Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

It is a serious question. The rest of your post did not answer the question...so again...why can't you use a citadel?

Really? I'm just wondering why Sgt. Ocker feels he'll be frozen out of citadels. Apparently he won't be allowed to dock at any of them, buy a blue print for one, build one, anchor it, etc. Apparently citadels will be for everyone but him (yes, I'm being deliberately sarcastic here).

Seriously, if I were going to try and have a market citadel I'd want to have as many people docking there as possible. I'd want as many sellers as possible and as many buyers as possible. Especially because I don't see where that would cause my costs to go up. Most of my costs would be fixed costs so...having more people docking and buying and more people docking and selling means more ISK for me.

Hey, can you take a guess who's problem it is if you can't figure out a way to play that doesn't involve joining goons?

...

Still stuck? I'll help you out. It's your problem. It's your failure. Thousands of players manage to do it. They don't have to aspire to be a goon, but the more successful players realise they do need to learn to work with other players to achieve bigger goals.

I think this is a very narrow minded opinion on the subject. I particularly do not appreciate you speaking for the Devs. Let people express their opinions in this thread for Devs to read. Quit telling people that they are wrong because you have a different opinion or give a detailed and calm list of reasons why they might be wrong.

This game would no longer be a sandbox if there is a limited number of ways to play. This game has always allowed people to play alone or with groups. The distinction has always been that groups are granted modest benefits. Some people believe that these changes benefit larger groups too much.

I agree. I doubt a Dev would have the patience to get this far.

If you would like to discuss something, my last post was completely overlooked, and I wouldn't mind some feedback.

They've been given reasons why their opinions are not so much wrong, but overlooking factors. In this case, Drago is upset because he won't be able to refine all ores in a single medium citadel, but he's overlooking the fact that he's gaining additional safety, a 3% boost for what he does refine, be accessible to people he chooses outside of his corp (including alts who can now go to NPC corps and still use the facilities), taxes on those who are using it and an asset recovery system so if all else fails he loses nothing stored in the citadel.

The fact is that most complaints boil down to having to adapt your playstyle, which is pretty much a core principle of EVE.

And it always will, but being an MMO, cooperation is a key requirement for some aspects of the game. It wouldn't be very MMO-like if everything could be accomplished solo or just with a group of mates. It's supposed to require a level of diplomacy. That doesn't mean everyone has to form up into giant coalitions, but it does mean that small groups need to cooperate if they want to excel. The day CCP stops that being a requirement is the day EVE dies.

And sure, sometimes the big guys gain more from a change than the little guys. That's the benefit of them having already gone through being the little guys and working out how to work with or against other players as required. It doesn't mean you should start foaming at the mouth screaming at CCP for being in cahoots.

Besides which, Gevlon is posting his genius plan to destroy the Imperium menace soon, so there's one less big group with a citadel. You'll just have to fight off PL and/or the russians.

That is not true. A high sec POS for reprocessing can be torn down before a war dec kicks in. There is very little risk involved.


This is a valid point. I feel there are some consequences though.


That is not a benefit if he is in a dead end system with no traffic. There will not be enough people to justify this. He may not use any alts.


I have always seen EVE as a sandbox. If the game were perfect you would only have to adapt to what other players do instead of changes in the game. Regardless, I believe you might have stated that these changes will not really affect your playstyle, so let people give their perspective on how it might change theirs. Then let the devs decide what they feel is important.

Well the numbers I would use without giving it much thought would be

• Medium
Highsec T1 - 51% T2 - 52% low/null T1 - 55% T2 - 56%

• Large
Highsec T1 - 53% T2 - 54% low/null T1 - 57% T2 - 58%

• XL
Highsec T1 - 55% T2 - 56% low/null T1 - 59% T2 - 60%

I think part of the overall problem is - People will be forming trade guilds and not only managing but dominating trade.
They won't redistribute wealth as only the wealthy will belong to these guilds.
Any trader not a member of a guild will end up paying fees equal to or fractionally below NPC stations, while the "guild" that owns the hub makes a nice profit.


There needs to be options to Xlarge Citadel, rich player dominated markets.

I'd like to know exactly what you consider to be the threshold where cooperation should bring positive results. Seriously. Not sarcasm here. This is something I'm entirely interested in understanding from your point of view.

You complain that trade guilds will form for the benefit of those in them. I'm totally with you so far, this is very likely. Groups of people in highsec will band together to operate and defend a trade citadel, and those in the group will gain the benefits of doing so. This sounds wonderful, people in highsec have always kept to their own small groups because there has been absolutely no benefit to forming larger groups, because it attracts wardecs like flies. But promoting group ownership of a Citadel encourages cooperation, drama, and conflict, which highsec could definitely benefit from, since there is little reason to form a cohesive group in highsec atm unless you plan on shortly moving to lowsec/nullsec/WH's soon. Greater exposure to wardeccs is just too much of a deterrent otherwise.

You complain that the Citadel holders will set a broker rate at one point for their members, and another for everyone else, so that it benefits their members. It's also entirely possible, but less likely than you might think. I'd expect that most citadel owners would tax their membership at the same or nearly the same low broker rate they have for the public, a sort of trading tax paid to the owner of the alliance to pay for operation expenses, like how ratting tax's and moongoo tax's and refining tax's in player SOV space help fund bills that need to be paid and pay for POS/Citadel Fuel. To do otherwise would risk driving off market people who view it as a reason why they can't successfully compete on the market there. It's just part of the group mentality that these sort of tax's are acceptable sides to the benefits that being a group brings.

That you seem to think that there has to be some way for an independent trader to trade at an equal footing with everyone, without working with one else, without being part of any group, and without benefiting anyone else, seems a bit odd. If a Citadel owner cannot benefit from the trade in his Citadel, why build one and open it to the public? How could the system work otherwise? Is protecting the rights of small independent traders who don't want to have to pay broker fee's to another player, but don't want to pay any higher broker fee's than anyone else a worthy reason to cripple the ability for a Citadel owner to benefit financially from trade in his Citadel? I'd really like to know the reasoning behind your arguments, cause I'm not seeing them.

Mainly though I question your assumption that there somehow there's no competition. That the only markets are those in the hands of massive Illuminati style trade guilds. Do you foresee there being only one trade Citadel in a region? That people wont choose to instead ship their stuff to far less expensive regional trade hubs, and shop there as well.

We already have over 90% of highsec trade driven through 4 systems, because people come to shop there. Will there be so little competition between trading groups at these hubs that Citadels with high brokers fee's will be able to stay in business when their competitors drop their broker fee's?

Or will the pressure of many competing trade groups with enough muscle to defend their citadels against any attack economically viable drive broker fees down toward a point where they can attract as much trade as possible while still making a profit?

I guess I just can't understand why you think public broker fee costs at all player citadels will be just under NPC's, in violation of every principle of a free and competitive market with minimal barriers to movement and shipment.

So? I used to live in Cloud Ring and did invention out there with little in the way of taxes and Fees. Fozzie sove screwed me over on that. Look on the map where my alliance lives now. I had to adapt. So will Drago. It is the way of Eve.