Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 09:51:12 -
[31] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:At last some sensible comments.....
The market fees have been at least 1/10th of what they should have been for 13 years - at last an adjustment is happening. Why? A liquid market and big trade volumes with small spreads is ten times more desirable for a healthy economy than an ISK sink. Spreads shall be defined by supply and demand and not be dominated by fees.
My guess is that he is just happy for his alliance to get to collect trade fees in high sec |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 13:26:03 -
[32] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:[quote=Tipa Riot].................. My guess is that he is just happy for his alliance to get to collect trade fees in high sec
Pathetic...
I guess from your style, however, that you are an economist or one that subscribes to that pseudo-science based upon a false premise.
Note: All the modern states that have subscribed to Keynesian (sic) economic theory are now hideously in debt; with a few exploiting it mercilessly.
The fees should have been higher all the time to pay for station upkeep and CONCORD - at the very least.
- Sales Tax (VAT) ~20%
- Corporation Tax 10-30%
- Broker Fees 10-40%
Figures based upon RL examples like that would have been much more sensible. Then there wouldn't need to be such change now to allow the players to take control if they wished.
And yes, I had indeed, perhaps erroneously, expected better here than trolling.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
11
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 14:14:32 -
[33] - Quote
Maybe if we want to follow your logic we might as well remove bounties income and replace it with a centralized income stream organized by Concord. "Then there wouldn't need to be such change now to allow the players to take control if they wished."
We are not in real life, we are in a game. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 15:10:20 -
[34] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:[quote=Marcus Tedric]..................
We are not in real life, we are in a game.
Actually I think not (not in 'modern' terms at least).
One of the things I like so much about EVE is that it seems to be set up much more as a 'simulation', which has been made more practicable to a non-RL pastime/hobby and thus has been 'game-ified'. Sadly that sometimes seems to result in 'dumbing down' towards the much more common 'entertainments' that are sold as games these days; but I accept that is the majority of the marketplace.
The point being that, as I have mentioned elsewhere, if the Taxes had been where they should have been for all these years; then this change would be greeted with joy as opposed to whining. Thus we have a harder sell.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Hiver Chanlin
System Test
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 02:32:52 -
[35] - Quote
TL;DR - Changes in market fees will be a very strong force to change player behavior. 29.145 T per month of force.
The purpose of this is to measure in numbers how much force the changes in market fees will apply to change player behavior. Can players (pvpers, missioners, traders and industrialists) make small changes slowly and take the hit or will they need to make big changes quickly?
The assumptions are based on nothing changing. If players don't change anything, when the new fees hit, what would it look like? Each adaptation that players make will change the assumptions and reduce the impact.
Based on:
* February [ISK sinks and faucets](http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70094/1/10_-_hO35OM1.png) * February [Trade value](http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70094/1/02_-_LBAeCSa.png) * Proposed [taxes and fees math](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/49p3la/update_on_structure_services/)
1. 9817 B in Transaction taxes and 5888 B in Brokers fees were paid on 936 T traded value. 2. The average transaction tax rate is 1.04% and the average brokers fees is 0.629% 3. The new average transaction tax will be 2.04% 4. Based on [this graph](http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Thoraemond/eve-market-order-broker-fees-20110417.png) The average effective fees before skills are `(0.629 / 0.75) = 0.838%`. One set of standings that would correspond to that is Corp 3 Faction 1. (Assuming max skills brokers relations skills simplifies the math and won't affect the ballpark result). 5. The new math for brokers fees with those assumptions would be: `5% - (5*.02 + 1*0.03 + 3*.02) = 3.91%` NPC fees. 6. Assuming the same trade volume (these are volumes in NPC stations only) the new monthly totals would be: `936T*2.04%=19.09 T` taxes and `936T * 3.91% = 36.5976 T` in brokers fees. 7. The proposed taxes will be 9.273 T more than current taxes. That's an unavoidable increase in ISK sinks. 8. Current monthly net ISK gain is 10.83 T. Less the increased taxes is 1.557 T. Add the 5.888 T of current brokers fees and you have 7.445 T net ISK gain *before brokers fees* under the new fee schedule. 9. 7.445 T is 20 % of the new 36.59 T brokers fees 10. If no NPC market activity moves to citadels, and no other change in player behaviour, there will be a net decrease in ISK of 29.145 T per month in the overall economy. 11. The total ISK in player wallets (950 T) is 25.7 times the monthly ISK deficit assuming no changes to player behavior. |
Jay Aaron
M-Spec Industrial Resources Ltd Agents of Fortune
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 03:50:53 -
[36] - Quote
Hiver Chanlin wrote:TL;DR - interesting analysis Hmmm... I guess my notion of a "tidy little ISK sink" is a bit of an understatement.
With any degree of accuracy in your analysis, we'll need an unprecedented level of adaptation to this change, or turn out the lights, the party's over in a couple of years...
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4799
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 04:25:07 -
[37] - Quote
Jay Aaron wrote:Hiver Chanlin wrote:TL;DR - interesting analysis Hmmm... I guess my notion of a "tidy little ISK sink" is a bit of an understatement. With any degree of accuracy in your analysis, we'll need an unprecedented level of adaptation to this change, or turn out the lights, the party's over in a couple of years...
Probably not.
"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
|
Rhivre
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
870
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 07:50:56 -
[38] - Quote
Hiver Chanlin wrote: 10. If no NPC market activity moves to citadels, and no other change in player behaviour, there will be a net decrease in ISK of 29.145 T per month in the overall economy. 11. The total ISK in player wallets (750 T) is 25.7 times the monthly ISK deficit assuming no changes to player behavior.
So even if nothing changes, its is not that much of a problem.
Fluffy Bunny Pic!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5725
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 08:15:20 -
[39] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Some things will have to move. PLEX in particular, unless PLEX trade is entirely confined to contracts in the future. They'll put contract fees up too, once they've added contracts to citadels. Sabriz Adoudel wrote:You simply cannot flip PLEX with a ~3.7% broker fee paid on every buy order and every sell order. You also cannot flip PLEX in a Citadel with no suppliers or customers. If the people stay at 4-4, the PLEX market will stay at 4-4 and the price will be what the price will be. Remember that these Citadels are going to be largely inferior to NPC stations, at least at release. Jita 4-4 has had competition from NPC stations that are strictly superior to it for many, many years. Jita has a critical mass and inertia so great that it will take a titan's blow to shift it. I don't think CCP should attempt to strike that blow, because they'll probably ruin the game in the process. I think they should give us the tools so that resourceful player organisations can strike it for them. That's excellent sandbox content, not massive nerfs from on high. Sadly, it's going to take a long, long time for them to release the necessary tools, because that work is hard. They can make Citadels such a well produced, refined and feature rich creation that NPC stations become a legacy relic by comparison. With a carrot that sweet, the stick is really not needed. Unfortunately, it's going to take far, far less time and effort for them to massively nerf NPC stations instead.
Inertia is indeed a huge factor. I've seen more than one person attempt to create a rival to an established microhub and the only success story I've seen was Stacmon - which was made real by EVE Uni's lowsec campus.
On contracts - I think there will be a lot more chat-channel organised private contracting of PLEX and possibly bulk stocks of other high volume items like trit or Interceptor hulls. Private contracts have no fees at present.
This will be a scammer's paradise, which I for one look forward to.
I still think it is far too drastic a change to take place all at once.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces
315
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 14:05:33 -
[40] - Quote
its another attempt to remove more isk from the system to hit all parties rich or poor because 2 constant problems exist through the years
1, CSM notes have listed numerous times of what can be done to this out the huge amount of isk in circulation rather its in someones wallet or listed up in the markets
2. Not enough chaos in the galaxy so they intervene to increase the chaos
What we need is a wallet/market wipe as the common economy complaints are there is far too much on the markets and far too in isk floating around since the main sources print isk
Most games have a NPC market which will remove the isk
our isk sinks are taxes (trade/npc corps/pi) some trade goods that are produced by NPCs, Skills, and various stocks of items which are usually undersold by players, Fees for owning star systems
if I missed anything please add to the list
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1297
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 16:46:37 -
[41] - Quote
Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
There are many other ways of sinking ISK. But CCP aren't coming to the table with a list of new ISK sinks they are considering in order to improve the EVE economy. They are coming to the table with a raft of measures intended to make the new Citadels suck less when compared to existing NPC stations.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this odd, but I never thought NPC stations were that great. They haven't really had much love in the 11+ years I've been playing. Just the odd cosmetic touch up and that one time they taunted us with the possibility of walking inside them. So how come a new feature that has been in the works for years is going to require tax incentives to be competitive with what we've already had for over a decade?
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with. |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
13
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 17:21:07 -
[42] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
There are many other ways of sinking ISK. But CCP aren't coming to the table with a list of new ISK sinks they are considering in order to improve the EVE economy. They are coming to the table with a raft of measures intended to make the new Citadels suck less when compared to existing NPC stations.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this odd, but I never thought NPC stations were that great. They haven't really had much love in the 11+ years I've been playing. Just the odd cosmetic touch up and that one time they taunted us with the possibility of walking inside them. So how come a new feature that has been in the works for years is going to require tax incentives to be competitive with what we've already had for over a decade?
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
My bet is that they couldn't justify a taxes increase in another context or at another date, so they just put it with the citadel release "while they still can" |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1297
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 17:30:14 -
[43] - Quote
They can justify tax changes at any time. EVE is a gaming product, not a country.
They're also not traditionally shy of putting out changes without giving any justification. |
Ria Nieyli
41945
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:07:01 -
[44] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
There are many other ways of sinking ISK. But CCP aren't coming to the table with a list of new ISK sinks they are considering in order to improve the EVE economy. They are coming to the table with a raft of measures intended to make the new Citadels suck less when compared to existing NPC stations.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this odd, but I never thought NPC stations were that great. They haven't really had much love in the 11+ years I've been playing. Just the odd cosmetic touch up and that one time they taunted us with the possibility of walking inside them. So how come a new feature that has been in the works for years is going to require tax incentives to be competitive with what we've already had for over a decade?
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
People won't stop doing what they've been doing for more than a decade just because. The developers are fighting for the life of their new feature, and fighting against the player created environment. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4801
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:16:42 -
[45] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:
People won't stop doing what they've been doing for more than a decade just because. The developers are fighting for the life of their new feature, and fighting against the player created environment.
I think there is quite a bit of truth in here. They are indeed trying to get players to move away from what they have done for years and that will likely need both the carrot and the stick.
"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
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
375
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:17:05 -
[46] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
There are many other ways of sinking ISK. But CCP aren't coming to the table with a list of new ISK sinks they are considering in order to improve the EVE economy. They are coming to the table with a raft of measures intended to make the new Citadels suck less when compared to existing NPC stations.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this odd, but I never thought NPC stations were that great. They haven't really had much love in the 11+ years I've been playing. Just the odd cosmetic touch up and that one time they taunted us with the possibility of walking inside them. So how come a new feature that has been in the works for years is going to require tax incentives to be competitive with what we've already had for over a decade?
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
This, so much this.
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4801
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:26:53 -
[47] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote: I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
What maybe better for the game may not be seen as better from some sub-groups of players--e.g. station traders seem particularly displeased....then again losing that 0.2% broker's fee and facing something that could be up to an order of magnitude larger it is obvious to see why.
Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game.
"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
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
375
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:29:11 -
[48] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Bad Bobby wrote: I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
What maybe better for the game may not be seen as better from some sub-groups of players--e.g. station traders seem particularly displeased....then again losing that 0.2% broker's fee and facing something that could be up to an order of magnitude larger it is obvious to see why. Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game.
The thing for me is, that traders are just considered last in all stuff that changes, EVE needs a good look on all kind of stuff for people who PVP on the market. Its stupid that it has no attention from DEVs at all, all the time. I think that's part of where the outrage comes from.
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1299
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:50:36 -
[49] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:People won't stop doing what they've been doing for more than a decade just because. The developers are fighting for the life of their new feature, and fighting against the player created environment. I think there is quite a bit of truth in here. They are indeed trying to get players to move away from what they have done for years and that will likely need both the carrot and the stick. It may need the stick, but it doesn't have to be this stick.
Who exactly do you think will be incentivised to change behavior by a reduction in broker fee and transaction tax? Certainly not the majority of players, who will not give two ****** about it. This is an incentive for station operators who want to make an income from the market, not station customers.
Given this is a forum section filled with traders, where do you go to sell stuff? Where the customers are, or where the customers aren't? You will not move unless the customers move. The customers will not be incentivised by this tax.
Citadels do not have to have a tax advantage vs NPC stations, because if people aren't visiting the Citadel it's going to make **** all difference how low the broker fees are. People will not be going to a Citadel because of the market, at least not in most cases, they'll go for something else (if at all) and maybe do some shopping while they are there.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4801
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:01:20 -
[50] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:People won't stop doing what they've been doing for more than a decade just because. The developers are fighting for the life of their new feature, and fighting against the player created environment. I think there is quite a bit of truth in here. They are indeed trying to get players to move away from what they have done for years and that will likely need both the carrot and the stick. It may need the stick, but it doesn't have to be this stick. Who exactly do you think will be incentivised to change behavior by a reduction in broker fee and transaction tax? Certainly not the majority of players, who will not give two ****** about it. This is an incentive for station operators who want to make an income from the market, not station customers. Given this is a forum section filled with traders, where do you go to sell stuff? Where the customers are, or where the customers aren't? You will not move unless the customers move. The customers will not be incentivised by this tax. Citadels do not have to have a tax advantage vs NPC stations, because if people aren't visiting the Citadel it's going to make **** all difference how low the broker fees are. People will not be going to a Citadel because of the market, at least not in most cases, they'll go for something else (if at all) and maybe do some shopping while they are there.
I'll go where the sellers are. If the traders move to citadels, as a buyer I'll go there too.
And the tax issue is misleading, it is the broker's fee that will be providing the incentive. And I'm not sure I agree with you that it won't be enough incentive. Look at what people have done to get their borker's fees so low currently. And the existing traders may not move right away, but new traders might...my understanding the barrier to entry is lower in a citadel.
Any ISK sink will inevitably be a tax of some sort.
"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
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1299
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:14:33 -
[51] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game. I don't think that example supports your cause.
CCP has ****** about on the sidelines for years and never actually fixed the issues with Titans (or capitals in general).
Anyone can waste time and money fixing things that aren't the problem. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1299
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:24:55 -
[52] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Look at what people have done to get their borker's fees so low currently. To get their Jita 4-4 broker fees so low?
They want to get the best fees at the place where they have chosen to trade.
They did not choose to trade at Jita 4-4 because they had low broker fees there.
Teckos Pech wrote:Any ISK sink will inevitably be a tax of some sort. The ones that don't require CCP to put much work in will be taxes, yes.
The ones that require them to add new services to charge for or new products to sell will not be, but those take more work.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1299
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:29:20 -
[53] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bad Bobby wrote: I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
What maybe better for the game may not be seen as better from some sub-groups of players--e.g. station traders seem particularly displeased....then again losing that 0.2% broker's fee and facing something that could be up to an order of magnitude larger it is obvious to see why. Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game. The thing for me is, that traders are just considered last in all stuff that changes, EVE needs a good look on all kind of stuff for people who PVP on the market. Its stupid that it has no attention from DEVs at all, all the time. I think that's part of where the outrage comes from. It could be worse, you could be an industrialist. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5725
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 21:26:49 -
[54] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
Having played games with much higher market taxes, they end up not being as much of an ISK sink as you expect.
Big players simply stop using the market for large trades.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
460
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 00:27:02 -
[55] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bad Bobby wrote: I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
What maybe better for the game may not be seen as better from some sub-groups of players--e.g. station traders seem particularly displeased....then again losing that 0.2% broker's fee and facing something that could be up to an order of magnitude larger it is obvious to see why. Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game. The thing for me is, that traders are just considered last in all stuff that changes, EVE needs a good look on all kind of stuff for people who PVP on the market. Its stupid that it has no attention from DEVs at all, all the time. I think that's part of where the outrage comes from. It could be worse, you could be an industrialist. Agreed. Citadels completely out-compete current methods of re-processing ore. (59% now for a citadel in high sec! It used to be 50% with 54% the max when operating in the depths of LS or NS). The truth is only a giant alliances will be able to keep a XL Citadel alive and running and so once again smaller scale traders are hit.
And then on top you have the broker fees for making market orders for the raw materials, and then broker fees again for selling the items. This will take a massive cut out of any manufacturing profits one would have received.
I expect they'll come along next and give citadels some insane ME bonus over anything else possible in the game, and thus completely kill the prospect of manufacturing successfully without signing over your soul to a big alliance who will allow you to use their citadel for a price.
I won't be surprised if citadels actually kill off a lot of the fun gameplay opportunities for the smaller entities by the time they are fully realised if this broker fee and reprocessing change is anything to go by.
(Edit - Scratch the point about reprocessing - it seems CCP has seen sense and has suggested new reprocessing bands other than what is described in the devblog. The other points still remain though)
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5726
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 03:56:59 -
[56] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:
I expect they'll come along next and give citadels some insane ME bonus over anything else possible in the game, and thus completely kill the prospect of manufacturing successfully without signing over your soul to a big alliance who will allow you to use their citadel for a price.
This would be a disaster on the level of the introduction of T2 BPOs.
The 2% ME bonus for production in a POS is about where this should be - it's a compelling incentive to use one but not crippling if you do not.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1301
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 05:05:50 -
[57] - Quote
Another side of this that I'm not keen on is CCP nerfing NPC stations before a suitable replacement is in place. That is what they did with POS, right before they left us twisting in the wind for 18 months and counting.
CCP has a terrible record for iterating on economy features. |
Ria Nieyli
41950
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 08:05:48 -
[58] - Quote
Well, the citadels are slated for the end of April or so. Seems like they'll go live the same time as the increased tax. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1301
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 08:41:22 -
[59] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Well, the citadels are slated for the end of April or so. Seems like they'll go live the same time as the increased tax. Which is my point.
Citadels will not be a replacement for NPC stations (or POSes) in April. They will not reach parity in functionality until CCP has made further iterations on them. In the interim, we'll be stuck with nerfed NPC stations, nerfed POSes and partially implemented Citadels.
I'd much rather they released Citadels, iterated on them until they are in a good state and only then started removing/devaluing the alternatives. |
Ria Nieyli
41950
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 09:18:44 -
[60] - Quote
Oh, you're viewing it in a broader scope rather than just market. Then yes. I agree. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |