These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#1161 - 2016-03-16 04:21:14 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:


[snip]

That is not a benefit if he is in a dead end system with no traffic. There will not be enough people to justify this. He may not use any alts.

[snip]


So? I used to live in Cloud Ring and did invention out there with little in the way of taxes and Fees. Fozzie sove screwed me over on that. Look on the map where my alliance lives now. I had to adapt. So will Drago. It is the way of Eve.

That is taken out of context. All I said was Drago would not necessarily benefit when Lucas said he would.

Missile Rebalance
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1162 - 2016-03-16 04:33:15 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:

Maybe you do not think you are speaking for the Devs but "It is not the Dev's problem" can give the wrong message. In case you think I am pissed, I'm not. I want as many people as possible to play and enjoy this game with me. On that point, HTFU as a slogan was probably not the best idea. It is too easy to hide behind as a excuse for a Dev and can remove accountability. This game requires you to adapt to other players, but forcing players to adapt to bad changes made by developers will eventually alienate everyone. I am going to stop there because I do not want to start a long irrelevant debate.


Have you not been playing the game? HTFU has always been the slogan. This is a game about emergent behavior. How you can get spontaneous order. If anything quite a bit of the game mechanics actually lag what the players are themselves doing. Players figured out ways to live in NS before their were POS. They figured out how to move large amounts of stuff into NS before their were jump freighters. Look at the concept of coalitions...players pretty much created that out of whole clothe with damn little from the Devs. And yes, from time-to-time the Devs will step in an change things.

As for this being a bad change, I'm sorry it is a handful of very vocal players, IMO, that are saying that. There are plenty of reasons to make stations and outposts destructible. And if that is true in NS/LS why not make it true in HS? The reason for the tax increase is probably to provide a greater ISK sink. I'm fine with that. As for the borker's fee it is to provide an incentive to use citadels in HS. I hope Anhenka is right in that it brings a degree of meta-gaming and drama and conflict to HS that is sorely needed. That people want to set up citadels to try and capture some of that ISK that is there for the taking...along with wars and treachery and awesome stories to read about and even take part in.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1163 - 2016-03-16 04:39:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Khan Wrenth
On jump clone fees specifically, I am still of the belief that they are petty, inane, and ignorant. I shall illustrate this with an analogy.

I walk down a road to work. I walk this road for years. Then, today, as I'm walking down this road, there's a toll booth. The man inside won't let me pass without paying a nominal fee. After arguing with him for a while, he reveals why this toll booth was set up: Lamborghinis have just been imported to the country for the first time. To make sure that Lamborghinis sell, the local government decided that I should pay a toll for using this road...BUT! Lamborghini owners can cross this road all they like, without having to pay the toll.

The man at the toll booth tells me that I too, can buy a Lamborghini if I do not wish to pay the toll. Or, I can carpool with someone who owns a Lamborghini and chip in for the gas.

Frankly, I'd rather just impeach the government representatives who voted in favor of this inane idea, and elect a new congress to represent me.

If a Lamborghini owner, or a potential future Lamborghini owner, cannot afford the car without carpooling, that's his problem. If the Lamborghini owner does not have enough friends to already carpool with him, that's his problem. If the Lamborghini owner insists on driving his vehicle and making a profit off it, that's his problem to solve, not mine.

People can buy Lamborghinis because they plan on racing them, showing them off at car shows, picking up potential mates, because they are collectors, because they are a status symbol, because it's a life goal of theirs, or whatever. There's a thousand good reasons someone might buy a Lamborghini, trying to make a profit off of the passenger seat is not one of them.

Jump clone fees do not make me want to make the outlandish purchase of a citadel. They do not make me want to install a clone inside a citadel. They do not make me want to pressure my alliance to create a citadel. And those fees never will. Because such fees and taxes will utterly break the game long before they become large enough to create such an incentive. Anything short of that and they lose their point (see: inane), and that results in us just being taxed simply for the sake of being taxed. That is absolutely petty. I won't be driven into using a citadel by way of taxes, and if CCP believes that works, that makes it completely ignorant.

I call into question the idea that trade hubs can or should be within citadels in highsec. Increasing taxes on transactions to combat inflation seems fine to me, since you're taxing the creation or transfer of wealth (jump cloning is completely unrelated to that, which is why I am fine with trade tax increases but not jump clone fees). I've been through this thread over the course of a few weeks, but I do not recall seeing an actual gameplay need for a trade hub to be in a player station other than "well that'd be cool, that's why!". If there is a good argument to be made for it, I'm sure Teckos Pech or Anhenka will have that answer, because they seem to be pretty spot-on and level-headed through this thread. Maybe a reason has been given already, and maybe I missed it, but right now it feels like making sure there's a good point to this was missed somewhere along the development cycle.

I call into question the idea that citadels absolutely must operate at a profit. If citadels are to replace POS's in concept, and POS's are already littering highsec, low, and null, then what further motivation do you need to create one? Apparently there is already enough desire to build and operate them regardless of profit or other bells and whistles that are being tacked on. If someone can't operate a citadel without going broke, then he shouldn't have built what he couldn't afford to lose.

I even call into question the thinking that highsec L and XL citadels absolutely must be a thing. With certain exceptions noted ahead of time, highsec Titans are not a thing, nor would they have a need to operate at a profit even if they were. If capitals, bombs, and bubbles are toys to be played with outside of highsec specifically as an incentive to leave highsec, then why do citadels (specifically L and XL) need to be in highsec at all?

Beating the playerbase gratuitously with sticks just for the sake of doing so, and hoping we use the new completely unrelated content you're shipping, is a ****-poor way of going about this. All this is doing is creating resentment for your new developments instead of eager anticipation. I'll find plenty of reasons myself to dock at citadels that are built in highsec. I'll see what they offer, check out their markets, enjoy the look of the structure and the cool detail the art teams put into it. But if the developers think they should take turns beating me with a stick and expecting me to be happy about it, then I think we need to find new developers.

Quick edit: really? Your software has let through dozens of curse words over the last few weeks, but non-vulgar slang for urine is censored?

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1164 - 2016-03-16 04:44:43 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:


[snip]

That is not a benefit if he is in a dead end system with no traffic. There will not be enough people to justify this. He may not use any alts.

[snip]


So? I used to live in Cloud Ring and did invention out there with little in the way of taxes and Fees. Fozzie sove screwed me over on that. Look on the map where my alliance lives now. I had to adapt. So will Drago. It is the way of Eve.

That is taken out of context. All I said was Drago would not necessarily benefit when Lucas said he would.


My point is that as the Dev's change the game it will impact players. You have to adapt to this. You can come here and whine about, but don't expect much more than people to point and laugh. That is the other aspect of this game. Your tears...they fuel my ships. Roll

How about this, if that system is working so well for Drago...drop a large citadel and try to bring more people there to take advantage of the system and the surrounding systems. Whether they join his corp/group or not just get them there using his citadel so he can money that way and still do what he has been doing. Or if that doesn't work, then move to another system.

The game changes. Always has, always will. You either adapt with it, don't and suffer the consequences or quit.

Perhaps you should consider the game from a wider perspective.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1165 - 2016-03-16 06:08:25 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:


Jump clone fees do not make me want to make the outlandish purchase of a citadel. They do not make me want to install a clone inside a citadel. They do not make me want to pressure my alliance to create a citadel. And those fees never will. Because such fees and taxes will utterly break the game long before they become large enough to create such an incentive. Anything short of that and they lose their point (see: inane), and that results in us just being taxed simply for the sake of being taxed. That is absolutely petty. I won't be driven into using a citadel by way of taxes, and if CCP believes that works, that makes it completely ignorant.


Holy red herring batman. Smile

You don't have to purchase a citadel to dodge jump clone fees. Just go put a jump clone in a citadel near where you want to have a jump clone.

I don't think it will break the game to be quite honest. We have had things like the introduction of PI which was a significant shake up, IMO. We have had other changes as well, some good and some bad that were significant. The introduction of the T2 BPO lottery was a big mistake, but didn't break the game. The change to T2 components that made technetium more prominent was a big mistake. But the game survived. If anything this is kinda like having to pay for medical clones and the game thrived for years under that mechanic...although a step back to that is probably a bit disappointing.

Somebody suggested a SP limit for clone jumping like 5-10 million SP no JC fee. How about a time and SP limit. For the first 6 months or until you 10 million SP you pay no JC fee. This way cyno alts, or hauling alts will still have to pay since they'll pass the 6 month period even if they stop at 9,999,999 SP. But a new player will have 6 months to build up his wealth/ISK so that the fee is not so burdensome.

Quote:
I call into question the idea that trade hubs can or should be within citadels in highsec. Increasing taxes on transactions to combat inflation seems fine to me, since you're taxing the creation or transfer of wealth (jump cloning is completely unrelated to that, which is why I am fine with trade tax increases but not jump clone fees). I've been through this thread over the course of a few weeks, but I do not recall seeing an actual gameplay need for a trade hub to be in a player station other than "well that'd be cool, that's why!". If there is a good argument to be made for it, I'm sure Teckos Pech will have that answer, because he seems to be pretty spot-on and level-headed through this thread. Maybe a reason has been given already, and maybe I missed it, but right now it feels like making sure there's a good point to this was missed somewhere along the development cycle.


Well let's see. If players start competing for trade citadels we could have quite a bit more drama and combat in HS. I think that is a good thing. Shake up a boring a sclerotic HS. Putting more of the economy into the hands of the players? A good thing, CCP has been doing this since the game started.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1166 - 2016-03-16 07:19:16 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:


I call into question the idea that citadels absolutely must operate at a profit. If citadels are to replace POS's in concept, and POS's are already littering highsec, low, and null, then what further motivation do you need to create one? Apparently there is already enough desire to build and operate them regardless of profit or other bells and whistles that are being tacked on. If someone can't operate a citadel without going broke, then he shouldn't have built what he couldn't afford to lose.


A citadel will be more than just a POS. It will duplicate in many ways the functions of NPC stations and outposts. And most things in the game work because they turn a profit. The profit motive is a powerful motive. It leads to the minimization of costs and via competition it makes most things better.

Quote:
I even call into question the thinking that highsec L and XL citadels absolutely must be a thing. With certain exceptions noted ahead of time, highsec Titans are not a thing, nor would they have a need to operate at a profit even if they were. If capitals, bombs, and bubbles are toys to be played with outside of highsec specifically as an incentive to leave highsec, then why do citadels (specifically L and XL) need to be in highsec at all?


I don't follow the logic here. Yeah sure titans are not allowed in HS, but the idea with citadels is that they're designed to replace or at least compete with NPC stations. So having all 3 sizes makes sense to me. Further, I agree with Anhanka that these could shake up HS quite a bit bringing much more to HS in terms of conflict and drama. I suppose if you just like logging in and minning for 2-3 hours while watching Netfix that is not such a big deal, but I think revitalizing HS and making it more dynamic and interesting could be a good thing.

Granted I am coming at it from the perspective of a NS player so I could be wrong. But right now war decs are easily avoided, you just dock up and bore them to death. Now if you put a citadel on the field you may have to do something besides just dock up and then find yourself in the nearest NPC station. That could happen, but I'd find that unfortunate. I'd much rather HS players find ways to defend their citadels somewhat more proactively.

This is where the idea of a trade alliance could come in very handy. With a large enough trade alliance or with enough profits from the citadel hiring mercenaries actually undocking and fighting could be a thing. And the defender does have some advantages. First, you'll have the guns/weapons from the citadel. You can always dock up provided you can live long enough for your timers to expire.

Quote:
Beating the playerbase gratuitously with sticks just for the sake of doing so, and hoping we use the new completely unrelated content you're shipping, is a ****-poor way of going about this. All this is doing is creating resentment for your new developments instead of eager anticipation. I'll find plenty of reasons myself to dock at citadels that are built in highsec. I'll see what they offer, check out their markets, enjoy the look of the structure and the cool detail the art teams put into it. But if the developers think they should take turns beating me with a stick and expecting me to be happy about it, then I think we need to find new developers.


I don't think they are beating anyone with sticks just for ***** and giggles. One could argue the same thing with Fozzie sov and jump fatigue. However, looking at players online things were flattening out. Things needed to be shaken up...were jump fatigue and Fozzie sov the right ways to do that...IDK. But it sure has resulted in a map that is a much greater patchwork of alliances than we have seen in a long time.....

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#1167 - 2016-03-16 07:33:13 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Nice; Lucas you have a fan boy, he too agrees there is no place in Eve for small groups, everyone must aspire to be a goon.


Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension? I wrote no such thing. But I don't see why small groups should be exempt from having to adapt to changes in the game than anyone else. If a group refuses to modify their game play as the game changes...well why is that my concern or even CCP's?


Do you even know what this discussion started about?

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1168 - 2016-03-16 07:49:36 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
That is not true. A high sec POS for reprocessing can be torn down before a war dec kicks in. There is very little risk involved.
True I suppose, but if you are making your decisions around being able to rip it down if even threatened with attack you probably shouldn't have a POS. plus you have to bes sure yu are always available to tear it down. Additionally I don;t know the rules on tearing down a citadel but I imagine it won't be impossible

GreyGryphon wrote:
That is not a benefit if he is in a dead end system with no traffic. There will not be enough people to justify this. He may not use any alts.
A benefit is a benefit even if he chooses to not use it. He definitely has at least one, he stated as much.

GreyGryphon wrote:
I have always seen EVE as a sandbox. If the game were perfect you would only have to adapt to what other players do instead of changes in the game. Regardless, I believe you might have stated that these changes will not really affect your playstyle, so let people give their perspective on how it might change theirs. Then let the devs decide what they feel is important.
Well that's just not EVE.

And no, I stated that these will obviously affect my playstyle as a trader, I'm simply willing to adapt to the changes instead of sitting around demanding things stay the same. People are welcome to their opinions, but when they are being unreasonable they can expect me to call them out on it.

GreyGryphon wrote:
There should be very few "requirements" in a sandbox. That is idealistic like perfection, but it is still something to strive for. The point I am trying to make is that the game should be fun and accessible for as many as possible. It seems you are only looking at this from only the alliance perspective.
No, that's not what a sandbox is. Ensuring all content is available to every player is very much a themepark ideology. A complete true sandbox would very much be the opposite as all content would be created by the players and so there would be no mechanics to protect individuals from big groups. I'm certainly not only looking at it from the alliance perspective, I'm simply looking at it from the perspective that this is a multiplayer game and if you choose to cripple yourself by playing alone you will fall behind.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#1169 - 2016-03-16 08:06:52 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
The changes to reprocessing seem a little strange. I would like to see medium < large < XL, but I do not think reprocessing bands achieve that. If all T1 (52%) and T2 (55%) rigs all have the same bonuses regardless of size, then why not build two medium citadels instead of one large citadel. The ISK investment would be lower that way for basically the same result.

The rigs should have better reprocessing efficiency as they grow in size to reward building a larger citadel. Then small groups would be able to use a medium citadel for all ores but at a lower efficiency. If they group grew then they would be able to build a large citadel to reach a higher efficiency.


I think the efficiency should be the same in any Citadel in the same space, as things stand that is.

The bonus is handed out in rigs and this my argument.

A small group cannot use a medium for full efficiency for all ore and ice because some bright spark decided they would need 4 separate rigs, and yeah, only 3 slots are available. So 2 Medium Citadels would be required or a Large which only uses 2 rig slots for full efficiency for all ores and ice. An xl only needs 1 rig slot for full refining efficiency.

L and XL also get bonuses via more module slots, not via a % increase but by simply being able to do and fit more. Thats fine.

At present estimates you could be looking at ~10bn for a Large Citadel, that price would be out of my reach.

Some one mentioned a drilling platform coming out, I am presuming that it's going to be for mining/refining/compression? Maybe a lot of us will have to wait for that becoming more clear to decide what to do.

One thing has become abundantly clear though, if these are not taken up like poses, compressed ore availability will drop sharply.


Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1170 - 2016-03-16 08:07:56 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Lucas; A medium Citadel under the current proposal is only available for corp use (and a pretty small one at that) . So refining taxes would more than likely be set at zero so the corp remains viable. From that zero tax, each member pays a share of the upkeep. This way the guy who mines religiously is not paying more than the guy who mines less.
I haven't seen anything restricting the medium to corp only, but if that's the case it's dumb. either way though, if refining amounts were increased in bigger citadels there would still be no point using a 55% medium with zero tax over using a 57% large with 1% tax.

Khan Wrenth wrote:
On jump clone fees specifically, I am still of the belief that they are petty, inane, and ignorant. I shall illustrate this with an analogy.

I walk down a road to work. I walk this road for years. Then, today, as I'm walking down this road, there's a toll booth. The man inside won't let me pass without paying a nominal fee. After arguing with him for a while, he reveals why this toll booth was set up: Lamborghinis have just been imported to the country for the first time. To make sure that Lamborghinis sell, the local government decided that I should pay a toll for using this road...BUT! Lamborghini owners can cross this road all they like, without having to pay the toll.

The man at the toll booth tells me that I too, can buy a Lamborghini if I do not wish to pay the toll. Or, I can carpool with someone who owns a Lamborghini and chip in for the gas.

Frankly, I'd rather just impeach the government representatives who voted in favor of this inane idea, and elect a new congress to represent me.
Or you can walk down the longer non-toll roads.

Effectively though you're analogy still boils down to the same issue, which is that the rules are changing and you are disgruntled because it's not as easy or cheap as it used to be. That certainly doesn't mean there's not incredible benefits to the introduction of Lamborghinis or a direct need to make your road a toll road. At this point I'd see you as the guy saying "While I've benefited a lot this government just made one single choice I disagree with. GET RID OF THEM ALL!"

Khan Wrenth wrote:
Jump clone fees do not make me want to make the outlandish purchase of a citadel. They do not make me want to install a clone inside a citadel. They do not make me want to pressure my alliance to create a citadel. And those fees never will. Because such fees and taxes will utterly break the game long before they become large enough to create such an incentive.
They don't make you want to but they will make other players want to. And if they go ahead with the plans I imagine they are steering towards you probably will use a citadel for clones when they scrap the facilities at NPC stations. I'm not really getting how you got to "they will break the game" though I'll be honest.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1171 - 2016-03-16 08:19:08 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
I think the efficiency should be the same in any Citadel in the same space, as things stand that is.
So is this confirmation of what I was saying earlier? That if CCP offered a solution allowing you to refine everything in one medium citadel but limiting you to the same 52% you have in your POS you'd not do that because other people can get 55%?

Drago Shouna wrote:
At present estimates you could be looking at ~10bn for a Large Citadel, that price would be out of my reach.
Again though, this just tells me you are overextended in terms of what you mine. If 10b is out of your reach, then is doesn't sound like your operation is big enough that it forces to you spread to all types of ore, so you could just as easily limited the type of ore you can refine and make more isk doing so with just a single medium. Deciding that you must be able to refine everything is your choice, noone is forcing you to do that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#1172 - 2016-03-16 09:04:47 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Drago Shouna wrote:
I think the efficiency should be the same in any Citadel in the same space, as things stand that is.
So is this confirmation of what I was saying earlier? That if CCP offered a solution allowing you to refine everything in one medium citadel but limiting you to the same 52% you have in your POS you'd not do that because other people can get 55%?

Drago Shouna wrote:
At present estimates you could be looking at ~10bn for a Large Citadel, that price would be out of my reach.
Again though, this just tells me you are overextended in terms of what you mine. If 10b is out of your reach, then is doesn't sound like your operation is big enough that it forces to you spread to all types of ore, so you could just as easily limited the type of ore you can refine and make more isk doing so with just a single medium. Deciding that you must be able to refine everything is your choice, noone is forcing you to do that.


Lol no thats not what i'm saying, miners can get better efficiency simply by moving to ls/null, I'm about 4/5 jumps from ls/null, if I was desperate for more yield I could just move.

How do you work out overextended? I mine all ore types because I manufacture as well, so I need different minerals.

TI/II Ammo

TI/II Drones

TI/II Frigates

TI/II Modules

TI/II Mining Crystals

TI/II Industrials

TI/II Rigs

etc etc...

Not on a full time 24/7 level, but because I enjoy it, surplus ores get sold if I have any.

I have around 4bn in isk in the bank, that is more than sufficient for what I need, unlike you I'm not going all out to make as much isk as possible. Isk isn't everything, enjoying what you do in the game is.

Do me a favour and stop trying to make out that I must be playing "wrong" all the time.

I asked a simple question hoping for an answer from the devs, Why must I lose efficiency by moving from a pos to a Medium Citadel which was specifically designed for small operations/corps.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1173 - 2016-03-16 10:17:12 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Lol no thats not what i'm saying, miners can get better efficiency simply by moving to ls/null, I'm about 4/5 jumps from ls/null, if I was desperate for more yield I could just move.
Yet you haven't moved, which suggest you prefer highsec. Probably because of the security it provides.

Drago Shouna wrote:
How do you work out overextended? I mine all ore types because I manufacture as well, so I need different minerals.
Overextended because if you're not even depleting the available ore you wouldn't realistically need to mine all types. If you're mining to manufacture you'd achieve a much higher throughput by mining the most directly valuable ore, selling it and buying what you need. If you choose not to, that's fine, but it's your choice to play that way.

Drago Shouna wrote:
I have around 4bn in isk in the bank, that is more than sufficient for what I need, unlike you I'm not going all out to make as much isk as possible. Isk isn't everything, enjoying what you do in the game is.
Which is fine and I totally understand that, but why does that choice you are making entitle you to gaining the additional benefits of a citadel without the associated costs?

Drago Shouna wrote:
Do me a favour and stop trying to make out that I must be playing "wrong" all the time.
Not once have I said you are playing wrong, I've simply stated that your choices affect what you are able to do, and rather than just complain to CCP that they should shape the game to your choices perhaps you should adapt too.

Drago Shouna wrote:
I asked a simple question hoping for an answer from the devs, Why must I lose efficiency by moving from a pos to a Medium Citadel which was specifically designed for small operations/corps.
And the answer is simple, you gain more yield and other significant benefits from the citadel and a reduction in breadth is the cost of those benefits. Like you said there "specifically designed for small operations/corps", not "specifically designed for people mining all types of ore and refining/processing in a single hub".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1174 - 2016-03-16 10:59:25 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I think part of the overall problem is - People will be forming trade guilds and not only managing but dominating trade.
They won't redistribute wealth as only the wealthy will belong to these guilds.
Any trader not a member of a guild will end up paying fees equal to or fractionally below NPC stations, while the "guild" that owns the hub makes a nice profit.

There needs to be options to Xlarge Citadel, rich player dominated markets.


I'd like to know exactly what you consider to be the threshold where cooperation should bring positive results. Seriously. Not sarcasm here. This is something I'm entirely interested in understanding from your point of view.

You complain that trade guilds will form for the benefit of those in them. I'm totally with you so far, this is very likely. Groups of people in highsec will band together to operate and defend a trade citadel, and those in the group will gain the benefits of doing so. This sounds wonderful, people in highsec have always kept to their own small groups because there has been absolutely no benefit to forming larger groups, because it attracts wardecs like flies. But promoting group ownership of a Citadel encourages cooperation, drama, and conflict, which highsec could definitely benefit from, since there is little reason to form a cohesive group in highsec atm unless you plan on shortly moving to lowsec/nullsec/WH's soon. Greater exposure to wardeccs is just too much of a deterrent otherwise.

You complain that the Citadel holders will set a broker rate at one point for their members, and another for everyone else, so that it benefits their members. It's also entirely possible, but less likely than you might think. I'd expect that most citadel owners would tax their membership at the same or nearly the same low broker rate they have for the public, a sort of trading tax paid to the owner of the alliance to pay for operation expenses, like how ratting tax's and moongoo tax's and refining tax's in player SOV space help fund bills that need to be paid and pay for POS/Citadel Fuel. To do otherwise would risk driving off market people who view it as a reason why they can't successfully compete on the market there. It's just part of the group mentality that these sort of tax's are acceptable sides to the benefits that being a group brings.

That you seem to think that there has to be some way for an independent trader to trade at an equal footing with everyone, without working with one else, without being part of any group, and without benefiting anyone else, seems a bit odd. If a Citadel owner cannot benefit from the trade in his Citadel, why build one and open it to the public? How could the system work otherwise? Is protecting the rights of small independent traders who don't want to have to pay broker fee's to another player, but don't want to pay any higher broker fee's than anyone else a worthy reason to cripple the ability for a Citadel owner to benefit financially from trade in his Citadel? I'd really like to know the reasoning behind your arguments, cause I'm not seeing them.

Mainly though I question your assumption that there somehow there's no competition. That the only markets are those in the hands of massive Illuminati style trade guilds. Do you foresee there being only one trade Citadel in a region? That people wont choose to instead ship their stuff to far less expensive regional trade hubs, and shop there as well.

We already have over 90% of highsec trade driven through 4 systems, because people come to shop there. Will there be so little competition between trading groups at these hubs that Citadels with high brokers fee's will be able to stay in business when their competitors drop their broker fee's?

Or will the pressure of many competing trade groups with enough muscle to defend their citadels against any attack economically viable drive broker fees down toward a point where they can attract as much trade as possible while still making a profit?

I guess I just can't understand why you think public broker fee costs at all player citadels will be just under NPC's, in violation of every principle of a free and competitive market with minimal barriers to movement and shipment.

I'm not sure how you figure loose knit groups in highsec are suddenly going to team up and spend a few hundred billion isk building a Citadel, I may be wrong but most traders don't like sharing and I don't see this changing. The majority of traders are alts, can you really see those alts risking a wardec by joining an alliance so they can build a trade hub?

The groups who will run the "trade" groups are the same ones who run much of the game now - The wealthy few, who will set things up for their benefit and theirs alone.
If you don't belong to one of these groups you either trade from an npc station or pay for the privilege of operating out of one of the 3 or 4 possible player owned trade hubs in highsec.

As for lowsec, who is going to provide trade there with the added risk of it being lowsec - Highsec has wardecs and concord to protect it. Nulsec has vast areas of sov to protect a hub.
Lowsec, has what? a loss of security status, so any trade centre in lowsec would be run by a smaller group that is prepared to risk running and keeping it safe - My guess, they aren't going to want to risk a few hundred bill in an area that has less protection than standing in the middle of a six lane highway.
Therefore my argument is - Don't just hand the wealthy of Eve a golden handshake and **** on everyone else.

Quite simply, a dominating market place has no competition - CCP is removing any and all competition from Citadels and handing the wealthy a ticket to write their own wealth. When was the last time you saw a supermarket in a small town offer genuine discounts.
Market owners will base charges on competition - No competition higher charges, that's business.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#1175 - 2016-03-16 11:15:25 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
The changes to reprocessing seem a little strange. I would like to see medium < large < XL, but I do not think reprocessing bands achieve that. If all T1 (52%) and T2 (55%) rigs all have the same bonuses regardless of size, then why not build two medium citadels instead of one large citadel. The ISK investment would be lower that way for basically the same result.

The rigs should have better reprocessing efficiency as they grow in size to reward building a larger citadel. Then small groups would be able to use a medium citadel for all ores but at a lower efficiency. If they group grew then they would be able to build a large citadel to reach a higher efficiency.


Completely agreed - could easily incorporate the following elements too:

Simplified Reprocessing with extras

Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#1176 - 2016-03-16 11:17:57 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rob Kaichin wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Sometimes you need to punish. People will not leave the safety of NPC stations even with this tax, you need a rather large difference to get people to give up on huge safety.


I think we should forbid people docking in NPC stations if they have a negative faction standing, corp standing or security status. I think NPC stations should be forbidden to people who hold sovereignty. I think if your corporation standings to a faction are negative, you shouldn't be able to interact with anything in their space.

All of these are punishments that would force people to move to Citadels. All of them will be condemned roundly, I imagine, by Code. and null-sec alliances for being 'anti-sandbox'.



Higher taxes don't prevent you from using anything. It just add to the cost of doing so. Flat out preventing docking under certain condition DOES cut you from services. There is a HUGE difference there buddy.


No there isn't, CODE just need to build their own Citadel along with others in the same boat. Docking wouldn't be an issue then for standings penalties ;)

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1177 - 2016-03-16 11:33:46 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I'm not sure how you figure loose knit groups in highsec are suddenly going to team up and spend a few hundred billion isk building a Citadel
It would be tens of billions. Also it would only need to really be one group running it and paying others a cut of fees to help protect it.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I may be wrong but most traders don't like sharing and I don't see this changing.
Then they will suffer the repressions of being unwilling to cooperate with other players and adapt. Totally reasonable outcome.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
The groups who will run the "trade" groups are the same ones who run much of the game now - The wealthy few, who will set things up for their benefit and theirs alone.
But they'll only be able to do this because noone else is bothering.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Market owners will base charges on competition - No competition higher charges, that's business.
So compete...

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1178 - 2016-03-16 12:01:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
I'm not sure how you figure loose knit groups in highsec are suddenly going to team up and spend a few hundred billion isk building a Citadel
It would be tens of billions. Also it would only need to really be one group running it and paying others a cut of fees to help protect it.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
I may be wrong but most traders don't like sharing and I don't see this changing.
Then they will suffer the repressions of being unwilling to cooperate with other players and adapt. Totally reasonable outcome.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
The groups who will run the "trade" groups are the same ones who run much of the game now - The wealthy few, who will set things up for their benefit and theirs alone.
But they'll only be able to do this because noone else is bothering.

Sgt Ocker wrote:
Market owners will base charges on competition - No competition higher charges, that's business.
So compete...

I'm really sorry to say, your narrow minded bull has worn me down.
You'll have till xmas at least (before Xlarges are released) to carry on about how only the rich deserve a place in eve.

I'm out.

History (about 2 years from now) will see how this pans out - Eve will suffer from dominating groups cornering and manipulating markets and CCP will need to step in and "fix" something that got broken because of Devs short sighted, biased designing.

If the result is anything like fozziesov, it may not take 2 years, I am being generous in that some will at least continue to try and play with domintating market driven inflation pricing them out of the game.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1179 - 2016-03-16 12:23:53 UTC
If only spaghetti quoting was forbidden by forum rules, people would be able to advance an argument coherently.

Teckos wrote:
Just go put a jump clone in a citadel near where you want to have a jump clone.

Not convinced you read his post:
Khan wrote:
They do not make me want to install a clone inside a citadel.


These are all you: Teckos

Teckos wrote:
If players start competing for trade citadels we could have quite a bit more drama and combat in HS. I think that is a good thing. Shake up a boring a sclerotic HS.

Further, I agree with Anhanka that these could shake up HS quite a bit bringing much more to HS in terms of conflict and drama. I suppose if you just like logging in and minning for 2-3 hours while watching Netfix that is not such a big deal, but I think revitalizing HS and making it more dynamic and interesting could be a good thing.

But right now war decs are easily avoided, you just dock up and bore them to death. Now if you put a citadel on the field you may have to do something besides just dock up and then find yourself in the nearest NPC station. That could happen, but I'd find that unfortunate. I'd much rather HS players find ways to defend their citadels somewhat more proactively.

This is where the idea of a trade alliance could come in very handy. With a large enough trade alliance or with enough profits from the citadel hiring mercenaries actually undocking and fighting could be a thing. And the defender does have some advantages. First, you'll have the guns/weapons from the citadel. You can always dock up provided you can live long enough for your timers to expire.

Granted I am coming at it from the perspective of a NS player so I could be wrong.


How do you know Highsec is "boring, sclerotic," 'undynamic and uninteresting'? Are they from your exensive experience in Highsec, where you spend the majority of your time? Or are they just what you presume it to be? Have you even taken part in Highsec war-decs?

The same goes for Anhenka.

Rob Kaichin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1180 - 2016-03-16 12:24:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kaichin
Teckos wrote:
As for this being a bad change, I'm sorry it is a handful of very vocal players, IMO, that are saying that. There are plenty of reasons to make stations and outposts destructible. And if that is true in NS/LS why not make it true in HS?

Highsec isn't the place for vocal players: the people advocating for Highsec, bar Gevlon and Drago?, don't spend much of their time there. Highsec is for *casual* players, who play Eve for what Highsec offers them, not us. Making Highsec more like NS/LS is not what they want to be part of, nor what they want to play.

Let me tell you, "here are plenty of reasons to make stations and outposts destructible. And if that is true in NS/LS why not make it true in HS?" is very possibly the most absurd argument I've seen you make by a long, long way. Areas of space are unalike for good reason: they each have their own attractions.

We *know* that Highsec players aren't as invested in the game compared t us. They're people who don't read Devblogs, Forums or the like. The majority of Highsec players aren't 'vocal' at all. They need someone to fight their corner. Don't attribute their lack of action to general acceptance and agreement with the changes: it's likely they don't even know they're coming!
Khan wrote:
[T]hose fees never will. Because such fees and taxes will utterly break the game long before they become large enough to create such an incentive. Anything short of that and they lose their point (see: inane), and that results in us just being taxed simply for the sake of being taxed. That is absolutely petty. I won't be driven into using a citadel by way of taxes, and if CCP believes that works, that makes it completely ignorant.

I do not recall seeing an actual gameplay need for a trade hub to be in a player station other than "well that'd be cool, that's why!". If there is a good argument to be made for it, [It's yet to be seen in the thread].


I agree with both of these, and I echo their concerns.
Lucas and Teckos wrote:
(Lucas)
And it always will, but being an MMO, cooperation is a key requirement for some aspects of the game. It wouldn't be very MMO-like if everything could be accomplished solo or just with a group of mates. It's supposed to require a level of diplomacy. That doesn't mean everyone has to form up into giant coalitions, but it does mean that small groups need to cooperate if they want to excel. The day CCP stops that being a requirement is the day EVE dies.

And sure, sometimes the big guys gain more from a change than the little guys. That's the benefit of them having already gone through being the little guys and working out how to work with or against other players as required.

(Teckos)
If they don't want to grow over time, then that is their problem. They made a choice and now they have to deal with the consequences. If you want to stay small, then you'll have to adapt to these changes. Just as people have adapted to changes in the past.

Grey says it best:
Grey wrote:
This game has always allowed people to play alone or with groups. The distinction has always been that groups are granted modest benefits. Some people believe that these changes benefit larger groups too much.


I echo this too. Previously there were sections of Eve where players couldn't compete with NPCs: this enforced equality of a kind. Players could compete within NPC controls, but not outside of them ( in NPC stations). Transferring competition outside the bounds of regulation is not traditionally a recipe for health and success, at least in the long term.

This is about players being able to group together within the equal mechanics of NPC space. This breaks that system entirely.