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: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

Faccat
Posted - 2010.09.10 03:16:00 - [301]
 

Points 1 & 2 are incorrect.

1 & 2. Newer players don't have the opportunity older players were granted. True, most older players didn't get a payout, but that's just tough luck. They still had an opportunity with an expected payout greater than zero (regarding T2 BPO's). A new player has an expected payout for research equal to zero. The advantage is clearly in favor of the older player who actually did research. The argument may be made that this advantage was very small and equaled zero for the vast majority and the game is just going to move on.

It all hinges on your argument that newer players have the same opportunities as older players. This is disingenuous as it is in response to the complaint that Newer players don't get a shot at the lottery. One group got to buy lottery tickets, now everyone can only buy used, losing tickets. If someone offered you a losing lottery ticket with the argument "most everyone loses anyway" it wouldn't be quite as appealing as one with a chance to win.

3. Tech II BPO's give a huge advantage. Costs are easily determined and guaranteed to be lower. You argue that tech II BPO's are overvalued (resulting in a low ROI), but that is a different argument. The counter for invention to the imbalanced competition against BPO's is that an industrialist can invent whatever they want. Avoidance rather than competition. That means invention can easily be valid, it doesn't mean it's a fair competition.


As to how you get rid of something which may have been a mistake to dole out in the first place, I don't have an answer to that. A compelling reason may just be "that's the way it is, move on." A middle ground might be acknowledgment of what T2 BPO's exist, although people seem fairly sure of this.

I'm just now getting into invention and I've looked into T2 BPO's. All the prices I've seen don't reflect the current prices of modules in high sec.

In conclusion:
1. Current system works - don't mess with it.
2. Distribution to a new player has a zero chance instead of miniscule. You call this "fair" many others don't.
3. Inventors need to avoid going head to head with T2 BPO's. This shouldn't even be an issue since they should be running their numbers before hand.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.10 11:19:00 - [302]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 10/09/2010 11:40:24

Nitpick:
Originally by: Faccat
[...]A new player has an expected payout for research equal to zero.[...]

You seem to be forgetting the fact people keep doing research now too, and it's not because the payout of research is equal to zero - datacores sell quite well.
There are on average roughly 50k mecheng datacores being traded on a daily basis in "The Forge" alone, and quite a lot of other types of datacores and in other regions, putting the DAILY trade volume to at least 40 billion ISK EVE-wide, if not more.
The CURRENT value of all T2 BPOs combined is probably somewhere around 20 trillion ISK or thereabouts (might be noticeably more, but I doubt it), so in 500 days of combined game-wide research (or longer, but still a finite amount), the same amount of "equivalent income" might probably be enabled... and the lottery lasted A LOT LONGER than that, and it had a very accelerated end too.
If anything, the research payout nowadays is on average at least the same (of not higher) compared to what it used to be during the end of the T2 BPO lottery times, and it's not random at all.
Yes, no single player doing research will hit the jackpot of a VALUABLE T2 BPO, but on average, the researching player might as well actually earn more ISK than somebody back in the day.

If newer people want a shot at a lottery, there's PLENTY of honest player-run lotteries around.
Just use the ISK you get from datacores to enter multiple lotteries, and you have just about the same overall situation/chances an older player had with the T2 BPO lottery.
Twisted Evil


You know, minor nitpick, most of the rest of what you said makes sense.
It was just that one small bit (and derived conclusion) that made me twitch a little.
P.S. It's now up in the OP too Wink

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.10 14:16:00 - [303]
 

Logic does not work, because EVE is not a logic game. It would be possible to introduce larger freighters, with twice the cargo size and only half the speed of current freighters (triple prices, lesser agility, etc.), and one could explain logically how to make these new freighters fit into the game. One could also ask for faction freighters. Yet, there is no need to introduce them.

For the same reason can one not logically explain why T2 BPOs should stay in the game while it has invention.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.10 14:54:00 - [304]
 

Edited by: Jovialmadness on 10/09/2010 15:28:10

Originally by: Whitehound
Logic does not work, because EVE is not a logic game. It would be possible to introduce larger freighters, with twice the cargo size and only half the speed of current freighters (triple prices, lesser agility, etc.), and one could explain logically how to make these new freighters fit into the game. One could also ask for faction freighters. Yet, there is no need to introduce them.

For the same reason can one not logically explain why T2 BPOs should stay in the game while it has invention.


The united states backing the mujahideen back in the 80's was right at the time. Seemed like a great idea. Now some might argue it seems like it could have been a bad idea. The only other option was to allow the soviets to win. Looking back almost everyone agrees its implementation could have been better if we hadnt been so covert about it. We could have gotten the same result with perhaps a better outcome for their people so this crazy crap hapoening now wouldnt have happened.

T2 bpos seemed like a great idea at the time and still are due to this game being all about unique items and collectability. Looking back only a small group of whiners think they were a bad idea. EVERYONE, pretty much, agrees the lottery was a bad idea. Debating on whether the bpos were a bad idea is pointless because of how CCP utilizes rarity. That point is NOT debateable. If you even try i point you to CCP's continued insertion of rare unique items. Dont even try to bring up the differences between them. Rare is rare. Limited is limited. Age and usefulness were and are the only differences.

The LOTTERY was what was broken. CCP knew it, and needed to bust up the cartels hence invention. Do you honestly think CCP will remove them now after brainstorming, developing and inserting invention just because you are butt hurt over not being able to get them as easily as a tech 1 bpo?

Grow a pair, stop posting forever and get some ambition. You are an awful debater and need a reality check on what this game was, is and will be......

Not anything close to what you think..




yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
Posted - 2010.09.10 14:58:00 - [305]
 

If T2 BPO's were removed from the game then I'd like to see them replaced by some other form of shiny.

We have faction ships, unique ships and modules that very few players will ever own. If trade and industry are a form of pvp there needs to be similar rewards, stuff you can hang on the wall to remind others that their epeen is smaller than yours.

I don't have great ideas in this respect but do know that I'd like to own a T2 BPO at some point, not for profit but for fun, it may sound strange to rate fun higher than profit but some of us are odd like that.

If you can't make money from invention then you're doing something horribly wrong. Newer players can make money, buy advanced characters and buy T2 BPO's but you know what, that route is hard. Older players who are now stinking rich had to work their way up the greasy pole but you know what, their route was just as hard. Sure they got the BPO lottery but do you know how f'ing hard it used to be to own a battleship?

Unless you have exceptional talent a 1 year old player should not be as advanced as a 6 year old player but the point is you have the opportunity to be exceptional. If you're not exceptional then you'll just have to play for another 5 years and work for your fortune like everyone else, during that time new players will enter the game and you in turn will be accused of having it easy.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.10 15:01:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 10/09/2010 15:06:58
Originally by: Whitehound
Logic does not work, because EVE is not a logic game. It would be possible to introduce larger freighters, with twice the cargo size and only half the speed of current freighters (triple prices, lesser agility, etc.), and one could explain logically how to make these new freighters fit into the game. One could also ask for faction freighters. Yet, there is no need to introduce them.

Actually, that can also be logically explained.
And it's a similar logic to that behind NOT introducing even larger pure mining vessels.

First off, one of the main reasons you don't want an even larger freighter is so that you can't move smaller capships around in freighters (via contract shrinkwraps).
Then again that could be solved by increasing capship volume even more, so they no longer fit even in those larger freighters.

Second, the "usefulness" of freighters comes mainly from a "volume moved per time spent moving" ratio, slightly adjusted for trip length (one single trip that moves 2 mil m^3 in two hours is better than two one-hour trips that move 1 mil m^3 each). By introducing larger freighters, you alter the best value of that ratio, lowering potential revenue of all other movers.
Then again, you could make those 2 times roomier freighters warp slightly less than two times as slow as older freighters and align less than twice as slow. However, that would make them barely more useful overall compared to regular freighters, and in most cases, actually to be avoided (outside of highsec anyway) thanks to the awful align times. And we certainly don't need even easier hauling in empire.

Third, there's the issue of cost, both in ship cost and in skilling time, linked to the point directly above.
It only feels natural to make them cost more and need slightly more skill training, so one would expect them to be more useful overall. Then again, we already seen you can't make them noticeably more useful without causing other problems, so you start questioning the worth of even having them at all in the first place.

In the end, you reach the same LOGICAL conclusion you have also reached : there is no need to introduce them, because they'll either break some stuff (if they're noticeably better) or next to nobody will use them if they're not noticeably better (so why bother introducing them other than "for fluff").

You could still introduce them though, but only with proper balancing, and in case proper balancing would be achieved, the community response would be an overwhelming "MEH", after artists spent time with the models and other such things (even if the time spent is just a minor rescaling of existing freighter models and a new paint job).
Faction freighters though, that would actually be a nice idea - ever so slightly smaller and with a bit more HP. THOSE could be quite useful. Although the pricetag would most likely render them barely ever used. And the same "dev time" argument still applies.

So again, no real need to bother introducing them, unless you've run out of better ideas.
And it has a perfectly logical explanation based on gameplay issues and development priorities.

Originally by: Whitehound
Logic does not work, because EVE is not a logic game.

This bears repeating and answering again.
EVE is a game punctuated by raw emotion, true.
But at its core, it's a PURELY LOGICAL game.
There is nothing in it that didn't (at the time it was introduced) make logical sense.
And everything that's done is done with logic in mind first - the only reason it might appear non-logical to "the general public // the untrained eye" is because some bits and pieces of information needed to reach the same logical conclusion are not readily//easily available to people outside CCP.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.10 15:12:00 - [307]
 

Thats whats so awesome about eve yani. I, along with most bpo holders currently, never got a bpo from the lottery. The VAST majority of current T2 bpo holders bought them post invention. It hapoened like this:

1. During the lottery some bpo's were sold for massive amounts of isk mainly to other holders keeping them "in the family". I doubt many average joes like me had a chance. Wallet sizes were alot smaller back then. Only big aliances and cartels(one in the same really back then) had a chance to get them.

2. Invention was announced and the fire sales started. This was the first opportunity for average joe blow to get into the T2 bpo market. Granted it was still speculation im sure some lottery winners held onto their bpos but not many.

3. Post invention only the super best bpos are held onto tightly but still get sold once a year or so. I.e. Hulk/command ships/epic module bpos. You can guess which ones are hot by how often you see them for sale. At this point most of the rest of the lottery winners saw their profits turn to pennies on the dollar in comparison to the olden days. Example being 20-25 mil for a cap recharger 2 dropping to what it is today. Even if profits spike for a particlar bpo holder, it wont be long before inventors swoop in and stabilize it.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.10 16:41:00 - [308]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 17:04:03
Originally by: Jovialmadness
...

I do not care about US politics, sorry. I also do not argue about the past. So most of what you wrote is rant to me.

It also does not need unique items to make EVE work. If you like to keep them as unique items then I respect your opinion. It just is not mine. I still want to see them removed.

The point of my argument is that logic is not going to give you an answer.

Originally by: Jovialmadness
Grow a pair, stop posting forever and get some ambition. You are an awful debater and need a reality check on what this game was, is and will be......

Not anything close to what you think..

I would only write this if I was a bad loser.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.10 16:55:00 - [309]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Actually, that can also be logically explained.
And it's a similar logic to that behind NOT introducing even larger pure mining vessels.
...
And it has a perfectly logical explanation based on gameplay issues and development priorities.

You argue with yourself here, which is quite mental tbh. What is the point of it?

Quote:
EVE is a game punctuated by raw emotion, true.

Thanks.

Quote:
But at its core, it's a PURELY LOGICAL game.

It is a computer game, but what is your point here? Do you want machines that need to be programmed illogically?

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.10 17:15:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 17:04:03
Originally by: Jovialmadness
...

I do not care about US politics, sorry. I also do not argue about the past. So most of what you wrote is rant to me.

It also does not need unique items to make EVE work. If you like to keep them as unique items then I respect your opinion. It just is not mine. I still want to see them removed.

The point of my argument is that logic is not going to give you an answer.

Originally by: Jovialmadness
Grow a pair, stop posting forever and get some ambition. You are an awful debater and need a reality check on what this game was, is and will be......

Not anything close to what you think..

I would only write this if I was a bad loser.


1. I dont need you to respect my opinion. Yours sucks so bad i just want to call you out on it.

2. Ill be the loser...sure. Doesnt change the fact you need to grow a pair.


Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.10 17:52:00 - [311]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 17:52:27
Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. I dont need you to respect my opinion. Yours sucks so bad i just want to call you out on it.

2. Ill be the loser...sure. Doesnt change the fact you need to grow a pair.

What do you want with my genitals? I do not see how they fit into this discussion.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.10 18:07:00 - [312]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 17:52:27
Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. I dont need you to respect my opinion. Yours sucks so bad i just want to call you out on it.

2. Ill be the loser...sure. Doesnt change the fact you need to grow a pair.

What do you want with my genitals? I do not see how they fit into this discussion.



Not taking that bait. You need to go with the accepted flow LHA and stop this. Make some isk, create a goal and achieve. Trying to ransack an aspect of a game because of perceived unfairness is cowardly and dumb.

That is all.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.10 18:38:00 - [313]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 18:52:24
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Not taking that bait. You need to go with the accepted flow LHA and stop this. Make some isk, create a goal and achieve. Trying to ransack an aspect of a game because of perceived unfairness is cowardly and dumb.

That is all.

I have ISKs, I have goals and achieve them, and still do I not need T2 BPOs. And I doubt that I will ever need them.

What is it you are saying??? Your are making less and less sense.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.10 19:03:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 18:52:24
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Not taking that bait. You need to go with the accepted flow LHA and stop this. Make some isk, create a goal and achieve. Trying to ransack an aspect of a game because of perceived unfairness is cowardly and dumb.

That is all.

I have ISKs, I have goals and achieve them, and still do I not need T2 BPOs. And I doubt that I will ever need them.

What is it you are saying??? Your are making less and less sense.


So i suppose the following is how you really see my posts...


Blah foogy whitehound. ***ly bkah blah remove tech 2 bpos pooily blah blah beh googy unfair blah? Removing blah bloogy tech 2 bpos blah goofle blah poopa whitehounds only solution blah!

You see only what you want to in these rediculous debates.

And im calling you out LHA. I could ve wrong but whitehound sprung up right after LHA caved in. Both with the exact same smack and "no you are wrong" style.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.10 19:04:00 - [315]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Whitehound
Logic does not work, because EVE is not a logic game. [...]

[...]it has a perfectly logical explanation based on gameplay issues and development priorities.[...]

You argue with yourself here, which is quite mental tbh. What is the point of it?
[...]

You claim logic does not work since EVE is not a logic game.
Which I contradict and explain that it is mainly a logic-based game with some emotional overtones.
I am not arguing with myself, I am arguing with you.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.10 19:28:00 - [316]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 19:28:46
Originally by: Akita T
You claim logic does not work since EVE is not a logic game.
Which I contradict and explain that it is mainly a logic-based game with some emotional overtones.

No. EVE is a PvP-game and there is little logic to it. It is all about fun, revenge, grief, loss, success, etc.. A logic game is one where you need to apply logic in order to win and where applying logic is the only way to win it. In EVE you win, because you have the superior numbers of players on your side. And you will not get a superior, winning number of players through logic, but by being fun.

Quote:
I am not arguing with myself, I am arguing with you.

No, you were arguing with yourself when you tried to argue against my example with the freighter. You brought arguments pro and contra both at the same time almost as if you wanted to show how futile it is to argue with you. It was however only an example for something that could work logically while being unnecessary. I could create many more of such examples.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.10 19:52:00 - [317]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 10/09/2010 20:08:05

Originally by: Whitehound
No, you were arguing with yourself when you tried to argue against my example with the freighter. [...] only an example for something that could work logically while being unnecessary. I could create many more of such examples.

It certainly sounded like you were using it as an example to show EVE is somehow non-logical, otherwise it would have had no place there, a complete non-sequitur.
And no, you don't need to create examples of things that "could be logical but are unnecessary", that's pointless.
What you need to do is create examples that show somehow that EVE is inherently NON-LOGICAL, or at least that non-logical things prevail in either frequency or importance over logical things.

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Akita T
You claim logic does not work since EVE is not a logic game.
Which I contradict and explain that it is mainly a logic-based game with some emotional overtones.

No. EVE is a PvP-game and there is little logic to it. It is all about fun, revenge, grief, loss, success, etc.. A logic game is one where you need to apply logic in order to win and where applying logic is the only way to win it. In EVE you win, because you have the superior numbers of players on your side. And you will not get a superior, winning number of players through logic, but by being fun.

The MOTIVATION of the players to do things might not be completely logical, but emotional-based. That doesn't mean the game is non-logical.
The actions of most players ARE logical for the most part, and they are so in response to logical game rules, and so on and so forth.

It is logical to bring more people (as many people as you can), because it gives you higher chances of winning and lower chances of dying. What is NOT logical is to "go have fun" with only a handful of people. Quite a lot of people sacrifice the "fun" of roaming freedom for the cold logic of "this I have to put up with in order to increase my chances to win". That's how "blobs" are born. And that's why there isn't one week where somebody doesn't complain that "solo PvP is dead". Yes, some people do go roaming to "just have fun", but they don't do that exclusively, or most people don't. Most people play the game in a mostly logical fashion, because that's how they "stay in play" with least wasted effort.
You get superior numbers by being successful in EVE, and that implies acting in a logical fashion, achieving goals set by emotional drives. Still mostly logical, overall.
It is logical to only invent or manufacture stuff if by manufacturing it you increase the value (or at least make it much more likely to move). If most of the people would NOT be logical, then invention and manufacture as a whole would be completely unprofitable. But they aren't. The majority of people acts in a logical manner. Exceptions do exist, but they are short-lived.
As a whole, statistically speaking, the EVE community acts MOSTLY logical MOST of the time.

I could go on and on about how most of the people that play the game play it much more like a strategy game rather than a first person shooter, logic first, reactions second.
But I think I made my point.
Hopefully.

You wouldn't call a RTS "non-logical", would you ?
Or... WOULD you ? Where exactly do you draw the line between "logical" and "non-logical" games ?
Where's your personal cutoff point in this particular viewpoint ?
Do you consider ALL games inherently non-logical, just because they're games ?

Ball, your court.

Llyandrian
Amarr
Livestock Science Exchange
Posted - 2010.09.10 22:18:00 - [318]
 

Edited by: Llyandrian on 10/09/2010 22:22:45


Most T2 BPOs are idle because they are unprofitable.

T3 invention is much bigger problem of insane profitability.

Onker
Minmatar
Infinite Improbability Inc
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2010.09.11 07:55:00 - [319]
 

I want the hour of my life that I wasted trying to make sense of this pointless and rather moronic thread back.

Whitehound, your posts read like a 5 year old whining because some other kid has a toy and if you don't have it you don't think anyone else should have it.

T2 bpo's are not broken, though some were awarded via a broken system, but the bpo's themselves do not unbalance the playability of the game, nor contribute to a destabilization of the market in Eve. Therefore your argument bears a strong resemblance to a man urinating into an oncoming gale force wind.

I congratulate you on stretching out a thread that should have been truncated probably about page 3.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.11 08:05:00 - [320]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 11/09/2010 08:10:02
Originally by: Onker
Whitehound, your posts read like a 5 year old whining because some other kid has a toy and if you don't have it you don't think anyone else should have it.

When you read a comment then the voice you hear in your head is your own. It is not the voice of the one who wrote the comment. So any whining you hear is that of your own voice in your head. Think about it for a while before you respond.

Dtail
Amarr
Posted - 2010.09.11 09:59:00 - [321]
 

Originally by: Whitehound

When you read a comment then the voice you hear in your head is your own. It is not the voice of the one who wrote the comment. So any whining you hear is that of your own voice in your head. Think about it for a while before you respond.


*Some drumming just to make everyone wait littlebit longer* ..... NO U!

Llyandrian
Amarr
Livestock Science Exchange
Posted - 2010.09.11 11:28:00 - [322]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 11/09/2010 08:10:02
Originally by: Onker
Whitehound, your posts read like a 5 year old whining because some other kid has a toy and if you don't have it you don't think anyone else should have it.

When you read a comment then the voice you hear in your head is your own. It is not the voice of the one who wrote the comment. So any whining you hear is that of your own voice in your head. Think about it for a while before you respond.


Onker's proposition confirmed by response.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.11 12:35:00 - [323]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 11/09/2010 12:35:24
Originally by: Llyandrian
Onker's proposition confirmed by response.

No. I already wrote that I do not have any T2 BPOs and that I do not need them. I also gave good reason as to why they should be removed. It is then not my fault when others respond with idle rant and false hurt.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.11 17:17:00 - [324]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 11/09/2010 12:35:24
Originally by: Llyandrian
Onker's proposition confirmed by response.

No. I already wrote that I do not have any T2 BPOs and that I do not need them. I also gave good reason as to why they should be removed. It is then not my fault when others respond with idle rant and false hurt.



Hows this for hurt.

You are completely incapable of understanding that the only confirmed reason, agreed upon by a majority of players, is that haters hate and the reason they hate is jealousy.

Your "i think they should be removed because they are bad" arguement makes you look like probably the dumbest player ive ever seen post on this topic. Except maybe LHA.

You cannot see that because you ride the short bus bro. Honestly i think you do.

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2010.09.11 18:27:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: Carl Stonewall
Edited by: Carl Stonewall on 31/07/2010 22:27:23
Edited by: Carl Stonewall on 31/07/2010 22:25:24
Originally by: Voogru


The primary reason the inventards want to get rid of T2 bpos is because they are in competition with them, and they believe that the T2 BPO owners hurt their profits. Increasing the amount of production that can be done with invention will flood the market with more invention goods, driving down prices and profit margins even more.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your proving the point that the current system is unfair... what your saying is that the market will drive prices down and reduce profit margins... So logically you must agree that this system is not viable, since by your own words there will be "too" much supply if the BPO's were removed. which of course is not possible, cause then it would be the market setting the prices, not a few lucky players with an unfair edge


And dont tell me its not unfair and that i can just buy the BPO's if that was the case you wouldent have a problem with CCP buying all the BPO's for market prices to get rid of BPO's would you ? because then problem is solved :)


My problem with this is that eve is advertised as a sandbox game, there is really nothing sandbox about a few ppl getting to control what kind of sandcastles you can build in the sandbox.


This guys has a very good point is there any good counter ?

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.11 18:37:00 - [326]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 11/09/2010 18:38:16
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Hows this for hurt.

You are completely incapable of understanding that the only confirmed reason, agreed upon by a majority of players, is that haters hate and the reason they hate is jealousy.

Your "i think they should be removed because they are bad" arguement makes you look like probably the dumbest player ive ever seen post on this topic. Except maybe LHA.

You cannot see that because you ride the short bus bro. Honestly i think you do.

You are the hater here, not me. I cannot help you. I still want to see the T2 BPOs removed.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.11 19:05:00 - [327]
 

Originally by: Rip Minner
Originally by: Carl Stonewall
Originally by: Voogru
The primary reason the inventards want to get rid of T2 bpos is because they are in competition with them, and they believe that the T2 BPO owners hurt their profits. Increasing the amount of production that can be done with invention will flood the market with more invention goods, driving down prices and profit margins even more.

Your proving the point that the current system is unfair... what your saying is that the market will drive prices down and reduce profit margins... So logically you must agree that this system is not viable, since by your own words there will be "too" much supply if the BPO's were removed. which of course is not possible, cause then it would be the market setting the prices, not a few lucky players with an unfair edge

This guys has a very good point is there any good counter ?

Not really, he's just responding to a particularly easy to attack wording. The problem is that Voogru was technically (at least partially) wrong, while still being mostly right (in practice, anyway). Let's break it down...

What Voogru was right about : in the short run, if the T2 BPOs would get removed and that specific news is going to get serious exposure (which is almost guaranteed to be true in case it would ever happen), then indeed, for those specific items where T2 BPOs just got removed, wannabe inventors would flock like crazy towards them without bothering to do the math first (because they'd automatically assume "it HAS to be profitable to invent now, there are no more BPOs"), which will lead to an excess of product on the market, which will lead to price-wars that would lead to a huge depression of the price, minimizing profit margins (at best, because the more likely scenario would be most stuff will sell at a net loss for a while).
What Voogru was wrong about : in the long run, prices will end up being slightly higher than they are right now, thanks to overall increased waste (no more BPOs which are negligible-waste compared to the typical invented run) and since the bottleneck will be remaining at the moon mineral extraction stage, that means overall amount of products possible on the market will go down while prices will go a bit upwards (at least the entirety of the products on the market would be invented, as opposed to only a portion of them, like now).

Now onwards to what Carl Stonewall said...

What C.S. was right about : that what Voogru said made no sense in the context he framed it in
What C.S. was wrong about : that BPO owners somehow "set the price" of T2 items - while partially true (for markets where invention is utterly unprofitable), that is completely incorrect for markets where invention is even borderline profitable (namely, just about ANY market that has a non-negligible volume).

Either way, inventors will always compete with inventors, and in the end, other than transitional situations in which it might go overall up or down, the revenue level of inventors will remain mostly the same it is now, that being "not bad, but not much either".
Without T2 BPOs, there would be more of them working, but they'd still each earn about as much as they do nowadays.
They could end up earning more (if there would be too little interest among pilots to get into invention, but that's highly doubtful), or they could end up earning less (if enough pilots remain interested, and the increase in prices lowers demand of T2 products noticeably... something that is also very doubtful)... in the long run, differences in the inventor profession income levels would be negligible.


As for the other two snipped paragraphs by C.S., those were already tackled multiple times before in this thread, so I won't bother rehashing it, since the bulk of the argument was about the first paragraph.

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2010.09.11 19:30:00 - [328]
 

Edited by: Rip Minner on 11/09/2010 19:35:21
Edited by: Rip Minner on 11/09/2010 19:32:15
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Rip Minner
In much the same way tech 2 replaced alot of older ships too.

Not quite that much. In PvP, you still see a truckload of T1 ships. Even if T2 BSs do exist, T1 BSs are still among the most used PvP ships, and Tech 1 tier 2 BCs are also very popular.



Lets though my Edit in there as that explains why:)
Edit: The ships Tech 2 replaced still get used becouse there are cheaper witch is a good thing for pvp or if you pvp alot

And its my own personal opion that Black Ops sucks. ugh

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2010.09.11 19:44:00 - [329]
 

In the end its pointless to debate this as CCP is never going to remove them. Thats just how I feel about it.ugh

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.11 22:38:00 - [330]
 

I may not know a lot about BPO's but...

I am a professional Sniper!


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : 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