This is for citadels not stations. Low/zero tax should be one of the major incentives to choosing to setup in a citadel as opposed to a station.

Citadels in NPC null are also distructable and they would have a tax because it is not true null sec.

No it doesn't - the minerals go to the owner - they don't disappear....

Yes: This makes sense.

Let us take a simple contract and make the person put up a minimum of 9 sell orders (ship, fittings, ammo, etc.).

Then let us take those 9 sell orders and make them visible to everyone in the region (because that is how the market in Eve works).

Then let the invaders or attackers go through and buy out the market (because again that is how the market in Eve works).

Guess what? Can you see the problem yet?

Now you have no doctrine ships for your pilots to fly.

Don't think this will happen? Why do you think people started using contracts in the first place?

"To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% [....] Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. "

I don't understand how raising the transaction tax everywhere, w/o the possibility of reduction by using a Citadel market service - makes Citadels more competitive.

Thx - missed that. We will face interesting tradeoffs in rigging choices.

Per character, per jump. Moving around is a key part of the game now due to how far and between content is. The faster and easier it is to get to content, the better experiences players have, and the more the wheels of the economy are greased, which in turn is more content for people. It will add up a lot faster than you think, and is just another straw on an increasingly burdened back.

Everyone of these proposed changes is harmful to players and small entities.

If citadels wont be that profitable and appealing and you need to change NPC services and taxes to make it so then you are doing it wrong. Go back to the drawing board and ask what can I do to make them better then NPC stations without changing NPC. If you cant then you failed and scrap the whole idea. There is only so much change the player base will take before they say this game sucks. To make a part of the game suck to make another part appealing because it sucks isn't the answer. How did the new sov changes work out? yeah thought so....I am starting to wonder if CCP hired a bunch of engineers to replace developers. "If it isn't broke don't fix it", changing it for the better could actually break it to where its not repairable.

If the owner cant find a way to compete with NPC services and taxes then they truly shouldn't own a citadel anyways. Maybe you should change the fee amounts to the owners to maintain the services. Citadel owners are going to own citadels because they want to show how much further they measure on the stick then others and not because they want to compete with NPC or markets. If you don't know why the markets thrive they way they do then I suggest actually playing the game once in awhile. I will also bring up the "think of the wormhole children".... ohh wait nvm I forget they are like the belters in "The Expanse" that have to deal with the power struggle between Mars and Earth.



There is too much slope for these changes to be good. This will not be new player friendly and how many more lost subs can CCP absorb?

What is the point of a sandbox game if you keep removing the sand.

We have seen what happens when players have too much control, or too much potential for control. Do you really want what happened with Sov to happen with markets...to a further extent than it already does?

Honestly if I was in the CFC et al, I'd be rejoicing at this so hard; who wants to have to run a renter empire when you can make more cash with less effort by controlling one station?



Rote Kapelle has no blues.

Syndicate is dead. Why? CCP hates NPC nullsec basically, but this is another topic. There is no content to be had because the development emphasis is on sov entirely, despite Low and NPC null being healthier innate designs. Hence why one has to jump clone every play session just to find content.

Keep the mineral based tax for Citadels. Make it so when you reprocess, the Citadel owner gets the "tax" portion of the refined ores/gases/ice. It will still be useful to them as much as isk, and in Null and W-Space maybe more valuable than isk.

That's my only input, rest sounds good to me.

This is false.

Yes quite aware of the forced part. The markets are player driven its just done in NPC stations for its low risk and location convenience. Any red, orange, purple, blue, green capsuler can use the market that players control. CCP wants to sell the citadel idea by forcing players to change to what they want and where the markets are. This in return will benefit a few and screw over the rest.

If the transaction cost is high enough, buyer and seller will settle outside the market to circumvent the transaction cost burden. Settlement price information will not be disclosed to other seller or buyer. Thus not good for establishment of fair price.

Even initially there are many citadels(with market hub) in space, eventually there will only be a few left in the hand of strongest military parties.

It is the busiest market hub that set the tone for a price.

I think you vastly overestimate the will of PvP groups to suppress anyone and everyone who can put up a citadel. It's easy to buy and put one up. 7-10 bil is not a huge investment for a small group of players or even moderately wealthy individuals. Taking one down in highsec against the deathstar version of a large citadel without caps will be damn hard. And that's not even getting into the area of a X-L, which promises to be nearly impossible to take out without a sizable capital fleet.

And to kill them.... why? do you imagine goons putting up an X-L, making a massive effort to swap the main market hub to that system, and then waging a huge continuous war of structure bashing to maintain supremacy against anyone else who tires to put up a Citadel in the same system?

I'm anti-goon, but I'd need a whole tinfoil factory worth of hats to buy into that idea.

Yes, I don't want to be scammed. So I want a transparent market that I can be sure the price is good.

I think you vastly overestimate what their firepower vs subcapitals is going to be. Indications are that a few cruisers will be sufficient because of the damage mitigation from sig & speed vs the missiles. This may not hold up obviously, but the current defences look very very very light against subcaps. Even the cap defences seem lower than a POS can put out, with the sole exception of the XL fitted with a doomsday.

With regards to the tax changes, I worry that combined with the seemingly weak defences it will be too easy for the large groups to further monopolise things, and force people to join them or be shut out in the cold, because those large groups have at this point built up such a reserve of isk, resources and super caps that no newly formed group will ever get to challenge them on any significant scale, their only real danger is internal division and a civil war.

Except you don't have the range on the webs, the mobility to force them into web range, and the TP's on their own don't even come close to making effective damage applied. Citadel Sub Cap missiles have worse stats than Rage Torps do once you actually take pilot skills into account. Sure if you have an equal defence fleet to their attacker fleet you can do things, but then you have an equal fleet to start with.
Even if we assume 100% application an M Citadel appears to have less firepower than a BS, an L Citadel about a BS, and an XL Citadel roughly 1.5 BS. Fighters can be added but they've given us no details on fighters, and fighters can be killed as well. The support modules are a bit scarier, but still not going to make much difference in numbers. The stats just currently don't add up to a credible level so it's going to be all about who has the larger fleet. And if you have the larger fleet as the defender (assuming equal skill & fits anyway) you've already won and the Citadel firepower is irrelevant.

I wasn't taking the Hull bonus into account as they hadn't listed them as specifically bonused on Citadels, so I wasn't sure. If that's the case then increase my numbers by 25%, but they are still low.
I agree a defence fleet should be needed against a significant attack, but a T1 cruiser being able to local tank a Citadel is a bit weak. I'd be expecting an M Citadel to be somewhere around 3-4 BS worth of missile firepower, stated like RHML in order to actually apply to subcaps reasonably. L Citadel scaling up to 3-4 dread and XL to 3-4 Titan. Given the immobility of the Citadel and the ease of scanning it just before you attack for it's exact fit it seems reasonable to have more firepower than a comparable price of T1 ships, and that seems to fit decently without being silly.

I think they've possibly got the XL & L in a reasonable place vs Capitals, as the Capital launchers seem decent, and the Doomsday bounces to secondary targets which works as the multiplier fine. And the bomb launcher outside high seems like it will be killer to subcaps, imagining 2 or 3 of them volleyed for 60-90k volleys aimed at a 40 sig size.
But the subcap launchers themselves are very weak. The application isn't going to hit any subcap for remotely close to full without major aid, and the DPS is watery also.

P.S. Got link for that reddit? Some of us don't normally follow a million other forums like reddit :).

Edit. Those are the raw DPS numbers yes. But the problem is the application. Vs a T1 cruiser on AB you are applying about 5% of that paper DPS. With TP's it gets up as far as 10%. So an L Citadel is able to apply 150 DPS vs a T1 cruiser.

I agree they shouldn't be too strong, but they shouldn't be too weak either, and currently they are landing on the weak side. I don't think 3-4 T1 BS worth would be too hard for a smaller group to Siege them. A couple of T1 logi would be able to cope with that level of fire-power still, and Marauders would be able to local tank it also.

Thanks for the link, doesn't say anything about what Citadels will be able to use though, and if we assume a M Citadel gets the same as a carrier they only get 840 DPS in fighters, which can be killed. In fact probably a lot less than that because skills won't apply to Citadel fighters.

Well, that's XL Citadel vs Caps while in Null I was meaning, and since the DD on it spreads to 5 secondary targets I suspect it is near that 3-4 Titans of fire-power already. But yea, good point that we need to see them hit Sisi, as they are already making adjustments on feedback, but at least this way they can read the issues here and be forewarned about the possibility of issues :)
XL vs Subcaps in high is only going to be about 2.5 times what M Citadel vs Subcaps is after all. (2 vs 4 launchers and the possibility of BCU's)

So again, why would I want to build more than one citadel in a system?

Let's consider:
- unlimited cargo and ship hangar,
- unlimited production and research slots,
- unlimited offices,
- no racial flavors,
- cannot block moons from hostile citadels.

I dont see any initiative to build "space cities" here. Do I miss something?
Imagine real life houses could host infinite dwellers, with garages for infinite number of cars, and workshops capable of infinite production (while consuming some finite amount of electricity). How would a city look like?

Honestly, I'd expect these changes out of a phone company, where first they give you this wonderful new feature, then they start billing you for it because they know they can get away with it, as they have discontinued the old feature.

You have seen where structure based gameplay has done for the game. You have seen what large power blocs do when given free reign and game design that encourages excessive monopolization. Why you continue to push for changes that hurt the little guy is beyond me - new players are the future, and slowing down or making content creation more difficult just makes that future terrible.

5m isk is a lot, especially for new players, especially over time when jump clones are part of daily game play, especially with multiple characters. If there is too much inflation, deal with faucets. Treating the symptom is no where near as good as treating the disease.

What happened with Supers will happen with Citadels. Eventually the only way to have access to markets will be to join one of the mega citadel holding coalitions, and there will be no room for the little guy to access or have any power on the market.

All of these changes are literally horrible for the little guy.

Making undesirable to play the game without your (CCP's) new toys is just an invitation to not play the game any longer.

It's like wardecs. The optimal solution is to not play.

Want to avoid paying taxes for what used to be free? Don't play EVE.

It's not about people ragequitting over this change. It's about people playing the game in the same way they like to play it, but now being inconvenienced day after day after day.

Day after day after day, you pay a fee for using a JC.

Day after day after day, you lose money setting up orders.

It will not matter for one week. Or one month. Or one year. But sooner or later, it will wear off.

And then the optimal solution will be to stop being inconvenienced every single day. Stop playing EVE.

I can hear you asking: Why not play EVE in a different way? Come on. What kind of fool would pay for playing what he doesn't wants to play?

I'm just wondering why CCP is so damn eager to force traders into citadels.

An EVE trader is faced with two choices:

- train Broker Relations to V and grind NPC faction and corporation standings to the max. It'll be the new Material Efficiency V.
- face the uncertainty of trading in a citadel that can be ganked, dismantled, taxes hiked and docking rights arbitrarily revoked.
- play another game where inconvenience ISN'T a "game feature"

There is plenty of NPC space up in the north with active alliances in them. Geuss that bloc should break up any minute now.

Um, how about me enjoying a game feature that's existed since Eve's inception? This is like buffing NPC rats by 500% to encourage mission runners to do PVP. Those people would quit rather than be forced to do something they don't enjoy.

Ahh so rich group builds XL Citadel for public market use, in a stationed system so asset recovery is free. That will work,

Good job pricing smaller groups and solo players further into the abyss.

PS; Asset recovery is a minor consideration when the whole Citadel system is geared for only the largest groups to prosper.

I really hate the idea of charging for jump clone jumping. There is already a timer in place to limit the use of it. I would be all for increasing the cost of making a new jump clone. Possibly a tiered system the more sp you have the more it costs to make a new clone? But making an isk cost for just using the service is a bad idea.

It will encourage less people to jump out of a training clone to go on a roam. People will jump less for strat ops and the whole goal of the game should be getting people out into space.

Null sec will be affected by this a lot. Incursion pilots with jump clones and ships all over will be affected. Groups like specter fleet with iOS going out from all over empire will be affected. Please rethink this a bit before implementing.
Big isk cost for each time jumping is a bit too heavy handed.

Till you loose it, like a ship. Except you don't have to pay an undocking fee.

Takes over 24h for a Citadel to go up. Alt corp gets wardecced, they destroy the Citadel while it's still on Hull just after it goes up, they take their 200 mil in loot from the M Citadel hull and laugh.

Undocking and getting podded works as well. You will end up in your medclone for sure, but if you undock in a clone that was in a different spot, you effectively loose a clone.

-1 jump clone charge. I'm happy for change trying to move eve on the route to everything player owned but this just seems a step in the wrong direction. Take away the medical clone update charges then bring it back in a different format.

Instead of tax tax tax why not keep jump timers for npc stations and get rid of it for citadels?

If your jump clone is actually in the same location as your medical clone it's possible to lose them.
But since I saw somewhere in things that CCP were talking about clone swapping in Citadels with no timer it sounds like they are addressing some of the behind the scenes code, so that may no longer occur anyway.
It will also be possible to lose jump clones in Citadels when the Citadel is destroyed.

I

• If citadels are more effective or efficient at refining and producing than stations it would attract miners and industrialists.
• Miners and industrialists need haulers to move raw goods and finished products.
• Cheaper finished products attract traders who will want to buy cheap and sell low.
• More traffic to a station means commercial potential, thus increasing trade.

I am failing to see the point whatsoever. As am I

It seems like all con and no pro. Pretty Much, Yes.

What's the pro's of this change, from any angle? It is supposedly going to nudge people to move into citadels, and as with all changes in EVE, the pro of this is for well organized groups to benefit on the backs of those who are not (i.e. the little guy...you and I)

Who is it meant to help? Goonie Birds and their lackies, as per usual

Unless it has changed, a jump clone needs to be reinstalled each time you jump to it, so not really "forever" they need to be replaced after each use.
Jump clones in Citadels are nothing like forever, unless you belong to an invulnerable group who has no risk of losing one. Citadel dies, so does your 5 mil isk jump clone.

Sure it won't.....It also won't take much organization to kill it either....and that little organization simply does not have the resources to afford to replace it

Eve is about the large blocks working together to Frack over the little people....the nice part used to be that I could a least in my own little way give the proverbial middle finger to them and do what I wanted when I wanted....with these changes, not so much anymore. It will take a little more effort but I will find a way around it and still do whatever the **** I want. I'm just vainly hoping beyond hope that CCP will actually listen to the feedback and re-think all of these changes in favor of incentivizing rather than penalizing.

Now that's a trollish / pedantic answer. You have a reason to have another clone. It's in a different part of space, or it has specific implants. When you loose the pod, you loose both of these things that carried the need for a JC in the first place.

So, effectively (and I quote myself) you loose a JC. Maybe not technically, yes.

This, the only high sec clones I have exist in high sec BECAUSE of the safety. If you think I'm putting them in places where they can be destroyed whilst I'm extended afk and not even using them, then you are huffing bleach.

I'm pretty sure we all have that "vacation clone"

Yup. But dumb mechanic remains dumb.

There are 20 pages of reasons why the tax and clone cost are bad. If they really need more reasons after that, there's something wrong.

Ok, then you must have read something much different than I did. To me it seems like the response to increasing taxes is people explaining how that won't move people into citadels because of risk, while destroying the station trading profession and making it harder to get stuff.

A citadel owner may decide to play another game. Or he might have a stroke and go to hospital. Or he might go on a vacation. Whatever the case, the citadel will run out of fuel eventually and I'm looking at 600+ orders vanishing into thin air, and a 10% bill on my assets. There's no "defence" against that. (maybe this is something that CCP can look at, allowing citadel residents to contribute fuel)

The response on clone jumps costs was largely negative, but the trading cost part has mostly been 3-4 people yelling very loudly, constantly.

That doesn't make an overwhelming negative, unless you are talking US politics.

Lets consider me writing a dev post, containing two propositions:
- In the next patch, Jita will be deleted to stimulate trading elsewhere.
- In the next patch, the Omist region will be deleted because reasons.

Even though Omist contains what, 20 systems, what would receive the larger response? Jita of course. I'm never in Omist, why would i bother commenting on it being deleted? The same applies to jump clones and trading. Virtually everyone uses jump clones but only a small subset of the player base is primarily involved in station trading. Just imagine the response we would get if CCP announced they would (temporally) nerf dreads in an attempt to have more fighter carriers deployed to test the new mechanics. Would i care? Nope. Would a group of other people care for rather valid reasons? Yes.

On the whole, Citadels can be interesting and perhaps eventually lucrative for trading. But it would be a lot more convenient if those things were actually build and given a change to settle in before simply throwing game mechanics around to enforce them.

5m clone cost, increased market and contract tax ... wtf CCP

Don't force players to use certain features by making artifcial benefits. You always emphasize that EVE is a sandbox and players can do what they want. Now you force us to use POSes if we want to stay competetive. Guess what? Im not interested in POSes. I never was. I prefer a nomadic lifestyle.

Every year EVE gets more rules, more restrictions, more leveling of ships, etc. I don't like this trend.

I am really disappointed that although you quoted me you actually have not read a word I have said.
NOT one single word was directly related to the trading aspect, I deliberately avoided that to keep my message clear,

and that message is (simplified for those of a short attention span) that CCP need to make Citadels places people want to be, and not attempt to drive them (unwillingly and resentfully) there at the point of a gun.

But if people do not read, I guess it doesn't matter what I write does it.

Re posted to take account of ninja edit.

Would it be possible to compensate for the market tax changes by further increasing the effect of standings/skills most of traders spent quite a lot of time and effort getting?

Oh, here is a dumb question.

Will the prices in the Market Modules in the Citadels show up in the regional market window or will they be hidden from the regional market window?

It goes back to the original starting point, stagnant space, after all the drama, reworking, rebalance, new mechanics. One should be extremely careful in the process of putting power in the hand of players.

First off, my bad on the earlier categorization of you if it was incorrect, my main purpose with the post was pointing out how relatively few people made a disproportionate about of the posts, not that those people in particular were the ones complaining about the broker fee's.

On the current subject, there is a lot of space out there not owned by large groups, unless your cutoff for large groups is rather low.

The current sov mechanics did help splinter space, creating regions where the region is divided between quite a few smaller groups that are not blue to each other.

Just look at Fountain, Delve, Querious, Cloud Ring, Immensea. Lots of inter region conflict with 5-10 separate alliances holding space in each.

Are there big empires with renters, especially in the nowrthwest CFC space and Northeast? Yeah. And there's likely no possible sov system that would prevent people from banding together for safety into giant blobs of low effort goo.

But there's a lot of space out there for small alliances in the 700-1500 member range.

And this shows a lack of understanding of the problem.
Station trading is not like ratting. A 6% tax is not 6% of your profit like ratting. It's often your entire profit, if it more than the margins some items trade at (relative to their opportunity cost of component parts).

And we all know who will control the major trade hubs, the major null alliances have so much material built up they are impossible to challenge on the combat field long term (Sure you might win a fight or two, but if they care they'll just bury you), the only way big null groups get taken out is via the meta game, and when they control the development of the metagame via their vocal lobby & are a concentration of the oldest players in the game (as shown by CCP Fanfest graphs) it's obvious the surviving groups aren't going to be knocked off by any 'new group'. (So the whole, 'just form your own group to challenge them argument is a joke, has been for years, and everyone knows it).

So the problem is that this much of a big stick being applied to NPC taxes provides a way for those groups to extend the areas of space they control into high sec, which actually creates more metagame stagnation in EVE. It may create a burst of fighting in space, but it further encourages the blue doughnut to form (Don't destroy our markets, we won't destroy yours) and the crushing of any remotely emergent group that could change the political landscape, rather than a group that pays homage & tribute to their 'overlords' to survive.

Note, this is not saying those groups have not worked to get there, but game mechanics should not further encourage a single group, or a few groups holding dominion over everything (Directly or via proxy alliance), and this game mechanic does do that.

It also heavily penalizes manufacturers who don't produce all the base items themselves, and for T2 and T3 production that's an unreasonable thing to try.

-1 to other excessive taxes such as 6% broker fees. Especially if, as it sounds like will be the case, that player market services will not be available in high sec.

Why don't they scale the clone cost based on SP?

If you have 5m SP or less -100k ISK per clone
and after say 50m SP it costs the 5m ISK

How would you help the new or casual people afford clones?

And SP no longer equals time in....

Don't you have things a little bit backwards here? Right now jump clones are a flat rate for everyone, no matter how likely it is they are able to pay for the service. Anyone who has been around a while is more likely to have a decent isk reserve, as well as have a means to make isk faster than a new player has. Blow up five battleship-class rats in nullsec and you have your fee paid for. For a new character this likely means an hour or 2-3 of orbiting asteroids or running missions.

Infomorph Psychology no longer has any skill requirements, so it's something that even a day old player can have in an hour from the start, and the skillbook only costs 1 mil.

I think it would be important to have a mechanism by which a citadel clearly signals to a stranger that he is welcome. Relying on potentially outdated word of mouth or prior experience seems a bit iffy... Ideally I would want to know as soon as I enter the system, before even warping into its vicinity.

I really don't like that. You should at least give a choice to the user of the service whereas they want to pay tax with isk or with ore.
Basically new player who mine to get isk, won't necessary have enough isk to reprocess it.

You should allow this to be taxed. If a citadel owner wish to open this service to blues or even neutral, he definitely should be able to get paid in return (isk or ore.).

Also - why even touch sales tax ? It's the same for both, don't mess with it. Unless your "plan" is to make citadels 2.5% sales tax and 0% broker fee to be roughly equivalent to current npc broker+sales tax combination (and if so - that's kind of lame).

How is it a benefit if it won't even be used?

CCP needs to work out a system of benefits that fit in with the Lore, in a way that's meaningful beyond "And so we say that suddenly you have to pay more taxes. "~waves hand mystically~.

Here, some help to get you thinking along the right lines:

FACTION POLICE NO LONGER SPAWN ON GRID WITH A PLAYER CITADEL.

Boom! Lookee here boys, an honest to god advantage that doesn't involve shafting players for playing a certain way.

What does this encourage: Lowsec pirates can come to 'Citadelland' with their ill-gotten gains and trade it safely, because the faction police won't go near the Citadel. You'll get more PvP in space, because negative faction standing won't be a punishment, and you can roll it into you new-fangled Bounty Hunting/Criminal Smuggling Enterprise something or other expansion.

Drackarn over at SCAS talks about what he'd like to see as a 'hive of scum and villainy' here: http://sandciderandspaceships.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/citadel-shanty-towns.html
Wouldn't this be a good first step.

You could even nerf Concord on this grid, or something equally interesting. Wouldn't it be cool if Code didn't warp around, but had a 'Pirate' cove to hide out in. You could hide it in deepspace away from stations.

Citadels should be as good as Stations but not better, with pull factors stations don't have.

I'm sure you can search your brain and think of something.

Edit: I would like to see a meaningful reduction in NPC stations, so long as a station remains in every system there was a station in before.

Excellent idea..

CCP here's a thought... Give us something for the fact you're going to tax us for the NPC stations. I like the reduction of the cool down timer on JC'ing myself or removing it entirely.

if no removal of the cooldown is off the options menu then how about this?:

If you jump from/to an NPC station how about we take that time from 24hrs (with low infomorph skills) to something like 6 to 12 hours? Also make it apply the bonus to reduction of the time per/ infomorph level? Fair trade, no?

Actually NPC stations were not nerfed.
CCP's changes to numbers left NPC stations actually where they were, assuming you had full skills, they just moved player outposts & POS to better than NPC stations. Unfortunately the way they did this was badly flawed, in that POS should have been the best as the highest risk option, and the at the time only one with a constant cost. And by giving a refining advantage to the null bloc's as a result of their lobbying they made it so shipping highsec ore to null was cost effective and made more minerals.

And they are doing this again in a double fashion. They are giving Null Citadels more refining power yet again, and they are giving control of it all to the Null Blocs, since the current citadel defences are not sufficient to allow a smaller group to fight off a bigger group in a citadel defence in high sec. Despite the fact that the investment is basically identical with Citadels no matter where you place them, and Null is likely to get lower Fuel costs with their Sov to everything meaning their ongoing costs for the same Citadel are lower.

This is the issue, and why numbers have not looked as good, and continue to slowly decline as the effects of the changes filter slowly through the system.
NPC stations being removed to make each individual station more relevant is a totally different matter, and one that can be done independently of all the rest of this.

N.B. I am not against Null being lucrative, but it should be lucrative in raw materials (rat bounties being a raw material effectively) rather than the ability to process the raw materials (should be equal though, not 40% lower like it used to be before the change), and not get such a significant advantage over high sec Citadels where the investment is the same.

What would your opinion be of a reduction in jump clone costs in proportion to the old jump clone standings requirements. So installing a jump cloning or jumping out of a station where you have 8.0 would result in a 0 isk cost, while jumping from a station where you have 0 standings would be 5 mil isk, and a sliding scale between?

Update on the original thread:

• Transaction fee: increased from 1.5% to 2.5% in all NPC stations and player structures.
• Brokers' fee: increased to 5% in NPC stations.
• 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.

So brokers' fee formula becomes: 5% brokers fee - ([Broker Relation skill level]0.2 + [Faction Standing level]0.03 + [Corp Standing level]*0.02)

Minimum brokers' fee in NPC stations becomes 3.5% with skill and standings maxed. Please note there is no NPC brokers' fee in Citadels structures, but you'll have to deal with what the owner charges you. Skill won't work for player-set brokers' fee either.


• Cloning fee: decreased from 5m ISK to install or leave a clone behind to 900,000 ISK
• Reprocessing: changed how reprocessing rigs work to mirror more closely other structure rigs. Other structure rigs give you the same bonuses no matter the structure size, but you gain move coverage as you move up.

So for example a Medium Citadel Missile Rig will only give you an application bonus to structure single target missiles, while a X-Large Citadel Rig will give you a missile application and projection bonus not only to single target missiles but to the guided bombs as well.

With that in mind, base reprocessing yield of the reprocessing service: 50% (also includes compression free of charge)
All of the rigs below give the same bonuses: Tech I rigs will give 52% if the structure is in high-sec, 55% otherwise. Tech II rigs below will give 55% if the structure is in high-sec, 60% otherwise.

Medium rigs (only apply to Astrahus):

• Tech I and II rigs that applies for high-sec ores: Veldspar, Scordite, Pyroxeres, Omber, Kernite and all variants.
• Tech I and II rigs that applies for all other ores: Arkonor, Bistot, Crokite, Dark Ochre, Gneiss, Mercoxit, Spodumain, Hedbergite, Hemorphite, Jaspet and all variants.
• Tech I and II rigs that applies for: Clear Icicle, Enriched Clear Icicle, White Glaze, Pristine White Glaze, Dark Glitter and Gelidus
• Tech I and II rigs that applies for: Blue Ice, Thick Blue Ice, Glacial Mass, Smooth Glacial Mass, Glare Crust, Krystallos.

Large rigs (only apply to Fortizar):

• Tech I and II rigs that applies for all ores.
• Tech I and II rigs that applies for all ices.

X-Large rig (only applies for Keepstar):

• Tech I and II rigs that applies for all ore and ices.

And that should cover everything. Please keep in mind this is still WIP and subject to change based on constructive feedback.

So we have pos's. These are being replaced by medium citadels.

We have player outposts. These are being replaced by L and XL Citadels.

Where in that is the burning need for Citadels to compete with npc stations in any way as far as public access and charging for services goes? You should really just leave npc stations the hell alone.

I'll give you guys one thing, some of you are making steady progress toward your goal of destroying the game we've all spent years playing.

I love how taxes are so low they raised only ~10 trillion ISK last month alone.

If they were "SOOOOOOOOO low", they'd raise nothing. 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.

CCP's fallacious argument that Citadels need a NPC station tax increase to be 'competitive' is a lie. A Citadel that offered the lowest tax rates would be great, it would attract low volume, high value sales where players coud magnify their games. It would totally out-compete the NPC station.

CCP's idea is simply to kill NPC markets by making them so deeply uncompetitive no-one will wish to use them. In that way, they're adopting practises which run counter to the Sandbox and the free market. That no-one should be punished for playing their way used to be a self-evident truth for Eve development. Sadly, now it needs must be repeated.

My point is that I and some of my friends *tried* to get into Eve. We didn't know about Jump clones. We got learning implants because a guy recommenced them. We tried PvP, we died, we quit. "Any game with this much grinding isn't worth out time".

Sure, my friend, I totally understand your reasoning. It is very much logical.
Anyway, I has began with: "It's my emotional rant". And I still cannot get rid of a feeling that:
New changes (fee for clone jumping) complicate NPE and (taxation) prioritize big alliances over small groups and solo palyers.
That's not right. I simply don't like the direction this evolution goes.

I'm love how all the nullies love the JC tax idea, while hisec/lowsec players don't. Guess who will benefit the most from this.

Where do you live?

I thought you were a trollish Forum Alt tbh.

On the other hand nullsec alliances can just produce whatever they need and be completely unaffected.

So you won't be able to contest SOV because you have to pay up to 6 mill per jump cone? That is the reason why you would stop going in fleet taking on large SOV owner. For a 6 mill jump clone fee per pilot?

I think we agree, but phrasing like that is needlessly hostile.

Yes, there will be better treatment for NS alliance members. That's really who Citadels are for.

The issue you and I have is that the rest of the game is being treated poorly. We shouldn't be punished for playing the game elsewhere. Null is not the only area of the game.

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.

By the way, do I see it right that there are two opinions on this forum?
- "Great" - Imperium members
- "Absolutely game-breaking and end of EVE" - everyone else

It seems that whoever Goon CSM managed to plant this citadel market idea in CCP achieved the great goal: destroy everyone else's game.

Why should miners be double taxed. We don't tax ratters twice.
Yes, there is a chance they will move compressed ore to a lower cost refining station, but guess what, this puts ships carrying valuable cargoes of compressed ore into space, for people to shoot, and this is a really good thing.
Just don't be too greedy with your refining tax and the cost of your tax will be lower than their potential risk and they'll pay it even if some schmuck over there is offering 0% tax.

And no a trade alliance won't form, not an independent one because the goons/PL/insert large null group here/etc will blob them and high sec Citadels have laughably puny defences. The only possible groups to form high sec trade citadels are the large already super established groups that can't be out blobbed. Suggesting otherwise is ludicrous and ignores the obvious meta, or is an outright lie designed to confuse the Devs.

Well, if you can trade Titans on the open market, I don't see why you'd want to trade them to your enemies...

Unless PL's stopped competing with the CFC on titan numbers, which kinda sinks the game. After all, if everyone has stopped competing, the game has bigger problems.

Isnt possible to make taxes different by area of space. so in HS NPC and player owned are similar. In LS favours players a bit and in NS favours players more.
Giving a too big tax advantage to player owned market would make the game unncessarily hard on solo/small groups. And give too much of an income to big groups able to own and defend their citadel.

Also maybe linking wardec system to citadels, you could make:
A "War Service" that gives you X number of war slots. So every X number of wars, the wardeccing group would have to put a citadel in risk. Make not possible to wardec with having a WAR SERVICE in an owned citadel.
Defenders need to have a way to win the war... make them be able to entosis the "war service" off. Or destroy the citadel.

Just as an example.

Factor in "pay 10% of all your wares' worth since the Market Hub was blown up and you need to respawn them somewhere" and you're into "Oh really CCP?" land.

Ok, so we have a guy from a wormhole group asking for something for free. Nothing new there, the richest sector on TQ are always crying about how hard wormhole life is.
Hint; It's meant to be that way, if it wasn't everyone would live in wormholes.

As for RP, if it were a thing, Citadels in wormholes would cost a lot more in fees etc due to their isolation - Even automation requires upkeep, or would you expect that to be free as well.....

So how about some new benefits for wormholes using citadels - You can put a clone there now, you can build a local market; you can select when you want to defend your Citadel; you have all the benefits of a Citadel now like docking, tethering, unlimited personal storage; you can if you choose even rent offices to whomever you like; plus a lot more advantages never before seen in wormholes.

I'd imagine, for wormhole hunters being able to have your allies dock with you while preparing for a raid would not be a real benefit, would it......

And you want no fees in wormholes why? Oh right,because wormholers are special and should be handed isk concessions for living in the wealthiest part of TQ - Like transaction fees would break a wormholers wallet because buying locally instead of having to travel to highsec for everything you need would not be enough of a benefit.

And if you want complete asset safety - Don't live in a wormhole.

NB; Isk is very much a part of manufacturing - You can't start a job in a station or citadel without isk.


Rek Seven - Stop making all wormhole dwellers look bad, asking for handouts, really - Just stop.

As noted - you just want something - and it's not 'fairness'.

Except that in the same update the biggest source of farmable income is becoming far harder to farm.