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 : ... 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.29 23:19:00 - [991]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 29/04/2011 23:23:08
Originally by: Opertone
Can I have the necklace?

For the low price of 300 bil ISK right now, I can give you a specially crafted medal you can wear as a necklace, and it comes with a super-special set of shares that entitle you to an average income of 50 mil ISK/day, payable on the 1st of every month for as long as the game keeps going.
Will you buy one ?

ALTERNATIVELY, I will open up a lottery. Each 1 ISK will get you a ticket.
A winner will be drawn when 300 bil tickets are sold.
Will you buy several tickets for the medal necklace lottery ?

Why not ?

Zars Boy
Posted - 2011.04.30 11:32:00 - [992]
 

Thats the way to go........I never wanted to set up scores of bots however I do want the opportunity to compete in a fair and even market or what is the point of any of the related skills? Months of training for what reward? In 4 months you have a pretty reasonable Hulk pilot and a steady 23.5/7 income.
Originally by: Opertone
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.
Quote:


I wonder what T2 BPO's are still around and who owns them? You don't need rocket science to 5 to work that one out.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.30 19:12:00 - [993]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 29/04/2011 23:23:08
Originally by: Opertone
Can I have the necklace?

For the low price of 300 bil ISK right now, I can give you a specially crafted medal you can wear as a necklace, and it comes with a super-special set of shares that entitle you to an average income of 50 mil ISK/day, payable on the 1st of every month for as long as the game keeps going.
Will you buy one ?

ALTERNATIVELY, I will open up a lottery. Each 1 ISK will get you a ticket.
A winner will be drawn when 300 bil tickets are sold.
Will you buy several tickets for the medal necklace lottery ?

Why not ?



I will accept your offer if you show me a receipt for 20 years of subscription to EVE. Laughing

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.04.30 19:14:00 - [994]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
I will accept your offer if you show me a receipt for 20 years of subscription to EVE. Laughing

Pfft, that's trivial.
12*20 PLEX cost well under 90 bil ISK, and I already have several times that amount, that being before the extra 70-ish year's worth I would receive for the "item" I'd be selling.
Razz

Loney
CyberDyne R-D
Posted - 2011.05.04 02:15:00 - [995]
 

Edited by: Loney on 04/05/2011 02:18:28
- fixed typo

I CHALLENGE YOU TO :
A) FIND A GOOD REASON WHY T2 BPOs MUST BE REMOVED
B) DETERMINE A FAIR SYSTEM FOR THEIR REMOVAL
C) ARGUE WHY THE RESULTING SITUATION WOULD BE BETTER OVERALL THAN THE CURRENT ONE.


A. CAUSE I DIDN'T WIN ONE... (Point of me bying which ever I want is Invalid as i don't wany to buy anyone of them or I would have!)
B. GIVE CURRENT OWNERS CURRENT FACE VALUE OF BPO IN ISK... (How's that not Fair!)
C. NO BPO'S WOULD BE BETTER FOR COMPETITION ON INVENTION AND MORE IMPORTANTALLY STOP ALL THE DAM PEOPLE FROM CRYING ABOUT NOT WINNING... (Like Me.. not really crying but just felt like responding to this thread!)

Hieronimus Rex
Minmatar
Infinitus Sapientia
Hav0k.
Posted - 2011.05.04 03:27:00 - [996]
 

Questions:
1)Can someone link me to the thread that says a random lottery were unanimously agreed to be a bad idea?
2)Can anyone post a profitability comparison between inventable and non-inventable high volume items proving there is a profitability difference?
3)If the BPO lottery was bad, can anyone show how the alleged unfairness persisted beyond the end of the lottery?


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.04 04:07:00 - [997]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 04/05/2011 04:12:00
Originally by: Loney
B. GIVE CURRENT OWNERS CURRENT FACE VALUE OF BPO IN ISK... (How's that not Fair!)

First off, how would you assign this "face value" ? Will you track forum posts of recent sales of T2 BPOs ? Do you have any idea how much work that would be ?
Even assuming you COULD agree on what exactly is the "fair value" of those blueprints (which is a nearly impossible task to begin with without overinflating the actual value so nobody feels slighted), there's probably over ten thousand such BPOs still around, and even the most worthless ones can sell for something around half a bil ISK purely on "collector's item" status value, while the most valuable ones can fetch even up to 200 bil ISK.
The average T2 BPO "fair value" could be anywhere between 1 bil and 20 bil ISK, for a grand total of 10 to 200 trillion ISK needed to repay everybody at a "fair" value. You'd have a HUGE amount of ISK entering the economy in one gigantic lump sum. Do you have any idea what THAT would do to the economic stability of the game ?
We're talking about potentially increasing the amount of ISK in circulation with double-digit percentages, and most likely not low double digits either. It could take years for the situation to stabilize after something like that, if not longer... and people who would be the most affected are the currently relatively POOR people, which make up the vast majority of the game's population.
Sure, T1 item prices will most likely remain the same... but at the same time, faction/officer/T2/T3 items will most likely explode in price upwards. With T2 item prices going up like mad, while for a short while inventors and manufacturers would make more ISK, most profit would eventually trickle back to moon mineral harvesters, and not all of them, but increasingly more for the bottleneck ones. In other words, you'll only end up making technetium moon holders even richer even faster.

So, no, paying back a "fair ISK value" for the removed T2 BPOs would not be a good idea at all.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.04 21:03:00 - [998]
 

Edited by: Opertone on 04/05/2011 21:03:45
back to reasoning.

BPO II only benefit the select few - BPO makers sell items at nearly the same price as inventors, netting the ME cost difference (which can be 25-30%). BPO makers sell at market prices, not cheaper at all. Conclusion BPOs II don't make things cheaper.

BPO II set regional and inter regional price levels. Because of BPO II standardized costs tech 2 prices tend to be almost identical. Different regions do not have big price gaps. Local market trends set by independent inventors can not form. This leads to less diversity. Conclusion BPO II affect too much of the economy.

BPO II do not allow fair competition and price adjustments. BPO II keep pumping things out, regardless of demand, not allowing a shortage to appear and thus reducing Price - Production level relation. For example, when certain item runs out of stock, getting an extra one will become more expensive. New producers might be interested to fill the gap as soon as it appears, making industry more challenging and rewarding.

In fact BPO II are natural monopolies, which compete with certain high cost manufacturers. This competition looks like factories versus handicraft (low tech work). BPO II are monopoly because they have lower ME costs, zero invention costs and zero upkeep.

BPO II ruin the game for inventors. Prices become standard, not able to deviate much since as much as 30% of market volume can be controlled by BPO holders.

Stella SGP
The Kimotoro Initiative
Posted - 2011.05.05 01:18:00 - [999]
 

Edited by: Stella SGP on 05/05/2011 01:23:36
Originally by: Opertone
Edited by: Opertone on 04/05/2011 21:03:45
back to reasoning.

BPO II only benefit the select few - BPO makers sell items at nearly the same price as inventors, netting the ME cost difference (which can be 25-30%). BPO makers sell at market prices, not cheaper at all. Conclusion BPOs II don't make things cheaper.

BPO II set regional and inter regional price levels. Because of BPO II standardized costs tech 2 prices tend to be almost identical. Different regions do not have big price gaps. Local market trends set by independent inventors can not form. This leads to less diversity. Conclusion BPO II affect too much of the economy.

BPO II do not allow fair competition and price adjustments. BPO II keep pumping things out, regardless of demand, not allowing a shortage to appear and thus reducing Price - Production level relation. For example, when certain item runs out of stock, getting an extra one will become more expensive. New producers might be interested to fill the gap as soon as it appears, making industry more challenging and rewarding.

In fact BPO II are natural monopolies, which compete with certain high cost manufacturers. This competition looks like factories versus handicraft (low tech work). BPO II are monopoly because they have lower ME costs, zero invention costs and zero upkeep.

BPO II ruin the game for inventors. Prices become standard, not able to deviate much since as much as 30% of market volume can be controlled by BPO holders.


ISK

Printers

For

Sale

Here!

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.05 01:34:00 - [1000]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 05/05/2011 01:36:18
Originally by: Opertone
BPO II only benefit the select few - BPO makers sell items at nearly the same price as inventors, netting the ME cost difference (which can be 25-30%). BPO makers sell at market prices, not cheaper at all. Conclusion BPOs II don't make things cheaper.

For the few very high volume items where invention is profitable, sure.
For the many more items where demand is much lower or even very low, T2 BPO owners sell at near BPO build costs, which are radically cheaper than invented versions.

Quote:
BPO II set regional and inter regional price levels. Because of BPO II standardized costs tech 2 prices tend to be almost identical. Different regions do not have big price gaps. Local market trends set by independent inventors can not form. This leads to less diversity. Conclusion BPO II affect too much of the economy.

“What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?”
That's not a T2 items only thing, that's an EVERYTHING thing. If any imbalances exist between markets, trader/haulers will exploit them for profit, and those differences will dwindle.
And anyway, didn't you just a paragraph ago claim that prices are set by INVENTORS, not the BPO owners ? So how exactly could it possibly be the BPO's fault to begin with anyway ?

Quote:
BPO II do not allow fair competition and price adjustments. BPO II keep pumping things out, regardless of demand, not allowing a shortage to appear and thus reducing Price - Production level relation. For example, when certain item runs out of stock, getting an extra one will become more expensive. New producers might be interested to fill the gap as soon as it appears, making industry more challenging and rewarding.

[sarcasm]Right, because each and every T2 BPO out there is constantly in production...Rolling Eyes[/sarcasm]
For very low demand items, A SMALL PORTION of existing T2 BPOs fills the demand, so there's competition even between T2 BPO owners.
Only for items where the aggregate demand can't be met by the total of existing T2 BPOs does the price begin to rise, and it rises fast, up to slightly above invention breakeven. As soon as that happens, you get competition between inventors for whatever market share can't be covered by BPOs.
T2 BPOs can be looked at as representing a very expensive reservation ticket... depending on how big the room is, some that have one such reservation ticket might need to sit it out, or they might all fit in with almost the entire room to spare.
While YOU PERSONALLY might not consider this two-tiered structure "fair", WITHIN each of the tiers, the rules of competing are absolutely and totally fair, and the cost of being present in the top tier (be it direct cost or opportunity cost) is high enough to make even the tiering itself quite fair.

Quote:
In fact BPO II are natural monopolies, which compete with certain high cost manufacturers. This competition looks like factories versus handicraft (low tech work). BPO II are monopoly because they have lower ME costs, zero invention costs and zero upkeep.

I have a feeling you have absolutely no clue what that word ("monopoly") even means.
Here's a hint - T2 BPOs USED TO BE a monopoly. As soon as invention came into the picture, they ceased being monopolies.

Quote:
BPO II ruin the game for inventors. Prices become standard, not able to deviate much since as much as 30% of market volume can be controlled by BPO holders.

INVENTORS ruin the game for inventors.
Yes, as much as ONE THIRD of the items in game BY NUMBER are outputs of T2 BPOs, but that means INVENTORS dominate it.
That doesn't even tell you the full story. From a total ISK cost perspective, that share actually becomes closer to 10%, or even LOWER.
Inventors TOTALLY DOMINATE the market, especially from an ISK volume viewpoint.
Again - OTHER INVENTORS ruin the game for inventors, NOT BPO owners.
It's really as simple as that.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.05 01:41:00 - [1001]
 


...char limit reached, continuing...

Originally by: Opertone
BPO II ruin the game for inventors. Prices become standard, not able to deviate much since as much as 30% of market volume can be controlled by BPO holders.


So, we already established that for the combined markets where T2 BPOs exist, inventors already dominate them ISK-wise.
HOW ABOUT THOSE MARKETS WHERE T2 BPOs DO NOT EVEN EXIST ?!?
There you see very similar patterns (in fact, actually, even WORSE patterns) as you see in those markets where T2 BPOs exist.
How exactly do you justify that, pray tell ?
If T2 BPOs are THE bane of existence for inventors, how come those markets where no T2 BPOs have ever existed are not in any way better than those that have T2 BPOs ?
In fact, how come they're actually worse most of the time compared to some high-demand items where there's plenty of T2 BPOs that do work full time ?
How does your logic so far reconcile any of that ?

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.06 13:23:00 - [1002]
 

it is impossible to argue with some sort of people, who advocate their own justness

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.06 14:46:00 - [1003]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 06/05/2011 15:13:55
Originally by: Opertone
it is impossible to argue with some sort of people, who advocate their own justness

Yes, it's so hard to argue with people that tend to use mostly facts and logical inference, when all you have is uncorroborated anecdotal evidence and a rough sense of "what should be fair"...
Rolling Eyes

...

Look, it's very simple.


Are T2 BPOs a monopoly ?
NO.
You might want to look up the definition of the word "monopoly". They ceased being a monopoly the moment invention was introduced.
If you want to see what a monopoly does to prices, try to find some price quotes for T2 items from the time BEFORE invention was around.

Do T2 BPOs give an advantage over invention ?
Yes, of course.
Per-unit consumables cost is smaller, which is an obvious advantage.

Is that advantage unfair ?
NO.
T2 BPO ownership means a huge "up-front" investment (be it in actual cost or opportunity cost) with a very low RoI. Anybody can bid to buy any specific one and the market sets the rough "fair" price for them. People with less ISK to spare have more than enough alternatives that give much better RoI.

WHO sets the prices for T2 items ?
For items with a high demand AND for items with no T2 BPOs, INVENTORS always end up actually setting the price... and T2 BPO owners, if they exist, merely match that price level.
For items with a low demand where BPO owners exist, they sort of do, but the profit even for them is negligible.

Will more inventors be able to invent profitably if T2 BPOs no longer exist?
YES, but only ever so slightly more of them, since the majority of T2 items (in numbers of units already, but even morese in terms of total ISK volume) is already provided by inventors, not T2 BPO owners.
And they will do so at higher costs due to needed materials becoming increasingly scarce.

Will inventor characters make more cash if T2 BPOs no longer exist ?
MAYBE, but more likely NO.
The far more realistic scenario is that the T2 market will be flooded by people believing invention HAS to be profitable because there are no more T2 BPOs (when this is provably false), heavily overestimating profits (both potential and actual) thanks to poor self-accounting practices, causing a drop in per-inventor profits.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.06 18:51:00 - [1004]
 

then remove BPO IIs. make game even for everyone.

Smarcus Smokus
Posted - 2011.05.06 19:19:00 - [1005]
 

Apologies if this has been suggested, but I can't be arsed to read all 34 pages of this thread...

Instead of giving back to the BPO II owners fair market value, why not just setup NPC buy orders at a reasonable (low side reasonable) price in a few stations?

It would remove some of the BPO's voluntarily. These would be BPO's that no one will whine about when they are gone, since the owner elected to sell it.

They could even be really sinister and alt post a thread in MD about how BPO II's were going to be removed. :)

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.06 19:25:00 - [1006]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 06/05/2011 19:40:37

Originally by: Opertone
then remove BPO IIs. make game even for everyone.

WHAT. THE. HELL. Talk about non-sequiturs. Sigh. And double facepalm. Pause for effect.

...

Yes, let's make the game equally crappy for everyone, because poor entitled whiny baby can't afford to buy a T2 BPO, waah, waah. Rolling Eyes
If you COULD afford to buy one, you probably WOULDN'T anyway. Or, like a few other morons, you would buy one (without doing any market research) only to start whining "how come I'm not making any money from this?" and demand reparations or some other equally stupid nonsense. Since, hey, we all know that T2 BPOs are an ISK printing machine, amirite or wha' ?

Oh, hey, here's an "IDEA" wink wink nudge nudge...

How about we remove all blueprint originals in the game, period ? Even refund NPC sales price. Only make NPCs sell BPCs from this moment on, death to all BPOs in all shapes and forms ! People can buy as many new ones as they need, afterall, no ? This is even less drastic than removing T2 BPOs !
Or, how about we remove all SP from the game, since that also gives an advantage to slightly older people compared to total newbies, and have everybody start fresh ?
Hey, let's also remove all ships and ISK while we're at it, make the game REALLY even for absolutely everyone.
In fact, let's make it so that the server resets each downtime and everybody has to start fresh, that way NOTHING can be unfair for newcomers, not more than a day anyway.
Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes

Originally by: Smarcus Smokus
Apologies if this has been suggested, but I can't be arsed to read all 34 pages of this thread...
Instead of giving back to the BPO II owners fair market value, why not just setup NPC buy orders at a reasonable (low side reasonable) price in a few stations?
It would remove some of the BPO's voluntarily. These would be BPO's that no one will whine about when they are gone, since the owner elected to sell it.
They could even be really sinister and alt post a thread in MD about how BPO II's were going to be removed. :)

That wouldn't satisfy the "waah, waah, T2 BPOs are soooo unfair" crowd at all, since it would not "guarantee" the removal of all T2 BPOs, so they'll still blame any POTENTIAL remaining T2 BPOs in a field for everything that goes wrong for them when trying to enter invention in that specific field, even if in reality all T2 BPOs for that item were already sold to those low but reasonable contracts (they have to be contracts, you can't sell an used blueprint on the market).

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.06 21:47:00 - [1007]
 

you can't defeat AKITA with logic... reason: owns over 300 bill in ISK, has BPO IIs. Wants them to stay. nuff said

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.05.06 23:45:00 - [1008]
 

Originally by: Opertone
you can't defeat AKITA with logic... reason: owns over 300 bill in ISK, has BPO IIs. Wants them to stay. nuff said

Your trolling gets more and more desperate.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.07 02:29:00 - [1009]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 07/05/2011 02:32:52
Originally by: Opertone
you can't defeat AKITA with logic... reason: owns over 300 bill in ISK, has BPO IIs. Wants them to stay. nuff said

You probably missed the (many) parts where I state that I don't have any T2 BPOs, and the first thing I'd do with a T2 BPO would be to SELL it ?
Rolling Eyes

I mean, oh, you know, it "only" comes up every few pages or so, you couldn't have possibly seen that if you didn't read much of the thread (which, obviously, you didn't), right ? And so obviously (but only to you and your kind), everybody who might think of defending the existent status quo of continued existence of T2 BPOs must be a valuable T2 BPO holder, "amirite" ?
Rolling Eyes

It's not like the way I obtained most of my ISK wasn't already public knowledge... and SURPRISE (to you maybe) it's not T2 BPOs.
T2 components, advanced materials and moon minerals, speculating on their price shifts after a patch that changed things up quite a bit, sure, but T2 items no, and T2 BPOs even less.
In fact, the removal of T2 BPOs would make me earn even more money quite easily, since I know for sure which way all relevant items would trend towards in price, and I could make a killing with very little effort.

Could you get MORE wrong and desperately grasping at any straws to throw in somebody's eye than this ? No, really, could you ?

bobby bobo
Posted - 2011.05.08 02:13:00 - [1010]
 

Turn all in game t2 bpo to 1 k run bpc so it can be phased out fairly use and loose. Or return t2 bpo lottery or at least t2 bpc lottery. Or add T1 bpo lottery.

Ghoest
Posted - 2011.05.08 04:25:00 - [1011]
 

Please stop bumping this stupid half baked thread.

Im only daring to post because its at the top.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.08 04:26:00 - [1012]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 08/05/2011 04:27:31
Originally by: bobby bobo
Turn all in game t2 bpo to 1 k run bpc so it can be phased out fairly use and loose. Or return t2 bpo lottery or at least t2 bpc lottery. Or add T1 bpo lottery.

A 1k run can mean anything between just a few days of use up to several whoopin' years of use, depending on the actual BPO selected.
You might as well remove most of them without any compensation, because 1k runs is "bleh".

It would make far, far more sense to go for fixed duration use (and therefore variable number of runs, depending on BPO).
Also, if you want "fair", considering for what RoI they're being sold lately, you'd have to give AT LEAST 3 year's worth of runs, if not 5 or even 10 year's worth of runs.
However, if you do that, for high-demand items, this will basically have no effect on the market for all those 3 years or however long you decided to go for, BUT FOR THE LOW-DEMAND ITEMS (where the main complaints of inventards are focused on) this might as well mean many, many extra years of production, since usually quite a few existing BPOs just "sit it out" most of the time, which again means next to no change, but this time, for even longer.

So now you're back to "why bother".

Originally by: Ghoest
Please stop bumping this stupid half baked thread.
Im only daring to post because its at the top.

So you disagree then ? You think T2 BPOs should go away ? And you actually have a solid reason as opposed to just a gut feeling ? And also a fair method of removal ? And the assurance the end result would be overall better ? But you don't want to share it with us ?
Razz

Sibirian Gun
Posted - 2011.05.08 17:10:00 - [1013]
 

Originally by: Akita T

It would make far, far more sense to go for fixed duration use (and therefore variable number of runs, depending on BPO). Also, if you want "fair", considering for what RoI they're being sold lately, you'd have to give AT LEAST 3 year's worth of runs, if not 5 or even 10 year's worth of runs.


Cant believe I actually went through most of the thread, but anyway..
The discussion about compensation is a bit weird imo. As you say Akita, the fact that BPO are being sold for huge sums somehow equals some form of compensation should the BPOs be removed (which would when lead to a financial collaps - I get that and thats a bad idea).
I as well, would sell a BPO as fast as I could since the isk you get from it now far surpasses what you can expect to gain from it within any reasonable amount of time.

Which leads me to my point. The fact that some people chose to invest that much isk into an item does not equal that a compensation should be given. I find it dumb that people would do that in the first place since this is a game and things can be changed overnight in a patch (inventards have been used but BPOtards is equally meaningful).

The fact that people spend days/months/years grinding isk to buy BPOs also matters little. So many people spend many hours in Eve doing stuff which can be reversed by a patch. Just imagine how many hours were put into sov battles from thousands of people which mechanics changes from time to time. They are not compensated. The fact that a collect few (this being a relative number of course) has invested time (=isk) into something does not equal a compensation imo.
I think that your point B in the OP is not really relevant for the discussion although I wouldn’t mind if some sort of compensation was indeed given, should the bpos be removed.
I also think that C is pretty self-explanatory and I don’t buy your reasoning saying that no bpos would cause everyone to make less because everyone would throw himself at invention. We can only speculate about what will happen, but the market will surely readjust itself as with anything else in eve (which is a good thing).
As to A which is the only really important point I can think of 1 reason which I think is decent (and not affected by gut feeling, jealousy etc) – not perfect but decent.
My main is in a combat corp. We own a number of pvp ship BPOs which was bought a long time ago. I don’t remember the price, but I do know that they are NOT for sale and that they were acquired at much lower prices than what are seen today. We fight as much as possible and have great use of our BPOs as ships can be supplied at cheap prices. Most corps that we fight cannot get ships at the same prices. So my reasoning is that we have an (unfair) advantage over (younger) corps/players which do not own BPOs and they can not buy the BPOs from the market cause quite frankly they are not for sale (this is in fact the point where we disagree the most – the ability to purchase certain BPOs, imo, does simply not exist except on a theoretical level).
In pratical terms this is prolly of little importance, but I think the point is still valid. Eve is about blowing **** up and equal access to ships is a must have.

Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2011.05.08 18:28:00 - [1014]
 

Edited by: Dharh on 08/05/2011 18:31:03
Don't remove T2 BPOs, just negate them to the point that, sure its a perk (you don't have to go through the process of 'invention' and you have better ME/PE) but otherwise only affords a little extra profit margin.

Rather as said before. Make 'invention' suck less.

First thing, you may have noticed I quote invention. This is because 'invention' isn't really invention. There aren't thousands of capsuleers _inventing_ Hulks and Expander Cargohold IIs, rather all they are doing is creating normal T2 BPCs, just like T1 BPCs but with weird and in many ways stupid restrictions. I would argue that it is the computer that has a T2 BPO locked inside and will only create a copy for you if you have the needed materials.

So along that vein, change the name of the process to Tech II Blueprint Copying. Make it act more like normal blueprint copying (where you can input the numbers you want) and if you have enough materials, you get the result. This also means, no failures.

That's right. Second big thing is you can't fail at making Tech II BPCs. It merely requires time, slots, and materials.

Just so we don't flood the market with T2 BPCs, make T2 BPC copying take longer than 'invention' does now.

BTW: I don't participate in the T2 market in any fashion other than as a consumer of T2 products. I care little about how hard it is for T2 BPC copiers other than that it seems like a poorly designed system from top to bottom.

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.05.08 18:40:00 - [1015]
 

Originally by: Dharh
Edited by: Dharh on 08/05/2011 18:31:03
Don't remove T2 BPOs, just negate them to the point that, sure its a perk (you don't have to go through the process of 'invention' and you have better ME/PE) but otherwise only affords a little extra profit margin.

Rather as said before. Make 'invention' suck less.

First thing, you may have noticed I quote invention. This is because 'invention' isn't really invention. There aren't thousands of capsuleers _inventing_ Hulks and Expander Cargohold IIs, rather all they are doing is creating normal T2 BPCs, just like T1 BPCs but with weird and in many ways stupid restrictions. I would argue that it is the computer that has a T2 BPO locked inside and will only create a copy for you if you have the needed materials.

So along that vein, change the name of the process to Tech II Blueprint Copying. Make it act more like normal blueprint copying (where you can input the numbers you want) and if you have enough materials, you get the result. This also means, no failures.

That's right. Second big thing is you can't fail at making Tech II BPCs. It merely requires time, slots, and materials.

Just so we don't flood the market with T2 BPCs, make T2 BPC copying take longer than 'invention' does now.

BTW: I don't participate in the T2 market in any fashion other than as a consumer of T2 products. I care little about how hard it is for T2 BPC copiers other than that it seems like a poorly designed system from top to bottom.

Result: after a while, profit margins will be back to the same as they are now. The problem is not the existence of T2 BPOs, but the "inventards" that don't value their input materials (datacores, minerals, etc.) correctly.
There are three main reasons why a lot of T1 and T2 items are not worth producing:
  1. Low entry barriers (SP-wise, but also often ISK-wise).

  2. MIMAF

  3. Bad accounting (this is actually a superset of MIMAF)


So, yeah.

Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2011.05.08 18:48:00 - [1016]
 

Originally by: Adrian Idaho
Originally by: Dharh
Edited by: Dharh on 08/05/2011 18:31:03
Don't remove T2 BPOs, just negate them to the point that, sure its a perk (you don't have to go through the process of 'invention' and you have better ME/PE) but otherwise only affords a little extra profit margin.

Rather as said before. Make 'invention' suck less.

First thing, you may have noticed I quote invention. This is because 'invention' isn't really invention. There aren't thousands of capsuleers _inventing_ Hulks and Expander Cargohold IIs, rather all they are doing is creating normal T2 BPCs, just like T1 BPCs but with weird and in many ways stupid restrictions. I would argue that it is the computer that has a T2 BPO locked inside and will only create a copy for you if you have the needed materials.

So along that vein, change the name of the process to Tech II Blueprint Copying. Make it act more like normal blueprint copying (where you can input the numbers you want) and if you have enough materials, you get the result. This also means, no failures.

That's right. Second big thing is you can't fail at making Tech II BPCs. It merely requires time, slots, and materials.

Just so we don't flood the market with T2 BPCs, make T2 BPC copying take longer than 'invention' does now.

BTW: I don't participate in the T2 market in any fashion other than as a consumer of T2 products. I care little about how hard it is for T2 BPC copiers other than that it seems like a poorly designed system from top to bottom.

Result: after a while, profit margins will be back to the same as they are now. The problem is not the existence of T2 BPOs, but the "inventards" that don't value their input materials (datacores, minerals, etc.) correctly.
There are three main reasons why a lot of T1 and T2 items are not worth producing:
  1. Low entry barriers (SP-wise, but also often ISK-wise).

  2. MIMAF

  3. Bad accounting (this is actually a superset of MIMAF)


So, yeah.


You don't address a single thing I said, at all. I barely even mention T2 BPOs, except merely to say just leave them the hell alone. I only want to address how much 'inventing' sucks and how badly designed it is.

So, yeah.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.08 20:39:00 - [1017]
 

Originally by: Dharh
Edited by: Dharh on 08/05/2011 18:31:03
Don't remove T2 BPOs, just negate them to the point that, sure its a perk (you don't have to go through the process of 'invention' and you have better ME/PE) but otherwise only affords a little extra profit margin.

Rather as said before. Make 'invention' suck less.

First thing, you may have noticed I quote invention. This is because 'invention' isn't really invention. There aren't thousands of capsuleers _inventing_ Hulks and Expander Cargohold IIs, rather all they are doing is creating normal T2 BPCs, just like T1 BPCs but with weird and in many ways stupid restrictions. I would argue that it is the computer that has a T2 BPO locked inside and will only create a copy for you if you have the needed materials.

So along that vein, change the name of the process to Tech II Blueprint Copying. Make it act more like normal blueprint copying (where you can input the numbers you want) and if you have enough materials, you get the result. This also means, no failures.

That's right. Second big thing is you can't fail at making Tech II BPCs. It merely requires time, slots, and materials.

Just so we don't flood the market with T2 BPCs, make T2 BPC copying take longer than 'invention' does now.

BTW: I don't participate in the T2 market in any fashion other than as a consumer of T2 products. I care little about how hard it is for T2 BPC copiers other than that it seems like a poorly designed system from top to bottom.


T2 BPO copying time is above production time.
If you do something similar (so that producing a T2 BPC require first to copy the T1 BPO an then to "evolve" the BPC to T2 with a lengthy process with no chance of failure) the total number of laboratory slots needed to keep it working would be staggering.
At the same time "inventards" will say: " I produce my own POS fuel, it cost nothing" and then marvel why they aren't making money.

That said, if the final ME/PE of the BPC is a reasonable percentage of the initial ME/PE (researching T2 BPO require a lot of time, so a 1:1 translation in ME/PE is not a good idea) your ida is a possibility.

Simply don't be surprised when, after a very brief adjustment time, the profit from invention drop to today level or even less.

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.05.08 21:19:00 - [1018]
 

Originally by: Dharh
You don't address a single thing I said, at all.

Yes, I did. Specifically, I addressed the consequences of your proposal.

Originally by: Dharh
I barely even mention T2 BPOs, except merely to say just leave them the hell alone.

No, you don't. You suggest "negating" them, i.e. nerfing them.

Originally by: Dharh
I only want to address how much 'inventing' sucks and how badly designed it is.

I don't see any rational arguments that would explain why "'inventing' sucks". Yes, you don't like its name and the random chance involved in it, but your personal resentment is hardly a reason to change it.

Originally by: Dharh
So, yeah.

Indeed.

Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2011.05.08 23:16:00 - [1019]
 

Originally by: Adrian Idaho
Yes, I did. Specifically, I addressed the consequences of your proposal.


Since I don't even argue that T2 BPOs are the reason why I think inventing sucks I don't see your angle. The consequences of my proposal might be making T2 BPCs wont suck. MIMAFs will always slash margins to negligible/negative on the low hanging fruit, no matter what anyone does. You did't address what _I_ was talking about, just spouted a canned reply that any changes to the current mechanism won't change anything.

Originally by: Adrian Idaho
No, you don't. You suggest "negating" them, i.e. nerfing them.


Akita T already address this. T2 BPOs are already essentially negated. The suckness of making T2 BPCs is the only thing that makes owning T2 BPOs truly useful. Thus if making T2 BPCs could be made less sucky, then by my criteria T2 BPOs would be negated. I do not care about ME/PE in this case, it matters little.

Originally by: Adrian Idaho
I don't see any rational arguments that would explain why "'inventing' sucks". Yes, you don't like its name and the random chance involved in it, but your personal resentment is hardly a reason to change it.


Because its tedious, and even me, who pretty much is willing to waste my time on _anything_ even remotely more efficient than buying stuff from someone off the market doesn't want to do.

The random chance is inherent in the fact that it has been wrongly classified as an invention process. If it were no longer inventing, but instead a more advanced version of copying then it really doesn't make sense that the computer could _fail_ at making a copy. The whole point in the random chance is to slow down the number of T2 BPCs that enter the world, so just use a different mechanism like longer creation time and you get exactly the same result.

There is your rational argument. It is simply wrong and thus poorly designed. You may not like it, but I don't see any rational argument that would make me care.

Dharh
Gallente
Ace Adventure Corp
Posted - 2011.05.08 23:23:00 - [1020]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
T2 BPO copying time is above production time.
If you do something similar (so that producing a T2 BPC require first to copy the T1 BPO an then to "evolve" the BPC to T2 with a lengthy process with no chance of failure) the total number of laboratory slots needed to keep it working would be staggering.
At the same time "inventards" will say: " I produce my own POS fuel, it cost nothing" and then marvel why they aren't making money.

That said, if the final ME/PE of the BPC is a reasonable percentage of the initial ME/PE (researching T2 BPO require a lot of time, so a 1:1 translation in ME/PE is not a good idea) your ida is a possibility.

Simply don't be surprised when, after a very brief adjustment time, the profit from invention drop to today level or even less.



The issue of requiring many many more copying slots than before can easily be mitigated by allowing them to function similarly when making T1 copies. In order to make 20 T2 BPCs you need only input that you want 20 T2 BPCs. If you have the resources, you can do it. Simple as that. No need for 20 more slots.

I'm not trying to address the profitability. The market can do that just fine on its own, as it always has, there is no need to get CCP involved in that. There is simply no reasoning with people who think producing stuff on their own means it isn't worth anything. Just ignore them and move onto items that are above their barrier to entry.

I only want to address the process CCP made in making T2 BPCs and how lame it is.


Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 ... : 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