These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proposal for Asset Safety Fee Payments
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Soleil Fournier
Fliet Pizza Delivery
Of Essence
#1 - 2016-11-02 17:39:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
The proposal:

As it stands, players pay a 10% fee to retrieve items in asset safety. I propose to reallocate this payment to 9% to (NPC/Sink), and 1% to the corp/alliance that killed the structure.

Points:

The payment would go to the corp/alliance that had the most damage on the killmail. (Avoids final blow shenanigans).
The payout would be given only when players pay to retrieve assets, not when the structure is killed.
If the corp/alliance that got the most damage is closed/etc, the 1% reverts back to NPC/Sink.


Arguments:

This is an incentive for players to kill more structures, including ones that may contain a higher value in assets, generating additional content.
The reduction in the isk sink (1%) would be offset by more structures exploding, leading to higher amounts of isk being removed from the game overall.
There is no financial effect on the players paying to retrieve assets, as they pay the same 10% under this proposal.
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#2 - 2016-11-02 18:47:52 UTC
While I really like your proposal, It might be a little too early. As of now there is only one type of structure that inludes asset safety and it still has some teething troubles. Once asset safety structures are fully established, i'm all for it.

A small point I would like to add though is that the money goes to an NPC entity first before being paid to the attackers. Otherwise they would get more intel on the people who stored stuff in the citadel than the owners ever did.
Mordachai
Eternal Darkness.
#3 - 2016-11-03 09:19:50 UTC
Violet Hurst wrote:
While I really like your proposal, It might be a little too early. As of now there is only one type of structure that inludes asset safety and it still has some teething troubles. Once asset safety structures are fully established, i'm all for it.

A small point I would like to add though is that the money goes to an NPC entity first before being paid to the attackers. Otherwise they would get more intel on the people who stored stuff in the citadel than the owners ever did.


That really depends on when the looser retrieves their items if its right away or after a while.
but there could be a month delay on it...
My Dream
Doomheim
#4 - 2016-11-03 09:27:43 UTC
how about ccp sticks to the original game vision and reward the attackers with a nice loot can with the conquered stuff ?
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#5 - 2016-11-03 11:01:23 UTC
Mordachai wrote:
That really depends on when the looser retrieves their items if its right away or after a while.
but there could be a month delay on it...


As far as I know if they retrieve it right away they won't pay anything anyway. It's not a lot of useful information, but still more than the owners got.


My Dream wrote:
how about ccp sticks to the original game vision and reward the attackers with a nice loot can with the conquered stuff ?


As far as I know they do get some of the modules the citadel was equipped with. But for everything else it was the compromise that had to be made. Otherwise people would just stick to (NPC) stations and largely ignore the new structures, especially as market hubs. I'm fairly certain this has been discussed in detail in the original citadel threads.
My Dream
Doomheim
#6 - 2016-11-03 11:10:47 UTC
Violet Hurst wrote:
Mordachai wrote:
That really depends on when the looser retrieves their items if its right away or after a while.
but there could be a month delay on it...


As far as I know if they retrieve it right away they won't pay anything anyway. It's not a lot of useful information, but still more than the owners got.


My Dream wrote:
how about ccp sticks to the original game vision and reward the attackers with a nice loot can with the conquered stuff ?


As far as I know they do get some of the modules the citadel was equipped with. But for everything else it was the compromise that had to be made. Otherwise people would just stick to (NPC) stations and largely ignore the new structures, especially as market hubs. I'm fairly certain this has been discussed in detail in the original citadel threads.


if a citadel cant be defended it does not deserve to exist and if your take the route of no broker fees etc to make more money , that should be balanced with a risk your assets will be turned into loot for a enterprising attacker alliance playing as the game was intended
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2016-11-03 16:20:15 UTC
My Dream wrote:


if a citadel cant be defended it does not deserve to exist and if your take the route of no broker fees etc to make more money , that should be balanced with a risk your assets will be turned into loot for a enterprising attacker alliance playing as the game was intended


Actually it's balanced by the need to pay for fuel costs, which can be quite substantial depending on how many modules you have online. As the owner of the Citadel, one of two things must be true:
1) You must save enough money in fees on your own orders to offset the cost of the fuel, or
2) You must make enough money charging other people who use your Citadel to offset the cost of the fuel.

Otherwise you're losing money running it.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno