open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked To people that want to remove T2 BPOs : give a GOOD reason why
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 00:01:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 20/12/2010 19:55:03

I agree, T2 BPOs + lottery WAS a mistake. HOWEVER...

1. The argument that "it's unfair to newer players" is invalid.
Newer players have the exact same options to get a T2 BPO as a very old player with no T2 BPOs has to get one : just purchase it with ISK.
There are plenty of T2 BPOs for sale at any given time, and if you place a WTB ad for any specific one, you WILL get one provided you're willing to offer enough ISK.
Just because new players don't have enough ISK to afford buying some of them does not render the argument valid, since there are quite a few ways for new players to make ISK fast.

2. The argument that "it's unfair to people that were not around for the lottery" is also invalid.
Plenty of people DID participate in the lottery and DIDN'T "win" it either. Or, they got only very shabby offers.
The vast majority of people that "won" valuable T2 BPOs actually had quite a lot of RP gathered on quite a few accounts, and they DID work quite a lot to gather them.
You could argue that the lottery itself was unfair... but that's why it was removed in the first place, and invention placed in its stead.

3. The argument that "T2 BPOs give an UNFAIR advantage to those having them" is just as invalid.
It does give them SOME advantage, in form of cheaper production cost... but it is by no means an UNFAIR advantage, as it comes at great cost. Sure, it's maybe not actual cost, but opportunity cost (the option to just sell the T2 BPO)... yet it's still a cost.
The market MORE than makes sure the cost gets balanced with the benefits by having the price of T2 BPOs adjust quite a bit above what would be considered a reasonable ROI. In fact, most T2 BPOs (even the most valuable ones) have quite lousy ROIs compared to a lot of other (freely available) blueprints.

4. The argument that "T2 BPO presence kills inventor profit margins" is equally invalid.
Not just invalid, but also PROVEN by looking at profitability of inventing some high-demand T2 items (like, say, exhumers or damage mods) and comparing it to the profitability of inventing most items that NEVER HAD a T2 BPO to begin with (heavy interdictors, black ops, marauders, electronic attack frigates and a LOT of T2 items). In quite a few cases, inventing the items that DO have a T2 BPO is actually noticeably more profitable than inventing those items that have no T2 BPOs.
In almost all cases where manufacturing from a T2 BPO is reasonably profitable, invention is also profitable.

5. The argument that "without T2 BPOs <something> would be better" is mostly invalid too.
Yes, I'll be the first to agree, without T2 BPOs, the market COULD support EVER SO SLIGHTLY MORE inventors. But only slightly more, not noticeably more. Not enough to justify wanting to get rid of them... because without T2 BPOs, there are drawbacks.
If your initial reaction is "what drawbacks ?", allow me to enlighten you : all items that are currently just barely profitable to manufacture from T2 BPOs will SPIKE, while barely offering any half-decent jobs for extra inventors since as a result of price spikes, volumes traded will go down.
For all practical intents and purposes, quite a few T2 items will become so expensive that most people will flock to better alternatives in roughly the same price range (which may not even be other T2 items), all but eliminating the market presence of those items.
On top of it all, since all production that was previously manufactured from BPOs (what's left of the market share, that is) will also suffer from increased manufacture cost, because the inherent WASTE of invented BPCs is higher, but moon mineral production capabilities have been and will continue to be capped (at least for a good while).
This means NOT ONLY will T2 prices of junk T2 spike, but T2 prices IN GENERAL will rise, yet inventors/manufacturers will see none of that extra money, since most of it goes to moon mining and reacting.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 00:12:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 22/12/2010 08:29:19

.

6. The argument that "invention was supposed to put newcomer competitors on even footing with former T2 BPO owners" is oh so very, very invalid.
Invention was NEVER supposed to put newcomers on even footing, not even CLOSE. All it was supposed to do was to break the monopolistic chock-hold and the price-gouging of T2 BPO cartels. And it did that spectacularly well.
If invention would have been supposed to put anybody even remotely on any even footing with T2 BPO owners, it would NOT have had a base of -4/-4 ME/PE, but 0/0 or even some positive values, or at least ME/PE levels of T1 BPCs would have been able to influence those.
If those things ever get put into place, sure, invention becomes ALMOST as decent as T2 BPO ownership (owning a BPO would still be much more convenient clicks-wise, but not so much else), and T2 BPOs become worth much less than they already are (the introduction of invention started the value decline in the first place), so much less that they wouldn't really need removal anymore.

7. The argument that "I don't have one so nobody should have one" is just silly.
There are plenty of things very few players could ever afford, but that was never a good enough reason to remove those items from the game.
Quite the contrary, limited-edition items keep getting introduced on a regular basis.


8. The argument that "newer players don't get anything valuable from research" is not accurate either.
The daily datacore trade volume is roughly 40 bil ISK per day. The total current value of T2 BPOs is around 20 trillion (or more, but point is, it has an upper bound). The lottery lasted years, invention will last forever from now on.
In the few years of datacore selling, it's quite likely the same rough total value has been "generated", and more and more will keep being pushed in as time goes on.
If anything, the AVERAGE income level from research is probably about the same (if not higher) nowadays compared to back during the end of the T2 BPO lottery days.
If a newer player misses it so much and really wants to "play the lottery", all he has to do is take the ISK he gets from selling the datacores his research yields and enter one of the many player-run lotteries, then use the ISK he might win there to buy a T2 BPO he wanted.

_

_

_


There is absolutely no GOOD reason to remove T2 BPOs, except out of spite, envy, or a completely misguided (and unfounded) sense of "justice".
Each and every rational argument as to why "T2 BPOs MUST go away" is never one that explains why they MUST go away, but why the individual making that argument doesn't like the idea somebody else has them (but he doesn't).


So, I repeat...

I CHALLENGE YOU TO :
A) FIND A GOOD REASON WHY T2 BPOs MUST BE REMOVED
B) DETERMINE A FAIR SYSTEM FOR THEIR REMOVAL
C) ARGUE WHY THE RESULTING SITUATION WOULD BE BETTER OVERALL THAN THE CURRENT ONE.


I posit that:
a) There are only invalid reasons, greedy/envious reasons, or misguided reasons.
b) Just about any possible "solution" to the non-existent "T2 BPO problem" are worse than the current situation.
c) The current situation is both fair and balanced from most possible viewpoints.

===

THE ACTUAL PROBLEM is a combination between invention waste and a severely limited supply of "bottleneck" moon minerals.
THE SOLUTION to that problem is first and foremost the introduction of alternative moon mineral procurement methods (be it through comet mining, allowing multiple extractors or better extractor models, additional alchemy reactions or so on and so forth), with a distant second being ways for invention to yield POSITIVE ME/PE levels even in the absence of decryptors (like, say, having T1 BPC ME/PE level affect T2 BPC ME/PE level, on top of maybe boosting base ME/PE level to 0/0 from the current -4/-4).
Fix that, and you "fix" the "T2 BPO problem" without even touching T2 BPOs at all.

Mal Lokrano
Gallente
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
Posted - 2010.07.29 00:17:00 - [3]
 

Good post Very Happy

A friend and I have invented for profit for nearly a year now and have had no problems. In fact, we have never understood the animosity towards T2 BPOs. I have always figured someday I'll buy one as a collectors item, but these days most t2 bpos are more so a collectors item than of actual use.

Heck, every year Eve continues to go t2 BPOs will continue to fall in market share until they become a small minority as no more will be added, and ever so slowly fewer are used for making stuff as their owners leave the game, leave the production business, or in very rare cases are destroyed in pvp action.

I will reference this post every time I see another nerf t2 BPO argument.

TooFatToFish
Posted - 2010.07.29 00:30:00 - [4]
 

6.I do not have any so no one should

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2010.07.29 00:34:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Mal Lokrano

A friend and I have invented for profit for nearly a year now and have had no problems.


4 plexes, fuel, and a few billion left over every month can't be too bad.

Well, ok. It's a hell of a lot of clicking, but worth it if you do the math.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 00:36:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2011 23:14:04
Quote:
there are no reasons for leaving them alone.

There don't need to be any, it's the default setting.
Still, there ARE reasons to leave them alone.

First, a lot of T2 item types will practically disappear from the marketplace if T2 BPOs are removed, because the invented cost is far above what the item is worth, leading to a drastic drop in volumes traded, down to next to nothing. Mostly modules and some ammo fits here in this category, but also some drones and quite a few ships.
We're talking about the items where even BPO owners can barely squeeze some profit, T2 BPOs that earn a lot less than much cheaper (and much more easily utilizable to full extent) freely available T1 BPOs. I think it would be foolish to claim anybody would stand to really profit from removing those T2 BPOs, and quite a few people will not like the end effect either.

Second, the removal of T2 ship BPOs (because modules use "extra" materials so it's not an issue) will mean whatever market share the BPOs were serving before (with a positive ME value and low wastage) now has to be serviced by invention with its inherent high wastage.
Since the supply of bottleneck moongoo (currently, technetium ; neodymium is far less of a bottleneck and also has a "pressure release" valve in form of alchemy, even if it's not YET profitable) is top-capped by the maximum number of moons that can produce it, also since the demand for T2 is usually on the upswing (population is constantly getting larger and older, SP-wise), this would result in a very unpleasant upwards jerk of all T2 prices, not just those mentioned before (which will be hit by a double whammy), which would lead to an even greater and faster imbalance in moongoo prices and so on and so forth.
While a few people MIGHT consider this a good thing, the vast majority of people should agree that it's not such a great idea (especially that last part, where CCP even expressed their position in a devblog before Dominion).

Last but not least, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), CCP has never outright REMOVED any class of items from players without first becoming absolutely convinced the servers would suffer greatly if they kept existing, even if those items were worth peanuts... let alone a large selection of items that hold significant value.
The only three instances when something was "removed" were the following :
* mines - they were causing dire lag and were interfering in very ugly ways with the aggression system leading to myriads of complaints and petitions - they were NOT removed, but were instead reduced to "unable to use in that way" status
* travel stargate bookmarks - they were causing severe database lag, most people had them anyway - and while on one hand they were indeed removed, their FUNCTIONALITY was granted for free to everybody at all times in the "warp to zero" option
* deep super-safespot bookmarks - their existence generated an imbalance in PvP (practically invulnerable ships IN SPACE fully able to grant their bonuses or assign their fighters) - they were NOT removed either, they were merely transformed in "regular" somewhat-deep safespot bookmarks instead by simply moving them closer to the star
If CCP would all of a sudden decide to go against all policy they championed so far, this would send an unhealthy signal to a lot of players, NOT just T2 BPO owners. Also there might be up to 10k T2 BPO owners. Even if most of them have a near worthless item (from a manufacturing standpoint), the collector item value of their blueprint is still there, so removing them outright (as opposed to transforming them in non- or limited-functionality items) would be a mistake.

So there you go, 3 serious reasons why T2 BPOs need to be left alone.
Buff invention instead.

EXTRA READING : LINKAGE

Umega
Solis Mensa
Posted - 2010.07.29 00:46:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 29/07/2010 00:38:14
Originally by: TooFatToFish
6.I do not have any so no one should

[sarcasm]
I don't have any State Issue Ravens nor Mimirs nor Frekis nor any other number of limited edition ships either, so nobody else should.
For that matter, I have no capital ship nor barge BPOs, so nobody else should have any either.
What, you say you can buy those from NPCs ? Ok, what about barge BPOs then ? I don't want to go to 0.0 ! So I can't buy those from NPCs and I have to buy them for players ? You can't force me to go to 0.0, but I sure a hell can force you to never have any such BPOs yourself !
[/sarcasm]
Rolling Eyes



No!

Leave my Freki's out of this. We already lost a couple. I'll work hard and strive to get one, some day. And she will bare my duct-taped childern. Embarassed

(didn't have to edit the sarcasm in, was obvious. But seriously.. leave the Frekis alone, everyone!)

Ruziel
Minmatar
Twilight Military Industrial Complex
Posted - 2010.07.29 00:55:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Akita T
[sarcasm]
I don't have any State Issue Ravens nor Mimirs nor Frekis nor any other number of limited edition ships either, so nobody else should.
For that matter, I have no capital ship nor barge BPOs, so nobody else should have any either.
What, you say you can buy those from NPCs ? Ok, what about barge BPOs then ? I don't want to go to 0.0 ! So I can't buy those from NPCs and I have to buy them for players ? You can't force me to go to 0.0, but I sure a hell can force you to never have any such BPOs yourself !
[/sarcasm]
Rolling Eyes



By the inclusion of a "6.", I do believe he was adding to your list of invalid arguments, not proffering a valid one.


"Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter." Laughing

Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
Posted - 2010.07.29 01:11:00 - [9]
 

I'll even give a reason to keep t2 BPOs: markets where profits are too thin for invention. If the profit margin is too thin, inventors will move to other more profitable markets. In this case, the only people likely to keep that market alive are teh owners of T2 BPOs.

Quote:
It does give them SOME advantage, in form of cheaper production cost... but it is by no means an UNFAIR advantage, as it comes at great cost


This is a great, but subtle point. Yes, there is an advantage in terms of production costs, but that advantage is going to be reflected in the purchase price, so the only person who truly captures this benefit is the person who initially won the BPO to begin with. Everyone else will have to recoup that cost via use of the BPO. If the market changes such that the BPO is no longer all that valuable save maybe as a collector item, that represents risk associated with the purchase of a BPO.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 01:33:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 15/03/2011 13:41:02


Originally by: Ruziel
By the inclusion of a "6.", I do believe he was adding to your list of invalid arguments, not proffering a valid one.

The response works either way, as both have mirrored ambiguity built in Wink


=======


ADDITIONAL READING PART 2 :
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1480020


======

Even more extra reading:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=479988&page=15#438
Oveur post from back in 2007 regarding NOT removing T2 BPOs.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.07.29 01:52:00 - [11]
 

I want T2 BPOs removed from the game by CCP because it is impossible to simply buy them and destroy them myself.
Rolling Eyes

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 02:04:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn
I want T2 BPOs removed from the game by CCP because it is impossible to simply buy them and destroy them myself.
Rolling Eyes

Hint for those below that are tempted to not "get" post like that one above : the " Rolling Eyes " smileys usually denote the use of sarcasm by the poster.

Qoi
Exert Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 02:29:00 - [13]
 

As everybody and his cow would start invention because "it must be profitable, there are no BPOs" and do so at a loss, we all would get cheap t2 items and modules to shoot each other in the face.

Not entirely serious. Thank you for your thread, i think many people will link it whenever someone finds out about this unimaginable unfair mechanic.

Full disclosure: happy inventor

Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
Posted - 2010.07.29 03:27:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Qoi


Full disclosure: happy inventor


FWIW, me too. Leave T2 BPOs, as a I see no reason to remove them.

Baka Lakadaka
Gallente
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.07.29 04:18:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Baka Lakadaka on 29/07/2010 04:20:15
I live in the somewhat forlorn hope that one day I'll make a kill on a ship that has T2 BPOs in it and that at least one of those BPOs drops as loot.

The chances of it are VERY small, as I'm not that prolific on the killboards (preferring cloaks over guns much of the time) and the areas that I travel (0.0 mostly) mean that T2 BPOs are very unlikely.

Still, don't kill my dream that one day I might get a T2 BPO in a loot drop and be rich forever more. Very Happy I'll never be able to justify buying one on the ROI they offer and I never did get lucky in the lottery.

Edit: I realise that I've gone against the OP's request for a GOOD reason to kill off T2 BPOs. My answer is not a good reason for anything, and it's a reason for the exact opposite. Anyway, it's still valid, I think.

Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.29 05:40:00 - [16]
 

Ok, since everyone is agreeing with Akita on this in this tread, I'll try and be the devil's advocate and actually try to come up with one. Actually, the best I can come up with is half-assed.. but it's at least not a BAD reason to get rid of them.

1. Clicking
Where as the inventor has to go through tons of clicks, getting stuff and putting it into his jobs, to make his T2 BPC, then slot his BPC for a limited number of runs into the manufacturing slot, the T2 BPO owner can just grab the stuff he needs to make his product, slot in the BPO, wait, and he's got product.

Considering I also agree as a newer player, that I don't see any point in getting rid of these T2 BPO's, this is the best I could come up with.

And while we're at it, can we get mass starting of extractors on PI, running all my colonies is a pain.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 05:55:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 29/07/2010 05:57:05
Originally by: Xearal
[...]1. Clicking : Whereas the inventor has to go through tons of clicks, getting stuff and putting it into his jobs, to make his T2 BPC, then slot his BPC for a limited number of runs into the manufacturing slot, the T2 BPO owner can just grab the stuff he needs to make his product, slot in the BPO, wait, and he's got product[...]

You know, that constant clicking is one of the few reasons module invention is slightly more profitable than ship invention. If the need for clicking would either go away or at least be severely reduced in frequency, it will actually decrease inventor slot-hour revenue levels for short-time jobs quite drastically (since you could easily constantly keep your entire lab slots filled with module invention, and that means less module inventors are needed overall), while doing very little for ship invention profitability.
Still, nothing says you can't "fix" the need for clicking in invention... like, say, be able to queue up several runs of identical invention jobs. Harder for CCP to code right now (and they don't seem to want to put the necessary manpower at work on something like that), but it wouldn't be impossible.
So... it's not a bad reason for improving invention in yet another way (and has actually been requested more than once), but it's no reason at all to remove T2 BPOs, and it won't really help inventors anyway from a profit standpoint (most likely, it would accomplish the exact opposite).

Max Cetera
Capital Researchs Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.29 07:34:00 - [18]
 

The only good time to remove T2 BPOs would have been when invention was introduced. Doing it now would be stupid for all the reasons Akita posted.

Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Blazing Angels Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.29 08:05:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Akita T
If anything, instead of arguing for the REMOVAL of T2 BPOs, all those starry-eyed unrealistic idealists should better focus on something else entirely : how to make INVENTION itself suck less.
As in, if nothing else, then at least be able to reduce the ME waste on invented blueprints down to negligible levels even without decryptor usage (not that you can get a positive ME nowadays either).


From my Thread a way to boost invention, instead of removing T2 BPOs

Quote:
Ok tldr version; Makes it so the Runs/ME/PE of the T1 BPCs effect the Runs/ME/PE of the outputed T2 BPCs.

Longer Version;
At the moment there is no effect on ship BPC invention. Lets use frigates for an example if you drop in a Max Run(30)/ME 50/PE 20 BPC you get out by default a 1 run/ME -4/PE -4 T2 BPC, which is exactly the same output that you would get from a 1 run/ME 0/PE 0 T1 BPC, to me this is just all manner of broken.

I think CCP should be encouraging the use of better BPCs for invention, I not sure on the specifics of what they should do, but even seeing a 1/10 output would be a good start. Example if you drop in a Max Run(30)/ME 50/PE 20 BPC you get out by default a 3 run/ME 5/PE 2 T2 BPC.

Using a direct 1/10 output is fine and dandy for the exact 10,20,30,etc levels but didn't allow for the 11,12,13,14,etc levels. Now given that you can't have a 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,etc output, maybe the remainder is a percentage chance to get +1, eg
11 gives 1 + (10% chance to get +1)
12 gives 1 + (20% chance to get +1)
and
23 gives 2 + (30% chance to get +1)
44 gives 4 + (40% chance to get +1)
etc etc etc

Also we can keep the existing decryptors and their effects.

(spin off from http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1283290 )


Cyniac
Gallente
Twilight Star Rangers
Posted - 2010.07.29 08:22:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Akita T

how to make INVENTION itself suck less.



When I read this a half-baked idea came to mind.

1) Increase the drop rate of decryptors substantially (say double it)
2) Allow the use of multiple decryptors in each invention job, with stacking bonuses.


Would that suck less?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 09:40:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 29/07/2010 09:52:53
Originally by: Cyniac
Originally by: Akita T
[...]how to make INVENTION itself suck less[...]

When I read this a half-baked idea came to mind.
1) Increase the drop rate of decryptors substantially (say double it)
2) Allow the use of multiple decryptors in each invention job, with stacking bonuses.
Would that make it suck less?

Sure, it would make invention suck slightly less indeed, but then again, all you get from this is just slightly cheaper T2 overall... inventors would still not make much extra ISK (if any at all), since their competition is with other inventors for markup is per time spent inventing, and all savings (from materials) would have to be passed down to consumers or else they wouldn't get sales since other inventors would just keep undercutting to get a sale themselves.
Also, existing decryptor stockpiles would lose quite a lot of value (roughly half of it, actually).
Heck, FWIW, you might as well instead just reset the -4/-4 base numbers of invention to 0/0 (or even +1/+1 for all I care), and you'd get a better effect in the same direction without some of the side-effects... and far, FAR less coding effort.
In other words, yup, like you said, half-baked Wink

P.S. Added/clarified 2 extra invalid arguments Smile

Richard Christy
Posted - 2010.07.29 10:55:00 - [22]
 

The mechanic that handed them out was deemed crap/stupid/a nonsense etc, so CCP removed it. If anything, they should have left it in, unless they were going to give people another alternative.

And saying "you can buy one" is moot, since not everyone can buy one. If there's 100 BPOs out there, only 100 people at most can buy one.

Here's how you put an end to the controversy; put them on market. Make invention produce T3 stuff.

TheBlueMonkey
Gallente
Fags R Us
Posted - 2010.07.29 11:17:00 - [23]
 

But this has only just kicked off again and I was looking forward to all the thinly veiled "I don't have money so I can't get them" arguments that it usually boils down to.

Richard Christy
Posted - 2010.07.29 11:44:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: TheBlueMonkey
But this has only just kicked off again and I was looking forward to all the thinly veiled "I don't have money so I can't get them" arguments that it usually boils down to.


And in the past it didn't need to "boil down to money", due to a crap idea. Now it does. Something's amiss there.

For the record, I don't invent, and I don't build. But I did "win" 2 BPOs, and promptly sold them for 20b. I am unbiased, because I have no interest in keeping or getting rid of T2 BPOs, I just think something's not right.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.07.29 12:08:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 29/07/2010 12:10:47
Originally by: Richard Christy
And saying "you can buy one" is moot, since not everyone can buy one. If there's 100 BPOs out there, only 100 people at most can buy one.

No, it's not moot even in that case.
You don't have to bid the most. You can bid less than 99 others, just make sure you bid more than the 100th person.
And at the current price levels, I seriously doubt there ARE enough prospective buyers for all the available BPOs anyway.
Originally by: Richard Christy
in the past it didn't need to "boil down to money", due to a crap idea. Now it does. Something's amiss there. For the record, I don't invent, and I don't build. But I did "win" 2 BPOs, and promptly sold them for 20b

So you're actually saying that almost immediately after you won them in the lottery, while the lottery was still running...
...IT DID boil down to money anyway, at least for you and the other person Twisted Evil
BTW, most of the lottery winners did pretty much the same thing you did.

clixoras
Posted - 2010.07.29 12:16:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: clixoras on 29/07/2010 12:18:52
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 29/07/2010 05:57:05
Originally by: Xearal
[...]1. Clicking : Whereas the inventor has to go through tons of clicks, getting stuff and putting it into his jobs, to make his T2 BPC, then slot his BPC for a limited number of runs into the manufacturing slot, the T2 BPO owner can just grab the stuff he needs to make his product, slot in the BPO, wait, and he's got product[...]

You know, that constant clicking is one of the few reasons module invention is slightly more profitable than ship invention. If the need for clicking would either go away or at least be severely reduced in frequency, it will actually decrease inventor slot-hour revenue levels for short-time jobs quite drastically (since you could easily constantly keep your entire lab slots filled with module invention, and that means less module inventors are needed overall), while doing very little for ship invention profitability.
Still, nothing says you can't "fix" the need for clicking in invention... like, say, be able to queue up several runs of identical invention jobs. Harder for CCP to code right now (and they don't seem to want to put the necessary manpower at work on something like that), but it wouldn't be impossible.
So... it's not a bad reason for improving invention in yet another way (and has actually been requested more than once), but it's no reason at all to remove T2 BPOs, and it won't really help inventors anyway from a profit standpoint (most likely, it would accomplish the exact opposite).



I DONT agree. The limiting factor of invention is mainly datacores and bpc's (and logistics of them), if i plan to 'execute' an invention run i will bite the bullet and fill those slots unless RL life intervenes (and/or my WL mouse runs out of power, which happens.. often).

Although module invention in a POS goes quite fast, you can't queue the next batch. Your 'proposal' for next batch queue-ing WOULD actually increase invention BPC output dramatically because if have a few thousand DC en T1 BPC's in my hangar i could just queue them all.

Technically you can already queue them (up to your slot limit) so i don't see what's the problem there.

In short, what i really like to see is that you can start 9/10/11/whatever invention jobs at once. Again the skill of it lies in the logistics behind it, mouse-clicking for the sake of it is just stupid.

Xessej
Posted - 2010.07.29 13:24:00 - [27]
 

The only valid argument is that removing T2 BPO's would eliminate the never ending stream of threads on the forum complaining about T2 BPO's.

I think the problem with invention is the psychological effect of that -4/-4. Also most people haven't really looked at the copying times of t2 BPO's to realize you can't simply mass produce copies to manufacture from to swamp the market with product.

Nobzy
Posted - 2010.07.29 13:26:00 - [28]
 

I hereby challenge anyone to give me 7 reasons why this should not be a sticky.

Also, a question. Is there anyone who has ever beaten Akita T in an industrial argument?

Mr LaForge
Posted - 2010.07.29 13:33:00 - [29]
 

Those damn T1 BPOs are ruining my margins.
Razz

Vilgan Mazran
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.07.29 13:52:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Vilgan Mazran on 29/07/2010 13:54:54
More as an intellectual exercise...

A) T2 BPOs are detrimental because they create jealousy/envy/whatever but at NO RISK TO THE HOLDER. Every other item (that I can think of) that can no longer be acquired in game must be exposed to risk to utilize it. Existing AT ships, for example, are awesome and you can't get one except from buying it from other players. However, if you undock in it you expose the ship to the risk of getting blown up. If you don't undock in it you gain no tangible benefit other than the "I have expensive collectible 2382" feeling.

Instead, T2 BPOs can be happily utilized without ever leaving a station and without ever wearing out. There is no chance (barring unnecessary stupidity) that those who ARE jealous/envious/whatever will get the satisfaction of blowing one up.

B) I think actually removing them is an inferior option. I personally prefer the following solutions in order of preference:

1) T2 BPOs can not be utilized in a station. To utilize a T2 BPO, the T2 BPO must be in the POS (no building in stations).
2) Conversion to high run BPCs. By high run, I mean like 5-6 years worth of runs.
3) Disabling of T2 BPOs building functionality. So it has no risk of dying still but it is converted to full collectible status.

C) I think it would be improved because T2 BPOs would stop sticking out as a strange "benefit with no risk" legacy item. While the risk would be pretty low, it would still exist. It would also reduce the bimonthly "get rid of T2 BPOs!!" threads in the forums.

That said, I don't think its a big deal and improved invention ME/PE would reduce the attractiveness of T2 BPOs sufficiently to kill most of the drama about them imo.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (40)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only