Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Elayae
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 18:04:00 -
[841]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Elayae [...]I estimate that around 99,90% of the mass produced tech II items such as mining crystals and ammunition that are available for the market come from tech II blueprint originals[...]This convenience turns into a significant advantage when large quantities are involved as described and calculated in examples using mining crystals or ammunition.
If large enough quantities WOULD be involved, the BPOs would no longer be able to keep up and invention would become profitable. And since SOME T2 ammo and some T2 crystals ARE profitable to invent... well, draw your own conclusion.
Hmm take a look again at my first example of mining crystals in relation to the job slots, time and amount factor. Tech II BPO versus Tech I BPO - invention/manufacturing/copy jobs: 1 slot versus 31 slots - duration: 35 hours versus 185 hours (with all slots available; 336 hours maximum if not) - amount: 500 crystals versus 100 crystals (using the shortest time span) - amount: 1000 crystals versus 100 crystals (using the longest time span) The second example with all 5 major crystals (veldspar, scordite, plagioclase, omber, pyroxeres): Tech II BPO versus Tech I BPO - invention/manufacturing/copy jobs: 5 slots versus 155 slots - duration: 1 week versus 5 weeks (with all slots available; 10 weeks maximum if not) - amount: 2500 crystals versus 500 crystals (using the shortest time span) - amount: 5000 crystals versus 500 crystals (using the longest time span)
It shows that tech II BPO can easily outproduce the invention method and a significant advantage exists. In this case the time factor makes inventors decide not to mass produce with invention.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 20:34:00 -
[842]
Edited by: Akita T on 10/01/2011 20:41:54
Originally by: Elayae It shows that tech II BPO can easily outproduce the invention method
And to repeat myself, that is completely irrelevant. Per manufacture line or PER CHARACTER or whatever individual-based metric you might pick, sure, you're right, you have T2 BPOs "outproducing" invention every way from sunday. For the entirety of the market, however, there is absolutely not even a snowflake's chance in hell if the demand would be high enough, since the maximum output of all combined T2 BPOs for any given item is FIXED, whereas invention can scale up until it gobbles up all relevant available moon mineral output.
Just look at some of the modules, where the clickfest of invention is comparable yet the demand is insane.
Quote: In this case the time factor makes inventors decide not to mass produce with invention.
So what ? If you have 100 newbie inventors each running just one job every other day or only 5 inventors running 8 jobs each day, it's pretty much the same thing as far as the market is concerned. Inventors primarily get paid "per time spent clicking" and "how annoying it is to do", this has always been the case, and WILL always be the case. Invention is routine blue collar work, punch-card style. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Uncle Creamy
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 21:10:00 -
[843]
There is obviously a perceived problem here, otherwise this threadnaught would not exist.
SOMETHING needs to be done, did everyone miss the cries of the CSM against unbalancing advantages given to those with isk via remap for plex?
I find the claim that a tech 2 bpo is an advantage that you can PAY for offensive in the same regard as plex for remap.
Each market should be an arena that any manufacturer can compete in, and on the the same terms. The simple fact that there are a fixed number of tech 2 bpos dictates that this will never be true.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 21:17:00 -
[844]
Originally by: Uncle Creamy There is obviously a perceived problem here
Obviously. But it's just PERCEIVED.
Quote: SOMETHING needs to be done
Not really.
Quote: did everyone miss the cries of the CSM against unbalancing advantages given to those with isk via remap for plex?
Yeah, that was also mindnumbingly idiotic. PLEX for remap would have been awesome and completely fair. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Liang Nuren
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 22:49:00 -
[845]
Originally by: Akita T Obviously. But it's just PERCEIVED.
I agree that the problem is primarily a problem of perception.
Originally by: Akita T
Quote: Each market should be an arena that any manufacturer can compete in
They can. The entry barriers for different competition levels however are vastly different. No problem there though.
Ummmm.... I wouldn't go so far as to say that T2 BPOs have competitors.
-Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died - |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 23:16:00 -
[846]
Edited by: Akita T on 10/01/2011 23:23:18
Originally by: Liang Nuren I wouldn't go so far as to say that T2 BPOs have competitors.
Their OWNERS sure do, though. Namely, other people with the exact same type of T2 BPO _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Elayae
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 23:17:00 -
[847]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 10/01/2011 20:41:54
Originally by: Elayae It shows that tech II BPO can easily outproduce the invention method
And to repeat myself, that is completely irrelevant. Per manufacture line or PER CHARACTER or whatever individual-based metric you might pick, sure, you're right, you have T2 BPOs "outproducing" invention every way from sunday. For the entirety of the market, however, there is absolutely not even a snowflake's chance in hell if the demand would be high enough, since the maximum output of all combined T2 BPOs for any given item is FIXED, whereas invention can scale up until it gobbles up all relevant available moon mineral output.
Just look at some of the modules, where the clickfest of invention is comparable yet the demand is insane.
Quote: In this case the time factor makes inventors decide not to mass produce with invention.
So what ? If you have 100 newbie inventors each running just one job every other day or only 5 inventors running 8 jobs each day, it's pretty much the same thing as far as the market is concerned. Inventors primarily get paid "per time spent clicking" and "how annoying it is to do", this has always been the case, and WILL always be the case. Invention is routine blue collar work, punch-card style.
Yes I agree to all your points. However, the fact remains that no one is actually producing the tech II variants of mining crystals and ammunition for the market with invention, but only for themselves. In other words the total volume in the market of tech II mining crystals and ammunition consists solely of tech II items manufactured through tech II blueprint originals, my 99.90% estimate. Remember this is a specific case, no generalizations about all blueprints apply here. Although your theory holds, this is not in game reality for the specific mining crystals and ammunition case.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 23:22:00 -
[848]
Edited by: Akita T on 10/01/2011 23:24:38
There is a strong possibility you might be mostly right, although we'll have to agree to disagree on actual percentages.
But then again, why exactly would that be a problem ? It's eerily similar to considering a problem the fact that a lot of POS owners do some PI to cover their own need for POS fuels instead of purchasing some, so that people that want to just react more basic stuff to POS fuel can't find a large enough economic niche. If most people that invent T2 ammo and charges do so for their own use... well, then I'd chalk that up under "big success" on the invention scoreboard.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
Elayae
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 09:08:00 -
[849]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 10/01/2011 23:24:38 If most people that invent T2 ammo and charges do so for their own use... well, then I'd chalk that up under "big success" on the invention scoreboard.
Yes I agree again, however I am targeting the inventions of blueprints that are not a success. So my suggestion is to improve those parts of the game and keep the rest, for the inventor profession has much more potential then what it currently is.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.01.11 16:26:00 -
[850]
Originally by: Elayae Yes I agree again, however I am targeting the inventions of blueprints that are not a success. So my suggestion is to improve those parts of the game and keep the rest, for the inventor profession has much more potential then what it currently is.
Meh, when you say you want improvements but you want to accomplish them with a nerf, that doesn't exactly go down well. An actual buff to invention in general though (and for those items in particular), that would be more palatable. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
|
Doctor Ungabungas
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 02:53:00 -
[851]
The justification for removing T2 BPO's is the same one that fuels a lot of 0.0 politics.
It would generate some amazing forum ****.
|
Rachel Mcclish
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 06:18:00 -
[852]
I vote to get rid of them, that way I don't have to see this Da*n topic keep coming up!!
|
Elayae
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2011.01.12 08:12:00 -
[853]
Originally by: Akita T Meh, when you say you want improvements but you want to accomplish them with a nerf, that doesn't exactly go down well.
Well I hadn't finished my argument.
Originally by: Akita T An actual buff to invention in general though (and for those items in particular), that would be more palatable.
I agree, a substantial buff to invention enough to nullify or exceed the tech II blueprint original advantage; hopefully making the tech II blueprints originals obsolete or useless, at that point it is safe to replace or remove them.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 11:29:00 -
[854]
Originally by: Elayae
Originally by: Akita T An actual buff to invention in general though (and for those items in particular), that would be more palatable.
I agree, a substantial buff to invention enough to nullify or exceed the tech II blueprint original advantage; hopefully making the tech II blueprints originals obsolete or useless, at that point it is safe to replace or remove them.
Get close to, you mean ? Because completely nullifying is weird, and to exceed it is just crazy. Also, at that point, removing T2 BPOs would not be "safe to" replace or remove, it would be pointless to do so. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts _
|
LHA Tarawa
|
Posted - 2011.02.07 23:08:00 -
[855]
I know I said I was done on this topic, but....
I would be strongly against either a nerf of BPOs or a buff of invention. Either of these would destroy the value of T2 BPOs without providing any compensation to the current BPO owners.
In my opinion, CCP should determine a fair value of the BPOs, on average, by calculating the max potential profits and comparing to recent sales. I hear the number is like 5 to 7 years of max manufacturing to make back the cost of the BPO. So, replace the BPO with a BPC that has 5 or 7 or whatever the number is of years of copies on it.
Current owners receive a reasonible compensation, the market doesn't get hit with a sudden SHOCk of large changes to game mechanics, but eventually this left-over artifiact of a very bad game mechanic works itself out, like the pig passing through the python.
|
McPod
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 10:57:00 -
[856]
"just purchase it with ISK." oh yes, pay 20 billion for some average t2 bpo and try to make it back over the next 5 years.
t2 bpos need to go. unfair advantage is a very valid argument.
|
LHA Tarawa
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 16:44:00 -
[857]
Originally by: McPod Edited by: McPod on 08/02/2011 11:10:45 would be nice to have them removed. compensation should be in the 1-5b range per bpo.
Having them all removed at one time would be fr too big of a shock to the market. Prices would soar, invention suddenly more profitable would put massive demand on the datacore market. It takes time to get skills and standing to sign up with R&D agents to start earning data cores.
Removal needs to be far more gradual... like, replacing the BPOs with a BPC with a few years worth of copies on it. This would cause prices to slowly adjust as owenrs started to access the value of each run of their BPC. This gives inventors time to adjust thier habits, slowly adjusting the price of datacores, slowly increasing the profitability of datacores, giving people time to get skills and standings needed to sign up with R&D agents.
Some T2 BPOs are worth FAR, FAR more than 5 billion. The method of compensation needs to be much better than some artificial figure like 1-5 billion ISK per.
|
Tasko Pal
Spallated Garniferous Schist
|
Posted - 2011.02.09 21:40:00 -
[858]
Haven't you read the title of this thread, McPod? Give us your reasons.
In my view, T2 BPOs shouldn't be removed. It's a bad idea to nerf stuff just because someone doesn't like it. The very low ROI of T2 BPOs provides a strong opportunity cost to anyone who has one. They're decent investment option for the players with tens of billions to trillions of isk, but not for the players who could barely afford one (the latter group has a larger variety of higher return investment options open to them).
They also provide a bit of complexity and depth to Eve since most T2 markets can be affected by both invention and T2 BPOs. It rewards the savvier T2 manufacturer and speculator.
As to the alleged drawbacks, what's been mentioned before is that T2 BPOs are "unfair". It's worth noting that they were first acquired by a legal and fair mechanism (yes, I'm aware of the two ways that BoB gamed this system, one was illegal and reversed, the other was legal and anyone could have done it as well). Second, Eve is unfair by design. That means that spending lots of isk to obtain an advantage over fellow players, be it in war or in the markets, is established SOP.
Second, T2 BPOs aren't "I-win" buttons due to the huge opportunity cost of owning them. They are usually valued at 3 to 5 times their maximum annual income. Savvy traders and industrialists generally can pull off 10% or better return per month on assets. So why spend a huge amount on an investment that will pay off in 5 years when you can get an investment that pays off in under a year? The good investor loses a lot of earning potential by getting a T2 BPO.
|
SurrenderMonkey
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 00:44:00 -
[859]
Originally by: Uncle Creamy There is obviously a perceived problem here, otherwise this threadnaught would not exist.
You're absolutely right. It is most certainly a perceived problem.
Quote: SOMETHING needs to be done,
You're right about this, too. People's perceptions need to be altered. This does not require any changes to Eve gameplay, however. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp |
Gimpb
Blue Republic
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 04:05:00 -
[860]
From the position of the owner, it's just an expensive long term investment--just like any other bpo.
As for interference with invention, yes, more invention would be needed if these bpos didn't exist. However, CCP has many method through which they can adjust the amount of invention being done. That being the case, I think it's safe to assume that the amount of invention taking place is the amount of invention they want to take place.
However, in the case that they do want to increase the amount of invention, taking the route of removing t2 bpos would be a sticky process at best and a real disaster at worst so it would make sense to use a different method.
Besides, they slowly fade out of the market with no interference anyway.
|
|
Kirichan
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 05:13:00 -
[861]
Lower the success rate of invention but have it result in a BPO.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 07:01:00 -
[862]
Originally by: Kirichan Lower the success rate of invention but have it result in a BPO.
Oh Yes! Give me the way to get a BPO from a BPC.
I will be more than happy to be capable to do that with T1.
|
Michael J Fox
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 12:17:00 -
[863]
in the future there are no tech 2 BPOs, also we have flying skateboards.
|
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 15:47:00 -
[864]
And here this topic rises again... and here's the same thoughts as I've had before.
If T2 BPO's are to be removed from the game, the entire process of T2 production needs to be overhauled, from the mining monopoly of moon goo, to an invention system that needs better ways and options to influence the outcome.
And if industry and market ends up going through such a shakeup, we might as well go through the entire industry system and overhaul things.
|
Bobhead
Caldari Imperial Motive Power Corporation
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 01:57:00 -
[865]
First a simple questions?
1> If Tech II BPO's are so important for balancing the market where are the tech III BPO's to balance the Tech III cruiser prices?
2> Was the invention system working properly when the game was released? Was the lottery system put in place to fix a broken invention system?
It seams to me what actually taking place isn't "Invention" anyways, perhaps inventors should be able to customize their BPC's during the invention process, add a little speed or armor here and there. Thereby Tech II BPO's can be left in place as base level items. There price might drop but it wouldn't be a market crash.
|
Aquana Abyss
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 13:26:00 -
[866]
Everything should become BPCs, even tech 1 BPOs should become limited run prints.
It is crap this game of pokemon with BPOs. Manufacturing is a joke in Eve, T2 especially.
|
Taedrin
Gallente The Green Cross Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 14:53:00 -
[867]
Gah! We've been through this at least a THOUSAND TIMES (probably a couple hundred in this thread alone)!
T2 BPOs have such TERRIBLE volume that they can't POSSIBLY compete with inventors. Using the technetium market as an analogy, a T2 BPO holder would be like someone who drops 1000 units of tech on the market every day priced 3000 ISK below the sell orders. Considering that MILLIONS of units of technetium are traded every day on the market, this "unfair advantage" is but a drop of water in the ocean.
The only niche that T2 BPOs have are in areas where there is already so little demand that invention wouldn't be profitable anyways. In fact, I would dare say that the problem in these markets isn't that T2 BPO holders are crowding out the market, but that T2 producers don't know how to put a spreadsheet together and check their costs! ----------
Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident"
Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
|
Lirinas
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 18:10:00 -
[868]
Originally by: Bobhead First a simple questions?
1> If Tech II BPO's are so important for balancing the market where are the tech III BPO's to balance the Tech III cruiser prices?
2> Was the invention system working properly when the game was released? Was the lottery system put in place to fix a broken invention system?
It seams to me what actually taking place isn't "Invention" anyways, perhaps inventors should be able to customize their BPC's during the invention process, add a little speed or armor here and there. Thereby Tech II BPO's can be left in place as base level items. There price might drop but it wouldn't be a market crash.
Some interesting questions, let me respond.
1) Although the Tech 3 system is still in its infancy, it does work a lot like Tech 2. The big reason why we have been able to (so far) do without T3 BPO's is for several reasons. There's only a handful of T3 goods that need to be Invent... err Reverse Engineered (compared to the hundreds of Tech 2 goods). Also the BPC's that come out of RE are better in quality, have a much higher chance of success, and are easier to run.
2) Tech 2 didn't even exist in EVE at start, it was slowly introduced after the game had been out for a good long while (at least a year, I don't remember). That's when the T2 Lottery arrived. Invention was introduced years later essentially to replace the old T2 Lottery with the new T2 Invention Lottery that was much easier to participate in, with much better odds at winning, but with much lower odds.
I certainly agree, Invention (and even Reverse Engineering) don't really feel like their namesakes, they're just more chance-based system with few options to affect the outcome.
|
Tasko Pal
Spallated Garniferous Schist
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 21:42:00 -
[869]
I have to strongly disagree with Lirinas on a number of points.
First, T2 BPOs are not needed. A number of T2 and T3 goods are covered solely by invention or reverse engineering and no ill effects have occurred as a result. And in most T2 products, invention provides most of the product as well as determining the price of the product on the market. I favor keeping T2 BPOs not because they are needed, but because nerfing player assets without cause is a bad reason. They also make the T2 markets a bit more interesting and provide investment options for the megarich.
Second, while T2 moon minerals are fixed in supply and invention could use some sprucing up, both are orthogonal issues to T2 BPOs. One doesn't need to solve them all at the same time.
Third, calling invention another "lottery" is misleading. Sure, there is chance involved. But the gameplay is vastly different for invention compared to the T2 BPO lottery. One can do thousands of invention attempts which greatly reduce the randomness of inventing stuff.
|
Aquana Abyss
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 17:47:00 -
[870]
Originally by: Taedrin
The only niche that T2 BPOs have are in areas where there is already so little demand that invention wouldn't be profitable anyways. In fact, I would dare say that the problem in these markets isn't that T2 BPO holders are crowding out the market, but that T2 producers don't know how to put a spreadsheet together and check their costs!
1/3 of all T2 ships built is not a niche.
Manufacturing is so redundant that there is little or no reward for building most T2 compared to even T1. Even T3 manufacturing is pretty much zero profit now.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |