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 : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

CCP Jericho

Posted - 2010.09.12 09:54:00 - [331]
 

Inappropriate post removed.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.09.12 12:59:00 - [332]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 12/09/2010 12:59:29
The two main reasons for removing T2 BPO's from the game:
  1. To level the playing field... There are a lot of areas where invention is not feasible as BPO's cover the entire area.
  2. To hear the cries of anguish from T2 BPO owners when they get nerfed...
Best solution would IMHO be to raise the ME of invented BPC's to 0, AND make some way they can be researched. BPO's should still have an edge, but no way as huge as today.

Narfas Deteis
Posted - 2010.09.12 14:41:00 - [333]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 12/09/2010 12:59:29
The two main reasons for removing T2 BPO's from the game:
  1. To level the playing field... There are a lot of areas where invention is not feasible as BPO's cover the entire area.
  2. To hear the cries of anguish from T2 BPO owners when they get nerfed...
Best solution would IMHO be to raise the ME of invented BPC's to 0, AND make some way they can be researched. BPO's should still have an edge, but no way as huge as today.


Uh, another one.
As mentioned many times before, such idea would DECREASE inventors' and manufacturers' profits.
Go away.

Faccat
Posted - 2010.09.12 15:39:00 - [334]
 

Originally by: Narfas Deteis
Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 12/09/2010 12:59:29
The two main reasons for removing T2 BPO's from the game:
  1. To level the playing field... There are a lot of areas where invention is not feasible as BPO's cover the entire area.
  2. To hear the cries of anguish from T2 BPO owners when they get nerfed...
Best solution would IMHO be to raise the ME of invented BPC's to 0, AND make some way they can be researched. BPO's should still have an edge, but no way as huge as today.


Uh, another one.
As mentioned many times before, such idea would DECREASE inventors' and manufacturers' profits.
Go away.



So eliminating a force which drives down prices would decrease profits?

Your logic is that more people would start inventing, driving down profits? So more people would participate in a market with less profit? I don't follow this one.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.09.12 16:26:00 - [335]
 

Originally by: Narfas Deteis
Originally by: Kerfira
The two main reasons for removing T2 BPO's from the game:
  1. To level the playing field... There are a lot of areas where invention is not feasible as BPO's cover the entire area.
  2. To hear the cries of anguish from T2 BPO owners when they get nerfed...
Best solution would IMHO be to raise the ME of invented BPC's to 0, AND make some way they can be researched. BPO's should still have an edge, but no way as huge as today.

Uh, another one.
As mentioned many times before, such idea would DECREASE inventors' and manufacturers' profits.
Go away.

I think we've just identified one of the people who would be crying Laughing

When there is a level playing field, people in a game like EVE gets the profit their EFFORT deserves. This'll work EXACTLY the same if T2 BPO's were removed, except the inventors would get a bigger pie to share, thus there'd be room for more inventors!

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.12 16:41:00 - [336]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 12/09/2010 18:53:50
The only way to make a reasonable profit with a T2 BPO is by selling the T2 BPO, and this alone says enough about them.

Arguing that their influence is negligible only proves their uselessness further. At best does it give the removal of T2 BPOs a low priority on CCP's TODO list, but it certainly is not a reason for keeping them.

The psychological effect of the T2 BPOs is much stronger than anything else in EVE's industry and this cannot be their purpose either.

So I still need to see good reasons why to keep them. Keeping them for the love of God or the love of Akita T just is not a good reason.

Narfas Deteis
Posted - 2010.09.12 17:36:00 - [337]
 

Edited by: Narfas Deteis on 12/09/2010 17:39:19
Originally by: Faccat

So eliminating a force which drives down prices would decrease profits?

Your logic is that more people would start inventing, driving down profits? So more people would participate in a market with less profit? I don't follow this one.


Nope. For high volume items: inventors already compete with other inventors. Reducing manufacturing costs will also reduce profit margins. T2 market will crash and inventors will whine again. As you can see, I didn't mention T2 BPOs because in this case they doesn't matter.
For low volume items: demand is so low already that even T2 BPOs owners doesn't make significant profit. In this case reducing prices of invented items will change nothing.

Yet another thing: demand in EVE is more stable then supply or prices. Increasing supply or reducing prices doesn't have significant impact to demand. Result? Market crash. So, such changes will hurt inventors badly and will hurt T2 BPO owners only a bit.

Narfas Deteis
Posted - 2010.09.12 18:18:00 - [338]
 

Edited by: Narfas Deteis on 12/09/2010 18:24:09
Originally by: Kerfira

I think we've just identified one of the people who would be crying Laughing

I'm not sure why do you want to see me crying. And I will not. Yes, I already lost a lot of ISKs because of arbitrary CCP's decisions and I don't whine because of this. I always recover and my investments grow.
You want something for no effort, so I doubt you will be succesful inventor/manufacturer/trader, whatever will CCP do.

Originally by: Kerfira

When there is a level playing field, people in a game like EVE gets the profit their EFFORT deserves.

Well, yes, I have few crappy T2 BPOs. I didn't participate in T2 lottery, I bought all of them from another players (hey hey, you can do it too!). And yes, I would like to get profit this EFFORT deserves, but I rarely produce from them because it's not worth it. There are a lot of more profitable items to produce.

Originally by: Kerfira

This'll work EXACTLY the same if T2 BPO's were removed, except the inventors would get a bigger pie to share, thus there'd be room for more inventors!


No no no. There's only one pie in EVE, it's called "demand" and you can't make it bigger.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.09.12 23:05:00 - [339]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 12/09/2010 23:05:33
Originally by: Narfas Deteis
Originally by: Kerfira
This'll work EXACTLY the same if T2 BPO's were removed, except the inventors would get a bigger pie to share, thus there'd be room for more inventors!


No no no. There's only one pie in EVE, it's called "demand" and you can't make it bigger.

Since there'll be no competition from T2 BPO holders, there'll be more demand for pie from the inventors (since the BPO holders would not making any) Cool

Funneh how I correctly identified you as a T2 BPO holder from your argument, isn't it?

I'm not arguing either way, since I don't have T2 BPO's, nor does invention. Logic however dictates that having game content that is not usable because of other (old) game content, like the T2 stuff that is now profitable to invent because of too many BPO's in existence, is not a good thing and that one should remedy that.

Narfas Deteis
Posted - 2010.09.12 23:56:00 - [340]
 

Edited by: Narfas Deteis on 13/09/2010 00:02:31
Originally by: Kerfira

Since there'll be no competition from T2 BPO holders, there'll be more demand for pie from the inventors (since the BPO holders would not making any) Cool

If you remove Hulks there will be more room for Retrievers. If you remove battleships there will be more room for battlecruisers. If you remove A there will be more room for B. That's this kind of logic. Removing diversity. Using this logic we will end up with noobships and Civilian Shield Booster BPOs. Nonsense.
Originally by: Kerfira
Funneh how I correctly identified you as a T2 BPO holder from your argument, isn't it?

So, my arguments are not valid, because I bought BPOs, Mr Sherlock?
I wanted to have them so I bought them. It's that simple. Everyone can do that, instead of whining. Now bunch of lazy idiots cry on forum because "it's not fair". I'm not sure how it's not fair. Go and buy one.
Originally by: Kerfira

I'm not arguing either way, since I don't have T2 BPO's, nor does invention. Logic however dictates that having game content that is not usable because of other (old) game content, like the T2 stuff that is now profitable to invent because of too many BPO's in existence, is not a good thing and that one should remedy that.


First: diversity. I like it.
Second: population grows, T2 BPOs disappear (because of closed accounts and so on). If 10% of T2 stuff (not counting T1/T3/rigs and other stuff) is produced from BPOs don't tell me that T2 BPO owners compete with inventors, because inventors compete with other inventors, not with BPO owners. Of course you can pick random item from market and whine that CCP should make it profitable because you want so, but this is just childish. Do your market reserch before starting production.
Third: I like "historical" stuff. Hands off my BPOs, Apotheosis, nice collection of Pirate Logs, mines, snowball launchers and so on. If you don't have it - go buy one or **** off. If you don't want it: just move along.

Mr LaForge
Posted - 2010.09.13 01:04:00 - [341]
 

Edited by: Mr LaForge on 13/09/2010 01:04:57
How much longer is this peeing contest going to continue?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.13 05:56:00 - [342]
 

Originally by: Mr LaForge
How much longer is this peeing contest going to continue?

As long as people keep complaining CCP should remove T2 BPOs.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.13 06:22:00 - [343]
 

Originally by: Akita T
As long as people keep complaining CCP should remove T2 BPOs.

So you admit it is only a complaint thread of yours and you never were looking for good reasons?

If so then we can ask for a lock.

felchergod
Posted - 2010.09.13 06:26:00 - [344]
 

Akita T is the Czech Lion of EO S&I Forums.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.13 06:30:00 - [345]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 13/09/2010 06:35:17
Originally by: Faccat
Originally by: Narfas Deteis
Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 12/09/2010 12:59:29
The two main reasons for removing T2 BPO's from the game:
  1. To level the playing field... There are a lot of areas where invention is not feasible as BPO's cover the entire area.
  2. To hear the cries of anguish from T2 BPO owners when they get nerfed...
Best solution would IMHO be to raise the ME of invented BPC's to 0, AND make some way they can be researched. BPO's should still have an edge, but no way as huge as today.


Uh, another one.
As mentioned many times before, such idea would DECREASE inventors' and manufacturers' profits.
Go away.



So eliminating a force which drives down prices would decrease profits?

Your logic is that more people would start inventing, driving down profits? So more people would participate in a market with less profit? I don't follow this one.


The bolded part will decrease the profit. You get a % of the production price as profit. You reduce the production cost and you get the same % on a lower sum, i.e. you get less isk.

You can think people will say: "we will sell at the same price even if it cost less to produce", but it will not work.
Someone will always say "I accept a x% as profit" and make a lower offer. In a very little timeframe the sell prices will adjust to the new production prices.

For a easy example 5% on 1.200.000 is 60K, after the change it will be 5% on 1.000.000, so 50K.

As the BPO control the production only for items with little demand and quality removing the BPO generally will not make those items more interesting for inventors as there are almost equal and sometime better metalevel 1-4 items for the same kind of item or simply there is almost no use for the item.

Even for interceptors it will mostly mean the disappearance of the "bad" version of each race interceptors, not a "enlargement" of the market for inventors.

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Akita T
As long as people keep complaining CCP should remove T2 BPOs.

So you admit it is only a complaint thread of yours and you never were looking for good reasons?

If so then we can ask for a lock.


This thread do a public service, most T2 BPO whiners gravitate here. Add some reply to them and they will be happy crying here instead of starting the usual 2 threads/week. Twisted Evil

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.13 07:58:00 - [346]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 13/09/2010 08:12:35

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Akita T
As long as people keep complaining CCP should remove T2 BPOs.

So you admit it is only a complaint thread of yours and you never were looking for good reasons?
If so then we can ask for a lock.

Now, now, you wouldn't be indirectly admitting you only read the thread title but not the initial posts, would you ? Yes you would, yes you would, good boy !
A DUH AWARD FOR YOU FOR ONLY NOW STARTING TO PARTIALLY REALIZE WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE FIRST TWO POSTS OF THIS THREAD.
Of course, you are still not comprehending the full extent of what's written there, particularly the "challenge" aspect (in spite of it being bolded and all-caps), and you totally miss the text immediately below that, which already answered the part I just quoted.

But anyway, since you missed it, and you probably don't want to go all the way back to the front page, let's spell it out for you :
No, you are wrong. It's a three part challenge thread for people that want T2 BPOs gone, to concentrate all the USUAL multi-threaded T2 BPO whineage into a single easily-referenced thread, with the MOST COMMON invalid arguments summarized at the start.

Challenge - first part:
I admit I believe NO good reason EXISTS, and I challenge people that WANT all the T2 BPOs removed to provide one.
So far nobody has been able to provide one that could be considered "good" under any reasonable circumstances.
Challenge - second part:
And after they provide a good reason (but even without that good reason yet found, if they like to do so), I challenge them to devise a FAIR methodology for their removal.
It is my belief that no methodology for their removal could be considered completely "fair", but they're free to try to prove they can come up with one.
So far some have come relatively close, but not quite. Still, those that came close ended up in scenarios that would end up worse than the current situation... hence the next part...
Challenge - third and final part:
It is my belief that any attempt to remove T2 BPOs with some form of compensation would result in a situation that's overall worse than the current one, but again, people are free to disagree, so let them prove it by arguing about it.
Even if they don't come up with a good reason (and for the sake of argument we assume the highly unlikely scenario that in some unspecified future CCP would cave in to general whineage and decide to remove them anyway), but only come up with some relatively fair method for their removal (or don't really care how they're removed and just pick a not-quite fair method), the final and most difficult part of the challenge is explaining why exactly do they think the situation would be any better after the removal process (so, basically, why bother doing it).


And that's why this thread exists : to pre-empt the proliferation of periodic "waaah, waaah, remove T2 BPOs, they're unfair" threads.
You might have not noticed, but since this thread has been live, the amount of "remove T2 BPOs" threads on the first few pages has dropped dramatically from the usual annoying high counts.
It's a "PSA" thread combined with a challenge that gives a chance for the opposing viewpoint to try and justify their request.
Everybody that tried to do that failed miserably, most of them at the very first part already, and nobody really made any serious attempt at tackling the third part yet.

Faccat
Posted - 2010.09.13 08:43:00 - [347]
 

Originally by: Akita T

Challenge - first part:
I admit I believe NO good reason EXISTS, and I challenge people that WANT all the T2 BPOs removed to provide one.
So far nobody has been able to provide one that could be considered "good" under any reasonable circumstances.
Challenge - second part:
And after they provide a good reason (but even without that good reason yet found, if they like to do so), I challenge them to devise a FAIR methodology for their removal.
It is my belief that no methodology for their removal could be considered completely "fair", but they're free to try to prove they can come up with one.
So far some have come relatively close, but not quite. Still, those that came close ended up in scenarios that would end up worse than the current situation... hence the next part...



First part: There was obviously a reason to get rid of the lottery. The same reasoning supports getting rid of the results of the lottery. If T2 BPO's were distributed unfairly before, how fair can the distribution be to someone who never even got a chance? This is a valid reason, even if it doesn't reach the threshold required to be implemented.
Second part: Method of removal. Removing them would be exactly as unfair as doling them out, just in reverse. It would be a whole lot more painful and have a specific monetary value to those that purchased them from the lottery winners.

The current situation is livable. My participation in this thread is to try to bring some reason to it. I should have known from the original posts that it wouldn't be useful. The sheer number of posts that resort to calling names "whiners, newbs, etc..." betray any efforts to be reasonable. The whole thread started off so negative, not holding a position, just saying that everyone else is wrong about every point possible. If your position is so rock solid, you should be able to manage it without the personal attacks and with a bit more logic. This thread has sadly revealed many to be pretenders to economics and civility.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.13 08:53:00 - [348]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 13/09/2010 08:54:43
Originally by: Akita T
Now, now, you wouldn't be indirectly admitting you only read the thread title but not the initial posts ...

I read all your comments, including the last one. It is a lot of idle rant. There really is just not much to gain from reading them. You start with trolling, then you blow up a balloon of statements only to pop it like a magician trying to get the audience's attention away from your main trick, which never happens. Instead, it ends in warm air. I always wonder what it is that I have read after I have read one of your comments. Seriously.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.13 09:45:00 - [349]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 13/09/2010 09:45:54
Originally by: Whitehound
I read all your comments, including the last one. It is a lot of idle rant. There really is just not much to gain from reading them. You start with trolling, then you blow up a balloon of statements only to pop it like a magician trying to get the audience's attention away from your main trick, which never happens. Instead, it ends in warm air. I always wonder what it is that I have read after I have read one of your comments. Seriously.

Here's a hint : what you read is a list of unreasonable arguments why T2 BPOs allegedly need to be removed with a point-by-point rebuttal, and a request to come up with some reasons that aren't complete asspulls without basis in fact, then a request to explain how to do that, and how would that be any better than what we have now.
There is no good reason to remove T2 BPOs, there never was, and anybody trying to claim otherwise is spouting off some flavour of the hot air you're complaining about. I'm not blowing up MY baloon of statements, I am describing the baloons produced by the opposition, what each of them actually means as opposed to how they're presented, then keep popping them one by one.
It can't get any clearer than that.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.13 09:46:00 - [350]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 13/09/2010 09:57:24
Originally by: Faccat
First part: There was obviously a reason to get rid of the lottery.

Yes, it was called "insane price-gouging by the T2 BPO owner cartels". Invention fixed that.
Quote:
The same reasoning supports getting rid of the results of the lottery.[...major snippage...]

No, it doesn't. It's a completely different situation. But then again this exact argument was repeatedly shot down, even in the OP first.

Here's a quick recap :
The introduction of invention meant that T2 BPOs were no longer absolutely necessary (but would still benefit the game as a whole for low-demand markets) and at the same time, their removal was not necessary either (since markets with high volume demanded would have their prices determined almost exclusively by inventors, and those few high-demand markets do represent the vast majority of the T2 ISK volume traded anyway).
Yes, the lottery was flawed, but the proverbial genie was already out of the bottle, and couldn't be put back without adding even more unfairness than the existence of the lottery itself added in the first place, since a lot of people already traded off their T2 BPOs for ISK. As more time passed, removal of T2 BPOs would become increasingly less desirable, since the vast majority of T2 BPOs were no longer in the initial hands, while quite a few got exchanged more than once.

Quote:
The current situation is livable.

Bingo. Not just livable, but there's (as of now) no significantly better alternative.
Quote:
The whole thread started off so negative, not holding a position, just saying that everyone else is wrong about every point possible. If your position is so rock solid, you should be able to manage it without the personal attacks and with a bit more logic. This thread has sadly revealed many to be pretenders to economics and civility.

The thread is ALL ABOUT logic. Each and every argument has a logical basis. Each counter-argument is made logically.
The disdain embedded in the tone of the message comes free of charge, as a bonus for all the people annoyed by the constant "remove T2 BPOs" requests that lack any motivation beyond "I don't have them so nobody should" or "it is my perception that T2 BPOs are unfair and I don't want to logically explain why".
The only times when even mild personal attacks exist is when the people being replied to have shown that logic simply does not matter to them at all in the first place.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.13 10:44:00 - [351]
 

Originally by: Akita T
There is no good reason to remove T2 BPOs, there never was, and anybody trying to claim otherwise is spouting off some flavour of the hot air you're complaining about.

Is this why you keep a 12-page thread alive? You are taking yourself too important. Instead, you have been given good reasons and you do not want to allow others to have a different opinion from yours. As long as you do not acknowledge that there are good reasons to remove them will no one care about why you want to keep them.

Dtail
Amarr
Posted - 2010.09.13 12:18:00 - [352]
 

Originally by: Whitehound

You are taking yourself too important. Instead, you have been given good reasons and you do not want to allow others to have a different opinion from yours.

Originally by: Whitehound
So I still need to see good reasons why to keep them.


Just something to think about

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.13 13:06:00 - [353]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 13/09/2010 13:18:26

Originally by: Whitehound
Is this why you keep a 12-page thread alive? You are taking yourself too important.

Wait a second, since when is making a Public Service Announcement type of thread "taking yourself too important" ?
Well, whatever. Even if I was, so what ?
Originally by: Whitehound
Instead, you have been given good reasons and you do not want to allow others to have a different opinion from yours. As long as you do not acknowledge that there are good reasons to remove them will no one care about why you want to keep them.

I wouldn't even have to justify my position, since it's the (semi-)official CCP position already, but I did justify my position already multiple times.
I don't mind anybody having a different OPINION, but I do mind when their opinion is NOT based on facts and they're trying to push for action based on a flawed conclusion they reached for themselves.
Bottom line, in this case, the burden of proof is not on me (yet I still provide enough evidence to support my position), it is on those wanting to remove T2 BPOs (and they failed to prove anything factually and logically) since the status quo IS "keep T2 BPOs" with absolutely no word on CCP even thinking about removing them anymore, quite the contrary, with them being generally content with the state of invention overall (as illustrated in several QENs).

LET ME REPEAT THIS SO IT CAN SINK IN

CCP has once upon a time (about when invention was introduced) hinted that if it should prove necessary (as in, invention failing to get off the ground), they might consider removing T2 BPOs with ample warning, announced 1+ year in advance. That is obviously no longer a necessity, so it's as good as them saying they're not removing them. They didn't officially shout "we're never removing T2 BPOs" yet, because they don't make such statements anymore, haven't for quite some time, policies and all that jazz.
As such, anybody TRYING TO GET T2 BPOs REMOVED has the burden of proof in explaining why they want that.
And there's a huge log of SELFISH/INANE/UNEDUCATED reasons (therefore deemed invalid), but no actual good reason, YET.


Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.13 13:39:00 - [354]
 

Originally by: Dtail
Just something to think about

I do what she does. I take a stubborn position, I insist on my argument being the only valid one, in a discussion that turns out was never meant to be one.

Is this a new strategy for you or do you only think this is funny?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.13 14:06:00 - [355]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 13/09/2010 14:24:42

Originally by: Whitehound
I do what she does. I take a stubborn position, I insist on my argument being the only valid one, in a discussion that turns out was never meant to be one.

If my "position" would be that a 20% base resist with a 50% hardener should (and does) result in a 60% final resist value, yet quite a few vocal people would come around on a weekly basis complaining that they get cheated and don't get the 70% they should have instead getting a measly 60%...
...how much of a discussion do you expect a thread called "resists : 20% and 50% makes 60%, try to prove differently" to end up being, as opposed to it ending up as a teaching session instead ?
Would you call for the locking of that thread too ?
How about locking of threads with spreadsheets or whatnot ?

Sure, I don't exclude the possibility of being wrong, however I'm fairly certain I am right and everybody claiming otherwise is wrong, and they'd have to come up with a pretty strong, factual and logical argument as to why they're right and I'm wrong, when existing overwhelming evidence backs my point.

Would you prefer I renamed the thread...

"Reasons why T2 BPOs most likely won't be removed any time soon (probably never). Try to deny it, I dare you. Give a good counter-argument. Sorry, you're wrong, that's not a good reason. Now stop complaining about wanting T2 BPOs gone."

?!?


You know, other than the fact it won't fit in the title field and the fact that that exact sense is gleaned by fully reading the first two posts anyway. If you don't bother reading them, you should probably not bother replying, because chances are, your reply was just pre-demolished in those two opening posts already.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.13 14:26:00 - [356]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Dtail
Just something to think about

I do what she does. I take a stubborn position, I insist on my argument being the only valid one, in a discussion that turns out was never meant to be one.

Is this a new strategy for you or do you only think this is funny?



I think the only way you can grasp, maybe a spark(a tiny one), of what akita and others are trying to tell you is this.

If a bunch of guys constantly bombed the forums with requests that you be banned from the game yet could never give any reason other than we just dont like you. How would that make you feel? Sure you would be able to provide more evidence as to why you are better for the game than we could provide otherwise. Sure our threads would get locked for trolling and spam but we would want you gone just because of our own beliefs. Beliefs you and the majority would not agree with.

So,

For the thousandth time, ccp isnt going to remove them due to referencing the lottery. Ccp isnt going to remove them because of perceived market problems that dont exist. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you are poor, cant afford them, and want a perceived level playing field. Ccp isnt going to remove them just so you can get giggles from watching bpo owners rage. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you think invention works fine and their simply isnt a perceived need for T2 bpo's anymore. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you dont like them.

This is nontroll mode btw.


Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.13 14:48:00 - [357]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 13/09/2010 14:50:03
Originally by: Jovialmadness
For the thousandth time, ccp isnt going to remove them due to referencing the lottery. Ccp isnt going to remove them because of perceived market problems that dont exist. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you are poor, cant afford them, and want a perceived level playing field. Ccp isnt going to remove them just so you can get giggles from watching bpo owners rage. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you think invention works fine and their simply isnt a perceived need for T2 bpo's anymore. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you dont like them.

And you are CCP?! What CCP does and does not do, and what we want and not want, is our all business. You do not get to speak for CCP. You only get to speak for yourself.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.13 15:05:00 - [358]
 

Originally by: Akita T
If my "position" would be that a 20% base resist with a 50% hardener should (and does) result in a 60% final resist value, yet quite a few vocal people would come around on a weekly basis complaining that they get cheated ...

If there were threads on a weekly basis regarding resistances not working then it would be a problem. But there are none. Apparently did you pick an example that does not present a problem. I still cannot see your point.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.13 15:08:00 - [359]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Edited by: Whitehound on 13/09/2010 14:50:03
Originally by: Jovialmadness
For the thousandth time, ccp isnt going to remove them due to referencing the lottery. Ccp isnt going to remove them because of perceived market problems that dont exist. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you are poor, cant afford them, and want a perceived level playing field. Ccp isnt going to remove them just so you can get giggles from watching bpo owners rage. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you think invention works fine and their simply isnt a perceived need for T2 bpo's anymore. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you dont like them.

And you are CCP?! What CCP does and does not do, and what we want and not want, is our all business. You do not get to speak for CCP. You only get to speak for yourself.


I say those things based on their previous and current actions dude. If something drastic changes then everything i said is no longer valid. At that point i would agree bpo removal might be possible.

Having said that though, players only have changef CCP's mind in the past when massive outrage over an issue appeared.

1. You dont have the capability to create that.

2. There is no massive outrage.

3. No evidence exists for their removal.

4. I am therefore correct in implying ccp has no reason to remove them.



You sure are mr. answers though arent you. You have a dip **** answer for everything. I pretty much am just giggling at your rediculous spam and enjoying destroying you on the topic. Atleast i dont get all mental like akita does with you. Thats simply too much effort needed to swat your trash statements away.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.13 15:22:00 - [360]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 13/09/2010 15:25:23
Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. You dont have the capability to create that.
2. There is no massive outrage.
3. No evidence exists for their removal.
4. I am therefore correct in implying ccp has no reason to remove them.

1.) Would it help if it had threads popping up repeatedly?
2.) There is no need for a massive outrage.
3.) Repeated threads are however an indication for a possible removal.
4.) ...


Pages: first : previous : ... 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 ... : 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