These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New Dev Blog: Player-owned Customs Office

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Meldan Anstian
The Night Crew
#1281 - 2011-10-21 18:18:36 UTC
Dominus Alterai wrote:


While I agree that this is a possible tactic of griefing other players, this is another reason to either have conquerable offices that you can take if this happens, at least in low-sec. However, in 0.0 space, I don't see this happening, as tax rates are tied to standings with your corp/alliance. As anyone in 0.0 space can tell you, increased taxes on planets is the least of your worries if your standings get reset.



We do agree on conquerable CO's as opposed to destructible. Way back on probably page 40 something (don't know how to check without going back through page by page) I proposed exactly that, conquerable CO's.

I think CO's in null and WH's would largely be treated the same by the players in those systems. Own them, lock em down as much as possible to make it as hard as possible for others to use resources from the planet, and don't bother with taxes on your own corp/alliance.

Someone, perhaps you, suggested that low sec be conquerable and null/WH CO's be destructible. I think it should be consistent throughout the universe, all (except high sec) destructible, or ideally in my opinion, conquerable. Don't think we should have some of each.

I definitely think that it should be conquerable CO's in WH's. Logistics are such a PITA anyway, why make more logistics required for no benefit. It makes no sense to tax yourself, and keeping other players out is clearly a priority in WH space. You still need to own and defend them, but without the additional burden of getting them PCO's moved in to a WH.

I think you can make an valid argument for either destructible and conquerable CO's in null. Me, just keep things consistent and easier all the way around, if you make them all conquerable.
Dominus Alterai
Star Freaks
#1282 - 2011-10-21 18:20:51 UTC
Marcus Eurealus wrote:
CCP Omen wrote:
Midnight Hope wrote:
If you are going to blow up every PO on launch date, I hope you thought what you are going to do with all the stuff in those offices. Are you going to blow it up as well??

I can already see PI prices spiking, regardless of the increase in link capacity.

The stuff that you have in the CO's will be teleported to a station hangar. I forgot the exact details of which station etc.





I think this was already said,why not make existing POCO's vulnerable .......


..... and slow down the sudden crush as everyone runs for Concord or Faction HQ in a need to grab up the BPC's (WFT was CCP thinking only making copies and no Originals; what every time someone needs a replacemnt they get to pay 100's of Millions to someone who runs incursions or factional warfare all the time) to make a POCO to get the flow of POS Fuel Going Again .....


I forsee alot of abandon POS in High Sec, as people can no longer afford to feed Vaal ..... forcing small research outposts back to LONG Station Quques


This is true, but only for a short while. Once prices go up and research POS start going offline, BPCs will rise in price, as will T2 BPCs and T2 components, ships, structures, etc. The market will eventually balance itself out. Minor inflation of the ISK is the overall picture here.

Reducing your holes to a quivering mess since 2009.
rootimus maximus
Perkone
Caldari State
#1283 - 2011-10-21 18:24:09 UTC
I don't want to quote a whole bunch of stuff, but I'd be just as happy if they gave us something planet-side to enable group PI. It doesn't have to be the customs office, more that this change is a good opportunity to try and get them to do :something: to improve that situation.
Dominus Alterai
Star Freaks
#1284 - 2011-10-21 18:27:42 UTC
Meldan Anstian wrote:
Dominus Alterai wrote:


While I agree that this is a possible tactic of griefing other players, this is another reason to either have conquerable offices that you can take if this happens, at least in low-sec. However, in 0.0 space, I don't see this happening, as tax rates are tied to standings with your corp/alliance. As anyone in 0.0 space can tell you, increased taxes on planets is the least of your worries if your standings get reset.



We do agree on conquerable CO's as opposed to destructible. Way back on probably page 40 something (don't know how to check without going back through page by page) I proposed exactly that, conquerable CO's.

I think CO's in null and WH's would largely be treated the same by the players in those systems. Own them, lock em down as much as possible to make it as hard as possible for others to use resources from the planet, and don't bother with taxes on your own corp/alliance.

Someone, perhaps you, suggested that low sec be conquerable and null/WH CO's be destructible. I think it should be consistent throughout the universe, all (except high sec) destructible, or ideally in my opinion, conquerable. Don't think we should have some of each.

I definitely think that it should be conquerable CO's in WH's. Logistics are such a PITA anyway, why make more logistics required for no benefit. It makes no sense to tax yourself, and keeping other players out is clearly a priority in WH space. You still need to own and defend them, but without the additional burden of getting them PCO's moved in to a WH.

I think you can make an valid argument for either destructible and conquerable CO's in null. Me, just keep things consistent and easier all the way around, if you make them all conquerable.


One of the main reasons I suggested that is because I would like to see the division of 0.0 space and low-sec space stay there. With conquerable COs, the differentiation is still there, and it would allow high sec corps to dip their toes into low-sec for pvp and get them used to the idea of 0.0 space. The only reason I suggest destructible POCOs in null and wh's is that, much like other structures in null, they are well guarded by a home defense fleet.

Having spent a considerable amount of time in both Low-sec and 0.0, one of the main differences is the ability to get CTAs and mandatory roams up and going. A structure that can be blown up can be easily replaceable by the sov holding alliances. A couple dozen POCOs would be a drop in the bucket for a 0.0 corp. Also, it lends itself to new sov warfare tactics. Deny the enemy their POS fuel so they can't build super capital ships. Similar to actual warfare, when you cut off the enemy's supplies, you cut off the enemy's head.

Reducing your holes to a quivering mess since 2009.
Meldan Anstian
The Night Crew
#1285 - 2011-10-21 18:36:53 UTC
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Meldan Anstian wrote:
It takes some time to anchor a gantry, and then more time to upgrade it to a customs office. How much hasn't been announced I don't think.


60 seconds to anchor, 20 seconds to bring online.

Meldan Anstian wrote:
Nothing has been said about the defenses of a gantry, other than hit points. Does a gantry go into reinforcement mode like a CO? Is a gantry vulnerable while it's being upgraded? How long does it take to upgrade a gantry to a customs office? What happens if your gantry is being upgraded and then is put into reinforced mode? Does upgrading cease until RF mode ends?


They are invulnerable during anchoring but not onlining. 10,000,000 shield HP for the gantry and no RF timer.



Ahh, some clarifying questions.

So 80 seconds to bring a gantry online. I assume I need to do something additional to make it a customs office, more than just putting in the wetware mainframes, broadcast nodes, etc in the upgrade hold and click upgrade.

As soon as I click upgrade, is it then a custom's office instantly, or is there some manufacturing/upgrade time? I assume the gantry is vulnerable during the upgrade to customs office? How long is the upgrade time?

Question for the devs, is there any reason I would not want to upgrade from a gantry to a CO?

What I'm getting at is - Does the gantry upgrade to CO process have a purpose or gameplay reason? Why not anchor and online a customs office and forget about the gantry step?
Dominus Alterai
Star Freaks
#1286 - 2011-10-21 18:39:55 UTC
Meldan Anstian wrote:
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Meldan Anstian wrote:
It takes some time to anchor a gantry, and then more time to upgrade it to a customs office. How much hasn't been announced I don't think.


60 seconds to anchor, 20 seconds to bring online.

Meldan Anstian wrote:
Nothing has been said about the defenses of a gantry, other than hit points. Does a gantry go into reinforcement mode like a CO? Is a gantry vulnerable while it's being upgraded? How long does it take to upgrade a gantry to a customs office? What happens if your gantry is being upgraded and then is put into reinforced mode? Does upgrading cease until RF mode ends?


They are invulnerable during anchoring but not onlining. 10,000,000 shield HP for the gantry and no RF timer.



Ahh, some clarifying questions.

So 80 seconds to bring a gantry online. I assume I need to do something additional to make it a customs office, more than just putting in the wetware mainframes, broadcast nodes, etc in the upgrade hold and click upgrade.

As soon as I click upgrade, is it then a custom's office instantly, or is there some manufacturing/upgrade time? I assume the gantry is vulnerable during the upgrade to customs office? How long is the upgrade time?

Question for the devs, is there any reason I would not want to upgrade from a gantry to a CO?

What I'm getting at is - Does the gantry upgrade to CO process have a purpose or gameplay reason? Why not anchor and online a customs office and forget about the gantry step?


i'm assuming that in order to online it, you must have the PI goods in the gantry...

Reducing your holes to a quivering mess since 2009.
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#1287 - 2011-10-21 18:59:11 UTC
Dominus Alterai wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Would it be at all possible to code the mechanism to allow different tax rates depending on corp/alliance standings?

i.e Blue pays 5% tax
neutrals pay 10%
Reds pay 15%

Cuz that would just be win sauce.


Pretty sure that's what the current mechanic is. See the picture related to standings in the dev blog.


no it's not, currently it allows you to set who can access it, but tax is the same for all. Have a look at that picture in the devblod again! Only one field for tax, one row for required standing...
Shey Danu
CSR Star Command
Citizen's Star Republic
#1288 - 2011-10-21 19:19:12 UTC
Ra Voreen wrote:
How will it work in null-sec ? Are the planets still reserved to the alliance that holds sov ?



I want to know too - if this means that planets can be resourced to other corps and alliances without sov, it would mean a great source of income to the alliance that holds sov.. thus renters can now do PI (win for them) and the sov alliance gets more isk (win for them).

LET US KNOW!
Karl Gabel
sukki AG
#1289 - 2011-10-21 19:57:59 UTC
I think from experience that the operator of the customs offices must be the holder of sovereignty, other small companies have no chance in Low Sec and npc-0.0.
Hisec in the PI is not profitable as the alternative planetary launches. These allow for little charge at a high cost.
Since many additional accounts will be operated mainly for for it, it will again cost ccp some accounts.

Irrelevant Unfortunately, currently done mainly improvements in PvP and in favor of large companies, Which makes the game but for people outside the leadership of these becoming increasingly, unless you walk with you.

Ccp @ omen: different opinions: please read also the German Channel http://www.eveger.de/forum/showthread.php?t=41847
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1290 - 2011-10-21 22:19:18 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
CCP Phantom wrote:
As earlier mentioned, I was working on compiling a list of concerns with the current design of Player-owned Customs Offices (PCO). I am posting this list here, please have a look if I have missed anything important there.

Please note that I compiled this list regardless if I think the concerns are valid or not and especially regardless if those concerns are indeed valid or not. If you perceive something as a serious problem, then it should be in this list. If it is not, please notify me.

Please remember also that most of the people like the idea of more industry options, a more player governed game world with fewer artificial NPC interaction. There are also many people who like specifically the proposed changes. But this is not the topic of this list.

The responsible Dev team is really happy to have all your good and valuable feedback!


  1. User Interface not good enough
    1. Not enough flexibility at setting taxes for the different standing levels. Player suggestion here.
    2. Timestamp of tax collection in corp wallet could be used to collect intel on people doing PI.
    3. Tax management bad for large entities, necessary to include alliance level also.
    4. Finding “suitable” PCOs without going from system to system near impossible.
    5. Advertising tax rate for PCO and checking for competitors extremely difficult.



  2. Problems during transition period
    1. No BPCs available before wipe of the existing Customs Offices, transition becomes very difficult.
    2. Disruption of PI due to the transition might become a major problem.
    3. Lack of Gantries and PCOs during the transition


  3. Lowsec changes caters only griefing
    1. Lowsec will get devastated since every random group can bust PCOs without drawback
    2. Risk/Reward in Lowsec is completely wrong, no good enough profit from PI in Lowsec.


  4. Nullsec changes only good for blobs and large groups
    1. Shuts out small groups from 0.0 as they can’t compete with big blobs
    2. Large 0.0 alliances will never allow independent small groups (as seen in the past)
    3. PCO owners won’t allow access of neutrals, this encourages only big blobs
    4. Supercap blob heaven shooting up those defenceless structures


  5. Bad effects on other industries
    1. PI prices will increase drastically, affecting POS owners heavily, making it more difficult for the small/new people


  6. Wormholes
    1. Reinforcement timer in Wormholes too long for roaming gangs to do any serious damage
    2. Transition in Wormholes will be especially difficult without prior BPC release
    3. Wormhole corporations will lock out everyone else, no Ninja-PI possible
    4. Transport rocket from player surface is not large enough to prevent being locked out from planets
    5. P4 producers are especially hit hard when no PCO is around, rocket won’t help here



  7. Pricelevels are off, PCOs will be unprofitable
    1. PCOs will be unprofitable and not worth the invested time and especially ISK
    2. Income from PCOs will be too low to justify the build costs and risk deploying them
    3. Taxrate will be either near 0 or near 100
    4. Taxes in Highsec for P4 products too high


  8. Worries about general mechanics
    1. Only one PCO per planet is not good enough and hinders competition.
    2. Too big changes with not enough thoughts being put into the resulting effects on the sandbox as whole
    3. Defenceless PCOs are bad and encourage random griefing and no ‘constructive’ destruction


  9. Change of playstyle to more blobbing and griefing, hurting small people
    1. Encourages blobbing
    2. Discourages small gang warfare
    3. Hurts the small people most, benefits large blobs most
    4. Encourages griefing a lot as there is no risk in attacking PCOs
    5. Easy griefing PCOs discourages constructive gameplay
    6. Giving away control to people who do not really care about it – heavy grief play results.
    7. Lowsec/Nullsec exclusively for corps and alliances only now
    8. More boring structure shooting and grinding
    9. Extremely asymmetric , catering to the attackers and griefers
    10. Forces people into corporations if they want to do PCO, big change of playstyle


  10. Bad for casual gameplay
    1. Hurts the casual player since they normally won’t get the required corp roles to deploy PCOs
    2. PI changes from low risk, low income to high risk, very boring, medium income
    3. Why roles at all for POCs? That only hurts casual games without roles


  11. Details of the structures
    1. Size of the gantry is bad, it doesn’t fit into all racial blockade runners. Either make it small enough to fit into all blockade runners or large enough that it doesn’t fit into any runner




List updates marked in italics.



The lack of mention related to anything pertaining to Tier 4 Advanced Commodities rocket payload capacity increase and/or Command Center Upgrades skill level bonus to increase m3 volume of rocket payloads (at the very minimum regarding P4 planets) is highly concerning.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1291 - 2011-10-21 22:27:19 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Meldan Anstian wrote:

A few hundred posts in the thread ago, I calculated that it's about 6 times (from memory, exact number may be different) more expensive tax wise to export a unit of robotics, than it is to export all the processed materials to make a unit of robotics. So the obvious incentive is to import low level materials into the lowest tax planet around and manufacture higher level commodities, most likely in high sec.


That's an artifact of the already existing issue where tax rates on the different tiers have too much of a variance.

- Taxes on P0 are 0.10 on items that are worth about 1.00-2.00 ISK (so a 5-10% tax rate).
- P1 pays 0.76 ISK on stuff that is worth 300-500 ISK (before the price spike), or about 0.15-0.25% tax rate
- P2 pays 9 ISK and is worth 2500-4000, about a 0.22-0.36% tax rate
- P3 pays 600 ISK on stuff that sells for 25000-45000, a 1.3-2.4% rate
- P4 pays 50,000 ISK on stuff that sells for 600k to 1100k, 4.5% to 8.3% rate

So under the existing tariff schedule, P0 and P4 (and P3) are a lot more sensitive to tariff rate changes then the P1/P2 because they pay a higher percentage of their value in taxes then the other tiers. Basically, the P1/P2 tariffs are about 5x too low when compared to the others and P4 tariffs are about 2x too large.

Smoothing that out prior to release would help POCOs on planets used for P1 harvesting to have a far better payback period (5x shorter if the base tariff is raised 5x). And the P2 factory worlds would end up on an even footing with the P3 factory worlds.

On the more controversial side - I think hi-sec, NPC-owned, POCOs need to charge a lot more then the proposed 10% tariff rate (50-75% tariff would not be out of line). The 10% tariff rate is too low and makes lo-sec or NPC null-sec POCOs unable to compete at all economically. As you point out, why take the risk with anything higher then P2 in lo-sec when you can just pay a 10% tariff in hi-sec?

But if hi-sec has higher tariffs, then there need to be (a) reduction in fees if you have high standings with the NPC faction that controls that region and (b) a skill that reduces POCO tariffs. If hi-sec POCOs charge 70% for zero-standings and zero-skill, then at 10.0 standings it should drop to 60% and with the level V skill trained it could drop as low as 50%.



TL;DR (fully)

However, there's a problem with all these numbers being thrown around.

Tax/Tarif rates are based off of CCP's internal benchmark price for commodities. And therefore it is impossible for us to calculate accurate tarif rates on our own.

Please keep that in mind.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1292 - 2011-10-21 22:30:06 UTC
Dominus Alterai wrote:
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Meldan Anstian wrote:

A few hundred posts in the thread ago, I calculated that it's about 6 times (from memory, exact number may be different) more expensive tax wise to export a unit of robotics, than it is to export all the processed materials to make a unit of robotics. So the obvious incentive is to import low level materials into the lowest tax planet around and manufacture higher level commodities, most likely in high sec.


That's an artifact of the already existing issue where tax rates on the different tiers have too much of a variance.

- Taxes on P0 are 0.10 on items that are worth about 1.00-2.00 ISK (so a 5-10% tax rate).
- P1 pays 0.76 ISK on stuff that is worth 300-500 ISK (before the price spike), or about 0.15-0.25% tax rate
- P2 pays 9 ISK and is worth 2500-4000, about a 0.22-0.36% tax rate
- P3 pays 600 ISK on stuff that sells for 25000-45000, a 1.3-2.4% rate
- P4 pays 50,000 ISK on stuff that sells for 600k to 1100k, 4.5% to 8.3% rate

So under the existing tariff schedule, P0 and P4 (and P3) are a lot more sensitive to tariff rate changes then the P1/P2 because they pay a higher percentage of their value in taxes then the other tiers. Basically, the P1/P2 tariffs are about 5x too low when compared to the others and P4 tariffs are about 2x too large.

Smoothing that out prior to release would help POCOs on planets used for P1 harvesting to have a far better payback period (5x shorter if the base tariff is raised 5x). And the P2 factory worlds would end up on an even footing with the P3 factory worlds.

On the more controversial side - I think hi-sec, NPC-owned, POCOs need to charge a lot more then the proposed 10% tariff rate (50-75% tariff would not be out of line). The 10% tariff rate is too low and makes lo-sec or NPC null-sec POCOs unable to compete at all economically. As you point out, why take the risk with anything higher then P2 in lo-sec when you can just pay a 10% tariff in hi-sec?

But if hi-sec has higher tariffs, then there need to be (a) reduction in fees if you have high standings with the NPC faction that controls that region and (b) a skill that reduces POCO tariffs. If hi-sec POCOs charge 70% for zero-standings and zero-skill, then at 10.0 standings it should drop to 60% and with the level V skill trained it could drop as low as 50%.


Tax rates in high-sec are being increased, however, not nearly as much as you are saying. the increase of 50% is plenty and will still make PI available to newer players (ie a 6% tax will increase to a 9% tax, which isn't a small amount of ISK considering that base PI prices will rise). As a member of EveUni, I think you would know the merit of helping players that have under 3 million skill points make a little bit of extra ISK here and there.



Correction the increase is 'DOUBLE' and therefore 100% ... not half.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Daedalus II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1293 - 2011-10-21 22:33:03 UTC
Just going to throw this out there:

What if we keep the customs offices as they are today; invulnerable and under NPC control.

But instead we add a structure that you can anchor in the system (similar stats, price and defense as the player-owned customs office), and once online it will "take over" the NPC control of all customs offices in that system, giving you the ability to set tax rate and access. When there is no such building the customs offices just revert back to normal NPC operation (10% tax and access for everyone).

By having it this way you make it more worth to build it (get taxes from more sources for the same construction cost), and easier to defend. Maybe even allow it to be anchored next to a POS? It also doesn't disrupt current operation as much as there will always be customs offices available even if no one has built this structure.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1294 - 2011-10-21 22:38:38 UTC
pmchem wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:

Please remember that there are a lot of good ideas in this thread also. You folks bring really constructive feedback!


As I posted here ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=208048#post208048 ) --


Having taxes set as a percent is NOT the way to do this. It works in real life because it's a percent of what the goods are being sold for. But CCP doesn't know what the goods are selling for, unless you float the item's base tax price daily according to a jita average. You are using some arbitrary value that will eventually (if not immediately) be totally inaccurate, on which people base a tax rate. It makes no sense, because you could have people wanting to set taxes to be, say, 300% in order to get a reasonable fraction of value for a plasma planet.

Allowing the POCO owner to set a straight up isk per m3 tax would make more sense. It's makes cost immediately clear to the user, it encourages users to have more complex setups on a planet instead of exporting raws or p1s, and it would encourage people to produce the most profitable products per p3 at a given tier, which is a user demand-driven market driver instead of driving the market based on some weird base tax value CCP creates.



This risks serious potential inflation, and removes CCP's ability to act as a regulator in assisting run away economic situations.

While this post is not a 'for or against' CCP's ability to regulate economic activity behind the scenes, I thought it was worth pointing out that in doing something like this, there would be a loss of 'regulatory' control to act as a throttle of otherwise unrestricted economic activity in the Market.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1295 - 2011-10-21 22:42:21 UTC
Dominus Alterai wrote:
rootimus maximus wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:
List of concerns and whines


A hefty chunk of that list comes down to people whining because of change, whining because they'll have to work with other people in a multiplayer game, whining because they might have PvP forced on them in lowsec, whining because they don't have a clue about markets and whining because they can't plan ahead. The whine about some of the blockade runners not being able to fit a gantry was extra whiney. Still, I'm sure the EU has a huge pile of surplus cheese somewhere and this could be a great way to get rid of it.

I hope the dev team are extremely judicious in ignoring that nonsense and concentrating on the very valid concerns that have been raised in the thread. As it stands, the changes are going to be good for non-whiners, but with some attention paid to the genuine shortcomings it could be excellent.

Will there be a new list that shows the appropriate counters?


THIS^^

Cloaky hauler too small? Tough ****. Want to name the POCO? Too bad. Don't want to go to PVP? Don't go to low-sec.

Some of the whine here has an excellent year, I recommend some nicely aged gouda or perhaps some brie and toast points.



I'm dissapointed with the cloaky hauler reference...

New game features shouldn't break other game mechanics - either increasing the footprint or decreasing it so cloaky either works as intended or doesn't work at all re: POCO's isn't whining.

Pointing it out was just raising a flag on a potential issue.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Internet Knight
Brothers of Tyr
Goonswarm Federation
#1296 - 2011-10-21 22:43:32 UTC
CCP Phantom wrote:
If you perceive something as a serious problem, then it should be in this list. If it is not, please notify me.

Having the spaceport hangar being gone is fairly drastic IMO. Cargo structures are fairly useless (don't hold anything at all) and command centers can't be moved to a location with shorter travel distance (less pg/cpu use on links) without destroying everything.
Ambassadeur Ur-Shulgi
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1297 - 2011-10-21 22:51:27 UTC
This is a FAIL change.

PI = bad ISK (can be okey side income in WHs) = changes (will bring more RISK, more Effort) = Worse ISK payout for time spend doing it today = NOT WORTH DOING..

I applaude you CCP for making DUST 514 an even larger FAIL then it allready is......
Thoirdhealbhach
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
#1298 - 2011-10-21 22:57:16 UTC
I have some questions to the developers:

  • Why tie PCOs to corporations? What would be the downside of leaving this in the hands of each individual player?
  • What is the reasoning behind the rather steep pricing scheme?
  • Why not scale down both in order to target a crowd operating at a lower level?
  • Why restrict construction to BPCs?
  • It was announced that low-sec and 0.0 should be made more attractive and accessible to single player and few player setups, is that no longer a priority?
  • Is there a clear definition of the role and/or target group PI should have in the future?


Things I like about the PCOs as announced:

  • Player controlled content promotes the sandbox principle.
  • Many people considered PI rather dull up until now, more complexity might spur up more interest.


These are the things I'm most sceptical about (mildly put):

  • Corporation involvement: It promotes either large scale operations (your BIG corp takes care of the PCOs and you can then do the PI as a corp sponsored activity) or specialization (setting up your own corp just for PI and PCOs) or restriction to high-sec if the first two options are not viable. Therefore it effectively restricts the possible scenarios in which PI can be used and especially hinders all kinds of solo and few-people operations in NPC-0.0 and low-sec in contradiction to recently published roadmaps.
  • Pricing!!! The proposed pricing scale moves low-sec PI far beyond the reach of any beginner character. As many responses show, even experienced players are be seriously deterred.
  • Grinding on stationary targets with big EHP: Again this strongly contradicts a bunch of design goals published by your guys. There should be other, more creative ways to exert pressure, than just blowing stuff up! There are tons of other attack modes I can think of, just to name a few:

    1. Boarding: Have Infantry units board the PCO for a temporary takeover, if no one shows up after some time period X, the PCO is yours. Implementation could be as simple as dropping Soldiers into the hangar window of the structure from your cargohold or as elaborate as introducing a docking module (leaving your ship stuck to the PCO during troop deployment) or boarding shuttles launches from the drone bay (similar to mining drones in functionality). Either way this will take time, could be risky and could even offer some rewards.
    2. Siege: Maybe you can't blow it up, but maybe shooting at it might delay deliveries or even damage sensitive high tech equipment stored inside. After waiting weeks for his deliveries to finish even the most timid carebear might get angry enough to gather some friends to go out there and settle things. If you blew his PCO into pieces he might just cry and never come back, but as long as his PCO is not gone for good and plenty of product for him to collect there is always a reason left to come back and fight.
    3. Hacking: Have some hacking module (that does not fit onto an industrial) disable or change the tax settings for a limited time window or even grant access to other players storage. "Damn, someone hacked into my PCO, we have to get out there and fix this before they [leave without paying their taxes|clear out my storage]".
    4. Bribery: With the right amount of money, the right social skills and the right (probably illegal) goods the customs officers might make a one time exception and wave your load of wetware mainframes right through. This option might even have a chance to go unnoticed by the owner of the PCO. And the owner in return could possibly counteract this by frequent personal visits, the proper skills and whatnot.



All in all I think there is great potential in handing over customs offices to the players, but the way the system has been announced so far simply sounds like a bunch of damn expsensive sitting ducks that will end up in a niche role behind the home defense forces of big alliances.
Ambassadeur Ur-Shulgi
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1299 - 2011-10-21 22:57:46 UTC
Daedalus II wrote:
Just going to throw this out there:

What if we keep the customs offices as they are today; invulnerable and under NPC control.

But instead we add a structure that you can anchor in the system (similar stats, price and defense as the player-owned customs office), and once online it will "take over" the NPC control of all customs offices in that system, giving you the ability to set tax rate and access. When there is no such building the customs offices just revert back to normal NPC operation (10% tax and access for everyone).

By having it this way you make it more worth to build it (get taxes from more sources for the same construction cost), and easier to defend. Maybe even allow it to be anchored next to a POS? It also doesn't disrupt current operation as much as there will always be customs offices available even if no one has built this structure.



That would probably be a better way too do it.. As it is now why even bother?? In low sec, still crappy planets, only retards would setup a customs office there.. Orbit launch will take away anny income you might want to have... Most People who do PI in low sec to Orbit launch as its safer ( or atleast the smart people that I know) and 0,0 Will just set 0% tax to be nice or set a high tax to fatten a few people just like MOON mining works today, the avrage pilot(player) has litte to nothing to gain from this change... WH corps might build them if they feel they can protect them or just use the Orbit launch instead for safty...

CCP this is EPIC FAIL....
Ambassadeur Ur-Shulgi
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1300 - 2011-10-21 23:05:41 UTC
1 Player controlled content promotes the sandbox principle.
Not if the sandbox is not worth doing
2 Many people considered PI rather dull up until now, more complexity might spur up more interest.
No it will not Interest will go down, as Higher RISK for same reward will put it on the back list if you comapare it to more Lucrative things you might be doing Instead...

People will always do " MOST profit for the least amount of effort and risk" that is why most of EVEs population is in highsec...