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

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.20 19:23:00 - [1111]
 

Originally by: Akita T

IS IT impossible to acquire ? I think not. HARD or EXPENSIVE, I can agree to that. But impossible ? Hell no.



Transferring ownership doesn't change the matter. Few people had them, fewer will have them. Not everyone. STATE RAVEN does not generate profit, it's a relic.

No matter who has BPO II, it is wrong for the rest.

Diamaht Nevain
Gallente
Avatar Union
Posted - 2011.05.20 20:14:00 - [1112]
 

Edited by: Diamaht Nevain on 20/05/2011 20:16:13
Originally by: Akita T
If that would be universally true, why would T2 BPO owners not think the same and elect to sell all their blueprints ?


Because, why would you sell a guaranteed thing? There is a difference between making up the cost of such a purchase and just squatting on guaranteed cash flow. For the person who got it for free they know they are financially secure for as long as this game is around, assuming their bpo is something that people use and will continue to use, like a tech 2 gun. They don't have to spend years making up the cost since they got it for free. For someone buying them they have spend a very long time producing and selling this product before they can count any type of profit.

So now you have a population of players who no longer have to worry about making isk to support what they want to do. At least not like the rest of the population does.

Akita you're never going to convince the majority of the game community that do not have this unfair advantage that this perfectly fine.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.20 21:18:00 - [1113]
 

Originally by: Opertone
Transferring ownership doesn't change the matter. Few people had them, fewer will have them. Not everyone. [...] No matter who has BPO II, it is wrong for the rest.

How would the removal of T2 BPOs actually help anybody ? What do you expect would happen ?
Will any individual inventor character eventually be able to make more ISK if nobody else would have any T2 BPOs ?
No, they won't. So how exactly is the existence of T2 BPOs wrong ? The mere fact that there's ROOM for slightly less inventors ?
REMOVING T2 BPOs WILL NOT IMPROVE ANYTHING IN THE LONG RUN, QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

Originally by: Diamaht Nevain
Originally by: Akita T
If that would be universally true, why would T2 BPO owners not think the same and elect to sell all their blueprints ?

Because, why would you sell a guaranteed thing?

Why wouldn't you BUY a "guaranteed thing" then ?
The answer is either you can't afford it or you don't really think it's quite so guaranteed.

Quote:
There is a difference between making up the cost of such a purchase and just squatting on guaranteed cash flow.
[...]For the person who got it for free
[...]players who no longer have to worry about making isk to support what they want to do


EVEN IF some people got it out of sheer dumb luck as opposed to hard work, and they are one of the very, VERY few that decided to keep a VALUABLE T2 BPO (as opposed to one that sells for peanuts), their decision to keep the BPO means they refused to take offers for TRUCKLOADS of ISK in hand with no constant effort needed to obtain them (no matter how small that effort might have been).
The value of a T2 BPO is always the same regardless of how it was obtained.

BUT NOBODY got one "for free".
Getting one was a sliver of luck overimposed on a MOUNTAIN of work.
Also, MOST of the current valuable T2 BPOs are in the hands of people that purchased them with ISK.

There is almost no PRACTICAL difference between having 20 bil ISK liquid or having a T2 BPO worth 20 bil ISK right now (other than the hassle of the actual transaction to switch from one to another).
If you think the cash are better and you have the blueprint, you sell it.
If you think the blueprint is better and you have the cash, you buy it.

Quote:
Akita you're never going to convince the majority of the game community that do not have this unfair advantage that this perfectly fine.

I don't *have* to convince anybody, and nobody has to convince *me*.
CCP is already convinced T2 BPOs are fine, so they WILL stay, unless somebody can convince THEM that the trouble they'd get for removing them would be offset by some greater benefits later on.
I am merely attempting to keep the constant flow of threads crying and throwing tantrums about how evil T2 BPOs are and why they just have to go to a minimum, namely ONE single thread.

I don't even like that T2 BPOs are here. I dislike the way they were introduced even more. I never had one and will almost certainly never buy one. If T2 BPOs would have never been introduced, and a process similar to invention would have been the only way ever to obtain T2 items, that would have been the best overall situation.
But I still personally believe removing them NOW would be much worse than leaving them alone, and there is absolutely no contradiction between this sentence and the previous sequence.
I also believe the solution lies in BUFFING INVENTION INSTEAD OF DOING ANYTHING WITH T2 BPOs, to a level where you can obtain very high ME/PE levels at even lower per-run prices than today.
It still won't make inventors earn more, though (the same way an outright removal of T2 BPOs won't make inventors earn more per character). It will merely make T2 BPO owners earn less, also causing the reduction of T2 BPO value in the process.

Diamaht Nevain
Gallente
Avatar Union
Posted - 2011.05.20 21:56:00 - [1114]
 

Originally by: Akita T
I don't *have* to convince anybody, and nobody has to convince *me*.
CCP is already convinced T2 BPOs are fine, so they WILL stay, unless somebody can convince THEM that the trouble they'd get for removing them would be offset by some greater benefits later on.
I am merely attempting to keep the constant flow of threads crying and throwing tantrums about how evil T2 BPOs are and why they just have to go to a minimum, namely ONE single thread.


Then honestly Akita why even start this thread if you'll only rationalize the entire topic. The fact remains that you (assuming you have tech 2 BPO's) are playing with a different set of manufacturing rules then the majority of industrialists and no one likes it. But we deal with it and move on.

Tedric
Genco
Posted - 2011.05.20 22:49:00 - [1115]
 

Edited by: Tedric on 20/05/2011 22:49:55
Originally by: Akita T

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.




Having talked to quite a few people and devs i've noticed an interesting trend in the last few years. Most of the profitable BPOs (ships generally and drones) tend to be bought up by 0.0 alliances, or production corps within 0.0 alliances. I have no hard proof of this, but this is making the market kind of hard to read when determining the effect of T2 BPOs on teh market (as opposed to 0.0 warfare, which is kind of outside the market i.e. very far from jita).

I used to have the opinion that T2 BPOs had a stabilizing effect on the T2 market, that they sort of established the low price of the item. But because quite a lot of people are inventing -> making without looking carefully at the cost, this effect is kind of being erroded. it is also interesting to note that less than about 1/5 of all T2 ships on the market come from T2 BPOs (I crunched this number a year or so ago, guestimating that about 30% were held by alliances and never saw the trading hubs.

I had a conversation with a Dev in about 2005 and found out that there are 40 T2 ship BPOs of each type released through the lottery in two groups. Every other T2 item had two sets of 40 given out in the lottery. also they were watching __very__ carefully the useage and loss of these BPOs, as to what they are doing now.... i have no idea.

Akita, in your initial post, you gave a total T2 BPO value of about 40T isk, as kind-of current value, I would put that close to about 80-100T, mostly due to T2 haulers, hulks, NH, some intercptors and quite a few drone.

As to finding a reason to remove them? I can't. A reballance is justifiable, but I still feel they give stability to the market in terms of the low end price.

tedric.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.20 23:11:00 - [1116]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 20/05/2011 23:13:48
Originally by: Diamaht Nevain
Originally by: Akita T
I am merely attempting to keep the constant flow of threads [...] to a minimum, namely ONE single thread.

Then honestly Akita why even start this thread

Reading skills, can you has them ?
Originally by: Tedric
I used to have the opinion that T2 BPOs had a stabilizing effect on the T2 market, that they sort of established the low price of the item.

Only for items where demand is minimal, price is near BPO build cost, and invention is not profitable at all.
For all items with a healthy demand, invention is at least marginally profitable, and INVENTORS set the minimum price.

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.21 00:06:00 - [1117]
 

I am sorry Akila T no matter how you try to justife how t2 BPOs are good for the market; the fact is (as we keep trying to point out to you) those with t2 bpos are playing with a different set of rules then the rest of us! When CCP changed SBs from frigs with cruise missles stats to ones with torp stats, did my old SB stay the same, HELL NO ( and I wish it would have). I don't give a crap what removing them would do to the market or my pocket book! You wanted a good reason to have them removed well I am sorry there is no better reason then that they are using a different set of rules then the rest of us when it comes to t2 manufacturing, and that has to change, PEROID! I am tried or hearing arguments on how this will effect the market. The simple matter is you have 2 groups of people using 2 different sets of rules for the same thing. People don't like it and it will always be an issue (get worse as more people play and get into invention).

So get over the whole this will be bad for the market crap! This is not about it; it is about everyone using the same rules of the game. To me t2 BPOs which let you skip the whole invention is on the same level as a bug, and the people who use them are the same as people who use a bug! Useing a bug is using a loop hole in the rules to get around the way the system is suppose to work, and there is nothing you can say to make be believe the t2 BPOs don't fit this to a T.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.21 00:28:00 - [1118]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 21/05/2011 00:56:11

Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
the fact is (as we keep trying to point out to you) those with t2 bpos are playing with a different set of rules then the rest of us[...]To me t2 BPOs which let you skip the whole invention is on the same level as a bug

So what if they are using slightly "different rules" ? Let's call them that for now, if you insist.
You get to choose between low initial cost, high workload, low reward (invention) and insane initial cost, low workload, high reward (T2 BPOs).
THIS kind of diversity is actually good.

And don't give me the crap about how you can't get one yourself, BECAUSE YOU CAN.
The only reason to NOT buy one is that you either can't afford to or don't want to buy one at the current price level.

T2 BPO OWNERSHIP HAS BOTH ADVANTAGES AND DRAWBACKS.
EACH PERSON DECIDES WHETHER THE ADVANTAGES OUTWEIGH THE DRAWBACKS OR NOT INDIVIDUALLY.
STUFF DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IDENTICAL TO BE BALANCED / FAIR.
WHAT YOU WANT IS HOMOGENEITY, NOT FAIRNESS.
THE SYSTEM IS ALREADY FAIR.



At the same time, you also refuse to comprehend that removing them will do nothing to increase per-inventor profits in the long run.
Again, WHAT IF they use "different rules" as long as they DO NOT AFFECT THE SALES PRICE OF HIGH DEMAND ITEMS (at any particular per-component cost) ?!?
And if you claim otherwise, I challenge you to prove that T2 BPOs do lower prices of high demand items NOTICEABLY BELOW the level inventors would establish, since it's obvious to most others that they don't.
Note : they do lower sales prices of all items by merely existing, but they do so by lowering per-component prices, so actually inventors benefit from that.

Also, how the bloody blazes can the one and only way in which T2 items used to be obtainable from be "a bug" ?!?
If anything, invention is "a bug" that destroyed T2 BPO value, lowered T2 item prices radically making them almost as common as T1 items (which made quite a few PvPers unhappy), which in turn also lowered most meta 1-4 item prices lowering that side of ratter/missionrunner income (nobody was really that upset about this though), at the same time increasing demand for moon minerals to insane levels (that was actually a problem), which provided funds for 0.0 alliances occupying "bottleneck" moons to amass a huge supercapital fleet (very much a big problem), which in turn lead to massive dissatisfaction across most 0.0 players (the worst of all problems).
If anything, removing invention and reinstating the lottery for T2 BPOs that get removed from the system is a SLIGHTLY LESS STUPID idea than removing T2 BPOs. Less stupid, but still quite stupid.

The only NON-STUPID course of action is to buff invention heavily so that the ME/PE levels on invented T2 BPCs can be strongly positive, and at the same time, UNBOTTLENECK THE MOON MINERALS by adding many more and much more efficient alchemy reactions.
This would reduce moon mineral income heavily (which is a good thing) while increasing amount of available T2 components, would radically decrease T2 prices (good for T2 buyers) and spur a serious increase in T2 usage (allowing more inventors to move in), reducing T2 BPO profitability and value to a fraction of the current levels (which alleviates the falsely perceived unfairness of T2 BPOs while not altering them at all).

More inventors will have more work, but still, per-inventor profit won't stay up, because inventor profit is determined by the lowest income level people will generally accept for inventing, NOT any other factors.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO, PER-INVENTOR PROFIT WILL NOT STAY HIGHER THAN IT ALREADY IS. It is just how stuff works.
In fact, anything you do to make invention more attractive or streamlined will REDUCE per-inventor profit, since people with less experience will enter the field (and they accept lower income levels than older players).

Diamaht Nevain
Gallente
Avatar Union
Posted - 2011.05.21 01:23:00 - [1119]
 

Edited by: Diamaht Nevain on 21/05/2011 01:31:17
Also Akita if you're really this worried about justifying these BPO's and this afraid of having them taken away, by all means keep making 38 page threads about it and let CCP see just how many people are against this lol.

Edit:
You've effectively created a place where everyone can give all the reasons to not have these things in game with only you saying they should stay.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.21 01:53:00 - [1120]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 21/05/2011 02:06:36
Originally by: Diamaht Nevain
You've effectively created a place where everyone can give all the reasons to not have these things in game with only you saying they should stay.

