Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |

Vegare
Bitslix Lolsec Fockel
114
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 17:25:29 -
[301] - Quote
Nice changes, however I'd like to point out the following issue regarding the new broker's fee:
The use of the relatively new multisell feature might end up being very expensive for those not using the "instant" setting in the bottom left corner of that window. Knowingly or not. That setting, however, is not very practical.
I expect that a lot of people have it set to maximum length for convenience. This allows to sell to buy orders or place sell orders depending on your asking price - without having to fiddle with the order type. I guess most of the orders this feature places are sell orders at buy order price, which then get filled immediately. But those still incur the brokers fee, wich is rather negligible currently. The fee being 5% soon, using multi sell like this will be very expensive. This severely reduces the usefulness of the feature. I'm not sure that is an intended consequence. |

Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
453
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 17:25:53 -
[302] - Quote
Charles Burger wrote:What's the actual point of the 5 mil jump fee for NPC stations?
This "covering costs" thing is obviously ridiculous since NPCs don't have costs or wallets or ISK... or am I missing something here?
It will be detrimental to PvP. In RvB we primarily stay in high sec but often have low or null sec roams. Everyone jumps into their clean clone, naturally, not wanting to risk their implants. With a 5 mil fee, and another 5 mil to jump back into their implanted clone, many people will simply not bother. I'm sure other groups who occasionally go to low or null for roams will be similarly affected.
I am failing to see the point whatsoever. It seems like all con and no pro. What's the pro's of this change, from any angle? Who is it meant to help? Although this would defeat the purpose of the proposal in the first place.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|

Alyssa Wyatt
Bazinga Labs
8
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 17:39:04 -
[303] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Last I heard, citadels have the biggest guns
And having big fights in highsec is something that would be interesting to see
An undefended XL Citadel will only take ~4 hours to kill from 20-30 Battleships will it not? (Unless my math is really really off) That amount of DPS + Logi wouldn't be hard to muster together for the organized groups
Hell, if I'm reading the blog right, a medium will go down really easy, it's nothing to put together a fleet that'll do 4,000 dps that can be applied to one
The only thing that makes M's & L's harder than to take down in high-sec that current POS'es with weapon/ewar modules, is that Citadels might have weapons that can alpha through hostile fleets
* Again, this is all assuming I haven't wildly misunderstood this blog, so if I have, please please someone correct me * |

Tristan Agion
Viziam Amarr Empire
90
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 17:59:48 -
[304] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:The point is that running a Clone Bay in a Citadel will have a cost (in the new fuel-blocks) which, as suggested in the OP, is currently around 157m per month. The OP was talking bovine excrement in this case. A clone bay has the fuel cost that CCP sets for it, not more, not less. If CCP sets the fuel costs for a clone bay in a citadel to zero, then it costs absolutely nothing to run. There is no necessary number there at all, just a "CCP wants that" number.
I see no particular reason why the electricity needed by a cloning bay should not be marginal and simply included in the general running costs. Existing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) devices consume about 2-3 kW at full blast. That's like installing fifty extra 60W lightbulbs in your citadel. Fridges / freezers for the bodies are fairly cheap to run as well, a normal deep freezer is perhaps 500W. Say your human-size, fancy one is a few kW, so what? All this certainly pales into complete insignificance against crunching rocks for minerals or shooting lasers that melt spaceships at immense distances or the like... |

Lord Zelmar
BlackWatch Industrial Group Phoenix Company Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 18:00:29 -
[305] - Quote
For the most part good changes.
I think the reprocessing tax should be kept as minerals or be given an option for minerals or ISK.
Reasons: 1. Creates an ISK cost for the first step of the industrial process. (Depending on the state of the miners wallet they may be forced to rat to gather the isk to refine.)
2. Alliances with refining use the minerals gathered for SRP, market, or capital projects.
3. Calculation of mineral cost for tax must be clearly defined. I can see people selling billions of mins to drive up the tax for an area. Would be very effective market warfare without much ability to protect against it. |

Marcus Alenko
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 18:02:30 -
[306] - Quote
What I didn't see you address is the Citadels that are distractible, and the player has ZERO control over access, and fees. So you won't *lose* anything, only everything for 20 days when they are killed.
So what does a player do when the crop that owns the Citadel changes the fees and standings without any notice? I guess we just loose everything? No one has addressed this concern. |

Anhenka
Infinite Point Northern Army
1525
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 18:13:54 -
[307] - Quote
Marcus Alenko wrote:What I didn't see you address is the Citadels that are distractible, and the player has ZERO control over access, and fees. So you won't *lose* anything, only everything for 20 days when they are killed.
So what does a player do when the crop that owns the Citadel changes the fees and standings without any notice? I guess we just loose everything? No one has addressed this concern.
How is that different from POS's or Outposts? Control over your own station is kind of important after all.
It's not like you lose the items in that citadel just because you can't access them. You can still sell them, or contract them, or wait for the station to die and then have the items moved.
|

