EVE General Discussion

Furthemore, this would introduce another much needed isk sink into EVE, which systemically helps reconciles the negligible destruction of material moving through HS in particular.

If it is not possible to incentivize destruction of materials in HS, we can achieve much the same result by introducing a fiscal cost on delivery contract costs in isk.

A) The movement of material by delivery contract over long distances will be curtailed, by systemic cost.

B) Players can independently move their material further, but they are not professional haulers, and much more likely to fail to aggression, plus they will fly cheaper, more easily destructible ships sufficient to move only their own cargo.

C) Whether material, or isk, is destroyed, is largely summa summarum. They are two sides of the same coin.
At the end result, in the market, if isk is sunk getting it there, its synonymous with material being destroyed getting there.
BUT that isk is sunk systemically in this proposal, in addition to material loss at its current (albeit negligible) rate.

Thus an isk sink, such as a cargo value % tax per jump, is essentially equal to the same value in cargo being destroyed, on every jump by a delivery contract ship, as paid for by the owner of that cargo to the hauler, to cover the haulers costs to jump each gate as a % of the owners cargo value they want to bring to market (whether near, or far).

---

Since we cant find a way to increase destruction of material itself in HS, by this means above we can instead enact an equivalent destruction of the value of that material.

Each jump on a delivery contract destroys 0.1-0.5% of its value, as a cost to the contractor, as charged by the contracted hauler, and as is isk sunk into oblivion. This severely impairs dispersal of goods to great distances by delivery contract, and localises markets.

Alternatively, you can fly it yourself. At your own risk, time and effort.

---

In reference to NS, and HS/LS locals/neighbors too, there is one more problem.

If this change was enacted overnight, those entities closer to Jita/Forge would benefit substantially compared to those more distant from it.

This is a geographic fact, and a serious problem for fairness, post-change.

But this also opens up the opportunity for geographically distant entities to Jita, nearer other Empire hubs, to develop their own local economies, on their own terms. Which currently is not viable due to the Jita abomination.

Id argue that initial, painful, loss of cheap, free access to Jita/Forge, is reciprocated by local control of entities nearby of each local hub. That is truly, really, valuable. Your own market, close to home. And its great for game dynamics and content. But that can only happen if Jita falls. The more these local markets develop, the less is the influence of Jita and those entities currently entrenched there.

You stated the problem yourself.

There is little point for trade hubs or production of goods in NS (except NS exclusive products).

Its much simpler, cheaper, safer and easier just to farm isk/resources in NS, haul them to HS, leverage both of them in Jita/Forge, and haul back what you need from there.

Thats why a cargo % tax works in your benefit too.

Instead of hauling all the way to Jita/Forge and back, you can instead haul to a nearby HS hub, supplied by locals and you.

As that HS hub is nearby, so rationally will be the NS hub that feeds into and out of it.
You can thus finally conduct trade both in NS and the nearest HS hub., instead of going all the way to Jita.

If you make the delivery contract zero payout, then the hauler will run full risk of collateral + full cost of 0.1-0.5% of your delivery packages cost per jump.( + risk to their ship value)

Sure, you can send them the money in advance, but they might pocket it and your cargo.
Sure you promise to send them the money afterwards, but what insurance do they have?

See what I mean?

Even a dedicated, utterly loyal and trustworthy hauler, will incur cost per jump in HS to deliver your goods, in this proposal.
If its a contract delivery, the cost will be included.
If its not, you might lose it all.
If you fly it yourself, thats up to you.

Furthermore, its an isk sink, which since we cant find a way to increase destruction of matierlal, basically functions the same way by devaluing delivered cargo as a % of its value per jump, thus also helping to localize markets.

Sounds a bit iffy, but if you dont break the rules or laws, go ahead.

Can you be more specific?

You made a claim, but didnt substantiate it at all.
Infact its unclear what you even intend this out of game tool you can make to even address.
Is it an out of game tool that enforces a 0.1-0.5% cargo value tax rate per jump in HS?
Is it an out of game tool that enforces that a hauler doesnt pocket the cargo and payment, without contract?
Is it an out of game tool that ensures a hauler without contract, gets paid on delivery?

How does an out of game tool, enforce one or more of the above, ingame?

Funny how every AGD (Amatuer Game Designer) miss things like that. Theyy are 100% sure that whatever cockamamie idea they have will be a sure fire thing, simply because they thought it up.


People are good at adapting, that's why even the efforts of PROFESSIONAL game designers are frequently frustrated by players. It's also why Malcanis' Law works as a general principle, because the heart of that law is "people with means will figure out a way around the supposed road block you tried to erect".

This is blatant **** and violation of Malcanis' Law, its intent and purpose.

I already addressed you on this before in this thread (which you didnt respond to).

Your self-interested paraphrasing is not even remotely representative of Malcanis' Law.

A HS 0.1-0.5% delivery cargo tax per jump, in no way, shape or form violates Malcani's Law.

You ma'am, are no Malcanis either.

You are raping and violating the intent and purpose of what whilst its called a Law, is infact just a litmus strip to be applied to a potential change. Its an indicator test, not a law, despite its name.

You cant, nor will I abide you trying to constantly bastardizing the initial concept, into convenient iterations/extensions for YOU personally

Malcani's Law is not an end-all, be-all, rote argument, in and of itself, against any and all proposal of change.

Even in this thread, you didnt even bother to read it, just jumped straight to YOUR personal bastardization of Malcanis's Law.

I dont care even if you lie beneath Malcanis every night, or how close you think you are.

This is not about you, or me, or Malcanis.
Its about the game.

You cant run around yelling "TLDR! MALCANIS LAW! /THREAD", whenever you post.

I know this game matters to you deeply, I know you've contributed a great deal on PvE issues, but you have recently started to lose the plot on this board. Maybe you should take a forum break for a few weeks and focus ingame or IRL instead. Come back to us, thereafter.

Really?

Thats your rebuttal?

GTFO Jenn.
You need a break.
Seriously. Go do something else for awhile.

Dont worry, EVE, this board and us will still be here when you come back.
I say this with no bad intent, just as one fellow gamer to another in a game we both love.

We will be here, and welcome your return.

Currently, player Citadel/EC can already change taxes/rates to 0.

It hasnt made any significant dent in the flood towards Jita.

Even though they proliferate in huge amounts throughout HS, its had almost zero effect on Jita/Forge.

Player Citadels/EC cant, demonstrably, make that difference.

However, if the proposed %value of cargo tax/HS jump was implemented, these local Citadels/EC would be substantially more attractive, even than the NPC stations.

No they can't. Citadels can only set the broker fees to zero. The tax rate is constant everywhere, only adjusted by skills.

Having a variable tax rate that scaled with trading activity in a system (exactly like manufacturing indexes) would probably break up the trade hubs, or at least fragment them some over several nearby systems. Whether the would be a good thing for the game is another question I am less certain of.