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 : ... 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

Wadaya
Trailerpark Industries
Posted - 2011.04.19 15:55:00 - [931]
 

Sure, remove all the T2 BPOs.

Then we buy up all the datacores and decryptors, your invention costs creep up 400%+

T2 prices rise accordingly, you guys have something new to ***** about, and we still laugh as our wallet blinks merrily along.

Gravity always wins, just like the traders in eve.

News Group
Posted - 2011.04.19 16:18:00 - [932]
 

Make this go away.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.21 07:15:00 - [933]
 

I like it removed...

Whiskey 01
Posted - 2011.04.21 11:49:00 - [934]
 

How about having T2 BPO'S sold from loyalty stores?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.21 15:29:00 - [935]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 21/04/2011 15:33:19

Originally by: Whiskey 01
How about having T2 BPO'S sold from loyalty stores?

In the long run, it would mean invention becomes meaningless, as nobody would bother with it, and T2 just becomes T1 with slightly higher entry barriers.

Originally by: Opertone
when no BPO exist every inventor can part take and make some income, it becomes an economic challenge...
with BPOs inventors can not participate, because BPOs are more cost efficient, leaving no profit on small volume markets

There are quite a number of T2 items that don't have any T2 BPOs where inventing them is NOT profitable thanks to a combination between old undestroyed stocks being resold, inventors clearing out inventory at a loss and inventors who got lucky in an invention attempt so they didn't bother to calculate the long-term financial feasibility of their currently selected sales price.

Also, as you pointed out, OTHER THAN the markets where T2 BPOs do not even exist (because most of those already are small volume markets), you only have real problems in SMALL VOLUME markets. For _LARGE_ volume markets (high demand items), inventors and BPO owners have no serious problem competing in the first place, inventors make their profit as if only inventors would exist around, while BPO owners make more cash per item (but at a much higher initial cost).
Only about a third of ships (and even less items) are manufactured from T2 BPOs, while for seriously high-demand ships (like the Hulk), T2 BPOs can account for barely a tenth of the total production.

Removing T2 BPOs while not touching anything would only serve to heavily increase the price of already seldom traded items, which would pretty much sound the death bell for those markets... while at best only negligibly boosting the revenue of inventors overall. In fact, since moon mineral prices will most likely rise faster (thanks to increased waste in ALL ship construction), and since demand for datacores and decryptors will also go up (since more invention jobs would have to be started), it is more likely for the profit per unit of invented item to actually drop a little, in spite of the slightly increased invention capacity.

So... you may get more inventors working, but the revenue per invention job would go down, and the price of T2 items will go up.
WHO THE HELL WINS IN THIS SCENARIO ANYWAY ? Because inventors don't, and T2 item end users don't either.
Explorers, datacore farmers and moonminers do, that's who. And I haven't seen much in the way of argument that either of them need any boosts.

Quote:
Solution, set the BPO material effeciency and time efficiency to level below that of BPCs
This will seriously cut the margins, level the playing field and will not strip BPO holders off their property.

So why not ramp up the ones of invented BPCs ?
Why insist on nerfing T2 BPOs when you could buff invention instead ?

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.22 06:33:00 - [936]
 

Originally by: Akita T


Quote:
Solution, set the BPO material effeciency and time efficiency to level below that of BPCs
This will seriously cut the margins, level the playing field and will not strip BPO holders off their property.

So why not ramp up the ones of invented BPCs ?
Why insist on nerfing T2 BPOs when you could buff invention instead ?



Why not even them out? In some fields the increasing manufacturing costs of negative Material Efficiency ruin the day. Invention costs should stay in place, change decryptors mutators to allow negative ME at much higher PE, thus accelerating the build speed at material waste. Also longer production times may result in higher ME.

We need to buff invention and get ME out of negative values.

Hieronimus Rex
Minmatar
Infinitus Sapientia
Hav0k.
Posted - 2011.04.22 10:55:00 - [937]
 

So Akita in the 32 pages of this threadnought has anyone given a good reason?

Also, why was it a mistake if nobody can make a good argument that the game would be better without T2 BPOs?

Brock Nelson
Posted - 2011.04.22 16:33:00 - [938]
 

Hey Akita,

You should take all of the Good argument for and against the removal of T2 BPO and put it someplace where someone can read it without having to go through 32 pages of garbage post.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.24 20:43:00 - [939]
 

ok, horse -> alive

BPO II get in line with BPC from invention

no unfair factor, you do invention and research, your products are not much more expensive than those from BPO holders. ME should match BPOs. Equal material costs, fair competition.

Stella SGP
The Kimotoro Initiative
Posted - 2011.04.25 00:45:00 - [940]
 

Originally by: Opertone
ok, horse -> alive

BPO II get in line with BPC from invention

no unfair factor, you do invention and research, your products are not much more expensive than those from BPO holders. ME should match BPOs. Equal material costs, fair competition.


Invention was never meant to be fair or equal to BPOs. They were put in so you don't pay 20 mil for a T2 cap recharger. Quit crying, buy 1 if you think the advantage they give is so great.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.25 01:10:00 - [941]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 25/04/2011 01:11:40
Originally by: Brock Nelson
Hey Akita, you should take all of the Good argument for and against the removal of T2 BPO and put it someplace where someone can read it without having to go through 32 pages of garbage post.


There's very little in the way of "good arguments for removal", more of a "it would be somewhat nicer if" at best.
As for the ones against removal, they're already in the OP.
Wink

Plus, there's always the argument of not removing T2 BPOs at all, but making it so that T2 BPOs and invented T2 BPCs become far closer in footing (either by heavily buffing invention or by nerfing T2 BPOs), but that's... another story.
Also, see just below.

Originally by: Hieronimus Rex
So Akita in the 32 pages of this threadnought has anyone given a good reason?

Plenty of reasons were given, very few I would consider "coherent", but none I would call "good enough" to justify a removal.

Amongst the least bad ones (plus slight personal elaboration) would be something akin to the following :
a) the idea that the PERCEPTION of unfairness is reducing the motivation of newer players to keep playing, but even that is a long stretch (as if there wouldn't be many other things that are not much more unfair in reality as opposed to just perceived, and so by design), and therefore we should try to remove the source of the perception (even if it's not really a problem)
and
b) that if T2 BPOs would become freely available in unbounded numbers thus rendering T2 into a just slightly more expensive T1 that would not be a very such thing (and keeping invention as the source of T2 BPOs, so it is not rendered completely useless), since, hey, we have T3 and you could always expand T3 even more to fill the "void" that would be freed up this way

Not what I'd call a slam dunk, if you catch my drift.

Quote:
Also, why was it a mistake if nobody can make a good argument that the game would be better without T2 BPOs?

The LOTTERY is universally regarded as at least as somewhat of a mistake, not the fact T2 BPOs exist at all.
Problem is a lot of people confuse the two very separate things, the items themselves with the less-than-fortunate initial distribution method.

Brock Nelson
Posted - 2011.04.25 05:02:00 - [942]
 

Well I'm against removing T2 BPO simply because there isn't a reason to. Invention is scalable, producing off T2 BPO isn't.

Pod Amarr
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:26:00 - [943]
 

There is a simple reason for removing BPOs

Any item that is still in the game but is not attainable through any other game mechanics while is providing a advantage to the person that has it over a person that does not have it is simply bad game design.

Buying them for 4 years worth of profit does not count simply because games are not lasting decades [or better put very few people play the game nonstop for decades] .
Anyone who is saying you can compete with this by volume is off the mark since the owner can do the same onvention as everyone else and all thing the same he will come up on top because of the added value of the bpo ownership.

I am not talking about the fools who have bought them up for 5 years of profit sums.
I am talking about the smart owners who got them in the lottery or bought them early on. Those in combination with the classic inventions of items as everyone can do will be always be on top and on some items can even dictate prices and push it so low invention is not going to be profitable.

Well If you do not think this is unfair bad game design and should not be adressed then you might as well think that the hybrids are perfectly ballanced now and gallente are the best race to play.

theRaptor
Caldari
Tactical Operations
Posted - 2011.04.25 11:37:00 - [944]
 

Originally by: Pod Amarr
There is a simple reason for removing BPOs

Any item that is still in the game but is not attainable through any other game mechanics while is providing a advantage to the person that has it over a person that does not have it is simply bad game design.


Except they are available through game mechanics. You can get T2 BPC's or just buy a T2 BPO on the market.

EvE is not about being fair or balanced. However it is still far more fair than any real economy (No patents, no tariffs, no variable labour costs, no variable taxation, and everyone producing an item produces the exact same item with only minor variance in production cost).

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.25 12:40:00 - [945]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 25/04/2011 12:41:35
Originally by: Pod Amarr
Any item that is still in the game but is not attainable through any other game mechanics while is providing a advantage to the person that has it over a person that does not have it is simply bad game design.
Buying them for 4 years worth of profit does not count simply because games are not lasting decades (or better put very few people play the game nonstop for decades).

Except that the passage of time can only eliminate T2 BPOs, so, barring any changes by CCP to make invention easier, their value can only go up... and if you ever do decide to stop using them, chances are they'll sell for more than you bought them for (on top of the money you made with it). And some people really DO plan to play for that long, so even not selling them at all makes sense.
Anyway, he most important thing about T2 is not the BPOs (they're afterall merely investment tools), but the T2 items themselves... if you don't like the huge "startup" cost for cheaply manufactured T2, you can always do it the lower startup but higher per-unit cost way (invention), or simply just buy the item from the market.
Also, you really CAN'T have it both ways - you can't call them "bad game design for providing an advantage" (implied to be unfair) then in the next sentence call them "not worth buying".

Quote:
Anyone who is saying you can compete with this by volume is off the mark since the owner can do the same invention as everyone else and all thing the same he will come up on top because of the added value of the bpo ownership.

Yes, some T2 BPO owners also do dabble in invention... but usually NOT the owners of actually profitable T2 BPOs, just those that own a lot of really junk BPOs that wouldn't fetch much of anything if sold, and for which manufacturing from those T2 BPOs would also be just barely profitable.

A "valuable" T2 BPO owner and an inventor make ISK in two very, VERY different ways, even if their end product is the same item.
Those with T2 BPOs are merely using them as investment tools, striving for minimum effort and a percentually small but steady return on a very large initial investment.
Those doing invention are mainly exchanging "work" for "income", working on a much smaller startup capital, thanks to the much heavier needed interactivity.

Quote:
I am not talking about the fools who have bought them up for 5 years of profit sums.
I am talking about the smart owners who got them in the lottery or bought them early on.

The provenience of an item in EVE DOES NOT change its value.
It really doesn't matter HOW you got an item, nor HOW MUCH you got it for, its VALUE is determined by how much other people are willing to pay for it.
Again, like I said, you can't have it both ways : T2 BPOs are _either_ too powerful for the advantage they provide when compared to their price (in which case, you should totally buy some, then buy some more) _or_ not worth the investment (in which case, JUST SELL THE DAMN THING instead of using it at all in the first place, and let some other sucker use it instead).
The market will determine what the heck is a "fair price" for that particular advantage.

Quote:
Those in combination with the classic inventions of items as everyone can do will be always be on top and on some items can even dictate prices and push it so low invention is not going to be profitable.

Remember how I said inventors are actually workers not investors ?
The funny thing that links to that is the fact that NO MATTER HOW YOU SCREW WITH T2 BPOs (including outright removal), each individual inventor won't end up raking in noticeably more ISK afterwards (not for very long anyway).

INVENTORS are the people that screw up inventor profit margins for most items that trade in high enoughvolume to matter at all in the first place.
For a short while, there will be space for slightly more inventors, then market resaturates, then all's back like now.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.25 21:19:00 - [946]
 

it all goes back to... i own T2 BPO and they aren't going anywhere

solved... that's the one good reason.

Stella SGP
The Kimotoro Initiative
Posted - 2011.04.26 02:18:00 - [947]
 

Edited by: Stella SGP on 26/04/2011 02:26:58
Originally by: Pod Amarr
Buying them for 4 years worth of profit does not count simply because games are not lasting decades [or better put very few people play the game nonstop for decades].


That does not make any sense at all, so should we lower the price of everything in game to a reasonable 1 mil ceiling in order to cater to the ADD mmo players?

Originally by: Pod Amarr
I am not talking about the fools who have bought them up for 5 years of profit sums.
I am talking about the smart owners who got them in the lottery or bought them early on. Those in combination with the classic inventions of items as everyone can do will be always be on top and on some items can even dictate prices and push it so low invention is not going to be profitable.


How does winning any lottery make someone 'smart'? Intelligence got no correlation to luck. Also back when the lottery was in place T2 BPO went for much, much more Iskies. You obviously never seen a simple T2 cap recharger sold for over 100 bil.

Let me remind you that you are playing in a persistent universe MMO that has been running for 8 years now, 'PERSISTENT' is the key word here, and there are tons of other unique items that can never be attain other then buying from another players. Ever seen a Robotics BPO?

Edit - So many things in this game can be unfair, I could say giving out rare ships in PVP tournaments is unfair if I wanted to. I could be like you and cry "Why isn't there a mining competition for industrialist where special orcas or barges are given out?"

Long story short quit crying.

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.26 07:15:00 - [948]
 

Originally by: Akita T


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

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

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


Every time this thread surfaces I refrain to comment, but I feel I have to call you out on points 1-3. Half your argument is based on a faulty assumption: that losing a lottery is the same as not ever been haven given a ticket.

That is just utterly false, false, false. Those who lost the lottery have the same available opportunities to acquire a T2 BPO as those who never entered the draw, but surely you must see how logic attempting to equate the two in fairness and degree of equity is completely null and void.

It would be akin to having a single election to choose the CSM forever, then telling those new players, to whom the CSM has an affect (albeit however little, and arguably even less so than T2 BPOs) that their inability to vote for their CSM members is completely fair since many others who did vote did not get their candidate elected.

I don't really know enough about the economy to comment on 4 and 5, but I'll say your base assumptions are so off, it probably invalidates the rest of your argument as well. In the least I can only see positive good coming from removing T2 BPOs in the game and replacing it entirely with invention.

Stella SGP
The Kimotoro Initiative
Posted - 2011.04.26 09:21:00 - [949]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Every time this thread surfaces I refrain to comment, but I feel I have to call you out on points 1-3. Half your argument is based on a faulty assumption: that losing a lottery is the same as not ever been haven given a ticket.

That is just utterly false, false, false. Those who lost the lottery have the same available opportunities to acquire a T2 BPO as those who never entered the draw, but surely you must see how logic attempting to equate the two in fairness and degree of equity is completely null and void.

It would be akin to having a single election to choose the CSM forever, then telling those new players, to whom the CSM has an affect (albeit however little, and arguably even less so than T2 BPOs) that their inability to vote for their CSM members is completely fair since many others who did vote did not get their candidate elected.

I don't really know enough about the economy to comment on 4 and 5, but I'll say your base assumptions are so off, it probably invalidates the rest of your argument as well. In the least I can only see positive good coming from removing T2 BPOs in the game and replacing it entirely with invention.


Just the other day I went to the store late and couldn't buy a ticket for the lottery, so the lottery should be invalidated. Right...

Get over it you missed the lottery tough luck.

So let's say the previous CSM got Lv 4 missions moved to low sec, can a new player, who wasn't around to vote, that cries about not being able to run them in hi sec like everyone else before be valid?

Persistent universe MMO, too bad you missed the boat. Persistent... Know what it means?

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.26 11:59:00 - [950]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai

Every time this thread surfaces I refrain to comment, but I feel I have to call you out on points 1-3. Half your argument is based on a faulty assumption: that losing a lottery is the same as not ever been haven given a ticket.

That is just utterly false, false, false. Those who lost the lottery have the same available opportunities to acquire a T2 BPO as those who never entered the draw, but surely you must see how logic attempting to equate the two in fairness and degree of equity is completely null and void.



Those that have participated to the lottery and never wind had hundred of thousand of SP at the time when you could sell your datacore for a very good sum.
One of my characters that was created as soon as revelation started 3 months later had about 2 billion isk in datacores. He was capable of paying for the whole account with datacore sales. Not bad I would say.

Older characters had 10 times his SP, so they had the consolation prize of 20 billions or so in datacores for not having won the lottery.

Too bad for them if they haven't cashed in the datacores at the time and now the same SP are worth a pittance.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.26 12:02:00 - [951]
 

Originally by: Burnharder
Only CCP have the data on whether or not T2 BPO's harm the market. Where there's a lack of supply from T2 BPO's (demand outstrips the number of seeded T2 BPO's), there's the possibility of making good money from invention. I have a slight feeling this isn't the case for ship sales, because there's little profit to be made from it. So presumably the number of seeded BPO's for T2 in this case was greater than demand. Either that or everyone and his mum is busy inventing them.




The second you have said. To make an example 2 years ago 75% of all the hulk were produced from invented BPC.
I doubt that percentage has decreased in the following months.




Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.26 12:59:00 - [952]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 26/04/2011 13:00:35
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Every time this thread surfaces I refrain to comment, but I feel I have to call you out on points 1-3. Half your argument is based on a faulty assumption: that losing a lottery is the same as not ever been haven given a ticket.

Not quite.
Just that not being able to buy a ticket because you came late should not be a reason to ask for the lottery holders to ask back for the prizes given.
Tiny difference, but all the difference that really matters.

Quote:
In the least I can only see positive good coming from removing T2 BPOs in the game and replacing it entirely with invention.

The many drawbacks of what would happen if T2 BPOs are removed have been explained several times in the thread.
Long story short, if T2 BPOs all vanish tomorrow, after a period of screaming, shouting and reshuffling in which inventors WOULD make more money...
...you end up in a situation where inventors still don't make more ISK than what they make today (in fact, it is more likely they'll end up making less)), the end user pays more for any T2 item with no exception (and MUCH more for those where T2 BPOs were the main source), and the only people that really get paid noticeably more are those extracting bottleneck moon minerals (right now, technetium).
In other words, nothing good can come of it.

Originally by: Venkul Mul
To make an example 2 years ago 75% of all the hulk were produced from invented BPC.
I doubt that percentage has decreased in the following months.

Latest official figure from a QEN was almost 9 out of 10 Hulks invented, and only 1 out of 10 from a BPO.

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.27 06:15:00 - [953]
 

Originally by: Stella SGP
Just the other day I went to the store late and couldn't buy a ticket for the lottery, so the lottery should be invalidated. Right...
Persistent universe MMO, too bad you missed the boat. Persistent... Know what it means?

You missed the point: saying that Person A who got a ticket has/had the same opportunities as Person B who didn't get a ticket is fundamentally wrong.

Whether its fair or not is left for debate, and probably can even be quantified mathematically:
p(A) = a/N
p(B) = 0
where p(A) is the probability of a player entered into the lottery, Player A, of winning it. N is the total number of players entered in the lottery (circa EVE population few years back), and a is the number of accounts owned by Player A (I believe the average is 1.5-2?).

Now we calculate the inequitably in ISK caused by T2 BPO:
p(A) * (v(t) + I[0,t](p(t))) = ?
p(B) * (v(t) + I[0,t](p(t))) = 0
p(t) = ?t + ?

where v(t) is the average value of all T2 BPOs at time t and p(t) is the maximum production profit available from the BPO at time t. I[0,t] is the integral over time, from when the BPOs were given out, to time t (let's say now). Someone can venture the relationship between profit over time (probably logarithmic, since profits are tapering off), and probably also venture a guess at average T2 BPO price (around 20bil?).

We could work that out, but already you see Player B's potential earnings (in ISK) are not going to be equal to A's. There are many valid reasons why they shouldn't be: skill, skill points, time played. There are also many invalid reasons as well: cheating, exploiting, bots, RMT. In which list does a random lottery that was decided outside of player control, and not equitably over the entire playerbase, yet whose effects will be everlasting to all players belong? IMO, winning such a lottery may not belong in the second list, but it surely doesn't belong in the first.


Originally by: Akita T
Just that not being able to buy a ticket because you came late should not be a reason to ask for the lottery holders to ask back for the prizes given.

As before: imagine a CSM election that was held once, and only once, some years ago. Is it fair to say not having yearly elections is justified because those who came late shouldn't ever get to vote? Doesn't seem right.

Quote:
Long story short, if T2 BPOs all vanish tomorrow, after a period of screaming, shouting and reshuffling in which inventors WOULD make more money...
...you end up in a situation where inventors still don't make more ISK than what they make today (in fact, it is more likely they'll end up making less)), the end user pays more for any T2 item with no exception (and MUCH more for those where T2 BPOs were the main source), and the only people that really get paid noticeably more are those extracting bottleneck moon minerals (right now, technetium).
In other words, nothing good can come of it.

With everything but the latter, looks good to me (EVE needs more ISK sinks, and T2 BPOs can all vanish tomorrow). Seems like the real problem here is fixing technetium/moon minerals which everyone knows is getting ridiculous already, so it's a weak point to have it serve in favour of keeping T2 BPOs around.

Now maybe not much good will come of it, but it's a silly arsed-up game mechanic, so in that respect I see removing it as a universal good in much the same way removing any other silly obtuse game mechanics would be (like neut rr). Of course any mechanic no matter how silly has an impact when removed and will require other mechanics to be adjusted, but saying that we can't or won't adjust those impacts, is resignation to silliness for the sake of laziness.

Hieronimus Rex
Minmatar
Infinitus Sapientia
Hav0k.
Posted - 2011.04.27 06:35:00 - [954]
 

Edited by: Hieronimus Rex on 27/04/2011 06:39:33
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Originally by: Stella SGP
Just the other day I went to the store late and couldn't buy a ticket for the lottery, so the lottery should be invalidated. Right...
Persistent universe MMO, too bad you missed the boat. Persistent... Know what it means?

You missed the point: saying that Person A who got a ticket has/had the same opportunities as Person B who didn't get a ticket is fundamentally wrong.

Whether its fair or not is left for debate, and probably can even be quantified mathematically:
p(A) = a/N
p(B) = 0
where p(A) is the probability of a player entered into the lottery, Player A, of winning it. N is the total number of players entered in the lottery (circa EVE population few years back), and a is the number of accounts owned by Player A (I believe the average is 1.5-2?).

Now we calculate the inequitably in ISK caused by T2 BPO:
p(A) * (v(t) + I[0,t](p(t))) = ?
p(B) * (v(t) + I[0,t](p(t))) = 0
p(t) = ?t + ?

where v(t) is the average value of all T2 BPOs at time t and p(t) is the maximum production profit available from the BPO at time t. I[0,t] is the integral over time, from when the BPOs were given out, to time t (let's say now). Someone can venture the relationship between profit over time (probably logarithmic, since profits are tapering off), and probably also venture a guess at average T2 BPO price (around 20bil?).

We could work that out, but already you see Player B's potential earnings (in ISK) are not going to be equal to A's. There are many valid reasons why they shouldn't be: skill, skill points, time played. There are also many invalid reasons as well: cheating, exploiting, bots, RMT. In which list does a random lottery that was decided outside of player control, and not equitably over the entire playerbase, yet whose effects will be everlasting to all players belong? IMO, winning such a lottery may not belong in the second list, but it surely doesn't belong in the first.


There is a simple thing anyone could have done to get the same shot at T2 BPO:

1) Join the game in 2003
2) join the lottery

Looking at it this way, you can see the T2 BPO returns fall into your "valid reasons for ISK" list, namely, under the category "time played." Anyone who has played the game for at least 7 years had a shot at a T2 BPO, while anyone who has played for less than 4-5 years didn't.

EDIT: You also see that controlling your *expected* chance of winning is completely under player control (you needed to make 2 choices: 1) to play EVE 2) to participate in the lottery ). I would also note that the effect of winning a T2 BPO is better viewed as one time wealth transfer, not something with an "everlasting impact". If I win a BPO worth 10bil, I'm instantly 10bil richer. Ongoing production carries an opportunity cost roughly equal to what I could make with 10bil anywhere else in the game.

Why should the T2 lottery be different from any other opportunity that was unique to certain periods in the game? When they first introduced battlecruisers, they were selling for 50-100 million. This specific profit opportunity will never return, and the players who enjoyed it will now be that many million ISK richer. The people who got T2 BPOs were simply in the game at the right time, and able to take advantage of a unique opportunity (the T2 lottery) which will never return. There's nothing "unfair" about having a game with profit opportunities that come and go...the T2 lottery is really no different than any other limited-time profit opportunity.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:36:00 - [955]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 27/04/2011 08:44:01
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Originally by: Akita T
Just that not being able to buy a ticket because you came late should not be a reason to ask for the lottery holders to ask back for the prizes given.

As before: imagine a CSM election that was held once, and only once, some years ago. Is it fair to say not having yearly elections is justified because those who came late shouldn't ever get to vote? Doesn't seem right.

That's nowhere near the same thing, and you know it Razz

The problem wasn't ever about T2 BPOs, it was always about the LOTTERY and accusations of favoritism and whatnot. The LOTTERY needed to go away, and no other reasonable method of limited count T2 BPO distribution was found that would not be almost just as bad. Hence, no more T2 BPOs from that moment on.

If you insist on the CSM analogy, it would be something akin to former CSM members getting free lifetime EVE subs, and all of a sudden, CCP decided that people that keep crying too much about how some players through dev friends can manipulate the CSM elections, they EITHER decided they no longer need the CSM at all OR that the CSM should no longer receive instant lifetime subs. Would you insist on the older CSM having to lose their lifetime subs since the newer ones no longer get one ?

Or, how about this one ? What if when CCP decided that the CSM should no longer be elected for 6 months, instead of picking 1 year, they picked 5 years ? The average player "lifetime" is actually just a year, not 5, so what about all those that won't even be around when the next election comes ? A lot of typical players don't even have a say-so in the election of the CSM they will play under already anyway.
Note how 6 months was about the breakeven for T2 BPOs before invention, and 5 years is a more or less typical time now. In other words, NOTHING stops you from buying a T2 BPO that pays off in about that long (and which you can sell at any later time anyway), unlike the election, in which you could not enter even if you wanted. That's because you can't buy/sell an existing CSM chair, but you CAN buy/sell a T2 BPO.

P3po
Selectus Pravus Lupus
Posted - 2011.04.27 08:45:00 - [956]
 

All this whining that its not fair .... its same like i will whine now that Akita is making tens of billions on technetium market and iam not .... you missed the chance, so live with it, or find some other chance that makes you tons of ISK :) and stop crying.

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.27 09:03:00 - [957]
 

Originally by: Hieronimus Rex
There is a simple thing anyone could have done to get the same shot at T2 BPO:

1) Join the game in 2003
2) join the lottery

Looking at it this way, you can see the T2 BPO returns fall into your "valid reasons for ISK" list, namely, under the category "time played."

That's like saying there is a simple thing anyone could do to get First Nation's status:
1) be born a native
2) join a reserve

Joining a game in the past is not a viable option.

Originally by: Akita T
The problem wasn't ever about T2 BPOs, it was always about the LOTTERY and accusations of favoritism and whatnot. The LOTTERY needed to go away, and no other reasonable method of limited count T2 BPO distribution was found that would not be almost just as bad. Hence, no more T2 BPOs from that moment on.



Well that's pretty much it. I agree: it's the LOTTERY mechanic. It was and is a complete fudge-up by CCP and it's about time it be removed. I don't think there's any problem with vanity ships; they don't have much of an impact and were given out to everyone. But something about the pinnacle of market and industry that is T2 production being influenced by some silly lottery that happened years ago and its effects still being felt today... it's not right and I think the sooner we reverse it the better. If it means adjusting some other game mechanics which already need adjusting anyways (such as moon mining and invention), then it should be done in the sake of fostering good game mechanics.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.27 09:54:00 - [958]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Originally by: Akita T
The problem wasn't ever about T2 BPOs, it was always about the LOTTERY and accusations of favoritism and whatnot. The LOTTERY needed to go away, and no other reasonable method of limited count T2 BPO distribution was found that would not be almost just as bad. Hence, no more T2 BPOs from that moment on.

Well that's pretty much it. I agree: it's the LOTTERY mechanic. It was and is a complete fudge-up by CCP and it's about time it be removed. I don't think there's any problem with vanity ships; they don't have much of an impact and were given out to everyone. But something about the pinnacle of market and industry that is T2 production being influenced by some silly lottery that happened years ago and its effects still being felt today... it's not right and I think the sooner we reverse it the better. If it means adjusting some other game mechanics which already need adjusting anyways (such as moon mining and invention), then it should be done in the sake of fostering good game mechanics.

Most of the valuable T2 BPOs already changed hands at least once since the time of the lottery.
By removing T2 BPOs from the game you DON'T achieve that purpose (those that "won" them in the lottery still keep their ISK) while you punish people that not only did do no wrong, but also spent nearly a fortune to purchase them.
Even if you can find a way to BACKTRACK all transactions of T2 BPOs back to the original owner, returning all ISK that were spent on the purchase of T2 BPOs, you end up with somebody who sold them many years ago and may have spent it already... what do you do, do you put them into a negative wallet ? Why ? They did nothing wrong either.

You keep smashing together two very different things : the lottery with the existence of T2 BPOs.
YOU SHOULD NOT.

The fact the lottery existed at all in the first place was a problem. That problem was fixed by removing the lottery.
The fact T2 BPOs exist is NOT a problem and was never a problem. It needs no fixing. You can purchase them like the vast majority of people that have some have done so themselves in the past.
The fact that ONLY having T2 BPOs leads to price-fixing was also a problem. It was fixed by introducing invention.

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.27 10:36:00 - [959]
 

Is the argument now "let's keep T2 BPOs because of the poor T2 BPO owners that might get shafted"? As compared to the rest of the 99% of the playerbase that gets shafted on a daily bases by having them in-game?

Removing T2 BPO's is not a punishment to owners, it's a correction to game mechanics. And this sort of thing has been happening all the time. Is the Black Ops the way it is now to punish the owners, or as a result of shifting game mechanics? Should people who trained hybrids be reimbursed their SP? What about those who invested in any of the many now defunct items and skills that have been removed to correct gameplay?

Again, it's not even about the ISK really, I'm sure many would be happy with a simple reimbursement strategy to just give current owners the estimated market value and change the runs to 0. Problem solved. Remove them and leave only the sane game mechanic of invention.

Hockston Axe
Amarr
Posted - 2011.04.27 10:45:00 - [960]
 

It’s hilarious how much effort people put into an argument that boils down to nothing more than, ‘whaa whaa whaa, its not fair’. Eve is like real life in one respect- it’s not fair. Deal with it.


Pages: first : previous : ... 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 ... : 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