These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1201 - 2016-03-16 20:46:02 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
Players who own a POS are 99% of the time miners/industrialists, who just want to refine and compress and manufacture.

If I bought a Citadel, I would have no interest in Clone Bays or ANYTHING ELSE.
Then build a citadel and do that. And adapt to the fact that citadels by their nature do more than just hat and thus require more to get the same output as a POS. I get it, you want to put in no effort, adapt to nothing get the benefits of a citadel including the extra 3% refine you repeatedly fail to acknowledge. Adapt or don't nobody cares, but sit around whining that you're not getting everything served to you is only going to guarantee you get a hostile response to your comments.

GreyGryphon wrote:
Tearing down a POS in highsec is common practice if you don't have the resources to defend or if you don't have any running jobs. Particularly if you are using a small instead of a medium or a large.
Yup, but that doesn't mean that's a good mechanic to keep without a cost. A citadel I imagine you can tear down too but lose the rigs.

GreyGryphon wrote:
I would like to make one distinction. Drago may not have the choice to use something that is a benefit because there is no opportunity given what he may be doing. You said Drago was overlooking benefits of citadels when maybe he wasn't because he couldn't take advantage of them.
Of course there's the opportunity. He's already stated he can made a medium, and there's no chance he I mining so much ice and ore that he can't achieve a higher rate of efficiency (thanks to the extra 3% refine) from a citadel than from a POS. Again, it's down to a refusal to adapt. Sure, he might not be able to do the exact same thing he currently does and achieve the exact same result, that's what happens when games change. But from the information he's given, he could easily adapt and do better. I have no time for players actively out to cripple themselves who then whine about how unfair it is.

GreyGryphon wrote:
I do not think it is "unreasonable" to say that the brokers fee is too high. Even the CSM thinks it is too high. I believe that brokers fees should rise, but this is too much.
Well on that we disagree. We'll see how CCP deals with that going forward.

GreyGryphon wrote:
Remember that "ensuring" content for players is very different than making content accessible. Most of the content in EVE is accessible even to single players. However, there are mechanics that reward groups so that single players can not compete in some areas. Trading is not an area that rewards playing in a group (its safer to handle all of your assets yourself). I understand your point of view, but not everyone wants to be required to join a group. Why do you feel that everyone must play according to your style in order to succeed?
Sure, and while trading doesn't specifically reward players n a group groups certainly can achieve more, and even as a solo trader you can make far more by engaging other players and making business contacts. I've at no point claimed everyone should join a group nor have I claimed that everyone should play my way, but solo players who refuse to even cooperate with other players (even if not by joining groups) can expect to fall behind.

Further, any attempt to specifically give solo players benefits will only give the same benefits to individual members of groups who will then be able to utilise their rewards to help each other. In that way it's basically impossible to give benefits to solo players over player who realise what MMO means even if CCP did lose their minds and try to do it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1202 - 2016-03-16 21:06:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
GreyGryphon wrote:
This is my second attempt.
    Maybe a second T2 rig should be added that would work for all ores and ice but at reduced efficiency.

  • Medium
  • Highsec T1-52% T2-55%(for each band) T2-53%(for all ore and ice) low/null T1-55% T2-60%(for each band) T2-57.0%(for all)

  • Large
  • Highsec T1-52% T2-55%(for each band) T2-54%(for all ore and ice) low/null T1-55% T2-60%(for each band) T2-58.5%(for all)

  • XL - already works for all ores and ice so there is no change
  • Highsec T1-52% T2-55% low/null T1-55% T2-60%
Could be an option, though I'd drop it to 50% or 51% and make two, one for or and one for ice. The problem with it being 53% for everything is that it pretty much invalidates the T1 rigs and conveys too much benefit as it's benefiting both in yield and scope.

Either way though the specialist T2 rigs would still outclass them so they'd probably have a low adoption rate. I can't imagine there's many industrial groups who only want to run a medium and want to mine all type of ore and ice for all four corners of the universe. I'm not even convinced Drago does either.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#1203 - 2016-03-16 21:42:48 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Yup, but that doesn't mean that's a good mechanic to keep without a cost. A citadel I imagine you can tear down too but lose the rigs.
I completely agree with what you said.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Again, it's down to a refusal to adapt. Sure, he might not be able to do the exact same thing he currently does and achieve the exact same result, that's what happens when games change. But from the information he's given, he could easily adapt and do better. I have no time for players actively out to cripple themselves who then whine about how unfair it is.
That is a bit harsh. You do not have to get exasperated from trying to moderate what goes on in this thread, and remember that not everyone in this thread is hell bent on not adapting. This thread is meant for players to voice their opinion. If someone feels that their playstyle is within the confines of how EVE is meant to be played then let them speak without berating them. No one gains anything from it.

I think it is silly to split up ice like they did. It should probably be split along the same lines as the ore if at all, but according to you I should just shut up and adapt (it doesn't really affect me btw). Why then should I try and give any feedback? If I make a comment someone might enlighten me.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I've at no point claimed everyone should join a group nor have I claimed that everyone should play my way, but solo players who refuse to even cooperate with other players (even if not by joining groups) can expect to fall behind.
That statement seems dangerously close to being a paradox. I see your point, but I would like to avoid pointlessly alienating people from this game.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Further, any attempt to specifically give solo players benefits will only give the same benefits to individual members of groups who will then be able to utilise their rewards to help each other. In that way it's basically impossible to give benefits to solo players over player who realise what MMO means even if CCP did lose their minds and try to do it.
I never said solo players need benefits. The game already gives benefits to groups not solo players, and I think that is fine. I do not want to see solo players completely ignored as an invalid playstyle.
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#1204 - 2016-03-16 21:59:04 UTC  |  Edited by: GreyGryphon
Lucas Kell wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:
This is my second attempt.
    Maybe a second T2 rig should be added that would work for all ores and ice but at reduced efficiency.

  • Medium
  • Highsec T1-52% T2-55%(for each band) T2-53%(for all ore and ice) low/null T1-55% T2-60%(for each band) T2-57.0%(for all)

  • Large
  • Highsec T1-52% T2-55%(for each band) T2-54%(for all ore and ice) low/null T1-55% T2-60%(for each band) T2-58.5%(for all)

  • XL - already works for all ores and ice so there is no change
  • Highsec T1-52% T2-55% low/null T1-55% T2-60%
Could be an option, though I'd drop it to 50% or 51% and make two, one for or and one for ice. The problem with it being 53% for everything is that it pretty much invalidates the T1 rigs and conveys too much benefit as it's benefiting both in yield and scope.

Either way though the specialist T2 rigs would still outclass them so they'd probably have a low adoption rate. I can't imagine there's many industrial groups who only want to run a medium and want to mine all type of ore and ice for all four corners of the universe. I'm not even convinced Drago does either.

  • When I say "for each band", I meant in the same way as CCP have already split everything. However, I do not like how ice is split. I have no idea why it is split Caldari-Amarr vs Gallente-Minmatar outside of lore reasons.
  • I think the reprocessing structure is set at 50% and these rigs modify those values. Reprocessing is already 52% in any highsec POS. (I may have misunderstood what you meant)
  • T2 rigs are usually much more expensive than T1, so there is some tradeoff (they could be at 52% and that would probably be fine). They could also be limited by calibration.
  • The point is to give options depending on your situation.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1205 - 2016-03-16 22:33:08 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
That is a bit harsh. You do not have to get exasperated from trying to moderate what goes on in this thread, and remember that not everyone in this thread is hell bent on not adapting. This thread is meant for players to voice their opinion. If someone feels that their playstyle is within the confines of how EVE is meant to be played then let them speak without berating them. No one gains anything from it.
I'm not getting exasperated or moderating anything. Like other players I'm simply voicing my opinion.

GreyGryphon wrote:
I think it is silly to split up ice like they did. It should probably be split along the same lines as the ore if at all, but according to you I should just shut up and adapt (it doesn't really affect me btw). Why then should I try and give any feedback? If I make a comment someone might enlighten me.
You can give your opinion, and I can disagree. The way they've split up ice is racially, so that small citadels can happily refine the ice in their region then both high and low end or or just one or the other if you want to fit something else. If you are big enough to be seriously mining ice from multiple regions (and for some reason are shipping it uncompressed to one location for compression/processing) then you should be able to justify a large. The reality is that most small groups won't mine all four types of ice and most small corps that do mine multiple types will process or compress it locally then ship it, so would require facilities in multiple locations.

GreyGryphon wrote:
That statement seems dangerously close to being a paradox. I see your point, but I would like to avoid pointlessly alienating people from this game.
If someone is coming along thinking that this game will allow them to play completely isolated from other player and further cater specifically to them for choosing to do that then I want to alienate them. It saves them wasting sub money. If you really do see the point then you'll understand it's nothing like a paradox. cooperating with other players doesn't mean you are part of their group.

GreyGryphon wrote:
I never said solo players need benefits. The game already gives benefits to groups not solo players, and I think that is fine. I do not want to see solo players completely ignored as an invalid playstyle.
They aren;t being ignored with these changes, they just aren't being given any benefits anyone else isn't getting.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1206 - 2016-03-16 22:46:12 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
When I say "for each band", I meant in the same way as CCP have already split everything. However, I do not like how ice is split. I have no idea why it is split Caldari-Amarr vs Gallente-Minmatar outside of lore reasons.
That's a good enough reason in itself. They ice is split racially. How would you split it? Isotope ice in one so highsec only need one rig then a null sec rig for the other stuff? So null sec players need two rigs even though they will invariably only have access to a single racial type of ice, while highsec players can mine and ship ice around in near perfect safety and only need one rig? I can see why they opted to not do it that way.

GreyGryphon wrote:
I think the reprocessing structure is set at 50% and these rigs modify those values. Reprocessing is already 52% in any highsec POS. (I may have misunderstood what you meant)

T2 rigs are usually much more expensive than T1, so there is some tradeoff (they could be at 52% and that would probably be fine). They could also be limited by calibration.
Yes, it's 52% in a HS POS as a base right now. The problem is if you have a T1 rig which does some ore at 52% then a T2 rig that does all ore at 53% you are providing two benefits with the only downside being cost. At most the two T2 rigs should be one for 52% all ores, and one for 55% specific.

GreyGryphon wrote:
The point is to give options depending on your situation.
I just don;t think those options would be used. Almost nobody is gong to mine all 4 racial types of ice and all types of ore then ship it to a single location uncompressed for compression/processing. Even with a small group if they are going to pay out for T2 rigs they are far more likely to pick the types of ore they mine most of and get the benefit of the 55% for those.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#1207 - 2016-03-17 01:42:33 UTC  |  Edited by: GreyGryphon
Lucas Kell wrote:
The way they've split up ice is racially, so that small citadels can happily refine the ice in their region then both high and low end or or just one or the other if you want to fit something else. If you are big enough to be seriously mining ice from multiple regions (and for some reason are shipping it uncompressed to one location for compression/processing) then you should be able to justify a large. The reality is that most small groups won't mine all four types of ice and most small corps that do mine multiple types will process or compress it locally then ship it, so would require facilities in multiple locations.
You have completely ignored the industrialist that imports compressed ice from other regions to make fuel blocks to sell.

Lucas Kell wrote:
If someone is coming along thinking that this game will allow them to play completely isolated from other player and further cater specifically to them for choosing to do that then I want to alienate them. It saves them wasting sub money. If you really do see the point then you'll understand it's nothing like a paradox. cooperating with other players doesn't mean you are part of their group.
I have never said "completely isolated", and I have never said a player should be allowed to avoid all cooperation. I am not sure how to respond to this. I feel you have misrepresented my opinion.

The paradox was not a reference to your opinion but your statement. You practically stated "you don't have to play my way, but you have to play this way". That is very close to a paradox.

Lucas Kell wrote:
They aren;t being ignored with these changes, they just aren't being given any benefits anyone else isn't getting.
I do not think we will agree on this, so I am going to drop it. I just do not see it as black and white as you do.
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#1208 - 2016-03-17 02:04:29 UTC  |  Edited by: GreyGryphon
Lucas Kell wrote:
That's a good enough reason in itself. They ice is split racially. How would you split it? Isotope ice in one so highsec only need one rig then a null sec rig for the other stuff? So null sec players need two rigs even though they will invariably only have access to a single racial type of ice, while highsec players can mine and ship ice around in near perfect safety and only need one rig? I can see why they opted to not do it that way.
I just do not see any reason to split it. If citadels can use any type of fuel block, then why is there a limitation on which ice can be reprocessed.

(understand I am trying to be humorous) If CCP did split ice so that nullsec needed two rigs, I would happily tell you to suck it up and adapt. However, I can see it wouldn't be a great change. There probably isn't a great way to split ice. It should be 2-3 ore and 1 ice for a medium. 1 ore and 1 ice for a large. One rig for everything for a XL.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Yes, it's 52% in a HS POS as a base right now. The problem is if you have a T1 rig which does some ore at 52% then a T2 rig that does all ore at 53% you are providing two benefits with the only downside being cost. At most the two T2 rigs should be one for 52% all ores, and one for 55% specific.
Cost does not have to be the only downside. Maybe there would not be enough calibration to fit anymore T2 rigs. Maybe the risk of fitting really expensive T2 rigs is too much (just like some ship rigs, not everyone uses T2 even when they have the space)
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1209 - 2016-03-17 05:03:36 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:
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?


Yes, you were whining about how you were not going to get the same benefits from a medium citadel as opposed to a POS and refused to look at what other ways a citadel, medium or large could work for you.

"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
#1210 - 2016-03-17 05:06:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
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, 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.


Blah, blah, blah. HS can't compete with NS players so they'll lose.

With an attitude like that, you're right.

Frankly, I don't even get why you play. If the game is dominated and practically controlled by these groups of elite players....why not just quit and go do something where you won't always be on the crap end of the stick.

Roll

BTW, do you always shoot yourself out of the saddle? Just curious.

"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
#1211 - 2016-03-17 05:17:56 UTC
Rob Kaichin wrote:
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.



While I am a NS player I did live there for awhile and I do spend time there, actually quite a bit doing stuff for the invention work.

And yes, I have taken part in HS war decs. Since they are usually against industrial corps there is not much fighting. It is usually along the lines of preying on the ignorant who undock into the waiting guns of some war targets. If they are smart and reasonably quick they dock up, if not...they die.

"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
#1212 - 2016-03-17 05:38:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Rob Kaichin wrote:
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.


They can still play alone or in groups, it will just not be the same.

As. It. Has. Always. Been.

Early on there were NPC buy orders for everything. Now there are hardly any.

Nobody's style of play is sacrosanct. They need to realize it and adapt or accept the realities of not adapting. Stay in the station to trade, refine, build and so forth.

And you know what? My invention...I do it in NPC stations. I do not know if it will be impacted by this or not. But if it is and I need to change. So be it.

Very early on when I was playing Eve I read about nano-hacs and thought, those sound awesome. So I started training for them, a nano-Ishtar in fact. A fit on battle clinic by this guy. I was just days away from completing the training plan when CCP nerfed them. The play style I was aiming for and didn't even get to try was nerfed out of existence. Literally. I loved sniper hacs too. Had some great times with those. After a series of changes, nobody really runs sniper hacs anymore. Samething with armor hacs and Hellcats.

My point being I have probably seen things I have quite enjoyed go the way of dodo more than many complaining in this thread. Get used to it. Even if you are a casual player.

"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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1213 - 2016-03-17 08:01:51 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
You have completely ignored the industrialist that imports compressed ice from other regions to make fuel blocks to sell.
No I haven't again I just think they are a tiny minority. Remember you aren't just talking about someone making fuel blocks here, you are talking about someone shipping ice (rather than topes and compressed ice for the water/ozone which would be far cheaper to ship), build all four types of fuel block plus needing to refine all types of ore.

GreyGryphon wrote:
I have never said "completely isolated", and I have never said a player should be allowed to avoid all cooperation. I am not sure how to respond to this. I feel you have misrepresented my opinion.
I think you've just misunderstood what I've mean when I'm talking about solo players, because if you're engaging others you can benefit from a lot of the same things that groups benefit from without being in a group and will do so with these citadels too.

GreyGryphon wrote:
The paradox was not a reference to your opinion but your statement. You practically stated "you don't have to play my way, but you have to play this way". That is very close to a paradox.
Except that was only saying "you don't have to play my way, but you do have to play EVE". The basic point being that it's not a good idea to you come in and try to play in an isolated fashion then sit around crying like Drago because doing something completely solo and purposely crippling yourself by refusing to adapt isn't being catered to.

GreyGryphon wrote:
I just do not see any reason to split it. If citadels can use any type of fuel block, then why is there a limitation on which ice can be reprocessed.
I imagine they are specifically going for what you are trying to avoid with your ideas, to stop medium citadels becoming complete refining hubs. People will either need to run two or bump it up to a large, which is good to encourage.

GreyGryphon wrote:
(understand I am trying to be humorous) If CCP did split ice so that nullsec needed two rigs, I would happily tell you to suck it up and adapt. However, I can see it wouldn't be a great change. There probably isn't a great way to split ice. It should be 2-3 ore and 1 ice for a medium. 1 ore and 1 ice for a large. One rig for everything for a XL.
And we would suck it up, just like we suck up all the other changes intended to specifically ruin our gamplay. The way ice is currently planned to be split seems reasonable to me. The vast majority of people will be fine with it, only special snowflakes who are purposely going out of their way to be negatively impacted by it (out outright lying like Drago) will be affected.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#1214 - 2016-03-17 09:51:20 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • Market: markets currently have two taxes, transaction's tax, applied for sold items, and broker's fee for non immediate orders, which are set at 1.5% and 1% respectively. To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% and the broker's fee to 5-6%. Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels.
  • A market will not grow in a Citadel until that Citadel has a population. A population will not be drawn to a Citadel by a minor discount in a fee that most players don't even care about.

    Once the Citadel has a population, it doesn't matter what the broker fee is. There will be a population to trade with and a market will grow as a result. It will not matter that the price isn't competitive with Jita, because Jita is far away and convenience is more important.
    Rob Kaichin
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #1215 - 2016-03-17 11:19:51 UTC
    @Lucas,

    I know a guy who makes ~2.5million wrong region fuelblocks. He imports the ice and the topes. They might be a tiny minority, but they might be very large producers.

    @Teckos,

    NPC buy and sell orders were there to provide things that players couldn't produce, or could produce where there was no sink for them. Apart from that, nothing you mentioned was related to "This is about players [...] within the equal mechanics of NPC space".
    Lucas Kell
    Solitude Trading
    S.N.O.T.
    #1216 - 2016-03-17 12:18:17 UTC
    Rob Kaichin wrote:
    I know a guy who makes ~2.5million wrong region fuelblocks. He imports the ice and the topes. They might be a tiny minority, but they might be very large producers.
    Does he produce all 4 blocks of fuel and at the same time, ship ice to do all 4 rather than topes for some and does he use the same refinery POS to refine both low end and high end ore as well?

    This is why I'm saying, I'm not suggesting that noone makes fuel blocks or that noone ships ice to do it, I'm just doubting that a small producer only able to justify a medium citadel would need all 4 rigs to survive. And to be honest, ropes are so much cheaper to ship that it's generally more cost effective to process local ice for water and ozone, ship excess topes out and other region topes in. While everyone can play in whatever way they want, I'd say it's not a great idea for CCP to make specific changes to make up for people making bad choices.

    The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

    Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

    Teckos Pech
    Hogyoku
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1217 - 2016-03-17 15:19:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
    Rob Kaichin wrote:
    @Lucas,

    I know a guy who makes ~2.5million wrong region fuelblocks. He imports the ice and the topes. They might be a tiny minority, but they might be very large producers.

    @Teckos,

    NPC buy and sell orders were there to provide things that players couldn't produce, or could produce where there was no sink for them. Apart from that, nothing you mentioned was related to "This is about players [...] within the equal mechanics of NPC space".


    Rob,

    I know. My point is that once those started disappearing and prices were allowed to fluctuate via the market it can cause similar disruptions.

    My point is, and has been, if we were to go and look at various changes over the years that Devs have made we'll find a subset of players who are butthurt about losing their "style of play". You keep saying I'm not talking about players, but I am. You just aren't getting the message. The Devs make changes, somebody's style of play is negatively impacted. It happens.

    Edit: Wrong region fuel blocks? I suspect people do this all the time. For example, you might want a Gallente POS but are in "Caldari/Caldari NPC space". When I was running a POS farm, some people had Gallente POS others Caldari. And we made a **** ton of blocks too. Sooo...not sure what the point of that was.

    Edit: And I have lived in NPC space, sov space, LS, HS and NS. I have seen ship doctrines come and go in all areas of space because of Devs, so don't hand me that crap about "This is about players [...] within...NPC space." You keep setting that up as some sort of important distinction when I content it is irrelevant when it comes to making the game better. In fact, I'll tell you this, players in HS will have it easier than players in NS by and large. Why? Because asset recovery will be almost surely be faster and cheaper and they'll always have the luxury of NPC stations nearby.

    "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
    #1218 - 2016-03-17 15:33:38 UTC
    Bad Bobby wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
  • Market: markets currently have two taxes, transaction's tax, applied for sold items, and broker's fee for non immediate orders, which are set at 1.5% and 1% respectively. To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% and the broker's fee to 5-6%. Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels.
  • A market will not grow in a Citadel until that Citadel has a population. A population will not be drawn to a Citadel by a minor discount in a fee that most players don't even care about.

    Once the Citadel has a population, it doesn't matter what the broker fee is. There will be a population to trade with and a market will grow as a result. It will not matter that the price isn't competitive with Jita, because Jita is far away and convenience is more important.


    That has been a problem for a long time when it comes to understanding how markets emerge. One person described it as, we know the recipe for what makes markets work, we just don't know the order in which to go through the recipe. And the order might be different in different contexts. So you raise a good point here, IMO. The raising of the broker's fee may not do what the Devs are hoping it will do.

    On the other hand...it might. You are correct that the typical player looking to fit out a ship may not care between a broker's fee of 1% vs. 3.5% or whatever. But a guy buying stuff to fit out 300 ships might. If the cost of the ships is say 150 million now it is 112.5 million ISK savings.

    So who really knows. Right now nobody can say for sure.

    "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

    Bad Bobby
    Bring Me Sunshine
    In Tea We Trust
    #1219 - 2016-03-17 15:59:58 UTC
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    On the other hand...it might. You are correct that the typical player looking to fit out a ship may not care between a broker's fee of 1% vs. 3.5% or whatever. But a guy buying stuff to fit out 300 ships might. If the cost of the ships is say 150 million now it is 112.5 million ISK savings.

    So this theoretical guy trying to buy stuff for 300 ships is going to do what? Put up a buy order in a Citadel somewhere and wait patiently for it to fill?
    Teckos Pech
    Hogyoku
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1220 - 2016-03-17 16:16:48 UTC
    Bad Bobby wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    On the other hand...it might. You are correct that the typical player looking to fit out a ship may not care between a broker's fee of 1% vs. 3.5% or whatever. But a guy buying stuff to fit out 300 ships might. If the cost of the ships is say 150 million now it is 112.5 million ISK savings.

    So this theoretical guy trying to buy stuff for 300 ships is going to do what? Put up a buy order in a Citadel somewhere and wait patiently for it to fill?


    Again, neither you nor I know much about how markets emerge. So the honest answer is, I don't know. That could be the way he goes if he has the time. Or depending on the location a bulk trader might move to a citadel. Maybe not with much at first, but to see if stuff sells.

    Again, I don't know. But then again...neither do you. If these things were easy to answer and it was nothing more than just an "engineering" problem there would be no problems with markets anywhere, ever. The long and the short of it is markets are of human action, but not of human design.

    "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