The Citadel guru, CCP Yitterburn has listened, juggled the figures, and re-presented the player logon taxes. OK that might be a little harsh and they are definitely more mellow. But CCP Yitterburn has reserved the possibility of reinstating the original proposal at some point in the future. So the principle remains. The "choice" CCP present is to either be taxed heavily by NPC stations or submit to the gameplay of the large ingame groups.
Consequently, if you wish to remain independent then it is likely if not certain that you will be paying more ISK for the privilege . It then follows that to make up for the additional costs incurred, you will have to spend more time on revenue earning activities rather than purely fun activities. There are no new benefits being introduced to offset this. So in effect it is a new activity tax. Perhaps my imagination is running a little hot but it feels like being forced to pay and undergo dental surgery before going out to have a meal with friends. The risk is that unless you are one of those weird people that actually enjoy dental surgery, there comes a point when pavlovian conditioning kicks in and you just stop going out for a meal.
Now I don't want to believe this is CCP's intention, but I am struggling to see how it isn't. I was a Citadel enthusiast but where is the carrot? To my mind it just feels like CCP are a little to desperate to force citadels on people. If a citadel was a new ship - which it basically is, plus services and minus movement, then CCP wouldn't nerf every other ship in the game to make it a win button and then limit who is allowed to own it and benefit from it to a select few. Imagine the outcry if they did. But this is what Highsec Citadels appear to be. In the end, everything in Eve fundamentally boils down to the Highsec markets. Citadel/NPC station activity taxes will effect everyone but only a few will benefit. (to the extent they conquer Eve if Gevlon's maths works out.)
At this point, I should be coming up with a startling alternative whizzy way that would fix everything Citadel. That is the constructive thing to do. But even if I could, it just seems CCP are progressing on the basis that they are incontrovertibly correct. Maybe they are, but I don't see their vision or how I get additional joy instead of additional trips to the dentist. I genuinely want to understand this. I suppose it is possible my playstyle is just incompatible with the way Eve is envisaged by CCP in the future. It would be disappointing obviously but helpful to know nonetheless.
More widely, I wonder how many people are actually aware of what is coming. The highsec natives are notable for their lack of participation in the various Eve forums. There are many reasons for this, be it language, casual playstyle or whatever. They are the sort of people who don't vote for the CSM because they have never been aware of its existence. I worry many people are going to be in for a rude awakening when Citadels land. Quite how that pans out ought to be a worry to CCP because their subs could well outweigh those of the Hisec market Citadel owners.
Threatening CCP with "losing subs" over a change is a weak argument those that don't like something about the game have been trying since the dawn of the game. You don't know how many players in highsec are actually clueless solo players (vs. alts of null/low/WH) nor even if this causes some to leave, how many new players this game change will attract. Clearly CCP, with all their game data think it is a good idea and ultimately, their jobs are dependent on this so I would suggest you tone down your fear mongering.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you could be right and this will be detrimental to the game, but this change is completely consistent with where CCP Seagull says she is taking the game: towards everything being player-built and destructible. Citadels have to be significantly better than existing stations or no players will accept the risk of pay the cost to use them. Players need to be compensated for making themselves a target (and thus content) for other players. There just isn't enough room in the numbers for Citadels to be made relatively better since fees are already so low, so CCP is doing the only thing they can and making NPC stations worse. If they didn't do this, it would just be another Drifter Incursion fiasco and players would ignore the new mechanic as it would be worse than the current options and all the development time spent on these structures would be wasted.
Perhaps these numbers are't correct (and hopefully CCP will adjust them quickly), but CCP has to do something to make it profitable for players to deploy and use these structures vs just staying in absolute safety for free in an NPC station. A carrot would be nicer as everyone loves carrots, but in a sandbox game sometimes you have to bring out the stick to put things back into balance.
Yes, the "CCP will lose subs" position is certainly a well worn cliche. Mia culpa. But does that mean it is wrong? For example, the ore etc rebalances where a stick was used to encourage highsec players and producers to get out of highsec. The carrots were for Nullsec. Scenario sound familiar? It worked, but not in the way CCP intended (I think). Highsec players left the game entirely leaving Null sec nullbears to gorge themselves on ratting etc. CCP Quant's presentation at the last fanfest demonstrated it graphically. What was notable was we didn't hear the gnashing of teeth and wailing. The players just vanished. So I am putting forward a hypothesis rather more than a "threat" based on CCP's experience of using sticks to modify behaviour.
DeleteIt terms of CCP Seagull's vision, the problem is that it is only been partially consistent. She has said (and I paraphrase heavily) that she wants to make the tools available to players to build amazing things etc. But Citadels market functionality is effectively only available to some players in certain circumstances. She has also said she includes the independent player in her vision. But the citadel implementation chastises the independent player for being active.
Of course risk should have its rewards and so citadels must be a worthwhile investment for those building and operating them. But that surely shouldn't be at the expense of linked with disciplining players for playing? IF the numbers don't stack up and the only way to make it work is to castigate players then someone at CCP as made a bad error of judgement don't you think?
Unless the reason for vanishing was the ISBoxer channges. We heard plenty of wailing and teeth gnashing about that.
DeleteThe ISBoxer purge had a wider effect and the hardened farmers operated as renters in Null. The drop High Sec is of a different character and the margins were never that good to justify going professional in any case
DeleteKudos, Luobote. Like all of the previous expansions in the past, CCP plans to roll out an incomplete product. I wonder how long it will be before Citadel is finished and all of the functionality of stations is available to players. In the meantime, the solo players (myself included) continue to pay the higher taxes until CCP completes the expansion (soon tm).
ReplyDeleteYes, there is a worry that CCP might lily pad onto the next alluring project without finishing citadels.
Delete@crash the'agile' method is to release often and early. It might not feel it sometimes but ccp does churn the changes out.
ReplyDelete@kong, lack of reading about upcoming releases is not just a hihsec activity
Agreed. The Jump changes/aegis Sov come to mind too
DeleteA good read and a topic I am tackling in an upcoming CZ article. You always have a fresh perspective for me to consider. I do have to say that I can't see a high sec cartel existing for many reasons but mostly because of a lack of mass deployment caps for systems.
ReplyDelete