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]

Author Topic

Aggressive Nutmeg
Posted - 2011.08.26 02:47:00 - [1171]
 

I don't own any T2 BPO's. But I would love to have one. Just so I can say: "I have one!"

Also, can I have a monocle blueprint? How come I can make spaceships, but not monocles?

I have no problem with some players having T2 BPO's. It gives everyone else a rare item to strive towards buying, stealing or destroying! For this reason, I think it's great that T2 BPO's exist.

I'll leave the arguments over T2 BPO v Invention profitability/fairness... to folks with more time on their hands. Wink

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2011.08.26 11:10:00 - [1172]
 

i would pay 1,000 to get a PLEX BPO

Isabella Thresher
Fat Kitty Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.29 19:21:00 - [1173]
 

Edited by: Isabella Thresher on 29/08/2011 19:54:46
Edited by: Isabella Thresher on 29/08/2011 19:45:20
to op:
Quote:
In quite a few cases, inventing the items that DO have a T2 BPO is actually noticeably more profitable than inventing those items that have no T2 BPOs.


this has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of the corresponding T2 bpo. the profit margin of a T2 item is solely defined by the demand of it, so i fail to see the argument here.

and so i conclude: for all items that have a T2 bpo AND give good profit altough people are also inventing it, the demand must be pretty high.

so again i conclude, the guy owning the T2 bpo makes considerably more income because HE DOES NOT NEED TO DO INVENTION, but others do, to produce the same item. i fail to see why you fail to see the argument here.



T2 should be done by invention only and no one should be an exception from this rule. everything else is unfair, no matter how you or other people twist and turn this argument.

so i sign that:
Quote:

Removing T2 BPO's is not a punishment to owners, it's a correction to game mechanics.



fair way to remove them: turn them into copies, with insane amounts of runs left. no immediate change for the owner, but eventually, they will be history and no more discussions about this.

Stella SGP
The Kimotoro Initiative
Posted - 2011.08.30 00:20:00 - [1174]
 

Edited by: Stella SGP on 30/08/2011 00:24:11
Originally by: Isabella Thresher
T2 should be done by invention only and no one should be an exception from this rule. everything else is unfair, no matter how you or other people twist and turn this argument.


Nothing in this game was meant to be fair. If it was then why is moon mining, titans and revenant bpc drops not allowed in hi sec? Why are there no ice belts in WHs? Why are there exceptions to these activities?

Quote:
fair way to remove them: turn them into copies, with insane amounts of runs left. no immediate change for the owner, but eventually, they will be history and no more discussions about this.


If people like you stops crying about it, people like me won't talk about them. Its true! When was the last time you saw a thread from a BPO owner gloating about how awesome his BPO is?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.30 08:39:00 - [1175]
 

Originally by: Isabella Thresher
to op:
Quote:
In quite a few cases, inventing the items that DO have a T2 BPO is actually noticeably more profitable than inventing those items that have no T2 BPOs.

this has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of the corresponding T2 bpo. the profit margin of a T2 item is solely defined by the demand of it, so i fail to see the argument here.

I suggest you read "bad argument #4 deconstruction" more carefully.
The argument there is that the PRESENCE of T2 BPOs does not automatically mean inventors are screwed.
And thanks for confirming exactly what I was already saying.

Quote:
and so i conclude: for all items that have a T2 bpo AND give good profit altough people are also inventing it, the demand must be pretty high.

Yes. So ?

Quote:
so again i conclude, the guy owning the T2 bpo makes considerably more income because HE DOES NOT NEED TO DO INVENTION, but others do, to produce the same item. i fail to see why you fail to see the argument here.

That's another argument, the "UNFAIR" advantage, so again, I suggest you re-read "bad argument #3 deconstruction".

The BPO owner does indeed make more ISK per unit of product, nobody is denying that at all - but the advantage is completely fair due to the cost of the BPO.
It doesn't matter whether the current owner got it by receiving it as a gift or by buying it at triple the usual price when he got it, its current value is the same right now regardless of provenience - and by refusing to sell it at the current market price he's making a sacrifice of (potential) ISK now vs slow and (hopefully) steady ISK in the indefinite future for some moderate-to-low amount of effort.
Do the inventors put in more effort ? You sure bet they do ! But do they put up a huge amount of ISK ? They certainly don't.

Quote:
T2 should be done by invention only and no one should be an exception from this rule. everything else is unfair, no matter how you or other people twist and turn this argument.

It would have been nice if it would have been that way from the start, but sadly it wasn't, and you can't turn back time.
Removing T2 BPOs outright is even more unfair. But, let's see how you handle that...

Quote:
fair way to remove them: turn them into copies, with insane amounts of runs left. no immediate change for the owner, but eventually, they will be history and no more discussions about this.

You do realize that T2 BPOs quite often sell nowadays for prices roughly equivalent to 3-5 years worth of manufacturing profit or longer, with the idea that afterwards, it could be resold for nearly as much as initially purchased - so if they get turned into copies, if they only last for 3-5 years, that's pretty much barely recovering the current value AFTER a lot of work, so you'd need to ramp that up to at least double in order to really be even remotely fair.
So how much is your idea of "insane amounts of runs left" ? 10 years of constant production in a normal slot ? 10 years in a max-bonused manufacture slot ? More ? How much exactly ?

And you also do realize that if you do that, you don't REALLY change that much at all, do you ?
All of those never-profitable-to-invent items will still have some high ME/PE T2 BPCs floating around for many more years than whatever the "constant production depletion" goes (for instance, if you decide on just 1 year, which is nowhere near your previously-stated "insane amounts"), those low-trade-volume items might still get manufactured from those BPCs even 10 years later.
For all the other items where they were already profitable to invent, as soon as all the BPOs-turned-BPCs are depleted, profit margin will most likely still remain very similar in spite of increased invention demand due to two separate facts - the higher the profit, the faster extra inventors flock in (self-limiting profits fast) and INCREASED MATERIAL COSTS driving overall demand down a bit.

No07
Posted - 2011.08.30 14:05:00 - [1176]
 

Not that I should.. but oh well. (And I actually like T2 BPO's)

A) FIND A GOOD REASON WHY T2 BPOs MUST BE REMOVED

Good reason or not, sometimes CCP realizes that the game needs a little tuning or that something was just wrong and needs to fix it. Obviously the method of invention suits their intention better and therefore the "old" way must go. Just as learning skills were removed.


B) DETERMINE A FAIR SYSTEM FOR THEIR REMOVAL

Fair? CCP sets the rules, if they are removed they are removed.

For example, learning skills. The skillpoints and skillbooks given back did an OK job to compensate but not great.

If the same method had been applied to learning skills, then ALL the current players would have kept their learning skills and only the new players would be using the new system.

Just remove the BPO's and be done with it. Clean slate. Give back the ISK that the player bought the BPO for, whether it was 1 ISK or 1 trillion. Same system as was used for the learning skillbooks. Equally fair.

C) ARGUE WHY THE RESULTING SITUATION WOULD BE BETTER OVERALL THAN THE CURRENT ONE.

As with learning skills, keeping two systems alive at the same time is just a mess and should be avoided. Simple game mechanics.

Also, this thread alone shows the need for a clean slate.

But, I like T2 BPO's and think they add a bit of extra flavor to the game that is actually needed. As with all truly unique and limited items.

Br,
The very old, No.7.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.30 19:55:00 - [1177]
 

@No07: I won't deny I went through a similar wave of thoughts a much longer time ago (that is to say, when I had only a relatively small amount of ISK available, and I was considering ways of making more with less effort), but that's only looking at a single side of "the problem".
Also, the learning skills comparison is... lacking. Let's start with that one first.

With learning skills, the chosen "solution" was one of the most beneficial possible overall.
It's not like "maintaining two systems" would have been a big deal at all. But if only new players got the "new deal", all the former users of learning skills would have been at a heavy disadvantage, as they would have had a lot of "dead weight" SP that newer members wouldn't have needed to have.
Refunding SP and boosting attributes equally gave the overall best reasonable return for those that used to invest in learning skills. The only way it could have been even more fair would have been if they would have refunded all SP multiplied by 1.5 or something like that.

Back on the BPO/invention thing, there's no "work" needed to "maintain" anything there - it only needs work to be altered.
Refunding a huge amount of ISK to current T2 BPO owners would have a very devastating and long-term negative effect on the game fiscal system - just imagine how much ISK would be created overnight. I had made some guesstimation as to the amount of ISK which would need to be created that way, and we're talking a significant percentage of the existing ISK.
Not just that, but it will be also heavily concentrated in a few hands, which will no doubt seek to invest it into something else, having a cascading effect on many different sectors of gameplay.
Refunding a "fair" ISK amount for existing T2 BPOs that get removed is one of the WORST POSSIBLE WAYS to go about it.

Invention was obviously NOT intended to be a replacement of T2 BPOs, evidenced by the horrible ME/PE levels (and the impossibility of obtaining a double-strong-positive T2 BPC via invention). It was always intended as a tag-along system. The fact that in some fields it became the only option is an unfortunate side-effect.
Removing T2 BPOs would do nothing about the horrible inefficiencies of invention, they would still remain in place.
If you ever want to "fix" the problem, THAT is where everything MUST start - with first buffing invention HEAVILY compared to its current state.
By heavily buffing invention efficiency, T2 BPOs become far less of a concern, and their value is diminished, while not actually touching them in any way, shape nor form (thus avoiding the ISK overflow problem).

Srioghal moDhream
Posted - 2011.08.30 21:21:00 - [1178]
 

Why was there no T3 lottery?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.31 01:00:00 - [1179]
 

Originally by: Srioghal moDhream
Why was there no T3 lottery?

The better question is, why was there no BPO lottery for the new T2 items Razz
The answer is roughly the same - because the greatest perceived injustice actually came from the LOTTERY system itself, with a large amount of "luck" involved in getting a HUGE reward for basically zero risk (just some work).
Also, because they like people to log in as often as possible and "earn ISK by being online and doing something", and having people have to invent or reverse engineer (as opposed to just sticking stuff in the manufacture line) was more in line with that.

No07
Posted - 2011.08.31 07:18:00 - [1180]
 

I remember reading some devblog about the amount of ISK that would be injected into the system if they re-imbursed all the skillbooks (I think it was) for the training skills. So CCP didnt do that. Same would be applied for T2 bpo's I reckon. Just too much isk so instead we re-imburse with this crap thing instead.

But, to the point. I agree completely that this is not the solution. The solution would begin with buffing the current invention system as you say.

A researched BPO should of course effect the invented T2 BPC.

Now, just make CCP implement a good invention system that works as intended.

Br,
7

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.31 08:12:00 - [1181]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 31/08/2011 08:13:07
Originally by: No07
Now, just make CCP implement a good invention system that works as intended.

You mean, work as we'd like it to work, don't you ? Wink
Because it already works as intended - it effectively top-caps the price of T2 items at a certain (relatively low) amount over material cost.

(just a minor nitpick)

Ronan Connor
Posted - 2011.09.01 12:41:00 - [1182]
 

One good reason would be: They are no longer part of current game mechanics. I have seen fits on Battleclinic where there where still 7 mid slots instead of 6 nowadays. Or PI where in the first phase you could have much better fits concerning advanced PI, now the power is not enough.
For every change the players had to adapt, but not for T2 BPO's. This gives the owner of t2 BPO an unfair advantage, they dont have to work for their resuls. No datacores needed, no copies needed for invention, no need to up pos'es or rent station invention slots.

But IMO CCP will remove them and is currently taking preparations for it. I mean getting rid of agent quality does mean you can access a Q20 R&D agent with a standing of 5.0. You get it more early and with the quality you make more rp.
Datacore prices already have dropped. To me this looks like a revamp of R&D already.

Xearal
Minmatar
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2011.09.01 13:57:00 - [1183]
 

IMHO Akita's solution for 'removing' them is a much better one. Make them obsolete.

If for instance, an invented BPC would carry over some of the ME/PE levels of it's original based on BPO, then it would be possible to be 'more efficient' than a tech 2 BPO, albeit at more work, but no huge investment cost for obtaining it in the first place.

I just had a silly brainfart on this, which would also combine with a nice isk sink.
To invent a 'really good' tech 2 BPC, you use a BPO instead of a BPC. The BPO would be consumed, successfull or not, but if successfull, the resulting BPC would have ME/PE level of the BPO that was used(ore a percentage of, or penalised version of ), and have a decent amount of runs ( more than current invention BPC, possibly something that could be researched on the BPO to increase the BPC runs on the resulting tech 2 BPC )
Thus, you can do it 'fast and easy' using tech 1 BPCs, like now, which allows for larger production lines, or you can take your time, cultivate a nice ME/PE level on a BPO and gamble on getting a successfull invention with it, resulting in a highly profitable BPC.

Deth Tu Ignorance
Posted - 2011.09.08 08:41:00 - [1184]
 

One problem I have personally seen is when you go to invent something and the market is flooded by items that cost LESS than HALF the cost of the data cores to even ATTEMPT invention.

Your point 4 that is invalid because is does kill the market on some items and thats ALL that matters. You try to get away with saying that the effect is just not bad enough to matter because not ALL T2 blueprints are killing their respective markets.

This is NOT about some lofty sense of "fairness" that you are OBVIOUSLY arguing against here but it IS about function. A massive part of EVE is the market and the T2 bpos OBVIOUSLY negatively influence the market and do as long as the players that have them are actively using them.

As you admit the "T2 BPOs + lottery WAS a mistake". So let's rectify that mistake.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.09.09 02:00:00 - [1185]
 

T2 BPOs negatively influence the total profit of inventors, sure, but that's not "bad for the market", quite the opposite.
T2 BPOs *positively* influence the market - prices are low, volumes are high, market is good.
Removing T2 BPOs would indeed initially boost inventor revenue, but in the long run, the increase in moon mineral prices due to extra waste (in case nothing is done about invention waste) will lead to higher prices overall, so lower combined traded volume, and not much in the way of additional profits for inventors compared to today.
You say that I admit that the T2 BPO lottery was a mistake, sure, I do, but the emphasis was on the word "lottery", not on "T2 BPO" - and besides, removing T2 BPOs is NOT THE SOLUTION - the "cure" is boosting invention efficiency, to make T2 BPOs far less relevant.

Anyway, I probably won't bother to recreate this thread on the new forums too soon, maybe at some point in the future, but I'm all spent arguing against people that are extremely shortsighted, seldom ever even glimpsing at the big picture even if you shove it in their face.


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