Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Tiger's Spirit
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 04:11:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Harkwyth Mist It's too low.
Taxation is a start but it's not enough.
Needed Changes: - People should pay to Dock at stations. - People should pay for cargo handling. - People should pay for using Hanger Storage per m3. - People should pay to use Warp Gates.
Agreed Or :
1-3 months players just pay 0% tax. 3-6 months players just pay 11% tax. 6-12 months players just pay 25% tax. Over 12 months players just pay 50% tax. (Over 24 months players just pay 75% tax.)
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 09:15:00 -
[362]
Originally by: Tiger's Spirit
Originally by: Harkwyth Mist It's too low.
Taxation is a start but it's not enough.
Needed Changes: - People should pay to Dock at stations. - People should pay for cargo handling. - People should pay for using Hanger Storage per m3. - People should pay to use Warp Gates.
Agreed Or :
1-3 months players just pay 0% tax. 3-6 months players just pay 11% tax. 6-12 months players just pay 25% tax. Over 12 months players just pay 50% tax. (Over 24 months players just pay 75% tax.)
And time spent in an NPC corp for this calculation should be cumulative.
|
McFly
|
Posted - 2009.09.26 10:10:00 -
[363]
Aren't we missing a fairly huge door this is going to open?
Tax doesn't effect... Market Transactions, Manufacturing Research
How many NPC Corp Sitting Traders/Miners/Producers etc won't be affected by this?
My only gripe is if the goal is to get people out of the NPC Corps and playing Player Corps, okay fine, but adding a tax to the NPC Corps really only effects the Mission Runners. Now CCP is basically in a around the bush way punishing mission runners, while leaving the current protection of NPC Corps available to Industrial/Market Professions, without the same penalty that the PVE players will be recieving.
Now I dont care either way, but I think it is a valid point that Corp Tax doesn't effect Industrial/Market Players, while digs the wallets of the PVE Players.
On a side note, I think that this may warrant a change to Corp Tax mechanics in general. Corp Taxes are only collected from Agent Transactions, and NPC Bounties, that's it. They aren't collected from a miner selling minerals, or from a trader running modules from jita to low-sec system x. Doesn't seem like a very reasonable system to me.
If the goal is to get people out of the NPC Corp Sanctuaries, then it should effect all pilots. Granted the Market playing characters could just create 1 man corps, and if they only operate in a single market hub would be immune to all wardeccing becuase they never undock. Most do need to run around a bit tho.
Miners of course have to undock to perform their trade. So like mission runners them being taxed would push many miners out of the NPC Corps and into the Player Corps, or create their own.
Production/Research Characters mostly have their own corps for the need of a POS, or living in research alliances. So moot point there.
Just some thoughts, if you're going to do something it shouldn't only effect group 1, while 2, 3, and 4 are unscathed.
|
Aiko Intaki
Lodizal Capsuleers Lodizal Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 17:35:00 -
[364]
Tie taxation rate to faction warfare success.
The more successful the faction your corporation belongs to is, the less you are taxed due to the profitable opportunities which arise with increased territory. The less successful the faction your corporation belongs to is, the more you are taxed to cover war loss costs. In either case, the people actually partaking in NPC faction warfare corporations benefit from not being taxed at all.
It'll encourage people leave NPC corps, possibly even moving into faction warfare.
|
Terri Lam
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 03:50:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Aiko Intaki Tie taxation rate to faction warfare success.
It'll encourage people leave NPC corps, possibly even moving into faction warfare.
If I leave my NPC corp and go to faction warfare because of the tax, then I no longer have any stake in the tax; which means I have no reason to be in faction warfare.
Best case scenario people log on with FW alts, grind Faction LP, sell Faction mods and ships for crazy profits and wait for the tax in their respective corp to go down. Then log onto their NPC main and return to whatever they were doing that was being taxed. Rinse and Repeat. ofc many NPC players who only trade / mine / manufacture etc. are not affected by the tax so they don't even log onto FW alts.
|
Kachiko Sama
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 11:22:00 -
[366]
Originally by: Aiko Intaki Tie taxation rate to faction warfare success.
The more successful the faction your corporation belongs to is, the less you are taxed due to the profitable opportunities which arise with increased territory. The less successful the faction your corporation belongs to is, the more you are taxed to cover war loss costs. In either case, the people actually partaking in NPC faction warfare corporations benefit from not being taxed at all.
It'll encourage people leave NPC corps, possibly even moving into faction warfare.
This is a pretty terrible thread, and this is a terrible post (much like mine).
If you do this many of the people complaining would join the 'winning' side of FW for the free tax breaks, essentially making a one sided contest even worse. If anything there should be a (real world unrealistic, but hey) motive to join the losing FW side, to act as a balancing force and preventing the whole thing from becoming boring.
|
Jdestars
Stars Research systems Incorporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 15:24:00 -
[367]
i think this taxe its very bad idea for move player to 0.0 location. why the high sec play stay in empire ? many case:
- MMo its massive multi player online not massive agregated in single ore more organisation - Some player dont want to pay any racket for play in 0.0 - Some player play RP empire - Some player want to do business not follow damned rule (nobody buy/sell outside our alliance) => dramatic economic in 0.0 -Lot of player are casual player who has not time to spend in perpertual war (risk to be ban ouside 0.0 corporation...) - Neutral are primary target in 0.0 i think Nbsi and other damned ruels are kill the 0.0 space and try to move casual player ouside high sec & /or npc corporation dont change anything for the state of 0.0 .
the invulnerability of war its just a prevention for Privateer Alliance troubleshooting (eg past trouble )
so the risk is : - lot of creation of tiny corporation like mine ( me and my alt ) and CCP surely will nerf the minimun member corporation in future (crisie situation)
i'm not in npc corporation so taxe dont affect me but
my grief :
-when i buy Eve game 6 year ago i dont saw in box that eve are only PVP game so the game looks like more and more "CS online" for hardcore gamer (9% of Eve player Cf Last QEN ) I had hope that CCP develops the contents of the background so when do you develope Content for 91% of other player dear GM ?
my wishs :
For my part I shall have preferred that CCP develops some contents connected to corporations Npc with a strong link with corporations Players which can be compatible with Factional Warefare. Indeed at present farm mission of a player / corporation has only weak incidence on the life of the corporation and that of Npc and more or less on the global economy of eve
- Setting a new Dynamical Economy : Fluctuation in the parameters of corporation npc (wallet / share / order market reward and bonus) with mission (soloing or corporation) for a corporation npc we shall participate its good health and modify the parameters above but have have negative impact on corporation npc " competitor " the whole there impacting on the faction of the empire and in the final the fleets Npc of the factional
Furthermore I shall have like that CCP attacks the passive of npc farm :
That they set up fleets roaming of npc which intervene further to the aggression of their officers and which attack by measures increased in the installations of corporations players iinvolved in these attacks (npc with capital ship why not) One could also envisage raids of fleet of pirate npc on station of the empire. and why not sleeper attack ;)
i think with this change and other like random effect environnemental ,cyclic random change in repartition in raw moon will increase our Eve experience
You will say to me surely that it will distort games for multiple reason, but at the moment I prefere this dream of a less static contents. We still have the right(law) of dreamed, POST OFFICE ACCOUNT has not put a tax on the dream yet ;)
An Angry old Player (customer) whose spot other Space opera game mmo like Star & other Star game ...
|
Jesum
Amarr Warmongers
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 21:41:00 -
[368]
Originally by: Verone
I disagree with the concept of applying this from the outset.
However, TQ should watch a player's time in NPC corps, and when the cumulative time reaches 90 days, the corp tax should start to be applied at 50% tbh.
So for instance if a rookie creates a character in the Federal Navy Academy, he has 90 days to make his first ISK and look for a player corporation. After that he starts to get taxed by [FNA] at 50%.
If he then joins a player corp, their tax applies as set by the CEO. If he leaves, one of the following two situations occurs.
If his time in NPC corporations is <90 days, the clock keeps ticking, so if he initially spent 40 days in an NPC corp before being employed then he has 50 days before the NPC corporation he's placed in upon leaving (I believe FNA starter end up in The Scope) starts to tax him at the rate of 50%.
If his time in NPC corporations is >90 days, he begins to get taxed at 50% immediately on leaving the player corporation.
Would sort out the issue of people being "immune" in high sec by hiding in NPC corps.
+1 ____________ -Jesum♥ |
Shana Matika
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 15:04:00 -
[369]
See what happens: Create new char. Create corp. Put main in that. Play...wardec (onoes)...create new corp, move misson char...play...what do you think how long a mission runner can play that and who get bored first: Those who pay for a wardec on a 1 man corp where that 1man is just a rookie on a trial or altaccount and get deleted once the corp got one wardec to create new char and corp or the missionrunner who got 24h to change corp before fights can start... But nice try ;)
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 15:24:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Shana Matika See what happens: Create new char. Create corp. Put main in that. Play...wardec (onoes)...create new corp, move misson char...play...what do you think how long a mission runner can play that and who get bored first: Those who pay for a wardec on a 1 man corp where that 1man is just a rookie on a trial or altaccount and get deleted once the corp got one wardec to create new char and corp or the missionrunner who got 24h to change corp before fights can start... But nice try ;)
That's corp hopping to avoid a war-dec and is already classed as an exploit.
But nice try.
|
|
Kachiko Sama
Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:35:00 -
[371]
Originally by: Dianabolic
That's corp hopping to avoid a war-dec and is already classed as an exploit.
But nice try.
Has anyone ever ever been sanctioned for that? It's almost completely unenforceable (like several other offences).
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:36:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Kachiko Sama
Originally by: Dianabolic
That's corp hopping to avoid a war-dec and is already classed as an exploit.
But nice try.
Has anyone ever ever been sanctioned for that? It's almost completely unenforceable (like several other offences).
I don't know, however in the scenario posted above I'd expect to see it be petitioned and then the gm's hand out warnings / bans because it isn't THAT difficult to spot, is it?
|
Shana Matika
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 07:59:00 -
[373]
Originally by: Dianabolic
Originally by: Kachiko Sama
Originally by: Dianabolic
That's corp hopping to avoid a war-dec and is already classed as an exploit.
But nice try.
Has anyone ever ever been sanctioned for that? It's almost completely unenforceable (like several other offences).
I don't know, however in the scenario posted above I'd expect to see it be petitioned and then the gm's hand out warnings / bans because it isn't THAT difficult to spot, is it?
It's my choice which corp i use. All missionrunners know enough people to join their corp. I don't see any "exploit" in that. If i want to change corp that's my choice. Just to anoy those "YOu don't play that game i want YOU to play so i wardec you" crowd it's worth it.
|
Okonaa
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 13:31:00 -
[374]
Originally by: Jdestars i think this taxe its very bad idea for move player to 0.0 location. why the high sec play stay in empire ? many case:
- MMo its massive multi player online not massive agregated in single ore more organisation - Some player dont want to pay any racket for play in 0.0 - Some player play RP empire - Some player want to do business not follow damned rule (nobody buy/sell outside our alliance) => dramatic economic in 0.0 -Lot of player are casual player who has not time to spend in perpertual war (risk to be ban ouside 0.0 corporation...) - Neutral are primary target in 0.0 i think Nbsi and other damned ruels are kill the 0.0 space and try to move casual player ouside high sec & /or npc corporation dont change anything for the state of 0.0 .
the invulnerability of war its just a prevention for Privateer Alliance troubleshooting (eg past trouble )
so the risk is : - lot of creation of tiny corporation like mine ( me and my alt ) and CCP surely will nerf the minimun member corporation in future (crisie situation)
i'm not in npc corporation so taxe dont affect me but
my grief :
-when i buy Eve game 6 year ago i dont saw in box that eve are only PVP game so the game looks like more and more "CS online" for hardcore gamer (9% of Eve player Cf Last QEN ) I had hope that CCP develops the contents of the background so when do you develope Content for 91% of other player dear GM ?
my wishs :
For my part I shall have preferred that CCP develops some contents connected to corporations Npc with a strong link with corporations Players which can be compatible with Factional Warefare. Indeed at present farm mission of a player / corporation has only weak incidence on the life of the corporation and that of Npc and more or less on the global economy of eve
- Setting a new Dynamical Economy : Fluctuation in the parameters of corporation npc (wallet / share / order market reward and bonus) with mission (soloing or corporation) for a corporation npc we shall participate its good health and modify the parameters above but have have negative impact on corporation npc " competitor " the whole there impacting on the faction of the empire and in the final the fleets Npc of the factional
Furthermore I shall have like that CCP attacks the passive of npc farm :
That they set up fleets roaming of npc which intervene further to the aggression of their officers and which attack by measures increased in the installations of corporations players iinvolved in these attacks (npc with capital ship why not) One could also envisage raids of fleet of pirate npc on station of the empire. and why not sleeper attack ;)
i think with this change and other like random effect environnemental ,cyclic random change in repartition in raw moon will increase our Eve experience
You will say to me surely that it will distort games for multiple reason, but at the moment I prefere this dream of a less static contents. We still have the right(law) of dreamed, POST OFFICE ACCOUNT has not put a tax on the dream yet ;)
An Angry old Player (customer) whose spot other Space opera game mmo like Star & other Star game ...
google translator?
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 15:01:00 -
[375]
Originally by: Shana Matika
Originally by: Dianabolic
Originally by: Kachiko Sama
Originally by: Dianabolic
That's corp hopping to avoid a war-dec and is already classed as an exploit.
But nice try.
Has anyone ever ever been sanctioned for that? It's almost completely unenforceable (like several other offences).
I don't know, however in the scenario posted above I'd expect to see it be petitioned and then the gm's hand out warnings / bans because it isn't THAT difficult to spot, is it?
It's my choice which corp i use. All missionrunners know enough people to join their corp. I don't see any "exploit" in that. If i want to change corp that's my choice. Just to anoy those "YOu don't play that game i want YOU to play so i wardec you" crowd it's worth it.
You said you would use an alt to create a corp, then jump to it.
Not join other corps that are already running.
There's a difference, no?
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 16:41:00 -
[376]
Originally by: Dianabolic
Originally by: Shana Matika See what happens: Create new char. Create corp. Put main in that. Play...wardec (onoes)...create new corp, move misson char...play...what do you think how long a mission runner can play that and who get bored first: Those who pay for a wardec on a 1 man corp where that 1man is just a rookie on a trial or altaccount and get deleted once the corp got one wardec to create new char and corp or the missionrunner who got 24h to change corp before fights can start... But nice try ;)
That's corp hopping to avoid a war-dec and is already classed as an exploit.
But nice try.
Not sanctioned.
Quote:
Hello,
For #1, Closing a corporation and opening a new one with the same members is allowed, and the people who declared war on your now closed corporation can declare a new war on your new corporation if they choose to do so.
For #2, Using alt corps to increase the cost of wars against your corporation or alliance is prohibited.
To help clarify this, there are restrictions with regards to joining and leaving corporation, such as mentioned here: http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2317&tid=1
it is here.
|
Dianabolic
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 20:40:00 -
[377]
I stand corrected.
I'll also say that's pretty f'in stupid, but oh well.
|
scotty spacemaster
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 12:02:00 -
[378]
I have a feeling that CCP has turned a blind eye to corp hopping because they realize that the whole wardec mechanic is broken and this is an easy way for players to bypass it. Thus allowing them to ignore the problem.
I mean why should a corp have the right to "bribe" concord to ignore corps at war while concord can't be bribed to ignore the orginal bribe? Fix the wardec system and the corp hopping mechanic in one fell swoop.
Another wardec mechanic that needs to be fixed is wardec'ing player corps in faction warfare. Since these FW corps are not in a true alliance, they can be wardec'd by any corp/alliance for the grand total of 3-4 mil per week. And if the wardec'd FW corp wants to assemble a group of FW corps to fight back against the alliance, each corp gets to pay the standard alliance wardec fee's of 50+ million per week. And that number can go alot higher depending on the number of FW corps wardec'ing.
Inequality?
How do you fix it? One idea is to change the fee's required to wardec that alliance to standard corp fee's (3 or 4 mil per week) per FW corp wardec'ing. Their alliance veil is basically taken down since they are taking advantage of the inabiity of a FW corp to join a true FW alliance who can pool their resources and fight back as a group of corps.
Another idea is to lump the FW corps into a quasi-alliance and they pay the sum of 50+ million per week to wardec that alliance.
|
scotty spacemaster
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 12:30:00 -
[379]
And fix the rules of engagement with respect to neutrals assisting wartargets.
If a neutral wants to assist in a war, then join the wardec'd corp, else stay away.
This mechanic has been exploited to the nth degree and needs to stop.
I realize that this is a difficult problem since a neutral may want to assist a wardec'd player in non-war circumstances. Such as remote repping a friend in a mission, etc.
One possible solution is to GCC flag any neutral that is on grid and assisting a wardec'd player during an actual wardec fight. Similar to the treatment of players remote repping rats (which they basically are). This will still allow assisting in non-wardec situations.
|
Jdestars
Stars Research systems Incorporation
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 12:02:00 -
[380]
not really , bit of automatic translation ;)
|
|
Svartak
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 13:33:00 -
[381]
As a new player (21 days, just reached the 1.6M SP) i will wait to see what i think of this change.
So far my experience is: - very few corps seems to want me unless i have more more skills - most corps only want me for one specific role - most corps would want me online for more than the 1 hour 4 days a week that i can afford (i do have a pretty demanding job) - I do like the experience of missioning so far in terms of time spend/fun had - in other games i could not understand why high level players had such a great need to "kill" very low level players. In EVE-terms i simply can't understand what a player in a BS thinks he has to prove killing a newby in a bantam in hi-sec? I really dislike griefers both in game and in RL.
And in all games i played so far i had more long-term enjoyment in accomplishing goals or helping others accomplish their goals then in racking up kill-scores.
So even though I like the sense of long-term play that EVE offers: when CCP pushes me into a (PvP) play-style i dont't want I will quit playing and find another game.
|
Mythical Unicorn
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 13:39:00 -
[382]
The 11% tax has allowed Concord to put up micro cameras across High sec space.
Thiefing from cans will now carry a security hit, in addition all items taken from can will be tagged as stolen goods, and cannot be traded on the open market. Contracts with stolen items will be appropriately marked, and will also contain a security penalty for people buying from thieves.
Repeat offenders will find that security penalties will get progressively worse and will eventually find themselves forced out of civilized space at gunpoint. This new heightened security will also increase the WTFConcorded response time. Ganksters will find that since Concord can now afford attorney fees, podding will become the standard of dealing with undesirables flouting the law.
Another surprise was the announcement that all Concord forces will be upgrade to Tech II ships. In an effort to contain costs the new ships will be purchased from the open market, and existing T1 ships will be resold on the market.
Now there's an announcement I would like to see as a follow up.
|
Kaya Divine
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.10.10 18:52:00 -
[383]
I hope that CCP Soundwave and you guys who are so eager for this change will be happy to wake up and see all prices going up by 11%. You can increase tax by 99% for all that I care...now imagine all prices going up for 99%. It will be fun, but not for you.
Shoot your shot... |
HeliosGal
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 04:37:00 -
[384]
the 11% is encouragement to move to low sec and 00 by reducing the reward aspect of high sec.
|
Rip Minner
Gallente Freewind Ventures
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 05:43:00 -
[385]
Edited by: Rip Minner on 12/10/2009 05:44:08
Originally by: HeliosGal the 11% is encouragement to move to low sec and 00 by reducing the reward aspect of high sec.
It's no kind of encouragement realy. Theres lots of high sec corps and players will baned together making alot of 1 man corps and when they nerf that they make alot of Min number of high sec corps with zero tax and put one little finger on each hand up at ccp.
Bottem line is you cant force players that dont wish to go lowsec 0.0 to play your pvp game. Becouse they play for a differnt reason. Remove that reason you remove thoughs players and that cash from thoughs players. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
HeliosGal
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 05:46:00 -
[386]
thats still a very good point, u need to encourage them out more high sec to low sec and 00 wormholes would be a good start more 00 space would be a better idea.
|
Rip Minner
Gallente Freewind Ventures
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 05:49:00 -
[387]
Originally by: Mythical Unicorn The 11% tax has allowed Concord to put up micro cameras across High sec space.
Thiefing from cans will now carry a security hit, in addition all items taken from can will be tagged as stolen goods, and cannot be traded on the open market. Contracts with stolen items will be appropriately marked, and will also contain a security penalty for people buying from thieves.
Repeat offenders will find that security penalties will get progressively worse and will eventually find themselves forced out of civilized space at gunpoint. This new heightened security will also increase the WTFConcorded response time. Ganksters will find that since Concord can now afford attorney fees, podding will become the standard of dealing with undesirables flouting the law.
Another surprise was the announcement that all Concord forces will be upgrade to Tech II ships. In an effort to contain costs the new ships will be purchased from the open market, and existing T1 ships will be resold on the market.
Now there's an announcement I would like to see as a follow up.
That would be worth paying the tax for lmao Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
Rip Minner
Gallente Freewind Ventures
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 05:55:00 -
[388]
Edited by: Rip Minner on 12/10/2009 05:56:47
Originally by: HeliosGal thats still a very good point, u need to encourage them out more high sec to low sec and 00 wormholes would be a good start more 00 space would be a better idea.
low= pvp 0.0=pvp wormhole=pvp sometimes. Thats why you get more care bears in wormhole space then in low sec and never in 0.0.
people that dont like to pvp say away from pvp. Its that easy.
There are thoughs people that you cant get out of low sec or 0.0 becouse they love pvp it go's both ways. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
HeliosGal
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 05:57:00 -
[389]
good point but the rewards from wormhole space are massive so they really dont worry about loosing the odd ship when u can make 60m+ an hour from the activities there then its better than 9m in low sec and 30m from 00
|
Rip Minner
Gallente Freewind Ventures
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 06:02:00 -
[390]
Originally by: HeliosGal good point but the rewards from wormhole space are massive so they really dont worry about loosing the odd ship when u can make 60m+ an hour from the activities there then its better than 9m in low sec and 30m from 00
quoted for great truth thats why I say pvp sometimes :) And its a gamble. As you can go for days at a time with no one coming into your hole. As you showed you cant do much with a standered 9m-30m. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |