Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Viktoria Potsfel
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 13:22:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Rethguad Lamina @OP - If you cant make decent money from invention then your doing it wrong. I am not an indy minded person and am still very new to this side of eve. I am making a great ROI and it keeps getting better with everything I learn....... T2 BPO's arnt the problem and doing anything to them isnt going to provide a solution. PS. I dont own any T2 BPO's.
Solution is simple. you can never make everyone happy? previous changes rarely did this either. Its just something that needs to be done.
|
Feyleaf
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 13:49:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Karia Sur () Is the current T2 BPO system unfair - No
() Was the system used to spread these T2 BPs unfair - To anyone who wasnt around at the start, Yes.
() Do I see a solution which will end up with everyone happy - No
Like already mentioned, the lottery was a thing of the past, a mistake. However there is just no way imo, that you can change the way it is and have both sides happy.
There are no "sides" only common sense.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 13:57:00 -
[33]
Game design should not be based on making the select few happy. So I do not see any reason to keep those relics still around, especially as devs have pretty much agreed that lottery was mistake. Lets remove them, like the learning skills were removed, and move on with our lives I say. We have invention now.
So 8 years is the current 'you can whine now' time - yes ? Well simple, give the current owners BPC's with enough runs to propduce from there for 8 years if thats what it takes. Should have been done back when invention was intruduced. Would have only 5 more years to go ;)
|
Jovialmadness
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 14:28:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Ghost Creal I have an idea for producing T2 BPO's and it works along the same pricing structure as T1 BPO's this being that you can buy for example a Raven BPO for roughly 1 Billion isk which equates to roughly 15 Ravens, therefore if you introduce the ability to reverse engineer (or what ever you wish to call it) for example golems to produce a T2 BPO it should in theory take 14 Golems reverse engineered = 1 Golem BPO, the same could be done for all t2 equipment and come to that also for t1.
This is just an idea but I think it could be worth looking at particuarly as ccp seems to want to put all items into player control.
Please discuss further.
In before akita.
I wont discuss it because you didnt think of the pure horror your idea would cause first before posting that crap. |
Tasko Pal
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 15:18:00 -
[35]
Whining about T2 BPOs again? Here's my take: if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. The usual reply is that "but but but it's broke because I don't have one".
Anyone who wants a T2 BPO can just buy it. It's a prestige item like a supercap or those special issue station spinners. Sure you can make a modest amount of money off of a T2 BPO, but what would you expect for a industrialist, prestige item?
|
Feyleaf
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 16:29:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Tasko Pal Whining about T2 BPOs again? Here's my take: if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. The usual reply is that "but but but it's broke because I don't have one".
Anyone who wants a T2 BPO can just buy it. It's a prestige item like a supercap or those special issue station spinners. Sure you can make a modest amount of money off of a T2 BPO, but what would you expect for a industrialist, prestige item?
Still missing the point.. read previous posts.
|
Korn Beef
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 17:12:00 -
[37]
Removing the T2 BPO's from the game and using invention as the only method for production of T2 items would be a fair way of addressing the issue. I doubt that would lower prices for Tech two ships but it would level the field.
IMO no need to give BPO owners an 8 year run BPC. Simply give them a 6 month warning till they will be removed from game.
|
Karia Sur
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 17:28:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Karia Sur on 03/12/2010 17:28:24
Originally by: Korn Beef IMO no need to give BPO owners an 8 year run BPC. Simply give them a 6 month warning till they will be removed from game.
that has to be an even worse suggestion than the OPs.
edit: and no, I dont own any T2 BPOs.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 17:37:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Korn Beef Removing the T2 BPO's from the game and using invention as the only method for production of T2 items would be a fair way of addressing the issue. I doubt that would lower prices for Tech two ships but it would level the field.
You do realize that inventing modules make more profit on items with a T2 than against items with no T2 BPOs right?
Do the math on them comparing which is more profitable to invent.
Ships however, the BPO holders do have an advantage, but again it comes down to which ships as a lot of them with T2 BPOs are still profitable to invent and build.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 18:41:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Feyleaf
You dont have to pay tens of billions for a t2bpo.. you just have to have been around for the lottery..
you are kinda missing the point.What your proposing is a non-fair work-around to the bpo's not being available thru agents anymore. Would be like saying teeth dont matter coz u could just eat soup.
Fact is t2 bpo's should be removed, practical concideration comes after that fact.
A good comparison to removing the "lottery" but not the bpo's would be to just remove the learning skillbooks but let older players keep their learning skills.
Wrong, the comparison removing the learning skills and older player keeping the SP. And lo and behold, it is exactly what CCP did.
We had the use of the learning skills for years with the increased training speed and still we get the SP back.
Unmotivaded envy is a bad beast. Try to keep it under control.
|
|
Greg Huff
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 19:07:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Feyleaf
You dont have to pay tens of billions for a t2bpo.. you just have to have been around for the lottery..
you are kinda missing the point.What your proposing is a non-fair work-around to the bpo's not being available thru agents anymore. Would be like saying teeth dont matter coz u could just eat soup.
Fact is t2 bpo's should be removed, practical concideration comes after that fact.
A good comparison to removing the "lottery" but not the bpo's would be to just remove the learning skillbooks but let older players keep their learning skills.
Wrong, the comparison removing the learning skills and older player keeping the SP. And lo and behold, it is exactly what CCP did.
We had the use of the learning skills for years with the increased training speed and still we get the SP back.
Unmotivaded envy is a bad beast. Try to keep it under control.
"let older players keep their learning skills." not SP
|
Viktoria Potsfel
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:03:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Viktoria Potsfel on 03/12/2010 20:03:46
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Feyleaf
You dont have to pay tens of billions for a t2bpo.. you just have to have been around for the lottery..
you are kinda missing the point.What your proposing is a non-fair work-around to the bpo's not being available thru agents anymore. Would be like saying teeth dont matter coz u could just eat soup.
Fact is t2 bpo's should be removed, practical concideration comes after that fact.
A good comparison to removing the "lottery" but not the bpo's would be to just remove the learning skillbooks but let older players keep their learning skills.
Wrong, the comparison removing the learning skills and older player keeping the SP. And lo and behold, it is exactly what CCP did.
We had the use of the learning skills for years with the increased training speed and still we get the SP back.
Unmotivaded envy is a bad beast. Try to keep it under control.
I bet you were on the highschool debating team? rofl
|
Tasko Pal
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 20:26:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Feyleaf
Still missing the point.. read previous posts.
I read your posts first. So I didn't miss the point. Your complaint boils down to:
Quote: Its basically a money making machine w minimal work.. whether it impacts the economy in any meaningful way is really irellevant.
I'm entirely comfortable with that. After all, if you want a piece of the "money making machine", you can buy your own BPO. You don't have to hop into a time machine and go back to the days of the BPO lottery.
|
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2010.12.03 22:50:00 -
[44]
3 kinds of people 1 the one that got it in the lottery and kept it. These do not care that much even if they got removed with let say replaced buy 1000 max run BPCs. They already made their money they are making nice steady income but nothing crazy due to the 1 at a time limit.
2 The speculators that bought them for crazy prices and still did not even break even. They tend to loose the most when they get replaced by BPC's These are the people saying go and buy it as well blah blah.
3 The Want to haves who complain because they are too dumb/lazy or both to do the calculations and make money on invention and have feeling that they can not compete.
at this topic that has been repeated maybe more times then I need a lvl 4 raven fit
|
Aernth
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 02:44:00 -
[45]
I really do not have a problem with people that have been around or people willing to spend money having a tech II bpo. What I want is at least a way to increase the chance of successful invention once an item has already been invented. There should be an item that stores successful run numbers that can be used to increase the chance of success. This is simply a matter of common sense, no one should need to start from scratch every time they want to make something if they have made it before. A new type of data interface that stores successes and makes invention chance go up if it is used would be sweet.
|
Keta Fraal
Nul and Booleans
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 05:32:00 -
[46]
Originally by: heheheh Posting as i always do in these crappy threads. I make more ISK using invention than my corpmate does from his BPO, and we both produce the same mod, and get the mats for the same price.
Wait a minute...
You said that all other factors being equal, it is more profitable for you to make a BPC from T1, then funnel in the salvage and exploration mats and per chance invent a BPC T2; than it is profitable to use a T2 BPO to make a T2 BPC?
Somethin' done broke! --------------------------------------- Completely ignore any whining that is not toilet orientated. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 07:27:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 04/12/2010 07:30:40
Originally by: Greg Huff
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Feyleaf
You dont have to pay tens of billions for a t2bpo.. you just have to have been around for the lottery..
you are kinda missing the point.What your proposing is a non-fair work-around to the bpo's not being available thru agents anymore. Would be like saying teeth dont matter coz u could just eat soup.
Fact is t2 bpo's should be removed, practical concideration comes after that fact.
A good comparison to removing the "lottery" but not the bpo's would be to just remove the learning skillbooks but let older players keep their learning skills.
Wrong, the comparison [should be to] removing the learning skills and older player keeping the SP. And lo and behold, it is exactly what CCP did.
We had the use of the learning skills for years with the increased training speed and still we get the SP back.
Unmotivaded envy is a bad beast. Try to keep it under control.
"let older players keep their learning skills." not SP
To explain it point for point: - I have trained the learning skills years ago; - using them I have already got more extra SP than I did spent on the learning skills - and jet I get back the SP I invested in the learning skills even if I have already got a dividend from those learning skills.
Clearer this way?
Originally by: Dors Venabily 3 kinds of people 1 the one that got it in the lottery and kept it. These do not care that much even if they got removed with let say replaced buy 1000 max run BPCs. They already made their money they are making nice steady income but nothing crazy due to the 1 at a time limit.
Not exact, if the T2 BPO are removed I pretend to have them substituted by a vanity item "gold framed T2 BPO" to keep in my hangar and to hang in my house when those are added.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 10:17:00 -
[48]
I would like to point out, that having a BPO does not prevent one from inventing.
Anyway, there is no competition between invention and BPO owners. Invention fills the demand that is left after BPO owners have produced as many items as they can from the BPO. What invention does by filling that demand left after BPO's is putting a upper cap on BPO profitability at level where it is economically sensible to invent that particular item/ship.
|
heheheh
Phoenix Club
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 14:56:00 -
[49]
Edited by: heheheh on 04/12/2010 15:05:52
Originally by: Feyleaf
Per unit? isk/hour? else that is really irellevant information that cant really be put in any meaningful comparison hehe.
You do know how little effort it actually takes to keep that t2bpo running 24/7?
He could basically be inventing as much as you at the same time if he wanted. This would be fine if new players could get them(from agents!!)
hahahaha You are basically proving me correct by saying he could be inventing as many bpcs as i am at the same time, If you can produce greater numbers via invention then how can T2 BPO holders be running the markets ? Im not going to give you any numbers, i like to see the clueless try and argue a moot point because of jealousy, it amuses me. BPOs do nothing except give the owner a small extra income.
Originally by: Keta Fraal
Originally by: heheheh Posting as i always do in these crappy threads. I make more ISK using invention than my corpmate does from his BPO, and we both produce the same mod, and get the mats for the same price.
Wait a minute...
You said that all other factors being equal, it is more profitable for you to make a BPC from T1, then funnel in the salvage and exploration mats and per chance invent a BPC T2; than it is profitable to use a T2 BPO to make a T2 BPC?
Somethin' done broke!
nope, check reading comprehension 101, im saying i can make more ISK making amounts of an item via inventions, than i can with a t2 BPO, i can make many more t2 items during a time period, than some guy with one bpo. The copy times on a t2 bpo are stupidly long, no one in there right minds would make copies from a bpo if maximum profit is the target. Last post in this crap thread for me it is, im just gonna sit back and watch the clueless argue.
|
Tydius Nolad
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 15:44:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Kutka They should remove the T2 BPO's out of the game, because many were given away in a lottery and newer players have no chance to compete in a truly player driven economy. How could CCP push for a player driven economy when there are items used in production in the game, and a select group of people have a monopoly on said items. Why not give every player that started in 2009 a T2 BPO for a Marauder, how would a 2003 player feel? It is really goofy and the current production and invention process is unduly expensive for anyone who does not own one of those coveted T2 BPO's.
I have over 2 dozen t2 BPOs. I didn't participate in the t2 BPO lottery. I acquired mine through social engineering and plain old purchasing. Why should I be punished for having been successful in my acquisitions?
Oh, and BTW. The profit margins on most t2 BPOs suck. I make more isk building and selling rare t1 items than I do t2 items.
|
|
Carniflex
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 19:08:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Tydius Nolad
Originally by: Kutka They should remove the T2 BPO's out of the game, because many were given away in a lottery and newer players have no chance to compete in a truly player driven economy. How could CCP push for a player driven economy when there are items used in production in the game, and a select group of people have a monopoly on said items. Why not give every player that started in 2009 a T2 BPO for a Marauder, how would a 2003 player feel? It is really goofy and the current production and invention process is unduly expensive for anyone who does not own one of those coveted T2 BPO's.
I have over 2 dozen t2 BPOs. I didn't participate in the t2 BPO lottery. I acquired mine through social engineering and plain old purchasing. Why should I be punished for having been successful in my acquisitions?
Oh, and BTW. The profit margins on most t2 BPOs suck. I make more isk building and selling rare t1 items than I do t2 items.
It's not about you. So nothing personal. You acquired those items with risks associated with such items. There is patch every 6 months and what is profitable to day might not be so in 6 months time. T2 BPO's are high risk investment (with average ROI of above 3 years of continuous production by now) - and one of those risks is that they can be removed from game. CCP has indicated in the past that this is possibility, altho with the release of invention they stopped hinting that I must admit. You are basically gaming that when they are removed from the game you have got your ROI and hopefully the compensation (if any) sweetens the deal enough.
|
Emporer Norton
|
Posted - 2010.12.04 20:45:00 -
[52]
I wouldn't mind being able to research bpc's using same skills, time and materials as bpo but adding new bpo's probly isn't gonna happen
|
Shai 'Hulud
Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 04:48:00 -
[53]
So t2 bpo's aren't fair?
Is it "fair" that they had the copy times WAY too short when they first released t2 bpo's (I made 1.5 years production worth of barrage M bpc's in a 2 week job)?
Is it "fair" that I made 500m-1b+ in just a couple hours every day for months before they nerfed high sec. complexes?
Is it "fair" that I made 500m-1b+ in just a couple hours every day for months in the high end cosmos missions before they nerfed them (tanked in a non-remote repped jaguar btw)?
Is it "fair" if I hunt estamel for 2 years, find him, and he drops crap... while someone else may find him first day trying and make 10's of billions?
Is it "fair" if I take all your stuff?
Is it "fair" that the people who tried for the t2 bpo lottery and didn't get one have been gaining datacores for YEARS on inactive accounts and now no one will be able to soon?
Is it "fair" that lvl 4's don't pay as well as they did before they were nerfed?
Is it "fair" that half of this game is essentially derived from dice rolls?
Should we simply delete all assets tied to activities that have now been changed?
I hate to be the one to break this to you guys, but EVE is not fair. MMO's are not fair. Until you learn to actively seek out these advantages, rather than whining about those that are gone, you will always be complaining about what I have... which is simply more than you. The exact form of this asset inequality is rather irrelevant.
|
Mr Dilkington
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 14:39:00 -
[54]
Any manufacturer with a brain sold their t2 BPOs from the lottery, for silly money, to the idiots queing up to buy them, and then took himself into invention instead. Having said that, i like these fools willing to pay out billions for a BPO with a price based on five years or more profit, they are the people that made alot of us rich, and continue to do so.
|
Carniflex
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.11 14:54:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Mr Dilkington Any manufacturer with a brain sold their t2 BPOs from the lottery, for silly money, to the idiots queing up to buy them, and then took himself into invention instead. Having said that, i like these fools willing to pay out billions for a BPO with a price based on five years or more profit, they are the people that made alot of us rich, and continue to do so.
More likley they are the people who run bot farms and are looking for easy way to launder the isk. Botfarm pile of isk and then 'scam' pile of T2 BPO's out of the botfarm to your main. There - easier than selling titans or motherships to yourself.
|
Ghost Creal
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 00:35:00 -
[56]
I think that this thread went slighly off topic but anyway one of my allaince m8's came up with a descent suggestion and that was during invention there is a slim chance of getting a bpo instead of a bpc and as he has had T2 bpo's since the lottery I was suprised that he wants to see more T2 bpo's coming into game although I still like the idea of having to reverse 15 golems to get a golem bpo :)
|
Carniflex
StarHunt R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 05:17:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Ghost Creal I think that this thread went slighly off topic but anyway one of my allaince m8's came up with a descent suggestion and that was during invention there is a slim chance of getting a bpo instead of a bpc and as he has had T2 bpo's since the lottery I was suprised that he wants to see more T2 bpo's coming into game although I still like the idea of having to reverse 15 golems to get a golem bpo :)
It would obsolete invention over some time and a little while later only point to do invention would be pumping it enough to get the BPO. Even if you put the probability at 0.001%.
Failing removal of T2 BPO's altogether though it is one of the possibilities to 'fix' them. Quite often suggested in such threads.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 08:57:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Carniflex
Originally by: Ghost Creal I think that this thread went slighly off topic but anyway one of my allaince m8's came up with a descent suggestion and that was during invention there is a slim chance of getting a bpo instead of a bpc and as he has had T2 bpo's since the lottery I was suprised that he wants to see more T2 bpo's coming into game although I still like the idea of having to reverse 15 golems to get a golem bpo :)
It would obsolete invention over some time and a little while later only point to do invention would be pumping it enough to get the BPO. Even if you put the probability at 0.001%.
Failing removal of T2 BPO's altogether though it is one of the possibilities to 'fix' them. Quite often suggested in such threads.
It would exchange the "remove lottery BPO they are killing invention" threads with "I was too late to invention and now it is not worthwhile to invent anything, the other guys already have researched BPO of all the T2 items".
It could work only if CCP was capable of introducing several new T2 items every patch and the invention process for a BPO was so long and involved that it would require at least 6 months for the first BPO to roll out.
Too much work for too little return on CCP part.
|
Justin Cody
Caldari T.A.L.O.N. Company SOUL CARTEL
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 13:39:00 -
[59]
There are many creative things that could be done to improve industry and this is a good idea. It may not be the best...seeing as how everyone has a bag full of hate and **** for Mr Spleen, but I don't see why it couldn't be in testing. There's quite a bit to be changed in this game and don't be surprised someday when T2 is eclipsed by something better T4->5 and beyond.
don't knock it until you've tried it.
Remind people that profit is the difference between revenue and expense. This makes you look smart. Scott Adams
|
Dasola
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.12.13 15:51:00 -
[60]
So much cry over t2 bpo.
And only reason to change them seems to be, becouse ccp changes so many other things in game... or Becouse i was not ingame when lottery of them was on...
Seriously people, if you cant make profit on invention your doing it wrong. I see bossibilities of profit everywhere, despite of some t2 bpo owners producing stuff.
Just like IRL industry, not everything is worth manufacturing. Sooner you realise this fact, you starting your ingame business profitably. Do your research on item before you invest on makeing them. CCP gave players control of most of market just so we could compete on it. So it would be as real market as virtual economy can be.
Personally i think t2 bpo are fine as they are.
And no, i still dont own any t2 bpo and have no plans on buying one.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |