Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I'm wagering on that because It's the hassle factor for the sellers/haulers and the lazy factor for the buyers. A single huge hub is just easier for everyone. Decentralised citadels would be less popular as a result. I certainly can't be bothered running 5-10 jumps back and forth to 3 different places over a few million difference and anyone I know feels the same way.

You'll know yourself people pay over the odds for convenience and that is what a main massive market hub provides.

What NPC stations provide is complete stability.

I should perhaps rephrase, whilst there is no risk of loss (this is typically the definition of risk used here, risk of loss) using a citadel, what there is the risk of is mighty hassle and inconvenience.

My money is on the sellers passing the fees onto the buyers who will happily pay it for the convenience.

If someone did set up a massive hub and people started using it, someone else might set up a cheaper one, someone might set one up for lols only to tear it down to disrupt the market for a week or so whilst stuff is impounded, someone might quit even and the fuel stops.


So whilst there is no risk of asset loss, there is a risk of inconvenience of varying levels for both sellers and buyers. None of this is present via stations and nor should it ever be - this is not a job and it should never become one.

That is why I believe this is simply a thinly veiled isk sink - which is fine.

I'm already not. I don't plan on owning a citadel, and if SMA or the Imperium owns one the only place I'm likely to see any benefit is in SRP, but most of the time I don't file for SRP because I have plenty of isk and filling out forms bores me. So I'll gain nothing either way, but I'll certainly pay more in fees on the several thousand active orders I have at any one time.

I wonder why people always leap to the assumption that because I have an SMA tag that every decision I make is based out of some desire to benefit myself (and often seem to feel they have an automatic unbiased opinion). I push for changes that negatively impact me as much as I'm pushing for ones that positively impact me as I base it on the merits of the change, not on the impact it has on me directly. If I were looking to benefit myself here I'd be against increasing the cost of trading significantly. I in fact would rather see them add more risk, such as the recovery fee added if citadels are reinforced or destroyed when you recover your inventory to the same system.

It's the fact that I've never seen you advocating for a change which punishes your group and the fact that you turn up as a spoiler commentator for almost every discussion I see you in that makes me doubt you're in it for the health of the game.

Which is what we're really discussing here: a disagreement on how the game is to proceed. We all, I'm sure, agree with CCP Seagull that the game's ecosystem is unhealthy, but we disagree on the reasons why it is, and the treatment for it.

So you think that handing control to the players will make the game healthier, and I think that that's a reason it's currently unhealthy. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong and you're right, but it's also entirely possible that I'm right and you're wrong.

It'd be nice to see you admit the latter rather than hammering on the former.

And, once again, do you have any questions for CCP viz. function, structure, organisation or funding of Citadels?

Well then you've not looked hard enough. I supported the drone assist nerf, the jump distance changes and the sov changes (to an extent). I'm even an active advocate for anti-ganking improvements and nerfs to ganking, and that is something which is so against my group I've been expelled from the miniluv Imperium group and had my membership to SMA threatened.

Yup, we are, and I strongly believe the game will be healthier with more risk to trading and more player controlled mechanics with suitable conflict mechanics to go with them.

Sure, there's every chance I'm completely wrong and that it would be horrifically damaging to the game, but my opinion remains. That's what we do here, we voice our opinions and we debate the potential benefits and pitfalls and CCP use that and their own design direction to shape the game. None of us can be declared to be right or wrong until we actually see the results. Everyone tends to be fairly opinionated here (myself definitely included) and we all pretty much state our opinions as if they are fact, but hopefully most of us know that they are just opinions.

Not particularly, I think they've been pretty clear about how they want it to work thus far. Like I say, the only part I'd question is around the recovery of assets to stations in the same system being free if the citadel is destroyed or reinforced. There should be an associated cost to everyone with assets in the station if it gets blown up (or if we evac just before it blows up).

I am too poor to run a citadel, and honestly, I couldn't be bothered to invest that much time. I'm just saying "Hey, CCP, don't forget some people do not play this game excessively, please don't overdo the whole player control thing".



I think the timer is a very good cost already. The 100K now does not accomplish anything, the higher cost will not accomplish anything besides limiting gameplay and adding hassle. It does not add anything for the average pilot.



Well, yes. And to some extend that is already a problem (just attack me constantly long enough, and the GMs will tell you why ;)). I'm arguing from the position of the casual guy who undocks for a few hours a week.

I believe the rule is that harassment without rationale (ransom/ knocking down poses/whatever) is petition-able.

Again, it's more the direction the game design is taking that the this immediate changes. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

[quoteIt adds a cost which makes you decide if you really need to jump. there are pointless costs in this game, like setting up a corporation for example which seem to have no purpose beyond being a token amount so it's not zero. I see no reason for beneficial mechanics to have a more relevant cost.[/quote]

And all these pointless costs should be eliminated as well.



If you do it long enough, I certainly hope the GMs will tell you to knock it off after a while.

I mean, this is always the problem with any game where people with different options/perspectives play together in one sandbox. To have some disruptive power over others is fine, but at some point it becomes too much. We apparently have different opinions about when this happens.

.

Current is 1%, new is 5%, modified by skills, so .75 to 3.75. Where's the 14 coming from?

.