| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
   |
Posted - 2010.04.17 08:50:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Akita T on 17/04/2010 08:56:24
 Originally by: Ghoest
Akira compared T2 BPOs to cap ships.
/em rolls eyes
You see I didnt realize they stopped making caps ships years because they were bad for the game but decided to let people keep them if they already had them.
Congratulations on completely missing the point by failing miserably at reading comprehension.
Why don't you go back and re-read the post you are criticizing, this time trying your best to understand the point being made there.
Hint : read the entire post instead of select phrases that reinforce your beliefs. And subsequent posts making slightly different analogies. Especially the parts where the analogy is explained on a 1-to-1 element basis.
Originally by: Ghoest
Why does everyone think they know my goals?
Because you're THAT simple, apparently.
But hey, let's give you the benefit of the doubt... what exactly ARE your goals ?
And if you just want say "to remove T2 BPOs because they're unfair", well, let's just have you answer to that in the other thread.
To put it in simple terms, there's nothing inherently unfair about T2 BPOs, not more than other things in EVE which are perfectly acceptable.
And even if they WOULD be unfair (in some very specific way, namely "I can't easily get one"), so what, EVE is not even supposed to be fair in THAT kind of way.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
buttesauce
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 09:07:00 -
[62]
I think it would be funny if they removed t2 bpos and nothing really changes
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 13:22:00 -
[63]
Originally by: buttesauce
funny
You spelled "sadlypathetic" wrong.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 13:56:00 -
[64]
The OP also misrepresents the Dev Blog post as well, here is the relevant graph,
Quote:
On top of this, in Tyrannis we're (hopefully!) removing the last of the various bugs that allow deep safes to be created. This will place us firmly into a situation where the only way to access locations outside the system proper will be via "legacy" bookmarks. This creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": as a new player coming into the game, the only way you'd be able to reach points outside the system proper would be to acquire a bookmark from an older player.
In short:
- Deep Safes are considered bugs.
- Removing these bugs will prevent people from making them.
- However, if the deep safes themselves are not removed and once the bugs are removed it creates an inequity between players who have them vs. who do.
- So remove them all.
Now consider T2 BPOs.
- Some players won them.
- This gave said players a huge advantage.
- Invention was introduced giving ALL players access to T2 and making isk like the T2 BPO holders.
Everything is quite similar till you get to number 3, then the comparison falls completely apart nullifying the very reason for the OP.
|
Lillian Blu
Gallente
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 14:23:00 -
[65]
It's funny how people think T2 BPOs are these ultimate ISK makers...
Just the other day I was browsing Sell forums and looking at some T2 BPO sales. And if you do a bit of calculations you can see that a lot of T2 BPOs have pretty lousy returns, and on top of that people pay ridiculous amount of ISK for them. So much in fact, that it would take 5+ years (a lot of times even more) of constant production to even cover the initial purchase of the blueprint.
I bet that there is a huge amount of T2 BPO owners out there who will never see any actual profits from their BPOs because they simply won't reach the high price of their initial investment.
So folks, instead of complaining about this on forums, go to a site like XN7, or download one of many wonderful programs in the resource section and plug in some numbers and laugh at majority of people who are buying T2 BPOs.
And bottom line is; there are a lot of better ways to make more ISK, with less effort and lower initial investment.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 15:09:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Akita T
Congratulations on completely missing the point by failing miserably at reading comprehension.
Why don't you go back and re-read the post you are criticizing, this time trying your best to understand the point being made there.
Hint : read the entire post instead of select phrases that reinforce your beliefs. And subsequent posts making slightly different analogies. Especially the parts where the analogy is explained on a 1-to-1 element basis.
Umm I read your post. You didnt disavow the analogy. You used it as significant part of you argument.
I think your deluded.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Mandos2k
Gallente
Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 15:33:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 15/04/2010 17:35:10
__
To answer to the OP in an alternative way...
The devblog is about removing the "unfairness" of not having the bookmarks and being unable to make a fresh one yourself, after the method of creating the bookmarks was eliminated (because those particular bookmarks were deemed undesirable), so the only way would have been to copy it from somebody who had one.
If you want to compare it with T2 BPOs... translating the bookmarks/probing blog into T2 terms... it would be akin to removing each and every T2 item from everybody alongside all T2 BPOs, because they decided to scrap invention altogether as they decided T2 items would be undesitable.
New deep safe bookmark creation - Invention
Old deep safe bookmark copying - T2 BPOs
Deep safe bookmarks - T2 items
And the skills just because they would be useless afterwards anyway.
__
So, yeah, you can remove all T2 BPOs.
As soon as you remove all T2 items from the game, and remove invention, and remove all T2-related skills everybody has. That would be only fair to everybody in a similar fashion. Would you like that ?
I'd sign that petition ![/sarcasm]
This is so flawed I don't even know where to start. How could you come up with such crap Akita?
CCP's reason for removing Deep Safe Spots (DSS) is:
"(It) creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": as a new player coming into the game, the only way you'd be able to reach points outside the system proper would be to acquire a bookmark from an older player."
Which results in the premise:
"X" can only be acquired by "y".
"y" has been removed from the game, because it has been deemed undesirable.
"x" has an inherent advantage.
If "new a" wants "x" he has to get it from "old b".
This gives "old b" an unfair advantage towards "new a".
Therefore "x" has to be removed as well.
Translated into the Dev Blog this means:
DSSs can only be acquired by a bug.
The bug has been removed from the game, because it has been deemed undesirable.
DSSs have an inherent advantage.
If a new player wants a DSS he has to get it from an old player.
This gives old players an unfair advantage towards new players.
Therefore DSSs have to be removed as well.
For T2 BPOs this translates into:
T2 BPOs can only be acquired by the lottery.
The lottery has been removed from the game, because it has been deemed undesirable.
T2 BPOs have an inherent advantage.
If a new players wants a T2 BPO he has to get it from an old player.
This gives old players an unfair advantage towards new players.
Therefore T2 BPOs have to be removed as well.
And this is what the OP is saying. T2 items have nothing to do with it as they are acquirable through invention and that's something everyone can do.
Srsly, how could you? But you know that damn well, don't you?
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 15:53:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Ghoest
Umm I read your post. You didnt disavow the analogy. You used it as significant part of you argument. I think your deluded.
And your grammar is horrible, but then again it's your judgement that's being questioned here, so that's just the tip of the iceberg. So, let me walk you slowly through the posts in this thread, so you may see the error of your ways (but I doubt you will, so this is all for the benefit of everybody else).
There was a guy that made several would-be funny threads that suggested removing SP, Titans and whatnot in a similar manner to this thread asking for T2 BPO to be removed. The assumption was that any sane person would realize that the suggestion to remove capital ships was pure sarcasm.
The initial focus of post #17 here was not to show that T2 BPOs do no harm, but to show how silly removing something that is status quo, that people worked for, in the name of some "greater good" would be. Then went on to attack the validity of the idea that it would be "for the greater good" at all.
So it would be pointless to disavow a specific analogy that was never meant in the way you seem to have read it through your polarized bias glasses. It was never about capships being bad for the game, nor about the hypothetical removal of capship production capability. It was just about removing something earned under the guise of the greater good.
We didn't even start to dwell into how different the situation in the mentioned devblog was radically different from that of T2 BPOs. But that was remedied in post #22, where the first real analogy was made, and it was not between capital ships and T2 BPOs, but between the subject of the devblog that sparked this thread allegedly (deep safe bookmarks) and T2 items (not just T2 BPOs).
The "unfairness" that the devblog describes as being corrected is the ability to HAVE any deep-safe bookmarks at all, not the ability to create new ones. It was a given that the ability to create new ones was to be abolished, as nobody should ever be able to use any, and it made perfect sense to remove any traces of them.
In this analogy, the existence of deep-safe bookmarks would equate to the existence of T2 items, NOT the existence of T2 BPOs. The only _practical_ reason to have a T2 BPO is to make T2 items, not to have a T2 BPO. A T2 BPO that does not see production is an useless T2 BPO, and its existence should never bother you. The _process_ of copying existing deep-safe bookmarks is the equivalent of T2 BPOs, and the removal of that system made no sense without also removing the ability to make new deep-safe bookmarks, which in case of T2 would be equivalent to the process of invention.
I admit, sarcasm might be difficult to grasp in writing at times, but this time, it should have been pretty damn obvious (the "sarcasm" tag should have been a dead giveaway too) that nobody in their right mind would consider the removal of T2 items, the invention process and everything else that goes with it a desirable outcome, completely unlike the situation described in the mentioned devblog.
So, who exactly do you call "deluded" here, and on what basis ? I might just call you an idiot instead, I would have had shown far more proof in favor of that so far than you ever began to for your statement.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
SurrenderMonkey
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:03:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Mandos2k
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 15/04/2010 17:35:10
__
To answer to the OP in an alternative way...
The devblog is about removing the "unfairness" of not having the bookmarks and being unable to make a fresh one yourself, after the method of creating the bookmarks was eliminated (because those particular bookmarks were deemed undesirable), so the only way would have been to copy it from somebody who had one.
If you want to compare it with T2 BPOs... translating the bookmarks/probing blog into T2 terms... it would be akin to removing each and every T2 item from everybody alongside all T2 BPOs, because they decided to scrap invention altogether as they decided T2 items would be undesitable.
New deep safe bookmark creation - Invention
Old deep safe bookmark copying - T2 BPOs
Deep safe bookmarks - T2 items
And the skills just because they would be useless afterwards anyway.
__
So, yeah, you can remove all T2 BPOs.
As soon as you remove all T2 items from the game, and remove invention, and remove all T2-related skills everybody has. That would be only fair to everybody in a similar fashion. Would you like that ?
I'd sign that petition ![/sarcasm]
This is so flawed I don't even know where to start. How could you come up with such crap Akita?
CCP's reason for removing Deep Safe Spots (DSS) is:
"(It) creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": as a new player coming into the game, the only way you'd be able to reach points outside the system proper would be to acquire a bookmark from an older player."
Which results in the premise:
"X" can only be acquired by "y".
"y" has been removed from the game, because it has been deemed undesirable.
"x" has an inherent advantage.
If "new a" wants "x" he has to get it from "old b".
This gives "old b" an unfair advantage towards "new a".
Therefore "x" has to be removed as well.
Translated into the Dev Blog this means:
DSSs can only be acquired by a bug.
The bug has been removed from the game, because it has been deemed undesirable.
DSSs have an inherent advantage.
If a new player wants a DSS he has to get it from an old player.
This gives old players an unfair advantage towards new players.
Therefore DSSs have to be removed as well.
For T2 BPOs this translates into:
T2 BPOs can only be acquired by the lottery.
The lottery has been removed from the game, because it has been deemed undesirable.
T2 BPOs have an inherent advantage.
If a new players wants a T2 BPO he has to get it from an old player.
This gives old players an unfair advantage towards new players.
Therefore T2 BPOs have to be removed as well.
And this is what the OP is saying. T2 items have nothing to do with it as they are acquirable through invention and that's something everyone can do.
Srsly, how could you? But you know that damn well, don't you?
Your analogy falls apart at the very first step. The lottery was an INTENDED mechanic that they ultimately decided to go in another direction with. The bug was never supposed to happen at all. Ergo, the source of the items are non-analogous.
Additionally, DSSs themselves are being removed because DSSs are deemed undesirable. There is a difference between something's source and the thing itself. Both the bug and the result are considered undesirable in the case of DSS's. The lottery was considered undesirable, but that does not necessarily carry over to the existing BPOs themselves.
In short: Failed analogy fails.
---------------
Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp |
Mandos2k
Gallente
Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:20:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Mandos2k on 17/04/2010 16:25:37
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Originally by: Mandos2k
Originally by: Akita T
Akita's stuff in post #22
Mandos2k's stuff in post #67
Your analogy falls apart at the very first step. The lottery was an INTENDED mechanic that they ultimately decided to go in another direction with. The bug was never supposed to happen at all. Ergo, the source of the items are non-analogous.
Additionally, DSSs themselves are being removed because DSSs are deemed undesirable. There is a difference between something's source and the thing itself. Both the bug and the result are considered undesirable in the case of DSS's. The lottery was considered undesirable, but that does not necessarily carry over to the existing BPOs themselves.
Dude, that's indeed correct. Mind you, I did put the thoughts of the OP into perspective which Akita skewed in his earlier post. It's not an argument for the removal of T2 BPOs per se. So yes, I have to agree with you.
Nevertheless the current situation is not satisfying. I also think there should be something happening with T2 BPOs. My favourite is a small chance for invention jobs to give out a BPO instead of a BPC.
|
SurrenderMonkey
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:36:00 -
[71]
Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 17/04/2010 16:36:11
Originally by: Mandos2k
Dude, that's indeed correct. Mind you, I did put the thoughts of the OP into perspective which Akita skewed in his earlier post. It's not an argument for the removal of T2 BPOs per se. So yes, I have to agree with you.
Nevertheless the current situation is not satisfying. I also think there should be something happening with T2 BPOs. My favourite is a small chance for invention jobs to give out a BPO instead of a BPC.
I do a whole lot of invention jobs, and I own no T2 BPOs, and I'm not sure which part I'm suppose to be dissatisfied with.
---------------
Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp |
Mandos2k
Gallente
Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:49:00 -
[72]
Then I congratulate you because you must be very satisfied.
|
SurrenderMonkey
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:51:00 -
[73]
There are parts of the system I don't like, but none that have anything to do with the fact that some people have BPOs.
---------------
Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp |
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:54:00 -
[74]
Akita you have confused yourself.
You made a bad analogy. I called you on it. You responded by talking about other stuff you said.
Its that simple.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:24:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Mandos2k
This is so flawed I don't even know where to start. How could you come up with such crap Akita?
CCP's reason for removing Deep Safe Spots (DSS) is:
"(It) creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": as a new player coming into the game, the only way you'd be able to reach points outside the system proper would be to acquire a bookmark from an older player."
You skipped a few steps.
A FEW VERY IMPORTANT steps.
The very first ones, actually.
Namely, "we do not like anybody to have any deep-safe bookmarks, but older players still do, and they can make copies of them to give them to newer people even if we remove the means to make more".
After that, everything else you said, while not technically incorrect, becomes irrelevant to the scope of this argument.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Mal Lokrano
Gallente
Retribution Corp.
Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:24:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Akita T
bunch o' stuff
I agree with Akita. Besides, T2 BPOs are only going to become less influential as time goes on as more inventors come in and the T2 BPO produce is diluted in the produce of invention.
____________________________________________
When going to a party with wine, women, and song. Always ascertain the vintage of the first two. |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 17:35:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Ghoest
You made a bad analogy. I called you on it. You responded by talking about other stuff you said.
"[...]it would be pointless to disavow a specific analogy that was never meant in the way you seem to have read it through your polarized bias glasses. It was never about capships being bad for the game, nor about the hypothetical removal of capship production capability. It was just about removing something earned under the guise of the greater good[...]"
Have you missed that part ? Is your attention span that low ? Did you even read my post ?
What a silly question, of course you didn't. You at best browsed.
I mean, you can't be bothered to read, let alone comprehend.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 18:33:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Ghoest
You made a bad analogy. I called you on it. You responded by talking about other stuff you said.
"[...]it would be pointless to disavow a specific analogy that was never meant in the way you seem to have read it through your polarized bias glasses. It was never about capships being bad for the game, nor about the hypothetical removal of capship production capability. It was just about removing something earned under the guise of the greater good[...]"
Have you missed that part ? Is your attention span that low ? Did you even read my post ?
What a silly question, of course you didn't. You at best browsed.
I mean, you can't be bothered to read, let alone comprehend.
Making up stuff about me not reading is not hiding your bad analogy.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 18:39:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Ghoest
Making up stuff about me not reading is not hiding your bad analogy.
You not understanding what the analogy is about is not an excuse for you to call it a bad analogy, nor an excuse for your inability to debate using facts and logic instead of demagogy and fallacies.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
bigsteve
Minmatar
STK Scientific
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 21:02:00 -
[80]
You are not making profit from invention because of the T2 BPO's, you are not making profit because everyman and his dog are inventing,
So it the inventors that are competing with each other and making the prices so LOW!!!!!
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Who Blew me |
Francisco Ostrowski
House Of Cards
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 22:45:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Lolobritzita
Edited by: Lolobritzita on 15/04/2010 13:24:06
Edited by: Lolobritzita on 15/04/2010 13:23:51
Dear fellow pod pilots,
for the obvious reasons, I'll be using an alt for this post, since I'm expecting a lot of flamming and I don't need any in-game issues right now.
Quite recently, there was a dev blog posted, regarding the creation of safe spots and the fixing of the related in-game mechanics that will not allow their creation anymore.
In this dev-blog, CCP Lemur and CCP Greyscale clearly sate that they do not want to create any situation with unfair advantage of the old players with bookmarks against the new players that do not have them - to quote their words: "This creates a division between older "haves" and newer "have-nots": as a new player coming into the game, the only way you'd be able to reach points outside the system proper would be to acquire a bookmark from an older player."
For me this opens the Pandora's Box.
If the developers think that the old players having deep space safespots is an unfair advantage against the new players, HOW ABOUT THE T2 BPO's IN THE GAME?
ARE THEY NOT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE FOR THE OLD PLAYERS AGAINST THE NEW?
If you agree sign along.
If you dont flame as much as you like.
PS: I have nothing to do with a well known to these forums character that deals with this issue as well.
edit: typos
You're an idiot.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 04:11:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Ghoest
Making up stuff about me not reading is not hiding your bad analogy.
You not understanding what the analogy is about is not an excuse for you to call it a bad analogy, nor an excuse for your inability to debate using facts and logic instead of demagogy and fallacies.
If you say a cat is a car your then your wrong. You can say i dont understand - but in the end youre still wrong.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 08:37:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Ghoest
If you say a cat is a car your then your wrong. You can say i dont understand - but in the end youre still wrong.
If you say a car is a cat, then you're wrong. You can say I don't understand - but in the end you're still wrong.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
Wrayeth
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 08:47:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 18/04/2010 08:47:41
To the OP:
I usually try to avoid insulting people, but you are a moron. I am not even currently producing from my T2 BPO as the profit margin is too low and there are too many competitors for me to justify running back to it every so often. How is an unfair advantage for me?
Thank you, and DIAF. 
-Wrayeth
n00b Extraordinaire
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
Estephania
Independent Political Analysts
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 09:53:00 -
[85]
Why this T2 BPO issue is so important to T2 BPO whine crowd? Even if you totally remove T2 BPOs from the game today after the dt, invention profits won't change. It will have zero effect on invention.
The issue here is simply jealousy that someone has more ISK than you. So, you propose to remove their assets to create equal playground? While we're at it, let's limit all SP to, say, 10 mill so that no n00b would feel treated unfairly.
|
lidiotduvillage
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 11:26:00 -
[86]
remove bpo is not the solution, for reduce the t2 price we need more producer, ccp must put the t2 bpo on the market or lp store.
or modify the invention to have a random chance of make a bpo.
the game must be the same for all, we paye all month the same price.
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 13:25:00 -
[87]
Originally by: lidiotduvillage
the game must be the same for all, we paye all month the same price.
I pay the same price as some titan pilot and I have no Titan nor the massive SP to fly one. This is obviously wrong, since I pay the same price for EVE.
Wait.
Wat? 
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 01:51:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Ghoest
If you say a cat is a car your then your wrong. You can say i dont understand - but in the end youre still wrong.
Dear Ghoest,
Please read the List of Fallacious Arguments and learn to argue without using the techniques described within. Most importantly, can you try to learn to present an argument without using ad hominem attacks, and without arguing over the argument? cf Argument from Laziness, Pigheadedness and Repetition.
Repeatedly saying that there is some kind of problem with T2 BPOs does not mean that there is some kind of problem with T2 BPOs.
If you have some evidence, present it. If you can come up with an argument about how T2 BPOs disadvantage inventors, present it.
Here is the common argument: T2 BPOs can be ME/PE researched to become more efficient than any invented T2 BPC.
Here is the counter argument: A T2 BPO can only be used in one production line at a time. An inventor can fill all their available invention slots with T2 BPC invention. It takes longer to copy a blueprint than to manufacture from it. There are a limited number of T2 BPOs in the game.
I suspect that many of the people complaining about T2 BPOs are actually having problems due to competing with T2 inventors who believe that datacores (and POS fuel) they farm themselves are free. The rest of the people complaining about T2 BPOs are likely to be bandwagon riders who haven't even manufactured more than the items required from the tutorial missions, much less dabbled in T2 invention.
My only complaint about invention is that I can't choose to invent a Curse. I put the Arbitrator BPC into the mix and I will randomly get a Curse or Pilgrim.
[Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES] |
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 02:14:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
My only complaint about invention is that I can't choose to invent a Curse. I put the Arbitrator BPC into the mix and I will randomly get a Curse or Pilgrim.
Hate to break the news to you, but there is a dropdown box on the invention screen where you can select the output BPC to invent.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 05:50:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Breaker77
Hate to break the news to you, but there is a dropdown box on the invention screen where you can select the output BPC to invent.
Awesome sauce :)
[Aussie players: join channels ANZAC or AUSSIES] |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |