Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar V O O D O O
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 16:22:00 -
[1]
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/pdf/QEN_Q2-2009.pdf
T2 bpo's gives unfair advantage to people owning them. There is no way to get them now, unless you buy it from another owner. Check market data released like 84% interceptors are made from bpos. There is no way to compete in that market. Most T2 items gives you loss when inventing them.
Solution one: Seed T2 BPO's to market or research agent shops Solution two: Remove or change T2 BPO's into 1 year long run BPC's Soplution three: While inventing you have chance to get T2 BPO
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 16:37:00 -
[2]
No.. let the topic die already.
Inventors actually have an advantage on BPO holders since they can effectively produce more by an exponential amount and also dump stock and switch into a different model at the drop of a hat.
Remember, a BPO holder can only produce off a single print at any given time. A good invention account can literally produce hundreds more of the same item. |
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar V O O D O O
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 16:48:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria No.. let the topic die already.
Inventors actually have an advantage on BPO holders since they can effectively produce more by an exponential amount and also dump stock and switch into a different model at the drop of a hat.
Remember, a BPO holder can only produce off a single print at any given time. A good invention account can literally produce hundreds more of the same item.
Especialy that bpo is 2x quicker per single slot, and owner can invent also ? 60D GTC - shattared link |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 16:53:00 -
[4]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 18/08/2009 16:54:16
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/pdf/QEN_Q2-2009.pdf
T2 bpo's gives unfair advantage to people owning them. There is no way to get them now, unless you buy it from another owner. Check market data released like 84% interceptors are made from bpos. There is no way to compete in that market. Most T2 items gives you loss when inventing them.
Solution 1: Change to a different market. Solution 2: Stop making interceptors and make something else. Solution 3: Accept that your interceptor sales may be slower than a BPO owner and adjust production accordingly.
In EVE as in the real business world, you don't ask the market to change to meet your needs. You change to meet the needs of the market.
Or you go out of business.
Edit: I so fail at spelling some days. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Hoo Is
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 17:07:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria No.. let the topic die already.
Inventors actually have an advantage on BPO holders since they can effectively produce more by an exponential amount and also dump stock and switch into a different model at the drop of a hat.
Remember, a BPO holder can only produce off a single print at any given time. A good invention account can literally produce hundreds more of the same item.
Fail logic is fail
BPO holder has all advantages due to no need for invention (datacores, copies, failure rate) simply stick it on the line and press go.
---- a reply which adds nothing to a thread or results in a thread being bumped with no new discussion worthy content is considered spam and as such warrants a forum ban |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 17:09:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Drake Draconis on 18/08/2009 17:09:01
Originally by: De'Veldrin Edited by: De''Veldrin on 18/08/2009 16:54:16
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/pdf/QEN_Q2-2009.pdf
T2 bpo's gives unfair advantage to people owning them. There is no way to get them now, unless you buy it from another owner. Check market data released like 84% interceptors are made from bpos. There is no way to compete in that market. Most T2 items gives you loss when inventing them.
Solution 1: Change to a different market. Solution 2: Stop making interceptors and make something else. Solution 3: Accept that your interceptor sales may be slower than a BPO owner and adjust production accordingly.
In EVE as in the real business world, you don't ask the market to change to meet your needs. You change to meet the needs of the market.
Or you go out of business.
Edit: I so fail at spelling some days.
This
/Thread ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
I SoStoned
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 17:11:00 -
[7]
As a T2 producer using both BPOs and Invention, I argue that this entire complaint holds no water whatsoever.
With one of my BPO's I can build, at most, 1127 units of a particular item a month using 1 manufacturing slot. Inventing that same module allows me to use the entire available manufacturing capacity of my local station with several accounts. Granted the waste is a little steep at 50%, and it takes me twice as long to build each unit, but at the end of the same month I can produce 15000 units of that item (again, using several characters).
Using just 1 account I can produce 1127 with one build slot and 4300 with my other nine build slots.
The net return is that my Invention far, far outpaces my BPO production and returns me more profit over time than that BPO.
|
Nian Banks
Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 17:20:00 -
[8]
If this was a real market, there wouldn't be a finite amount of T2 BPO's, corporations would be inventing them.
I have no problem with T2 BPO's existing, I do however have an issue with the fact that there are no new T2 BPO's been released. Bring back the T2 lotteries.
If that isn't acceptable, then increase the invented T2 BPC's Material Efficiency to a decent positive, such as ME25. Also increase the maximum possible runs for the T2 BPC's.
If people want T2 BPO's to stay, then invention needs a hefty buff, thats all there is to it.
BTW: I will be quite honest, anyone who disagrees with T2 producion BPO's and BPC's needing a rebalance, are not thinking of the betterment of EVE but in their own selfish self interest. For those people, I care not what happens to you and your self interest, you can be damned all I care.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 17:37:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Nian Banks BTW: I will be quite honest, anyone who disagrees with T2 producion BPO's and BPC's needing a rebalance, are not thinking of the betterment of EVE but in their own selfish self interest. For those people, I care not what happens to you and your self interest, you can be damned all I care.
This is the same reason I hate political debate a lot of the time. The assumption that people who disagree with you are not misguided, don't have different priorities, but are simply evil is one of the most poisonous aspects of political debate, and it disgusts me how many people adhere to that simplistic a worldview. Do us all a favour - operate on the assumption that most people who disagree with you do so with noble intentions. Not all - jackasses exist - but most.
In this case, I genuinely do feel that this change would utterly defeat the purpose of the invention/BPO split, and genuinely would make the game worse. T2 lotteries in the first place were a mistake, but we're stuck with them. Let's not screw it up further, please.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 17:56:00 -
[10]
WTF
do you really fail at the search function? we just had that topic like 2 weeks ago.
not supported in any form.
(and yes i am heavily doing invention.)
|
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 19:22:00 -
[11]
T2 BPO at 10x - 100x T1 BPO cost , freely available on the market. Invented T2 BPC inherit T1 BPC Me/Pe div 10 or there abouts.
Current situation is lol RP breaking apart from anything else. I'm sure Lai Dai would give away there Cerberus BPO for example and then never bother selling any for profit.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:01:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Dav Varan
I'm sure Lai Dai would give away there Cerberus BPO for example and then never bother selling any for profit.
Then you're a fracking idiot. No company is going to just "give away" anything that might earn them a profit - and if they think it gives them a competitive advantage, they won't sell it either, unless they think selling it offers them a larger advantage.
In your logical failspew above, Lai Dai would not only have NOT given away a Cerebus BPO, they would routinely sue the crap out of anyone that even so much as tried to invent a new one.
Dumbass. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:20:00 -
[13]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
In your logical failspew above, Lai Dai would not only have NOT given away a Cerebus BPO, they would routinely sue the crap out of anyone that even so much as tried to invent a new one.
Dumbass.
That would be one way to move more production to low/null sec.
That being said... I really would like to see SOME path (even if it is long and breaking even takes years) to obtain new T2 BPOs. For me at least I would see it as something to work towards, if not for the ISK generated but for the fun of building up a good solid collection.
|
Grath Telkin
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:36:00 -
[14]
Man i love these threads, the t2 BPO holders come out of the woodwork frothing at the mouth at the slightest mention of their precious BPO's leaving the game. Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:44:00 -
[15]
did you notice that even non BPO owner tell those people that their logic is flawed?
try to sustain the supply for a decent sized alliance just from T2 bpos.
|
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 20:47:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Grath Telkin Man i love these threads, the t2 BPO holders come out of the woodwork frothing at the mouth at the slightest mention of their precious BPO's leaving the game.
Seriously!
I am complaining that my RIG BPO collection is almost worthless now, and I have to buy and research and 2 more entire sets...
But heaven forbid you touch a T2 BPO!!!
Pick Three: Caldari/PVP/Solo/Success |
Kalintos Tyl
V O O D O O
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 21:15:00 -
[17]
Originally by: De'Veldrin Edited by: De''Veldrin on 18/08/2009 16:54:16
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/pdf/QEN_Q2-2009.pdf
T2 bpo's gives unfair advantage to people owning them. There is no way to get them now, unless you buy it from another owner. Check market data released like 84% interceptors are made from bpos. There is no way to compete in that market. Most T2 items gives you loss when inventing them.
Solution 1: Change to a different market. Solution 2: Stop making interceptors and make something else. Solution 3: Accept that your interceptor sales may be slower than a BPO owner and adjust production accordingly.
In EVE as in the real business world, you don't ask the market to change to meet your needs. You change to meet the needs of the market.
Or you go out of business.
Edit: I so fail at spelling some days.
yes move to that 20% T2 items that make profit inventing, and competition is high, good luck 60D GTC - shattared link |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 21:18:00 -
[18]
there are more ways do adapt and earn money.
after reading the numbers from the QEN i should wonder why we make so much isk with that. see you on the battlefield err market. :D
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 22:14:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Grath Telkin Man i love these threads, the t2 BPO holders come out of the woodwork frothing at the mouth at the slightest mention of their precious BPO's leaving the game.
I've never even seen a T2 BPO, let alone owned one. My primary income source is invention. And I'm telling you that this is a terrible idea.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 22:48:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Grath Telkin Man i love these threads, the t2 BPO holders come out of the woodwork frothing at the mouth at the slightest mention of their precious BPO's leaving the game.
Are you really this stupid? Or are you just trolling us? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 23:14:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Nian Banks
If that isn't acceptable, then increase the invented T2 BPC's Material Efficiency to a decent positive, such as ME25. Also increase the maximum possible runs for the T2 BPC's.
Before whining at least inform yourself.
Look the time needed to get a T2 BPO to ME 25. Ans the advantages of doing that.
For modules it modify only the asteroid minerals requirement (and the same for the negative ME), so a negligible part of the cost.
For ships it is a bit more important, but anything above ME 5-10 is mostly a waste of time.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 23:22:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 18/08/2009 23:22:22
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl Check market data released like 84% interceptors are made from bpos.
Why you don't cite the other data?
89% of all the hulks come from BPC, 75% of all the HAC 88% of Cap rechargers II 92% of all the Cov Ops cloak
Easy to argument using only a selected section for the data.
You see my "friend" it work in the reverse. It is not that inventors don't invent interceptors because the evil BPO owners push them away, inventors avoid inventing interceptors because they can use their resources for better things like inventing HACs.
So BPO owner are those left to cover most of the demand as they can't change production.
Remove the BPO and you will still have very few people inventing interceptors as the HAC still pay more for the time and resources used.
Edit: spelling
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.08.18 23:53:00 -
[23]
Soulution tree would be good. Make it so every one has a chance to get a t2bpo form invention. 0,00001% chance or so.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 00:20:00 -
[24]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Soulution tree would be good. Make it so every one has a chance to get a t2bpo form invention. 0,00001% chance or so.
an even worse form of the lottery. just *NO* if you want to buy a t2 bpo. earn the money. buy one. it is as simple as that.
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 03:21:00 -
[25]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 Soulution tree would be good. Make it so every one has a chance to get a t2bpo form invention. 0,00001% chance or so.
The T2 BPO lottery sucked because it was chance based. Invention (esp on ships) sucks because it is chanced based.
If any solution for introducing new T2 BPOs into the game is going to not suck, it should not be chance based.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 04:25:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Nekopyat Invention (esp on ships) sucks because it is chanced based.
If any solution for introducing new T2 BPOs into the game is going to not suck, it should not be chance based.
If invention is meaningfully chance-based, you're doing it wrong. Invent within your budget, and regression to the mean is your friend. If a few successes or failures is what will make or break you, you're too close to the edge, back off and try again.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 07:12:00 -
[27]
If this is right (I have some doubt):
Quote: [Interceptors] Due to their fast build time, BPO holders can churn them out quickly in great numbers, filling a large portion of the demand for these ships.
the solution is fairly simple without need for absurd positive ME levels from invention, simply remove the negative PE levels, making invention baseline value for PE 0.
Invention has already a time sink in the invention part of the process, so it can be removed in the build part.
My opinion is that it will only further reduce the margins for inventors without increasing the selection of invented items, but it can be worth a try.
|
Carniflex
Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 11:20:00 -
[28]
|
Brian Khan
Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 11:21:00 -
[29]
|
Vlad Wormwing
StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.08.19 11:22:00 -
[30]
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |