open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked T2 BPO Controversy / CCP Comment Please
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 06:32:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Rimsa Orion
There is so much controversy out there regarding T2 BPO’s so I wanted to get some sort of feedback as to how many BPO’s CCP actually released. Were there a certain number of each randomly issued out, if so how many of each type?

God knows how many have been destroyed, lost due to players leaving EvE or just simply trashed by mistake. A comparison to then and now would be interesting to see.

Has CCP considered running a quarry on the d-base to see how many are still in existence and post the findings for public knowledge? Maybe this will result in a new lottery that will allow a second go round for the current EvE community.

Just some thoughts… Don’t FLAME me.



Only CCP know how many were released, and it will be the third lottery.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2008.08.28 06:34:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
They really should have removed all the t2 BPOs. Until they do it is not viable to run an invention business.


Weird, I have no issue getting profits from my inventions. You must do something very wrong.

You absolutely want a T2 Bpo? No need to get jealous, just start saving money and buy one form another player. You'll need something like 2 years or more to recoup your money, but you'll have a "Uber Unfair Money-Printing T2 BPO", right?

Catherine Frasier
Posted - 2008.08.28 06:44:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Darkwolf
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Unless, of course, they're in my market selling for below my (but not their) cost.


Then you buy their goods, mark them up to your price, and keep on your merry way.

They cannot produce in high enough volumes to outcompete the mass of inventors.
Without getting into the deep silliness of that proposal the fact remains that unless we actually know how many of these BPOs are out there (which is the question under discussion) we don't know what volume "they" can produce. You (and others before you) are claiming to know exactly how much impact an unknown number of t2 BPOs has on the market. You don't. You can't. It's not possible.

Don't get me wrong here, I am making a comfortable margin in the market without a t2 BPO to my name but the t2 BPOs do have an impact. The question is how much.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.28 06:52:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Darkwolf
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Unless, of course, they're in my market selling for below my (but not their) cost.


Then you buy their goods, mark them up to your price, and keep on your merry way.

They cannot produce in high enough volumes to outcompete the mass of inventors.
Without getting into the deep silliness of that proposal the fact remains that unless we actually know how many of these BPOs are out there (which is the question under discussion) we don't know what volume "they" can produce. You (and others before you) are claiming to know exactly how much impact an unknown number of t2 BPOs has on the market. You don't. You can't. It's not possible.

Don't get me wrong here, I am making a comfortable margin in the market without a t2 BPO to my name but the t2 BPOs do have an impact. The question is how much.


True. Their effect could range from anywhere between "trivial" to "hardly any".

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:02:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Grim Mercy on 28/08/2008 07:03:37
If anything, T2 BPOs are keeping prices *down* on T2 goods, because the researched BPO-holding producers can produce cheaper than the invention types.

Some may put items up at 75-85% market value for a quick sale, and of course those are going to be gobbled up in seconds and re-listed at market price a few seconds after that.

How I imagine they drive prices down is by playing a version of the .01 isk game; instead of listing it at .01 isk lower than the lowest price, however, they have the wiggle room to drop the price 1 or 2 million, still get their quick sale (not quite as quick as a full 25% discount, but still quicker than the high-priced guys) and still make a tidy profit. If you've ever played the .01 isk game, I'm sure you've seen that, over time, it can drive the price down on anything. I'm sure it didn't take the market savvy BPO-holders long to figure out the invention bottom end, and price their wares accordingly right around there, as that would be the low-ceiling price cap.

If no T2 BPOs existed, the market would settle somewhere a bit higher, unless everyone currently engaged in invention had a glut of items to get rid of and subsequently flooded the market.

I don't think the number of BPOs in the game would really give any good clues as to how much they can affect the market... If you have a handful in existance, and actively being used, they are going to have an impact on the market. Truthfully, I think knowing the number of BPOs would only shed light on how many BPOs there are, and not much elseWink

Joe
Umbra Legion
Shadow Empire.
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:02:00 - [36]
 

Thread was allready Answered on page 1; theres 20k T2 bpos


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:10:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: soldieroffortune 258

i wonder what would happen if all those t2bpo's wer to cough**be destroyed***cough,**cough** dissapear?Laughing


9/10 of the T2 ammunitions would disappear from market.
Small drones would cost around 300-500K.
Several T2 modules will disappear as level 4 metaitems are a viable alternative.

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:13:00 - [38]
 

Eh. Faction ammo is better anyway.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:13:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 28/08/2008 07:14:15
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome
Edited by: Nadarius Chrome on 28/08/2008 04:29:30
But manufacturing from the BPO is still cheaper than negative ME BPCs, right?

edit: Why else would someone still be willing to spend 40bn on an EANM2 BPO?



That is a mystery for me.

That someone is willing to spend the equivalent of 5 years of production at current returns (more probable they will go down than up) to buy a T2 BPO baffle me.


And no, there is not a "secret" building procedure that give better returns.

Aramova
Reikoku
KenZoku
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:14:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Joe
Thread was allready Answered on page 1; theres 20k T2 bpos




I still find that number a little unrealistic unless a vast majority are ammo.

Exactly how many Covert Ops Cloak II bpos did it take to corner the market again? Think 80,000,000 for a cloak.

Perhaps 20k have been seeded at some point, but that doesn't mean they are all in circulation or still in game

Joe
Umbra Legion
Shadow Empire.
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:19:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Aramova
Originally by: Joe
Thread was allready Answered on page 1; theres 20k T2 bpos

I still find that number a little unrealistic unless a vast majority are ammo.
Exactly how many Covert Ops Cloak II bpos did it take to corner the market again? Think 80,000,000 for a cloak.
Perhaps 20k have been seeded at some point, but that doesn't mean they are all in circulation or still in game



yes, a vast majority are ammo, the 'Original' release was 20 of each ship and module (think 20x cap recharger II etc), and 40 for each type of Ammo bpo, this was later Doubled.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:19:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Tiirae
Some people don't seem to have got the memo yet... T2 BPO owners cannot produce at enough volume to have *ANY* effect on the price of T2 components. Understand? The number of T2 BPC's producing stuff every day absolutely DWARFS the amount of goods a T2 BPO can produce.
If you know how much volume they can produce then clearly you must know how many BPOs are out there. (That was the question which prompted this thread, remember?) So share. How many BPOs are there?

Originally by: Tiirae
Even if one person owned every T2 BPO in the game, it wouldn't make a single ISK of difference to the price of anything.
Unless, of course, they're in my market selling for below my (but not their) cost. After all, they aren't paying for datacores, decryptors, base items etc., they aren't watching a very real percentage of their attempts generate nothing at all, and they can research to perfect ME on their BP, while I'm stuck with what I can get. So no matter how thin a margin I cut, they can always undercut me.

Even if it doesn't ruin the system (and it doesn't) it still seems quite significant to me.


And "they" would be pretty stupid to undercut you lowering market price, as "they" will get more isk and still sell all the production keeping the market price above invention production price for any items with high enough request.

People depressing the marke are generally inventors that say "Oh, item X sell for y, I will get rick selling it" without bothering to calculate the production price, and the people that think that self produced datacores or minerals are free (and don't be mistaken, there are plenty of that people).

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:24:00 - [43]
 

A bird in the hand, my friend, is worth two in the bush.

I didn't truly comprehend what that expression meant until I was about 26. Hell, I may still not know what it really means, but I am a slow learner. Anyway.

Undercutting is the best way to move stock, hands down. If I have 200 mil worth of goods that'll take a week to move, I'd rather sell it for 180 mil today, and 175 mil right now.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:31:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Darkwolf
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Unless, of course, they're in my market selling for below my (but not their) cost.


Then you buy their goods, mark them up to your price, and keep on your merry way.

They cannot produce in high enough volumes to outcompete the mass of inventors.
Without getting into the deep silliness of that proposal the fact remains that unless we actually know how many of these BPOs are out there (which is the question under discussion) we don't know what volume "they" can produce. You (and others before you) are claiming to know exactly how much impact an unknown number of t2 BPOs has on the market. You don't. You can't. It's not possible.

Don't get me wrong here, I am making a comfortable margin in the market without a t2 BPO to my name but the t2 BPOs do have an impact. The question is how much.



I know, you love conspiracy theory, they are so romantic, but it is pretty easy to see the effect: look the old prices before invention, compare to the new prices.

All the items that sell at around invention cost or above are items where the BPO owner have little influence on final price.

All the items that sell well under invention cost are items where the BPO holders have the monopoly as the demand is too low to sustain invention.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 07:37:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy
A bird in the hand, my friend, is worth two in the bush.

I didn't truly comprehend what that expression meant until I was about 26. Hell, I may still not know what it really means, but I am a slow learner. Anyway.

Undercutting is the best way to move stock, hands down. If I have 200 mil worth of goods that'll take a week to move, I'd rather sell it for 180 mil today, and 175 mil right now.


True if you can replenish your stock at a lower cost and production is unlimited.

BPO production is limited, so there is no interest in getting the fast buck to start a new batch, it is more useful to wait some time and sell all the production at the highest price possible.

So you sell at the minimum invention cost (unless you are selling a item where the BPO producers alone will cover all the production) and get maximum bucks for your work.


Karella Morana
Posted - 2008.08.28 08:09:00 - [46]
 

Quote:
Why else would someone still be willing to spend 40bn on an EANM2 BPO?



Originally by: Venkul Mul
That is a mystery for me.

That someone is willing to spend the equivalent of 5 years of production at current returns (more probable they will go down than up) to buy a T2 BPO baffle me.


It's not 'spending,' it's investment. There is a difference. The BPO still has value, and on top of that value, it brings income. If you resell it, you get your money back, plus the income you made through ownership.Neutral

In that sense, then yes, the BPO is an 'isk printing machine.'

Think of it as a 'share' with a dividend.

Not much of a 'mystery,' tbh.

When you reach a certain level of wealth, what do you do with it? Invest in some dodgy IPO in the Market Discussion forum? A 'poker IPO,' perhaps? Rolling Eyes

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.08.28 08:40:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
That is a mystery for me.

That someone is willing to spend the equivalent of 5 years of production at current returns (more probable they will go down than up) to buy a T2 BPO baffle me.


Besides the obvious investment aspect raised above, there's another reason:

Due to its random nature and being BPC-based, invention is both slow and suffers a variable cost, which is a no-no under the perspective of mass production.

This is specially true for 0.0 alliances which prefer to maintain whole production chains from ice mining up to assembly arrays without having to add a crapload of BPC-generating labs and send scores of player hunting all kinds of decryptors.

Anyhow, compared to the database, there are very few items worth inventing, and most of them require a multi-billion prior investment along with the operation of labs, which isn't precisely accessible to every player due to isk, time & sp's considerations...

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 08:46:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Karella Morana
Quote:
Why else would someone still be willing to spend 40bn on an EANM2 BPO?



Originally by: Venkul Mul
That is a mystery for me.

That someone is willing to spend the equivalent of 5 years of production at current returns (more probable they will go down than up) to buy a T2 BPO baffle me.


It's not 'spending,' it's investment. There is a difference. The BPO still has value, and on top of that value, it brings income. If you resell it, you get your money back, plus the income you made through ownership.Neutral

In that sense, then yes, the BPO is an 'isk printing machine.'

Think of it as a 'share' with a dividend.

Not much of a 'mystery,' tbh.

When you reach a certain level of wealth, what do you do with it? Invest in some dodgy IPO in the Market Discussion forum? A 'poker IPO,' perhaps? Rolling Eyes


Well, you see, "investment" in a BPO is as dodgy as those IPO.

You pay 5 years of gains from production to buy a BPO when:

1) you have no guarantee that the return will stay at the same level as today. It is more probable that the return will be lower than higher in the foreseeable future (datacore production is constantly increasing, so invention cost tend to decrease, lovering the margin between T2 BPO and invented BPC);

2) there are good probability that CCP will implement a system to improve invented BPC ME/PE (originally the T1 BPC ME/PE should have influenced the final ME/PE), not a guarantee, but there is a good chance that will be implemented sooner or later so lowering the advantage even more;

3) you gamble (and it is a huge gamble) hoping that you will be capable of selling the BPO at the same or higher price. It is a "bubble" economy, I have brought it at 10, I will resell at 11, big gains. But there are good chances you will not find someone willing to buy at 10, even less at 11;

4) no guarantee that the BPO will stay in game. At most CCP said that they are not thinking to remove them 1 year ago and that they will give a early warning if the BPO were to be removed, but it will not be a 5 years warning, so again you are gambling that they will stay in game long enough to pay you back or for you to sell them at the price you have paid.

Considering all the above, 5 years of production as a cost for the BPO is a too high price in my opinion.

I would be willing to gamble with a cost of around 1-2 years of production return, as almost certainly T2 BPO, if removed, would be exchanged for high run BPC, not with a 5+ years return.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 08:53:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Semkhet


Besides the obvious investment aspect raised above, there's another reason:

Due to its random nature and being BPC-based, invention is both slow and suffers a variable cost, which is a no-no under the perspective of mass production.

This is specially true for 0.0 alliances which prefer to maintain whole production chains from ice mining up to assembly arrays without having to add a crapload of BPC-generating labs and send scores of player hunting all kinds of decryptors.

Anyhow, compared to the database, there are very few items worth inventing, and most of them require a multi-billion prior investment along with the operation of labs, which isn't precisely accessible to every player due to isk, time & sp's considerations...


LOL. When done in large number invention is extremely reliable. Yes, if you try to invent 1 marauder today, 1 HAC tomorrow, your results will be random, when you try 10 marauders for 10 times you are almost guaranteed you will have at most 1-2 BPC more or less than the average result. Do that on a alliance wide project and you will have a very constant result.

An no, there are plenty of modules that will pay for invention starting cost while requiring only some hundred of millions as starting capital.

Thinking that only ships are worth inventing is the principal error for inventors.

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.08.28 09:05:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Gamesguy on 28/08/2008 09:07:10
Edited by: Gamesguy on 28/08/2008 09:06:22
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Semkhet


Besides the obvious investment aspect raised above, there's another reason:

Due to its random nature and being BPC-based, invention is both slow and suffers a variable cost, which is a no-no under the perspective of mass production.

This is specially true for 0.0 alliances which prefer to maintain whole production chains from ice mining up to assembly arrays without having to add a crapload of BPC-generating labs and send scores of player hunting all kinds of decryptors.

Anyhow, compared to the database, there are very few items worth inventing, and most of them require a multi-billion prior investment along with the operation of labs, which isn't precisely accessible to every player due to isk, time & sp's considerations...


LOL. When done in large number invention is extremely reliable. Yes, if you try to invent 1 marauder today, 1 HAC tomorrow, your results will be random, when you try 10 marauders for 10 times you are almost guaranteed you will have at most 1-2 BPC more or less than the average result. Do that on a alliance wide project and you will have a very constant result.

An no, there are plenty of modules that will pay for invention starting cost while requiring only some hundred of millions as starting capital.

Thinking that only ships are worth inventing is the principal error for inventors.


Pretty much this, thats why ships like jump freighters still have high profit. Because it requires a large starting capital so you can make numerous atttempts and let the law of large numbers kick into effect.

With insufficient capital you run the very real risk of running into a streak of bad luck and going broke.

This is also why module invention tend to be the safest. Capital investment for each attempt is low, so you can generate a large number of attempts.

Tuleingel
Posted - 2008.08.28 09:08:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Joe
Thread was allready Answered on page 1; theres 20k T2 bpos




Incorrect. When they 'doubled' BPO's in lottery before getting rid of lottery there were numbers mentioned somewhere by dev. 40 prints per ammo, 20 for modules, 10 for ships added. Might be off by few prints as I type by memory, but magnitudes were those. All together it is considerably under 20k BPO's. All together perhaps some 3000 - 4000 prints including ammo ones.

ZW Dewitt
Posted - 2008.08.28 09:17:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Karella Morana
It's not 'spending,' it's investment. There is a difference. The BPO still has value, and on top of that value, it brings income. If you resell it, you get your money back, plus the income you made through ownership.Neutral

In that sense, then yes, the BPO is an 'isk printing machine.'


In that sense, so is EVERY BPO in game, T2 or not.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.28 09:21:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 28/08/2008 09:21:22
Originally by: Gamesguy
Edited by: Gamesguy on 28/08/2008 09:07:10
Edited by: Gamesguy on 28/08/2008 09:06:22
Originally by: Venkul Mul

LOL. When done in large number invention is extremely reliable. Yes, if you try to invent 1 marauder today, 1 HAC tomorrow, your results will be random, when you try 10 marauders for 10 times you are almost guaranteed you will have at most 1-2 BPC more or less than the average result. Do that on a alliance wide project and you will have a very constant result.

An no, there are plenty of modules that will pay for invention starting cost while requiring only some hundred of millions as starting capital.

Thinking that only ships are worth inventing is the principal error for inventors.


Pretty much this, thats why ships like jump freighters still have high profit. Because it requires a large starting capital so you can make numerous atttempts and let the law of large numbers kick into effect.

With insufficient capital you run the very real risk of running into a streak of bad luck and going broke.

This is also why module invention tend to be the safest. Capital investment for each attempt is low, so you can generate a large number of attempts.



Run for the hills, Gamesguy agreed with me. The ski will fall. LaughingLaughingLaughing

Sorry but I think it is the first time we have the same opinion.


Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.08.28 09:42:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul



Run for the hills, Gamesguy agreed with me. The ski will fall. LaughingLaughingLaughing

Sorry but I think it is the first time we have the same opinion.




I stand by what I said, suicide ganking is an isk farming activity and I still think its good for the game.Wink

Devilish Ledoux
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.28 09:44:00 - [55]
 

I am definitely of two minds about T2 BPOs, for many of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Here are my thoughts, in no particular order:

It's a bit unfair that people who got lucky back during the lottery's heyday have a guaranteed ISK printing factory while inventors have to commit to doing more work for less money (per factory slot). (I am, of course, referring to BPOs for popular ships and modules. Less popular BPOs are another matter).

An inventor can have a higher ISK per day profit inventing and selling a popular item than they could if they only produced from a BPO.

Owners of popular BPOs are capable of using the profits gained from their BPO to buy more BPOs, increasing their profits to a degree that inventors can never match.

However, inventors (or mission runners, etc) could do that, too. It just takes longer for them to get that first BPO.

It's much easier for current holders of good BPOs to collect more of them, which leads to massive concentration of wealth.

Many T2 BPOs aren't incredibly profitable and if they disappeared, many T2 items would not be available on the market (because they wouldn't be profitable to invent.)

The existence of T2 BPOs holds prices down for many items. However, this also enables the BPO holders to slash their sale prices to a point where they still make a nice profit, but inventors cannot compete.

Even if T2 BPOs were phased out, it wouldn't change the fact that people who have held profitable BPOs for years are fantastically wealthy.

T2 BPO holders (or anyone who has a lot of ISK and not a lot to spend it on) often function as ISK sinks, since a large percentage of what they make stays in their wallet (exceptions exist. see next point). If they lose their income streams, they're going to start spending that money, which turns them into de facto ISK faucets.

Some good T2 BPOs are held by alliances which use the money generated from them to fund their operations. This could give these alliances a substantial advantage over those who have to rely on invention. (I'm assuming that the income from T2 BPOs rivals the income from 0.0 moon mining. This is quite possibly a mistaken assumption.)

Anyway, I could go on and on, even though I've only ever owned 1 T2 BPO (and it was crappy) and I don't have all of the facts. So I can easily imagine how much of a mess this is for CCP to unravel. The status quo is unfair to a lot of people. Changing the status quo would also be unfair to a lot of people.

If it were up to me (and I'm really glad that it isn't), I'd probably announce that T2 BPOs are going to be phased out 6 months to 1 year in advance. Then, they would be converted to extremely long-running BPOs (which would give them about 1 year's worth of nonstop production). As the former BPOs are phased out, I would increase average ME/PE rates on invented BPCs so that about the same number of T2 ships/modules/ammo could be produced with the same average number of raw materials available (ie, moon-mined goods).

At the end of this process, competition would ensure that most goods cost about what they do now (although prices would be likely to fluctuate more). People who held good T2 BPOs for a long time will still be rich. People who bought them before the announcement would probably recoup their investment. People who bought them after the announcement would probably recoup their investment (since they'll be likely to pay less).

coeathal vega
Gallente
Northmoor Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.28 10:02:00 - [56]
 

its true, we have them all! including the unreleased t2 titan bpo! oh shi*

LaughingLaughingLaughing

FlameGlow
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2008.08.28 10:19:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: ZW Dewitt
Originally by: Karella Morana
It's not 'spending,' it's investment. There is a difference. The BPO still has value, and on top of that value, it brings income. If you resell it, you get your money back, plus the income you made through ownership.Neutral

In that sense, then yes, the BPO is an 'isk printing machine.'


In that sense, so is EVERY BPO in game, T2 or not.


But now there is no way to get a new T2 BPO; if lottery continued along with invention and added some BPOs every 3 months or so ppl would have a choice: cash in RPs for datacores and build T2 with invention or accumulate RPs and hope to get a BPO someday.

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.08.28 10:30:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Devilish Ledoux
I am definitely of two minds about T2 BPOs, for many of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Here are my thoughts, in no particular order:

It's a bit unfair that people who got lucky back during the lottery's heyday have a guaranteed ISK printing factory while inventors have to commit to doing more work for less money (per factory slot). (I am, of course, referring to BPOs for popular ships and modules. Less popular BPOs are another matter).

An inventor can have a higher ISK per day profit inventing and selling a popular item than they could if they only produced from a BPO.

Owners of popular BPOs are capable of using the profits gained from their BPO to buy more BPOs, increasing their profits to a degree that inventors can never match.

However, inventors (or mission runners, etc) could do that, too. It just takes longer for them to get that first BPO.

It's much easier for current holders of good BPOs to collect more of them, which leads to massive concentration of wealth.

Many T2 BPOs aren't incredibly profitable and if they disappeared, many T2 items would not be available on the market (because they wouldn't be profitable to invent.)

The existence of T2 BPOs holds prices down for many items. However, this also enables the BPO holders to slash their sale prices to a point where they still make a nice profit, but inventors cannot compete.

Even if T2 BPOs were phased out, it wouldn't change the fact that people who have held profitable BPOs for years are fantastically wealthy.

T2 BPO holders (or anyone who has a lot of ISK and not a lot to spend it on) often function as ISK sinks, since a large percentage of what they make stays in their wallet (exceptions exist. see next point). If they lose their income streams, they're going to start spending that money, which turns them into de facto ISK faucets.

Some good T2 BPOs are held by alliances which use the money generated from them to fund their operations. This could give these alliances a substantial advantage over those who have to rely on invention. (I'm assuming that the income from T2 BPOs rivals the income from 0.0 moon mining. This is quite possibly a mistaken assumption.)

Anyway, I could go on and on, even though I've only ever owned 1 T2 BPO (and it was crappy) and I don't have all of the facts. So I can easily imagine how much of a mess this is for CCP to unravel. The status quo is unfair to a lot of people. Changing the status quo would also be unfair to a lot of people.

If it were up to me (and I'm really glad that it isn't), I'd probably announce that T2 BPOs are going to be phased out 6 months to 1 year in advance. Then, they would be converted to extremely long-running BPOs (which would give them about 1 year's worth of nonstop production). As the former BPOs are phased out, I would increase average ME/PE rates on invented BPCs so that about the same number of T2 ships/modules/ammo could be produced with the same average number of raw materials available (ie, moon-mined goods).

At the end of this process, competition would ensure that most goods cost about what they do now (although prices would be likely to fluctuate more). People who held good T2 BPOs for a long time will still be rich. People who bought them before the announcement would probably recoup their investment. People who bought them after the announcement would probably recoup their investment (since they'll be likely to pay less).


Actually, invention is a far bigger boon to old 0.0 alliances than their BPO stockpiles.

Go look up the price history of dysprosium/promethium. Moon income is pretty much the sole income for 0.0 alliance these days, and invention is what made those two moon minerals rise to the insane price they are at now.

Silver Night
Caldari
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Posted - 2008.08.28 10:40:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Silver Night on 28/08/2008 10:45:01
Originally by: Devilish Ledoux
Text which takes me near the character limit


A couple of points, and no to the trolls (not you Devilish) I don't own any Tech 2 BPOs:

1) Build times: This is one of the main things people miss. Tech 2 BPOs don't determine market price or hold it down significantly because there just aren't enough of them and tech 2 items have long build times.

2) Many, perhaps the majority of Tech 2 BPOs were sold off after people won them. This means that most of the current owners weren't 'lucky'. They made an investment in capital. Oftentimes the profit on the item at the time that the BPO was purchased dictated a year or more before the buyer would make a profit. With current prices, which are much lower in most cases, some BPO owners are looking at years to recoup their investment.

3) The fact of the matter is that invention and supplies of moon minerals determine the price of tech 2 items and BPO holders are just along for the ride. They might be able to make a higher per-item profit, but they are unable to expand their operations to any degree. If you have a BPO and produce 1 Crow at a time with 1 million profit, are you better off than the guy who can produce 20 at a time for 5 total million profit? Especially if you paid 20 billion for that Crow BPO?

Edited for clarity


Devilish Ledoux
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.28 10:51:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Devilish Ledoux on 28/08/2008 10:53:53
Originally by: Silver Night
Good points.


All of your arguments are valid (it's also nice to know that moons are the real determinant in pricing).

As an inventor myself, I know that I make more profit making and selling one product than someone who owns the BPO of the same product. It's also true that I can switch my production focus based on shifting profit margins (something a BPO holder can't do). However, it takes 11 lines of production (in my case, 26 and growing) to do this. A T2 BPO holder can make their profits using only 1 line of production per BPO. They could even invent the same item (or different ones) and compete there, as well.

I don't know how many owners of good T2 BPOs have only the one, and how many use the profits from the one to collect more and more over time (another gap in my knowledge). However, it would seem to me that, over time, a single good BPO can provide the funds to generate larger and larger profits over time, while invention provides steady (and in some cases, declining) real profits.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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