EVE Search - The real problem with T2 BPOs.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

The real problem with T2 BPOs.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Athar Mu Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.03.12 21:12:00 - [31] Dunno what you are inventing but I'm making a ton of isk off invention. Like I always ask in threads like this; 'Why whenever I do the maths for inventing Marauders it is always not profitable? Cos they don't have BPO's, and by following your logic they should be profitable because they don't have a T2 BPO making them unprofitable. Or has someone managed to get a BPO for them and not told anyone?!'
Voogru Gallente Massive Damage MACHI MISCHIEF	Posted - 2010.03.12 21:25:00 - [32] Originally by: Athar Mu Dunno what you are inventing but I'm making a ton of isk off invention. Like I always ask in threads like this; 'Why whenever I do the maths for inventing Marauders it is always not profitable? Cos they don't have BPO's, and by following your logic they should be profitable because they don't have a T2 BPO making them unprofitable. Or has someone managed to get a BPO for them and not told anyone?!' BoB has the T2 Battleship BPO's True story. Hate Farmers? Click Here
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.12 21:45:00 - [33] Originally by: Athar Mu Dunno what you are inventing but I'm making a ton of isk off invention. Like I always ask in threads like this; 'Why whenever I do the maths for inventing Marauders it is always not profitable? Cos they don't have BPO's, and by following your logic they should be profitable because they don't have a T2 BPO making them unprofitable. Or has someone managed to get a BPO for them and not told anyone?!' If the T2 BPO complaints were really about the ability to make money, this would pretty much be the end of it. The complaint isn't centered around the ability to make money, though, nor even around actual "fairness" - merely the perception of fairness. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.12 21:59:00 - [34] 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.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.13 00:51:00 - [35] Oh for @#^@#^# sake, what is your malfunction ?! Let me repeat this: change T2 BPOs, BAD ; change invention, GOOD. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.13 01:00:00 - [36] Originally by: Akita T Oh for @#^@#^# sake, what is your malfunction ?! Let me repeat this: change T2 BPOs, BAD ; change invention, GOOD. Meh. Either one seems premature, imo. The OP's assertion is the following: -Margins on invention are insufficient. -The reason for this is due to BPO holders, who can produce T2 ships more efficiently due to ME research, which allows them to attain profit at a lower price point than inventors. However, margins for ships for which there are NO BPOs are also poor. This means that the OP's identification of the cause of the problem is erroneous. There's no need to go dreamin' up solutions to a problem before the cause of that problem has been properly identified. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.13 01:03:00 - [37] 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.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.13 01:15:00 - [38] 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. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Rin Taleda	Posted - 2010.03.13 05:21:00 - [39] Originally by: Ghoest 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. Give it a rest, already.
Future Mutant Republic Military School	Posted - 2010.03.13 06:45:00 - [40] Originally by: Ghoest Basically limit the bonus profit to invention savings. Fine- but if you nerf t2 bpos then i want a nerf to t2 bpcs. My reasoning is "the bonus profit to invention" should be nerfed. Jokes aside- you do realize that invention is MORE profitable then building with t2 bpos? And that those who have t2 bpos- have basically tied up crap tons of isk they could be investing for a larger profit margin? That t2 bpos are a convenience and less of an isk making machine?

Caldari 5 Amarr The Element Syndicate Hand That Feeds	Posted - 2010.03.13 07:08:00 - [41] Seeing a boost to invention would be awesome, I would personally like to see the Runs/ME/PE of the T1 BPCs effect the Runs/ME/PE of the outputed T2 BPCs. At the moment there is no effect on ship BPC invention. Lets use frigates for an example if you drop in a Max Run(30)/ME 50/PE 20 BPC you get out by default a 1 run/ME -4/PE -4 T2 BPC, which is exactly the same output that you would get from a 1 run/ME 0/PE 0 T1 BPC, to me this is just all manner of broken. I think CCP should be encouraging the use of better BPCs for invention, I not sure on the specifics of what they should do, but even seeing a 1/10 output would be a good start. Example if you drop in a Max Run(30)/ME 50/PE 20 BPC you get out by default a 3 run/ME 5/PE 2 T2 BPC.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2010.03.13 07:08:00 - [42] Meh. T2 BPOs are an old and obsolete relict from ancient times. Only real reason to have them removed: Consistency. --------
Voogru Gallente Massive Damage MACHI MISCHIEF	Posted - 2010.03.13 12:29:00 - [43] If they boosted T2 invention so that it cost 50% less ISK to build the items than that of the T2 BPO's, invention would be just as profitable as it is today. If they made T2 items cost 1 ISK to make with no materials required, you'd still see people selling their wares for 0.8 ISK. Of course it would take some time for it to happen, but it would get there eventually. Hate Farmers? Click Here
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.13 15:12:00 - [44] 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.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.13 15:15:00 - [45] Originally by: Ghoest So you are saying that you reprocess a large amount of t2 items and thats why your concerned? SARCASM Yes, yes, that's *exactly* what I was saying, now that you have been enlightened, go in peace, be safe from evil. /SARCASM _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.13 16:30:00 - [46] 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.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.14 03:42:00 - [47] Originally by: Ghoest 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. Oh, you mean, no difference except the fact you had to buy 120 or 130 instead of 100 of <thing Y> to build one <thing X> ? And the fact that <thing Y> will also be slightly more expensive in this 120/130 scenario than in the 100-needed scenario, since T2 component raw materials NEVER scale up on the supply side due to the nature of moon mining ? So, you know, the price you will be forced to sell <thing X> would be a lot higher than in the other scenario ? And since the price is a lot higher, less of them would actually be traded as a total on the market ? So not only do you have to invest more (percentage-wise) into materials to make a sale, but your sales will be a bit harder to make since there is a smaller overall market volume being traded due to the higher prices ? Thus not only getting (probably) a smaller absolute profit, but being forced to make it after higher investments. [sarcasm]Yeah, sure, there's absolutely no difference, bub, absolutely none at all...[/sarcasm] And, if you MUST know, the only reason reprocessing T2 _ISN'T_ all the rage like reprocessing anything else T1, it's precisely because of the inherent invention waste, on top of the invention cost. If invention had the potential to manufacture T2 items without waste, and if the invention cost per run would be much lower, you can bet your sweet-ass that people WILL start reprocessing even T2 items/ships whenever some "did not do the math" inventors will sell their goods for way too little because "they built the components / got the datacores themselves" or whatnot. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2010.03.14 09:23:00 - [48] Short of going back in time 5 years, any attempt to 'fix' a problem which existed as point in time problem, is going to cause more issues than it solves. Anyone in the game can get their own T2 BPO exactly the same way most people that own them got them. Either people are paying too much for them, and so they are underpowered and need BOOSTING, or they are cheap for what they are, and you should just go out and buy one. The problem of course being that most people don't want to put time and effort into getting the same advantage others put time and effort into getting, they just want to destroy other people's sandcastle, for absolutely 0 net benefit to themselves.
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.14 09:32:00 - [49] Originally by: Akita T stuff Do you actually use the market? Do you understand the way prices adjust? Wherever you went - Here you are.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.14 10:16:00 - [50] Edited by: Akita T on 14/03/2010 10:17:33 Originally by: Ghoest Do you actually use the market? Do you understand the way prices adjust? I do, but you apparently don't. Or, more likely, you're trolling. Either way, the answers are the same. There is a limited amount of each type of moon mineral in EVE, you can't extract more than that per time unit, so there is a limited amount of T2 components that can be manufactured per time unit. If the same ships require more T2 components overall to build, there will be less ships built overall, and the price of ships will be noticeably higher (and component price will very likely get a bit higher per unit as well). It's quite simple. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _

Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.14 16:11:00 - [51] 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.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.14 16:32:00 - [52] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 14/03/2010 16:33:53 Originally by: Ghoest 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.) SIGH No. It won't be. That's what Akita is trying to explain. The absolute per-unit-profit might be the same, but the margin will likely be lower (e.g., if I spend 800K building something and sell it for 1 million, it's an increase of 25%. If I spend 1m making something and sell it for 1.2m, I've still made 200K, but it's an increase of only 20%. I've made the same amount of money, but I've made a smaller profit RELATIVE TO MY INVESTMENT. Additionally, since the price will have gone up across the board, the units will sell more slowly, meaning you make less money in any given time frame. If I were selling 5 units per day at 1 million, making a 200K profit each, I'd be making 1m per day from that item. If the price goes up across the board, and I will only be able to move 4 now, I'm still only making a 200K profit per for a total of 800K. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.14 17:49:00 - [53] Edited by: Akita T on 14/03/2010 17:52:18 Originally by: Ghoest But the average profitability for builders will be same in the end Assuming you would be right (which you aren't), why bother making any changes ? You're not really improving anything. Also, no, it's not the same average profitability - it's ever so slightly less profitability for inventors, and a lot less profitability for BPO manufacturers, with less profitability overall. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Salmeria Advanced Component Research Enterprise	Posted - 2010.03.15 08:37:00 - [54] Edited by: Salmeria on 15/03/2010 08:42:09 I really hate the idea of nerfing things. Instead, invention should really be improved. It should definitely be easier to invent stuff. Also the profession sites should really be buffed. I heard that the salvage ones dont drop t2 small and medium rig bpcs. And the sites for invention are pretty lame as well.
Shana Matika	Posted - 2010.03.15 08:56:00 - [55] The point is: With inventioned BPC's you need significant more raw materials. Let's take the Golem as subject. A rather expensive ship in any point of view. The invention (just BPC 1 Run + datacores) until success is about 62 Million+- You need materials for about 530 Million @ME0 Now a BPC from invention is about 700 Million in materials + 62 million for the invention process. End-Cost about 800 Million - And that's not that much as I calculated with best Marketoffers, can be much more when some parts are out of stock. Ok, whcih one would you sell earlier. Tha one for 610 million or that one for 800+? When ships/modules get cheaper you WILL sell more. The margin per unit stay the same. But your profit/month will increase. This negative-me/pe sh*t just increase prices and decreases available goods. As you need about 50% longer to build one item you can't produce as much as possible. With "wasting" average of 50% materials for T2 Items no wonder that the prize don't move down. Just because more want those stuff you can't harvest more raw's for production as akita already mentioned: Fixed number of moons. The Profit in invention don't need to increase...just the base of it. Actually a Marauder cost's 50% more then it's worth, not to speak of lolinsurance-payout. THAT is the real issue of invention.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.03.15 10:29:00 - [56] Invention is just fine, the inefficiency works great at keeping the moon minerals well used and thus a good margin for the respective producers (if they do it the right way) and everyone down the chain. I loathe the "everything should be about zero margin and made in 1E40 numbers because volume is GOD" because it creates insurance fraud scenarios and less than believable economic system relying in lame artificial price control (insurance) to have the game survive. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.15 16:41:00 - [57] The core issue surrounding the tech 2 bpo debate is that in the beginning bpo holders controlled markets and made huge profits rarely ever selling them. After invention came out they slowly began to offload them till nowadays when you can easily find a nice quantity for sale weekly ranging from mostly ammo to some mods to a ship bpo on occasion. I think the profit potential is more widely discussed nowadays than it used to be. This ****ed off alot of guys but what they don't realize is the profit now is poop compared to the pre invention profits. In the end a focused inventor can not only out profit a bpo holder he can also change products on a whim when that item takes a market nose dive. Bpo holders are stuck with that item. Point is stop whining and get one otherwise you lose the debate because you are simply lazy and whining.
nether void Caldari Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.03.16 16:42:00 - [58] Solution. Keep invention in the game exactly the way it is now. Reintroduce the lottery system. Have both systems active at the same time. That gives everyone the same chances to own a T2 BPO. If you speculated on the future value of a T2 BPO when you purchased one, well any investment in the future is a risk. You shouldn't be compensated via CCP for your risk laden investment into a guesstimate on future profits from a T2 BPO in an MMO. MMOs are prone to change in the least expected ways.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 17:17:00 - [59] My unforgivable sin is that I discovered EVE 6 months ago instead of 4 years ago. Oh, what an evil, evil person I am. That sin justifies that I forever after be punished with a competative disadvantage. Those greater than me, that discovered the game before me, should forever after be allowed to sit atop their gold mines. They should sit from on high lobbing insults at my futile attempts to assail thier CCP given throwns. This makes that game better for all. Or perhaps, the competative advantage should be removed so that with hard work and dedication I may someday have the skills to compete on a level playing field. No, I'm just a whining baby for suggesting that new players be geven oppertunity to ever sit upon high with the gods.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 17:22:00 - [60] Originally by: nether void Solution. Keep invention in the game exactly the way it is now. Reintroduce the lottery system. Have both systems active at the same time. Better solution. Exchange all T2 BPOs with enough matching BPCs to total a couple years' manufacturing time. It will take years to level the playing field, but eventually it will get there.

Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.16 18:40:00 - [61] Quote: Better solution. Exchange all T2 BPOs with enough matching BPCs to total a couple years' manufacturing time. It will take years to level the playing field, but eventually it will get there. this immediately forces the holders to decide to sell all the bpc's immediately or simply produce them out off the bpc's flooding the markets with over stock. Some might hold the bpc's for a later sale date in the hopes they can get as much for them as possible others will lose isk on an over saturated market trying to offload their goods. You assume that all the former bpo holders that now have a stock of bpc's will produce off just one copy at a time and not multiples. Selling copies would get pretty hectic as well. It's an idea bro but sounds painful regardless.
Herring Caldari Silver Snake Enterprise En Garde	Posted - 2010.03.16 18:41:00 - [62] Originally by: Akita T 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. This tbqh. I don't have any t2 bpo's but I've never had any hatred toward their owners; only toward the flawed invention system that never lets me get close to a researched print. You all need to get off the hate wagon that ccp has propagated here and look at the 'problem' from another angle. Sometimes - and I know this is a foreign concept - it's better to improve one aspect of a game that seems weak rather than nerfing everything around it down to that level.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.16 18:43:00 - [63] Originally by: LHA Tarawa Originally by: nether void Solution. Keep invention in the game exactly the way it is now. Reintroduce the lottery system. Have both systems active at the same time. Better solution. Exchange all T2 BPOs with enough matching BPCs to total a couple years' manufacturing time. It will take years to level the playing field, but eventually it will get there. No, this would not level the playing field. It completely disregards one extremely important trait of the BPO: It's a store of value. You're asking that a lot of players be expected to eat a loss of billions over some perceived unfairness that is really quite marginal in actual practice. Nevermind the immediate surge in production that would cause. I've asked this before and you haven't answered it yet - do you actually DO production? Honestly, as an inventor, I find your fixation on this subject a little baffling. I am basically running an isk printing factory. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 21:04:00 - [64] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey You're asking that a lot of players be expected to eat a loss of billions over some perceived unfairness that is really quite marginal in actual practice. If it is such a tiny advantage, then why do the ubber piowerful alliances spend tens of billions or more to get thier hands on these extremely valuable items? If it is such a tiny advantage, then why not just do away with them and end all the arguments? I think the advantage is much, much larger than you are asserting. Otherwise they would not be so expensive and there would not be such agressive response to suggestions of doing away with them.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.16 21:36:00 - [65] Originally by: LHA Tarawa Originally by: SurrenderMonkey You're asking that a lot of players be expected to eat a loss of billions over some perceived unfairness that is really quite marginal in actual practice. If it is such a tiny advantage, then why do the ubber piowerful alliances spend tens of billions or more to get thier hands on these extremely valuable items? Do you have any idea how little money "tens of billions" is to any of the major alliances? Jesus. Quote: If it is such a tiny advantage, then why not just do away with them and end all the arguments? Because, for the third time, "People cry a lot" isn't a valid reason for a game mechanics change. Nor will it ever be. Quote: I think the advantage is much, much larger than you are asserting. Otherwise they would not be so expensive and there would not be such agressive response to suggestions of doing away with them. And I think I'm the King of Spain. So what? --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.16 21:42:00 - [66] Edited by: Jovialmadness on 16/03/2010 21:42:49 Quote: If it is such a tiny advantage, then why do the ubber piowerful alliances spend tens of billions or more to get thier hands on these extremely valuable items? If it is such a tiny advantage, then why not just do away with them and end all the arguments? I think the advantage is much, much larger than you are asserting. Otherwise they would not be so expensive and there would not be such agressive response to suggestions of doing away with them. They spend the isk because they have it and you dont. Same reason they buy titans and moms and you cant. They arent and werent removed becuase they dont hurt the economy they help it working side by side with invention. The only ones that argue are the ones that dont have the isk or the prints. the advantage is very big and so is the the isk investment. i invest isk(which you dont have but could get if you would shut up and earned it) to have an advantage. others invest time and energy to gain isk through invention. bpos=less time energy big isk investment....invention=low isk investment but big time and energy. This is not WOW with all due respect to that phrase. Wow is a game where everyone can achieve everything through time and energy. EVE REQUIRES BOTH TIME AND ENERGY AND ISK. isk is what you lack cause you are whining and 6 months old. GBTW Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.16 21:51:00 - [67] Originally by: Jovialmadness They spend the isk because they have it and you dont. Same reason they buy titans and moms and you cant. (CUT) the advantage is very big and so is the the isk investment. You people arguing against me need to get together and decide how big of an advantage they are.... all in my head.... or very big justifying 100s of billions of ISK. Truth be told, my "larger goal" is (and from what CCP has stated) to remove the competative advantages that result in few, very rich and powerful ubber alliances and create a much more fluid environment where alliances eb and flow, come and go. ABCs have been dealt with. Moon goo has been worked on and has yet to play out. The obvious next target of special advantage are the T2 BPOs. It takes ISK to make ISK. I want it to take ISK, and LOTS and LOTS of ongoing effort from a large number of highly dedicated player to make HUGE ISK. Only then can smaller but hungrier alliances have a chance of eventually growing into a power that can challenge the current ubber alliances.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:00:00 - [68] Quote: Truth be told, my "larger goal" is (and from what CCP has stated) to remove the competative advantages that result in few, very rich and powerful ubber alliances and create a much more fluid environment where alliances eb and flow, come and go WoW is ----> Yes the advantage is big. i spend 3 hours every week or so putting the bpo's on the cooker for a set amount of modules and ships. The payout is steady but easy. ive paid alot for that advantage. WHEN I REFER TO BIG ADVANTAGE I REFER TO IT IN TERMS OF ACTUAL EASE OF PRODUCTION NOT ISK MAKING IN GENERAL. Inventors have to go through more to make the same isk but they can make more and alter their production in a snap if the product goes south in the markets. T2 bpo's have but one advantage. steady easy production for steady income that is no where near as good as it used to be. invention has multiple advantages and that is larger production volume and quicker capability to change production types. bpo holders would have to sell theirs everytime they saw a market dive and that aint gonna happen often.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.16 22:37:00 - [69] Originally by: LHA Tarawa Originally by: Jovialmadness They spend the isk because they have it and you dont. Same reason they buy titans and moms and you cant. (CUT) the advantage is very big and so is the the isk investment. You people arguing against me need to get together and decide how big of an advantage they are The advantage he is talking about is convenience. The advantage I am talking about is earning potential. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Caldari 5 Amarr The Element Syndicate Hand That Feeds	Posted - 2010.03.19 10:23:00 - [70] Originally by: Caldari 5 Seeing a boost to invention would be awesome, I would personally like to see the Runs/ME/PE of the T1 BPCs effect the Runs/ME/PE of the outputed T2 BPCs. At the moment there is no effect on ship BPC invention. Lets use frigates for an example if you drop in a Max Run(30)/ME 50/PE 20 BPC you get out by default a 1 run/ME -4/PE -4 T2 BPC, which is exactly the same output that you would get from a 1 run/ME 0/PE 0 T1 BPC, to me this is just all manner of broken. I think CCP should be encouraging the use of better BPCs for invention, I not sure on the specifics of what they should do, but even seeing a 1/10 output would be a good start. Example if you drop in a Max Run(30)/ME 50/PE 20 BPC you get out by default a 3 run/ME 5/PE 2 T2 BPC. Fleshing out my previous idea. Using a direct 1/10 output is fine and dandy for the exact 10,20,30,etc levels but didn't allow for the 11,12,13,14,etc levels. Now given that you can't have a 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,etc output, maybe the remainder is a percentage chance to get +1, eg 11 gives 1 + (10% chance to get +1) 12 gives 1 + (20% chance to get +1) and 23 gives 2 + (30% chance to get +1) 44 gives 4 + (40% chance to get +1) etc etc etc Also keep the existing decryptors and their effects.

Dana Mownhobbit	Posted - 2010.03.19 13:55:00 - [71] This actually sounds like a really nice idea. And maybe there could be new skills wich further increase the chance or the factor, how much ME/PE the T2 BPC inherits from it's T1 ingredient. So we would have another delay and isk-sink, but eventually after months and years of research and skill learning the invention T2 BPC could come close to the BPOs in terms of efficiency. The low ratio of ME-level inheritance would also allow the market shift to happen slowly without aprupt changes which might screw someone. And it also would increase the value of T1 BPOs AND copies with ridiculously high ME/PE-levels which are of little effect today (for all ME higher than XX perfect ME). On the other side the lab slots for ME would become even more crowded I guess... But I still like the idea. I'd really wish for a dev statement on that whole matter. Not about nerfing/removing T2 BPOs, but why the invention couldn't possibly been buffed.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.03.19 15:35:00 - [72] There's no way to "fix" this thing. You can't just hope to have people part off the T2 BPOs and really achieve anything. The fat income is off the years and years ago accrued advantage. Sure, take the T2 BPO away, when nowadays it brings some % of more income. Oh wait, they made the hundreds of billions years ago, and you cannot also take those off. Those who buy the T2 BPOs in these days are: - pure collectors (= don't care about the income) and they are no danger - those using BPOs for the reselling opportunity => they make some % margin but don't affect the game enough and they will part off the BPOs anyway. You can get a BPO like they do and do like them. - those who just want the BPO for the sake of feeling "status symbol". Again, nothing you can't get yourself and they are not out to make the zillions. What screws you is that you can have a T2 BPO now and still it'd bring you no good. The good times are over, the sacks of money have been made before you even started playing and now the cash cow is quite dried up, expecially when acquiring a T2 BPO requires the equivalent of a couple years worth of income. Of course, with the constantly increasing risk of something new coming out to make T2 obsolete. Then you'll be the one with the short stick in his hand.
JASON W0RTHING Aliastra	Posted - 2010.03.19 18:07:00 - [73] If I ever want to troll S&I I know what topic to choose now.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.19 18:09:00 - [74] Edited by: Jovialmadness on 19/03/2010 18:10:10 Quote: 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. 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. Now if invention is made more profitable you can be rest assured prices will drop. If the whine brigade were to win I'd much rather, for obvious personal financial reasons, see invention get enhanced. I'm sure all inventors would too. If that happened bpo owners win, inventors win and inevitably consumers win.
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.19 18:21:00 - [75] 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?
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.19 18:24:00 - [76] Edited by: Jovialmadness on 19/03/2010 18:28:50 Quote: What does this have to do with the price of tea in Jovian space? 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. Got that?
Zatler	Posted - 2010.03.19 22:51:00 - [77] there in game are too many inventors because they got low profits, bpo nerf or invention boost dont solve problem, also many people alredy invested lots of bilions in t2 bluprints soo CCP please dont change anything t2 bpo is crown of all industry
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.20 00:15:00 - [78] 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.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2010.03.20 08:41:00 - [79] 1. How much profit can I make from invention. 2. Great that's enough. 3. Profit-- 4. Hmm, that's not enough profit, I guess I'll stop inventing. 5. Profit++ 6. Goto 1 Short of making invention HARDER or RISKIER the profit is only ever going to go down. Making it safer, and less risky, will always make the profit go down. The same goes for anything, in real life or the game. Whether T2 BPOs exist or not makes exactly 0 difference to how much profit there is in invention, except in the case where it actually increases the profit on some items because people believe that they are competing against BPOs, and not other inventors, and so don't compete. The difference in item cost between ME100+ and ME-4 can in many cases be pretty much 0 isk. In those cases the only disadvantage invention has is the datacore cost (which is steadily decreasing over time). Basically, the BPOs are being continually devalued anyway. It's basically only ships, and larger ones at that, that have any real build cost advantage, and in those cases it is usually negated by people who build at advanced ship arrays with 20% waste, ie, worse than what you already get from invention, once you take into account that NO ONE researches a T2 ship BPO to ME20 because the cost difference over ME1-3 to ME20 is negligible anyway.
Athar Mu Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2010.03.20 20:49:00 - [80] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Originally by: Athar Mu Dunno what you are inventing but I'm making a ton of isk off invention. Like I always ask in threads like this; 'Why whenever I do the maths for inventing Marauders it is always not profitable? Cos they don't have BPO's, and by following your logic they should be profitable because they don't have a T2 BPO making them unprofitable. Or has someone managed to get a BPO for them and not told anyone?!' If the T2 BPO complaints were really about the ability to make money, this would pretty much be the end of it. The complaint isn't centered around the ability to make money, though, nor even around actual "fairness" - merely the perception of fairness. I suppose you are right, but most of the time when these threads come up its phrased as 'T2 BPO owners make more isk than me, I want one so I can make more isk than them, give me one or take them away cos I don't want to spend lots of isk getting one and I didn't start the game early enough to get one/didn't try to get one when they were available through the lottery.' It just frustrates me!! I didn't start the game early enough to get one and I don't want spend that much isk to buy one, but I make lots of isk off invention and its fine by me. I like the suggestion of making ME/PE of the T1 BPO affect the ME/PE of the T2 BPC. That would make me even more isk which would be nice. I really hope CCP don't cave into the whiners and remove or change T2 BPO's but alter invention instead.

Voogru Gallente Massive Damage MACHI MISCHIEF	Posted - 2010.03.20 22:18:00 - [81] Edited by: Voogru on 20/03/2010 22:20:02 Originally by: Athar Mu I like the suggestion of making ME/PE of the T1 BPO affect the ME/PE of the T2 BPC. That would make me even more isk which would be nice. I really hope CCP don't cave into the whiners and remove or change T2 BPO's but alter invention instead. CCP can not make invention more profitable unless they add risk. Players are the ones driving down the profits. If they make it so invention is twice as efficient as T2 BPO's, inventors still are competing against other inventors. The competition between these inventors will drive down the prices. You have to remember that inventors are the ones that brought cap recharger II's from 20 million ISK down to 500-750k, not the T2 BPO owners. Any changes made to invention that make you more profit, you will eventually be competing against the next guy that decides to take less profit than you. If you really want profit in invention, then make it low sec pos only, or at the very least, pos only. Hate Farmers? Click Here
Estephania Independent Political Analysts	Posted - 2010.03.20 22:51:00 - [82] 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.
Emporer Norton	Posted - 2010.03.20 23:45:00 - [83] I'd just like some type of way to invent a t2 bpc with a positive me the people saying there is no difference between a -4 me and a +100 bpc are right on the majority of modules but for ships the difference is very significant For things like t2 bs where there is no bpo is equal for everyone but if was a way to invent with a positive me would give ability for more profit and/or lower prices or just leave everything as it is but make a skill for example advanced production eff all t2 items produced as if me was +2/lvl higher or something along those lines
Barbicane TGUN Industries	Posted - 2010.03.21 13:26:00 - [84] Originally by: Emporer Norton I'd just like some type of way to invent a t2 bpc with a positive me... if was a way to invent with a positive me would give ability for more profit and/or lower prices It's been said before but I will repeat it again: If you could get higher ME on your invented BPCs, then so could all the other inventors. The profit (or lack thereof) from invention would remain exactly the same. T2 prices might fall a bit but you would not make more profit.
Llyandrian Amarr Livestock Science Exchange	Posted - 2010.03.21 14:02:00 - [85] Originally by: Ghoest 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. And while they are at it CCP should turn all those pesky Navy ships into T1 ships, all those Officer mods and implants into standard, all those rare Technetium moons into hydrocarbon, all those outposts into POS, share out all the ISK and equalise all the skill points to ensure fairness. Yeh! right on comrade!
Equinocs	Posted - 2010.03.21 22:41:00 - [86] Originally by: Llyandrian And while they are at it CCP should turn all those pesky Navy ships into T1 ships, all those Officer mods and implants into standard, all those rare Technetium moons into hydrocarbon, all those outposts into POS, share out all the ISK and equalise all the skill points to ensure fairness. Yeh! right on comrade! That was uncalled for, there has been enough flaming already. While i agree that changing invention and/or T2-BPOs will most likely have little effect on the actual profit one can make (due to competition, etc.) changing invention in that the ME/PE of the BPO effect the ME/PE of the BPC would - if nothing else - make non T2-BPO owners feel not quiet so left out. Hell, just add skill that's lets us carry over 10% or 5% of the stats of the BPO per level. One less reason for people to ***** about T2-BPO owners and one more reason for them to think about before they open up threads like these.
Ghoest	Posted - 2010.03.22 04:23:00 - [87] 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.
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2010.03.22 09:20:00 - [88] Originally by: Barbicane Originally by: Emporer Norton I'd just like some type of way to invent a t2 bpc with a positive me... if was a way to invent with a positive me would give ability for more profit and/or lower prices It's been said before but I will repeat it again: If you could get higher ME on your invented BPCs, then so could all the other inventors. The profit (or lack thereof) from invention would remain exactly the same. T2 prices might fall a bit but you would not make more profit. Worse, because the difference between decryptors would be reduced, invention profit would be reduced also, as it takes much of the skill out of decryptor selection. The reason invention produces -ve ME is so that the decryptors actually DO something. If you started with ME0, all the decryptors in the world would only save you less than 10%. As it stands, for items, the -ve ME is inconsequential.
Rashmika Clavain Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.22 13:10:00 - [89] Actually the real problem with T2 BPO's are the forum warrior(s) and their army of alts constantly posting asking for a change when none is required.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.22 14:57:00 - [90] Quote: 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. uh dude? Both passages were the same. I just made the second more simple to read. I won't call you a name because of that just admit that all of your wanting has led to a discussion that has proven that no evidence what so ever has been produced to validate ner***e of T2 bpo's. Of course this will not be admitted to because the truth is it's all about the jealousy. That's ok though bra. Jealousy is a good thing for people with ambition in game. It makes them achieve. Unfortunately though people without the ambition who are jealous simply run to the forums and holler.

Barbicane TGUN Industries	Posted - 2010.03.22 18:37:00 - [91] Originally by: Lord Fitz Originally by: Barbicane Originally by: Emporer Norton I'd just like some type of way to invent a t2 bpc with a positive me... if was a way to invent with a positive me would give ability for more profit and/or lower prices It's been said before but I will repeat it again: If you could get higher ME on your invented BPCs, then so could all the other inventors. The profit (or lack thereof) from invention would remain exactly the same. T2 prices might fall a bit but you would not make more profit. Worse, because the difference between decryptors would be reduced, invention profit would be reduced also, as it takes much of the skill out of decryptor selection. The reason invention produces -ve ME is so that the decryptors actually DO something. If you started with ME0, all the decryptors in the world would only save you less than 10%. As it stands, for items, the -ve ME is inconsequential. Good point about the decryptors.
Equinocs	Posted - 2010.03.22 22:10:00 - [92] Originally by: Lord Fitz Originally by: Barbicane Originally by: Emporer Norton I'd just like some type of way to invent a t2 bpc with a positive me... if was a way to invent with a positive me would give ability for more profit and/or lower prices It's been said before but I will repeat it again: If you could get higher ME on your invented BPCs, then so could all the other inventors. The profit (or lack thereof) from invention would remain exactly the same. T2 prices might fall a bit but you would not make more profit. Worse, because the difference between decryptors would be reduced, invention profit would be reduced also, as it takes much of the skill out of decryptor selection. The reason invention produces -ve ME is so that the decryptors actually DO something. If you started with ME0, all the decryptors in the world would only save you less than 10%. As it stands, for items, the -ve ME is inconsequential. Actually, profit margins would most likely remain the same. Apart from "big" ships decryptors don't have any use anyway. And why CCP even bothered to include negative PL is beyond me - production time has never been the limiting factor for me. Had CCP been serious about the whole decrypter-thing, they would see broader usage by now. In my eyes, decyptors itself are part of the problem. It's like the old lottery reloaded - the more you are willing to "pay", the better your chances get. Some decryptors see heavy use, others are more or less redundant. Choosing the right decrypter doesn't take as much skill as it takes ISK to use up decryptor after decryptor trying to invent something. Would you use a decryptor on anything smaller than a cruiser? Most likely not, not with copy-times and effective runs as they are right now.
Gunner77	Posted - 2010.03.22 22:30:00 - [93] "During Q2 2009, the average number of Tech II production jobs completed daily was 11,788. Out of this average, 374 jobs were installed with a Tech II BPO, while the remaining 11,414 jobs were installed with BPCs. The distribution of Tech II production jobs installed had 3% installed with a BPO and 97% installed with a BPC." Seriously whats with all the whine when only 3% of the T2 market comes from BPOs. Combined with the fact that T2 BPOs are constantly being sold on the sell forum so they are not impossible to get. I'm sorry you don't have enough isk to buy them, but that is hardly a reason to nerf them.
Wilma JugsJiggle	Posted - 2010.03.23 02:45:00 - [94] Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo! The 7 people with T2 BPOs might leave! omg
Ariane VoxDei	Posted - 2010.03.23 12:53:00 - [95] Originally by: Gunner77 "During Q2 2009, the average number of Tech II production jobs completed daily was 11,788. Out of this average, 374 jobs were installed with a Tech II BPO, while the remaining 11,414 jobs were installed with BPCs. The distribution of Tech II production jobs installed had 3% installed with a BPO and 97% installed with a BPC." Seriously whats with all the whine when only 3% of the T2 market comes from BPOs. Nice try, but deliberate misinterpretation. 3% of T2 JOBS, not 3% of manufactured T2 items/ships. Repeat: 3% completed jobs does not equal 3% produced items, since not everything (in fact nothing relevant except the produced item) is equal between a T2 BPO and a invented T2 BPC. BPO has (much) larger run numbers (varying by item/ship), than the BPCs coming out of invention. In effect, it is reasonable to expect that the BPOs were doing many MORE RUNS PER JOB, than the BPCs are capable of. And the distribution is certainly not equal, meaning not "3%" on everything. It it well known that in some cases the BPOs dominate completely, and in some cases there exists no BPO (according to the public concensus).
Raynaar Amarr Intergalactic Mining And Trade Corp.	Posted - 2010.03.23 13:33:00 - [96] Originally by: Estel Arador Originally by: Ghoest Word is BPOs are being given limits. That's been the 'word' for a couple of years now. Dude, haven't you heard about the word???? AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH B-MOW MOW... BAH BAH MAH MOW MOW... BAH... BAH-MOW MOW BAH... MOW-MAH-MOW.... "Put the pick in there, Pete, and turn it 'round, real neat..."
Joe SMASH You Got A Purty Mouth	Posted - 2010.03.23 13:43:00 - [97] Originally by: Raynaar Dude, haven't you heard about the word???? AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH B-MOW MOW... BAH BAH MAH MOW MOW... BAH... BAH-MOW MOW BAH... MOW-MAH-MOW.... Quoting for truth that the 'Bird' is in-fact the word. ----------------------------------- Originally by: Kali Zero Warp core stabilizers are like condoms. Nice and safe, but they make it a little less fun for everyone involved.
Thirst	Posted - 2010.03.23 14:27:00 - [98] While were at it let's remove any tournament or rare ship form the game. Because I wasnt around in the lottery err.. I mean event, and there and I can't buy them at the same price as other ships of it's class. It's not fair!!! Mommy I want one! If I can't have one nobody should. And no I don't want to buy any of the ones on the forums because that would mean I had to work to get some isk and I dont want to work. Give me stuff or nerf those who have that stuff.
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.23 15:28:00 - [99] Edited by: Jovialmadness on 23/03/2010 15:29:11 Quote: 3% of T2 JOBS, not 3% of manufactured T2 items/ships. Repeat: 3% completed jobs does not equal 3% produced items, since not everything (in fact nothing relevant except the produced item) is equal between a T2 BPO and a invented T2 BPC. BPO has (much) larger run numbers (varying by item/ship), than the BPCs coming out of invention. In effect, it is reasonable to expect that the BPOs were doing many MORE RUNS PER JOB, than the BPCs are capable of. And the distribution is certainly not equal, meaning not "3%" on everything. It it well known that in some cases the BPOs dominate completely, and in some cases there exists no BPO (according to the public concensus). I thought what he wrote was specific concerning actual numbers and prints used. That didn't sound like an interpretation to me. Please linky yours plz. Regardless for a vast majority of production I'm willing to wager thousands upon thousands of players doing multiple invention jobs probably does produce more product OR if not already has the capability to! Also, bpo's have a set capability for producing. Invention and bpc's can out produce a bpo holder. Also again it is true there are some items that really aren't touched by inventors and, for example, like t2 bs's, ea frigs, hictors etc don't have a bpo.
Equinocs	Posted - 2010.03.23 16:05:00 - [100] Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 16:10:58 Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 16:09:23 Fact is, BPO jobs account for one third of all Tech II items produced. As such, one could come to the conclusion that T2-BPOs still have an advantage over Invention - even after "running multiple invention jobs" are concerned. Concerning T2-ships alone, ration between BPO&BPC is about 50/50 - but then again, individual numbers vary from ship-type to ship-type.

SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.23 16:18:00 - [101] Originally by: Equinocs Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 16:10:58 Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 16:09:23 Fact is, BPO jobs account for one third of all Tech II items produced. As such, one could come to the conclusion that T2-BPOs still have an advantage over Invention - even after "running multiple invention jobs" are concerned. Concerning T2-ships alone, ration between BPO&BPC is about 50/50 - but then again, individual numbers vary from ship-type to ship-type. [Citation needed] --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Delezar Hellfire-Empire	Posted - 2010.03.23 16:28:00 - [102] Originally by: Equinocs Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 16:10:58 Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 16:09:23 Fact is, BPO jobs account for one third of all Tech II items produced. As such, one could come to the conclusion that T2-BPOs still have an advantage over Invention - even after "running multiple invention jobs" are concerned. Concerning T2-ships alone, ration between BPO&BPC is about 50/50 - but then again, individual numbers vary from ship-type to ship-type. How did you get those numbers? Without any evidence those claims aren't worth anything.
Equinocs	Posted - 2010.03.23 16:34:00 - [103] Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 16:35:14 EVE Quarterly Economic Newsletter - Q2 2009, Page 32 - 49. I thought the source was evident, as it had been brought up just a few posts before this one. Q3&Q4 don't mention T2-Production, they have other specials. Altough i think T2-development should be included in any from now, judging by the importance it apparently holds.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.23 17:14:00 - [104] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 23/03/2010 17:16:31 Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 23/03/2010 17:16:13 I see what you're referencing, although if you bother to read the whole thing, it's clearly out of context and, as a standalone datapoint, doesn't really tell us much (nor did the opposite point regarding percentage of installation jobs). The conclusion from that document is: Quote: In conclusion, invention has taken over a large portion of the Tech II market, especially in areas where the supply from the BPOs failed to keep pace with the high demand for these much sought-after items. There are exceptions for some items like interceptors, which have relatively fast build times, and are thus mostly produced by BPO owners since they can fill the demand. , But without question, invention has had a great effect on the market as a whole. Since the introduction of the invention system, price for many of the most sought after Tech II items have dropped down to much more affordable levels in the past two and a half years. With the barrier of entry into Tech II production effectively removed, the supply for high demand items in addition to items with long build times has increased greatly, which in turn has created market competition and made it all but impossible for cartels to monopolize certain products. (Some irrelevant stuff here about how a lot more T2 production takes place in .4 than in 0.0) As the player base for EVE continues to grow, the demand for Tech II products will only increase, creating new opportunities for aspiring industrialists to break into the Tech II market through invention. Proportionally, we can expect BPCs to account for an increasingly larger portion of the Tech II market in the coming months and years, as the limited supply of BPOs does not have the capacity to meet the demand. Emphasis added. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Equinocs	Posted - 2010.03.23 20:17:00 - [105] Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 20:19:08 Emphasise as much as you want, you can't deny that 3% accounting for a third of the production is just totally out of proportion. If you add drones & ammunition, you would most likely end up with something around 60% - the line between monopolisation and quasi-monopolisation is somewhat thin in this case, especially if you look at drones. Of course, the barrier (e.g. the lottery) has been removed, but in some fields (frigates, drones etc.) BPO owners have an advantage that is almost impossible to compensate for by inventors, as the cost and time needed for churning out the same number of items is just to high. Sure, everyone could dig into invention, but that doesn't mean that everyone actually does. What happens when the playerbase grows (and accordingly the demand), but the supply doesn't (at least not in the same way)? Invented BPCs have an inherent handicap in that you can't get a positive ME. In turn, with a greater market share of BPCs, more raws are needed, and prices rise (NOTE: rise, not skyrocket). Now, i ask - who would make a greater profit in such a situation? Those that need to buy decryptors to effectivly increase there runs or invest more datacores for more BPCs and who also have to pay more for materials? Or those that can just sit back and produce, at almost no wastage, and don't need to make BPCs (or indeed make BPCs, which are better than anything inventors can come up with)? Again, i don't see how nerfing T2-BPOs would possibly alivate that situation (in regard to OP's standpoint), but making it possible for inventors to decrease wastage (not much, but enough that it matters) without paying even more ISK everytime they want to produce something could be a step in the right direction.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.23 20:40:00 - [106] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 23/03/2010 20:46:16 Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 23/03/2010 20:41:10 Originally by: Equinocs Edited by: Equinocs on 23/03/2010 20:19:08 Emphasise as much as you want, you can't deny that 3% accounting for a third of the production is just totally out of proportion. A completely pointless metric is out of proportion? So what? What do you think that means, precisely? Literally, the ONLY thing it tells us it that BPOs produce more units per installed job. Why? Well, BPOs can have a month long install time, while BPCs need to be plugged in every 1-20 runs, depending, thus BPOs can build more per individual installation. No **ing . Also, the sun is kind of bright, and when it rains, gets wet. Quote: What happens when the playerbase grows (and accordingly the demand), but the supply doesn't (at least not in the same way) That's an adorable work of speculative fiction. If the demand goes up and supply isn't there, the price will go up. If the price goes up, more people will start producing, or those who produce already will produce more, until such a point as equilibrium is once again reached. You don't just get to ignore half of the concept of "supply and demand". Quote: Now, i ask - who would make a greater profit in such a situation? Per unit? A BPO holder. In total*? The guy whose marginvolume is a greater number. For most items, this will not be the BPO holder, unless they supplement with invention. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Gunner77	Posted - 2010.03.23 20:57:00 - [107] Ok, someone really needed to post this. For a Zealot using materials all purchased from Jita: For invention, including datacores, decryptors, and chance to fail: 102,054,464.29 isk 2 days, 16 hours For a T2 BPO with 100/100: 59,666,082.72 isk 1 day, 4 hours, 30 minutes, 53 seconds Zealots currently sell for 109,698,999.01, so lets see the daily profits for each person. Inventor = 2,866,700.52 profit per day T2 BPO = 42,111,228.78 profit per day So it seems T2 BPOs are really nice, except you can only build 1 at a time from it, where an inventor could potentially be running 10 jobs at the same time. So if we modify the inventors number by 10 (for a max skilled character): Inventor = 28,667,005.20 profit per day Wow a T2 BPO Zealot only makes you 13,444,223.58 more isk per day than someone who invented their Zealot BPC. BPOs do have other advantages, they are an asset meaning you can sell them when your done using them. They are essentially free if you sell for the same price you bought it at. They also require far less skills to use, since you do not need adv. lab ops, or the invention skills. But, they have a massive start up cost. I think that start up investment balances well against the additional income and decreased skill point requirements involved with T2 BPOs. Do T2 BPOs need a change, I think not.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.23 21:11:00 - [108] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 23/03/2010 21:15:01 I would say that, if anything, decryptors could use some tinkering with. There's an entire aspect of the invention system that is not even merely "not worth it" to use for the majority of invention jobs - most modules it's flat out impossible to use a decryptor - any decryptor at all - and still make a profit. That shouldn't be the case. I even do exploration in my free time, and it's a bit irksome that I never even question whether I should use or just sell off my decryptors. They get sold every time. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Equinocs	Posted - 2010.03.24 00:26:00 - [109] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey The proportion of "units created to installed jobs" has nothing to do with anything. At most, it serves as an illustration of the convenience of BPOs (which nobody is denying). On the contrary - it shows how much effort it would be if invention alone was to satisfy the demands of the market. I am not talking about ships>=cruiser size here, i am talking about drones, ammunition and modules where BPOs meet the gross of the demands. Invention would never be able to satisfy that part of the market, as the "advantage" of invention - being able to run multiple jobs at a time - is nil when dealing with such large quantities, apart from the fact that you still need to get the copies from somewhere. Quote: I would say that, if anything, decryptors could use some tinkering with. Indeed, as decryptors should at least give us the chance to come up with ME/PE at or over 0. Also, max runs on high demand items like drones, ammunition and other items (frigates, for example) should be reviewed, as this are the items where the ratio of BPOs to BPCs is abnormaly high. Originally by: Gunner77 Ok, someone really needed to post this. For a Zealot using materials all purchased from Jita: For invention, including datacores, decryptors, and chance to fail: 102,054,464.29 isk 2 days, 16 hours For a T2 BPO with 100/100: 59,666,082.72 isk 1 day, 4 hours, 30 minutes, 53 seconds Please elaborate. Did you include copy time? What decryptor did you use, regarding chance to fail? Quote: (...)where an inventor could potentially be running 10 jobs at the same time. So if we modify the inventors number by 10 (for a max skilled character)(...) Which would mean you need an additional character for copying, which means extra skill time or an additional account, increasing cost. Also, keep in mind that you should use max runs when you use a decryptor. Sure, you could possibly be running 10 invention jobs t a time - but who would provide you with the necessary copies? Quote: Do T2 BPOs need a change, I think not. Again, i am not the one who started this thread, and as stated before, changing T2-BPO would't solve anything.
Rewak	Posted - 2010.03.24 02:32:00 - [110] Ok I haven't read every post so I don't know if someone else has said this. There are 2 kinds of profit! Economic profit and Accounting profit. Accounting profit is simply revenue minus expenses = Profit. in this case: Invention profit: Sale price - Research costs - material costs = Profit BPO: Sale price - material costs = Profit This is what you are all comparing and with this method you are right BPOs generate more money then Invention. The problem is Accounting profit is good for comparing similar companies/operations it isn't good at comparing differing operations. Economic profit is similar to accounting profit but takes into account things like cost of capital. When we look at economic profits we see that invention is actually more profitable then BPOs. a BPO is an ASSET!!! I noticed a few people calling it a sunk cost, it is not a sunk cost is a expense that you cant get back, i.e hiring a freighter to move your minerals. A person can sell the BPO at any time and get there money back! This means that a BPO represents a major Capital investment. now capital has a cost quick look at the Market forum shows I can get 1.5% per month this is a very conservative rate. Now look at the economic profit calculations: Invention: Sale price - Research costs - material costs = Profit BPO Sale price - material costs - 1.5% of the BPO value = profit Now the profit is alot closer. In order for a 7.3 billion BPO to be more profitable then invention in needs to generate an extra 109.5 million a month compared to invention. and that is comparing it to a very low yield investment. compare it to the best investment I can see in the market form a 7.3 billion BPO needs to generate 1.8 billion isk a month over invention to be worth it. In short people making more money then you with a BPO are doing to because they have invested alot more money then you, higher investment = higher returns this it the way eve works this is the way the real world works.

Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2010.03.24 02:33:00 - [111] My harpy bpo is no longer able to be copied on test server (which is what I was told was changing). I will quit the game if this go to live server.
Tasty Bit Gallente UNITED STAR SYNDICATE	Posted - 2010.03.24 10:56:00 - [112] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat My harpy bpo is no longer able to be copied on test server (which is what I was told was changing). I will quit the game if this go to live server. Laters.
Bansheeswail	Posted - 2010.03.24 11:05:00 - [113] Originally by: Ghoest 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. There's a specific T2 ammo for which I've 2 of the BPOs and am buying the components for <90% of the regional average, and yet there are people selling the ammo for approximately 70-80% of the cost I can produce them for. Now either there are folks who're getting all the materials for much cheaper prices in other regions and yet don't have the sense to just resell the materials for slightly below the average for the region I'm in, potentially netting a far higher profit margin than they do for the ammo, or more likely it's the usual idiocy of "I mined it so it costs nothing" and "I do nothing for my datacores so they're free". I've heard many similar complaints regarding invented t2 BPCs being sold for sub production cost prices. The problem is not T2 BPOs, it's the absense of any significant intelligence level required to engage in invention.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.24 12:53:00 - [114] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat My harpy bpo is no longer able to be copied on test server (which is what I was told was changing). I will quit the game if this go to live server. Why you were coping it? You produce faster from the original than producing copies and then producing the item.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2010.03.24 13:57:00 - [115] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat My harpy bpo is no longer able to be copied on test server (which is what I was told was changing). I will quit the game if this go to live server. Why you were coping it? You produce faster from the original than producing copies and then producing the item. Yeah, I'm a bit curious on that, too - loss of copying for T2 BPOs isn't exactly a big deal. I guess if you're too lazy to do actual production and just want to copy it and sell the copies on contracts, maybe? That's about the only scenario I can see it affecting. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2010.03.24 14:44:00 - [116] Edited by: Jovialmadness on 24/03/2010 14:44:15 Yea exactly monkey. I have module and ship bpo's so something like that wouldn't affect me in the least. Now I have friends that deal exclusively in ammo bpo's. They copy them nonstop. If this goes live they will be ****ed I'm sure. I can understand why ccp is doing it but it doesn't change the fact that it's still caving to louder parties.
Gamer4liff Caldari Metalworks Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.03.24 15:07:00 - [117] Personally I think it's a tragedy that people can't get fresh T2 BPOs (and we with BPOs can't get any more). I believe it wholly unfair that we elder players were the only ones who got the first crack at them. My personal favorite solution is adding a minuscule chance (that scales with population to prevent an excess of BPOs) with every invention job to invent a BPO. ----------- Originally by: CCP Whisper Deal with it.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.24 15:20:00 - [118] Originally by: Widemouth Deepthroat My harpy bpo is no longer able to be copied on test server (which is what I was told was changing). I will quit the game if this go to live server. My quake BPO copy without a problem. Not that I see any reason to copy it as copy time is x2 build time.
Gunner77	Posted - 2010.03.24 20:17:00 - [119] Originally by: Equinocs Originally by: Gunner77 Ok, someone really needed to post this. For a Zealot using materials all purchased from Jita: For invention, including datacores, decryptors, and chance to fail: 102,054,464.29 isk 2 days, 16 hours For a T2 BPO with 100/100: 59,666,082.72 isk 1 day, 4 hours, 30 minutes, 53 seconds Please elaborate. Did you include copy time? What decryptor did you use, regarding chance to fail? Quote: (...)where an inventor could potentially be running 10 jobs at the same time. So if we modify the inventors number by 10 (for a max skilled character)(...) Which would mean you need an additional character for copying, which means extra skill time or an additional account, increasing cost. Also, keep in mind that you should use max runs when you use a decryptor. Sure, you could possibly be running 10 invention jobs t a time - but who would provide you with the necessary copies? Quote: Do T2 BPOs need a change, I think not. Again, i am not the one who started this thread, and as stated before, changing T2-BPO would't solve anything. I used circular logic as they provide the most profit on this particular invention job. The copy time of an omen BPO with max runs is 3 days, 3 hours. The invention job time is 1 day, 1 hour. Using circular logic you have a 18.9% chance for invention, meaning you will need to do 5.29 inventions on average to be successful. The average time spent copying and inventing until success is 22 days, 1 hour. Circular logic produces a 10 run BPCs with a build time of 28 days, 16 hours, meaning copy time is not the bottleneck for your production, manufacturing time is.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.