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

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.18 11:26:00 - [1081]
 

SIDENOTE//CLARIFICATION
Quote:
I think the reason you use quotes around "recovering" the investment in a T2 BPO [...]they're likely a great hedge against inflation[...]

Before we proceed further with the above, let me elaborate a bit on those two.
The reason I put quotes around "recovering" is because I'm talking about RoI, namely reaching a point where you earned as much as you paid so far. I could have called it "reaching breakeven" or something similar, but they're all just shortcuts for the same concept, shortcuts that are easier to understand by a reader. It is obvious that if you DO choose to only sell a T2 BPO at above the price you purchased it (and you can actually manage to do that) you don't actually have to "recover" anything to be actually making a profit - that is only meaningful if you choose to NEVER sell your T2 BPO.
Also, yes, they MIGHT be a good hedge against inflation, but only if CCP never alters the invention process - because if they do buff invention, you risk losing a truckload of value from your T2 BPO, and that's not quite a good hedge against anything, now is it ?

Quote:
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[...]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?


We can probably agree so far the only issue that deserves any attention is that of production cost, and we could probably also eventually agree (after some more debating) that JUST the material costs and labor costs are NOT the whole story.
Simply put, nowadays, invention *IS* mostly manual labor, while T2 BPO manufacture is mostly an investment tool.
They're two completely different ISK-earning mechanisms that just happen to have the same marketable output products, and that's what annoys and/or confuses a lot of people.
Would T2 BPOs exit the picture, all you really manage to do is take the investment tool out (with or without compensation, that's a completely different story), but you're still not changing the nature of invention, namely the fact that it's extremely labor intensive on top of a low entry barrier (well, anyway, much lower than the one for T2 BPOs), and therefore, the only real competition there is how low can people handle going for their "hourly" rates.
The downwards pressure on "labor remuneration" doesn't come from the T2 BPO owners, it comes from the OTHER INVENTORS. Always has, always will.

So, now we're back to the crux of the problem, cost.
Quote:
I'm curious how the market pricing of T2 BPOs levels the playing field

On one hand, for invention, you have the higher material cost leading to lower per-unit profits, high level of labor on top of a low initial setup cost.
On the other hand, for T2 BPOs, you have the lower material cost leading to higher per-unit profits, low level of labor on top of a sky-high initial setup cost.
The playing field is leveled by the dynamic pricing of T2 BPOs by providing a fair exchange rate at the time of the trsnsaction between "labor load" and "initial investment" at whatever level is acceptable for both parties involved in the ownership change of a T2 BPO.

Quote:
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?

Wealth, obviously nothing changes.
In terms of income/RoI, well, you just removed the T2 BPO investment option, so that only leaves capital ship BPOs and investing in other players on the table. The former is more or less the same RoI now, but will likely plummet if a truckload of liquid ISK suddenly became available, while the former is simply too risky even if the RoI seems good on the surface, sometimes with real RoI into the negatives.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.18 11:39:00 - [1082]
 

Originally by: Marshiro
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.

And really, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, while T2 BPOs might be the current "top" in terms of total ISK investment capability per unit (and near the bottom in terms of RoI), they're not the only available investments, and the same wealth accumulation would continue at a slightly lower pace would T2 BPOs no longer be around.

Quote:
t2 bpo do not hit a point of diminishing returns[...]t2 bpo value can only grow since they are unique items
[...]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

Actually, it's not a point, it's a sliding scale, and yes they do suffer from diminished returns while CCP intervention is absent, simply by having a constantly increasing cost (actual or opportunity) at constant or even decreasing margins.
And CCP intervention is kind of guaranteed in the long term anyway, one way or the other. It could be done by buffing invention (reducing margins for T2 BPO owners) or adjusting the moon mining bottlenecks (they do plan to find some "pressure valve" for that, be it new alchemy reactions or alternative means of harvesting moon minerals) or any other number of ways.
Either one of those ways CCP will choose to intervene with would also result in a sudden and radical decrease in T2 BPO value at that point in time, so there are ample reasons to expect further drops in T2 BPO value. Sure, the "rare item" portion of T2 BPO value would be largely unaffected by any of that, but the RoI-oriented part of their current value would plummet (and the latter constitutes the bulk of the good T2 BPO value anyway).

Marshiro
Posted - 2011.05.18 21:06:00 - [1083]
 

Quote:
And really, there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, while T2 BPOs might be the current "top" in terms of total ISK investment capability per unit (and near the bottom in terms of RoI), they're not the only available investments, and the same wealth accumulation would continue at a slightly lower pace would T2 BPOs no longer be around.

It depends on what kind of game you want. If you want achieving players (those that want to actually have an effect on the game world, aka the sov game) to join the game, grind the insane ****z out of the game and save hundreds of billions or more (or quit) before doing anything else, since having money early beats having money late due to interest rates, then it is "working as intended."

Alternatively one could design the game different, with "inflation" (really, growth in real wealth per hour) wiping out much of the advantages of saving, then more players may move into fun things like pvp and stuff since it is better to make money when one needs it, not "make money the earlies possible in the game and go go passive income." It also makes for a more equal playing field where old players would not dominate as much. The numbers may not seem so dramatic now, but exponents (interest rates) are dangerous things and it can build up insane wealth differential in the long run.

Its something to watch out for, and T2 bpo isn't the most important factor but one that should be looked at once a design choice on the above factor is decided upon.

Quote:
And CCP intervention is kind of guaranteed in the long term anyway, one way or the other.

CCP intervention is likely only because of political pressure from players. If the whole "remove t2bpo" lobby all got convinced by Akita T that t2bpo is no problem at all, no change would likely happen. The more successful you are with this thread the less likely action would happen, since "compromise" is define politically by some kind of "middle ground" and you are shifting the middle.

The problem is there is more then the t2bpo pressure group, which is a small group anyways. The problem is the "zomg economy is broken super capital online" group that is far more pervasive, and demands a serious, serious reduction in real income so "people would fly t1 cruisers like the game is supposed to work." What this in practice is a strong reduction in the real production of minerals and moon materials (together with a reduction of isk generation to preserve price stability). If this "deflation" (really a recession) happens, the real value of t2bpo is actually increased (in terms reward per real player hour).

The "political" landscape is hardly one way. Even if I don't believe t2 bpo necessarily have to be removed, it might make sense to pretend it ought to pressure ccp into improving invention related features.....

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.18 22:43:00 - [1084]
 

Originally by: Marshiro
Its something to watch out for, and T2 bpo isn't the most important factor but one that should be looked at once a design choice on the above factor is decided upon.

If it will ever change, and if until then nothing changed in the invention/moonmining department to render it moot, then yes, T2 BPOs would need to also be looked at alongside a few other things, but until then...

Quote:
CCP intervention is likely only because of political pressure from players[...]Even if I don't believe t2 bpo necessarily have to be removed, it might make sense to pretend it ought to pressure ccp into improving invention related features.....

I was mainly talking about the most likely (nearer) future changes, namely the moon mining and reaction chain altering, which has already been on the "to do" list for CCP (but granted, with a quite low priority, it seems).
Also, it seems a tad bit disingenuous to pretend to support a removal of T2 BPOs just so that invention would be buffed, wouldn't you agree ?

Fearless Worthless
Posted - 2011.05.18 23:49:00 - [1085]
 

what kind of prices are we talking about for a T2 BPO?

Hockston Axe
Amarr
Posted - 2011.05.19 00:08:00 - [1086]
 

Originally by: Fearless Worthless
what kind of prices are we talking about for a T2 BPO?


Take a look in the Sell Orders forum at the bottom of the forums list, there are a bunch for sale right now and usually some for sale at any given time.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.19 00:19:00 - [1087]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 19/05/2011 00:19:58
Originally by: Fearless Worthless
what kind of prices are we talking about for a T2 BPO?

From just a few mil for the nigh-worthless ones (purely for collector value, especially if the seller is desperate for any amount of cash), but usually even the crappy ones go for anywhere around a hundred mil or so, up to over a hundred bil for the best ones (if seller is in no particular hurry and handles the auction right).

Lialem
Posted - 2011.05.19 16:27:00 - [1088]
 

Give a reason why BPOs should stay?... Equally hard...

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.05.19 17:30:00 - [1089]
 

Originally by: Lialem
Give a reason why BPOs should stay?... Equally hard...

Because they are already there. If you want something to change, the burden of argument is yours.

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.19 22:37:00 - [1090]
 

there is no good reason that OP may accept - his argument BPO II must stay

Point of the thread - counter every statement

IMHO they need to go. But you may not share my opinion and no reasoning will you accept. If we contradict in opinions, we rather need to vote. Count total votes whether BPOs need to stay or to go.

1st stage vote - BPOs keep current status or NERFed
2nd stage vote - BPOs go out completely or GET on par with invention

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.19 23:03:00 - [1091]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 19/05/2011 23:16:26

Originally by: Opertone
there is no good reason that OP may accept - his argument BPO II must stay

No GOOD reason exists that I ever heard so far.
Reasons in general do exist, both for removal or for keeping.
ALTERNATIVE ways to make them far less important or almost irrelevant while keeping them are also plentiful.

Quote:
If we contradict in opinions, we rather need to vote.

Even if the overwhelming majority of people would vote on their removal (because they're misguided, not realizing what they're really voting for or the long-term implications), CCP still has the final word. THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, never was, never will be, and it should never be.

So far, their word was "they stay for now, we'll look at them a while after invention, and if invention works, they stay for good unless we have a good reason to remove them".
They took a look, they stayed, now you need a very good reason for their removal for CCP to even consider it.
No such reason was given so far.


You want T2 BPOs gone ?
You don't have to convince ME, you have to convince CCP !
I am far easier to convince than CCP, but still nobody managed to convince me yet.
So how exactly do you hope to convince CCP with those weak arguments ?

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.20 00:20:00 - [1092]
 

If this was a ship item used in PVP, CCP would either get rid of the item or replace it with something similar. The one time ships and items that have been given out by CCP do not give an avantage over other players like T2 BPOs do.

Just look at the numbers ...take making a Gallente Recon ship Araza:
At this moment (using Eve-Markets site) componet cost tfor this ship is ave at 69 mill with a 0 ME. It cost me with an invented BPC around 90mill not to mention the ave of around 24 Gallente Starship Datacorse and 24 Mech data cores, plus the invention and copying cost, and the 2 extra days it takes to invent and copy.

Orge IIs are even worse, with all the datacore cost and extra materials it takes more isk then you can sell them at.

Plain and simple T2 BPO are an unfair advantage in the market place that have no equivalent replacement for incoming players. CCP has to ask itself, if it stopped the drops on all the best deadspace mods and didn't replace them with anything equivalent or better would they keep all those items in game giving those players an unfair adavantage in PVP? If the answer is no then T2 BPO need to be removed .... end of story!

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.20 00:38:00 - [1093]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 20/05/2011 00:39:32
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
if it stopped the drops on all the best deadspace mods and didn't replace them with anything equivalent or better would they keep all those items in game

Yes, they would most likely keep them in.

Case in point, Harvester mining drones.
They stopped dropping ages ago.
They're still in the game.
They mine more per cycle than T2 mining drones.

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.20 01:16:00 - [1094]
 

Harvester Minning Drones are not PVP items and are with the argument as T2 BPOs. My point is when CCP sees something that is unbalancing PVP they change it but ignore anything that unbalances other parts of the game. Some of us never do PVP or PVE. Blasters have been changed to balance the game. So have SBs, and I could go on. If CCP is gona chance things to more balance out PVP then they need to do the same to minning, industry and every other part of the game.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.20 01:21:00 - [1095]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 20/05/2011 01:24:31
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
Harvester Minning Drones are not PVP items and are with the argument as T2 BPOs.

Well, if you want to get technical, T2 BPOs are not ship-to-ship PvP items either. They're industry items. Just like Harvester drones.
The T2 items *produced* by the T2 BPOs _or_ by the invention process are the PvP items. They're identical in capabilities regardless of source.
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
If CCP is gona chance things to more balance out PVP then they need to do the same to minning, industry and every other part of the game.

You won't get any arguments there from me, all of the other aspects could make due with a lot of rebalancing.
But if you're talking rebalancing, there are far, far, FAR more options for rebalance than just 'remove T2 BPOs", and some possibilities of reasonably fair rebalance would not even require altering T2 BPOs themselves in any way at all.

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.20 01:27:00 - [1096]
 

To better clarify, ship and ship items don't stop dropping. CCP adjust them to 'balance' them better. I would like to see T2 BPOs brought back, but balance game play with something like, reset all to -4/-4 ME/PE and can't be researched but can use descriptors or datacores in copying them to adjust it.

My main beef with all this is CCP has constantly changed ship and ship mods for balanced play, but like I said I really don't PVP/PVE. I mine and manufacture, and CCP has just left player like me high and dry.

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.20 01:33:00 - [1097]
 

and I am sorry to all you T2 BPO owners ...no matter what CCP does in the end they have NEVER refunded isk! SPs yes but I don't belive they will ever refund the isk investment you have spent if they change or remove the BPs.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.20 01:39:00 - [1098]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 20/05/2011 01:44:23
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
and I am sorry to all you T2 BPO owners

NOT one of them myself.
Quote:
...no matter what CCP does in the end they have NEVER refunded isk!

They also never outright removed items either*.

Sure, if they alter them so they become next to or even completely meaningless, you can't expect any refunds, but if they REMOVE them without a refund, you can be sure you'll have a huge scandal.

* - mines were rendered useless, but not removed, you can still find both blueprints and manufactured mines ; WTZ bookmarks were removed, but everybody got an equivalent for free in manual WTZ ; deep space safes were not removed, but altered into regular safes ; and so on and so forth.

Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
My main beef with all this is CCP has constantly changed ship and ship mods for balanced play, but like I said I really don't PVP/PVE. I mine and manufacture, and CCP has just left player like me high and dry.

So let's say that T2 BPOs DO get removed (and let's say they do manage to keep people from rioting with some compensation).
What exactly do you expect would happen ?

Do you think you as an inventor would make more ISK in the long run ?
Bad news there - you won't.
In the short run, sure, you will. But in the long run you'll most likely end up earning less than you do now.
And _all_ T2 items will be more expensive. So your purchasing power for your labor will go down noticeably.
How exactly does that help you ? Why is that end result any better ?

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.20 02:07:00 - [1099]
 

Quote:
\Do you think you as an inventor would make more ISK in the long run ?
Bad news there - you won't.
In the short run, sure, you will. But in the long run you'll most likely end up earning less than you do now.
And _all_ T2 items will be more expensive. So your purchasing power for your labor will go down noticeably.
How exactly does that help you ? Why is that end result any better ?/quote]

That may not be the cast. There are tons of econmic theories out there, and some would say most T2 items would become less expensive with all manufactures on a level playing field. EVE's market itself supports this theory. Black Ops and other items that have no t2 BPO do have a lower profit % then some of the other t2 items that do have BPOs. Some items would go up, but it is just all likely that the majority of t2 items would stay the same price.

My main argument still stands, someone with a t2 bpo that no longer 'droppes' will always be able to out produce me no matter if our skills are the same or not. If it was a blaster that no longer drops and out dpses anyone one with the best droppable blaster when two players had the same skills, CCP would change something to balance it out.

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.20 02:10:00 - [1100]
 

sorry about the mess up with the quote :)

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.20 02:37:00 - [1101]
 

In fact I could use econmic theories to say if things stay the same it will force inventor out of the market completely leaving those with t2 bpos the only producers of t2 mods.

Deadspace items are so much better then t2 items. The more time passes; the more sp and isk players will have to get or buy these items. That in turn will lower the demand for t2 items over time. With the end resolt being, those that produce t2 items for the lowest price(i.e. those with T2 BPOs) will be the only ones player buy from.

So we could back and forth about if it would be better for or the market or my pocket book if they stayed or not. It comes down to in game play machanics they unbalance a certain part of the game and have no equalent for new players to get.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.20 03:23:00 - [1102]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 20/05/2011 03:33:13

Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
sorry about the mess up with the quote :)

There's an "edit" button, you can fix it.

Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
There are tons of econmic theories out there, and some would say most T2 items would become less expensive with all manufactures on a level playing field. EVE's market itself supports this theory. Black Ops and other items that have no t2 BPO do have a lower profit % then some of the other t2 items that do have BPOs. Some items would go up, but it is just all likely that the majority of t2 items would stay the same price.

It's not a hypothesis, it's a fact. Total T2 item production volume is limited by moon mining bottlenecks.
With T2 BPOs out of the way and invention the only option, the same amount of bottleneck materials can build less items. With less items being produced, cost of items in general will go up.
Items that are already profitable to invent will go up in price to match the increase in material costs. Items that are currently NOT profitable to invent will go up in price a lot more.
No T2 item can possibly go DOWN in price JUST by eliminating T2 BPOs, and none will remain at the same price level once materials become more expensive.

Quote:
My main argument still stands, someone with a t2 bpo that no longer 'droppes' will always be able to out produce me no matter if our skills are the same or not.

Not an accurate description.
Yes, he can produce items at lower material costs per item, that's true. BUT YOU CAN ALSO BUY A T2 BPO IF YOU WANT.
That's not the same as "outproducing" you unless the demand for the item is low enough so that all of it can easily be fulfilled by T2 BPOs. And in case the T2 BPOs go away, the price of the item might go up, and you still won't be able to make much of a profit from that item type, because demand will have gone down a lot, and quite a few inventors that don't properly calculate their costs will undercut you.
Besides, you're investing FAR LESS ISK initially into this compared to a T2 BPO owner. You need something on the order of maybe a hundred mil ISK to keep a character's lab/invent/manufacture lines full of a certain item's invention, while the other guy has several dozen billion ISK sunk into a single BPO, producing the item on a single line, at something between 5 to 8 times slower rates compared to you (unless he sinks hundreds of billions for multiple BPOs). If he would invest the same amount of ISK into other things he could probably make a comparable amount of ISK without the T2 BPO, so that initial investment IS meaningful. And before you say "but he already has the T2 BPO"... well, he could sell it if he'd like the ISK rather than the BPO, and that's called "opportunity cost".

Quote:
In fact I could use econmic theories to say if things stay the same it will force inventor out of the market completely leaving those with t2 bpos the only producers of t2 mods.

Only if demand for the specific T2 item goes down noticeably, or if the number of T2 BPOs for that item somehow magically increases.
T2 BPO ownership on an item where invention is not profitable is in turn not very profitable either, in fact, quite a few T2 items occasionally manufacture at a LOSS even from a researched T2 BPO for very low demand items.
The only T2 BPOs that are really worth producing from are those for T2 items that are also WORTH INVENTING, thanks to high demand. For them, the only effect T2 BPOs have is limiting the number of inventors that can compete succesfully, nothing more, nothing less. It certainly DOES NOT reduce the invention profitability - the other inventors do that when they accept lower profits when they invent that item.
Quote:
The more time passes the more sp and isk players will have to [buy high meta] and lower the demand for t2 items

Low SP people prefer high meta items, high SP people prefer T2. Also, spending ISK is not a factor of wealth but INCOME level.

Enki Nibiru
Posted - 2011.05.20 06:06:00 - [1103]
 

Do people even realize how many T2 prints don't even make money? There is a lot more wrong with the market, like moronic builders and sellers, than T2 prints.

This is a bunch of cry baby bull.

Here are some examples of T2 prints that don't make money;
Claymore, Eris, 125mm Railgun, 350mm Railgun II, 425mm Railgun II, 150mm Railgun II.

There are others that barely make a profit.

One thing that would help is if everybody didn't sell in Jita. I also think there are too many people building and don't know what their build cost is and just throw the stuff up on market assuming that they're making money off of it.





Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.20 10:25:00 - [1104]
 

to your remark - markets can't be wrong.

Quality of the product has nothing to do with BPO's advantage over invention. Stimulate demand, fix hybrids, create market hoax (youtube rail propaganda). Certain game changes made things unbalanced, the popularity dropped.

Competition through invention - there is nothing 'moronic' about it. Unneeded advantage of BPOs - now that's totally wrong. Needs to be removed.

Please, do not comment on ISKs. It is redundant. That some people have advantage while 99% of other don't is bad game design. BPO is like giving spare, invincible moon in high sec to certain people. +1 bill per month for free.

ROI - so irrelevant. I need not comment on it. Dismiss ROI argument please.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.20 10:55:00 - [1105]
 

Originally by: Opertone
to your remark - markets can't be wrong.

Which remark ? Any of the ones I made, or the one the poster just about you made ?
You might as well quote small portions of what you're referring to.

Quote:
Quality of the product has nothing to do with BPO's advantage over invention[...]Competition through invention - there is nothing 'moronic' about it.

But it DOES have something to do with demand, and therefore its desired total market volume, which in turn (when compared to the BPO total maximum build capability) is by far the main factor in whether invention would be profitable or not for that item, the only other factor being just how moronic other inventors behave as a whole.

Quote:
BPO is like giving spare, invincible moon in high sec to certain people. +1 bill per month for free.

Except that it's not "for free". Never was, never will be.
What you probably meant was "cheaply", which is also patently false, especially for people who actually purchased them (and that's the vast majority of currently valuable BPOs).
"Randomly" would be slightly more accurate, but not quite completely correct either (while luck in the lottery was indeed a factor, "number of tickets" was also a very important factor, and that was everything except random).

Quote:
ROI - so irrelevant. I need not comment on it. Dismiss ROI argument please.

Actually, you do need to comment on it, and it is highly relevant. You can't dismiss an argument without showing why it has no merit. If you could, I would simply quote ANYTHING you post and just respond with "it's wrong and I don't need to explain it, just drop it".


Back to a much older "crazy though experiment", let's say CCP just created an item that simply created some ISK out of thin air.

Say, 1 mil ISK each hour (~720 mil/month, ~8.76 bil/year), to give it a decent but not quite absurd value.
Yes, ISK out of thin air, with no effort whatsoever involved (regardless of whether you're online or offline, whoever the hangar or cargo belongs to, the ISK is loaded in the corresponding wallet).
Now, CCP decides to distribute a LIMITED number of them to the general population, through some method that's not quite so outraging as the lottery... say, maybe, a set of special NPC auctions that can be bid on from anywhere and with a long running duration, also spread evenly across a long period of time.

How "unfair" would you deem these ITEMS to be ?
And how "unfair" would you deem that distribution method ?
How much do you think those items would sell for in the auctions ?
Do you think the item prices would go up or down while the auctions progress ? What about after the auctions ended ?

Selak Zorander
Posted - 2011.05.20 10:56:00 - [1106]
 

Originally by: Opertone
to your remark - markets can't be wrong.

Quality of the product has nothing to do with BPO's advantage over invention. Stimulate demand, fix hybrids, create market hoax (youtube rail propaganda). Certain game changes made things unbalanced, the popularity dropped.

Competition through invention - there is nothing 'moronic' about it. Unneeded advantage of BPOs - now that's totally wrong. Needs to be removed.

Please, do not comment on ISKs. It is redundant. That some people have advantage while 99% of other don't is bad game design. BPO is like giving spare, invincible moon in high sec to certain people. +1 bill per month for free.

ROI - so irrelevant. I need not comment on it. Dismiss ROI argument please.


Well by your arguement, then technetium moon need a bigger fix than tech 2 BPO. I don't have a technetium moon and don't have the means to get one (not in alliance and can't run the logistics to bring in fuel and bring out technetium) but its still unfair that certain people have access to them and get 4 to 6 billion a month for free just because they mine the moon. And before you say that I could just join an alliance and go take a moon from them, don't forget that they have invested those billion in mass producing super-carriers that under the current mechanics cause it to be near impossible to beat them without using a greater number of super-carriers to attack them. Note that at 4 to 6 billion a moon each month, that is about 80% of a new super-carrier per moon each month. Good luck find an income source that good that requires the low amount of work that mining technetium from a moon requires.

RaTTuS
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.05.20 11:01:00 - [1107]
 

Originally by: Enki Nibiru
125mm Railgun, 350mm Railgun II, 425mm Railgun II, 150mm Railgun II.

that in itself says there need to be a buff for railguns,
there are lots for sale in jita [and more go on sale everyday], stupid people are stupid.
but at least it's making their wallets less.Wink

Enki Nibiru
Posted - 2011.05.20 15:19:00 - [1108]
 

Originally by: RaTTuS
that in itself says there need to be a buff for railguns,
there are lots for sale in jita [and more go on sale everyday], stupid people are stupid.
but at least it's making their wallets less.Wink


More do go on sale every day, and it's maddening. People need to start taking some of their goods to Oursaleart(sp?), Agil, Amarr, NPC null-sec hub, and into low-sec areas that major alliance use to jump out of into null-sec.

That will lower supply in Jita. That will increase revenue for inventors, and yes BPO owners. But that's good for everybody and maybe everybody without BPOs can be a little happier.

Also, it seems to me that a lot people think that BPOs are something just for super rich individuals. In many cases they are not and shouldn't be. They should be part of a corporate model and corporate property. If you're corporation can't afford them, then you're corporation is either very young or incompetent at raising ISK.




Diamaht Nevain
Gallente
Avatar Union
Posted - 2011.05.20 17:12:00 - [1109]
 

IMO they should be removed for one reason: You should never give a small group of players an imperishable item that is impossible for the rest of the community to acquire.

Players that have t2 bpo's do not have to work as hard as others to make their product and can make it cheaper since they never have to purchase BP copies. If you research your own then it's more effort and cost to research, if you buy the copies then it's added manufacturing expense. It's a permanent advantage.

Sure you can "just buy" a BPO on contract and spend the next 2 to 3 years paying for it with sales until you've made up the cost and can call everything else profit. How would that ever be worth it when that isk could have been put to way better use making you more isk.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.20 17:35:00 - [1110]
 

Originally by: Diamaht Nevain
IMO they should be removed for one reason: You should never give a small group of players an imperishable item that is impossible for the rest of the community to acquire.

IS IT impossible to acquire ? I think not. HARD or EXPENSIVE, I can agree to that. But impossible ? Hell no.
You need only to look at the sell order forum to see that statement is patently false.
Quote:
Sure you can "just buy" a BPO on contract and spend the next 2 to 3 years paying for it with sales until you've made up the cost and can call everything else profit. How would that ever be worth it when that isk could have been put to way better use making you more isk.

If that would be universally true, why would T2 BPO owners not think the same and elect to sell all their blueprints ?


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