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

Author Topic

Orion Pax
Posted - 2011.05.12 18:10:00 - [1051]
 

Originally by: Akita T

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.



I'm sorry you feel this way, from one player to another.

Fullmetal Jackass
Posted - 2011.05.13 02:59:00 - [1052]
 

Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 13/05/2011 03:02:55
The problem I have with T2 BPO's is the manufacturing advantage they grant over inventors. You'd be stupid to NOT use most any T2 BPO if someone handed it to you for free. Why the hell not invent AND build off of a BPO? Now granted, if you had to purchase a T2 BPO at current obscene prices, it'd be a very long term investment, which makes it unattractive to say the least. That said, the market value of an item shouldn't have any bearing on whether said item stays or goes. Level playing field should come first. It's called "game design integrity". Note the emphasis on the word game.

Sure invention can produce way higher volume then BPO's can. However, the profit margin is much higher on any item built off a BPO. 19.999% - 80.0% savings in materials and no invention costs. You'll notice T2 materials aren't getting any cheaper. A BPO holder can ALWAYS undercut the current market value and still make a profit. They can afford to make sure thier items sell first. Everyone else has a bottom line they can't cross. A BPO holder can undercut an inventor's zero profit margin and still make isk. It's still isk printing, just not to the same degree they used to be.

I say either permanently set all T2 BPOs at 0 ME, which is still a 10% advantage in materials over invention, or add a way to increase effeciency of invention prints. I'd say add a very very very low chance of producing a BPO with every invention job, but I don't think adding more T2 bpo's to the mix is the answer.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.13 06:09:00 - [1053]
 

Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
The problem I have with T2 BPO's is the manufacturing advantage they grant over inventors. You'd be stupid to NOT use most any T2 BPO if someone handed it to you for free. Why the hell not invent AND build off of a BPO? Now granted, if you had to purchase a T2 BPO at current obscene prices, it'd be a very long term investment, which makes it unattractive to say the least. That said, the market value of an item shouldn't have any bearing on whether said item stays or goes. Level playing field should come first. It's called "game design integrity". Note the emphasis on the word game.

Well, I would say that you'd be stupid not to just SELL a T2 BPO if somebody handed it over to you, precisely because it's such a low RoI investment (and the value of a T2 BPO is the same regardless of how you obtained it).

As far as "level playing field" goes, there's a few things here that you seem to deliberately sidestep : there's TWO things you can "PvP" about as end result, useful stuff and ISK.
About the useful stuff part:
* a T2 item obtained from a BPO or invented or bought from the market, it still has the exact same VALUE regardless of cost that went into it, so the playing field is quite level as far as combat-PvP goes
* a T2 BPO has the same value regardless of whether you received in the lottery, bought it cheap, bought it expensively or stole it - the playing field is leveled by the market pricing of T2 BPOs
About the ISK part - it's indeed not a level playing field as far as manufacturing profits go, but the advantage (percentually speaking) lies with the player with LESS ISK, not the one with more ISK... again, as you have admitted yourself, a T2 BPO has a quite horrible RoI value, and is therefore inferior to many other alternatives for anybody that's not filthy rich already. I'd say that's more than level.

Quote:
Sure invention can produce way higher volume then BPO's can. However, the profit margin is much higher on any item built off a BPO. 19.999% - 80.0% savings in materials and no invention costs. You'll notice T2 materials aren't getting any cheaper. A BPO holder can ALWAYS undercut the current market value and still make a profit. They can afford to make sure thier items sell first. Everyone else has a bottom line they can't cross. A BPO holder can undercut an inventor's zero profit margin and still make isk. It's still isk printing, just not to the same degree they used to be.

For T2 modules, the material cost savings are even lower, percentage-wise, because they're mostly "extra" materials, so not affected by ME. Also, any negative ME modifier decryptors in spite of other redeeming factors are still among the worst decryptors to use, and not that many T2 BPOs have a high ME value to begin with, not to speak of the fact the base T1 item and other smaller extra materials are fixed costs.
So in reality, material cost savings are more along the lines of between negligible and around 50% tops, usually noticeably under 40%.
Yes, a BPO holder _CAN_ cut an inventor's "bottom line" indeed. But he would be mad to ACTUALLY DO IT (in markets where inventors exist and make any smidgen of a profit), since he has a heavy-duty initial investment (or the equivalent opportunity cost) to "recover" - the main interest should be selling as high as possible. And since a T2 BPO owner is in no particular rush to "rotate" the product (like an inventor usually is) because a BPO owner usually works with a 1-month cycle of maxruns as opposed to a frenzy of short-term builds, he can usually afford to go much more mellow on the pricewars.
In reality, while T2 BPO owners might as well have a "market share carved out for themselves", the truth is, they're usually the last to market in the sell order price wars (inventors and traders come before). Some impatient ones in tight markets on BOTH "sides" simply dump it on the traders, electing to bypass that whole section.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.13 06:16:00 - [1054]
 

Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
I say either permanently set all T2 BPOs at 0 ME, which is still a 10% advantage in materials over invention, or add a way to increase effeciency of invention prints. I'd say add a very very very low chance of producing a BPO with every invention job, but I don't think adding more T2 bpo's to the mix is the answer.

On this one however I at least partially, if not almost completely agree.
The first step towards "resolving" this whole situation -- if the situation will ever be deemed an ACTUAL problem (as opposed to the current implied CCP opinion that "it's all fine") -- would indeed be to buff invention.
And yes, adding more T2 BPOs to the mix is one of the worst overall ideas, like previously argued (eventually all invention would cease being worth bothering with, if that was the only change).

You don't even need to touch T2 BPOs at all anyway - just have ME/PE level of the T1 BPC influence output levels of T2 BPC in such a way that even decryptorless positive ME/PE values are possible (and just have decryptors influence number of runs and chance to invent more heavily than they do now, to compensate for the decrease of importance of ME/PE level alterations).
It's not like there were no talks about T1 BPC ME/PE influencing T2 BPC ME/PE levels... it just never actually happened in spite of almost promises that this would eventually happen. It can still eventually happen, but it's been years since it was last even remotely seriously talked about.

The fact none of this is even actually talked about by devs anymore should give you some hints though Razz

Jowen Datloran
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2011.05.13 11:04:00 - [1055]
 

Originally by: Orion Pax

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.



I must agree with Akita here. Not only would this "solution" require a total balance rework of all modules and ships in EVE, but it would also add hugely to server load with modules and components of different quality being percieved as completely different entities by the server. (I refer to the reason for grouping weapons if you do not know what I am talking about.)

Your solution would in fact require a complete rework of not only game balance but also the whole EVE server infrastructure to work... I just do not see it happen.

Fullmetal Jackass
Posted - 2011.05.14 06:37:00 - [1056]
 

Originally by: Akita T
For T2 modules, the material cost savings are even lower, percentage-wise, because they're mostly "extra" materials, so not affected by ME. Also, any negative ME modifier decryptors in spite of other redeeming factors are still among the worst decryptors to use, and not that many T2 BPOs have a high ME value to begin with, not to speak of the fact the base T1 item and other smaller extra materials are fixed costs.
So in reality, material cost savings are more along the lines of between negligible and around 50% tops, usually noticeably under 40%.
Yes, a BPO holder _CAN_ cut an inventor's "bottom line" indeed. But he would be mad to ACTUALLY DO IT (in markets where inventors exist and make any smidgen of a profit), since he has a heavy-duty initial investment (or the equivalent opportunity cost) to "recover" - the main interest should be selling as high as possible. And since a T2 BPO owner is in no particular rush to "rotate" the product (like an inventor usually is) because a BPO owner usually works with a 1-month cycle of maxruns as opposed to a frenzy of short-term builds, he can usually afford to go much more mellow on the pricewars.
In reality, while T2 BPO owners might as well have a "market share carved out for themselves", the truth is, they're usually the last to market in the sell order price wars (inventors and traders come before). Some impatient ones in tight markets on BOTH "sides" simply dump it on the traders, electing to bypass that whole section.


It is true that the cost savings on modules is not as high as most people would think, because as pointed out, ME doesn't affect all the materials. I've always wondered why that is. Another CCPism I guess. Still the savings in materials is there, and does add up. More so for the larger modules. Then there's invention costs, and time savings. There's a reason T2 BPO are valued so highly. It's not just because they are ultra rare.

My point with the ability to undercut, was that (most) items produced off a T2 BPO are guaranteed to sell for a profit. (Some T2 items are inherently useless.) With the built in "extra" savings, a BPO owner can always move his product as fast as he can produce it, at market value. He doesn't have to undercut everyone, just enough people to make sure he's profitting regularly off his goods. You can't deny it's a distinct advantage.

Now lets talk ship BPOs. Different ballgame here. ME applies across the board. Considerable savings in materials, time, and invention costs. I think this is what most people think of when they want to nerf T2 BPOs.

Fullmetal Jackass
Posted - 2011.05.14 07:13:00 - [1057]
 

Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 14/05/2011 07:26:41

It takes CCP years to do anything. Literally years. I'd say the only reason we don't hear anything about T2 BPOs and invention from CCP is because some higher up made the call of "wait and see, maybe it'll go away". That or it's on the back burner. CCP is notorious for not fixing problems, so no word is not an indication of whether or not something is broken or imbalanced.

I hear all the time how invention has the advantage in volume, but on a character by character basis it's more of a disadvantage. Sure as a whole, inventors set the market price, but that's about it. You talk about BPO holders being on a one month production cycle rather then short bursts. I'd like a ticket for that ride please. Set up my production on all my availible build slots once a month and forget about it. Invention is a constant click fest. Constantly all month. Did I mention constantly? Plus if you aren't online when a job finishes, you've just lost out on production time. If a player has enough T2 BPOs to fill all his production slots each month, he produces more product then an inventor, with significantly sell effort.

Also, the more the market is flooded with a particular item, the less is made off of each sale. Again the advantage swings to BPO holder.

This is what I'm talking about when I say "level playing field". Invention is availible to everyone. T2 BPOs are +6 invention, and T2 BPOs are only avaible to the limited few that hold them. They will probably never be issued again, and were never meant to be accessible to everyone. This is not a good game mechanic for a functional item. They aren't like an extremely rare ship that sits in a hanger and does nothing with little or no effect on the game. They are a profitable and useful tool. The only real disadvantage of a T2 BPO is the price to obtain one.

At least we mostly, if not completely agree on the solution. I'm not saying T2 BPOs need to go away, but they do need to provide less advantage vs invention, and invention probably needs a streamline.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.14 09:39:00 - [1058]
 

T2 BPOs have to go... they don't make game better for the player base. They give unneeded efficiency advantage, which translates into perpetual profit.

No matter how much you price your BPO 2, it does not mean that 'everybody' can get one. Nor that BPOs do not give unnecessary advantage despite high initial investment. Whether you paid much or little, infinite, effortless profit is a bad game design. (In your case sellers, wanted to capitalize on their product and asked 5 years yield in advance, it's your fault, doesn't mean that BPOs are worthless investment and do not bring in money for nothing)

Ryla Morgan
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.05.14 15:35:00 - [1059]
 

For all the reasons the OP stated: they're no longer needed. Send them the way of the unlimited copy bpc's and let's be done with it. They've allready stated that T2 BPO's were not the best way to introduce T2; that's what invention is for. Sorry if you bought/won one but just to end this debate let's turn em into 1k run bpc's and be done with it.

Selak Zorander
Posted - 2011.05.14 16:02:00 - [1060]
 

Originally by: Ryla Morgan
For all the reasons the OP stated: they're no longer needed. Send them the way of the unlimited copy bpc's and let's be done with it. They've allready stated that T2 BPO's were not the best way to introduce T2; that's what invention is for. Sorry if you bought/won one but just to end this debate let's turn em into 1k run bpc's and be done with it.


Actually they said that the lottery was not the best way to give out tech 2 BPO and they did remove the lottery. The tech 2 BPO have not been specifically commented on by a DEV to my knowledge. I could be wrong and I am too lazy to search the threads from several years ago dealing with the lottery removal and that start of invention.

Ryla Morgan
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.05.14 16:36:00 - [1061]
 

Originally by: Selak Zorander
Originally by: Ryla Morgan
For all the reasons the OP stated: they're no longer needed. Send them the way of the unlimited copy bpc's and let's be done with it. They've allready stated that T2 BPO's were not the best way to introduce T2; that's what invention is for. Sorry if you bought/won one but just to end this debate let's turn em into 1k run bpc's and be done with it.


Actually they said that the lottery was not the best way to give out tech 2 BPO and they did remove the lottery. The tech 2 BPO have not been specifically commented on by a DEV to my knowledge. I could be wrong and I am too lazy to search the threads from several years ago dealing with the lottery removal and that start of invention.


You are right Selak, the lottery was a mistake.. I myself won a few in my time (missiles). Do I support altering/removing them? Sure.
I'd rather support an overhaul of T2 bpo/invention that either enables them to be invented or aquired again however.
NOT the lottery.
I do love the forum war however.

Fullmetal Jackass
Posted - 2011.05.15 03:57:00 - [1062]
 

Originally by: Selak Zorander
Actually they said that the lottery was not the best way to give out tech 2 BPO and they did remove the lottery. The tech 2 BPO have not been specifically commented on by a DEV to my knowledge. I could be wrong and I am too lazy to search the threads from several years ago dealing with the lottery removal and that start of invention.


I'd say the fact that they never introduced BPOs for the T2 items they have added since invention says a lot about what CCP thinks of T2 BPOs. My guess is they just don't want to **** off the long term players that own them right now.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.15 23:46:00 - [1063]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 00:02:32
Originally by: Opertone
No matter how much you price your BPO 2, it does not mean that 'everybody' can get one. Nor that BPOs do not give unnecessary advantage despite high initial investment. Whether you paid much or little, infinite, effortless profit is a bad game design. (In your case sellers, wanted to capitalize on their product and asked 5 years yield in advance, it's your fault, doesn't mean that BPOs are worthless investment and do not bring in money for nothing)

So you also want T1 BPOs removed from the game ? What about rig BPOs ? What of T2 component BPOs ? There's not THAT much more effort required in manufacturing from any other BPO types, are you claiming that's also infinite, effortless profit and therefore a bad game design ? Hey, what about making BPCs from BPOs and selling the BPCs on contracts ? That's even LESS effort and quite a decent profit. Is that bad game design too ? And guess what, NONE of those need anywhere near 5 years to earn as much as you initially spent.
What, are you now trying to argue that you can also manufacture at a loss with those occasionally ? NEWSFLASH, the same is valid with quite a few T2 BPOs too, as shocking as that might sound for you. Yes, you read that right - you CAN ACTUALLY LOSE ISK if you choose to manufacture from some T2 BPOs at some times, even if you use well-researched ones. Just having a T2 BPO does not automatically mean you'll be making a metric arseload of ISK, and the exact opposite is also true, you can have some of the freely available blueprints and make a ton of ISK with minimal effort using them.

So, yes, it DOES matter how expensive a BPO is, regardless what that BPO is, and it does matter how long it takes to "pay off", and last but not least, yes, ANYBODY with enough ISK and not enough common sense CAN get just about any one of them.

Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
I'd say the fact that they never introduced BPOs for the T2 items they have added since invention says a lot about what CCP thinks of T2 BPOs.

More like, shows what they think about even the remotest of possibilities of a repeat of whole "t20 scandal" shoutfest, even in an altered form.

They had three possible choices :
a) introduce a limitless number of T2 BPOs and have their numbers regulated by "expenses" - the end effect being that some people simply don't really give a damn about expenses, and they'll keep making new ones even if the payout would get ludicrously low, which would mean invention for those created under those rules would go to crap since eventually there will be more T2 BPOs that actually needed
b) introduce a LIMITED number of T2 BPOs for those new items - the problem here being, the "trust" in the "fairness" of the lottery was pretty damn low, and trust in just about any other distribution method would be equally horrid
c) NOT introduce any T2 BPOs at all and just let all those items be "invention only"

Obviously, choice "a" would be the worst, choice "b" would not be very good either, so they were left with the only non-scandalous pick, namely choice "c".

Originally by: Ryla Morgan
I'd rather support an overhaul of T2 bpo/invention that either enables them to be invented or aquired again however. NOT the lottery.

So which option would you rather pick then, from those above, will it be "a" or "b" ? And why ?
You seem to be leaning towards "a" so far (via invention), but even you have to realize that eventually this will simply lead to a scenario where invention is pretty much only useful for making more T2 BPOs and nothing else. If that's really what you had in mind, please explain how this would be any better OTHER THAN having some people complaining less while others complain more ?
If you change your mind and pick "b", how exactly would you distribute them in a way that won't have everybody screaming "CCP favoritism" every time a BPO shows up in the hands of the "alleged dev alliance du jour" ?

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.16 07:20:00 - [1064]
 

I don't believe a single Akita's word

simply put - BPOs are limited, only few people can have them. People may ask, offer a lot of isk for BPOs, but their speculative approach has nothing to do with investment pay off.

'BPO 2 - bad investment'

Explain you build a factory to produce components, you spend cash to acquire materials, the factory becomes a solid asset. If for some reason the manufactured components turn obsolete, the factory becomes nearly worthless, moreover it will cost fuel and energy to maintain. You can not sell your factory at the price of the initial investments (materials, work, engineering)

In eve - a single piece of paper produces items and has no investment costs and 100% mobility and liquidity. You can sell your compact BPO to any buyer without much hassle, you can relocate it problem free. Besides, you can use BPO II as loan collateral.

In case of eve you have all you need to transfer BPO 2 to the next holder. Transferring capital plant is virtually impossible, deconstructing to get investments back - hopeless.

Your BPO 2 is a liquid asset, patch of perpetual profit margin. (you invest into one with no risk, you can get money back)

Your factory is not as liquid, becomes a strategic investment costs of which may or may not pay off in future (you sink your money into factory). There is no warranty that you can recover construction costs back and that profits will overcome the initial investments.


'BPO 2 - unsecured profit'

BPO 2 is only different from BPC 2 and BPO 1 in the massive build costs difference. Any product from BPO has no invention costs, is less time consuming, has lower material costs. It leads to mass market BPCs products being 25% or more costly than products assembled with BPO 2 technology. The cost difference opens a big field for price competition and allows the BPO 2 producers to lock in the profit associated with 25% cost savings as long as the product sells.

The profit from BPO 2 patch is naturally stored in BPOs properties. It results in having perpetual profit. In addition to the profit, BPO 2 retains its value, so investment to obtain BPO can be recovered. And finally BPO 2 can only go up in price over time as more people enter the game and monetary mass accumulates.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.16 12:56:00 - [1065]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 12:57:00
Originally by: Opertone
I don't believe a single Akita's word

The beauty of it all is that you don't have to "believe" me, you just have to gather the FACTS and use your brain.
Or are you saying you can't follow the logical process ?

Quote:
simply put - BPOs are limited, only few people can have them. People may ask, offer a lot of isk for BPOs, but their speculative approach has nothing to do with investment pay off.

Do T2 BPOs come up for sale on a regular basis ? Yes, they do.
Are they being purchased by other people ? Yes, they are.
If you are willing to pay enough ISK for one, can you get what you want ? YES, YOU CAN.

What's stopping you from purchasing one ?
There are only TWO possible answers:
* either you do not have enough ISK to get one, in which case, just get enough ISK, since T2 BPOs are by far NOT the only way to make ISK
* or you have enough ISK but do not believe purchasing one is worth it, in which case, what the bloody hell are you complaining about ?


Quote:
you build a factory to produce components, you spend cash to acquire materials, the factory becomes a solid asset. If for some reason the manufactured components turn obsolete, the factory becomes nearly worthless, moreover it will cost fuel and energy to maintain. You can not sell your factory at the price of the initial investments (materials, work, engineering)
In eve - a single piece of paper produces items and has no investment costs and 100% mobility and liquidity. You can sell your compact BPO to any buyer without much hassle, you can relocate it problem free. Besides, you can use BPO II as loan collateral.
In case of eve you have all you need to transfer BPO 2 to the next holder. Transferring capital plant is virtually impossible, deconstructing to get investments back - hopeless.
Your BPO 2 is a liquid asset, patch of perpetual profit margin. (you invest into one with no risk, you can get money back)

In EVE, some T2 items have become near obsolete, and a lot (in fact, almost all) of the T2 BPOs have lost a radical size of their value when invention was introduced. There is absolutely no guarantee invention won't be buffed at some time in the future, making T2 BPOs lose even more of their value in the coming months or years.
Also, you totally CAN sell a factory to somebody else in RL, all it takes is a signature on the deed. And you CAN take a loan with it as a collateral.
Besides, T2 BPOs are not so much like factories, but like PATENTS. And invention is kind of like a loophole in the EVE copyright law.

Quote:
Any product from BPO has no invention costs, is less time consuming, has lower material costs. It leads to mass market BPCs products being 25% or more costly than products assembled with BPO 2 technology. The cost difference opens a big field for price competition and allows the BPO 2 producers to lock in the profit associated with 25% cost savings as long as the product sells.

So what ? You said it yourself, "as long as the product sells".
WHEN a product sells heavily, the price level is determined by the additional supply coming from inventors filling the gap between demand at that price and BPO manufacture capabilities.
When it doesn't, BPOs compete with eachother and basically end up so that not even BPO manufacture is really all that profitable.

Quote:
The profit from BPO 2 patch is naturally stored in BPOs properties. It results in having perpetual profit. In addition to the profit, BPO 2 retains its value, so investment to obtain BPO can be recovered. And finally BPO 2 can only go up in price over time as more people enter the game and monetary mass accumulates.

T2 BPOs do not necessarily retain their value. The introduction of invention slashed values across the board. ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INVENTION PROCESS WILL CUT VALUE OF T2 BPOs EVEN MORE.

And anyway, absolute profit is meaningless at such a high investment level, only RoI matters.

Ryla Morgan
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.05.16 15:28:00 - [1066]
 

How about this Akita T. Rather than off-handedly dismissing the arguments of hundreds of players and imposing your own rationale for the current system, what would you change to make it better?

If all you can do is support the current state of T2 ownership/invention/production with nothing more than dismissal of other's arguments, I see no point in this thread other than a way for you to vindicate to yourself the reasons your bpo collection and source of income shouldn't be modified in any sort of way.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.16 15:56:00 - [1067]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 16:03:22
Originally by: Ryla Morgan
How about this Akita T. Rather than off-handedly dismissing the arguments of hundreds of players and imposing your own rationale for the current system, what would you change to make it better?
If all you can do is support the current state of T2 ownership/invention/production with nothing more than dismissal of other's arguments, I see no point in this thread other than a way for you to vindicate to yourself the reasons your bpo collection and source of income shouldn't be modified in any sort of way.

Well, I suppose you can be excused for not reading through 30+ pages of text and getting that idea from the most frequently talked about aspects, so here's a quick recap plus tweaking (it all boils down to "heavily revamp invention and streamline moon-mining-related stuff").

OPTIONAL :
No more invention chances of failure - all invention commits will yield SOME result - the differences will mainly be in obtained number of runs and ME/PE levels. THERE WILL BE NO RANDOMNESS INVOLVED ANYWHERE. If certain ingredients go in, given a certain set of skills at certain levels, the resulting T2 BPC will always be exactly the same, like now, but far more factors would affect it.
Average number of runs per obtained blueprint would have to go down quite a bit though in this case, to keep the overall efficiency in the same ballpark, so it's not necessarily the best of ideas.

MANDATORY:
Eliminate the need for a clickfest - add the ability to load up multiple T1 BPCs and corresponding materials to a single invention job, yielding multiple T2 BPCs on delivery of that job.
Same story for manufacturing from identical BPCs - be able to merge as many in a single job as you like, delivery giving you the total.
Have T1 BPC ME/PE level influence the resulting ME/PE level of the T2 BPC to the point of being able to obtain a positive ME/PE value even without a decryptor.
Tweak the invention-related skills to maybe also slightly affect runs/ME/PE, but most importantly alter (reduce) the needed datacore counts per job, with the rounding made per job, not per blueprint (remember the previous "multiple BPCs per job" thing?) which would mean they CAN always matter, even for module invention.
Tweak/buff decryptor effects to mainly influence the number of obtained runs and also "boost" the effect of the T1 BPC stats on the resulting T2 BPC, with the possibility of obtaining high positive stats on either ME, PE or both (depending on decryptor and T1 BPC ME/PE levels). Datacore reduction optional, probably best left for the skills.
Basically, to even get negative ME/PE levels and low runs count at all with a high cost per run you would need to be inventing from a low-run low-stats T1 BPC while having minimal skills and using no decryptor.

And last, but certainly not least, quite possibly the single most important thing : tweak/buff existing alchemy reactions (increased efficiency) and add a LONG LIST of new alchemy reactions - each "tier 1" material should have at least 1 "tier 2" and at least 2 "tier 3" replacements, and each "tier 2" material should have at least 1 "tier 3" and at least 2 "tier 4" replacements.

...

All of this combined would basically put invention almost on par with T2 BPO ownership. ALMOST.
Also, it would have a strong effect on moon mineral prices (heavy duty reduction), would stimulate demand for POS fuel (plenty of alchemy POSes springing up all over the place) and would DRASTICALLY reduce T2 item prices, to the point where volumes traded would noticeably go up thanks to massive adoption (who knows, T2 ships might even get close to their actual insurance payouts).

Long story short, T2 BPOs would lose so much of their value, that the main remaining factor in their pricing would be the fact they are collector items, since the difference in total T2 item manufacture cost would become minimal (from a combined lowering of material costs and reduced invention costs).

Ryla Morgan
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.05.16 16:26:00 - [1068]
 

Edited by: Ryla Morgan on 16/05/2011 16:29:18
Thank you Akita. I'd allmost start another topic with that reply. Honestly this thread was beginning to feellike flamebait (I'll admit I hadn't read EVERY single page, but seeing your points summed in a single reply helped)

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head with what needs to change (at least in line with what I believe) though I doubt ccp will ever be bothered to code such an expansive tweak to invention.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.16 16:39:00 - [1069]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 16/05/2011 16:40:16

A very short and very "barebones" version of it was already at the very bottom of the original post pair, but I guess that's also quite easy to miss on two max-char-count posts...
Quote:
THE ACTUAL PROBLEM is a combination between invention waste and a severely limited supply of "bottleneck" moon minerals.
THE SOLUTION to that problem is first and foremost the introduction of alternative moon mineral procurement methods (be it through comet mining, allowing multiple extractors or better extractor models, additional alchemy reactions or so on and so forth), with a distant second being ways for invention to yield POSITIVE ME/PE levels even in the absence of decryptors (like, say, having T1 BPC ME/PE level affect T2 BPC ME/PE level, on top of maybe boosting base ME/PE level to 0/0 from the current -4/-4).
Fix that, and you "fix" the "T2 BPO problem" without even touching T2 BPOs at all.

Wink

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.05.16 16:57:00 - [1070]
 

Originally by: Akita T
OPTIONAL :
No more invention chances of failure - all invention commits will yield SOME result - the differences will mainly be in obtained number of runs and ME/PE levels. THERE WILL BE NO RANDOMNESS INVOLVED ANYWHERE. If certain ingredients go in, given a certain set of skills at certain levels, the resulting T2 BPC will always be exactly the same, like now, but far more factors would affect it.
Average number of runs per obtained blueprint would have to go down quite a bit though in this case, to keep the overall efficiency in the same ballpark, so it's not necessarily the best of ideas.

I love it! It would make invention more ... "EVE-y" Wink When that is done, do the same with T3 production: the fact that all subsystems of a certain class require the exact same materials sucks ass and feels very un-EVE-y; more like "you need 3 gold, 2 wood, and 4 clay to build a house" (i.e., there's not enough complexity and variation).

Originally by: Akita T
Eliminate the need for a clickfest

Are you insane?! That'd eradicate the only physical workout of thousands of EVE players! How could I keep in shape then?

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.17 07:19:00 - [1071]
 

Edited by: Opertone on 17/05/2011 08:22:19
Confirming that Akita states controversial things

In modern world you can sell a factory - but you can't extract your investment costs back if there is no buyer... Deconstructing a plant, or relocating the plant to another continent is impossible. You invest billions into construction or into research, you want your product to sell, but it does not sell. You can't get your investment costs back. Your stuff you just built is worthless. Can't find anyone to buy it either.

BPO II have intrinsic value and ability to produce things. You can speculate to get a lot of money from BPO. You do not loose money over buying a BPO II. You may loose money due to price being to high or your poor ability to estimate speculative income in your future. But you keep the BPO's value + speculative added value (extra charge). Fair price of BPO + sellers added.

This only proves that Akita is uneducated, or trying to trick uneducated into believing.


Ninja: Akita - the Titan of fallacy

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.17 08:53:00 - [1072]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 17/05/2011 09:11:36

Using YOUR assumptions and a smidgen of logic, you can never lose money over a T2 BPO purchase no matter the price, since in your opinion T2 BPO manufacture will always be profitable and T2 BPO prices will at least maintain their level, if not appreciate.
So how come you list it as a possibility of losing money ? Cognitive dissonance, anybody ?

Anyway, did you miss that part where T2 BPOs are not factories, but patents ? Right. You did. But you keep rapping on that flawed analogy nevertheless.
And you also missed the part where T2 BPOs _have_ lost value in the past, and the fact that they COULD very well lose value again in the future ? You sure did that too. How does that figure into your master plan ?


Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.17 09:11:00 - [1073]
 

enjoy the read

I can't no more...


basically sophists (greek lords of fallacy) initiated democracy which has overridden human societies.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.17 09:14:00 - [1074]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 17/05/2011 09:36:20

As opposed to your arguments, which are overloaded with fallacies, which I constantly point out ?
And what exactly is SUPPOSED to be a fallacy in anything I said so far anyway ?
You have to show the exact spot in which the reasoning is flawed, and defend that position successfully.
You can claim you managed the first part to some degree, but you kind of repeatedly and consistently fail on the second part.

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.05.17 11:31:00 - [1075]
 

Well, you've got to give Opertone credit: he's one of the more committed trolls out there, and he puts a lot of effort into it. However, he's no Tom Gerard, and his trolling lacks that certain kind of creativity.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.18 00:13:00 - [1076]
 

I am not excluding the possibility of genuine yet misguided nerd rage...

PureMurder
Posted - 2011.05.18 02:31:00 - [1077]
 

Edited by: PureMurder on 18/05/2011 02:35:51
I'm going to preface this by saying that I've never done any mfg except for one run of ammo once, but I'm still interested in this side of Eve. Also as a player and a helpful person on the forums you have my deepest respect.

Please address the following questions about your argument:

Originally by: Akita T

* a T2 item obtained from a BPO or invented or bought from the market, it still has the exact same VALUE ...

* a T2 BPO... the playing field is leveled by the market pricing of T2 BPOs

...the advantage (percentually speaking) lies with the player with LESS ISK

So in reality, material cost savings are more along the lines of between negligible and around 50% tops, usually noticeably under 40%.

Yes, a BPO holder _CAN_ cut an inventor's "bottom line" indeed. But he would be mad to ACTUALLY DO IT since he has a heavy-duty initial investment (or the equivalent opportunity cost) to "recover" - the main interest should be selling as high as possible.


Re: level playing field, time is a factor. So if it take someone more time to get a mod (or a BPO) than another, they're risking more labour for the same monetary value, and that inequality of risk makes the playing field uneven. :)

I'm curious how the market pricing of T2 BPOs levels the playing field (both theoretically and in practice). I don't have much economics background so if you want to explain, that would be awesome.

I don't think that your argument about ROI on invention is valid; what matters more is wealth and income. The highest ROI might come from station trading ammo with your first 5k ISK, but people don't do it because of its low income. Further, a T2 BPO has the added utility of giving you access to loans that you couldn't have otherwise received, and therefore the actual ROI on the T2 BPO is higher than is readily apparent (and they're likely a great hedge against inflation).

(This is a weaker question here so please be patient:) What is the total savings % between invention and T2 BPO? How much actual daily cash does that turn into if they're selling below invention costs? How much is the difference in terms of isk/hr? I think that when people reach the point of having more isk than they can/want to spend, then these BPOs can create a lasting advantage in favour of people that have achieved that level of wealth. At a certain point ROI means nothing and wealth means control of an increasing amount of resources.

I think the reason you use quotes around "recovering" the investment in a T2 BPO is that it's not a very strong argument: You can recover the investment by selling it at face value (though they're somewhat illiquid). The opportunity cost is actually the time involved: you can make a certain amount of hourly income by doing activities in eve and you don't have enough time to do everything. I think that people perceive that T2 BPOs gives automatic hourly income that's greater than invention and that lowers the hourly income of invention, and this is why they're resentful of it. Can you address that?

Just out of curiousity, what drives the manic pace of inventors? Is it just that they lack capital or do they have to be more clicky/active in order to do what they do?

I guess another question is: what would happen to T2 BPO holders if they were given market value isk for their BPOs and then those BPOs were removed from the game, in terms of wealth, income, and ROI?

Marshiro
Posted - 2011.05.18 04:06:00 - [1078]
 

I disagree with t2 bpo on the following points:

1. T2 bpo promotes wealth consolidation, since it provides the wealthy with a relatively safe passive income generation source. The player with the longest planning horizon wins the isk/effort battle, and by that, total wealth if they put a little effort at it.

Now, one could argue that this is precisely intended (just like the skill point system), but unlike skill points, t2 bpo do not hit a point of diminish returns and if we could imagine the game running another 10 years and certain t2 bpo collectors keep up, they would be utterly untouchable in wealth unless active income increases. (the constant cries against l4, supercaps, etc, makes this unlikely)

Now one could argue those mega wealthy players don't really spend much of their wealth and have little effect, but even a sneeze by an elephant can blow ants away. Extremes wealth differential as result of self reinforcing passive income is discouraging to new players, since the new player needs far more effort to catch up to the same level of wealth just by starting late, and unlike skill points, never reach parity in effectiveness.

2. As long as eve is growth, in player base and saved wealth, t2 bpo value can only grow since they are unique items. With every new player, newly made money, etc, a player with longer planning horizon or even more motivated collector may join the game and find the wealth to buy ever more expensive t2 bpo asking prices.

Outside of quite direct game changes (either to the bpo, or effecting item), there is very little reason to expect a drop in t2 bpo value. As such, "recovering" the costs of the initial purchase is merely a question of time horizon and the waiting game.

----------
My personal desired change for T2 bpo is not removal, but the requirement that they be placed inside a POS (as opposed to safe npc station) for it to be usable. This converts truly invulnerable risk free passive income into a somewhat risky strategic asset that open up interactions between different actors, from those trying to sniff out production chains to actions those that benefit from their destruction and the strategies used to avert the risk.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.18 10:48:00 - [1079]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 18/05/2011 10:52:48
Originally by: PureMurder
Re: level playing field, time is a factor. So if it take someone more time to get a mod (or a BPO) than another, they're risking more labour for the same monetary value, and that inequality of risk makes the playing field uneven. :)
I'm curious how the market pricing of T2 BPOs levels the playing field (both theoretically and in practice). I don't have much economics background so if you want to explain, that would be awesome.
I don't think that your argument about ROI on invention is valid; what matters more is wealth and income. The highest ROI might come from station trading ammo with your first 5k ISK, but people don't do it because of its low income. Further, a T2 BPO has the added utility of giving you access to loans that you couldn't have otherwise received, and therefore the actual ROI on the T2 BPO is higher than is readily apparent[...]when people reach the point of having more isk than they can/want to spend, then these BPOs can create a lasting advantage in favour of people that have achieved that level of wealth. At a certain point ROI means nothing and wealth means control of an increasing amount of resources[...]The opportunity cost is actually the time involved: you can make a certain amount of hourly income by doing activities in eve and you don't have enough time to do everything. I think that people perceive that T2 BPOs gives automatic hourly income that's greater than invention and that lowers the hourly income of invention, and this is why they're resentful of it.


Well, you kind of answered your own question, at least partially.

Yes, you are correct in the observation that the only reason people accept lower RoIs as their networth increases is because they can no longer afford to scale up the activities they were doing earlier, be it because it would involve too much "labor" or maybe because there is not enough of a market share to rotate enough ISK though it at that profit margin.
T2 BPOs in their current form and current gameplay situation are quite simply one of the few quasi-financial instruments available at the highest level of ISK investment, allowing people with a lot of ISK to further leverage them in some way, and subsequently, also the investments with the lowest RoIs in the game.
It's merely a mechanism that actually does GOOD things for the game - it places diminishing percentual returns on reinvesting wealth (to prevent exponential wealth explosion for a good portion of the wealthier EVE classes) while at the same time rewarding persistent people who do wish to become wealthier by allowing them to do so (what would be the point of wanting to acquire more wealth if your potential income level would be capped by grinding mechanisms).

When you look at whether the playing field is level or not, you look at several things :
* can an inventor become a T2 BPO owner ? yes, he can
* can a T2 BPO owner invent ? yes, he can
* are the final products of invention and T2 BPO manufacture different ? no, they're not
* can anybody monopolize any T2 item production and drive the prices upward sky high without anybody being able to compete ? no, they can't
* can anybody deny somebody else access to any T2 item ? no, they can't

Literally, this of all comes down to a matter of production cost, and I don't think anybody would have any problems agreeing with this particular statement.
Whenever T2 BPOs are being complained about, the one and only even remotely sensible complaint is the one involving the "cheaper" T2 BPO material manufacture cost - that fails to take into account the OTHER costs, namely either that of the initial investment (purchasing the T2 BPO) or continued ownership (opportunity cost of holding onto the T2 BPO as opposed to selling it) - but you touched upon that, and it shall be answered in the next post, because the char limit is pretty much reached here.

Ken Storm
Posted - 2011.05.18 11:05:00 - [1080]
 

An alternative Approach: (WARNING this may be complete bo££ox)

No need to remove T2 BPOs, or mess with anything. I guess the issue is T2 BPOs offer a significant advantage over Invention and this needs addressing, as it was not the intent of CCP that T2 BPOs would cause this.

OK.

CCP (in Game be it Sansha or who ever) reports that there are a large number of counterfiet T2 BPOs flooding the market producing inferior items.

They now require that all T2 BPO holders submit their BPOs for validation at a suitable office some jumps away (probably in H-Sec), once validated (for a fee) they get a license to use the BPO for a limited number of days, weeks, months before re-validation is required.

Why Do this: Becuase it would expose the BPO to travel and could possibly be ganked by interested parties and grabbed, or it could just be destroyed.

Result: A slow decrease in the number of T2 BPOs Avail, increased ISK Sink (but small) for CCP, More PvP, More Fun and potentially a decent story to wrap around it, you could also do the same for T1 Bpos but hardly worth it.




Pages: first : previous : ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 : 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