Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
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.
|
Estel Arador
Minmatar Estel Arador Corp Services
|
Posted - 2010.03.11 22:35:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Ghoest Word is BPOs are being given limits.
That's been the 'word' for a couple of years now.
Free jumpclone service|924 stations - Truly Universal |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 00:16:00 -
[3]
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.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
SheRere
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 01:08:00 -
[4]
Well.....to play devil's advocate. By implementing T2 BPOs, CCP picked a select few using a lottery and broke the unselected pilots' legs. I do not know what the solution is to fix this problem. The major issue with nerfing T2 BPOs is the fact that many purchased them using vast amounts of isk based on their projected profit. If one nerfs this profit, it would be devastating to many players. If they are nerfed, owners should be somehow compensated on lost profits for a certain period of time.
|
Asarah
First Star To The Right
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 01:59:00 -
[5]
Quote: The real problem with T2 BPOs.
The real problem with them is that I don't own any.
|
Voogru
Gallente Massive Damage MACHI MISCHIEF
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 04:08:00 -
[6]
Posting in a "I don't have a T2 BPO, so neither should anybody else" thread.
You want to remove T2 BPO's?
Convert them to patents, 10-15% additional tax whenever one of the items is sold or put on contracts and is split among everyone who has a "patent" for that item. Item's with no T2 BPO's would not be subject to the royalty.
No more 'competition' from T2 BPO's for inventors at all. T2 patents still have significant value.
Of course, most inventards would be against this too, because really they just want to see us get nerfed in the name of fairness.
Hate Farmers? Click Here |
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 06:33:00 -
[7]
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 -
[8]
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.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 07:12:00 -
[9]
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.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 07:28:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Akita T
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.
It will work until the market get saturated again.
The problem is demand against production. Production is, for all purposes, infinitely expansible, demand isn't.
It is easy to start inventing, plenty of character todays have the skill and equipment needed, so the gain on every item drop to the lowest acceptable return in no time.
Flexibility is still the greatest advantage of a inventor over a BPO owner, but you need to be fully prepared to use it to the fullest to profit for spikes in prices of specific items. It you don't do that you can "plod" along with a constant production of items with small positive returns but your R.O.I. will be small.
|
|
Dasola
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 09:05:00 -
[11]
Funny i dont own any T2 BPO and still i dont see the problem here.
Fact is T2 BPO has limited production capasity and even one inventer can outproduce it. If you think theres problem then your looking at wrong items. Dont try to compete in items that just have the volume there. Invent things that dont have T2 BPO. Invent things that have market volume.
T2 BPO are picey, very privey and it takes years before owner starts to make profit. So far my alt corp is makeing profit all ready from invention.
Do your homework and you can make profit from invention people.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 09:54:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Venkul Mul It will work until the market get saturated again.
Yeah, the flat profit rate per slot/ship/item/whatever will probably remain almost the same (might ever so slightly increase), but the profit margin will likely be a bit higher (slightly lower initial investment for about the same profit). However, there would be room for many more inventors overall, and as a secondary benefit, slightly cheaper T2 for everybody.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Shana Matika
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 10:39:00 -
[13]
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.
That's the only real solution.
Base ME/PE to 0 - with decrypter you could get now ME3 BPC's or ME -3 with more runs. That the "source-BPC" affects the outcome was first intended but some issues with database or code made this impossible when introduced, at least this was mentioned sometimes, and it looks like someone just "forgot" this and the -4 base was in place to encourage the use of researched BPC's. Maybe it's time to review this, too.
|
Entgo Ditumi
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 11:26:00 -
[14]
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.
Well said.
Originally by: SheRere Well.....to play devil's advocate. By implementing T2 BPOs, CCP picked a select few using a lottery and broke the unselected pilots' legs. I do not know what the solution is to fix this problem. The major issue with nerfing T2 BPOs is the fact that many purchased them using vast amounts of isk based on their projected profit. If one nerfs this profit, it would be devastating to many players. If they are nerfed, owners should be somehow compensated on lost profits for a certain period of time.
Again, well said. I would go further to say that it doesn't really matter what CCP does to fix the "problem" with T2 BPs. Whether T2 BPOs are nerfed or invention is improved, T2 BPOs will inevitably lose value (assuming all other things equal); both solutions make invention more competitive, thus devaluing BPOs. An unfortunate consequence of basing a very real economy in a fake world is that the market is very sensitive to any change the devs make. This is probably why CCP hasn't done anything about this "problem", if they even consider it a problem.
|
Ogier
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 12:34:00 -
[15]
"Make Invention more profitable" Is the cry.
I make a nice little profit on my invented T2 items. There again I am not a sheep who tries to sell in hubs or try to complete with hub prices.. As my old granny used to say... "hubs is for traders"
Hypothetically lets Say CCP Make invention more profitable by say 50%. All that eventually happens - the T2 items price drops by 40-50%. And if you were working on a 10% markup before the drop. you will end up no doubt, halving it, as your profits will be whittled away. as prices plummet.
Anyway Im no doubt spitting into the wind.
Good luck
Ogier
|
Selene D'Celeste
Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 13:22:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Ghoest Idiot alert.
You know the OP has good ideas when he starts off by insulting and blowing-off two of the most well-respected people in the game when they reply. Quality poasting here.
|
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 14:12:00 -
[17]
I see this thread going places and making a difference :)
ooooooo Is the issue with T2 BPO's "stupid"? Because this "stupid" I keep hearing about appears to effect alot of stuff and seemingly nothing can be done about it. Which is sad. As it's giving me a headache --
Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
|
tehsuxOr
Poor Old Ornery nOObs
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 15:03:00 -
[18]
Let me guess OP want`s a T2 BPO
Then get off your butt and do what 99% of the current owners did and go buy one. CCp already gave you learning skills and insurance, what will you ask for next titans on sign up because you don`t want to work for one?
Whaaa whaaa wine because eve is too hard....
|
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 15:20:00 -
[19]
You know, if you can't be bothered to put in the effort there's always SiSi.
I hear you can get cap ships for 100isk there, land of milk and cookies innit --
Nothing is worthless, you may have gotten it for free but it still has an inherent value
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 15:25:00 -
[20]
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 -
[21]
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.
|
Dr Caymus
Gallente Applied Technologies Inc Agents of Fortune
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 15:35:00 -
[22]
This is a relevant issue; however, a constructive approach to closing the gap between the cost of manufacturing off of invention and the cost of manufacturing off of a T2 BPO would be preferable:
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 12/03/2010 00:18:05 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).
I would add:
* seed more decryptors, as seems to be happening already * remap the material input penalties of negative ME BPCs to be less severe * increase the supply rate of T1 BPCs by reducing copy times
and I'm sure this list could go on. There are numerous ways that invention could be made more competitive without removing or altering T2 BPOs...
Dr Caymus -=ATI=-
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 15:42:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Akita T on 12/03/2010 15:46:32
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, and will never be a problem. If you have any beef at all, you should have it with the invention process, not with the BPOs.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Emporer Norton
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 16:40:00 -
[24]
T2 BPO's arent the problem invention needs to have a slight buff either have skills that you can train to raise me/pe or be able to research copies at a pos I'd be happy just being able to get invented bpc's with some type of positve me pe I could care less about I'd even be happy if me and pe bonus on decrypters was reversed could then invent 0 or +1 me Or at least not have every point of - me add an extra 10% to materials doesn't matter on modules but ships that are bpo's for can't compete if you could invent with a 10 me is around 1% waste bpo isn't worth researching much past that even a random .01% chance of inventing a bpo would be great
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 17:20:00 -
[25]
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.
|
SyroPinus
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 18:44:00 -
[26]
[alt posting] As a near max skilled inventor, I begrudge no one their t2 BPOs. I don't own one and probably won't shoot to acquire one. I can out produce (quantity has a quality all it own) any t2 bpo holder in sheer numbers, but the margins made are so slim that on many items the effort/cost/return ratio is too slim to bother.
INVENTION needs to be fixed, not the t2 BPOs, especially for ships (hacs, recons etc.) either base ME or decryptor effects.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 19:28:00 -
[27]
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.
Originally by: Ghoest
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.
Coherency.
Why the guys like you always think only of ship BPO?
For module BPO/BPC the ME effect is minimal. Even for ship BPO/BPC the advantage of the inventor to be able to move and cosntruct another item with more profit is an big advantage.
The only real difference is that T2 BPO have a fixed product that require less player work (you can put up a job lasting a month if you want) while invented BPC have a larger player workload in the invention and production part and a large player input in choosing the item to invent as being a successful inventor require to regularly check the market to seew what has a good margin and what hasn't.
If you are ahead of the market a inventor can get more than a BPO owner with his fixed production. If the inventor follow behing the market his margin will be slim.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:14:00 -
[28]
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.
|
Future Mutant
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:04:00 -
[29]
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)
Obviously 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".
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:09:00 -
[30]
Thank you, I smiled! -- Thanks CCP for cu |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |