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 - 2011.05.30 16:52:00 - [1141]
 

Yeah, making all T2 components "extra" would help.
But then again, so would ramping up the default ME levels on invented blueprints.

Catlin Underking
Amarr
Underking Family
Posted - 2011.08.18 23:03:00 - [1142]
 

I used to believe that removing T2 BPO's was a good idea, but then I read this thread and the best I would be able to suggest is making them all BPC's with X years of runs on them. That doesn't seem like a bad solution, but it doesn't seem necessary either.

I would prefer that they just make changes to invention to make it somewhat competitive in various areas.

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.19 20:11:00 - [1143]
 

The overhead for good T2 BPOs, and the exceptionally long time to make a profit, aren't really good arguments unless you make comparisons for each individual BPO and take its INDIVIDUAL price change since invention came about into consideration (attempting to project the continuing decline in value over the next X years). If it takes 6 years to break even on your BPO, it takes 6 years. At that point, though, you can sell your BPO and whatever you sell it for is complete profit on your investment.

The questions then become "How much did the BPO devalue over the time that you had it?" and "Is the new selling price for the BPO a reasonable return for the amount invested over that length of time?"

You people talk like anyone who buys a T2 BPO will have it forever, and must slave over it for the rest of their lives. Maybe I'll buy a Hulk BPO and make hulks for a year, then sell the BPO. Most likely [(Hulk Profits) + (New BPO Price)] > (Old BPO Price)

I really am not for removing them from the game, but argument 3 is flimsy at best. It's quite possible you could make a return on your investment next week, though it would likely be marginal.

I'd also be wary of argument 4. Those are weak apples & oranges comparisons. No crap you don't make much inventing electronic attack frigates... almost no one flies them in comparison to other ships. The rest of the ships follow suit, except they at least have a very small niche use. Heavy Interdictors are the most used out of all of those, and probably the reason why it is less profitable is because it's a lot easier to fly away from them than try to break their tank (unless you are a capital and infini-pointed) so their demand is artificially low.

Originally by: Akita T
In almost all cases where manufacturing from a T2 BPO is reasonably profitable, invention is also profitable.


If there is any item where the BPO is profitable and the invention is not, which you indicate with this statement, then for that particular item, the BPO does in fact confer an unfair advantage. Of course I imagine the number of items that fall into that category is really low, and of course they are probably not used (much) so it really doesn't matter.

Anyways, yes the lottery was unfair, but ganking everyone's coveted BPOs would be unfair. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.19 20:55:00 - [1144]
 

Originally by: Iso'gen Breau
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.


These items are frequently lost in combat. Ships and mods are consumable in a way, so even if more keep entering the game, they won't necessarily result in a market flood. The cheaper they become, the more reasonable it is to fit deadspace gear on your PvP ship, and eventually the price finds an equilibrium.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.19 22:16:00 - [1145]
 

Originally by: Plyn
You people talk like anyone who buys a T2 BPO will have it forever [...] I really am not for removing them from the game, but argument 3 is flimsy at best. It's quite possible you could make a return on your investment next week, though it would likely be marginal.

Actually, the whole idea with expressing profits in "Return on Investment" (RoI) as opposed to "break-even time" is that it places emphasis on the fact that you can at any time choose to liquidate the investment.
How much of your initial investment you could recover by liquidating (be it more or less than 100%) is a different story, and the assumption of that particular point is that the likely recovery percentage is close to 100% (sell for roughly as much as you bought it for).

ISK can be invested in a lot of things, not just T2 BPOs, and manufacturing from a T2 BPO is not exactly effort-free either.
Granted, it's less effort than, say, manufacturing T1 battleships, but it's certainly more effort than copying from supercap BPOs.
Financially speaking, it all comes down to amount of ISK you can realistically invest before you reach the edge of your patience, and on the RoI you can get for that much invested ISK. From that standpoint alone, T2 BPOs are not particularly good financial investments, EVEN AFTER IGNORING the possibility of a T2 BPO price crash.


Quote:
I'd also be wary of argument 4. Those are weak apples & oranges comparisons. No crap you don't make much inventing electronic attack frigates... almost no one flies them in comparison to other ships. The rest of the ships follow suit, except they at least have a very small niche use. Heavy Interdictors are the most used out of all of those, and probably the reason why it is less profitable is because it's a lot easier to fly away from them than try to break their tank (unless you are a capital and infini-pointed) so their demand is artificially low.

You're not undermining the argument, you're only strengthening it.
The whole idea of that numbered point was that the existence//presence of T2 BPOs doesn't matter a flying fudge for invention profitability (inventors, and ALONE inventors being not just perfectly capable but almost destined to destroy invention profitability), and that strong demand is the main driving factor for a profitable invention of a particular item.
Also, look at HIC traded volumes vs popular recon cruiser traded volumes - you can't exactly say HIC demand is low, quite the opposite.

Quote:
Originally by: Akita T
In almost all cases where manufacturing from a T2 BPO is reasonably profitable, invention is also profitable.

If there is any item where the BPO is profitable and the invention is not, which you indicate with this statement, then for that particular item, the BPO does in fact confer an unfair advantage. Of course I imagine the number of items that fall into that category is really low, and of course they are probably not used (much) so it really doesn't matter.

Well, the keyword here was "reasonably".
As you have observed too, there's a rather small AND UNSTABLE supply/demand gap in which items that are somewhat profitable to BPO-manufacture but not profitable to invent can exist - items tend to either be profitable to invent, with most of the rest barely managing to sell for a tiny bit above BPO manufacture cost, with almost no items in between (and those that do get in that area don't stay there for long).

Quote:
Anyways, yes the lottery was unfair, but ganking everyone's coveted BPOs would be unfair. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Well, we can totally agree on that one.

Vince Snetterton
Posted - 2011.08.21 23:21:00 - [1146]
 

I am in the camp that T2 BPC's should be removed from the game.

Imagine, if you will, that CCP announces they are randomly giving out 100 unique ships based on the Hurricane hull.
These ships had a 10% improvement in all specs over a normal Cane, plus, one added feature: they could never be totally destroyed while being piloted. Every time the ship was blown up, the hull sans fittings reappeared in your hangar in Jita.

As I said, 100 of these were to be given out randomly.
Players would go nuts. They would scream about an unfair advantage.

Just how terrible would it be if CCP announced that in 60 days,all T2 BPO's would cease to be, and the owner of the BPO would find that CCP deposited the market value (or latest sale price, or some fair mechanism) plus a 5% premium into the personal or corp wallet.

If they are a tremendously unfair advantage to manufacturers, removing them from the game with a 5% premium to owners seems fair to the people who don't own them.

If they are NOT such a huge advantage, then T2 owners should be quite happy to recoup their investment plus a 5% premium.

MsValentineWiggin
Posted - 2011.08.22 01:09:00 - [1147]
 

[I don't have a horse in this race; and I doubt there is a solution now that many would find fair.]

But a pretty good, albeit cynical, reason to remove them is the winter expansion. Remember PI? The NPC profitably reprocess-able structure? Akita's warnings on hisec manufacturing planets being quite profitable? And it turns out just buying NPC component those couple of weeks before they were removed was a great deal.

My interpretation of the expansion is that there will be considerable upheaval with industry (e.g., talk of removing, de facto or de jure, T2 production from empire and other things involving minerals, POS, etc.) My theory is that there is a considerable chance that CCP will get the T2 production design wrong, i.e. with unexpected-to-them consequences. Nor, TBH, do I see the interest or skill set on a lot of the CSM for industrial advice.

The hints (e.g. Soundwave's quote) are also that hi-sec datacore may be going away, perhaps to be replaced with something from exploration. That would probably affect data core price/availability and in turn shift the BPO vs invent analysis. Will a BPO currently worth 40b be 4 or 400 in March? How can you evaluate the worth of a BPO now when in a few months you may not be able to use it to profitably produce T2 in Empire and you don't know what the price of the competitor's data core will be? Trusting to CCP getting the industry break evens right initially would trouble me if I were a BPO owner.

At the least, my prediction is CCP will overestimate the number of players who will move to 0.0 for industry and underestimate the number who will leave industry and/or EVE.

Leaving T2 BPOs in the game just adds to the complication that CCP must analyze and increases the risk of the upheaval going poorly when clever players start attacking the new design.


Nikodiemus
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.08.22 02:54:00 - [1148]
 

1. Your points 1 and 2 are somewhat interchangeable and can create a defeating argument: Paying isk for a BPO is not parallel to earning the points since PLEX did not exist at the time. Also, a lottery is random, and no matter how many accounts someone has with however many points, they still have a chance given the lottery requirements. New players do not have a chance, only a market opportunity with a massive investment in ISK and chance.

3. Opportunity cost, actual cost, and current value are not as interchangeable as you assume in EVE. To be given SOME advantage that is impossible to obtain by others players without the selfsame cost/value analysis (ie without having to pay the huge amount of isk to buy one instead of running a lotto) is inherently unfair.

3.5 your analysis of terrible ROI for BPO is somewhat misleading because you don't give examples and most players (since most players never even have seen such a BPO) have no knowledge of the value of such items. Also, here is a good thought experiment: Name several items that are no longer attainable through production by the in game players and give a continuous economic advantage to the owner. Does that question not create inherent instability in the market? Outliers in effect that while may present a facade of loose ROI, do in fact destabilize the market in unforeseen fashions?

4. The fact that there are multiple ways to produce a product while for other products of similar complexity there is only one mean is still a destabilizing effect.

5. Your arguments of spiking are mute. Markets spike, correct, and return to a sustainable cycle. See Bot account banning and Implant, LP prices. These spikes create room for new entrants and a smaller barrier to entry.

These are a few arguments I could come up with without spending too much time Forum Warmongering. Though I do like Akita's other posts that are informative.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.22 03:08:00 - [1149]
 

Quote:
If they are a tremendously unfair advantage to manufacturers, removing them from the game with a 5% premium to owners seems fair to the people who don't own them.
If they are NOT such a huge advantage, then T2 owners should be quite happy to recoup their investment plus a 5% premium.

Well, there are two big classes of T2 BPOs, depending on popularity of item manufactured.

The one for high-demand items has extremely expensive BPOs, high profits but still low RoI, yet still funny enough invention for those items is still the most profitable due to high demanded volume, so BPOs are but a drop in the bucket.
The Hulk BPO is the shining example of this type : out of 10 Hulks manufactured, at least 9 are from invention, and less than 1 is from a BPO.
If you remove those T2 BPOs, very little would change in those particular markets.

There might be some in-between classes, but they're so few they're barely even worth mentioning.

The other big class of T2 BPOs, for low-demand items, while much cheaper than the above ones, they're still trading for a significant value (most of it being "collector value"), they offer minimalistic profits (in many cases, far cheaper T1 BPOs offer better profit per manufacture slot time) and horrible RoI (some of them actually causing you a slight net LOSS in NAV in case you're manufacturing from them - finished object slightly more expensive than the parts used).
MOST T2 BPOs ACTUALLY ARE FROM THIS CLASS.
Removing those T2 BPOs would lead to the drastic reduction of trades in already low-volume markets, effectively removing those T2 items from the game from a practical standpoint, because nobody in their right mind would use those items if they sold at invention breakeven price.

Originally by: Vince Snetterton
Just how terrible would it be if CCP announced that in 60 days,all T2 BPO's would cease to be, and the owner of the BPO would find that CCP deposited the market value (or latest sale price, or some fair mechanism) plus a 5% premium into the personal or corp wallet.

Two huge problems with that.

ONE, you can't get people to agree what a "fair" price would be.
You would have a hell of a scandal from the moment you announce what the so-called "fair" price estimation method will be, especially if you don't take into account and heavily differentiate between those two classes mentioned above.
If you make it last sales price, or the average of the last few ones, you get people complaining the prices were going up, and the latest sale was (or last few sales were) noticeably below what they think is fair. If you make it X years of manufacture profit, you're needlessly punishing the people from the second class mentioned above.
You make it sound as it would be simple, but in fact, it would be one of the most painful things to do, because no matter what you do, SOMEBODY will be mighty angry.

TWO, even if you somehow magically could get somebody to agree what a fair price would be, you have the problem of the insanely large amount of ISK that would be all of a sudden dumped into people's wallets... people that will be looking for investment opportunities, severely disturbing most of the game's economy for god knows how long (until the financial aftershocks finally die down).
It could take YEARS for the economy to stabilize, that is, unless the game collapses under itself before, because people are disgruntled with no longer being able to afford X or Y (whatever it is they used to), or with their particular activity all of a sudden paying crap instead of halfway decently, or whatnot else.


All in all, you're proposing something that we are CERTAIN will create a lot of problems that will last long term JUST so that some people would no longer complain about a PERCEIVED "unfairness" issue that is not really all that factual in the first place.
Remind me again, what's that called, shooting yourself in the foot ?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.22 03:33:00 - [1150]
 

Originally by: Nikodiemus
1. Your points 1 and 2 are somewhat interchangeable and can create a defeating argument: Paying isk for a BPO is not parallel to earning the points since PLEX did not exist at the time. Also, a lottery is random, and no matter how many accounts someone has with however many points, they still have a chance given the lottery requirements. New players do not have a chance, only a market opportunity with a massive investment in ISK and chance.
3. Opportunity cost, actual cost, and current value are not as interchangeable as you assume in EVE. To be given SOME advantage that is impossible to obtain by others players without the selfsame cost/value analysis (ie without having to pay the huge amount of isk to buy one instead of running a lotto) is inherently unfair.

I am not sure what you think PLEX has to do with anything. Besides, before PLEX, we had GTCs (we still do).
A lottery is a lottery - be it a RP lottery or an ISK lottery. You could bet 1 RP and gain a 80 bil ISK BPO (very unlikely, but theoretically possible), or you could bet 1 ISK in a player-organized lottery and win 80 bil ISK (also very unlikely, but also theoretically possible).

As long as T2 BPOs can be and are traded on the open market, the T2 BPO itself and a rough sum of ISK in the ballpark of that T2 BPO's worth are (given a bit of time) almost always interchangeable to a certain degree.
If you know that, say, a Hulk BPO sells for roughly 80 bil ISK, and you have a Hulk BPO, you could probably get 70 bil ISK for it very fast, or you could do a short auction and get 80 bil, or you could say you sell it for 90 bil and wait until somebody pays that price. Alternatively, maybe you have 90 bil ISK and want a Hulk BPO - you could buy one almost immediately and pay 90b, or you could wait a while and bid 80b on an auction when it comes up once in a blue moon, or you could put up an offer of 70b and wait until somebody wants to sell one for liquidity ASAP.
So, yeah, maybe no IMMEDIATELY and not PERFECTLY interchangeable, but still.

Quote:
3.5 your analysis of terrible ROI for BPO is somewhat misleading because you don't give examples and most players (since most players never even have seen such a BPO) have no knowledge of the value of such items.

T2 BPOs seldom have RoIs that go up to 4% per month (most fully collateralized loans in MD offer 5% per month), and most T2 BPOs have RoIs below 2% per month, with quite a few well below 1% per month.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Quote:
Also, here is a good thought experiment: Name several items that are no longer attainable through production by the in game players and give a continuous economic advantage to the owner. Does that question not create inherent instability in the market? Outliers in effect that while may present a facade of loose ROI, do in fact destabilize the market in unforeseen fashions?
4. The fact that there are multiple ways to produce a product while for other products of similar complexity there is only one mean is still a destabilizing effect.

Depends on how you choose to define "instability".
T2 BPOs offer a high-efficiency moongoo-to-T2-product market slice, lowering prices of unpopular T2 items far below what invention could provide them for, reducing overall moongoo usage, thus keeping bottleneck moongoo prices ever so slighty lower.
To me, that sounds like "stability".

Quote:
5. Your arguments of spiking are mute. Markets spike, correct, and return to a sustainable cycle. See Bot account banning and Implant, LP prices. These spikes create room for new entrants and a smaller barrier to entry.

Problem being, these price spikes talked about in that particular point are of a permanent // non-reversible nature.
In the complete absence of T2 BPOs, prices of items can not go much below invention breakeven (and if they do, it won't be for long), and overall waste also goes up, no way back down.

Nikodiemus
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.08.22 12:26:00 - [1151]
 

Originally by: Nikodiemus
Also, here is a good thought experiment: Name several items that are no longer attainable through production by the in game players and give a continuous economic advantage to the owner.



Or not several, just name one and take it from there. To be honest, any arguments from people so hell bent on keeping t2 bpo are only because they own some bpo themselves and a great deal of their wealth is derived from those bpo, whether from the ROI, as terrible as it is alleged to be, or simply having a big expensive liquid asset.

Their existence provides an unfair advantage and is one of the many problems in EVE industry. It is not that complicated to see.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.22 14:33:00 - [1152]
 

Originally by: Nikodiemus
Also, here is a good thought experiment: Name several items that are no longer attainable through production by the in game players and give a continuous economic advantage to the owner. Or not several, just name one and take it from there.

We could argue until we're blue in the face about whether or not any particular item is of a significant enough economic advantage (like, say, the ancient mine BPOs - not sure you can still build from them or not, or maybe copy them, but the items are useless) or whether the risk it has to be exposed to while accomplishing that makes it incompatible with comparing them to T2 BPOs (unique ships that are better than any existing ships, faction towers which no longer can - for now - be obtained) or some items/blueprints which may or may not exist at all anymore (micro stuff, basic stuff), but it's irrelevant and circular in nature.

I am even willing to admit that from a PRACTICAL standpoint, T2 BPOs might be the only items that fit your description.
But it doesn't really matter.

Quote:
To be honest, any arguments from people so hell bent on keeping t2 bpo are only because they own some bpo themselves and a great deal of their wealth is derived from those bpo, whether from the ROI, as terrible as it is alleged to be, or simply having a big expensive liquid asset.

So, why am *I* arguing "for" them ? I don't have any, so I wouldn't really lose anything even if they would be outright removed with no compensation whatsoever.
In fact, I could easily stand to gain a truckload of ISK if they would be removed (especially if they're removed with compensation) because I would know for sure what to invest in that would skyrocket in price soon afterwards.

Quote:
Their existence provides an unfair advantage and is one of the many problems in EVE industry. It is not that complicated to see.

You keep saying that word, "unfair".
But you have not yet conclusively proven that the advantage is in fact really unfair.

CAN you buy a BPO if you want to and have enough ISK ?
You can. Maybe not this instant, but eventually, almost certainly.
The reason you don't is EITHER because you don't have enough ISK OR you believe T2 BPOs are too expensive.

If you don't have enough ISK, that's not unfair. It's unfortunate for you, maybe, but certainly not unfair.

If you believe T2 BPOs are too expensive, you're basically admitting that the advantage of ownership is not unfair.
They can't be at the same time too expensive and also too overpowered.


Either way, how exactly are T2 BPOs an "UNFAIR" advantage again, and why would their removal be the best solution ?

You could argue that the fact some people got T2 BPOs from the lottery is "unfair", and you could be partially right (not completely right though - a lottery is by design not universally "fair", but based on luck, which you could argue is "unfair") - but you're forgetting that (or you weren't even aware that) most current owners of "valuable" T2 BPOs didn't win them in the lottery, but they purchased them with ISK from those that won them. So, by removing them, you're not "punishing those that got something unfairly", but somebody who got them fair and square, the same way you could get them now too.

And anyway, why advocate to remove them, if you could instead advocate to make invention better ?

Taron Hakard
Posted - 2011.08.22 19:43:00 - [1153]
 

The market speaks for itself, inventing is viable as an income source and profitable. It's just as "broken" because of the BPOs as T1 manufacturing is due to station traders or mission runners. Which is, "broken" if you don't know where to look or you just want alot of easy money.

Celeritas 5k
Connoisseurs of Candid Coitus
Posted - 2011.08.22 20:10:00 - [1154]
 

Can't be arsed to read 40 pages but the problem with t2 BPOs are the inherent lower production cost, which reduces the viability of invention in low volume markets. The only way invention can be profitable is if the market's volume dwarfs the combined output of all BPOs for that particular item.

MsValentineWiggin
Posted - 2011.08.22 20:18:00 - [1155]
 

Originally by: Akita T
T2 BPOs offer a high-efficiency moongoo-to-T2-product market slice.


My point was that this is really only assured for a few more months. And CCP may not touch industry this expansion.

However, I read discussions of effectively moving T2 production to 0.0 and ripping out Research Points ...

So hopefully CCP will insure that after all of these changes, the owners of both kinds of T2 BPOs. T2 inventors, T2 manufacturers, T-2 customers and researchers with the L5 skills who grinded R&D Corp rep will not feel excessively happy or sad. Will they succeed?

A significant and valid argument against removing T-2 BPOs with just compensation was "it's difficult to do fairly." Now it could be that CCP's "plan" is just to make the industry changes and let the chips fall where they may - people with 3% ROI BPOs might see that change to 1% or 12%. If CCP were going to compute t2 BPO value as something to balance as part of these changes, then if they ever were going to address the BPO issues, this would be the time to do it.

CCP's first system was T-2 BPOs and they were permanent. Soundwave's quotes seem to be that he would like to remove their replacement. Let's hope third time is the charm.

Will Roger's said "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session." and a host on the last episode of the wonderful Lost in Eve podcast said something like "It's never a good thing when MMO designers look at an aspect of the game you enjoy."

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.22 21:33:00 - [1156]
 

Originally by: Celeritas 5k
the problem with t2 BPOs are the inherent lower production cost, which reduces the viability of invention in low volume markets

You mean, those markets where volume traded would drop to near-zero in case invention was the only source of new goods ?
Razz

Originally by: MsValentineWiggin
However, I read discussions of effectively moving T2 production to 0.0 and ripping out Research Points

Well, it wasn't *exactly* that.
It was about the RP gain system being not quite that good (with the unspoken hint being that its passive nature was what was bothering Soundwave) and that he would like to figuratively "rip it out" (and rebuild it from scratch, in a way that rewards activity rather than be a mostly passive, many-alts process).
As for the 0.0 bit, it was about having invention yield better results out in 0.0 (again, not specified how and what results would be improved), not in moving it over there altogether. Possibly, what he might have meant was getting a better base ME/PE levels when invented in 0.0-only slots (maybe just in outposts, maybe also in some 0.0-only new labs, who knows), or any other crazy ideas that might pop into the dev team's mind.

Celeritas 5k
Connoisseurs of Candid Coitus
Posted - 2011.08.22 23:35:00 - [1157]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Celeritas 5k
the problem with t2 BPOs are the inherent lower production cost, which reduces the viability of invention in low volume markets

You mean, those markets where volume traded would drop to near-zero in case invention was the only source of new goods ?
Razz



Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Your entire premise is that t2 BPOs don't affect the market in any significant way. That's a fallacy.

MsValentineWiggin
Posted - 2011.08.23 00:56:00 - [1158]
 

Originally by: Akita T

As for the 0.0 bit, it was about having invention yield better results out in 0.0 (again, not specified how and what results would be improved),


I do not want to read too much into a few stray sentences from a CCPer; what they said, meant and have resources to do could be quite different.

My 0.0 bit was going over Greyscales comments in the industry thread. The quote is that
"Our current proposal is that hisec is for volume T1 goods, lowsec will be for meta/faction gear eventually, nullsec is for T2, and wormholes are for T3"

Although later Greyscale said he was leaning towards ""highsec is for all goods, but expensive to produce," ( Creating a cost disadvantage to produce T2 in high sec would seem to impact people still in hisec. I am not familiar with many manufacturing items that could tolerate too large of a price disadvantage. ) Perhaps the plan is for 0.0 gate camps to solve the T-2 BPO issue? Laughing And yes it is not clear whether the hisec nerfs are to what combination of the replacement for RP/DC, T-2 invention or T-2 manufacture.

Packe
Minmatar
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.08.23 01:37:00 - [1159]
 


Good post as always Akita.

There is also a good reason not to get rid of the bpos: It will make all t2 more expensive as demand for the moon materials will go up, and many of the low turnover t2 items will have to be made by invention thereby adding demand to the restricted supply of technetium. All that extra isk will go straight into the hands of the tech moon holders, they are the ones who make the real isk.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.23 04:05:00 - [1160]
 

Originally by: Celeritas 5k
http://www.mikeonads.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/supply_demand_11.JPG
Your entire premise is that t2 BPOs don't affect the market in any significant way. That's a fallacy.

OF COURSE that T2 BPOs affect the market. Where exactly do you claim I said otherwise ? Re-read the passage you think you saw anything like that more carefully.
It's not about whether they affect it or not (they obviously do), it's HOW they affect it, and whether it's good, bad, or a combination of both.

More precisely, regarding the cut-out quote part, low-demand items (which are fully manufactured from T2 BPOs now) would need to raise in price to invention breakeven if all T2 BPOs would be removed, which would mean other alternative items (which almost always exist) usually become attractive enough for a switch, drastically reducing traded volumes due to the increased price.
To give you a few clear examples - while the market for T2 Amarr combat drones might be low in volume compared to just about any other racial drones, what do you think will happen to the volume traded if prices EVENTUALLY go up to nearly Gallente T2 drone levels a good while after all T2 BPOs were eliminated ? If your answer is anything radically different from "they might as well not exist, that's how often you'll see them", I have to question either your honesty or your intelligence.

As for your graph... yes, it's ONE of the many possible supply and demand curves graphs (the "perfectly elastic" curves for both supply and demand, in fact), but it's not the correct one for T2 production. As far as T2 production goes, neither the supply curve nor the demand curve are even remotely smooth.
For instance, on the supply side, you almost start off at a price around BPO manufacture price (below that only people looking to unload gear fast normally bother), then keep a very small slope upwards until you reach combined BPO production capacity, then climb VERY rapidly in price up to near best inventor breakeven price, continue with a slope that's starting to accelerate, peaking near the point where you pass casual inventor breakeven, then you go on with a nearly horizontal segment from that point on - and that's very roughly how it most likely looks like. But it's not guaranteed to look like that at all. And there are other rules that need to be taken into account too (like, availability of moongoo when you talk on a global scale, including all T2 items).
On the demand side, again, certainly nothing like the textbook case either. Prices can fluctuate quite heavily with volumes barely budging, it's only when prices are approaching those of somewhat compatible replacement options that volumes start to get altered - so the demand plot most likely looks far more similar to a staircase than anything else.


Celeritas 5k
Connoisseurs of Candid Coitus
Posted - 2011.08.23 06:44:00 - [1161]
 

Originally by: Akita T


*snip*




Amarr drones are a poor example because they already might as well not exist, and even if you removed both racial drone BPOs amarr drones would still be cheaper (but not nearly as much so). You're talking things like t2 armor plates, I'm talking about command ships, T2 cruisers, and even t2 large guns; items where the quantity traded is low enough for BPOs to make up a significant portion of supply, but the ISK volume through the market is still high. Your case is that a ~10-25% increase in price on these items would completely eradicate demand; that without t2 BPOs they would not be traded at volume in game. That's nonsense; you're greatly exaggerating the slope of the demand curve. What are the viable replacements for a fleet command ship? T3 costs twice as much. HACs? The fleet issue stabber is nice, but it's no vaga. Guns? Do you really expect everyone to start using meta 4 because the t2 price goes up by 400k?

Anyway I don't deny that the graph is an over-simplified model of any market; it's there to illustrate the basic governing forces to anyone who's never taken a class in economics.

A decent way to remove them - over time CCP uses anonymous characters to bid on and purchase the BPOs that are sold on the forums. Once most of them are gone, use the prices paid to determine a fair reimbursement for each item type and remove the remaining BPOs from the game.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.23 18:32:00 - [1162]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 23/08/2011 18:39:28
Originally by: Celeritas 5k
You're talking things like t2 armor plates, I'm talking about command ships, T2 cruisers, and even t2 large guns; items where the quantity traded is low enough for BPOs to make up a significant portion of supply, but the ISK volume through the market is still high.

From a practical standpoint of what would happen, they fall more in line with the "profitable to invent" items, the price snapping to that level, volume probably not being too greatly affected... because the price level is already close enough to invention breakeven.
That would however have a noticeable price-increasing effect on moon mineral prices, because, as you mentioned, the total ISK volume is not negligible, and even with a slight decrease in volume traded, total ISK worth is likely to keep going up.

Quote:
Amarr drones are a poor example

No, they're perfect example of the types of items I was actually talking about - those that even BPO owners barely bother to manufacture, and are MUCH cheaper than any possible replacements.

Quote:
you're greatly exaggerating the slope of the demand curve. What are the viable replacements for a fleet command ship? T3 costs twice as much. HACs? The fleet issue stabber is nice, but it's no vaga. Guns? Do you really expect everyone to start using meta 4 because the t2 price goes up by 400k?

You just said so yourself, I was talking about a completely different set of items.
But granted, for the few particular items YOU were talking about, you have a bit of a point.

Why only a bit ?
Because, hooray, you go from losing a bit of ISK on the invention side to gaining a bit of ISK on the invention side. Whoop-tee-doo.
Their situation would end up the same way it's with low-demand invent-only items : still not really worth inventing, because it pays crap.

The situation would be far more easily remedied by proposing the rebalance of the items in question instead.

Originally by: Celeritas 5k
A decent way to remove them - over time CCP uses anonymous characters to bid on and purchase the BPOs that are sold on the forums. Once most of them are gone, use the prices paid to determine a fair reimbursement for each item type and remove the remaining BPOs from the game.

Might as well keep buying silently until the end of times, in that case, because it would diffuse the "ISK shock" the economy would experience, and eventually, they would have most of them.
For all you know, that might already be happening (highly unlikely, but within the realm of possible), but they wouldn't be able to say so, least people have friends overbid (even without having the needed ISK) just to raise prices (not that it wouldn't happen in normal auctions too, but, meh).

Jerry Pepridge
Posted - 2011.08.24 00:02:00 - [1163]
 

pledging my support to remove T2 BPO's.

reason: to ensure ppl like akita T spend endless hours arguing a point on an internet speaceship forum.


RaTTuS
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2011.08.24 07:53:00 - [1164]
 

look at current prices of T2 railguns , even if you have a maxed out ME BPO you cannot make a profit ...
you will make more money selling the bit to make them than the items themselves.

this just proves that people don't think.

Dbars Grinding
Posted - 2011.08.24 14:18:00 - [1165]
 

If i dont have one no one should have one obviously.

Celeritas 5k
Connoisseurs of Candid Coitus
Posted - 2011.08.25 01:45:00 - [1166]
 

Edited by: Celeritas 5k on 25/08/2011 01:47:51
Originally by: Akita T

From a practical standpoint of what would happen, they fall more in line with the "profitable to invent" items, the price snapping to that level, volume probably not being too greatly affected... because the price level is already close enough to invention breakeven.
That would however have a noticeable price-increasing effect on moon mineral prices, because, as you mentioned, the total ISK volume is not negligible, and even with a slight decrease in volume traded, total ISK worth is likely to keep going up.

Quote:
Amarr drones are a poor example

No, they're perfect example of the types of items I was actually talking about - those that even BPO owners barely bother to manufacture, and are MUCH cheaper than any possible replacements.

You just said so yourself, I was talking about a completely different set of items.
But granted, for the few particular items YOU were talking about, you have a bit of a point.



So you're saying that T2 BPOs are necessary because they keep the price of no-demand, no-value items low, and they prevent an increase in moon-goo prices on account of their better ME levels than invention. You contend that the restriction of several high value markets through low volume to BPO owners is either a worthwhile sacrifice or is not a sacrifice at all. Do I misunderstand you?

Quote:

Why only a bit ?
Because, hooray, you go from losing a bit of ISK on the invention side to gaining a bit of ISK on the invention side. Whoop-tee-doo.


That bit of ISK is the difference between success and failure; invention cost and the ME difference directly restrict those markets to BPO owners. When did profit stop being the single most important factor in all manufacturing decisions?

Quote:
Their situation would end up the same way it's with low-demand invent-only items : still not really worth inventing, because it pays crap.


I don't care about no-demand, no-value items, because nobody cares about them. (That's why there's no demand!) They will tend to hover above BPO material cost for as long as BPOs exist, and if BPOs are removed they will climb to just above the invention break-even. Demand will fall because of the increased prices, but nobody will notice or care because there wasn't any to begin with. How exactly is this significant or relevant?

Quote:
The situation would be far more easily remedied by proposing the rebalance of the items in question instead.

I agree here. A rebalance would create demand, driving up prices, making them profitable to build. It's basic economics, really.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.25 03:38:00 - [1167]
 

Originally by: Celeritas 5k
So you're saying that T2 BPOs are necessary because they keep the price of no-demand, no-value items low, and they prevent an increase in moon-goo prices on account of their better ME levels than invention. You contend that the restriction of several high value markets through low volume to BPO owners is either a worthwhile sacrifice or is not a sacrifice at all. Do I misunderstand you?

That's sort of part of my stance, yes, although I would have phrased it slightly differently.
I'm saying that T2 BPOs are beneficial because they keep certain underpowered items cheap enough to still be occasionally used AND keep moon mineral prices down (mainly the bottleneck ones), with the only objective benefit to be had by removing them (having ever so slightly more inventors overall which will probably still not be making noticeably more profit on an individual basis than they do now) being most likely quite small, while the SUBJECTIVE benefit of "fairness" of invention in low-demand markets not being worth the bother.

Quote:
That bit of ISK is the difference between success and failure; invention cost and the ME difference directly restrict those markets to BPO owners. When did profit stop being the single most important factor in all manufacturing decisions?
I don't care about no-demand, no-value items, because nobody cares about them. (That's why there's no demand!) They will tend to hover above BPO material cost for as long as BPOs exist, and if BPOs are removed they will climb to just above the invention break-even. Demand will fall because of the increased prices, but nobody will notice or care because there wasn't any to begin with. How exactly is this significant or relevant?

Profit never stopped being the most important factor, and it's precisely because of that that the "bit of ISK difference" (which might indeed turn a borderline loss into a borderline profit) should not matter much in the first place - why bother inventing a junk profit item AT ALL when there's quite a few other much more profitable items to invent ?

Like you so nicely put it when defending your oversimplified graph, the essential universally valid idea is that with increasing prices, almost always demand goes down. Now add to the fact that when demand goes down (assuming the over-simplified case of no T2 BPOs ever having existed for a particular item), invention profitability for that item ALSO goes down.
So why should you care about what happens to no-demand, no-value items ? Because from an invention profitability standpoint, EVEN THOSE particular items (where price level was not almost licking BPO breakeven) WILL end up behaving almost exactly like those no-demand, no-value items - more precisely, they'll be barely breaking even for high-skill inventors (on the good days).
So who exactly is supposed to be benefiting from the removal of those BPOs anyway ?
End users sure won't, inventors are unlikely to actually make any serious ISK from that, so who's left ? Ayup, the ONLY people REALLY making a profit from ANY of this are... *drumroll*... bottleneck moon mineral harvesters.
Do you really thnk THOSE people need any additional assistance in lining their pockets ? Just for the sake of some PERCEIVED fairness that doesn't REALLY affect much of anything from a practical standpoint ?

Llyandrian
Amarr
Livestock Science Exchange
Posted - 2011.08.25 07:49:00 - [1168]
 

Originally by: Nikodiemus
arguments from people so hell bent on keeping t2 bpo are only because they own some bpo themselves


The arguments from people hell bent on getting rid of T2 BPOs are only because they don't own one themselves.

Quote:
Their existence provides an unfair advantage


EVE is unfair by design, you need to work to gain your advantage you must be a communist.

Gage Tsero
Nerio Valor
Posted - 2011.08.25 18:29:00 - [1169]
 

Originally by: Llyandrian
Originally by: Nikodiemus
arguments from people so hell bent on keeping t2 bpo are only because they own some bpo themselves


The arguments from people hell bent on getting rid of T2 BPOs are only because they don't own one themselves.

Quote:
Their existence provides an unfair advantage


EVE is unfair by design, you need to work to gain your advantage you must be a communist.




+1

Tau Cabalander
Posted - 2011.08.25 22:49:00 - [1170]
 

If you can't make profits now in the current market conditions with T2 BPO, you probably aren't gonna be doing any better in a market without T2 BPOs, because you are already doing it wrong.

Too many people try to build what they want, not what the market wants. Too many people sell too low because MIMAF, and they don't understand all their costs. Too many lack patience, and undercut with reckless abandon. I could go on and on.

The idiots will still be around if T2 BPO are removed. So will the currently successful market and industry savvy people that don't care about T2 BPO.

Which one are you?


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