EVE Search - Proposed: the Concord Tax

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Proposed: the Concord Tax

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
TrulyKosh Gallente Solo for UNCLE	Posted - 2008.08.26 07:57:00 - [31] Originally by: Dave Davies The perceived problem: high sec pays too much. Then why don't you just go there and get the same isk income? This will eliminate all "too much"-arguments immediately without the need to change the game at all. Everyone gets the same income (give or take a few % for better negotiation skill), pure socialism. And the best part of it: noone is stopping you from doing it. There is no problem. There is not even a "perceived problem". There is just you and some others that think the same who want to change the game. It's absolutely fine that you and others voice your concerns and your wish to change the game, but please stop starting thread after thread after thread about a non-existing problem (and suggesting solutions for a non-exiting problem). It would be a problem if there were CCP- or player-generated unsurmountable obstacles in your way in order to obatin the same benefits that other players can get. Please name one.
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.08.26 08:07:00 - [32] Honestly, this strikes me as a bit too contrived and annoying just for the sake of being annoying. If you want to make low sec/null sec more profitable while simultaneously fixing possibly another problem maybe introduce a way to get T2 building materials without requiring moons. That'd fix two separate issues in one fell swoop rather than simply 'punishing people' for using Empire space (ultimately, nerfing Empire does little to nothing to improve your own economic situation).
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.26 08:15:00 - [33] Originally by: TrulyKosh Then why don't you just go there and get the same isk income? I live there you non- thread- be- readin' motherscratcher. Also: Quote: It's absolutely fine that you and others voice your concerns and your wish to change the game, but please stop starting thread after thread after thread about a non-existing problem (and suggesting solutions for a non-exiting problem). It's OK for you to post but please stop posting. Thanks. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Karii Ildarian Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.08.26 08:25:00 - [34] Edited by: Karii Ildarian on 26/08/2008 08:30:19 Edited by: Karii Ildarian on 26/08/2008 08:29:21 Edited by: Karii Ildarian on 26/08/2008 08:27:22 Edited by: Karii Ildarian on 26/08/2008 08:26:14 Ok, I'll play, but the idea needs a bit of tweaking to make it equitable. Empire Tax Flat 15% on all wallet transactions for all members of Empire Player Corps having positive standings with the particular faction, in whose space such transactions ocur. This tax can be reduced by 1%/positive standing point achieved. Flat 15% on all wallet transactions for all members of NPC Corps. Duty Flat 15% additional duty rate applied to any wallet transactions for players with positive standings, but not in an Empire Player Corp or whose Player Corp does not have positive standings with the particular faction, in whose space such a transaction occurs. This duty can be reduced by 1%/positive standing point achieved. Risk Surcharge Players with security standing lower than 0.0 are given a risk surcharge of an additional 5%/negative standing point, to a maximum of 25% for -5.0 Players with security standings below -5.0 are criminals and cannot perform legal transactions within Empire Space and will be shot on sight. I'll vote for this.
Empyre Domestic Reform	Posted - 2008.08.26 08:28:00 - [35] Edited by: Empyre on 26/08/2008 08:34:28 Edited by: Empyre on 26/08/2008 08:28:30 Hey look. Another person who thinks they'll be exalted and revered for starting a clone thread of a duplicate topic and hiding it under.. /drum roll.. the same topic! Cheers, OP! You've won the redundant redundancy award. It's a mechanical hand that you mount to the back of your chair. It slaps you upside the back of the head every time you have an idea. Trust me, the world will be safer with this in place. PS. I'll explain it for you because I predict you're going to have a bit of trouble. Before your idea can have any merit, you have to first prove the first part, that high sec is indeed more profitable. I've personally proved it wrong at least twice on this very forum in the last two years or more. Destroy all that which is evil, so that which is good may flourish.
TrulyKosh Gallente Solo for UNCLE	Posted - 2008.08.26 08:34:00 - [36] Originally by: Karii Ildarian Edited by: Karii Ildarian on 26/08/2008 08:30:19 Edited by: Karii Ildarian on 26/08/2008 08:29:21 Edited by: Karii Ildarian on 26/08/2008 08:27:22 Edited by: Karii Ildarian on 26/08/2008 08:26:14 Risk Surcharge Players with security standing lower than 0.0 are given a risk surcharge of an additional 5%/negative standing point, to a maximum of 25% for -5.0 Players with security standings below -5.0 are criminals and cannot perform legal transactions within Empire Space and will be shot on sight. I'll vote for this. You would have to get rid of alts to make this work. I'd vote for that.
TrulyKosh Gallente Solo for UNCLE	Posted - 2008.08.26 08:41:00 - [37] Originally by: Dave Davies I live there you non- thread- be- readin' motherscratcher. And in 5 months in game, your sec status did not increase a single notch? Then post with your main
Shintai Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.08.26 09:01:00 - [38] Originally by: Dave Davies Ruze managed to pull this one out of his butt a couple days ago and I can't believe he didn't make a thread for it... so here it is. If it takes off I guess somebody can post it in the CSM forum but I figured I'd float it here first. The perceived problem: high sec pays too much. The natural activity of the market has made high sec ores more valuable than low- sec ores, and high sec mission running is lucrative enough that it allegedly attracts plenty of players (or their alts) from allegedly more valuable space. The last issue can be balanced by CCP intervention, the first probably shouldn't be -- or at least not directly. The proposed solution: tax incentives. In Real Life(tm) tax incentives are used by governments the world over to encourage all sorts of behavior, and CCP could probably use the same method to encourage activity in lawless space. But of course in order to offer a tax break you first have to implement a tax. Enter the Concord Tax (or, if you like titles, call it the Law Enforcement Funding Accord of the Second Yulai Convention -- lol). The Concord Tax would be a 15% tax leveed on all mission rewards and pirate bounties paid out in systems where Concord operates, as well as on all minerals refined in those same systems. Maybe there could be a skill that reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the Concord Tax, but not Accounting -- IMO it would need to be something like a Rank 8 trade skill that required a certain level of Corp Management as a prerequisite in addition to the usual Trade prereqs. The probable benefit of such a system is that it would make low sec activities inherently more valuable than the same activities in high sec, including mining (or at least refining) low- end ores; furthermore it would achieve that benefit without needing to shuffle agents around, adjust loot tables, rework ore distribution or any other hamfisted adjustments to basic game mechanics. In gameplay terms players could remain in high sec for a hassle- free but reduced income while it would actually be worthwhile (for a change!) for more ambitious players to pool their resources and try to tackle low sec. Comments/ flames/ arguments/ polemics anybody? I thought it was a decent solution myself. Lets see...even if you made 0.0 and lowsec 10x more profitable...nobody would move besides maybe 1%. You overfished in lowsec. Blame yourself. Nerf highsec to 10% of what it is now, and you might get 1%. However, you will be the loser. Its you that gonna start paying 250million for a T1 battleship and T2? What T2...highsec runs the economy. And its actually for your own benefit. -------------------------------------- Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2008.08.26 09:15:00 - [39] All I would like to see is a more dynamic payout system where players get less if there are more players in the same area doing the same thing. Perhaps the effect of this could also be based on the number of nearby agents, so low-sec residents feel it less and null-sec players don't even notice. Not sure how this could be applied to mining / refining but that probably isn't needed and the last thing mining needs is a nerf anyway. I'm sure they could balance this so the change of payout changes slowly but gradually to adjust to the number of players successfully completing missions in an area. The main idea is that it is a boost to lesser used and lower quality agents while at the same time (hopefully) discouraging crowding. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.08.26 09:26:00 - [40] While the idea is nice, I fail to see the urgent problem that this fixes. If this is adopted I feel little will change except for newbie corp people will make 15% less cash on mission bouties/rewards. At best a very small minority of people will leave Motsu, at best it will just be a big inconvenience to all mission runners. No to this. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Schalac Caldari Apocalypse Reign	Posted - 2008.08.26 09:44:00 - [41] Originally by: Dave Davies Ruze managed to pull this one out of his butt a couple days ago and I can't believe he didn't make a thread for it... so here it is. If it takes off I guess somebody can post it in the CSM forum but I figured I'd float it here first. The perceived problem: high sec pays too much. The natural activity of the market has made high sec ores more valuable than low- sec ores, and high sec mission running is lucrative enough that it allegedly attracts plenty of players (or their alts) from allegedly more valuable space. The last issue can be balanced by CCP intervention, the first probably shouldn't be -- or at least not directly. The proposed solution: tax incentives. In Real Life(tm) tax incentives are used by governments the world over to encourage all sorts of behavior, and CCP could probably use the same method to encourage activity in lawless space. But of course in order to offer a tax break you first have to implement a tax. Enter the Concord Tax (or, if you like titles, call it the Law Enforcement Funding Accord of the Second Yulai Convention -- lol). The Concord Tax would be a 15% tax leveed on all mission rewards and pirate bounties paid out in systems where Concord operates, as well as on all minerals refined in those same systems. Maybe there could be a skill that reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the Concord Tax, but not Accounting -- IMO it would need to be something like a Rank 8 trade skill that required a certain level of Corp Management as a prerequisite in addition to the usual Trade prereqs. The probable benefit of such a system is that it would make low sec activities inherently more valuable than the same activities in high sec, including mining (or at least refining) low- end ores; furthermore it would achieve that benefit without needing to shuffle agents around, adjust loot tables, rework ore distribution or any other hamfisted adjustments to basic game mechanics. In gameplay terms players could remain in high sec for a hassle- free but reduced income while it would actually be worthwhile (for a change!) for more ambitious players to pool their resources and try to tackle low sec. Comments/ flames/ arguments/ polemics anybody? I thought it was a decent solution myself. They tax the shit out of smokers, yet people still smoke, and love it. They tax our drinks that we provide at social events and social gathering places, yet people still go there and drink. Do you truly think that taxing high sec is going to move people out of high sec? Personally I think this will only hurt those that mine veldspar for money and everyone else will keep on going doing what they do. No tax will ever solve the fact that -10 goofballs don't have the standings to run level 5 missions in the low sec area that they control. To me that is the true problem. Pirates could run level 4-5 missions with basically no problems if they take over the right systems but then complain that level 4 high sec mission runners are making too much money. PLEASE SPARE ME THE EMPATHY... Just because all you pirates are too dumb to take over a system(s) that has an agent that at least one of you can run level 4 or 5 missions for is an injustice...SHUT THE FRACK UP ALREADY. You are really starting to resort to dumb as hell tactics for this shit on EVE-O.
Rashmika Clavain Gallente Revelation Space	Posted - 2008.08.26 09:52:00 - [42] I like the idea of taxing people who loafe it up in NPC corps though However, using tax as a method of moving potential piracry targets from Empire into low sec where you can have the pleasure of ganking them is not going to work. Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.26 10:23:00 - [43] Thanks for posting this, Dave, and you put a whole lot more thought into it than I ever did. As you can see from the flames and general hate and discontent (usually posted by someone who you've never seen post before on the forums ... or Drunk Driver, who'll be here eventually ), it's hard to discuss anything as others would try and make you believe that the 'majority' is against you. The 'Perceived' Problem is just that, one perception of a handful of forum posters who have gone well out of their way to explain something that they feel is deficient with the game. This is actually MANY small issues, and overall results in the belief that (especially with the upcoming fixes talked about in dev blogs, if one can count them) hisec space will be far more secure than it ever was, taking some of the more valuable assets of 'combat PvP' from many gamers, and nerfing and removing several mechanics which it is predicted will result in hisec having even MORE gamers, becoming even more overcrowded and laggy, and resulting in the loss of players due to boredom and poorly functioning games. Many hisec dwellers seem to have no real want nor appreciation for combat PvP. As players, they should have every right to pursue the style of game they wish. At the same time, the proposed changes may affect many OTHER players and take away their style of play. Though some will never fully appreciate it (I hate suicide tactics myself, but meh), they still pay just as much money per month as the rest of us. As another side to the issue, players are feeling pressured into moving to hisec, or at least maintaining an alt or jump clone there, in order to compete in the rest of the game. Losec and nulsec dwellers, or FW individuals. The reason for this is that making hisec profits requires very little effort, can be very efficient, and the money gleaned is of fair rate. These individuals have no real encouragement to make make money where they live, and are in part responsible for many of hisec's 'issues', including the draw of hisec wardecs, the push for more hisec systems, the overcrowding of hisec, and the drops in hisec markets. Many suggested 'fixes' have come up, almost all of them directly concerned with changing only 'missions' in some way. They fail to recognize, despite having the point made sometimes violently in a hundred replies, that missioning is only one corner of hisec operations. Directly changing missions runners leaves the impression that the change is asked 'in revenge', instead of for an actual purpose. Introducing a new tax has both an in-game reasoning, a logical consequence, and reasonably affects all hisec dwellers at the same time, without further upsetting the economy by trying to balance losec and nulsec rewards against abuse. If hisec is going to be more safe, let it. And tax it. Tax my mission payouts. Tax my offices. Tax my market deals. Tax my bounties. Tax my sales. Tax my refinery. Let the players PAY for their security. Because in other parts of space, they pay with effort and teamwork. Thanks again for the post, Dave. Your never going to live this down now. Not with this crowd Quote: If you like playing EvE, but don't like to PvP ... Maybe it's time you recognize that you don't really like to play EvE.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.26 10:29:00 - [44] Originally by: Dave Davies Originally by: Soporo Percieved... So nerf Empire to make another area more valluable?? Why not call for a boost to that area instead, eh? Oh that's right, your not interested in a boost, just more targets, amirite? No, you are not "rite" and neither are you right for that matter. I'm as carebear as they come: I live in high sec, I'm training an invention alt, I've got a spreadsheet for my manufacturing sales and I run my own supply chain; I run missions and so far I've racked up zero player kills. Sad, I know, but there it is and nothing lasts forever. The reason I want high sec nerfed instead of low sec boosted is that honestly it just seems too easy to get ahead in high sec. People that say "I have done it but it is too easy" like you are saying, forget the NOW part. It is easy for you now that you have plenty of isk and skills, so that nerfing high sec will not damage your income much and can even increase it (as you are a manufacturer it can mean higher margin on trading). But you are totally forgetting people that have to start getting those isk and skills. "But they can go to low sec to gain." Sure, after they have learned a bit how EVE work, what you need to do to survive and made a "buffer tank" of isk to cover for unexpected losses. But if high sec is heavily nerfed they will have no way to get that isk "buffer tank", skills or experience.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.26 10:29:00 - [45] Taxing players will not move anybody out of hisec. Might as well get that one out of the way now. What will it do? It'll make those who use hisec only to fund PvP operations (losec dwellers, FW operators, nulsec guys) reconsider overcrowding the hisec systems, as they might start seeing that they could make more money where they live, instead of in hisec. Bean counters might leave. The guys going for every inch of profit. Macro-miners and macro-runners probably wouldn't. I'm sure it would cause a new player once and awhile to go 'man, this sucks', look up a good nulsec corp and enlist. IF your goal is to FORCE players out of hisec, there are better ways to do it. Changing missions was one of them. Nerfing NPC corps is another. But, IF your goal is to balance the raised (or potentially raised) level of security of living in hisec with the lack thereof in losec, then a overarching tax is suitable. Everyone ends up paying for their security. If you live in nulsec, you pay for it with a corp tax, or with the effort of you and your alliance. Teamwork pays for this level of security you appreciate, which can sometimes rival hisec. The same goes for losec. And with this, if your in hisec, your own money will pay the governments for the security you appreciate. Seems fair and fairly reasonable to me. Quote: If you like playing EvE, but don't like to PvP ... Maybe it's time you recognize that you don't really like to play EvE.
TrulyKosh Gallente Solo for UNCLE	Posted - 2008.08.26 10:56:00 - [46] Originally by: Ruze Let the players PAY for their security. Because in other parts of space, they pay with effort and teamwork. Following the train of thought, all bounty payments in 0.0 should come from the space holding alliance itself. The players there are not paying taxes to Concord, so why should Concord pay them bounties for rats they kill in space where they have no presence? Speaking of which, why should these 0.0 rats give a player any sec status increase?
Zephyr Rengate dearg doom	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:00:00 - [47] So players who dont pay security dont get concord protection. I want.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:02:00 - [48] Originally by: TrulyKosh Originally by: Ruze Let the players PAY for their security. Because in other parts of space, they pay with effort and teamwork. Following the train of thought, all bounty payments in 0.0 should come from the space holding alliance itself. The players there are not paying taxes to Concord, so why should Concord pay them bounties for rats they kill in space where they have no presence? Speaking of which, why should these 0.0 rats give a player any sec status increase? Is it bad that I agree with you? I'd also like to let nulsec corporations hire agents to do missions from. That would make nulsec far more interesting, at least to me. Quote: If you like playing EvE, but don't like to PvP ... Maybe it's time you recognize that you don't really like to play EvE.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:07:00 - [49] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 26/08/2008 11:08:00 Originally by: Dave Davies Quote: They're idiots if they make a deal with a pvp corp frankly, see above. Nah. That 15% cushion gives you a lot more wiggle room for making a deal AND it keeps you from having to be one of the lemmings we just described. And what you will pay the PvP corp for? "Don't shoot me" ? = "Sorry, James shoot you but he is not in our corporation" (90% an alt of some of them) "Protect me" ? = "Sorry we missed someone, next time be more careful" (unless they live by NSBI the can't lock a low sec syste, and NBSI wouldn't be really sufficient) and "Hey, we aren't there for you, we will not gatecamp while you mine, we have better things to do" People going to low sec don't like to spend time protecting miners and paying protection money to 10 different gangs (so you don't get fired by all the pirate in the area) will get you broke.
Schalac Caldari Apocalypse Reign	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:09:00 - [50] The way I see it, high sec doesn't pay enough. How many moons are there in highsec? And why can't we mine them for their minerals? Why do you need to put a PoS up in unsecure space to get isk for basically just having a PoS there? Oh wait am I encroaching on a reason that owning low sec and null sec space is better than empire? Whatever... I emplore people to look beyond the goofball that runs missions in motsu all day and maybe join me in this setup http://www.battleclinic.com/forum/index.php/topic,21220.0.html One, 1 day, and we could all join the biggest suicide fleet ever seen by CCP and EVE. The goons have nothing on people that can train into a pure suicide caracal within 1 day of a trial accounts life. Are you with me brothers and sisters? Let us make our name known for 14 days. Then change it with a new trial account. The EULA says that recycling alts is a nono, but trial accounts are a whole different thing. A whole different account. What is CCP going to do if we go this route? Ban me for suggesting it? That would be unfortunate but they can't prove that I had any involvement besides just putting the idea out there. And I don't know how iceland works but in America that doesn't fly. And I have way to much time on my hands recently to be a *** in anyones ass that I feel like being a *** to.. .Not much income but the fringe benefits are great. I say we do it. WHO IS WITH ME???
TrulyKosh Gallente Solo for UNCLE	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:14:00 - [51] Originally by: Ruze Is it bad that I agree with you? I'd also like to let nulsec corporations hire agents to do missions from. That would make nulsec far more interesting, at least to me. Not at all. The 0.0 corp agents sound like an interesting idea. The sheer idea of 1000s of goons running dry BoB's wallet by running missions from their outposts is staggering :)) However, giving away these missions would mean having to grant them docking rights. And that, i guess, most 0.0 alliances would not like to see. (Not that afk cloakers are any better than those sitting inside your outposts):) .
Heartcarver Goat Gangbangers	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:26:00 - [52] Originally by: jrambox Edited by: jrambox on 26/08/2008 06:10:27 HOW ABOUT THE OP PAYS ME HALF OF HIS INCOME AND SHUTS THE **** OFF. I happen to be a high sec player and I like it. Why should I be taxed by it. Why do you care if I make moneys in high sec? How does it affect your 0.0 life? Quit Eve Go back to school, please. "The point of war isn't to die for your country, it's to make the other bastard die for his"
Viqtoria Caldari Groping Hand Social Club	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:28:00 - [53] i never knew gordon brown played eve.
Another Forum'Alt	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:31:00 - [54] Originally by: Viqtoria i never knew gordon brown played eve.
necronarcosis Shadow Company G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:33:00 - [55] Edited by: necronarcosis on 26/08/2008 11:34:23 for the larger part isk devaluation is down to over farming or ore ice and lvl 4 missions, those being in high sec in npc corperations have nothing to fear and rake in the isk day after day. increase lvl- 1 and lv2 mission rewards for noobs, and slap a 35 40% tax rate on any npc corp. after all you are paying for their protection. players should be fed into player corps and actively discoraged from playing in a npc corp all of there eve life, after all they did sign up for a mmorpg, not elite.
eXtas Atomic Battle Penguins	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:36:00 - [56] a tax for old ppl in npc corps sounds like a really nice idea! the ppl that hide in npc corps have allways anoyed me but I never thought of a good idea how to nerf it. But if a 3 month old char got hit by a 15% tax, a 6 month old 30% tax.. up to 50% or something it would make a lot of farmers leave the npc corps... they still would be allmost totaly safe from wardecks because of corpjumping and other ways to avoid wardecks but you would atleast have a chance to wardeck them :) --------
Another Forum'Alt	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:36:00 - [57] Originally by: necronarcosis Edited by: necronarcosis on 26/08/2008 11:34:23 for the larger part isk devaluation is down to over farming or ore ice and lvl 4 missions, those being in high sec in npc corperations have nothing to fear and rake in the isk day after day. increase lvl- 1 and lv2 mission rewards for noobs, and slap a 35 40% tax rate on any npc corp. after all you are paying for their protection. players should be fed into player corps and actively discoraged from playing in a npc corp all of there eve life, after all they did sign up for a mmorpg, not elite. Where did it say an MMORPG has to be played in a blob? Oh wait, I see now... NOWHERE.
Another Forum'Alt	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:42:00 - [58] What about if in 0.0, rat bounties were set at 2x the level of highsec, and because there is no CONCORD in 0.0, the cash for the bounties comes from the alliance who has sovreignty.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:48:00 - [59] Originally by: Hakkan Koftar What this boils down to is some misinformed players making some bad assumptions about low/null-sec space and their desire to enforce their preferred playstyle on others. 1) Nullsec is vastly more profitable than high-sec for a miner or a PvE (missioner/ratter) player. As a miner and ratter I am able to make twice the isk per hour in 0.0 than I could in high sec only a month or two ago. 2) Low sec has no value at all. Nerf high sec all you like you still won't get more players in lowsec. Primarily because lowsec is more dangerous than nullsec but also because it is less profitable than either option. Even with a 15% tax on highsec, lowsec will still suck and you will not find more people there. Any corps operating in lowsec, especially miners, are either naive or haven't been able to join a 0.0 alliance. So to sum up, in order to get more players in lowsec, you need to leave high-sec alone and address the problems of inherent danger in lowsec. Until lowsec is safer than 0.0 it's going to be empty. Where I disagree with you, is that a) I don't think the majority of hisec players are playing in hisec to avoid PvP, but instead, I think that a large portion of hisec players are simply alts and jump clones of those living in nulsec and losec. There are also many hisec individuals who live in hisec for the SAKE of PvP, be it wardecs, suicides, or FW. As well as traders and manufacturers, producers. b) I don't think that you can boost losec without in turn boosting nulsec, as these two are fairly balanced in profit scaling. Boosting both would have the same effect as the tax, especially if the boost was high enough to allow a player to compensate for that lifestyle. c) I believe the inherent problems with security in losec should be solved by PLAYER actions, and not CCP. Especially considering that yes, losec missions ARE more profitable, but without a real industrial base (due to mineral imbalance, etc), there isn't much call to even move into losec out of hisec. And without giving all industrialists a reason to leave (i.e. higher profit margins, or fixing mineral balance again), you cannot have a more secure losec. Quote: If you like playing EvE, but don't like to PvP ... Maybe it's time you recognize that you don't really like to play EvE.
eXtas Atomic Battle Penguins	Posted - 2008.08.26 11:50:00 - [60] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: eXtas a tax for old ppl in npc corps sounds like a really nice idea! the ppl that hide in npc corps have allways anoyed me but I never thought of a good idea how to nerf it. But if a 3 month old char got hit by a 15% tax, a 6 month old 30% tax.. up to 50% or something it would make a lot of farmers leave the npc corps... they still would be allmost totaly safe from wardecks because of corpjumping and other ways to avoid wardecks but you would atleast have a chance to wardeck them :) While it's nice that you like the idea, I don't agree with you and many who have replied on WHY it's a good idea. Making new targets for wardecs is not something I personally care about. It's also part of the reason that, every time such a topic is brought up, it gets mauled to death by fanboi's and wussies, who think that everyone and their mother wants to force them to play the game as they see it. Yes, I think using the corp mechanics or the beginner corp is an exploit. But I don't think that major changes to hisec profit margins should be made in order to fix this exploit. I think it needs to be addressed in another manner, and as much as possible, be kept separate from any financial ramifications. So while I didn't make the post, I do feel that your comments are AS harmful to the discussion as those flaming the poster for being a 'pirate looking for targets'. its not that I want more targets to wardeck. its those ppl that hide behind a noobcorp for several years that anoys me. allready when I was a noob the npc corp guys farming 3/10 serp plexes in empire anoyed me and there was no way to do anything.. those same guys still are in noobcorps. atm you can suicide on them with 1-5 ravens but that is going to get nerfed soon. Then npc corp members will be even safer and really should get a nerf. about highsec giving all to much isk... not really.. only the lvl4 missions give ok isk. and the players can be wardecked IF they are in a corp! --------

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.