Anyone that declares war against Chribba would also have to deal with every corp that has rented a office in the citadel (maybe attacking the citadel declares war against every corp with an office). The point is to allow accessible collaboration between corps that want to trade but do not necessarily want to be in the same alliance. Chribba receives a steady revenue from offices to cover the fuel costs and eventually the citadel and allies to help defend. Investors get a citadel dedicated to trade along with some revenue from broker's fees (to cover some of the risk) without being at the mercy of the citadel owner.

I am sure someone will poke plenty of holes in this idea, but there has to be a better and more creative way of getting players into citadels than by raising taxes.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#726 - 2016-03-11 01:55:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

Funny thing about nullsec players is that they are quite often the most knowledgeable section of the playerbase in terms of practically everything..

Except they aren't.
They may be highly familiar with game systems, that does not mean they are highly familiar with what game play is like for anyone not part of the giant null groups. The two are totally different things, and often mean that said people take a very biased view on what the game systems should be like because of their experiences and the attitude that is pervasive in null culture in EVE.

And dismissing the experience of everyone else is exactly symptomatic of that null culture, which is designed around screwing over everyone but your select group for your benefit. Hence why the scepticism over how the loudest voices in support of this are coming from people like baltec who is well known for wanting to use a massive stick in all areas of gameplay to drive people to do exactly what he wants them to do, either as team mates, market serfs or prey.

But if CCP want to keep listening to those voices and ignoring all the moderates because enough circular arguments are used, then it's their game.


Since everything the nullsec players say is dismissed as a giant null conspiracy by everyone who primarily plays in high/lowsec, and everyone who plays in highsec/lowsec and complains is apparently being dismissed by the nullsec players, everyone must be dismissing everyone else not in their own clique on the basis they don't understand the game. Well except the WH people, who are off being happy they finally get stations in WH's.

Fair enough I suppose. The US vs THEM mentality is present in nearly all social interactions. The problem is that if you look at everyone who supports or explains their statements, it's usually not the people calling doom and gloom.

People say "With increased tax's many items wont be profitable to trade". Explanation is "Margin between buy and sell will adjust to become profitable, that's economics 101."

Angry players say "Big blue blobs will come in and establish market dominance through killing everyone elses citadels". Explanation is "No we won't, bashing structures in highsec is economically unfeasible due to the time and wardecs required, also boring as hell, and unsustainable due to the easy ability to place structures safely in highsec."

Angry players say "Goons will make trade citadels and then massively spike broker fee's to **** over traders" Explanation: That would be counterproductive to the purpose of milking people for money, and people could always use asset recovery to move everything to another station in system"

People say "Nerfing stations to make citadels worthwhile is bad, you don't have to make them cost isk to run, and then stations could stay the same, with citadels being even lower to be a carrot" Explanation: If we did that, and Citadels didn't require large amounts of fuel for services, there would be insufficient consumption of PI and fuel blocks, and Ice miners/trader/manufacturers/PI people would majorly suffer because of that.

Somehow we have both the arguments that nobody will trade at Citadels even with a massive tax increase due to safety concerns, and the idea that the difference between the current low tax rate and the tax rate of a Citadel is enough to attract lots of traders even without changes to the tax rate. I don't even know how to react to seeing both of those at the same time.

We have explanations of exactly how and why people would react in a given way, in post like

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6387296#post6387296
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6386963#post6386963
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6386599#post6386599 (I like this guy, he started out reasonably, and then jumped right into some sort of conspiracy about how all market sellers are working together to fix prices, but the first part of his post is accurate)

Problem is that posts like https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6387296#post6387296 , if anyone responds to them at all, are typically followed by https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6387334#post6387334 (That's post 720 and 721 btw).

How can we explain ourselves and support our reasoning, if the cop out rebuttal is always "Nullsec conspiracy, they must only be looking out for them to the detriment of the rest of the game" ?

GreyGryphon wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, you can not use asset recovery unless the citadel has been destroyed.

I'm 99% sure I saw someone from CCP confirm you could initiate asset recovery from any station even before destruction, I'll see if I can track it down after dinner.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#727 - 2016-03-11 02:26:13 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, you can not use asset recovery unless the citadel has been destroyed.


http://puu.sh/nCfk5/a3250087b4.png
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/48s4p1/planned_changes_to_npc_citadel_taxes_and_services/d0n6vge

For those who don't want to follow the link: From Reddit:

CCP_Nullarbor: You can always cancel your market orders and manually eject your hangar into asset safety, even if you have no access to the market or docking or whatever. The whole system is designed so that the owner cannot deny you access to your stuff.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#728 - 2016-03-11 02:38:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Anhenka wrote:


Since everything the nullsec players say is dismissed as a giant null conspiracy by everyone who primarily plays in high/lowsec, and everyone who plays in highsec/lowsec and complains is apparently being dismissed by the nullsec players, everyone must be dismissing everyone else not in their own clique on the basis they don't understand the game. Well except the WH people, who are off being happy they finally get stations in WH's.

The problem with your argument there is that it's not being dismissed on the basis of incompetence, which is what the standard null lobby players are doing to everyone else.
It's being countered by a logical argument showing why the example is wrong.

For instance your 'People won't bother bashing a citadel' example is wrong, because Citadels drop loot, even if it's just a bare hull. And it's well shown that people will bother wardeccing towers and bashing them when they believe they have even a chance at getting loot from the structures around the tower.
Since Citadels won't be removable before a wardec goes through and since they always drop loot, they are a very different thing than a bare pos stick, and so arguments relating to pos sticks or an active corp owning a pos no longer apply, since there is loot that can't escape.

And if the base example being argued is wrong, then any conclusions stemming from it are also wrong.

For another wrong example, the 14 dreads killed by an XL citadel happened to be a null citadel. Great, null Citadels can defend themselves, Now lets look at L citadels without a doomsday vs Caps. And XL Citadels in highsec where they only get the pathetic 30-40 applied DPS subcap launchers vs standard meta ships these days. Taking the single best case where you had an XL citadel built entirely for defence in the best place for it's defence vs a disorganised cap fleet who didn't normally fly together and who had no idea what citadel defences were like is not a good place to take your trends from.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#729 - 2016-03-11 03:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

The problem with your argument there is that it's not being dismissed on the basis of incompetence, which is what the standard null lobby players are doing to everyone else.
It's being countered by a logical argument showing why the example is wrong.

For instance your 'People won't bother bashing a citadel' example is wrong, because Citadels drop loot, even if it's just a bare hull. And it's well shown that people will bother wardeccing towers and bashing them when they believe they have even a chance at getting loot from the structures around the tower.
Since Citadels won't be removable before a wardec goes through and since they always drop loot, they are a very different thing than a bare pos stick, and so arguments relating to pos sticks or an active corp owning a pos no longer apply, since there is loot that can't escape.

And if the base example being argued is wrong, then any conclusions stemming from it are also wrong.

For another wrong example, the 14 dreads killed by an XL citadel happened to be a null citadel. Great, null Citadels can defend themselves, Now lets look at L citadels without a doomsday vs Caps. And XL Citadels in highsec where they only get the pathetic 30-40 applied DPS subcap launchers vs standard meta ships these days. Taking the single best case where you had an XL citadel built entirely for defence in the best place for it's defence vs a disorganised cap fleet who didn't normally fly together and who had no idea what citadel defences were like is not a good place to take your trends from.


The hull of the structure does not drop as loot. an unknown percentage of the hull construction materials drop, and 50% of the defensive mods drop (using the statement that the drop mechanics are the same for those as ship modules). All rigs and service modules are destroyed, and do not drop. An unknown percentage of the materials from build orders under construction upon the death build will also drop.

Initially, this make sit seem like an attractive target. That is until you also look at the mechanics involved in bashing a Citadel.

Let's say there's a Large market citadel in Osmon owned by Group A, and it's Vuln timer is set from 0:00 to 06:00 on Tuesday. Group B then declares war on Group A, declaring it at Monday 00:00 so they can attack as soon as the war begins.

At 00:00 Tuesday, The Citadel is vulnerable to attack. Group B shows up with overwhelming force, and smashes the Citadel's shield in an hour. The citadel kicks into Reinforced mode.

At this point, the citadel counts forward a number of hours that fall under the vulnerability hour until a certain number of hours passes, then resumes vulnerable state. Since this cannot fall under the same 6 hour vulnerable block, the next available time to attack is a week away, again at Tuesday 00:00, potentially later in that block depending on the hours of vulnerable invulnerability.

At this point, they have to show up and begin bashing the tower immediately, because if 15 minutes count down during the vulnerable block without being damaged (and being damaged only pauses the countdown for 15 seconds) the citadel is immediately repaired back to full and re-enters invulnerability.

If they do show up, overpower the defenders, and bash all of the armor, the reinforcement immediately kicks in again for a set number of hours, punting the next timer ANOTHER WEEK into the next Tuesday, somewhere between 00:00 and 06:00. Once again, the tower must be continuously damaged to prevent a 15 minute timer from counting down and completely resetting everything back to square 0 and putting the Citadel back into reinforcement.

At this point, the Citadel explodes. Let's say it drops 25% of the building supplies and 50% of the mods, with an average mod price of 40 mil per highslot, 20 mil per midslot, and 7 per lowslot. Per http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68671/1/Structuremodulecomposition.png http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68942/1/Citadelfittings.png That's roughly 184 mil in dropped Citadel mods, plus 25% of the 7 bil isk build cost, for a total of roughly 1.95 Bil.

And it only took them bashing though a minimum of 81 million EHP (Prob far higher once the scriptable hardeners are officially released), with potential to be attacked by defenders operating under friendly heavy ewar fire, and to have to do it on the enemies schedule across a period of two full weeks and a day. For a drop of 2 Bil. Maybe some extra if people were running production that couldn't be finished in the two weeks before it exploded.

Sounds like a bargain to me. Not. sounds awful. And if the Scripted hardeners can increase resistance of a single damage type on a single later by 50%, that layer jumps up to 60% by itself, if you fit 4, The Sisi version of it shows up to 80% though, which would make a single shield layer on a L Fortizar 108 Million EHP in one reinforcement cycle.

You're right, it's not right to compare these things to a POS stick, because attacking them will be so much worse than a POS, with multiple week long reinforcement cycles, HP higher than a large Caldari Dickstar, people knowing exactly when you have to attack, and at the end of it, a paltry financial gain. And during this, you have to maintain the wardec for 3 weeks to hit all timers.

It would be best to compare it to a Dominion era Station seige, not a POS.

Plus highseccers in a defensive war can invite anyone they want to join in the war, and the new vultures... er I mean defenders, will know exactly when and where to show and get someone to shoot at.

These things are going to be a copper plated ***** to bash.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#730 - 2016-03-11 03:37:52 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

At this point, the citadel counts forward a number of hours that fall under the vulnerability hour until a certain number of hours passes, then resumes vulnerable state. Since this cannot fall under the same 6 hour vulnerable block, the next available time to attack is a week away, again at Tuesday 00:00, potentially later in that block depending on the hours of vulnerable invulnerability.

Word from CCP though as yet undefined is that Citadels will be bashable with about 24 hour reinforcement periods, Not automatically reinforced till their next vulnerability period.
So they will be a hell of a lot easier than you are making out. And a hell of a lot easier to bash than you are pretending also.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#731 - 2016-03-11 04:03:15 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

At this point, the citadel counts forward a number of hours that fall under the vulnerability hour until a certain number of hours passes, then resumes vulnerable state. Since this cannot fall under the same 6 hour vulnerable block, the next available time to attack is a week away, again at Tuesday 00:00, potentially later in that block depending on the hours of vulnerable invulnerability.

Word from CCP though as yet undefined is that Citadels will be bashable with about 24 hour reinforcement periods, Not automatically reinforced till their next vulnerability period.
So they will be a hell of a lot easier than you are making out. And a hell of a lot easier to bash than you are pretending also.


Hm, apparently so, I was getting some of my information from an apparently outdated devblog. So yes, it will not take multiple weeks unless the attacker fails on a repair timer.

It will still take two reinforcement timers at the time of the defenders choice however, with extremely large buffers, and powerful defensive ewar, and a single failure to bash the tower for 15 minutes will reset the whole process.

Mercs or those random wardec assistance corps can still be easily recruited and know they have a time when they will find targets.

You still have to attack it during the defenders set time during all timers.

The reward for bashing a 3-7 bil isk L citadel is still only going to be between 1 and 2 Bil unless there was serious manufacturing going on.

And you can still drop a new Citadel with a non wardecced corp and have it be fully set up safely unless someone wardecs the dropping corp within 15 minutes of placing the citadel egg.

And if a corp wants to pull up a Citadel, they can start the unanchoring process, and then defend it successfully for a mere 15 minutes once it comes out of the unanchoring invuln timer, although they will lose the entire thing if it is successfully attacked during this period.

So it wont take as long, but everything else that made it difficult is still in play.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#732 - 2016-03-11 04:29:29 UTC
Anhenka wrote:


And you can still drop a new Citadel with a non wardecced corp and have it be fully set up safely unless someone wardecs the dropping corp within 15 minutes of placing the citadel egg.

And if a corp wants to pull up a Citadel, they can start the unanchoring process, and then defend it successfully for a mere 15 minutes once it comes out of the unanchoring invuln timer, although they will lose the entire thing if it is successfully attacked during this period.

So it wont take as long, but everything else that made it difficult is still in play.

Last Dev quotes were they were looking at several days to anchor and up to a week to unanchor/more than 15 minutes vulnerable, in order to stop that mere 15 minute window. Again unconfirmed. But it does sound like they've already gone to address that obvious issue.
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#733 - 2016-03-11 04:51:14 UTC
The February economy report says that people spent 9.8T on taxes and 5.9T on broker fees. Let's assume that the average sale was done with has Accounting 4. This is reasonable, since max-skilled traders are responsible for most sales and training Accounting to 3-4 isn't hard. This means 0.9% average tax. With that, the average broker fee was 0.54%.

These numbers mean that after the patch the same people will pay 1.5% transaction tax and 4.15%!!! broker fee. If it wouldn't affect traded volumes (it obviously will), people would pay 16.3T transaction tax and 45.3T broker fee. Let me put these numbers in perspective: the total ratting bounties (including even higsec belt rat bounties) was 33.9T.

About 90% of trading is done in Jita, Amarr, Dodixie, Rens and Hek (see market value by region graph). Since the trade hub citadel must be competitive for max-skilled traders (3.5% fee), a citadel with 3% could grab all the trade and the owner would have 32.8T/month income. Again: the trade hub citadel owner would make as much ISK as all ratters combined, without even loging in.

Of course if some guy would try it, his citadel would be instantly besieged by literally everybody. This applies to strong alliances or even coalitions. Not even the Imperium would stand a chance holding such ISK print as everyone else would unite to take it from them or at least deny this income. Doing anything else would be suicide as the owner could SRP a full titan fleet every month.

There is only one way to create these ISK print citadels and I have no doubt that this way is being formulated as we speak: if everyone significant would form a coalition to hold and defend the trade hub citadels. Big powers formed OTEC and than BoTLord for 10% of the trade hub citadel income. Do you think that they would throw away more money than all ratters together make, just for the sake of fighting? No way. The day citadels go online, they will announce that all significant powers agreed in an eternal peace to run the new highsec trading hubs. Sure that doesn't disallow fun roams, but clearly mean no significant fighting as someone losing power would allow the others to eject him from the citadel coalition and no longer give him share. So any serious attack would be seen an existential threat and would immediately break the coalition as the rest of the members could be afraid that they'll be next, so immediately unite against the disturber of peace. The spice must flow!

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com

Solarus Explorer
Cruisers Crew
#734 - 2016-03-11 05:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Solarus Explorer
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
The February economy report says that people spent 9.8T on taxes and 5.9T on broker fees. Let's assume that the average sale was done with has Accounting 4. This is reasonable, since max-skilled traders are responsible for most sales and training Accounting to 3-4 isn't hard. This means 0.9% average tax. With that, the average broker fee was 0.54%.

These numbers mean that after the patch the same people will pay 1.5% transaction tax and 4.15%!!! broker fee. If it wouldn't affect traded volumes (it obviously will), people would pay 16.3T transaction tax and 45.3T broker fee. Let me put these numbers in perspective: the total ratting bounties (including even higsec belt rat bounties) was 33.9T.

About 90% of trading is done in Jita, Amarr, Dodixie, Rens and Hek (see market value by region graph). Since the trade hub citadel must be competitive for max-skilled traders (3.5% fee), a citadel with 3% could grab all the trade and the owner would have 32.8T/month income. Again: the trade hub citadel owner would make as much ISK as all ratters combined, without even loging in.


^^This huge isk sink is exactly what the devs are trying to achieve by this "forceful manipulation"; even if part of the trade shifts to citadels the isk sink from trading will increase hugely.

Except...... if RL is any reflection of human psyche, this isn't what will happen. What will happen instead is that trade volumes will drop hugely, because traders will price their stuff at 10% higher margins across the board (at least, to recover costs, typically they will do higher margins to compensate for return on capital over the time it is deployed) and a good number of buyers will simply not buy at those prices, opting instead to not-play or do something else. Secondary trade hubs in other regions will see price increases of the same magnitude, with transactions there further dropping as well. In the end, all that will have been achieved is the entire trade of eve being reduced by a factor or 2-3 over a period of a couple months, with higher prices across the board cascading to fewer people seeding secondary trade hubs, leading to fewer people buying stuff there to pvp, leading to lesser activity in eve altogether......

OR...... major citadels trade hubs can come up all over eve where all trading switches to, if it is somehow agreed upon by the major power blocs to not destroy these trade citadels. Then the scenario posted earlier in the thread will come into play, with a simple change in a .2-.5% in broker fees by citadel managers can make them trillions of isk every month passively.

Neither scenario seems good for the health of the game imo.

I really think CCP need to go back to the drawing board with this entire plan. Trading is a very critical part of eve, with every eve player participating and really massive isk amounts involved. No player should be able to control or take a cut from all the transactions in eve, all trading taxes should always go to NPC isk sinks. Its simply too much isk to come into the hands of citadel owners directly. You can play with capitals, rebalance them, introduce new stupidly OP ships etc, and apart from small gang/solo pvp everything else still works and life goes on as usual for everyone else. But screw with trading taxes in a player driven economy, and you risk crashing the entire economy.

Lets hope there is a third scenario which I'm not able to see, and everything works out good.......
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#735 - 2016-03-11 05:20:18 UTC
Solarus Explorer wrote:

^^This huge isk sink is exactly what the devs are trying to achieve by this "forceful manipulation"; even if part of the trade shifts to citadels the isk sink from trading will increase hugely.

Add to the small problem that we don't need a significant isk sink also. Because isk in is only slightly more than isk out, and since material in also exceeds material out it balances out generally.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#736 - 2016-03-11 05:28:01 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
*Onoes, please don't raise mah fees!*
That's pretty much what your post is boiling down to. I think the idea is that CCP want to get people moving to citadels, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the long run they start to look to decommission station services. If a group starts up citadels and noone can be bothered to prevent them taking over as the new jita though, then yes, they will be rolling around in isk.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#737 - 2016-03-11 06:26:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
*Onoes, please don't raise mah fees!*

Where did I say that? I have no problem with the increasing fees. I have problems with these fees not going to an ISK sink but to the wallets of the new BoTLord holders.

My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com

Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
#738 - 2016-03-11 07:12:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrified
So... who are these brokers that are willing to perform stellar acts of brokering deals for less than they would at NPC stations?

The good thing about the current market system is the indiscriminatory nature of it at NPC stations. Gevlon has a good point that if people fall for turning player run Citadels in High Sec into trade hubs the passive isk generation from these would be staggering. The other problem is that if they become the preferred trade hubs, characters,corporations, and alliances who are not liked by the Citadel owners will be barred from entry (something you see in Sov Null Sec) relying on traders in NPC corps to get the job done.

In NPC stations, if you undersell someone, you don't get kicked out. In NPC stations, you know you can dock. Gevlon can certainly create several new traders to place in such citadels should his concern pan out - because I seriously doubt any Imperium, né CFC, group would allow him or his known alts to dock.

It is one thing to allow players to place markets in their Citadels (a good idea), it is another to allow them to subvert the NPC market hubs everyone, friend of foe, rely on.

CCP Yitterbium, c'est liberté, égalité, fraternité?

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#739 - 2016-03-11 07:59:52 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Where did I say that? I have no problem with the increasing fees. I have problems with these fees not going to an ISK sink but to the wallets of the new BoTLord holders.
Actually it's pretty evident you're against the idea of increased fees too, but regardless, if you have a problem with players collecting fees, then sop those players collecting those fees. With how much you celebrate over your successes on your blog, you should have absolutely no problem stopping any attempt of the larger coalitions building a market hub. Unless of course you success is exaggerated, in which case you'll have to just hope someone else steps in.

At the end of the day, CCP are moving towards a system where players control pretty much everything, and yes, the inevitable truth of that is that stronger player groups are likely to make a fortune. It's only bad to you because you're not capable enough to be the leader of a strong group and are frustrated by the idea of someone else getting something you can't. I say this with the utmost respect, but you're only really capable enough to do basic trading, mining missions and now SP farming. I imagine there will be a lot of times in the future where you end up at the short end of the stick so you should probably just get used to it sooner rather than later. Alternatively you could ensure that when it does happen you are in a position to be the one running it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#740 - 2016-03-11 08:05:32 UTC
Petrified wrote:
The other problem is that if they become the preferred trade hubs, characters,corporations, and alliances who are not liked by the Citadel owners will be barred from entry (something you see in Sov Null Sec) relying on traders in NPC corps to get the job done.

In NPC stations, if you undersell someone, you don't get kicked out. In NPC stations, you know you can dock. Gevlon can certainly create several new traders to place in such citadels should his concern pan out - because I seriously doubt any Imperium, né CFC, group would allow him or his known alts to dock.
The difference with nullsec is that someone being able to dock would mean they can now be a threat safely tucked away in the station even using the alliance traders to support their attacks. With highsec tradehubs there'd be no reason to keep people out. The more inclusive it is the more isk they would make, so I doubt anyone would be kept out. If they did keep people out, it certainly wouldn't be on an individual level and Gevlon really isn't relevant enough to qualify for being disallowed, so he probably wouldn't worry. There's also the "just use NPC alts" part which would pretty much invalidate any attempt to keep people out unless they banned neutrals anyway (which again they wouldn't because of profit).

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.