|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Majesta Empire
   |
Posted - 2009.11.12 01:13:00 -
[1]
Here we go again.
 Originally by: HongHi Choi
Most of us are aware of the problem of there being a fixed number of T2 BPOs seeded a LONG time ago, and no plans of there being a system of seeding new ones.
Nope, I don't see a problem there.
The only problem I see is the mechanics of invention being too prone too luck/bad luck and producing too expensive products compared to the ones produced from BPOs.
Originally by: HongHi Choi
The result: T2 market is dictated by T2 BPO owners, and nothing can be done about that.
Wrong. Several modules and ships don't have a T2 BPO and still the market looks just the same there.
Market is dictated by competition. That's all.
T2 BPO owners on popular items can't even lower the market average, because they don't produce enough.
For unpopular items it's pretty much irrelevant, because people don't want to produce those things anyway, since it's unprofitable.
Apart from that..
"T2 BPOs are a problem. Let's have a couple more T2 BPOs!" doesn't make sense to me.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 04:35:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Alezander Jagen
I'm assuming that most of the people going "eff no!" are those who currently own T2 BPOs.
Yes and no.
I own one T2 BPO. And it's no ship, mind you.
Apart from that I also do some invention.
So I know both aspects to a certain degree.
Being on a high throne is a bit of an unfounded insinuation. It might be that some of the T2 BPo owners just have a better understanding of the big picture.
What more T2 BPOs would do is just increase supply and low-price competition. Yes it would probably drive prices down. And by that it would be very bad for inventors, the group many claim to represent.
What it would also do is drive down T2 BPO prices. But why? Simply because they would be worth less..
That's the bottom line. Margins will always be low. If you increase supply and number of T2 BPOs, they will just be even lower.
On a side note, prices for T2 are really low, just as prices for T1 ships are on an all time low.
Imho they don't need to drop even more, or otherwise blowing up a shiny T2 ship isn't much of an achievement or loss, both for the winner and the victim.
T2 BPOs are just like titans. Not limiting their numbers (by whatever means necessary) is a very bad idea.
Boost invention instead.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 23:03:00 -
[3]
Originally by: vdude
But adding lottery for t2 bpc with higher material will solve the problem.
This was my proposal for a 'T2 BPO fix' for a long time.
Simply changing the lottery to BPCs instead of BPOs would've been an interesting alternative to invention.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.15 17:32:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Merle Hausen
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Good stuff.
Honestly, this. There needs to be a way to get T2 BPO's and this is a method that REQUIRES you to work for it. It should take a player time, effort, and even an investment on their part. I would prefer if this system somehow tied into the invention system in some way.
Agreed, but I think BPCs with good ME/PE level (could depend on agent level and quality) and multiple runs might be better and will keep it running in a more controlled way than adding more 'infinite' BPOs you could never ever get rid of again.
If the T2 lottery would have been about multi run BPC instead of BPOs from the start, it would still be fine now.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
|
|
| |
|