Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mandos2k
Gallente Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 12:01:00 -
[61]
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.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 12:31:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Mandos2k
T2 BPOs Once acquired there are no further costs. T2 BPOs are efficient as they have at least ME and PE levels of 0.
Both are somewhat true.
Quote: Their ME and PE can be researched.
Using materials and taking a lot of time for even 1 level.
Quote: T2 BPOs can be copied.
Copy times are longer than production times. You would have to be silly to copy them.
Quote: T2 BPOs have unlimited runs.
Yet you can only queue up 30 days of production with them. If you want more than that you either have to acquire more BPOs or do invention. If you are going to do invention then why buy a T2 BPO in the first place?
|
Widemouth Deepthroat
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 14:25:00 -
[63]
so what does 30 days limit on production queue have to do with unlimited runs? Red herring much?
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 18:05:00 -
[64]
You guys realize that saying T2 BPOs give an unfair advantage in industry is like saying the state issue raven gives an unfair advantage in PVP.
You do know these things can be bought and sold right? Earlier in this thread someone said that T2 BPOs gave an unfair and insurmountable advantage to the owners. This is wrong for two reasons. 1. These BPOs can be purchased 2. Opportunity cost
I fail to see how so many people just can't grasp this concept. . . Here's a link to Wikipedia for those who were asleep in economics 101 opportunity cost
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.07.29 18:58:00 -
[65]
But...but...but I thought the minerals I mined myself were free!
|
Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 02:54:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Mandos2k
Let's have a look at T2 BPOs and invention:
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.
1. This is false, in that a BPO requires a huge isk investment, as such there is an opportunity cost associated with buying the T2 BPO. Namely that pile of isk cannot be used for anything else, and can only be recouped (hopefully) by selling the BPO.
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.
3. You'd be dumb to copy them as already noted.
4. There is the 30 day time limit. This places a definite constraint on the BPO. For example, suppose you want to make and sell item x for which you have the BPO, you gueue up a 20 day job, and 18 days later the market goes to sh*t. Whoops. Invention on the other hand is much more flexible. Does that flexibility comes at a cost? Sure, but this idea that there are huge benefits to owning T2 BPOs is just nonsense, in some markets there might be an advantage....when profit margins are thin, I personally consider that a feature not a bug as it can keep a market that would otherwise disappear alive.
And full disclosure: I own no T2 BPOs.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 04:49:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Mandos2k T2 BPOs
- Once acquired there are no further costs.
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. The situation is exactly the same for T2 BPO vs BPC: in one instance you pay the entire cost of X year's production up front, in the other you pay for each production run in the cost associated with inventing the BPC for that run.
If you think that owning a T2 BPO isn't comparable to paying cash for a house up front, go ahead and buy the T2 BPO and prove me wrong.
Is there something intrinsically uneven in having BPO competing with BPCs? Well, that depends. As the population of EVE Online increases and more people start using (and more importantly, losing) T2 items, the BPO owners will own less and less of the market.
I'm sure there are some T2 BPO owners who have cornered the market due to there being enough production from BPOs that it's economically unfeasible to make a profit using invention of that specific item. At least two avenues present themselves at this realisation: first, find the items that you can invent for the highest profit, rather than insisting that you be able to make a profit inventing whatever you feel like inventing, or increase demand for the item you want to invent such that it becomes profitable.
Both of these options require no cooperation from the current BPO owners, as opposed to the option of buying the BPO which requires the current owner to cooperate by selling it to you (or your cooperative).
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Mara Tessidar
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 05:05:00 -
[68]
Well said, Mara! |
Da Bandit
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 11:28:00 -
[69]
Just change them all back to T1 BPOs and then they can be invented to T2 BPCs like everyone else.
|
Narfas Deteis
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 11:33:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Da Bandit Just change them all back to T1 BPOs and then they can be invented to T2 BPCs like everyone else.
...and do same thing to all ships and modules.
Who wants T2 stuff anyway? It's disadvantage to new players.
|
|
Hathrul
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 11:49:00 -
[71]
As i understand, with the insane costs that come with the purchase of T2 BPO's, it takes well over a year to get any profit out if it, if that much. I really dont see the problem.
If you want a T2 BPO as a new player, you do the same as old players, you go out and make a lot of isk. ofcourse this is much easier for an older player, but then, using that as an argument would be the same as saying that carriers are to be removed. new players cant afford it
the entire drive behind Eve is that there is always something more. The first thing i thought about when i bought my cruiser is how to get money and skills to buy a battlecruiser. now i fly T3 ships and only wonder about how to get a black-ops. This is the same with T2 production. You start with cheap ammo, move on to ships, T2 invention and eventually you move on to cheap T2 bpo's. and given a lot of time you get a titan, a T2 BPO, a Tournament ship. They are the holy grails in the game, something to reach for. By removing the overly expensive toys from the game, whats the drive to keep on playing?
Lets face it. T2 bpo's are as easy to get as anything in Eve. its just all about money. but then, what isnt in eve
|
Penker
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 12:44:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Mara Rinn 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. The situation is exactly the same for T2 BPO vs BPC: in one instance you pay the entire cost of X year's production up front, in the other you pay for each production run in the cost associated with inventing the BPC for that run.
If you think that owning a T2 BPO isn't comparable to paying cash for a house up front, go ahead and buy the T2 BPO and prove me wrong.
Your analogy stinks, because in many parts of the world it IS actually cheaper to buy a house than to rent it. Maybe only on long term, but you don't plan to buy a T2 BPO for two months and resell it again (exception: profit, but then you profit of reselling your house too)
|
Mandos2k
Gallente Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 12:53:00 -
[73]
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.
|
Ten Bulls
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 13:07:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Ten Bulls on 30/07/2010 13:07:13
Originally by: Akita T
I still have to see an argument for why they MUST go.
Simple answer to that...
Its a GAME, and games are more fun more people when they are balanced
Giving a minority of players an inherent advantage of the majority of players and no way for them to one day be equals is bad, non-fun design.
|
Voogru
Gallente Massive Damage
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 13:31:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Ten Bulls Edited by: Ten Bulls on 30/07/2010 13:07:13
Originally by: Akita T
I still have to see an argument for why they MUST go.
Simple answer to that...
Its a GAME, and games are more fun more people when they are balanced
Giving a minority of players an inherent advantage of the majority of players and no way for them to one day be equals is bad, non-fun design.
By that logic, when you play Monopoly and someone gets a Monopoly in the game, once someone lands on it, they should have to turn over the properties to the bank.
Nevermind that's the whole object of the game.
Hate Farmers? Click Here |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 14:06:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Ten Bulls
Originally by: Akita T I still have to see an argument for why they MUST go.
Simple answer to that... Its a GAME, and games are more fun more people when they are balanced Giving a minority of players an inherent advantage of the majority of players and no way for them to one day be equals is bad, non-fun design.
This is not the kind of game you are looking for then. This is NOT Counterstrike-in-Space, with everything pretty much almost perfectly even for everybody participating in a round. We LOATHE even playing fields, we hate rounds, we hate resets and other so-called "fair play" thingies. This IS a hypercapitalistic, cutthroat, cheating, scamming, backstabbing and otherwise below-the-belt-hitting kind of game.
The kind of argument you're trying to use has no place here. ESPECIALLY since most of the people that currently HAVE that advantage you are talking about actually EARNED it through their own work.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 14:34:00 -
[77]
To emphasize akitas remarks...
1. 200 guys blobbing 1
2. 90 million sp officer fitted bhaalgorn attacking a tier 1 hauler noob thats 3 days old.
3. Alliance of 4000 attacking an alliance of 700 and taking their space.
4. Owners of supercapital/capital production corps making hundreds of billions a year. Yea but those arent tech 2 bpos right? Look at their costs.
5. Market traders worth hundreds of billions manipulating entire regions and/or multiple regions to harvest even more isk.
6. Only a few guys in game owning a select few ships in existance.
7. Scammers worth multi billions social engineering a 2 month old and taking every last isk the poor lad has.
8. Shall i go on?
9. Tech 2 bpo holders that aquired their blueprints through hard work and are worth multibillions getting an edge on production by investing capital instead of time like inventors must do.
10. Massive alliances controlling the best space and profiting off their moons while others have to settle for scraps.
11. 15 man peaceful industrial corps getting war dec'd in empire space so they can be harvested for fun/isk.
12. Guys rolling around with a large number of accounts making easier isk off of the fact they have multiple accounts and can pay more in real life for accounts than others.
13. Guys selling GTC's for ingame currency inorder to get an edge through wealth.
14. And my personal fav... Guys in jita declaring they are giving away an expensive ship at xxxz hours at planet I and 200 noobs in pods show up then get smartbombed.
All of these actions are totally legal. Most would probably scream they arent fair.
That is eve.
That is why i like it.
If you dont.
Leave.
Give your stuff to someone else.
I'm rich. I dont need your ****.
Mad?
Good.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 14:51:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Mandos2k 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?
For the duration of ownership of the production capital, the owner is missing the ISK used to acquire the production capital. Thus for the duration of ownership of a T2 BPO, that player will have a billion-odd ISK tied up in that BPO which can't be used to trade on the market or fund wars, put up towers for other income producing activities.
Let's say you have 150B ISK. Would you buy a Hulk BPO, or invest in (as a hypothetical example) the invention and production chain for Javelin Torpedoes?
Imagine that the Hulk BPO allows you to produce 1 Hulk each day, for 30M profit each day. That's somewhere in the order of 8%pa return on investment.
Imagine that for about 1B ISK you could set up a POS, and invent 1 single-run Hulk BPC a day at a cost of 27M each, selling each for 30M ISK. That's 3M profit each day, representing somewhere around 100%pa return on investment. Since you're inventing, there's nothing stopping you scaling this industry up a dozen times to match the absolute returns per day of the Hulk BPO, for one tenth the capital outlay of the BPO.
-- [Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Scott Ryder
Amarr art of eve Gunmen of the Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 16:05:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Mandos2k 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.
You do know that if you buy ie a hulk bpo, you can profit what? 12b a year? If you buy 30 covetor bpos you can profit 40 b a year..
How is that even unfair? If you spend the same amount of isk on t1 bpos that some spend on t2 bpos you will see its more profitable.
|
Cashews
Bastelrunde EV
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 16:34:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Mandos2k Let's have a look at T2 BPOs and invention:
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.
|
|
Ilkahn
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 16:57:00 -
[81]
As a budding young industrialist who is only a few months into the game...
Well, we pay our dues, the early T2 folks had to pay theirs. It's part of the fun of the game to explore "invention" mechanics etc.
It's a virtual world... my isk didn't pay my mortgage last month although i tried... but it will buy me copies of T2 BPs as well as Originals if i pony up on it.
Now, get out there and drive it like you stole it.
|
Crestingmoon
Caldari Amarr Empire Research Copr
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 17:03:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Crestingmoon on 30/07/2010 17:03:53 Invention works fine for me. I am able to produce anything I need and I can respond to the market as the demand for goods changes. If I had a tech 2 bpo, I would be beholden to one item and could not respond to the market as I can right now with invention.
Whats wrong with the Tech 2 BPO's? We have a lot of people that are jealous and lazy and dont want to do invention to make what they want. Stop whinning and start inventing!!!
|
Mandos2k
Gallente Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 17:20:00 -
[83]
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.
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 17:32:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Mandos2k
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.
Of course we can use invention. Why the bleepin bleep should i if i go to the sell order forums, buy a T2 bpo, produce off it and am happy with my market set profits controlled by inventors?
Like most guys i dont get alot of ingame time anymore. I chose to invest isk to make isk via bpos. Voila! |
Voogru
Gallente Massive Damage
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 17:46:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Mandos2k
And because of some miracle all inventors can't buy T2 BPO's?
Also which argument of mine is void now? I can't seem to follow you.
Fixed that for you.
Hate Farmers? Click Here |
Mandos2k
Gallente Divinity Within
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 17:57:00 -
[86]
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.
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 18:06:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Jovialmadness on 30/07/2010 18:07:26
Quote: Thank you Voogru. Inventing multiple tech 2 bpc's doesn't change its inherent advantages over a tech 2 bpo. Just the person benefiting from it.
Fixed that for you |
Susung
Alt Anti-defamation League
|
Posted - 2010.07.30 23:54:00 -
[88]
dunno if this has been said yet I didn't read all the crap posted. The differences between t2 bpo's and inventing is this.
You can only make so many items from a t2 bpo and they are a beetch to copy. It is nice to be able to tailor you production chain to produce a few things but if you want to get full profit out of them you have to run product out to multiple hubs to sell. Additonally people pay stupid amounts of isk for them the equivalent of 3 to 4 years production sometimes. ( I know who's fault is that right) Well, it not completely foolish for the above reasons.
Inventors can tailor their production to holes in their local market. they have increased logistics invoved in raw materials but they dont have to make 50 jumps to 3 or 4 hubs to sell their stuff.
My main's corp spent years of research from multiple members and got a single t2 missle bpo that was practically useless. And until invention (I paid 700 mil for my first hulk) the bpo holders were sticking it to everybody. That pizzed some people off when they invented their first bpo's and figured out how badly they were gettin soaked. But I can't honestly say if I had that hulk bpo at the time I wouldn't have done the same thing.
All said I would like to see better efficiency from invention maybe ME/PE -2 instead of -4 standard or a more datafiles so their price gets better. But overall invention was a positive move that made the BPO holders honest up a bit. I don't see any way they could be removed. If you want one save your isk and buy one.
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2010.07.31 07:57:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Mandos2k 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.
This isn't quite true, many invented BPCs have the same (or close enough to the same) build cost as those from BPOs due to how wastage is/isn't applied.
- Their ME and PE cannot be researched.
- A BPC cannot be copied.
- BPCs gained through invention have limited runs.
This really fits in with recurring costs as the same point, equally BPOs have a limited number of items you can build over time.
T2 BPOs
- Once acquired there are no further costs.
Actually depreciation is a cost, so you're not right there. Also the important part is the 'once acquired part' if the cost to acquire them wasn't more than enough to compensate for all of their advantages, and then some, no one would be complaining about not having one, they'd just buy one.
- T2 BPOs are efficient as they have at least ME and PE levels of 0.
Anyone seriously building off one does so in a rapid facility, which means a waste level at least equal to that or even greater than that achievable through invention.
- Their ME and PE can be researched.
But if look at the time taken to do so, and benefit gained, you'll find this is only a very marginal advantage, and once off.
- T2 BPOs can be copied.
This is actually a disadvantage, since every one run copy being made is TWO less items able to be built. Thus the only reason to ever copy a T2 BPO is because it is so crap that it is not worth building from.
- T2 BPOs have unlimited runs.
Again, paid for in the purchase price.
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.
Why, the balance is already provided in the cost to acquire.
- To prevent the loss of a T2 BPO it can be "invented" the same way a BPC would be for that particular item:
This is absolutely the worst idea ever suggested. Increasing the number of T2 BPOs available is worse for the game, their owners, and inventors than even removing them would be.
- 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 - 2010.07.31 12:17:00 -
[90]
@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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |