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 : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

Dtail
Amarr
Posted - 2010.09.13 16:12:00 - [361]
 

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.

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


New strategy and new strategy... If you call nullifying your whole appearence in this trhead a strategy... well what ever.

I use other word for it.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.13 16:23:00 - [362]
 

Edited by: Jovialmadness on 13/09/2010 16:57:10

Originally by: Whitehound
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.) ...


1. No cause its the same ******s doing it.
2. Oh rlly? You should stop now.
3. Yes, however in this case its only the same ******s doing it.
4. ...?

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.09.13 17:16:00 - [363]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Kerfira
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.

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.

In my experience that is not how EVE economics works.

Prices for ANYTHING which is player controlled will stabilize at a level where people think their effort (including skill training, time, money etc.) is well paid by the profit they get!
If the profit falls, some players will leave that market for other endeavours and profit will rise for the rest. If profit rises, more playes will enter that market and profits will fall.

Not that I mind too much either way since I don't do production, but the whole EVE reward economy functions very much after this principle...

For areas where there are no difference between players, that is how it works. However, once you have some limited part of a production chain, then there is a difference, as can be seen for T2 BPO's.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.13 17:35:00 - [364]
 

Quote:
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.


Well geeewhiz im glad you would be so kind as to leave us evil bpo holders some scraps. After all, once bpc's went to zero and since inventors can already out produce bpo holders its wonderful you think that we should take both an asset devaluation AND a smaller profit potential.

Man that is so nice of you to let us have some edge. More like ledge, as in to jump off of.Laughing

Faccat
Posted - 2010.09.13 18:18:00 - [365]
 

Originally by: Jovialmadness
since inventors can already out produce bpo holders


False. BPO holders will never be reduced below the level of inventors or they would just invent.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.13 18:39:00 - [366]
 

Originally by: Faccat
Originally by: Jovialmadness
since inventors can already out produce bpo holders


False. BPO holders will never be reduced below the level of inventors or they would just invent.


False, inventors have the ability to make more of any item than a bpo holder can. Where the hell do you people come from?

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.13 21:03:00 - [367]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 14/09/2010 09:55:12
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Kerfira
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.

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.

In my experience that is not how EVE economics works.

Prices for ANYTHING which is player controlled will stabilize at a level where people think their effort (including skill training, time, money etc.) is well paid by the profit they get!
If the profit falls, some players will leave that market for other endeavours and profit will rise for the rest. If profit rises, more playes will enter that market and profits will fall.

Not that I mind too much either way since I don't do production, but the whole EVE reward economy functions very much after this principle...

For areas where there are no difference between players, that is how it works. However, once you have some limited part of a production chain, then there is a difference, as can be seen for T2 BPO's.



It shows that you are not in production.

Most people see production as a semi-passive income and will accept the lowest income and continue to produce.

And for the thousandth time (try to get it) T2 BPO don't dictate prices for invented items. Only failed producers invent the items where BPO can dictate prices as those items have very little demand.

You are reasoning exactly in the opposite way you were using in yours "missions pay too much" threads.
There you pretend that people should use the most efficient system, get the best returns for LP and so on, here you want to change thing in favour of people that don't do any research on the market and build random stuff as all T2 should be profitable.

If a inventor do his stuff with maximum efficiency he will get more isk from a construction slot than a BPO owner simply because it will be capable of switch production to the "flavour of the day item" with the best profit.
When his fellow inventors have saturated that niche and the price gain has been nerfed for a period he will switch to the next high return item ans stay on top of the food chain.
The BPO owner will always produce the same item (or not produce from the BPO) so on the long run his profit is lower as he will be producing when the return is high and when the market is saturated and the gain is low.

I will give a important information to you: a lot of T2 items are not profitable, but that is not a BPO problem, it is that they have little usage value.

And, BTW, the ME has a real effect only for ships. For modules it change only the asteroid minerals content, not the T2 components used.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.14 02:13:00 - [368]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 14/09/2010 02:48:48

Originally by: Whitehound
If there were threads on a weekly basis regarding resistances not working then it would be a problem. But there are none.

Actually, there are. Not quite on a weekly basis but often enough to make you want to /facepalm when you see one.
Quote:
Apparently did you pick an example that does not present a problem.

Oh, my, JUST like it is the case with T2 BPOs ! What a marvel ! "Who would have thunk it".
In general, people complaining about T2 BPOs being the scourge of the galaxy are not that much better than people complaining that resists-wise, 20+50 does not equal 70, but 60... and if you ask me to justify my position reread the friggin' thread instead.
Quote:
I still cannot see your point.

Obviously, you are either unable or unwilling to.
Or better said, you seem to be pretending to be unable or unwilling to see my point.

I like a good argument for the sake of argument as much as anybody else, but only as long as the argument stays on target and mostly factual... but you have ceased trying to remain even in the vague vicinity of the target almost ever since you showed up in this thread, and your posts are chock-full of non-sequitur.
The funny thing is that in several of your posts in here you don't even seem to be on the "remove T2 BPOs" side at all, quite the contrary, so you're basically only arguing about how you don't like the tone of my posts or something to that extent anyway.
Laughing

Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
Posted - 2010.09.14 06:04:00 - [369]
 

Edited by: Nahkep Narmelion on 14/09/2010 06:04:07
Originally by: Whitehound
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.) ...


1.) No, these threads have been popping up for a long time.
2.) No, there isn't, but if you fail this condition and must proceed to 3.
3.) You need to show that there is valid reason...you know that logic thing you poo-pooed about 2 pages back. Merely trying to appeal to #1 again is not likely to suffice.
4.) You once again have nothing.

Oh and your screed about logic suggests you learned about logic via Star Trek TOS. Probably not the best place to learn logic.

And you keep ignoring the one reason that has been put forward for keeping T2 BPOs: markets where profits are thin. One poster already noted that the market for the less desirable interceptors might disappear completely. Is that good? No. Typically consumers feel they are better off with more choices/variety.

I know, I know this all relies on logic and its a game so logic doesn't apply in your dim witted view. But the problem is like all games there are rules and logic for the game, whether you want to admit it or not.

Kerfira,

That you don't understand Eve economics or even economics in general is nobody's problem but your own. But I'm a nice guy. The market is a process, as such it changes within the parameters set up in the game. So if we did change the ME aspect of a BPO initially you'd try and sell at the same old price you have been selling at. Then you'd notice...hey, I'm not selling as much. Oh look most people are selling below my price. Why? Because with the new ME levels they can reduce their price by a slight amount and still earn more profits than before. This dynamic will continue with each producer dropping his price slightly. After all, each producer figures he can lower his price to the point where the profit isk is the same as before this buff.

Of course, more forward looking inventors and sellers will be looking to cash in while the cashing in is good. So they will ramp up production if anything. Further, others might decide to enter the invention markets as well to cash in on this new found gold mine. This will likely further exacerbate the drop in prices.

Then there is the other show that has been waiting to drop: input prices will likely go up. As people are scrambling to cash in on the new riches the demand for datacores, moon goo, and even possibly more banal things like ice products might go up as well.

So as prices go down, and costs go up....profits will...get squeezed. Granted some players might leave invention for greener pastures, but the overall impact is one where, at best, profits will return to their pre-buff levels.

Quote:

False, inventors have the ability to make more of any item than a bpo holder can. Where the hell do you people come from?


Some people just have to go full ret*rd.

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 14/09/2010 02:48:48

Originally by: Whitehound
If there were threads on a weekly basis regarding resistances not working then it would be a problem. But there are none.

Actually, there are. Not quite on a weekly basis but often enough to make you want to /facepalm when you see one.


Gee, for such a smart guy amongst such t*rds as us you'd think brilliant boy there would have realized this.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.14 09:11:00 - [370]
 

Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. No cause its the same ******s doing it.
2. Oh rlly? You should stop now.
3. Yes, however in this case its only the same ******s doing it.
4. ...?

There is actually evidence that T2 BPOs are being removed.

Unless you have evidence showing that new T2 BPOs are being introduced are the existing once going down in number due to gate and station gankers, etc.. So if your argumentation is solemnly based on the IS-state of the game then T2 BPOs are not here to stay.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.09.14 09:50:00 - [371]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. No cause its the same ******s doing it.
2. Oh rlly? You should stop now.
3. Yes, however in this case its only the same ******s doing it.
4. ...?

There is actually evidence that T2 BPOs are being removed.

Unless you have evidence showing that new T2 BPOs are being introduced are the existing once going down in number due to gate and station gankers, etc.. So if your argumentation is solemnly based on the IS-state of the game then T2 BPOs are not here to stay.


So you should stop crying and be happy.
What you want is happening.
Laughing

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.14 12:34:00 - [372]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. No cause its the same ******s doing it.
2. Oh rlly? You should stop now.
3. Yes, however in this case its only the same ******s doing it.
4. ...?

There is actually evidence that T2 BPOs are being removed.

Unless you have evidence showing that new T2 BPOs are being introduced are the existing once going down in number due to gate and station gankers, etc.. So if your argumentation is solemnly based on the IS-state of the game then T2 BPOs are not here to stay.


Well, i do agree with that.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.14 14:35:00 - [373]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
There is actually evidence that T2 BPOs are being removed.

Naturally removed through attrition for those that choose to expose them to danger or by bans or going inactive, sure.
Forcefully removed by CCP directly out of hangars, no.

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.09.14 14:53:00 - [374]
 

Disclaimer: I don't have a horse in this race and am indifferent to the outcome, which is probably CCP continuing to not do anything.


The best argument against them is a two part::

A) They were a mistake. If CCP were starting EVE over, they would not be in the game.

B) Almost all of the time when CCP changes stuff, the old is not grandfathered in and left in the game. You might have worked very hard and spent much ISK to get a Rattlesnake or MoM that you liked, but when the patch was applied, your years old item was transformed into the new item. Industry's latest was the starebase thing that was changed to reprocess into broken items. Or you bought insurance an insurance contract and then one DT the payout of the contract was changed. Etc. Learning skills are something that would not be in if CCP rewrote the dame, but CCP is just not ready for all that QQ. Having not been through many expansions, I can not think of anything besides this that CCP has changed but left the old one in the game.

-----

CCP could look at the average contract selling price over the past year for the BPO and put up a WTB contract in hubs for that amount. And/or CCP could convert the BPO into some # (5?) years of BPCs.


-------

The benefits are threefold:

Consistency. removing one of the few mistakes still grandfathered in

Easier to balance: As CCP tries to balance industry and ship/module prices (e.g. we want more affordable T3) then it makes for a simpler system to manipulate. E.g., CCP should have analyzed the recent "no ghost datacore" change to see its effects before implementing it. They had to take into account the two ways (BPO and invention) that products could be made. As well as if the change, and its presumably slightly higher dc prices, would swing the balance between inventors and BPO holders.

Fewer T2 BPO threads.

---------



SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.09.14 15:14:00 - [375]
 

Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 14/09/2010 15:16:13
Originally by: ChrisIsherwood
Disclaimer: I don't have a horse in this race and am indifferent to the outcome, which is probably CCP continuing to not do anything.


The best argument against them is a two part::

A) They were a mistake. If CCP were starting EVE over, they would not be in the game.


First of all, your hypothetical premise is irrelevant to reality. That's like saying, "If I were the king of France, I would have a much bigger house, therefore I should have a bigger house." While it may be true that, if they were starting Eve over, they might not be in the game, they're NOT starting Eve over, so that has no bearing on how they should be handled in present day Eve.

Secondly, it was the distribution method, and not the items themselves, that was ultimately deemed problematic.

Quote:

B) Almost all of the time when CCP changes stuff, the old is not grandfathered in and left in the game. You might have worked very hard and spent much ISK to get a Rattlesnake or MoM that you liked, but when the patch was applied, your years old item was transformed into the new item.


This was covered, either earlier in this thread, or in one of the hundreds of other threads and is also logically fallacious. You would have a point if, and only if, they had changed new BPOs themselves. For instance, if new T2 BPOs had a cap of 0 ME, then it would make sense for all T2 BPOs to be capped at 0 ME. They didn't do that. Instead they removed the distribution mechanism for the BPOs. The difference is subtle, but very real.

-----

Quote:
CCP could look at the average contract selling price over the past year for the BPO and put up a WTB contract in hubs for that amount.


This is the least offensive of plans, but it's still problematic (arbitrary creation of a lot of new isk).

Quote:
And/or CCP could convert the BPO into some # (5?) years of BPCs.


This would be entirely unacceptable. The BPCs would not retain the value of the asset.




Quote:
Consistency. removing one of the few mistakes still grandfathered in


Already covered. Reality is that this consistency argument is utter horse**** in the most literal sense. It requires one to ignore an awful lot of facts. There are plenty of other items in the game that are no longer available.


Quote:
Easier to balance: As CCP tries to balance industry and ship/module prices (e.g. we want more affordable T3) then it makes for a simpler system to manipulate. E.g., CCP should have analyzed the recent "no ghost datacore" change to see its effects before implementing it. They had to take into account the two ways (BPO and invention) that products could be made. As well as if the change, and its presumably slightly higher dc prices, would swing the balance between inventors and BPO holders.


It's already well established that BPOs are pretty much a non-factor with regard to balance.

Quote:
Fewer T2 BPO threads


Here's a clue: If your argument can be applied to literally everything that some people don't like, it's not a valid argument. You just presented an argument that could be applied to every ****ing issue in the game. Hurrr, nerf cloaking! Benefit: Fewer cloaking threads! Nerf high sec missions! Benefit: Fewer missions-are-OP threads! Nerf high sec ganking. Benefit: Fewer carebears posting whine threads about their hulks getting ganked!

It's, literally, applicable to ****ing everything.

If there were any genuine mechanical, economic, or balance-related argument against BPOs, people would post those instead of resorting to nonsense like, "Well, then fewer people would cry on the forums! That's good, right?"

Mere envy - and that's what these threads are really about - is not a valid reason for gameplay changes.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.14 16:37:00 - [376]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 14/09/2010 16:59:20
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Mere envy - and that's what these threads are really about - is not a valid reason for gameplay changes.

That is just your foul talk. Nobody wants the special ships removed, which the alliance tournament winner received as prices. Nobody wants Titans removed just because not many can build and fly them yet. The deep safe spots, which were mere bookmarks(!), however were widely disliked, because these were the result of past bugs and new players could not obtain them. Even when they could have been duplicated and traded did CCP make the effort to get rid of them. Everyone can fly and build Titans and their number is growing. Tournament ships are widely accepted as unique items and only a few are envious over it, because everyone knows that there is a huge effort involved in winning these prices, and everyone feels that the winners deserve them, and that this is only fair. By the way, I would like to see Akita & Co. argue that these prices are unfair and they are only perceived as fair.*) The number of T2 BPOs however is limited as well as slowly declining and there are just not enough for everyone to have one, and no effort no matter how huge will change this unless CCP introduces the lottery again. This is unfair and always will be felt by the majority as unfair.

*) To save Akita time: the winners are much better pilots and have lots of SPs, so they logically had to win. Rookies however do not have this advantage but deserve prices just as well. (Akita stomps foot.) Therefore are the tournament prices in fact unfair and any fairness just perceived as such. Bla bla bla ... - Akita T

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.14 16:38:00 - [377]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 14/09/2010 15:16:13
Originally by: ChrisIsherwood
Disclaimer: I don't have a horse in this race and am indifferent to the outcome, which is probably CCP continuing to not do anything.


The best argument against them is a two part::

A) They were a mistake. If CCP were starting EVE over, they would not be in the game.


First of all, your hypothetical premise is irrelevant to reality. That's like saying, "If I were the king of France, I would have a much bigger house, therefore I should have a bigger house." While it may be true that, if they were starting Eve over, they might not be in the game, they're NOT starting Eve over, so that has no bearing on how they should be handled in present day Eve.

Secondly, it was the distribution method, and not the items themselves, that was ultimately deemed problematic.

Quote:

B) Almost all of the time when CCP changes stuff, the old is not grandfathered in and left in the game. You might have worked very hard and spent much ISK to get a Rattlesnake or MoM that you liked, but when the patch was applied, your years old item was transformed into the new item.


This was covered, either earlier in this thread, or in one of the hundreds of other threads and is also logically fallacious. You would have a point if, and only if, they had changed new BPOs themselves. For instance, if new T2 BPOs had a cap of 0 ME, then it would make sense for all T2 BPOs to be capped at 0 ME. They didn't do that. Instead they removed the distribution mechanism for the BPOs. The difference is subtle, but very real.

-----

Quote:
CCP could look at the average contract selling price over the past year for the BPO and put up a WTB contract in hubs for that amount.


This is the least offensive of plans, but it's still problematic (arbitrary creation of a lot of new isk).

Quote:
And/or CCP could convert the BPO into some # (5?) years of BPCs.


This would be entirely unacceptable. The BPCs would not retain the value of the asset.




Quote:
Consistency. removing one of the few mistakes still grandfathered in


Already covered. Reality is that this consistency argument is utter horse**** in the most literal sense. It requires one to ignore an awful lot of facts. There are plenty of other items in the game that are no longer available.


Quote:
Easier to balance: As CCP tries to balance industry and ship/module prices (e.g. we want more affordable T3) then it makes for a simpler system to manipulate. E.g., CCP should have analyzed the recent "no ghost datacore" change to see its effects before implementing it. They had to take into account the two ways (BPO and invention) that products could be made. As well as if the change, and its presumably slightly higher dc prices, would swing the balance between inventors and BPO holders.


It's already well established that BPOs are pretty much a non-factor with regard to balance.

Quote:
Fewer T2 BPO threads


Here's a clue: If your argument can be applied to literally everything that some people don't like, it's not a valid argument. You just presented an argument that could be applied to every ****ing issue in the game. Hurrr, nerf cloaking! Benefit: Fewer cloaking threads! Nerf high sec missions! Benefit: Fewer missions-are-OP threads! Nerf high sec ganking. Benefit: Fewer carebears posting whine threads about their hulks getting ganked!

It's, literally, applicable to ****ing everything.

If there were any genuine mechanical, economic, or balance-related argument against BPOs, people would post those instead of resorting to nonsense like, "Well, then fewer people would cry on the forums! That's good, right?"

Mere envy - and that's what these threads are really about - is not a valid reason for gameplay changes.



Well said.

Very logical.

Proper use of pwnage when needed.


10/10. Honestly.


Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.14 16:46:00 - [378]
 

Edited by: Jovialmadness on 14/09/2010 16:47:37
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Mere envy - and that's what these threads are really about - is not a valid reason for gameplay changes.

That is just your foul talk. Nobody wants the special ships removed, which the alliance tournament winner received as prices. Nobody wants Titans removed just because not many can build and fly them yet. The deep safe spots, which were mere bookmarks(!), however were widely disliked, because the were the result of past bugs and new players could not obtain them. Even when they could have been duplicated and traded did CCP make the effort to get rid of them. Everyone can fly and build Titans and their number is growing. Tournament ships are widely accepted as unique items and only a few are envious over it, because everyone knows that there is a huge effort involved in winning these prices, and everyone feels that the winners deserve them, and that this is only fair. By the way, I would like to see Akita & Co. argue that these prices are unfair and they are only perceived as fair.*) The number of T2 BPOs however is limited as well as slowly declining and there are just not enough for everyone to have one, and no effort no matter how huge will change this unless CCP introduces the lottery again. This is unfair and always will be felt by the majority as unfair.

*) To save Akita time: the winners are much better pilots and have lots of SPs, so they logically had to win. Rookies however do not have this advantage but deserve prices just as well. (Akita stomps foot.) Therefore are the tournament prices in fact unfair and any fairness just perceived as such. Bla bla bla ... - Akita T



Tech 2 bpo's are an openly traded free market items that consistently come availabe for members OF THE ENTIRE EVE COMMUNITY to purchase. They are purely player driven just like CCP wants the game to be eventually. Why are you continuing to be a very large ******* about this. I know you are trolling at this point but why cant you atleast be a good troll.




Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:21:00 - [379]
 

Originally by: Jovialmadness
Why are you continuing to be a very large ******* about this.

Thank you very much. This coming from someone who wants to "destroy" me is making me a little bit sad.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:29:00 - [380]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 14/09/2010 17:38:13

Originally by: Whitehound
[...snippage...]Tournament ships are widely accepted as unique items and only a few are envious over it, because everyone knows that there is a huge effort involved in winning these priZes, and everyone feels that the winners deserve them, and that this is only fair. By the way, I would like to see Akita & Co. argue that these priZes are unfair and they are only perceived as fair.)[...snippage...]

I think you might have gotten your shield polarities wrong there, boy. Back to school for you.

Translation : you are claiming my point would be the exact opposite of what I was claiming so far, then ridicule it.
Like, DUUH, of course you can ridicule the OPPOSING viewpoint, that's what I was doing the entire time too !

Originally by: Whitehound
The deep safe spots, which were mere bookmarks(!), however were widely disliked, because the were the result of past bugs and new players could not obtain them. Even when they could have been duplicated and traded did CCP make the effort to get rid of them.

That's a completely different situation and you KNOW it.
And as you have just admitted it, they could have been copied in vast quantities and distributed to everybody (unlike T2 BPOs), similar to how old nav bookmarks were obtained by people that never got anywhere near the places they were buying the BMs for.
The mere existence of those BMs was game-breaking (unlike T2 BPOs), and they NEEDED to be removed (unlike T2 BPOs). They first removed the mechanism to make new ones, then finally they also removed all remaining ones.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:34:00 - [381]
 

Originally by: Akita T
I think you might have gotten your shield polarities wrong there, boy. Back to school for you.

Thank you, too. I am taking it as a compliment.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:39:00 - [382]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 14/09/2010 17:43:17

Originally by: Whitehound
Thank you, too. I am taking it as a compliment.

Is today opposite day and nobody told me ?
Meh, nevermind.

Full disclosure:
Whitehound is not, I repeat, IS NOT my alt, nor a figment of my imagination or any type of split personality syndrome.
I am totally not using him as a strawman sockpuppet to keep the thread going, even if he appears to do exactly that.
That's in case you were wondering, yes, somebody "this bright" actually appears to exist and does play EVE.
Rolling Eyes

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.14 18:09:00 - [383]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 14/09/2010 17:43:17

Originally by: Whitehound
Thank you, too. I am taking it as a compliment.

Is today opposite day and nobody told me ?
Meh, nevermind.

Full disclosure:
Whitehound is not, I repeat, IS NOT my alt, nor a figment of my imagination or any type of split personality syndrome.
I am totally not using him as a strawman sockpuppet to keep the thread going, even if he appears to do exactly that.
That's in case you were wondering, yes, somebody "this bright" actually appears to exist and does play EVE.
Rolling Eyes



Ha! I would believe he is either LHA Tarawa or a child of him sprung forth from the land of candy canes and cute colored bears with rainbows on their chests before id believe he is your puppet.Razz

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.09.14 18:12:00 - [384]
 

Originally by: Jovialmadness
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 14/09/2010 17:43:17

Originally by: Whitehound
Thank you, too. I am taking it as a compliment.

Is today opposite day and nobody told me ?
Meh, nevermind.

Full disclosure:
Whitehound is not, I repeat, IS NOT my alt, nor a figment of my imagination or any type of split personality syndrome.
I am totally not using him as a strawman sockpuppet to keep the thread going, even if he appears to do exactly that.
That's in case you were wondering, yes, somebody "this bright" actually appears to exist and does play EVE.
Rolling Eyes



Ha! I would believe he is either LHA Tarawa or a child of him sprung forth from the land of candy canes and cute colored bears with rainbows on their chests before id believe he is your puppet.Razz


I don't think he's Tarawa. As much as it pains me to say it, Tarawa is smarter than this guy.

Also, WH was over in C&P a while back crying profusely because someone had war decced him. I've seen Tarawa make at least one "how to handle a Wardec" type post in New Citizens, and it was more or less accurate.

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.09.14 22:35:00 - [385]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

it was the distribution method, and not the items themselves, that was ultimately deemed problematic.



I would expect that if it were the distribution method that was problematic but not the items, that CCP would have changed the distribution method rather than removing the ability to create the items. I just assumed that, except for unique ships, when CCP does not allow an item to be produced, they have a fault with the item or at least feel it no longer fits into their current vision of the game. I have read about never-in-the-game skills/drones and ships/modules/bookmarks that are changed when the patch happens. You say "There are plenty of other items in the game that are no longer available." - I can't think of any off the top of my head but I am relatively new and defer to your greater knowledge. Did all these plenty of other items have faulty distribution mechanisms as well?

Sorry about "Fewer T2 BPO threads" - I thought the smilely was implied. Forum humor fails so often I should not attempt it.

Regarding "applying to everything" - most of the objections to the remove T2 BPO sentiment I feel apply to almost all suggestions in the forums: a few are spectacularly stupid but for the rest the motivation, but not the text, is quite self-serving. I suspect that most of the people who support changing rockets or blasters or nerfing high-sec-missions or buffing lo or ... are not game designers or altruists but do so out of the same mixtures of greed and envy as the inventors who post about T2 BPOs. Almost all non-UI changes in EVE benefit some and hurt others. And the motives of the advocates are not pure.

A lot of people in EVE would destroy your ship not because it is a challenge or would benefit them but just to cause pain and suffering to another human being. Perhaps the truly hardcore take their PvP not only in combat and the market but also into the forums?

Unlike high-sec or miners or lo-sec, the constituency for T2 BPOs is very, very small. Tocqueville referred to "The Tyranny of the Majority" - if >99% of the players who give CCP $15/month were to object to a feature is leaving it in the right answer? Vox populi, vox dei? Vox $, vox dei? It seems to me that T2 BPO owners benefit from silence and the only thing that could stir CCP is publicity about T2 BPOs? Will supposed BPO owners say "let them invent cake" on 14 July? nvm /tinhatoff

When all is said and done, more is said than done. Nothing is going to happen, certainly not within 16 months. "Breathe in, breathe out, move on"

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.15 01:47:00 - [386]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 15/09/2010 02:10:36
Originally by: ChrisIsherwood
I would expect that if it were the distribution method that was problematic but not the items, that CCP would have changed the distribution method rather than removing the ability to create the items.

Not really. Or not necessarily.
Just try to come up with a distribution method that limits the maximum possible amount of items, while maintaining a dispersion system that would almost universally be considered "fair".
See how much luck you have with that.

You can't make them drop from any NPC kills or as staged mass event rewards, it was exactly that type of distribution that prompted the massive whine campaign about perceived unfairness (or downright cheating) that resulted in the lottery getting introduced in the first place.
You can't make them be sold by NPCs at high prices nor be present in LP shops in limitless numbers, that does not guarantee the upper cap on their numbers, and in time, having them unlimited all but guarantees they'd become nearly worthless in spite of the high costs.
You COULD make them PvP contest rewards, but then you'd have all the industrialist types complaining that combat pilots should have absolutely no business receiving industrialist supplies, and that it should be some sort of industrialist contest instead (I'm drawing a blank here on what exactly that could possibly be).
You COULD make them appear as NPC-issued long-running auction contracts asking for truckloads of datacores and whatnot, but I'm guessing that would also cause somebody to shout foul play somehow (blaming people that stockpiled large amounts of datacores as "insider traders" or whatnot), not to speak of the others that would complain that "who the hell watches contracts" (well, those who want T2 BPOs, that's who, but who's going to listen).
So, I'm out of ideas, do you still have any other possibilities through which T2 BPOs could possibly be introduced that won't rile up a large percentage of the population more than they're already riled up about it ?

Apparently, CCP reached a similar conclusion, that there is just no possible "fair enough" way to distribute new T2 BPOs that wouldn't take so much trouble to implement and police that is just not worth the effort.
So instead of distributing any new T2 BPOs at all, they created a much easier way to just generate T2 BPCs, a system in which almost anybody could participate with (relatively) minimal effort.
And so, invention was born.

Quote:
You say "There are plenty of other items in the game that are no longer available." - I can't think of any off the top of my head but I am relatively new and defer to your greater knowledge. Did all these plenty of other items have faulty distribution mechanisms as well?

Nope.
They were skills that never really did anything (they might have been planned to, but that's another story), and they were seeded either as NPC sell orders, or in one case ("Salvage Drone Operation") a tutorial mission reward, so anybody could get as many of them (except that last one) as they wanted (and some did, especially with the latest NPC-sold one, "Astronautic Engineering"). Quite a few of the even-longer-since-defunct items still get sold at exorbitant prices.
And of course, there's also mines (look for "Anaconda Mines", for instance), where the ability to use the items themselves was disabled (they used to be able to be loaded in missile launchers, now they can't, so there's effectively no way to launch a mine).
You know, just off the top of my head, things that were available in limitless quantities but no longer are.
And then there's of course all the (still) limited-edition items, (almost?) exclusively ships (AFAIK), which were distributed only as rewards for contests, events or whatnot, which are not planned to ever be available in larger numbers.

Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
Posted - 2010.09.15 02:22:00 - [387]
 

Edited by: Nahkep Narmelion on 15/09/2010 02:23:32

The problem was two fold: The distribution system was such that only a few T2 BPOs trickled into the economy. This lead to cartels for the various T2 items which lead to prices that were way above what we'd expect with a competitive market. 20 million isk for a cap recharger is just....crazy given the inputs. The only reason for that kind of pricing is due to anti-competitive behavior on the part of a few to extract "rents" (aka unearned income) from the rest of the Eve community. In short monopolies pretty much have no socially redeeming features once you total up all the costs and the limited benefits. And these monopolies weren't the result of players being clever, it was the result of the game design at the time.

The solution isn't necessarily to remove the offending items, but to simply inject competition into markets that very badly needed it. The solution: invention. Invention allowed people who didn't own BPOs to get into the T2 markets and drive down prices, increase supply, and strengthen the New Eden economy.

Now, some are tempted to say, with invention we no longer need T2 BPOs. True, we don't NEED them, but they still convey some benefit in those markets were prices drop so low that profit margins drive out the inventors. A T2 BPO owner can still keep producing and at a profit. Invention provides for a "competitive fringe" that keeps the T2 BPO owner from driving the price up to ridiculous levels.

Nobody has yet to put forward a truly solid reason for removing these items and really inflicting serious economic loss on those players who invested in T2 BPOs post lottery. These players have essentially invested billions of isk in hopes of earning some sort of return. Absent a good reason, that swamps the limited benefit a few T2 BPOs might provide, just leave the damn things in game.

And full disclosure....I own zero T2 BPOs, and I do quite a bit of invention.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.09.15 12:29:00 - [388]
 

Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
Edited by: Nahkep Narmelion on 15/09/2010 02:23:32

The problem was two fold: The distribution system was such that only a few T2 BPOs trickled into the economy. This lead to cartels for the various T2 items which lead to prices that were way above what we'd expect with a competitive market. 20 million isk for a cap recharger is just....crazy given the inputs. The only reason for that kind of pricing is due to anti-competitive behavior on the part of a few to extract "rents" (aka unearned income) from the rest of the Eve community. In short monopolies pretty much have no socially redeeming features once you total up all the costs and the limited benefits. And these monopolies weren't the result of players being clever, it was the result of the game design at the time.

The solution isn't necessarily to remove the offending items, but to simply inject competition into markets that very badly needed it. The solution: invention. Invention allowed people who didn't own BPOs to get into the T2 markets and drive down prices, increase supply, and strengthen the New Eden economy.

Now, some are tempted to say, with invention we no longer need T2 BPOs. True, we don't NEED them, but they still convey some benefit in those markets were prices drop so low that profit margins drive out the inventors. A T2 BPO owner can still keep producing and at a profit. Invention provides for a "competitive fringe" that keeps the T2 BPO owner from driving the price up to ridiculous levels.

Nobody has yet to put forward a truly solid reason for removing these items and really inflicting serious economic loss on those players who invested in T2 BPOs post lottery. These players have essentially invested billions of isk in hopes of earning some sort of return. Absent a good reason, that swamps the limited benefit a few T2 BPOs might provide, just leave the damn things in game.

And full disclosure....I own zero T2 BPOs, and I do quite a bit of invention.


Well said.

Ghoest
Posted - 2010.09.15 22:55:00 - [389]
 

This intellectually bankrupt and insulting thread hasnt died yet?

Invalid!!
Invalid.
INVALID

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.09.15 23:51:00 - [390]
 

Originally by: Ghoest
This intellectually bankrupt and insulting thread hasnt died yet?Invalid!!Invalid.INVALID

E X T E R M I N A T E ! ! ! Laughing


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : 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