Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

It is the deep end, sure, but there is a point somewhere between 0 and 100 million that counts as 'an appropriate incentive' to use Citadels.

I'd like to see where you'd place it.

Look, I have to agree with Baltec1, you're a bit off kilter right now. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, I'm just saying when you wake up tomorrow you'll probably look at your own posts and shift uncomfortably in your chair while muttering to yourself, "Yeah, that was a bit much".

Back on topic, I think the discussion about the trading fees has been a bit enlightening. There may be a lot of possibility yet, and I don't think anybody is going to have an established trade hub citadel anytime soon, so for now everyone is still going to be playing on an even field. I think there's a lot of promise.

However I still think taxing jump clones, even for 900k isk, is ignorant. Taxing jump clones doesn't create an incentive to push people into citadels. I stand by my idea that location is something you could sell for storing your jump clone at a citadel. Short version of the idea for those of you just tuning in - the basic version is this...new system makes it so you can only jump clone away when a medibay is present in the station/citadel to take care of your clone while you're not in it. Then, dramatically limit which stations actually have them, keep them far apart from each other (mostly), and definitely away from trade and mission hubs. That way, what citadels can sell as a place for your jump clone is location. Location, location, location.

Yes, my idea heavily nerfs current jump clones more than a petty isk sink, but I think it opens up jump clones (and their storage) to be a much more interesting dynamic in this game, and something that DEFINITELY incentivizes people to seek out citadels to call home, especially if you can pair a decent market with jump clone storage. I feel that's a winning combination and it doesn't needlessly tax people, it merely limits what their options are. I think that's fair.

Ah, no, you're right.

Well, not about the shifting uncomfortably, but the off kilter stuff.

What I'm trying to do, albeit badly, is find an equivalent 'incentive' that makes them react as hostilely as I do. I know that the things I'm suggesting are deeply unpopular for them to read, but I'm hoping they'll pick a number so they can consider the idea.

If it turns out that a 10% price increase is what we're going to see if we trade in NPC stations, we could look at what equivalent cost that would be for docking in NPC stations. An incentive to use Citadels doesn't just have to focus on raising money from 'pubbies', they can raise money on 'the good guys' too.


Edit: I fully expect to see that whole series of posts deleted. After all, it can't be a threadnaught if there isn't a post on page 16 which says "I've removed half of the posts for rule violations, sincerely ISD pissed off".

I'm not saying your idea is necessarily bad but if the people mad at tax increase are going with that, it means they'd rather not get poked in their trading even if it means everyone get a swift kick in the teeth for jump clone usage.

Speaking purely for myself of course, I'd be willing to get kicked in the teeth for more interesting content. As I said earlier, the jump clone tax seems to be done out of pettiness because it doesn't accomplish anything, doesn't change the system at all, and simply isk sinks. Okay, fine, arguments to be made about isk sinks needed, but the game has not been made more interesting for all the fuss.

Whereas my idea makes jump clone usage more interesting (again, purely from my perspective). And yes, if I had to choose between being backhanded every few days for no reason, verses getting kicked square in the teeth once for more interesting gameplay, I'll choose the kick to the teeth. I stated that I believe this would provide a genuine incentive for people to use citadels. I believe that, and I want people to use citadels. I want to use citadels. Jump clone taxes, however I do not believe accomplish that, and then I'm simply being backhanded for no reason.

Edit:

I would liken this idea to the jump fatigue nerf. Yes, capital pilots got kicked in the teeth, but it made the game more interesting and opened up content for people across null and lowsec. Heck, it even (in a small way) opened up more content for those same capital pilots (at least those of smaller corps) because they had less fears about counter-dropping.

Yes, if I had to liken my idea to something, it would be to that. Yes, jump fatigue was unpopular, but it opened up a lot of possibilities. I wish that we could do this for jump clones.

How do you plan on making them "fun" when they are supposed to be player owned station. What is gonna be fun about it? Surely you have idea of what you would find fun about them if you suggest just making them more fun instead of more efficient like different tax level would bring.

If it's too simple, then suggest your ideas.

Criteria that must be met:

- no power creep (or if it's a must, explain why this will be good for the game overall);
- affecting same categories that CCP's suggested change would affect;
- effective at moving affected people to citadel usage.

I do not really disagree, but when it comes down to practical ways, I'm not sure how should this work.

Couple things that looked like they needed clarification, or I'm confused about:

1) Drifter Incursions. There actually were people running these, and regularly. There was a public group running with one method, and a few more private or "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy" groups using a different method. CCP's screwup here was not making enough noise that they the incursions were back after their original failed rollout. The problem on the players' end, however, is the overwhelming prevalence of risk-averseness. This nonsense of "b-b-b-but I might lose a ship! To NPCs! I DON'T WANNA, IT'S BAD NERF IT WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!" is 100% unadulterated bullshit and needs to die in a fire, literally.

Yes, the Drifters were "hard" NPCs that did lots of DPS and had a really nasty BFG, but they weren't unstoppable and there were definitely ways to shrug away said BFG, including learning how to sigtank. The people who figured out how they worked and how to fight them effectively spent time and effort both on TQ and on Singularity poking and prodding at them and trying new things to see what worked and what didn't. The people who just wanted to put in no effort and go "oh let's farm it" got shot in the nads by CCP's countering desire for the Drifters to be hard, not-easily-farmable content.

2) I'm pretty sure clones stored in a Citadel are not recoverable when it is destroyed, considering the original planned mechanics in that regard involved the Citadel dropping corpses of players whose clones were in the station at the time it was destroyed. I've heard nothing since then about that feature. So... I'm not so sure that your clones are actually all that safe in a Citadel. Your other assets, sure. But not the clones.

You are talking about station trading profit margins, which are often 5-10% of the orders value. The tax (and broker's fee) players pay on this is doubling from 3.5% to 7.5% of the orders value without skills, aka new player.

And you cant see the problem with that?

Trust a Goonie not to understand free market capitalism.

On the other hand NPC sales tax (1.5% of the orders market value) depletes 10 trillion isk a month from the economy (read that figure earlier in this thread, not sure how true it is, but that's a scary number).

So if Goons put 3 Citadels up in high-sec, 1 in Jita, 1 in Amarr and 1 in Dodixie with a 1.5% broker fee and free for all access. Then they'd corner part of the 70% of all high-sec trade that goes through those systems, netting themselves a share of 7 trillion isk a month for no effort at all.

Yer, I think I know where your motivation is... forum troll.

When CCP Delegate Zero (I think) did the Wormhole Structures round table, that was one of the things I raised. It's because null-sec has outposts and thinks that things should remain as they are and changes shouldn't increase risks or costs...

Oh, how ironic.