These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#561 - 2016-03-09 21:50:15 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Zappity wrote:
I still strongly object to the jump clone fee. I'm thinking about younger players wanting to dip a toe into PvP.

Aside from encouraging citadel use, what goal is this designed to result in? Less jump clone usage? Why? You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.


How much ISK worth of implant does your "young player" has in his head that is at risk of being blownup causing him a major loss but would warrant creating a jump clone (5 million ) + jumping out of it (5M or new 1M proposal) for a grand total of 6 or 10 million ISK.


Speaking from experience, my first two implants were +4s which were 20 million ISK each. Spending 1/4 of a +4 (which took a bloody long time to grind for, let me tell you) is totally untenable. And I was grinding in Low-sec too, where a battleship took ~10 minutes to kill!

I'll put my objections to the rest of it in another post, but solo new players who try and take advantage of the availability of Jump clones to 'PvP' just won't spend that much to do it. They'll PvP in their +4 pod, they'll lose their hard won implants and they'll leave.

How do I know? The multiple accounts I ran through with that story are still fresh in my memory.

It's worth nothing the lack of objections from the Null bloc pilots to this change. We can't all be lucky enough to join alliances where we're showered with free stuff. The real Eve is one you find yourself, not one that's thrust upon you.


1st, the guy who leave because he lost his POD is pretty much lost in advance. The 6 million it could cost him to protect said implant is irrelevant since he probably lost a 30 million ships at the same time.

As for your 2 +4 learning implants, your fist jump will cost you 6 mill to install a clone and jump out of it. That's a 15% cost for the fist jump. Each subsequent jump will cost you 5% of the cost (I am counting the jump back in the learning clone and out again) to again, protect said investment. This mean you will have to make 17 consecutive jump in and back out to finally have burned more ISK than losing said implants would of cost you. Which also provided you with, accounting for a jump every day, 17 days of +4 worth of implants training because you made sure you would not lose said implants. How much you value this is your choice but saying it would be worth it for a 2 mill back and forth fee needs some evaluation imo.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#562 - 2016-03-09 21:54:02 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Because if they don't add cost to NPC station, there is no way to make citadels useful without breaking other things. Why would you put so much at risk by anchoring a citadel if you can do everything it does in a free station? POS had/have advantage over station but the service offered by citadels are not the same so we can't just let everything the same. If citadels are supposed to ever be attractive market places, the market there will need to be better to justify the risk for anyone. The current tax rate is SOOOOOO low right now there is virtually no margin for CCP to make the citadels hence why they are nerfing station instead of making citadels even better over that. You can't make the tax rate better than practically nothing so they made the practically nothing part bigger so there is a window for citadels better. Same for the clones and other services offered by citadels with a station equivalent.

At some point, it has to go one way or another and you can't really make things better than so close to perfect so you go the other way.


I love how taxes are so low they raised only ~10 trillion ISK last month alone.

If they were "SOOOOOOOOO low", they'd raise nothing. The space where Citadels could compete is anywhere between 0% and the current highest tax. Not the current lowest tax, the highest. If Citadels had a lower limit of 0.75% sales and 0.01875% Broker's fee, they'd still be competitive, because very few people are currently paying that lowest tax band.

CCP's fallacious argument that Citadels need a NPC station tax increase to be 'competitive' is a lie. A Citadel that offered the lowest tax rates would be great, it would attract low volume, high value sales where players coud magnify their games. It would totally out-compete the NPC station.

CCP's idea is simply to kill NPC markets by making them so deeply uncompetitive no-one will wish to use them. In that way, they're adopting practises which run counter to the Sandbox and the free market. That no-one should be punished for playing their way used to be a self-evident truth for Eve development. Sadly, now it needs must be repeated.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#563 - 2016-03-09 21:59:20 UTC
Tyranis Marcus wrote:
So we have pos's. These are being replaced by medium citadels.

We have player outposts. These are being replaced by L and XL Citadels.

Where in that is the burning need for Citadels to compete with npc stations in any way as far as public access and charging for services goes? You should really just leave npc stations the hell alone.

I'll give you guys one thing, some of you are making steady progress toward your goal of destroying the game we've all spent years playing.


yes they are destroying a game that sells on its player built universe by rewarding those who actively participate in that universe building Roll
Lugh Crow-Slave
#564 - 2016-03-09 22:02:17 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Because if they don't add cost to NPC station, there is no way to make citadels useful without breaking other things. Why would you put so much at risk by anchoring a citadel if you can do everything it does in a free station? POS had/have advantage over station but the service offered by citadels are not the same so we can't just let everything the same. If citadels are supposed to ever be attractive market places, the market there will need to be better to justify the risk for anyone. The current tax rate is SOOOOOO low right now there is virtually no margin for CCP to make the citadels hence why they are nerfing station instead of making citadels even better over that. You can't make the tax rate better than practically nothing so they made the practically nothing part bigger so there is a window for citadels better. Same for the clones and other services offered by citadels with a station equivalent.

At some point, it has to go one way or another and you can't really make things better than so close to perfect so you go the other way.


I love how taxes are so low they raised only ~10 trillion ISK last month alone.

If they were "SOOOOOOOOO low", they'd raise nothing. The space where Citadels could compete is anywhere between 0% and the current highest tax. Not the current lowest tax, the highest. If Citadels had a lower limit of 0.75% sales and 0.01875% Broker's fee, they'd still be competitive, because very few people are currently paying that lowest tax band.

CCP's fallacious argument that Citadels need a NPC station tax increase to be 'competitive' is a lie. A Citadel that offered the lowest tax rates would be great, it would attract low volume, high value sales where players coud magnify their games. It would totally out-compete the NPC station.

CCP's idea is simply to kill NPC markets by making them so deeply uncompetitive no-one will wish to use them. In that way, they're adopting practises which run counter to the Sandbox and the free market. That no-one should be punished for playing their way used to be a self-evident truth for Eve development. Sadly, now it needs must be repeated.


eve has always punished people who play their own way and are unable or unwilling to adapt. your playstyle is not all that much at risk just use a player market if you dont want to pay the tax what do you care if a player gets or isk or if it just vanishes
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#565 - 2016-03-09 22:02:49 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

1st, the guy who leave because he lost his POD is pretty much lost in advance. The 6 million it could cost him to protect said implant is irrelevant since he probably lost a 30 million ships at the same time.

As for your 2 +4 learning implants, your fist jump will cost you 6 mill to install a clone and jump out of it. That's a 15% cost for the fist jump. Each subsequent jump will cost you 5% of the cost (I am counting the jump back in the learning clone and out again) to again, protect said investment. This mean you will have to make 17 consecutive jump in and back out to finally have burned more ISK than losing said implants would of cost you. Which also provided you with, accounting for a jump every day, 17 days of +4 worth of implants training because you made sure you would not lose said implants. How much you value this is your choice but saying it would be worth it for a 2 mill back and forth fee needs some evaluation imo.



Because a game where only ~15% of the new players continue to play can afford to throw away new players...

I said it was 1/4th of a single +4, not of both :P.

My point is that I and some of my friends *tried* to get into Eve. We didn't know about Jump clones. We got learning implants because a guy recommenced them. We tried PvP, we died, we quit. "Any game with this much grinding isn't worth out time".

It's worth nothing that this was before CCP's new starting skills and the other changes which encouraged new player retention. If we're going to talk about how things need to be updated for 2016, a look at new player rewards has got to be high up on the list.
Dino Zavr
Shadow Owls
#566 - 2016-03-09 22:07:39 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
If nothing should get nerfed because it's getting used right now, we might as well stop CCP from developing anything new ever and just keep a support crew to keep the game running because anything they implement will ALWAYS cause something else to be at least a bit less appreciated OR will be recognized as useless by the player base.


Sure, my friend, I totally understand your reasoning. It is very much logical.
Anyway, I has began with: "It's my emotional rant". And I still cannot get rid of a feeling that:
New changes (fee for clone jumping) complicate NPE and (taxation) prioritize big alliances over small groups and solo palyers.
That's not right. I simply don't like the direction this evolution goes.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#567 - 2016-03-09 22:07:45 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:


My point is that I and some of my friends *tried* to get into Eve. We didn't know about Jump clones. We got learning implants because a guy recommenced them. We tried PvP, we died, we quit. "Any game with this much grinding isn't worth out time".



you died you first time out and decided it was to much grind so quit?

with an attitude like that the only way this game would keep you and your friends around is if they changed it to its core
Lugh Crow-Slave
#568 - 2016-03-09 22:10:32 UTC
Dino Zavr wrote:


Sure, my friend, I totally understand your reasoning. It is very much logical.
Anyway, I has began with: "It's my emotional rant". And I still cannot get rid of a feeling that:
New changes (fee for clone jumping) complicate NPE and (taxation) prioritize big alliances over small groups and solo palyers.
That's not right. I simply don't like the direction this evolution goes.


there is very little in eve that wont be more advantages to groups with more numbers that. but this change does not "prioritize" them. the taxes will affect everyone and yes those who group together to take advantage of a new niche in eve will be rewarded while those who just sit a whine will probably be mildly inconvenienced
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#569 - 2016-03-09 22:17:42 UTC
Well, you did a great job reading that post and a great one reading the previous post. /s

I'm playing, my friends aren't. I got lucky after a couple of tries: I found the right series of circumstances to keep playing (advice, menteeship and a decent wad of ISK from a leaving player.) They didn't. We're pretty similar people, but the awful NPE has put them off Eve *forever*, despite their interest in space and science fiction.

As for the previous post: I care if Market traders (in Eve they're basically market makers) quit the game (which a predatory tax increase will cause them to do). A lack of market traders will cause the market to seize up and stratify. Which is nice if you want to make a killing on the market., but is **** if you want to keep a active market for non-market players.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#570 - 2016-03-09 22:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Just to put this in perspective of how big this change is to station trading:

Currently the lowest tax with max skill and standing is 0.9375%.

With what Ytterbium is proposing your looking at a minimum of 4.75%

That is a 400% or 5x+ increase.

If I was cynical I'd say that Ytterbium slipped in the modification to how standing/skill affects the broker fee hoping that it goes relatively noticed. If they were planning a change this big surely it should have been in the OP and not just something hashed up half way through the thread.
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#571 - 2016-03-09 22:26:30 UTC
I'm love how all the nullies love the JC tax idea, while hisec/lowsec players don't. Guess who will benefit the most from this.

Zappity
Kurved Trading
#572 - 2016-03-09 22:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Zappity wrote:
I still strongly object to the jump clone fee. I'm thinking about younger players wanting to dip a toe into PvP.

Aside from encouraging citadel use, what goal is this designed to result in? Less jump clone usage? Why? You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.


How much ISK worth of implant does your "young player" has in his head that is at risk of being blownup causing him a major loss but would warrant creating a jump clone (5 million ) + jumping out of it (5M or new 1M proposal) for a grand total of 6 or 10 million ISK.

Zero. He is jumping to a clean clone from a training clone.

Alternatively, just delete attribute clones since that is the real underlying problem. My trading activities would be very sad but it would be good for the game.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#573 - 2016-03-09 22:27:57 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
I'm love how all the nullies love the JC tax idea, while hisec/lowsec players don't. Guess who will benefit the most from this.



i have no issue with it and i dont live in null
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#574 - 2016-03-09 22:30:25 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:
I'm love how all the nullies love the JC tax idea, while hisec/lowsec players don't. Guess who will benefit the most from this.



i have no issue with it and i dont live in null



Where do you live?

I thought you were a trollish Forum Alt tbh.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#575 - 2016-03-09 22:35:18 UTC
I don't care about the new PvP tax, I can afford it, but this obscene trading fee increase will significantly reduce trade volume and liquidity of the markets in highsec. This is the effect you can observe in RL when attempts are made to tax transactions. It will not be different in New Eden, and it's bad.

I still don't understand why you want to do that, instead of first observing what happens after the introduction of Citadels ...

I'm my own NPC alt.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#576 - 2016-03-09 22:37:35 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:
I'm love how all the nullies love the JC tax idea, while hisec/lowsec players don't. Guess who will benefit the most from this.



i have no issue with it and i dont live in null



Where do you live?

I thought you were a trollish Forum Alt tbh.


HS and WH
Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#577 - 2016-03-09 22:39:30 UTC
If the idea is to get people to use Citadel Clone Vats, then putting a tax on NPC JCs is not the answer. The best way to get people to use the Citadel clone vats would be to give the Citadels the ability to reduce the JC timer.

If you really want an isk sink, make it so you can pay a fee to reduce the jump clone cooldown timer.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#578 - 2016-03-09 22:48:17 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
The best way to get people to use the Citadel clone vats would be to give the Citadels the ability to reduce the JC timer.


Great, another sideways pull factor for Citadels which doesn't rely on nerfing NPC stations. Add that to mine and now we've got 3 ideas.

We're not even game designers!!!

CCP, this is the way we'd like to see you go, can you appreciate that?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#579 - 2016-03-09 22:49:28 UTC
Looking at all of these comments it seems the tax is going to have the desired effect.
Excellion
Nexus Mercator
#580 - 2016-03-09 22:49:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Excellion
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

there is very little in eve that wont be more advantages to groups with more numbers that. but this change does not "prioritize" them. the taxes will affect everyone and yes those who group together to take advantage of a new niche in eve will be rewarded while those who just sit a whine will probably be mildly inconvenienced

You are right that the changes apply to everyone, but they will certainly not affect everyone on the same level. If the station sales taxes were increased to 50% small groups and solo players in highsec would have few effective means to evade or mitigate this change. On the other hand nullsec alliances can just produce whatever they need and be completely unaffected.

We can also be fairly sure that if trade does indeed shift to citadels we will have a 70 trillion pinata floating around in highsec, there to be smashed apart by anyone who cares and can muster enough force. This will again be to the advantage of larger groups; Any small group setting up a (rather) profitable trading station will likely face the same response as a 10 man group holding a T64 moon in null. I suspect that for most alliances this will be a new way to generate isk. Or barring that, a new excuse to shoot things in high sec with the fun paying for itself.

Note that this is all just speculation and things may turn out quite differently. And i also won't claim no one will like these changes or that they cannot be fun. But let us at least call a spade a spade and state that the citadel changes to highsec were not designed with the benefit of ye-average local highsec wildlife in mind.

baltec1 wrote:
Looking at all of these comments it seems the tax is going to have the desired effect.

Got to admit, i had a good grin at that line. I wonder what the ratio of highsec / lowsec plex purchasers is; If it is primarily highsec the lowered supply may be quite lucrative (If things turn out according to the worst-case scenario's).