Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

You're confusing "your opinion" with "the majority opinion."

"To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels. "

I don't think it's enough of a confusion to warrant this. Also, this proposal introduces another confusion for the citadel owner: Is my broker fee competitive? The citadel owners must consider the skill level of the traders, and look up how much each level is worth, and do the math, to figure out if they are competitive with the NPCs.

I propose: Broker relations always works, and:
When the citadel owner is setting the rate, the interface where the rate is set also shows the rate for different levels of broker relations, so, no surprises.

I may be way off base but....I read that "7 Bil is not that much..." as sarcasm.

It's going to hurt areas that are poorly populated or far away from markets, at least at first, because they aren't going to be the target for new builds of citadels until more populated regions get them first, and the ones that will be built will most likely be the smaller, more easily destroyed versions. There are some regions in null that take 4-5 jump freighter jumps (if you're lucky) to even get into the region from high-sec. Makes building something like an extra-large citadel slightly more difficult.

As well, there's going to be a lot of dickery in null and especially in low-sec where people are most likely going to be offing citadels and their eggs left and right, unless you happen to be in a large, well-protected alliance or coalition. Not the best place to sell goods, even if you don't lose actual goods. Having (somewhat) stable sectors to actually sell goods and services without charging an arm and a leg to use the services will be important. There's already a good amount of risk from keeping goods in stations in null, because you risk losing all access to them.

Also, charging 5m per jump is just ludicrously bad, and encourages players to not move around. Considering the "bunker" mentality we already have in place today, is that something you really want to encourage?

The heck? Of course that is a completely "made up number". There may be an existing cost to fuel in game, but how much fuel the clone service module requires is itself a "made up number". If you multiply an arbitrary number (the required amount of fuel) by some known number (the cost of fuel), then the result is still an arbitrary number.

But they, let's keep this simple. I have just invented this device, I call it the "Agionator". What it does is to lower the fuel consumption of the cloning module by a factor of hundred. I will allow the Upwell Consortium and other interested parties to add an "Agionator" to every cloning bay they construct in their citadels. This will lower running costs to about 1.57M per month. All I ask is that they pay a one-off fee off 10b ISK to me, and they will gain the rights to use this fantastic tech as they please in as many citadels as they want.

Yep. This is pretty much, we can't figure out a way that makes Citadels attractive to own other than as something big to buy and to place a flag somewhere, so let's make normal stations worse. Terrible, lazy, and boring design. Make Citadels worth owning, rather than making stations bad for people. NPC stations (and or Freeports) make the game healthy - where they exist, there is a varied content ecosystem, where they don't you get stagnation. This is a huge step back from removing clone costs, and is a huge disincentive to actually playing the game. 5 million is not really that much, but I anticipate this will cost me about ~225m isk a month.

More player control, sure, its a good thing and it fits into the lore and game play narratives that you guys are spinning now. Great. but you should do that without ruining the existing tools. If anything, you should buff certain NPC null stations to make them more attractive for living in - the very fact that they offer stable footholds in some sov areas to stage from ensures a healthy sov content ecosystem for many jumps in every direction, whereas without that, when players can make too much safety a thing and exerting too much control a bad thing, making sov just more stagnation.

You walk a very dangerous line here. You should be fully aware that one or two NPC stations or Freeports can take a desolate region and turn it into a content rich player driven fun zone. When you give players too much control, particularly malevolent entities, content opportunities just stop and the game becomes stale and boring. GIVE people more tools, don't take away the tools we already have or make then punitive.






It would be really cool if people had a reason to set up hubs in NPC null where trading could be more lucrative, and the 'cost of living' was much lower. This would spur content, and be a good thing, then the mechanic would be not as punishing, and at least have a good risk/reward paradigm.

You want the Citadel expansion to be associated with a positive sentiment, right? Think about your plans then ...

People will not just move trillions of trade volume to something only remotely unsafe, and bend their knees to one of the super powers in New Eden to get docking rights. Only Imperium and Co. will be able to maintain a large enough market to be worth and able to replace Jita, Amarr, etc. People will rage, get unhappy and quit. Also the jump clone usage tax is a PvP tax, exactly this, do you want this?

My proposal to support Citadels are the follows:
- let people swap clones without timer only in Citadels (believe me, this is already a very good reason to use Citadels over NPC stations) and the owner can charge a fee for that special service
- a) Keep trade taxes as they are and see what happens, adapt later if needed. b) Keep NPC taxes as they are in empire space (high,low), and increase only in NPC null and for starbases. See what happens and adapt.

New Eden's life support is a liquid, concentrated market, accessible and affordable to everybody. With a fragmented market, controlled by the big coalitions/alliances most will lose, few will win. CCP, keep the sovereignity game to nullsec.

The way I read this:

1. I fly to an NPC station and install a jump clone. I pay 5m ISK.
2. I fly to an NPC station and jump to my previously installed jump clone somewhere else. I pay 5m ISK.
3. I jump from my player station to my previously installed JC in an NPC station, I pay no ISK.

Suits me...

You wrong on 3. - You pay what the station owners sets it to be.


And so that the owner can charge you 1-2 mill and you don't feel bad about it CCP is bumping/adding NPC Costs.

This makes little sense. Surely it should be the broker fee that is constant (with citadels paying a lower rate) and then the transaction tax can be controlled and collected by the owner.

After all the brokers are entities in their own right and so it makes no sense that another player can collect the broker fee; the transaction tax on the other hand is simply an arbitrary tax and so it makes sense that this should go to the owner.

You might consider this a small point but little details like this matter if you want a game which is believable.