Alcorak
IG.Academy Iron Armada
64
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 18:26:23 -
[308] - Quote
Quote:Market: markets currently have two taxes, transaction's tax, applied for sold items, and broker's fee for non immediate orders, which are set at 1.5% and 1% respectively. To create an environment more competitive for Citadels, we plan on increasing the transaction tax to 2.5% and the broker's fee to 5-6%. Players trading in citadels will still receive the transaction tax, but the broker's fee will be at the complete discretion of the owner. To avoid confusion for the owner, the broker relations skill will not affect player set broker's fee in Citadels.
This is a very bad idea, at least for highsec markets. When considering tax increases, it is not the base change that needs to be considered, but rather, the percentage of change. Increasing transaction tax from 1.5% to 2.5% is an increase of 67%. Increasing brokers fees from 1% to 5-6% is an increase of 400-500%. Even considering reductions from skills, the market will not easily sustain these increases which amount to a massive isk sink. Simple economic theory says that you will see significantly less trading of goods as a result, with wider gaps between buy/sell orders. 'Quick-selling' will become even less attractive with the price difference merely falling into the isk sink. Prices of goods will increase by an amount similar to the tax margins (will not be split 50-50 between buyer and seller as margins are generally not strong enough in EvE to support that). Additionally, it places a SP burden - newer players can compete on the market without training market skills due to the low overall taxes. With higher SP players able to avoid significant percentages of a larger tax, the gap widens and these market skills will become like the Learning skills of old - a 'must train' in order to avoid crushing taxation on wallet growth over time.
The question is the reasoning CCP has behind this isk sink - is there a feeling that there is too much ISK in play? Will isk faucets be increasing to account for the new sink? I understand that the plan is to forcibly drive players away from stations and towards citadels. However, this will be a difficult iterative process for successful implementation. In the meantime, broader consequences must be considered.
Now, if you really want to shake things up, make stations destructible with the same asset movement system as citadels. |

Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2989
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 18:36:22 -
[309] - Quote
Alyssa Wyatt wrote:Rowells wrote: Last I heard, citadels have the biggest guns
And having big fights in highsec is something that would be interesting to see
An undefended XL Citadel will only take ~4 hours to kill from 20-30 Battleships will it not? (Unless my math is really really off) That amount of DPS + Logi wouldn't be hard to muster together for the organized groups Hell, if I'm reading the blog right, a medium will go down really easy, it's nothing to put together a fleet that'll do 4,000 dps that can be applied to one The only thing that makes M's & L's harder than to take down in high-sec that current POS'es with weapon/ewar modules, is that Citadels might have weapons that can alpha through hostile fleets * Again, this is all assuming I haven't wildly misunderstood this blog, so if I have, please please someone correct me * I specifically remember Fozzie or Rise mentioning a play test that lost over a dozen dreads trying to take down an XL, without using its DD. They may not be hard to crack, but someone gunning the Citadel could definitely crash the party. Not including any defenders present. |

Lugh Crow-Slave
1649
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 19:17:10 -
[310] - Quote
I think a better idea may be removing some NPC stations from high and low sec rather than just making them ore expensive that way there becomes a need for them in areas rather than people feeling like they always have to use them
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
930
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 19:19:21 -
[311] - Quote
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.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
1649
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 19:22:07 -
[312] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote: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.
the problem is npc stations are to plentiful and to strong they did need to be nerffed
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
930
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 19:37:31 -
[313] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote: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. the problem is npc stations are to plentiful and to strong they did need to be nerffed
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.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM XI
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
1649
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 19:40:18 -
[314] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote: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. the problem is npc stations are to plentiful and to strong they did need to be nerffed 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.
what are you talking about i have a private titan and plenty of smaller ls groups have suppers.
and yes small groups will be able to have these just not in prime locations
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Indahmawar Fazmarai
4842
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 21:17:37 -
[315] - Quote
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?
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
1649
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 21:21:16 -
[316] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: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?
but these things never used to be free just cheaper
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
284
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 21:23:15 -
[317] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
the problem is npc stations are to plentiful and to strong they did need to be nerffed
Actually the opposite is true.
Vast areas of nullsec are effectively "owned" by the big blocs mostly because there are no NPC stations from which any opposition can base any sort of sustained activity.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."
- Hunter S. Thompson
|

its my cyno
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 21:34:41 -
[318] - Quote
There are some that will like the new changes ( and will argue till blue in the face how great it will be) and some that don't (Unsubbed because what's the point in arguing) . Those that don't here is what I have experienced.
The corp I was in the player base was/is shrinking because too many were not liking the new changes with no rewarding content. Every corp member is different and enjoyed different aspects of the game. From recent ship changes, jump fatigue, sov mechanics just to name the recent few have drove them away. Some felt more satisfied to play a less expensive game that provided a more overall satisfaction then redundant and tedious gameplay that provides less and less rewards.
I Think citadels are a great idea but shouldn't be FORCED upon players. The Citadel idea should sell itself and not making other parts of the game play crap to compensate. Just make citadels that much better then what NPC has to offer by coming up with new ideas that NPC stations cant offer. Some positive ideas have been thrown out with cloning. I am sure there are some more great a new ideas that citadels can achieve.
Ultimately CCP will do what it wants I just hope they realize the full scope of this change. |

corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
1261
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 21:47:45 -
[319] - Quote
i was goign to build them, but i wont be forced nor liek to be pushed by nerfing. i am gona refrain from building them. i ll take the punch of 8,5 market fee versus a PL or goon bully ransom on my citadel and potential 10 % loss with 5 day inpound or so.
refund me my player build station as u changed it aftehr i paid for it.
plz come u pwith positive ways to promote something new, players dont respond well to push and punishment to try a new citadel. Else you can exspect the same in return. Big blocks will make a NIP or NAP on their XL hub, smaller ones will get bullied.
and its not finsihed with contracting not in place. |

epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1799
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 21:53:00 -
[320] - Quote
its my cyno wrote:There are some that will like the new changes ( and will argue till blue in the face how great it will be) and some that don't (Unsubbed because what's the point in arguing) . Those that don't here is what I have experienced.
The corp I was in the player base was/is shrinking because too many were not liking the new changes with no rewarding content. Every corp member is different and enjoyed different aspects of the game. From recent ship changes, jump fatigue, sov mechanics just to name the recent few have drove them away. Some felt more satisfied to play a less expensive game that provided a more overall satisfaction then redundant and tedious gameplay that provides less and less rewards.
I Think citadels are a great idea but shouldn't be FORCED upon players. The Citadel idea should sell itself and not making other parts of the game play crap to compensate. Just make citadels that much better then what NPC has to offer by coming up with new ideas that NPC stations cant offer. Some positive ideas have been thrown out with cloning. I am sure there are some more great a new ideas that citadels can achieve.
Ultimately CCP will do what it wants I just hope they realize the full scope of this change.
Well, the use of negative reinforcement in an attempt to change player behaviour ( The stick) has been pointed out as a real mistake as clearly as possible. The use of positive reinforcement to encourage people to move to citadels (the carrot) has like wise been highlighted as a superior method for a game, the one we play and the one that they rightfully benefit from.
They now need to make the decision, they will either dodge a bullet, and the citadel expansion will be popular and be a much loved roadmap component for the future.
Or they will take one to the face, wonder why it failed so miserably, and put the roadmap back by a year, and player trust back quite a way.
So CCP which will it be? And do you really want to turn potential success into something you are going to spend a year trying to recover from?
Nothing left to say. Your Actions will speak louder than words.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|

Beta Maoye
100
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 21:55:27 -
[321] - Quote
If you are a space trader, will you consign your valuable assets for sale in a space building that is constantly at risk of being blocked from access, being expelled, being reinforced, being destructed and subject to change of pricing at the mercy of owner? Are you serious? Merging market hub into Citadel is a bad idea.
The downside of market hub in Citadel is too much to be compensated by a few percentage of fees. The possible risk and hassle against the small gain is not worth the effort to use it. A space full of empty Citadel is not what we want. So, instead of creating arbitrary "competitive advantage" for Citadel, market hub should be removed from it. Market hub should remain in NPC station and no need to raise sales tax and broker fee to give a buff to Citadel. Citadel can be a death star, an industrial port, an invention laboratory, a mining base, an intelligence centre or a propaganda monument, but not a market hub. |

Anhenka
Infinite Point Northern Army
1526
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:08:03 -
[322] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:If you are a space trader, will you consign your valuable assets for sale in a space building that is constantly at risk of being blocked from access, being expelled, being reinforced, being destructed and subject to change of pricing at the mercy of owner? Are you serious? Merging market hub into Citadel is a bad idea.
The downside of market hub in Citadel is too much to be compensated by a few percentage of fees. The possible risk and hassle against the small gain is not worth the effort to use it. A space full of empty Citadel is not what we want. So, instead of creating arbitrary "competitive advantage" for Citadel, market hub should be removed from it. Market hub should remain in NPC station and no need to raise sales tax and broker fee to give a buff to Citadel. Citadel can be a death star, an industrial port, an invention laboratory, a mining base, an intelligence centre or a propaganda monument, but not a market hub.
I would use someone elses citadel to shave 4% off each transaction from broker fee's, absolutely.
I am a firm believer in the power of human greed, and human greed says than 1% of 1 million transaction is way more than 100% of zero transactions.
I believe that asset recovery in the same system is free, yeah? So there's no risk if the citadel explodes, other than presumably a loss of broker fee's on current orders.
As for the station owner closing down the station from general access? Not concerned. They probably put it up precisely to make money through market transactions. Closing it down would be nonsensical.
And even if it does, I'll just remote sell everything to other poor suckers who don't look before they buy. Or red frog it out, if they are still ok with the Frogs docking.
Concern level: 2/10
Edit: Remember, if I have 4% lower broker fee's at a Citadel as opposed to Jita 4-4, and 10 bil in market movement a day, that's 400 million a day in fee's I'm not paying compared to NPC |

Kaivar Lancer
Placid Import and Export
905
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:13:38 -
[323] - Quote
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" |

Indahmawar Fazmarai
4846
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:13:52 -
[324] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: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? but these things never used to be free just cheaper
Jumping clones is free, or so I recall. Now they plan charging 5 million ISK for each clone jump so players can earn money by owning a clone facility at their Citadel.
That's a negative incentive against NPC stations, but also against playing the game. Rather than make Citadels better, they just make the game worse unless you own a Citadel.
This way of incentivization haves "backfire" written over it. It will not cause players to use more Citadels, but certainly will cause more players to leave the game.
The funniest thing is that knowing this should be CCP's job, not mine.
As has already being pointed out, tinkering with cooldown length (for a fee) would be a positive incentive to use Citadels over NPC stations. Surely this was suggested, thoroughly debated and evaluated... and rejected.
Thus CCP decided to punish players for not using Citadels rather than reward them for using Citadels. 
CCP Seagull: "EVE should be a universe where the infrastructure you build and fight over is as player driven and dynamic as the EVE market is now".
62% of players: "We're not interested. May we have Plan B, please?"
CCP Seagull: "What Plan B?"
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
1650
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:21:41 -
[325] - Quote
Kaivar Lancer wrote: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"
i thought standings were no longer going to effect it
also the point is there is now an option other than npc so npc needs to be rebalanced
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2989
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:25:17 -
[326] - Quote
Deck Cadelanne wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
the problem is npc stations are to plentiful and to strong they did need to be nerffed
Actually the opposite is true. Vast areas of nullsec are effectively "owned" by the big blocs mostly because there are no NPC stations from which any opposition can base any sort of sustained activity. [EDIT: Meant to add - we need *more* NPC stations in null and low, including more NPC "pockets" breaking up sov null. Unless stagnation and stasis is the actual endgame here] There is plenty of NPC space up in the north with active alliances in them. Geuss that bloc should break up any minute now. |

Kaivar Lancer
Placid Import and Export
905
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:26:06 -
[327] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:[ Edit: Remember, if I have 4% lower broker fee's at a Citadel as opposed to Jita 4-4, and 10 bil in market movement a day, that's 400 million a day in fee's I'm not paying compared to NPC
You're presuming that a citadel owner will publicly tax 0%, which won't be the case, just like there aren't any POCOs that publicly tax 0%. It's not gonna happen. IF a trader can reduce their NPC broker tax to say 2%, a citadel owner will try to get away with charging 1.99% tax. The only way to get 0% tax is if you're friendly with the citadel owner. Since the null sec blocs are best positioned to deploy citadels, a trader or industrialist has no choice but to grovel to one of these blocs. Basically, to enjoy the same game as it was pre-citadel, you'll need to obtain another person's permission AND keep it for the rest of your Eve life. F that. |

Lugh Crow-Slave
1650
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:29:20 -
[328] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Deck Cadelanne wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
the problem is npc stations are to plentiful and to strong they did need to be nerffed
Actually the opposite is true. Vast areas of nullsec are effectively "owned" by the big blocs mostly because there are no NPC stations from which any opposition can base any sort of sustained activity. [EDIT: Meant to add - we need *more* NPC stations in null and low, including more NPC "pockets" breaking up sov null. Unless stagnation and stasis is the actual endgame here] There is plenty of NPC space up in the north with active alliances in them. Geuss that bloc should break up any minute now.
i meant to say in HS anyway that was my bad
currently you are never more than three jumps from a station and those are very uncommon
Citadel worm hole tax
|

Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2989
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:30:46 -
[329] - Quote
Beta Maoye wrote:If you are a space trader, will you consign your valuable assets for sale in a space building that is constantly at risk of being blocked from access, being expelled, being reinforced, being destructed and subject to change of pricing at the mercy of owner? Are you serious? Merging market hub into Citadel is a bad idea. It's not like current nullsec station owners don't already do half of that. |

Marcus Alenko
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 22:32:05 -
[330] - Quote
[quote=Kaivar Lancer - play another game where inconvenience ISN'T a "game feature"[/quote]
Honestly, this must be their reason for most of these changes. |
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |