Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
3058
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 08:58:22 -
[1] - Quote
Hi,
Singularity has been updated to include features for the November release. This thread is for general feedback, so please use feature-specific threads linked below where applicable.
Mass Tests: Will be announced later
Features and changes: Please note that most features will be added or enabled later and that the list does not necessarily comprise the entire content of the release.
Team TriLambda: New Ship Explosions
Team Five 0: Fitting Simulation Command Bursts
CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3235
|
Posted - 2016.10.06 21:44:58 -
[2] - Quote
q.q now it wont validate my token
BLOPS Hauler
|
Darkblad
1231
|
Posted - 2016.10.09 07:33:48 -
[3] - Quote
And once those Structures got published on Sisi - the types already exists (including blueprints) and have attributes) - will this change?
Some explanation:
That attribute sets the fuel needed by the services listed. The attribute value is the ID of the required fuel item. For all instances of that attribute, the value - therefore the typeID of the fuel - is 1137:
That attribute should be the ID of the group the fuel item is in:
But at least the Assembly Array Engineering Comples models larger than Raitaru will most likely hit TQ on Tuesday. That should be Azbel and Sotiyo.
NPE-ISD-Übersetzt!
|
Zhunya
ATAC OTMOPO3OK B KOCMOCE. FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT STELLAR SYSTEMS
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 14:43:51 -
[4] - Quote
Can you give us update on when mining changes will hit Singularity? |
Celeste Benal
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
47
|
Posted - 2016.10.11 22:55:12 -
[5] - Quote
My client is completely screwed for sisi. TQ works fine. I get black screen. It was loading resources for an extended period of time. Now it has stopped and still black screen. I tried relogging. Black screen and no resource loading. |
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
837
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 01:24:56 -
[6] - Quote
Clone states and new character sheet on Sisi but it has some issues:
also in stand alone thread.
Current version has issues with accessing tool tips in the sheet and skills in the item hanger. Popup is hard to access.
Certificates are not counted until you select certificates and look at the prerequisites if you have a higher level certificate selected to look at.
Cannot drag and drop the next skill to train from inside the training Queue.
Only one skill was moved from old training Queue to the new one. Time indications of long skills do not match pause button time or the time line view in this state.
Where is the key for what yellow, white, boxed mean?
Clicking the Omega icon gives a message worded for some one that has an Alpha clone could be reworded.
Skill Queue on an omega clone acts like its a Alpha
Other wise it it looks great.
Looking forward to the official thread.
Is there a way to select Alpha or omega settings on new characters on Sisi so we can test it properly?
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1311
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 19:35:03 -
[7] - Quote
I can't actually switch to an Omega clone. Tried Plex, that says it's down.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
Darkblad
1262
|
Posted - 2016.10.12 21:24:38 -
[8] - Quote
Clone States:
The (json within the) staticdata (clonegrades.static)
Has some errors
race type_id type_name static blog Alpha Caldari 3437 Drone Avionics 1 NULL Alpha Minmatar 3437 Drone Avionics 1 NULL Alpha Minmatar 3317 Trajectory Analysis 3 4 Alpha Amarr 27936 Capital Remote Hull Repair Systems 1 NULL Alpha Amarr 24568 Capital Remote Armor Repair Systems 3 NULL
grabbing the json data from the SQLite db (within clonegrades.static) is as shown here
http://playground.schildwall.info/sisileaks/newres/staticdata/dump_staticdata.php?table=clonegrades&build=1083815 (you will have to replace the & amp ; with & because of :forum:)
NPE-ISD-Übersetzt!
|
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
838
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 00:09:19 -
[9] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:I can't actually switch to an Omega clone. Tried Plex, that says it's down. Server is locked to alpha state for a couple days. Go to the link below for info. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=495634
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe.
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1327
|
Posted - 2016.10.13 18:18:24 -
[10] - Quote
Any idea when we might actually see Engineering complexes and the Rorqual/Orca changes on Sisi? We're down to three weeks before the deploy date and we've yet to be able to actually test them.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
|
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.15 18:43:42 -
[11] - Quote
This^^ |
Rivr Luzade
Viziam Amarr Empire
2763
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 19:13:19 -
[12] - Quote
Elenahina wrote:Any idea when we might actually see Engineering complexes and the Rorqual/Orca changes on Sisi? We're down to three weeks before the deploy date and we've yet to be able to actually test them. Judging by the brevity of the program announcement of the coronation procedures: 5 days before release.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 21:02:35 -
[13] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Elenahina wrote:Any idea when we might actually see Engineering complexes and the Rorqual/Orca changes on Sisi? We're down to three weeks before the deploy date and we've yet to be able to actually test them. Judging by the brevity of the program announcement of the coronation procedures: 5 days before release.
Yea Im willing to bet some if not all of the remaining changes/updates are going to be postponed to a later date thus pushing back future releases as Ive heard rumors that they cant seem to get the invulnerability to work properly on the rorqual as it only works on itself and not other ships in the same fleet on grid with it. And since there hasnt been a word of info since the original dev blog about it and weve onlt been getting things/info on other stuff that wasnt mentioned ie: ghost fitting, ship explosions etc seems this was a diversionary tactic to keep us otherwise occupied so as to not notice that the things that we actually want to know about and see on singularity are not coming as promised. Considering the scope of what all these new changes and additions that are to be coming to Tranquility on Nov 8th, really seems like a bad idea and business decision to wait until last minute to add them to the test server as Im sure that there is going to be a lot of bugs and reworks that will be needed to be worked out before going live. |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
75
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 21:07:06 -
[14] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Elenahina wrote:Any idea when we might actually see Engineering complexes and the Rorqual/Orca changes on Sisi? We're down to three weeks before the deploy date and we've yet to be able to actually test them. Judging by the brevity of the program announcement of the coronation procedures: 5 days before release. Yea Im willing to bet some if not all of the remaining changes/updates are going to be postponed to a later date thus pushing back future releases as Ive heard rumors that they cant seem to get the invulnerability to work properly on the rorqual as it only works on itself and not other ships in the same fleet on grid with it. And since there hasnt been a word of info since the original dev blog about it and weve onlt been getting things/info on other stuff that wasnt mentioned ie: ghost fitting, ship explosions etc seems this was a diversionary tactic to keep us otherwise occupied so as to not notice that the things that we actually want to know about and see on singularity are not coming as promised. Considering the scope of what all these new changes and additions that are to be coming to Tranquility on Nov 8th, really seems like a bad idea and business decision to wait until last minute to add them to the test server as Im sure that there is going to be a lot of bugs and reworks that will be needed to be worked out before going live. its coming out on the test server tomorow! be patient. CCP Habakuk said so himself on sisi that as long as the market dosent fack up it will be out monday oct 17 |
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
9
|
Posted - 2016.10.16 21:10:30 -
[15] - Quote
RainReaper wrote:Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Elenahina wrote:Any idea when we might actually see Engineering complexes and the Rorqual/Orca changes on Sisi? We're down to three weeks before the deploy date and we've yet to be able to actually test them. Judging by the brevity of the program announcement of the coronation procedures: 5 days before release. Yea Im willing to bet some if not all of the remaining changes/updates are going to be postponed to a later date thus pushing back future releases as Ive heard rumors that they cant seem to get the invulnerability to work properly on the rorqual as it only works on itself and not other ships in the same fleet on grid with it. And since there hasnt been a word of info since the original dev blog about it and weve onlt been getting things/info on other stuff that wasnt mentioned ie: ghost fitting, ship explosions etc seems this was a diversionary tactic to keep us otherwise occupied so as to not notice that the things that we actually want to know about and see on singularity are not coming as promised. Considering the scope of what all these new changes and additions that are to be coming to Tranquility on Nov 8th, really seems like a bad idea and business decision to wait until last minute to add them to the test server as Im sure that there is going to be a lot of bugs and reworks that will be needed to be worked out before going live. its coming out on the test server tomorow! be patient. CCP Habakuk said so himself on sisi that as long as the market dosent fack up it will be out monday oct 17
Well Im not doubting you but like the saying goes "Pics or it didnt happen" cause in all honesty unless they post it here on the forums or in a dev blog its just hearsay and can be dismissed easily as there is no "paper trail" as we say in my line of work. |
Darkblad
1291
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 07:53:09 -
[16] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Well Im not doubting you but like the saying goes "Pics or it didnt happen" cause in all honesty unless they post it here on the forums or in a dev blog its just hearsay and can be dismissed easily as there is no "paper trail" as we say in my line of work. Watch this space http://playground.schildwall.info/sisileaks/newstats/?typeName=Rorqual to tell if there's changes done to the rorq. (results will be no longer "No matching records found" then). I'll try to get the data published as soon as a patch is deployed to sisi.
NPE-ISD-Übersetzt!
|
Raija Preniski
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 10:09:22 -
[17] - Quote
Your EVE client installation may have modified, damaged or corrupted files
Am getting this error message when I try to log onto Sisi anny knowledge of the reason?
No problems with TQ or on thunderdome
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
76
|
Posted - 2016.10.17 18:58:33 -
[18] - Quote
in the system of Vylade right next to dodixie im currently onlining a Medium Raitaru Engineering complex on the test server. anyone intrested to see it can come check it here! |
chaosjj
Fugam Immortalis
87
|
Posted - 2016.10.19 12:37:27 -
[19] - Quote
The new voice of AURA, i like it, but its something that will take some time to get used to after 8 years of the old voice |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
77
|
Posted - 2016.10.19 13:11:10 -
[20] - Quote
Alrighty so we got the new patch now... i still cant fit any structure weapons onto my Raitaru. also when will we get the engineering services seeded??? |
|
sarah jane fibbonachie
DE TEMPLOR CRISTI
7
|
Posted - 2016.10.19 13:18:05 -
[21] - Quote
i was trying to place the new engineering mod on the test sever on my citadel on the test server it said it has to be 1000km away i think not that just makes it another pos or citadel i thought the artist was incorporating it into the citadel like an attachment of it to make the citadel bigger this is not good please fix this |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3246
|
Posted - 2016.10.19 17:08:17 -
[22] - Quote
can you please hid all the "Omega" icons and gold outlines on subscribed toons? its just obnoxious
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1164
|
Posted - 2016.10.20 08:36:08 -
[23] - Quote
Please NEVER add the new voice over for docking and warping.
That high pitched whine (that garbles "docking permission requested") is just BAD.
It sounds like a kid has been inhaling helium then talking as fast as possible. Fitting 4 seconds of speech into 2.
Emphasis on Warp drive "Active" - Seriously, who thinks this sounds at all good?
If this is the new voice of Eve - Be sure to add a mute button...
-- - -- - -- - -- The new character sheet - If we must be forced to use such a clunky (over sized) interface, at least get it in order. Under character it should be - Attributes, Augmentations Then Jump clones. Aesthetics certainly aren't a part of UI design.
Wrong again, I thought with the "updating" of the character sheet - "Pilot license" would actually have been fixed to show how much time you have left on your subscription. As a multi boxer - Life would be so much simpler if I didn't have to use a 3rd party app to see how long my subs have left.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Aglaya
I n c r e d i b l e T h i n g s
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 00:41:10 -
[24] - Quote
I have noticed that we have the new voice for AURA on singularity, and i see that there are people who like the new voice and who don't. Let's have a look into background. As for now, many capsuleers in New Eden once had their New Player Experience that started with a strange rookie ship with light trails behind and dropping its speed to 0 m/s among the stars (clouds? red clouds? green clouds? :). Then there are opportunities, and then there are career agents, okay. But whether we can remember or not, it started with Aura's voice announcing 'Warp drive active'. Whether we pay attention or not, every game session if previously logged out in space, starts with her voice saying it. We know that Aura has an avatar, but it's only opportunities where we were able to see her, so it's her voice that represents that we have a friendly and careful onboard AI, our (almost)invisible companion that guides us through the space of New Eden! Come on, guys, say them CCP that Aura is almost your space girlfriend, don't be shame!
TL;DR I personally don't like new Aura's robot-like voice. And i can remember that Aura's soft voice we all know was my first ever experience in Eve while the screen was still black. Emotions rule :) And a disclaimer: i'm not against the new voice for Aura, i just want you CCP to consider give us an opportunity to choose old voice (in settings) if we would like to keep the voice we know and like a lot.
Aglaya out! o7 |
Darkblad
1314
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 08:16:07 -
[25] - Quote
Aglaya wrote:And a disclaimer: i'm not against the new voice for Aura, i just want you CCP to consider give us an opportunity to choose old voice (in settings) if we would like to keep the voice we know and like a lot. CCP Ghost states that such an option is currently being considered (based on feedback).
My notes on that: On Sisi, the new aura voice files replaced the old ones. So currently, such option is impossible to add.
Think of a change in the past that allowed to keep the old satus quo. (Things like the map etc. are still labeled beta)
NPE-ISD-Übersetzt!
|
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
841
|
Posted - 2016.10.21 12:34:49 -
[26] - Quote
Account lock out for alpha players( enabled today) is going to be annoying for testers because we will not be able to have both versions of the client side by side.
Pop up message is "omega required", but for the wrong reason. If you have a omega logged in you need omega to duel log not because you already have a alpha character logged in.
Alpha state is not persistent after using it currently.
Item descriptions and ship descriptions ddon't have verbiage stating command bursts can only be onlined/ active one at a time as the current build currently allows. If this change is going to stay a clearer indication of how many a ship can fit needs to happen.
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe.
|
Quazided
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 12:41:17 -
[27] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Aglaya wrote:And a disclaimer: i'm not against the new voice for Aura, i just want you CCP to consider give us an opportunity to choose old voice (in settings) if we would like to keep the voice we know and like a lot. CCP Ghost states that such an option is currently being considered (based on feedback). My notes on that: On Sisi, the new aura voice files replaced the old ones. So currently, such option is impossible to add. Think of a change in the past that allowed to keep the old satus quo. (Things like the map etc. are still labeled beta)
Of all the updates in this patch the changing of Aura's voice is worrying me the most. The new version lacks the production value of the original, she talks too quickly in some phrases and has odd pauses in others. She also seems to say excepted rather than accepted when you dock.
I'd prefer to keep the original if possible. If CCP are able to give us a choice in the sound settings that would be perfect.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3264
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 15:41:04 -
[28] - Quote
Darkblad wrote:Aglaya wrote:And a disclaimer: i'm not against the new voice for Aura, i just want you CCP to consider give us an opportunity to choose old voice (in settings) if we would like to keep the voice we know and like a lot. CCP Ghost states that such an option is currently being considered (based on feedback). My notes on that: On Sisi, the new aura voice files replaced the old ones. So currently, such option is impossible to add. Think of a change in the past that allowed to keep the old satus quo. (Things like the map etc. are still labeled beta)
nothing that leaves beta has kept the old versions camera and UI are the biggest examples. CCP hates optional settings
BLOPS Hauler
|
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
842
|
Posted - 2016.10.23 19:38:51 -
[29] - Quote
Industrial command ships are on Singularity. The new one is not seeded where I am however.
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe.
|
Flashmala
Rogue Clones Yulai Federation
48
|
Posted - 2016.10.24 18:07:30 -
[30] - Quote
Still missing the new mining drone skills...
Age does not diminish the extreme disappointment of having a scoop of ice cream fall from the cone.
|
|
Ms Elsi
Temporarily Unemployed
0
|
Posted - 2016.10.25 17:14:08 -
[31] - Quote
Are we to consider the dumpstering of a decade old policy of not patching out player's abilities to fly certain ships to be a 'feature?' Just curious. |
Longdrinks
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
248
|
Posted - 2016.10.26 19:20:27 -
[32] - Quote
After knee-jerk hating on the new character sheet i kinda like it now. Only thing im missing is some options to view skills in a list and smaller text if i want too inspect skills faster as a experienced player. Also being able to have training queue in own window if i want so more space to browse for skills to put in it.
Some times i also play on older laptop and being able to disable or only have a freezeframe for the avatar on top would be nice so the game wont have to load the character model engine. Kind of like how you can disable station interior view so its only a static picture of your ship and hangar background. |
Mariko Musashi Hareka
Kaishin.
11
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 10:46:12 -
[33] - Quote
Dont know if its the new stuff they just added for the new npc belt miners but cant do anything on singularity slash commands dont work, cant undock, only thing I can do is ship spin and do /omega command thats it |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
3064
|
Posted - 2016.10.27 14:47:16 -
[34] - Quote
Mariko Musashi Hareka wrote:Dont know if its the new stuff they just added for the new npc belt miners but cant do anything on singularity slash commands dont work, cant undock, only thing I can do is ship spin and do /omega command thats it
This was due to some locking conflicts earlier that should now be resolved.
CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
|
|
Darkblad
1357
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 04:58:17 -
[35] - Quote
Longdrinks wrote:Some times i also play on older laptop and being able to disable or only have a freezeframe for the avatar on top would be nice so the game wont have to load the character model engine. Kind of like how you can disable station interior view so its only a static picture of your ship and hangar background. The static background ( [ ] Load Station environment ) is no longer available.
NPE-ISD-Übersetzt!
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
82
|
Posted - 2016.10.28 13:17:42 -
[36] - Quote
(Expansion no longer gets released the 8th but is now on the 15th) GOD DAMMIT! |
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1188
|
Posted - 2016.10.30 03:25:14 -
[37] - Quote
New fitting window - Simulation mode, is broken.
Activate ship - Enter simulation mode - Exit simulation mode. Activate another ship - Enter simulation mode - End up looking at previously activated ship simulation. Only way I can find to change the simulation mode to the active ship is to relog..
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
helana Tsero
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
613
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 10:54:27 -
[38] - Quote
Feedback.
- The intro movie does not work for me. All I see is earth and I hear the audio but the movie does not advance.
- Aura and the other characters really needs to have an animated character with lip synch. This is 2016.
- The operations menu should have some transperancy applied. Similar level to Aura.
- In first mission erebus wreck should be a actual wreck not a LCO. that would confuse me if i was a new player because aura tells you to look for a wreck. I see the other ships wrecks on my overview but not the erebus.
- not really keen on how the dialog boxes that indicate wrecks zoom around everywhere as you rotate your camera. the line can move but the dialog box should stay in the corner of the screen or something. It also really ruins the immersion when you have the box so close to the wreck (and moving about)
Will update as I progress through.
"...ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new.... thats where eve is placed... not in cave." | zoonr-Korsairs |
Meanwhile Citadel release issues: "tried to bug report this and the bug report is bugged as well" | Rafeau |
|
Darkblad
1402
|
Posted - 2016.11.02 19:51:01 -
[39] - Quote
Table on page updated with today's third build (1092397).
Capital Remote Armor/Hull Repair Systems for Amarr corrected, but now there's Defender Missiles level 1. typeID 3323 For all races.
NPE-ISD-Übersetzt!
|
Rivr Luzade
Viziam Amarr Empire
2786
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 15:01:40 -
[40] - Quote
I just noticed a gooey outflow of lights sloping downfrom the Gallente station undock in 6-C. I trust this is just a concept and won't end up on TQ because it looks abysmal and I can't see any point in ships flying down diagonally from the undock and return indefinitely.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
|
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
1420
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 17:43:37 -
[41] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:I just noticed a gooey outflow of lights sloping downfrom the Gallente station undock in 6-C. I trust this is just a concept and won't end up on TQ because it looks abysmal and I can't see any point in ships flying down diagonally from the undock and return indefinitely.
It looks like they added the same sort of undocking paths they have on citadels and eng complexes. They also added the 0-radius docking ring so you know when you're in range to dock, at least on the stations I was looking at,.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
Also, iderno
|
coolruningc2016
rougde squarden moden miners
0
|
Posted - 2016.11.03 21:29:55 -
[42] - Quote
hi ok so I have spotted something that is rely bugging me on sis Citadels and engineering complex's First of looks nice but I do not under stand why the basic complex one needs 9 hours ven time over citadel basic 3 hours? Both can do the same thing slimier size so why longer ven times. would be great if they wear on par to citadels or slight over so small 5 hours med 10 hours large 15h e.g.
Second this will tick a lot of corps and alliances off big style why is it each citadel or complex to safe time is only allowed one of each module type in industry so 1 lab 1 building array 1 and so on when for example a large researching corps can have a large tower with about 5-6 labs and you are asking players now in November to have in stead of one tower that does it all now we would have to have 5-6 citadels? I ask for the change citadel x2 of any type up to the max of service slots free per citadel.
This will be more effective for small and larger corps will help corps alliances out a lot more then I of each type per citadel and may be looking forward making them a main steam item in came when you all so consider some corps alliances have 25-50 jobs running on a daily basis.
could you guys on each industrial service module could you put a note for example this lab service module does 4 to 5 jobs per service module, and now we come to building. Freighters witch service module do I build them in, in high sec citadel it is not clear as no capital building in high sec so do we need a new class for them? and my tower say get a bonus to building for the module applied does the complex citadel on each tire get any base bonus? to labs to building or could the rigs not buff it up so t1 rig +5 to all lab slots per t1 rig t2 +slots to all innervation e.c.t?. I would be very great full if there is just a little more info added as stated why chose citadels or E complex to build in over towers witch is more cost effective right now if the new citadels E complex's are not going to be cheaper to run. |
Selak Zorander
Mord-Sith
7
|
Posted - 2016.11.07 16:38:29 -
[43] - Quote
coolruningc2016 wrote:hi ok so I have spotted something that is rely bugging me on sis Citadels and engineering complex's First of looks nice but I do not under stand why the basic complex one needs 9 hours ven time over citadel basic 3 hours? Both can do the same thing slimier size so why longer ven times. would be great if they wear on par to citadels or slight over so small 5 hours med 10 hours large 15h e.g.
Second this will tick a lot of corps and alliances off big style why is it each citadel or E complex to safe time is only allowed one of each module type in industry? So 1 lab 1 building array and so on when for example a large researching corps can have a large tower with about 5-6 labs why would you are asking players now in November to have a state of the art E complex or citadel x5
to do this will be less cost effective for small and larger corps as most corps alliances have 1-50 jobs running on a daily basis.
next could you guys on each industrial service module put a note for example this lab service module does 4 to 5 jobs per service module, and now we come to building freighters witch service module do I build them in. In high sec citadel it is not clear as no capital building in high sec so do we need a new class for them? and my tower say get a bonus to building for the module applied does the complex citadel on each tire get any base bonus? to labs to building or could the rigs not buff it up so t1 rig +5 to all lab slots per t1 rig t2 +slots to all innervation e.c.t?. I would be very great full if there is just a little more info added as stated why chose citadels or E complex to build in over towers witch is more cost effective right than the new citadels E complex's witch are not going to be cost effective to run.
i agree that the vulnerability time is a bit long on the engineering complexes, i would be much happier if it was 6, 12, 24 respectively. I know they are cheaper and they are not centered around defense but i think cutting vulnerability back to being 2x as much as a citadel is much better than the current 3x.
as for the only fitting one lab module or one manufacturing module, its because the module itself enable you to do research or manufacturing. it does not give only a specific number of of lines. One module is all you will ever need by my understanding. it will handle as many jobs as you can start similar to the fact that stations (those in empire and i believe outposts but not 100% sure on the outposts) have no limit on the number of lines. if you can build or research and the station has manufacturing or research service available, then you can start a new job no matter how many jobs the engineering complex is already doing. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Tactical-Retreat
2095
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 21:03:57 -
[44] - Quote
Hi,
I have feedback about the Citadel Industry Facility Tax:
As it stands right now, the percentage you setup in your Structure Browser window, and that you will get for each job, is a percentage based off of the NPC tax applied to that job before the player tax, and that is then added to the final tax.
So, to take a concrete example:
- I have an item worth 10 000 000 isk that I want to build. The System Cost Multiplier is at 1.00%.
- That makes the base NPC tax at 100 000 isk.
- The Citadel has a bonus of 5% to the tax rate so that's now 95 000 isk.
- Now let's imagine that I have my industry fee tax setup at 25% in my citadel. That's an added 95 000isk x 0.25 = 23 750 isk tax.
- So the final tax on the item will be 118 750 isk. 95k for the NPC and 23k for the corporation owning the Citadel.
Side-node: Please everyone take note that the maximum tax I could get in that situation, for my corp wallet, is 47500isk for a 10mil item. Again, that's the MAXIMUM in that situation. But let's come back to that later.
This is very weird. Your tax income is dependant of the System Cost multiplier of the system. Which means that as soon as it starts rising, the rise is even more important if you are in a citadel. Penalizing citadel producers more, and making quite the unstable revenue stream for the citadel owner.
Worse, to get a competitive tax rate while still making a profit, public industry citadel owners will have to calculate precisely the expected System Cost Multiplier, and micromanage it. Keep in mind that a low activity system at 0.1% System Cost Multiplier, can get taxed at 1400% by the citadel owner, and that's still only equal to a System Cost Multiplier of 1.5% for the producer.
BUT, should the System Cost Multiplier ever rise to a whooping, say, 0.4%, because the citadel is attracting some people, then suddenly your effective final Tax for the producer goes from 1.5% to 6%! For a 0.3% System Cost Multiplier. That's just insane!
Of course, all of that is only there for the purpose of demonstrating the holes in the current Citadel Owner Industry Tax calculation method, as said tax is anyway capped at 50%. Meaning that all hopes of profit for a public Industry Citadel owner in a low System Cost Multiplier system are lost anyway.
What could be done instead:
- The Citadel Tax Reduction should be a flat percentage reduction of the current System Cost Multiplier. Currently, going from -3% to -5% of tax reduction is COMPLETELY negligible as that's basically taxing the value of an item 0.02% less, in a 1% System Cost Multiplier system. If, instead, it took the System Cost Multiplier percentage, and removed a flat percentage, then:
--- For a XL Engineering Complex, a 10% System Cost Multiplier would become a 5% System Cost Multiplier. --- For a Medium, a 7% System Cost Multiplier would become a 4% System Cost Multiplier --- For all Engineering Complexes, a 1% System Cost Multiplier would become a 0% System Cost Multiplier. Which makes more sense than taking a few isks off the top of the tax.
- The Citadel Industry Facility Tax (aka the tax that goes to the player corporation) should be a flat value of the item. So, if I have a 1% tax, then it's like adding +1% to the System Cost Multiplier, after all Citadel Reductions have been applied of course (assuming the proposition above is applied too)
--- Example: Regardless of the System Cost Multiplier, if I have a 1% player tax, then I get 1% of the isk value of the item being produced. So if someone is producing a 10 000 000 isk Item in my citadel, I get 100 000 isk.
I believe this system would be more logical, easier to manage for everyone, would give more benefit to having a citadel in a low cost multiplier system, while providing tax incentives for everyone to use an engineering complex. Of course, if a flat percentage reduction of the System Cost Multiplier is too strong with -3/-4/-5, then maybe going to -1/-2/-3 could be an option.
Thanks for your attention.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC
84
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 21:25:50 -
[45] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Hi, I have feedback about the Citadel Industry Facility Tax: As it stands right now, the percentage you setup in your Structure Browser window, and that you will get for each job, is a percentage based off of the NPC tax applied to that job before the player tax, and that is then added to the final tax. So, to take a concrete example:
- I have an item worth 10 000 000 isk that I want to build. The System Cost Multiplier is at 1.00%.
- That makes the base NPC tax at 100 000 isk.
- The Citadel has a bonus of 5% to the tax rate so that's now 95 000 isk.
- Now let's imagine that I have my industry fee tax setup at 25% in my citadel. That's an added 95 000isk x 0.25 = 23 750 isk tax.
- So the final tax on the item will be 118 750 isk. 95k for the NPC and 23k for the corporation owning the Citadel.
Side-node: Please everyone take note that the maximum tax I could get in that situation, for my corp wallet, is 47500isk for a 10mil item. Again, that's the MAXIMUM in that situation. But let's come back to that later. This is very weird. Your tax income is dependant of the System Cost multiplier of the system. Which means that as soon as it starts rising, the rise is even more important if you are in a citadel. Penalizing citadel producers more, and making quite the unstable revenue stream for the citadel owner. Worse, to get a competitive tax rate while still making a profit, public industry citadel owners will have to calculate precisely the expected System Cost Multiplier, and micromanage it. Keep in mind that a low activity system at 0.1% System Cost Multiplier, can get taxed at 1400% by the citadel owner, and that's still only equal to a System Cost Multiplier of 1.5% for the producer. BUT, should the System Cost Multiplier ever rise to a whooping, say, 0.4%, because the citadel is attracting some people, then suddenly your effective final Tax for the producer goes from 1.5% to 6%! For a 0.3% System Cost Multiplier. That's just insane! Imagine the required micromanagement.Of course, all of that is only there for the purpose of demonstrating the holes in the current Citadel Owner Industry Tax calculation method, as said tax is anyway capped at 50%. Meaning that all hopes of profit for a public Industry Citadel owner in a low System Cost Multiplier system are lost anyway. And even at that low 50% cap rate, if the System Cost Multiplier were to go from 3% to 5%, then your share relative to the total value of the item would go from 1.5% to 2.5%. So you'd need to manually adjust it down if you wanted to keep it flat and easy to understand for your customers. And forget about using same Structure Profile for citadels in different systems, at it may not be the same multiplier at all. (So the way it currently works on Sisi also defeats the point of Structure Profiles) Again, that's bad day-to-day micromanaging on a per-structure basis. What could be done instead:
- The Citadel Tax Reduction should be a flat percentage reduction of the current System Cost Multiplier. Currently, going from -3% to -5% of tax reduction is COMPLETELY negligible as that's basically taxing the value of an item 0.1% less, in a 10% System Cost Multiplier system (which is almost as high as it gets and pretty rare). If, instead, it took the System Cost Multiplier percentage, and removed a flat percentage, then:
--- For a XL Engineering Complex, a 10% System Cost Multiplier would become a 5% System Cost Multiplier. (because minus 5%) --- For a Medium, a 7% System Cost Multiplier would become a 4% System Cost Multiplier (because -3%) --- For all Engineering Complexes, a 1% System Cost Multiplier would become a 0% System Cost Multiplier. Which makes more sense than taking a few isks off the top of the tax.
- The Citadel Industry Facility Tax (aka the tax that goes to the player corporation) should be a flat value of the item. So, if I have a 1% tax, then it's like adding +1% to the System Cost Multiplier, after all Citadel Reductions have been applied of course (assuming the proposition above is applied too)
--- Example: Regardless of the System Cost Multiplier, if I have a 1% player tax, then I get 1% of the isk value of the item being produced. So if someone is producing a 10 000 000 isk Item in my citadel, I get 100 000 isk. PERIOD. No need to worry about wild changes in the System Cost Multiplier. EVER.
I believe this system would be more logical, easier to manage for everyone, would give more benefit to having a citadel in a low cost multiplier system, while providing tax incentives for everyone to use an engineering complex. Of course, if a flat percentage reduction of the System Cost Multiplier is too strong with -3/-4/-5, then maybe going to -1/-2/-3 could be an option. Thanks for your attention.
you litteraly took the idea i had on SISI like 2 days ago. guess im not the only one who thought that was a good idea :p Exept the part where the corporation set tax would be a set % of the items cost. i wonder how that would work. if it was the same in NPC stations then no one in a npc staion could ever make a proffit? or do you only want the tax to work like that in the player owned structures and not NPC stations? |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Tactical-Retreat
2095
|
Posted - 2016.11.09 21:45:20 -
[46] - Quote
RainReaper wrote: you litteraly took the idea i had on SISI like 2 days ago. guess im not the only one who thought that was a good idea :p Exept the part where the corporation set tax would be a set % of the items cost. i wonder how that would work. if it was the same in NPC stations then no one in a npc staion could ever make a proffit? or do you only want the tax to work like that in the player owned structures and not NPC stations?
The corporation set tax is relative to the Structure Browser, which is a player only, Upwell Structures only thing. NPC stations wouldn't be included.
Of course, in a way, the System Cost Multiplier works exactly like the corporation set tax could work in Citadels: It's a flat % of the total value of the item. Right now, that's exactly what it is.
For that specific suggestion, I'm basically just asking that the corporation set tax work the same way.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
69
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 00:59:58 -
[47] - Quote
So let me get this straight Altrue: you're interested in manufacturing, but you dislike complexity and you hate fluctuating costs and profits?
Trade Hub Price Checker: stop.hammerti.me.uk/pricecheck
Visit "Haulers Channel" in game for all matters courier-related.
Citadel name/system API: stop.hammerti.me.uk/api
|
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise
299
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 01:05:30 -
[48] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Hi, I have feedback about the Citadel Industry Facility Tax: As it stands right now, the percentage you setup in your Structure Browser window, and that you will get for each job, is a percentage based off of the NPC tax applied to that job before the player tax, and that is then added to the final tax. So, to take a concrete example:
- I have an item worth 10 000 000 isk that I want to build. The System Cost Multiplier is at 1.00%.
- That makes the base NPC tax at 100 000 isk.
- The Citadel has a bonus of 5% to the tax rate so that's now 95 000 isk.
- Now let's imagine that I have my industry fee tax setup at 25% in my citadel. That's an added 95 000isk x 0.25 = 23 750 isk tax.
- So the final tax on the item will be 118 750 isk. 95k for the NPC and 23k for the corporation owning the Citadel.
Side-node: Please everyone take note that the maximum tax I could get in that situation, for my corp wallet, is 47500isk for a 10mil item. Again, that's the MAXIMUM in that situation. But let's come back to that later. This is very weird. Your tax income is dependant of the System Cost multiplier of the system. Which means that as soon as it starts rising, the rise is even more important if you are in a citadel. Penalizing citadel producers more, and making quite the unstable revenue stream for the citadel owner. Worse, to get a competitive tax rate while still making a profit, public industry citadel owners will have to calculate precisely the expected System Cost Multiplier, and micromanage it. Keep in mind that a low activity system at 0.1% System Cost Multiplier, can get taxed at 1400% by the citadel owner, and that's still only equal to a System Cost Multiplier of 1.5% for the producer. BUT, should the System Cost Multiplier ever rise to a whooping, say, 0.4%, because the citadel is attracting some people, then suddenly your effective final Tax for the producer goes from 1.5% to 6%! For a 0.3% System Cost Multiplier. That's just insane! Imagine the required micromanagement.Of course, all of that is only there for the purpose of demonstrating the holes in the current Citadel Owner Industry Tax calculation method, as said tax is anyway capped at 50%. Meaning that all hopes of profit for a public Industry Citadel owner in a low System Cost Multiplier system are lost anyway. And even at that low 50% cap rate, if the System Cost Multiplier were to go from 3% to 5%, then your share relative to the total value of the item would go from 1.5% to 2.5%. So you'd need to manually adjust it down if you wanted to keep it flat and easy to understand for your customers. And forget about using same Structure Profile for citadels in different systems, at it may not be the same multiplier at all. (So the way it currently works on Sisi also defeats the point of Structure Profiles) Again, that's bad day-to-day micromanaging on a per-structure basis. What could be done instead:
- The Citadel Tax Reduction should be a flat percentage reduction of the current System Cost Multiplier. Currently, going from -3% to -5% of tax reduction is COMPLETELY negligible as that's basically taxing the value of an item 0.1% less, in a 10% System Cost Multiplier system (which is almost as high as it gets and pretty rare). If, instead, it took the System Cost Multiplier percentage, and removed a flat percentage, then:
--- For a XL Engineering Complex, a 10% System Cost Multiplier would become a 5% System Cost Multiplier. (because minus 5%) --- For a Medium, a 7% System Cost Multiplier would become a 4% System Cost Multiplier (because -3%) --- For all Engineering Complexes, a 1% System Cost Multiplier would become a 0% System Cost Multiplier. Which makes more sense than taking a few isks off the top of the tax.
- The Citadel Industry Facility Tax (aka the tax that goes to the player corporation) should be a flat value of the item. So, if I have a 1% tax, then it's like adding +1% to the System Cost Multiplier, after all Citadel Reductions have been applied of course (assuming the proposition above is applied too)
--- Example: Regardless of the System Cost Multiplier, if I have a 1% player tax, then I get 1% of the isk value of the item being produced. So if someone is producing a 10 000 000 isk Item in my citadel, I get 100 000 isk. PERIOD. No need to worry about wild changes in the System Cost Multiplier. EVER.
I believe this system would be more logical, easier to manage for everyone, would give more benefit to having a citadel in a low cost multiplier system, while providing tax incentives for everyone to use an engineering complex. Of course, if a flat percentage reduction of the System Cost Multiplier is too strong with -3/-4/-5, then maybe going to -1/-2/-3 could be an option. Thanks for your attention.
Looks like CCP got ahead of themselves again and forgot something rather important!
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
DIDE- is open to new members
|
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
95
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 04:27:53 -
[49] - Quote
Altrue wrote:
- The Citadel Tax Reduction should be a flat percentage reduction of the current System Cost Multiplier. Currently, going from -3% to -5% of tax reduction is COMPLETELY negligible as that's basically taxing the value of an item 0.1% less, in a 10% System Cost Multiplier system (which is almost as high as it gets and pretty rare). If, instead, it took the System Cost Multiplier percentage, and removed a flat percentage, then:
--- For a XL Engineering Complex, a 10% System Cost Multiplier would become a 5% System Cost Multiplier. (because minus 5%) --- For a Medium, a 7% System Cost Multiplier would become a 4% System Cost Multiplier (because -3%) --- For all Engineering Complexes, a 1% System Cost Multiplier would become a 0% System Cost Multiplier. Which makes more sense than taking a few isks off the top of the tax.
I take it you weren't around for Industry Teams.
This suggestion is ******* insane and incredibly abusable and will result in people that know how to abuse it making dozens of billions a month from it. No personal offense meant to you.
First off, 4% is huge. As a mid-level industrial player, I cycle through about 80bil worth of manufacturing jobs per day. Once ECs are out, I am going to double that to 160bil. That's 6.4bil per day saved by just using an LEC. That's more than the actual expected profit I'd make from the manufacturing. And I'm not even a large-scale manufacturer. (hint: components greatly increase the amount of isk you cycle through; if you produce 10bil per day and have to make 1 stage of intermediary components, you're paying tax as if you were producing 20bil per day)
Second off, system cost index is a square root function of job activity. It takes 4 times as many jobs to drive the index from 3% to 6% as it does to drive the index from 0% to 3%. Let's say you have your large EC set up in a system: - Without your suggestion, X job-hours would result in a system cost index of say 5%. - With your suggestion, X job-hours would result in a system cost index of 1%, which is the same footprint as 1/25 * X unmodified job-hours. You'd literally be able to produce 25 times more and pay the same tax.
Look at the absurd example of a null-sec XL EC with your suggestion. You would be able to push through 1% of all manufacturing jobs in New Eden, and still come out with a 0% cost index. If you were to move all of Jita's jobs to a null-sec XL EC, the cost index would still be under 2%. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Tactical-Retreat
2098
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 06:18:56 -
[50] - Quote
Messenger Of Truth wrote:So let me get this straight Altrue: you're interested in manufacturing, but you dislike complexity and you hate fluctuating costs and profits?
More accurately if you want to define my use case: I'm interested in manufacturing, and offer public manufacturing services, but I don't want to have to go in a high System Cost Multiplier system (which is nonsense, it would be going against the very logic behind the SCM) to be able to tax people high-enough that it is at least paying for the fuel.
Frankly, we don't need more citadels near Jita & co, it doesn't provide much services. The system should be balanced in such a way that the best profits are to be made in remote areas, just like the System Cost Multiplier was made to push people away from agglomerating too much.
I'm not against complexity (thankfully!) or fluctuating costs, and certainly not fluctuating profits (that'd be insane). But I think that it's really kinda dumb to have a player tax that is arbitrarily tied to the System Cost Multiplier.
In addition to all the reasons about micromanagement, lack of profit, unstability, etc... It's also very confusing. The UI basically says "Industry Tax - Public - 10%" and you end up getting like 0.05% of the item's value in tax... What?
But to be honest I didn't think about my use case when writing the initial post. I was gathering information in order to write my Engineering Complexes ultimate guide and thought: "Wait a minute, this is completely stupid" xD
I want Engineering Complexes, and Upwell structures in general to be useful, not niche.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr
Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
|
|
Mr Grape Drink
No Prisoners Who.
86
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 15:13:38 -
[51] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:Altrue wrote:
- The Citadel Tax Reduction should be a flat percentage reduction of the current System Cost Multiplier. Currently, going from -3% to -5% of tax reduction is COMPLETELY negligible as that's basically taxing the value of an item 0.1% less, in a 10% System Cost Multiplier system (which is almost as high as it gets and pretty rare). If, instead, it took the System Cost Multiplier percentage, and removed a flat percentage, then:
--- For a XL Engineering Complex, a 10% System Cost Multiplier would become a 5% System Cost Multiplier. (because minus 5%) --- For a Medium, a 7% System Cost Multiplier would become a 4% System Cost Multiplier (because -3%) --- For all Engineering Complexes, a 1% System Cost Multiplier would become a 0% System Cost Multiplier. Which makes more sense than taking a few isks off the top of the tax.
I take it you weren't around for Industry Teams. This suggestion is ******* insane and incredibly abusable and will result in people that know how to abuse it making dozens of billions a month from it. No personal offense meant to you. First off, 4% is huge. As a mid-level industrial player, I cycle through about 80bil worth of manufacturing jobs per day. Once ECs are out, I am going to double that to 160bil. That's 6.4bil per day saved by just using an LEC. That's more than the actual expected profit I'd make from the manufacturing. And I'm not even a large-scale manufacturer. (hint: components greatly increase the amount of isk you cycle through; if you produce 10bil per day and have to make 1 stage of intermediary components, you're paying tax as if you were producing 20bil per day) Second off, system cost index is a square root function of job activity. It takes 4 times as many jobs to drive the index from 3% to 6% as it does to drive the index from 0% to 3%. Let's say you have your large EC set up in a system: - Without your suggestion, X job-hours would result in a system cost index of say 5%. - With your suggestion, X job-hours would result in a system cost index of 1%, which is the same footprint as 1/25 * X unmodified job-hours. You'd literally be able to produce 25 times more and pay the same tax. Look at the absurd example of a null-sec XL EC with your suggestion. You would be able to push through 1% of all manufacturing jobs in New Eden, and still come out with a 0% cost index. If you were to move all of Jita's jobs to a null-sec XL EC, the cost index would still be under 2%.
Yea, I dont think that part is a good idea, but I do agree on making the player tax a direct % of what is being built, not a percent of the index cost. 2% tax on a 1,000,000,000 ISK item with a system index of 2% would be 20,000,000 to the index and 20,000,000 to the player and 4% of the total item value. Not this silly 20,000,000 to the index and 400,000 to the player (.04%) for a total of 2.04% tax
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3088
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 19:07:43 -
[52] - Quote
Didn't try yet on SiSi, but I not fully understand your claims. I'm familiar with industry in NPC stations and there it works like that. You pay a fee (not tax) for jobs which is the higher the more jobs of that type are active in the system, it's also tied to the base value of the item to manufacture, research etc. That's the production cost. On top of that comes a simple 10% NPC tax from the cost value. Usually the tax is a neglectable value, it's a tax factor on top of the production fee.
So here comes my knowledge gap, will the NPC tax factor in an EC be replaced by the owner's tax factor or will the owner's tax factor be additive to the 10% NPC tax factor similar to highsec POCOS?
Anyway it's a simple and straight forward system every industrialist understands. Of course in low index systems the cost and therefore the income from the tax factor will be small ... for a couple of days, before the index spikes because of the attractive location at first. The income is tied to the activity in your citadel, fair? Also because the index does not scale linear, there is a zone of cost stability for average systems.
But there remains a principle incompatibility of industry with cooperation. If you want to get a better deal, you must change the whole system how production works ...
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Mr Grape Drink
No Prisoners Who.
86
|
Posted - 2016.11.10 20:45:51 -
[53] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Didn't try yet on SiSi, but I not fully understand your claims. I'm familiar with industry in NPC stations and there it works like that. You pay a fee (not tax) for jobs which is the higher the more jobs of that type are active in the system, it's also tied to the base value of the item to manufacture, research etc. That's the production cost. On top of that comes a simple 10% NPC tax from the cost value. Usually the tax is a neglectable value, it's a tax factor on top of the production fee.
So here comes my knowledge gap, will the NPC tax factor in an EC be replaced by the owner's tax factor or will the owner's tax factor be additive to the 10% NPC tax factor similar to highsec POCOS?
Anyway it's a simple and straight forward system every industrialist understands. Of course in low index systems the cost and therefore the income from the tax factor will be small ... for a couple of days, before the index spikes because of the attractive location at first. The income is tied to the activity in your citadel, fair? Also because the index does not scale linear, there is a zone of cost stability for average systems.
But there remains a principle incompatibility of industry with cooperation. If you want to get a better deal, you must change the whole system how production works ...
There is no NPC tax in a player owned structure, only the production cost. The player tax replaces the NPC tax. But like you said, NPC tax is negligible. Which is a problem for the EC owner. Negligible tax doesn't cover all the fuel cost. He says Player tax should work the same as the production cost. 2% player tax should be 2% of the item cost, not 2% of the production cost. |
Darkblad
1486
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 09:34:55 -
[54] - Quote
Weapon Accuracy Score turns (sorta back) into Turret Tracking.
Value shown appears to remain that of WAS.
NPE-ISD-Übersetzt!
|
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
842
|
Posted - 2016.11.11 20:06:49 -
[55] - Quote
Looking over the info windows for the citadels and I realize all the deployment stats and location restrictions plus skill requirements to deploy, online and fit them are missing.
If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide
See you around the universe.
|
Careby
309
|
Posted - 2016.11.12 14:22:04 -
[56] - Quote
Altrue wrote:...Your tax income is dependant of the System Cost multiplier of the system. Which means that as soon as it starts rising, the rise is even more important if you are in a citadel. Penalizing citadel producers more, and making quite the unstable revenue stream for the citadel owner.
Worse, to get a competitive tax rate while still making a profit, public industry citadel owners will have to calculate precisely the expected System Cost Multiplier, and micromanage it. Keep in mind that a low activity system at 0.1% System Cost Multiplier, can get taxed at 1400% by the citadel owner, and that's still only equal to a System Cost Multiplier of 1.5% for the producer....
At first glance it seems as though this will be self-regulating. As the system cost index rises, tax amounts increase. As taxes increase, less players choose to use the system. Less job hours in the system (eventually) result in a lower system cost index. So I figured an EC owner can set a tax rate and let market forces control structure use.
But with further thought, I realize it really is somewhat broken. While players can, without too much difficulty, see the structure industry tax rate, and the system cost index, there is not an easy way to see the overall effect of the two without actually getting to the point of installing a job. For instance, how many players comparing two systems, one with a system cost index of 2% and an EC with 5% industry tax rate, and the other with a system cost index of 3% and an EC with 1% industry tax rate, will conclude the job cost will be lower in the first system? And it isn't enough for one EC owner to micromanage the tax rate when competing with other structures that do not.
It will be interesting to see how many ECs pop up with 0% industry tax. There are valid reasons for offering 0% broker fees in a market citadel, but given the fact that the more an EC is used, the more it costs to use it, I can't see any benefit to reducing the tax rate.
|
ST8 ACTOR
Flintlock Asshatery
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.27 21:04:59 -
[57] - Quote
I think the point of player influence on costs being an after effect is to simply avoid situations where you could wind up owing money to player who runs jobs (because you can't program that there be no *negative cost).
What is truly idiotic though is that you have to have cost reducing factors on citadels as if simply making jobs faster isn't of any help with how system indexes work, or how they exhibit this taxes in job costs and then you don't know what to think about what they were derived from when it's in fact weird ass "how". In liu of simply removing cost reductions at loss of false novelty, you could instead adjust for this overall weirdness with the final matter of fact numbers for customers and a target margin for businesses. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |