open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Phase out T2 BPOs
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Zedia Zhane
Posted - 2010.04.28 22:59:00 - [1]
 

So we all know that the people with T2 BPOs out there have a huge advantage when it comes to making T2 items. The people who are lucky enough to hold those BPOs can make items for a fraction of what it costs through invention. Lots of people (including me) think this is grossly unfair to newer players.

So I have (yet another) proposal to balance this out: Convert all T2 BPOs into large-run BPCs. Said BPCs would retain all the ME and PE of the current BPOs. And they would have a *huge* number of runs. Say 500 runs for a ship, 5000 for a module, or even more.

To implement this, the max run cap on T2 BPCs would probably have to be raised appropriately to make the converted BPOs legal items. But that wouldn't be a problem because, after the conversion, the only way to get new T2 BPCs would be invention, which has its own natural cap.

Now, people who hold the current incredibly valuable BPOs - or even paid exorbitant sums for them - would be left with still-incredibly-valuable BPCs. They can continue to make their items - for the same large profit margin - from the BPCs for a long time. This solves the problem of compensating people for the loss of valuable BPCs.

But in the long run, those super-BPCs will get used up over the course of months or years. And eventually the game will arrive at a state where all T2 items are made via invention. Which will create a fair and level playing field for everyone.

The gradual nature of the change as the converted BPOs slowly get used up will also spread the market impact of the shift over a long period of time, keeping the market stable.

In essence, this isn't eliminating T2 BPOs in one stroke. The long-term use BPCs allow a more gradual phasing out of the advantaged manufacturing method.

I'm hoping this is a good compromise between the "Leave it as is!" crowd and the "Eliminate T2 BPOs now!" crowd. Thoughts? Ideas? Comments?

Jerid Verges
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.28 23:04:00 - [2]
 

T2 BPOs allow for lower priced t2 items to exist. As a consumer, I like this.

So no.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.04.28 23:10:00 - [3]
 

and easier proposal: let input ME/PE of the T1 BPC affect outcome ME/PE T2 BPC.

that would close the gap between invention and bpo owner without screwing them big time.

2 things for you though:
1. if you do invention and you dont get rich. you are doing it wrong
2. if you do your cut with invention and want a t2 bpo so badly, sell order forum got plenty on sale atm. maybe stop by and get one?


IonHammer
Minmatar
SPORADIC MOVEMENT
Merciless.
Posted - 2010.04.28 23:30:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: IonHammer on 28/04/2010 23:32:45
Can u make any isk making t1 modules ?

Once invention came in T2 prices droped significantly, now this is where it gets a little tricky for you. Since Bpo holders don't set the price, inventors do.

Your issue is the process of invention BUT if ccp make it more efficient or cost less then the normal idiot process's of the market take over and your going to be right where u left off.

You see at its peak before invention cap rechargers 2's were 15 to 20 million a unit and now they are under a mill. Hulks were several hundred millions of isk now they are 150, Covert ops cloak were a super expensive 50 mill or so now they 6.

How does your arguement stack up with T3 ships or ships with no T2 bpo same problem,

simply put once production becomes unspecialised profit fall towards zero.

My adivce is look for a monopoly if your can find it theres your profit.

edit
I have had though an evil thought ccp could limit the number or invention bpc's per character per item class that sure would send prices up.

Misanthra
Posted - 2010.04.28 23:42:00 - [5]
 

Time for the weekly t2 bpo thread here again ?

Converting to BPC solves nothing. Eliminating them solves nothing. Hell even owning them ain't the green grass many make them out to be sometimes. Go to S&I, in the plethora of threads there, many T2 owners have said they make more off invention than BPO.

FOTM changes in this game quickly...ride the wave or wipe out. Invention gives you that flexibility...enjoy. Not like you are stuck with an unloved bpo you haven't paid off yet when this happens.

Dasfry
Caldari
Demio's Corporation
United Stellar Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.29 00:02:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: IonHammer
Once invention came in T2 prices droped significantly, now this is where it gets a little tricky for you. Since Bpo holders don't set the price, inventors do.



This statement about inventors setting the price is wrong.

Actually the market sets the price, and that market is whom ever is willing or able to sell the items at the lowest price.
This player is not always the inventor. It can be from any source, including inventors, Tech2 B.P.O. holders, or anyone else that has any supply of T2 items.

Example corp thief's, pvp looters, etc.

Mire Stoude
The Undesirables
Posted - 2010.04.29 01:01:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Mire Stoude on 29/04/2010 01:03:21
I could go either way on removing T2 BPOs, I don't care anymore. However, CCP should allow inventers to make good ME/PE BPC's.

Misanthra
Posted - 2010.04.29 01:31:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Mire Stoude
Edited by: Mire Stoude on 29/04/2010 01:01:51
I could go either way on removing T2 BPOs. I don't care either way anymore. However, CCP should allow inventers to make good quality BPC's.


This a better option. Would give some incentive to fix bpos and reward those who put work into them. Current system, buy bpo, throw in copy, invent done. would make the bpc market better as well to make that a viable market (most stuff out now...I call it contract piracy at the prices they are asking for crap copies).

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.29 01:49:00 - [9]
 

I think a T2 BPO would be a lot more fair if it was actually limited BPC with large number of copies. Such as 10,000 copies. That way the BPO lottery would be more dynamic, while the winners still reap huge profits.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.04.29 10:15:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
and easier proposal: let input ME/PE of the T1 BPC affect outcome ME/PE T2 BPC.

It would have to be a huge ratio or you risk crashing the market completely. All the BPOs I use for invention have an ME of 50+ so could have a huge effect on invention if it was a straight conversion.

Perhaps adding a single ME for every 10 or 20 on the BPC used .. might even need to be significantly higher to account for the volume possible with invention.

A much easier way balance it would be to introduce a refining step for T2 BPCs where you can pour resources and time into improving the ME prior to construction.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.04.29 10:16:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: darius mclever
and easier proposal: let input ME/PE of the T1 BPC affect outcome ME/PE T2 BPC.

It would have to be a huge ratio or you risk crashing the market completely. All the BPOs I use for invention have an ME of 50+ so could have a huge effect on invention if it was a straight conversion.

Perhaps adding a single ME for every 10 or 20 on the BPC used .. might even need to be significantly higher to account for the volume possible with invention.

A much easier way balance it would be to introduce a refining step for T2 BPCs where you can pour resources and time into improving the ME prior to construction.


yes, I had something like that ratio in mind.

and god did you waste a lot of time on researching!:p

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.04.29 10:22:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
yes, I had something like that ratio in mind.

and god did you waste a lot of time on researching!:p

I used the same prints for normal t1 construction and BPC sales .. besides, once invention slots were filled and I still had skill for more jobs what else should I do? Very Happy

Quadtro
Posted - 2010.04.29 14:47:00 - [13]
 

CCP should allow invented (invented only) bpcs to get research done on them .... up to a certain % like .1 or .2% waste max and .75% pe.

THis will be a big trade off, sure you can make to it cheaper BUT you have to invest the time into it to do so. ask anyone that does tech 2 bpo research .... me research on ammo is like 11 days to go from 0 to 5 ... a ship is like 10 days per me level.

Some things will make sense ... like researching Mauraders or Jump Freighters but researching drones or other small things like mods will not.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2010.04.29 15:04:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 29/04/2010 15:03:54
yes, the T2 issue is a real pain in the ass to balance invention.
For me, T2 BPOs could be completely removed from the game in order to achieve a proper T1/T2/invention balance.

Zedia Zhane
Posted - 2010.04.29 18:47:00 - [15]
 

My issue isn't that I'm not making money.

My issue is that the current system is inherently unfair and imbalanced.

What other game out there has a system where old characters with legacy items have a massive, permanent advantage over newer players? Pretty much none of them do. Why? Because in almost every single game out there, each expansion releases better gear that immediately obsolesces the old uber-gear.

But that's not true in this case. Sure, invention reduced the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. But at the same time, it made that disparity permanent by discontinuing new players' ability to obtain the legacy items.

One of the reasons I like EVE over more typical MMOs is that equipment is tiered with a nice progression to it (so T1 stuff is still very useful). And retaining that means you can't just obsolesce all T2 items to make the BPOs irrelevant.

To me, that goes hand-in-hand with T2 items being significantly more expensive than similar T1 items. T1 items retain value in the game by being cheaper than T2. And to preserve that price-performance curve, I'd like to see T2 remain significantly more expensive than T1. Which means I *don't* want to see invention made any cheaper. Invention sets a nice, high price for higher-performance T2 stuff.

So my ideal solution to the unfairness of T2 BPO-based manufacturing is to eliminate it in favor of making eveything be built by invention. At the same time, I recognize that a flat elimination of T2 BPOs is unfair to the people who currently hold them. So this suggestion is a compromise between those two considerations.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.04.29 18:53:00 - [16]
 

If you think T2 BPOs are unfair, you havent understood T2 BPO vs T2 BPCs.

any decent inventor...
- will outperform BPO owners
- is way more flexible than BPO owners

and all that for a little bit extra work/costs.

Narambatanin
Posted - 2010.04.29 19:12:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Narambatanin on 29/04/2010 19:13:15
Originally by: darius mclever
If you think T2 BPOs are unfair, you havent understood T2 BPO vs T2 BPCs.

any decent inventor...
- will outperform BPO owners
- is way more flexible than BPO owners

and all that for a little bit extra work/costs.


And what's to stop the BPO owner from also doing invention at the same time?

Every item made from a BPO costs a fraction of what the same item does made from invnetion. They are still making a ton of money from the items they produce from the BPO. It's free income, for much less work.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.04.29 19:14:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Narambatanin
Originally by: darius mclever
If you think T2 BPOs are unfair, you havent understood T2 BPO vs T2 BPCs.

any decent inventor...
- will outperform BPO owners
- is way more flexible than BPO owners

and all that for a little bit extra work/costs.


And what's to stop the BPO owner from also doing invention at the same time?

Every item made from a BPO costs a fraction of what the same item does made from invnetion. They are still making a ton of money from the items they produce from the BPO. It's free income, for no work.


so the few extra clicks from inventions are much work for you? Should i laugh?

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.04.29 19:17:00 - [19]
 

Poasting in another 'they have and I have not and it ain't fair' thread.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.04.29 19:41:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Narambatanin
And what's to stop the BPO owner from also doing invention at the same time?

The very hard limit present on how many jobs of a given type that can be run at any one time.
Sure he can create an alt but then so can we ad nauseum .. wrong tree to bark at.

Most, if not all, T2 BPOs are no longer in the hands of the person who won it originally which means a vast majority of that "free income" is actually being used to pay off the investment they made buying it.

Ability to manipulate the ME invented BPC even if only by single digits would put so much pressure on BPO holders that they would have to start inventing themselves to stay competitive/afloat .. that is how much the volume of invention means.

Zedia Zhane
Posted - 2010.04.29 19:58:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Narambatanin
And what's to stop the BPO owner from also doing invention at the same time?

The very hard limit present on how many jobs of a given type that can be run at any one time.
Sure he can create an alt but then so can we ad nauseum .. wrong tree to bark at.


Ok, so I can run 9 production jobs. I run 1 off the BPO and 8 off invention. The stuff I get off the BPO is still a tiny fraction of the cost of the stuff I get off invention. And I can set the BPO to run continuously for a month, while there will be a lot of downtime with the BPCs between when one finishes and I can log on to start the next job.


Let me see if I can summarize these arguments.

Player 1 has a certain asset. Utilizing this asset, they can harvest a valuable in-game resource in a very efficient manner. The asset allows them to set up a process that can run unattended for a long period of time, yielding a large amount of that resource at the end for very little investment.

Player 2 can obtain the same valuable in-game resource. However, the best method available to player 2 costs a lot more money per resource harvested. And requires player 2 to constantly update their harvesting process. Player 1 is also free to use the same method as player 2, in such cases where the second method is more profitble.

The arguments that most people seem to be making in this thread are that this system is inherently fair. The people making this argument point at the advantages that player 2's method offers.

Do I have that right?

Well, apply the exact same arguments to macro-mining.

Player 1 has a macro. He sets it up (with T1 strips), goes to bed, and comes back in the morning with a station full of random ores.

Player 2 uses T2 strips with mining crystals. He can harvest ore a lot faster because of the T2 strips and that he can selectively pick the higher-yield ore.

That's the exact same situation I described above.

So... Darius, Hirana, and the rest of you - I assume you fervently support the legalization of macro-mining because this type of situation is morally fair and viable? That the advantages offered by T2 strips and crystals more than offset the abiliity to harvest ore automatically?

If you are consistent in your logic, and your values regarding fairness, you should also see macro-mining as an inherently fair activity.

Party Scout
Posted - 2010.04.29 20:06:00 - [22]
 

T2 BPOs are a rare item. They cannot be purchased, or found, or made anymore. Since they are so rare, I think they should become obsolete. Manufacturing and copying systems advance, but the blueprint does not (since it is so rare, and cannot be modified). So the invention and production time of a T2 BPO should increase as time goes by.

So, you should still be able to copy them and run them to make stuff, but it takes more time. So, they still work, but take 2, or 3 times more than inventing something, that they are not really practical to make money.

Just throwing out ideas, I'm not into inventing much, nor do I have a T2 BPO :P

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.04.29 20:11:00 - [23]
 

Comparing EULA breaking stuff with valid purchases of items... are you running out of arguments?

Your profit will be a little bit smaller, sure. But compared to the overall profit from t2 production. that doesnt really matter. (unless you lemming your products at jita discount prices of course)

If you think that T2 BPOs give you so much of an edge over the rest of us, what stops you from buying one?
What warrants screwing people, who bought their T2 BPO from the market, out of their investment? Because thats what you asking for. people paid prices which would need 2-3years of production (assuming the prices dont go down more) to get the money back they have invested. you want to give them 500-5000 run bpcs that wouldnt even last a year or so.

All in all i can say ... giving inventors some reflection of input ME/PE in the output BPC would even the field a little bit. but also that has down sides.

less demand in materials, less income from (moon) mining. less incentive to fight over them. and of course prices would fall and cut into the margins again. (just as it happened after the recent moon goo changes)

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2010.04.29 20:21:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Party Scout
T2 BPOs are a rare item. They cannot be purchased, or found,


Posting to confirm T2 BPO's can be neither found or purchased. Neutral

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.04.29 20:32:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Zedia Zhane
If you are consistent in your logic, and your values regarding fairness, you should also see macro-mining as an inherently fair activity.

Does the use of a macro constitute a double or triple digit billion ISK investment?
Was that ISK obtained through normal means (ie. time)?
Is the use of a macro legal?

You are trying to compare the fairness of monetary gain from theft to gain from regular labour .. makes no sense at all.

If you were around in the first 5-6 months after the lottery was discontinued you would know just what is involved, I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of ISK involved in T2 BPO transactions (ie.
invested ISK) ... in some cases we are talking 5+ years before the print actually starts making money.

Reason I began inventing was because I had only 4-5B ISK when BPOs (that I wanted) were in the 50-100B range.
Thanks to invention I can now raise about 60B and have a huge fully researched T1 BPO portfolio .. that was done using just two characters in the years since the lottery died .. mind you, that is without having a massive chunk of ISK tied up in any one item.
During all my time as full-time inventor I was never hurt once by FoTM changes or market fluctuations .. the only hit I took was the moon-gate crap but that hit everyone so not really valid as argument.

PS:
Originally by: Zedia Zhane
Player 2 uses T2 strips ...

Should be that player 2 uses a macro that cherry-picks ores but runs for a shorter period at a time to make comparison accurate.

Ninetails o'Cat
League of Super Evil
Posted - 2010.04.29 20:48:00 - [26]
 

The only thing (IF ANYTHING) that I would do to t2 BPOs is simple.

Make them into super special decryptors that never run out and make the BPC in the invention have the same ME/PE as the BPO they were made from.

That way, whilst they have an advantage, they are still tied to the datacore market.

But...

BPOs do not need a nerf!

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.04.29 21:05:00 - [27]
 

Of course T2 BPO holders say they make WAY more off invention. Duh. It's in thier self interest. While you can indeed make good money off of invention, A bpo holder has a huge advantage per item they produce off that print. No data cores require, no copying, much much better effciency. Invention may provide more volume but it's also a hell of a lot more time and work.

For the record, the consumers set the price when supply can meet demand. A BPO holder just has a much higher profit margin.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.04.29 21:09:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Torothanax
Of course T2 BPO holders say they make WAY more off invention. Duh. It's in thier self interest. While you can indeed make good money off of invention, A bpo holder has a huge advantage per item they produce off that print. No data cores require, no copying, much much better effciency. Invention may provide more volume but it's also a hell of a lot more time and work.

For the record, the consumers set the price when supply can meet demand. A BPO holder just has a much higher profit margin.


So you assume that people, who are against the idea, are BPO owner?

Zedia Zhane
Posted - 2010.04.29 21:44:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Zedia Zhane on 29/04/2010 21:44:27
Originally by: darius mclever
so the few extra clicks from inventions are much work for you? Should i laugh?
Everyone who has ever installed a pirated copy of MacroExpress in order to macro-mine has used that exact excuse to justify their actions.

Your argument, not mine.



Getting back to debating reasonable arguments:

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
If you were around in the first 5-6 months after the lottery was discontinued you would know just what is involved, I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of ISK involved in T2 BPO transactions (ie.
invested ISK) ... in some cases we are talking 5+ years before the print actually starts making money.


And that was what, a bit over 3 years ago? I'm not saying to outright nuke all T2 BPOs. That would seriously short-change anyone who had made said investment.

Take the Hulk for example. With a decent PE level, it takes roughly 21.5 hours to build one. That means a 500-run BPC would take 10,750 hours to use up. That's close to 1 year, 3 months. So if the conversion were done today, the person who purchased it back then would have had more than 4 years to use it.

That seems like a pretty fair return on the ivenstment to me.

Torothanax
Posted - 2010.04.29 21:50:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Torothanax on 29/04/2010 21:51:31
Originally by: darius mclever
So you assume that people, who are against the idea, are BPO owner?
While probably not the only players against the idea, I can't imagine many current T2 BPO holders are for the idea. Shouldn't read too much into my posts.


Pages: [1] 2

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