These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Citadels] Changing NPC taxes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#201 - 2016-03-04 01:18:57 UTC  |  Edited by: beakerax
Pessimist that I am, I was going to write a post about how these changes likely won't have the intended effects… but on second thought, on the off chance this does actually work, it will be amazing, so screw it.

Bobspeed, CCP.

Beta Maoye wrote:
High transaction cost is not good for free market.

Efficient free markets are boring gameplay anyways.
Beta Maoye
#202 - 2016-03-04 01:23:31 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

It honestly sounds like you regurgitated a bunch of marketing technobabble with no connecting thoughts or explanations. Why exactly does higher broker fee's somehow discourage people from participating in the market? Are people going to magically stop buying things?
.


If the transaction cost is high enough, buyer and seller will settle outside the market to circumvent the transaction cost burden. Settlement price information will not be disclosed to other seller or buyer. Thus not good for establishment of fair price.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#203 - 2016-03-04 01:26:18 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

It honestly sounds like you regurgitated a bunch of marketing technobabble with no connecting thoughts or explanations. Why exactly does higher broker fee's somehow discourage people from participating in the market? Are people going to magically stop buying things?
.


If the transaction cost is high enough, buyer and seller will settle outside the market to circumvent the transaction cost burden. Settlement price information will not be disclosed to other seller or buyer. Thus not good for establishment of fair price.


This is only an issue of enough citadels don't pop up

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
its my cyno
Doomheim
#204 - 2016-03-04 01:28:26 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
its my cyno wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
its my cyno wrote:
If citadels wont be that profitable and appealing and you need to change NPC services and taxes to make it so then you are doing it wrong. Go back to the drawing board and ask what can I do to make them better then NPC stations without changing NPC. If you cant then you failed and scrap the whole idea. There is only so much change the player base will take before they say this game sucks. To make a part of the game suck to make another part appealing because it sucks isn't the answer. How did the new sov changes work out? yeah thought so....I am starting to wonder if CCP hired a bunch of engineers to replace developers. "If it isn't broke don't fix it", changing it for the better could actually break it to where its not repairable.

If the owner cant find a way to compete with NPC services and taxes then they truly shouldn't own a citadel anyways. Maybe you should change the fee amounts to the owners to maintain the services. Citadel owners are going to own citadels because they want to show how much further they measure on the stick then others and not because they want to compete with NPC or markets. If you don't know why the markets thrive they way they do then I suggest actually playing the game once in awhile. I will also bring up the "think of the wormhole children".... ohh wait nvm I forget they are like the belters in "The Expanse" that have to deal with the power struggle between Mars and Earth.



There is too much slope for these changes to be good. This will not be new player friendly and how many more lost subs can CCP absorb?

What is the point of a sandbox game if you keep removing the sand.


Pretty sure the idea is so that markets are forced out of npc in order to remove just one more non player element from the game if that's the case the changes make seance. Except the 5 mil to jump a cone that seems a bit excessive


Yes quite aware of the forced part. The markets are player driven its just done in NPC stations for its low risk and location convenience. Any red, orange, purple, blue, green capsuler can use the market that players control. CCP wants to sell the citadel idea by forcing players to change to what they want and where the markets are. This in return will benefit a few and screw over the rest.


Exactly now you just have to pay more for that low risk or have a better magen but worth more risk added


And with that risk people will just stay where they are and cost will just be passed to the buyer which will screw over the so called new players that cant afford the 5mil JC fee will really be screwed on a 65 mil+ ship
Darius Caliente
The Pinecone Squad
United Federation of Conifers
#205 - 2016-03-04 01:29:10 UTC
The 5M ISK / JC jump is crazy. Every time you jump. We're talking about potentially 365M ISK / month if you jump daily, which many of us do.

If you really want to make it per jump, 1M would be more acceptable and 500K would be realistic.

You have to remember that the deployment of citadels is a decision that each group has to make and a cost that they need to realize and live with. If you want to make it so that jump clone costs can be set with citadels for corporations and alliances to generate profit, I can understand that. To justify a massive ISK sink by saying it's needed to pay fuel costs is ridiculous. The intended purpose of Citadels should not be to exist as income generators and we should not see things get more expensive in the game simply to turn them into income generators. That is an unrealistic goal. Corporations and alliances that choose to deploy citadels should recognize the associated cost going into it, just as they do now with the POS or Outpost systems.

If you really want to create new ISK sinks, create something useful. Perhaps a forgery service that exists in citadels deployed in barren areas of NPC Null. These NPC citadels would have a special service that allows you to change your character name by forging you a new pilots license. The price could be rather high because those interested in name changes would pay it and the ISK removed from the game could end up being quite substantial. It would also provide a much needed buff to the content provided by NPC null. Standings with the pirate corporations could lower the cost, providing a reason to run missions in NPC Null.
Beta Maoye
#206 - 2016-03-04 01:35:03 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

This is only an issue of enough citadels don't pop up


Even initially there are many citadels(with market hub) in space, eventually there will only be a few left in the hand of strongest military parties.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#207 - 2016-03-04 01:37:06 UTC
Querns wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:

I am sorry but this game play is forced, and in a bad way. You want to enable players and small groups, and these changes do the opposite.

No, you want to enable players bonding together into corporations. Retention is a lot higher among those who find a strong corporate identity in Eve. Solo players are basically a rounding error.


I couldn't agree more which is why these changes are terrible, as they punish small corps and groups exclusively and only benefit large entities.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#208 - 2016-03-04 01:39:59 UTC
Querns wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Querns wrote:
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Querns wrote:

You can use someone else's citadel, without having to belong to their corporation or alliance.


Only if they let you.

Odds of that happening?

Pretty close to zero. Like anybody is going to pay for and take the risk of continuing to pay for a citadel just to let the bad guys use it.

This will kill casual/newbro PVP dead and probably empty out a lot of lowsec and NPC null as well. Won't effect the big sov null blobs at all.

EDIT: Except for making their space even more secure, that is.

You don't think people will make free-for-all docking citadels in empire, especially with the prospect of being able to reap tax income from them? If you think they won't exist, you're nuts.

Dibs on niarja/uedama

Eh, "dibs" is kind of an archaic ritual to use, here. Clearly, we need to do battle in the arena of cutthroat capitalism.

So, honorable citadel 1v1 at the sun?
Lugh Crow-Slave
#209 - 2016-03-04 01:40:25 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

This is only an issue of enough citadels don't pop up


Even initially there are many citadels(with market hub) in space, eventually there will only be a few left in the hand of strongest military parties.


In the heavy traffic areas yes but that's natural the will have a hard upper limit on the tax they can use and a soft one based on their location.

Overall strong well organized groups benefiting from being strong and organised is not a bad thing abs this will surly be one hell of a conflict driver

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Beta Maoye
#210 - 2016-03-04 01:44:56 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Beta Maoye wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

This is only an issue of enough citadels don't pop up


Even initially there are many citadels(with market hub) in space, eventually there will only be a few left in the hand of strongest military parties.


In the heavy traffic areas yes but that's natural the will have a hard upper limit on the tax they can use and a soft one based on their location.

Overall strong well organized groups benefiting from being strong and organised is not a bad thing abs this will surly be one hell of a conflict driver


It is the busiest market hub that set the tone for a price.
Corvald Tyrska
Valknetra
#211 - 2016-03-04 01:48:13 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
Anhenka wrote:

It honestly sounds like you regurgitated a bunch of marketing technobabble with no connecting thoughts or explanations. Why exactly does higher broker fee's somehow discourage people from participating in the market? Are people going to magically stop buying things?
.


If the transaction cost is high enough, buyer and seller will settle outside the market to circumvent the transaction cost burden. Settlement price information will not be disclosed to other seller or buyer. Thus not good for establishment of fair price.


Have fun settling outside the market in EVE. Enjoy your 2.57 billion ISK Rifter. I'm sure no-one will scam you at all Roll
Rob Kashuken
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#212 - 2016-03-04 01:48:37 UTC
CCP Ytterbium: A Clarification please -

With regard to the broker's fee being selectable and going to the player owning the citadel, is this only going to apply to the initial setting of the order, or will this also come into play for the 100 isk flat fee for changing an order?

I can see an interesting scenario where the 0.01 isking bots get bankrupted through cheap listing fees, but exorbitant order change fees.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#213 - 2016-03-04 01:49:16 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Beta Maoye wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

This is only an issue of enough citadels don't pop up


Even initially there are many citadels(with market hub) in space, eventually there will only be a few left in the hand of strongest military parties.


In the heavy traffic areas yes but that's natural the will have a hard upper limit on the tax they can use and a soft one based on their location.

Overall strong well organized groups benefiting from being strong and organised is not a bad thing abs this will surly be one hell of a conflict driver


It is the busiest market hub that set the tone for a price.


Yes? Your point?

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#214 - 2016-03-04 01:50:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Beta Maoye wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

This is only an issue of enough citadels don't pop up


Even initially there are many citadels(with market hub) in space, eventually there will only be a few left in the hand of strongest military parties.


In the heavy traffic areas yes but that's natural the will have a hard upper limit on the tax they can use and a soft one based on their location.

Overall strong well organized groups benefiting from being strong and organised is not a bad thing abs this will surly be one hell of a conflict driver



I think you vastly overestimate the will of PvP groups to suppress anyone and everyone who can put up a citadel. It's easy to buy and put one up. 7-10 bil is not a huge investment for a small group of players or even moderately wealthy individuals. Taking one down in highsec against the deathstar version of a large citadel without caps will be damn hard. And that's not even getting into the area of a X-L, which promises to be nearly impossible to take out without a sizable capital fleet.

And to kill them.... why? do you imagine goons putting up an X-L, making a massive effort to swap the main market hub to that system, and then waging a huge continuous war of structure bashing to maintain supremacy against anyone else who tires to put up a Citadel in the same system?

I'm anti-goon, but I'd need a whole tinfoil factory worth of hats to buy into that idea.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#215 - 2016-03-04 01:55:24 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Beta Maoye wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

This is only an issue of enough citadels don't pop up


Even initially there are many citadels(with market hub) in space, eventually there will only be a few left in the hand of strongest military parties.


In the heavy traffic areas yes but that's natural the will have a hard upper limit on the tax they can use and a soft one based on their location.

Overall strong well organized groups benefiting from being strong and organised is not a bad thing abs this will surly be one hell of a conflict driver



I think you vastly overestimate the will of PvP groups to suppress anyone and everyone who can put up a citadel. It's easy to buy and put one up. 7-10 bil is not a huge investment for a small group of players or even moderately wealthy individuals. Taking one down in highsec against the deathstar version of a large citadel without caps will be damn hard. And that's not even getting into the area of a X-L, which promises to be nearly impossible to take out without a sizable capital fleet.

And to kill them.... why? do you imagine goons putting up an X-L, making a massive effort to swap the main market hub to that system, and then waging a huge continuous war of structure bashing to maintain supremacy against anyone else who tires to put up a Citadel in the same system?

I'm anti-goon, but I'd need a whole tinfoil factory worth of hats to buy into that idea.


This. Yes high traffic systems may get held and controlled but not large areas of hs so small gross can still compete

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Beta Maoye
#216 - 2016-03-04 02:01:54 UTC
Corvald Tyrska wrote:

Have fun settling outside the market in EVE. Enjoy your 2.57 billion ISK Rifter. I'm sure no-one will scam you at all Roll


Yes, I don't want to be scammed. So I want a transparent market that I can be sure the price is good.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#217 - 2016-03-04 02:16:19 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
Corvald Tyrska wrote:

Have fun settling outside the market in EVE. Enjoy your 2.57 billion ISK Rifter. I'm sure no-one will scam you at all Roll


Yes, I don't want to be scammed. So I want a transparent market that I can be sure the price is good.


Price is always good of you're willing to pay it

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
#218 - 2016-03-04 02:22:20 UTC
Beta Maoye wrote:
Corvald Tyrska wrote:

Have fun settling outside the market in EVE. Enjoy your 2.57 billion ISK Rifter. I'm sure no-one will scam you at all Roll


Yes, I don't want to be scammed. So I want a transparent market that I can be sure the price is good.



FK you boi!
gotta move out to sand castle!
Why?
Because CCP!
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2016-03-04 03:07:41 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Niko Zino wrote:
Stuff


Those are fair points we've been discussing internally. Initial figures show us maintaining a cloning bay in a Citadel will cost 157m ISK a month, we wanted to provide means for the owner to recoup that cost and even make a profit in general.


The benefit for running a Citadel with a cloning bay shouldn't be profit - the benefit is being able to provide a cloning bay in locations that otherwise wouldn't have one, like sov null and wormholes. And that should cost. The way folks deploying Citadels in sov null and WHs recoup costs should simply result from living in such lucrative space, making ISK off the activities available there. Leave things like they are and Citadels in highsec and lowsec simply won't have clonging bays due to the availability of NPC stations, so there won't be any costs to recoup in the first place.

To expand on what Niko said - a while back, CCP Terminus asked one of our people why CAS is different from other NPC corps, with a "long running social base" that's been going on for over a decade. Part of that is because we offer new players an easy way in to nullsec activities, and some of them like it so much they stick around, thereby ensuring there's always people in our fleet. Between free jumpclones (before the elimination of standings requirements, we offered free jumpclones via a Rorqual) and fee freighter service, we offer brand new players an easy, low-commitment entry to null. No API checks, no interviews, no scams, easy movement between high and null that would otherwise require an Interceptor. 10 million ISK for a round-trip to null is not an insignificant cost for these new players. I think the negative impact of these changes on new players would far outweigh the 157m ISK per month cost to players with the resources to deploy and defend a Citadel.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#220 - 2016-03-04 03:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Anhenka wrote:

I think you vastly overestimate the will of PvP groups to suppress anyone and everyone who can put up a citadel. It's easy to buy and put one up. 7-10 bil is not a huge investment for a small group of players or even moderately wealthy individuals. Taking one down in highsec against the deathstar version of a large citadel without caps will be damn hard. And that's not even getting into the area of a X-L, which promises to be nearly impossible to take out without a sizable capital fleet..

I think you vastly overestimate what their firepower vs subcapitals is going to be. Indications are that a few cruisers will be sufficient because of the damage mitigation from sig & speed vs the missiles. This may not hold up obviously, but the current defences look very very very light against subcaps. Even the cap defences seem lower than a POS can put out, with the sole exception of the XL fitted with a doomsday.

With regards to the tax changes, I worry that combined with the seemingly weak defences it will be too easy for the large groups to further monopolise things, and force people to join them or be shut out in the cold, because those large groups have at this point built up such a reserve of isk, resources and super caps that no newly formed group will ever get to challenge them on any significant scale, their only real danger is internal division and a civil war.