Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I think you overestimate human nature by not considering just how petty people can be. People will lock others out of their high sec trade markets simply because they can and know that, in the end, said person's alt will still give them money in the form of brokers fees buy or sell.




At the end of the day, NPC markets should then be completely removed if that is the goal. After all, the NPC broker fee ends up being a cap preventing the opposite movement from happening: a coalition of groups deciding to raise broker fees to something like 20% or more. Monopolies for the win, eh?

(Oh god the number of replies to make in on post).

First off, who said everything? The sensible trader will let his portfolio simmer down, whilst setting up the high-value, low-volume trades that can take advantage of lower fees (of any magnitude!). The crazy "strip and relist" idea doesn't match any trading behaviour that I know of.

Furthermore, the average level of Broker relations on my characters is....wait for it..... 0.6! I imagine, from my conversations with my corp and alliance mates, that this situation is repeated across a vast swathe of New Eden. To you this may seem farcical, but I'd like to remind that traders are a tiny minority of Eve players. We've, of course, not touched on standings impact, but I imagine the majority of people don't have a perfect standings alt to buy and sell with.

(To you, Frostys, the equation for docking fees would be D= 1 + S^6 + F ^6 + C^6 + G^6 where S, F, G and C must be less than 0, and D can't exceed 5 million. Thus most players will have a 1 ISK docking fee, but criminal's and enemies' fees will be increased according to the scale of their crimes. S=Sec status, F=Faction standings, C=Corp standings (both personal) and G= standings to your corporation.

Thus my cost to dock at Jita would be: D = 1 + -3.1^6 + -0.07^6 +0^6 + 0^6, which equals ~888 ISK to dock.

A FW person with - 10 sec status, - 10 faction standings, -10 corp standings and - 10 standings to corp will pay 4 million and 1 ISK. The formula can be modified to go as high or low as you wish it to. How's that for 'equality'?)

Well, now I have my emotions calmed down.

1) Proposed Broker Fee formula is still not good, as many offers may stay unfulfilled, can we, please talk about 5% down to not 3.5% but to 2% by skill & standings, at least this keeps standings grinding still meaningful

2) Cost per jump-clone jump is still a bad idea as there are a plenty of different implants sets all around and despite offered 900k price is very much affordable by old players, this really ruins fun for new players. How about returning standings to install jump clones at NPC stations and raising install price to 1 mil, while Citadels would be kinda Estel Arador with arbitrary fee set by owners.

3) Gevlon, thanks for the math. The evident proof which groups will benefit most from the Citadel feature.

OK, and if the players of the game allow that to happen then that is what will happen, what's the problem? Up until now there has been no universal pact allowing all players to rat in harmony which would achieve a similar outcome so I see no reason that citadels will suddenly make people want to effectively stop playing EVE - since that's what you're talking about when you claim that noone will fight it. There will always be people who disagree with the way it's being distributed, so even if someone tried to form up a big blue group for citadel ownership there would still be people who wanted to attack it and/or compete with it.

I love how you try to boil it down to RMT while you have absolutely no evidence of any such thing occurring. At the very least stick to the facts, they tend to get you a bit further. The reality is that you don't like the idea of increased fees and you don't like the idea that a massive group can leverage their size to make isk at a rate you can't achieve solo, so you're resorting to erroneous conclusions, wild allegations and scaremongering to rally people against the change.

The way I see it, it's about damn time they started adding more cost to trading, they still need to work on a bit more risk and the idea of moving everything into player control is brilliant. If someone manages to monopolise it and earn huge amounts of isk from it then good for them. As long as I continue to be able to buy and sell items at a reasonable price and play the game as ever I did, it has absolutely no impact on me if someone else is earning a load of ISK. I don't let jealous rage dictate my opinions on game design.

I live in nullsec - I help support and organize large fleet roam events - I've built and maintained POS towers in null for alliance use - indeed, what would I know?

Why is this done, though? Why would I get used to the short end of the stick in a situation where changes make my gaming experience worse, with no positive change for me? I don't plan to build citadels, I don't invest nearly enough time in the game for that. Player controlling everything would be terrible, just look at the real world.

This feels so artificial. Why should I pay more for jump clones, only some rich guy who has enough ISK to build a citadel in the first place can make a profit? Why is he suddenly entitled to my ISK? He's part of a group and has enough ISK, he can figure something out.

Kind of a tangent, but why do CCP feel this game needs to have a zero-sum policy of fun, where the only way of having fun that is allowed is to take it from other people? The comments on the D-SCAN immunity for recons show the same crazy thought process. It's a really weird policy to actively make at least half of your customers angry and frustrated all the time.

I am sorry, but all you are doing here is just attempting to drive the public opinion with emotion and tinfoil grade nonsense for your petty self interest.

You are playing EVE with zero risks, and the reality that is dawning upon all of us is frightening you, as it will force you to take risks to stay competitive.

You simply want to hold on to your zero-risk, low-margin, high volume trade play style, and you do not want to use player owned structures to be able to maintain your current low profit margins. You fully recognise and realise that prevalence of player owned structures having the upper hand in trading vis-a-vis risk free NPC owned legacy structures will end your profitability for zero risk and low effort scheme.

Of course there's also the fact that ANY sort of increase in broker fees and taxes are going to cut into your profits, and it is highly undesirable for you.

You are not providing a coherent argument, and scare mongering with illogical claims such as EVERYONE starting to collude in game to maintain trade citadels in highsec; which is impossible. There will be cooperation of course, but it will always be divided among the lines since whatever can be gained from any such idea of a trade citadel is finite. So even we will be looking at several groups competing against each other. You already know that only way such a bullcrap scare tale can be justified is 'organized RMT by everyone', which, quite frankly, can only exist in your imagination. Any such RMT attempt is amenable and destined to be noticed and interrupted by CCP. So please, stop with the lies and mythical stories of everyone in this game doing RMT.

Again, you are deeply disturbed by this change, because it will necessitate you to take risks and face a new aspect of competition.

The whole economy of EVE is based on competition and PvP. The fact that you are trying to manipulate everyone here against a positive set of changes that will expand aspects of competition and create further conflict with argumentatively baseless and impossible fairy tales such as 'BUT EVERYBODY WILL RMT SO EVERYBODY WILL COLLUDE' is quite ironic.

Yes, we understand that you will have to deal with new aspects of conflict and competition in the future, but this is EVE, and if you dislike conflict and competition factoring against your play style and objectives, perhaps this is not the game for you.

So Nergal, what do you think of the rest of our 'coherent arguments'?

I have to say how frustrating it is to see CCP pissing away all the goodwill they can develop in ham-fisted announcements. The best advocates of engaging with Citadels come away hurting and pissed off that CCP is willing to shaft them.

The person in my alliance who was previously the biggest advocate for Citadels is now their biggest detractor. His will to engage with the system is broken because CCP broke it.

I'm not seeing any. To me, it looks like you are naively pursuing some idealist application of a certain theory of economics. You aren't highlighting any flaws that making citadels advantageous over risk-free, legacy stations for trading that will lead to a catastrophic failure of EVE markets. You aren't pointing out any case that can prevent you from trading either. You are basically engaging in a philosophical discussion of how an economy should be modelled politically, which is quite detracting from the actual concern in this discussion: Maintaining the ability to trade.

And this change does not reduce your ability to trade at all, provided that you start to take into account RISKS, which you didn't really have to before.

Competition and risk -finally- being a factor in station trading are for everybody's benefit.