| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Abrazzar
    |
Posted - 2008.10.10 00:33:00 -
[301]
 Originally by: Vigilant
Otherwise, CCP will not remove them, due to the flak they will recieve from the 100's of owners.
Tbh, a few hundred people quitting won't have much of an impact on the player base. That's a monthly fluctuation, probably even less.
--------
Ideas for: Mining
 |
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 09:50:00 -
[302]
I think this thread could do with a little history lesson. Not of the thread, I think we've seen enough strawman arguments lately, but off the introduction of T2 BPOs and invention. I was there for most of the way, so I think I can give a good account of it.
When T2 was introduced, CCP needed to introduce T2 BPOs as well. T2 BPOs could have been introduced through the market, but they weren't. The reason behind that was because that would make T2 production the same as T1 production, only, presumably, more expensive. And T2 had to be different, 'special'. So CCP went another route, they introduced the T2 lottery.
Reception of the T2 lottery was poor from the get go. The reason for the poor reception was that acquiring a T2 BPO was purely chance-based and that acquisition of a T2 BPO would give a few players huge market power they could, and as we've seen, did, abuse. And although it was possible to skew the chances somewhat (by having loads of R&D alts and second characters) because it was a lottery, this could, and did, mean that even while putting a lot of effort in you'd end up empty-handed.
Also, CCP 'seeded' only a very limited number of T2 BPOs, basically just enough to get T2 production going, while keeping it expensive. The result was that the T2 commodity market was almost without competition. Formal and informal cartels were the norm. For example, modules like T2 cloaks, T2 Cap Rechargers, and ships like Hulks had market prices that were way out of proportion from their true values and utility. T2 BPO owners abused their market power from the get go to create fabulous wealth, while others had no recourse to limit it, or share in it. And so, there was a lot of complaining.
At first CCP didn't react to the complaints, hoping that the market would self-compensate and break the strangle-hold T2 BPO owners had on it. That never happened, as there was no mechanism that could do so. Eventually, CCP recognised this, stated that the T2 lottery was a mistake, halted the lottery and set about to correct their mistake and provide a replacement.
And so Invention was introduced as a replacement of the T2 lottery. It provided every player an equal opportunity into the T2 market but still had elements of chance. The high investments needed to initiate and maintain T2 production meant that T2 prices would be higher than T1 prices, and provide CCP with a means to apply market correction when and where necessary. It ticked, and ticks all the boxes, but may need some adjustment in some places.
But invention touched on a lot of aspects in EVE in ways that were difficult to predict before introduction. So, while recognising T2 BPOs as an unfair advantage to inventors, they were kept into the game as a back-up plan, an insurance that the T2 markets would not collapse.
They may not have needed to be so worried, because invention did catch on, and its effects were direct and positive. Cartels were broken up and T2 module market prices came down to more realistic levels. There are now scores of inventors in the game, providing ample supply of T2 goods to an insatiable demand. T2 BPO owners are also still there, competing with inventors, but with the advantage that they can produce T2 good cheaper, and thus earn more profit. Because of this, in some instances, market penetration by inventors is limited to non-existent, which is causing problems. The advantage T2 BPO owners have in those cases is simply too great to overcome.
And this is where we are now. The only action remaining is to complete the T2 journey to its final destination, i.e., removal of the T2 BPOs. There is no longer a need for an insurance against T2 market collapse, and removal would mean an end to the abuse of a discredited system that has been replaced. As a result of the removal, all players will have equal opportunity 'to get a piece of the T2 market pie' and markets will finally be able to be both free and efficient. What are we waiting for?
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Laadvark
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 11:28:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Providing valid analogy? Fail!
Acknowledging problem? Fail!
Avoiding name-calling? Fail!
Address the subject at hand? Fail!
Summary reflects earlier statements? Fail!
You Fail! Better luck next time ...[/quote
LOL, are all your toys out of the pram yet? |
Aeco Feife
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 16:59:00 -
[304]
Two things are going on here, and they reflect a distinction that is particularly important in economics.
1) Positive economic analysis of T2 markets. The economics of t1 good markets, the t2 bpo lottery, and invention all have some interesting economic dimensions.
T2 BPOs were not distributed randomly, the lottery was among characters with the appropriate research points. People worked a good bit to maximize their chances. ItÆs still the case that reward and effort were imperfectly mapped together, but they were related. I strategically specialized in laser physics research points and got four lame BPOÆs (one module, one ammo and two mining crystals). Ship BPOs were generally the most valuable, so many/most folks sought only ship-related research points.
After BPOs were distributed, then some markets saw cartels form. The most effective were the Hulk and the covert-ops cloak, but the cap recharger market had a good cartel for a while. As soon as invention was announced, the cartels began breaking up (in a manner perfectly predicted by relevant economic theory). The Hulk was initially left out of invention, so it attracted lots of isk until that was fixed but it eventually met the same fate.
Economically, invention killed the market power that allowed cartels to form. Cartels are always fragile, but are at their strongest when capacity (quantities) is constrained. The very possibility that quantities could enter the market from outside the cartel shattered them. Look at the graphs, if they are still available.
2) Normative consideration of game aspects. Most of the discussion here is about the way Eve ôshouldö be. Fairness, caring about consumers, being noob-friendly, etc are not elements necessary to Eve or any MMO, but are preferences people have. There is no right answer. The T2 BPO lottery introduced some randomness, but all games have randomness. If you donÆt like this particular type of randomness, then it makes sense to argue against it. But youÆre not right (or wrong).
If you want to get all meta about the game, then the dev's have to consider player and potential player preferences over these characteristics to compete in the MMO market. But even here there is no ôrightö answer. Eve doesnÆt have to be the ôfairö MMO, but it can be. We vote with our feet.
Bottom line:
Most of yall are saying ôI assert Eve should be fair in this dimension, but harsh in that oneö and arguing over preferences. Nothing wrong with that, but none of yall are right either.
The economics of markets, on the other hand, are subject to right and wrong interpretations. I can be right or wrong, and anybody can debate it. But there is some real substance to argue over.
|
Catherine Frasier
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 19:10:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Aeco Feife
T2 BPOs were not distributed randomly, the lottery was among characters with the appropriate research points.
T2 BPOs were distributed randomly. That the individuals involved had unequally weighted chances or that not all players were among the possible recipients doesn't change that fact.
Originally by: Aeco Feife
Most of yall are saying ôI assert Eve should be fair in this dimension, but harsh in that oneö and arguing over preferences.
The opposite of fair is not harsh, it's unfair. Eve can be, should be, and in most cases is both fair and harsh. You should have the same opportunities to succeed as anyone else in the game but if you fail or if you're beaten then that's just too damn bad. What's wrong with that? |
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 10:32:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Aeco Feife
... a well thought out post ...
Yes, there are two things going on, but they are two sides of the same coin, there is clear causality. And the invention replacement has only lessened the negative effect T2 BPOs have on the market, it has not removed unfairness.
Economically, invention didn't kill cartels outright. In most instances it did however lessen the effect cartels have. It didn't shatter them, it lessened their abuse. In most markets outside Jita and the hubs, cartels are still in place, for some commodities even within these market hubs. The market power of T2 BPO owners is still substantial. Although they lost absolute market control, implicit market power is still there because T2 BPO owners can control who can compete on that market. T2 BPO owners still form an oligopoly, and the idea that their collusion is tacit instead of overt doesn't matter. The fact that the market power is capped by invention hasn't stopped them from engaging in predatory pricing, or the creation of overcapacity in the T2 market. All in all, their unilateral anti-competitive behaviour creates an economic deadweight loss and stands in the way of perfect competition. This is 'unfair', undesirable, and should be addressed. I think that's enough real substance to advocate T2 BPOs removal on its own.
But it should also be addressed because of the wider influence this has on the game. From my point of view, this isn't about caring for customers. In some parts of the market, prices will rise with the removal of T2 BPOs. This isn't about being noob-friendly either, as T2 production through invention is complicated, involved, and requires a lot of skills. This puts it out of range for new players. However, new players can still have the goal to competing in the T2 inventors market. But with T2 BPOs, it is disheartening to know that even after doing everything possible, you'll still be an institutional second-tier player compared to T2 BPO owners.
But when it comes to fairness in games, there is only one answer possible. All games should be fair, if not, they will not be played. This is not about randomness in games, it's about equal opportunities, having a fair shot at every aspect of the game. In EVE, I don't have a 'fair' shot at getting into the T2 BPO racket. The lottery gave away a huge advantage to a randomly chosen few, that others can no longer get and never equal. The latter half of that sentence is important, the fact that the few were randomly chosen is not.
Voting with our feet is also often brought up, but is a silly argument. There are many parts to EVE, the fact that this one is unfair means that less players will engage in it. If this is what you mean by voting with out feet, then it's already happening.
This is not about fair opposed to harsh. As Catherine Frasier said, fair is opposed with unfair, not harsh. Without T2 BPOs, the T2 market will still be harsh, more so even. Harsh is opposed with safe and easy, and with all the investments necessary, all the skill requirements, and all the T2 market PvP, invention will never be easy or safe. In fact, it should be clear by now that T2 BPOs is T2 production and profit on easy street. So if you're arguing for harsh, you should support T2 BPO removal and throw these lazy bums into the snakepit that's T2 invention.
I think that's what these T2 BPO owners are so afraid off: having to actually compete on an equal footing!
T2 BPO delenda est
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 11:13:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Pnandor
What would happen if isk sellers get hands of these T2 BPO's ohhh nevermind perhaps it's too late already 
Before invention and the last T2 BPO seeding there was a cartel of BPO owners selling isk. CCP broke the carte and reseeded those BPo (it is in one of the dev blog about the second BPO lottery).
Today any intelligent isk seller will stay well away from the T2 BPO. If the account owning them is banned they lose a large quantity of isk and the mean to product them. At the same time for isk seller the ROI (return of investment) is paramount. They need a fast return as there are good chances that the character and his assets will survive only some months.
So a ratting Raven with cloak to use in 0,0, for a total cost of maybe 150 millions a a return of 15-20 millions hour is a good investment for them (in 10 hour ratting they would have recovered the isk investment), something that return a 2% of the initial investment every month is a bad investment.
It is instead possible that there are isk buyers that purchase T2 BPO with brought isk.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 11:25:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
I think this thread could do with a little history lesson.
Your history lesson is right til this point:
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Eventually, CCP recognised this, stated that the T2 lottery was a mistake, halted the lottery and set about to correct their mistake and provide a replacement.
And so Invention was introduced as a replacement of the T2 lottery.
CCP didn't halted the lottery when introducing invention. They had competed the first seeding of the T2 BPO several months before that.
Exactly at the same time when invention was introduced (Kali) the second seeding of T2 BPO started too.
Invention was introduced as a system to keep in check the sell prices of T2 items, giving an alternate method of production that was convenient to use when the T2 items had too high prices.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
And this is where we are now. The only action remaining is to complete the T2 journey to its final destination, i.e., removal of the T2 BPOs. There is no longer a need for an insurance against T2 market collapse, and removal would mean an end to the abuse of a discredited system that has been replaced. As a result of the removal, all players will have equal opportunity 'to get a piece of the T2 market pie' and markets will finally be able to be both free and efficient. What are waiting for?
That is your goal, was never stated as CCP goal.
|
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 11:52:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Your history lesson is right til this point:
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Eventually, CCP recognised this, stated that the T2 lottery was a mistake, halted the lottery and set about to correct their mistake and provide a replacement. And so Invention was introduced as a replacement of the T2 lottery.
CCP didn't halted the lottery when introducing invention. They had competed the first seeding of the T2 BPO several months before that.
True, and this is what I said. CCP halted further seeding of the lottery because they recognised it was a mistake. Then they set about to correct their mistake and provide a replacement. Invention was that replacement.
Quote:
Exactly at the same time when invention was introduced (Kali) the second seeding of T2 BPO started too.
Which Kali, we had several of them. I am not aware of any T2 BPO being seeded after the introduction of invention. As far as I'm aware, the lottery halted and wasn't started up again.
Quote:
Invention was introduced as a system to keep in check the sell prices of T2 items, giving an alternate method of production that was convenient to use when the T2 items had too high prices.
No, that's what you want it to be. CCP made it absolutely clear that invention was a replacement for the whole T2 mechanism, and that the lottery would not come back. Not an alternative production method, a replacement! Until you can show me dev blogs, or forum posts, or other verifiable sources that can support your position, I'm afraid that I'll have to stand with the commonly accepted one.
Quote:
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
And this is where we are now. The only action remaining is to complete the T2 journey to its final destination, i.e., removal of the T2 BPOs. There is no longer a need for an insurance against T2 market collapse, and removal would mean an end to the abuse of a discredited system that has been replaced. As a result of the removal, all players will have equal opportunity 'to get a piece of the T2 market pie' and markets will finally be able to be both free and efficient. What are waiting for?
That is your goal, was never stated as CCP goal.
Clearly, this is my goal, and I'm arguing that it should also be CCP's goal.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 12:54:00 -
[310]
It is only fair that I back up some of my claims. So here are some quotes from CCP.
From Oveur's dev blog here (emphasis mine, comments in italics): Originally by: Oveur
We think it's time. It's time to do what has been on the wishlist for a long time, removing the blueprint original lottery. It's not just that we have the Invention to replace it with but we think that with recent events, it's important that we move this transition up in priority. You have lost faith in the lottery and we should address that [lack of faith was partially the result of the t20 incident].
About T2 BPOs in that same blog:
Originally by: Oveur
How do we then get blueprint originals in the future?
The short answer, is that you don't. When we transition over to Invention, we would accelerate the last blueprint lotteries. It's only fair that the ones that are already scheduled to go out be delivered [this may be what Venkul Mul was talking about]. But say that we do the transition in Revelations 1.4, we would be accelerating the current schedule by 4 months[that is before introduction of invention]. After that, Invention - the player driven way to achieve Tech 2 blueprint copies would be the only way to get into Tech 2.
All this before Invention was introduced (hence the "when we transition ..."), before CCP knew how it would turn out in practice.
In Kieron's post about invention (here) after invention was introduced, he states:
Originally by: Kieron
The short answer is this: We are looking at Invention as a system to replace the current BP lottery. We want your feedback on whether you think it is a viable and fair replacement, and if the community's consensus is that the backbone systems, Invention, Salvaging, Hacking, Exploration, etc. are balanced enough to replace the Lottery [that consensus wasn't reached, there were lots of complains about the fairness of invention in relation to T2 BPO owners then, and this has remained until today].
Later on in that post he sheds some light about T2 BPO removal as well:
Originally by: Kieron
Regarding the question of more BPOs, where they come from, turning older BPOs int BPCs. There isn't an answer to that. It's almost impossible to achieve a mechanic for putting out such immense treasures like Ship BPOs while the "lesser" BPOs aren't in money-printing-territory, making those BPOs unfairly biased by the need to make Ship BPOs "fairly" distributed.
and
Originally by: Kieron
Current Tech 2 BPOs will certainly not be removed [he means outright, or at this time, or without compensation, see original post]. There are more than 10.000 out there, far from all of them being something really sought after. However, it's certainly worth investigating turning them into very high run BPCs like was done with the old Infinite copies but I'd say that the ability to work with them more (research etc.) would be an absolute prerequisite before doing anything like that.
All this at a time when invention had just been introduced, and large wrinkles were still being ironed out. Even at that time CCP was looking at ways in which to remove the unfair advantage T2 BPO owners have over inventors. Several options are considered in that post, for example: ability to improve invented T2 BPCs through 'reverse engineering', or replacement of T2 BPOs with long-run T2 BPCs.
In fact all CCP's posts on this matter are consistent on the following things: 1. Invention is a replacement of the T2 lottery, 2. T2 BPO owners have an unfair advantage over investors, and 3. that advantage will be negated through some means. So there you have it.
It's been a long time since the introduction of invention, I'm arguing that now is the time to remove that unfairness, by whatever means.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
|
Niedar
MASS
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 13:46:00 -
[311]
Edited by: Niedar on 11/10/2008 13:47:21
Edited by: Niedar on 11/10/2008 13:46:06
Sorry your just plain wrong, T2 BPO's are not unfair. You have the option of buying them, they removed the unfair part which was the lottery a long time ago. Im saying this and I have never owned a T2 BPO and their not very profitable today anyways unless you have hundreds of billions of isk. Th reason is that T2 BPO's allow you to invest your capital easier but provide less return.
If you take out T2 BPO's your profits will go up for a short period of time until people realize that a large profit is being made and then there is a large influx to invention over saturating the market, then you back where you started.
They will even go below build cost as it will be just like producing T1, people think their datacores are "free" and so they undercut below what the opportunity cost is.
------------------
|
MinerGod
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 02:12:00 -
[312]
Time for the introduction of the T3 BPO to appear on the market and level the manufacturing field for everyone. If you can not afford it there is always invention.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 06:09:00 -
[313]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Your history lesson is right til this point:
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Eventually, CCP recognised this, stated that the T2 lottery was a mistake, halted the lottery and set about to correct their mistake and provide a replacement. And so Invention was introduced as a replacement of the T2 lottery.
CCP didn't halted the lottery when introducing invention. They had competed the first seeding of the T2 BPO several months before that.
True, and this is what I said. CCP halted further seeding of the lottery because they recognised it was a mistake. Then they set about to correct their mistake and provide a replacement. Invention was that replacement.
Quote:
Exactly at the same time when invention was introduced (Kali) the second seeding of T2 BPO started too.
Which Kali, we had several of them. I am not aware of any T2 BPO being seeded after the introduction of invention. As far as I'm aware, the lottery halted and wasn't started up again.
Note the dates:
2007.02.16 13:40
Our research has been fruitful. I believe we could have a patentable Barrage M Blueprint. Contact me as soon as possible if you're interested.
2007.03.09 14:39
Our research has been fruitful. I believe we could have a patentable Quake L Blueprint. Contact me as soon as possible if you're interested.
The second BPO seeding started in November 2006 and ended around June 2007.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 06:27:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
It is only fair that I back up some of my claims. So here are some quotes from CCP.
From Oveur's dev blog here (emphasis mine, comments in italics): Originally by: Oveur
We think it's time. It's time to do what has been on the wishlist for a long time, removing the blueprint original lottery. It's not just that we have the Invention to replace it with but we think that with recent events, it's important that we move this transition up in priority. You have lost faith in the lottery and we should address that [lack of faith was partially the result of the t20 incident].
Notice how he is speaking of the lottery and not of the BPO?
Invention replacing the lottery: "removing the blueprint original lottery ... Invention to replace it"
Quite clear.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
AIn Kieron's post about invention (here) after invention was introduced, he states:
Originally by: Kieron
The short answer is this: We are looking at Invention as a system to replace the current BP lottery. We want your feedback on whether you think it is a viable and fair replacement, and if the community's consensus is that the backbone systems, Invention, Salvaging, Hacking, Exploration, etc. are balanced enough to replace the Lottery [that consensus wasn't reached, there were lots of complains about the fairness of invention in relation to T2 BPO owners then, and this has remained until today].
Again lottery. How is that you read lottery as BPO?
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Later on in that post he sheds some light about T2 BPO removal as well:
Originally by: Kieron
Regarding the question of more BPOs, where they come from, turning older BPOs int BPCs. There isn't an answer to that. It's almost impossible to achieve a mechanic for putting out such immense treasures like Ship BPOs while the "lesser" BPOs aren't in money-printing-territory, making those BPOs unfairly biased by the need to make Ship BPOs "fairly" distributed.
and
Originally by: Kieron
Current Tech 2 BPOs will certainly not be removed [he means outright, or at this time, or without compensation, see original post]. There are more than 10.000 out there, far from all of them being something really sought after. However, it's certainly worth investigating turning them into very high run BPCs like was done with the old Infinite copies but I'd say that the ability to work with them more (research etc.) would be an absolute prerequisite before doing anything like that.
"it's certainly worth investigating turning them into very high run BPCs". After 2 years of investigation they are still here. I think that speak volumes about the results of the investigation.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
In fact all CCP's posts on this matter are consistent on the following things: 1. Invention is a replacement of the T2 lottery, 2. T2 BPO owners have an unfair advantage over investors, and 3. that advantage will be negated through some means. So there you have it.
Nice spinning but point 2 isn't there in those posts (especially the unfair part that you continue to sprout) and so far this part "I'd say that the ability to work with them more (research etc.) would be an absolute prerequisite before doing anything like that" is not ever near implementation.
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 07:42:00 -
[315]
Even though T2 BPOs should not be removed, that option is far preferable to the introduction of any more. Their ROI is pathetic, and as such the only reason they have value is that they are limited. If that limitation was removed invention would die and a game option that tens of thousands currently have available would be removed in favour of more T2 BPOs for a limited few.
Most T1 BPOs can repay their purchase price in a year. Most T2 BPOs that figure is more like 10 years (and increasing all the time as the cost to invent decreases).
People are seriously being jealous over nothing here. Any perceived advantage here is in terms of profit per unit, but the calculations fail to take into account the capital cost. With that taken into account invention is superior in cost per unit produced, as well as overall profit.
The only reason anyone is buying T2 BPOs is with the risky assumption that their capital value will increase, the same way other limited items increase (Guardian-Vexors, Silver Magnates etc)
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 10:14:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Lord Fitz
Even though T2 BPOs should not be removed, that option is far preferable to the introduction of any more. Their ROI is pathetic, and as such the only reason they have value is that they are limited. If that limitation was removed invention would die and a game option that tens of thousands currently have available would be removed in favour of more T2 BPOs for a limited few.
Most T1 BPOs can repay their purchase price in a year. Most T2 BPOs that figure is more like 10 years (and increasing all the time as the cost to invent decreases).
People are seriously being jealous over nothing here. Any perceived advantage here is in terms of profit per unit, but the calculations fail to take into account the capital cost. With that taken into account invention is superior in cost per unit produced, as well as overall profit.
The only reason anyone is buying T2 BPOs is with the risky assumption that their capital value will increase, the same way other limited items increase (Guardian-Vexors, Silver Magnates etc)
All true, first phrase included.
|
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 11:56:00 -
[317]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Notice how he is speaking of the lottery and not of the BPO?
Invention replacing the lottery: "removing the blueprint original lottery ... Invention to replace it"
Quite clear.
and Quote:
Again lottery. How is that you read lottery as BPO?
Quite clear indeed!
So now you admit that invention is a replacement of the lottery, as before you never did! And even at this stage, that is, at the time invention was proposed and introduced, CCP was looking at removing T2 BPOs. Either through allowing 'reverse engineering' of T2 BPCs (removing the difference), or some sort of compensation for outright removal. They explicitly state that they we're thinking about this, because T2 BPOs and invention were unbalanced, i.e., unfair! The T2 BPOs and the lottery are connected, because the latter spawned the former, trying to decouple them is not a sane option.
Quote:
"it's certainly worth investigating turning them into very high run BPCs". After 2 years of investigation they are still here. I think that speak volumes about the results of the investigation.
It took CCP 4 years to finish investigating Amarr, several 'Oomph' dev blogs, and finally some results. Time means nothing. On CCP's timescale this investigation has only started. I just want them to hurry up before invention is regarded as that failed experiment that doesn't work!
Quote:
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
In fact all CCP's posts on this matter are consistent on the following things: 1. Invention is a replacement of the T2 lottery, 2. T2 BPO owners have an unfair advantage over investors, and 3. that advantage will be negated through some means. So there you have it.
Nice spinning but point 2 isn't there in those posts (especially the unfair part that you continue to sprout) and so far this part "I'd say that the ability to work with them more (research etc.) would be an absolute prerequisite before doing anything like that" is not ever near implementation.
They made several references to the (possibly at this stage) unbalanced state of T2 BPOs against invention, and their ideas on how to tackle it. Most probably, this has been put on the back burner, not least because 1. Kieron is gone, 2. Oveur and TomB have left for WoD. The fact that it wasn't near implementation then, means nothing about the possibility of implementing it now. All the data is now available, and the final step can now be taken.
I think these quotes support my case. I challenge you to find any reference or source that supports yours. Go on then!
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 12:13:00 -
[318]
Edited by: Bartholomeus Crane on 12/10/2008 12:14:05
Originally by: Lord Fitz
Even though T2 BPOs should not be removed, that option is far preferable to the introduction of any more. Their ROI is pathetic, and as such the only reason they have value is that they are limited. If that limitation was removed invention would die and a game option that tens of thousands currently have available would be removed in favour of more T2 BPOs for a limited few.
No one is seriously arguing for introducing more T2 BPOs. As a matter of fact, CCP, in the person of Oveur, have been absolutely clear about this: no one will be able to get more T2 BPOs.
Quote:
Most T1 BPOs can repay their purchase price in a year. Most T2 BPOs that figure is more like 10 years (and increasing all the time as the cost to invent decreases).
Most T2 BPOs are a stupid investment, even with decent prices. But that doesn't mean that they don't give an unfair advantage to the players who already own one.
Quote:
People are seriously being jealous over nothing here. Any perceived advantage here is in terms of profit per unit, but the calculations fail to take into account the capital cost. With that taken into account invention is superior in cost per unit produced, as well as overall profit.
Again with the investment argument! *******s! If a T2 BPO owner had to invest so much Isk that he can't even compete with inventors, then he made a seriously wrong investment. EVE is a harsh and cruel world, if you make a mistake, you pay for it. Protecting stupid investors is not part of the EVE philosophy! It's not that they haven't been warned either, as far back as the introduction of invention there was talk by CCP 'to do something about T2 BPOs'.
Not to mention the fact that investors have to invest substantially in invention as well. Datacores, interfaces, skills, etc. And these investments continue throughout the process. Also invention is chance-based, so sometimes, part of those investions will be wasted when an invention job fails. So arguing that T2 BPO owners operate in a harsh investment environment is truly and utterly false!
Quote:
The only reason anyone is buying T2 BPOs is with the risky assumption that their capital value will increase, the same way other limited items increase (Guardian-Vexors, Silver Magnates etc)
Given the ridiculous prices that T2 BPOs go for, any investment in T2 BPOs is useless. Chances are that those investments will never break even. That's not an argument for keeping things as they are though. There is still an inherent unfairness in the market. One that can and must be removed.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 12:16:00 -
[319]
Edited by: Avon on 12/10/2008 12:16:29
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
They made several references to the (possibly at this stage) unbalanced state of T2 BPOs against invention, and their ideas on how to tackle it.
Think about that for a second.
Why did they give invention prints -ve ME?
Do you think it was a typo, or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it was an intentional move to make sure that BPO's maintained an advantage over invention?
If CCP wanted invention to be better than it is, it would be.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Lustralis
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 12:34:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Given the ridiculous prices that T2 BPOs go for, any investment in T2 BPOs is useless. Chances are that those investments will never break even. That's not an argument for keeping things as they are though. There is still an inherent unfairness in the market. One that can and must be removed.
I totally agree with your POV. The T2 BPOs that I got from the lottery I sold almost immediately after it became clear that producing and selling from them would net me such a small profit. As buyers were willing to pay stupid money for them (break-even after about 4 years!), there was no point in keeping hold of them. There were a few exceptions (such as the CPR II) that were pulling in ridiculous profits for a few years, but in general unless you control the entire supply chain, BPO's are only useful for corporate self-sufficiency or self-esteem.
I think they are now an anomaly and should be removed from the game.
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 13:10:00 -
[321]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Notice how he is speaking of the lottery and not of the BPO?
Invention replacing the lottery: "removing the blueprint original lottery ... Invention to replace it"
Quite clear.
and Quote:
Again lottery. How is that you read lottery as BPO?
Quite clear indeed!
So now you admit that invention is a replacement of the lottery, as before you never did!
Your failure in reading is not my problem. I never negated that invention was introduced as a replacement for the lottery. I always stated that it was not introduced as a replacement for the BPO.
Quote:
And even at this stage, that is, at the time invention was proposed and introduced, CCP was looking at removing T2 BPOs. Either through allowing 'reverse engineering' of T2 BPCs (removing the difference), or some sort of compensation for outright removal. They explicitly state that they we're thinking about this, because T2 BPOs and invention were unbalanced, i.e., unfair! The T2 BPOs and the lottery are connected, because the latter spawned the former, trying to decouple them is not a sane option.
CCP is looking if it is worth and useful to implement a lot of things, that is not the same as saying "this will be removed/introduced/changed" as you say. And no, they didn't say that invention was unbalanced with the BPO, lookyour quotes:
Quote:
We are looking at Invention as a system to replace the current BP lottery. We want your feedback on whether you think it is a viable and fair replacement [for the lottery], and if the community's consensus is that the backbone systems, Invention, Salvaging, Hacking, Exploration, etc. are balanced enough to replace the Lottery
[and Kieron reiterate the Lottery]
then
Quote:
It's almost impossible to achieve a mechanic for putting out such immense treasures like Ship BPOs while the "lesser" BPOs aren't in money-printing-territory, making those BPOs unfairly biased by the need to make Ship BPOs "fairly" distributed.
Oh, look, he speak of unbalance between the ship BPO and the other BPO. And that "fairly" (note the " in the post) was in reply of the use of that word in the posts he was replying to.
Quote:
Quote:
"it's certainly worth investigating turning them into very high run BPCs". After 2 years of investigation they are still here. I think that speak volumes about the results of the investigation.
Quote:
They made several references to the (possibly at this stage) unbalanced state of T2 BPOs against invention, and their ideas on how to tackle it. Most probably, this has been put on the back burner, not least because 1. Kieron is gone, 2. Oveur and TomB have left for WoD. The fact that it wasn't near implementation then, means nothing about the possibility of implementing it now. All the data is now available, and the final step can now be taken.
I think these quotes support my case. I challenge you to find any reference or source that supports yours. Go on then!
Again you are changing what the Dev have said to help your position. As I pointed out your quotes support my position more than yours. Especially if instead of reading them 2 years later you read them in the context of the time were they were written and the context of the whole thread where they were written.
You are looking them with today eyes and you are lacking pieces of information too, like the little thing that the last BPO lttery ended about 7 months after the introduction of the invention mechanics.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 13:12:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 12/10/2008 12:18:27
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
They made several references to the (possibly at this stage) unbalanced state of T2 BPOs against invention, and their ideas on how to tackle it.
Think about that for a second.
Why did they give invention prints -ve ME?
Do you think it was a typo, or do you think that maybe, just maybe, it was an intentional move to make sure that BPO's maintained an advantage over invention?
If CCP wanted invention to be better than it is, it would be.
Originally by: Avon
*Added: Maybe CCP should just let people research their invention prints (from the base starting point), and see how much time people are willing to invest in making their 2 run deimos print as profitable as the BPO?
Would like to see that. 
Oh, the whines.
|
Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 14:21:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Your failure in reading is not my problem. I never negated that invention was introduced as a replacement for the lottery. I always stated that it was not introduced as a replacement for the BPO.
Not true. From the get go you've always claimed that the lottery and the resultant T2 BPOs were nothing but an alternative T2 production method. And now you are backtracking when I showed that CCP never intended it to be that. The fact that CCP haven't followed it up with balancing T2 BPOs with invention (no doubt while shouting 'hot potato, hot potato') is not my fault. In fact, this is why I'm debating this now. So that CCP finally finishes a job they said they would do a long time ago.
Quote:
CCP is looking if it is worth and useful to implement a lot of things, that is not the same as saying "this will be removed/introduced/changed" as you say. And no, they didn't say that invention was unbalanced with the BPO, lookyour quotes:
Quote:
... my quotes ...
Oh, look, he speak of unbalance between the ship BPO and the other BPO. And that "fairly" (note the " in the post) was in reply of the use of that word in the posts he was replying to.
Wrong again. Read the post. Like I said before, in that quote he wasn't talking about the balance between T2 BPOs at all. He was talking about balancing the compensation mechanism, so that both valuable and not-so-valuable BPOs get fair and balanced compensation. In fact, that whole part of the post already assumes that something will be done about T2 BPOs. Unlike you, CCP even at that time though at least some T2 BPOs gave an unfair advantage over invention. Why else would Kieron discuss those changes? Talk about reading failure.
Quote:
Again you are changing what the Dev have said to help your position. As I pointed out your quotes support my position more than yours. Especially if instead of reading them 2 years later you read them in the context of the time were they were written and the context of the whole thread where they were written.
As I said in my original quote (which you conveniently failed to include), the context of the time was that they were still balancing invention and had no idea how it would turn out. They did put a lot of changes in after that. What CCP did failed to do at that time was handle all the legacy T2 BPOs that were still around. They thought it was to risky to do at the time. The fact remains, that even at that time, with their hands full with balancing invention and the other introductions in that patch, they were already thinking at taking T2 BPOs out of the equation. How that possibly helps your case, I have no idea. Unless you're moving goal posts there as well!
Quote:
You are looking them with today eyes and you are lacking pieces of information too, like the little thing that the last BPO lttery ended about 7 months after the introduction of the invention mechanics.
Nothing substantial has changed since that time. T2 BPOs were unbalanced and unfair then, and they are still to this day. CCP recognised it then, and has never retracted their intention. Now is the time that T2 BPOs get dealt with, it is long overdue.
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Sonisha
Minmatar
Immortal Kings
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 00:40:00 -
[324]
Being an owner of a BPO T2, We Have Seen Prices Drop From 250Million to 80Million or less for T2 Cruisers.
So Whats The Problem?
Infact The Same Could Be Said For T2 Copies.
They've driven our prices down to reasonable, so where's the problem there?
Nothing to moan about this end, they still cost a fortune to build, and have to battle T2 copies to try and sell any at all. They dont shift quick when they are Undercut by copies every day or so.
No problems here, so would forget moaning about them.
|
Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 01:09:00 -
[325]
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 13/10/2008 01:13:02
Quote:
Being an owner of a BPO T2, We Have Seen Prices Drop From 250Million to 80Million or less for T2 Cruisers.
So Whats The Problem?
A couple questions for you.
1. How much did you pay for what BPO?
2. Why did you pay that much?
What I'll bet is that you paid about 5-10 years of profit for your T2 BPO under the reasoning it was something that let you easily invest large amounts of isk with minimal logistics to turn a profit. Any other reason is a load of crap really.
(ps. Collectors items are a sortof self sustaining market, and I cringe every time I think about such a crucial part of EVE's industry having value almost solely as a collectors item instead of being a useful goal for industrialists)
The reason people are willing to pay such stupid amounts is that there's nothing else to invest their isk into.
So lets say CCP trots out some high-isk barrier industrial goal (like Invention was till CCP decided the equipment drops would be as common as Pithi Arrogators) that gives people with twelve-figure wallets something worthwhile to sink their teeth into, collectors market notwithstanding your T2 BPO will have it's value drawn, quartered and probably even eighthed.
So my problem? The value of T2 BPOs and the whine that would ensue when peoples 50-billion-plus isk investments get cut down prevents the development of new high-end goals in EVE.
EDIT: BTW, Super-Capital ships and Outposts don't really count in the high-end goals basket, since only few people use them in EVE compared to, say, a T2 Heavy Missile Launcher or a Cerberus.
Improve Market Competition! |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 06:40:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Notice how he is speaking of the lottery and not of the BPO?
Invention replacing the lottery: "removing the blueprint original lottery ... Invention to replace it"
Quite clear.
and Quote:
Again lottery. How is that you read lottery as BPO?
Quite clear indeed!
So now you admit that invention is a replacement of the lottery, as before you never did!
Your failure in reading is not my problem. I never negated that invention was introduced as a replacement for the lottery. I always stated that it was not introduced as a replacement for the BPO.
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Not true. From the get go you've always claimed that the lottery and the resultant T2 BPOs were nothing but an alternative T2 production method. And now you are backtracking when I showed that CCP never intended it to be that. The fact that CCP haven't followed it up with balancing T2 BPOs with invention (no doubt while shouting 'hot potato, hot potato') is not my fault. In fact, this is why I'm debating this now. So that CCP finally finishes a job they said they would do a long time ago.
Bartholomeus twisting is and other people words again.
You claimed I somewhere affirmed that invention was not a alternate to the lottery, while I never negated that (read the posts). I argued and still argue that the removal of the BPO is not needed and probably even damaging to EVE in genera.
Only in your mind Lottery = Current BPO in game.
If you are so confuse that you can't differentiate the currently in game item from the system used in the past to seed it is your problem.
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 11:28:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Lustralis
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Given the ridiculous prices that T2 BPOs go for, any investment in T2 BPOs is useless. Chances are that those investments will never break even. That's not an argument for keeping things as they are though. There is still an inherent unfairness in the market. One that can and must be removed.
I totally agree with your POV. The T2 BPOs that I got from the lottery I sold almost immediately after it became clear that producing and selling from them would net me such a small profit. As buyers were willing to pay stupid money for them (break-even after about 4 years!), there was no point in keeping hold of them. There were a few exceptions (such as the CPR II) that were pulling in ridiculous profits for a few years, but in general unless you control the entire supply chain, BPO's are only useful for corporate self-sufficiency or self-esteem.
I think they are now an anomaly and should be removed from the game.
So in other words you sold your BPO to some dude as a long term investment, and now you think CCP should take it away from him?
Or are you proposing to refund to the owner the ISK you got for the item you're asking CCP to remove from the game? Or maybe CCP should just delete it from your wallet?
|
Sonisha
Minmatar
Immortal Kings
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 19:16:00 -
[328]
Edited by: Sonisha on 13/10/2008 19:19:33
Edited by: Sonisha on 13/10/2008 19:18:12
Originally by: Kylar Renpurs
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 13/10/2008 05:57:33
Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 13/10/2008 01:13:02
Quote:
Being an owner of a BPO T2, We Have Seen Prices Drop From 250Million to 80Million or less for T2 Cruisers.
So Whats The Problem?
A couple questions for you.
1. How much did you pay for what BPO?
2. Why did you pay that much?
What I'll bet is that you paid about 5-10 years of profit for your T2 BPO under the reasoning it was something that let you easily invest large amounts of isk with minimal logistics to turn a profit. At some arbitrary later stage you'd sell it for more than you paid originally. Any other reason is a load of crap really.
Reply From Sonisha - I Didn't pay for the BPO, i won it in the lotteries doing research in the early days, my character is 5 years old.
|
Opertone
Caldari
SIEGE.
United Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 01:59:00 -
[329]
it is more interesting than ghost training, i want more nerfbat
CCP please release nerf bat in the collector's store
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |