I really like the market tax idea btw. I think it should be a bit higher tbh.

[quote=MachineOfLovingGrace]Personally I think they should be increased to a reasonable amount so there's a cost to making choices.

Current is 1%, new is 5%, modified by skills, so .75 to 3.75. Where's the 14 coming from?

It's fairly reasonable. I'd have pushed it up a little more to be honest. Trading is by far the lowest risk highest reward activity in the game so reasonable changes to bring it in line with other aspects of the game are going to seem drastic. Adding bigger costs to participate is good and introduces a bit of risk if people have to recreate orders. Citadels add the option of taking a higher risk for a lower fee, which is good (though like I've said before they need to make it cost to recover your assets if a citadel is reinforced or destroyed).

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.

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.

I try to summarize why the opportunity to set trade citadels is worse than Incarna. Please try to disprove them:

Option A: someone (a coalition, an alliance, anybody) will get domination of the Perimiter trade citadel. Only his citadel stands and all others are broken down. Everyone else has given up. This case this someone earns about 30T/month. As the total ISK of EVE is 948T, this means that in 15 months he'll have more ISK than everyone else combined. 30T is also about the money that all ratters combined earn, so even if the rest of EVE would unite against him, he couldn't be out-earned. From this money he can obviously pay an undefeatable army. For example he can give out a PLEX to 20000 F1 pushers and still has 8T to RMT away. The game is over, he won, everyone else lost.

Option B: no one gains domination and fighting between groups ensues for the domination. This case EVE is not destroyed, but reduced to Perimiter fights. Every time the citadels of the contestants are vulnerable, 6VDT-style battle happens, with 10K participants and nothing ever happens anywhere else. Of course, unless there is some conspiracy or CCP intervention, someone will get the upper hand and win, returning to option A.

I'd like to clarify, that I don't care about the size of the broker fee or sales tax, as all my competitors pay the same. CCP sets whatever they need to balance sinks vs faucets. The disastrous thing is the option to hijack this enourmous ISK and get into someone's hand. I'd suggest to disallow setting the broker fee on citadels lower than NPC minimum + 0.5% (4% broker fee with current numbers). So people can set up their trade citadels and get the broker fees, but Jita is cheaper. This way only blues could be persuaded to use the citadel to help the alliance, while neutrals will go to Jita. Alliances could also give discounts from their own production to lure people to their citadel, for example Goons selling moongoo on Goon citadel 0.5% cheaper than Jita, so people go there, this way they keep the broker fee. That's fair too. This would allow alliances to capitalize on their members and production, but not on the members and production of all EVE.

The trials of living in America, here in the UK, with 80% fuel duty and 20% tax on-top of it, people go very long distances for cheap fuel. Then again the queues are never long cause very few people can afford to buy more fuel than is entirely necessary in this country.

I suppose I just don't understand the economic reason for not maximizing potential gains.
I'm narrow minded in that regard.

No-one knows, hasn't gone live yet, however to quote myself (I'm not a fatuous egotist, honest):

Combined with the fact all T2 modules + ships come out of Null, an alliance could have all it's haulers selling T2 in their own citadels to promote them, now that would be a economic incentive to move.

Idk if it will happen, honestly I'm scared it will, but I broke my crystal ball and can't see the future (sarcasm), but it is a situation that warrants some concern.

Steve asked about CREST and market orders, with CCP responding that you wouldn't be able to see them due to technical reasons. Steve asked about broker's fees, to which CCP responded that it's also technical complicated, so won't be. Steve gave some more examples of why it would be important. CCP responded that it would be nice to provide both, but it's a matter of what you they technically do. They will try and put in what they can.

CCP returned to the topic of market taxes. They are thinking of increasing the taxes in NPC stations, by increasing the brokerGÇÖs fee in all NPC stations to 5%. Citadel owners with a market can set their own broker's tax rate, and that broker's tax would then go to the citadel owner. Transaction tax at this time would increase to 2.5%. The CSM commented that is a very high tax rate

Sort asked about contracts in citadels, which CCP replied that you won't be able to make contracts in citadels in the first release

TLDR: We don't care about highsec, it's the other highseccers which are going to screw you over.

This is only positive if the taxes go to the player. If taxes end up going to CCP then i'll be giving them the pinky finger. If you're going to take our isk then give us something in return. npc stations taxing us is nothing more than corporate greed as CCCP has undoubtedly done the math and calculated that trillions of isk lost means tens of thousands more in their pocket in real world cash.
Transparent BS that ought not be allowed to occur.

You have to also think that in he long run NPC stations are going the way of the dodo. The fee is there to give people a reason to open up clone facilities on their citadels. Without that, why the hell would they pay to have that facility available? Seems to me that to prospect of not even having the service available would be a lot more worrying than paying a small cost.