Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7389
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 21:15:11 -
[841] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote:I am tired of seeing people argue that trading carries virtually no risk for high reward. It is not that simple. Risk is a critical part of any financial decision, and any decent trader will try to minimize risk to increase profits. Guess what will happen to every market when risk grows unabated. EVE revolves around risking assets/ISK for fun or profit. Market PvP is no different because one bad investment can result in billions lost. Flipping items in a station probably carries the least amount of risk, but it also has the tightest margins so that only high volume items are significantly profitable. Probably the biggest reason it has so little risk is because order modification is virtually free, and I have already suggested to change that. Changing broker's fees to 5% does not inherently add any risk, and there has to be available choices to manage risk to avoid inflation. Tired or not, it's a fact. The only real risk comes from pressing the wrong buttons or from making bad decisions, and making bad decisions will generally be a minimal impact unless you overextend. And for that low risk you get the highest income in the entire game with minimal input and no undocking. Increasing broker fees at the very least adds more of an impact from making bad decisions.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4789
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 22:14:20 -
[842] - Quote
Rob Kaichin wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Rob Kaichin wrote:
It's worth repeating this though:
"The space where Citadels could compete is anywhere between 0% and the current highest tax. Not the current lowest tax, the highest. If Citadels had a lower limit of 0.75% sales and 0.01875% Broker's fee, they'd still be competitive, because very few people are currently paying that lowest tax band. "
Nobody would put their assets at risk of being locked out for that kind of benefit. That is where the issue is. The station are currently just too good to offer something meaningful. Putting billions in assets at risk of being locked out for just a few day if something happen to the citadel is taking too long to recoup by just shaving of just that little tax. The peoples who build said citadel will also want to recoup some of the cost of building it and they would kill their only carrot of slightly lower taxes if they ever want to run an income to pay it over time because the difference doesn't have enough of a margin to play with. It's not an inconsiderable amount of tax raised if you consider the volume of ISK being traded: it manages to raise substantial sums over the whole of New Eden, almost 10 trillion ISK. We have no data on how few people are paying that level of tax though. Besides, it's hardly the only carrot. It's a whole hamper of vegetables really, along with all the other mooted changes.
So tell me, if it is raising 10 trillion a month...how much ISK is being taxed? You keep saying it is substantial because well...trillion. But what is the tax base here?
"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
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
356
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 22:16:19 -
[843] - Quote
There is a certain Much ado about nothing to this thread as a whole, but I think the main concern that Gevlon expressed is a reasonable concern: The isk potential for large ISK holder to collude to never attack each other's "market hubs" would be very high. The issue with that is a simple one: their collusion mean fewer fights and less isk being destroyed and thus removed from the game.
Is it a merely theoretical concern, or does it have a basis in game fact?
Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4789
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 22:47:12 -
[844] - Quote
Petrified wrote:There is a certain Much ado about nothing to this thread as a whole, but I think the main concern that Gevlon expressed is a reasonable concern: The isk potential for large ISK holder to collude to never attack each other's "market hubs" would be very high. The issue with that is a simple one: their collusion mean fewer fights and less isk being destroyed and thus removed from the game.
Is it a merely theoretical concern, or does it have a basis in game fact?
What are you (and Gevlon) talking about? You cannot put up a citadel in Amarr nor Jita. I don't know about the other hubs. And even then people can put up more than one.
"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
|
Zad Murrard
Frozen Dawn Inc Frozen Dawn Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 22:50:17 -
[845] - Quote
The fee + citaldels overall are such a complicated change that unless someone can point a game where something very similar happened and the results of it this is just all pure speculation.
As said previously by CCP posts they are going to do things gradually.
Thus I think/hope they will not put whatever broker/sales tax change there might be to be effective from day one but rather see first how the iterations are playing out. If I were CCP if I wanted to touch the fees I would also change them gradually, see how people react and then adjust.
Of course they could make a social game experiment and put everything to chaos at once
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4789
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 23:32:26 -
[846] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote: I am tired of seeing people argue that trading carries virtually no risk for high reward. It is not that simple. Risk is a critical part of any financial decision, and any decent trader will try to minimize risk to increase profits. Guess what will happen to every market when risk grows unabated. EVE revolves around risking assets/ISK for fun or profit. Market PvP is no different because one bad investment can result in billions lost. Flipping items in a station probably carries the least amount of risk, but it also has the tightest margins so that only high volume items are significantly profitable. Probably the biggest reason it has so little risk is because order modification is virtually free, and I have already suggested to change that. Changing broker's fees to 5% does not inherently add any risk, and there has to be available choices to manage risk to avoid inflation.
When risk grows unabated you can end up with systemic risk, but I'm not sure that is possible in the Eve economy. Systemic risk is where you have, as you noted, risk growing unabated, but also where actors in the financial system have exposure to each other. Where the parties become interconnected. We are each holding similar financial instruments such as debt (say mortgage backed securities). If I get into trouble and have to suddenly liquidate that debt and there is some question about the value of that debt (housing prices have stopped going up, default rates are on the rise, etc.)...my liquidating the debt will mean you have to re-value the same type of debt you hold meaning you could suddenly become insolvent too. Basically there is a cascade throughout the system and the system fails...hence the name systemic risk.
But we don't have markets like that in the Eve economy really. The financial markets in Eve are fairly limited and primitive.
"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
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
850
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 23:55:49 -
[847] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Because that's what you're talking about here. You're complaining that rich people will make isk and you want to pay an NPC instead so they don't. Who cares if the rich get richer, as long as CCP can find a way to balance it. The rich who want to build Citadels as trade hubs should need to find a way to make them attractive to traders - Not have CCP do it for them with increased npc taxes and brokers fees. The whole Citadel thing becomes a flop if the only way CCP can get players to use them is by force. It's impossible to give a benefit over a minimal cost station with zero risk. Increasing the base brokers fee gives more room for citadel owners to do exactly what you suggest, and they will still need to entice traders over. Noone is being forced, if you want to keep trading at an NPC station, the brokers fee will be between 3.5% and 5% which should be easy to absorb into most margins. I think your totally on the WRONG track Lucas, it isn't brokers fees or even the npc fees - It is the people who will own these Citadels. They are in general not trustworthy therefore there is no reason to trust your eve wealth to them. You yourself stated you will not put your whole market inventory into a Citadel - You obviously have no faith in the concept, why are you defending it?
The ONLY person I would trust my inventory to in a Citadel would be Chribba - He opens a trade hub in a Citadel, I'll gladly use it. Aside from that, there is no other person or group that could convince me to use their Citadel and risk losing everything.
Like i said, CCP need to find a way to make Citadels attractive without penalizing those who have no wish to use them.
Another thing that will keep citadels from being successful trade hubs - No contracts - Contracting is an integral part of trading. Adding it later, is too late to add it.
-- - -- - -- - -- Something I've not seen mentioned anywhere is the redemption system - What security do Citadels offer someone who just purchased plex - Is CCP going to refund the RL money investment if the guy who got the plex is excluded from ever redeeming it? Either by destruction of Citadel, the wrong standings with the owner, Citadel being moved or just turned off, etc. Or, the more likely scenario, the redemption system will only be available via npc stations, another reason to not use Citadels.
People do invest real money into eve, there needs to be safeguards to ensure they are not at risk via game mechanics surrounding Citadels of not being able to realize that investment.
Oh and another point - If CCP got rid of all the market bots it would go a long way toward fixing at least one part of the Citadel vs NPC station issue.
Really Lucas, there are literally thousands of items on the market that have minimal (under 10%) returns now and with a 3.5% brokers fee + transaction fees, those items become not worth listing. Yet those same items are the ones that keep the markets ticking over. With good skills and standings those cheap minimal profit items are pretty good income - Double npc taxes and add new broker fees, they are no longer viable items. Halving the profit for smaller traders is removing them from trading. And of course TQ needs more monopolies, especially in trading. At that point buying things in new eden becomes extortion rather than free trade.
-- - -- - -- - -- CCP have always said the markets in Eve are player driven enterprises, yet CCP is now saying, well this is not really the case because we need to make sure our latest attempt at creating something new has a chance to be adopted. It is not viable to introduce Citadels (they won't be adopted as intended) unless we at CCP manipulate the markets of new eden in an attempt to force players to use them.
Seriously, CCP Seagull - Get your Dev teams on track with your vision for Eve. It will never be achieved like this. When your dreaming up new game mechanics and items, there is more to Eve than Goons and PL type groups. Designing for the elitists is not good game design.
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.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4789
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 00:42:43 -
[848] - Quote
Just as a point of interest here. Everyone keeps talking as if the increase in taxes and broker's fees will be paid by the seller. That is not the case. The incidence of a tax (i.e. who pays it) is dependent on the price elasticities of supply and demand. If these two things are equal, for instance, then the tax incidence is shared equally between the buyer and the seller. So if for example you are looking at a 5% tax + brokers fee, then seller would only pay half of that or 2.5%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
"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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4789
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 00:45:37 -
[849] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Really Lucas, there are literally thousands of items on the market that have minimal (under 10%) returns now and with a 3.5% brokers fee + transaction fees, those items become not worth listing. Yet those same items are the ones that keep the markets ticking over. With good skills and standings those cheap minimal profit items are pretty good income - Double npc taxes and add new broker fees, they are no longer viable items. Halving the profit for smaller traders is removing them from trading. And of course TQ needs more monopolies, especially in trading. At that point buying things in new eden becomes extortion rather than free trade.
There is an inherent contradiction in here I'm afraid. First you point out that some goods are so aggressively traded the profit margin is low. So smaller traders will exit the market and then with less competition prices will rise dramatically....which should prompt traders to enter the market and drop prices back down.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
"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
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 01:23:32 -
[850] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:Anhenka wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote: If CCP sprinkle broken Glass in one area of the sandbox, to enforce people play where they want to, is it still a sandbox, if you do not notice your legs bleeding?
Too zen?
Anyone with glass in their zen sand garden needs a new zen gardener. Also more like anti-zen. Every sandbox has glass in it to guide people away from what the developers consider undesirable gameplay. It's only when they dump glass in a new spot or pull it out of an old spot do people pay much attention to the glass. Give one example of something that negatively affect gameplay in order to drive people in another direction.
Concord. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17510
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 01:31:07 -
[851] - Quote
Petrified wrote:There is a certain Much ado about nothing to this thread as a whole, but I think the main concern that Gevlon expressed is a reasonable concern: The isk potential for large ISK holder to collude to never attack each other's "market hubs" would be very high. The issue with that is a simple one: their collusion mean fewer fights and less isk being destroyed and thus removed from the game.
Is it a merely theoretical concern, or does it have a basis in game fact?
Problem with gevlons numbers is I think he is lumping the taxes from every trade action made in every NPC station in all of the galaxy. No powerblock is going to be making the kind of isk being talked about here. |
Tarojan
Tarojan Corporation
233
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 02:08:23 -
[852] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:Anhenka wrote: You should really stop looking at changes in terms of how it effects just you, and to to how things effect the game as a whole.
People will sure be pleased when the price for everything will be bumped by 6-7%
People won't care. its just inflation and just like plex prices its ultimately meaningless as people are getting richer all the time.
No what people care about is jita 4-4 no longer working.
Oh and can't dock in perimeters Goonograd because I'm a pubbie and I can't dock in the giant darkness trade hub because I'm not a blue (russian)/ light blue (null sec dweller).
When the new botlord treaty comes out all they have to do is say imperium gets caldari space, Pl amar perhaps and so on and so forth. light blue standings for other nullseccers so they can trade and they all agree to form up to defend their giant hubs if the highsec carebears get uppity.
Now its a doomsday scenario perhaps? Only if it works out that way I have to join karma fleet or unsub. I think thats a concern.
Will gank for food
|
Tarojan
Tarojan Corporation
233
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 02:10:22 -
[853] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:[quote=Anhenka][quote=Aaron Honk] ... but if you have the playerbase supporting you and willingly and joyfully following the roadmap, we can come through it together, and laugh about the crazy surprises we lived through together.
However, this is not now the case, those who were committed to the roadmap, now see that CCP believe that Citadels will only be practical, If we are reluctantly whipped complaining and resentful into them. People see that CCP has decided to punish those who do not comply, and force them from their homes like a slumlord turning off the water and electricity, or racking up the rent to impossible levels.
So through that, they have lost the goodwill, they have lost the excitement, they have lost the desire to joyfully follow the roadmap. What an incredibly wasteful and needless decision.
We will see how it pans out. The potential its giving the most powerful groups in the game to grief the absolute **** out of all the solo guys and carebears of highsec though is staggering. Goonswarm and minluv were established on those guiding principles. The potential tear generation will be awesum to watch from the sidelines.
Will gank for food
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7389
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 03:52:43 -
[854] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:I think your totally on the WRONG track Lucas, it isn't brokers fees or even the npc fees - It is the people who will own these Citadels. They are in general not trustworthy therefore there is no reason to trust your eve wealth to them. You yourself stated you will not put your whole market inventory into a Citadel - You obviously have no faith in the concept, why are you defending it? It's nothing to do with the people that own them, it's to do with the additional risk of adding your inventory to citadels. If a citadel were to be assaulted and I were to have to recover my stuff I'd lose billions in fees even under the current system and moreso with a higher fee %. Not putting all of my inventory into citadels is simply risk mitigation, the same as I do with any system in the game.
Sgt Ocker wrote:The ONLY person I would trust my inventory to in a Citadel would be Chribba - He opens a trade hub in a Citadel, I'll gladly use it. Aside from that, there is no other person or group that could convince me to use their Citadel and risk losing everything. But you can't lose everything. At most you could lose 10% of their value, and that's only if you had to recover it to a different system. As it currently stands you could recover it to the same system for free.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Another thing that will keep citadels from being successful trade hubs - No contracts - Contracting is an integral part of trading. Adding it later, is too late to add it. There's a good chance they'll have contracts working early on. I am interested in seeing how courier contracts will work.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Something I've not seen mentioned anywhere is the redemption system - What security do Citadels offer someone who just purchased plex - Is CCP going to refund the RL money investment if the guy who got the plex is excluded from ever redeeming it? Either by destruction of Citadel, the wrong standings with the owner, Citadel being moved or just turned off, etc. Or, the more likely scenario, the redemption system will only be available via npc stations, another reason to not use Citadels.
People do invest real money into eve, there needs to be safeguards to ensure they are not at risk via game mechanics surrounding Citadels of not being able to realize that investment. See above. Item recovery is a thing.
Sgt Ocker wrote:Oh and another point - If CCP got rid of all the market bots it would go a long way toward fixing at least one part of the Citadel vs NPC station issue. Market bots are a problem regardless of the system. Citadels in fact solve it to some extent because at the moment if someone identifies a bot they can do nothing, while new citadel owners could boot them from the citadel and force them to use NPC stations.
"Really Lucas, there are literally thousands of items on the market that have minimal (under 10%) returns now and with a 3.5% brokers fee + transaction fees, those items become not worth listing. Yet those same items are the ones that keep the markets ticking over. With good skills and standings those cheap minimal profit items are pretty good income - Double npc taxes and add new broker fees, they are no longer viable items. Halving the profit for smaller traders is removing them from trading. And of course TQ needs more monopolies, especially in trading. At that point buying things in new eden becomes extortion rather than free trade." Item's will adjust in price so they will still be the bread and butter. I see no reason they would suddenly start selling at a loss.
"CCP have always said the markets in Eve are player driven enterprises, yet CCP is now saying, well this is not really the case because we need to make sure our latest attempt at creating something new has a chance to be adopted. It is not viable to introduce Citadels (they won't be adopted as intended) unless we at CCP manipulate the markets of new eden in an attempt to force players to use them." They are making them more player driven. All they are changing are the base fee amounts to give more room for people to control the fees. Being able to change between 0% and 0.1875% isn't big enough to be worth it, so the base fee has to move.
"Seriously, CCP Seagull - Get your Dev teams on track with your vision for Eve. It will never be achieved like this. When your dreaming up new game mechanics and items, there is more to Eve than Goons and PL type groups. Designing for the elitists is not good game design." The vision is to make everything player controlled, this seems exactly the way to achieve that.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
356
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 03:52:56 -
[855] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Petrified wrote:There is a certain Much ado about nothing to this thread as a whole, but I think the main concern that Gevlon expressed is a reasonable concern: The isk potential for large ISK holder to collude to never attack each other's "market hubs" would be very high. The issue with that is a simple one: their collusion mean fewer fights and less isk being destroyed and thus removed from the game.
Is it a merely theoretical concern, or does it have a basis in game fact? Problem with gevlons numbers is I think he is lumping the taxes from every trade action made in every NPC station in all of the galaxy. No powerblock is going to be making the kind of isk being talked about here.
True, but given the volume of trade conducted in Jita alone, compared to anywhere else, its not an unattractive number. Whatever the number is, however, would it be high enough to entice rivals to put aside differences and come to an agreement to not threaten each others' market Citadels?
Running for CSM 11. You should vote for me.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4791
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 04:45:51 -
[856] - Quote
Tarojan wrote:Aaron Honk wrote:Anhenka wrote: You should really stop looking at changes in terms of how it effects just you, and to to how things effect the game as a whole.
People will sure be pleased when the price for everything will be bumped by 6-7% People won't care. its just inflation and just like plex prices its ultimately meaningless as people are getting richer all the time. No what people care about is jita 4-4 no longer working. Oh and can't dock in perimeters Goonograd because I'm a pubbie and I can't dock in the giant darkness trade hub because I'm not a blue (russian)/ light blue (null sec dweller). When the new botlord treaty comes out all they have to do is say imperium gets caldari space, Pl amar perhaps and so on and so forth. light blue standings for other nullseccers so they can trade and they all agree to form up to defend their giant hubs if the highsec carebears get uppity. Now its a doomsday scenario perhaps? Only if it works out that way I have to join karma fleet or unsub. I think thats a concern.
Right because limiting your tax base is a way to increase your tax revenue.
"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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4791
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 04:55:33 -
[857] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:
Give one example of something that negatively affect gameplay in order to drive people in another direction.
Look at just about anything Greyscale promoted. He very much wanted to turn NS into a dystopian horror show. Jump fatigue, jump range nerfs, were two he actually implemented.
Quote:The harder we can make logistics, the better for the game viewed as an abstract system. It would be much better for the game if we got rid of freighters, but we have to balance what is good for the game at a higher systemic level with making the player's lives a living hell. Forcing people to do convoys with lots of industrials would, from a higher level systemic view, be awesome. But for the individual players, it would suck balls.
[CCP has] gone [too far] in the direction of making players lives easy GÇô we've got jump freighters and jump bridges and all this [stuff] GÇô and I think there is an agreement here [at CCP] that we want to pull back from that. We would like to pull back as far as we can get away with. But how far can we go?GÇ¥ The underlying point is the need to get a balance between avoiding frustration and getting desirable macro-scale outcomes.
--CCP Greyscale - CSM Minutes, December 2010
Good thing he is gone. But you think a permanent tax increase is bad? Hahahahaha.
"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
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4791
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 05:13:34 -
[858] - Quote
I love the schizophrenic nature of those opposed to this change.
On the one hand Goons, PL, and all the rest are gong to capture vast economic rents by setting up trade citadels and...not letting everyone in but only a select few.
Then they'll troll the crap out of anyone they do let in by locking in their stuff.
And despite these lower prices the NS Powers will be charging prices are going to go up by 6-7%.
Lots of traders will exit the markets, resulting in even higher prices, and thus profits. But those higher profits won't induce entry into the trading markets.
Here is an idea. Maybe you guys who are so virulently opposed to this idea....you can huddle up and come up some coherent reasons to oppose this change.
"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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1704
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 05:21:39 -
[859] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I love the schizophrenic nature of those opposed to this change.
On the one hand Goons, PL, and all the rest are gong to capture vast economic rents by setting up trade citadels and...not letting everyone in but only a select few.
Then they'll troll the crap out of anyone they do let in by locking in their stuff.
And despite these lower prices the NS Powers will be charging prices are going to go up by 6-7%.
Lots of traders will exit the markets, resulting in even higher prices, and thus profits. But those higher profits won't induce entry into the trading markets.
Here is an idea. Maybe you guys who are so virulently opposed to this idea....you can huddle up and come up some coherent reasons to oppose this change.
shhhhhh
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4793
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 05:25:28 -
[860] - Quote
Petrified wrote:baltec1 wrote:Petrified wrote:There is a certain Much ado about nothing to this thread as a whole, but I think the main concern that Gevlon expressed is a reasonable concern: The isk potential for large ISK holder to collude to never attack each other's "market hubs" would be very high. The issue with that is a simple one: their collusion mean fewer fights and less isk being destroyed and thus removed from the game.
Is it a merely theoretical concern, or does it have a basis in game fact? Problem with gevlons numbers is I think he is lumping the taxes from every trade action made in every NPC station in all of the galaxy. No powerblock is going to be making the kind of isk being talked about here. True, but given the volume of trade conducted in Jita alone, compared to anywhere else, its not an unattractive number. Whatever the number is, however, would it be high enough to entice rivals to put aside differences and come to an agreement to not threaten each others' market Citadels?
Then there is the other problem with Gevlon's numbers...you wont be able to put a citadel in Jita. But keep that kooky cornspiracy theory going.
"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
|
|
Tarojan
Tarojan Corporation
233
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 08:14:17 -
[861] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:I love the schizophrenic nature of those opposed to this change.
On the one hand Goons, PL, and all the rest are gong to capture vast economic rents by setting up trade citadels and...not letting everyone in but only a select few.
Then they'll troll the crap out of anyone they do let in by locking in their stuff.
And despite these lower prices the NS Powers will be charging prices are going to go up by 6-7%.
Lots of traders will exit the markets, resulting in even higher prices, and thus profits. But those higher profits won't induce entry into the trading markets.
Here is an idea. Maybe you guys who are so virulently opposed to this idea....you can huddle up and come up some coherent reasons to oppose this change.
Your being disingenuous. No surprise there. Firstly the new "jita citidel" will probably be put in perimeter. The 7% figure I'm assuming comes from those people who think trade will remain in npc stations. which it won't as the majority of trade comes froms a miniority of players. When most of the buy orders for highsec ore are in Goonograd_perimeter and not jita, when the sell orders of all the tengus and moogoo are there, then the trade goes there.
So now we have the goons/pl/sma selling and buying their stuff in their citidels far cheaper then in the npc stations. At this point its not about lets get more people paying our taxes for us. Sure they could do that as Gevlon points out. Make vast tons of ISK. then do what with it?
What I think MAY happen is besides how funny it will be to troll the highsec carebears is that Mittani opens a new highsec renters alliance. Lets call it goonbears. Now if you join goonbears you get taxed at 10% same as an npc corp, but we will let you use goonograd in perimeter. oh and you will also be mocked regulary. By everyone.
Hows that for an idea then huh? all the highsec miners/missioners and traders forced to kneel to their new null sec overlords.
Will gank for food
|
Sir Lanfear
The Family Joules
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 08:34:44 -
[862] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Broker's fee formula with skills and standings: currently with max skills and NPC standings you can reduce the brokers' fee by 0.7-0.8%. We will modify skills and standings to decrease the tax by 1.5% and also change them from being percentage based to a flat reduction.
I'm not going to argue the changes, however it would be nice if you gave each player a one-time option to reset faction/npc standings. Most of us increased standings for highsec anchoring and tax/broker benefits. So now I have high faction standings that do nothing, and negative faction standings that are a considerable nuisance. |
CJ 'Husky' Ulmarck
The Confederacy of Travellers
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 08:37:09 -
[863] - Quote
Been playing for several months (have around 10mil SP) and I'm gonna break my post virginity here.
I really, really, REALLY don't like the cost to use Jump Clones. I don't really mind so much the cost to set up a jump clone, but to USE one? No thank you.
For an example here (and this might seem off topic, but stick with me), let's look at this from the perspective of fitting Citadels like ships. We have two types of modules: 1) Resistance Amp 2) Resistance Hardener
When we use an Amp, the ship gets a CONSTANT, PASSIVE bonus. This only needs fitting and doesn't use cap. When we use a Hardener, this gives the ship a considerably greater bonus which can be overheated, but uses cap as a resource to function.
Look at the Jump Clone Service mod like it's an Amp. This gives a constant service (being able to store and use JCs) but DOESN'T NEED TO USE FUEL. Not every service module NEEDS to use fuel. Some can just be simple resistance amps. They still take up a slot that could be used by something else. They don't need to be overheated to squeeze out their full effectiveness. I could still, as a Citadel owner, get paid the setup fee even if the JC is moved somewhere else.
Now, look at something like a Small Ship Assembly Array as a Hardener. It gives a distinct bonus over time while using resources. I get more benefit by overheating (using as many slots as possible) but if I don't have fuel then it shuts off.
You're just trying to make a fee so that it is possible for a Citadel owner to recoup the fuel costs for the service mod when that service mod doesn't even need to cost fuel in the first place. |
Sir Lanfear
The Family Joules
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 08:57:28 -
[864] - Quote
Tarojan wrote: Hows that for an idea then huh? all the highsec miners/missioners and traders forced to kneel to their new null sec overlords.
You are seriously paranoid. Most highsec dwellers don't trust people like Goons, so don't be surprised if they don't use their market hubs. If Goons try to corner a market in their little citadel, then buy orders will increase in neighboring Jita, and other suppliers will fill that void, thereby decreasing the market activity for the citadel. I'd give your scenario a good 2 days before it fell apart. Maybe a week if they went for broke and purchased every reasonable market order available in Jita without relisting anything. |
Tarojan
Tarojan Corporation
233
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 09:29:46 -
[865] - Quote
Sir Lanfear wrote:Tarojan wrote: Hows that for an idea then huh? all the highsec miners/missioners and traders forced to kneel to their new null sec overlords.
You are seriously paranoid. Most highsec dwellers don't trust people like Goons, so don't be surprised if they don't use their market hubs. If Goons try to corner a market in their little citadel, then buy orders will increase in neighboring Jita, and other suppliers will fill that void, thereby decreasing the market activity for the citadel. I'd give your scenario a good 2 days before it fell apart. Maybe a week if they went for broke and purchased every reasonable market order available in Jita without relisting anything.
Yeah... your not following the argument. Thats one of the problems I guess with the meat of the debate being had over several forums and blogs.
Look 10% of the player base do around 90% of the trading ok? you got your big null sec guys, you got your fw guys doing the faction modules, wormholers doing the PI, etc. You also have the station traders, many of whom are alts of nul seccers. Now when a null sec citadel goes up in perimeter you can either use it or stay in jita and pay x% more. So the null sec guys set their buy sell orders there. they move their trader alts over there. The faction loot gets sold there and the big manufacters of everything from tengus to frigates to dc2s ship them there and sell them. If your a miner? thats where the best and most active sell orders are and so on, so forth.
At this point jita dies. Oh sure theres still gonna be some people trading there. Same as I can buy stuff over in Jouvelen or rens, but can I buy a kronos or a golem, switch to my fitting screen, select my mission 4 fit and just hit buy fittings? not like now. People will pay for convenience, people travel across whole regions to get to jita for that convenience. So they will use the new citadel in perimeter. If the Mittanis price for using that citadel is a 2% tax? they will pay it and if his price is they kneel? well they gonna pay that too. They going to have too or leave cal space and goto Pls citadel in their part of highsec.
Will gank for food
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
851
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 09:46:11 -
[866] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Really Lucas, there are literally thousands of items on the market that have minimal (under 10%) returns now and with a 3.5% brokers fee + transaction fees, those items become not worth listing. Yet those same items are the ones that keep the markets ticking over. With good skills and standings those cheap minimal profit items are pretty good income - Double npc taxes and add new broker fees, they are no longer viable items. Halving the profit for smaller traders is removing them from trading. And of course TQ needs more monopolies, especially in trading. At that point buying things in new eden becomes extortion rather than free trade.
There is an inherent contradiction in here I'm afraid. First you point out that some goods are so aggressively traded the profit margin is low. So smaller traders will exit the market and then with less competition prices will rise dramatically....which should prompt traders to enter the market and drop prices back down. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You either missed the boat or simply didn't understand my comment. I wasn't talking about high volume sales, I was talking about the things traders with less isk trade and make a living from. Those just starting out, unlike the Lucas's of the game not everyone has more isk than they need (his words not mine) and have to start out trading cheap items with little markup.
No small time trader is going to be making a living off trading trit for example.
Many of them trade meta items that have a slightly better than zero return on them. Many of those items will not be worth listing once cost to sell is increased, simply because there is not enough margin in them to make it viable.
And your right, for the small time trader just starting out, CCP is removing the cake so they won't get to eat it.
So, mind telling me where the contradiction is?
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.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
851
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 10:08:22 -
[867] - Quote
Tarojan wrote: Hows that for an idea then huh? all the highsec miners/missioners and traders forced to kneel to their new null sec overlords. Working as intended by CCP.
It is a shame Devs and CCP haven't learnt from previous mistakes when it comes to dominating groups holding monopolies. Some I guess are just slow learners.
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.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17513
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 10:41:23 -
[868] - Quote
Petrified wrote:
True, but given the volume of trade conducted in Jita alone, compared to anywhere else, its not an unattractive number. Whatever the number is, however, would it be high enough to entice rivals to put aside differences and come to an agreement to not threaten each others' market Citadels?
Doubt it. I don't even think jita will be abandoned. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
851
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 10:46:29 -
[869] - Quote
Sir Lanfear wrote:Tarojan wrote: Hows that for an idea then huh? all the highsec miners/missioners and traders forced to kneel to their new null sec overlords.
You are seriously paranoid.. Maybe a week if they went for broke and purchased every reasonable market order available in Jita without relisting anything. Or are you not paranoid enough?
What if all it took was for the traders belonging to those groups to cancel sell and buy orders. They would have to "buy" very little.
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.
|
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
533
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 11:17:43 -
[870] - Quote
The main problem is that if citadels were introduced with EVE and the NPC broker fee was always so high, the big hubs were never formed at the first place. Little guys would use small local citadels operated by the local power, each serving a close proximity, if they'd overextend, someone big would siege them. The inter-hub trading were done by professionals who avoid taxes by direct trades, contracts, maybe even corp hangars. Simply everyone relevant would know to convo Adam Adams if you have 1B+ ores to sell or buy and he'll give you a good price. Without large hubs, there would be nothing to hijack by Goons and PL.
Due to the low fees, and no citadels it became possible to use the market feature for everyone. Then, when everyone is used to go to Jita/Amarr... when he has products to sell or a new ship to buy, CCP rises the taxes and make it possible that huge nullsec powers collect the trade. Sure, people will adapt, local hubs will rise corps will start ore buyback on contracts and so on, so in a year or two the Goon/PL Perimiter hub became abandoned. But until it happens they make about 500T... more ISK than all ship destruction in a year.
It's like CCP announce that from now on Titan doomsdays will need Slaver Hounds as ammo and create a convoluted production method to make Slaver Hounds for about 100M each. In a few months the production lines build and things go smoothly. In the meantime, Joe Somebody who happened to have 10000 Slaver Hounds made 10T out of nothing. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Somebody's alliance mates on CSM. If there is a new feature and Goons+PL take it like Tech Moons, the more power to them. But CCP shouldn't hand existing things over to them.
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |