| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
240
   |
Posted - 2012.05.16 03:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
I totally understand the reasoning behind making the new module BPCs drop only. But having one rule for new mods and one for the old seems as much a half measure as allowing T2 BPOs to remain in the game.
I don't much like the whole Blueprint system anyway, everything from how copies can have a life span, to how invention is down to luck - even if you invented that very thing before.
Wouldn't it be better to use the opportunity (too late for this expansion now I know) to look at how ridiculous the whole system is (as is most of industry) and come up with a completely new one that makes more sense? Rather than patching on new ideas and making up the rules as you go along, we could have a system that will work for what we have now and what may come in the future?
Food for thought.
Flame me, I'm naked.
UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
Greyscale Dash
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 03:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
HTFU |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
415
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 04:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Industry crafting expansion will be after the harvesting expansion. |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
240
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 04:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Industry crafting expansion will be after the harvesting expansion.
Aye I saw, but I think they're mainly looking at the awful industry UI. I've not seen anything about BPs. It just struck me that what they're doing with BP's is the polar opposite of what they are trying to do with the UI, which is simplify and unify it as much as possible. The policy for the new mod Blueprints smack of being a work-around, rather than an elegant solution.
I'm not blaming the devs, they are working with what they currently have when it comes to Blueprints.
UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
Jim Bond
Knights of the Dark Rose
Ordo Imperialis
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 10:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
So with your way of thinking, they should also remove tech 1 bpos also...............
Ive got it, lets REMOVE ALL BLUEPRINTS and replace them with STICKY TAPE and GLUE!!!!!
Enough with the remove T2 BPOs posts already..... You are just jealous because you dont have any...
It is of my opinion, they should ADD tech 2 bpos to the general market.
People have spent billions of isk aquiring them, I was in a corp at the time, who spent those billions of isk at the time aquiring numerous t2 bpos. This was at a time when isk was hard to come by, not like now when it grows on trees and isk printers.
Everyone at the time, had the same opportunities to bid for tech 2 bpos in the tech 2 bpo auctions. If you wernt around or have the isk then tough.....stop whinging. |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
241
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 10:26:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jim Bond wrote:So with your way of thinking, they should also remove tech 1 bpos also...............
Ive got it, lets REMOVE ALL BLUEPRINTS and replace them with STICKY TAPE and GLUE!!!!!
Enough with the remove T2 BPOs posts already..... You are just jealous because you dont have any...
I'm not advocating the removal of T2 BPOs. I'm advocating an entirely new system that isn't stupid. Look at you, you were in such a rush to start crying that you thought someone hated T2 BPO's that you actually forgot to read the post!
Quote:
People have spent billions of isk aquiring them, I was in a corp at the time, who spent those billions of isk at the time aquiring numerous t2 bpos. This was at a time when isk was hard to come by, not like now when it grows on trees and isk printers.
Everyone at the time, had the same opportunities to bid for tech 2 bpos in the tech 2 bpo auctions. If you wernt around or have the isk then tough.....stop whinging.
Thanks for sharing professor obvious, it's clear you've learnt a lot in your many years of being ubah!
UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
132
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 10:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
we should remove BPOs and migrate to a system where CCP controls the supply of each player manufactured item via BPC droprates.
it's completely ridiculous that goons are able to build as many maelstroms and tornados as they want without any limit on that number. Blobbing starts with the manufacturing of ships.
BPOs also go against the idea of supply and demand - maelstroms are much more popular than say megathrons but due to BPOs the supply of both is basically unlimited and both trade only slightly above mineral cost.
The ship with the higher demand is supposed to be more expensive - but when everyone can build it as much as he likes, that won't happen of course. |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1140
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 10:57:00 -
[8] - Quote
Greyscale Dash wrote:HTFU
GTFO |
Iron Davis
Brotherhood of Iron
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 11:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
I've had this conversation before regarding a no longer existing Alliance (BoB) they were discovered of being "given" BPO's during the "lottery" point in BPO times. This favored alliance/corporation may have disbanded but those BPO's didn't just disappear and furthermore they were given a monopoly on those items and I'm not so sure that was ever really taken care of. So the idea of reseting things and starting fresh doesn't sound so bad to me, as far as owning particular BPO's goes. |
TheBlueMonkey
Natural Progression
Hedonistic Imperative
162
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 12:10:00 -
[10] - Quote
You mean they're not discussing the expansion that's going to happen after this expansion yet?
I for one am outraged, more so that they're not telling us EVERYTHING that's going to be in the expansion after that.
Look, there's alot that needs fixing in eve. CCP always promise a lot because they get over excited about shiny things.
Why don't we wait for this expansion, see how that goes then nudge and poke them about the next one after this?
As far as the whole T2 BPO and things go.
Were you here during the time of the lottery?
Did you witness things like the 30mil T2 DCU?
Did you see what happened when invention came out?
The price tanked and went down and down to it's current low low prices.
Why was that?
Rather than there being a handfull of people who sold DCU's at agreed prices you had hundreads of inventards undercutting each other and drivign the price into the floor.
Then when they "couldn't make any isk off them" who's fault was it? CLEARLY the T2 BPO holders.
Eve's a complicated system, so it's going to take time to improve all the things. Give it a chance.
Also, I have no T2 BPOs but if anyone wants to give me some I'm not going to complain. |
|
|
Arrs Grazznic
Poena Executive Solutions
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 12:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:we should remove BPOs and migrate to a system where CCP controls the supply of player manufactured item via BPC droprates.
it's ridiculous that goons are able to build as many maelstroms and tornados as they want without any limit on that number. Blobbing starts with the manufacturing of ships.
BPOs also go completely against the idea of supply and demand that is supposed to control the eve economy - e.g. maelstroms are much more popular than megathrons but due to BPOs the supply of both is basically unlimited and both trade only slightly above mineral cost.
The ship with the higher demand is supposed to be more expensive - but when everyone can build it as much as he likes, that won't happen.
Abolishing BPOs would also give CCP much more leeway with balancing as any imbalance would only be exploitable on a limited scope and while the game designers work to rebalance things (which takes ages) a nerf to the BPC droprate of any imbalanced ship/item would fix the issue for the short term.
It's a general rule that "overpowered" items only become a problem when they are also overused - and limiting their supply addresses that issue.
Ummm... aren't you forgetting minerals as a limiting factor in ship production? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
3783
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 12:58:00 -
[12] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:we should remove BPOs and migrate to a system where CCP controls the supply of player manufactured item via BPC droprates.
it's ridiculous that goons are able to build as many maelstroms and tornados as they want without any limit on that number
AFAIK, they don't build any (or at least most), they import them. But in any case: Why should production of any particular ship be limited to some arbitrary number.
Can you tell us what you think would be the right number of Maelstroms allowed should be?
Given the Goons have a large amount of ISK, don't you think it's likely that your idea of limiting produiction to a set amount would result in Goons having the ship types they want, and no-one else being able to get them? I'm pretty sure they'd cheerfully pay 250M for Mael hulls if it meant that no one else could get them. That would give them an unbeatable advantage, plus a fresh new harvest of tears from foolish people who make unwise suggestions without thinking through the obvious ramifications.
(You)
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor
Intrepid Crossing
281
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 13:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Where did they talk about an industry expansion?
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Get EVE Isk per Hour! |
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
133
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 06:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
Arrs Grazznic wrote:Vera Algaert wrote:we should remove BPOs and migrate to a system where CCP controls the supply of player manufactured item via BPC droprates.
it's ridiculous that goons are able to build as many maelstroms and tornados as they want without any limit on that number. Blobbing starts with the manufacturing of ships.
BPOs also go completely against the idea of supply and demand that is supposed to control the eve economy - e.g. maelstroms are much more popular than megathrons but due to BPOs the supply of both is basically unlimited and both trade only slightly above mineral cost.
The ship with the higher demand is supposed to be more expensive - but when everyone can build it as much as he likes, that won't happen.
Abolishing BPOs would also give CCP much more leeway with balancing as any imbalance would only be exploitable on a limited scope and while the game designers work to rebalance things (which takes ages) a nerf to the BPC droprate of any imbalanced ship/item would fix the issue for the short term.
It's a general rule that "overpowered" items only become a problem when they are also overused - and limiting their supply addresses that issue. Ummm... aren't you forgetting minerals as a limiting factor in ship production?
I did forget that sarcasm doesn't convey well over the internet^^
I don't like that the new modules are only seeded as BPCs (and the last point about limited imbalances is the most likely reason for that) because I think it runs directly counter to the idea of a player-run economy.
Minerals limit overall production of ships/modules but how much of that overall production is allocated to any single ship is currently decided by the players/player-driven market. CCP trying to control that would hurt the quality of our economic sandbox massively in my opinion.
@Malcanis
0.0 alliances build T1 ships in 0.0 - without mineral compression the logistics of supplying a large alliance would be unfeasible.
A Rhea has 375,705 m^3 cargo. That's 7 packaged Maelstroms - or 85 Maelstroms in minerals (*) .
How things work is: buy minerals in high-sec, compress them into T1 modules, haul to 0.0, reprocess modules, build ships.
(*) there are some issues with that number as it uses gas cloud harvesters which have great compression but long production times and assumes you cannot buy high-ends in 0.0 which you usually can ; the practical number is probably in the 60-70 range. |
Lexmana
Imperial Stout
464
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 10:57:00 -
[15] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:I don't like that the new modules are only seeded as BPCs (and the last point about limited imbalances is the most likely reason for that) because I think it runs directly counter to the idea of a player-run economy.
This^^.
I have no idea why the choose that path. It seems stupid and counter intuitive for T1 modules. Higher meta is another thing though. If they wanted to limit production for specific modules (not sure why would want to infere with the sandbox on this tbh) they could add some rare mineral or component that only drops from hacking or salvage sites. |
Arrs Grazznic
Poena Executive Solutions
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 12:11:00 -
[16] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:I did forget that sarcasm doesn't convey well over the internet^^
Noted... Though this is the EVE forums... You never can be sure!
Vera Algaert wrote:I don't like that the new modules are only seeded as BPCs (and the last point about limited imbalances is the most likely reason for that) because I think it runs directly counter to the idea of a player-run economy.
Completely agree.
|
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
790
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 12:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
Why do people feel they are entitled to BPOs that can spit out infinite runs and BPCs whenever they feel like?
What's wrong with going out there and running Radar/Magnmetometric sites and getting some BPCs yourself, or buying them from someone who bothered to put in the effort and time to do so? |
Tomcio FromFarAway
The Scope
Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 12:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
St Mio wrote:
What's wrong with going out there and running Radar/Magnmetometric sites and getting some BPCs yourself
effort?
|
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
245
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 17:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
St Mio wrote:Why do people feel they are entitled to BPOs that can spit out infinite runs and BPCs whenever they feel like?
What's wrong with going out there and running Radar/Magnmetometric sites and getting some BPCs yourself, or buying them from someone who bothered to put in the effort and time to do so?
It has nothing to do with being entitled to BPOs or not. It's about having a consistent system for BPs, rather than one rule for some BPs and another set of rules for another.
UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
Markus Reese
Debitum Naturae
ROMANIAN-LEGION
180
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 18:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
I think these unusual modules that are more niche definitely should be bpc drop. Makes them pretty cool. of course drop rate, runs, and manufacturing cost need to be well planned to make them cost effective.
In the hijack argument of the T2 BPO's, personally, I am surprized ccp didn't make them some 10,000 run bpc so that the overall manufacturing in the end would make them still pay back the owners, but still nice for the market to have them removed. |
|
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
The Scope
Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 18:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:
It has nothing to do with being entitled to BPOs or not. It's about having a consistent system for BPs, rather than one rule for some BPs and another set of rules for another.
But we already have different systems.
Navy ships - LP store
Pirate ship - LP store + faction drops
|
Schmacos tryne
Norsk Testosteron
35
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 21:39:00 -
[22] - Quote
I vote: Remove BPOs.
Just reimburse the cost of the BPO and any money gone into improving the ME/PE og the given BPO. T2 BPOs can be reimbursed with a market equivalent sum and deleted too.
If CCP don't reimburse the cost involved in buying and improve the BPOs then forget it! |
Miss Whippy
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
246
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 05:41:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:
It has nothing to do with being entitled to BPOs or not. It's about having a consistent system for BPs, rather than one rule for some BPs and another set of rules for another.
But we already have different systems. Navy ships - LP store Pirate ship - LP store + faction drops
Yes I know, hence my statement above.
Having said that, I don't have a problem so much with faction BPs being in the LP store. I'm worried about your every day BPs like T1 and T2.
UI Iteration isn't enough, we need to start from scratch |
Alain Kinsella
107
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 14:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
The recent announcement is riling some up, because there's a possible precedent set for no BPO on a (supposed) Meta 0 item. Dropped BPCs are normally allotted at Meta 1 and above.
Dev in the discussion thread did realize that argument, and was going to consider making sure those BPCs (and the items made from them) don't show up as Meta 0.
/thread
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |