Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Otti Ottig
Sushi Social Society
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 07:04:00 -
[61] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:lol, well that quote does not say what you seem to think it says, those are 2 totally separate statements.
exactly, all the blabla about something I didnt even say. 2 totally separate statements, when talking about quoting = missquoting.
also I think this discussion should has found it's natural end since this happened https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4587658#post4587658 wich made pretty clear that all assumptions regarding a removal were wrong ( I know, nobody said that anyway)
now have fun backpedaling |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3388
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 07:47:00 -
[62] - Quote
Who needs to backpedal? One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. "Currently no plans" != "We will not do this", it simply means they have no actual plans in place to remove them. It's clear that long term they will either be removed or non functional, and since they can take 10+ years to become profitable, it's the type of thing you need to consider when buying now. Amusingly they've already planned a nerf by slowing down their research times and removing negative ME from invention, so they will take even longer to become profitable. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Cave Ciliatum
Super Heroes In Training
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 10:48:00 -
[63] - Quote
After reading that thread i vote for renaming "Lucas Kell" to "Removel Non Functional" cause this ongoing drivel of him sucks balls. however, I think "Removel Non Functional" lives and loves the principle of trolling and always cackling the last word. compensatoric narcissist manner, if you read his other posts in the forums. but who cares. thats internet born society. |
TijsseN
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 10:51:00 -
[64] - Quote
The whole issue i have with the T2 BPO stuff is that some people got lucky in the past and that they apparenty have received and "ISK printer", which makes manufacturing T2 stuff easier and more profitable than the normal way of invention + BPC generation. This is not a level playing field for an starting industry player, knowing that I can never catch up time wise and money with the "old money" which has T2 BPO's and ME 200 T1 BPO's. I applaud the industry changes to level the playing field so new industry players can catch up and actually compete with the jita 4-4 establishment without paying "tribute" for higly researched T1 BPO's and rare T2 BPO's.
Having T2 BPO's in game is like having apartheid form the "haves"against the rest of the community. This should be corrected so that there is a level playing field for everybody. Although removal may be a bit harsh, but adjusting the ME values or invention decryptors so that costs are comparable would resolve the issue of this unleveled playing field.
|
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
90
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 11:57:00 -
[65] - Quote
Personally I don't worry about T2 BPOs I just stick to things where they only effect a small part of the total output. Just avoid building things like cap rechargers and their effect is minimal. EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
Seith Kali
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 12:19:00 -
[66] - Quote
TijsseN wrote:
Having T2 BPO's in game is like having apartheid form the "haves"against the rest of the community.
I dunno about anyone else, but I've never owned a T2 BPO, I don't plan to and I sure as **** don't feel oppressed. Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege.-á |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 12:42:00 -
[67] - Quote
Cave Ciliatum wrote:*rage filled sperg* lol
TijsseN wrote:The whole issue i have with the T2 BPO stuff is that some people got lucky in the past and that they apparenty have received and "ISK printer", which makes manufacturing T2 stuff easier and more profitable than the normal way of invention + BPC generation. The way I see it, the main issue isn't to do with the competition from T2 BPOs, it's that they are used to generate isk but never devalue through additional supply. But that's not why they need to be removed. The reason they need to be removed is that all the time they exist, CCP have to tiptoe around invention mechanics so that they don't break it completely. They shouldn't need to work around an old system that has been removed. And when they do remove them, they shouldn't worry too much about their value, since it's a false value that doesn't reflect there realistic market value.
The people that argue to keep them are the dumbasses that thought spending billions on a blueprint that would take years to turn a profit was a worthwhile investment. But I know, I know, we're all just super jealous of all the T2 BPO owners, because we were so stupid we invested our isk in thing like plex instead. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
155
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 13:20:00 -
[68] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Amusingly they've already planned a nerf by slowing down their research times and removing negative ME from invention, so they will take even longer to become profitable.
Can you point me to the source for the removal of negative ME? In the dev blog I only see this line that applies:
"For transitioning negative ME blueprints, we're just multiplying by 10, while for negative TE we're subtracting 1 and multiplying by 20, which keeps both values roughly the same before and after for the reasons outlined above."
I cant seem to find anything that says negative ME is being removed. I honestly could have missed it with all 6 blogs having so much information. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 13:34:00 -
[69] - Quote
Volar Kang wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Amusingly they've already planned a nerf by slowing down their research times and removing negative ME from invention, so they will take even longer to become profitable. Can you point me to the source for the removal of negative ME? In the dev blog I only see this line that applies: "For transitioning negative ME blueprints, we're just multiplying by 10, while for negative TE we're subtracting 1 and multiplying by 20, which keeps both values roughly the same before and after for the reasons outlined above."I cant seem to find anything that says negative ME is being removed. I honestly could have missed it with all 6 blogs having so much information. Sure, it's here. Specifically it says:
CCP Greyscale wrote:We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)
We are going to unify ME and TE per-level research times on all blueprints. Currently it looks like most T2 and capital BPOs have different TE and ME times. We're planning on kicking T2 BPO times up to the higher of the two values, and capital ones down to the lower of the two. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Cave Ciliatum
Super Heroes In Training
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 14:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Cave Ciliatum wrote:*rage filled sperg* lol .
Uuuuhuhuhu. Did I hit a sore point? |
|
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 14:47:00 -
[71] - Quote
Cave Ciliatum wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Cave Ciliatum wrote:*rage filled sperg* lol Uuuuhuhuhu. Did I hit a sore point? With which part? It was inane rambling, hardly something I'm going to be getting teared up over. If you need to feel like a winner though, yes, I'm all shaken up. Being called "Removel Non Functional" would hurt me both emotionally and grammatically and I can't bear it. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
116
|
Posted - 2014.05.15 15:24:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)
That is a HUGE nerf to T2 BPOs.
Currently as an inventor, I use 50% more of each non-extra material in every T2 item I produce. In the future, their advantage over me will only be in the 5% to 9% range.
Then consider all of the other industry changes that will affect material requirements.
In the future, using the correct decryptors, work teams, and facilities, it will be possible for inventors to have lower material costs than the perfect BPO holder who is afraid to move it out of the station in which it has been locked for the last 10 years. |
sodney
Cybertron Technologies
348
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 05:49:00 -
[73] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. .
actually it means quite a lot what A Dev says(who reprents CCP, not his opinion in this case) . at least more than what 1000 ppl like you think/guess/mumble
|
Nex Killer
Perkone Caldari State
61
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 07:25:00 -
[74] - Quote
sodney wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. . actually it means quite a lot what A Dev says(who reprents CCP, not his opinion in this case) . at least more than what 1000 ppl like you think/guess/mumble What one dev says doesn't mean anything at all. I remember CCP Falcon commenting on reddit about the rumor of World of Darkness being canned and him saying:
Quote:This is nothing more than a rumor with no basis of fact. Hope that's enough of a confirmation for you guys. :)
Not even a week later they canned the game and people on both reddit and the forums called him out on how he just lied to everyone. He even commented on both reddit and the forums about being called out :
Quote:As I've said to other replies, feel free to call me out on this, but out of respect for those who have been let go in Atlanta, and their families, I wasn't prepared to let rumors build over the weekend before we could speak to people, and whoever was posting information was wholly irresponsible and completely wrong in doing so.
There's a time, a place, and a proper procedure for doing stuff like this, and that involves not being disrespectful and rumor mongering.
So don't believe what one Dev says or sometimes what CCP even says.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/22td7a/storm_on_the_horizon_wod_appears_to_be_cancelled/cgq9los
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/230cnr/ccp_games_halts_development_of_world_of_darkness/cgs4z85 |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 07:52:00 -
[75] - Quote
sodney wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. . actually it means quite a lot what A Dev says(who reprents CCP, not his opinion in this case) . at least more than what 1000 ppl like you think/guess/mumble What Nex said.
Also, if you don't believe it, then please, buy all of the T2 BPOs you can. Your bad investments are not an issue for me. But when they get nerfed into non-existence, you damn well better not be back here crying about it. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Aluka 7th
150
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 08:02:00 -
[76] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:sodney wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. . actually it means quite a lot what A Dev says(who reprents CCP, not his opinion in this case) . at least more than what 1000 ppl like you think/guess/mumble What Nex said. Also, if you don't believe it, then please, buy all of the T2 BPOs you can. Your bad investments are not an issue for me. But when they get nerfed into non-existence, you damn well better not be back here crying about it.
Basically when CCP dev with beer in his hand on fan fest says something you like to hear about T2 BPO if you drag it out of context, then that is true. And then CCP dev writes on forum something to explain the context (and that you got it wrong) and says something you don't like to hear then we should take with grain of salt and/or he is lying. Facepalm. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 09:44:00 -
[77] - Quote
Aluka 7th wrote:Basically when CCP dev with beer in his hand on fan fest says something you like to hear about T2 BPO, if you drag it out of context, then that is "the truth" and some individuals make news items and fill blogs with that "truth" of sky falling for T2 BPOs. But if CCP dev writes on forum something to explain the context (and that you got it wrong) and says something you don't like to hear then we should take his words with grain of salt and/or he is lying. Facepalm. lol, he didn't have a beer in his hand, he was in the industry panel, specifically answering a question about T2 BPOs. Yes, I take more from what he says that a dev who is stopping rumours on the forum with a snippet of text. Perhaps if he made an announcement post it would hold more power.
And the removal of T2 BPOs makes sense. They are an old mechanic which is no longer used and they make it difficult to work with invention mechanics as they have to watch how it affects T2 BPOs. So the options are separate them or remove them. Well separation was suggested in the panel and they outright stated that they would not be doing that. They also explicity stated that T2 BPO value would be goign down, and stated that there would be a "transitional plan" rather than just taking them away and saying "screw you". You can go watch this yourself if you want and make your own conclusions. But all of that leads me to believe their time is limited, and with them taking years to become profitable that's something people will want to consider sooner rather than later.
But honestly, if you don't want to believe it and you want to bury your head in the sand, then go right ahead. I don't actually care where you invest your isk, but if they remove them and you lose billions, then don't come crying on these forums about how mean it is, since you were given adequate warning. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Aluka 7th
150
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 10:05:00 -
[78] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Aluka 7th wrote:Basically when CCP dev with beer in his hand on fan fest says something you like to hear about T2 BPO, if you drag it out of context, then that is "the truth" and some individuals make news items and fill blogs with that "truth" of sky falling for T2 BPOs. But if CCP dev writes on forum something to explain the context (and that you got it wrong) and says something you don't like to hear then we should take his words with grain of salt and/or he is lying. Facepalm. lol, he didn't have a beer in his hand, he was in the industry panel, specifically answering a question about T2 BPOs. Yes, I take more from what he says that a dev who is stopping rumours on the forum with a snippet of text. Perhaps if he made an announcement post it would hold more power. And the removal of T2 BPOs makes sense. They are an old mechanic which is no longer used and they make it difficult to work with invention mechanics as they have to watch how it affects T2 BPOs. So the options are separate them or remove them. Well separation was suggested in the panel and they outright stated that they would not be doing that. They also explicity stated that T2 BPO value would be goign down, and stated that there would be a "transitional plan" rather than just taking them away and saying "screw you". You can go watch this yourself if you want and make your own conclusions. But all of that leads me to believe their time is limited, and with them taking years to become profitable that's something people will want to consider sooner rather than later. But honestly, if you don't want to believe it and you want to bury your head in the sand, then go right ahead. I don't actually care where you invest your isk, but if they remove them and you lose billions, then don't come crying on these forums about how mean it is, since you were given adequate warning.
Ah, then I guess THANK YOU guys and specially Goons for so many warnings not to invest in T2BPO. Usually people from corps most active through these T2 BPO threads are not that helpful regarding other things but people change and I'm glad you are giving back to community. Let me know when you start doubling my ISK. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 11:04:00 -
[79] - Quote
Aluka 7th wrote:Ah, then I guess THANK YOU guys and specially Goons for so many warnings not to invest in T2BPO. Usually people from corps most active through these T2 BPO threads are not that helpful regarding other things but people change and I'm glad you are giving back to community. Let me know when you start doubling my ISK. lol, such sarcasm. I love how people are so dead set against the CFC, that everything we do must be a manipulation. What people fail to realise is that if we were manipulating, we could be doing it either way. I mean we might be purposely telling you the truth aggressively so you'll think we are manipulating so you do the exact opposite and start buying T2 BPOs, right? That's just as reasonable an assumption as us wanting to get people selling. Of course, there is also the possibility that we don't actually care either way, but want to ensure people are 100% definitely aware that T2 BPOs are a bad investment so that when people invest in them and lose out we can say "but you were told right here [link]".
In truth though, it doesn't matter. You've got all the info, you've heard all the opinions, now make your own decisions. If you think T2s are a good investment, buy, if not, don't. That's entirely your choice. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 13:07:00 -
[80] - Quote
In addition to the above, in the other thread an interesting point was shown. CCP Eterne has now edited the anti-rumour post. Note that the word "immediate" was added, so there are no "immediate" plans to remove T2 BPOs. That's even more telling than had it said "immediate" originally, since it indicates a conscious decision to go back and make that part clear.
Still think that post is strong enough to encourage you to invest in T2 BPOs? The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
|
Cave Ciliatum
Super Heroes In Training
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 15:01:00 -
[81] - Quote
Why the heck you dare to discuss with lucas? Don't you know he's always right? |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 15:36:00 -
[82] - Quote
Cave Ciliatum wrote:Why the heck you dare to discuss with lucas? Don't you know he's always right? Certainly not always, but I tend to post when I'm sure of something. Besides, I could be wrong here, they might never do anything, right? So go invest in T2 BPOs. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Otti Ottig
Sushi Social Society
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.16 22:03:00 -
[83] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Certainly not always, but I tend to post when I'm sure of something. Besides, I could be wrong here, they might never do anything, right? So go invest in T2 BPOs. eh? you sure about what? the removal? really? even after CCP stated in the easiest and clearest words they would ever do that they won't do that
but yea reading between all these lines I know you have found the truth about their real intentions.
I mean right now the water is up to your chest and you didnt understand that the ship is lost.
Nex Killer wrote: What one dev says doesn't mean anything at all. I remember CCP Falcon commenting on reddit about the rumor of World of Darkness being canned and him saying:
right, so what one DEV said in the offcial Forums... even with the very clear words (rare for CCP) "An FYI to cease the rumor mongering that is happening in this (and other) threads:" Means absolutely nothing because it already happened once that a another CCP dev said on a external and unrelated forum and changed his mind a week later.
So when they are playing oposite day all the time they might even boost all T2 BPO's and nerf invention to the ground, did a DEV ever denie it? probably true then.
Lucas Kell wrote: Your bad investments are not an issue for me. But when they get nerfed into non-existence, you damn well better not be back here crying about it. pretty harsh to call something a bad investment that cost me about 10% of what it's worth now and has prolly made 500% profit of the invested isk by now |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 02:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
Otti Ottig wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Certainly not always, but I tend to post when I'm sure of something. Besides, I could be wrong here, they might never do anything, right? So go invest in T2 BPOs. eh? you sure about what? the removal? really? even after CCP stated in the easiest and clearest words they would ever do that they won't do thatbut yea reading between all these lines I know you have found the truth about their real intentions. I mean right now the water is up to your chest and you didnt understand that the ship is lost. OK, so explain exactly why CCP Eterne, who is the only person to state that T2 BPOs would not be removed (which itself is counter to what was said in the industry panel) felt the need to change "we have no plans" to "we have no immediate plans"? Seems to me that the only reason you would make that change is if it was pointed out that those plans do exist long term. If you have an alternate reason though, feel free to let me know.
Otti Ottig wrote:right, so what one DEV said in the offcial Forums... even with the very clear words (rare for CCP) "An FYI to cease the rumor mongering that is happening in this (and other) threads:" Means absolutely nothing because it already happened once that a another CCP dev said on a external and unrelated forum and changed his mind a week later.
So when they are playing oposite day all the time they might even boost all T2 BPO's and nerf invention to the ground, did a DEV ever controverted it? probably true then. Actually, invention is the way forward that will be iterated, which they've stated multiple times. It won't be in the first industry releases but will be in the second set we are told. That said, they;ve already announced plans to nerf T2 BPOs by upping the build costs on all T2 items and giving invented BPCs a positive ME, which will shrink the profit margins of a BPO considerably.
Otti Ottig wrote:pretty harsh to call something a bad investment that cost me about 10% of what it's worth now and has prolly made 500% profit of the invested isk by now That entirely depends on when you bought it. Years ago it wasn't a necessarily a bad investment. For anyone buying them now though, it is. And for anyone holding onto them now, it is. Their value will go down. I find it funny that someone that thinks they have such a good investment though would have no idea what their actual profit is and would just guess at percentages. I smell a bullshitter. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Cave Ciliatum
Super Heroes In Training
19
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 05:16:00 -
[85] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I smell a bullshitter.
Yeah. Take a shower plz lukas |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 11:25:00 -
[86] - Quote
Cave Ciliatum wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I smell a bullshitter. Yeah. Take a shower plz lukas Wow, such a witty retort! Same we're not in school really.
And how about you respond to the actual post. If I'm the one here talking BS, why did the "we have no plans" post get changes to say "no immediate plans"? If there's no long term plans, the original text would have held. The only reason for the change is if they were told in the background that there are in fact long term plans to remove T2 BPOs. It really doesn't matter how much you kick and scream and try to attack me personally (poorly), the facts will not change.
The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Otti Ottig
Sushi Social Society
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 17:20:00 -
[87] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: OK, so explain exactly why CCP Eterne, who is the only person to state that T2 BPOs would not be removed (which itself is counter to what was said in the industry panel).
lol... why don't you explain exactly how it counters anything that has been said on the industry panel? nobody said anything baout a removal and that's exactly what eterne pointed out. It's only your opinion that they hinted it and you simply don't want to understand that even after a offical confirmation.
Lucas Kell wrote: f I'm the one here talking BS, why did the "we have no plans" post get changes to say "no immediate plans"?.
really is that all you got, now? We can't see what he has edited but both versions mean pretty much the same thing. And as the sentence stands right now, they've made the most clear statement about a not coming removal.
Lucas Kell wrote: I find it funny that someone that thinks they have such a good investment though would have no idea what their actual profit is and would just guess at percentages. I smell a bullshitter.
judging by your rage against us T2 BPO owners you can't have made too much profit yet so I'll let that pass. the profit u've made in 8 years is quite hard to put in numbers and totally unrelated for this discussion....but yea totally a sign that i'm the bullshitter. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3389
|
Posted - 2014.05.17 19:43:00 -
[88] - Quote
Otti Ottig wrote:lol... why don't you explain exactly how it counters anything that has been said on the industry panel? nobody said anything baout a removal and that's exactly what eterne pointed out. It's only your opinion that they hinted it and you simply don't want to understand that even after a offical confirmation. Maybe you should actually watch the industry panel, then it might make sense. He clearly stated they would go down in value. He clearly stated they don;t wnat to take them away and say screw you, there would be a transitional plan. Take that in context. He means a transitional plan to take them away. Or maybe you though he meant "we wont take them away and just say screw you, there will be a transitional plan into keeping them around forever, so no transitional plan at all". Seriously guy, I shouldnt have to walk you step by step though common sense.
Otti Ottig wrote:really is that all you got, now? We can't see what he has edited but both versions mean pretty much the same thing. And as the sentence stands right now, they've made the most clear statement about a not coming removal. Actually, thanks to eve-search we can see exactly what was edited. And no, the 2 statements do not mean the same thing, and if they did, why edit them? IT was edited because "we have no plans" is false. They have no plans to do it right now, but they certainly have long term plans to do it.
Otti Ottig wrote:judging by your rage against us T2 BPO owners you can't have made too much profit yet so I'll let that pass. the profit u've made in 8 years is quite hard to put in numbers and totally unrelated for this discussion....but yea totally a sign that i'm the bullshitter. L O L I have no "rage" against T2 BPO owners, I couldn't care less what you want to invest your isk in. For most T2 BPOs, if the same isk was invested in plex, the profits would be far superior, since they take so long just to eek out some profit. Anyone getting on the bandwagon in the past few years was making an incredible mistake.
All I'm doing here is pointing out the facts. If T2s weren't holding back changes to invention ( a live mechanic) I wouldn't really care less about them. But you are filled with rage here, because you are scared that your already crappy investments are going to love value, and they will, CCP stated that in the industry panel quite clearly (go check).
And by the way, if you've made investments into T2s, and you don't know you own profit margins off of them, then you are hardly an authority on long term economics. I've had a look through your posts. All you tend to do is jump into posts and badmouth people with for the most part complete nonsense arguments. If you want to actually address any of the points made in this thread, go ahead, but just going "NOPE!" then babbling off paragraphs of schoolyard style arguments in broken English isn't really proving any kind of point.
Then finally, like I've said multiple times. If you don;t believe me, then by all means invest in as many T2 BPOs as you want. I really don't care if you investment value drops to zero because you were too dumb to read what CCP are quite clearly stating. when they do remove them and you start spewing off mountains of sperg rage at them, I'll be able to link you back to your own posts here and say "told you so". So thanks for that. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
DeODokktor
Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
31
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 08:08:00 -
[89] - Quote
Yawnnnn... Same story, every year...
New people posting...
Tech2 bpo's are not the problem, users are.
If CCP changes waste on Invention from 10% to 0%, people will just change their price and then moan that tech2 bpo holders are holding them back.
If you dig through the forums you will find Invention-Only items sometimes cursed by those tech2 bpo owners that do not exist.
I have some tech2 bpo's that have NEVER seen a profit since the day Invention rolled out.
If CCP would change tech2 to be 100% refineable then that would be a huge change to the existing market. I used to purchase some tech2 gear daily to move and resell, I was making more buying and moving than I was with producing. Basic Mathematics is where the problem is, not tech2 bpo's.
Mine have been sitting idle now for over 12 months (about 19 I think) and the world has not changed. My 19 AuroraS bpo's are still not worth using, My hawks still sell like crap, 50mm plate II's are not popular, large cap bat II's are laughable...
But I guess it's all my (and the other owners) fault for those horrible markets.
CCP has not stated how many of the bpo's are in game, I bet a lot of you would be both surprised at how many were in game, how many are in game now, and how many have been used over the past year. I know of hundreds of prints that exited the game years ago in one single event, a lot of new events have taken place since then.
Tech2 bpo's are not the problem, producers are the problem. The market is clear to see, if YOU invent something that has negative income and then undercut the competition, then the blame shouldn't be on "someone else".... |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3391
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 09:13:00 -
[90] - Quote
DeODokktor wrote:Tech2 bpo's are not the problem, users are.
If CCP changes waste on Invention from 10% to 0%, people will just change their price and then moan that tech2 bpo holders are holding them back. Nobody is saying T2 BPOs are "the problem", at lease not in the way you mean. The issue is that changes to invention mechanics that affect the BPCs will also affect T2 BPOs, so CCP have to carefully work around them. Removing them is the simplest way to separate out invention short of making the BPOs and BPCs not affect each other (which CCP said they definitely will not do).
And they are cutting invention waste from 50% to between 2% and 5%. Expect invented BPCs to become considerably more competitive.
DeODokktor wrote:Mine have been sitting idle now for over 12 months (about 19 I think) and the world has not changed. My 19 AuroraS bpo's are still not worth using, My hawks still sell like crap, 50mm plate II's are not popular, large cap bat II's are laughable...
But I guess it's all my (and the other owners) fault for those horrible markets. So you made a bad investment. Nobody is saying anything is your fault, and theres no blame being cast about. The idea of removing T2 BPOs is not a personal crusade against the owners, it's simply the way forward. Invention is the new mechanic for T2 production, and the BPOs are going to become redundant at some point. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |