open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked Request- lock T2 BPOs at ME -1, PE1....
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.10 18:08:00 - [1]
 

... (the max levels available through invention), so that they remove invention costs but not any more than that.


Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die without giving anyone a 100 bil ISK paperweight.

Please?

Pretty please?

..... with sugar on top?

Lady Ayeipsia
Posted - 2010.08.10 18:30:00 - [2]
 

Would just open the door for whines about how people can't research T2 BPOs, or how they lost all that time researching them. or some other rant/flame fest that I can't even imagine. Trust me, even with the perfect solution to T2 BPOs (and this isn't a perfect solution), people will still find a way to complain.

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.10 18:37:00 - [3]
 

Quote:
Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die without giving anyone a 100 bil ISK paperweight.


A trigger to lock all threads with "*T2?BPO*" in the subject would do a better job of this.

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:16:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
Would just open the door for whines about how people can't research T2 BPOs, or how they lost all that time researching them. or some other rant/flame fest that I can't even imagine. Trust me, even with the perfect solution to T2 BPOs (and this isn't a perfect solution), people will still find a way to complain.
Maybe so, but IMHO narrowing the advantage of BPOs over invention (not eliminating, narrowing) would significantly decrease the emorage over them.


Less emorage may not mean less threads, but I think it would mean threads that fall off the page after a comment or two, instead of sitting around for 3 weeks while 5 people try to discuss the issue intelligently, and 40 other people rave on with arguments the intellectual equivalent of "LULZ MONY IZ GUD! GIV ME MOR MONY!"

Dav Varan
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:20:00 - [5]
 

Or

Set base me pe of invention at 0.

Then allow dycryptors to improve them. ( no negative me/pe anymore )

+ allow higher me/pe T1 input bpc's to improve the result further.

+ 1 level of output me/pe for every 0 in the input me/pe.

i.e.
input me 10 = output me +1
input me 100 = output me +2
input me 1000 = output me +3

would make invented bpc's more competitive on the build side of the equation.
Although you still have invention costs to contend with.

Narfas Deteis
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:24:00 - [6]
 

...and then T2 market crashes and we'll see even more whiny threads on this forum.

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:45:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 10/08/2010 19:46:45
Originally by: Berikath
Originally by: Lady Ayeipsia
Would just open the door for whines about how people can't research T2 BPOs, or how they lost all that time researching them. or some other rant/flame fest that I can't even imagine. Trust me, even with the perfect solution to T2 BPOs (and this isn't a perfect solution), people will still find a way to complain.
Maybe so, but IMHO narrowing the advantage of BPOs over invention (not eliminating, narrowing) would significantly decrease the emorage over them.


Less emorage may not mean less threads, but I think it would mean threads that fall off the page after a comment or two, instead of sitting around for 3 weeks while 5 people try to discuss the issue intelligently, and 40 other people rave on with arguments the intellectual equivalent of "LULZ MONY IZ GUD! GIV ME MOR MONY!"


The existence of emorage does not necessarily mean there is a problem with the game, thus the game should not be changed simply to accommodate the emoragers.

Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that emorage itself is somehow a problem that needs to be addressed. It is not.

Voogru
Gallente
Massive Damage
We Are John Galt
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:52:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Berikath
... (the max levels available through invention), so that they remove invention costs but not any more than that.


Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die without giving anyone a 100 bil ISK paperweight.

Please?

Pretty please?

..... with sugar on top?


Hey, this won't improve your profitability for invention. If anything it will make your profits even more razor thin.

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.10 19:53:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Dav Varan
Or

Set base me pe of invention at 0.

Then allow dycryptors to improve them. ( no negative me/pe anymore )

+ allow higher me/pe T1 input bpc's to improve the result further.

+ 1 level of output me/pe for every 0 in the input me/pe.

i.e.
input me 10 = output me +1
input me 100 = output me +2
input me 1000 = output me +3

would make invented bpc's more competitive on the build side of the equation.
Although you still have invention costs to contend with.


This wouldn't accomplish what you think it would accomplish.

You want to fix invention? Here's how to do it, quick and easy: Increase the datacore cost and invention time by 10x and, in return, invented BPCs have 10x as many runs. Adjust numbers as needed (e.g., ships, particularly larger ones).

Invention is plenty lucrative as-is - the problem with it is that it takes too much clicking on too regular a basis.

Narfas Deteis
Posted - 2010.08.10 20:00:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

This wouldn't accomplish what you think it would accomplish.

You want to fix invention? Here's how to do it, quick and easy: Increase the datacore cost and invention time by 10x and, in return, invented BPCs have 10x as many runs. Adjust numbers as needed (e.g., ships, particularly larger ones).

Invention is plenty lucrative as-is - the problem with it is that it takes too much clicking on too regular a basis.


Ditto.

Another thing is, I still don't understand why should I click 1000 times to start 10 IDENTICAL invention jobs.

It's more like interface problem then game design problem.

Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
Posted - 2010.08.10 20:05:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Narfas Deteis

Another thing is, I still don't understand why should I click 1000 times to start 10 IDENTICAL invention jobs.

It's more like interface problem then game design problem.


It's to keep invention profitable. If it was easy then everyone would do it. Since it's hard, it keeps most people away from it.

Narfas Deteis
Posted - 2010.08.10 20:09:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Breaker77

It's to keep invention profitable. If it was easy then everyone would do it. Since it's hard, it keeps most people away from it.


Hey, we talk about clicking. Even chimpanzee can do it.

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.10 20:13:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Narfas Deteis

Another thing is, I still don't understand why should I click 1000 times to start 10 IDENTICAL invention jobs.

It's more like interface problem then game design problem.


It's to keep invention profitable. If it was easy then everyone would do it. Since it's hard, it keeps most people away from it.


You appear to be mistaking "boring and repetitive" for "hard".

Don't do that.

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.10 20:22:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Voogru
Originally by: Berikath
... (the max levels available through invention), so that they remove invention costs but not any more than that.


Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die without giving anyone a 100 bil ISK paperweight.

Please?

Pretty please?

..... with sugar on top?


Hey, this won't improve your profitability for invention. If anything it will make your profits even more razor thin.


0.o I don't do invention. Even if I did, I know that this wouldn't make any difference at all in how profitable invention would be- costs for BPOs would still be lower than invention, so if it was profitable to run before, it'll still be profitable after, so the BPO will get just as much use.

My interest in the matter is only in reducing the trollbait potential of the topic, so threads on the topic will actually fall off the page in a reasonable time. Hence the reason I wrote:
Quote:

Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.10 20:27:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Berikath
Originally by: Voogru
Originally by: Berikath
... (the max levels available through invention), so that they remove invention costs but not any more than that.


Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die without giving anyone a 100 bil ISK paperweight.

Please?

Pretty please?

..... with sugar on top?


Hey, this won't improve your profitability for invention. If anything it will make your profits even more razor thin.


0.o I don't do invention. Even if I did, I know that this wouldn't make any difference at all in how profitable invention would be- costs for BPOs would still be lower than invention, so if it was profitable to run before, it'll still be profitable after, so the BPO will get just as much use.

My interest in the matter is only in reducing the trollbait potential of the topic, so threads on the topic will actually fall off the page in a reasonable time. Hence the reason I wrote:
Quote:

Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die



If that is truly your sole interest, my previously suggested solution is vastly superior to yours.

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.10 20:47:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Originally by: Berikath
Originally by: Voogru
Originally by: Berikath
... (the max levels available through invention), so that they remove invention costs but not any more than that.


Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die without giving anyone a 100 bil ISK paperweight.

Please?

Pretty please?

..... with sugar on top?


Hey, this won't improve your profitability for invention. If anything it will make your profits even more razor thin.


0.o I don't do invention. Even if I did, I know that this wouldn't make any difference at all in how profitable invention would be- costs for BPOs would still be lower than invention, so if it was profitable to run before, it'll still be profitable after, so the BPO will get just as much use.

My interest in the matter is only in reducing the trollbait potential of the topic, so threads on the topic will actually fall off the page in a reasonable time. Hence the reason I wrote:
Quote:

Then hopefully these "ZOMGZ REMOOV T2 BPOOOOOO" threads will finally die



If that is truly your sole interest, my previously suggested solution is vastly superior to yours.


Yes, the locking all threads thing would work. Removing the forums entirely would also work, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

There are legitimate, constructive reasons to discuss T2 BPOs. Call me a perfectionist, but I'd like the solution to NOT remove a topic completely from the boards.

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.10 20:51:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 10/08/2010 20:56:00
Originally by: Berikath


Yes, the locking all threads thing would work. Removing the forums entirely would also work, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.



Yeah, because ****ing with game mechanics because you are tired of reading posts about is is ****ing brilliant and a perfectly logical solution. Rolling Eyes

Seriously, where do they find you people?

"People cry about it" != "There's something wrong with it". The only reason to change it would be if there were something wrong with it. You're proposing changes to it not because you feel there's something wrong with it, but because people cry about it. You haven't, in fact, even broached the topic of whether or not there's something wrong with it in terms of game mechanics.

This is a bit like suggesting that you should chop off your leg at the knee because you have an ingrown toenail.

Don't worry - there's clearly no risk of anyone mistaking you for a perfectionist.

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.10 21:41:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 10/08/2010 20:56:00
Originally by: Berikath


Yes, the locking all threads thing would work. Removing the forums entirely would also work, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.



Yeah, because ****ing with game mechanics because you are tired of reading posts about is is ****ing brilliant and a perfectly logical solution. Rolling Eyes

Seriously, where do they find you people?

"People cry about it" != "There's something wrong with it". The only reason to change it would be if there were something wrong with it. You're proposing changes to it not because you feel there's something wrong with it, but because people cry about it. You haven't, in fact, even broached the topic of whether or not there's something wrong with it in terms of game mechanics.

This is a bit like suggesting that you should chop off your leg at the knee because you have an ingrown toenail.

Don't worry - there's clearly no risk of anyone mistaking you for a perfectionist.



Game mechanics in relation to T2 BPOs are already borked. They were patched into unavailability, but remained in the game, all their benefits in tact. Name something else which got "fixed" with a patch, but is still usable.

The solution consistent with anything else in the game would be to say "This patch is removing T2 BPOs, and replacing them with invention. They will remain in-game as non-functioning legacy items". To the best of my knowledge, that is what happened with any implants or skills which were removed in patches. Doing ANYTHING other than that is already giving T2 BPOs special consideration and screwing with game mechanics, so the argument that it would be screwing with game mechanics is invalid on its face. I purposefully remained agnostic on the underlying issue, since my opinion doesn't really make a lick of difference either way.

Locking T2 BPOs at the best ME/PE available from invention makes the only difference in cost the costs of invention itself (which are significant), instead of adding additional benefit on top of that. There's a big difference in perception between BPOs being "better in every way" than invention, and being "as good as invention, but you don't have to click or use lab slots".

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.10 22:37:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 10/08/2010 22:45:23
Originally by: Berikath
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 10/08/2010 20:56:00
Originally by: Berikath


Yes, the locking all threads thing would work. Removing the forums entirely would also work, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.



Yeah, because ****ing with game mechanics because you are tired of reading posts about is is ****ing brilliant and a perfectly logical solution. Rolling Eyes

Seriously, where do they find you people?

"People cry about it" != "There's something wrong with it". The only reason to change it would be if there were something wrong with it. You're proposing changes to it not because you feel there's something wrong with it, but because people cry about it. You haven't, in fact, even broached the topic of whether or not there's something wrong with it in terms of game mechanics.

This is a bit like suggesting that you should chop off your leg at the knee because you have an ingrown toenail.

Don't worry - there's clearly no risk of anyone mistaking you for a perfectionist.



Game mechanics in relation to T2 BPOs are already borked. They were patched into unavailability, but remained in the game, all their benefits in tact. Name something else which got "fixed" with a patch, but is still usable.


Do you know anything about the history of T2 BPOs? Contrary to the belief of every mathematically inept BPO crybaby, they were not changed because they were "too good". First of all, I should clarify something: it wasn't a change to "T2 BPOs", but rather to the T2 production system (of which T2 BPOs are only one aspect). The purpose of the change was to make the T2 production system accessible to everyone. Invention accomplished this. Removing BPOs would not contribute to this in any way.

Production newbies always assume that the leadup to the change went something like this:

Problem: T2 BPOs are omfg overpowered and it's totally unfair that their owners get to print free isk!
Solution: Invention!

In reality, it was more like...
Problem: The T2 production system is underutilized because it requires a very rare, randomly distributed item to participate in the system at all.
Solution: Invention!

The problem that was actually being addressed (as opposed to the problem you personally imagine was being addressed) has most definitely been resolved: Anyone can now participate in the T2 production system.

Quote:
The solution consistent with anything else in the game would be to say "This patch is removing T2 BPOs, and replacing them with invention. They will remain in-game as non-functioning legacy items". To the best of my knowledge, that is what happened with any implants or skills which were removed in patches.


Given the above, there's no point in doing that. In the other instances you're referring to, the problem was the item itself. That was never the case with BPOs.


So, in conclusion, you're basically arguing from a position of ignorance. You've substituted any genuine understanding of the reasons for game mechanics changes with your own wild speculation, assumptions, and flawed analogies.

Additionally, I'm going to go ahead and pat myself on the back for baiting you into demonstrating that your original stated purpose in posting this thread - "Really, gosh guys, I'm just trying to curb the troll threads!" - was utter *******s.

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.10 23:02:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

Do you know anything about the history of T2 BPOs? Contrary to the belief of every mathematically inept BPO crybaby, they were not changed because they were "too good". First of all, I should clarify something: it wasn't a change to "T2 BPOs", but rather to the T2 production system (of which T2 BPOs are only one aspect). The purpose of the change was to make the T2 production system accessible to everyone. Invention accomplished this. Removing BPOs would not contribute to this in any way.


Exactly. It was a change to the T2 production system, during which T2 BPOs were phased out (as they are no longer attainable). Since BPOs are no longer "the way to make T2 goods", in order to be completely consistent the "new" way of making T2 goods should have been the ONLY way of making T2 goods. To draw an analogy: certain PI goods were NPC-seeded prior to PI being rolled out. The patch did not change those goods; by your logic, they should have remained attainable from NPCs (at least, to those who had been buying them from NPCs). However, they did not... because the entire system around them changed. NPC orders for PI goods were phased out when an alternate (presumably superior) method of attaining them was rolled out, because keeping them would have screwed up everything about PI.

Quote:

Given the above, there's no point in doing that. In the other instances you're referring to, the problem was the item itself. That was never the case with BPOs.

So, in conclusion, you're basically arguing from a position of ignorance. You've substituted any genuine understanding of the reasons for, and intentions of, game mechanics changes with your own wild speculation and assumptions.

Additionally, I'm going to go ahead and pat myself on the back for baiting you into demonstrating that your original stated purpose in posting this thread - "Really, gosh guys, I'm just trying to curb the troll threads!" - was utter *******s, and that you're just another T2 BPO whiner.


No, I'm not. My personal opinion is that there are legitimate problems with T2 BPOs, and the whiners do have some merit to their arguments. However, and this is complicated, see if you can follow me here.... those in favor of keeping T2 BPOs ALSO have merit to their argument! Just straight removing T2 BPOs would not correct the imbalance, and the people it would "hurt" are not the same people who really benefited from the "imbalanced" game mechanic which got replaced (namely, those who were initially awarded the T2 BPOs)... since most of the T2 BPOs were, long ago, sold to somebody else. Removing T2 BPOs now would not be a good choice on CCP's part.

That said, no matter how small a role BPOs play in overall T2 production, the whining will continue simply because of the magnitude of the advantage producing from BPOs gives you over producing from invention. It is the PERCEPTION of having a class of T2 producers (the BPO owners) who have ISK shoveled to them because they are lucky or good enough to have a BPO, and a class of unwashed masses who have to make due on the scraps that are left over, that causes the long, drawn out threads that never die. Until and unless something is done to make your average starting industrialist feel like they would be able to compete with a BPO holder, the crying will continue. THIS is what I want to stop.

Voogru
Gallente
Massive Damage
We Are John Galt
Posted - 2010.08.10 23:06:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Voogru on 10/08/2010 23:23:19
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey


Do you know anything about the history of T2 BPOs? Contrary to the belief of every mathematically inept BPO crybaby, they were not changed because they were "too good". First of all, I should clarify something: it wasn't a change to "T2 BPOs", but rather to the T2 production system (of which T2 BPOs are only one aspect). The purpose of the change was to make the T2 production system accessible to everyone. Invention accomplished this. Removing BPOs would not contribute to this in any way.



Hey, I have some bad news for you. This isn't true.

Invention was introduce for two reasons, to make T2 more available (because the game was growing and there was the same amount of T2 producers), and to bring down the prices because T2 BPO cartels were forming. Invention was initially ten times worse than it is today, it was ten times more expensive to do, as such, prices were still high and T2 BPO's were OMG! PROFIT! CITY still. Invention was also much more profitable because not as many idiots were inventing then.

Then CCP caught some people who were making thousands of dollars a month on eBay with ISK from their T2 BPO profits, at that point they modified invention and reduced the costs by NINETY PERCENT.

If you remember the cover ops cloaks being 70M a pop, this was an ISK selling T2 BPO cartel that was doing this. I watched this happened first hand, and I remember because this nerf happened just as I finally got my first T2 BPO's.

I wasn't angry about it either, because I knew it had to be done and I hated ISK sellers.

Inventors on the other hand, just want to get rid of their competition thinking if they do so, their profits will increase. Their profits won't increase.

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.10 23:14:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Berikath
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

Do you know anything about the history of T2 BPOs? Contrary to the belief of every mathematically inept BPO crybaby, they were not changed because they were "too good". First of all, I should clarify something: it wasn't a change to "T2 BPOs", but rather to the T2 production system (of which T2 BPOs are only one aspect). The purpose of the change was to make the T2 production system accessible to everyone. Invention accomplished this. Removing BPOs would not contribute to this in any way.


Exactly. It was a change to the T2 production system, during which T2 BPOs were phased out (as they are no longer attainable).


I like how you arbitrarily redefined "phased out" at the end there. Yes, they ceased introducing new ones. No, they were not phased out. No, the two are not synonymous, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.

Quote:
Since BPOs are no longer "the way to make T2 goods", in order to be completely consistent the "new" way of making T2 goods should have been the ONLY way of making T2 goods.


We just talked about this. The problem was that not everyone could do T2 production. The problem was fixed. Making the "new" way the "only" way does not contribute to that solution.


Quote:
To draw an analogy: certain PI goods were NPC-seeded prior to PI being rolled out. The patch did not change those goods; by your logic, they should have remained attainable from NPCs (at least, to those who had been buying them from NPCs).


You honestly think those are analogous?

Quote:

No, I'm not.


You are, you just haven't realized it yet.
Quote:
That said, no matter how small a role BPOs play in overall T2 production, the whining will continue simply because of the magnitude of the advantage producing from BPOs gives you over producing from invention. It is the PERCEPTION of having a class of T2 producers (the BPO owners) who have ISK shoveled to them because they are lucky or good enough to have a BPO, and a class of unwashed masses who have to make due on the scraps that are left over, that causes the long, drawn out threads that never die. Until and unless something is done to make your average starting industrialist feel like they would be able to compete with a BPO holder, the crying will continue. THIS is what I want to stop.


And we're back to this nonsense. You don't seem to get it, so I'll bold it for you: people crying does not necessarily constitute a problem.

"People are crying!" Okay, so the **** what? No. Seriously. So what? One thing - perhaps the only thing - that you've actually gotten right so far is that it is a matter of PERCEPTION. A healthy portion of those crybabies will eventually fire up their spreadsheeting software of choice and, like the rest of us, ultimately reach the conclusion that there's no actual merit to their butthurt. Why should anyone really give a **** about the folks who are too inept to do that?

clixoras
Posted - 2010.08.10 23:16:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Voogru
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey


Inventors on the other hand, just want to get rid of their competition thinking if they do so, their profits will increase. Their profits won't increase.


It's an useless discussion anyway as it is demand that ultimately determines total turnaround. Maybe i should focus more on Jita though but 'local' markets are filled pretty quickly. Even doing the whole invention thing.

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.10 23:42:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Berikath on 10/08/2010 23:43:40
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

I like how you arbitrarily redefined "phased out" at the end there. Yes, they ceased introducing new ones. No, they were not phased out. No, the two are not synonymous, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.

...... I'm about 90% sure you're just trolling, but what the hell, I'll provide an actual response to this.

The old process of getting T2 goods (lottery -> BPO -> production) was phased out. Existing BPOs were not phased out, yes- but that is the very heart of my argument. PARTS of the old system were phased out, and OTHER PARTS were not. If the system was broken enough to warrant sweeping changes to fix it and an entirely new system is put into place, any reasonable person would expect that the WHOLE SYSTEM would be phased out. Since this was not done when the initial change was made, it is not reasonable to cause significant financial harm to players several years after the fact. However, it is also not reasonable for players using the new system to be at a large disadvantage compared to those using the remnants of the old system in virtually every respect.

Quote:

We just talked about this. The problem was that not everyone could do T2 production. The problem was fixed. Making the "new" way the "only" way does not contribute to that solution.
If you accept that the problem was that not everyone could do T2 production, then yes, invention fixed this problem. However, it is just as true that the solution CREATED ANOTHER PROBLEM! That HAPPENS in real life! Just because it wasn't the ORIGINAL problem doesn't make it any less real, no matter how much you try and obfuscate the facts.


Quote:
Quote:
To draw an analogy: certain PI goods were NPC-seeded prior to PI being rolled out. The patch did not change those goods; by your logic, they should have remained attainable from NPCs (at least, to those who had been buying them from NPCs).


You honestly think those are analogous?
You honestly think they aren't?

Quote:
Quote:

No, I'm not.


You are, you just haven't realized it yet.

Oh, gee, I'm sorry, I forgot that you know what I'm thinking better than I do. In that case, can you perhaps tell me what I would like for dinner?
Quote:

And we're back to this nonsense. You don't seem to get it, so I'll bold it for you: people crying does not necessarily constitute a problem.

"People are crying!" Okay, so the **** what? No. Seriously. So what? One thing - perhaps the only thing - that you've actually gotten right so far is that it is a matter of PERCEPTION. A healthy portion of those crybabies will eventually fire up their spreadsheeting software of choice and, like the rest of us, ultimately reach the conclusion that there's no actual merit to their butthurt. Why should anyone really give a **** about the folks who are too inept to do that?
Here, let me try it too- just because people are whining doesn't mean they don't have a point. The only argument I've heard or can think that has any merit as to why BPOs don't matter is that they can't supply the overall volume of demand, so invention is still necessary and profitable. Just because the BPOs don't completely push out invention DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO IMBALANCE!!!

Even if the problem is ONLY one of perception (it's not), that does not mean it is not a problem. Believe it or not, having happy customers is a GOOD thing for a business, and is something CCP should strive for. This is one case where they can (and should) make people happy by leveling the playing field somewhat, since players feeling they can compete = more competition in the market = good for everyone (except those who lose their monopoly).

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2010.08.11 00:14:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 11/08/2010 00:15:54
Originally by: Berikath
Edited by: Berikath on 10/08/2010 23:43:40
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

I like how you arbitrarily redefined "phased out" at the end there. Yes, they ceased introducing new ones. No, they were not phased out. No, the two are not synonymous, no matter how much you want to pretend they are.

...... I'm about 90% sure you're just trolling, but what the hell, I'll provide an actual response to this.

The old process of getting T2 goods (lottery -> BPO -> production) was phased out. Existing BPOs were not phased out, yes- but that is the very heart of my argument. PARTS of the old system were phased out, and OTHER PARTS were not.


You say this like it's somehow unacceptable. Here comes the clue train, last stop is you: If only part of something is broken, it's okay to fix only the broken part. In this case, it was the lottery the was problematic - not the BPOs themselves. The fixed the broken part.

Quote:
If you accept that the problem was that not everyone could do T2 production, then yes, invention fixed this problem. However, it is just as true that the solution CREATED ANOTHER PROBLEM!


[citation needed]

Or should we just take your word for it?

Quote:
You honestly think they aren't?


Yes, in fact, there is approximately ****-all that is analogous between them. One changed a small fraction of an existing production system. The other created a new production system entirely where none had previously existed. It was intended, by design, to eliminate the NPC market. Invention was not intended to eliminate BPOs.

Quote:
Oh, gee, I'm sorry, I forgot that you know what I'm thinking better than I do. In that case, can you perhaps tell me what I would like for dinner?


Hot wings. You're welcome.

Quote:
Here, let me try it too- just because people are whining doesn't mean they don't have a point.


True! The fact that the BPOs don't furnish nearly as much of an advantage as they believe they do is what means they don't have a point. Additionally, as the ones lobbying for change, the onus is on them to make their point - not the other way around.

Quote:
Just because the BPOs don't completely push out invention DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO IMBALANCE!!!


Define "imbalance". There's always an amusing exchange that takes place in these discussions. It goes like this.

SomeoneWhoKnowsBetter: If you think BPOs are such hot ****, buy some.
Clueless ****wit: But they're expensive and take like 5 years to pay off and totally aren't worth it. So they should be removed. Because they're overpowered. And not worth it.
SWKB: WTF, mate?


Quote:
Even if the problem is ONLY one of perception (it's not), that does not mean it is not a problem.


Again, [citation needed]. In reality, T2 BPOs are pretty much the "comfortable middle class" of production - not the elite powerhouse people imagine them to be.

Quote:
Believe it or not, having happy customers is a GOOD thing for a business, and is something CCP should strive for.


And arbitrarily ****ing with hard-earned assets to salve some clueless newb's butthurt is going to accomplish that, right?

Quote:
This is one case where they can (and should) make people happy by leveling the playing field somewhat, since players feeling they can compete = more competition in the market = good for everyone (except those who lose their monopoly).


It's already pretty level. That you don't perceive it to be is simply a personal problem.

Esculia
Gallente
Deep Space Corporation
Posted - 2010.08.11 00:48:00 - [26]
 

What i see here is that some people are really angry about this issue. It seems to be an unbalance for a large part of the game community, for another large part, the people that want some changes are all whinners so they arguments have no value and they are wasting space on forums with each thread/post.

What i think is that the problem exists, because boths sides of the argment have some merit we still didnt reach a good solution. I dont believe that just dissmising the opinions of such a large part of the community is really good.

What i believe is that CCP must choose how they want the production of T2 items being handled (actual system is just generating to many discussions)

For what i see there are two possible answers:
First one:
- T2 BPO must go from the game because invention is the way to go so all players have the same opportunity.
The alternative one:
- T2 BPO are good for the game, so we will fix invention so all players have some opportunity go get them. The chances need to be really slim, maybe 1/10000 or even 1/100000 but the perception of players will be really different if they know they could get one, even if it is almost impossible to get one this way.

Just my 2 cents (but if each post is worth 2 cents this topic is already worth millons)

Berikath
Posted - 2010.08.11 01:19:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

You say this like it's somehow unacceptable. Here comes the clue train, last stop is you: If only part of something is broken, it's okay to fix only the broken part. In this case, it was the lottery the was problematic - not the BPOs themselves. The fixed the broken part.

If only the lottery was broken, then new T2 BPOs would still be attainable. They aren't, so obviously getting T2 BPOs at all is broken. Since an item is only different from any other item, then using T2 BPOs must cause the breaking.

Quote:

[citation needed]

Or should we just take your word for it?
BPOs can produce items at a lower cost per run (higher ME) and have 0 of the overhead involved in creating invention BPCs. A producer using invention cannot compete on a per-unit basis with one using a BPO, no matter the skills involved. Items which give at least a 20% bonus to one player over another which are only in-game because they have been grandfathered in are broken.

Quote:
Yes, in fact, there is approximately ****-all that is analogous between them. One changed a small fraction of an existing production system. The other created a new production system entirely where none had previously existed.
One created a new system where none had existed before. The other created a new system where none had existed before AND eliminated a system that already existed. From where I sit, invention was a bigger change than PI to production. Other than the fact that you're just plain wrong there, the size of the change is immaterial. Both created new ways to craft goods in game, replacing the previous method of attaining them.
Quote:
It was intended, by design, to eliminate the NPC market. Invention was not intended to eliminate BPOs.
Citation please? If an item is NO LONGER AVAILABLE, that's about as close as CCP ever gets to eliminating something, at least that I've seen.

Quote:

True! The fact that the BPOs don't furnish nearly as much of an advantage as they believe they do is what means they don't have a point. Additionally, as the ones lobbying for change, the onus is on them to make their point - not the other way around.
Best ME available from invention: -1. Best ME available from BPOs? Not limited. Using a BPO with ME 1 is 15% of base mats cost cheaper than invention in the best case. 15% is a pretty big advantage. Invention has overhead costs for lab time and items consumed by normal production. BPOs do not.
Quote:
Define "imbalance".
Don't have to. there's this nifty new thing called a "dictionary". It has definitions in it. You might want to look into that.

im·bal·ance
–noun
1. the state or condition of lacking balance, as in proportion or distribution.

Simply because I do not have the capital to purchase an item (which is no longer available by original mechanics) or because the ROI for an item (WHICH IS NEVER CONSUMED, AND CAN BE RESOLD) is high does not mean that it is balanced.
Quote:
Again, [citation needed]. In reality, T2 BPOs are pretty much the "comfortable middle class" of production - not the elite powerhouse people imagine them to be.
Right back at you. Prove to me that an average industrialist could and does afford T2 BPOs. I know most of the people I know don't have 5 bil lying around to buy a BPO.

Quote:
And arbitrarily ****ing with hard-earned assets to salve some clueless newb's butthurt is going to accomplish that, right?
Yes. See any nerf in game. Ever. They all **** with someone's assets.

Quote:
It's already pretty level. That you don't perceive it to be is simply a personal problem.
lev-el
–adjective
1.having no part higher than another; having a flat or even surface

at least 15% higher per-unit costs and higher overhead != level.

alittlebirdy
Posted - 2010.08.11 02:12:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

Do you know anything about the history of T2 BPOs? Contrary to the belief of every mathematically inept BPO crybaby, they were not changed because they were "too good". First of all, I should clarify something: it wasn't a change to "T2 BPOs", but rather to the T2 production system (of which T2 BPOs are only one aspect). The purpose of the change was to make the T2 production system accessible to everyone. Invention accomplished this. Removing BPOs would not contribute to this in any way.




Really I always thought it had to do with the t2 bpo give aways being O idk fixed by CCP and the dev's spawning t2 bpo's for their own use... so o ya crap...t2 bpo's started off life as BS...

HAHA and shut up you don't know anything about how the market works... go troll somewhere else... they do need to be removed or fixed.

Aus Nova
T.A.L.O.N. Company
Posted - 2010.08.11 09:56:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: alittlebirdy
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey

Do you know anything about the history of T2 BPOs? Contrary to the belief of every mathematically inept BPO crybaby, they were not changed because they were "too good". First of all, I should clarify something: it wasn't a change to "T2 BPOs", but rather to the T2 production system (of which T2 BPOs are only one aspect). The purpose of the change was to make the T2 production system accessible to everyone. Invention accomplished this. Removing BPOs would not contribute to this in any way.




Really I always thought it had to do with the t2 bpo give aways being O idk fixed by CCP and the dev's spawning t2 bpo's for their own use... so o ya crap...t2 bpo's started off life as BS...

HAHA and shut up you don't know anything about how the market works... go troll somewhere else... they do need to be removed or fixed.

Actually, it kind of looks like you're the one trolling, how about you STFU and go away.

Aus Nova
T.A.L.O.N. Company
Posted - 2010.08.11 09:59:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Voogru
Edited by: Voogru on 10/08/2010 23:23:19
Then CCP caught some people who were making thousands of dollars a month on eBay with ISK from their T2 BPO profit...


Proof?


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