EVE Search - To people that want to remove T2 BPOs : give a GOOD reason why

All Channels

Science and Industry

To people that want to remove T2 BPOs : give a GOOD reason why

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Ricc Deckard Trux Germani Ev0ke	Posted - 2011.02.23 12:34:00 - [901] Edited by: Ricc Deckard on 23/02/2011 12:35:24 As I stated before, please do NOT remove T2 BPO's (and no, I do not own any) ... but... Make new T2 BPO's accessible by... (easy solution incoming) Adding a VERY slight chance to the existing invention system that an invention produces a BPO instead of a BPC. (Like 70% chance of failure, 29.999% chance of T2 BPC, 0.001% chance of T2 BPO) I would like that, but that's just my opinion .... ---------- Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.02.23 15:00:00 - [902] or reopen the lottery
Tasko Pal Spallated Garniferous Schist	Posted - 2011.02.23 20:20:00 - [903] Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 23/02/2011 08:40:46 Originally by: Tasko Pal Why do we want Eve to be pure and uncorrupted? Embrace the taint! And why should CCP be hoovering all the debris from discontinued (no need for scare quotes here) game processes? because there was a reason they were discontinued or stopped and replaced with something different for the same purpose. T2 BPOs were discontinued because CCP found a better game mechanism. That says nothing about whether T2 BPOs should stay or go. Quote: compared one of the most game breaking mechanics to totally useless stuff as excuse T2 BPOs are not a "game breaking mechanic". T2 invention or manufacture isn't "broken" by them. There's no activity that either becomes automatic win or lose (which pretty much what "broken" means in a game) as a result of the presence of T2 BPOs. Sure, you're probably lose if you're trying to invent inertial stab IIs and sell in Jita, but you can with modest effort find a module that is profitable for you to make. Nor if I have 100 billion or a trillion isk, do I say "I need to buy T2 BPOs because that's the only way to play at my level." Even at these ridiculous levels of money, there are alternatives. It might turn out that T2 BPOs are a good fit, but it's not the only possible fit out there. Quote: everybody else who didnt get them from the questionable lottery, has to pay an insane (collector) price for them, Remember saying that? Anybody who owns a T2 BPO pays a massive ("insane" as you put it) opportunity cost. Paying five or more years worth of profit for a "game breaking mechanic"? At this point, most of its value is as a collector's item. I personally don't touch collector's items (though I have a lot of experience in trading collectibles from other games that carries over), but a lot of people do. Hence, the high price for T2 BPOs.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.02.23 22:49:00 - [904] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 23/02/2011 22:53:24 Originally by: Tasko Pal T2 BPOs were discontinued because CCP found a better game mechanism. That says nothing about whether T2 BPOs should stay or go. no they didnt. But searching for a better mechanic let me think the old one should be removed. Its my opition, what the thread asked for. Originally by: Tasko Pal T2 BPOs are not a "game breaking mechanic". T2 invention or manufacture isn't "broken" by them. i think it is. You dont have to comply with my point of view. Originally by: Tasko Pal Quote: everybody else who didnt get them from the questionable lottery, has to pay an insane (collector) price for them, Remember saying that? yes. Owning one makes ****ing sense. Buying one, does not. This is actually, why its broken.
Stella SGP The Kimotoro Initiative	Posted - 2011.02.24 00:06:00 - [905] Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 23/02/2011 22:53:24 Originally by: Tasko Pal T2 BPOs were discontinued because CCP found a better game mechanism. That says nothing about whether T2 BPOs should stay or go. no they didnt. But searching for a better mechanic let me think the old one should be removed. Its my opition, what the thread asked for. Originally by: Robert Caldera yes. Owning one makes ****ing sense. Buying one, does not. This is actually, why its broken. With the lottery system cartels formed and at that time introducing a few more BPOs here and there while trying keeping T2 manufacturing distinct from T1 was pointless as Cartels would just buy those BPOs. So, Invention was eventually introduced to break up cartels and make T2 available to the masses. They were not introduced for short sighted whiny azz peeps like you to cry about BPOs. Look here wouldn't it awesome for CCP to just hit the delete button on T2 BPOs now and watch the new owners enjoy their EVE game? Does it make any sense to just delete them without compensation or are you fine with it because your jealous and bitter that you can't afford one?
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2011.02.24 01:59:00 - [906] yes, they are artifacts from the past and should get removed without compensation from the game, they arent needed anymore, invention works fine (where no BPOs are available at least).
Tasko Pal Spallated Garniferous Schist	Posted - 2011.02.24 04:24:00 - [907] Originally by: Robert Caldera Its my opition, what the thread asked for. [...] Quote: You dont have to comply with my point of view. Here's what the thread asked for: Originally by: Akita T I CHALLENGE YOU TO : A) FIND A GOOD REASON WHY T2 BPOs MUST BE REMOVED B) DETERMINE A FAIR SYSTEM FOR THEIR REMOVAL C) ARGUE WHY THE RESULTING SITUATION WOULD BE BETTER OVERALL THAN THE CURRENT ONE. Your viewpoint isn't a "good reason". After all, you can always change your viewpoint. Quote: Originally by: Tasko Pal Quote: everybody else who didnt get them from the questionable lottery, has to pay an insane (collector) price for them, Remember saying that? yes. Owning one makes **ing sense. Buying one, does not. This is actually, why its broken. You claim that it "makes **ing sense" to have a T2 BPO instead of a pile of isk. But you say it doesn't, if you start with the pile of isk and consider going the other way. In other words, having a T2 BPO is better than having a pile of isk which in turn is better than having a T2 BPO. This leads to the logical contradiction that having a T2 BPO is better than itself. Further, please learn what "opportunity cost" means before you post in this thread again. If I have an item that can sell for 10 billion and it has a payout that is much worse than another investment of that 10 billion, even accounting for my effort spent, then it's a no brainer that I should stay away from T2 BPOs. That happens to be the case for most people.
Tasko Pal Spallated Garniferous Schist	Posted - 2011.02.24 04:38:00 - [908] Originally by: Robert Caldera yes, they are artifacts from the past and should get removed without compensation from the game, they arent needed anymore, invention works fine (where no BPOs are available at least). Ok, so you're not remotely serious then. Let's just take stuff away from thousands of players, worth perhaps tens of trillions of isk, because an idiot has an opinion. This is the kind of nonsense that this thread was created for. You don't have a reason for doing it. Neither do you have any inclination to give it even the appearance of fairness. You're wasting our time.
Mr ZZZZZZZZ Tri-Mining Corp	Posted - 2011.02.24 20:42:00 - [909] I wasn't around in the days of the lottery. I didn't buy my T2 BPO's They got left in a corp locker when someone left EvE. Now the fact that I have them and I manufacture with them 1) makes almost no real impact on my income (they're only missiles after all) and 2) can't possibly have any real impact on the EvE universe. But they are slightly more useful then my lone ranger shield and collection of mines and melted snowballs -Z Tri-Mining Website & Blog Members of Rising Phoenix Alliance If it doesn't move, we'll mine it
Adrian Idaho	Posted - 2011.02.25 07:21:00 - [910] Originally by: Robert Caldera yes, they are artifacts from the past and should get removed without compensation from the game, they arent needed anymore, invention works fine (where no BPOs are available at least). Come on guys, he's a troll û just ignore him.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2011.02.25 09:35:00 - [911] AH AH AH! It was 1994 when I read the first "haves vs haves not" thread. 2011: nothing changed except the names of those into it. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Tehg Rhind	Posted - 2011.02.25 19:11:00 - [912] The only good thing I am taking from this thread is that Auditora now have a new tool. Anyone posting for the removal of T2 BPOs should immediately be considered too stupid to manage a bond. As a non-owner myself I can only see one possible probelm in the existence of T2 BPOs. IF the T2 BPO inventory and it's application was such that it could cover the entire T2 market demand we would have a problem as it would allow for cartels. However the cartels could only run prices up to the point of profitability for invention. The FACT that T2 BPOs can not support market demand alone in almost all cases allows space for inventors. The FACT that demand will ony increase as the SP*player count pool increases means that invention will only invrease market share over time. T2 bpos are expensive, yes, but they represent a massive oppurtunity cost. Ultimately they are ony a realistic investment option for people who have exhausted all other more profitable options. I'm also curious how many "original" bpo owners there are. These would be people that won the BPO and have held it to this day. Anyone other than that has only profited from BPOs based on a willingness to accept the potentially HUGE risk that patch day represents. This is no different than arguing that Titans should be removed from game because they are stronger than other ships. Yes, they are stronger. They are also more expensive. Or Capital BPOs for that matter In the end, not surprisingly, a free market solves any percieved issuesthat T2 BPOs present. Now, for the sake of argument, I will propose one possible way that CCP could remove T2 BPOs. Using all historical data model the price increase over time of T2 BPOs, ignoring any statistically significant price drops. based on that model (which I assume would be geometric or logarithmic) extrapolate the price over the next year or two and derive an APR. Pay existing owners the price adjusted for the apr with a minimum of a 20% apr/a minimum bonus of 10% from thei purchase price. Just as an argument though, because there is no more reason to remove T2 BPOs as there is to remove SP entirely and have everyone fly 1 type of frigate.
Tehg Rhind	Posted - 2011.02.25 19:20:00 - [913] This thread is simply so unfair. Tricking idiots into self identifying and then humiliating just seems mean... Just thought of another point, surely made 50 times before. In any T2 market where the T2 Bpo cannot adequately meet demand, the Price Point is determined by Invention. In any case the upper limit on a T2 BPO profitability will be controlled by invention.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2011.02.25 21:04:00 - [914] They were realesed with help of the rouge DEV. It is all the reason i need.
Lynx Australis	Posted - 2011.02.25 21:12:00 - [915] You all should get laid. Atleast once year. Nerdrage is strong in this thread.
Wendi Watson	Posted - 2011.02.25 21:29:00 - [916] Edited by: Wendi Watson on 25/02/2011 21:29:20 Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 They were realesed with help of the rouge DEV. I thought it was the GMs that were red.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.03.08 21:06:00 - [917] Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 They were realesed with help of the rouge DEV. It is all the reason i need. A very very, VERY small number of them (and quite inconsequential ones at that) were granted by a rogue dev, and they were subsequently removed after this fact was made known, an Internal Affairs department was formed, much harsher rules were drafted for CCP employees that actually play and so on and so forth. I fail to see how exactly any of that renders T2 BPOs "evil" enough to justify removal. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2011.03.12 12:15:00 - [918] imo, T2 BPO should be removed, and i have little doubt CCP will do that eventually (example being Learning skills). fact that T2 BPO can be destroyed, but can't be created shows that CCP hopes time will do their job. that said, EVE has much more important problems to fix, so T2 BPO may be around for a very long time. ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel - [jedi handwave] "There is no spoon."
Tasko Pal Spallated Garniferous Schist	Posted - 2011.03.12 13:49:00 - [919] Originally by: Jagga Spikes imo, T2 BPO should be removed, and i have little doubt CCP will do that eventually (example being Learning skills). fact that T2 BPO can be destroyed, but can't be created shows that CCP hopes time will do their job. that said, EVE has much more important problems to fix, so T2 BPO may be around for a very long time. That's nice, but do you have a reason for this belief, especially given that T2 BPOs disappear out of circulation naturally? Learning skills were removed because they were a very negative experience for new players. If T2 BPOs are doing the same thing, then how are they providing a negative experience for new players?
Tasko Pal Spallated Garniferous Schist	Posted - 2011.03.12 17:08:00 - [920] Edited by: Tasko Pal on 12/03/2011 17:09:02 Quote: B) DETERMINE A FAIR SYSTEM FOR THEIR REMOVAL While I still come down solidly against removing T2 BPOs, I can think of a relatively fair system for replacing them. You can replace the T2 BPO with a non-functioning unique item and a high run BPC with enough copies to run for say three years straight. The unique item holds the collectible part of the T2 BPO's value and the BPC holds the manufacturing value of the T2 BPO. The T2 BPO holder still loses the ability to copy T2 BPOs, but that for the most part seems pretty modest compared to the value of the other two parts and partly compensated by the fact that the BPC would have some collector value to it. You still need to manage the transition. If someone throws 30 days of manufacture on the barbie right before the transition, how do you handle that? I think prorating the manufacture (returning unused materials and fees) would work. Or you could make it so that the T2 BPO can't be used for 30 days, to flush out existing orders.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2011.03.12 18:46:00 - [921] That would work, but I also would argue that 3 years might be a bit on the short side for some people's taste. So far, certainly the least unfair method of removal, and one many T2 BPO owners might actually not mind very much. Still... you end up with an extremely funny situation if you do choose this particular solution. What's funny about it, you ask ? Well, for THOSE items where the demand is high, where the existence of T2 BPOs didn't really matter, in three years, the little influence that existed will be gone completely... ...however, for those items where there is a huge discrepancy (namely, items with low demand, where even BPO manufacture barely turns a profit), the time span until those BPCs would ACTUALLY run out might be measured in decades. So one has to wonder - if you do it like that, why even bother going through all that trouble instead of just letting it be ? _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
Opertone Caldari World - of - Empire Cassiopeia.	Posted - 2011.04.18 19:55:00 - [922] Akita's logic is Invalid simply because of FALCON ... a cloaky falcon carriers over 100 T2 BPOs in some uncharted space - akita owns them all
Opertone Caldari World - of - Empire Cassiopeia.	Posted - 2011.04.18 19:57:00 - [923] Originally by: Akita T So one has to wonder - if you do it like that, why even bother going through all that trouble instead of just letting it be ? People want a level playing field, not some smart asses, with extra assets up their ass.
Cassandra Caffarelli	Posted - 2011.04.18 22:17:00 - [924] Originally by: Opertone Originally by: Akita T So one has to wonder - if you do it like that, why even bother going through all that trouble instead of just letting it be ? People want a level playing field, not some smart asses, with extra assets up their ass. EVE isn't supposed to be 'fair'. Welcome to EVE.
Nikita Keriget	Posted - 2011.04.19 01:05:00 - [925] Originally by: Akita T That would work, but I also would argue that 3 years might be a bit on the short side for some people's taste. So far, certainly the least unfair method of removal, and one many T2 BPO owners might actually not mind very much. Still... you end up with an extremely funny situation if you do choose this particular solution. What's funny about it, you ask ? Well, for THOSE items where the demand is high, where the existence of T2 BPOs didn't really matter, in three years, the little influence that existed will be gone completely... ...however, for those items where there is a huge discrepancy (namely, items with low demand, where even BPO manufacture barely turns a profit), the time span until those BPCs would ACTUALLY run out might be measured in decades. So one has to wonder - if you do it like that, why even bother going through all that trouble instead of just letting it be ? Because then the remove T2 BPOs debate would finally go away. Curious what the replacement whine would be...
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2011.04.19 02:11:00 - [926] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2 They were realesed with help of the rouge DEV. It is all the reason i need. A very very, VERY small number of them (and quite inconsequential ones at that) were granted by a rogue dev, and they were subsequently removed after this fact was made known, an Internal Affairs department was formed, much harsher rules were drafted for CCP employees that actually play and so on and so forth. . Not forgetting the CSM was created so the playerbase could come and "look in every cranny" to make sure CCP were not cheating again. SKUNK (o)
Ten Bulls Minmatar	Posted - 2011.04.19 02:18:00 - [927] Originally by: Cassandra Caffarelli EVE isn't supposed to be 'fair'. It could be equally argued that 'EVE isn't supposed to have an IWIN button' All games need to 'fair' at some level.
Novee InFeldspar	Posted - 2011.04.19 07:42:00 - [928] Its an interesting question, as its fairly obvious to those who've played the game for more than a few months that there is no easy solution. Or even if there should be a solution. For those who don't use T2 Invention or are merely dabblers, its virtually a moot point: cheaper manufacture at the hands of T2 BPO owners will keep prices down for them and the majority... why should they care so long as the price appears reasonable? That's possibly as far as many players reasoning will go, even if pressed. I look at it this way - everyone can still technically own a dairy cow and make their own unpasteurised, unhomogenised -4/-4 milk. But the dairy farmers have been doing it for years, with much better equipment and T2 BPO cows, thus keeping the cost of milk down. But it doesn't stop anyone complaining about the price of milk, does it? No, of course not. As an inventor/manufacturer, it still 'feels unfair' knowing there are others out there with T2 BPO's that outperform your -4/-4 T2 invented BPO's with seemingly little effort required. The primary reason for this feeling of unfairness is that I joined the game just before Trinity, so I never took part in any lottery, but have constantly heard about their all-out-fabulousness for years. That and whenever I consider looking for one that might be profitable "after a while (TM)", I see it will take a long time to recoup the ISK invested, and maybe I won't be playing the game after all that time to see the reward. And then of course I do play the game for longer than I thought and subsequently kick myself for not having jumped in earlier. Whether or not they are of any actual / real intrinsically damaging nature to the game is most likely a result of their; - relative rarity and thus desirable nature - debatable financial gain through owning one/many - the constant stream of players whose horse they like to thrash happens to be "Waah! Remove T2 BPO's they ate my babies..." All of these contribute to T2 BPOs' reputation as an instant ISK faucet, a legend that grows larger year by year. Not everyone has an economics degree, or the will/time to sit down and work it out. TL:DR - Inconsistencies and unfairness exist in the real world, so why would we presume to think they would not exist in Eve? Just thank whichever higher power you subscribe to that despite their apparent failings, the economics of Eve are a darn sight more realistic than the geology.
Opertone Caldari World - of - Empire Cassiopeia.	Posted - 2011.04.19 12:25:00 - [929] Originally by: Cassandra Caffarelli Originally by: Opertone Originally by: Akita T So one has to wonder - if you do it like that, why even bother going through all that trouble instead of just letting it be ? People want a level playing field, not some smart asses, with extra assets up their ass. EVE isn't supposed to be 'fair'. Welcome to EVE. ...facepalm Oh, fair sounds like social security and moral codex. Level sounds like equal opportunities and uniform environment (rule set)
Greg Huff	Posted - 2011.04.19 12:37:00 - [930] CCP will not remove the BPO's unless it is proven that they're breaking something or causing a severe imbalance. "Not Fair" doesn't meet those criteria.

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

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.