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 : ... 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

Ash Staley
Posted - 2011.05.08 23:28:00 - [1021]
 

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


Yes, and lets give everybody a trophy no matter what their level of commitment or aptitude. It's only fair! Rolling Eyes

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.09 10:11:00 - [1022]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 09/05/2011 10:20:17


Originally by: Dharh

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.



Maybe I was unclear.

It is not that you need more research slots (after all you need a lot of inventing slot today), it is the time that those slots will be occupied that will make slot consumption very high.

If, to make an example (I don't have the exact data available at this time), copying a T2 large ammunition BPO require 16 hours for each run, reverse engineering it from a T1 BPC should require at least the same time and not the 2 hours or so required to try to invent 10 run BPC with a 50% chance of success.

So to get your 5 run BPC (10 x 50% chance of success) you will use a slot for 80 hours instead of 2.

It can be ameliorated if you can put a T1 BPO in the reverse engineering slot as you avoid the first step in copying, but for most module T1 BPO you can make a bunch of max run copy in little more than 2 days, so 60 hours at most to get 30 x 300 runs copies.

To transform 1 of them into T2 runs you would use something like 300*16=4.800 hours, so 200 days.

Side note: "invention" is much more patent infringement than any other thing.
We are reverse engineering a existing product and creating a one use bootleg "production instruction chip" that direct the factory assembly to construct the T2 item in violation of existing patents, all the securities installed in the factory A.I. against patent violation notwithstanding.

That is the reason why we need the re-invent the stuff again. Every time we use our bootleg chip we need to redo the hacking and use different fake authorizations to avoid the security protocols.






Captain Akachi
Posted - 2011.05.09 11:41:00 - [1023]
 

Akira, I am really disappointed with you.

I really like your posts and your industry master sheet but i never knew you could stand up for something like this. You are always in the top 20 earners in the eveboard (i know it doesn't have all eve pilots) but at least have some consideration for new pilots. You know there are pilots out there still trying to earn their first few ships by inventing, manufacturing against seasoned pilots like you.

As a new pilot, your arguments seem so hollow. The only reason you are against it seems to be that you own a bunch of these and don't want to lose your cash cow. My sincere request is to read your own arguments objectively (think from someone new to this game) and maybe you will feel ashamed for making such a post.Sad

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.09 16:23:00 - [1024]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 09/05/2011 16:51:51

Originally by: Captain Akachi
As a new pilot, your arguments seem so hollow. The only reason you are against it seems to be that you own a bunch of these and don't want to lose your cash cow. My sincere request is to read your own arguments objectively (think from someone new to this game) and maybe you will feel ashamed for making such a post.Sad

Except the fact I never had a T2 BPO in my possession (not even as a collateral).
I do have loads and loads of ISK, but I never seriously considered buying a T2 BPO.
In fact, if I am ever given one, I would most likely immediately sell it (the alternative being I would wait a bit to sell it if price doesn't look right due to a recent lowball sale by somebody else, but selling it eventually would be a certainty nevertheless).

So, basically, I am ALMOST in the same "bucket" as a new player as far as T2 BPO possession is concerned.
You know, the only difference being that I could actually AFFORD to buy one if I wanted.

I don't want to buy one, because I can easily make a lot more ISK by investing what I have in something else.
I made all those wads of ISK I have without ever touching a T2 BPO, and I don't plan on touching one in the future either.
Even for a mostly idle player with loads of ISK, T2 BPOs are a bad investment in my personal opinion.
T2 BPOs are only a decent investment to somebody with so much ISK they never can manage to fully invest, while also being moderately active.

You might want to consider that, and reread what I wrote more carefully.

T2 BPOs don't really harm inventor profits. Inventors harm T2 BPO profits.
The price level and profitability of all high-demand items (and of all T2 items that have no BPOs) is set by INVENTORS AND CUSTOMERS, not by BPO owners.
All T2 BPOs do is slightly reduce the market share inventors can be a part of (in those markets where T2 BPOs exist), while putting a slight downwards pressure on moon minerals, decryptors and datacores (which actually HELPS inventor profits to a very small degree, for those slightly fewer inventors that exist compared to a no-BPO scenario).
Removing T2 BPOs would not make inventors profit noticeably more. It would make room for slightly more inventors, and they might profit a bit more for a short while, but in the long run, each of them would most likely end up earning less than nowadays, with most of the profit shift going to either moon miners, decryptor explorers and datacore harvesters (but MOSTLY to moon miners).

I don't have any reason to feel ashamed for anything.
If anybody should feel any shame whatsoever, that would be the new player that THINKS he knows better, but then learns how things actually work and looks back at his own incorrect old assumptions.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.09 20:02:00 - [1025]
 

thread gone absurd!

Gallente ships don't suck! It's the pilots... BPO II do not hurt! It's the inventards!

T2 BPO are no longer needed because there is no shortage of tech 2 items.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.09 21:12:00 - [1026]
 

Originally by: Opertone
thread gone absurd! Gallente ships don't suck! It's the pilots... BPO II do not hurt! It's the inventards!

Nah, it's just you who has gone bonkers. That "Gallente" jib doesn't make even a little bit of sense.
And of course T2 BPOs don't hurt, they merely shrink the market in which inventors can compete, but at the same time keep a lot of inventards away from those markets where they exist, simply by existing.
How in the bloody hazes can you even begin to justify the abject lack of decent profits in the invention of T2 items WHERE NO T2 BPOs EVER EXISTED if not by putting the entire fault squarely on the shoulders of inventards ?
No, seriously, how can you ?

Quote:
T2 BPO are no longer needed because there is no shortage of tech 2 items.

The continued existence of T2 BPOs has nothing to do with the supply of T2 items.
They might not be NEEDED, but that doesn't mean they HAVE to be removed, or that removing them would be a good idea.
Since you like analogies so much, it's as if you're trying to decree that every baby should have their appendix and wisdom tooth roots excised soon after being born, since, hey, they're not needed either, and can even cause problems later in life.
Hey, it makes ever so slightly more sense than your "Gallente ship" quip.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.10 05:26:00 - [1027]
 

lots of words... unconvincing

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.10 07:20:00 - [1028]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 10/05/2011 07:31:48
Originally by: Opertone
lots of words... unconvincing

If in your opinion T2 BPOs are the ones that are really harming the profitability of invention...
...HOW DO *YOU* EXPLAIN the fact that inventing items/ships which never had a T2 BPO is *NOT* clearly more profitable than inventing other items/ships that DO have T2 BPOs ?

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.10 17:21:00 - [1029]
 

over production, price wars between inventors (after market)

tech 2 BPOs just make market rivalry harder, leaving a slimmer portion to be shared by inventors.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.10 18:23:00 - [1030]
 

Originally by: Opertone
tech 2 BPOs just make market rivalry harder, leaving a slimmer portion to be shared by inventors.

Gee, Captain Obvious, how nice of you to repeat what I said earlier.
Either way, that's not a reason to remove T2 BPOs.

Originally by: Opertone
over production, price wars between inventors (after market)

Basically, everything that would still remain in place if you remove T2 BPOs anyway, at best granting a tiny respite while the inventor demographic reaches oversaturation again (which would not take long at all).
So... remind me again, what was the removal of T2 BPOs supposed to accomplish ?

Lirinas
Posted - 2011.05.10 18:47:00 - [1031]
 

Opertone is simply trolling you Akita. He's used poor logic at the best of times, and babbled unintelligibly the rest of the time. Feeding trolls is bad.

Aside from that, I've seen a couple glimmers of intelligence in a few other posts. NPC Buy Orders would an interesting idea, but they'd have to keep the prices extremely low, or else it'd be an economic nightmare on the galactic economy, even if only a handful of T2-BPO Owners took advantage of it.

Improving Invention would help a bit. I would *love* a way to improve the odds for invention by having a job take extra time. x10 or even x100 to the time requirements to get a 100% (or close to 100%) chance?

And I do like how somebody called "Invention" more of "Patent Infringement". As I think about it, that's quite an appropriate description. It sounds vaguely familiar - was this something used to describe "invention" back when it first came out? From that angle, the Hacking skill should usable to help with the process :)

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.11 05:04:00 - [1032]
 

Nah, feeding and spanking trolls is great fun.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.11 05:18:00 - [1033]
 

notice how Akita T is the only one defending tech 2 BPOs

reasons for BPOs 2 to stay - none.

reasons for BPO 2 to go - a lot of people do not support them.

AKITA bull****s you all the time... I sick of this lame argumentation.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.11 06:17:00 - [1034]
 

Originally by: Opertone
notice how Akita T is the only one defending tech 2 BPOs

So you managed to miss how many others in the same thread also defended them.
Not just that, but you managed to miss the fact HEAVY-DUTY INVENTORS stated that they don't see a reason to remove them.

Quote:
reasons for BPOs 2 to stay - none.

Reasons for T2 BPOs to stay : cheaper T2 items overall, with much cheaper low-demand T2 items, lower "bottleneck" moon mineral income levels (which is actually a GOOD thing), a psychological barrier to entry for inventards in fields where T2 BPOs exist making high-demand item invention more profitable for the non-inventards, and last but not least, they're one of the very few possibilities for low-RoI large amount of ISK long-term investments.
PLENTY of reasons to NOT remove T2 BPOs.

Quote:
reasons for BPO 2 to go - a lot of people do not support them.

A lot of people who don't know what the hell they're talking about, you mean ?
A removal of T2 BPOs would help nobody in the long run, and all those people that want them gone for all the wrong reasons will see absolutely none of the improvements they hope for a while after their removal.
ALMOST NO REASONS to remove T2 BPOs, and the few reasons that do exist are not good reasons.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.11 07:36:00 - [1035]
 

lies

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.05.11 08:16:00 - [1036]
 

Originally by: Opertone
lies

Oh come on, you're not even trying anymore. I know you can do better! Smile

Pod Amarr
Posted - 2011.05.11 14:19:00 - [1037]
 

Why do you even start a topic like this if you just shot down any and all opinions that are not in line with yours basically telling everyone that does not agree with you that he/she is an idiot.

You think that they should stay and you think that you are right it does not make it so. This is basically a 38 page troll thread at this point.

Whatever your achievements, basically this is what it comes down to is that you do not want to even listen to people and for some reason you made a thread about it. Rolling Eyes


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.11 18:00:00 - [1038]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 11/05/2011 18:22:45
Originally by: Pod Amarr
Why do you even start a topic like this if you just shot down any and all opinions that are not in line with yours basically telling everyone that does not agree with you that he/she is an idiot.

Because since shortly after invention came around, some people started getting all the wrong ideas and justifying their own failures in ways that would not mean they did anything wrong.
There are some people that approached the problem logically, and several decent ALTERNATIVES to T2 BPO removal were being tossed around.
The only sad part is that, most likely, not even those will be implemented (let alone a removal of T2 BPOs).

Quote:
You think that they should stay and you think that you are right it does not make it so. This is basically a 38 page troll thread at this point.
Whatever your achievements, basically this is what it comes down to is that you do not want to even listen to people and for some reason you made a thread about it. Rolling Eyes

Actually, I AM ALMOST COMPLETELY SURE THEY'LL NEVER BE REMOVED (for reasons amply touched upon in this thread), and this is merely a thread attempting to EDUCATE those that mistakenly (still) think they should go away, and do so in a fashion that has them actually thinking about it a tad bit harder than "meh, I don't like them, rabble, rabble, rabble".

If CCP would really desire for invention to become closer to BPO production, they would buff invention first before even considering removing T2 BPOs. But they're not doing that. CCP has evaluated the issue not that long after invention was introduced, and THEY decided there is no need to remove T2 BPOs, because invention managed to work just fine (as opposed to needing a crutch to function).

As to why this thread exists ?
Because OTHERWISE, on average, one or two threads per week discussing more or less the same issue spring up naturally whenever this thread slips past page 2 or so.
Might as well keep the endless pointless arguments to a minimum with some pre-emptive responses to the frequently offered invalid arguments.
That's really the only reason this thread exists - to keep redundancy as low as possible.

Orion Pax
Posted - 2011.05.11 20:16:00 - [1039]
 

This is just an idea that I'm throwing out there.

For example, say you have a blueprint copy of a Tristan. Let's say there is a skill to analyze and upgrade the blueprint. You need to successfully analyze the BPC 5 times (5 is just a number I'm throwing out there, it could be any number of times) successfully for it to be upgraded to a BPO. A single analysis upgrade would have a 50% chance of success or failure (or whatever percentage that seems reasonable). However if you fail to analyze successfully at any time the BPC gets destroyed.

An example of this process would go something like this...

1. Buy Tristan BPC.
2. Analyze to upgrade Tristan BPC.
3. Tristan BPC successfully analyzed once, Tristan BPC is currently at Analysis grade 1.
2. Analyze to upgrade Tristan BPC.
3. Tristan BPC successfully analyzed once, Tristan BPC is currently at Analysis grade 2.
4. Analyze to upgrade Tristan BPC.
5. Failed to successfully analyze Tristan BPC, blueprint is destroyed.

...and so on and so forth until it is successfully analyzed to grade 5, in which it would change to a BPO.

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.05.11 20:47:00 - [1040]
 

Originally by: Orion Pax
This is just an idea that I'm throwing out there.

For example, say you have a blueprint copy of a Tristan. Let's say there is a skill to analyze and upgrade the blueprint. You need to successfully analyze the BPC 5 times (5 is just a number I'm throwing out there, it could be any number of times) successfully for it to be upgraded to a BPO. A single analysis upgrade would have a 50% chance of success or failure (or whatever percentage that seems reasonable). However if you fail to analyze successfully at any time the BPC gets destroyed.

An example of this process would go something like this...

1. Buy Tristan BPC.
2. Analyze to upgrade Tristan BPC.
3. Tristan BPC successfully analyzed once, Tristan BPC is currently at Analysis grade 1.
2. Analyze to upgrade Tristan BPC.
3. Tristan BPC successfully analyzed once, Tristan BPC is currently at Analysis grade 2.
4. Analyze to upgrade Tristan BPC.
5. Failed to successfully analyze Tristan BPC, blueprint is destroyed.

...and so on and so forth until it is successfully analyzed to grade 5, in which it would change to a BPO.

Consequences:
  1. Due to low entry barriers, everyone and their dog would produce T2 BPOs, until every at least halfway serious producer has one.

  2. Look at T1 profit margins to see the future T2 profit margins.

So, why do you think this would be a good idea?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.11 21:15:00 - [1041]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 11/05/2011 21:23:12

Sort of like, but not quite Catch-22.

ANY idea that involves (theoretically limitless) creation of new T2 BPOs (regardless of method or cost involved) has only one possible long-term scenario : T2 BPO manufacture becomes the only viable T2 manufacture method, invention becomes useless, and unless datacores/decryptors become a consumable in the new T2 BPO creation process, datacore harvesting and decryptor exploration also become useless.
Making the method more complicated or having a high cost will merely slow down the inevitable.
If you choose to cap the max amount of BPOs in existence to prevent the destruction of the inventor profession, you end up with a method that's not really much better than the lottery, and nobody liked that one.

You just can't "win" Wink

GODS H4ND
Posted - 2011.05.11 23:43:00 - [1042]
 

Oh, what's that CCP? Reset EVE? Oh well that would cause uproar but from what I hear the best days were the beginning of EVE. DOO EEEEETTTTTT NAOW!

Orion Pax
Posted - 2011.05.12 03:50:00 - [1043]
 

Edited by: Orion Pax on 12/05/2011 04:25:15

Originally by: Adrian Idaho


Consequences:
  1. Due to low entry barriers, everyone and their dog would produce T2 BPOs, until every at least halfway serious producer has one.

  2. Look at T1 profit margins to see the future T2 profit margins.

So, why do you think this would be a good idea?




The entry barrier is low, however the chances of actually obtaining one are still pretty slim.

Getting to Analysis grade 1 -> 50% chance of success
Getting to Analysis grade 2 -> 25% chance of success
Getting to Analysis grade 3 -> 12.5% chance of success
Getting to Analysis grade 4 -> 6.25% chance of success
Getting to Analysis grade 5 -> 3.125% chance of success

Statistically you would need to burn through 97 BPCs to get 3 BPOs. That's a LOT of isk, plus BPC prices would go up considerably because people would be trying to get a single T2 BPO (with a ME/PE of -4/-4) which makes it a fairly daunting task.

I think it requires a final ingredient...

To increase the ME or PE you would have to yet again gamble to increase it. Let's say 50% chance to increase each by 1. However on failure the BPO is yet again destroyed. Thus high ME/PE BPOs would become highly coveted and older BPOs would retain a substantial amount of their value, this also provides a minigame in itself, based on the player's hope and greed and fear of obtaining a yet better BPO.

This would provide an equilibrium to BPO creation.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.12 04:57:00 - [1044]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 12/05/2011 04:58:05
Originally by: Orion Pax
Statistically you would need to burn through 97 BPCs to get 3 BPOs. That's a LOT of isk, plus BPC prices would go up considerably because people would be trying to get a single T2 BPO (with a ME/PE of -4/-4) which makes it a fairly daunting task.

I don't think you have a proper sense of scale, and you're probably also confusing BPO with BPC somewhere.
A tier 3 frigate *BPO* costs slightly over 2 mil ISK, and even at 33 BPOs on average to obtain a T2 BPO, that's still just 66 mil ISK, which is a laughably low price for a T2 frigate BPO.
BPCs are much cheaper than BPOs, and even if you assign some insanely high price for a slot's worth in a POS, like, say, 100k per hour, you're still going to have a total cost in the single digit millions for enough BPCs to almost guarantee a T2 BPO.
Do you have any idea how much a Manticore BPO recently sold for ? 40 billion ISK. That's quite a few orders of magnitude higher.
With that idea, it won't take long for invention to die out, it might as well happen overnight. And T2 manufacture profits too, mostly gone also, almost overnight.

Quote:
high ME/PE BPOs would become highly coveted and older BPOs would retain a substantial amount of their value, this also provides a minigame in itself, based on the player's hope and greed and fear of obtaining a yet better BPO. This would provide an equilibrium to BPO creation.

Who cares about creation equilibrium if you can just stick it into research anyway ? It's a BPO afterall. Or are you suggesting that from now on T2 blueprints should no longer be researchable ? Or that this new "type" of T2 BPO should be a different item type, basically an infinite run BPC or something like that ?
Given the extremely lowball base pricetag you put on them, you'll still have people churning them out like butter, at all the ME/PE levels possible (and quite frankly, once you hit +1, any extra isn't going to be a big deal extra, and only the ME part really matters, with even -1 being a radical improvement compared to the base -4).

Either way, even if you make them "expensive" and "difficult" to make, SOME people will STILL make some.
And in the end, all items will be made from them.
And now, instead of having people whining about how T2 BPOs kill invention profits, it will be whining about how this T2 BPO mechanic is killing T2 manufacture profits, and in case you remove all T2 BPOs altogether you'll have people screaming that just about everything is wrong because they still can't make any decent profit (for their taste) with invention.

Orion Pax
Posted - 2011.05.12 14:54:00 - [1045]
 

Edited by: Orion Pax on 12/05/2011 15:10:53
You understand everything perfectly (I'm happy that you do), and no I'm not confusing anything, I'm thinking from a supply and demand perspective. I imagine the large increase in demand could easily make BPC and BPO prices go up 100s if not 1000s of times higher because everyone could try, though few would actually succeed. Additionally success rates can easily be tweaked accordingly, even a minor adjustment of a 40% success rate would make a lot of ISK disappear over night together with the unsuccessful BPC.

As for invention, it should be the only way to obtain BPCs. Regarding research, yes I'm suggesting the concept of research should be tweaked where BPCs and BPOs can be destroyed through the process if unsuccessful. And yes a small percentage of people will make some. However as many as there are made, a much greater number will be destroyed.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.12 15:22:00 - [1046]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 12/05/2011 15:24:53
Originally by: Orion Pax
You understand everything perfectly and, no I'm not confusing anything, I'm thinking from a supply and demand perspective. I imagine the large increase in demand could easily make BPC and BPO prices go up 100s if not 1000s of times higher because everyone could try, though few would actually succeed.

A small Caldari POS in highsec (and there's plenty of space left all over highsec to anchor one, let alone lowsec, w-space and 0.0) "eats up" well under 100 mil ISK/month (and it's likely to remain under that level for a looong time) and can host up to 9 copy slots in 3 adv. mobile labs (and also 6 ME and 6 invention slots) at a *0.65 copy time multiplier (so, at over +53% copy speed vs a regular NPC slot), and that comes up at barely over 15k ISK/hour breakeven. Add in the cost of a PLEX for a single copy char and you're still well under 100k ISK/hour total (actually turning a profit, and that's before considering larger towers and multiple characters per account, dropping "breakeven" price even futher and increasing profit), which basically means at that "lab slot" price, you have a nearly limitless supply of BPCs coming in as soon as demand ramps up even more for BPCs.

Quote:
Additionally success rates can easily be tweaked accordingly, even a minor adjustment of a 40% success rate would make a lot of ISK disappear over night together with the unsuccessful BPC.

The problem with that statement is that ISK doesn't actually "disappear", but moves from the person purchasing the BPCs to the persons doing the copy job, and further to the persons doing PI and PI-related manufacture (POS fuel, POS structures).
And it's not THAT much ISK either - you go from 3.125% (32 for one for 50% per level) to 1.024% (~98 for one for 40% per level), which is not even one order of magnitude, but you need somewhere around 3 to 4 or even 5 orders of magnitude to come close to current prices. You'd need to ramp that down to at least 15%, maybe even 10% success chance per level.
The funny part would be that you would now have a lot more posts from like a zillion people complaining like mad the system is out to get them

Quote:
As for invention, it should be the only way to obtain BPCs. Regarding research, yes I'm suggesting the concept of research should be tweaked where BPOs can be destroyed through the process if unsuccessful. And yes a small percentage of people will make some. However as many as there are made, a much greater number will be destroyed.

ALL BPOs, or just THOSE particular types of "new" T2 BPOs ?
If you mean all BPOs, I am sure a LOT of people will want your head (in particular T1 manufacturers). And be ready for a massively epic crapstorm from all new players complaining about how unfair it is that all the old T1 manufacturers have had access to dirt-cheap ME/PE research, as opposed to them nowadays. Or, alternatively, the massive one if you decide to reset all BPOs to ME:0/PE:0 levels to give everybody "the same chance", especially with regards to BPC stockpiles (how would you handle those anyway, reset them all too ? That's yet another crapstorm).
Or if you mean just those particular new types of T2 BPOs, I'm not sure CCP would want to bother with two different blueprints outputting the same item just to put this method in place.

Besides, who the hell would care about invention anymore as soon as no invention would remain profitable anyway ?
Each additional "decent ME/PE level" new style T2 BPO obtained would shrink the "market share" of invention in that particular market, to the point where ALL items are noticeably more profitable to manufacture from one of the T2 BPOs (be it old ones or new ones, and nobody would keep risking adequate BPOs to further improvement) than to invent.
Sooner or later, invention would completely cease being profitable regardless of item. The more difficult/expensive you make the alternative, the longer it takes, but the end, always the same.

Orion Pax
Posted - 2011.05.12 16:00:00 - [1047]
 

Edited by: Orion Pax on 12/05/2011 16:01:12
Somewhat of a misunderstanding. I'm saying blueprints can not be 'copied' at all. Copies would be the ones with limited runs. The only way to obtain them would be through invention. Older players would keep what they have with their current nice ME/PE though they could gamble for even higher values however it could be destroyed if research is unsuccessful.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.12 17:07:00 - [1048]
 

Originally by: Orion Pax
Somewhat of a misunderstanding. I'm saying blueprints can not be 'copied' at all. Copies would be the ones with limited runs. The only way to obtain them would be through invention. Older players would keep what they have with their current nice ME/PE though they could gamble for even higher values however it could be destroyed if research is unsuccessful.

I don't get what's there you think I might have misunderstood.
On one hand, I was talking about T1 BPOs and T1 BPCs, and flat out asking you whether you ALSO want T1 BPOs to be destroyed when researching ME/PE levels for them or not.
On the other hand, I was talking about the cost of obtaining the worst possible "new style" T2 BPO (regardless of ME/PE level), which would actually end up A LOT cheaper than regular decryptorless invention within relatively short timeframes (especially for module invention, where ME levels are largely irrelevant).
On the gripping hand, I was talking about how it would make absolutely no sense for somebody with already decent ME/PE levels to risk their blueprint's destruction if they can still make a profit manufacturing from it, which means even if it's slow, the absolute number of "decent ENOUGH" ME/PE level "new style" T2 BPOs would end up filling the MANUFACTURE needs of all T2 items, rendering invention USELESS EVENTUALLY.

Orion Pax
Posted - 2011.05.12 17:44:00 - [1049]
 


Originally by: Akita T

I don't get what's there you think I might have misunderstood.



You were talking about copy slots so I explained that there would be no copying. And relax a little bit, I'm just tossing an idea out there, no reason to get upset.

Originally by: Akita T

On one hand, I was talking about T1 BPOs and T1 BPCs, and flat out asking you whether you ALSO want T1 BPOs to be destroyed when researching ME/PE levels for them or not.



I meant all BPCs and BPOs.

Originally by: Akita T

On the other hand, I was talking about the cost of obtaining the worst possible "new style" T2 BPO (regardless of ME/PE level), which would actually end up A LOT cheaper than regular decryptorless invention within relatively short timeframes (especially for module invention, where ME levels are largely irrelevant).



I agree with this. I provide a solution below.

Originally by: Akita T

On the gripping hand, I was talking about how it would make absolutely no sense for somebody with already decent ME/PE levels to risk their blueprint's destruction if they can still make a profit manufacturing from it, which means even if it's slow, the absolute number of "decent ENOUGH" ME/PE level "new style" T2 BPOs would end up filling the MANUFACTURE needs of all T2 items, rendering invention USELESS EVENTUALLY.



As I said, it's a conceptual idea. Also this problem could easily be mitigated by adding a Quality Level in which the end product has small differences. For example a blueprint with a Quality Level of 0 would create a base level Tristan while a quality level of say 3 would provide a Tristan with 3% higher percentage of capacitor or cpu or whatever makes sense. In this case invention will always be useful because people are competing for ever better quality levels.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.12 17:51:00 - [1050]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 12/05/2011 18:07:37


An overly complicated and bizarre solution that has next to zero chance of actually being implemented...
...to a problem that doesn't really exist, except in the perception of some less experienced people.

Thanks, but, no, thanks.
You want a solution that's simpler and more straightforward, not one that's even more complicated, math-wise.

Originally by: Orion Pax
You were talking about copy slots so I explained that there would be no copying. And relax a little bit, I'm just tossing an idea out there, no reason to get upset.

I was talking about the cost of obtaining a "new style" T2 BPO from T1 BPCs, as you were talking about "how expensive" it would be, and I made calculations ramping up T1 BPC cost to the maximum it could ever possibly go (by calculating a rough value for "copy slot" time).

Quote:
As I said, it's a conceptual idea. Also this problem could easily be mitigated by adding a Quality Level in which the end product has small differences. For example a blueprint with a Quality Level of 0 would create a base level Tristan while a quality level of say 3 would provide a Tristan with 3% higher percentage of capacitor or cpu or whatever makes sense. In this case invention will always be useful because people are competing for ever better quality levels.

So, by "invention", you actually mean this revamped new style T2 BPO obtaining method or the current invention style ?
You stated before invention would be the only way to obtain T2 BPCs, so it looks like the latter, but if it's the latter, it would also mean you want invention drastically altered, because right now the ME/PE levels are quite pathetic on invented T2 BPCs, but you haven't explained how (or why).
You're kind of starting to contradict yourself a lot, or you're talking about different options without clearly enough stating what you're actually talking about.

You need a complete and coherent system, "just tossing an idea out there" simply does not cut it, especially if you don't run with it to the very end and figure out what the implications of it would be.
You can't advocate a radical change (which would mean a whole lot of work for the dev team, and a huge reconstruction effort for the in-game economy after its introduction) without conclusively proving that it's worth that effort thanks to radically better conditions afterwards.
In this particular case, the benefits of the change are highly doubtful to begin with, and the required effort is quite substantial, especially since it would imply not just changing the way T2 items are obtained, but actually introducing a host of subclasses of T2 items for each of your proposed "quality levels", which would also need to be balanced separately, and... you know what, just forget it.
You might as well say "throw everything overboard and start from scratch", it would make almost as much sense.


Pages: first : previous : ... 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 ... : 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