Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1301
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 09:55:58 -
[61] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Oh, you're viewing it in a broader scope rather than just market. Then yes. I agree. Even if you only concern yourself with market functionality, without contracts you haven't got anything close to the full package.
|
Ria Nieyli
41950
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 10:39:38 -
[62] - Quote
Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway. |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
13
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 10:45:23 -
[63] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway.
Medium can't but Large and XL can have a market module, the contract feature will not work with the first release
source : http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S2.pdf
Also, CREST will not work with citadels |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1301
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 11:59:56 -
[64] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway. Medium can't but Large and XL can have a market module, the contract feature will not work with the first release source : http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S2.pdf Also, CREST will not work with citadels I'm expecting to see contracts support for L and XL Citadels eventually, but I don't think I've seen a clear confirmation that M Citadels will get them. That's not to say it will not happen. |
Aaril
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
34
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 23:35:46 -
[65] - Quote
I am guessing I am space poor compared to most people here, and due to having a more casual schedule I like to trade in secondary hubs. I feel that this change will cause absolute carnage to my monthly income. I cannot see a Citadel taking over trade hubs, regardless of asset safety (hauling and relisting my orders sounds horrible).
Today, secondary trade hub players will sometime drive margins to smaller than Jita with many times less volume. These items are usually "ruined" for a while until some massive order comes through at an unpredictable date later. Based on this precedent, after these changes I have a feeling it will take months for the trading to adjust in these secondary hubs.
I am not sure why they don't see how the player's adjust to having Citadels, first, before they feel the need to introduce "sticks". I completely agree with Bad Bobby that feature parity needs to occur first.
I have no evidence to back this up, but I am guessing most trader's, like me, are fairly casual. Basically, I am not so entrenched in trading that I could possibly entertain the idea of doing Incursions on an alt instead (or setting up a bear hole, doing missions, etc). I would be taking my income from a pure sink to a faucet as part of this process.
If inflation is such a huge concern, it seems like they could lower the faucets through increased LP/items instead of liquid ISK. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5731
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 00:11:44 -
[66] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Aaron Honk wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway. Medium can't but Large and XL can have a market module, the contract feature will not work with the first release source : http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S2.pdf Also, CREST will not work with citadels I'm expecting to see contracts support for L and XL Citadels eventually, but I don't think I've seen a clear confirmation that M Citadels will get them. That's not to say it will not happen.
Item exchange contracts are manageable to live without (CODE.'s gank fleet logistics manage this, we don't use item exchange contracts but instead delegate the handing out of ships via the trade window). Blueprints are the one big problem that remains.
It's courier contracts that are the bigger issue.
What happens to a courier contract when the target Citadel is blown up during the contract? What if the Citadel is unanchored and moved to another system (if possible)? What if it has its contract/market facilities uninstalled? What if the Citadel changes who can dock there?
I don't really see a solution here either.
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".
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
17
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 00:32:15 -
[67] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Aaron Honk wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway. Medium can't but Large and XL can have a market module, the contract feature will not work with the first release source : http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S2.pdf Also, CREST will not work with citadels I'm expecting to see contracts support for L and XL Citadels eventually, but I don't think I've seen a clear confirmation that M Citadels will get them. That's not to say it will not happen. Item exchange contracts are manageable to live without (CODE.'s gank fleet logistics manage this, we don't use item exchange contracts but instead delegate the handing out of ships via the trade window). Blueprints are the one big problem that remains. It's courier contracts that are the bigger issue. What happens to a courier contract when the target Citadel is blown up during the contract? What if the Citadel is unanchored and moved to another system (if possible)? What if it has its contract/market facilities uninstalled? What if the Citadel changes who can dock there? I don't really see a solution here either.
I'm sure I've read somewhere that the un-anchoring of a citadel would take something like a week, I don't remember where
It will be a total mess anyway, I don't know how they are going to handle the fact that you can dock to some citadels but not some others, how will that works with couriers ? so many questions ! |
Cista2
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
215
|
Posted - 2016.03.21 14:54:06 -
[68] - Quote
I am ruing that change :( However, and slightly OT : Black Desert Online - brokers fee is 35% lmao.
They really don't like traders in that game (or any other emergent gameplay - and still try to label those games sandboxes).
My channel: "Signatures"
-
Recommended: "The Biomass Bar" (for corpse selling)
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
49
|
Posted - 2016.03.21 15:04:33 -
[69] - Quote
Cista2 wrote:I am ruing that change :( However, and slightly OT : Black Desert Online - brokers fee is 35% lmao.
They really don't like traders in that game (or any other emergent gameplay - and still try to label those games sandboxes).
Someone pointed that dungeon and dragon online have a 30% fee as well |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
1329
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 16:47:11 -
[70] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:Cista2 wrote:I am ruing that change :( However, and slightly OT : Black Desert Online - brokers fee is 35% lmao.
They really don't like traders in that game (or any other emergent gameplay - and still try to label those games sandboxes).
Someone pointed that dungeon and dragon online have a 30% fee as well I don't remember the trading gameplay being particularly deep in DDO. |
|
General Muller
RpG-CONVICTS-FEDERATION
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 09:35:06 -
[71] - Quote
Guild Wars 2 has combined listing and selling fees of 15% and market trading is a very active form of gameplay.
Needless to say that there is a lot of market manipulation involved both from whales and ArenaNet themself. |
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
515
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 23:52:07 -
[72] - Quote
How much monthly isk would it generate to the holding corp if 50% of the jita trade moved to a citadel?
Would trading in a citadel remove the need to have faction standings? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4819
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 05:41:19 -
[73] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:How much monthly isk would it generate to the holding corp if 50% of the jita trade moved to a citadel?
Would trading in a citadel remove the need to have faction standings?
It depends on the broker's fee that the citadel owner sets. And that depends on competition from other citadels and even the potential for competition. Also, the prices themselves will likely change as well, most likely upwards...but the quantity purchased will also likely fall, so the net effect on citadel revenues would be ambiguous.
Might as well ask, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"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
|
Ria Nieyli
42390
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 09:47:20 -
[74] - Quote
If quantity of purchases drops, wouldn't that drive prices down due to the available surplus of goods though?
Vote Cytoplasm for CSM 11!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5737
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 12:10:30 -
[75] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:Cista2 wrote:I am ruing that change :( However, and slightly OT : Black Desert Online - brokers fee is 35% lmao.
They really don't like traders in that game (or any other emergent gameplay - and still try to label those games sandboxes).
Someone pointed that dungeon and dragon online have a 30% fee as well
And that game had a barter economy when I used to play it. Small transactions used the auction house; large ones were done via its equivalent of our trade window.
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".
|
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
515
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 15:51:00 -
[76] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:How much monthly isk would it generate to the holding corp if 50% of the jita trade moved to a citadel?
Would trading in a citadel remove the need to have faction standings? According to the graph Hiver posted total Transaction tax for Feb was $10 Trillion. I don't know what percentage of that is Jita/Amarr, but the amount of income potential for the Citadel owner is incredible.
I imagine this will create press worthy battles initially as competing citadels are anchored in high-sec, but what happens if a group establishes citadel hegemony? The only available rebel action would be boycotts. If major powers are spending their time defending/attacking assets in high-sec, who's left in null?
Is CCP taking a big gamble on this one both from overwhelming advantage for the biggest group, and from player morale?
What are your predictions for the outcome?
|
Cista2
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 17:37:02 -
[77] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote: what happens if a group establishes citadel hegemony? What would they do, make taxes higher than Jita npc station? Hardly :)
My channel: "Signatures"
-
Recommended: "The Biomass Bar" (for corpse selling)
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4819
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 17:46:05 -
[78] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:If quantity of purchases drops, wouldn't that drive prices down due to the available surplus of goods though?
No. Draw a supply and demand graph. Shift supply to the left, then demand. Do it several times, you should be able to draw graphs where the price goes up, stays the same or down.
"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
4819
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 17:56:03 -
[79] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:Shiloh Templeton wrote:How much monthly isk would it generate to the holding corp if 50% of the jita trade moved to a citadel?
Would trading in a citadel remove the need to have faction standings? According to the graph Hiver posted total Transaction tax for Feb was $10 Trillion. I don't know what percentage of that is Jita/Amarr, but the amount of income potential for the Citadel owner is incredible. I imagine this will create press worthy battles initially as competing citadels are anchored in high-sec, but what happens if a group establishes citadel hegemony? The only available rebel action would be boycotts. If major powers are spending their time defending/attacking assets in high-sec, who's left in null? Is CCP taking a big gamble on this one both from overwhelming advantage for the biggest group, and from player morale? What are your predictions for the outcome?
Let me see, just playing with numbers here. 1% of 10 trillion is what?
How much ISK do the "major" powers earn off of things like moon-goo, POCO taxes, and so forth?
Can one group capture all of the HS trade?
Even if they did capture a large chunk would they raise prices? Might that not invite more competition and a new round of fights?
If such a "major" power is busy defending their HS income....wouldn't that leave some openings back home for an enemy to exploit?
These very same predictions were made for POCOs, that one group would take over a big chunk of them in HS and make tons of ISK and break the game, ruin the ecoonomy, etc.
Yet here we are.
Why is it there whenever there is a change to the economy the typical post is:
"You'll kill the game!" "You just wrecked the economy!" "You just handed [insert the villain du jour] an unbeateable advantage!!"
And yet....they never come to pass.
Do carry on with your predictions of doom and gloom...they eat it up on the forums just as they do in real life.
"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
|
Ria Nieyli
42419
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 09:05:58 -
[80] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:If quantity of purchases drops, wouldn't that drive prices down due to the available surplus of goods though? No. Draw a supply and demand graph. Shift supply to the left, then demand. Do it several times, you should be able to draw graphs where the price goes up, stays the same or down.
Yeah, see, that's the thing. I'm thinking that supply won't shift. At least not immediately.
Vote Cytoplasm for CSM 11!
|
|
Jacabon Mere
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
98
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 14:14:48 -
[81] - Quote
Without courier contracts no citadel will come anywhere close to replacing a trade hub.
Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net
|
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
515
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 16:03:57 -
[82] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Why is it there whenever there is a change to the economy the typical post is: "You'll kill the game!" "You just wrecked the economy!" "You just handed [insert the villain du jour] an unbeateable advantage!!" And yet....they never come to pass. Do carry on with your predictions of doom and gloom...they eat it up on the forums just as they do in real life. I wasn't trying to predict doom and gloom, rather understand what the opporunities/risks are. I readily admit my game experience is too limited to know what will happen so that's why I was asking what more knowledgeable people in this forum predict.
POCO's have generated gameplay as exemplified by the recent Eve Uni attacks on PIRAT. And skill injectors have created opporunities.
Clearly with the proposed taxes, CCP wants to push trade towards citadel markets.
Establishing a New Jita or New Amarr would gain more than 1%, wouldn't it? Besides going after the trade hub market, what about citadels in low traffic areas where people try to create their own markets? Will FW groups try to use a citadel just for their own members market or is the citadel cost too high? Will it create more regionalized markets instead of so concentrated in Jita? Will this create a boon for mercenary groups hired to defend/attack citadels? |
Shayla Etherodyne
United Nations Industrial Holdings
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 18:21:08 -
[83] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote: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.
You are missing a"little" point about VAT taxes. You compensate the tax will pay on the final product with the tax you paid on the initial product. Only the final purchaser pay the tax and it is 20% of the value of the final product.
With the new trading taxes we will end paying 5% at each stage. As each seller will want to recoup the increased cost it will become a impressive compound effect, especially for items that have production several steps.
Moon mineral cost 105 % of the previous price -> T2 crafting material 105% -> final item 105% = 115,7%
Add some extra passage between miners, industrialists, bulk sellers and retail sellers and in no time you will get well above 125% of the previous price.
|
Alexi Stokov
State War Academy Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 23:02:58 -
[84] - Quote
What are you hiding mr honk? |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 23:08:23 -
[85] - Quote
Alexi Stokov wrote:What are you hiding mr honk?
I'm editing all my posts because soon I will stop using this character (I will also edit this post in time )
Not really anything to hide... you could probably find the post on eve search anyway
Edit : 60sec between each edit is annoying |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4819
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 00:46:40 -
[86] - Quote
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote: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. You are missing a"little" point about VAT taxes. You compensate the tax will pay on the final product with the tax you paid on the initial product. Only the final purchaser pay the tax and it is 20% of the value of the final product. With the new trading taxes we will end paying 5% at each stage. As each seller will want to recoup the increased cost it will become a impressive compound effect, especially for items that have production several steps. Moon mineral cost 105 % of the previous price -> T2 crafting material 105% -> final item 105% = 115,7% Add some extra passage between miners, industrialists, bulk sellers and retail sellers and in no time you will get well above 125% of the previous price.
You mean like robotics...oh wait...no. You can make those without having to buy stuff from a station trader, in fact i bet most do. One way around paying taxes is to vertically integrate. If I buy the base inputs and then build up to the final good I don't have to pay the tax at each stage...which has always been the case, it is just increasing now.
"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
|
Fin Aele
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 02:28:36 -
[87] - Quote
I think these changes are terrible. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the new transaction tax is actually larger than today's 2*brokers+1*transaction standard station trade.
I have already started liquidating my trade assets and scaling back my buy orders. and have begun thinking about what I will use for income next (incursions seem like the safest isk/hr alternative). |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 07:53:27 -
[88] - Quote
Fin Aele wrote:I think these changes are terrible. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the new transaction tax is actually larger than today's 2*brokers+1*transaction standard station trade.
I have already started liquidating my trade assets and scaling back my buy orders. and have begun thinking about what I will use for income next (incursions seem like the safest isk/hr alternative).
The market will probably still be profitable, but nobody can say how the tides will change... I have liquidated everything as well and just waiting on the release date |
Jacabon Mere
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
98
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 15:31:35 -
[89] - Quote
Fin Aele wrote:I think these changes are terrible. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the new transaction tax is actually larger than today's 2*brokers+1*transaction standard station trade.
I have already started liquidating my trade assets and scaling back my buy orders. and have begun thinking about what I will use for income next (incursions seem like the safest isk/hr alternative).
Why would you not just pass on costs to consumers?
Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net
|
Fin Aele
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 15:51:51 -
[90] - Quote
Jacabon Mere wrote:Fin Aele wrote:I think these changes are terrible. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the new transaction tax is actually larger than today's 2*brokers+1*transaction standard station trade.
I have already started liquidating my trade assets and scaling back my buy orders. and have begun thinking about what I will use for income next (incursions seem like the safest isk/hr alternative). Why would you not just pass on costs to consumers?
Because I foresee less people selling into Buy Orders as the gap between buy/sell will be huge.
Also, imagine trading ships under the new system. Either you have massive amounts of ISK between buy and sell, or you have to deal with hauling gank magnet freighters that won't even hold that large of a stock. I am generally talking about T2/pirate ships here.
If the Citadel gets blown up, asset safety still means I have to haul and relist potentially many freighters worth of items. I will have have to pay broker's fees a second time, and then have the hassle of relisting all of my orders. All in all I love the player driven economy, but there are some things that are just too annoying to have in the hands of the players. Managing the market is one thing I am perfectly content with the NPC overlords.
To sum it up, this new market sounds like a huge hassle. It may become more appealing to press F1 in an Incursion fleet. I don't enjoy ISK earning period, I just need it to fund my main's pvp. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |