| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
3
   |
Posted - 2016.03.09 19:05:48 -
[1] - Quote
Taken from reddit (thanks for ignoring the forums again btw  )
Quote:
Alright here is an update on citadel services based on reprocessing comments we received from previous blog and this [thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/48s4p1/planned_changes_to_npc_citadel_taxes_and_services/).
* **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 a bump from ~0.25% to ~3.55% broker and 0.75% to 1.5% taxes |
Makeleth Riatu Solette
I Want ISK Corp
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 19:28:31 -
[2] - Quote
Link to OP of this?
Need a loan? Look at my thread!
Mail me if you'd like some marketing advice or advice in general
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 19:38:20 -
[3] - Quote
sorry sorry I should have linked that
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/49p3la/update_on_structure_services/ |
Cista2
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
208
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 19:47:04 -
[4] - Quote
Crazy times.
My channel: "Signatures"
-
Recommended: "The Biomass Bar" (for corpse selling)
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
5
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 19:56:07 -
[5] - Quote
Cista2 wrote:Crazy times.
I'm pretty sure we can adapt, but it will be a landslide on day 0 |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5720
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 21:04:38 -
[6] - Quote
This is going to be an absolute wrecking ball to the PLEX economy.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Makeleth Riatu Solette
I Want ISK Corp
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 21:15:08 -
[7] - Quote
I'll just write here what I wrote there:
Quote:CCP, the drastic increase of the brokerage and transaction tax is ridiculous, and at least half the community agrees.
Newly proposed increase:
Brokerage tax: 3.5% Transaction Tax: 2%
Need a loan? Look at my thread!
Mail me if you'd like some marketing advice or advice in general
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 21:43:48 -
[8] - Quote
Makeleth Riatu Solette wrote:I'll just write here what I wrote there: Quote:CCP, the drastic increase of the brokerage and transaction tax is ridiculous, and at least half the community agrees.
Newly proposed increase:
Brokerage tax: 3.5% Transaction Tax: 2%
What makes it even more ridiculous is the change in the broker fee formula, from an elliptic curve to a linear curve... |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Stain Confederation
456
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 23:08:22 -
[9] - Quote
This is also in the official forums - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6384247#post6384247
My thoughts on this are that this is not good at all for the high sec trader/manufacturer:
Moac Tor wrote:With a tax this high you can say goodbye to Jita 4-4. NPC trading just won't be competitive with the NPC taking an almost 5% cut of every trade order. Once a solid alliance gets a hub setup they can trade there with taxes as low as 1.25%.
I think citadels should have an advantage but I think this is too much. NPC stations shouldn't become completely unviable.
(also if said alliance can set taxes based upon specific groups then they can effectively lock down an entire regional market - this is hypothetical at the moment although would be the logical next step)
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Cista2
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
208
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 00:24:08 -
[10] - Quote
I wonder, will we see more trade take place on contracts and on the forum? (avoiding 5% fees). I have seen that in other games where fees are obnoxiously high.
What kind of items ?
My channel: "Signatures"
-
Recommended: "The Biomass Bar" (for corpse selling)
|
|
|
Makeleth Riatu Solette
I Want ISK Corp
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 00:27:21 -
[11] - Quote
Cista2 wrote:I wonder, will we see more trade take place on contracts and on the forum? (avoiding 5% fees). I have seen that in other games where fees are obnoxiously high.
What kind of items ?
Things of tight margins, where the bid and ask are stable and do not deviate far from each other.
Need a loan? Look at my thread!
Mail me if you'd like some marketing advice or advice in general
|
Ria Nieyli
41674
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 04:11:16 -
[12] - Quote
3.5% broker fee at max standings what the...
It seems that they really want to make people use citadels. If you're currently at 0.25% broker fee or less, the only way for you to not get ripped right off the bat is to move to a citadel market.
Good luck. |
Amarrchecko
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
98
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:15:35 -
[13] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Setting the minimum fees to 3.5% would mean that those fees would increase 14 times, as a conservative estimate. Damage: ~82 trillion ISK..
How is that a "conservative estimate?" |
Ria Nieyli
41695
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:20:10 -
[14] - Quote
I have a 0.1882% broker fee right now, with the proposed changes they'd turn into 3.5012% That's a 18.6 times increase. By conservative estimate, I meant that a 14 times increase is lower than what people would actually get in many cases. |
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort
Circle-Of-Two
59
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:43:13 -
[15] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:This is also in the official forums - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6384247#post6384247My thoughts on this are that this is not good at all for the high sec trader/manufacturer: Moac Tor wrote:With a tax this high you can say goodbye to Jita 4-4. NPC trading just won't be competitive with the NPC taking an almost 5% cut of every trade order. Once a solid alliance gets a hub setup they can trade there with taxes as low as 1.25%.
I think citadels should have an advantage but I think this is too much. NPC stations shouldn't become completely unviable.
(also if said alliance can set taxes based upon specific groups then they can effectively lock down an entire regional market - this is hypothetical at the moment although would be the logical next step)
People will not move Jita 4-4 to a citadel. Why?
1. It is destructable, so the time and energy to remake market orders and the waiting period to get your stuff moved will not be worth it.
2. Unless it is Cribba or someone truely trusted, why would people risk putting their stuff in a place where it can be deadzoned on a whim.
What is more than likely going to happen is prices all over Eve will rise about about 3-5% to compensate. It does not matter if a citadel puts its taxes to 0% in null because 99% of everything in the game has its value based on Jita price. Raise the price there, you raise it everywhere. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Stain Confederation
459
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:00:43 -
[16] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote:Moac Tor wrote:This is also in the official forums - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6384247#post6384247My thoughts on this are that this is not good at all for the high sec trader/manufacturer: Moac Tor wrote:With a tax this high you can say goodbye to Jita 4-4. NPC trading just won't be competitive with the NPC taking an almost 5% cut of every trade order. Once a solid alliance gets a hub setup they can trade there with taxes as low as 1.25%.
I think citadels should have an advantage but I think this is too much. NPC stations shouldn't become completely unviable.
(also if said alliance can set taxes based upon specific groups then they can effectively lock down an entire regional market - this is hypothetical at the moment although would be the logical next step) People will not move Jita 4-4 to a citadel. Why? 1. It is destructable, so the time and energy to remake market orders and the waiting period to get your stuff moved will not be worth it. 2. Unless it is Cribba or someone truely trusted, why would people risk putting their stuff in a place where it can be deadzoned on a whim. What is more than likely going to happen is prices all over Eve will rise about about 3-5% to compensate. It does not matter if a citadel puts its taxes to 0% in null because 99% of everything in the game has its value based on Jita price. Raise the price there, you raise it everywhere.
Your not thinking outside the box. I would have agreed if the rise in tax was around 3% max, but at 4.75% your definitely in a place where any serious trader will have to consider a citadel.
In high sec your not losing anything using a citadel except for having to relist your orders, which isn't a big deal compared to how much you'll save in the reduced taxes.
Also your not considering how much ISK a big alliance can make out of controlling a hub, it will be more valuable by many multitudes than any moon that currently exists; do you think any alliance would deadzone or screw over their biggest customers with how much would be at stake?
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
u3pog
Ministerstvo na otbranata
735
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 22:06:13 -
[17] - Quote
After seeing those numbers I am not so sure all traders will stay in Jita...3.5% broker fee + 1.25% transaction tax (max skills + standings), that's near 5%, 4,75 to be exact, opposed to 0,94% at the moment. Prices might adjust a little bit, but that will make profit even better in citadels. Good thing I've nothing to pack.  The clock is ticking. |
Ria Nieyli
41700
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 02:23:58 -
[18] - Quote
I'm not sure that they'll move. Building and deploying a citadel will take time. So you have to get one up, online the market module, then start advertising it and wait as people start to trickle in. Meanwhile in Jita, traders would simply adjust their orders to pass the new cost to their customers. There's a huge amount of inertia in market hubs. Breaking them up will not be as simple as raising a tax. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5721
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 06:39:57 -
[19] - Quote
u3pog wrote:After seeing those numbers I am not so sure all traders will stay in Jita...3.5% broker fee + 1.25% transaction tax (max skills + standings), that's near 5%, 4,75 to be exact, opposed to 0,94% at the moment. Prices might adjust a little bit, but that will make profit even better in citadels. Good thing I've nothing to pack. The clock is ticking.
Some things will have to move. PLEX in particular, unless PLEX trade is entirely confined to contracts in the future.
You simply cannot flip PLEX with a ~3.7% broker fee paid on every buy order and every sell order.
Edit: Other stuff won't move. Noone is moving stacks of, say, 20000 Brutix hulls.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Ria Nieyli
41701
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:07:04 -
[20] - Quote
Why wouldn't you be able to flip PLEX with that broker fee? Bad at maths?
Moreover, how are you going to entice people to come shop in your citadel when it lacks the volume and variety that regular trade hubs have right now? |
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1293
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 07:38:45 -
[21] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Some things will have to move. PLEX in particular, unless PLEX trade is entirely confined to contracts in the future. They'll put contract fees up too, once they've added contracts to citadels.
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:You simply cannot flip PLEX with a ~3.7% broker fee paid on every buy order and every sell order. You also cannot flip PLEX in a Citadel with no suppliers or customers. If the people stay at 4-4, the PLEX market will stay at 4-4 and the price will be what the price will be.
Remember that these Citadels are going to be largely inferior to NPC stations, at least at release. Jita 4-4 has had competition from NPC stations that are strictly superior to it for many, many years. Jita has a critical mass and inertia so great that it will take a titan's blow to shift it.
I don't think CCP should attempt to strike that blow, because they'll probably ruin the game in the process. I think they should give us the tools so that resourceful player organisations can strike it for them. That's excellent sandbox content, not massive nerfs from on high.
Sadly, it's going to take a long, long time for them to release the necessary tools, because that work is hard. They can make Citadels such a well produced, refined and feature rich creation that NPC stations become a legacy relic by comparison. With a carrot that sweet, the stick is really not needed.
Unfortunately, it's going to take far, far less time and effort for them to massively nerf NPC stations instead.
|
erg cz
Eleutherian Guard
Villore Accords
415
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 08:27:56 -
[22] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote: Jita has a critical mass and inertia so great that it will take a titan's blow to shift it.
I don't think CCP should attempt to strike that blow, because they'll probably ruin the game in the process. I think they should give us the tools so that resourceful player organisations can strike it for them. That's excellent sandbox content, not massive nerfs from on high.
Faction warfare will be seriosly changed. Instead of 2 vs 2 it will become 4 vs 4. So I believe some systems between Amarr and Caldari and between Gallente and Minmatar will switch to be FW war zones. Jita is so close to Gallente Border Zone constallation, that it is quite simple to include Jita into new low sec faction warfare zone.
Both Gallente Border Zone constallation and Kimotoro (where Jita is placed) can become new FW zones and that will effectively blow Jita as "one hub to rule them all". Simple , effective, not breaking any game mechanics and ridiculously strong kick to the game PVP activity, cause moving all that stuff out will make gankers so happy...
Absolutely free trial extension. Just click the link and get your extra week of Eve for free!
|
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
71
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 14:41:33 -
[23] - Quote
How is watching tides of JF jumping in and out make gankers happy? Code will ne destroyed by this, lol. Os as your dreams. N00b |
Jay Aaron
M-Spec Industrial Resources Ltd
Agents of Fortune
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 16:30:10 -
[24] - Quote
NPC markets, Jita in particular, will adapt to this by moving to wider bid/asked spreads swiftly and efficiently. Nothing more than a tidy little ISK sink. It might make the business of exporting to Citadels a bit more lucrative than what otherwise would have been.
The worst part of this will be having to grind standings for several trade alts to help overcome the more significant fees.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4793
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 05:19:45 -
[25] - Quote
Scotsman Howard wrote:
What is more than likely going to happen is prices all over Eve will rise about about 3-5% to compensate.
Nope. They may rise, but unless every item in the game is perfectly inelastic in terms of its price elasticity of demand it won't be that high.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4793
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 05:21:07 -
[26] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Some things will have to move. PLEX in particular, unless PLEX trade is entirely confined to contracts in the future. They'll put contract fees up too, once they've added contracts to citadels. Sabriz Adoudel wrote:You simply cannot flip PLEX with a ~3.7% broker fee paid on every buy order and every sell order. You also cannot flip PLEX in a Citadel with no suppliers or customers. If the people stay at 4-4, the PLEX market will stay at 4-4 and the price will be what the price will be. Remember that these Citadels are going to be largely inferior to NPC stations, at least at release. Jita 4-4 has had competition from NPC stations that are strictly superior to it for many, many years. Jita has a critical mass and inertia so great that it will take a titan's blow to shift it. I don't think CCP should attempt to strike that blow, because they'll probably ruin the game in the process. I think they should give us the tools so that resourceful player organisations can strike it for them. That's excellent sandbox content, not massive nerfs from on high. Sadly, it's going to take a long, long time for them to release the necessary tools, because that work is hard. They can make Citadels such a well produced, refined and feature rich creation that NPC stations become a legacy relic by comparison. With a carrot that sweet, the stick is really not needed. Unfortunately, it's going to take far, far less time and effort for them to massively nerf NPC stations instead.
Also, remember....not citadels in Jita. Nor Amarr, IIRC.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 08:07:27 -
[27] - Quote
Jay Aaron wrote:NPC markets, Jita in particular, will adapt to this by moving to wider bid/asked spreads swiftly and efficiently. Nothing more than a tidy little ISK sink. It might make the business of exporting to Citadels a bit more lucrative than what otherwise would have been.
The worst part of this will be having to grind standings for several trade alts to help overcome the more significant fees.
Standing are useless now. there is no point grinding them, here is my reasoning:
Before standings would decrease the broker fee from 0.75% to (maximum) 0.1875%, but more realistically 0.25% for 8 to 9 standings, that's 3x times less broker fee. now the formula is different, it reduces the fee from 4% to 3.55% with 9 standings, that's only a 11% decrease.
So, to me, there is no point grinding standing up to 8 or 9, it's too hard and there is no reward for it. |
Elizabeth Norn
Nornir Research
834
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 13:07:42 -
[28] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:
Standing are useless now. there is no point grinding them, here is my reasoning:
Before standings would decrease the broker fee from 0.75% to (maximum) 0.1875%, but more realistically 0.25% for 8 to 9 standings, that's 3x times less broker fee. now the formula is different, it reduces the fee from 4% to 3.55% with 9 standings, that's only a 11% decrease.
So, to me, there is no point grinding standing up to 8 or 9, it's too hard and there is no reward for it.
But all you competition will have them, it just means that you'll have to trade more to earn your money back.
WTS ME 10 TE 20 BPOs & BPO Packs
WTS Collectible Large Rigged Small/Medium Ships
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.12 15:54:52 -
[29] - Quote
At last some sensible comments.....
The market fees have been at least 1/10th of what they should have been for 13 years - at last an adjustment is happening.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
2291
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 09:49:02 -
[30] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:At last some sensible comments.....
The market fees have been at least 1/10th of what they should have been for 13 years - at last an adjustment is happening.
Why?
A liquid market and big trade volumes with small spreads is ten times more desirable for a healthy economy than an ISK sink. Spreads shall be defined by supply and demand and not be dominated by fees.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
|
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
10
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 09:51:12 -
[31] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:At last some sensible comments.....
The market fees have been at least 1/10th of what they should have been for 13 years - at last an adjustment is happening. Why? A liquid market and big trade volumes with small spreads is ten times more desirable for a healthy economy than an ISK sink. Spreads shall be defined by supply and demand and not be dominated by fees.
My guess is that he is just happy for his alliance to get to collect trade fees in high sec |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 13:26:03 -
[32] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:[quote=Tipa Riot].................. My guess is that he is just happy for his alliance to get to collect trade fees in high sec
Pathetic...
I guess from your style, however, that you are an economist or one that subscribes to that pseudo-science based upon a false premise.
Note: All the modern states that have subscribed to Keynesian (sic) economic theory are now hideously in debt; with a few exploiting it mercilessly.
The fees should have been higher all the time to pay for station upkeep and CONCORD - at the very least.
- Sales Tax (VAT) ~20%
- Corporation Tax 10-30%
- Broker Fees 10-40%
Figures based upon RL examples like that would have been much more sensible. Then there wouldn't need to be such change now to allow the players to take control if they wished.
And yes, I had indeed, perhaps erroneously, expected better here than trolling.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
11
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 14:14:32 -
[33] - Quote
Maybe if we want to follow your logic we might as well remove bounties income and replace it with a centralized income stream organized by Concord. "Then there wouldn't need to be such change now to allow the players to take control if they wished."
We are not in real life, we are in a game. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 15:10:20 -
[34] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:[quote=Marcus Tedric]..................
We are not in real life, we are in a game.
Actually I think not (not in 'modern' terms at least).
One of the things I like so much about EVE is that it seems to be set up much more as a 'simulation', which has been made more practicable to a non-RL pastime/hobby and thus has been 'game-ified'. Sadly that sometimes seems to result in 'dumbing down' towards the much more common 'entertainments' that are sold as games these days; but I accept that is the majority of the marketplace.
The point being that, as I have mentioned elsewhere, if the Taxes had been where they should have been for all these years; then this change would be greeted with joy as opposed to whining. Thus we have a harder sell.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Hiver Chanlin
System Test
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 02:32:52 -
[35] - Quote
TL;DR - Changes in market fees will be a very strong force to change player behavior. 29.145 T per month of force.
The purpose of this is to measure in numbers how much force the changes in market fees will apply to change player behavior. Can players (pvpers, missioners, traders and industrialists) make small changes slowly and take the hit or will they need to make big changes quickly?
The assumptions are based on nothing changing. If players don't change anything, when the new fees hit, what would it look like? Each adaptation that players make will change the assumptions and reduce the impact.
Based on:
* February [ISK sinks and faucets](http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70094/1/10_-_hO35OM1.png)
* February [Trade value](http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/70094/1/02_-_LBAeCSa.png)
* Proposed [taxes and fees math](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/49p3la/update_on_structure_services/)
1. 9817 B in Transaction taxes and 5888 B in Brokers fees were paid on 936 T traded value.
2. The average transaction tax rate is 1.04% and the average brokers fees is 0.629%
3. The new average transaction tax will be 2.04%
4. Based on [this graph](http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Thoraemond/eve-market-order-broker-fees-20110417.png) The average effective fees before skills are `(0.629 / 0.75) = 0.838%`. One set of standings that would correspond to that is Corp 3 Faction 1. (Assuming max skills brokers relations skills simplifies the math and won't affect the ballpark result).
5. The new math for brokers fees with those assumptions would be: `5% - (5*.02 + 1*0.03 + 3*.02) = 3.91%` NPC fees.
6. Assuming the same trade volume (these are volumes in NPC stations only) the new monthly totals would be: `936T*2.04%=19.09 T` taxes and `936T * 3.91% = 36.5976 T` in brokers fees.
7. The proposed taxes will be 9.273 T more than current taxes. That's an unavoidable increase in ISK sinks.
8. Current monthly net ISK gain is 10.83 T. Less the increased taxes is 1.557 T. Add the 5.888 T of current brokers fees and you have 7.445 T net ISK gain *before brokers fees* under the new fee schedule.
9. 7.445 T is 20 % of the new 36.59 T brokers fees
10. If no NPC market activity moves to citadels, and no other change in player behaviour, there will be a net decrease in ISK of 29.145 T per month in the overall economy.
11. The total ISK in player wallets (950 T) is 25.7 times the monthly ISK deficit assuming no changes to player behavior. |
Jay Aaron
M-Spec Industrial Resources Ltd
Agents of Fortune
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 03:50:53 -
[36] - Quote
Hiver Chanlin wrote:TL;DR - interesting analysis
Hmmm... I guess my notion of a "tidy little ISK sink" is a bit of an understatement.
With any degree of accuracy in your analysis, we'll need an unprecedented level of adaptation to this change, or turn out the lights, the party's over in a couple of years...
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4799
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 04:25:07 -
[37] - Quote
Jay Aaron wrote:Hiver Chanlin wrote:TL;DR - interesting analysis Hmmm... I guess my notion of a "tidy little ISK sink" is a bit of an understatement. With any degree of accuracy in your analysis, we'll need an unprecedented level of adaptation to this change, or turn out the lights, the party's over in a couple of years...
Probably not.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
870
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 07:50:56 -
[38] - Quote
Hiver Chanlin wrote:
10. If no NPC market activity moves to citadels, and no other change in player behaviour, there will be a net decrease in ISK of 29.145 T per month in the overall economy.
11. The total ISK in player wallets (750 T) is 25.7 times the monthly ISK deficit assuming no changes to player behavior.
So even if nothing changes, its is not that much of a problem.
Fluffy Bunny Pic!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5725
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 08:15:20 -
[39] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Some things will have to move. PLEX in particular, unless PLEX trade is entirely confined to contracts in the future. They'll put contract fees up too, once they've added contracts to citadels. Sabriz Adoudel wrote:You simply cannot flip PLEX with a ~3.7% broker fee paid on every buy order and every sell order. You also cannot flip PLEX in a Citadel with no suppliers or customers. If the people stay at 4-4, the PLEX market will stay at 4-4 and the price will be what the price will be. Remember that these Citadels are going to be largely inferior to NPC stations, at least at release. Jita 4-4 has had competition from NPC stations that are strictly superior to it for many, many years. Jita has a critical mass and inertia so great that it will take a titan's blow to shift it. I don't think CCP should attempt to strike that blow, because they'll probably ruin the game in the process. I think they should give us the tools so that resourceful player organisations can strike it for them. That's excellent sandbox content, not massive nerfs from on high. Sadly, it's going to take a long, long time for them to release the necessary tools, because that work is hard. They can make Citadels such a well produced, refined and feature rich creation that NPC stations become a legacy relic by comparison. With a carrot that sweet, the stick is really not needed. Unfortunately, it's going to take far, far less time and effort for them to massively nerf NPC stations instead.
Inertia is indeed a huge factor. I've seen more than one person attempt to create a rival to an established microhub and the only success story I've seen was Stacmon - which was made real by EVE Uni's lowsec campus.
On contracts - I think there will be a lot more chat-channel organised private contracting of PLEX and possibly bulk stocks of other high volume items like trit or Interceptor hulls. Private contracts have no fees at present.
This will be a scammer's paradise, which I for one look forward to.
I still think it is far too drastic a change to take place all at once.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Agondray
Avenger Mercenaries
VOID Intergalactic Forces
315
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 14:05:33 -
[40] - Quote
its another attempt to remove more isk from the system to hit all parties rich or poor because 2 constant problems exist through the years
1, CSM notes have listed numerous times of what can be done to this out the huge amount of isk in circulation rather its in someones wallet or listed up in the markets
2. Not enough chaos in the galaxy so they intervene to increase the chaos
What we need is a wallet/market wipe as the common economy complaints are there is far too much on the markets and far too in isk floating around since the main sources print isk
Most games have a NPC market which will remove the isk
our isk sinks are taxes (trade/npc corps/pi) some trade goods that are produced by NPCs, Skills, and various stocks of items which are usually undersold by players, Fees for owning star systems
if I missed anything please add to the list
"Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
|
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1297
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 16:46:37 -
[41] - Quote
Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
There are many other ways of sinking ISK. But CCP aren't coming to the table with a list of new ISK sinks they are considering in order to improve the EVE economy. They are coming to the table with a raft of measures intended to make the new Citadels suck less when compared to existing NPC stations.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this odd, but I never thought NPC stations were that great. They haven't really had much love in the 11+ years I've been playing. Just the odd cosmetic touch up and that one time they taunted us with the possibility of walking inside them. So how come a new feature that has been in the works for years is going to require tax incentives to be competitive with what we've already had for over a decade?
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with. |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
13
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 17:21:07 -
[42] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
There are many other ways of sinking ISK. But CCP aren't coming to the table with a list of new ISK sinks they are considering in order to improve the EVE economy. They are coming to the table with a raft of measures intended to make the new Citadels suck less when compared to existing NPC stations.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this odd, but I never thought NPC stations were that great. They haven't really had much love in the 11+ years I've been playing. Just the odd cosmetic touch up and that one time they taunted us with the possibility of walking inside them. So how come a new feature that has been in the works for years is going to require tax incentives to be competitive with what we've already had for over a decade?
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
My bet is that they couldn't justify a taxes increase in another context or at another date, so they just put it with the citadel release "while they still can" |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1297
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 17:30:14 -
[43] - Quote
They can justify tax changes at any time. EVE is a gaming product, not a country.
They're also not traditionally shy of putting out changes without giving any justification. |
Ria Nieyli
41945
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:07:01 -
[44] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
There are many other ways of sinking ISK. But CCP aren't coming to the table with a list of new ISK sinks they are considering in order to improve the EVE economy. They are coming to the table with a raft of measures intended to make the new Citadels suck less when compared to existing NPC stations.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this odd, but I never thought NPC stations were that great. They haven't really had much love in the 11+ years I've been playing. Just the odd cosmetic touch up and that one time they taunted us with the possibility of walking inside them. So how come a new feature that has been in the works for years is going to require tax incentives to be competitive with what we've already had for over a decade?
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
People won't stop doing what they've been doing for more than a decade just because. The developers are fighting for the life of their new feature, and fighting against the player created environment. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4801
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:16:42 -
[45] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:
People won't stop doing what they've been doing for more than a decade just because. The developers are fighting for the life of their new feature, and fighting against the player created environment.
I think there is quite a bit of truth in here. They are indeed trying to get players to move away from what they have done for years and that will likely need both the carrot and the stick.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
375
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:17:05 -
[46] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
There are many other ways of sinking ISK. But CCP aren't coming to the table with a list of new ISK sinks they are considering in order to improve the EVE economy. They are coming to the table with a raft of measures intended to make the new Citadels suck less when compared to existing NPC stations.
Maybe I'm alone in thinking this odd, but I never thought NPC stations were that great. They haven't really had much love in the 11+ years I've been playing. Just the odd cosmetic touch up and that one time they taunted us with the possibility of walking inside them. So how come a new feature that has been in the works for years is going to require tax incentives to be competitive with what we've already had for over a decade?
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
This, so much this.
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4801
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:26:53 -
[47] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
What maybe better for the game may not be seen as better from some sub-groups of players--e.g. station traders seem particularly displeased....then again losing that 0.2% broker's fee and facing something that could be up to an order of magnitude larger it is obvious to see why.
Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
375
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:29:11 -
[48] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
What maybe better for the game may not be seen as better from some sub-groups of players--e.g. station traders seem particularly displeased....then again losing that 0.2% broker's fee and facing something that could be up to an order of magnitude larger it is obvious to see why. Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game.
The thing for me is, that traders are just considered last in all stuff that changes, EVE needs a good look on all kind of stuff for people who PVP on the market. Its stupid that it has no attention from DEVs at all, all the time. I think that's part of where the outrage comes from.
"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X
"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron
-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1299
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 18:50:36 -
[49] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:People won't stop doing what they've been doing for more than a decade just because. The developers are fighting for the life of their new feature, and fighting against the player created environment. I think there is quite a bit of truth in here. They are indeed trying to get players to move away from what they have done for years and that will likely need both the carrot and the stick.
It may need the stick, but it doesn't have to be this stick.
Who exactly do you think will be incentivised to change behavior by a reduction in broker fee and transaction tax? Certainly not the majority of players, who will not give two ****** about it. This is an incentive for station operators who want to make an income from the market, not station customers.
Given this is a forum section filled with traders, where do you go to sell stuff? Where the customers are, or where the customers aren't? You will not move unless the customers move. The customers will not be incentivised by this tax.
Citadels do not have to have a tax advantage vs NPC stations, because if people aren't visiting the Citadel it's going to make **** all difference how low the broker fees are. People will not be going to a Citadel because of the market, at least not in most cases, they'll go for something else (if at all) and maybe do some shopping while they are there.
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4801
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:01:20 -
[50] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:People won't stop doing what they've been doing for more than a decade just because. The developers are fighting for the life of their new feature, and fighting against the player created environment. I think there is quite a bit of truth in here. They are indeed trying to get players to move away from what they have done for years and that will likely need both the carrot and the stick. It may need the stick, but it doesn't have to be this stick. Who exactly do you think will be incentivised to change behavior by a reduction in broker fee and transaction tax? Certainly not the majority of players, who will not give two ****** about it. This is an incentive for station operators who want to make an income from the market, not station customers. Given this is a forum section filled with traders, where do you go to sell stuff? Where the customers are, or where the customers aren't? You will not move unless the customers move. The customers will not be incentivised by this tax. Citadels do not have to have a tax advantage vs NPC stations, because if people aren't visiting the Citadel it's going to make **** all difference how low the broker fees are. People will not be going to a Citadel because of the market, at least not in most cases, they'll go for something else (if at all) and maybe do some shopping while they are there.
I'll go where the sellers are. If the traders move to citadels, as a buyer I'll go there too.
And the tax issue is misleading, it is the broker's fee that will be providing the incentive. And I'm not sure I agree with you that it won't be enough incentive. Look at what people have done to get their borker's fees so low currently. And the existing traders may not move right away, but new traders might...my understanding the barrier to entry is lower in a citadel.
Any ISK sink will inevitably be a tax of some sort.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1299
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:14:33 -
[51] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game.
I don't think that example supports your cause.
CCP has ****** about on the sidelines for years and never actually fixed the issues with Titans (or capitals in general).
Anyone can waste time and money fixing things that aren't the problem. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1299
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:24:55 -
[52] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Look at what people have done to get their borker's fees so low currently.
To get their Jita 4-4 broker fees so low?
They want to get the best fees at the place where they have chosen to trade.
They did not choose to trade at Jita 4-4 because they had low broker fees there.
Teckos Pech wrote:Any ISK sink will inevitably be a tax of some sort.
The ones that don't require CCP to put much work in will be taxes, yes.
The ones that require them to add new services to charge for or new products to sell will not be, but those take more work.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1299
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 19:29:20 -
[53] - Quote
TheSmokingHertog wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
What maybe better for the game may not be seen as better from some sub-groups of players--e.g. station traders seem particularly displeased....then again losing that 0.2% broker's fee and facing something that could be up to an order of magnitude larger it is obvious to see why. Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game. The thing for me is, that traders are just considered last in all stuff that changes, EVE needs a good look on all kind of stuff for people who PVP on the market. Its stupid that it has no attention from DEVs at all, all the time. I think that's part of where the outrage comes from.
It could be worse, you could be an industrialist. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5725
|
Posted - 2016.03.14 21:26:49 -
[54] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Sure, we need to sink more ISK. But just because an idea leads to sinking ISK, doesn't make it a good idea.
Having played games with much higher market taxes, they end up not being as much of an ISK sink as you expect.
Big players simply stop using the market for large trades.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Stain Confederation
460
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 00:27:02 -
[55] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:TheSmokingHertog wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:
I really do think they should be looking at making Citadels better and taking the time and iterations needed to do so, rather than nerfing NPC stations that were already pretty dire to begin with.
What maybe better for the game may not be seen as better from some sub-groups of players--e.g. station traders seem particularly displeased....then again losing that 0.2% broker's fee and facing something that could be up to an order of magnitude larger it is obvious to see why. Historical example: Changes to things like tracking titan saw a bunch of butthurt from titan pilots. It was undoubtedly good for the game. The thing for me is, that traders are just considered last in all stuff that changes, EVE needs a good look on all kind of stuff for people who PVP on the market. Its stupid that it has no attention from DEVs at all, all the time. I think that's part of where the outrage comes from. It could be worse, you could be an industrialist.
Agreed. Citadels completely out-compete current methods of re-processing ore. (59% now for a citadel in high sec! It used to be 50% with 54% the max when operating in the depths of LS or NS). The truth is only a giant alliances will be able to keep a XL Citadel alive and running and so once again smaller scale traders are hit.
And then on top you have the broker fees for making market orders for the raw materials, and then broker fees again for selling the items. This will take a massive cut out of any manufacturing profits one would have received.
I expect they'll come along next and give citadels some insane ME bonus over anything else possible in the game, and thus completely kill the prospect of manufacturing successfully without signing over your soul to a big alliance who will allow you to use their citadel for a price.
I won't be surprised if citadels actually kill off a lot of the fun gameplay opportunities for the smaller entities by the time they are fully realised if this broker fee and reprocessing change is anything to go by.
(Edit - Scratch the point about reprocessing - it seems CCP has seen sense and has suggested new reprocessing bands other than what is described in the devblog. The other points still remain though)
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5726
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 03:56:59 -
[56] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:
I expect they'll come along next and give citadels some insane ME bonus over anything else possible in the game, and thus completely kill the prospect of manufacturing successfully without signing over your soul to a big alliance who will allow you to use their citadel for a price.
This would be a disaster on the level of the introduction of T2 BPOs.
The 2% ME bonus for production in a POS is about where this should be - it's a compelling incentive to use one but not crippling if you do not.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1301
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 05:05:50 -
[57] - Quote
Another side of this that I'm not keen on is CCP nerfing NPC stations before a suitable replacement is in place. That is what they did with POS, right before they left us twisting in the wind for 18 months and counting.
CCP has a terrible record for iterating on economy features. |
Ria Nieyli
41950
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 08:05:48 -
[58] - Quote
Well, the citadels are slated for the end of April or so. Seems like they'll go live the same time as the increased tax. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1301
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 08:41:22 -
[59] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Well, the citadels are slated for the end of April or so. Seems like they'll go live the same time as the increased tax.
Which is my point.
Citadels will not be a replacement for NPC stations (or POSes) in April. They will not reach parity in functionality until CCP has made further iterations on them. In the interim, we'll be stuck with nerfed NPC stations, nerfed POSes and partially implemented Citadels.
I'd much rather they released Citadels, iterated on them until they are in a good state and only then started removing/devaluing the alternatives. |
Ria Nieyli
41950
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 09:18:44 -
[60] - Quote
Oh, you're viewing it in a broader scope rather than just market. Then yes. I agree. |
|
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1301
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 09:55:58 -
[61] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Oh, you're viewing it in a broader scope rather than just market. Then yes. I agree.
Even if you only concern yourself with market functionality, without contracts you haven't got anything close to the full package.
|
Ria Nieyli
41950
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 10:39:38 -
[62] - Quote
Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway. |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
13
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 10:45:23 -
[63] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway.
Medium can't but Large and XL can have a market module, the contract feature will not work with the first release
source : http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S2.pdf
Also, CREST will not work with citadels |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1301
|
Posted - 2016.03.15 11:59:56 -
[64] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway. Medium can't but Large and XL can have a market module, the contract feature will not work with the first release source : http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S2.pdf
Also, CREST will not work with citadels
I'm expecting to see contracts support for L and XL Citadels eventually, but I don't think I've seen a clear confirmation that M Citadels will get them. That's not to say it will not happen. |
Aaril
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
34
|
Posted - 2016.03.16 23:35:46 -
[65] - Quote
I am guessing I am space poor compared to most people here, and due to having a more casual schedule I like to trade in secondary hubs. I feel that this change will cause absolute carnage to my monthly income. I cannot see a Citadel taking over trade hubs, regardless of asset safety (hauling and relisting my orders sounds horrible).
Today, secondary trade hub players will sometime drive margins to smaller than Jita with many times less volume. These items are usually "ruined" for a while until some massive order comes through at an unpredictable date later. Based on this precedent, after these changes I have a feeling it will take months for the trading to adjust in these secondary hubs.
I am not sure why they don't see how the player's adjust to having Citadels, first, before they feel the need to introduce "sticks". I completely agree with Bad Bobby that feature parity needs to occur first.
I have no evidence to back this up, but I am guessing most trader's, like me, are fairly casual. Basically, I am not so entrenched in trading that I could possibly entertain the idea of doing Incursions on an alt instead (or setting up a bear hole, doing missions, etc). I would be taking my income from a pure sink to a faucet as part of this process.
If inflation is such a huge concern, it seems like they could lower the faucets through increased LP/items instead of liquid ISK. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5731
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 00:11:44 -
[66] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Aaron Honk wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway. Medium can't but Large and XL can have a market module, the contract feature will not work with the first release source : http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S2.pdf
Also, CREST will not work with citadels I'm expecting to see contracts support for L and XL Citadels eventually, but I don't think I've seen a clear confirmation that M Citadels will get them. That's not to say it will not happen.
Item exchange contracts are manageable to live without (CODE.'s gank fleet logistics manage this, we don't use item exchange contracts but instead delegate the handing out of ships via the trade window). Blueprints are the one big problem that remains.
It's courier contracts that are the bigger issue.
What happens to a courier contract when the target Citadel is blown up during the contract? What if the Citadel is unanchored and moved to another system (if possible)? What if it has its contract/market facilities uninstalled? What if the Citadel changes who can dock there?
I don't really see a solution here either.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
17
|
Posted - 2016.03.17 00:32:15 -
[67] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Aaron Honk wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:Weren't contracts supposed to be unavailable for medium citadels only? IE, citadels that can't have market anyway. Medium can't but Large and XL can have a market module, the contract feature will not work with the first release source : http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/csm/Meetings/summit/CSM10-S2.pdf
Also, CREST will not work with citadels I'm expecting to see contracts support for L and XL Citadels eventually, but I don't think I've seen a clear confirmation that M Citadels will get them. That's not to say it will not happen. Item exchange contracts are manageable to live without (CODE.'s gank fleet logistics manage this, we don't use item exchange contracts but instead delegate the handing out of ships via the trade window). Blueprints are the one big problem that remains. It's courier contracts that are the bigger issue. What happens to a courier contract when the target Citadel is blown up during the contract? What if the Citadel is unanchored and moved to another system (if possible)? What if it has its contract/market facilities uninstalled? What if the Citadel changes who can dock there? I don't really see a solution here either.
I'm sure I've read somewhere that the un-anchoring of a citadel would take something like a week, I don't remember where
It will be a total mess anyway, I don't know how they are going to handle the fact that you can dock to some citadels but not some others, how will that works with couriers ? so many questions ! |
Cista2
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
215
|
Posted - 2016.03.21 14:54:06 -
[68] - Quote
I am ruing that change :(
However, and slightly OT :
Black Desert Online - brokers fee is 35% lmao.
They really don't like traders in that game (or any other emergent gameplay - and still try to label those games sandboxes).
My channel: "Signatures"
-
Recommended: "The Biomass Bar" (for corpse selling)
|
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
49
|
Posted - 2016.03.21 15:04:33 -
[69] - Quote
Cista2 wrote:I am ruing that change :(
However, and slightly OT :
Black Desert Online - brokers fee is 35% lmao.
They really don't like traders in that game (or any other emergent gameplay - and still try to label those games sandboxes).
Someone pointed that dungeon and dragon online have a 30% fee as well |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
1329
|
Posted - 2016.03.22 16:47:11 -
[70] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:Cista2 wrote:I am ruing that change :(
However, and slightly OT :
Black Desert Online - brokers fee is 35% lmao.
They really don't like traders in that game (or any other emergent gameplay - and still try to label those games sandboxes).
Someone pointed that dungeon and dragon online have a 30% fee as well
I don't remember the trading gameplay being particularly deep in DDO. |
|
|
General Muller
RpG-CONVICTS-FEDERATION
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.23 09:35:06 -
[71] - Quote
Guild Wars 2 has combined listing and selling fees of 15% and market trading is a very active form of gameplay.
Needless to say that there is a lot of market manipulation involved both from whales and ArenaNet themself. |
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
515
|
Posted - 2016.03.24 23:52:07 -
[72] - Quote
How much monthly isk would it generate to the holding corp if 50% of the jita trade moved to a citadel?
Would trading in a citadel remove the need to have faction standings? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4819
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 05:41:19 -
[73] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:How much monthly isk would it generate to the holding corp if 50% of the jita trade moved to a citadel?
Would trading in a citadel remove the need to have faction standings?
It depends on the broker's fee that the citadel owner sets. And that depends on competition from other citadels and even the potential for competition. Also, the prices themselves will likely change as well, most likely upwards...but the quantity purchased will also likely fall, so the net effect on citadel revenues would be ambiguous.
Might as well ask, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Ria Nieyli
42390
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 09:47:20 -
[74] - Quote
If quantity of purchases drops, wouldn't that drive prices down due to the available surplus of goods though?
Vote Cytoplasm for CSM 11!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5737
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 12:10:30 -
[75] - Quote
Aaron Honk wrote:Cista2 wrote:I am ruing that change :(
However, and slightly OT :
Black Desert Online - brokers fee is 35% lmao.
They really don't like traders in that game (or any other emergent gameplay - and still try to label those games sandboxes).
Someone pointed that dungeon and dragon online have a 30% fee as well
And that game had a barter economy when I used to play it. Small transactions used the auction house; large ones were done via its equivalent of our trade window.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
515
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 15:51:00 -
[76] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:How much monthly isk would it generate to the holding corp if 50% of the jita trade moved to a citadel?
Would trading in a citadel remove the need to have faction standings?
According to the graph Hiver posted total Transaction tax for Feb was $10 Trillion. I don't know what percentage of that is Jita/Amarr, but the amount of income potential for the Citadel owner is incredible.
I imagine this will create press worthy battles initially as competing citadels are anchored in high-sec, but what happens if a group establishes citadel hegemony? The only available rebel action would be boycotts. If major powers are spending their time defending/attacking assets in high-sec, who's left in null?
Is CCP taking a big gamble on this one both from overwhelming advantage for the biggest group, and from player morale?
What are your predictions for the outcome?
|
Cista2
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 17:37:02 -
[77] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote: what happens if a group establishes citadel hegemony?
What would they do, make taxes higher than Jita npc station? Hardly :)
My channel: "Signatures"
-
Recommended: "The Biomass Bar" (for corpse selling)
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4819
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 17:46:05 -
[78] - Quote
Ria Nieyli wrote:If quantity of purchases drops, wouldn't that drive prices down due to the available surplus of goods though?
No. Draw a supply and demand graph. Shift supply to the left, then demand. Do it several times, you should be able to draw graphs where the price goes up, stays the same or down.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4819
|
Posted - 2016.03.25 17:56:03 -
[79] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:Shiloh Templeton wrote:How much monthly isk would it generate to the holding corp if 50% of the jita trade moved to a citadel?
Would trading in a citadel remove the need to have faction standings? According to the graph Hiver posted total Transaction tax for Feb was $10 Trillion. I don't know what percentage of that is Jita/Amarr, but the amount of income potential for the Citadel owner is incredible. I imagine this will create press worthy battles initially as competing citadels are anchored in high-sec, but what happens if a group establishes citadel hegemony? The only available rebel action would be boycotts. If major powers are spending their time defending/attacking assets in high-sec, who's left in null? Is CCP taking a big gamble on this one both from overwhelming advantage for the biggest group, and from player morale? What are your predictions for the outcome?
Let me see, just playing with numbers here. 1% of 10 trillion is what?
How much ISK do the "major" powers earn off of things like moon-goo, POCO taxes, and so forth?
Can one group capture all of the HS trade?
Even if they did capture a large chunk would they raise prices? Might that not invite more competition and a new round of fights?
If such a "major" power is busy defending their HS income....wouldn't that leave some openings back home for an enemy to exploit?
These very same predictions were made for POCOs, that one group would take over a big chunk of them in HS and make tons of ISK and break the game, ruin the ecoonomy, etc.
Yet here we are.
Why is it there whenever there is a change to the economy the typical post is:
"You'll kill the game!"
"You just wrecked the economy!"
"You just handed [insert the villain du jour] an unbeateable advantage!!"
And yet....they never come to pass.
Do carry on with your predictions of doom and gloom...they eat it up on the forums just as they do in real life.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Ria Nieyli
42419
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 09:05:58 -
[80] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Ria Nieyli wrote:If quantity of purchases drops, wouldn't that drive prices down due to the available surplus of goods though? No. Draw a supply and demand graph. Shift supply to the left, then demand. Do it several times, you should be able to draw graphs where the price goes up, stays the same or down.
Yeah, see, that's the thing. I'm thinking that supply won't shift. At least not immediately.
Vote Cytoplasm for CSM 11!
|
|
|
Jacabon Mere
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
98
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 14:14:48 -
[81] - Quote
Without courier contracts no citadel will come anywhere close to replacing a trade hub.
Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net
|
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
515
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 16:03:57 -
[82] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Why is it there whenever there is a change to the economy the typical post is: "You'll kill the game!" "You just wrecked the economy!" "You just handed [insert the villain du jour] an unbeateable advantage!!" And yet....they never come to pass. Do carry on with your predictions of doom and gloom...they eat it up on the forums just as they do in real life. I wasn't trying to predict doom and gloom, rather understand what the opporunities/risks are. I readily admit my game experience is too limited to know what will happen so that's why I was asking what more knowledgeable people in this forum predict.
POCO's have generated gameplay as exemplified by the recent Eve Uni attacks on PIRAT. And skill injectors have created opporunities.
Clearly with the proposed taxes, CCP wants to push trade towards citadel markets.
Establishing a New Jita or New Amarr would gain more than 1%, wouldn't it? Besides going after the trade hub market, what about citadels in low traffic areas where people try to create their own markets? Will FW groups try to use a citadel just for their own members market or is the citadel cost too high? Will it create more regionalized markets instead of so concentrated in Jita? Will this create a boon for mercenary groups hired to defend/attack citadels? |
Shayla Etherodyne
United Nations Industrial Holdings
4
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 18:21:08 -
[83] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Aaron Honk wrote:[quote=Tipa Riot].................. My guess is that he is just happy for his alliance to get to collect trade fees in high sec Pathetic... I guess from your style, however, that you are an economist or one that subscribes to that pseudo-science based upon a false premise. Note: All the modern states that have subscribed to Keynesian ( sic) economic theory are now hideously in debt; with a few exploiting it mercilessly. The fees should have been higher all the time to pay for station upkeep and CONCORD - at the very least. - Sales Tax (VAT) ~20% - Corporation Tax 10-30% - Broker Fees 10-40% Figures based upon RL examples like that would have been much more sensible. Then there wouldn't need to be such change now to allow the players to take control if they wished. And yes, I had indeed, perhaps erroneously, expected better here than trolling.
You are missing a"little" point about VAT taxes. You compensate the tax will pay on the final product with the tax you paid on the initial product.
Only the final purchaser pay the tax and it is 20% of the value of the final product.
With the new trading taxes we will end paying 5% at each stage.
As each seller will want to recoup the increased cost it will become a impressive compound effect, especially for items that have production several steps.
Moon mineral cost 105 % of the previous price -> T2 crafting material 105% -> final item 105% = 115,7%
Add some extra passage between miners, industrialists, bulk sellers and retail sellers and in no time you will get well above 125% of the previous price.
|
Alexi Stokov
State War Academy
Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 23:02:58 -
[84] - Quote
What are you hiding mr honk? |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.26 23:08:23 -
[85] - Quote
Alexi Stokov wrote:What are you hiding mr honk?
I'm editing all my posts because soon I will stop using this character (I will also edit this post in time  )
Not really anything to hide... you could probably find the post on eve search anyway
Edit : 60sec between each edit is annoying |
Teckos Pech
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
4819
|
Posted - 2016.03.27 00:46:40 -
[86] - Quote
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:Aaron Honk wrote:[quote=Tipa Riot].................. My guess is that he is just happy for his alliance to get to collect trade fees in high sec Pathetic... I guess from your style, however, that you are an economist or one that subscribes to that pseudo-science based upon a false premise. Note: All the modern states that have subscribed to Keynesian ( sic) economic theory are now hideously in debt; with a few exploiting it mercilessly. The fees should have been higher all the time to pay for station upkeep and CONCORD - at the very least. - Sales Tax (VAT) ~20% - Corporation Tax 10-30% - Broker Fees 10-40% Figures based upon RL examples like that would have been much more sensible. Then there wouldn't need to be such change now to allow the players to take control if they wished. And yes, I had indeed, perhaps erroneously, expected better here than trolling. You are missing a"little" point about VAT taxes. You compensate the tax will pay on the final product with the tax you paid on the initial product. Only the final purchaser pay the tax and it is 20% of the value of the final product. With the new trading taxes we will end paying 5% at each stage. As each seller will want to recoup the increased cost it will become a impressive compound effect, especially for items that have production several steps. Moon mineral cost 105 % of the previous price -> T2 crafting material 105% -> final item 105% = 115,7% Add some extra passage between miners, industrialists, bulk sellers and retail sellers and in no time you will get well above 125% of the previous price.
You mean like robotics...oh wait...no. You can make those without having to buy stuff from a station trader, in fact i bet most do. One way around paying taxes is to vertically integrate. If I buy the base inputs and then build up to the final good I don't have to pay the tax at each stage...which has always been the case, it is just increasing now.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Fin Aele
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 02:28:36 -
[87] - Quote
I think these changes are terrible. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the new transaction tax is actually larger than today's 2*brokers+1*transaction standard station trade.
I have already started liquidating my trade assets and scaling back my buy orders. and have begun thinking about what I will use for income next (incursions seem like the safest isk/hr alternative). |
Aaron Honk
Distributed Denial of Service
60
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 07:53:27 -
[88] - Quote
Fin Aele wrote:I think these changes are terrible. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the new transaction tax is actually larger than today's 2*brokers+1*transaction standard station trade.
I have already started liquidating my trade assets and scaling back my buy orders. and have begun thinking about what I will use for income next (incursions seem like the safest isk/hr alternative).
The market will probably still be profitable, but nobody can say how the tides will change... I have liquidated everything as well and just waiting on the release date |
Jacabon Mere
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
98
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 15:31:35 -
[89] - Quote
Fin Aele wrote:I think these changes are terrible. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the new transaction tax is actually larger than today's 2*brokers+1*transaction standard station trade.
I have already started liquidating my trade assets and scaling back my buy orders. and have begun thinking about what I will use for income next (incursions seem like the safest isk/hr alternative).
Why would you not just pass on costs to consumers?
Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net
|
Fin Aele
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 15:51:51 -
[90] - Quote
Jacabon Mere wrote:Fin Aele wrote:I think these changes are terrible. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the new transaction tax is actually larger than today's 2*brokers+1*transaction standard station trade.
I have already started liquidating my trade assets and scaling back my buy orders. and have begun thinking about what I will use for income next (incursions seem like the safest isk/hr alternative). Why would you not just pass on costs to consumers?
Because I foresee less people selling into Buy Orders as the gap between buy/sell will be huge.
Also, imagine trading ships under the new system. Either you have massive amounts of ISK between buy and sell, or you have to deal with hauling gank magnet freighters that won't even hold that large of a stock. I am generally talking about T2/pirate ships here.
If the Citadel gets blown up, asset safety still means I have to haul and relist potentially many freighters worth of items. I will have have to pay broker's fees a second time, and then have the hassle of relisting all of my orders. All in all I love the player driven economy, but there are some things that are just too annoying to have in the hands of the players. Managing the market is one thing I am perfectly content with the NPC overlords.
To sum it up, this new market sounds like a huge hassle. It may become more appealing to press F1 in an Incursion fleet. I don't enjoy ISK earning period, I just need it to fund my main's pvp. |
|
|
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
873
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 16:16:49 -
[91] - Quote
Fin Aele wrote:[quote=Jacabon Mere]
Because I foresee less people selling into Buy Orders as the gap between buy/sell will be huge.
Also, imagine trading ships under the new system. Either you have massive amounts of ISK between buy and sell, or you have to deal with hauling gank magnet freighters that won't even hold that large of a stock. I am generally talking about T2/pirate ships here.
If the Citadel gets blown up, asset safety still means I have to haul and relist potentially many freighters worth of items. I will have have to pay broker's fees a second time, and then have the hassle of relisting all of my orders. All in all I love the player driven economy, but there are some things that are just too annoying to have in the hands of the players. Managing the market is one thing I am perfectly content with the NPC overlords.
To sum it up, this new market sounds like a huge hassle. It may become more appealing to press F1 in an Incursion fleet. I don't enjoy ISK earning period, I just need it to fund my main's pvp.
I currently trade under what you call "Huge" margins.
9-10% margin is by no means huge, even for T2 and pirate ships.
People dump to buys if it is within the regional average +/- a value they are happy with.
Most people will move their margins (So, I will move to say, 15% minimum instead of 10%) and grumble, and carry on in the NPC stations.
Fluffy Bunny Pic!
|
Cista2
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
220
|
Posted - 2016.03.28 17:54:37 -
[92] - Quote
Will the orders in the citadels show up in the regional market overview?
If that is the case, then trade volume will be driven towards big citadels, no doubt about it. You wouldn't be able to sell anything from Jita 4-4 if your sell price is 3-4% higher than the neighbour. And when a miner comes with his haul he will dump it at the best price he can get.
My channel: "Signatures"
-
Recommended: "The Biomass Bar" (for corpse selling)
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |