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 : ... 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.27 11:30:00 - [961]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
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?

WHO exactly gets shafted by having T2 BPOs in the game again ?

Obviously, T2 BPO owners would prefer they remain, no shafts here.
People who don't plan to use any T2 items don't care either way, no shafts here.
People that want to use T2 items would like T2 BPOs to remain, since that means cheaper T2 items, no shafts here.
INVENTORS don't really mind all that much that T2 BPOs exist, since price-wise, the only real competition is mainly with OTHER INVENTORS... but in particular, the group everybody loves to call "inventards". Basically, STILL no shafts here.
However it is the INVENTARDS that do keep on claiming that T2 BPOs are bad. And that's because they ASSUME that without T2 BPOs, they'd make more ISK inventing. Which they won't. The only shaft here is the one they actually give themselves.

So, again, how does that come up to 99% of the playerbase being shafted in any way, shape or form ?!?

Hieronimus Rex
Minmatar
Infinitus Sapientia
Hav0k.
Posted - 2011.04.27 13:17:00 - [962]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai

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: Nypheas Azurai

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.


The point is simply you had to be at the right place at the right time. What's unfair about having limited-time opportunities in EVE? They happen all the time.

Also being born as whatever isn't the same as making a choice, so I don't see where that analogy is going. The point was only that you could have joined in 2003.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.27 15:44:00 - [963]
 

I love the way Akita T relies on false statements

BPO II disturbs the inventors. Removal of BPO II disturbs current owners. Final price of tech 2 products is mainly dependent on inflation. Not the BPO II.

Rare opportunity 'prize' ships and token items do not make value. They are unique, yet do not generate new items and thus have negligible effect on a 300 000 subscriber game. BPO II make items, generate profit and set certain limits on tech 2 costs. BPO always surpass invention in costs thus setting the baseline.


Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.27 16:33:00 - [964]
 

Originally by: Akita T
WHO exactly gets shafted by having T2 BPOs in the game again ?
So, again, how does that come up to 99% of the playerbase being shafted in any way, shape or form ?!?


Maybe I'm in the minority, but can you add: "People who think a random lottery featuring a fraction of the playerbase some years ago was and is an unbelievably stupid way to govern T2 production." to the list?

I dunno, I just thought people who enjoy good and sensible game mechanics were at least in the majority, could be wrong.

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.04.27 17:29:00 - [965]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Originally by: Akita T
WHO exactly gets shafted by having T2 BPOs in the game again ?
So, again, how does that come up to 99% of the playerbase being shafted in any way, shape or form ?!?


Maybe I'm in the minority, but can you add: "People who think a random lottery featuring a fraction of the playerbase some years ago was and is an unbelievably stupid way to govern T2 production." to the list?

That's why the T2 lottery was removed. Problem solved.

You're welcome.

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.27 20:09:00 - [966]
 

Originally by: Adrian Idaho

That's why the T2 lottery was removed. Problem solved.


No it wasn't removed. The idea that "speshul" people control the T2 market prices because of some random lottery that happened years ago still exists. Removing the lottery hasn't removed the ill effects and game mechanics it caused. To do that you need to remove the T2 BPOs themselves and replace it with invention. Thank me later.

Nemesis Factor
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.27 20:43:00 - [967]
 

Originally by: Akita T

People that want to use T2 items would like T2 BPOs to remain, since that means cheaper T2 items, no shafts here.
..............
However it is the INVENTARDS that do keep on claiming that T2 BPOs are bad. And that's because they ASSUME that without T2 BPOs, they'd make more ISK inventing. Which they won't.



Those two lines seem contradictory. You suggest that T2 buyers would have to pay more if T2 BPOs were removed, but inventors wouldn't make more? Which is it?

Selak Zorander
Posted - 2011.04.27 20:45:00 - [968]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Originally by: Adrian Idaho

That's why the T2 lottery was removed. Problem solved.


No it wasn't removed. The idea that "speshul" people control the T2 market prices because of some random lottery that happened years ago still exists. Removing the lottery hasn't removed the ill effects and game mechanics it caused. To do that you need to remove the T2 BPOs themselves and replace it with invention. Thank me later.


And this is going to do what again? The tech 2 BPO holders are not the ones that set market price. The Inventors do, so prices are not going to change much if at all with the exception of items that no one uses.

The tech 2 BPO allows the owner to make a higher profit on that one item if the demand is such that invention has to fill in on the supply side. Those profitable BPO make less than 1/3 of the market share of those items.

all it will do is make the "speshul" inventors briefly feel better about themselves until they realize that BPO have pretty much no affect on the prices of any popular tech 2 item.

If you think I am wrong, go figure out the profit on the news tech 2 ships that have no BPO. In some cases you actually take a loss selling those ships and you definitely can not blame that on the existence of tech 2 BPO for those ships as the BPO do not exist.

So one last time just so you might actually understand it. For ALL popular tech 2 items, price is set and controlled by INVENTORS not bpo holders. Removal of all tech 2 BPO is not the answer as it will do almost nothing to the tech 2 market. The only bit of the tech 2 market that will be significantly affected will be the items that the current BPO can supply enough items to meet market demand. Those items (mostly the unpopular equipment) will go up in price but still wont be worth inventing as they dont have a high trade volume.

Kethas Protagonist
Protagonist Ventures
Posted - 2011.04.27 20:51:00 - [969]
 

Originally by: Akita T
INVENTORS don't really mind all that much that T2 BPOs exist, since price-wise, the only real competition is mainly with OTHER INVENTORS... but in particular, the group everybody loves to call "inventards". Basically, STILL no shafts here.
However it is the INVENTARDS that do keep on claiming that T2 BPOs are bad. And that's because they ASSUME that without T2 BPOs, they'd make more ISK inventing. Which they won't. The only shaft here is the one they actually give themselves.


I read this, hit Reply, wrote up a snarky comment, and then hovered my mouse over "Post Reply" for a good twenty seconds before deciding that I'm better than that. I'd like to give you a chance to defend this claim. My concerns regarding T2 BPOs all stem from the belief that the existence of T2 BPOs hurts the profitability of inventing. If this ends up being correct, it'd be very hard to convince me that keeping T2 BPOs is a good idea; if it's incorrect, I'd probably agree that T2 BPOs should remain.

My current view is essentially something out of an Econ 101 textbook:

-T2 BPO owners are lower-cost producers than inventors.

-If the market-clearing price with T2 BPOs is at or above the cost of invention, then their existence doesn't affect the product's price; it does, however, mean that fewer players can invent before saturating the market. If 100% of the T2 BPO owners, in the absence of T2 BPOs, opted to invent the same products, other inventors would be unaffected. In reality, I suspect that some would choose not to bother.

-If the equivalent price is below the cost of invention, then T2 BPOs make inventing impractical.

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


This may or may not be true; I haven't done the numbers. It is, however, irrelevant. You're comparing profitability across product types. At any given time, some products may be more profitable than others (variation in the number of players that happen to identify and pick a particular profitable product, variation in the prices of different materials for different products, etc.), independently of the existence or absence of a relevant T2 BPO. "Product type" is a confounding variable that should be controlled for; the better comparison would be comparing the profitability of a particular product with a T2 BPO in existence to the profitability of that same product in the absence of T2 BPOs. Unfortunately, I think such a comparison has to be hypothetical, or at best confounded with the passage of time (if there were a product type for which T2 BPOs existed previously, but for which we're now 100% sure that all such BPOs have been destroyed/vanished/otherwise stopped producing).

Originally by: Akita T
In almost all cases where manufacturing from a T2 BPO is reasonably profitable, invention is also profitable.


This may or may not be true; I haven't done the numbers. It is, however, irrelevant. You're testing for whether invention is profitable or not. It's possible to dream up scenarios where invention, while still profitable to some degree, has its profitability reduced to some degree by unfair means (say, CCP arbitrarily dictating that 50% of invention profits are redirected to T2 BPO owners). The appropriate test is whether invention profitability is the same with and without the presence of T2 BPOs.

I'm trying to avoid writing this thread off as demagoguery defending a vested interest. Help me out here.

Kethas Protagonist
Protagonist Ventures
Posted - 2011.04.27 20:54:00 - [970]
 

Originally by: Kethas Protagonist
I'm trying to avoid writing this thread off as demagoguery defending a vested interest. Help me out here.


Actually, given the nature of EVE's forums, that would probably make a good sig.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.27 21:35:00 - [971]
 

Originally by: Opertone
Final price of tech 2 products is mainly dependent on inflation. Not the BPO II.[...]BPO II make items, generate profit and set certain limits on tech 2 costs. BPO always surpass invention in costs thus setting the baseline.

Actually, price of T2 items is dependent on relevant resource scarcity compared to demand on the background of revenue stream changes (which some people would argue is what "inflation" is, but it's not quite that).

T2 BPOs indeed do set some limits to T2 costs... the LOWER limit. NOT the upper limit.
Why do you think before invention, you would sell all T2 items at a ridiculously high price ?
Because the ONLY upper limit was "as much as the market was willing to pay".
INVENTION now sets an additional upper limit.

Prices for T2 items will hover between those two - very close to the former for items where T2 BPOs are more than sufficient to fill ALL demand (and there, even T2 BPO owners have problems making profit higher than T1 production), and very close to the latter where demand is so high that T2 BPOs are as good as non-existent already.
And then, there's the whole set of items where T2 BPOs don't even exist to begin with, so there's no additional lower limit at all, just the additional upper limit (on top of the "whatever the buyers can stand paying").

Just tell me, how great do you think the profit for items where no T2 BPOs exist is ?
Would you be surprised to find out that a lot of inventors make more money by inventing stuff that HAS a T2 BPO instead of bothering with items that have no T2 BPOs ?

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.27 21:55:00 - [972]
 

simple market argument...

a stock of 100 ships on the market, supply exceeds the demand... current price 90 mill, slow sales

BPO owner can lower down the price and remain at profit, since his costs are a lot lower, say 60 mill per unit. BPC inventor may opt to undercut the new price, to clear his lot at expense of thinner profit margin. Inventors have the option to wait another 3 months for their stock to clear out or to sell the ships at barely zero profit.

BPO holders find this 'barely profitable to invent' point and gain their surplus from there. Their stock gets cleared first, they install a new production batch, regardless of material price trends they have safe room to get lower and make money. Inventors become the trend setters. In reality, this is mostly the case in active hubs, inventors have slim profit and zero chance to beat the BPO holders in price war.

If the demand is higher than supply, BPO owners end up making more profit, over short period of time the materials match the new price level, which means more competition between inventors and steady profits for BPO owners. All that from lower base material costs associated with research BPO 2 ME PE.

To make the situation fair - BPO need to match the BPC costs. Else it becomes a golden mine, which gives + ~25% to whatever current selling price of tech 2 product is.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.27 21:58:00 - [973]
 

Originally by: Nemesis Factor
Originally by: Akita T
People that want to use T2 items would like T2 BPOs to remain, since that means cheaper T2 items, no shafts here.
..............
However it is the INVENTARDS that do keep on claiming that T2 BPOs are bad. And that's because they ASSUME that without T2 BPOs, they'd make more ISK inventing. Which they won't.

Those two lines seem contradictory.
You suggest that T2 buyers would have to pay more if T2 BPOs were removed, but inventors wouldn't make more? Which is it?

They're not contradictory at all, they just seem that way to the "untrained eye".

Let me draw attention to a different thing first (which is slightly related, so bear with me).
Remember how in the Dominion expansion, almost every T2 item (and in particular, almost all T2 ships, except JFs) got their build costs shuffled around ?
Dominion increased the "market share" of people doing reactions to almost TRIPLE the previous need, and not quite so much but relatively close for T2 component manufacturers.
IN THE SHORT RUN, yes, you are completely correct, profitability for reactions was insanely high. You could make 10 bil ISK/month in the first month after the patch from reacting several material types, and even the lousiest reactions paid well over 1 bil ISK/month (whereas previously, 1 bil ISK/month was a very decent income). People USED to rip down their reaction tower chains whenever profits sunk below half a bil per chain per month.
Obviously, as more and more people were drawn into it, profits started dwindling.
Can you guess where we are right now, profit-wise ?
If you guessed "a few reactions OCCASIONALLY RUN AT A NET LOSS and the best ones barely manage to occasionally hit 1 bil/month per full chain", you would be correct.
Almost all carbides are barely worth running or even react at a loss every now and then (thanks to "POS fuel I get myself is free therefore worthless" people), and the average across all reactions is barely above a quarter bil per month per chain... a profit point where people not so long ago would mostly just go "screw it, I'm not slaving at this crap for so little pay".

Now, let's look at what WILL happen when/if T2 BPOs are removed.
The immediate effect will INDEED be that whoever invents right then will make quite a bit more money.
But very soon, people attracted by the increased profits will come in and start filling the void, profits shrinking.
Thanks to the fact you now need additional resources (datacores, interfaces, even more T1 BPCs made) and the fact the invented ships eat up MORE materials than the ones they fill the void for (not the case for items, there items are "extra" usually), the price of T2 components // advanced materials // moongoo will also increase.
So, not before long, you will have a situation where ALL T2 items will end up costing more.
But what about the individual inventor profit, you say, that one has to be higher ? Well, no, it doesn't have to be higher. NOT FOR LONG, ANYWAY.
Thanks to all the increased material prices, overall demand for T2 items will shrink, and it will shrink drastically especially for items where T2 BPOs used to supply the majority of the volume.
A lot more of the inventors (remember, all of a sudden, there were far more of them) will not want to abandon their initial investment (interfaces, BPOs they used to make copies from, trained skills, etc) and they will also be willing to accept IN THE END a similar or even lower profit than before... because otherwise, people just won't buy from them.

Yes, there is a slight chance that inventors will make A BIT MORE cash than before, but only if proportionally less people enter the invention business compared to how many more are needed.
But let's face it, we all KNOW that's not going to happen. Once T2 BPOs are out, every Tom, Rick and Harry will simply start inventing because "yay, no more T2 BPOs, PROFIT MUST BE THERE NOW".
So, each inventor will earn less.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.27 22:17:00 - [974]
 

Originally by: Kethas Protagonist
My concerns regarding T2 BPOs all stem from the belief that the existence of T2 BPOs hurts the profitability of inventing.[...]
My current view is essentially something out of an Econ 101 textbook:
-T2 BPO owners are lower-cost producers than inventors.
-If the market-clearing price with T2 BPOs is at or above the cost of invention, then their existence doesn't affect the product's price; it does, however, mean that fewer players can invent before saturating the market. If 100% of the T2 BPO owners, in the absence of T2 BPOs, opted to invent the same products, other inventors would be unaffected. In reality, I suspect that some would choose not to bother.
-If the equivalent price is below the cost of invention, then T2 BPOs make inventing impractical.

While it was partially explained in the above reply (where char limit was reached), a few more clarifications.
- T2 BPO owners may indeed be lower-cost PER ITEM producers compared to inventors. However, they ALSO invested a huge amount of ISK up-front. They are not stupid, they will want to recover that as soon as possible, so will never sell lower than the market can stand.
- Yes, you are correct, most T2 BPO owners want as little work done "now" as possible, because they already "paid" their effort's due up front. Were you to remove T2 BPOs _with_ compensation (which would be an inflationary nightmare), I seriously doubt a noticeable number of the former T2 BPO owners would bother with invention. Were you to remove T2 BPOs without compensation though, you would have a total PR nightmare.
- Yes, for items where demand is low, T2 BPO owners make invention impractical... but what do you think WILL happen to the prices of those items when T2 BPOs get removed ? They will snap up to invention level, for starters... but do you think the VOLUME will remain the same ? The only reason some T2 items in that category are even sold AT ALL is because they're dirt cheap. Almost nobody would bother with them if their price would be near invented cost. Those T2 items will practically vanish from existence.

All in all, the total volume of T2 items HAS to decrease either way, that is an absolute certainty.
It's because moon minerals are RESTRICTED in maximum total volume to the number of available bottleneck moons, and because invented items use up more than BPO-constructed items.
Yes, there would be more space for extra inventors, but the overall volume of T2 items will go down, and the margins will get tighter.
AT BEST, if every inventor was a completely rational being with eyes on a spreadsheet figuring out real profit (no "stuff I get myself is free therefore worthless" people, and only people that can properly calculate their costs in a randomized output environment), yes, per-inventor profit MIGHT go up a bit in the long run.
But... we all know that's not how things work. Many people will just assume (like it ALREADY HAPPENS NOW) that no T2 BPOs means guaranteed profit, and will not bother to run the math properly, so in the end, the pressure of that extra (less accurately assessing costs) competition will inevitably drive the invention profit DOWN.

This last part is also a partial answer to the second and third section of your post which I left out of the explicit quote, more on the third part below...

"This may or may not be true; I haven't done the numbers. It is, however, irrelevant. You're testing for whether invention is profitable or not."

Actually, that's not what we really care for. There's no doubt invention WILL be profitable. It is overall profitable now, and it WILL keep being profitable later.
We only care whether invention would be MORE or LESS profitable compared to now.
And I just explained above my reasoning for the scenario where invention profitability actually goes DOWN if you remove T2 BPOs.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.27 22:24:00 - [975]
 

Originally by: Opertone
simple market argument...
a stock of 100 ships on the market, supply exceeds the demand... current price 90 mill, slow sales
BPO owner can lower down the price and remain at profit, since his costs are a lot lower, say 60 mill per unit. BPC inventor may opt to undercut the new price, to clear his lot at expense of thinner profit margin. Inventors have the option to wait another 3 months for their stock to clear out or to sell the ships at barely zero profit.
BPO holders find this 'barely profitable to invent' point and gain their surplus from there. Their stock gets cleared first, they install a new production batch, regardless of material price trends they have safe room to get lower and make money. Inventors become the trend setters. In reality, this is mostly the case in active hubs, inventors have slim profit and zero chance to beat the BPO holders in price war.
If the demand is higher than supply, BPO owners end up making more profit, over short period of time the materials match the new price level, which means more competition between inventors and steady profits for BPO owners. All that from lower base material costs associated with research BPO 2 ME PE.
To make the situation fair - BPO need to match the BPC costs. Else it becomes a golden mine, which gives + ~25% to whatever current selling price of tech 2 product is.

Not quite accurate.

Most items are EITHER stuck to "invented BPC manufacture barely profitable" or "T2 BPO manufacture barely profitable".
The T2 items where the price is sat somewhere in-between invention costs and T2 BPO costs are very few.
There's a very, VERY thin band of "demand level" that would enable any prices in between.

Also, even if you remove T2 BPOs, you STILL wouldn't go past the "invented BPC manufacture barely profitable" price point BECAUSE MORE INVENTORS WOULD COME IN TO COMPENSATE.
At best, you get more inventors on the item, and a barely/slightly more profitable invention for that item, which is a highly unlikely scenario.
At worst, you get not just more inventors on the item, but more INVENTARDS (i.e. people that couldn't figure out their TRUE average costs per item if you hit them with a printout of spreadsheets over the face repeatedly), and you end up with a stupid fight that wiped out most of the profit you used to have on the item. You might still make a SLIGHT profit, but not much... but even A NET LOSS is possible, and in the worst case scenario, almost guaranteed.

Stella SGP
The Kimotoro Initiative
Posted - 2011.04.28 00:43:00 - [976]
 

Edited by: Stella SGP on 28/04/2011 00:52:31
Originally by: Opertone
simple market argument...

a stock of 100 ships on the market, supply exceeds the demand... current price 90 mill, slow sales

BPO owner can lower down the price and remain at profit, since his costs are a lot lower, say 60 mill per unit. BPC inventor may opt to undercut the new price, to clear his lot at expense of thinner profit margin. Inventors have the option to wait another 3 months for their stock to clear out or to sell the ships at barely zero profit.

BPO holders find this 'barely profitable to invent' point and gain their surplus from there. Their stock gets cleared first, they install a new production batch, regardless of material price trends they have safe room to get lower and make money. Inventors become the trend setters. In reality, this is mostly the case in active hubs, inventors have slim profit and zero chance to beat the BPO holders in price war.

If the demand is higher than supply, BPO owners end up making more profit, over short period of time the materials match the new price level, which means more competition between inventors and steady profits for BPO owners. All that from lower base material costs associated with research BPO 2 ME PE.

To make the situation fair - BPO need to match the BPC costs. Else it becomes a golden mine, which gives + ~25% to whatever current selling price of tech 2 product is.


If you only narrowly look at this issue in pure dollars and cents then yes I won't argue that BPO owner have more room to wiggle if competition gets tough, but like I said before invention was never meant to be equal to BPOs. That said, do you even know why CCP introduced invention?

Let me tell you, invention was put in place because BPO holders bought up those BPOs, formed cartels and fixed prices, eg. 20-30 mil for 1 cap recharger. So introducing new BPOs back then would do jack as the same people would just buy them up and if too many T2 BPO were floating around, it would then be no different from T1. Hence, invention was introduced to break cartels and allow prices to be determined by the market. You know how sad is it to open 3-6 months sales history and only see the price graph as a horizontal line?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but invention was meant to break cartels and price fixing and was never meant to be equal.

To Nypheas Azurai: I don't care how you want to quantify it with fancy mathematics, bottom line is you didn't play the game back then when it was boring and there wasn't much for you to do, and never participated in the lottery, so you didn't get a ticket and naturally have no right to cry about something that happen before you join. Zero participation = zero chance of winning whatever... Even if you were playing then, suck it up you didn't win anything and neither did I.

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.28 01:45:00 - [977]
 

Originally by: Stella SGP
To Nypheas Azurai: I don't care how you want to quantify it with fancy mathematics, bottom line is you didn't play the game back then when it was boring and there wasn't much for you to do, and never participated in the lottery, so you didn't get a ticket and naturally have no right to cry about something that happen before you join. Zero participation = zero chance of winning whatever... Even if you were playing then, suck it up you didn't win anything and neither did I.

Yeah, I counter your mathematical proof with a "suck it up", touche, amazing debate skills?
Like everyone should just "suck up" neut RR's, POS mechanics, sovereignty, FW, and everything thing you see relentlessly "cried" about on these forums (not in the least by OP) because of silly backwards game mechanics that need to be fixed.

I've seen arguments for and against the market effects. I've not seen any arguments explaining why a random lottery is not a silly game mechanic (apparently everyone agrees, and it was removed) and so we should continue to submit ourselves to its silly effects simply because of some market stats that can and have been in the past adjusted to reflect changes in gameplay.

gameplay > market > T2 BPO owner tears > inventard tears.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.28 02:07:00 - [978]
 

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
gameplay > market > T2 BPO owner tears > inventard tears.

Funny you should say that, because gameplay and market don't care T2 BPOs exist or not as long as invention exists, and "inventards" are the only ones really crying about T2 BPOs.
So I guess you are saying you don;t mind keeping T2 BPOs ? Razz

Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.28 02:55:00 - [979]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
gameplay > market > T2 BPO owner tears > inventard tears.

Funny you should say that, because gameplay and market don't care T2 BPOs exist or not as long as invention exists, and "inventards" are the only ones really crying about T2 BPOs.
So I guess you are saying you don;t mind keeping T2 BPOs ? Razz

Yes, if there is a proper game mechanic to it (maybe BPOs are only attainable through LP, or need ME/PE research upkeep, etc). I'm opposed against the silly game mechanic as to how they were introduced and how they exist currently.

Also, gameplay does care, we saw that because the lottery was removed, and so far no one has once contested the point that it was a silly idea. CCP should have removed the BPOs with the lottery like they removed the SP when they removed learning skills. How silly would it have been if they let everyone who trained learning skills continue to learn at 2x rate while everyone else was forced to a 1x rate?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.28 03:34:00 - [980]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 28/04/2011 03:43:07
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Yes, if there is a proper game mechanic to it (maybe BPOs are only attainable through LP, or need ME/PE research upkeep, etc). I'm opposed against the silly game mechanic as to how they were introduced and how they exist currently.

First off, if you do not limit the total amount of T2 BPOs that can exist, it's only a matter of time until ALL T2 production becomes just like T1 production, and invention becomes completely useless.

Second, the way something was introduced (no matter how flawed) doesn't have anything to do with their continued existence.

Finally, since T2 BPOs can be traded, anybody willing to shell out enough ISK can get one, MANY DID, and those who choose to keep whatever T2 BPOs they have are choosing NOT to get a whoopload of ISK right now, but instead gain a much smaller amount of ISK constantly.
THE MARKET itself determined what the "fair price" for a T2 BPO is, and anybody who considers T2 BPOs to be overpowered compared to their price is welcome to buy some.
HOW you got the item has absolutely no relevance - once an item is in your possession (be it gained in the lottery, purchased from another player, found in a loot container or stolen from a corp hangar) the method through which you obtained it is doesn't matter anymore.

Quote:
Also, gameplay does care, we saw that because the lottery was removed, and so far no one has once contested the point that it was a silly idea.

That doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about here.
The LOTTERY was flawed. What the lottery distributed does not matter. Could have been worthless items, could have been built titans, could have been anything. The lottery itself was the problem, the problem was eliminated.
The fact T2 BPOs exist was never a problem. INITIAL fair distribution, THAT was always a problem, and still is. If a method of FAIR and LIMITED distribution could have had been implemented, they would have never bothered to create invention as a "pressure release valve".
If they really wanted for invention to even BEGIN to compete with T2 BPOs, they would NOT KEEP INVENTED BPC BASE VALUES AT -4, like they still do.
Invention was never intended as a replacement for T2 BPOs, it was intended as a way to "top-cap" prices of T2 items and provide the opportunity for everybody who wanted a specific T2 item to be able to get it.
While not intended as a replacement, it was just forced to become that too, for new T2 items, because CCP couldn't come up with any alternate T2 BPO distribution model that would top-cap the number of T2 BPOs without everybody screaming that whoever got some of the new ones had to cheat to get them.

Quote:
CCP should have removed the BPOs with the lottery like they removed the SP when they removed learning skills.

BPOs already started changing hands a short time after the lottery started distributing them. AGAIN, how exactly would punishing people for buying something solve anything, while some the people that "won" the lottery get to keep the ISK ?
ALSO... in case you haven't noticed, CCP didn't remove any SP when they removed the learning skills. They gave all that SP back to be redistributed any way anybody pleased. Not just that, but everybody got the effect of nearly maxed-out learning skills FOR FREE TO EVERYBODY.
In other words, it would be akin to payingback everybody a truckload of ISK for any T2 BPOs they might have had, and at the same time, putting T2 BPOs up for sale via NPCs at 0.01 ISK or something similar.

__

To recap :
CCP DOES NOT FEEL THAT INVENTION SHOULD BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH T2 BPO PRODUCTION.
CCP DOES NOT FEEL THAT T2 BPOs ARE A PROBLEM.
CCP WILL NOT REMOVE T2 BPOs.


Nypheas Azurai
Posted - 2011.04.28 05:20:00 - [981]
 

Originally by: Akita T
ALSO... in case you haven't noticed, CCP didn't remove any SP when they removed the learning skills. They gave all that SP back to be redistributed any way anybody pleased. Not just that, but everybody got the effect of nearly maxed-out learning skills FOR FREE TO EVERYBODY.
In other words, it would be akin to payingback everybody a truckload of ISK for any T2 BPOs they might have had, and at the same time, putting T2 BPOs up for sale via NPCs at 0.01 ISK or something similar.


That's what I meant by "removing", and you avoided the most important part. Regardless of what learning skills's impact had on the game, regardless of how CCP chose to reimburse those SP, would you or would you not feel comfortable about allowing the residue of the mechanic to live on in the game by allowing those who had trained learning to learn 2x faster than everyone else?

And there you have your answer.

You see, learning 2x faster is not the problem in and of itself, just as T2 BPOs are not the problem in and of themselves. It is the justification behind why they exist. That is the problem and if you say it is justified then likewise you agree that because someone was lucky enough to have been around during learning skills we should now all learn 2x faster than new players. Hey if they want to they can always buy 2bil implants and train on two accounts right?
Silly game mechanics are not gone until their residue is mopped up.
The only thing I agree with is that CCP sees no problem and will probably do nothing. But hey if there's comfort in that then let's just stop all the threads about FW, Sov, Blobs, aggro mechanics, null sec, etc since we all know CCP doesn't see any problems there either.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.28 05:40:00 - [982]
 


I don't want to keep repeating what I already recently said, so I will only respond to this:

Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
if there's comfort in that then let's just stop all the threads about FW, Sov, Blobs, aggro mechanics, null sec, etc since we all know CCP doesn't see any problems there either.

That's again completely different, and again, you know it very well.

"Fixing" any residual issues with the lottery would be trivial : simply pump up invented ME/PE levels to +1 base, and you're almost completely DONE. It's not even hard, you just change two bloody constants. The reason why this doesn't happen is because CCP doesn't want it to happen.
"Fixing" FW and all those other things you mentioned... that's something CCP actually wants to do, but the solutions are far from trivial and require huge amounts of manpower they can't spare right now.

Also, you were talking about aggro mechanics and neutral reps ? Well, gee, wasn't CONCORDOKKENING fleetmates by attacking those that RR you a problem, and wasn't that fixed once it became common to fleet up with people unknown ? Now RRing auto-stops when the other guy gets GCC. And, oh, wait, wasn't repping neutral POSes also a problem, ended up being deemed an exploit ? Guess what, now we have better rules for that, and you CAN actually take care of those pesky neutral reppers.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.28 16:31:00 - [983]
 

Edited by: Opertone on 28/04/2011 16:31:40
botting makes me money... it's a game mechanic, I worked hard to set my business up, it makes ore and isk cheap for everyone...

BPO II make me money, it's a game mechanic, I worked hard to set my business up, it makes stuff cheap for everyone...

BPO II are a gold mine, which originates from roughly 25% ME difference. Nerf BPO or remove it.

Or give me magic necklace that makes 50 mill per day.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:13:00 - [984]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 28/04/2011 17:30:04

Originally by: Opertone
botting[...]it's a game mechanic

Ummmm... WHAT.
No, it's not.

Quote:
BPO II are a gold mine, which originates from roughly 25% ME difference. Nerf BPO or remove it.
Or give me magic necklace that makes 50 mill per day.

A gold mine, for which you paid a fortune, or you could sell for a fortune, or you could BUY for a fortune.

Even if a "magic necklace" that WOULD simply create 50 mil ISK per day would exist, right now focusing LESS on how it would be introduced in the game, WHAT EXACTLY WOULD BE THE PROBLEM WITH IT ?!? You know, other than the obvious "waah, inflation", ignore that entirely. Just talking strict "fairness" sense here.
Yes, the item would be monumentally stupid, and they might as well have a NPC bank instead, which gives you a tiny percentage interest instead. But that's not the point. The item now exists.
No, seriously, as long as you would be free to buy/sell it for as much ISK as you like, I see ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with having an item that simply does exactly that : add 50 mil ISK to owner's wallet at each DT, no questions asked, no effort needed whatsoever, you get ISK just by having it in your possession anywhere.
AS LONG AS IT IS TRADEABLE.
Not much good either, but still nothing wrong.

Back on the issue of its introduction...
We all agree a LOTTERY for it would be monumentally wrong, don't we ?
Let's say we do it via a very long public auction and it's made very "public" on all official channels (which would be one of the very, VERY few methods that might not result in any rolling heads), and there's a limited number of them coming up for auction every week for the next year (say 2 per week, duration 12 weeks for each such NPC auction, no buyout, no reserve, no upper limit, 80 units total spread across a year from the moment the first one shows up until the last one is gone).

How much do you think the "magic necklace" item would sell for exactly ?!?
I would be extremely surprised if any of them would sell for less than 60 billion ISK, hell, some might even sell for over 300 billion ISK.

Now the question is... are they overpowered ? Underpowered ?
Would you buy one yourself if you had that much ISK ? Why ? Or why not ? And assuming you have enough ISK, how much would you pay ?
Or if you received one as a gift from a "can I have your stuff" post you never thought would bring you anything, would that change anything ?
Would you sell it ? Why ? Or why not ? How much WOULD you sell it for ?
How would you feel if tomorrow, CCP changed it, and instead of giving out 50 mil a day, it now gives 5 mil a day ?
What if they all of a sudden decided after just half a year that they no longer want to keep them, and would simply remove them ? How much ISK would be an adequate compensation for its removal ?

Florence Valentine
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:29:00 - [985]
 

The Royal Wedding of William and Kate!!!

Pomp and ceremony, heredity rule, barons, lords, dames and knights. Is this even still relevant in today's modern society?! A small group of people awarded a distinct finacial and social advantage over the majority because of a tradition dating backing thousands of years!

Whether you care or not many will avoid it, others will positvely relish it, and the most intelligent of all will exploit it and make a lot of money off it.

WTF I here you cry! What the hell has this got to do with T2 BPOs. Can't you see it?

The BPO T2 lottery, now long gone, gives EVE a wonderful heritage that has created an elite, privaleged few - and guess what, this is just like real life - and HOW MUCH MORE INTERESTING THE GAME IS FOR IT!

What do people want, a homogenous grey blob of game where everyone is treated exactly the same. Get out of your socialist fantasy, that's boring. An unfair playing field creates opportunity, the possibility to expolit arbitrage, the scamming (yes I'm a victim), the pvp, the revenge, the jealously, and on and on..

Anyone remember that line from the Matrix, about all the humans commiting suicide when presented with a uptopian world - whilst a world of decay, unfairness and ruin somehow keeps us all sane?

While T2 BPOs might be unfair, it keeps you playing, it keeps you posting - your in a state of denial - you love this game! Very Happy

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:32:00 - [986]
 

You can buy a T2 BPO in EVE.
You can't buy a royalty status in RL.
Twisted Evil
OMFGWTFBBQ, EVE is fairer than RL, the horror !

Florence Valentine
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:40:00 - [987]
 

Originally by: Akita T
You can buy a T2 BPO in EVE.
You can't buy a royalty status in RL.
Twisted Evil
OMFGWTFBBQ, EVE is fairer than RL, the horror !


Well yes and no.

I agree with you in the sense that, indeed, EVE is more forgiving than RL! Hooray for that.

But lets be honest, a 50 billion* BPO is probably beyong 99% of the player-base, so it might as well be a Royal privalage.




*Yes there are cheaper ones (by an order of magnitude), but what's the point really, other than for the bragging rights - which counts for poo when you just cleared out your entire wallet. These things are nothing more than stags heads above the gold-gilted mantle piece!

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:49:00 - [988]
 

I could buy several T2 BPOs if I wanted to, quite a few of the cheaper ones, and one or even maybe two or the most expensive ones.
But I don't want to.
They're too much work for my taste (all that component hunting and all the hauling and assembling and bleh) and also bring in too little ISK for how much they cost.
I consider T2 BPOs to be a bad investment (even the best ones), the RoI is too low.
If I received one as a gift, the first thing I'd do with it was to SELL it.
Razz

Lirinas
Posted - 2011.04.29 20:29:00 - [989]
 

*peeks in*
Looks like the same old arguments made by people that can't get off their butts to crunch some of the numbers themselves, or the "HaveNots" whining how unfair things are, and forcing poor Akita explain things over and over again.

Any argument for the removal of T2 BPO's that mentions the old lottery is simply a whine for the HaveNots. The Lottery was flawed, and was removed. T2 BPO's were not removed then. Thus using the existence of the long-dead Lottery as a valid argument for the removal of BPO's is completely irrational.

My personal feelings (as I've stated before) is that the only valid reason for changing or removing T2 BPO's would be if the entire Industry system was overhauled, from Material Acquisition (ore, minerals, moon goo), Research, and Production on all Tech levels.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:05:00 - [990]
 

That magic necklace makes me special

and BPOs II look very special...

People who don't own BPOs feel unsexy, they invent alone in the corner.

Can I have the necklace?


Pages: first : previous : ... 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 ... : 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