These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Allow Medium-Sized Citadels/Eng. Complexes to have Market Modules
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Obsidian Blacke
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2017-04-17 21:51:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Obsidian Blacke
There's really no reason they shouldn't be able to fit them.
Cade Windstalker
#2 - 2017-04-17 22:05:52 UTC
Because it drastically decreases the cost required to setup a player market? Which both dilutes the value of setting one up and gives easy access to one of the most rewarding parts of setting up a public Citadel, especially in High Sec?

We literally have wars being fought right now over prime market Citadel real-estate. This would make spamming these things out ridiculously easy and damage the opportunity for meainingful fights over this resource.
Obsidian Blacke
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2017-04-17 22:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Obsidian Blacke
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Because it drastically decreases the cost required to setup a player market? Which both dilutes the value of setting one up and gives easy access to one of the most rewarding parts of setting up a public Citadel, especially in High Sec?

We literally have wars being fought right now over prime market Citadel real-estate. This would make spamming these things out ridiculously easy and damage the opportunity for meainingful fights over this resource.



1. There are no meaningful fights currently occurring over market Citadels. They're being attacked, but there are no "fights". This would generate more content for any group wishing to maintain a monopoly on Market Citadels, as there would be more "fights" as you put it. It would also enable smaller entities to field their own competitive markets.

2. The Citadel markets would still be rewarding. You just need to offer the best deal to entice people to use your market. :p

3. Anything that strips power away from large null blocs is a good thing.

4. With war dec mechanics currently broken, this change would help in alleviating the damage caused by the broken system until it's fixed.
Col Crunch
Fancypants Inc
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2017-04-18 01:58:42 UTC
I thought they already could... I could swear I have bought stuff in an astrahus... (I might just be insane though)
Cade Windstalker
#5 - 2017-04-18 02:43:48 UTC
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
1. There are no meaningful fights currently occurring over market Citadels. They're being attacked, but there are no "fights". This would generate more content for any group wishing to maintain a monopoly on Market Citadels, as there would be more "fights" as you put it. It would also enable smaller entities to field their own competitive markets.

2. The Citadel markets would still be rewarding. You just need to offer the best deal to entice people to use your market. :p

3. Anything that strips power away from large null blocs is a good thing.

4. With war dec mechanics currently broken, this change would help in alleviating the damage caused by the broken system until it's fixed.



  1. Yes there are, there were at least two this week and that's just the ones I've seen posted about.

  2. That "best deal" very quickly becomes zero broker fees or close to it. That's the situation Perimeter found itself in before Horde started killing off everyone with a lower Broker fee than their Citadels. If you could do this with Astras they would literally be sprining up faster than Horde could kill them.

  3. This is objectively false and a terrible measure of what is or isn't a "good thing".

  4. I think your definition of broken and what you expect to see "fixed" do not align with anything CCP has any plans or intentions of doing.
Obsidian Blacke
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2017-04-18 02:50:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Obsidian Blacke
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
1. There are no meaningful fights currently occurring over market Citadels. They're being attacked, but there are no "fights". This would generate more content for any group wishing to maintain a monopoly on Market Citadels, as there would be more "fights" as you put it. It would also enable smaller entities to field their own competitive markets.

2. The Citadel markets would still be rewarding. You just need to offer the best deal to entice people to use your market. :p

3. Anything that strips power away from large null blocs is a good thing.

4. With war dec mechanics currently broken, this change would help in alleviating the damage caused by the broken system until it's fixed.



  1. Yes there are, there were at least two this week and that's just the ones I've seen posted about.

  2. That "best deal" very quickly becomes zero broker fees or close to it. That's the situation Perimeter found itself in before Horde started killing off everyone with a lower Broker fee than their Citadels. If you could do this with Astras they would literally be sprining up faster than Horde could kill them.

  3. This is objectively false and a terrible measure of what is or isn't a "good thing".

  4. I think your definition of broken and what you expect to see "fixed" do not align with anything CCP has any plans or intentions of doing.


Uh oh, sounds like someone's a bitter nullbear. Cry more. Wah! Wah! Wah!

1. Then you should be glad that there would be more content and more fight generation by allowing medium citadels to have markets.

2. Oh no, Horde would suffer. I'm not sure why CCP should give a **** about that. Moreover, I fail to see the problem with zero broker fees or close to it. If that's the rate you want to charge, then that's the rate. You can still make a **** ton of ISK off of the 100 ISK minimum fee you collect.

3. It's objectively false? Prove it. If it's objective, I'm sure you'll be able to.

4. This isn't worth replying to.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#7 - 2017-04-18 11:07:43 UTC
If CCP thought it was a good idea to do, they would have allowed it when they introduced citadels in the first place. It is limited to large and extra-large citadels for many reasons, some being gameplay-balance, some being risk versus rewards (since asset safety is a thing, it would be too easy to just spam medium structures with market).

Wormholer for life.
Cade Windstalker
#8 - 2017-04-18 18:05:14 UTC
Obsidian Blacke wrote:
Uh oh, sounds like someone's a bitter nullbear. Cry more. Wah! Wah! Wah!

1. Then you should be glad that there would be more content and more fight generation by allowing medium citadels to have markets.

2. Oh no, Horde would suffer. I'm not sure why CCP should give a **** about that. Moreover, I fail to see the problem with zero broker fees or close to it. If that's the rate you want to charge, then that's the rate. You can still make a **** ton of ISK off of the 100 ISK minimum fee you collect.

3. It's objectively false? Prove it. If it's objective, I'm sure you'll be able to.

4. This isn't worth replying to.


Nope, not a null bear, bitter or otherwise. The only horse I have in the game is a general desire to see Eve be a fun and interesting game with a good balance of Risk and Reward.


  1. Unlikely, given the current cost of a Medium Citadel it would be extremely easy to spam them everywhere at which point it quickly becomes not worth it to try and kill them all, since each timer takes a decent amount of time to grind through and it takes weeks to kill the thing.

  2. The fact that you don't understand why these sorts of restrictions can be good says that you don't understand the game very well. Horde is the poster child because they're fighting for control of the Perimeter market, they're not the only ones fighting over a market by a long shot, and smaller fights in more remote areas with small mission hubs are becoming more common.

  3. Removing capitals from the game would hurt large null entities. Removing Capitals from the game would be bad for the game as a whole and hurt the game's scope and diversity. QED not everything that's bad for a large Null entity is good for the game.

  4. I mean, I personally don't really think it was worth stating in the first place. CCP haven't touched war-decs in years, they've shown no indication of fixing them, and they've shown even less indication of making it harder for on group to attack another by limiting war-decs. The implication from your post is that you somehow believe a change is coming that will make a Fortizar safer in HIgh Sec, which seems hilariously unlikely, so I find it unlikely that your wishes align with CCP's goals.