These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Citadel] Updates to NPC taxes and refining rig bonuses

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2016-04-26 22:35:41 UTC
Ok, so is this:

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50%
T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52%
T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54%
T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12%
T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24%
T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24%
T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48%


The new Base or the new Maximum for Reprocessing, and will skills be acting on it? (where they don't know).
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#22 - 2016-04-26 22:45:18 UTC
Ficti0n wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Drago wrote:

His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more"


Did he really say that? That's...a bit shite really.



It's up to him to clarfiy, but it doesn't sound like something any responsible dev would say to a customer. I would make doubly sure what you said was accurate and even then think again. Impersonating a dev or rather putting words in their mouths is something that has been dealt with quite heavily in the past.



I was there talking to him, I don't care what you think about it. Or do you think I'm stupid enough to make it up?

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#23 - 2016-04-26 22:50:09 UTC
Krevnos wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
Otro Willis wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec.
You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game.



Because being next door to Jita isn't an advantage at all.


What the hell has Jita got to do with it?

I haven't been there in over 2 years, and I doubt I will in the next 2 if i'm here.


If you haven't been in Jita, you probably haven't done significant business.



Lol, you don't need Jita to do any business, significant or otherwise. I sell stuff just fine 😀

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#24 - 2016-04-26 22:52:45 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec.
You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game.



I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists.

His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more"

With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future.


Well, doesn't matters much whether is true or bullsh*t; it reflects what players feel about these things. CCP is making a different EVE for someone else, and is using your money to do it. If you stop giving them money, they will find some other sucker to pay for it.

And there's nothing you can do. vºv
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#25 - 2016-04-26 23:08:29 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:

I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists.

His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more"

With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future.

Wow.... Just wow. Though it totally matches the current design direction of the game towards becoming a themepark MMO which forces you towards an 'endgame' location, rather than a sandbox where every area of space is of equal value but different activities. So I quite believe that got said. But yea..... all we can do is talk with our wallets on any high sec industrial characters if it's a big enough deal.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#26 - 2016-04-26 23:18:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The new values are:
Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50%
T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52%
T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54%
T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12%
T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24%
T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24%
T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48%

Thanks and good luck with all your post-Citadel plans!

These refine values are very high considering that when the new drilling platforms are released they are meant to be significantly better than citadels. We aren't heading into the 100%+ territory once again are we?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#27 - 2016-04-27 00:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Drago Shouna wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec.
You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game.



I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists.

His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more"

With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future.


I absolutely did not say that, although I can understand if you misheard me or misunderstood.

I said that we need to make the changes that are best for the game as a whole; and that although almost all change will cause at least some people to leave the game, good changes will result in more players overall.

And like I told you at the party, if you do decide to quit over this I wish you the very best in the future and want you to know that you're always welcome back if you choose.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#28 - 2016-04-27 00:33:36 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The new values are:
Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50%
T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52%
T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54%
T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12%
T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24%
T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24%
T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48%

Thanks and good luck with all your post-Citadel plans!

These refine values are very high considering that when the new drilling platforms are released they are meant to be significantly better than citadels. We aren't heading into the 100%+ territory once again are we?


The introduction of Drilling Platforms will likely come alongside a reduction in the strength of these rigs when fit to Citadels.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Circumstantial Evidence
#29 - 2016-04-27 00:35:27 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
...a themepark MMO which forces you towards an 'endgame' location, rather than a sandbox where every area of space is of equal value but different activities.
If you provided an example of different activities locked to different areas, I bet it would spawn a new round of arguing. To suggest something extreme: make refining equal everywhere, but impossible in nullsec. THAT would certainly promote different activities in different areas of space... note that I'm not actually proposing this. I worry about a "theme park" trend due to upcoming daily activity rewards, something EVE hasn't had before. Nullsec has always been a theoretically more profitable area & location for "endgame content." Best passive isk generation (moons). Best belt ratting. iHubs.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#30 - 2016-04-27 02:50:18 UTC
Removed a troll post.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#31 - 2016-04-27 04:25:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Petrified
It would still be better if you nuked the idea of the broker fees passing to the owner of the station - or at least ensure the fee was static and could not be manipulated by the station owner outside of the skills of those making market transactions.

That said:
Thank you for updating us on the status of the fees since the patch notes were absent of this information.

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

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#32 - 2016-04-27 04:38:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The currently planned market tax values are:

3% Broker’s Fee
  • Reduced to 2.5% with skills and 2% with both skills and max NPC standings
  • Is sunk from the game in NPC stations, is paid to owners in outposts, is customizable and paid to owners in Citadels
  • Skills and standings don’t apply in player structures
Broker’s fee formula: 3% brokers fee - ([Broker Relation skill level]0.1 + [Faction Standing level]0.03 + [Corp Standing level]*0.02)

2 % Transaction Tax
  • Reduced to 1 % with max skills
  • Is sunk from the game in all locations and is not customizable
Are existing orders impacted in any way?

Are there any other special cases to the way Citadel markets work compared to NPC stations? Do they support ranged buy orders etc?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#33 - 2016-04-27 05:37:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Can we please tax compression?

Right now there is very little reason to refine in a citadel that isn't closer to a trade hub and even beyond that there will be plenty of public ones with 0 tax. If ppl can just compress in mine for free why would they ever refine there. A DST can move over 1M of ore after compression.


Beyond that why can't I charge for a service I'm paying to provide

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#34 - 2016-04-27 06:37:34 UTC
I hope CCP does a careful analysis on the effects of these increased sinks and costs on isk velocity and volumes.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#35 - 2016-04-27 06:59:33 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec.
You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game.



I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists.

His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more"

With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future.


I absolutely did not say that, although I can understand if you misheard me or misunderstood.

I said that we need to make the changes that are best for the game as a whole; and that although almost all change will cause at least some people to leave the game, good changes will result in more players overall.

And like I told you at the party, if you do decide to quit over this I wish you the very best in the future and want you to know that you're always welcome back if you choose.


That makes sense and is understandable. What players may disagree is on what is "good for the game" and your (CCP's) ability to discern it based on the information you obtain.

The questions you don't ask don't get answered, and sometimes what you don't know that you don't know (the unknown unknowns) is very relevant.

CCP may be right in what looks like favoring a very small chunk of population and backburning a way larger share of it, but maybe ti's because they asked the wrong questions to the wrong people...

Small anecdote in point: a public library had a succesful program of "digital alphabetization" to teach people how to use a computer. It was so succesful that they were picked for a test program by the EU, to improve those kind of programs with additional funds and studies. Based on the feedback they gathered from the people attending the initial program, they developed a series of programs teaching how to use specific software based on the things learned in the initial program, and then things went bad. The new programs had poor performance in the first semester and that could threaten the EU funding. Then, someone asked the question nobody had asked yet: "Is there someone who would want to use our digital alphabetisation pogram but can't?". That question was raised to the library board because my sister talked to one of the librarians and conveyed to her the objection made by an inmigrant mother: she would like to learn to use a computer and help her children, but the digital alphabetisation program was scheduled at times good for retired elder and unemployed persons, and where incompatible with school hours and working moms. So eventually the extended program was refurbished and the library board just added more studies in times compatible with school hours, and bingo! The new program was extremely successful since it taped on a completely new demographic.

The point is, the library board first thought that they needed to keep pleasing the people already enjoying the initial program, and they would never have figured that there was more people in need of the program because they only talked to people from the program. They needed to learn first hand about the people who didn't enjoyed the program because they couldn't.... and that people, you knwo, didn't bothered to engage the library board since they were quite busy minding their business.


Pleasing the people who enjoys your game in a certain way is nice, but maybe you should focus on the people who doesn't enjoys it for no good reason. Specially when you release the first Expansion in two years and that people get from it, precisely and exactly, a tax hike and a doubled-edged sword of PvE dailies.

Can you get rid of them? What's good for the game is that people who don't play to wreck someone's dreams are bakcburned for years to come? Certainly CCP thinks so. But maybe they asked the wrong questions to the wrong people...
Black Pedro
Mine.
#36 - 2016-04-27 07:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Can you get rid of them? What's good for the game is that people who don't play to wreck someone's dreams are bakcburned for years to come? Certainly CCP thinks so. But maybe they asked the wrong questions to the wrong people...
Or maybe some people have been playing the wrong game the whole time.

Eve Online has always been about player content, competition and conflict. The fundamental game design always has players at risk to other players. The fact that some players want a game completely different from what is written in the original design documents does not mean CCP should throw out their original vision and pander to whoever yells the loudest. They are trying their best to stay true to those original ideas, and while certainly there have been concessions and not every decision has furthered that goal, and not every feature added has worked as intended, the idea of a universe completely in the hands of the players still burns bright and has its marks over all the current cool stuff coming in to the game.

But more on topic, putting markets into the hands of players is a bold move towards that goal of a completely player driven universe. I think though a gradual and cautious transition is wise given that citadels lack the contract and CREST functionality that traders rely on. If the bulk of trade does not move to citadels, these new taxes and fees could dramatically increase the amount of ISK leaving the economy causing even more deflation. The economy is already dealing with the massive adjustment of skill extractors which seem to be increasing the value of ISK (as reflected by PLEX prices which are still on the decline) and a large new ISK sink could cause more instability.

I am excited to see how this all pans out.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#37 - 2016-04-27 08:23:38 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Ok, so is this:

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50%
T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52%
T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54%
T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12%
T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24%
T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24%
T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48%


The new Base or the new Maximum for Reprocessing, and will skills be acting on it? (where they don't know).


These are the bases with maxskills and impart it's over 80%refine in null/wh (been a few days so can't remember exact)

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#38 - 2016-04-27 08:25:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


I absolutely did not say that, although I can understand if you misheard me or misunderstood.

I said that we need to make the changes that are best for the game as a whole; and that although almost all change will cause at least some people to leave the game, good changes will result in more players overall.

And like I told you at the party, if you do decide to quit over this I wish you the very best in the future and want you to know that you're always welcome back if you choose.

So would you care to explain why you are contradicting the earlier change to PE where it was stated that giving mechanical material advantages was not desirable, and during the revamp of outposts when the argument was that highsec players did not have to invest as much into their structures and could just pull a POS down was the justification for the lower refine.

And why it's good for the game for High Sec players who invest the same amount of work to make a citadel and are exposed to risk since it can't be pulled down are then not given the same reward.
Sure they don't have to defend against Caps, but they also can't defend using Caps, and the lack of all the AOE defence modules actually makes it vastly harder to defend a high sec citadel. Not easier.

So I'd love to see what kind of reasoning you have for continuing to hand goodies to Null Sec coalitions on a platter simply because they jump up and down and demand the best of everything, when in this particular case, the risk is the same anywhere, possibly even higher in High sec due to the Citadels having weaker defence.
Jerppu3
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#39 - 2016-04-27 09:00:04 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Can we please tax compression?

Right now there is very little reason to refine in a citadel that isn't closer to a trade hub and even beyond that there will be plenty of public ones with 0 tax. If ppl can just compress in mine for free why would they ever refine there. A DST can move over 1M of ore after compression.


Beyond that why can't I charge for a service I'm paying to provide


Exactly what he said. We have been asking this for quite a while now.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#40 - 2016-04-27 09:09:44 UTC
Jerppu3 wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Can we please tax compression?

Right now there is very little reason to refine in a citadel that isn't closer to a trade hub and even beyond that there will be plenty of public ones with 0 tax. If ppl can just compress in mine for free why would they ever refine there. A DST can move over 1M of ore after compression.


Beyond that why can't I charge for a service I'm paying to provide


Exactly what he said. We have been asking this for quite a while now.


Hell I would settle for a good explenation as to why ccp has decided against this

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble