EVE Search - 56% of all T2 ships were produced from BPOs

All Channels

Market Discussions

56% of all T2 ships were produced from BPOs

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.08.22 18:59:00 - [61] lots of tools: a) set "base waste" on T2 blueprints to 5% across the board. - researched BPOs gain/lose nothing - invention's waste levels increment by 5% --- takes strain off moon market by... 20%? helps dragging on that failed concept of static supply in an inflationary system -.- b) improve invention chances - takes care of (a chunk of) the GTC-paying farm accounts, probably home to thousands of courier macros getting heir R&D standings. - if you want to counter this, turn off RP generation on suspended accounts, if that's still in (...?) // although i've never been fan of the T2 BPO _lottery_, it's also true that a large portion of them has switched hands: khatred may be the icon of eve-capitalism, acquiring and dumping ship BPOs on a LARGE scale. but contrary to those having dozens of billions blown up their arse by sheer luck, he truely bought most/all of them. it's not his fault that the market values these buggers so much... it used to be "profit for one year of production" where are we now? haven't had a look for a while... if you were to remove them, it'd have to roughly, just roughly, cover such a time span... and/or disallowing them to leave their current place, similar to PLEX x_X - putting the gist back into logistics
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.22 19:03:00 - [62] Carniflex, yours is the most honest reply for a "anti T2 BPO" position I have seen in a long time. At least for someone that do the math. I can comprehend your reply. My two BPO could be sold for much more than I will get building from them, but they are "my BPO", I won then doing a lot of work, keeping it up even if the field of research were saying "nothing predictable" as there was no BPO available and not yet the datacores, so I will not sell them. Even if I am in the "opposite" field I can get what you mean here. I have suggested a lot of time ago a way to add more T2 BPO while keeping invention rewarding, so I will repropose it here: When you have a R&D agent you have 2 choices. 1) go for the datacores and invent; 2) give him a T1 BPO for an item and start a research to turn that T1 BPO to a specific T2 BPO. Doing that should require regular missions for the agent (at least 1 every week) so that it is not possible to farm T2 BPO while inactive and a long period (at least 3 months for the smaller items, 1 year or more for the ships). Naturally that agent would not be giving datacores out and would use a R&D agent slots. Possibly the missions would require a decent range and value of items to be delivered to thw agent, so that the player researcher would pay a reasonable price between datacores lost and items delivered for the T2 BPO. While the time pass and the "old" T2 BPO become common CCP should constantly add some new T2 technology. Doing it this way the inventors would have a window of opportunity where they are the only one to product the new items while the older items become slowly the territory of the BPO owners. The only problem is the constant need of pushing the envelope of new T2, something that can become difficult to do without balance issues for CCP. Keeping the time of research long enough and costly enough could maybe be sufficient as a limiting tool for the proliferation of T2 BPO, but it is hard to say.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.22 19:07:00 - [63] Originally by: Roemy Schneider lots of tools: a) set "base waste" on T2 blueprints to 5% across the board. - researched BPOs gain/lose nothing - invention's waste levels increment by 5% --- takes strain off moon market by... 20%? helps dragging on that failed concept of static supply in an inflationary system -.- I think that the effect on moon minerals would be way less, remember that ME don't influence the T2 components wastage for modules, it change only the asteroid minerals requirements. Still, wath you suggest could help.
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.08.22 19:32:00 - [64] Your suggestion for the way to add T2 BPO's is reasonable. I actually expected something like that before current invention was implemented. Ie something that takes effort, time and resources and not possible to solve by throwing only isk at the problem. Then again I also expected origin BPC ME/PE levels to affect the resulting T2 BPC ME/PE levels. I probably would not be as militant about those prints if it would (invention would still be at slight disadvantage as it needs cores and is propability based). It sure sounded like that when invention was in planning phases but well ... it's not there. Not yet. Nothing unreasonable ofc. Say 1.5 times more ME research on T1 would result 1 'tick' on T2 BPC or something like that. For example if 1 ME tick would take 1 mnth on T2 BPO doing 1.5 months of ME on T1 BPO and using those copies for invention would cause your T2 BPC have 1 better ME. The latest devblog numbers did surprise be a bit. I actually expected invention produced stuff to have bigger market share. In the end ofc it's all limited by available moon minerals and dyspo moons are the new Hulk BPO's. The amount of isk few reasonable quality consellations out in 0.0 can create is staggering. In the ballpark of 70 bil per month (minus POS fuel). Pure profit line is ofc lower as territorial warfare is kinda expensive hobby. Especially if someone actually comes and tries to take those moons form you.
Mara Kell Steel Beasts Sev3rance	Posted - 2009.08.22 21:05:00 - [65] Originally by: Venkul Mul I think that the effect on moon minerals would be way less, remember that ME don't influence the T2 components wastage for modules, it change only the asteroid minerals requirements. Since when? Oo ME 0 Zealot needs 165 Antimatter Reactors and ME -2 needs 195 Antimatter Reactors.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.22 22:44:00 - [66] Originally by: Mara Kell Originally by: Venkul Mul I think that the effect on moon minerals would be way less, remember that ME don't influence the T2 components wastage for modules, it change only the asteroid minerals requirements. Since when? Oo ME 0 Zealot needs 165 Antimatter Reactors and ME -2 needs 195 Antimatter Reactors. Your Zealotis a module? Bolded the part you missed.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.22 22:57:00 - [67] Originally by: Carniflex Your suggestion for the way to add T2 BPO's is reasonable. I actually expected something like that before current invention was implemented. Ie something that takes effort, time and resources and not possible to solve by throwing only isk at the problem. Then again I also expected origin BPC ME/PE levels to affect the resulting T2 BPC ME/PE levels. I probably would not be as militant about those prints if it would (invention would still be at slight disadvantage as it needs cores and is propability based). It sure sounded like that when invention was in planning phases but well ... it's not there. Not yet. Nothing unreasonable ofc. Say 1.5 times more ME research on T1 would result 1 'tick' on T2 BPC or something like that. For example if 1 ME tick would take 1 mnth on T2 BPO doing 1.5 months of ME on T1 BPO and using those copies for invention would cause your T2 BPC have 1 better ME. Would resolve a lot of problems and was the original plan. I think it was not implemented for database limits, as other things involving BPC. CCP is working on a better database, when that will be available it is possible that this change will be implemented too. Quote: The latest devblog numbers did surprise be a bit. I actually expected invention produced stuff to have bigger market share. In the end ofc it's all limited by available moon minerals and dyspo moons are the new Hulk BPO's. Me too, but remember that it is not a market share (i.e. not the isk %) but a production share (i.e. the number of items made). A lot of low use T2 items build with BPO have a low value. You should sell a lot of light T2 drones to make up the sell value of a golem. Even if you will need less than that number to get the same gain if you are building from a BPO, 50 millions gain from T2 light drone sales require a lot of single units sold. I would like very much a table with the market isk value shares of BPO and BPC production. Would have been nice to see that side by side with the production share of BPO and BPC.
Aria Gallaine	Posted - 2009.08.23 07:55:00 - [68] Originally by: Venkul Mul You are missing a point: Invention supply is capable of (almost) infinitely increase. The supply of moon minerals will make a ceiling in production well before the ceiling of invented BPC could be reached. So there will be only a temporary reduction in supply, covered almost immediately by people that already invent. So the market will stabilize at the current margin after a brief fluctuation. I think you're misunderstanding what 'supply' means in the context. The supply curve takes into account both producers entering the market and existing producers producing more. It's a curve plotted on axes of price and quantity, and pretty much has to curve upward. For it to shift requires a change in the costs of production (including producer's profit demand). You get exactly such a shift when the BPOs vanish, since you lose lower-cost production. The additional inventors coming in to take up the slack is not a shift of supply, it's the market coming back into equilibrium with the new supply curve. Your model for the first week or two makes sense to my limited knowledge, but I'm not talking about the first week or two. I'm talking about where the price winds up after the shocks are worked out and the new equilibrium is reached. The only way that equilibrium could not be at a higher price, if the basic model applies, is if another shift occurs (and I see no reason for that) or if the supply curve is completely flat (which seems impossible).
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.08.23 08:22:00 - [69] EVE is quite good approximation to real markets and it has similar problem as "real" markets. Most textbooks and mainstream economic theories assume that economy is static and in equilibrium (note however that I'm nub in economicks) ie there is some supply curve and demand curve and where they meet the current price will sit. However - if you look at real EVE markets or real world markets it's not that simplistic. Real EVE market is dynamic and at best it's sitting in some moderately unstable local attractor in it's phase space (using physicks terms). Plus there are speculators that are kinda additional variable in the "equations" you are trying to control and predict. EVE is not a linear game and thus small changes in "initial conditions" can lead to large changes. Effect of getting rid of T2 BPO's or making them available to general public would be bigger than just increasing price of some currently-not-profitable-to-invent products. For a start moon minerals would see in either case see some changes, that in turn would have some effect on 0.0 sov warfare etcetc. In my opinion the effect would make EVE better (but it's just an opinion in my part) by increasing demand for said moon minerals in either case and thus generating more conflict out there in 0.0.
Dodgy Past Amarr Lollipops for Rancors	Posted - 2009.08.23 10:07:00 - [70] Bear in mind that there is a growing market demand for T2 since the population of the game is growing. Right now I'd expect that to be mainly modules and the easiest T2 ships to train. Since that's where players who were drawn in by the combination of the dissolution of BoB and Apocrypha are in their training process. Over the next couple of months you can probably expect to see HACs and Recons start to strengthen, probably another month or two after that for Marauders. Also I suspect anyone involved in Covops manufacturing has done very nicely out of w-holes. As long as the active player base increases then T2 BPOs will become less and less relevant, though to an extent the existence of T2 BPOs does create a minimum size for the game which is worryingly high, since if the number of active players shrinks enough to remove the demand for invention then there will be a sudden and huge drop in subscriptions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arwen Tyler	Posted - 2009.08.23 10:31:00 - [71] Originally by: Cute Cuddles I love how time and time again people forget that when you've had what you want out of a BPO, you can always sell it to get your initial investment back. You don't "lose" the money you spent. Those who've never owned one make themselves so obvious. Not if CCP takes them out of game you can't. !
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.23 11:38:00 - [72] Originally by: Aria Gallaine Originally by: Venkul Mul You are missing a point: Invention supply is capable of (almost) infinitely increase. The supply of moon minerals will make a ceiling in production well before the ceiling of invented BPC could be reached. So there will be only a temporary reduction in supply, covered almost immediately by people that already invent. So the market will stabilize at the current margin after a brief fluctuation. I think you're misunderstanding what 'supply' means in the context. Supply: Economics. the quantity of a commodity that is in the market and available for purchase Seem fairly clear and is not the same thing of the meeting point of supply and demand. If you prefer you can substitute production to supply: "Invention production is capable of (almost) infinitely increase." is more to your taste? Originally by: Aria Gallaine The supply curve takes into account both producers entering the market and existing producers producing more. It's a curve plotted on axes of price and quantity, and pretty much has to curve upward. For it to shift requires a change in the costs of production (including producer's profit demand). Time and quantity. You are again changing the focus to avoid the point that T2 BPC production can be scaled up almost infinitely. Originally by: Aria Gallaine You get exactly such a shift when the BPOs vanish, since you lose lower-cost production. The additional inventors coming in to take up the slack is not a shift of supply, it's the market coming back into equilibrium with the new supply curve. Temporary loss of production, yes, exactly my point: temporary. Originally by: Aria Gallaine Your model for the first week or two makes sense to my limited knowledge, but I'm not talking about the first week or two. I'm talking about where the price winds up after the shocks are worked out and the new equilibrium is reached. The only way that equilibrium could not be at a higher price, if the basic model applies, is if another shift occurs (and I see no reason for that) or if the supply curve is completely flat (which seems impossible). Wrong. The inventors will cover all the missing production from BPO on the larger part of the items on market (barring very marginal items like Small smartbomb II), so overabundant production (exactly like today) will be available for the items and the prices (when corrected for the increase in moon mineral and datacores cost, a increase that will be passed to the final buyer) will be the same, with the same % gain. You refuse to see the increase in invented BPC production that will happen and the competition between inventor. Note: there is some marginal item that will become profitable for inventors, but the percentage gain after initial adjustments will be approximately the same you will get on other invention attempts. Try an experiment: look the margin for inventors on the most used HACs (where inventors own 75% of the market) and those of the more used Marauder. Based on your theory the marauder should have a higher profit in percentage, based on mine the difference should be some percentage point.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.08.23 17:52:00 - [73] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Aramith Originally by: Malcanis Or to put it in simpler terms: remove T2 BPOs and margins in BPO only items will rise to be the same as those in T2 items for which no BPO exists. margins raise to that of tech 2 items that no BPO exists? last i checked on marauders for example, the ship was for sale on market for less that the material cost of the ship and that is before you add in the material cost of trying to invent the bpc as there are NO maruader bpo and there never was a maruader bpo. I think you have got exactly what Malcanis was saying. It's nice when they work it out on their own, isn't it?
Aria Gallaine	Posted - 2009.08.24 01:15:00 - [74] Originally by: Venkul Mul Supply: Economics. the quantity of a commodity that is in the market and available for purchase Seem fairly clear and is not the same thing of the meeting point of supply and demand. If you prefer you can substitute production to supply: "Invention production is capable of (almost) infinitely increase." is more to your taste? I don't disagree with your rephrased statement. But your definition of supply is not one I've ever seen used in economics. That's what it means intuitively, and often in casual conversation, but is most definitely not what I'm referring to. The supply curve is a plot of aggregate quantity produced by all suppliers vs. price offered. Typically graphed with quantity on the x axis and price on the y, somewhat oddly. Also typically graphed together with the demand curve, which plots the total amount that would be bought at each price, so that their intersection is the market equilibrium. Originally by: Venkul Mul Time and quantity. You are again changing the focus to avoid the point that T2 BPC production can be scaled up almost infinitely. No, a supply curve is most definitely on axes of price and quantity. Wikipedia's coverage is abominable, but you'll at least see pictures of the curve I'm referring to there even if it neglects to define it. I am most definitely neither evading nor denying the point that invention-based production can expand more or less without bound (except possibly moon materials, but that isn't the point.) The question isn't how far it can expand, it's how far it will expand. Originally by: Venkul Mul Wrong. The inventors will cover all the missing production from BPO on the larger part of the items on market (barring very marginal items like Small smartbomb II), so overabundant production (exactly like today) will be available for the items and the prices (when corrected for the increase in moon mineral and datacores cost, a increase that will be passed to the final buyer) will be the same, with the same % gain. Why? Why will they exactly cover the missing BPO output, no more and no less? Why are they all waiting in the wings, ready and willing to make ships at the current market price, but not doing so? Microeconomic theory would have it that they're waiting for the price to go up before entering the market. If not that, what? I agree that they'll come in, I differ about exactly how many and at what price. Originally by: Venkul Mul Try an experiment: look the margin for inventors on the most used HACs (where inventors own 75% of the market) and those of the more used Marauder. Based on your theory the marauder should have a higher profit in percentage, based on mine the difference should be some percentage point. You're attributing things to 'my' theory that it doesn't claim. Or at least, that I don't see any reason for it to claim. I say that if, for a particular ship, 25% of producers are using BPOs and suddenly go out of business, after initial fluctuations the total production in that market will be somewhat lower, and total price somewhat higher. Who ultimately pockets the extra money going into inventor's hands I'm not at all sure, because I agree that inventors will tend to the same level of profitability across all ships and modules...at least if they're rational, though from what I see on these forums it seems they often aren't. I can't easily do the calculation you suggest. I don't know the production and invention details and don't have the trade center price checks.
Kara Mitsui The New Era Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.08.24 01:50:00 - [75] Well, I have a slightly different viewpoint on this. Most of you are arguing for or against on the basis of some mathematical prediction of your own making, I don't pretend to be smart enough to think my guesses would be correct. But I would be very disappointed if T2 BPOs were removed from the game. They are the only true collectible with value that you can speculate vast sums on. They also make the T2 market more interesting than the other manufacturing markets where there is only one way of doing things. I believe, but I'm not sure, that the tension between T2 BPO holders and T2 inventors is good for keeping a balance in the market. But overall, I just think it's good for the game to have variation in manufacturing processes. The real world isn't a perfectly level playing field, we don't all get an equal chance to succeed. But this subject definitely highlights the 'glass half full' types and the 'glass half empty' types. I can't pretend to have any patience for the latter, especially if they have been playing for less than a year and have a very rudimentary understanding of history and the mechanics of manufacturing.
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.08.24 06:27:00 - [76] Originally by: Kara Mitsui I believe, but I'm not sure, that the tension between T2 BPO holders and T2 inventors is good for keeping a balance in the market. But overall, I just think it's good for the game to have variation in manufacturing processes. The real world isn't a perfectly level playing field, we don't all get an equal chance to succeed. While "fairness" is often mentioned in those discussion I don't think it's about fairness. EVE is not designed to be entirely fair game. However - inability to get T2 BPO is somewhat immersion breaking for some people. If this would be "real" world you would have illegal T2 production from illegal T2 BPO's in 0.0 space where CONCORD nor empires can enforce their rules. T2 BPO's are kinda like copyright stuff - megacorps sold X numbers of licenes to pod pilots and so it is. What's irritating that you can't really break those even in lawless places where "police" can't get ya. There is no unbreakable security systems.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.08.24 08:59:00 - [77] Originally by: Carniflex Originally by: Kara Mitsui I believe, but I'm not sure, that the tension between T2 BPO holders and T2 inventors is good for keeping a balance in the market. But overall, I just think it's good for the game to have variation in manufacturing processes. The real world isn't a perfectly level playing field, we don't all get an equal chance to succeed. While "fairness" is often mentioned in those discussion I don't think it's about fairness. EVE is not designed to be entirely fair game. However - inability to get T2 BPO is somewhat immersion breaking for some people. If this would be "real" world you would have illegal T2 production from illegal T2 BPO's in 0.0 space where CONCORD nor empires can enforce their rules. T2 BPO's are kinda like copyright stuff - megacorps sold X numbers of licenes to pod pilots and so it is. What's irritating that you can't really break those even in lawless places where "police" can't get ya. There is no unbreakable security systems. But there are plenty in EvE. Even the Guristas will respect the security of my hangar in H-PA...
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.08.24 11:12:00 - [78] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Carniflex Originally by: Kara Mitsui I believe, but I'm not sure, that the tension between T2 BPO holders and T2 inventors is good for keeping a balance in the market. But overall, I just think it's good for the game to have variation in manufacturing processes. The real world isn't a perfectly level playing field, we don't all get an equal chance to succeed. While "fairness" is often mentioned in those discussion I don't think it's about fairness. EVE is not designed to be entirely fair game. However - inability to get T2 BPO is somewhat immersion breaking for some people. If this would be "real" world you would have illegal T2 production from illegal T2 BPO's in 0.0 space where CONCORD nor empires can enforce their rules. T2 BPO's are kinda like copyright stuff - megacorps sold X numbers of licenes to pod pilots and so it is. What's irritating that you can't really break those even in lawless places where "police" can't get ya. There is no unbreakable security systems. But there are plenty in EvE. Even the Guristas will respect the security of my hangar in H-PA... We can only assume that they do not want to get in there in first place. Afterall they allow anyone to dock with their stations also. So they probably leave your personal hangars alone regardless of mutch they don't like you as if they would 'break in' into one station vault all the pod pilots would leave their station and well .. plus perhaps would kindly remove it from space on top of that if we go that route.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.24 11:19:00 - [79] Originally by: Carniflex Originally by: Kara Mitsui I believe, but I'm not sure, that the tension between T2 BPO holders and T2 inventors is good for keeping a balance in the market. But overall, I just think it's good for the game to have variation in manufacturing processes. The real world isn't a perfectly level playing field, we don't all get an equal chance to succeed. While "fairness" is often mentioned in those discussion I don't think it's about fairness. EVE is not designed to be entirely fair game. However - inability to get T2 BPO is somewhat immersion breaking for some people. If this would be "real" world you would have illegal T2 production from illegal T2 BPO's in 0.0 space where CONCORD nor empires can enforce their rules. T2 BPO's are kinda like copyright stuff - megacorps sold X numbers of licenes to pod pilots and so it is. What's irritating that you can't really break those even in lawless places where "police" can't get ya. There is no unbreakable security systems. Fairness is a bad word in EVE (even more as the first time I typed it, it came out as fairiness ) and I feel a little dirty every time I use to reply to people using that argument. About your comment, I see invention (in EVE) more like encoding a bootleg construction program than as true invention. Something like preparing a chit with the instructions for the nanomachines that I feel do most of the actual building of the ship or module. With all the inefficiencies of a home made product against a program refined by hundred of researchers. And you need to do it repeatedly as every time you need to "erase" the serial numbers to avoid problems with the patent holders. A BPO is more like a license to product that item or a "true" invention with enough difference that you aren't infringing a patent. So if we are speaking of a the Role Playing part and of immersion a way to get new BPO with a long and costly process would be a good addition. The biggest problem is a way to do that without killing the current version of invention.
Deelicious	Posted - 2009.08.24 19:00:00 - [80] I love it when people take great delight in saying "EVE isn't fair" while simultaneously discussing game mechanics. If EVE isn't fair, why do you care WHAT the game mechanics are? Whatever they are, they aren't fair, you aren't special, and no one cares. That is, if fairness doesn't matter. Or will you try to switch tactics and call it "balance"? They amount to the same thing from a design perspective.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.24 20:32:00 - [81] Originally by: Deelicious I love it when people take great delight in saying "EVE isn't fair" while simultaneously discussing game mechanics. If EVE isn't fair, why do you care WHAT the game mechanics are? Whatever they are, they aren't fair, you aren't special, and no one cares. That is, if fairness doesn't matter. Or will you try to switch tactics and call it "balance"? They amount to the same thing from a design perspective. "Fair" - all have the same chances in a fight and the same instruments are available at the start of it (like in First Person Shooters) "Balanced" - in a fight character skill and ship/modules matter, with work anyone can have them. Note that player skill is outside the argument in both situations.
Agallis Zinthros Altruism. Avarice.	Posted - 2009.08.25 03:56:00 - [82] Originally by: Trebor DeCaldar I got screwed with the Rigs, I have stack of 'LARGE' BPO's that are researched and are useless now because no one uses them on BS's. Wait, what? Noone uses large rigs anymore? I'm a fleet commander and last time I checked 75% of my men(and my enemies) fly rigged BSes. Why don't you fact check before you post? It's not piracy, its surprise PVP.
Tekota legion industries ltd Veni Vidi Vici	Posted - 2009.08.25 06:04:00 - [83] Putting aside the rights and wrongs of T2 BPOs for a time, as I'm rapidly gathering the notion that this is a debate that will never be settled. I'd like to propose a side question. What effect will the QEN figures have on the market value of T2 BPOs? I think (though please feel free to correct me) that it's safe to say the level of T2 BPO production suprised a fair few people who expected it to be a fair bit lower. Will this translate as increased demand for T2 BPOs leading to increased cost or will people fear that this suprised CCP too and, anticipating an incoming nerf of some descript (whether that be a light tickling or a brutal thwack), determine a lower market value for them? I suspect this question has a greater impact on the MD community as there are a few investments out there which have T2 BPOs as part of their assets.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.08.25 08:35:00 - [84] If and when CCP reform the supply or requirements for moongoo, T2 BPO relative values will plummet. I'd say that's a pretty significant capital risk.
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2009.08.25 11:55:00 - [85] I have to agree with Malcanis on this one. Considering the ultralong times to cover even the initial investment the risk of using T2 BPO as investment (as opposed to collectable status symbol) is unreasonably high. If something happens that nukes the profitability of that particular T2 item it might also be impossible to sell your T2 BPO for the price you had to pay for it. Considering that most of them have to be in production for 3 to 5 years to turn profit it is silly to expect so long stability in any T2 item. It's ofc possible to speculate with them, ie buy some T2 BPO and hope that something happens that makes it's price go up and cross your fingers that nothing happens that makes it's price go even lower. But that is very high risk speculation, as one of the possibilities is they might modified one day or the invoention might be boosted somehow to the levels where it can be even more competitive with them (for example if initial BPC ME levels would start modulating end result ME levels).
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.25 12:52:00 - [86] If CCP find that the 56% number is too high, they'll just turn some screws and buff invention chance/quality fnr ships by a few percents. Problem solved.
Comrade Commizzar	Posted - 2009.08.25 15:51:00 - [87] Edited by: Comrade Commizzar on 25/08/2009 15:52:31 Originally by: Vyktor Abyss -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- re: Micro smartbombs, Guardian Vexors or whatever... Nobody cares much about these unique items because these don't have any game impacting effect than 1 pimped out ship who's function it is to die. T2 BPOs are a problem because of the knock on effect of unlimited runs making their function to produce an unlimited supply of T2, be it a S Plasma smartbomb making invention for that item pointless (due to low demand ergo a practical monopoly for the BPO owners), or [silly example here] *a cheap fleet of HACs for your alliance allowing you to be uberleet, holding all the Dyspro moons thanks to your ability to endure wars of attrition better* [I did say silly example] - obviously a slightly worse impact than the micro smartbomb unique item king (o/ Entity). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******** DING! DING! DING! WE FINALLY HAVE A WINNER WHO UNDERSTANDS WHY BPOs MUST GO !!
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.08.25 17:32:00 - [88] Edited by: Josh Silver on 25/08/2009 17:32:06 Noone holds or attacks Dys moons with a cruiser fleet, what is this nonsense.
romid sparx	Posted - 2009.08.30 14:32:00 - [89] i must admit being new to invention and fairly new to eve I just didnt get it ??. I spent ages training skills and get my first success which cost me loads of isk only to find its cheaper to buy the item on the market than is is for me to invent and make it with my max 4 items BPC go figure ??.. so whats the point of invention ?.. Ive only just realised reading this thread that someone in game with a BPO has an unlimited no of runs so does,nt have to take into account the cost of inventing and therein lies the prob i guess.. enlightening read thanx for this thread... guess i just wasted months training a scientist ..
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Dark-Rising	Posted - 2009.08.30 15:39:00 - [90] Originally by: romid sparx i must admit being new to invention and fairly new to eve I just didnt get it ??. I spent ages training skills and get my first success which cost me loads of isk only to find its cheaper to buy the item on the market than is is for me to invent and make it with my max 4 items BPC go figure ??.. so whats the point of invention ?.. Ive only just realised reading this thread that someone in game with a BPO has an unlimited no of runs so does,nt have to take into account the cost of inventing and therein lies the prob i guess.. enlightening read thanx for this thread... guess i just wasted months training a scientist .. See, the unique and good part of EvE is that it's not enough to "just" train some pixels to win the game. You can't Ebay an Arena Warrior in EvE and TA DA! you are skilled in the game. YOU have also to learn the game along with your pixellated avatar. One of the things you are evidently behind your avatar in learning, is how you can be profitable even with invention, it just takes to learn how. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.