Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Esna Pitoojee]

Re: Jade's idea:

This is, frankly, one of the better ideas I've seen in a while. It is, however, a delicate balance between making the effect of fighting so small that people would rather just move on to another location (for instance, it's my understanding that CCP was trying to force the inhabitants of a given constellation to gang up and push incursions out. Instead, they largely just left or farmed the incursions themselves) and making it so large that it's regarded as the holy grail of fighting and everyone in the cluster wants a piece of the pie, which would largely take the fight out of the hands of smaller corporations or alliances (read: the Tech bottleneck).

[Ulphus]

It is much easier to simply reallocate to a new trade hub than trying to turn the tide of FW for the single pilot so that would be the choice for many (myself included). Eventually the most successful FW faction will have the major trade hub only enforcing its dominance. Alternatively Yulai could be the major trade hub again.

I don't think it's as easy as that, but frankly, if this sort of thing caused various Market dominant corporations to support FW corps that are fighting on the front line because it reduces their taxes, I think that would be cool!

For years before they let Electus Matari into the Faction War, EM used to give weekly prizes to Militia pilots who did the most plexing in the previous week. Of course, sasawong won it a lot, but there were tweaks so we offered prizes to the top three. The idea was for us to encourage certain behaviours in Faction War. If more corporations/alliances did the same, I think that's a good thing.

Besides, I am generally not in favor of letting one game mechanic and play style getting dominance over other others. People are not going to sign up for FW if they like to produce and trade; they will either find a way around it or quit.

The Goons can affect every other player in Eve with their OTEC. I don't see why it shouldn't be reasonable for what other players do to affect people in the market as well.

I want it to be possible for what players do to affect the universe. The trick for CCP is to let that happen without giving players so much influence that players can screw the game completely for other people. A small variation on the official market tax rate seems a candidate for such an affect.

[Alain Kinsella]

While the taxes suggestion is interesting, I decided to pop by scc-lounge (the more active MD forum chat) for a clarification on how its modified today.

Asking there, the lowest possible tax (skills + standing) is about 0.2%.  The ensuing side discussion had some say they were making money fine with 0.6%, but they were working in bulk and on margin.

So tax adjustments may not unseat a hardcore trader in Jita (or anyone doing pure station work) as much as expected.  They may support FW players to remove that last bit, but a number of the main 'market makers' in the hubs are in Null alliances already.  In fact the person who was helping explain all this was corestwo from GSF (one of the few members of that alliance that I trust - in trading discussions anyway).

So, if this is considered, skills and standings need to be accounted for.  Or will this override skills and standings?

[Myyona]

Besides, I am generally not in favor of letting one game mechanic and play style getting dominance over other others. People are not going to sign up for FW if they like to produce and trade; they will either find a way around it or quit.

The Goons can affect every other player in Eve with their OTEC. I don't see why it shouldn't be reasonable for what other players do to affect people in the market as well.

I want it to be possible for what players do to affect the universe. The trick for CCP is to let that happen without giving players so much influence that players can screw the game completely for other people. A small variation on the official market tax rate seems a candidate for such an affect.

It is just that the FW participants objecting to a too heavy null sec interference on mechanics in low sec while suggesting that they should be able to interfere heavily with mechanics in high sec seems slightly hypocritical.

[Matariki Rain]

It is just that the FW participants objecting to a too heavy null sec interference on mechanics in low sec while suggesting that they should be able to interfere heavily with mechanics in high sec seems slightly hypocritical.

How so? That's our highsec.

[Myyona]

Considering this reply:

* WHAT ABOUT CYNO JAMMERS? The idea was postponed after the feedback we received at Fanfest / forums. It's not out though, but initial discussions showed us that if there is one feature we need to carefully tread with, it's that one as it impacts a -lot- of third party players as well.

I am not expecting FW to be allowed to influence taxes in high sec as that would impact a lot more "third party" players. But of course, while CCP generally cater to the demands from null sec alliances they smack high sec players around like it is a sport.

EDIT: It is not so much about being a high, low or null sec player but about letting play styles dominate each other. Just like cyno jammers in low sec will strongly interfere with people doing the null sec logistics, changes to high sec taxes will mess with the play style of a lot of people who also have no interest in FW whatsoever. Forcing them to do that is bad game design. They should be encouraged, sure, but forced or being put to extreme inconvenience, no.

[Jade Constantine]

Well I got a lot of encouraging feedback for the transaction tax adjustment on eve online and from Hans (on the new CSM). Fingers crossed its exactly the kind of thing CCP want to happen by encouraging cross-interaction of different areas of the game. And do understand Myyona - this is not something that would (omgbbq a trade hub for ALL PLAYERS) its just something that would impact the cost of doing business by a degree in a dynamic cycle (that just happens to be player led) and add some more vibrancy to the otherwise static market dynamics of existing hubs. I'd say the transaction tax could impact the maximum attainable efficiency.

I don't believe that everyone would relocate hubs immediately over this kind of stuff (though the sight of 10,000 freighters leaving jita on the back of a caldari fw collapse would be funny) but it would be nice for the random traders in Rens to be going "nice, our taxes are down huzzah for the boys on the front lines!"

But think single digit percentages not apocalyptic nerfs. Small but significant variation rather than broad stroke armageddon.

[Silas Vitalia]

Huge tax fluctuations might actually be just what the doctor ordered to shake things up.

Think of all the opportunities for EVE-style scheming, deal making, and isk manipulation if you knew certain FW fronts were about to collapse and prices were about to go up in one place and down in another....

[Jekaterine]

If the tax thing goes through and it leads to traders and their wares becoming migratory I have the following hope:

Insert low sec as natural borders between the empires.

I've always hoped for it even though I've never been a pirate.

[BloodBird]

If the tax thing goes through and it leads to traders and their wares becoming migratory I have the following hope:

Insert low sec as natural borders between the empires.

I've always hoped for it even though I've never been a pirate.

If piracy becomes a major issue due to all faction borders being low-sec areas by default we will have one out of two scenarios; the pirate numbers inflate until they choke all trade with impunity, or perhaps, the number of traders that need safe passage spur more mercs/anti-pirates to guard the trade-lanes better and actually provide a service the traders will pay for. That or perhaps many traders will pay pirate groups under the table to let them go. Highwayman taxing stations \o/

The idealist in me would want the latter option to happen, more mercs and such being paid to guard the traders and haulers or securing gates etc. while some traders will pay pirates to let them go... while cheering for their competition losing their stuff, etc.

The cynical realist in me says it will be pirate heaven and no such deals or payments with haulers will be honored. Why take only the ransom when you can get the kill (killmailz, wooh) and tears (he mad) and loot, as well as the ransom/tax isk as well?

I'd love low-sec borders as well. Regardless of the situation with piracy the militia would likely have a blast killing them, or the pirate halves of them camping the gates themselves, to be targets for other militias as well.

And finally, on the topic at large, I'd just like to say that I'm glad to see these changes. It's not all that needs be done, but the changes will be positive overall, I think, and they are a very good start to making FW more interesting and competitive. Right now FW is doable, but rather dull most the time. I really hope this will change for the better, and it likely will. Tax changes based on FW performance would be awesome. At worst the mega-trade hub is transient and temporarily changes locations, at best people will care more for FW and pay attention to how it goes.

Plus I love the idea of squeezing the fat, bloated hole that is Jita if/when the Fed takes all Caldari space. Should it ever happen it will be a very nice revenge for the months of occupation.

[Victoria Stecker]

I think setting up lowsec between every empire would be awesome - it would force the growth of the other trade hubs and allow some sort of price disparity to exist. As it stands now, any major hub whose price deviates much from jita gets cleaned out or flooded until it returns to normal. Lowsec barriers would impede travel enough to make people consider - is it worth flying across lowsec to save a few million on a hull you might lose on the return trip?

On the other side, this would open up opportunities for moving goods between the hubs if you're willing to run them across lowsec. under the current system, there's rarely enough of a price differential for it to really be worth hauling stuff.

So yeah, more lowsec between the empires would be awesome.

[Desiderya]

Low-Sec borders sound awesome, but I guess they'll be populated by a) cloaky Blockade Runners and b) bulk trading via Jump Freighter. This is 100 times simpler than making an effort to do things like escorting a freighter. ( I remember doing this in 0.0 before Jump freighters and stuff. It was nice. ).
So without dealing with this issue it'll just be pirate haven and source of frustration for new industrialists and traders.

[Creep]

If the tax thing goes through and it leads to traders and their wares becoming migratory I have the following hope:

Insert low sec as natural borders between the empires.

I've always hoped for it even though I've never been a pirate.

If piracy becomes a major issue due to all faction borders being low-sec areas by default we will have one out of two scenarios; the pirate numbers inflate until they choke all trade with impunity, or perhaps, the number of traders that need safe passage spur more mercs/anti-pirates to guard the trade-lanes better and actually provide a service the traders will pay for. That or perhaps many traders will pay pirate groups under the table to let them go. Highwayman taxing stations \o/

Considering that many Pirate corps already offer their victims "blue packages" (temp-blue status for a week or more, in exchange for a hefty chunk of ISK), I imagine that the bolded statement would be a very popular option for Gate-Camping corps who sit on the busiest gates.
Even less powerful corps, and solo pirates could get in on the action if they maintain a regular presence in the busiest systems. I'm primarily solo in my work, and I've temp-blued Missioneers for money before.

The idealist in me would want the latter option to happen, more mercs and such being paid to guard the traders and haulers or securing gates etc. while some traders will pay pirates to let them go... while cheering for their competition losing their stuff, etc.

The cynical realist in me says it will be pirate heaven and no such deals or payments with haulers will be honored. Why take only the ransom when you can get the kill (killmailz, wooh) and tears (he mad) and loot, as well as the ransom/tax isk as well?

I'd love low-sec borders as well. Regardless of the situation with piracy the militia would likely have a blast killing them, or the pirate halves of them camping the gates themselves, to be targets for other militias as well.

I would also love to see the "islanding" of Highsec, simply because it would expand the power of the other trade hubs besides Jita, and give rise to new and interesting Lowsec tradehubs.
And god the opportunity for conflict would erupt. There'd actually be a reason for highsec corps to bring roaming fleets down here, beyond just a weekend of fun. You'd want to keep certain systems clear of pirates, break the camps, and camp your faction/pirate/wardec foes into station so that your trade alts/members could get to the more profitable tradehubs.

[Ulphus]

From a storyline point of view, I'd expect that the highsec polities would get grumpy about their trade being disrupted and send in the troops. That's why I don't think the islanding of highsec is very likely except if they go to all out war.

[Aria Jenneth]

The cynical realist in me says it will be pirate heaven and no such deals or payments with haulers will be honored. Why take only the ransom when you can get the kill (killmailz, wooh) and tears (he mad) and loot, as well as the ransom/tax isk as well?

Eh-- it wouldn't be either-or. Some pirate corps prefer to act honorably, believing that it's better for business. Other pirate corps prefer to squeeze all the immediate gain and tears they can.

Lowsec all empire borders and you'll still have both groups. The question will always be, "Is this particular pirate group the honorable kind or not?"

(And yes, I love the idea of major battles being waged between pirates and mercs for control of key gates, with armadas of merchants awaiting the outcome.)