These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev Blog: Player Owned Customs offices in Hi-Sec

First post First post
Author
Styth spiting
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2013-10-01 17:33:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Styth spiting
The continued use of the dreadful assumed value of PI materials based on tier is just silly. The values of PI goods and their tax value should be based on the same system used to determine value of goods used on bounty payouts. Not some hard coded system that gets updated every 2 years that ignores market trends or demand. This system combined with player owned structures that have both an NPC tax AND a player tax not only makes highsec PI hardly worth the time; it also means there is less of a reason for players to take over these custom offices because either they need to have such a low tax for players to even consider using them, and the fact that the material replenish rates are so low the isk made will be very minor to begin with.

Take for example water. Tax P1 value of 400. Export cost of 40, buy value of 240; almost 20% of its value.

Bacteria? Tax P1 value of 400. Export cost of 40, buy value 90; 45% of its value. Throw on a 10% player tax and you're looking at 10.00 isk profit per P1.


Having a default non-removable NPC tax on PI is a dreadful idea. Even with a skill that will drop this to 5% (if you train how many days? Yeah most will be at III) Not only will it drive players away from highsec it will also make setting up POCO's unprofitable and a waste of time. Basically less isk for players, and less isk for the POCO owners. NPC taxes + POCO owner taxes push highsec PI to a point where the time and investment surpass the profitability.
with this.

Standings to deploy in a factions space should also be required to deploy a POCO in space just as it is for control towers.
Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#102 - 2013-10-01 17:34:14 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Elana Maggal wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Elana Maggal wrote:
So you pretty much hand over PI to the larger alliances, **** over smaller solo players, and make Hi-sec more like low-sec and null-sec which stupidly is considered a "good thing".

PI was a boring piece of crap anyway so - goodbye PI.


heaven forbid in this massively multiplayer game one might get advantages from being able to work with other people


You're delusional if giving a big alliance a monopoly over a custom's office is "WORKING WITH OTHER PEOPLE"

And PS: by the way, believe it or not, many computer players are SOLO or a small group of friends at best. Not everyone including EVE players play in some big turd dropping GOON/CSM/CPP infested alliance.

Might I suggest that you not play an MMO then? Here, let me suggest some other games.


**** YOU
Mhax Arthie
Doomheim
#103 - 2013-10-01 17:34:16 UTC
I think is time to pack on fuel blocks as PI mats will just blow up in rubicon, no doubt on it. Null alliances and pirates will take over all poco's only for drama as they don't have any interest in industry. The indy guys will have to dodge the siphon units, pay the owner tax and ... also an extrra npc tax?!? So a hi sec poco tax can jump to even 20% or more as I really don't see why a null sec alliance ori pirate corp that have the man power to defend these structures should keep the tax bellow at least 10%. Anything bellow will not generate enough tear and drama.

Anyway... I think this is a hard kick for the economy and same as in real life, rich people will get richer and poor people will just starve. Why not simply erase the security levels between regions, blow up the empires and transform EVE into a Mad Max replica mmo.

I'm also curios lorewise what the empires have to say about this, especially the Cadari state wich is a conglomerate of greedy corporates. Will they just let the null sec alliances invade their territory and wealth? Are they still bothered fighting each other while null sec is slowly taking over their space?
Gahonga
Fire's Avatars
#104 - 2013-10-01 17:34:29 UTC
The whole concept is promising, still, there might be few flaws that need to be addressed :

Quote:
Customs Offices will now have a value on Kill Reports, meaning for instance that if the owning corporation has a bounty, then destroying their Customs Office will pay out bounty.


Isn't this a bad use of the bounty system? If someone place a bounty on a entity, he would hope to attract unwanted attention unto his target. The suggested feature would however mean that those bounty would be harvested by some corp only interested in pocos, not headhunting. Destroying a POCOS already bring its own reward anyway in term of a economic opportunity. Perhaps you can simply leave it as it is right now?

Have you consider the twisted metagaming that mixing POCOs with bounty would create? Look at this example :
Corp A own a POCOS and his under a bounty.
Corp B is a fake corp of A, under a permanent fake war with A.
Corp C want Corp A POCOS and wardec A.
Corp B destroy the A POCOSs and harvest some of the bounty.
Corp A would loose some isk in the process, but it would have retain its pocos control and lowered its bounty.

Quote:
coupled with the fact that is doesn't cost a great deal to set up on a planet


It might not cost that much in term of isk, however its incredibly time consuming to deploy news colonies in a profitable manner in HS. I challenge CCP, ask one of your DEV to start from scratch and deploy on 15 HS planets using 3 alts with all skills at 4... And ask him how long he needed to earn 50 mill isk on top of its initial investment. After that, you might realize that the ''demand'' in term of POCOS isnt mobile and would be really slow to met any change in the ''offer''. Assume most PI producer to simply suck up any taxation change or simply quit PI at all. Perhaps you can address this by introducing some way to export/import colonies pattern to speed up redeployment, this would create a more realistic PI versus POCOS economy driven by the offer and the demand, thus giving more importance to the decision of the POCOS owner.

Quote:
The NPC tax will continue for hi sec POCOs (as we want low sec POCOs to still be competitive). The tax rate stays the same, at 10% for export and 5% for import. This is then in addition to whatever tax the player owner sets.

Quote:
NEW SKILL

Ok thats just feel plain wrong : CCP, you already proven that a open economy run in a sandbox could work and provide a ground to a competitive game. Low sec planets are already way better in term of resources, on the other hand, HS offer security. You can simply let the rule of the offer and demand drive this market : LS POCOS owner would have to find the right incentive to attract customers, in term of tax rate and security deal instead of simply undercutting the NPC hard tax. On the HS side, there wont be any gift made to the PI producer and POCOS owning corps would likely ask every little 0.1% in tax they could squeeze out of there customers. Should this turn out to be a gold mine, a equal amount of wardec driven by others corps ambition would appear and prevent them to cash in.

To me it sound like you pretend to give more control to the players, but at the same time rub in a handful of dirt on the steer-wheel mechanics hoping for a smoother player control.

As a side note, if the NPC tax aim at keeping pi market price in check, i suggest you look at the resource supply or production usage instead throwing few sticks in the wheels of a new pvp business you want to implement.

Thank you for listening and sorry for my bad English skills : /

Cheers!
Mangala Solaris
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#105 - 2013-10-01 17:35:32 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike
#106 - 2013-10-01 17:36:21 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Philpip wrote:
Can I get clarification on the anchoring please (and sorry if this has already been asked).

Do you have to have local faction standing to anchor like you would a pos?


No, no restrictions like that.


Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.

WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??!

That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose.

But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP.

Continuous player since 2007.

Aliath Sunstrike
#107 - 2013-10-01 17:38:07 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Elana Maggal wrote:
So you pretty much hand over PI to the larger alliances, **** over smaller solo players, and make Hi-sec more like low-sec and null-sec which stupidly is considered a "good thing".

PI was a boring piece of crap anyway so - goodbye PI.


heaven forbid in this massively multiplayer game one might get advantages from being able to work with other people



While I completely agree with you sir, you imply large coalitions are run by rule of law instead of rule of one (dictatorships like ....)

Continuous player since 2007.

Ayesha Arkaral
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2013-10-01 17:39:02 UTC
Some thoughts:


  1. Penalize alliances for "spreading thin" their POCO empire, ie having too many, while keeping it attractive.

    • For example, make the cost to wardec inversely proportional to the number of POCOs an alliance owns in hisec. The more they own, the cheaper it is to wardec for POCO control.

    • Or, require that a planet that they want a POCO at needs to have at least one command center owned by an alliance member. CCs can be placed before a POCO is placed. A simple enough task, but requires a little more motivation on a large scale.

  2. Or, Force attentiveness. Again, nothing too crazy, keep it attractive.

    • For example, add a mechanic that would allow another entity to begin placing a POCO at a planet where there already exists one. Send a notification that within 5 days if no action is taken, their POCO will be replaced by the challengers. With the required action simply to go to the planet and click a button. The challenger loses their materials invested.

    • Or, make it so that a POCO's orbit needs to be "corrected" every 20 days. The owner must go to the POCO and click a button to correct the POCOs orbit, or it will burn up in the atmosphere.


Aliath Sunstrike
#109 - 2013-10-01 17:46:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliath Sunstrike
Elana Maggal wrote:
Andski wrote:
heaven forbid CCP slightly trims the massive amount of cotton wool wrapped around every hisec player and allows groups to compete over assets in hisec


Yeah - except there is no competition here. The Big Alliances win. Game over. Anything else and you're just deluding yourself.

Now if there were SEVERAL custom offices at each planet, there might be actual competition ...



Agreed. Goons are not always the best at fighting but they STILL BELIEVE IN THE BLOB.

Thus all their posting in here for "damage control" on what was surely a large suggestion of theirs.

Again - I really don't care...And I am sure I will regret saying this later, but I DO RESPECT goons and their ability to organize, but I just don't agree with their way of running things.

EVE being the sandbox and hi-sec supposedly where one cut's their teeth and LEARNS this complex game and its mechanics....I FAIL TO STILL SEE HOW ANY GOON or CCP can sit here and WANT to make Hisec like NULL is supposed to be.

NULL is where we make this game our own, WH's also. Hisec, has and always should be for people to learn this game.

The REAL REASON people like the goons are pushing so hard to make hisec more influenced is because they are getting bored with the tools CCP has given them in 0.0. (or dare I say it, they have reached the ends of their limits there). Where left to go but hisec.

Soon it will be like the @#$@ BORG and you will either be part of the rabble or the silent suffering under the tyrrany of their rules.

But hey, what do I know. Its only human nature since the dawn of time.

You either arm (allow to arm) cooperative people (carebears as they are commonly trolled - both null and hisec) or you don't.

This is a step in the don't direction.

Continuous player since 2007.

Callic Veratar
#110 - 2013-10-01 17:48:06 UTC
Can I suggest a 5th mobile structure be introduced along-side these changes?

Add a Personal Resource Processor: a structure that I can anchor in space, anyone can shoot or steal from, and will grind away at a set of PI goods. Give it a slower cycle time/a relatively small cargo/a consumption penalty or something to make it less good than the planets.

If something like this is introduced, I can run PI as a single player on a planet with no CO or side-step importing and exporting taxes by launching lower level goods. Yes, bigger groups will have a better chance of taking over and holding a CO, but not at the expense of me being able to run PI.
Michael Turate
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#111 - 2013-10-01 17:49:47 UTC
Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming.
Callic Veratar
#112 - 2013-10-01 17:51:09 UTC
I noticed an inconsistency with POCOs. In nullsec, you must have sov to anchor a POCO. In lowsec, nobody cares. In highsec, you don't need standing with the faction to anchor.

Lowsec doesn't matter either way since no mechanic exists there, but anchor rights should be consistent in highsec and nullsec. Either require sov/faction in both or in neither. If I need faction to anchor a POS, why don't I need it to anchor a POCO?
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#113 - 2013-10-01 17:54:19 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
Philpip wrote:
Can I get clarification on the anchoring please (and sorry if this has already been asked).

Do you have to have local faction standing to anchor like you would a pos?


No, no restrictions like that.


Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.

WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??!

That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose.

But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP.


fyi

this will not save you

we have high standings alts just like you

anchor with alt -> transfer to goonwaffe
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#114 - 2013-10-01 17:55:16 UTC
Oh god, CCP rooting out the massively online singleplayers is chubtastic.

Like vermin shrieking in uncomprehending fear as you shine a light on their putrid hovels made of excrement and waste.

Too bad this happens so infrequently.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#115 - 2013-10-01 17:56:52 UTC
Andski wrote:
maybe you can compete with the big alliances by starting a big alliance of your own


Maybe I want to play in a sand box that I can do my own thing without goons dictating what I can and can't do and monopolizing key game play elements.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#116 - 2013-10-01 17:57:00 UTC
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.

WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??!

That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose.

But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP.


wealthy nullseccers can't afford to buy characters off the market with high faction standings, apparently

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#117 - 2013-10-01 17:57:38 UTC
oh and we didn't grind the standings ourselves

we used our nullsec fight money to purchase relevant standings dudes from the character bazaar instead of spending man-months running mission after mission

so yeah nice try buckaroo but we got this angle covered so well you can't even see it from under our notable collective masses
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#118 - 2013-10-01 17:58:12 UTC
Elana Maggal wrote:
Andski wrote:
maybe you can compete with the big alliances by starting a big alliance of your own


Maybe I want to play in a sand box that I can do my own thing without goons dictating what I can and can't do and monopolizing key game play elements.



oh you must be confused, a sandbox means that powerful groups can have influence because it's exactly that: a sandbox, and not an instanced game

perhaps there are instanced games more suited to your needs

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Elana Maggal
Chandra Labs
#119 - 2013-10-01 17:58:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Elana Maggal
Varius Xeral wrote:
Oh god, CCP rooting out the massively online singleplayers is chubtastic.

Like vermin shrieking in uncomprehending fear as you shine a light on their putrid hovels made of excrement and waste.

Too bad this happens so infrequently.


Oh yes - god forbid sand box play include single players! Can't have that! (Besides, who needs single players when it comes to increasing your subscriptions? Who plays MMO's in solo mode? INCONCEIVABLE!)
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#120 - 2013-10-01 17:58:23 UTC
back to the drawing board for you guys I suppose