EVE Search - Sticky:[Citadel] Updates to NPC taxes and refining rig bonuses

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:[Citadel] Updates to NPC taxes and refining rig bonuses

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14134	Posted - 2016.04.26 20:45:55 - [1] - Quote Hey folks. This is a quick update to the numbers that had been earlier posted in this thread. As we announced in the Fanfest Structures presentation, we are planning a smaller change to market taxes than had been announced earlier. This more incremental change is intended to reflect the fact that some extra features such as contracts that are ideal for a market hub will not be released in Citadels until a future date. We also want to gain the ability to observe how the market adjusts to these smaller changes and then use that information to advise future tweaks. The currently planned market tax values are: 3% BrokerGÇÖs Fee Reduced to 2.5% with skills and 2% with both skills and max NPC standings Is sunk from the game in NPC stations, is paid to owners in outposts, is customizable and paid to owners in Citadels Skills and standings donGÇÖt apply in player structures BrokerGÇÖs fee formula: 3% brokers fee - ([Broker Relation skill level]0.1 + [Faction Standing level]0.03 + [Corp Standing level]0.02) 2 % Transaction Tax* Reduced to 1 % with max skills Is sunk from the game in all locations and is not customizable We intend to tweak these taxes further at a later point after contracts have been added to citadels. The exact values of that next round of tweaks would depend on the metrics after this first release. We are also making an adjustment to the plan for reprocessing rigs in Citadels. The earlier plan had two security bands for reprocessing rig bonuses, one for highsec and another for low/null/wh. We are separating lowsec into its own band with intermediate reprocessing rig bonuses to preserve the advantage of nullsec refining. The new values are: Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50% T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52% T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54% T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12% T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24% T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24% T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48% Thanks and good luck with all your post-Citadel plans! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

The Scanner Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies. 16	Posted - 2016.04.26 20:46:59 - [2] - Quote Hi i said in a previous thread "imgay" and got removed by a dev/GM (was first post too :( ). I was wondering if you guys had something against homosexuals because I did not believe that CCP would be of such low calibre. Regards, Darkthemis
Alcyonia Motiveless Malignity Psychotic Tendencies. 1	Posted - 2016.04.26 20:48:06 - [3] - Quote The Scanner wrote: Hi i said in a previous thread "imgay" and got removed by a dev/GM (was first post too :( ). I was wondering if you guys had something against homosexuals because I did not believe that CCP would be of such low calibre. Regards, Darkthemis Can confirm, is gay
Anthar Thebess 1498	Posted - 2016.04.26 20:54:49 - [4] - Quote What about difference of citadel size and ore type - this is also gone? Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists Show your support to The Cause!
jack1974 Reikoku Pandemic Legion 94	Posted - 2016.04.26 20:56:25 - [5] - Quote Thank you for the change sir
Capqu Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1192	Posted - 2016.04.26 20:58:05 - [6] - Quote how do we get our industry teams into citadels https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 144	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:08:38 - [7] - Quote So that's...a comparative nerf to LS refining? (I recall the current numbers being higher) More importantly, I'd really like to restate my question from the thread: Have you considered all the outcomes (lowered trade volume, increased prices, higher prices for noobs) and do you think that those are positive outcomes? There's obviously a lot of backdraft from people who think this is a terrible idea, but I'd like to ask for an in-depth explanation of what you envision happening with these tax increases, please.
Otro Willis DeepSpace Resources DeepSpace. 0	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:23:13 - [8] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: So that's...a comparative nerf to LS refining? (I recall the current numbers being higher) More importantly, I'd really like to restate my question from the thread: Have you considered all the outcomes (lowered trade volume, increased prices, higher prices for noobs) and do you think that those are positive outcomes? There's obviously a lot of backdraft from people who think this is a terrible idea, but I'd like to ask for an in-depth explanation of what you envision happening with these tax increases, please. LOL is low sec refining even a thing? Pretty much all the mining is happening in high-sec or null sec.
Otro Willis DeepSpace Resources DeepSpace. 0	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:25:40 - [9] - Quote Edit... nvm I am dumb... I forget you guys build things out there and probably don't want to ship the minerals uncompressed.
Basil Vulpine Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass 67	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:26:58 - [10] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: So that's...a comparative nerf to LS refining? (I recall the current numbers being higher) More importantly, I'd really like to restate my question from the thread: Have you considered all the outcomes (lowered trade volume, increased prices, higher prices for noobs) and do you think that those are positive outcomes? There's obviously a lot of backdraft from people who think this is a terrible idea, but I'd like to ask for an in-depth explanation of what you envision happening with these tax increases, please. Low Sec should be using the intensive reprocessing array? That's a 54% refine. NPC stations are all 50% as far as I'm aware. I don't know if FW causes any adjustments but overall I suspec this is a buff to low-sec refining.

Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 350	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:36:58 - [11] - Quote So as things stand atm, a standard pos gives a base refining rate of 52% With a max refining rate of 75.3%. An Intensive array gives 54% and 78.1% respectively. Has anyone worked out the refining % on a rigged Medium Citadel yet? Because it's going to have to be a hell of a lot better to make it even remotely worthwhile, particularly as it has a base rate of 50%. Bearing in mind the fuel costs I don't think it's going to be possible to make it anywhere close to as profitable, not in the short, or long term.
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 144	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:36:59 - [12] - Quote ~~Yes, OK, I was looking at the wrong figures (I am not good with spreadsheets).~~ Or maybe I was right? I know this is in the wrong place, does that mean that PoSes are losing their refining abilities this update, or is that at the end of the year.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3210	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:45:30 - [13] - Quote It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 350	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:47:20 - [14] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: ~~Yes, OK, I was looking at the wrong figures (I am not good with spreadsheets).~~ Or maybe I was right? I know this is in the wrong place, does that mean that PoSes are losing their refining abilities this update, or is that at the end of the year. The new drilling platforms are scheduled for Autumn. But no figures have been given yet about what they can do, yields, refining etc. But as far as I can make out you should still be able to refine in a pos until they are taken out of the game, but lol watch this space because anything could happen between now and then.
Otro Willis DeepSpace Resources DeepSpace. 0	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:49:49 - [15] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. Because being next door to Jita isn't an advantage at all.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 350	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:54:34 - [16] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists. His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 350	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:56:38 - [17] - Quote Otro Willis wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. Because being next door to Jita isn't an advantage at all. What the hell has Jita got to do with it? I haven't been there in over 2 years, and I doubt I will in the next 2 if i'm here.
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 144	Posted - 2016.04.26 21:58:20 - [18] - Quote Drago wrote: His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" Did he really say that? That's...a bit shite really. Anyway, How are you getting ~70% refines in a PoS, which doesn't use standings or skills. (According to both the devblog and Eve Uni)
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 350	Posted - 2016.04.26 22:06:24 - [19] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: Drago wrote: His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" Did he really say that? That's...a bit shite really. Anyway, How are you getting ~70% refines in a PoS, which doesn't use standings or skills. (According to both the devblog and Eve Uni) Apparently they rounded it up in the changes due to legacy code, I just googled it to make sure, I checked 3 different sites as well. That includes the rx-804 implant as well. Yes he really did say that.
Ficti0n Ultramar Independent Contracting 16	Posted - 2016.04.26 22:24:20 - [20] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: Drago wrote: His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" Did he really say that? That's...a bit shite really. It's up to him to clarfiy, but it doesn't sound like something any responsible dev would say to a customer. I would make doubly sure what you said was accurate and even then think again. Impersonating a dev or rather putting words in their mouths is something that has been dealt with quite heavily in the past.

Krevnos Back Door Burglars The Otherworld 150	Posted - 2016.04.26 22:28:02 - [21] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Otro Willis wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. Because being next door to Jita isn't an advantage at all. What the hell has Jita got to do with it? I haven't been there in over 2 years, and I doubt I will in the next 2 if i'm here. If you haven't been in Jita, you probably haven't done significant business.
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 144	Posted - 2016.04.26 22:28:07 - [22] - Quote @Ficti0n, it's entirely possible he was a) 3 sheets to the wind, or b) 2 and a half sheets to the wind after getting wasted the night before. It does tie into what I'm beginning to expect from CCP now :(. Anyway, it was Drago who said it, not me :P.
Rob Kaichin Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 144	Posted - 2016.04.26 22:35:41 - [23] - Quote Ok, so is this: CCP Fozzie wrote: Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50% T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52% T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54% T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12% T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24% T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24% T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48% The new Base or the new Maximum for Reprocessing, and will skills be acting on it? (where they don't know).
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 350	Posted - 2016.04.26 22:45:18 - [24] - Quote Ficti0n wrote: Rob Kaichin wrote: Drago wrote: His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" Did he really say that? That's...a bit shite really. It's up to him to clarfiy, but it doesn't sound like something any responsible dev would say to a customer. I would make doubly sure what you said was accurate and even then think again. Impersonating a dev or rather putting words in their mouths is something that has been dealt with quite heavily in the past. I was there talking to him, I don't care what you think about it. Or do you think I'm stupid enough to make it up?
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 350	Posted - 2016.04.26 22:50:09 - [25] - Quote Krevnos wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: Otro Willis wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. Because being next door to Jita isn't an advantage at all. What the hell has Jita got to do with it? I haven't been there in over 2 years, and I doubt I will in the next 2 if i'm here. If you haven't been in Jita, you probably haven't done significant business. Lol, you don't need Jita to do any business, significant or otherwise. I sell stuff just fine =ƒÿÇ
Indahmawar Fazmarai 5134	Posted - 2016.04.26 22:52:45 - [26] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists. His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future. Well, doesn't matters much whether is true or bullsh*t; it reflects what players feel about these things. CCP is making a different EVE for someone else, and is using your money to do it. If you stop giving them money, they will find some other sucker to pay for it. And there's nothing you can do. v-¦v
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3211	Posted - 2016.04.26 23:08:29 - [27] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists. His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future. Wow.... Just wow. Though it totally matches the current design direction of the game towards becoming a themepark MMO which forces you towards an 'endgame' location, rather than a sandbox where every area of space is of equal value but different activities. So I quite believe that got said. But yea..... all we can do is talk with our wallets on any high sec industrial characters if it's a big enough deal.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 505	Posted - 2016.04.26 23:18:07 - [28] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The new values are: Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50% T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52% T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54% T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12% T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24% T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24% T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48% Thanks and good luck with all your post-Citadel plans! These refine values are very high considering that when the new drilling platforms are released they are meant to be significantly better than citadels. We aren't heading into the 100%+ territory once again are we? Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14146	Posted - 2016.04.27 00:32:46 - [29] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists. His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future. I absolutely did not say that, although I can understand if you misheard me or misunderstood. I said that we need to make the changes that are best for the game as a whole; and that although almost all change will cause at least some people to leave the game, good changes will result in more players overall. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14146	Posted - 2016.04.27 00:33:36 - [30] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: The new values are: Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50% T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52% T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54% T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12% T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24% T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24% T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48% Thanks and good luck with all your post-Citadel plans! These refine values are very high considering that when the new drilling platforms are released they are meant to be significantly better than citadels. We aren't heading into the 100%+ territory once again are we? The introduction of Drilling Platforms will likely come alongside a reduction in the strength of these rigs when fit to Citadels. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/


Circumstantial Evidence 304	Posted - 2016.04.27 00:35:27 - [31] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: ...a themepark MMO which forces you towards an 'endgame' location, rather than a sandbox where every area of space is of equal value but different activities. If you provided an example of different activities locked to different areas, I bet it would spawn a new round of arguing. To suggest something extreme: make refining equal everywhere, but impossible in nullsec. THAT would certainly promote different activities in different areas of space... note that I'm not actually proposing this. I worry about a "theme park" trend due to upcoming daily activity rewards, something EVE hasn't had before. Nullsec has always been a theoretically more profitable area & location for "endgame content." Best passive isk generation (moons). Best belt ratting. iHubs.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 7068	Posted - 2016.04.27 02:50:18 - [32] - Quote Removed a troll post. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication 388	Posted - 2016.04.27 04:25:20 - [33] - Quote It would still be better if you nuked the idea of the broker fees passing to the owner of the station - or at least ensure the fee was static and could not be manipulated by the station owner outside of the skills of those making market transactions. That said: Thank you for updating us on the status of the fees since the patch notes were absent of this information. Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Bad Bobby Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust 1332	Posted - 2016.04.27 04:38:45 - [34] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The currently planned market tax values are: 3% BrokerGÇÖs Fee Reduced to 2.5% with skills and 2% with both skills and max NPC standings Is sunk from the game in NPC stations, is paid to owners in outposts, is customizable and paid to owners in Citadels Skills and standings donGÇÖt apply in player structures BrokerGÇÖs fee formula: 3% brokers fee - ([Broker Relation skill level]0.1 + [Faction Standing level]0.03 + [Corp Standing level]0.02) 2 % Transaction Tax* Reduced to 1 % with max skills Is sunk from the game in all locations and is not customizable Are existing orders impacted in any way? Are there any other special cases to the way Citadel markets work compared to NPC stations? Do they support ranged buy orders etc?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2317	Posted - 2016.04.27 05:37:18 - [35] - Quote Can we please tax compression? Right now there is very little reason to refine in a citadel that isn't closer to a trade hub and even beyond that there will be plenty of public ones with 0 tax. If ppl can just compress in mine for free why would they ever refine there. A DST can move over 1M of ore after compression. Beyond that why can't I charge for a service I'm paying to provide Citadel worm hole tax
Zappity Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 2843	Posted - 2016.04.27 06:37:34 - [36] - Quote I hope CCP does a careful analysis on the effects of these increased sinks and costs on isk velocity and volumes. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 5135	Posted - 2016.04.27 06:59:33 - [37] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists. His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future. I absolutely did not say that, although I can understand if you misheard me or misunderstood. I said that we need to make the changes that are best for the game as a whole; and that although almost all change will cause at least some people to leave the game, good changes will result in more players overall. And like I told you at the party, if you do decide to quit over this I wish you the very best in the future and want you to know that you're always welcome back if you choose. That makes sense and is understandable. What players may disagree is on what is "good for the game" and your (CCP's) ability to discern it based on the information you obtain. The questions you don't ask don't get answered, and sometimes what you don't know that you don't know (the unknown unknowns) is very relevant. CCP may be right in what looks like favoring a very small chunk of population and backburning a way larger share of it, but maybe ti's because they asked the wrong questions to the wrong people... Small anecdote in point: a public library had a succesful program of "digital alphabetization" to teach people how to use a computer. It was so succesful that they were picked for a test program by the EU, to improve those kind of programs with additional funds and studies. Based on the feedback they gathered from the people attending the initial program, they developed a series of programs teaching how to use specific software based on the things learned in the initial program, and then things went bad. The new programs had poor performance in the first semester and that could threaten the EU funding. Then, someone asked the question nobody had asked yet: "Is there someone who would want to use our digital alphabetisation pogram but can't?". That question was raised to the library board because my sister talked to one of the librarians and conveyed to her the objection made by an inmigrant mother: she would like to learn to use a computer and help her children, but the digital alphabetisation program was scheduled at times good for retired elder and unemployed persons, and where incompatible with school hours and working moms. So eventually the extended program was refurbished and the library board just added more studies in times compatible with school hours, and bingo! The new program was extremely successful since it taped on a completely new demographic. The point is, the library board first thought that they needed to keep pleasing the people already enjoying the initial program, and they would never have figured that there was more people in need of the program because they only talked to people from the program. They needed to learn first hand about the people who didn't enjoyed the program because they couldn't.... and that people, you knwo, didn't bothered to engage the library board since they were quite busy minding their business. Pleasing the people who enjoys your game in a certain way is nice, but maybe you should focus on the people who doesn't enjoys it for no good reason. Specially when you release the first Expansion in two years and that people get from it, precisely and exactly, a tax hike and a doubled-edged sword of PvE dailies. Can you get rid of them? What's good for the game is that people who don't play to wreck someone's dreams are bakcburned for years to come? Certainly CCP thinks so. But maybe they asked the wrong questions to the wrong people...
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 2434	Posted - 2016.04.27 07:55:10 - [38] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Can you get rid of them? What's good for the game is that people who don't play to wreck someone's dreams are bakcburned for years to come? Certainly CCP thinks so. But maybe they asked the wrong questions to the wrong people... Or maybe some people have been playing the wrong game the whole time. Eve Online has always been about player content, competition and conflict. The fundamental game design always has players at risk to other players. The fact that some players want a game completely different from what is written in the original design documents does not mean CCP should throw out their original vision and pander to whoever yells the loudest. The are trying their best to stay true to those original ideas, and while certainly there have been concessions and not every decision has furthered that goal, and not every feature added has worked as intended, the idea of a universe completely in the hands of the players still burns bright and has its marks over all the current cool stuff coming in to the game. But more on topic, putting markets into the hands of players is a bold move towards that goal of a completely player driven universe. I think though a gradual and cautious transition is wise given that citadels lack the contract and CREST functionality that traders rely on. If the bulk of trade does not move to citadels, these new taxes and fees could dramatically increase the amount of ISK leaving the economy causing even more deflation. The economy is already dealing with massive adjustment of skill extractors which seem to be increasing the value of ISK (as reflected by PLEX prices which are still on the decline) and a large new ISK sink could cause more instability. I am excited to see how this all pans out. Why Do They Gank?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2319	Posted - 2016.04.27 08:23:38 - [39] - Quote Rob Kaichin wrote: Ok, so is this: CCP Fozzie wrote: Unrigged Citadel (in all areas of space): 50% T1 rigged Highsec Citadel: 52% T2 rigged Highsec Citadel: 54% T1 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 55.12% T2 rigged Lowsec Citadel: 57.24% T1 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 58.24% T2 rigged Null/WH Citadel: 60.48% The new Base or the new Maximum for Reprocessing, and will skills be acting on it? (where they don't know). These are the bases with maxskills and impart it's over 80%refine in null/wh (been a few days so can't remember exact) Citadel worm hole tax
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3213	Posted - 2016.04.27 08:25:12 - [40] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: I absolutely did not say that, although I can understand if you misheard me or misunderstood. I said that we need to make the changes that are best for the game as a whole; and that although almost all change will cause at least some people to leave the game, good changes will result in more players overall. And like I told you at the party, if you do decide to quit over this I wish you the very best in the future and want you to know that you're always welcome back if you choose. So would you care to explain why you are contradicting the earlier change to PE where it was stated that giving mechanical material advantages was not desirable, and during the revamp of outposts when the argument was that highsec players did not have to invest as much into their structures and could just pull a POS down was the justification for the lower refine. And why it's good for the game for High Sec players who invest the same amount of work to make a citadel and are exposed to risk since it can't be pulled down are then not given the same reward. Sure they don't have to defend against Caps, but they also can't defend using Caps, and the lack of all the AOE defence modules actually makes it vastly harder to defend a high sec citadel. Not easier. So I'd love to see what kind of reasoning you have for continuing to hand goodies to Null Sec coalitions on a platter simply because they jump up and down and demand the best of everything, when in this particular case, the risk is the same anywhere, possibly even higher in High sec due to the Citadels having weaker defence.

Jerppu3 Solar Vista. The Anubis Accord 8	Posted - 2016.04.27 09:00:04 - [41] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Can we please tax compression? Right now there is very little reason to refine in a citadel that isn't closer to a trade hub and even beyond that there will be plenty of public ones with 0 tax. If ppl can just compress in mine for free why would they ever refine there. A DST can move over 1M of ore after compression. Beyond that why can't I charge for a service I'm paying to provide Exactly what he said. We have been asking this for quite a while now.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2320	Posted - 2016.04.27 09:09:44 - [42] - Quote Jerppu3 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Can we please tax compression? Right now there is very little reason to refine in a citadel that isn't closer to a trade hub and even beyond that there will be plenty of public ones with 0 tax. If ppl can just compress in mine for free why would they ever refine there. A DST can move over 1M of ore after compression. Beyond that why can't I charge for a service I'm paying to provide Exactly what he said. We have been asking this for quite a while now. Hell I would settle for a good explenation as to why ccp has decided against this Citadel worm hole tax
Scotsman Howard S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two 108	Posted - 2016.04.27 10:45:32 - [43] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Otro Willis wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. Because being next door to Jita isn't an advantage at all. What the hell has Jita got to do with it? I haven't been there in over 2 years, and I doubt I will in the next 2 if i'm here. LOL if you don't understand the importance of Jita to the game economy, then I am sorry for you. All those prices you have been using to sell wherever you are: guess what; they were driven by Jita in some way. Jita sets the tone for the rest of Eve be it null sec or low sec (WH is a bit debatable, but they have never had fully flushed out markets). How many null groups do NOT base their SRP or markets off of Jita prices?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2320	Posted - 2016.04.27 10:50:18 - [44] - Quote Scotsman Howard wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: Otro Willis wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. Because being next door to Jita isn't an advantage at all. What the hell has Jita got to do with it? I haven't been there in over 2 years, and I doubt I will in the next 2 if i'm here. LOL if you don't understand the importance of Jita to the game economy, then I am sorry for you. All those prices you have been using to sell wherever you are: guess what; they were driven by Jita in some way. Jita sets the tone for the rest of Eve be it null sec or low sec (WH is a bit debatable, but they have never had fully flushed out markets). How many null groups do NOT base their SRP or markets off of Jita prices? Soon my friend soon the wh markets will rise. And when they do? ..... Yeah they will be driven more or less by jita Citadel worm hole tax
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2415	Posted - 2016.04.27 11:55:24 - [45] - Quote Zappity wrote: I hope CCP does a careful analysis on the effects of these increased sinks and costs on isk velocity and volumes. I'm eagerly waiting for CCP Quant's next report. We all know what would happen in RL markets, I'm not that optimistic that EvE is much different ... ... the problem with the current direction of development is IMO, that all recent new features and changes incentivice the big groups on the expense of smaller entities. The entry barrier to self-paced "life" in New Eden is risen again. The new(?) ideal is to join and get absorbed by one of the big "hordes". Probably this is what is shown to CCP management as the best way to raise retention. I'm my own NPC alt.
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 2211	Posted - 2016.04.27 12:05:29 - [46] - Quote I feel citadels in wormhole space will need some additional market functionality. As there will only be a small fraction of items available on the market compared to K-space, we need a way to quickly see the buy/sell orders available. This will allow people in wormhole space to create successfully open markets, if they choose. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Splatus Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.27 12:22:49 - [47] - Quote Someone remind me - the owner of the structure can allow specific individuals to use the facilities, correct? That means a solo industrialist can ask nicely anyone with a refining array and gain access. The owner of the station loses nothing (unlike POS, someone "docking" is not a security risk) but gains ISK through fees and additional security because now the array is used by more people who would be negatively impacted by its destruction. Thats the alternative to a) joining a large corp, b) using NPC stations or 3) setting up their own structure. If this is correct, its a pretty decent size bonus for solo players.
Bad Bobby Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust 1332	Posted - 2016.04.27 12:22:53 - [48] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: As there will only be a small fraction of items available on the market compared to K-space, we need a way to quickly see the buy/sell orders available. Click the "show only available" check box in the market window.
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 2211	Posted - 2016.04.27 12:25:53 - [49] - Quote Bad Bobby wrote: Rek Seven wrote: As there will only be a small fraction of items available on the market compared to K-space, we need a way to quickly see the buy/sell orders available. Click the "show only available" check box in the market window. Oh thanks! I didn't realise it was already an option The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Redneck Herman State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.04.27 13:48:07 - [50] - Quote Echoing the feelings of many here: the tax changes seem damaging to the game as a whole

Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 5978	Posted - 2016.04.27 15:16:06 - [51] - Quote Splatus wrote: Someone remind me - the owner of the structure can allow specific individuals to use the facilities, correct? That means a solo industrialist can ask nicely anyone with a refining array and gain access. The owner of the station loses nothing (unlike POS, someone "docking" is not a security risk) but gains ISK through fees and additional security because now the array is used by more people who would be negatively impacted by its destruction. Thats the alternative to a) joining a large corp, b) using NPC stations or 3) setting up their own structure. If this is correct, its a pretty decent size bonus for solo players. Correct. Docking and service access are managed by access lists. These can contain people, corporations, alliances, or Public (or a mix there of) I'm running again for CSM 11, and I'd appreciate your vote. Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Splatus Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.27 15:21:24 - [52] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Splatus wrote: Someone remind me - the owner of the structure can allow specific individuals to use the facilities, correct? That means a solo industrialist can ask nicely anyone with a refining array and gain access. The owner of the station loses nothing (unlike POS, someone "docking" is not a security risk) but gains ISK through fees and additional security because now the array is used by more people who would be negatively impacted by its destruction. Thats the alternative to a) joining a large corp, b) using NPC stations or 3) setting up their own structure. If this is correct, its a pretty decent size bonus for solo players. Correct. Docking and service access are managed by access lists. These can contain people, corporations, alliances, or Public (or a mix there of) Thank you for clarification. I understand that the percentage of taxes may be still under review but the system itself is a heck of a lot more interesting and newbro friendly than the old one. In the old one, a newbro has to either live with NPC corps or join some corporation who will let him have POS access. Both not ideal I am out of the client right now, but are the taxes charged advertised in the "structure finder"? I.e. is there a competitive market for structures that a solo industrialist can use?
Soldarius O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore 1495	Posted - 2016.04.27 17:04:13 - [53] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: So as things stand atm, a standard pos gives a base refining rate of 52% With a max refining rate of 75.3%. An Intensive array gives 54% and 78.1% respectively. Has anyone worked out the refining % on a rigged Medium Citadel with max skills yet? Because it's going to have to be a hell of a lot better to make it even remotely worthwhile, particularly as it has a base rate of 50%. Bearing in mind the fuel costs I don't think it's going to be possible to make it anywhere close to as profitable, not in the short, or long term. Should be 87.52% using a T2 rigged Citadel in nul/w-space with max skills and 4% implant. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Nyjil Lizaru Aideron Robotics 47	Posted - 2016.04.27 18:16:12 - [54] - Quote Currently, our 3rd largest hub (Dodixie) cannot maintain stock of needed items (at any price, not just 'reasonable' ones); so why does CCP even think that regional markets will replace trade hubs? I do (did) a lot of corp fitting, and I tried working out of Dodixie for months, but gave up and moved to Jita because I just got too frustrated at missing modules. And I was doing that work for a smallish corp, I can't imagine what it's like for large groups. I like the goal of giving the power to the players, but I doubt this is going to work out the way CCP thinks it will. Put me in this camp: Zappity wrote: I hope CCP does a careful analysis on the effects of these increased sinks and costs on isk velocity and volumes. Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law: -á "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity."
Akira Nailo Minion Revolution Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.27 18:34:31 - [55] - Quote How Did i know the CCP Fozzie would be behind this. Changing reprocessing to now cost money? We losing all the good Devs and THIS is what we are keeping... Sigh. Fozzie i hope you read this is really do this is now your 2nd **** poor idea (thats being kind) If you have any other great ideas please put them on paper, then light it on fire, and mix the ashes.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 5135	Posted - 2016.04.27 18:52:05 - [56] - Quote Nyjil Lizaru wrote: Currently, our 3rd largest hub (Dodixie) cannot maintain stock of needed items (at any price, not just 'reasonable' ones); so why does CCP even think that regional markets will replace trade hubs? I do (did) a lot of corp fitting, and I tried working out of Dodixie for months, but gave up and moved to Jita because I just got too frustrated at missing modules. And I was doing that work for a smallish corp, I can't imagine what it's like for large groups. I like the goal of giving the power to the players, but I doubt this is going to work out the way CCP thinks it will. Put me in this camp: Zappity wrote: I hope CCP does a careful analysis on the effects of these increased sinks and costs on isk velocity and volumes. Well, Dodixie is a part of high security space, nicknamed "highsec". Highsec is not very high in CCP's priority list, with all the cool stuff being handed to nullsec for design reasons(?). There's been an elephant in the room for years and maybe now it will start moving. SPs where the last goal to certain players, and now that goal is being sold and bought so fast that not even PLEX can keep its value. People want to get out of the game and get out ASAP, with a ful load of their favorite skills. But hey. Surely those people ar a little few fringe cases. Like the people who left when POCOs were implemented because they didn't wanted to pay taxes to some PvP *******.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 5978	Posted - 2016.04.27 23:24:14 - [57] - Quote Akira Nailo wrote: How Did i know the CCP Fozzie would be behind this. Changing reprocessing to now cost money? We losing all the good Devs and THIS is what we are keeping... Sigh. Fozzie i hope you read this is really do this is now your 2nd **** poor idea (thats being kind) If you have any other great ideas please put them on paper, then light it on fire, and mix the ashes. This one's been requested for a long time, by people running Outposts. So they don't need to gather the minerals and sell them themselves. I'm running again for CSM 11, and I'd appreciate your vote. Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Lugh Crow-Slave 2335	Posted - 2016.04.28 00:09:54 - [58] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: Akira Nailo wrote: How Did i know the CCP Fozzie would be behind this. Changing reprocessing to now cost money? We losing all the good Devs and THIS is what we are keeping... Sigh. Fozzie i hope you read this is really do this is now your 2nd **** poor idea (thats being kind) If you have any other great ideas please put them on paper, then light it on fire, and mix the ashes. This one's been requested for a long time, by people running Outposts. So they don't need to gather the minerals and sell them themselves. so do to lazyness? an est cost tax is so bad rather than getting 5% of the minerals for a 5% tax i could get 2%-10% the isk value based on the market that day if they are going to do this estv needs to get better EDIT: at the very least they could make it a choice Citadel worm hole tax
Droidster Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 250	Posted - 2016.04.28 01:49:35 - [59] - Quote I am not a Jita market trader, but I can say this change is idiotic and pointless. It reminds of the absurd taxes and other childish restrictions on the "auction houses" in WOW that prevented those systems from being anything but low volume market stalls. By making this change liquidity on the markets will be greatly reduced. I just did a price report run on a private system I had and it showed the average spread on PI materials right now is over 40% (I pasted a portion of the printout at the bottom of this post). Before the patch spreads averaged around 15%. I realize that the average person has no understanding or appreciation for market mechanisms and there are probably a whole bunch of PVP players says "good, more taxes" (yes, I have literally read posts that say this), so I just a squeak in the wilderness here. But, for the record of posterity I am just recording that this change was completely idiotic. Buy Price Sell Price Spread (01) ...............Aqueous Liquids 1.83 3.62 1.79 49.39% (02) ....................Autotrophs 4.48 14.81 10.33 69.74% (03) ...................Base Metals 2.04 7.29 5.25 72.01% (04) ..............Carbon Compounds 0.66 7.14 6.48 90.78% (05) .............Complex Organisms 4.08 12.21 8.13 66.55% (06) ..................Felsic Magma 4.27 23.78 19.51 82.05% (07) ..................Heavy Metals 2.68 4.42 1.74 39.37% (08) ...............Ionic Solutions 1.32 4.74 3.42 72.14% (09) ................Microorganisms 1.29 2.45 1.17 47.59% (10) .....................Noble Gas 1.66 2.55 0.89 34.90% (11) ..................Noble Metals 3.90 4.93 1.03 20.85% (12) ...............Non-CS Crystals 3.56 6.48 2.92 45.04% (13) .............Planktic Colonies 4.56 7.88 3.32 42.16% (14) ..................Reactive Gas 1.61 26.80 25.19 93.98% (15) ..............Suspended Plasma 1.75 4.58 2.83 61.72% (16) ......................Bacteria 338 1,376 1,038 75.43% (17) ......................Biofuels 276 367 91 24.87%
Farmer Johnson's Daughter Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2016.04.28 02:19:48 - [60] - Quote Just wanted to drop in and saying thanks for screwing over the traders with this a$$ backwards tax hike, congrats, you've pissed off the people who drive the friggen market. Pathetic

Rhett Cutler Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.04.28 03:42:06 - [61] - Quote This is my first post ever. I have five accounts Citadel expansion.......yeah, right. As a minor note on the release blog it buries something about taxes and broker fees changing with a reason........that CCP wants to see how the market will react to a "small" change. Small change, yeah right. To me it's a huge change. I have been playing over two years as a solo trader. My goal is to amass a net worth of a trillion isk. That's fun for me. So far I'm 12% of the way there. I buy and sell. I buy and sell lots. I live and trade in High Sec. And then today. after grinding out ten thousandths of a broker fee point (off the trillions that go thru my trading hub .......and it is trillions) I discover in the fine print that CCP has changed the broker fees by a factor of eight to ten for me "to see how the market will react" It is buried in the overwhelming coverage of new new new null sec stuff. Not much mention of why economically massive tax and fee changes were required. To trade my way to a trillion takes a lot of building and reinvestment. A ten thousanth of a pecentage point adds up. Now it appears my low broker/tax total has gone from just over 1% to almost triple that. Now while that may sound small....I buy my ore (one station broker fee) and then sell my product (another broker fee in my production) My net profits are under ten percent...... when they sell. Ya think CCP just broke my game? I'm frustrated....and today for the first time.....I quit early. Not sure what I'll do in the future. Don't need your sympathy nor ISK. I just want my gaming style respected and if changes must be made maybe a little more info and debate on why. Paying customers are not mere guinea pigs for testing and monitoring theories. Rhett & company
Bad Bobby Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust 1332	Posted - 2016.04.28 04:24:35 - [62] - Quote Rhett Cutler wrote: As a minor note on the release blog it buries something about taxes and broker fees changing with a reason........that CCP wants to see how the market will react to a "small" change. Small change, yeah right. To me it's a huge change. I have been playing over two years as a solo trader. My goal is to amass a net worth of a trillion isk. That's fun for me. So far I'm 12% of the way there. I buy and sell. I buy and sell lots. I live and trade in High Sec. And then today. after grinding out ten thousandths of a broker fee point (off the trillions that go thru my trading hub .......and it is trillions) I discover in the fine print that CCP has changed the broker fees by a factor of eight to ten for me "to see how the market will react" It is buried in the overwhelming coverage of new new new null sec stuff. Not much mention of why economically massive tax and fee changes were required. To trade my way to a trillion takes a lot of building and reinvestment. A ten thousanth of a pecentage point adds up. Now it appears my low broker/tax total has gone from just over 1% to almost triple that. Now while that may sound small....I buy my ore (one station broker fee) and then sell my product (another broker fee in my production) My net profits are under ten percent...... when they sell. Ya think CCP just broke my game? I'm frustrated....and today for the first time.....I quit early. Not sure what I'll do in the future. Don't need your sympathy nor ISK. I just want my gaming style respected and if changes must be made maybe a little more info and debate on why. Paying customers are not mere guinea pigs for testing and monitoring theories. Rhett & company I feel your pain. There was another thread in this forum section covering it, but as you would expect this forum section isn't very visible and isn't read by most. The thread also attracted a lot of questions for which few answers were given. I'm still waiting for them to tell us what the roll out plan and finer details of this specific change are, a day after it has been released. I think it's safe to say communication has been poor.
CaesarGREG CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 1	Posted - 2016.04.28 11:05:35 - [63] - Quote Now minimum Tax is shown 1% but its taken 0.75% Display Base broker fee Fluctuates somtimes shows 225.00% , 231.00% , 234.00% but deduct 2% Broker fee for order. So u dont rise Sales Tax still 0.75 maybe u shouldnt rise Broker Fee? or maybe not so much 10 times? 0.18% > 2% . Its to much! Beter solution is Rise Tax than broker fee, to big difrence betwen them. Markets will die less orders hanging and waiting for customers. 10 times higher risk specially for not popular items, wich not always sell quick and u have to re set order and pay again broker fee.
Jerppu3 Solar Vista. The Anubis Accord 9	Posted - 2016.04.28 12:49:13 - [64] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Jerppu3 wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Can we please tax compression? Right now there is very little reason to refine in a citadel that isn't closer to a trade hub and even beyond that there will be plenty of public ones with 0 tax. If ppl can just compress in mine for free why would they ever refine there. A DST can move over 1M of ore after compression. Beyond that why can't I charge for a service I'm paying to provide Exactly what he said. We have been asking this for quite a while now. Hell I would settle for a good explenation as to why ccp has decided against this HELLO CCP, ANYBODY THERE? HELLO CCP, hver ++arna? Vinsamlegast! :D
Darkwing Fiftytwo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2016.04.28 13:19:25 - [65] - Quote Agreed the new broker fee is crazy high. Also why force guys to grind standings with their trading alts. I am going to pay for the sub regardless of that grind. Or can you allow us to buy standings the way we can buy sec status? Bribes are a real thing :) Total transaction tax is now anywhere between 3-4%!
CaesarGREG CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 1	Posted - 2016.04.28 15:46:20 - [66] - Quote What is market? what is it? I mean not thenically? Answer: 1. Producers / miners / ratters. 2. Buyers. 3. Market traders. With all 3 things everything works fine. But 3. Point to exist fine need Higher Sales Tax than Broker Fee, becaues Producer usualy sell Goods to Market Trader on "buy Order" to avoid and dont pay Sales Tax, usualy dont want wait so long as trader. Now When Seles Tax is around 20% costs ( 2x broker + Tax) most producers will decide sell themselves, what in my opinion will disfunction markets. Stiupid things will happend more often like difrence beetween buy and sell will be lower than transaction costs. If CCP want 2% broker fees ok just fine , but God Sake pls set up Sales Tax around 4% minimum. Pls consider to hold healthe balance beetween broker Fee and Tax (Old balance was around 1:3 ratio > 0.75% to 0.18%) we dont care how much % u will set up but hold balance like it was Ratio with higher Sales Tax!!!!
Redneck Herman State War Academy Caldari State 3	Posted - 2016.04.28 19:01:48 - [67] - Quote This is also the thing that pisses me off. I learned of this on the patch day, they tried to hide it. Rhett Cutler wrote: This is my first post ever. I have five accounts Citadel expansion.......yeah, right. As a minor note on the release blog it buries something about taxes and broker fees changing with a reason........that CCP wants to see how the market will react to a "small" change. Small change, yeah right. To me it's a huge change. I have been playing over two years as a solo trader. My goal is to amass a net worth of a trillion isk. That's fun for me. So far I'm 12% of the way there. I buy and sell. I buy and sell lots. I live and trade in High Sec. And then today. after grinding out ten thousandths of a broker fee point (off the trillions that go thru my trading hub .......and it is trillions) I discover in the fine print that CCP has changed the broker fees by a factor of eight to ten for me "to see how the market will react" It is buried in the overwhelming coverage of new new new null sec stuff. Not much mention of why economically massive tax and fee changes were required. To trade my way to a trillion takes a lot of building and reinvestment. A ten thousanth of a pecentage point adds up. Now it appears my low broker/tax total has gone from just over 1% to almost triple that. Now while that may sound small....I buy my ore (one station broker fee) and then sell my product (another broker fee in my production) My net profits are under ten percent...... when they sell. Ya think CCP just broke my game? I'm frustrated....and today for the first time.....I quit early. Not sure what I'll do in the future. Don't need your sympathy nor ISK. I just want my gaming style respected and if changes must be made maybe a little more info and debate on why. Paying customers are not mere guinea pigs for testing and monitoring theories. Rhett & company
Indahmawar Fazmarai 5137	Posted - 2016.04.28 22:12:59 - [68] - Quote Redneck Herman wrote: This is also the thing that pisses me off. I learned of this on the patch day, they tried to hide it. Rhett Cutler wrote: This is my first post ever. I have five accounts Citadel expansion.......yeah, right. As a minor note on the release blog it buries something about taxes and broker fees changing with a reason........that CCP wants to see how the market will react to a "small" change. Small change, yeah right. To me it's a huge change. I have been playing over two years as a solo trader. My goal is to amass a net worth of a trillion isk. That's fun for me. So far I'm 12% of the way there. I buy and sell. I buy and sell lots. I live and trade in High Sec. And then today. after grinding out ten thousandths of a broker fee point (off the trillions that go thru my trading hub .......and it is trillions) I discover in the fine print that CCP has changed the broker fees by a factor of eight to ten for me "to see how the market will react" It is buried in the overwhelming coverage of new new new null sec stuff. Not much mention of why economically massive tax and fee changes were required. To trade my way to a trillion takes a lot of building and reinvestment. A ten thousanth of a pecentage point adds up. Now it appears my low broker/tax total has gone from just over 1% to almost triple that. Now while that may sound small....I buy my ore (one station broker fee) and then sell my product (another broker fee in my production) My net profits are under ten percent...... when they sell. Ya think CCP just broke my game? I'm frustrated....and today for the first time.....I quit early. Not sure what I'll do in the future. Don't need your sympathy nor ISK. I just want my gaming style respected and if changes must be made maybe a little more info and debate on why. Paying customers are not mere guinea pigs for testing and monitoring theories. Rhett & company It was discussed lengthily and properly at the appropiate forum section, so people had every chance to speak ther mind before CCP did what they wanted to do for their design goals.
Farmer Johnson's Daughter Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 4	Posted - 2016.04.29 00:31:42 - [69] - Quote Now not only do you screw us around on tax and brokers, but you take isk to refine as well?. For a player that does it all, mine,refine,manufacture you have effectively killed any chance of trading for profit with these new taxes. I'm stunned by CCP's shortsightedness.
Darkwing Fiftytwo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6	Posted - 2016.04.29 13:00:45 - [70] - Quote Farmer Johnson's Daughter wrote: Now not only do you screw us around on tax and brokers, but you take isk to refine as well?. For a player that does it all, mine,refine,manufacture you have effectively killed any chance of trading for profit with these new taxes. I'm stunned by CCP's shortsightedness. I've already posted 2x about the new broker fees, after doing some more trading etc. I feel even more strongly that they are WAY too high. Putting up an offer to sell some PI materials lets say worth $1B, im looking at 25mm to post it, and 15mm in taxes thats nuts! Especially since we dont have healthcare!? LOL. These new broker fees will hurt the market liquidity a lot.

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2792	Posted - 2016.04.29 18:33:31 - [71] - Quote Redneck Herman wrote: This is also the thing that pisses me off. I learned of this on the patch day, they tried to hide it. They tried to hide it by doing the initial announcement about the feature changing at the beginning of march? If I want to hide stuff, I personally don't start talking about it close to 2 month in advance...
Lugh Crow-Slave 2355	Posted - 2016.04.29 19:06:03 - [72] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Redneck Herman wrote: This is also the thing that pisses me off. I learned of this on the patch day, they tried to hide it. They tried to hide it by doing the initial announcement about the feature changing at the beginning of march? If I want to hide stuff, I personally don't start talking about it close to 2 month in advance... yeah in places that few players actually look rather than in a dev blog. Citadel worm hole tax
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 587	Posted - 2016.04.30 01:09:43 - [73] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: [yeah in places that few players actually look rather than in a dev blog. Well, to be fair, the devs here aren't spectacular in getting all announcements in one place. Most things are announced in the "upcoming stuff" forum, but not all. Reddit seems to get news before us sometimes, and other sections of the forums wholly unrelated to "upcoming stuff" sometimes get announcements. Like, the the Marauder/bastion mode "slap on the wrist" (as you put it) I don't recall seeing in a Dev blog or in the "upcoming stuff" forum at all. So, for a player to stay appraised of what's coming up, there's the "upcoming stuff" forum, Reddit, Dev blogs, and sometimes the Test Server forum. Probably others too. I think we can forgive players for missing some information, sometimes. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
E'lanna Firestorm Liquid Risk 0	Posted - 2016.04.30 01:34:52 - [74] - Quote I don't get CCP compulsion to drive people out of hi sec. I don't get a lot of time to play games. I spend a significant amount of time earning isk to buy assets. I don't what to spend weeks saving for something to lose it to some player that gets joy by making others miserable. I don't want to have to keep rebuilding. I don't have the time for that. CCP's game tweaks seem aimed to make people reliant on POS that can be destroyed at any moment along with everyone's assets. Why does CCP feel the need to nerf hi-sec in order to justify POS? They say so that station owners can make a profit. That is ridiculous. The reward of POS is to project power and reap the benefits of that power. The POS should cost money, not make money. The militaries of the world don't spend money building bases and ships to make profit, it is to project power. Power is the end goal. Leave us hi sec players out of it.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 587	Posted - 2016.04.30 01:41:47 - [75] - Quote E'lanna Firestorm wrote: I don't get CCP compulsion to drive people out of hi sec. Because the more a player is exposed to more parts of the game, the more likely they will stay subscribed. There's a lot of fun to be had in all sectors of space, and if a player is familiar enough and comfortable enough to visit all sectors of space, they are more likely to find content to entertain themselves rather than growing bored and unsubbing. Think of it as a gentle "push" out of the nest. Not only will you learn you can fly, you'll find it quite exciting too. At least in theory. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
E'lanna Firestorm Liquid Risk 0	Posted - 2016.04.30 02:09:12 - [76] - Quote E'lanna Firestorm wrote: I don't get CCP compulsion to drive people out of hi sec. I don't get a lot of time to play games. I spend a significant amount of time earning isk to buy assets. I don't what to spend weeks saving for something to lose it to some player that gets joy by making others miserable. I don't want to have to keep rebuilding. I don't have the time for that. Khan Wrenth wrote: E'lanna Firestorm wrote: I don't get CCP compulsion to drive people out of hi sec. Because the more a player is exposed to more parts of the game, the more likely they will stay subscribed. There's a lot of fun to be had in all sectors of space, and if a player is familiar enough and comfortable enough to visit all sectors of space, they are more likely to find content to entertain themselves rather than growing bored and unsubbing. Think of it as a gentle "push" out of the nest. Not only will you learn you can fly, you'll find it quite exciting too. At least in theory. so hi sec is one of those areas. why mess with it and destroying the profitability of trading and manufacturing is one way to get ride of all those players.
Lugh Crow-Slave 2357	Posted - 2016.04.30 02:16:29 - [77] - Quote lol they couldn't even manage to get all the patch notes right Citadel worm hole tax
Ace Aideron Red Falcon Group Intrepid Crossing 7	Posted - 2016.04.30 11:59:10 - [78] - Quote I, too, am curious about the motivation for increasing taxes. The old levels were already too high, IMO, and the new ones are that much worse. The way taxes and broker fees are implemented in Eve makes me wonder if they reflect a RL worldview of how taxation should work. Is the goal is to sink more isk out of the economy? If so, there are more creative ways. Or perhaps the goal is to slow down the economy and to make it less economical to do station trading? If so, they might be effective -- but annoying to the other 99% of us. As much as I appreciate the trading system, I, for one, would like to suggest a complete overhaul -- there's a lot of room for improvement in everything from fees, to terminology, to the way orders are created, changed, and interact with one another.
Regnar Avastum 267	Posted - 2016.05.02 05:00:11 - [79] - Quote So how is this refining tax actually implemented? I can't seem to get the formula down. Providing Trade/Manufacture/Research Spreadsheets, 3rd Party Services and operating the EVE FORUM RESELLER
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 355	Posted - 2016.05.02 06:52:01 - [80] - Quote Regnar Avastum wrote: So how is this refining tax actually implemented? I can't seem to get the formula down. NVM the formula, I don't get how this is working at all right now... Yesterday I spent a few hours mining ore with 3 accounts, I took it all to the pos and refined/compressed it all. Then last night I took 2 accounts to grab some Ice for pos fuel, this all got dumped in the corp ore hangar in our home station. But. When I went to refine it, it was odd. On one account there was no isk charge, but on the other there was an isk charge, but the Ice was mined by both accounts, so the ownership of it is shared. How come one owner of the Ice has to pay an isk charge in a NPC station but the other doesn't? I can't get my head around it, it's just weird. edit..It's the same in a station for ore which was mined on both accounts.

Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3238	Posted - 2016.05.02 11:44:59 - [81] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: NVM the formula, I don't get how this is working at all right now... Yesterday I spent a few hours mining ore with 3 accounts, I took it all to the pos and refined/compressed it all. Then last night I took 2 accounts to grab some Ice for pos fuel, this all got dumped in the corp ore hangar in our home station. But. When I went to refine it, it was odd. On one account there was no isk charge, but on the other there was an isk charge, but the Ice was mined by both accounts, so the ownership of it is shared. How come one owner of the Ice has to pay an isk charge in a NPC station but the other doesn't? I can't get my head around it, it's just weird. edit..It's the same in a station for ore which was mined on both accounts. Faction standings. It's an identical tax on refining to the old refining tax, just instead of losing a percent of materials, you are charged the identical percent of isk on it's estimated market value. The Citadels are meant to skim their tax from the increased refining that they offer, so NPC stations can still be 0 tax if you have the standings without making citadels worthless on that front.
Regnar Avastum 267	Posted - 2016.05.02 11:48:11 - [82] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: NVM the formula, I don't get how this is working at all right now... Yesterday I spent a few hours mining ore with 3 accounts, I took it all to the pos and refined/compressed it all. Then last night I took 2 accounts to grab some Ice for pos fuel, this all got dumped in the corp ore hangar in our home station. But. When I went to refine it, it was odd. On one account there was no isk charge, but on the other there was an isk charge, but the Ice was mined by both accounts, so the ownership of it is shared. How come one owner of the Ice has to pay an isk charge in a NPC station but the other doesn't? I can't get my head around it, it's just weird. edit..It's the same in a station for ore which was mined on both accounts. Faction standings. It's an identical tax on refining to the old refining tax, just instead of losing a percent of materials, you are charged the identical percent of isk on it's estimated market value. The Citadels are meant to skim their tax from the increased refining that they offer, so NPC stations can still be 0 tax if you have the standings without making citadels worthless on that front. In theory yes in practice no. Please provide the exact % tax from estimated value. I have done multiple tests with various ore types and couldn't figure it out. Providing Trade/Manufacture/Research Spreadsheets, 3rd Party Services and operating the EVE FORUM RESELLER
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3239	Posted - 2016.05.02 11:56:14 - [83] - Quote Regnar Avastum wrote: In theory yes in practice no. Please provide the exact % tax from estimated value. I have done multiple tests with various ore types and couldn't figure it out. Get standing greater than 6.7 with the corp that owns the station, pay 0 tax. Not sure anyone ever bothered actually establishing the exact formula for calculating the tax when what really mattered was the point it reached zero. If it was listed it was probably of evelopedia and now gone. It started at 5% with 0 standings though.
Regnar Avastum 267	Posted - 2016.05.02 13:03:40 - [84] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Regnar Avastum wrote: In theory yes in practice no. Please provide the exact % tax from estimated value. I have done multiple tests with various ore types and couldn't figure it out. Get standing greater than 6.7 with the corp that owns the station, pay 0 tax. Not sure anyone ever bothered actually establishing the exact formula for calculating the tax when what really mattered was the point it reached zero. If it was listed it was probably of evelopedia and now gone. It started at 5% with 0 standings though. The old formula for reprocessing: http://eve-industry.org/export/IndustryFormulas.pdf Example of the current reprocessing: http://postimg.org/image/k51opu029/ The old 5% tax applied as ISK tax with comparison to the real cost: http://postimg.org/image/4klkr6s41/ Providing Trade/Manufacture/Research Spreadsheets, 3rd Party Services and operating the EVE FORUM RESELLER
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3239	Posted - 2016.05.02 13:20:55 - [85] - Quote Regnar Avastum wrote: The old formula for reprocessing: http://eve-industry.org/export/IndustryFormulas.pdf Example of the current reprocessing: http://postimg.org/image/k51opu029/ The old 5% tax applied as ISK tax with comparison to the real cost: http://postimg.org/image/4klkr6s41/ Now try hovering over that 63 isk and seeing what it tells you the breakdown is? It's certainly in the vicinity of things anyway.
Resgo Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 60	Posted - 2016.05.02 18:16:51 - [86] - Quote Fozzie, I understand increasing taxes as an ISK sink for the game. Increasing the broker's fee doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That discourages people from putting items on the market in bulk and ties up their funds as well as their items. Also a lot of what occurs on the market involves the .000000001 isk game. Why not consider performing the following changes: Decrease the up front broker tax to a much lower amount. Maybe .25 percent. Apply a similar charge for changing the price of listed items or for canceling the market listing ahead of schedule. This both discourages constant 1 isk battles and also puts a real cost for doing it. Significantly increase the sales tax for once an item that is sold. Perhaps start it at 5 percent before skills/standings. You want to encourage people to list items and greater quantity makes things more about supply and demand rather than .0000001 isk differences.
Darkwing Fiftytwo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 7	Posted - 2016.05.03 13:06:25 - [87] - Quote Someone commented on a complete overhaul, while not the worst idea its not necessarily required. There are however some mechanics that they can correct using the stock market as a basis and example. For example: If the best bid on a stock is $100. And I put in a sell order for $1.00, the trade does not go thru at $1.00, it hits the best bid of $100 and a trade occurs. Also the minimum unit should be removed or adjusted so that you cant make your minimum quantity equal to some absurb amount of isk. Removes market fraud. EDIT: I also agree with the guy above me. You can set the minimum tick quantities so that everything is 0.00001 isk. For stuff priced 0-100 isk use 0.01, 100-1000, use 0.10, for 1000-10,000 use 1 isk, etc etc for 1B items you should have 1mm increments to post orders.
KEYSTYLES Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde 0	Posted - 2016.05.08 02:04:25 - [88] - Quote With EVE being so heavily based on the market, what is the thought behind actively trying to decrease market efficiency? The centralized hub(s) is the reason the market works and is the fundamental back bone of why the game is fun to play for the masses. Think for just a second what this game would look like without Jita (and amarr, rens,etc)... no one wants to spend that much time trying to find all the parts to a ship that is going to get blown up in a mater of hours. I'm just getting back into this game again, ccplease don't break it
Lugh Crow-Slave 2474	Posted - 2016.05.08 18:09:22 - [89] - Quote doesn't help that it looks like L citadels are going to settle around 18 bill not the 7b ccp talked about. so there is not going to be as many player markets. Citadel worm hole tax
Jitaprice071 School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 5	Posted - 2016.05.12 19:07:40 - [90] - Quote i completly agree with removing this new tax system,maybe making a new one, why not. because nothing happened like ccp planned. Jita is the Heart of Eve, it's also a 13 years-old reflex. Market is now up and down, even some people seems to be not aware of the new huge tax applied and loose a lot of money -and make others loose a lot of money too-,producers placing sell orders look like livestock smelling apocalypse. My job, hub traders, will disappears. Until now, we offered logistic comfort. removing it could seriously affect all players' intention to go on.

Djangus Khant FARMHOUSE GIRLS The Worst Team Ever 0	Posted - 2016.05.23 01:03:20 - [91] - Quote How is EVE taking more isk a good thing?
Lugh Crow-Slave 2609	Posted - 2016.05.23 05:11:20 - [92] - Quote Jitaprice071 wrote: i completly agree with removing this new tax system,maybe making a new one, why not. because nothing happened like ccp planned. Jita is the Heart of Eve, it's also a 13 years-old reflex. Market is now up and down, even some people seems to be not aware of the new huge tax applied and loose a lot of money -and make others loose a lot of money too-,producers placing sell orders look like livestock smelling apocalypse. My job, hub traders, will disappears. Until now, we offered logistic comfort. removing it could seriously affect all players' intention to go on. it has help with production i can now make more if i build from scratch rather than just working with the most valuable link in the chain. But seriously CCP not only can i not Tax compression but so long as i have a refinery i can't block ppl from using it? if they can dock it can be used. This is just dumb and i really wish i could here the argument to why i can't tax a service in my citadel. Citadel worm hole tax
Syss7 Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 19	Posted - 2016.05.31 17:55:41 - [93] - Quote This seems the appropriate forum for this question. It doesn't appear the the Citadel is taking the RX-804 implant into processing consideration. Is anyone else seeing this issue? Maybe I'm missing something.
Baumarkt Sozialamt 1	Posted - 2016.06.01 14:33:14 - [94] - Quote Is it possibile to show more Details in the Wallet-log from wich citdell the reprocessing/Market Tax is comming, ist really confusing if you own more than one to know wich is really profitable.....
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 2235	Posted - 2016.06.01 15:56:47 - [95] - Quote Remove tax from wormhole and null sec citadels! The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Baumarkt Sozialamt 1	Posted - 2016.06.01 16:12:12 - [96] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Remove tax from wormhole and null sec citadels! Why they should? Talkt to the owners its their decision... The Citadells have to get payed, the purchase and online costs....
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found 2236	Posted - 2016.06.02 06:04:39 - [97] - Quote Baumarkt wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Remove tax from wormhole and null sec citadels! Why they should? Talkt to the owners its their decision... The Citadells have to get payed, the purchase and online costs.... I'm talking about the mandatory transaction tax, not the brokers fee. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Kuekuatsheu Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2016.06.05 11:45:10 - [98] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: The currently planned market tax values are: 3% BrokerGÇÖs Fee Reduced to 2.5% with skills and 2% with both skills and max NPC standings Is sunk from the game in NPC stations, is paid to owners in outposts, is customizable and paid to owners in Citadels Skills and standings donGÇÖt apply in player structures BrokerGÇÖs fee formula: 3% brokers fee - ([Broker Relation skill level]0.1 + [Faction Standing level]0.03 + [Corp Standing level]0.02) 2 % Transaction Tax* Reduced to 1 % with max skills Is sunk from the game in all locations and is not customizable We intend to tweak these taxes further at a later point after contracts have been added to citadels. The exact values of that next round of tweaks would depend on the metrics after this first release. Thanks for the change, love you Fozzie!
Pelea Ming Space Dandies 340	Posted - 2016.06.28 06:41:40 - [99] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: It's a buff to lowsec, but still a long term death knell to Highsec. You can't remove citadels to avoid a wardec, they cost the same no matter the area of space, they should give the same reward for use in any area of space since they require the same investment. Otherwise it gives an unbeatable materials advantage to Null/WH's. Which is terrible for the game. I had this discussion with Fozzie at fanfest, I even pointed out that it could very well be a game breaker for some small miners and industrialists. His reply was a bit shocking really, well more than a bit. he said " I don't care if 1000 players quit over it, we'll just recruit a thousand more" With him in charge of team five o I dread to think of what other ways he has up his sleeve to shaft HS in the future. I absolutely did not say that, although I can understand if you misheard me or misunderstood. I said that we need to make the changes that are best for the game as a whole; and that although almost all change will cause at least some people to leave the game, good changes will result in more players overall. And like I told you at the party, if you do decide to quit over this I wish you the very best in the future and want you to know that you're always welcome back if you choose. I realize that I personally don't know you, Fozzie, but in my in game career here with Eve, I've seen you apparently get 'misquoted' like this quite regularly. Don't get me wrong, I feel it's a healthy attitude for a business to realize that while no matter what you do, some customers will go, only to be replaced by others.... It just seems to me that quite often, you personally apparently get misquoted to extremes about such things fairly often.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.