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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (40)

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.11 17:09:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: Narfas Deteis
How about this: new POS module, or new use for Experimental Laboratory.
You have to sacrifice built item on the altar of probability god to have a chance for:
1) 1 run T1 BPC (high chance, like 75%)
2) full run T1 BPC (say, 20% chance)
2) T1 BPO (tiny chance, 1-3%)

Chances should be partly skill dependant. In other words, it's some form of reverse engeneering.
Shortly, ammo BPOs should be stupidly cheap, but capital BPOs... it's different story.Diversity. I like it.


Hooray, then we can start having "REMOVE CAPITAL SHIP BPOs, THEY OFFER UNFAIR ADVANTAGES TO THOSE THAT BOUGHT THEM FROM THE NPCs" threads instead of "remove T2 BPO" threads.
LaughingLaughingLaughing

Narfas Deteis
Posted - 2010.08.11 17:13:00 - [212]
 

Edited by: Narfas Deteis on 11/08/2010 17:22:23
Originally by: Akita T

Hooray, then we can start having "REMOVE CAPITAL SHIP BPOs, THEY OFFER UNFAIR ADVANTAGES TO THOSE THAT BOUGHT THEM FROM THE NPCs" threads instead of "remove T2 BPO" threads.
LaughingLaughingLaughing



I would enjoy it. Cool

Edit: it seems to be nice idea to reduce capital/supercapital blobs in null sec. Ships are too cheap already.

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.08.11 17:13:00 - [213]
 

Edited by: Jovialmadness on 11/08/2010 17:13:51
Originally by: Rikki Sals
Edited by: Rikki Sals on 10/08/2010 22:07:06
Tech 2 BPOs hurt perception of EVE by the unwashed masses; that is, the ENTIRE group of people that represent the potential growth of EVE subscribership. It is difficult to explain to people why they shouldn't envy the possession of an item that not only appreciates in value over time as a collector's item, but also generates a more probable revenue over what current game mechanics allow. Since there are very few of them, their removal or alteration will effect very few people, but remedy the situation in the eyes of many. Purchasers of Tech 2 BPOs do so taking this possibility into account. This is sufficient reason for their alteration or removal.

Edit:
Also, I actually suspect that it is only a matter of time before CCP takes some sort of action on Tech 2 BPOs, as their commitment to Incarna to broaden the appeal of EVE, and their original blog on deep safe spot removal, indicate.


Wtf?

Yea good luck with that. You are so terribly horribly wrong.

Oh and awful. Im shaking my head side to side wondering where these guys come from. Keep posting so i can continue to warm up my beneath bridge persona.




Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.11 18:33:00 - [214]
 

Thread award : Reticent convert
Very Happy

Rikki Sals
Caldari
Posted - 2010.08.11 19:36:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Akita T
ISK made / time ? A select few T2 BPOs make more than some of the better T1 BPOs, the vast majority of T2 BPO types doesn't even come close to the top of the T1 BPO ranking, and some T2 BPOs, you can't even use to make any profit at all.


Here's the main doubletalk of this discussion:
"Tech 2 BPOs have little to no effect on the market. Players can profit more with invention and Tech 1 BPOs. -> Change from the status quo with respect to Tech 2 BPOs can only be bad for everyone!!!"

If half of the "for" arguments are generally correct, changing/removing them would have very little effect on anyone, including BPO owners. So why not consider other reasons?

Originally by: Rikki Sals
Removal of anomalous game mechanics, improvement of perceived competitiveness for new players, removing the excess supply of low demand Tech 2 items that exist due to BPOs, and cleaning up of the S&I forums are all very logical reasons for CCP to make a change to Tech 2 BPOs. Very Happy


Also, I fully understand the motivation to argue in favor of doing nothing. But people are arguing rather passionately for no action, considering it apparently wouldn't matter either way. I'm playing devil's advocate because many of the arguments that have popped up appear incongruent, but they are used over and over again nevertheless, and nag at my conscience. Mad

@Jovial
Which part is terribly horribly wrong and why? Or is your beneath bridge persona just in full swing already? Rolling Eyes

Jovialmadness
Posted - 2010.08.11 20:32:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Rikki Sals
Originally by: Akita T
ISK made / time ? A select few T2 BPOs make more than some of the better T1 BPOs, the vast majority of T2 BPO types doesn't even come close to the top of the T1 BPO ranking, and some T2 BPOs, you can't even use to make any profit at all.


Here's the main doubletalk of this discussion:
"Tech 2 BPOs have little to no effect on the market. Players can profit more with invention and Tech 1 BPOs. -> Change from the status quo with respect to Tech 2 BPOs can only be bad for everyone!!!"

If half of the "for" arguments are generally correct, changing/removing them would have very little effect on anyone, including BPO owners. So why not consider other reasons?

Originally by: Rikki Sals
Removal of anomalous game mechanics, improvement of perceived competitiveness for new players, removing the excess supply of low demand Tech 2 items that exist due to BPOs, and cleaning up of the S&I forums are all very logical reasons for CCP to make a change to Tech 2 BPOs. Very Happy


Also, I fully understand the motivation to argue in favor of doing nothing. But people are arguing rather passionately for no action, considering it apparently wouldn't matter either way. I'm playing devil's advocate because many of the arguments that have popped up appear incongruent, but they are used over and over again nevertheless, and nag at my conscience. Mad

@Jovial
Which part is terribly horribly wrong and why? Or is your beneath bridge persona just in full swing already? Rolling Eyes



Dude i have beaten this to a pulp in endless threads over what seems like an endless frame of time. Considering you stated you are playing devil's advocate i am not going to parrot off my points again and again when they have been documented enough already . I will state that the original lottery was trash and all is well now. If that cannot be seen by a player this is not the game for them and people want your stuff.


Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
Posted - 2010.08.12 02:47:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: Rikki Sals
Originally by: Akita T
ISK made / time ? A select few T2 BPOs make more than some of the better T1 BPOs, the vast majority of T2 BPO types doesn't even come close to the top of the T1 BPO ranking, and some T2 BPOs, you can't even use to make any profit at all.


Here's the main doubletalk of this discussion:
"Tech 2 BPOs have little to no effect on the market. Players can profit more with invention and Tech 1 BPOs. -> Change from the status quo with respect to Tech 2 BPOs can only be bad for everyone!!!"

If half of the "for" arguments are generally correct, changing/removing them would have very little effect on anyone, including BPO owners. So why not consider other reasons?


Wow, that is amazingly fail.

Okay, AkitaT says (more or less), "Most T2 BPOs aren't worth more than some of the top earning T1 BPOs."

Now Rikki, you fail because "Most T2 BPOs aren't worth more than some of the top earning T1 BPOs." ≠ Worthless. Thus, it does not follow that changing or removing t2 BPOs will have little or no effect on the players that own them.

Originally by: LHA Tarawa

Any attempt to link EVE to RW is lame. Infinate respawning materials, infinate inflow of cash from missions, have to re-invent the wheel each manufactruing job, infinate inflow of modules from rat drops wihtout corresponding demand/purchase of those modules, etc. etc.

T2 BPOs are an artifact of a lame lottery mechanism that gave too much reward to too few people, creating a caste systems of haves and have nots which resulted in hate and discontent. Leaving the T2 BPOs behind when the lame lottery was removed, perpetuates that hate and discontent into each new generation of industrialists who discover they will never have a reasonible chance to compete on a level playing field.



Actually we do have real world items that have "infinite respawning" we call them renewable resources--e.g. trees. Now Eve is different in that you really can't mine all the asteroids and have no more respawns, whereas in the RW cutting down all the trees would make it rather hard to grow new ones. As for infinite cash, no problem have the Federal Reserve or any other central bank crank up the printing press, pretty much the same outcome. And you don't have to reinvent the wheel with each manufacturing job, just with T2 invention. As for rat drops, I tend to see those as more or less a renewable resource as well. Is it exactly the same? No, but even still it isn't like the basic elements of economics are not untrue.

1. Are players essentially self-interested actors trying to optimize their path to some objective?
2. Are there supply constraints?
4. Are prices non-zero?
5. Are the basic rules of play fairly stable?

If the answer is yes to these then many aspects of economics either hold true, or we could derive variations on real world analogs.

One thing that tends to be working is a solid legal system and a functioning capital market. Going out and securing a loan or getting people to invest in a money making endeavor is probably more difficult in Eve than the RW. Still, it isn't like this is unheard of in the RW either.

And also, I'd point out that many economists are using games alot like Eve in their work. The only difference with Eve is that we Pay CCP vs. the academic paying the test participants.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.12 06:13:00 - [218]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 12/08/2010 06:16:00
Originally by: Rikki Sals
Originally by: Akita T
ISK made / time ? A select few T2 BPOs make more than some of the better T1 BPOs, the vast majority of T2 BPO types doesn't even come close to the top of the T1 BPO ranking, and some T2 BPOs, you can't even use to make any profit at all.

Here's the main doubletalk of this discussion:
"Tech 2 BPOs have little to no effect on the market. Players can profit more with invention and Tech 1 BPOs. -> Change from the status quo with respect to Tech 2 BPOs can only be bad for everyone!!!"
If half of the "for" arguments are generally correct, changing/removing them would have very little effect on anyone, including BPO owners. So why not consider other reasons?

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that, and it doesn't logically follow from anything I have ever said. Quite the opposite, I have repeatedly explained why KEEPING T2 BPOs is good for the market, and what a huge effect the lamer BPOs have on their respective markets.

The T2 BPOs people in general are most complaining about are the higher profitability BPOs. Now, _THOSE_ BPOs, they really do have only a LIMITED effect on the market.
The most profitable T2 BPO right now is a Hulk BPO, and it yields somewhere around 70-80 mil ISK per day in profit. That's quite close to what some other T1 BPOs can yield, but with less materials moved around. Now, HOW MANY of the Hulks on the market are manufactured from BPOs ? LESS THAN 9% ! And that's in one of the QENs !!! And the percentage is SHRINKING as the population grows.
The only reason why that T2 BPO is the most profitable is _BECAUSE_ the demand is insanely high. The more profitable a T2 BPO is, the LESS OF A MANUFACTURED ITEM MARKET SHARE it has !!!
For T2 BPOs that have a larger market share, their profitability is not that good. Those that fill 100% of the market profitability is negligible or even results in a LOSS if you manufacture and sell at current prices.

So, in other words, the BPOs most people would like to have have the LEAST impact on the market//economy, while the ones almost nobody would bother with are those with the most impact.
You seek to remove those that don't really matter, and in the process, you would also remove those that keep several markets alive in the first place (because no inventor would keep working on those items even if prices went up radically on them, and then the buyers would completely lose the little interest they might have still had).

Kryss Stevenson
Caldari
Red Stallion Mercantile and Manufacturing
Posted - 2010.08.12 12:08:00 - [219]
 

I know this is a discussion on a good reason to have tech 2 BPOs removed, but I honestly canít see why CCP would. CCP has clearly stated that they do not want any item in game with ďspecialĒ status. That being that it can not leave station and can not be destroyed. This was the problem with the Plexes, but not with the tech 2 BPOs which can be moved and can be destroyed, just because people wonít move them out of a station does not infer special status to that item.

This is a cold hard game and there will always be people that have an advantage over another. Nothing is going to get changed unless it is in danger of breaking the game (having a financial advantage is not considered game breaking). If having an ISK advantage was game breaking Plexes would not be part of the game. What would prevent me from pumping $2000 into time cards and then selling the plexes? What about the people that take 5000 isk and turn it into 1 bil isk in a month? Unfair? Nothing in this game is easy if you want to make a major amount of isk. If you want easy run missions.

Honestly I do not have a tech 2 BPO donít really care if they are in the game. They are an insignificant part of the game really. They are possibly to get through contracts (if people put them up for contracts) and at least it is possible to get them and they donít drop from a specific mob that is on a 36 + or Ė hour spawn timer and they drop maybe 0.1% of the time when killed and it is camped all the time by people that can kill it faster than you. If I remember correctly when they came out there where 20 BPOs for each module or ship and 40 of each ammo type and some of those have been destroyed over the years.

Rikki Sals
Caldari
Posted - 2010.08.12 17:54:00 - [220]
 

Thanks very much for your thoughtful responses. I've learned a lot about this topic and ended up with my foot in my mouth many times.

Jojo Redana
Posted - 2010.08.13 08:41:00 - [221]
 

If T2 BPO's don't give any advantage, please give them all to me. I'm collecting a set of T2 BPO's. Because they are worthless i'm paying only 100 isk per BPO.

The OP nub.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.13 14:36:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Jojo Redana
If T2 BPO's don't give any advantage, please give them all to me. I'm collecting a set of T2 BPO's. Because they are worthless i'm paying only 100 isk per BPO.

How about you actually READ the OP for a change ?
Nobody said T2 BPO's do not give any advantages ! I only said they don't give AN UNFAIR advantage. Their price is what makes the advantage fair. This also means they are worth quite a truckload of cash. Oh, hey, almost point for point the exact opposite of what you just said !
Originally by: Jojo Redana
The OP nub.

Jojo ADHD or Jojo stupid.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.22 16:51:00 - [223]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 22/08/2010 18:02:30
There you go, Whitehound.

Riho
Gallente
Drop of Blood
Posted - 2010.08.23 07:52:00 - [224]
 

i dont understand why ppl want them removed.

i have owned a t2 bpo(not the super aweome ones, but a ok one) and in the end i didnt bother with it.

started invention and i can say for sure that i make more proffit now than a player with 10 or more of the best t2 BPOs can.

reason why?

while he can build 1 manufactoring job at a time... i put 10 manufactoring jobs in at the same time.

he builds them cheaper... sure, but i put out much more volume in the same timeframe that i beat hes/hers income by alot. this holds true to mod invention.

ships are bit different as theyr invention success rate are alot lower. the bpo holders might hold a slight edge here. is it enough to go rage about... not really. smart inventors still make proffit so its fine.

inventors affect the market way more than bpo holders do anyways... so removing them wouldnt have a big impact.... so it doesnt matter :)

Dramis
Posted - 2010.08.23 10:33:00 - [225]
 

Edited by: Dramis on 23/08/2010 11:03:15
Edited by: Dramis on 23/08/2010 11:02:35

Please read all of it, if you can.

Why even T2 ship BPOs aren't an issue (the simple maths version).

I build and sell Nighthawks from invention.
I invent the ME -3 ones, which will cost 40% more to build than a perfect T2 BPO.
I can build 10 BPCs simultaneously.
The T2 BPO owner can build one BPOs worth.

Building:
The BPO owner builds 1 Nighthawk at a cost of '100'.
I build 10 Nighthawks at a cost of '140' per ship.

Selling:
The Nighthawks sell for a profit of 20% on my build prices, or a sell value of '168'.
The BPO owner makes a profit of 68%.

Total Profit:
BPO owner: 68
Inventor: 10 x 28 = 280

The number of ships sold is irrelevant, as profit is measured in ISK, not ships sold. I make 4 x the ISK that the T2 BPO owner does, and I didn't pay billions for the priviledge.

Aah, but the T2 BPO owner also invents and makes 9 invented ME -3 Nighthawks as well, I hear you cry:

T2 BPO + 9 Invention build cost:
100 + (9 x 140) = 1,360

T2 BPO + 9 Invention sell:
10 x 168 = 1,680

T2 BPO + 9 Invention profit
320

So, remind me again why I want to pay billions of ISK for a T2 BPO so I can make 14% more ISK per batch of 10 ships? 14% isn't exactly a game breaking number is it.

In real world terms, this equates to the T2 BPO owner making 28 Million ISK more than me per 10 ships. If you take the cost of the T2 Nighthawk BPO into account (assumed at 28 Billion), he has to sell 10,000 Nighthawks to get his ISK back.

Selling 10 Nighthawks every 3 days means that he won't break even for the first 11 months. Good luck with doing it that quickly!

Also, note that afer 11 months, selling at the same rate, I've made 22 Billion ISK profit, whereas the T2 BPO owner has only just broken even. He'll eventually make more ISK than me if he keeps this up for approximately 8 years.

TL/DR
It takes a T2 Nighthawk BPO owner 8 years to make more ISK than an Inventor.

Remind me again why we are moaning about T2 BPOs?



Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.08.23 11:56:00 - [226]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 12:19:39
One reason is that they are not needed, since we have got invention.

Also if we keep T2 BPOs in the game then we can bring back NPC buy orders for minerals and for everything else. These present no harm to the economy, nor did the fixed ship insurances. These buy orders would however ruin the fun, like T2 BPOs ruin the fun with invention, which is what Akita never gets.

Until then is there another good reason:
Originally by: Akita T
Still, if CCP ever removes T2 BPOs without any compensation, I will be seriously pondering something I never pondered before, namely quitting EVE, because I would have had lost all trust in them to use their brains.

So removing T2 BPOs, and with it Akita, is a double win. It cannot get any better! Very Happy

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.08.23 12:03:00 - [227]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 12:06:47
Originally by: Dramis
Please read all of it, if you can.

Why even T2 ship BPOs aren't an issue (the simple maths version).

I build and sell Nighthawks from invention.
I invent the ME -3 ones, which will cost 40% more to build than a perfect T2 BPO.
I can build 10 BPCs simultaneously.
The T2 BPO owner can build one BPOs worth.

Have you considered creating copies of a fully researched T2 BPO yet?
Have you considered selling copies of a fully researched T2 BPO, too?

If you want to argue only by looking at the financial values then you need to look at the bigger picture.

heheheh
Phoenix Club
Posted - 2010.08.23 12:08:00 - [228]
 

Edited by: heheheh on 23/08/2010 12:09:10
Originally by: Riho
i dont understand why ppl want them removed.

i have owned a t2 bpo(not the super aweome ones, but a ok one) and in the end i didnt bother with it.

started invention and i can say for sure that i make more proffit now than a player with 10 or more of the best t2 BPOs can.

reason why?

while he can build 1 manufactoring job at a time... i put 10 manufactoring jobs in at the same time.

he builds them cheaper... sure, but i put out much more volume in the same timeframe that i beat hes/hers income by alot. this holds true to mod invention.

ships are bit different as theyr invention success rate are alot lower. the bpo holders might hold a slight edge here. is it enough to go rage about... not really. smart inventors still make proffit so its fine.

inventors affect the market way more than bpo holders do anyways... so removing them wouldnt have a big impact.... so it doesnt matter :)


/sign this, as stated before i make alot more with invention, than my friend does with his T2BPO, and we both make the same mod.
How can he have more eefect on the market than myself ?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.23 16:54:00 - [229]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 23/08/2010 16:57:59
Originally by: Whitehound
One reason is that they are not needed, since we have got invention.

Partially true, for heavily-in-demand items. There you'd see no change if T2 BPOs were removed.
But for items that are NOT heavily in demand, the removal of corresponding T2 BPOs would have an ugly effect.
But that's still no good reason to remove them (and especially NOT a good reason to remove them without compensation), just a PARTIAL reason why they wouldn't absolutely have to stay.

Quote:
Also if we keep T2 BPOs in the game then we can bring back NPC buy orders for minerals and for everything else. These present no harm to the economy, nor did the fixed ship insurances. These buy orders would however ruin the fun, like T2 BPOs ruin the fun with invention, which is what Akita never gets.

Two things.

One, you can not even begin to compare those two things as far as economy impact goes.
T2 BPOs do not GENERATE any ISK (it's not an ISK faucet), they merely shift ISK from player to player. NPC buy orders and insurance payouts both ARE ISK faucets (generating ISK out of something else).

Two, T2 BPOs do not ruin any of the "fun" of invention for the vast majority of items belonging to the heavily-sold types. For those items, the T2 BPO owners do not really compete directly with inventors, it's the competition between inventors that sets the ceiling for acceptable prices, which the T2 BPO owner has to obey. For items that are not in demand, not even BPO owners can make a profit, so even if they would be removed, inventors would really pick up the slack, and those markets would just die off.
There is a very, VERY limited sliver of situations where ONE inventor MIGHT find himself in trouble because of T2 BPO owners, and that is for those items where T2 BPOs can almost but not quite cover the demand. Needless to say, this situation is mostly hypothetical.

Quote:
Until then is there another good reason:
Originally by: Akita T
Still, if CCP ever removes T2 BPOs without any compensation, I will be seriously pondering something I never pondered before, namely quitting EVE, because I would have had lost all trust in them to use their brains.

So removing T2 BPOs, and with it Akita, is a double win. It cannot get any better! Very Happy

Most relevant part highlighted.
Yeah, me and several thousand other people, actually.
Good thing CCP would never actually do something THAT stupid.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.08.23 17:01:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: Akita T
One, you can not even begin to compare those two things as far as economy impact goes.

I did compare them. Get over it and do not tell me what I can or cannot do.

Quote:
Two, T2 BPOs do not ruin any of the "fun" of invention ...

Yes, they do. Accept it just the same.

Kryss Stevenson
Caldari
Red Stallion Mercantile and Manufacturing
Posted - 2010.08.23 17:16:00 - [231]
 

Please tell me how it "ruined" the "fun" of invention? I never knew invention was supposed to be "fun".

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.08.23 17:25:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Kryss Stevenson
Please tell me how it "ruined" the "fun" of invention? I never knew invention was supposed to be "fun".

Yes, but you are not alone, my friend.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.23 17:39:00 - [233]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 23/08/2010 17:42:12

Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Akita T
One, you can not even begin to compare those two things as far as economy impact goes.

I did compare them. Get over it and do not tell me what I can or cannot do.

You CAN compare them for the sake of comparison. Just like you can compare an empty egg shell with a pink elephant. Eggshell is better ! Oh, did I mention, such comparisons are also highly subjective ?
You CAN NOT compare them to reach any significant logical conclusion that would determine if their removal is beneficial.

Also, selective quoting FTW. Oh, and didn't you just say in the other thread that no logical argument could ever convince you ?

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.08.23 17:56:00 - [234]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 18:00:21
Originally by: Akita T
You CAN compare them for the sake of comparison. Just like you can compare an empty egg shell with a pink elephant.

And: you can compare an apple with an orange, and say that the apple is green and the orange is orange. You however prefer to say that one cannot compare apples with oranges, because it is great for when you want to troll all day long on the forums.

Quote:
Also, selective quoting FTW. Oh, and didn't you just say in the other thread that no logical argument could ever convince you ?

No, I said it to someone who does not want to convince me. What you did is known as "selective reading".

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.23 18:07:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 23/08/2010 18:09:07
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Akita T
You CAN compare them for the sake of comparison. Just like you can compare an empty egg shell with a pink elephant.

And: you can compare an apple with an orange, and say that the apple is green and the orange is orange. You however prefer to say that one cannot compare apples with oranges, because it is great for when you want to troll all day long on the forums.

Then again, you cannot compare a lot of apple types and a lot of orange types as far as which one makes a better applesauce and expect to get an orange. And you can't use that as argument that oranges suck and should no longer be cultivated. If you catch my drift.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, selective quoting FTW. Oh, and didn't you just say in the other thread that no logical argument could ever convince you ?

No, I said it to someone who does not want to convince me. What you did is known as "selective reading".

Well, fair enough, I guess, glad you clarified it, it wasn't obvious from the initial response. I'll give you this one.

However, what you constantly do is called "avoiding the issue".
The issue is that any form of emotional-driven reason is NEVER a "good" reason.
The only good reason will be factual and logical.

So far, anything you tried to put forth that had any facts and logic in it (that tried to justify removing T2 BPOs) was very fast and very thoroughly shot down by just about anybody else who bothered to reply first.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2010.08.23 18:21:00 - [236]
 

Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 18:25:09
Originally by: Akita T
Then again, you cannot compare a lot of apple types and a lot of orange types as far as which one makes a better applesauce and expect to get an orange. And you can't use that as argument that oranges suck and should no longer be cultivated. If you catch my drift.

Yeah, I catch your drift - you like applesauce. It is not on the topic any more, however.

Quote:
So far, anything you tried to put forth that had any facts and logic in it (that tried to justify removing T2 BPOs) was very fast and very thoroughly shot down by just about anybody else who bothered to reply first.

I am not sure what that is called, but I will call it "selective thinking".

T2 BPOs are not needed any more.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.23 18:37:00 - [237]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 23/08/2010 18:40:01
Originally by: Whitehound
T2 BPOs are not needed any more.

For _some_ sections of the T2 market (smallest in count, largest in ISK volume per item type), T2 BPOs are not absolutely necessary, true.
That is NOT a good reason to REMOVE them (at best, it's neutral, as in, "you could remove them without strong ill effects").
Also, that is certainly no reason at all to remove them WITHOUT COMPENSATION.

For some other sections of the T2 market (largest in count, smallest in ISK volume per item type), removing T2 BPOs would lead to an almost complete collapse of those markets.
That is actually a good argument to KEEP T2 BPOs.

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.23 18:48:00 - [238]
 

Akita,

There is no arguing with stupid.

Kryss Stevenson
Caldari
Red Stallion Mercantile and Manufacturing
Posted - 2010.08.23 18:53:00 - [239]
 

As far as i know CCP will only remove items from game if and only if they break the game, ie. cause massive lag and or unintended consequences (getting concorded in high sec when one of your mines blow someone up in low sec) or your ships travel so fast that the game can not keep up with the calculations. Tech 2 BPO's do not fall in either category. If you do a little bit of research you will find out that there were only 20 of each bpo initially in game. There was also a scandal involved with them also. Both caused the creation of cartels. Both where broken with the introduction of invention. CCP had the chance to remove them at that time and they did not. They will not now, because some whiny brat thinks that they are unfair.

tl/dr CCP has no reason to remove them

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.08.23 19:07:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Kryss Stevenson
[good stuff snip] tl/dr CCP has no reason to remove them

And that's exactly why all those "waah waaah remove T2 BPOs" people have to come up with a really GOOD reason for CCP to do it first.
Nice that they can't think of one (because it doesn't exist), but they can try to find one anyway Smile


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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