EVE Search - No subject

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

No subject

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kilostream Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.02.27 12:31:00 - [31] Edited by: Kilostream on 27/02/2010 12:55:07 Originally by: Taxesarebad ....T2 BPO's should be phased out, or put back in but with their own advantages and disadvantages how to do this i dont know..... They already do have advantages and disadvantages. Advantage: You can research ME level, you can build without datacores and t1 bpc. Disadvantage: You must build consecutively. By inventing multiple bpc, inventors can build concurrently. This is a real biggy, folks - BPO have a fixed maximum amount of runs theoretically possible in a month. Lets say Mr BPO has a ship bpo and it can build 30 (one per day). Mr Inventor invents 10 x 3 run bpc - they can all be put in the oven at the same time - unfortunately due to negative PE he can only build one per 2 days instead of one every day like Mr BPO can - but hey look! he's still cranked out all thirty of his ships (that takes Mr BPO a month) in under a week!! If you're committed to this, it is possible to build in volumes that far outstrip what a bpo can produce. And before anyone starts on about how inventors can't compete due to the BPO's ME level cutting back margins - these margins are not the fault of BPOs / BPO owners, I'm sorry to say it's our fellow inventors - if it WAS the fault of BPO owners, then we would logically see much more profitable invention on items like HIC, Black OP, Marauder, JF etc that have no t2 BPO equivalent - I've tried inventing all of these and the margins on these are just as tight as on HAC / Recon etc that DO have a BPO equivalent. No support for this idea from me - it's just sour grapes tbh.
Dodgy Past Amarr Debitum Naturae	Posted - 2010.02.27 14:11:00 - [32] Yet many people have enough T2 BPOs to fill all their production slots so that limitation isn't relevant to them. The fact that in some sectors all ships come from T2 BPOs does demonstrate that there is unfair competition. It is a flawed part of the game that significantly devalues the benefits of the vast amnounts of SP required for efficient invention ( using T2 BPOs also require far far less SP ) The only reason I won't support this is because this proposal is flawed as it doesn't propose a workable way of compensating the T2 BPO owners. If someone came up with that I would support it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- you seem determined to turn it into ******* Hollyoaks for neckbeards.
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.02.27 14:24:00 - [33] Originally by: Dodgy Past If someone came up with that I would support it. how about let them keep their BPOs? Seriously stop being ridiculous. The razor guy above made it pretty damn clear. Just because you can't meet your full potential as an inventor doesn't mean the BPO owner should be screwed. _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Clumsy Pilot	Posted - 2010.02.27 14:53:00 - [34] You has youself contribute to getting rid of bpo's in game, buy them from their current owners and trash them. What? you don't whant to spend your isk on it? WHy should then the current owners lsoe their long-term investment?
Jack bubu Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.02.27 15:19:00 - [35] Supported :)
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.27 15:50:00 - [36] Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Sokratesz I'm gonna go against the flow and support this. Not just because I don't have one, but because it would break open the market a little and put a stop to a virtual risk-free source of income. How is producing from a BPO less risk-free than invention+production? Invention takes time (effort) and a bit of luck, bpo's = buy, produce, profit. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Meret'Seger	Posted - 2010.02.27 16:15:00 - [37] Originally by: Sokratesz Invention takes time (effort) and a bit of luck, bpo's = buy, produce, profit.[/quote And when that particular item crashes in price due to nerf/change/oversupply? The inventors can simply change to a different item, where as the BPO owner is stuck with that one blueprint. Doesnt seem all that risk-free to me. Although I didn't start playing until after the T" lottery finished, I can't support this nonsense at all until I actually see some reasonable proof that it would benefit the eve community and ecenomy to get rid of the BPO's. All Ive seen so far is yet another thread full of the old tired "I dont have one, so no one else should either"
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.27 17:12:00 - [38] Originally by: Meret'Seger All Ive seen so far is yet another thread full of the old tired "I dont have one, so no one else should either" CCP themselves admitted that the T2 lottery was a bad way of distributing T2 BPO's. While they will be removed eventually by people going inactive, they still provide a steady source of income for those that own them without requiring much effort aor involving risk. CCP wants an 'emergent sandbox', and T2 BPO's are not part of that anymore. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Mr LaForge	Posted - 2010.02.27 17:38:00 - [39] T1 BPOs should be gotten rid of then. No risk to them.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.27 17:49:00 - [40] Originally by: Mr LaForge T1 BPOs should be gotten rid of then. No risk to them. Missing the point, cheap troll. T1 BPO's are freely available and can be researched by everyone and produce less specialised mods. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D

darius mclever	Posted - 2010.02.27 18:22:00 - [41] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Sokratesz I'm gonna go against the flow and support this. Not just because I don't have one, but because it would break open the market a little and put a stop to a virtual risk-free source of income. How is producing from a BPO less risk-free than invention+production? Invention takes time (effort) and a bit of luck, bpo's = buy, produce, profit. 1. invention isnt much about luck. it comes down to skills. a dedicated inventor gets easily to the percentage of successful inventions as shown on http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/invention_chance.php. So in the long run the invention costs is more or less a constant factor (varition is in datacore prices but that can be ignored most of the time) and not so much about luck. if you use the API to track your inventions you can easily get some numbers to prove that point) 2. invention are a bit of effort. but largely depends on the volume you want to produce. it all would be so much easier if there would be a decent interface to set up jobs in bulk. (Sokratesz cant you push that please?:p) pushing through 100 invention jobs on a single day is no fun. but neither is setting up 100 of each other job type. oh that reminds me ... jobs are done ... brb.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.27 18:33:00 - [42] Originally by: darius mclever 2. invention are a bit of effort. but largely depends on the volume you want to produce. it all would be so much easier if there would be a decent interface to set up jobs in bulk. (Sokratesz cant you push that please?:p) I've heard this request before..I know little of industry myself but you're welcome to write a proposal about it and I'll support it. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.02.27 19:47:00 - [43] Originally by: Sokratesz Originally by: Meret'Seger All Ive seen so far is yet another thread full of the old tired "I dont have one, so no one else should either" CCP themselves admitted that the T2 lottery was a bad way of distributing T2 BPO's. While they will be removed eventually by people going inactive, they still provide a steady source of income for those that own them without requiring much effort aor involving risk. CCP wants an 'emergent sandbox', and T2 BPO's are not part of that anymore. Nice dodge replying to that and not to: Quote: And when that particular item crashes in price due to nerf/change/oversupply? The inventors can simply change to a different item, where as the BPO owner is stuck with that one blueprint. Doesnt seem all that risk-free to me.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.02.27 19:49:00 - [44] And, if that happens, you make less profit? The point is not the exact amount of income but rather the fact that it's steady and requires very little effort. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.02.27 21:39:00 - [45] Originally by: Sokratesz And, if that happens, you make less profit? The point is not the exact amount of income but rather the fact that it's steady and requires very little effort. less effort yes. very little no. keeping t2 production running is also a lot of work. especially when you are not just building one thing. seriously we are talking about a non issue here. invention is fine and t2 bpos are fine.
CompactDisc7227 State Protectorate	Posted - 2010.02.27 23:17:00 - [46] In my humble opinion, I think new players should have the chance to get anything older players once had the chance to get. There should be multiple occasions of unique items being handed out or none at all. T2 BPOs were cancelled by CCP, so I would agree that they should disappear, of course with a small refund for the owners. I find this similar to owning ships that were handed out during some event. I'd say that if all ships of a kind get destroyed there should be new ones issued in order for new players to get a chance to get their hands on one, or perhaps even make them a little less unique, just very hard to get (sorry if I sound a bit clichT here, I understand people want unique stuff, but it's just that new players don't ever get their hands on the cool old-skool uniques ships because they all get destroyed or bought by Entity). Same with unique items of course if there are such left after T2 BPOs (no not the snowballs :p). I vote PRO CD
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.02.27 23:34:00 - [47] Originally by: Sokratesz And, if that happens, you make less profit? The point is not the exact amount of income but rather the fact that it's steady and requires very little effort. It show you don't know how industry work. The amount of income is very important. I own 2 T2 BPO (Quake L and Barage M). The hourly profit is 50K for one, 167.500 for the other. I can get more with any of the T1 ship BPO I own, with any of the invented items I normally produce and even with some of the T1 module for wick I own a BPO (and there I am suffering from mission loot as a competitor). So, to reply to your question: yes if you can't change product and the price change you get less profit. When you have an asset like a BPO (T1 or T2) that allow the production of a single item, when the price of that item crash you asset lose use value even if you (theoretically) can resell it for its original cost. With T2 BPO that problem is compound as the item has a large purchase cost against the income it produce. A T1 ship BPO cost can be recovered in a few months of research and production, a T2 BPO require a few years. Every time the price crashes you should choose between continuing production (and losing from the production of potentially more rewarding items) or discontinuing it and further delaying the recover of your purchase cost. Beside that, what I feel ius the most important point hasn't yet been replayed by the pro removal people: Some T2 item will totally disappear from the game as it will never become profitable to invent them. You feel that it will enrich the game to see them disappear?
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.02.27 23:43:00 - [48] Originally by: CompactDisc7227 In my humble opinion, I think new players should have the chance to get anything older players once had the chance to get. There should be multiple occasions of unique items being handed out or none at all. T2 BPOs were cancelled by CCP, so I would agree that they should disappear, of course with a small refund for the owners. I find this similar to owning ships that were handed out during some event. I'd say that if all ships of a kind get destroyed there should be new ones issued in order for new players to get a chance to get their hands on one, or perhaps even make them a little less unique, just very hard to get (sorry if I sound a bit clichT here, I understand people want unique stuff, but it's just that new players don't ever get their hands on the cool old-skool uniques ships because they all get destroyed or bought by Entity). Same with unique items of course if there are such left after T2 BPOs (no not the snowballs :p). I vote PRO CD you are really that stubborn? you are new? you want a t2 bpo? Sell Orders Forum is your place. i would bet a large number of the current t2 BPO owner bought their bpos. what we dont need a new version of the lottery.
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2010.02.28 02:25:00 - [49] Originally by: CompactDisc7227 There should be multiple occasions of unique items being handed out or none at all. Could you please explain how something that is handed out more than once still qualifies as unique to you? And what is 'a little less unique'? Is it a comparable concept to 'a bit pregnant'? New players want the old shinyshiny toys. Of course. With barely 3 years of EVE, I'm still drawn towards that bling. But the reason it blings so bright is that fact that it is so rare. Handing them out regularly just diminishes it. And back to the real topic, I prefer to invent items for which there are T2 BPOs. Less math-challenged inventors ruining my margins. The invention-only items are swarmed by instant-gratification prod-newbs, that do not have the fiscal stamina to wait for a product to sell, cutting their profit margins by millions per hour (because they also do not understand how the eve market works). Is having one/multiple T2 BPO more convenient than 700 drone inventions in 7 days? Hell yes (been there and done it). But thats really all there is. Convenience. If you are up to speed as an inventor, you can easily outperform the profits of pretty much 80%+ of the T2 BPOs and keep up with even owners of multiple T2 BPO of the medium-high range. There are a few players who have a decent amount of the absolute top T2 BPOs, yes, which they collected and worked for over the years, yes. And they will out-profit me. BU-HU! How mean of them. The top daytraders in Jita out-profit me too, because I do not nearly have the same amount of liquid ISK to work the market like they do. And chances are they earned their initial money from static 10/10s are somesuch. Which I won't ever be able to do. But seriously, that doesn't mean CCP should seize their wallets. You all seem to suffer from what in colloquial german is called '*****neid'. EVE is a persistent game universe. Past successes as well as faults cast their shadows upon todays gameplay. This is what makes EVE EVE. Grow a pair, use your elbows and stop mimimimimimimi-ing about the game being unfair to you. It's intended. CCP does not even dare to fully reimburse a dreadnought that an account hacker sold for 2 million ISK on the regular market, because it interferes with the player market. But removing legitimately traded items with a trade volume in the hundreds of billions of ISK, that's just fine? How do the players get reimbursed? What about original owners that won them themselves? Are they cut short because they never sold them? What about people that stole them, sacrificing the one thing ISK can't buy - trust - and got branded thieves to acquire it? What value is attached to that? In conclusion: - poorly presented - poorly thought out - lacking fundamental understanding -> absolutely not supported
Irongut H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.02.28 03:25:00 - [50] Some of us invested time and a lot of isk to buy our T2 bpos so No. --

Sonja Miner	Posted - 2010.02.28 11:33:00 - [51] I don't have one, so Yes! lol, actually, invention should take precedence because the skill is there to be learned and not some cash cow that was given long before many ever started the game. Others may have bought them, but look at the prices being able to own one of those, compared to the time it takes to be able to invent. I have never owned a T2 BPO, but can they or can they not be researched like any other BPO? I ask this since the costs for higher ME on multiple BPO's far outweigh costs for simply copying (if T2 BPO's can be copied and researched like regular BPO's?). If so, a max run T2 BPO copy with an ME50 compared to the highest an invented T2 BPC can go with number of runs? If not, disregard, but still approved
Kilostream Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.02.28 12:01:00 - [52] Originally by: Sonja Miner I don't have one, so Yes! lol This pretty much sums up the mentality of people supporting this thread - at least you haven't tried to fabricate some thinly-veiled disguise to dress your sentiment up in. Originally by: Sonja Miner I have never owned a T2 BPO, but can they or can they not be researched like any other BPO? Yes, they can - however, this fact is not responsible for why the margins are so tight on invention - my earlier post explains why. Originally by: Sonja Miner ....if T2 BPO's can be copied and researched like regular BPO's?). If so, a max run T2 BPO copy with an ME50 compared to the highest an invented T2 BPC can go with number of runs? If not, disregard.... Sort of, but not really - it is possible to make t2 BPC from a t2 BPO but there is a reason you never see t2 BPC [copied from BPO] on contracts; the copying time is punitive - significantly longer than the time it takes to build the actual t2 item itself. Therefore to make running t2 BPC from bpo worthwhile you would have to sell the BPC for more than the cost of the built items it could produce, which is why you never see them.
La Dudette State War Academy	Posted - 2010.02.28 16:53:00 - [53] Originally by: Dodgy Past The fact that in some sectors all ships come from T2 BPOs does demonstrate that there is unfair competition. It is a flawed part of the game that significantly devalues the benefits of the vast amnounts of SP required for efficient invention ( using T2 BPOs also require far far less SP ) The only reason I won't support this is because this proposal is flawed as it doesn't propose a workable way of compensating the T2 BPO owners. If someone came up with that I would support it. Well, I have tried to address this. Feedback on that would of course be welcome. As I see it, the value of a T2 BPO consists of the following: An implicit valuation of the profit to be made with it over a number of years A (much smaller) premium for having access to the BPO So if a certain BPO makes you 5 billion a year at full capacity, you might value it for a three year break even at 15 + 5 (say). This certainly seems to be the way sell order discussions go most of the time. The only reason you would justify a higher premium is if you have additional BPOs and you can control an entire market segment. In any case, the first part of this value is addressed by this proposal: convert the BPO into enough BPCs to last for X years. The premium is lost, but the profit is not.
La Dudette State War Academy	Posted - 2010.02.28 16:59:00 - [54] Originally by: Mioelnir CCP does not even dare to fully reimburse a dreadnought that an account hacker sold for 2 million ISK on the regular market, because it interferes with the player market. But removing legitimately traded items with a trade volume in the hundreds of billions of ISK, that's just fine? How do the players get reimbursed? With "barely three years of Eve" you should know that CCP has, in many cases, withdrawn items from the market with a compensation scheme. I suggest you read through some of the descriptions of POS modules next time you are bored.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.02.28 17:16:00 - [55] Invention >>> T2 BPO. While I dabbled I made 20B easy in a few months time and supplied myself with T2 mods/ships on top. * Inventor is not tied to 'one' item so not as badly affected by market fluctuations. * There is no real limit (other than raw skills) to the number of T2 BPCs the inventor can have cooking at any one time. * Most T2 BPOs have, due to their age, been sold/re-sold countless times thus represent significant investments for current owners. Need any more reasons why it is a silly idea? The only thing I longed for while I dabbled was for some way to manipulate the ME of the invented BPCs .. for the option of making it positive or at least not as negative. If you allow for that (even a little bit), then BPO owners will be forced to become inventors just to compete due to sheer volume, thus effectively removing whatever perceived advantage they might have.
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2010.02.28 17:23:00 - [56] Originally by: La Dudette Originally by: Mioelnir CCP does not even dare to fully reimburse a dreadnought that an account hacker sold for 2 million ISK on the regular market, because it interferes with the player market. But removing legitimately traded items with a trade volume in the hundreds of billions of ISK, that's just fine? How do the players get reimbursed? With "barely three years of Eve" you should know that CCP has, in many cases, withdrawn items from the market with a compensation scheme. I suggest you read through some of the descriptions of POS modules next time you are bored. A single, nearly unused, POS module got removed from the game by flipping all the NPC sell orders to buy orders. That had the virtue of being exact and explicit in its compensation value, as opposed to T2 BPOs, whose value swings wildly and is very hard to determine. Also, there's enough value of them in the game that we could expect their removal and replacement with cash to cause a really notable spike of inflation.
Carniflex StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.02.28 17:30:00 - [57] No such thread would be complete without me voting 'yes' for this one, right ? So here I am putting it in. When I suspend my accounts I still put T2 BPO's are reason for that btw. At least someone reads those I assume. I ofc have many accounts and they kinda blink on and off on semiregular basis. Overall I would not hold my breath over it. Arguments for and against have been presented many times already and I'm sure CCP guys have read em also already on several occasions.
La Dudette State War Academy	Posted - 2010.02.28 17:33:00 - [58] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto A single, nearly unused, POS module got removed from the game by flipping all the NPC sell orders to buy orders. That had the virtue of being exact and explicit in its compensation value, as opposed to T2 BPOs, whose value swings wildly and is very hard to determine. Also, there's enough value of them in the game that we could expect their removal and replacement with cash to cause a really notable spike of inflation. It's hard enough responding to the real criticism without having to answer this sort of stuff. But let's do it as a one off: go back up to the first post and read the proposal; point out the part where it says "replace them with cash".
Mioelnir Minmatar Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke	Posted - 2010.02.28 18:43:00 - [59] Edited by: Mioelnir on 28/02/2010 18:44:12 Originally by: La Dudette In any case, the first part of this value is addressed by this proposal: convert the BPO into enough BPCs to last for X years. The premium is lost, but the profit is not. That is a lie and not what is proposed. Please present a math proof that replacing a ME15 BPO with X years worth of ME-1 BPCs preserves the BPO's profit over these X years.
La Dudette State War Academy	Posted - 2010.02.28 21:36:00 - [60] Originally by: Mioelnir Please present a math proof that replacing a ME15 BPO with X years worth of ME-1 BPCs preserves the BPO's profit over these X years. Instead of accusing people of lying, stop making assumptions. I did not specify a fixed amount of BPCs/length of time in my proposal: CCP would have to work that out. CCP has specifically asked that proposals should not provide details of solutions. Your mistake is to assume that the profit of a BPO over X years will have to be provided for with X years of BPCs. This does not have to be the case, it can be Y years.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: 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.