These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#781 - 2016-03-11 12:30:45 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
The person in my alliance went to Fanfest and talked to the Devs personally. I think he knew what was he was anticipating better than you do.
So did I. Obviously he didn't know otherwise he wouldn't have been so shocked that they are now announcing details about the exact things they were planning. This isn't even the first time they've mentioned these things since fanfest either. I think it was back in October or November they had an interview on a podcast talking about it too.

Rob Kaichin wrote:
How many people will unsubscribe before you consider Citadels a success, I wonder. This might be the first expansion to ever cause a subscription decrease.
I quite honestly couldn't care less. If people are going to ragequit because market fees will increase and people have the option to instead pay another player for lower fees then they obviously weren't that into EVE anyway.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
No, it doesn't. It's 100% safe and 100% free to the same system. There is no risk of asset loss in k space. Absolutely zero and in empire even paying that 10% will be so unlikely as to be able to be completely ignored.
It's 100% safe now, but it won't be once you're trading in a citadel. While there's no risk of a full loss of assets in kspace, there's certainly a risk of having to pay 10% to recover them, which is a significant risk.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Nergal Hurrian
Orange Lazarus Petroleum Inc.
#782 - 2016-03-11 12:32:36 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nergal Hurrian wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
You'll have to go back a couple of pages to where Pedro and I were disagreeing.

Essentially: the advantages of Citadels are lower taxes below the current NPC taxes, Geography (because you can't move NPC stations), avoidance of station camps, more office space, better refining, reprocessing and compression and cheaper offices.

All of which they can do better than NPC stations, or which NPC stations can't do at all.

To which the supporter of a tax increase go "but it won't be enough! The only way to make Citadels a success is to kill NPC stations!"

Incidentally, the people who opposed this change have all raised possible horizontal pull factors for CCP to consider, where as the supporters are dead set on "it's this or failure".


NPC stations are set to be considered legacy systems. There is no debate about that.

And you are grossly exaggerating when you claim that 'NPC STATIONS ARE GOING TO BE KILLED WITH THE PATCH'. No, they won't.

You haven't given any 'horizontal pull factor', as it is impossible. What you have been able to propose, along with other people in your camp who are acting out of an agenda of self-interest which aims to avoid risk taking, is just that citadels and legacy stations should have nearly-equal base taxes, which condones any citadel to just a in-group 'boutique, niche market' since people will simply choose to do business in the risk-free station instead.

Again, to reiterate: Citadels aren't perfectly safe as stations. They are destructible. They need resources to operate. In order for mass markets to transition to citadels, they need a clear edge over perfectly safe, risk-free, indestructible stations. This is why CCP has chosen to give risk-averse camp the stick.

Without it, you and the mass markets will be unwilling to change, shift to citadels and adapt. That's it.



What risk? They have 100% asset safety. Free. Because people refused to accept the possibility of asset loss (except the WH guys who pitched up and yelled "HIT ME!")


Contestation of ability to conduct highly competitive trade in a certain location will be the actual risk, not the loss of assets. Just as how any other activity can be interrupted in EVE by other players through multi-faceted means in all types of space, trade will now also be able to get interrupted by political and military measures.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#783 - 2016-03-11 12:34:26 UTC
Anyway, now that the official SMA forum poster is here, I think we should gather the list of questions we'd like CCP to answer.

1) What size of group should occupy the Medium, Large and XL Citadel?
2) Whether those number are suitable for all areas of space?
3) Whether Citadels' initial costs are to be returned via player usage?
4) If so, what timescale should the costs be returned by?
5) What kind of initial uptake do CCP want to see?
6 What will the consider a failure or success?
7) Does CCP consider Citadels attractive to use without the market tax increase?
8) If so, why are they increasing the taxes?
9) If not, what other options have they explored to make Citadels attractive?
10) Have they read the constructive feedback made by members of the thread?
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#784 - 2016-03-11 12:36:14 UTC
Nergal Hurrian wrote:


Contestation of ability to conduct highly competitive trade in a certain location will be the actual risk, not the loss of assets. Just as how any other activity can be interrupted in EVE by other players through multi-faceted means in all types of space, trade will now also be able to get interrupted by political and military measures.



I honestly believe you're trolling, but if not, have you heard of Burn Jita?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#785 - 2016-03-11 12:37:22 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
No, it doesn't. It's 100% safe and 100% free to the same system. There is no risk of asset loss in k space. Absolutely zero and in empire even paying that 10% will be so unlikely as to be able to be completely ignored.
It's 100% safe now, but it won't be once you're trading in a citadel. While there's no risk of a full loss of assets in kspace, there's certainly a risk of having to pay 10% to recover them, which is a significant risk.


Not really.
Nergal Hurrian
Orange Lazarus Petroleum Inc.
#786 - 2016-03-11 12:38:44 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nergal Hurrian wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nergal Hurrian wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Or they could clamp down on the faucet that is AFK ratting, but that means worth persons such as Lucas aren't able to play the game they so deeply engage with, because their 84 year old Grandparents and single mothers would go out of business!

Incidentally, Lucas, will you be setting up a citadel for SMA, or will it be the market people who'll do it for you? Does SMA even have market people, or will you be sucking on the teat of the 'Jewbal'?


Don't be facetious. Any kind of ratting is an activity that requires the player to take a risk and stimulates conflict, unlike station trading on NPC stations, which is risk-free and completely isolated from the rest of the game. That sort of risk-elimination and isolation is simply unhealthy and undesired from a game design standpoint.


What? Station trading can lose you billions in the blink of an eye.


Do you even know what you're talking about? Or are you one of these jokers who thinks market pvp isn't a thing?


Your examples would be random and non-specific losses, still perfectly safe and isolated from the rest of the political and military dynamics that affect the game. Therefore, it would be a small risk that you can easily mitigate and factor for all by yourself. Hence, it isn't an actual risk in the scale of what I'm talking about, as anyone who's doing things other than station trading can attest to. Sure, market PvP exists, but it simply is isolated from the rest of the game, and certainly not very meaningful.




You're comparing trading losses to the loss of an afktar? Lol

Go ask some of the guys sitting on the Genos how many ishtars they'd have had to lose to get close.


No, for your ease of understanding, I'm comparing loss of ratting capability and how it can be induced to loss of competitive trading capability (which will now be possible) and how it can be induced. Risk-free NPC station trading is simply disconnected from the military and political dynamics of EVE by the virtue of getting carried on indestructible, no-effort to maintain platforms.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#787 - 2016-03-11 12:41:41 UTC
Nergal Hurrian wrote:
No, for your ease of understanding, I'm comparing loss of ratting capability and how it can be induced to loss of competitive trading capability (which will now be possible) and how it can be induced. Risk-free NPC station trading is simply disconnected from the military and political dynamics of EVE by the virtue of getting carried on indestructible, no-effort to maintain platforms.




Except the notion that trading is risk free is utterly false. So stop lying.
Nergal Hurrian
Orange Lazarus Petroleum Inc.
#788 - 2016-03-11 12:42:41 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
Nergal Hurrian wrote:


Contestation of ability to conduct highly competitive trade in a certain location will be the actual risk, not the loss of assets. Just as how any other activity can be interrupted in EVE by other players through multi-faceted means in all types of space, trade will now also be able to get interrupted by political and military measures.



I honestly believe you're trolling, but if not, have you heard of Burn Jita?


Burn Jita is an exercise in profiteering, muscle flexing, bonding and propaganda. It does not even come close to affecting trade volumes or prices.

Of course if you know of a Burn Jita that actually managed to disrupt trade by destroying Jita 4-4 or contesting the control of and access to it effectively, please do let me know.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#789 - 2016-03-11 12:47:34 UTC
Oh, so now it's trade volumes or prices?

Have you heard of the Gallente Ice interdiction?

It was ~reasonably successful~, if we're basing it on volumes and prices...
MachineOfLovingGrace
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#790 - 2016-03-11 12:52:14 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
How does it make your game experience worse? If the fees you currently pay were landing in someone else's pocket, that has absolutely no impact on you. The only way it could possibly be making your experience worse is that the fees are increasing, which they should anyway regardless of citadels because the costs of trading are shockingly low compared to the rewards.


It makes a very real psychological difference. And in the long term it concentrates ISK on the biggest piles, and in the real world that's a bad thing for everybody (except the owner of that biggest piles, of course).

Quote:
The real world has a dynamic economy which it seems allows you to play online videogames with your free time. Since the idea behind the EVE market is to somewhat mirror reality, moving things to be more player controlled is a good thing. What upsets you is the realisation that like in real life you won't be the person at the top raking in all the cash, you'll be one of the lowly consumers. The reality is though that player controlled or not that situation already exists.


No. I just think it's a bad idea to mimic reality completely, because then why the hell would I play that game? I already have a reality, and it's going to be better than any game possible. It's just making the whole idea of a game obsolete.

Quote:
You should pay for jump clones because it's a service you are using. Why should services simply be free?


What service? It's an NPC station. Nobody is doing anything. It's a completely arbitrary sum for a databas entry no player is providing. It's like adding a undocking fee, so the citadel owners can be competitive with NPC stations and make a profit.

Never think within the context of the game when doing game design!

Quote:
And it takes money to make money. What would be the point in striving to achieve anything in game if you were punished for being good at the game and fed welfare if you were terrible at it?


Who is being punished here? I don't understand your point at all here, sorry. Is it really so hard to understand people are unhappy when they are being - well if not forced, then pushed to basically pay taxes to the big guys for playing this game?

Quote:
It doesn't, you're just equating isk to fun. If I buy a ship from a sell order, someone is getting a profit from me buying that ship. I'm not suddenly having less fun because a player is making isk rather than that isk going to an NPC. Buying a skillbook in Jita is no less fun than buying the same skillbook in Sakenta. Again, it just boils down to jealousy. Stop caring whether or not other people make isk and you'll realise how silly it is to complain about it.


Why are you so hung up on the ISK thing, i don't care about the immediate ISK changes. I'm worried about the long term changes this games is taking.

"Let's make the citadel overlords happy. Hm, but then we'll have too much fun in this game... hm... well, gotta annoy the rest of the players then, I guess!". I don't get it.
Nergal Hurrian
Orange Lazarus Petroleum Inc.
#791 - 2016-03-11 13:08:58 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Nergal Hurrian wrote:
No, for your ease of understanding, I'm comparing loss of ratting capability and how it can be induced to loss of competitive trading capability (which will now be possible) and how it can be induced. Risk-free NPC station trading is simply disconnected from the military and political dynamics of EVE by the virtue of getting carried on indestructible, no-effort to maintain platforms.




Except the notion that trading is risk free is utterly false. So stop lying.


Sure it is. Let me spell it out for you with this: A high-sec mission runner or miner can get his operations interrupted by other players at a specific location.

But what a high-sec trader does cannot be interrupted in the same ways by the others. It's impossible.

To put it bluntly, risk is not the loss of the mining barge, or the mission running ship, or loss of ISK due to making wrong choices when trading. None of these are actual, serious risks. They are just costs of doing business. Sooner or later you will lose a ratting ship. You will lose a mining ship. And you will lose ISK in a bidding war, or buying on the wrong module or resource for a long term market position. If costs of doing business are coming off as too high for you, it's only your fault and nobody else's: No one forced you to put officer mods on your mission raven, no one forced you to forego a tank on your mining barge, and no one forced you to take an absurd and unrealistic market position that lost you ISK.

However, being vulnerable to the interruption of income generation by the other players in a specific location is an actual risk that needs to be accounted for. Now, just as anyone else playing this game, traders that decide to stay competitive will also need to think about that risk as sustainability of their trading activity will no longer be disconnected and perfectly safe from the dynamics of the rest of the game.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#792 - 2016-03-11 13:12:11 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:

1) What size of group should occupy the Medium, Large and XL Citadel?
2) Whether those number are suitable for all areas of space?
3) Whether Citadels' initial costs are to be returned via player usage?
4) If so, what timescale should the costs be returned by?
5) What kind of initial uptake do CCP want to see?
6 What will the consider a failure or success?
7) Does CCP consider Citadels attractive to use without the market tax increase?
8) If so, why are they increasing the taxes?
9) If not, what other options have they explored to make Citadels attractive?
10) Have they read the constructive feedback made by members of the thread?


Does anyone have any other questions for CCP?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#793 - 2016-03-11 13:12:27 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
There will be no game left.
Sure there will, just not one you like.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Simple. the "all rat in harmony" can't be enforced, since the solo guy can go and roam and kill ratters and stopping him would be too much effort. Protecting a citadel with a full fleet in reinforcement time is easier.
But getting everyone to trade there and noone to compete or attack it isn't. Even just getting the leadership of the various alliances to agree to terms without infighting would be near impossible. Plus we're not talkinging about one citadel here, since trading doesn't only occur in one station, you're talking about an entire network of citadels, all while keeping line members fed with enough content to keep them interested.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Sure there will be. A bunch of individuals without leadership and organization. That's great if you want to hunt ratters, not so great if you want to go for a fleet battle.
It sounds like if the only players against it aren't capable of basic organisation then there really aren't enough people against it for CCP to consider it a bad idea in the first place. Personally I think you're purposely underestimating both the ease of building and defending the citadels in the first place and the capability of the attackers.

But look at it this way. Even if you are completely right and Mittani gets a group together and 10 guys all split the profits and roll around in isk, other than you being insanely jealous of their riches, what problem does it introduce? For the vast majority of players it would appear no differently to them than the current system. They pay isk and they gt stuff then they go off and do whatever it is they need to do. Destruction would still occur because the overlords would rely on it to keep the economy flowing.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
I like the increased fees. They drive off the casual traders and force little guys to don't even think about setting an order, but sell to my buys.
They also mean you have to look more closely at your orders though, and considering how many times I've made a profit off or you running your margins math badly, you'd stand to lose a fair bit.

Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Of course there will be impact on you. Since the Imperium leadership will no longer need bottom-up income, just F1 pushers to protect the citadel, you'll be purged from SMA for being "useless carebear"
They don't get bottom up income from me now, so I'm not sure why that would matter to them. What they get is an extra F1 pusher now which they would continue to get. Even if I got booted though all I'd lose is my cool alliance logo. I'd still chat to the same mates and I'd still make ludicrous amounts of isk trading in highsec.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#794 - 2016-03-11 13:13:13 UTC
There's no point in continuing to discuss this with you, you're clearly very inexperienced in the markets. And I say that as someone who merely dabbles.

If you think other traders cannot interfere with you, I have a bridge to sell you.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#795 - 2016-03-11 13:16:08 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
No, it doesn't. It's 100% safe and 100% free to the same system. There is no risk of asset loss in k space. Absolutely zero and in empire even paying that 10% will be so unlikely as to be able to be completely ignored.
It's 100% safe now, but it won't be once you're trading in a citadel. While there's no risk of a full loss of assets in kspace, there's certainly a risk of having to pay 10% to recover them, which is a significant risk.
Not really.
Oh, well that's a bit silly. Asset recovery to the same system should incur at least a small cost if it happens while the citadel is reinforced or destroyed. You'd still lose your brokers fees for stripping all the items off the market though and have to pay again to relist them elsewhere, so the risk is still not zero.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#796 - 2016-03-11 13:20:08 UTC
Any questions at all?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#797 - 2016-03-11 13:21:37 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
No, it doesn't. It's 100% safe and 100% free to the same system. There is no risk of asset loss in k space. Absolutely zero and in empire even paying that 10% will be so unlikely as to be able to be completely ignored.
It's 100% safe now, but it won't be once you're trading in a citadel. While there's no risk of a full loss of assets in kspace, there's certainly a risk of having to pay 10% to recover them, which is a significant risk.
Not really.
Oh, well that's a bit silly. Asset recovery to the same system should incur at least a small cost if it happens while the citadel is reinforced or destroyed. You'd still lose your brokers fees for stripping all the items off the market though and have to pay again to relist them elsewhere, so the risk is still not zero.



Yeah it depends if there were any to start with, but the risk is really pretty tiny.

Like I say, this is a stealth isk sink, people will continue to use the main hubs in empire for the foreseeable future.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#798 - 2016-03-11 13:28:26 UTC
MachineOfLovingGrace wrote:
It makes a very real psychological difference. And in the long term it concentrates ISK on the biggest piles, and in the real world that's a bad thing for everybody (except the owner of that biggest piles, of course).
It only makes a psychological difference if you get upset by other people having more stuff than you. Why is it a bad thing? How does Bill Gates being rich negatively impact you other than by making you sad that you aren't that rich? At worst it's of no impact to you and at best those rich people use that big pile of money to help causes they believe in, often helping the poorest people.

MachineOfLovingGrace wrote:
No. I just think it's a bad idea to mimic reality completely, because then why the hell would I play that game? I already have a reality, and it's going to be better than any game possible. It's just making the whole idea of a game obsolete.
Because it allows you to roleplay a character in a a way you wouldn't or even couldn;t in real life due to legal and technical limitations or associated risks. Why do you think people play GTA when they could just go out and steal a car or modern warfare when they could just join the army? And while some systems are designed to more closely mirror reality, the lore, setting and technology available does not.

MachineOfLovingGrace wrote:
What service? It's an NPC station. Nobody is doing anything. It's a completely arbitrary sum for a databas entry no player is providing. It's like adding a undocking fee, so the citadel owners can be competitive with NPC stations and make a profit.
No person is, but the system is till providing that service. Why do you pay a brokers fee at all? Why do you pay to install the clone? Why do you pay isk when exchanging you LP? Th costs are needed to balance the game. They are splitting it out so people do provide the service and so need to increase the costs to give the players a healthy margin for providing the services that NPC were willing to do for unreasonably low sums or free.

Never think within the context of the game when doing game design!


MachineOfLovingGrace wrote:
Who is being punished here? I don't understand your point at all here, sorry. Is it really so hard to understand people are unhappy when they are being - well if not forced, then pushed to basically pay taxes to the big guys for playing this game?
You're suggesting that people with more isk shouldn't be given the opportunities to use that to make more. If you have 1 million and I have 1 billion and we both make a trade which increase our value by 20%, I make more isk. Having that any other way would be punishing to the player with more isk as they are being denied opportunities just because yo uthink they'r rich enough already.

And yes, it is hard to understand. If you had no idea that your money was going to a player, you'd be fine with it, so why does finding out you are making them money impact you other than by making you jealous you're not making that? And how have you used the market up until now, because pretty much everything you buy will be making someone money, more often than not a veteran player.

MachineOfLovingGrace wrote:
Why are you so hung up on the ISK thing, i don't care about the immediate ISK changes. I'm worried about the long term changes this games is taking.

"Let's make the citadel overlords happy. Hm, but then we'll have too much fun in this game... hm... well, gotta annoy the rest of the players then, I guess!". I don't get it.
Because that's what you're talking about here. You're complaining that rich people will make isk and you want to pay an NPC instead so they don't.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#799 - 2016-03-11 13:32:58 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Yeah it depends if there were any to start with, but the risk is really pretty tiny.

Like I say, this is a stealth isk sink, people will continue to use the main hubs in empire for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps, but I have to ask, if you think there's zero risk no and basically no risk from a citadel, why would players continue to use the main hubs if a citadel offers them the same service for lower fees? It would seem to me the only reason to not use a citadel in the inherent risk of doing so. I can tell you for one as a trader with a shocking amount of isk invested in the market that there's no way I'll be putting everything into citadels.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#800 - 2016-03-11 13:34:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
I wonder where Lucas would be on these issues were he not one of the people who stands to gain the most from them.

Can we stop with the spaghetti quoting, since it's deeply counter-productive to a coherent argument.

Also, any questions for CCP?