Yes, I have effectively created a T2 BPO whine sink, indeed.
Oh, the horror, what will I ever do without the 2-3 weekly "wraagh, rage, T2 BPOs" threads that pop up otherwise.
Le eyeroll.
And if you think I'm the only one that doesn't see any good reason to remove them, you need to check your eyes, because you kind of missed a lot of posts.

Of course, CCP is highly unlikely to ever remove them. But, heck, remove them anyway, for all I care.
The ones that complain about how bad they are for them will be the ones most negatively affected by their removal other than the current owners, which would most likely actually be reimbursed in some way or another.
Since I'm neither a current T2 BPO owner nor an inventor, I would most likely profit EXTRA-HEAVILY in case they get removed, because I know EXACTLY what will happen to prices, and what will be most profitable to invest into, on top of having more than ample liquidity to do so.

You know what ?
Yeah, T2 BPOs are soooo baaaad, they have to be removed post haste, I totally changed my mind !
Give people what they think they want and what they deserve to get for that, not what they actually need nor what would actually help them !
I shall lay back and laugh my ass off as my wallet skyrockets and whines of "why is this happening, this is so wrong, CCP, do something" fill the forums a few months later.
And then I will just say "told you so".

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.21 03:18:00 - [1121]
 

By very definition, this is an exploit, bug, whatever you want to call it. Yes it is an exploit CCP is alowing, maybeing even embracing.

I want to get the facts strait: IT IS NOT A SMIPLE MATTER OF GETTING ENOUGH ISK AND I CAN GET A T2 BPO. A player has to be willing to put one up to sell. So yes it is an item I can't work to get on my own. If everyone with a Rattlesnake removes their sell orders there is still a way for me to try and get one on my own.

Invention is the way the game works now for t2 manufacturing, any other way then that is an exploit by definition(whether or not CCP is choicing to alow it). I personally think we should all post bug reports on it.

Enki Nibiru
Posted - 2011.05.21 03:46:00 - [1122]
 

Edited by: Enki Nibiru on 21/05/2011 03:47:15
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
By very definition, this is an exploit, bug, whatever you want to call it. Yes it is an exploit CCP is alowing, maybeing even embracing.

I want to get the facts strait: IT IS NOT A SMIPLE MATTER OF GETTING ENOUGH ISK AND I CAN GET A T2 BPO. A player has to be willing to put one up to sell. So yes it is an item I can't work to get on my own. If everyone with a Rattlesnake removes their sell orders there is still a way for me to try and get one on my own.

Invention is the way the game works now for t2 manufacturing, any other way then that is an exploit by definition(whether or not CCP is choicing to alow it). I personally think we should all post bug reports on it.


It is a simple matter of you getting enough ISK to acquire a T2 BPO. Several very profitable T2 BPOs were just up for sale. People do sell them. In fact many of BPO buyers purchase them with the intention of selling them later for what they paid. Thus making it an investment that pays while you are in possession of it and the investment cost is recouped later.

Again, you are another person that is consumed with "me, me, me, me, I, I, I" of this equation. T2 BPOs should be corporate assets, not personal assets. As a corporation it is very attainable to get a T2 BPO library going.

Lastly, calling T2 BPOs an exploit or bug is incredibly stupid. Post bug reports on it? Are you trollin'? I refuse to believe you are that stupid.

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.21 03:53:00 - [1123]
 

I find it insulting that you are pretty much saying all manufacturing player are in it to for the isk. I like manufacturing and inventing, and find it fun. I wouldn't be paying to do it if I didn't find it fun. The majority of EVE players are that way too. They are doing what they do for fun, and try to make isk so they can buy more stuff to keep having fun. So isk may be what is comes right down to for you, but not for everyone. Maybe it's just the way I grow up that everyone should be treated equal and laws should be the same for everyone. I see this as the same thing. Invention is the way manufacturing is suppose to been in the game now, so why is there still a way for people get around this?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.21 03:53:00 - [1124]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 21/05/2011 04:08:52
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
IT IS NOT A SMIPLE MATTER OF GETTING ENOUGH ISK AND I CAN GET A T2 BPO.
A player has to be willing to put one up to sell.

Actually, it is just exactly that simple.
I bet you that I could get you *ANY* T2 BPO you like in a matter of weeks. You supply the ISK, I supply the seller, you pay me a hefty finder's fee because you couldn't be bothered to do it yourself.
People constantly sell T2 BPOs. Just look in the sell order forum.
If you can't find the one(s) you want for sale "right now", put up a WTB thread offering an attractive enough price, and people will offer them to you soon enough.
Quote:
If everyone with a Rattlesnake removes their sell orders there is still a way for me to try and get one on my own.

If everybody refuses to sell you a Golem you can invent your own. Same story for a Nighthawk. One has BPOs, the other doesn't. It doesn't matter either way.
Quote:
Invention is the way the game works now for t2 manufacturing, any other way then that is an exploit by definition(whether or not CCP is choicing to alow it). I personally think we should all post bug reports on it.

Invention is one of the TWO ways T2 manufacturing works, and you seem to not have a clue what "exploit" actually means.
HINT : it doesn't mean "I don't like it so nobody should be able to do it".
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
I find it insulting that you are pretty much saying all manufacturing player are in it to for the isk.

If you aren't, why complain about the "advantage of T2 BPOs" ?!?
Quote:
Maybe it's just the way I grow up that everyone should be treated equal and laws should be the same for everyone.

Are the items they manufacture performing better than your invented items ? No, they're not.
If you can't invent cheaper than they actually sell, can't you simply buy THEIR product from the market and save ISK ? Yes, you can.
If it's profitable to invent and you make ISK from it, what do you care if other people make more ISK after investing a metric buttload more ISK up front ? That's just jealousy.
Grow up.
Quote:
Invention is the way manufacturing is suppose to been in the game now, so why is there still a way for people get around this?

Invention was put in the game to prevent MONOPOLIES//CARTELS from inflating prices to ludicrous values or deny their enemies access to certain T2 items regardless of price.
It fulfills that purpose quite well. Inventors act as a top price limiter AND provide everybody with all possible T2 item types.
The fact that some people actually make quite a bit of a profit from it working it full time is just a bonus.

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.21 04:14:00 - [1125]
 

And no I am not that stupid. It is not just a simple matter of getting the isk. I is a matter of getting the isk AND having a player willing to sell one to you. Just because there are contracts out to sell them doesn't mean all the players that have them will deside to horde them and not sell. To tell me it is a simple matter of getting the isk to buy one just like saying because I can buy gas today there will be gas to buy in 100 years.

And yes this is an exploit. Not all exploits are cheats, and an exploit can be something that are not disalowed by the terms of service or rules of the game. A exploit is using flaw or bug to your adavantage in a manner to get around the rules of the game. The rules of the game to manufacture t2 is to copy then invent. So even though CCP let these in the game, it still is a way around invention for t2 manufacturing. Plain and simple that is an exploit.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.21 04:29:00 - [1126]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 21/05/2011 04:42:00
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
And no I am not that stupid.

...

Quote:
To tell me it is a simple matter of getting the isk to buy one just like saying because I can buy gas today there will be gas to buy in 100 years.

There *WILL* be gas to buy in 100 years. But you probably would like the price even less, and you'll probably have to work a lot to find a seller. But you WILL eventually find a seller if you're willing to offer enough money. There probably will be some smidgen of gas somewhere even 100,000 years from now, if humans still exist by then.
The analogy you use doesn't just fail to convince, but also simply fails for a different reason : it's flawed.
"Gas" in this case is the T2 item analogue, not the T2 BPO analogue. The GEAR+TECHNOLOGY to make gas cheaply and efficiently, THAT is the T2 BPO analogue. And the knowledge to make gas, regardless of efficiency/cost, that's invention.

Even if a single T2 BPO of a given type would still exist at some point in the future and you personally want it, whoever has it WILL sell it if you offer enough ISK. And after you buy it, there IS an amount of ISK that SOMEBODY ELSE could offer you to make you accept to sell him the BPO. And so on and so forth.
It really *IS* a simple matter of offering enough ISK to make it sufficiently attractive for at least ONE of the owners of the blueprint you want to buy.
You might not HAVE enough ISK, but that's a different story.

Quote:
A exploit is using flaw or bug to your adavantage in a manner to get around the rules of the game. The rules of the game to manufacture t2 is to copy then invent. So even though CCP let these in the game, it still is a way around invention for t2 manufacturing. Plain and simple that is an exploit.

There's no bug, there's no flaw, it's INTENDED BEHAVIOUR.
Invention was not meant to be a replacement, but an alternative. And that's exactly what it is.
There were very brief talks of maybe looking at removing T2 BPOs in case invention FAILED as an alternative, but since it didn't fail, T2 BPOs are here to stay until they vanish "naturally" (locked out on inactive/banned accounts or destroyed in a ball of fire).

You don't make the rules. CCP makes the rules. CCP says the rules are "there's two ways to make T2 items".
Just because you don't like some of the rules doesn't mean you can pretend they shouldn't be used.
That's beyond childish.

Iso'gen Breau
Posted - 2011.05.21 04:45:00 - [1127]
 

If it was was suppose to be an alternative lottery would still be in effect along with invention. No it is a replacement.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.21 11:42:00 - [1128]
 

Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
If it was was suppose to be an alternative lottery would still be in effect along with invention. No it is a replacement.

The LOTTERY was the problem in the first place, not T2 BPOs. There is no way in hell they would keep it running for long after invention was introduced.
If invention would have indeed been intended as a replacement, they would have not accelerated the lottery AND they would have removed T2 BPOs.
They didn't. It's NOT a replacement, just an alternative.
AN INTENTIONALLY INFERIOR ALTERNATIVE, THAT IS.
Do you see those -4/-4 base stats ? That's CCP telling you that invention was INTENDED to be INFERIOR to T2 BPO manufacture.
To have even a SHRED of a point, invention base yield would need to be at least 0/0, not negative.
CCP doesn't even care to bring invention closer in efficiency to BPO manufacture, let alone think about removing T2 BPOs.

Selak Zorander
Posted - 2011.05.21 12:03:00 - [1129]
 

I think I am going to take all the reason for tech 2 BPO to be removed and start using them as reasons for Technetium to be available in low sec and in every 0.0 region in game.

Its an exploit that CCP allows a select few to make Billions per moon for little to no effort.

Its unfair because I don't have a technetium moon. So what if I can have one if I only put forth effort to get people to help me take one and defend it. I don't have one right now and I have to do hard work to get one while those select few have one now are making huge profits and they don't have to work nearly as hard to get those profits as I would.

Technetium moons are a broken game mechanic because they allow a few to print isk while no one else has that opportunity.

Technetium moons are unfair to the new player because the brand new player can never have one as they are constantly trying to catch up to the "special" few that have them and are making 5+ billion a month in pure profit after paying for tower fuel.

********************************

See I can pick something in game and make pointless arguments against it too. Granted in my example there is a chance that CCP might actually do something because technetium is a bottle neck in tech 2 production while tech 2 BPO have little to no affect on the tech 2 items on the market with the exception of making unpopular and low demand items cost less than they would if no tech 2 BPO existed in the first place.

Skarii TuThess
East Aridia Trading Company
Posted - 2011.05.21 13:43:00 - [1130]
 

Edited by: Skarii TuThess on 21/05/2011 13:44:13
Akita, does the presence of T2 BPOs provide a cap to the price of datacores in a similar way to how shuttles being available from NPCs provided a cap to the price of minerals?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.21 14:33:00 - [1131]
 

Originally by: Skarii TuThess
Akita, does the presence of T2 BPOs provide a cap to the price of datacores in a similar way to how shuttles being available from NPCs provided a cap to the price of minerals?

There's nothing more than a passing resemblance between those two completely different situations.

The presence of T2 BPOs does exert an ever so slight downwards pressure on datacore prices (since whatever T2 items are manufactured by BPOs don't "eat up" datacores, so demand for them is lower than it could be at a maximum before being throttled by lack of moon minerals), but it's certainly not a hard cap, like the NPC-sold refineables were.
If they would be removed, while the relief would cause a short-term jump in datacore prices, the increased income level would attract new datacore harvesters sooner rather than later (even if the old R&D agent rules would not be altered), which in the long run will would bring prices back down, offering a stronger downwards pressure.
Moon mineral availability is also a downwards pressure on datacore prices, since it limits the amount of T2 items that can be manufactured at all.
Also, last but not least, the latest agent changes (of 2 days ago), those exert a much, MUCH stronger downwards pressure on datacore prices (much less grind to access higher level agents, RP income boosted for all agents), so much stronger that any pressure from T2 BPOs becomes practically negligible in comparison.

Enki Nibiru
Posted - 2011.05.21 16:27:00 - [1132]
 

Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
derp


Stop embarrassing yourself.

Skarii TuThess
East Aridia Trading Company
Posted - 2011.05.21 16:38:00 - [1133]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Skarii TuThess
Akita, does the presence of T2 BPOs provide a cap to the price of datacores in a similar way to how shuttles being available from NPCs provided a cap to the price of minerals?

There's nothing more than a passing resemblance between those two completely different situations.



Whoa there's no need to be so hostile it was only a question.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.21 19:02:00 - [1134]
 

Meh, I thought I was pretty neutral on that one. Oh well.

Red Teufel
Blackened Skies
Posted - 2011.05.21 19:38:00 - [1135]
 

any argument for T2 BPO's is full of fallacies. nuff said.

Shira Elan
Posted - 2011.05.21 21:47:00 - [1136]
 

Originally by: Red Teufel
any argument for T2 BPO's is full of fallacies. nuff said.


Is any argument for a limited number of technetium moons also full of fallacies? You want to remove them too and make technetium inventable from lower grade moon materials?

Tasko Pal
Aliastra
Posted - 2011.05.22 02:28:00 - [1137]
 

Edited by: Tasko Pal on 22/05/2011 02:28:42
Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
And no I am not that stupid. It is not just a simple matter of getting the isk. I is a matter of getting the isk AND having a player willing to sell one to you. Just because there are contracts out to sell them doesn't mean all the players that have them will deside to horde them and not sell. To tell me it is a simple matter of getting the isk to buy one just like saying because I can buy gas today there will be gas to buy in 100 years.


You say you aren't stupid, then you follow up with some pretty dumb statements. As Akita noted, you can buy T2 BPOs so the rest of your entire first paragraph is wrong.

Quote:
And yes this is an exploit. Not all exploits are cheats, and an exploit can be something that are not disalowed by the terms of service or rules of the game. A exploit is using flaw or bug to your adavantage in a manner to get around the rules of the game. The rules of the game to manufacture t2 is to copy then invent. So even though CCP let these in the game, it still is a way around invention for t2 manufacturing. Plain and simple that is an exploit.


What flaw or bug? There's a game concept I like to highlight in red called unfair by design. Eve is chock full of things that are unfair by design. You aren't exploiting a flaw or bug when you bring more ships, better ships, or better leadership than the other side. It's an intended game mechanic. Similarly, T2 BPOs are a deliberate manufacturing advantage. Way back when, CCP could have made T2 BPOs an unlimited commodity or make invention much more competitive, rendering T2 BPOs near useless, but they choose not to. There's no flaw, no bug, just a choice on what sort of advantage, if any to let T2 BPO owners keep. I respect that choice since I think it makes Eve a more interesting game.

Also you seem unfamiliar with the manufacture/trade game. A good part of it is making attempts to exploit other players. So telling us that golly, a T2 owner is exploiting the system is like telling us that the player is breathing. That's the point of the game, something which seems to have escaped your attention.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.05.22 02:53:00 - [1138]
 

Originally by: Shira Elan
Originally by: Red Teufel
any argument for T2 BPO's is full of fallacies. nuff said.

Is any argument for a limited number of technetium moons also full of fallacies? You want to remove them too and make technetium inventable from lower grade moon materials?

Well, to be fair, alchemy is "sort of" like invention, and one of the possible solutions to the technetium issue is exactly that, adding a technetium-replacing alchemy reaction.
Then again, alchemy is also intentionally wasteful (just like invention), and is intended merely as a price-limiting alternative (yet again, just like invention).

Shira Elan
Posted - 2011.05.22 09:01:00 - [1139]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Shira Elan
Originally by: Red Teufel
any argument for T2 BPO's is full of fallacies. nuff said.

Is any argument for a limited number of technetium moons also full of fallacies? You want to remove them too and make technetium inventable from lower grade moon materials?

Well, to be fair, alchemy is "sort of" like invention, and one of the possible solutions to the technetium issue is exactly that, adding a technetium-replacing alchemy reaction.
Then again, alchemy is also intentionally wasteful (just like invention), and is intended merely as a price-limiting alternative (yet again, just like invention).


It's almost like they planned it to be that way all along!

The Breadmaster
Posted - 2011.05.30 13:08:00 - [1140]
 



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