|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 22:23:00 -
[1]
Not not that they dont require invention - its the great efficiency relative to invented BPOs(even with decryptors).
Word is BPOs are being given limits. Thats fine it will fix the problem eventually. But a simpler solution would be to reset the efficiency on T2 BPOs at -2.
Basically limit the bonus profit to invention savings.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 06:33:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Ghoest on 12/03/2010 06:34:49
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 12/03/2010 00:18:05
Dear OP, this is how you sound: "Let's solve the problem of handicapped people by BREAKING EVERYBODY'S LEGS !!!" The needed solution is not to destroy T2 BPOs nor nerf them into oblivion, but instead find ways for invention to be more attractive.
For instance, you could increase the "default" invention output from -4/-4 to -2/-2 or even 0/0. Or, your could alternatively have T1 BPC ME/PE level affect T2 BPC ME/PE levels. Heck, you might reduce the number of RPs needed for datacore collection from 50 to 30 or even just 5, you could reduce invention times, you could increase the base number of obtained runs. You could also buff the decryptor bonuses greatly (number of runs, chance to invent, ME/PE bonuses).
So many things that could be done to make invention more viable, yet you keep focusing on something trivial like "the hate of T2 BPOs". Pathetic.
Tht was one of the mostly sadly desperate replies ever to a thread. In general I take a response like that as a sign that im thinking in the right direction at least.
For starters if the BPOs are still better than most decrypted invention how is that "nerfed to oblivion." Id still want to have one.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 06:40:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Voogru Edited by: Voogru on 12/03/2010 04:18:18 Posting in a "I don't have a T2 BPO, so neither should anybody else" thread.
You want to remove T2 BPO's?
Idiot alert. hes argueing against something I didnt suggest.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 15:25:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 12/03/2010 07:12:40
Originally by: Ghoest For starters if the BPOs are still better than most decrypted invention how is that "nerfed to oblivion." Id still want to have one.
Since you share the same name and portrait with the OP, I'm going to have to assume you are the same person, so unless you have amnesia, I suggest you remember what you wrote in the OP. Or better yet, read it again.
Your OP suggestion was to take all blueprints and reset them to -2 ME/PE, from whatever high positive ME/PE levels they might be at. By the way, you can get ME:-1 or even positive PE with various decryptors, so invented blueprints can actually be better than BPOs in your scenario.
Unless you ALSO disable ME/PE research afterwards, they'll be getting back to high ME/PE levels eventually, and you solved nothing. So you'd have to disable research for your "idea" to make any sense whatsoever. If you do that however, it's exactly the same thing as leaving BPOs alone, buffing invention and increasing build costs on all T2 items to compensate, in case you haven't realized it (of course you haven't, you can't really think properly, can you). You know what the effects of that "change" will be ? That's right, decreased demand across the board due to higher prices on the items where previously invention was not profitable, and almost no changes whatsoever on items where invention already was profitable before this "BPO change". Inventors STILL WON'T BE MAKING MUCH MORE MONEY ANYWAY because inventors always compete mostly with other inventors to begin with, not with BPO owners.
If you want inventors to make more money, you need to extend the market volume, so more inventors can go in before the market becomes too saturated. You do that by DECREASING COSTS of the combined invention + manufacture-from-invented-BPCs process, and you can do that at any level involved.
If you do not change invention itself, not even the REMOVAL of all T2 BPOs will really matter. ____
TL;DR : the solution is not to change BPOs, but to make invention able to push out something like +20 ME / +20 PE relatively cheap per-run BPCs instead.
If your point is simply that I should have suggested "-1" instead of "-2" then Ill happly conceed - thats a good idea.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 15:32:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Ghoest on 12/03/2010 15:32:46 And no I dont wat a T2 BPO. Sure if I was given one I would keep it(Ill happily take any valuable assets you want to give me I guess.)
What I would like is for invention to be as good as BPOs with the exception of buying data cores and decryptors.
And please spare me the sob stories about respected posters. Defend or disparage a post on its merits not how long the poster has been around.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 17:20:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 12/03/2010 15:50:00
Originally by: Ghoest If your point is simply that I should have suggested "-1" instead of "-2" then Ill happly conceed - thats a good idea.
No, that wasn't my point at all. Instead of block-quoting, maybe you should try reading AND UNDERSTANDING those posts you quote next time.
Let me re-iterate the point I was making : T2 BPOs are not, were not (ever since the introduction of invention), and will never (again) be a problem. If you have any beef at all, you should have it with the invention process (more specifically, the per-T2-BPC-run cost of invention and the ME/PE levels on invented BPCs), not with the BPOs.
I never said the existance of T2 BPOs was the problem.
The problem is that T2 BPOs are more efficient than invented BPOs.
All I am suggesting is equalizing the efficeny.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:14:00 -
[7]
Im really not seeing whats incoherent.
Id be happy to have anything useful and valuable, but its not my goal. I think that point was clear.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:59:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Future Mutant Edited by: Future Mutant on 12/03/2010 21:09:04
Originally by: Ghoest Im really not seeing whats incoherent.
Id be happy to have anything useful and valuable, but its not my goal. I think that point was clear.
The incoherent part... You think there is an imbalance between t2 bpo's and invented t2 bpc's. Your solution is to make t2 bpo's worse material wise then invented bpc's. (you dont specify if the t2 bpo's should be "locked" at that me- though i assume thats your intent or its just a complete waste of time)
By your (all too common) complaint it is obvious you have never used a t2 bpo and prolly dont invent either.
My solution? Let the me/pe on the bpc used for invention transfer over to the invented bpc. Alternatively you could make the invented bpc "researchable"
Either is more reasonable then "nerf t2 bpos".
If you looked at my follow up posts youll see I agreed with another poster that -1 was a better choice because that matches the best data core.
My whole intent is to get them even in terms of efficiency.
Whats striking is that none you seem to grasp that lowing the efficiency on BPOs to invention rates is no more a nerf than raising invention effiency.
In a free market relative cost is all that matters.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:03:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Akita T Oh for @#^@#^# sake, what is your malfunction ?! Let me repeat this: change T2 BPOs, BAD ; change invention, GOOD.
You do understand that there is no difference?
You are making as little sense as the free mineral people.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 15:12:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Ghoest You do understand that there is no difference?
No, YOU don't understand that there IS a difference.
Let's have the most simplified hypothetical example. Random T2 item X will yield 100 of random T2 component Y when reprocessed perfectly. With a high-enough-ME BPO, you will be able to build X using just 100 of Y. With a -1 ME one, you need 120, and with -2 ME you need 130. That's what you want all BPOs to be like. Default invented at -4 ME needs 150.
YOUR option is to make all BPOs need 120 or 130, but reprocessing it still only yields 100. MY option is to make it so that the invented version could need only 100 to build too (or slightly over it), and the cost of obtaining such a BPC could also be lowered too compared to current BPC creation cost.
So, yeah, there IS a _big_ difference.
So you are saying that you reprocess a large amount of t2 items and thats why your concerned?
If thats the case you are an extreme exception and rather silly.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 16:30:00 -
[11]
Well unless you like to reprocess stuff after you build it there is no difference to a producer once they buy the materials and sell the end product.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 09:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Akita T stuff
Do you actually use the market? Do you understand the way prices adjust?
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 16:11:00 -
[13]
But the average profitability for builders will be same in the end whether you improve invention or nerf bpo as long as they are equelly efficient(note bpos will still be more profitable than invention because of data cores and decryptor costs and this will also hold true both ways.)
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:21:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jovialmadness
I want somebody to come in here and prove to me that T2 prices will go DOWN if this were to happen. It might can be argued the prices won't necessarily go up but I'd be willing to wager market prices will increase in value overall before they go down.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in Jovian space? |
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 00:15:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Jovialmadness
*sigh* why do you guys even try....
Try this on for size. Dude wants t2 bpo's to have set me/pe whatever. He wants this to make it fair whatever. Dude doesn't think how this will affect the economy. So yea we make the actual production of the goods similar but all we can hope for is prices to remain the same if not go up. Make invention more profitable and you offer more wiggle room for price reduction for sure.
This passage may be pertinent to the thread topic but its non sequitur to the passage I quoted and mocked. And that passage was non sequitur to the thread subject.
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Got that?
I think what we all get that is you have now spoken more than you have thought. |
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.22 04:23:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Estephania In a few words the OP says:
"Remove T2 BPOs because I don't have any".
OP could probably build a solid case before invention was introduced, when ppl were abusing their BPOs, making enormous profits from simple T2 items (I think it was Cap Recharger II and may be some other items). After invention, those super profits don't exist, if T2 item price is going through the roof, it becomes profitable for invention and this brings the price down. No need to touch T2 BPOs now. May be invention could be made a bit easier, or success rates tweaked, but destroying T2 BPOs would ruin the game for many ppl, only to appease some whiners.
In other words this poster said "I like to have sex with ducks."
Oh wait she didnt say that. Thats just something negative made up but with in the scope of possibility that I said to discredit her.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
|
|
|