These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Olga Zdenekieva
WESH GROS CORP
#481 - 2016-03-07 16:44:32 UTC
Quote:
Reprocessing

I really don't like that. You should at least give a choice to the user of the service whereas they want to pay tax with isk or with ore.
Basically new player who mine to get isk, won't necessary have enough isk to reprocess it.

Quote:
Compression..

You should allow this to be taxed. If a citadel owner wish to open this service to blues or even neutral, he definitely should be able to get paid in return (isk or ore.).
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#482 - 2016-03-07 17:47:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
In the nicest way possible, I'm not convinced you know anything at all about what you're talking about. (viz Nullsec or Lowsec)

Ignoring the fact that C02 borders a LS pocket in which they have fought ~200 man brawls repeatedly, you signifcantly overstate the income of a 15% tax on a ~20 man missioning corp.

(A little thought experiment;

1 person = 40 mil per hour 'reward taxable'.
Tax rendered: 6 mil per hour.
20 x 6 = 120 mil per 'corp hour' of missioning.
Time taken to accumulate low end large egg: 3000/120 = 25 corp hours, 500 man hours
Time taken to accumulate high end large egg: 7000/120 58.3 corp hours, 1167 man hours

An hour a day of playing yields: 6 mil x 30 (month 1) x 2 (2 months) = 360 million isk per person.
360 mil x 20 = 7200 million. (Total corp taxes)

Egg afforded, no money left for fittings, fuel, etc)

In theory, a missioning corp could pay for a large egg in 2 months, they couldn't afford fuel, rigs or service modules (thus gaining 0 functionality from them). However, they would have to play every day, with no interruptions or other costs.

Which doesn't sound like the Eve you or I know at all :P.

In comparison, the current cost of a PoS is paid for in 66 hours of a single person ratting, (or ~4 'corp hours'). [Large Caldari tower, with reasonable amount of modules]. A pos is eminently more replaceable than a Citadel of the expensive or cheap version. When the Citadel is blown up, it needs to have been worth ~4 billion or ~8 billion isk of value to be revenue neutral.

Anyway, like I said to the previous posted, a LS citadel needs to be worth ~1250 ships in a fight to give the LS corp a fighting chance by themselves. It won't be.
motie one
Secret Passage
#483 - 2016-03-07 18:16:17 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
This is still going on with a near 100% agreement that this is a bad idea.

Now a little analogy.

CCP Boss has given instruction to Build a group of shiny new Stables, but is unsure whether the Mules will go and use them, rather than continue to lie under the tarpaulin and frame, up to their ankles in dust, and hair, that they have always used. He knows mules are stubborn, but he has faith in his people.

He sees this as a great way of making the mules happy and more active. He is proud to have designed such a wonderful home for them, He asks his builders to "make it happen"

One CCP builder decides to lead most of the mules to the new stables, with a nice carrot, the mules get there, decide they like it and move in happily.

One CCP builder decides, "damn the mules, they will do what they are told", and after a while notices the lack of mules in his stable.
He goes to the tarpaulin site, throws water and sewage onto the soil, turning it to mud.
He rips the tarpaulin so the rain comes in. Turning his back on the mules, he goes back to the stable thinking "that'll teach them, now they'll move!" and waits for the mules to arrive.

After a while, and still no mules have appeared, he goes to the old site and he notices a complete absence of mules, he looks everywhere, and finally sees them disappearing over the horizon never to be seen again.


Which do you want to be, CCP rational, or CCP out of a job?
corebloodbrothers
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#484 - 2016-03-07 19:39:36 UTC
what does this mean for player owned stations
motie one
Secret Passage
#485 - 2016-03-07 20:01:28 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
corebloodbrothers wrote:
what does this mean for player owned stations

Well POS will not have a market, Or clone bays, so they should be unaffected.
Eventually for pos users, If the citadels have better features, most will move to citadels, unless CCP try to force people out then they will either stay Just to spite CCP, or do something else.

Seems to be a major clusterfrack, If the new citadels are so undesirable that people need to be forced to use them.

I thought everyone liked them and were looking forward to them, but If they need to force us, then there must be something horrible about them I hadn't realised.

I'll wait now before building one.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#486 - 2016-03-07 20:02:44 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

The new players that are spending 2-3 hours mining (much more than 5 mil btw) are not the ones using jump clones very often hell they probably don't even have the skill


Infomorph Psychology no longer has any skill requirements, so it's something that even a day old player can have in an hour from the start, and the skillbook only costs 1 mil.


yet most dont
Lugh Crow-Slave
#487 - 2016-03-07 20:35:16 UTC
Tristan Agion wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
As far as knowing in advance if you can dock, dunno, CCP has afar as I know not said if there is a docking indicator, but I would guess it will be shown somewhere in the display information.

I think it would be important to have a mechanism by which a citadel clearly signals to a stranger that he is welcome. Relying on potentially outdated word of mouth or prior experience seems a bit iffy... Ideally I would want to know as soon as I enter the system, before even warping into its vicinity.


well for one it wil not be on your overview if you cant dock
Lugh Crow-Slave
#488 - 2016-03-07 20:44:12 UTC
Olga Zdenekieva wrote:
Quote:
Reprocessing

I really don't like that. You should at least give a choice to the user of the service whereas they want to pay tax with isk or with ore.
Basically new player who mine to get isk, won't necessary have enough isk to reprocess it.


I for one would like it to be left up to the owner of the service as well
Quote:

Quote:
Compression..

You should allow this to be taxed. If a citadel owner wish to open this service to blues or even neutral, he definitely should be able to get paid in return (isk or ore.).


so much this if compression is not taxed refining cant be either as i will just compress my ore in the local citadel then move it to the nearest 0% taxed one.

just because there is no npc equivalent does not mean it should not be taxable if the owner wants to tax it
its my cyno
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#489 - 2016-03-07 22:38:00 UTC  |  Edited by: its my cyno
A good question Core and I have no idea myself: although, I am guessing they will remain but have higher trading taxes in them for the markets. You wont be able to do contracts in citadels and it would really screw things in 0.0 for doctrine fits if they were gone. I tbh think citadels should be introduced in 3 phases. phase 1 being null sec. phase 2 being low and wh. phase 3 high sec. I also agree that Jump clones actually should cost a lot more to change clones based on the skill points a player has. An example would be 1mil isk for every 2mil skill points. This will make it harder for 0.0 alliances to coordinate large scale attacks and defenses of their citadels in far away regions at the same time punishing everyone else too..... Roll

Again I like the citadel idea but as it stands it just a Turd. Seems a few like to polish the turd but are missing the point its a stinky turd that most want to avoid. You cant polish the stink.
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#490 - 2016-03-07 23:04:33 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • Market: markets currently have two taxes, transaction's tax, applied for sold items, and broker's fee for non immediate orders, which are set at 1.5% and 1% respectively. To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% and the broker's fee to 5-6%. Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels.

  • If you want people to move their collective butts out of major hubs, this will not do. Margins will widen, people will complain and that will be it. Also people running standing increase services will enjoy it hell a lot.

    You would have to probably boost broker tax to two digit values for people to consider moving out of hubs (or in worst case quit the game) with this approach.

    Also - why even touch sales tax ? It's the same for both, don't mess with it. Unless your "plan" is to make citadels 2.5% sales tax and 0% broker fee to be roughly equivalent to current npc broker+sales tax combination (and if so - that's kind of lame).

    Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl

    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #491 - 2016-03-08 00:16:05 UTC
    Soltys wrote:


    Also - why even touch sales tax ? It's the same for both, don't mess with it. Unless your "plan" is to make citadels 2.5% sales tax and 0% broker fee to be roughly equivalent to current npc broker+sales tax combination (and if so - that's kind of lame).


    because thats the benefit of larger citadels and citadels in less safe space the rigs lower the npc tax.
    Sgt Ocker
    What Corp is it
    #492 - 2016-03-08 00:36:57 UTC
    its my cyno wrote:


    I also agree that Jump clones actually should cost a lot more to change clones based on the skill points a player has. An example would be 1mil isk for every 2mil skill points. This will make it harder for 0.0 alliances to coordinate large scale attacks and defenses of their citadels in far away regions at the same time punishing everyone else too..... Roll

    So Brave, PH and other newbro friendly alliances get to jump clone all over the place with their blobs of Talwars cheaply but any alliance that has high skilled members is penalized.
    You also have to realize - You can now buy SP so a higher SP player may only be 3 weeks old but still has to pay as much as someone who has been playing for 10 years or more.

    Again Following CCP's line of punish players seeking content, yours is a really bad idea. I for one won't pay 60 mil isk (120 mil SP character) just to jump to a clone for a potential fight.
    I'm not space rich, I live month to month, forcing me to pay to use jump clones in such a manner means I have to spend more time in ratting, instead of joining fleets.

    I think CCP should leave all taxes and fees for existing stations and outposts as they are and find a way to make Citadels appealing on their own merit. Devs obviously believe the only way for Citadels to be successful is by forcing players to use them via prohibitive taxes on existing infrastructure and services - There is something wrong with a model of development that relies on coercion over choice.

    My opinions are mine.

      If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

    It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

    Rob Kaichin
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #493 - 2016-03-08 00:42:52 UTC
    How is it a benefit if it won't even be used?

    CCP needs to work out a system of benefits that fit in with the Lore, in a way that's meaningful beyond "And so we say that suddenly you have to pay more taxes. "~waves hand mystically~.

    Here, some help to get you thinking along the right lines:

    FACTION POLICE NO LONGER SPAWN ON GRID WITH A PLAYER CITADEL.

    Boom! Lookee here boys, an honest to god advantage that doesn't involve shafting players for playing a certain way.

    What does this encourage: Lowsec pirates can come to 'Citadelland' with their ill-gotten gains and trade it safely, because the faction police won't go near the Citadel. You'll get more PvP in space, because negative faction standing won't be a punishment, and you can roll it into you new-fangled Bounty Hunting/Criminal Smuggling Enterprise something or other expansion.

    Drackarn over at SCAS talks about what he'd like to see as a 'hive of scum and villainy' here: http://sandciderandspaceships.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/citadel-shanty-towns.html
    Wouldn't this be a good first step.

    You could even nerf Concord on this grid, or something equally interesting. Wouldn't it be cool if Code didn't warp around, but had a 'Pirate' cove to hide out in. You could hide it in deepspace away from stations.
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #494 - 2016-03-08 01:56:33 UTC
    Rob Kaichin wrote:
    How is it a benefit if it won't even be used?

    CCP needs to work out a system of benefits that fit in with the Lore, in a way that's meaningful beyond "And so we say that suddenly you have to pay more taxes. "~waves hand mystically~.

    Here, some help to get you thinking along the right lines:

    FACTION POLICE NO LONGER SPAWN ON GRID WITH A PLAYER CITADEL.

    Boom! Lookee here boys, an honest to god advantage that doesn't involve shafting players for playing a certain way.

    What does this encourage: Lowsec pirates can come to 'Citadelland' with their ill-gotten gains and trade it safely, because the faction police won't go near the Citadel. You'll get more PvP in space, because negative faction standing won't be a punishment, and you can roll it into you new-fangled Bounty Hunting/Criminal Smuggling Enterprise something or other expansion.

    Drackarn over at SCAS talks about what he'd like to see as a 'hive of scum and villainy' here: http://sandciderandspaceships.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/citadel-shanty-towns.html
    Wouldn't this be a good first step.

    You could even nerf Concord on this grid, or something equally interesting. Wouldn't it be cool if Code didn't warp around, but had a 'Pirate' cove to hide out in. You could hide it in deepspace away from stations.


    yeah if thats the only thing no way i'm bothering to leave jita...

    most of us with poor standing either ignor them when flying in hs or if we want to be safe use alts to trade
    GreyGryphon
    The Spartains
    #495 - 2016-03-08 05:49:12 UTC
    Anhenka wrote:
    GreyGryphon wrote:
    I propose that broker's fee should be based on the new total amount (quantity_remaining * new_price) of the order. Using something similar to my previous example, changing a buy order total from 900,000,000 ISK to 1,000,000,000 ISK would have a fee of 7,500,000 ISK instead of 750,000 ISK. Changing a sell order total from 1,100,000,000 ISK to 1,000,000,000 ISK would have a fee of 7,500,000 ISK instead of 100 ISK.

    • This would raise the amount of ISK paid in broker's fees while maintaining similar margins and avoiding inflated prices from a 5-6% broker's fee. I would expect some inflation but not as much.
    • This would also alleviate some of the frustration from the .01 ISK war. Market bots would lose most of their benefit.
    • This would NOT punish newer players as long as they price their orders competitively and wait.
    • This would allow the citadel owners to influence how often market orders change while receiving a larger revenue stream than is possible under the current system.

    It seems you are saying modifying prices should incur broker fee's at the same amount as if removed the order entirely and relisted it at the new price. That seems really excessive and would actually backfire in terms of how bots would be able to play the market.

    A human with a lot of product to sell will list a few large order, then leave them alone since they cannot change them without incurring penalties, and hope that the market will increase/decrease and fulfill his order.

    A bot on the other hand, will place many small individual orders as the market price rises or falls, tracking the price so that if the price drops suddenly, the bot does not have much trapped in higher sell orders, and will place many smaller sell orders as the price is rising, dumping product rapidly, but not having more than one or two orders riding the top of that crest in case it drops back again.

    This allows the bot to more effectively sell/buy products by utilizing multiple smaller orders, while never actually changing any of the broker fee's, but still reaping in the benefits of following the market curve closely.

    I agree that keeping it at the same percentage for both the listing and modifying fee might be excessive. I did that to keep it simple. The numbers can change; I just want to see order modification actually have a fee attached to it. Even if both were at 1%, this change would still be less punishing than the 5-6% fee that was proposed.

    I disagree that this will backfire with regard to bots. Right now most traders list their sell orders just under the lowest current market order (aka .01 ISK wars) even when it is heavily overpriced. This works because you can modify your order as often as needed for free as the price slowly corrects itself. If broker's fees actually applied when modifying sell orders, you would have to minimize the number of order modifications by listing a much more competitive price to avoid too many from undercutting you. The market should behave more efficiently as overpriced orders would be undercut quickly and by significant amounts unless there is a massive shortage. Basically, fees on order modifications would reward those to predict the market and stick to one price rather than those who only react to the market by repeatedly changing their price (with or without bots).

    I do not understand how listing a large number of small orders would give any benefit. It would be infuriating to have to buy or sell to each individual order when they are separated by non-trivial amounts of ISK. I would be tempted to list my own buy order just under the lowest of many tiny sell orders just to avoid buying from the person who dumped a ton of tiny orders on the market. Hopefully someone would notice and only have to change their order once to fill mine.
    Rob Kaichin
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #496 - 2016-03-08 08:28:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

    yeah if thats the only thing no way i'm bothering to leave jita...

    most of us with poor standing either ignor them when flying in hs or if we want to be safe use alts to trade



    Well, first off, it's more than one thing, secondly, it's a starting point.

    The idea is to suggest changes which make Citadels horizontally attractive, by branching out into untouched areas of the game.

    Another example could be this: Citadels in Highsec can mount a 'Security Office' if their standings to Concord (alliance/whatever) are good enough. At the 'Security Office', players can tag up their sec status: income for the owner would be derived from the 'x' million in fees which is currently paid, and the market fees players would spend listing tags.

    Or why not repair shops? Costs paid to the Owners. Or why not Insurance Vendors? if you buy insurance in a Citadel it goes to Pend, but the owners take a cut .

    Citadels should be as good as Stations but not better, with pull factors stations don't have.


    I'm sure you can search your brain and think of something.

    Edit: I would like to see a meaningful reduction in NPC stations, so long as a station remains in every system there was a station in before.
    Miss 'Assassination' Cayman
    CK-0FF
    Sedition.
    #497 - 2016-03-08 08:39:34 UTC
    Rob Kaichin wrote:
    Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

    yeah if thats the only thing no way i'm bothering to leave jita...

    most of us with poor standing either ignor them when flying in hs or if we want to be safe use alts to trade



    Well, first off, it's more than one thing, secondly, it's a starting point.

    The idea is to suggest changes which make Citadels horizontally attractive, by branching out into untouched areas of the game.

    Another example could be this: Citadels in Highsec can mount a 'Security Office' if their standings to Concord (alliance/whatever) are good enough. At the 'Security Office', players can tag up their sec status: income for the owner would be derived from the 'x' million in fees which is currently paid, and the market fees players would spend listing tags.

    Or why not repair shops? Costs paid to the Owners. Or why not Insurance Vendors? if you buy insurance in a Citadel it goes to Pend, but the owners take a cut .

    Citadels should be as good as Stations but not better, with pull factors stations don't have.


    I'm sure you can search your brain and think of something.

    Edit: I would like to see a meaningful reduction in NPC stations, so long as a station remains in every system there was a station in before.

    That's a very good point. Where I live there are several commonly used systems with no stations that can repair. It would be handy to go to a citadel and rep up, not to mention they could set a lower cost like nullsec stations and be attractive even in systems with repair stations.
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #498 - 2016-03-08 10:36:50 UTC
    Rob Kaichin wrote:

    Citadels should be as good as Stations but not better, with pull factors stations don't have.


    I'm sure you can search your brain and think of something.

    Edit: I would like to see a meaningful reduction in NPC stations, so long as a station remains in every system there was a station in before.


    No something built and ruin by players should be better than any npc alternative.

    And the nerfs to npc stations is not a new thing nor is it unwarranted. Just last year they nerfed npc stations harder than player built refining options in order to widen the gap between the two

    Also there are plenty of areas particularly in hs that could manage losing their stations if it's something ccp desired
    Rob Kaichin
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #499 - 2016-03-08 10:41:57 UTC
    And since then we've seen a significant decline in highsec activity which isn't being transfered to other areas of space.

    If CCP wishes to keep their players subscribed to the game, punishment doesn't work. Players quit before they move out.


    "No something built and ruin by players should be better than any npc alternative."

    Philosophy, not best practise.


    epicurus ataraxia
    Illusion of Solitude.
    Illusion of Solitude
    #500 - 2016-03-08 12:43:58 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
    motie one wrote:
    This is still going on with a near 100% agreement that this is a bad idea.

    Now a little analogy.

    CCP Boss has given instruction to Build a group of shiny new Stables, but is unsure whether the Mules will go and use them, rather than continue to lie under the tarpaulin and frame, up to their ankles in dust, and hair, that they have always used. He knows mules are stubborn, but he has faith in his people.

    He sees this as a great way of making the mules happy and more active. He is proud to have designed such a wonderful home for them, He asks his builders to "make it happen"

    One CCP builder decides to lead most of the mules to the new stables, with a nice carrot, the mules get there, decide they like it and move in happily.

    One CCP builder decides, "damn the mules, they will do what they are told", and after a while notices the lack of mules in his stable.
    He goes to the tarpaulin site, throws water and sewage onto the soil, turning it to mud.
    He rips the tarpaulin so the rain comes in. Turning his back on the mules, he goes back to the stable thinking "that'll teach them, now they'll move!" and waits for the mules to arrive.

    After a while, and still no mules have appeared, he goes to the old site and he notices a complete absence of mules, he looks everywhere, and finally sees them disappearing over the horizon never to be seen again

    Which do you want to be, CCP rational, or CCP out of a job?



    I like a good Fable, It often puts things clearly in focus.

    I sympathise with the Dev that has been given the instruction to move us "mules" we are an ornery bad tempered bunch at the best of times.

    I really think that trying to make something unpleasant or awkward, to get us to move is going to backfire like a constipated goat being fed on a strong , fish curry! You may well get a movement, but not one you will appreciate, and the Goat is going to be pretty unforgiving, and untrusting afterwards too!

    Citadels need to have attractive features that make us want to prefer them, they need to encourage us to look at them, and we happily move in!

    If they are just worse stations, why even bother to design them in the first place, It doesn't make us very optomistic, when we see punishments being put in place to force us to use them?

    You are sending signals, that are going to undo all your good work. What a terrible waste.

    There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE