Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Lara Dantreb
New Horizons
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 16:50:00 -
[391] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Cool can I purchase it using research points? Oh wait no I can't then I'm not intrested. Oh wait can I get one from a dropped rat, eh no? OK, How about a dev just give me one you know just because?
Naw if I'm not going to be able to get these items through corrupt means or just plain gifted then I'm not really happy.
Otherwise you can follow the rules and purchase it with the isks you collected playing the game. (you pretend to be a trader, you should be able to)
There were at least 8000 T2 bpos seeded. (I don't know the exact number, if someones knows, please tell us)
What you speak of is a tiny minority. (let's say 50 bpos including Miner II bpos)
99,37% were acquired following the rules.
What you want is to change the rules using a fallacious argument and flawed cases.
Adeptio Gloriae ? lol pathetic puppet yeah.
----á-á Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005-á --- --- -á-á-á-á-á-á WTB Occator Bpo, 110+ Bil-á-á-á-á-á --- |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1101
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:39:00 -
[392] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:popular line of T2 ships like umm interceptors I think you have an odd definition of "popular". Interceptors stopped being really popular a good while back. And when they used to be really popular, inventing them was quite profitable. So, you were saying, again, what exactly ?
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:So you think it's fair that players are ruled out of entire inventions It's about as fair as many other things in EVE which are intentionally unfair to some degree. T2 BPOs are intentionally slightly unfair, and what makes them more fair rather than unfair is the fact people can trade the BPOs freely between themselves. If anything, the current situation is far, far fairer than back in the day the lottery was still active.
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Cool can I purchase it using research points? Yes, you can. Indirectly. Buy datacores with RP, sell datacores, use ISK to buy BPO. Problem solved ! If you want more of a lottery feel, be my guest and use that ISK to enter player-organized lotteries to multiply it to the levels you'd need to purchase a T2 BPO. Or maybe even enter a player-organized lottery that offers T2 BPOs as prizes !
P.S. I even figured with back-of-envelope guesstimations that it is quite probable that the total value of RPs that were used up post-lottery on datacores already exceeds the sum of RP that were spent acquiring T2 BPOs back in the days of the lottery (and will keep going up), so in a twisted sense, you're better off doing research today than you were back in the day when the lottery was still active, and it's only getting better. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T |
Katja Faith
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 18:23:00 -
[393] - Quote
AkitaT, you realize you're being trolled, yeah? |
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
84
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 20:07:00 -
[394] - Quote
AkitaT I considered the invention buff ie allowing invented T2BPC's to inherit their t1bpo stats but that idea is flawed as it would generate a problem akin to T2BPO but on an even larger scale. Allowing inventions to inherent stats would close margins and prevent newbie inventors from competing with inventors who have a highly researched t1bpo.
Buffing invention run levels and success chance is an option yes also reducing material needs to insure that it falls equal to T2BPO or slightly less is an option too.
The easiest and fairest method that I feel CCP should implement would be to insure that a T2BPO falls shortly behind a T2BPC on material efficiency taking into account invention chance. This would allow T2BPO's to retain value and continue to be an attractive item in fields that have demand while still allowing inventors to produce items. The T2BPO would be attractive in the fact that it is afk isk slowly churning out items 23/7 but in a sligtly less efficient manner while t2bpc's require a click fest of operations.
Another option would be to allow invention not to create T2 items alone but have a chance at creating a new set of faction called 'inventions' that have higher stats than T2 items. |
Haulie Berry
117
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 20:09:00 -
[395] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Buffing invention run levels
This already happened in the last patch. Most people have chosen to ignore it in favor of crying about one thing or another because they're incompetent lackwits who don't know how to capitalize on opportunities.
Coupled with the rapidly-falling decryptor prices, invention got a whole lot cheaper and faster in the last patch. |
IgnatiusReilly esq
The Adams Group LLC
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 20:41:00 -
[396] - Quote
I like bacon |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1101
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 21:07:00 -
[397] - Quote
Katja Faith wrote:AkitaT, you realize you're being trolled, yeah? I only mind the quality of the trolling As long as it's self-consistent, from the exterior, there's no noteworthy difference between arguing with somebody with an inaccurate view or arguing with a decent intentional troller, and there's no reason to treat either differently when your actual target is the lurking audience, not the person you argue with. I would argue a whole lot more if I would have more spare time, as it is right now I'm actually arguing while taking brief breaks from work. Arguing about something very familiar which I have spent a lot of time examining in the past is quite relaxing to me, since it temporarily clears my mind of stuff I was thinking too much about that don't quite fit right yet, allowing me to start over with a slightly different and possibly more useful perspective if I'm lucky. But I digress.
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:The easiest and fairest method that I feel CCP should implement would be to insure that a T2BPO falls shortly behind a T2BPC on material efficiency taking into account invention chance. This would allow T2BPO's to retain value Hogwash. How exactly would that allow T2 BPOs to retain any non-negligible ECONOMIC value ? Their collector item status would have their value so far outstrip any feasible ROIs into the ground even at material parity, but at even a slight material disadvantage almost nobody would ever have a reason to bother with BPO manufacture anymore ever again, instead buying from inventors from the market being the almost always much better alternative. And how exactly do you propose to make that "accounting for invention chance" adjustment anyway when prices of datacores, decryptors and even T1 BPCs is never constant ? It would periodically flip from slight advantage to slight disadvantage if fixed, and would run a very significant risk of actually amplifying the fluctuations if done dynamically with a delay or averaging. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T |
Salo Aldeland
Luma Operations
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 13:46:00 -
[398] - Quote
I'm still confused as to why everything has to be completely fair, all the time, and how that would somehow make EVE more 'real'. |
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
138
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 13:48:00 -
[399] - Quote
I think CCP should tweak T2 BPO manufacturing times so that they cant supply more than 20% of the long term demand for any product.
No drama about compensation as profits still there, but not enouhg to saturate market, would make some T2 BPO's more valuable and some less i expect. |
Lara Dantreb
New Horizons
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 15:07:00 -
[400] - Quote
Haulie Berry wrote:Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Buffing invention run levels
This already happened in the last patch. Most people have chosen to ignore it in favor of crying about one thing or another because they're incompetent lackwits who don't know how to capitalize on opportunities. Coupled with the rapidly-falling decryptor prices, invention got a whole lot cheaper and faster in the last patch.
I missed something, what has changed exactly about invention mechanics with the last patch ? more runs ? cheaper datacores ? More decryptor drops ? I don't get it, please someone tell me. ----á-á Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005-á --- --- -á-á-á-á-á-á WTB Occator Bpo, 110+ Bil-á-á-á-á-á --- |
|
shar'ra matcevsovski
Hedion University Amarr Empire
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 15:14:00 -
[401] - Quote
Lara Dantreb wrote:
I missed something, what has changed exactly about invention mechanics with the last patch ? more runs ? cheaper datacores ? More decryptor drops ? I don't get it, please someone tell me.
you dont need max run copies to use decryptors anymore, 1 run copies will allow usage of dycrptors already. Datacores dropped in price aswell, but hard to say how its gona be on long a long term. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1601
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 00:44:00 -
[402] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:So you think it's fair that players are ruled out of entire inventions due to the fact that CCP has created and gifted out T2BPO's which are far to efficent at creating those line of T2 items?
If T2BPO is so great please seed a bunch more, oh wait CCP understands the error of T2BPO and no longer seeds them. If only they got off their ass and nerfed/removed the ones still in game to have lower stats than invented BPC's.
The invention process is identical no matter what you are inventing, so this is no different from being priced out of the T1 BS market because they're produced by highly researched T1 BPOs.
What current problem do T2BPOs cause? And unless ALL inventions are unprofitable, invention profitability isn't a problem. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Diemos Hiaraki
VC Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:47:00 -
[403] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:What current problem do T2BPOs cause? And unless ALL inventions are unprofitable, invention profitability isn't a problem.
I've just invented my first T2 BPC; I've not enjoyed any aspect of the invention process (research BPO, copy BPO, jump here for datacores, jump there for more data cores, data interface and maybe a decrypter, faff around training skills totally irrelevant to anything else in game then pray to the RNG God that I'll get a ****** T2 BPC that cannot compete in quality to any T2 BPO I've ever seen.) I'm at the stage where I don't give a flying f**k about profit or the math, but I am sick of jumping through hoops just to compete with bitter vet T2 BPO owners.
A good T2 BPO will fetch more than a beta character which as far as I'm concerned is indefensible; either T2 BPOs should be available for all players or none at all. The only solution I could think of would be to allow T2 BPOs to be invented (if chosen instead of inventing a BPC,) but with a huge negative M.E./P.E. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1601
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 03:52:00 -
[404] - Quote
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:RubyPorto wrote:What current problem do T2BPOs cause? And unless ALL inventions are unprofitable, invention profitability isn't a problem. I've just invented my first T2 BPC; I've not enjoyed any aspect of the invention process (research BPO, copy BPO, jump here for datacores, jump there for more data cores, data interface and maybe a decrypter, faff around training skills totally irrelevant to anything else in game then pray to the RNG God that I'll get a ****** T2 BPC that cannot compete in quality to any T2 BPO I've ever seen.) I'm at the stage where I don't give a flying f**k about profit or the math, but I am sick of jumping through hoops just to compete with bitter vet T2 BPO owners. A good T2 BPO will fetch more than a beta character which as far as I'm concerned is indefensible; either T2 BPOs should be available for all players or none at all. The only solution I could think of would be to allow T2 BPOs to be invented (if chosen instead of inventing a BPC,) but with a huge negative M.E./P.E.
T2 BPOs are available for all players. They're not much more expensive than Titans, either. You saying you want a free Titan too?
If you're not willing to jump through hoops for profit, invention is not the income source for you. Have fun doing something else.
Regardless, the pain of invention is not a problem caused by T2BPO's existence. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1104
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:33:00 -
[405] - Quote
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:I've not enjoyed any aspect of the invention process (research BPO, copy BPO, jump here for datacores, jump there for more data cores, data interface and maybe a decrypter, faff around training skills totally irrelevant to anything else in game then pray to the RNG God that I'll get a ****** T2 BPC Neither of those things have anything to do with any T2 BPOs existing, even if all T2 BPOs would be gone, you'd still have to do exactly the same thing to invent stuff.
Quote:T2 BPC that cannot compete in quality to any T2 BPO I've ever seen. The item your BPC makes is identical to the item a BPO makes. The price at which the item sells (if it's a popular item) is almost exactly the same price it would sell for without any T2 BPOs existing for that item.
Quote:sick of jumping through hoops just to compete with bitter vet T2 BPO owners. The bad news is that you'd still be jumping through the same hoops regardless of T2 BPOs existing. The worse news is that you're NOT competing with T2 BPO owners anyway - you're competing with other inventors.
Quote:A good T2 BPO will fetch more than a beta character which as far as I'm concerned is indefensible And why exactly is that ?
Quote:T2 BPOs should be available for all players or none at all. They are available to all players, but not at the same time. Offer enough ISK and one can be yours.
To summarize : the things you dislike are that invention is annoying (which won't be fixed by removing T2 BPOs) and that T2 BPOs cost too much for your taste (and their price is determined by the PLAYERS that trade them). Basically, nothing about why T2 BPOs should be removed, just you being frustrated by an annoying system and the fact other people are richer than you. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T |
Tadeo Musashy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 04:51:00 -
[406] - Quote
i would love to see a democratic vote on this issue - altho the outcome would be fairlly presumable... who else but the owners would support the BPOs further existance? and since they represent at best like 3-4%...
speaking as both bpos owner and 11 slots inventor / manufacturer my oppinion is bpos have to go the debate shouldnt even go deeper into eco aspects as long as the entire bpos existance was biassed right from the start (including debatable seeding process - but even the "legit" winners gain the ownershp because of "luck"... and of course, last but not least, the most impotant argument IMO, the lottery removal has pushed the unfairness even deeper)
as for a decent and fair for everyone way of removal (of the bpos), i'd say a combination of the following 2 "tweaks" would do the job: 1st: the bpos should be replaced with some sort of "Alibaba lamp" which would soawn 1 single run bpc every (insert interval here) with "interval" determined by bpo type... 2nd: seeding some new decryptor types ment to improve the invented bpcs ME would greatly help the process...
or... for someone really interested to get rid of the problem, someone with virtually unlimited isk resources (someone who could actually "type" a few "0" more to a new created char's wallet), it would always exist the "buyout solution"...
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1602
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 05:09:00 -
[407] - Quote
Tadeo Musashy wrote:i would love to see a democratic vote on this issue - altho the outcome would be fairlly presumable... who else but the owners would support the BPOs further existance? and since they represent at best like 3-4%...
speaking as both bpos owner and 11 slots inventor / manufacturer my oppinion is bpos have to go the debate shouldnt even go deeper into eco aspects as long as the entire bpos existance was biassed right from the start (including debatable seeding process - but even the "legit" winners gain the ownershp because of "luck"... and of course, last but not least, the most impotant argument IMO, the lottery removal has pushed the unfairness even deeper)
as for a decent and fair for everyone way of removal (of the bpos), i'd say a combination of the following 2 "tweaks" would do the job: 1st: the bpos should be replaced with some sort of "Alibaba lamp" which would soawn 1 single run bpc every (insert interval here) with "interval" determined by bpo type... 2nd: seeding some new decryptor types ment to improve the invented bpcs ME would greatly help the process...
or... for someone really interested to get rid of the problem, someone with virtually unlimited isk resources (someone who could actually "type" a few "0" more to a new created char's wallet), it would always exist the "buyout solution"...
So, you gonna get rid of faction/officer drops? Invention? Wormholes? All of those grant riches based on "Luck." Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Tadeo Musashy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 05:19:00 -
[408] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: So, you gonna get rid of faction/officer drops? Invention? Wormholes? All of those grant riches based on "Luck."
looks like you missed / ignored the meaning of those ""... read again: its "luck" not luck... looks like you also missed all the other things written there - but that would be understandable if you would have added the "prowd owner of a (several) xxx bpo" before or after your name / signature... so? care to edit your reply?
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1602
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 05:29:00 -
[409] - Quote
Tadeo Musashy wrote:RubyPorto wrote: So, you gonna get rid of faction/officer drops? Invention? Wormholes? All of those grant riches based on "Luck."
looks like you missed / ignored the meaning of those ""... read again: its "luck" not luck... looks like you also missed all the other things written there - but that would be understandable if you would have added the "prowd owner of a (several) xxx bpo" before or after your name / signature... so? care to edit your reply?
If you have evidence that the T2 BPOs seeded by the lottery* were tainted by developer malfeasance, Internal Affairs would like to talk to you.
I don't own any T2BPOs. Trying to poison the well of discourse would tend to suggest that you are unsure of your argument's strength.
Do T2 BPOs prevent Inventors from making profits through invention? No they don't**. Do they significantly impact the market? Only in low demand markets where they can fill most of the supply themselves. Do they have a good ROI? No, they're spectacularly overpriced for the income they can generate (3 year ROI o.0)
Ok, I covered the 3 places where they can actually cause unbalanced results. Got any others?
*besides the ones that were tainted and pulled, ofc **unless you're doing something silly like RPing to pick your market then complaining that your RP isn't profitable Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Diemos Hiaraki
VC Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 05:50:00 -
[410] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:T2 BPOs are available for all players. They're not much more expensive than Titans, either. You saying you want a free Titan too?
If you're not willing to jump through hoops for profit, invention is not the income source for you. Have fun doing something else.
Regardless, the pain of invention is not a problem caused by T2BPO's existence.
Where did I say I wanted a Titan? Nice strawman, really very nice.
I quit over this issue last year - 52,000 people logged in at the time. The last time I checked there were 26,000 people logged in now; the game is dying and T2BPOs are one of the reasons why people are quitting. I'll probably check in next year to see if CCP have addressed this problem when there'll only be 13,000 people logging I'd guess. While one player with T2BPOs can outfit an entire corp with T2 kit in the same space of time it would take many players without T2BPOs just to invent the BPCs I'll be against T2BPOs being in game.
You're right about the pain of invention not being a problem caused by T2BPOs existence. I was just bitching about how convenient is is for a T2BPO owner to manufacture something compared to what I'd have to do just for a BPC (nevermind making it.) My issue with T2BPOs is that they're perpetual motion for their owners, and as such I refuse to buy T2 kit from anyone (and wanted to make my own so I'm not lining the pockets of folks who don't need my isk - chances are I'd have bought that T2 kit from the very same people who I'd end up fighting against.) What I fail to see is any reason why I shouldn't be able to invent a T2BPO for ships at least.
|
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1603
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 05:59:00 -
[411] - Quote
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:RubyPorto wrote:T2 BPOs are available for all players. They're not much more expensive than Titans, either. You saying you want a free Titan too?
If you're not willing to jump through hoops for profit, invention is not the income source for you. Have fun doing something else.
Regardless, the pain of invention is not a problem caused by T2BPO's existence. Where did I say I wanted a Titan? Nice strawman, really very nice. I quit over this issue last year - 52,000 people logged in at the time. The last time I checked there were 26,000 people logged in now; the game is dying and T2BPOs are one of the reasons why people are quitting. I'll probably check in next year to see if CCP have addressed this problem when there'll only be 13,000 people logging I'd guess. While one player with T2BPOs can outfit an entire corp with T2 kit in the same space of time it would take many players without T2BPOs just to invent the BPCs I'll be against T2BPOs being in game. You're right about the pain of invention not being a problem caused by T2BPOs existence. I was just bitching about how convenient is is for a T2BPO owner to manufacture something compared to what I'd have to do just for a BPC (nevermind making it.) My issue with T2BPOs is that they're perpetual motion for their owners, and as such I refuse to buy T2 kit from anyone (and wanted to make my own so I'm not lining the pockets of folks who don't need my isk - chances are I'd have bought that T2 kit from the very same people who I'd end up fighting against.) What I fail to see is any reason why I shouldn't be able to invent a T2BPO for ships at least.
The current 24hr max is 40,000 people, and the long term trend is showing the server population recovering from the Incarna crash last summer/fall. Stats. In case of Stupid, read graph right to left.
Outfitting a Corp... what are you talking about? These are economic instruments.
Yes, a T2BPO is convenience. That convenience costs maybe 100 billion ISK to acquire (or has a 100b ISK opportunity cost for not selling).
Not buying a T2BPO is smart. There are much better returns on your ISK then T2BPOs; Invention, for one.
You shouldn't be able to invent a T2BPO because that would be spectacularly broken. Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1104
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 07:13:00 -
[412] - Quote
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:What I fail to see is any reason why I shouldn't be able to invent a T2BPO for ships at least. Because then inventing ship BPCs eventually becomes completely pointless as the number of T2 ship BPOs and their production capacity far outstrips demand for each and every one of the ships. Also, even inventing T2 BPOs becomes counter-productive, because the profits for using them become minimal, so their value becomes minimal (not even the collector value remains). Basically, because it would completely kill the SHIP INVENTOR profession and restrict the items where invention remains profitable to just non-ship items, thus making invention in general weaker. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T |
shar'ra matcevsovski
Hedion University Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 08:32:00 -
[413] - Quote
Tadeo Musashy wrote:i would love to see a democratic vote on this issue - altho the outcome would be fairlly presumable... who else but the owners would support the BPOs further existance?
Those who understand that the BPO`s are NOT the reason for their failing?... just read the posts in this T2-BPO-Hate thread, I dont think even in this thread its the overwhelming majority who thinks that the BPO`s are an issue.
Diemos Hiaraki wrote: I've just invented my first T2 BPC; I've not enjoyed any aspect of the invention process
if you dont like it, simply dont do it. But why bother to convince others that they dotn like it either?
Tadeo Musashy wrote: but that would be understandable if you would have added the "prowd owner of a (several) xxx bpo" before or after your name / signature... so? care to edit your reply?
yea... its not only vets beeing bitter here it seems, you are sooo jelly. |
India99
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 09:04:00 -
[414] - Quote
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:
I quit over this issue last year - 52,000 people logged in at the time. The last time I checked there were 26,000 people logged in now; the game is dying and T2BPOs are one of the reasons why people are quitting. I'll probably check in next year to see if CCP have addressed this problem when there'll only be 13,000 people logging I'd guess.
T2 BPO`s exist at least since 2006, how can T2 BPO`s be the reason for the player drop this year when between 2006 and 2011 the number of Players has just been going up? explain.
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1604
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 09:24:00 -
[415] - Quote
India99 wrote:Diemos Hiaraki wrote:
I quit over this issue last year - 52,000 people logged in at the time. The last time I checked there were 26,000 people logged in now; the game is dying and T2BPOs are one of the reasons why people are quitting. I'll probably check in next year to see if CCP have addressed this problem when there'll only be 13,000 people logging I'd guess.
T2 BPO`s exist at least since 2006, how can T2 BPO`s be the reason for the player drop this year when between 2006 and 2011 the number of Players has just been going up? explain.
Because in 2012, Our Savior Brewlar Kuvakei told us the Good News that our efforts are meaningless in the face of the great Shaitan, the Hulk BPO. When Our Savior went to the asteroid belt to contemplate the nature of His sacrifice, the Hulk BPO offered him riches beyond measure to tempt Him away from His holy task. He then returned to create another of His sublime writings, exposing more of the depravity of the Shaitan and his minions, the Covert Ops BPOs. As He explained in the parable of the Inventor, the Shaitan leads the inventor away from the paths of righteousness and into scarce markets where he cannot profit, but Lo, Our Savior, Brewlar Kuvakei was there to roust the Shaitan and save the inventor from his clutches.
Alas, this paradise cannot be, for one day, Our Savior will be betrayed. One day His turn will come, as the masses before him Unsub before the face of the Shaitan, He will be tortured and put to display before He is reunited with the Doomheim Corporation of his father.
Hallelujah Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
Lara Dantreb
New Horizons
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:36:00 -
[416] - Quote
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:I quit over this issue last year - 52,000 people logged in at the time. The last time I checked there were 26,000 people logged in now; the game is dying and T2BPOs are one of the reasons why people are quitting
OMG Eve is dying ! 8 years I read that EVE is dying in these forums ! It's a quite long agony...
Now who is really bitter ? vets or newcomers ?
This is the most pathetic argument to defend a thesis that can be imagined. Also this is only based on your perception and it is unfair to present this argument as objective ----á-á Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005-á --- --- -á-á-á-á-á-á WTB Occator Bpo, 110+ Bil-á-á-á-á-á --- |
Lara Dantreb
New Horizons
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 13:45:00 -
[417] - Quote
Tadeo Musashy wrote:i would love to see a democratic vote on this issue - altho the outcome would be fairlly presumable... who else but the owners would support the BPOs further existance? and since they represent at best like 3-4%...
speaking as both bpos owner and 11 slots inventor / manufacturer my oppinion is bpos have to go the debate shouldnt even go deeper into eco aspects as long as the entire bpos existance was biassed right from the start (including debatable seeding process - but even the "legit" winners gain the ownershp because of "luck"... and of course, last but not least, the most impotant argument IMO, the lottery removal has pushed the unfairness even deeper)
as for a decent and fair for everyone way of removal (of the bpos), i'd say a combination of the following 2 "tweaks" would do the job: 1st: the bpos should be replaced with some sort of "Alibaba lamp" which would soawn 1 single run bpc every (insert interval here) with "interval" determined by bpo type... 2nd: seeding some new decryptor types ment to improve the invented bpcs ME would greatly help the process...
or... for someone really interested to get rid of the problem, someone with virtually unlimited isk resources (someone who could actually "type" a few "0" more to a new created char's wallet), it would always exist the "buyout solution"...
bpo holders are the scapegoats of a minority of squeaky inventors. (those who are unable...)
The problem is the market competition. And for a manufacturer from T2 BPOS, there are 25 inventors.
If you are not able to understand it, waives any industrial project activity and any market, you ought to just kill npc in 0.0 ----á-á Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005-á --- --- -á-á-á-á-á-á WTB Occator Bpo, 110+ Bil-á-á-á-á-á --- |
India99
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 14:45:00 -
[418] - Quote
for those who still feel crying about this dead topic... http://k162space.com/2012/03/08/t2-bpo-returns/ |
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
85
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:08:00 -
[419] - Quote
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:[
I quit over this issue last year - 52,000 people logged in at the time. The last time I checked there were 26,000 people logged in now; the game is dying and T2BPOs are one of the reasons why people are quitting. I'll probably check in next year to see if CCP have addressed this problem when there'll only be 13,000 people logging I'd guess. While one player with T2BPOs can outfit an entire corp with T2 kit in the same space of time it would take many players without T2BPOs just to invent the BPCs I'll be against T2BPOs being in game.
This is a good point as T2BPO actually kills the game reducing players the problem only compounds itself. The less players the less demand for T2 meaning that the fields open to inventors gets smaller each passing day. T2BPO's dire effects on the game will only get exponentially worse as time goes on. |
Alea
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 17:07:00 -
[420] - Quote
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:Diemos Hiaraki wrote:[
I quit over this issue last year - 52,000 people logged in at the time. The last time I checked there were 26,000 people logged in now; the game is dying and T2BPOs are one of the reasons why people are quitting. I'll probably check in next year to see if CCP have addressed this problem when there'll only be 13,000 people logging I'd guess. While one player with T2BPOs can outfit an entire corp with T2 kit in the same space of time it would take many players without T2BPOs just to invent the BPCs I'll be against T2BPOs being in game.
This is a good point as T2BPO actually kills the game reducing players the problem only compounds itself. The less players the less demand for T2 meaning that the fields open to inventors gets smaller each passing day. T2BPO's dire effects on the game will only get exponentially worse as time goes on.
Your alts post is bad and U should feel bad for posting in your own forum with said alt.
Why do you have to spread this worn out topic over more than one game forum..?? (< Steam) It's bad enough griefers with no real pvp skills go after low SP pilots and make them rage quit, U come along spreading your nonsense about not having T2 BPOs available to the average pilot will completely ruin there game play experience, obviously others less biased than yourself responded to set the record straight.
I've been playing since 2003 (never won a T2 BPO) and not owning one hasn't hurt my T2 production income.. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |