Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Zahara Cody
Imperial Corrections Service.
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:16:00 -
[61] - Quote
Even owning t2 bpos, it's still too much effort for me to even use them... most of mine sit unused until i find a buyer... people like me are taking t2 bpos out of play for months at a time... I'll still rake in more than most inventors... manufacturing, inventing, mining, PI, exploration, etc all way too much effort and not enough reward. Trading is where it's at. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:42:00 -
[62] - Quote
Trin Javidan wrote:I like the discussion that is going on. However i would like to add a few things to it. I do sence a small amoutn of hate towards the existance of T2 bpo's from you mr. Kell, and i wonder if this is coloring your point of view. As you have said; you are on the train for a long time. Well you'd be wrong there. I have no hate towards T2 BPOs specifically. I don't see the point in keeping remnants of ANY deprecated mechanic behind purely because a handful of people feel they are entitled to keep said remnants because they've chosen to pay a high price for them. T2 BPOs are not inherently expensive, they are that way because people are willing to pay more and more for them. Those choices are not a reason to keep them around.
Trin Javidan wrote:Let my try to explain it on a simple, to be understandable (and for me to type) way. If there is a farmers market where 200 people want apples, where 170 apples are supplied by farmers (invention) and 30 by their workers (T2 bpo) who bought them cheaper and are reselling; Who is making up the price and who are shooting themselves in the foot? (this is a brain thinker) You are complaining about the 0.1 isking game and all the tards that are falling for it. That is something substantialy differant! (and you are also forgetting the t2 pvp loot sellers> buy order dumps > undercutting producers) (Your claimes are adressed vs T2 bpo producers but i doubt you hvnt even thought about this one) This makes no sense, like at all. I'm not entirely sure you understand the benefit a T2 BPO producer gets. An inventor needs to pay for each run of their BPC a set cost, on top of the build cost, to produce a BPC at a lower profit rate than a researched BPO. That's a sunk cost, one they won't get back. A BPO owner doesn't need t pay that. They pay for a BPO once, can infinitely produce from it, then can resell the BPO whenever they want to recover that cost.
Trin Javidan wrote:And what about the risk of investing? I do remember EVE being all about "Risk vs reward" > T2 bpo's value where going up and down following shipsbuff's, module changes, market manipulations and major fleet doctrine changes. People didnt realised this, and it made reselling them very lucrative.
We are still taking about bought T2 bpo's not given ones (!!)
The cherry on the pie are these invention changes, to make it super clear: Invention: Invest XXX amount > profit everymonth > after xxx years you build up a capital Bought T2 bpo: Invest HUGH amount > Profit everymonth > Now -HUGH amount Except the investment still has value. The only risk you have is that your BPO goes down in value, which if you are paying attention can be preempted. The people who will lose out when the BPOs get canned will not be the main owners. The owners will cash them out for what looks like a sweet deal right before they crash, guaranteed.
Trin Javidan wrote:At invention there is no risk at all... because on the long therm you have a 53% (succes rate), at T2 bpo you have risk of value deduction, which is now the case and the crated risk has ruind previous and future profit to come. There's as much risk in invention as any other mainstream production. People can compete with your product and crush your profit margins, because people can all achieve the same level. That promotes competition, which is very healthy. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Zahara Cody
Imperial Corrections Service.
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:56:00 -
[63] - Quote
Removing T2 bpos will only make invention marginally more profitable, if at all... this is not about the viability of invention. Just come out and say it.. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:12:00 -
[64] - Quote
Zahara Cody wrote:Removing T2 bpos will only make invention marginally more profitable, if at all... this is not about the viability of invention. Just come out and say it.. You're right, It's not, which is what I've stated multiple times. It's about removing the remnants of a deprecated mechanic so the invention mechanics can be played with without having to constantly ask the question "how will T2 BPOs affect or be affected by this change".
I get it though, you make a lot of isk though trading T2 BPOs, and if they get nerfed into just collectors items or removed entirely, you'll lose that line of isk making. Suck it up buddy, it's been a long time coming. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Zahara Cody
Imperial Corrections Service.
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:17:00 -
[65] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Zahara Cody wrote:Removing T2 bpos will only make invention marginally more profitable, if at all... this is not about the viability of invention. Just come out and say it.. You're right, It's not, which is what I've stated multiple times. It's about removing the remnants of a deprecated mechanic so the invention mechanics can be played with without having to constantly ask the question "how will T2 BPOs affect or be affected by this change". I get it though, you make a lot of isk though trading T2 BPOs, and if they get nerfed into just collectors items or removed entirely, you'll lose that line of isk making. Suck it up buddy, it's been a long time coming.
Suck it up as well... you still mention invention.. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:23:00 -
[66] - Quote
Zahara Cody wrote:Suck it up as well... you still mention invention.. Lol? Are you 3?
I get it mate, you are scared you'll lose your profitable venture. There there, you'll find other way to make isk, I'm sure.
And here: It's an old mechanic which should have been removed long ago. You know this, I know this, CCP knows this. Keeping it around is not forward thinking, it's holding back progress to keep a handful of overly entitled players happy, and it's finally reached the breaking point and is likely to be removed.
There, I didn't even say the word you seem to have issues with. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Zahara Cody
Imperial Corrections Service.
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:25:00 -
[67] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Zahara Cody wrote:Suck it up as well... you still mention invention.. Lol? Are you 3? I get it mate, you are scared you'll lose your profitable venture. There there, you'll find other way to make isk, I'm sure. And here: It's an old mechanic which should have been removed long ago. You know this, I know this, CCP knows this. Keeping it around is not forward thinking, it's holding back progress to keep a handful of overly entitled players happy, and it's finally reached the breaking point and is likely to be removed. There, I didn't even say the word you seem to have issues with (which by the way, I'm not involved in if you were curious. I gain and lose nothing whichever way this goes, which less face it, we all know is not in favour of T2 BPOs).
I get it mate, you are scared you'll continue your unprofitable venture. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
589
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 04:42:00 -
[68] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's about removing the remnants of a deprecated mechanic so the invention mechanics can be played with without having to constantly ask the question "how will T2 BPOs affect or be affected by this change". And when the argument is reduced down to that, we're left deciding whether that reduction in support and development complexity is worth the loss of depth in the game.
But we players do not have the means to gauge how much that reduction in support and development complexity is worth or how much we stand to gain from it.
We can gauge the value of the loss of depth in the game, but that will be a matter of personal taste, which cannot really be debated.
But at least we've completed another turn around the ballroom and come to the same place. A difference of opinion based on taste and weakly founded speculation. |
Big Lynx
Chaotic Tranquility
638
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 05:26:00 -
[69] - Quote
Eve works well for about 8y with t2bpos. The debate of removal is driven by poor jealous fellas. Their leader: Lucas Kell |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
589
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 07:37:00 -
[70] - Quote
Big Lynx wrote:Eve works well for about 8y with t2bpos. I don't think we want to point towards the last 8 years of EVE industry as some kind of paragon.
Sure, what we've had for the last 8 years has worked (more or less) and has been interesting, but it could and really should have been a lot better. The recent and upcomming industry iterations are long overdue and well short of the mark, in my opinion.
But I do agree, T2 BPOs of the last 8 years have not been anywhere near as bad as some people claim. In fact, I probably wouldn't still be playing right now if things like T2 BPOs didn't exist.
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 07:48:00 -
[71] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:It's about removing the remnants of a deprecated mechanic so the invention mechanics can be played with without having to constantly ask the question "how will T2 BPOs affect or be affected by this change". And when the argument is reduced down to that, we're left deciding whether that reduction in support and development complexity is worth the loss of depth in the game. But we players do not have the means to gauge how much that reduction in support and development complexity is worth or how much we stand to gain from it. We can gauge the value of the loss of depth in the game, but that will be a matter of personal taste, which cannot really be debated. But at least we've completed another turn around the ballroom and come to the same place. A difference of opinion based on taste and weakly founded speculation. T2 BPO do not add depth. They give a select number of players the ability to bypass invention in favour of using T1 mechanics, so if anything, they remove depth.
And it's too late. T2 BPOs are already doomed. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
589
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 08:06:00 -
[72] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:T2 BPO do not add depth. They give a select number of players the ability to bypass invention in favour of using T1 mechanics, so if anything, they remove depth. They give every player the ability to own, collect and trade limited edition industrial assets. They give every player more things to aspire to or work towards, if they so desire. They add positive and interesting aspects to the game that otherwise would not exist.
But you don't like them, so apparently none of that matters. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 09:42:00 -
[73] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:T2 BPO do not add depth. They give a select number of players the ability to bypass invention in favour of using T1 mechanics, so if anything, they remove depth. They give every player the ability to own, collect and trade limited edition industrial assets. They give every player more things to aspire to or work towards, if they so desire. They add positive and interesting aspects to the game that otherwise would not exist. But you don't like them, so apparently none of that matters. No, I just don't think the positives outweigh the negatives. Removing their ability to produce most certainly has no impact on the depth of the game and they can still be collected. If they are collectors items, surely nobody would have an issue with their inevitable removal from the industry system, right?
And other collectors items have been removed before and I didn't see you whining about depth then. Stop holding on to deprecated mechanics and accept that the game must move forward to progress. It's gonna happen whether you want it to or not. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
590
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 10:08:00 -
[74] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I just don't think the positives outweigh the negatives. A matter of taste, which is pointless to argue over.
Lucas Kell wrote:Removing their ability to produce most certainly has no impact on the depth of the game and they can still be collected. Must you be so persistently disingenuous?
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 10:55:00 -
[75] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I just don't think the positives outweigh the negatives. A matter of taste, which is pointless to argue over. Not really. The positives are that a handful of people can use an item to undercut prices of the main producers (bearing in mind that they would still be collectables even if they didn't get used for industry). The negatives are that the invention system has to be tiptoed around when making changes so that this deprecated system won't break or be broken by the changes.
The thing is, if you issue really was that they are part of the history of EVE and are valuable collectors items, then their use as an industry item would be irrelevant.
Bad Bobby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Removing their ability to produce most certainly has no impact on the depth of the game and they can still be collected. Must you be so persistently disingenuous? I'm not. They've already knocked them down a few pegs, they've got more plans announced to knock them down further, and they've said in the past that their value as a production item will decrease considerably. Eventually they will have no place in industry, and barely a fraction of the community will even notice. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 13:18:00 -
[76] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:I just don't think the positives outweigh the negatives. A matter of taste, which is pointless to argue over. Not really. The positives are that a handful of people can use an item to undercut prices of the main producers (bearing in mind that they would still be collectables even if they didn't get used for industry). The negatives are that the invention system has to be tiptoed around when making changes so that this deprecated system won't break or be broken by the changes. The thing is, if you issue really was that they are part of the history of EVE and are valuable collectors items, then their use as an industry item would be irrelevant. Bad Bobby wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Removing their ability to produce most certainly has no impact on the depth of the game and they can still be collected. Must you be so persistently disingenuous? I'm not. They've already knocked them down a few pegs, they've got more plans announced to knock them down further, and they've said in the past that their value as a production item will decrease considerably. Eventually they will have no place in industry, and barely a fraction of the community will even notice.
So you may be like a main producer who is mad as hell that it is possible to undercut him.
OK so I am just a consumer. Do you guarantee the availability and lower price of tech 2 items if we agree to have you replace the greedy tech 2 bpo owners? If you are not big enough for this promise can you get the main producers to back you up? I mean I want a lower price lifetime guarantee and no shortages.
If you cannot guarantee this then is it not the case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? How did you arrive on the higher moral ground than tech 2 bpo owners in this debate? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 13:32:00 -
[77] - Quote
Rthor wrote:So you may be like a main producer who is mad as hell that it is possible to undercut him.
OK so I am just a consumer. Do you guarantee the availability and lower price of tech 2 items if we agree to have you replace the greedy tech 2 bpo owners? If you are not big enough for this promise can you get the main producers to back you up? I mean I want a lower price lifetime guarantee and no shortages.
If you cannot guarantee this then is it not the case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? How did you arrive on the higher moral ground than tech 2 bpo owners in this debate? I can't guarantee you anything from a producer, since I'm not a producer. I can guarantee that there will continue to be enough producers to keep the price low on the vast majority of items, since as T2 BPO holder repeatedly state, they provide a minority of the products on the market, and so their existence is irrelevant to a consumer.
It's more like, meet the new boss, who is the old boss, since invention is already the primary mechanic for T2 production. It would be nice to see invention grow as a mechanic, which won't happen while people cling onto deprecated mechanics making it harder to iterate on invention mechanics. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 13:48:00 -
[78] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rthor wrote:So you may be like a main producer who is mad as hell that it is possible to undercut him.
OK so I am just a consumer. Do you guarantee the availability and lower price of tech 2 items if we agree to have you replace the greedy tech 2 bpo owners? If you are not big enough for this promise can you get the main producers to back you up? I mean I want a lower price lifetime guarantee and no shortages.
If you cannot guarantee this then is it not the case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? How did you arrive on the higher moral ground than tech 2 bpo owners in this debate? I can't guarantee you anything from a producer, since I'm not a producer. I can guarantee that there will continue to be enough producers to keep the price low on the vast majority of items, since as T2 BPO holder repeatedly state, they provide a minority of the products on the market, and so their existence is irrelevant to a consumer. It's more like, meet the new boss, who is the old boss, since invention is already the primary mechanic for T2 production. It would be nice to see invention grow as a mechanic, which won't happen while people cling onto deprecated mechanics making it harder to iterate on invention mechanics.
What if what you call "deprecated mechanics" is really a very low yielding speculative annuity. Why do you want to take away some players' ability to speculate or invest in a low yielding annuity if as you say these BPOs are largely irrelevant to the economy?
I do not care if I buy a product made from BPO or invention. I do not care about the profit margins of whoever made the product. I barely remember last time feeling exploited by tech 2 bpo owners.
I do not think that it is a costless idea to eliminate the possibility for people with a lot of isk to lock in a tech 2 bpo even at a ridiculous price just so that they feel that when they get bored they will not have to rat again to make isk. They overpay for this right but why not preserve this option for them?
On one hand you are upset about them having tech 2 bpos, on the other hand they are upset with you trying to take it away. How is your position more defensible? How do you know that your position is what is best for the game? |
Zahara Cody
Imperial Corrections Service.
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 14:01:00 -
[79] - Quote
Hi, I'm Lucas Kell and I don't like T2 BPOs , so they should be removed... I don't even invent or produce, yo. I only wish to **** off a select few because I was too dumb to make vast amounts of isk for little or no effort... #YOLO |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 14:02:00 -
[80] - Quote
Rthor wrote:What if what you call "deprecated mechanics" is really a very low yielding speculative annuity. Why do you want to take away some players' ability to speculate or invest in a low yielding annuity if as you say these BPOs are largely irrelevant to the economy? I don't call it a deprecated mechanic, it is a deprecated mechanic because it was stopped and replaced invention. And there's no speculation, T2 BPOs produce at a lower cost than invention. People like them because when they have a heap of cash, they can buy a T2 BPO and guarantee profit on it until they choose to sell it, at which point it's normally gone up or at worst stayed stable in price. You don't need to put the BPO at risk, and you don't need to worry about other producers undercutting you, since the only way they could undercut you is by selling at less than your production cost, which would be way below theirs.
Rthor wrote:I do not think that it is a costless idea to eliminate the possibility for people with a lot of isk to lock in a tech 2 bpo even at a ridiculous price just so that they feel that when they get bored they will not have to rat again to make isk. They overpay for this right but why not preserve this option for them? Why keep a low risk and unchallengeable method of production at the cost of making invention mechanic iteration more difficult? I think the question pretty much answers itself.
Rthor wrote:On one hand you are upset about them having tech 2 bpos, on the other hand they are upset with you trying to take it away. How is your position more defensible? How do you know that your position is what is best for the game? I'm not upset about anything. Old mechanics should and usually are removed. T2 BPOs are an old mechanic, and it shouldn't be any different for them just because some people will have a sad about it. People who lost reprocessing as a career choice were just told to htfu, so why shouldn't the same be said to T2 BPO holders?
And CCP have already taken and are taking more steps to nuke T2 BPOs as is. I think it's clear what CCPs opinion on the matter is, so I'd say that speaks volumes for the validity of my position. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 14:04:00 -
[81] - Quote
Zahara Cody wrote:Hi, I'm Lucas Kell and I don't like T2 BPOs , so they should be removed... I don't even invent or produce, yo. I only wish to **** off a select few because I was too dumb to make vast amounts of isk for little or no effort... #YOLO Because T2 BPOs are the only way to make isk. True story bro.
Is that what this is all about? Do you not actually know there are other ways to make isk when CCP takes your BPOs away from you? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Zahara Cody
Imperial Corrections Service.
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 14:04:00 -
[82] - Quote
Doesn't invent or produce.. still defends it. |
Zahara Cody
Imperial Corrections Service.
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 14:11:00 -
[83] - Quote
T2 BPOs only make up about 30% of my income... I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket... this is about you attacking a source of income because you don't like it or haven't taken advantage of it. |
Rthor
Smugglers Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 14:33:00 -
[84] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Rthor wrote:What if what you call "deprecated mechanics" is really a very low yielding speculative annuity. Why do you want to take away some players' ability to speculate or invest in a low yielding annuity if as you say these BPOs are largely irrelevant to the economy? I don't call it a deprecated mechanic, it is a deprecated mechanic because it was stopped and replaced invention. And there's no speculation, T2 BPOs produce at a lower cost than invention. People like them because when they have a heap of cash, they can buy a T2 BPO and guarantee profit on it until they choose to sell it, at which point it's normally gone up or at worst stayed stable in price. You don't need to put the BPO at risk, and you don't need to worry about other producers undercutting you, since the only way they could undercut you is by selling at less than your production cost, which would be way below theirs. Rthor wrote:I do not think that it is a costless idea to eliminate the possibility for people with a lot of isk to lock in a tech 2 bpo even at a ridiculous price just so that they feel that when they get bored they will not have to rat again to make isk. They overpay for this right but why not preserve this option for them? Why keep a low risk and unchallengeable method of production at the cost of making invention mechanic iteration more difficult? I think the question pretty much answers itself. Rthor wrote:On one hand you are upset about them having tech 2 bpos, on the other hand they are upset with you trying to take it away. How is your position more defensible? How do you know that your position is what is best for the game? I'm not upset about anything. Old mechanics should and usually are removed. T2 BPOs are an old mechanic, and it shouldn't be any different for them just because some people will have a sad about it. People who lost reprocessing as a career choice were just told to htfu, so why shouldn't the same be said to T2 BPO holders? And CCP have already taken and are taking more steps to nuke T2 BPOs as is. I think it's clear what CCPs opinion on the matter is, so I'd say that speaks volumes for the validity of my position.
Populism is popular.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4278
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 15:08:00 -
[85] - Quote
Zahara Cody wrote:T2 BPOs only make up about 30% of my income... I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket... this is about you attacking a source of income because you don't like it or haven't taken advantage of it. Except it's not about that. You wish it was about that since you can easily attack that. Repeating it won't make it so. I don't dislike T2 BPOs any more than I dislike any other deprecated mechanics that get held onto at the detriment to new mechanics.
And who cares if lately I haven't taken advantage of it? Is your reasoning here that if I'm not a T2 BPO user then my opinion on industry mechanics involving is invalid? Seems like that leaves a pretty biased group as the only people allowed an opinion. Luckily you are just a random and CCP themselves are already on board with nuking T2 BPOs into the ground, so whether or not you think my opinion is valid is entirely irrelevant. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Zahara Cody
Imperial Corrections Service.
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 15:18:00 -
[86] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Zahara Cody wrote:T2 BPOs only make up about 30% of my income... I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket... this is about you attacking a source of income because you don't like it or haven't taken advantage of it. Except it's not about that. You wish it was about that since you can easily attack that. Repeating it won't make it so. I don't dislike T2 BPOs any more than I dislike any other deprecated mechanics that get held onto at the detriment to new mechanics. And who cares if lately I haven't taken advantage of it? Is your reasoning here that if I'm not a T2 BPO user then my opinion on industry mechanics involving is invalid? Seems like that leaves a pretty biased group as the only people allowed an opinion. Luckily you are just a random and CCP themselves are already on board with nuking T2 BPOs into the ground, so whether or not you think my opinion is valid is entirely irrelevant.
Speaking of random... |
I LIKE IT
HIGH RISK INVESTMENT
187
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:51:00 -
[87] - Quote
Zahara Cody wrote:Speaking of random... YES?
|
Tinu Moorhsum
Random Events
347
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:39:00 -
[88] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
BPOs are not "Bind on Pickup". You could buy them and get "the same potential end-game" etc. etc. Many who started playing well past T2 BPOs lottery had been "phased out" still got their BPOs fill.
Well.... then they failed to run the numbers. I considered it too but even before the indy fix the ROI was on a time scale that didn't make sense. Now that the copy bottle neck is gone I consider the playing field more or less leveled. At this point, the discussion is moot.
What I'll never understand, however, is that for years, when it WAS relevent, CCP didn't just collectively grow a pair and put the genie back in the bottle. They fixed it by introducing invention and then subsequently (and with great delay) fixed invention. However, they seemed to lack the balls to just say, "starting at date X all T2 BPOs will be converted to max researched T1 BPO's". The day they introduced invention all T2 BPO's should have been converted.,...but they flinched and missed their window to do the right thing.
I always found this odd. It was as though the Devs, having created the problem in the first place, were being held hostage by personal agendas and were either unable or unwilling to fix it. From a game play perspective, it was weak, it was illogical and it was unjust. Three things to which I have an incredibly strong allergy.
CCP created the best game ever, IMO, but on this point they made a mistake that was handled abysmally -- from a gaming perspective -- on every level.
T- |
Big Lynx
Chaotic Tranquility
639
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:53:00 -
[89] - Quote
I LIKE IT wrote:Zahara Cody wrote:Speaking of random... YES?
Thats why I love Eve forums. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
836
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:05:00 -
[90] - Quote
Zahara Cody wrote:T2 BPOs only make up about 30% of my income... I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket... this is about you attacking a source of income because you don't like it or haven't taken advantage of it. anyone who still had a t2 bpo as a moneymaking venture as of like 2 years ago was an utter fool given the price |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |