|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
   |
Posted - 2010.08.23 11:56:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 11:58:07
One reason is that they are not needed, since we have got invention.
Also if we keep T2 BPOs in the game then we can bring back NPC buy orders for minerals and for everything else. These present no harm to the economy, nor did the fixed ship insurances. These buy orders would however ruin the fun, like T2 BPOs ruin the fun with invention, which is what Akita never gets.
Until then is there another good reason:
 Originally by: Akita T
Still, if CCP ever removes T2 BPOs without any compensation, I will be seriously pondering something I never pondered before, namely quitting EVE, because I would have had lost all trust in them to use their brains.
So removing T2 BPOs, and with it Akita, is a double win. It cannot get any better!
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 12:03:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 12:06:47
Originally by: Dramis
Please read all of it, if you can.
Why even T2 ship BPOs aren't an issue (the simple maths version).
I build and sell Nighthawks from invention.
I invent the ME -3 ones, which will cost 40% more to build than a perfect T2 BPO.
I can build 10 BPCs simultaneously.
The T2 BPO owner can build one BPOs worth.
Have you considered creating copies of a fully researched T2 BPO yet?
Have you considered selling copies of a fully researched T2 BPO, too?
If you want to argue only by looking at the financial values then you need to look at the bigger picture.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 17:01:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Akita T
One, you can not even begin to compare those two things as far as economy impact goes.
I did compare them. Get over it and do not tell me what I can or cannot do.
Quote:
Two, T2 BPOs do not ruin any of the "fun" of invention ...
Yes, they do. Accept it just the same.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 17:25:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kryss Stevenson
Please tell me how it "ruined" the "fun" of invention? I never knew invention was supposed to be "fun".
Yes, but you are not alone, my friend.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 17:56:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 18:00:21
Originally by: Akita T
You CAN compare them for the sake of comparison. Just like you can compare an empty egg shell with a pink elephant.
And: you can compare an apple with an orange, and say that the apple is green and the orange is orange. You however prefer to say that one cannot compare apples with oranges, because it is great for when you want to troll all day long on the forums.
Quote:
Also, selective quoting FTW. Oh, and didn't you just say in the other thread that no logical argument could ever convince you ?
No, I said it to someone who does not want to convince me. What you did is known as "selective reading".
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 18:21:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 18:25:09
Originally by: Akita T
Then again, you cannot compare a lot of apple types and a lot of orange types as far as which one makes a better applesauce and expect to get an orange. And you can't use that as argument that oranges suck and should no longer be cultivated. If you catch my drift.
Yeah, I catch your drift - you like applesauce. It is not on the topic any more, however.
Quote:
So far, anything you tried to put forth that had any facts and logic in it (that tried to justify removing T2 BPOs) was very fast and very thoroughly shot down by just about anybody else who bothered to reply first.
I am not sure what that is called, but I will call it "selective thinking".
T2 BPOs are not needed any more.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 19:47:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Akita T
And that's exactly why all those "waah waaah remove T2 BPOs" people have to come up with a really GOOD reason for CCP to do it first.
No, they do not have to come up with a really good reason. A "waah waaah" is enough to see there is an issue and a reason for CCP to investigate. You want to see a reason only to troll once more on the forums, and you are more on the forums than in the game anyway, which means anything you write will be "waah waaah" to CCP. They do not need Akita to tell them what to do and how to do it.
And when people come with good arguments do you dodge them, Akita. So the discussion is far from over.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 20:27:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Akita T
There were no good arguments. Not a single one. Quote some.
I would be feeding a troll. Sorry, but I will not do that.
There have been many good reasons. Be serious and read them again.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 20:47:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Whitehound on 23/08/2010 20:53:48
Originally by: Akita T
YOU go back and read my rebuttals and make counter-arguments to THOSE if you feel they were lacking.
No, thanks. I remember most of what you wrote. You do not care for the issue, you write like there is something to win each time you argue (=> troll). You then do not see the people's problem, but always only dismiss the people with pretty arguments based on your own logic and reasoning. It is not helpful and it is also not how arguments are won.
T2 BPOs are not needed. They make invention less fun, because they compete with the invention. And people feel an unfairness about them.
This is why I want them removed.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.23 20:57:00 -
[10]
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
...
Grow up!
--
|
|
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.24 22:40:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jurinak
let the people vote about this is like let my daughter vote about "free icecream" when ever she wants, she simply doesnt see that no one will buy a truck and drive around the neigbourhood when they forced to give the icecream 4free to every kid and she doesnt see that it isnt a good thing that she allways get icecream ;)
The real tragedy is that some girls do not go through this phase at an age when icecream meant everything, but when it is the internet and everyone on it gets to see it.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 06:46:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
Your mom called, she wants you to come up out of the basement to take your medication. 
Your mom called, too. She said you are hiding in the basement.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 14:16:00 -
[13]
Logic does not work, because EVE is not a logic game. It would be possible to introduce larger freighters, with twice the cargo size and only half the speed of current freighters (triple prices, lesser agility, etc.), and one could explain logically how to make these new freighters fit into the game. One could also ask for faction freighters. Yet, there is no need to introduce them.
For the same reason can one not logically explain why T2 BPOs should stay in the game while it has invention.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 16:41:00 -
[14]
I do not care about US politics, sorry. I also do not argue about the past. So most of what you wrote is rant to me.
It also does not need unique items to make EVE work. If you like to keep them as unique items then I respect your opinion. It just is not mine. I still want to see them removed.
The point of my argument is that logic is not going to give you an answer.
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Grow a pair, stop posting forever and get some ambition. You are an awful debater and need a reality check on what this game was, is and will be......
Not anything close to what you think..
I would only write this if I was a bad loser.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 16:55:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Akita T
Actually, that can also be logically explained.
And it's a similar logic to that behind NOT introducing even larger pure mining vessels.
...
And it has a perfectly logical explanation based on gameplay issues and development priorities.
You argue with yourself here, which is quite mental tbh. What is the point of it?
Quote:
EVE is a game punctuated by raw emotion, true.
Thanks.
Quote:
But at its core, it's a PURELY LOGICAL game.
It is a computer game, but what is your point here? Do you want machines that need to be programmed illogically?
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 17:52:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 17:52:27
Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. I dont need you to respect my opinion. Yours sucks so bad i just want to call you out on it.
2. Ill be the loser...sure. Doesnt change the fact you need to grow a pair.
What do you want with my genitals? I do not see how they fit into this discussion.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 18:38:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Not taking that bait. You need to go with the accepted flow LHA and stop this. Make some isk, create a goal and achieve. Trying to ransack an aspect of a game because of perceived unfairness is cowardly and dumb.
That is all.
I have ISKs, I have goals and achieve them, and still do I not need T2 BPOs. And I doubt that I will never need them.
What is it you are saying??? Your are making less and less sense.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 19:28:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Whitehound on 10/09/2010 19:28:46
Originally by: Akita T
You claim logic does not work since EVE is not a logic game.
Which I contradict and explain that it is mainly a logic-based game with some emotional overtones.
No. EVE is a PvP-game and there is little logic to it. It is all about fun, revenge, grief, loss, success, etc.. A logic game is one where you need to apply logic in order to win and where applying logic is the only way to win it. In EVE you win, because you have the superior numbers of players on your side. And you will not get a superior, winning number of players through logic, but by being fun.
Quote:
I am not arguing with myself, I am arguing with you.
No, you were arguing with yourself when you tried to argue against my example with the freighter. You brought arguments pro and contra both at the same time almost as if you wanted to show how futile it is to argue with you. It was however only an example for something that could work logically while being unnecessary. I could create many more of such examples.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 08:05:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Onker
Whitehound, your posts read like a 5 year old whining because some other kid has a toy and if you don't have it you don't think anyone else should have it.
When you read then the voice you hear in your head is your own. It is not mine. So any whining you hear is that of your own voice. Think about it for a while before you respond.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 12:35:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Whitehound on 11/09/2010 12:35:24
Originally by: Llyandrian
Onker's proposition confirmed by response.
No. I already wrote that I do not have any T2 BPOs and that I do not need them. I also gave good reason as to why they should be removed. It is then not my fault when others respond with idle rant and false hurt.
--
|
|
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 18:37:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Whitehound on 11/09/2010 18:38:16
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Hows this for hurt.
You are completely incapable of understanding that the only confirmed reason, agreed upon by a majority of players, is that haters hate and the reason they hate is jealousy.
Your "i think they should be removed because they are bad" arguement makes you look like probably the dumbest player ive ever seen post on this topic. Except maybe LHA.
You cannot see that because you ride the short bus bro. Honestly i think you do.
You are the hater here, not me. I cannot help you. I still want to see the T2 BPOs removed.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 16:41:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Whitehound on 12/09/2010 16:42:45
The only way to make a reasonable profit with a T2 BPO is by selling the T2 BPO, and this alone says enough about them.
Arguing that their influence is negligible only proofs their uselessness further. At best does it give the removal of T2 BPOs a low priority on CCP's TODO list, but it certainly is not a reason for keeping them.
The psychological effect of the T2 BPOs is much stronger than anything else in EVE's industry and this cannot be their purpose either.
So I still need to see good reasons why to keep them. Keeping them for the love of God or the love of Akita T just is not a good reason.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 06:22:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Akita T
As long as people keep complaining CCP should remove T2 BPOs.
So you admit it is only a complaint thread of yours and you never were looking for good reasons?
If so then we can ask for a lock.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 08:53:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Whitehound on 13/09/2010 08:54:43
Originally by: Akita T
Now, now, you wouldn't be indirectly admitting you only read the thread title but not the initial posts ...
I read all your comments, including the last one. It is a lot of idle rant. There really is just not much to gain from reading them. You start with trolling, then you blow up a balloon of statements only to pop it like a magician trying to get the audience's attention away from your main trick, which never happens. Instead, it ends in warm air. I always wonder what it is that I have read after I have read one of your comments. Seriously.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 10:44:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Akita T
There is no good reason to remove T2 BPOs, there never was, and anybody trying to claim otherwise is spouting off some flavour of the hot air you're complaining about.
Is this why you keep a 12-page thread alive? You are taking yourself too important. Instead, you have been given good reasons and you do not want to allow others to have a different opinion from yours. As long as you do not acknowledge that there are good reasons to remove them will no one care about why you want to keep them.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 13:39:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Dtail
Just something to think about
I do what she does. I take a stubborn position, I insist on my argument being the only valid one, in a discussion that turns out was never meant to be one.
Is this a new strategy for you or do you only think this is funny?
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 14:48:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Whitehound on 13/09/2010 14:50:03
Originally by: Jovialmadness
For the thousandth time, ccp isnt going to remove them due to referencing the lottery. Ccp isnt going to remove them because of perceived market problems that dont exist. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you are poor, cant afford them, and want a perceived level playing field. Ccp isnt going to remove them just so you can get giggles from watching bpo owners rage. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you think invention works fine and their simply isnt a perceived need for T2 bpo's anymore. Ccp isnt going to remove them because you dont like them.
And you are CCP?! What CCP does and does not do, and what we want and not want, is our all business. You do not get to speak for CCP. You only get to speak for yourself.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 15:05:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Akita T
If my "position" would be that a 20% base resist with a 50% hardener should (and does) result in a 60% final resist value, yet quite a few vocal people would come around on a weekly basis complaining that they get cheated ...
If there were threads on a weekly basis regarding resistances not working then it would be a problem. But there are none. Apparently did you pick an example that does not present a problem. I still cannot see your point.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.13 15:22:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Whitehound on 13/09/2010 15:25:23
Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. You dont have the capability to create that.
2. There is no massive outrage.
3. No evidence exists for their removal.
4. I am therefore correct in implying ccp has no reason to remove them.
1.) Would it help if it had threads popping up repeatedly?
2.) There is no need for a massive outrage.
3.) Repeated threads are however an indication for a possible removal.
4.) ...
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 09:11:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Jovialmadness
1. No cause its the same ******s doing it.
2. Oh rlly? You should stop now.
3. Yes, however in this case its only the same ******s doing it.
4. ...?
There is actually evidence that T2 BPOs are being removed.
Unless you have evidence showing that new T2 BPOs are being introduced are the existing once going down in number due to gate and station gankers, etc.. So if your argumentation is solemnly based on the IS-state of the game then T2 BPOs are not here to stay.
--
|
|
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 16:37:00 -
[31]
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Mere envy - and that's what these threads are really about - is not a valid reason for gameplay changes.
That is just your foul talk. Nobody wants the special ships removed, which the alliance tournament winner received as prices. Nobody wants Titans removed just because not many can build and fly them yet. The deep safe spots, which were mere bookmarks(!), however were widely disliked, because the were the result of past bugs and new players could not obtain them. Even when they could have been duplicated and traded did CCP make the effort to get rid of them. Everyone can fly and build Titans and their number is growing. Tournament ships are widely accepted as unique items and only a few are envious over it, because everyone knows that there is a huge effort involved in winning these prices, and everyone feels that the winners deserve them, and that this is only fair. By the way, I would like to see Akita & Co. argue that these prices are unfair and they are only perceived as fair.*) The number of T2 BPOs however is limited as well as slowly declining and there are just not enough for everyone to have one, and no effort no matter how huge will change this unless CCP introduces the lottery again. This is unfair and always will be felt by the majority as unfair.
*) To save Akita time: the winners are much better pilots and have lots of SPs, so they logically had to win. Rookies however do not have this advantage but deserve prices just as well. (Akita stomps foot.) Therefore are the tournament prices in fact unfair and any fairness just perceived as such. Bla bla bla ... - Akita T
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:21:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Jovialmadness
Why are you continuing to be a very large ******* about this.
Thank you very much. This coming from someone who wants to "destroy" me is making me a little bit sad.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 17:34:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Akita T
I think you might have gotten your shield polarities wrong there, boy. Back to school for you.
Thank you, too. I am taking it as a compliment.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 06:32:00 -
[34]
If you want a BPO, which does not require invention, then buy a Tech 1 BPO. It has plenty of them and that is what they are there for.
Tech 2 requires invention and Tech 3 requires reverse engineering. This is how the game mechanic works and Tech 2 BPOs were a mistake.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 08:22:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Whitehound on 20/09/2010 08:23:17
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
1. She's never claimed to want them for herself.
2. She's argued keeping them in game, right now, provides some benefit.
3. It has been pointed out that over time the impact/effect of T2 BPOs will likely fade and that they are essentially being removed slowly but surely.
So stop being such an utter moron.
1. She is unable to say what she wants.
2. Keeping nonsense in an otherwise good game is stupid.
3. I know and CCP is just being lazy and should have removed them together with the lottery.
4. Stop crying now, all right?
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 12:38:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Akita T
Hey, moron, I don't WANT any, and I have said so myself a few times in this thread too.
You can say so a hundred times, but your fight for the T2 BPOs speaks for itself. You want them.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 14:22:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Akita T
Whee, I want equal rights for women ! I must be a woman !
Whee, I want equal rights for gay people ! I must be gay !
Whee, I want equal rights for black people ! I must be black !
So I must be a black gay woman. You know, as opposed to what I actually am.
...friggin' idiot.
It does not mean you have to be one, it can also mean you are in love with a black lesbian.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 18:12:00 -
[38]
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
No amount of bonuses, implants, or skills, will ever make it mathematically worthwhile to copy that BPO. An advanced lab only drops the copy time to 10 hours 50 minutes. Build time in an ammo array is about 6 hours and 50 minutes. If you copy it, all you're doing is adding 4 hours onto the build time. Or, in other words, one copied blueprint will be done producing before the second one is finished copying, leaving the manu slot vacant.
How about the number of runs?
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 18:59:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Berikath
As for "having to make 5 billion" for the BPO to be worth it... no, you don't, because the BPO is not consumed. If you buy the BPO for 5 billion, run it for a month, then sell it for 5 billion it's worth it.
If you bought it for 5 billion then you can sell it for 6 billion as they only get rarer and more valuable.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 19:04:00 -
[40]
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
What about them?
I was just wondering if you would not get 100 runs per copy. However, the time for max-run BPCs is the other one.
Quote:
That you "can" do something doesn't necessarily mean it's viable, and it certainly doesn't mean it's relevant.
So was the lottery. I do understand that much. Just not why one wants to keep T2 BPOs.
--
|
|
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 19:18:00 -
[41]
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Because, the notion of arbitrarily destroying the assets of some players for no other reason than to salve the envy of other players is abhorrent.
In EVE are assets being destroyed for all possible reasons, every day. A removal of the T2 BPOs should not bother you.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 19:35:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Whitehound on 20/09/2010 19:36:02
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
By your logic, if CCP deletes all of your assets every day during downtime, it should not bother you.
No. Firstly is this your logic and because you came up with it, and secondly are we still talking of T2 BPOs.
Quote:
Professional whiner that you are, however, we all know you would be able to float a battleship in the river of forum tears you would produce.
You are getting quite emotional here, which only makes you the whiner. If I had a T2 BPO and CCP would remove them would I ask for a compensation, and if I would not get one then I would just continue with the game.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 19:48:00 -
[43]
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
You seem to have some manner of fundamental problem with thinking.
Did I hit a sensitive spot?
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 19:52:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Bluebeard
Go and buy 500bil of T2 blueprints and then argue for their removal and I will take notice of you.
I do not need your notice as an owner just as I do not need T2 BPOs. If you think you deserve a compensation then why should I decide how high it is? That is not for me to discuss, or is it? So you go and buy T2 BPOs before you try to argue with me ...
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 21:17:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Bluebeard
Put yourself into the position of a number of other people who have made substantial investments in T2 blueprints and then your position will have merit.
I cannot put myself into that position, when I believe that T2 BPOs are not worth it.
If you buy a T2 BPO than you can consider yourself scammed. It brings more profit to sell them than to keep them and use them for production.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 21:22:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
Oh...you'd ask for compensation...aren't you the tw@t who was telling us that T2 BPO owner tears are the best tears? Why yes, you are that tw@t. Hypocrite.
Asking for compensation is not the same as crying for it. It does not make me a hypocrite, it makes me an intelligent person. Where did you learn to read??
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 22:09:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
Back tracking duly noted. 
I do not mind if players get a compensation for their T2 BPOs or not. If they do then I am not bothered about it, because it is CCP who has to give it and not me. And if the players do not get a compensation, but start crying then I will only smile over the tears. Does this help?
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 22:12:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Whitehound on 20/09/2010 22:14:28
Originally by: Bluebeard
*Everybody* is biased in one way or another.
No. If this was so then it would have no meaning for a discussion anyways.
--
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.09.21 09:44:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Whitehound on 21/09/2010 09:47:46
Originally by: Bluebeard
As I thought, ignore the part where I assert that you are only arguing for removal because you have nothing to lose
and reply with selective quoting.
To be honest, this thread should be locked to stop your continued trolling of it.
No, you are the troll. Your assumption that everyone has to be biased is false. Even if it was true then it would become irrelevant for a discussion just like a person's skin colour or origin is. And because it is wrong do I not see a need to argue with the rest of your nonsense. What you call selective reading is just me cutting out your crap, which is not worth arguing about. Now try to stay on topic.
--
|
|
|
| |
|