|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Dave Stark
7882
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 14:41:14 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Those are fair points we've been discussing internally. Initial figures show us maintaining a cloning bay in a Citadel will cost 157m ISK a month, we wanted to provide means for the owner to recoup that cost and even make a profit in general.
I'd honestly either rather see you shift the cost towards installation and away from use - or alternatively, have an "upkeep" fee for clones to offset the cost.
an on use fee discourages use, which discourages content generation. setting those costs to "one off" or "upkeep" instead do the opposite and promote usage in order to "get your moneys worth". |
Dave Stark
7882
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 15:13:01 -
[2] - Quote
Querns wrote:Mia Markaya wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:MuraSaki Siki wrote:just to clarify the market tax
after the changes, when trading in citadels, transaction tax goes to system, and broker's fee goes to the owner. Is that right? Correct. The broker's fee in Citadels isn't fixed. The owner can set 0% if he wants. What's stopping the owner to switch it from 0% to 100% at a whim? Nothing. Aren't player-driven economies grand?
dunno, nobody will leave jita to find out.
between having docking rights revoked, taxes changed on a whim, the citadel itself likely to get wardecced by everyone and it's dog as soon as it's anchored...
6% tax seems pretty trivial to avoid all that hassle. |
Dave Stark
7882
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 15:20:03 -
[3] - Quote
Querns wrote:As usual, the reward will go to those willing to take the risk.
pretty sure having items stuck in the asset recovery system, which iirc isn't instant, are going to be rewarding you with nothing but tied up isk. |
Dave Stark
7882
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 15:34:47 -
[4] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:Grookshank wrote:Querns wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Querns wrote:As usual, the reward will go to those willing to take the risk. pretty sure having items stuck in the asset recovery system, which iirc isn't instant, are going to be rewarding you with nothing but tied up isk. The reduction of those 5% fees is the reward. You can argue all you want, but no one will use your goon citadel in Jita as main trading hub. lol ding ding ding, real motive found. grr gons I'd use a citadel in high-sec for a trade-hub to squeeze out those extra 3 - 4%. In the end, it just depends on how much risk you are willing to take.
you do realise though, that if the owner of that citadel can't defend it - all of your assets are tied up for 5 days? (i think asset recovery takes 5 days).
that's not an insignificant length of time. is 5 days of time really going to be worth a 4% reduction in taxes? |
Dave Stark
7882
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 15:40:22 -
[5] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote:Considering they are one of the few groups in the game that could actually defend the stupid thing, people will use it.
their attempt at holding pocos failed - i wouldn't put much faith in their ability to defend a citadel. |
Dave Stark
7882
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 15:56:17 -
[6] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Scotsman Howard wrote:Considering they are one of the few groups in the game that could actually defend the stupid thing, people will use it. their attempt at holding pocos failed - i wouldn't put much faith in their ability to defend a citadel. Yes because defending hundred of POCO across hundreds of systems that could be attacked 24 hours a day 7 days a week for the price of a war dec is certainly comparable to defending ONE citadel that is only vulnerable for a few hours a day (or however the owner puts the timer) with weaponry that will more than likely be actually useful for defending it. Yes you are correct that these two items are comparable. I'm not saying it would be easy, but it would be easier than POCOs from a logistics and organization standpoint. Even if it is not goons, it would take a large entity to do what CCP is wanting done.
i agree with you - citadels will be easier to defend than pocos.
i'm just saying i don't think it will be sufficiently easier such that goons will be able to do it. i also have no objection to being proven wrong on that front, though. |
Dave Stark
7883
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 16:51:37 -
[7] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Memphis Baas wrote:For everyone complaining of higher NPC taxes (here and in the reddit thread): CCP needs to have more ISK sinks, which they are achieving through the higher taxes and through the ISK loss rather than mineral loss for refining.
For CCP: if you really want to introduce a strong ISK sink, you have to introduce something that the people with trillions of ISK want to buy. We really wanted to buy the skill injectors; you saw how much plex trade that caused. Find something that's as desirable. Maybe some new skins, I don't know. They could remove insurence
or incursions. |
Dave Stark
7885
|
Posted - 2016.03.03 20:52:44 -
[8] - Quote
windows vista wrote:Contracts: while Contracts will not be available in Citadels for the first release,
i think that thist is more important what about my contracts for doctrine ships?
open ship fitting from corp fittings. 'buy all' inside the citadel where your glorious logistics bros have seeded the market. |
Dave Stark
7886
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 12:58:52 -
[9] - Quote
Charles Burger wrote:This "covering costs" thing is obviously ridiculous since NPCs don't have costs or wallets or ISK... or am I missing something here?
if npcs offered jump cloning for free. you have no reason to use a reduced rate citadel version. if you're not using the citadel version then the owner has no way to recoup the fuel costs of having that service module running. |
Dave Stark
7886
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 13:04:10 -
[10] - Quote
MachineOfLovingGrace wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Charles Burger wrote:What's the actual point of the 5 mil jump fee for NPC stations?......................
I am failing to see the point whatsoever. It seems like all con and no pro. What's the pro's of this change, from any angle? Who is it meant to help?
The point is that running a Clone Bay in a Citadel will have a cost (in the new fuel-blocks) which, as suggested in the OP, is currently around 157m per month. Citadels cost a lot and running them will cost - EVE is a business game and like any business the investment of the isk is supposed to have a return (if you're doing it right). So remove the fuel cost for the clone bay. Problem fixed.
"why does the market require fuel? the clone bay doesn't" |
|
|
|
|