These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1441 - 2016-03-30 20:48:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Stellar Compass wrote:
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.

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!



I am afraid, that after reading through all this no one has stated the obvious.

1. Citadels are set up in each major region, linked so they do not require passing through the chokepoints of uedama and Niarja.
2. The ministry of love, interdict these route in their totality. To go from jita/dodixie/amarr, is extinction. All ships die, regardless, the route is closed.
3. All trade moves to citadels. Or there is no trade.
Jita/amarr/rens/dodixie become irrelevant. Of course new trade hubs in stations in the new citadel systems, COULD form naturally, but if people are going to move, they will pick the cheapest/most convinient to operate from, and ganking will be strictly controlled between the new hub routes. Who wouldn't use them under the circumstances?
4. Game over. We lost.

And before someone asks me to say where, I think they will already have worked it out without me laying down a map and instructions. Anyone with an hour spare can design it.


Tinfoil, get it while it's hot, 1 cent per ton. Free range, fully sustainable, cultivated by paranoid nutters and harvested by free trade disadvantaged minority workers.

I really cant find a polite way to put this. You are 100% certifiably bonkers.

To interdict all traffic between even a few trade points in highsec, even bulkheaded freighters, would be an undertaking requiring the sole focus of at least 400-500 people, all day, every day, along with hundreds of billion or more likely trillions of isk to produce the tens of thousands of ships needed.

Burn Jita didn't even kill 5% of the actual freight traffic through Jita when it happened, much less between all the other hubs. Total interdiction between at least 4 trade hubs on all major routes between them? Flat out impossible.

Or am I missing a crazy insanely rich 40k member coalition who's members want nothing more than to sit in highsec and gank all day every day 24/7, regardless of profitability?
Stellar Compass
Secret Passage
#1442 - 2016-03-30 23:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Stellar Compass
Anhenka wrote:
Stellar Compass wrote:
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.

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!



I am afraid, that after reading through all this no one has stated the obvious.

1. Citadels are set up in each major region, linked so they do not require passing through the chokepoints of uedama and Niarja.
2. The ministry of love, interdict these route in their totality. To go from jita/dodixie/amarr, is extinction. All ships die, regardless, the route is closed.
3. All trade moves to citadels. Or there is no trade.
Jita/amarr/rens/dodixie become irrelevant. Of course new trade hubs in stations in the new citadel systems, COULD form naturally, but if people are going to move, they will pick the cheapest/most convinient to operate from, and ganking will be strictly controlled between the new hub routes. Who wouldn't use them under the circumstances?
4. Game over. We lost.

And before someone asks me to say where, I think they will already have worked it out without me laying down a map and instructions. Anyone with an hour spare can design it.


Tinfoil, get it while it's hot, 1 cent per ton. Free range, fully sustainable, cultivated by paranoid nutters and harvested by free trade disadvantaged minority workers.

I really cant find a polite way to put this. You are 100% certifiably bonkers.

To interdict all traffic between even a few trade points in highsec, even bulkheaded freighters, would be an undertaking requiring the sole focus of at least 400-500 people, all day, every day, along with hundreds of billion or more likely trillions of isk to produce the tens of thousands of ships needed.

Burn Jita didn't even kill 5% of the actual freight traffic through Jita when it happened, much less between all the other hubs. Total interdiction between at least 4 trade hubs on all major routes between them? Flat out impossible.

Or am I missing a crazy insanely rich 40k member coalition who's members want nothing more than to sit in highsec and gank all day every day 24/7, regardless of profitability?


Well, lets see how it turns out, near zero risk movement between hubs with "protected" routes or choosing to lose a high proportion of one's freighters, just to pay more tax.

And, profitability in the short term is absolutely irrelevant.

The chance of it not happening is near zero, human nature on both sides will trump any alternative.
Thinking things will stay the same with such drivers is laughable.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1443 - 2016-03-31 12:50:24 UTC
Well, the density of the shitposting in this thread has got *way* too high, so in the absence of an ISD to euthanise the posting, o7.

Keep baiting each other and picking out minute differences in each other's positions. You've achieved nothing of value in the last few pages. I'm glad to continue that trend.
Nile Yproks
Valar Morghulis Corp
#1444 - 2016-04-03 14:45:16 UTC
So I'm living in Null, what will happen to all buy and sell orders?

More importantly the sell orders, will they all be canceled and items moved to closest low sec station?
Porus Kurvora
Phoenix Enterprise Inc
From The Ashes.
#1445 - 2016-04-05 07:45:04 UTC
Nile Yproks wrote:
So I'm living in Null, what will happen to all buy and sell orders?

More importantly the sell orders, will they all be canceled and items moved to closest low sec station?


It has been stated that when a Citadel is destroyed all services go offline so market orders will be cancelled, and then asset safety will trigger. At this point you would be able to transfer your items in the asset safety system to another Citadel you have access to in the same system OR the option to retrieve your assets from the low-sec station.

So orders cancelled, items are safe with the asset safety system.

[PNXE] Phoenix Enterprise Inc. CEO

Check out our website

We are recruiting!
Archeras Umangiar
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#1446 - 2016-04-05 10:50:03 UTC
Speaking of NPC's, since citadels where called to *replace* or be equal to a station atleast for the medium/large (yes medium so smaller entities can actually do something with it), if they going to be a service for *hiring* Agents? 4's in high-sec, 5's in lowsec (or 4-3-2-1 if wished) and pirate 4's in nullsec? maybe based on the region your in? maybe limited to one per constelation?
Gas
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1447 - 2016-04-06 18:22:44 UTC
One thing that would be EXTREMELY nice.

Lock the rates on the POCO's when you use PI.

For instance I find a POCO at 5% tax rate, I build a PI colony, the tax rate for JUST ME is locked at that rate.

The way it is now, I find a POCO with a decent tax rate, and then the player blocks me from using the planet, or
infinitely variates the tax rate.

If someone wants to block other people from using a planet, fine, but this infinite variable tax rate PLUS the ability
to block me right after I build my PI infrastructure, adds nothing to game play value.
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars
#1448 - 2016-04-07 15:18:39 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Niko Zino wrote:
Stuff


Those are fair points we've been discussing internally. Initial figures show us maintaining a cloning bay in a Citadel will cost 157m ISK a month, we wanted to provide means for the owner to recoup that cost and even make a profit in general.


I think modules like the cloning bay need to be considerably cheaper to run. It is rare for a pilot to move their home station and not many pilots will trust a citadel to hold their valuable jump clones.
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars
#1449 - 2016-04-07 15:20:24 UTC
Archeras Umangiar wrote:
Speaking of NPC's, since citadels where called to *replace* or be equal to a station atleast for the medium/large (yes medium so smaller entities can actually do something with it), if they going to be a service for *hiring* Agents? 4's in high-sec, 5's in lowsec (or 4-3-2-1 if wished) and pirate 4's in nullsec? maybe based on the region your in? maybe limited to one per constelation?



This should definitely be added as a feature. The number of agents should also be dependent on citadel size.
RainReaper
RRN Industries
#1450 - 2016-04-08 02:03:08 UTC
Krevnos wrote:
Archeras Umangiar wrote:
Speaking of NPC's, since citadels where called to *replace* or be equal to a station atleast for the medium/large (yes medium so smaller entities can actually do something with it), if they going to be a service for *hiring* Agents? 4's in high-sec, 5's in lowsec (or 4-3-2-1 if wished) and pirate 4's in nullsec? maybe based on the region your in? maybe limited to one per constelation?



This should definitely be added as a feature. The number of agents should also be dependent on citadel size.


If I could refine ore I mine, Build stuff with said minerals I get from my mining and then be able to run lv 4 soe missions all form my home I dont think I would have a reason to move in like ever :p not that im saying this is bad... like I seriously do hope this will come true!
Nou Mene
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#1451 - 2016-04-08 02:40:43 UTC
Isnt possible to make taxes different by area of space. so in HS NPC and player owned are similar. In LS favours players a bit and in NS favours players more.
Giving a too big tax advantage to player owned market would make the game unncessarily hard on solo/small groups. And give too much of an income to big groups able to own and defend their citadel.

Also maybe linking wardec system to citadels, you could make:
A "War Service" that gives you X number of war slots. So every X number of wars, the wardeccing group would have to put a citadel in risk. Make not possible to wardec with having a WAR SERVICE in an owned citadel.
Defenders need to have a way to win the war... make them be able to entosis the "war service" off. Or destroy the citadel.

Just as an example.
Archeras Umangiar
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#1452 - 2016-04-08 12:28:24 UTC
Krevnos wrote:
Archeras Umangiar wrote:
Speaking of NPC's, since citadels where called to *replace* or be equal to a station atleast for the medium/large (yes medium so smaller entities can actually do something with it), if they going to be a service for *hiring* Agents? 4's in high-sec, 5's in lowsec (or 4-3-2-1 if wished) and pirate 4's in nullsec? maybe based on the region your in? maybe limited to one per constelation?



This should definitely be added as a feature. The number of agents should also be dependent on citadel size.



i actually dont agree on the amount of agents changing per citadel size, it should be fixed to 1 agent of each type (security/distri/mining etc) and/or one of each level.

ie: lvl1-5 for security or lvl1-4 mining (lvl 5 mining agent would be dope but broken lol)
Lord Ra
Sicarius.
#1453 - 2016-04-08 15:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Ra
Instead of increasing broker fees and transaction tax leave them the same and reduce the over abundance of NPC stations in hi sec. Make owning a citadel be it a medium or extra large a convenience as well as a potentially tactical or financial advantage.

I've read every post up until my own and as a station trader of 12 years now i see no reason to own a citadel, once again the ownus is on the person with the wealth to put his assets on the line to the guy with the guns, i am a firm beleiver of risk v reward but the hat always seems to get tipped more in favour of the risk.

Anyways rant over, ill still be sitting at jita 4-4 enjoying my version of the game regardless o7
Zad Murrard
Frozen Dawn Inc
Frozen Dawn Alliance
#1454 - 2016-04-12 17:24:41 UTC
Just tried with my sheets in 2 different businesses what the taxation changes would do
assuming that everything else stays the same.

First business, will get 16-17% less profits
Second business, will get 13-14% less profits

=> No reason to change to citadels. Could probably live with 30% less profits and still be ok.
ACESsiggy
Deaths Consortium
#1455 - 2016-04-14 11:36:06 UTC

Jump Clones: current price for installing jump clones in NPC stations is around 100,000 ISK. We are planning to increase that amount to 5m ISK to install a jump clone in NPC stations. That price will also be payable anytime a clone is left behind in a NPC station - so, if you jump clone away from a NPC station from previously established jump clones you will still pay that price. Jump Clones installed in Citadels will not have any NPC taxes, but the owner can charge his own pricing for the service. We also want to remove the maximum limit of jump clones for Citadels: like Citadel offices, your alliance, corporation or public customers will never be denied usage of this service if you grant them access in the first place.


This doesn't mention anything about NPC Corp standings associated with the cost of 5 million isk. IMO this should be reduced based on standings. A player with excellent standing toward that NPC Corp shouldn't pay the same cost as a player with no standings.

“The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences.”
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1456 - 2016-04-14 11:47:56 UTC
ACESsiggy wrote:

Jump Clones: current price for installing jump clones in NPC stations is around 100,000 ISK. We are planning to increase that amount to 5m ISK to install a jump clone in NPC stations. That price will also be payable anytime a clone is left behind in a NPC station - so, if you jump clone away from a NPC station from previously established jump clones you will still pay that price. Jump Clones installed in Citadels will not have any NPC taxes, but the owner can charge his own pricing for the service. We also want to remove the maximum limit of jump clones for Citadels: like Citadel offices, your alliance, corporation or public customers will never be denied usage of this service if you grant them access in the first place.


This doesn't mention anything about NPC Corp standings associated with the cost of 5 million isk. IMO this should be reduced based on standings. A player with excellent standing toward that NPC Corp shouldn't pay the same cost as a player with no standings.

It already has been reduced substantially but not by any standings - Cost is 900K.

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.
ACESsiggy
Deaths Consortium
#1457 - 2016-04-14 12:13:46 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
ACESsiggy wrote:

Jump Clones: current price for installing jump clones in NPC stations is around 100,000 ISK. We are planning to increase that amount to 5m ISK to install a jump clone in NPC stations. That price will also be payable anytime a clone is left behind in a NPC station - so, if you jump clone away from a NPC station from previously established jump clones you will still pay that price. Jump Clones installed in Citadels will not have any NPC taxes, but the owner can charge his own pricing for the service. We also want to remove the maximum limit of jump clones for Citadels: like Citadel offices, your alliance, corporation or public customers will never be denied usage of this service if you grant them access in the first place.


This doesn't mention anything about NPC Corp standings associated with the cost of 5 million isk. IMO this should be reduced based on standings. A player with excellent standing toward that NPC Corp shouldn't pay the same cost as a player with no standings.

It already has been reduced substantially but not by any standings - Cost is 900K.


Where's this info. What caused a 82 percent discount lol

“The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded see only the differences.”
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1458 - 2016-04-14 12:56:46 UTC
ACESsiggy wrote:


Where's this info. What caused a 82 percent discount lol

Player riots.
P3ps1 Max
Deaths Consortium
Pandemic Horde
#1459 - 2016-04-16 00:14:08 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
ACESsiggy wrote:


Where's this info. What caused a 82 percent discount lol

Player riots.


Still leaves Corp standings in the game the most useful information. I assume they are getting rid of this or are they going to tie new content to NPC standings? (Tax benefit is negligible)
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars
#1460 - 2016-04-16 11:26:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Krevnos
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Update on the original thread:


  • Transaction fee: increased from 1.5% to 2.5% in all NPC stations and player structures.
  • Brokers' fee: increased to 5% in NPC stations.
  • Broker's fee formula with skills and standings: currently with max skills and NPC standings you can reduce the brokers' fee by 0.7-0.8%. We will modify skills and standings to decrease the tax by 1.5% and also change them from being percentage based to a flat reduction.

    • So brokers' fee formula becomes: 5% brokers fee - ([Broker Relation skill level]0.2 + [Faction Standing level]0.03 + [Corp Standing level]*0.02)

    Minimum brokers' fee in NPC stations becomes 3.5% with skill and standings maxed. Please note there is no NPC brokers' fee in Citadels structures, but you'll have to deal with what the owner charges you. Skill won't work for player-set brokers' fee either.

  • Cloning fee: decreased from 5m ISK to install or leave a clone behind to 900,000 ISK
  • Reprocessing: changed how reprocessing rigs work to mirror more closely other structure rigs. Other structure rigs give you the same bonuses no matter the structure size, but you gain move coverage as you move up.

    • So for example a Medium Citadel Missile Rig will only give you an application bonus to structure single target missiles, while a X-Large Citadel Rig will give you a missile application and projection bonus not only to single target missiles but to the guided bombs as well.

    With that in mind, base reprocessing yield of the reprocessing service: 50% (also includes compression free of charge)
    All of the rigs below give the same bonuses: Tech I rigs will give 52% if the structure is in high-sec, 55% otherwise. Tech II rigs below will give 55% if the structure is in high-sec, 60% otherwise.

    Medium rigs (only apply to Astrahus):
  • Tech I and II rigs that applies for high-sec ores: Veldspar, Scordite, Pyroxeres, Omber, Kernite and all variants.
  • Tech I and II rigs that applies for all other ores: Arkonor, Bistot, Crokite, Dark Ochre, Gneiss, Mercoxit, Spodumain, Hedbergite, Hemorphite, Jaspet and all variants.
  • Tech I and II rigs that applies for: Clear Icicle, Enriched Clear Icicle, White Glaze, Pristine White Glaze, Dark Glitter and Gelidus
  • Tech I and II rigs that applies for: Blue Ice, Thick Blue Ice, Glacial Mass, Smooth Glacial Mass, Glare Crust, Krystallos.

    • Large rigs (only apply to Fortizar):
  • Tech I and II rigs that applies for all ores.
  • Tech I and II rigs that applies for all ices.

    • X-Large rig (only applies for Keepstar):
  • Tech I and II rigs that applies for all ore and ices.

    • And that should cover everything. Please keep in mind this is still WIP and subject to change based on constructive feedback.


While, ostensibly, this appears to be fairly fairly sound logic, it has also removed any advantage of stations larger than Astrahus in all space for the purpose of refining. There are no reprocessing advantages to be gleaned from them, while obviously market opportunities remain the same.


Couple this with the severely ******** defensive capability of citadels in high security space (almost to the point of uselessness?), and the fact that the higher weapons which can only be fitted to larger citadels can not be employed in high security space.

The outcome of this is to limit competitiveness in high security space (which should carry its own carrot on stick) outside of major alliances trying to hold the biggest trade hub. Similarly, in null sec space, the Fortizar is now equal in measure to the Keepstar with the exception of defence and capital docking.

I would suggest the following for refining (all security space):

Astrahus: base yield 49%

Fortizar: base yield 52%

Keepstar: base yield 55%

T1 rigs, following the ore restrictions you have aforementioned: +3% yield.

T2 rigs, following the ore restrictions you have aforementioned: +6% yield.

One must also consider the relative cost of installing refining rigs onto different sizes of citadel. As it stands with the currently proposed setup, there will be absolutely no financial reason to install refining rigs on anything larger than an Astrahus (the entire citadel plus rigs will cost far less than two Fortizar rigs or one Keepstar rig). Again incentive is missing.

Having the refining rigs differentiate between high and low/null sec space might be seen as a means to help to draw players out of high security space, but history shows that players are unlikely to move to null sec for a few %. Considerably better value ores are a much greater draw (a balance which is still not quite there). Also consider that with the current proposed refine rates, citadels will have no advantage whatsoever over POS in high sec space, dissuading early adoption of citadels by miners.


Larger citadels also require more playthings which can be applied to high and low security space. This is currently a major issue, particularly with a general lack of upgrade modules and feasible alternatives to larger weapons on high slots. I would suggest broadening the range of available weapons and/or ramp up the missiles which are currently a weapon only to be used where the big weapons can't fit.

I am happy with the taxes as you now propose them. I think it is important to draw players toward the new citadels as functional hubs for market and other activities.

I am very happy with the plans for citadels, though some aspects aren't quite on point as yet and currently the number of features available to them is quite limited.

Well that's my 2 cents worth.




[Rant at Forum Censorship]

p.s. please pass on to the forum's IT people that the word ret.arded is a perfectly acceptable word when used in the correct context (see above asterisks).

[/Rant at Forum Censorship]