For me personally this is the one silver lining. But if I had my choice I’d rather see TTT explode.
Learned that from Haulie just recently. Shes a stand up gal that one
Read up i was involved earlier until my opinion became reason for people to get personal. Just following examples
Go for it.
I thought a few other companies were more out of touch with their playerbase. You guys are in a race towards the finish line with the rest of them who have lost sight both the game and the players, and only see short term profit.
How about presenting a long term goal plan for EVE ? What is it actually, do you even have one ? What is the 1 year, 5 year, even 10 year plan for CCP ? Right now, it looks like your ideas are just pulled out of a hat, thrown on the wall and darts thrown to see what you hit. No rhyme or reason, no long term or overarching goal, just whatever seems “this is fine” at the time. No wonder you are throwing skillpoints at us and plex sales to drive up those metrics.
3 Likes
Can you explain why??
Clearly this is the biggest threat to introducing too much isk into the game. Also, this won’t stop me. Try again CCP!
Accounting V is 9.4m SP?
K I think I see where you are meaning to come from, but yes your day to day costs will go up. However, that is countered by inflation going down, not up. Inflation is a term for the value of how much your Isk is worth in the market. The less of it there is the more it becomes worth (theoretically).
Will your cost to buy X ship go up? probably. With the assets you already have go up? probably. However as isk dries up across the ecosystem in time the costs come down because each one is worth more. More importantly, it keeps the actual inflation of too much isk in the ecosystem at bay.
I was replying to someone else tbh
If people don’t like TTT the answer is extremely simple, just do business elsewhere. It’s owners have to fuel it, burn ships to protect it, coordinate logistics etc. If people don’t use it, it doesn’t become as lucrative to violently shoo off other markets.
1 Like
Don’t hold your breath, as you won’t get this answer. They are actively trying NOT to give yo ua 1/5/10 year roadmap. They are trying to reintroduce mystery into the game.
This change however is a pretty obvious exercise in controlling inflation and de-incentivising NPC markets.
1 Like
Still running the numbers on this to gauge the effects - so take the ones below as a draft - but this question about taxing PLEX via ingame NPCs has always intrigued me.
Discarding all of the notions of how much ISK you should be entitled to receive when you sell PLEX ingame, consider how this notion of NPC taxation might actually act as a pressure on PLEX prices ingame.
If you purchase PLEX then redeem ingame to sell it, you have always been paying a portion of this in Sales Tax and Broker Fees to either NPCs or players via Upwell structures. At the moment it works out at 5% max total fees with no skills and 3.5% with max skills (I’m not sure on the faction modifier because I never bothered to grind standings). This is if you create a sell order - obviously if you sell to a buy order the buyer has to pay the fee. Even so, sale generates a sink to NPCs (or players in Upwell structures for a portion) via the market. I seem to recall a statement from CCP indicating that PLEX are traded an average of 4 times before being consumed. You could reasonably assume that these trades would be made by players with max skills in most cases, which would be 4 x 3.5 = 14%. These proposed changes will shift the min/max % deducted from the gross PLEX trade from 3.50/5 to 5.65/10. At that level even with max skills the total paid in deductions against all traded PLEX jumps from 14% to 22.6% (5.65x4).
It is fair to say that traders will simply pass along the price hike to buyers, in which case people selling PLEX will not be immediately affected, because they’ll likely receive a similar amount of ISK for the PLEX they dump onto the market - although the confusion and resentment over this is not to be overlooked. Particularly when PLEX packages are already marketed with additional ‘free PLEX’ in % ratios, which skews the transparency for the buyer. Also the scale of the jump is not to be overlooked; 3.5% is a smallish number, and even the jump upto 5% with no skills isn’t huge, but the jump to 10% is noticeable and will potentially give people who buy PLEX from CCP the impression that they will need to buy 10% more to get the same value - even if they don’t - because the loss will be felt by them, rather than elsewhere in the chain. Actually, the people likely to bear the cost are people who sub their accounts via PLEX.
My point here is that player concerns over PLEX inflation are being overlooked in what appears to be a fairly heavy-handed way of increasing overall sinks. Removing ISK from the economy via increased sinks is certainly needed at this point, but this method may exacerbate PLEX inflation as a side effect. An 8.6% increase in ISK sunk on traded PLEX fees will be felt. There are other options to manage the ISK faucets (incremental changes to ratting/mining) and there are other fees (skillbooks, blueprints, manufacturing & rental fees) that could all be modified without having this knock-on effect in the PLEX market. The PLEX seller and buyer equilibrium is something to be extremely cautious with, and this does not feel cautious or considered.
Also from a purely psychological point of view it is quite disingenuous for a company to sell digital products via their account management page, then impose a tax system of upto 10% on those items once they redeem them ingame and try to exchange those items for currency. Goodwill does matter, and people will not tolerate being made fools of over these types of transaction.
It’s also highly questionable from an accounting standpoint that CCP are able to sell these digital items (which should be classed as a liability on their balance sheet) then effectively write off large portions of that via ‘lore mechanics’ and an ingame system of taxation. Ignoring the emotive arguments or ‘entitlement’ of players - it’s genuinely questionable from a reporting and legal perspective to be engaging in that type of behaviour at such a significant level. Remember, we’re talking millions here in terms of revenue.
4 Likes
Im with you here i have 5 toons and all of them PI and if they can’t have enough passive income from planetary Interaction, and to quote ash bellow:
its almost like they (ccp) are wanting to get rid of Passive income under the guise of WAR and say there is a protection
but to quote myself
so if in the end CCP actually unrolls a massive initiative to create more citadels, or isk generating opportunities via any number of actually possibilities that require a source of in game isk to be used to generate opportunity for us with in eve to get that isk back than i am actually for it. but it cant come after a ridiculous amount of skill points needed because thats not balanced, but broken. if it can easily flow out it needs to easily flow in, with an understandable amount of (r)isk involved.
1 Like
you would be surprised who wrote the original of that. Im glad we agree on something though
2 Likes
I think you drastically overestimate how much people care about people’s care about that fraction of isk lost when people PLEX for ISK. Your average purchaser is likely just looking to make some quick isk for X skill or fit.
Legally they are selling you plex, not isk. You can use that PLEX for in game skins, game time, training certs etc. Your choice to trade it for isk is a personal one and is subject to the market just like any other in game item. You could always trade it outright at a station to another player for isk bypassing all taxation if you take the time to manage it.
2 Likes
My biggest dislike for the tax changes is that it hugely benefits some game entities with passive isk.
So long as there isn’t a big cost for changing prices the trading in stations will continue and it will generate a huge passive income stream for some entrenched entities.
What about custom offices and PI tax? Seems silly these are player driven and basically only benefited the rich corps who were online when the changes were made and dropped a ton of them all over the place. Shameful.
1 Like
I think you drastically overestimate how much people care about people’s care about that fraction of isk lost when people PLEX for ISK. Your average purchaser is likely just looking to make some quick isk for X skill or fit.
I agree that the current loss is nominal enough to be overlooked by most individuals, although I suspect they’ll notice this hike because it’s a fairly big jump.
But my overall point here is more that this change may damage the PLEX market in unintended ways.
Remember, everyone with real money has the option to just buy 30 days of gametime. You don’t get taxed on that when directly applied. You can also buy additional training slots. People who can count might work out that they will make more ISK not buying PLEX from account management and selling it ingame, but by SP farming. You can buy PLEX ingame and convert it to extractors and potentially get more bang for your buck, dodge the taxes by selling to buy orders, and still profit more than by trading PLEX. That type of behaviour would also cause PLEX inflation as a direct consequence of people simply running the numbers.
2 Likes
Increasing isk sinks: Annoying but long term a good change.
I like devs and game companies who think long term. Thing is that making changes that are long term good tend to be short term bad and thus get a lot of flack, whining and ranting. Being OK with that is a good and strong sign that devs care (again) and care for the long term feasibility of the game rather than the short term profit.
1 Like