|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mandos2k
Gallente
Divinity Within
   |
Posted - 2010.07.29 12:01:00 -
[1]
T2 BPOs give an unfair advantage and all these cry babies know it. Otherwise they wouldn't be whining and whining and whining so much each time someone points this flaw out.
Nevertheless they should not be removed. Some of their arguments do hold some merit and *shock* make sense.  Instead the mechanic how T2 BPOs work should be changed.
Let's have a look at T2 BPOs and invention:
Invention
- Involves recurring costs to acquire BPCs.
- BPC gained through invention are inefficient due to bad ME and PE levels.
- Their ME and PE cannot be researched.
- A BPC cannot be copied.
- BPCs gained through invention have limited runs.
T2 BPOs
- Once acquired there are no further costs.
- T2 BPOs are efficient as they have at least ME and PE levels of 0.
- Their ME and PE can be researched.
- T2 BPOs can be copied.
- T2 BPOs have unlimited runs.
To offset this persistent gap the handling of T2 BPOs has to be changed:
- When a T2 BPO is being used it receives damage and gets worn out over time.
- To prevent the loss of a T2 BPO it can be "invented" the same way a BPC would be for that particular item:
- If the invention job fails the BPO loses a percentage of its ME and PE level which both can also become negative.
- If the invention job succeeds the endured damage gets reseted, e.g. the T2 BPO is "repaired".
- The ME and PE levels can still be researched as of now.
- To copy a T2 BPO it has to be "invented" under the same principles as mentioned above.
Voila! T2 BPOs still hold an advantage, no one lost his precious gem, investments made into the BPO still hold value and the gap between invention and T2 BPOs has been lessened by introducing running costs similar to those of inventors.
|
Mandos2k
Gallente
Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 12:53:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Mara Rinn
You just killed your own argument. The cost in producing from invented T2 BPCs comes from the incremental cost of inventing the BPC. The cost in producing from T2 BPOs comes from the up front cost of purchasing the BPO.
If you ignore the up front costs, you'd have to assume that paying cash up-front for a house is far, far cheaper than renting because you don't pay rent on a house you own. [...]
This is not quite right. It's indeed the case that up front costs of a purchase are comparable to incremental costs over time. But you are ignoring that this is only the case up to a certain threshold. To stick with your house analogy: If you buy one house for $100.000 and rent another one for $10.000 per year you will have paid the same for both over 10 years. When you exceed these 10 years though the house you rented will become more expensive over time while the first house will not. The same is true for T2 BPOs. That it might take years or even longer than EVE might exist doesn't change it. Also since you acquired property at the house you have the option to sell it again. You might get less than you paid initially for it but the cost gap between buying and renting just gets bigger by this. So in essence you are correct if we assume that the 10 years will not be exceeded and the once bought house cannot be sold again, but why should we?
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
2. Researching is not free, again due to opportunity costs and for T2 BPOs there will be direct out of pocket expenses for such research. Yes, in the long run it may pay off...or it may not.
In comparison to T2 BPCs gained through invention this doesn't matter as these BPCs are always worse than ME and PE 0. In other words you are still better off even if you didn't research your BPO at all. Of course this would no longer be the case if invented BPCs could have ME and PE levels of 0 or greater.
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
3. You'd be dumb to copy them as already noted.
That it's not worth doing doesn't change that it's something you can't do with a copy.
The listings I did are objective descriptions of the properties of invention and T2 BPOs, not arguments for or against one of them. If you think I'm off the mark I would gladly read your comparison of their properties.
|
Mandos2k
Gallente
Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 17:20:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Cashews
Originally by: Mandos2k
stuff
A T2 BPO has a capped profit per timeframe. Invention has not (unless you prefer not to skill Mass Production).
That pretty much voids any argument you have, unless you are not doing it for profit.
And because of some miracle all T2 BPO owners can't use invention?
Also which argument of mine is void now? I can't seem to follow you.
|
Mandos2k
Gallente
Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 17:57:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Voogru
Fixed that for you.
Thank you Voogru. Buying a T2 BPO doesn't change its inherent advantages. Just the person benefiting from it.
|
Mandos2k
Gallente
Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 12:17:00 -
[5]
@Lord Fitz: Since you posted in between of my listings I'll number my replies from top to bottom in relation to yours, ok? It's easier to read then.
1. Could you elaborate this a bit for me? Afaik the production mechanic for copies and originals are the same.
2. Yes, indeed! The first and last bulletins of either listing are actually just one. Since I intended to write an unbiased objective description of their properties I figured it might have been a good way to emphasize their differences. As the listings shall describe their properties as a whole it's no difference at the end though, just a different way of presenting it. Might have really been better as just one but it's not changing anything. Well, whatever.
3. I already wrote something concerning this above in response to Mara. Furthermore the costs of acquisition through buying are only relevant to second hand owners. The initial owner got it basically for free. For further thoughts I refer you to my reply to Mara if you don't mind.
4. Actually that's not really changing anything. For one thing this also applies to copies, for another no one has to use these facilities so it's a voluntarily reduction in efficiency.
5. Nevertheless it is an advantage. Remember I did the listing as an objective description, not as arguments for or against anything. I wrote them so you guys know what thoughts my proposal is based on.
6. See above.
7. See further above.
8. While this is somewhat true it for one thing only applies to second hand owners (see above) and for another gets relativized as the high costs via player to player trade only exists because of the notable advantages of T2 BPOs. Wouldn't they have so many benefits compared to invention, no one would pay billions for them.
9. You didn't understood this passage right. I do not suggest adding new originals, I suggest that the same game mechanic used for invention is used to prevent the existing original from vanishing. The effects of this mechanic are described at the indented bulletins.
|
|
|
| |
|