EVE Search - Alternative ideas to removing T2 BPO's

All Channels

Science and Industry

Alternative ideas to removing T2 BPO's

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Greg Huff	Posted - 2010.12.21 15:47:00 - [1] Having read though the discussions here, and understanding both sides of the debate... I'm completely opposed to removing the T2 BPO's. I don't own any I've never owned any I don't know anyone that owns any I don't think comparing one person manufacturing a T2 BPO's to another running multiple simultaneous inventions holds much validity. Because T1->invention->T2 can be run through multiple streams at once the lower profit is boosted by greater quantity. This puts a lot of variables into the mix making a comparison questionable at best. T2 BPO's do NOT have a set or defined value. They are only worth what someone will pay for them. For CCP to assign a value and insta-buy them from the owners is not fair by any stretch of the imagination. I agree that they should not be removed unless there is seriously valid reasons why the game would be better without them. I don't want to see them added back to the game in any way. No inventing a T2 BPO no matter how slim the chance. ****************** I would like to see discussions regarding one thing I saw here that I think merits consideration: T1 BPO ME/PE levels affect the resulting T2 BPC** Not necessarily a direct match (i.e perfect ME BPO = perfect ME BPC) as I think that's too much of a boost. Translating the ME level to a percentage of perfect ME, then a percentage of that as a bonus to the BPC. Or applying the research as a boost to success chance. This: Would reward inventors for spending time to research their BPO's Add thought to the contract market as inventors would want to consider more than just the lowest price for a BPC Does not punish T2 BPO owners except by giving them more competition
Daenosa Perkone	Posted - 2010.12.21 15:54:00 - [2] Edited by: Daenosa on 21/12/2010 15:56:04 Originally by: Greg Huff T2 BPO's do NOT have a set or defined value. They are only worth what someone will pay for them. For CCP to assign a value and insta-buy them from the owners is not fair by any stretch of the imagination. Alot of things in eve don't have a defined set value but everyone knows roughly how much they are worth, same with T2 BPO's Why so against having them put back into the game? Seems odd your against having them removed but your aswell against other people not having the chance to acquire them through other means then just buying the old ones, are you sure you dont own any *edit, making another thread just to talk about this so wasn't needed, especially considering you posted the same thing in the other thread.
Greg Huff	Posted - 2010.12.21 16:18:00 - [3] Originally by: Daenosa Originally by: Greg Huff T2 BPO's do NOT have a set or defined value. They are only worth what someone will pay for them. For CCP to assign a value and insta-buy them from the owners is not fair by any stretch of the imagination. Alot of things in eve don't have a defined set value but everyone knows roughly how much they are worth, same with T2 BPO's Many of the discussion about removing the existing T2's involve paying the owners. I was simply making the point that CCP assigning them an arbitrary value is definitely not fair to the owners of them. This ties to a discussion (re: removing T2 BPO's) that spawned this one. Originally by: Daenosa Why so against having them put back into the game? Seems odd your against having them removed but your aswell against other people not having the chance to acquire them through other means then just buying the old ones, are you sure you dont own any Quite positive, but not opposed to buying one at some point down the road CCP deliberately removed the T2 lottery and did not replace it with another option for acquiring new T2 BPO's. Instead they added invention. To discuss bring T2 BPO's back you're also discussing removing/modifying invention by way of association ... a subject for a different discussion. Originally by: Daenosa *edit, making another thread just to talk about this so wasn't needed, especially considering you posted the same thing in the other thread. Considering the intent is to discuss a different point than the thread that spawned these thoughts it is appropriate for it to be a separate discussion. (My post in the other thread was the original, then I realized it should be separate.)
Tasko Pal Spallated Garniferous Schist	Posted - 2010.12.21 16:40:00 - [4] Originally by: Daenosa Why so against having them put back into the game? Seems odd your against having them removed but your aswell against other people not having the chance to acquire them through other means then just buying the old ones, are you sure you dont own any It breaks invention, if there is a way to create an unbounded number of BPOs. And if you do that or the other thing, take away the T2 BPOs, it screws over existing BPO holders. I see no reason to change the status quo, especially given that you can invent any T2 item you want and/or buy those T2 BPOs. Akita T has a long thread asking people for legitimate reasons for changing the T2 BPO system. No answers yet, but a lot of noise.
Berikath	Posted - 2010.12.21 17:17:00 - [5] Originally by: Greg Huff T1 BPO ME/PE levels affect the resulting T2 BPC Not necessarily a direct match (i.e perfect ME BPO = perfect ME BPC) as I think that's too much of a boost. Translating the ME level to a percentage of perfect ME, then a percentage of that as a bonus to the BPC. Or applying the research as a boost to success chance. This: Would reward inventors for spending time to research their BPO's Add thought to the contract market as inventors would want to consider more than just the lowest price for a BPC Does not punish T2 BPO owners except by giving them more competition I would be concerned about this "breaking" invention (particularly in relation to decoders). While I think having some sort of transference of research to T2 BPCs makes sense, it seems to me that doing it in a kind of "threshold" way or with diminishing returns makes sense. My first thought was to limit the possible bonus to about +3 levels (making the max. possible ME from invention 2, which seems a good level; right about at the break-point where expensive items start to see cost decreases in the same kind of range as decoders). After thinking about it, I thought it might make more sense to have the bonus be the log (base 10) of the ME/PE level. In that case, it would work out to bonuses of: 1- 1 research level 2- 10 levels 3- 100 levels 4- 1000 levels Just a thought though, take it or leave it. * [ SIG] * Wish list for PI: One-click input routing Copy product, inputs & outputs in factories *Launchpad upgrades: twice the space, twice the cost, half the hassle! [ /sig ]
Emporer Norton	Posted - 2010.12.21 17:27:00 - [6] I think instead would be better to use a % of perfect me say +1 for every 10-20% of perfect so no waste would be would be a range of +0-5/10 me Originally by: Berikath Originally by: Greg Huff [After thinking about it, I thought it might make more sense to have the bonus be the log (base 10) of the ME/PE level. In that case, it would work out to bonuses of: 1- 1 research level 2- 10 levels 3- 100 levels 4- 1000 levels Just a thought though, take it or leave it.
Durnin Stormbrow	Posted - 2010.12.21 17:35:00 - [7] If CCP ever decides to nerf the T2 BPOs, the easiest way for them to do it will be by buffing Invention. If even that is done indirectly, they'll have the minimum amount of forum emorage. Call it an exploration buff and among other exploration improvements, fix decriptors by improving the ones we have today, adjusting drop rates, and/or adding new ones. Decriptors are a good game play idea, but there are only a few of them that are commonly used, and even then almost exclusively for ships. Since using decriptors in module invention is almost always less profitable than going without, one possibility would be to dedicate some of the decriptors to the invention of modules only and giving them x2 or x3 runs with appropriate ME losses. Decriptors cost advantage could be buffed by allowing them to have multiple uses; i.e. R.A.M. Some that today are out of favor might see more use if they were high durability. Introducing new decriptors that yield positive stats on the BPC would be a nice improvement for the invention of high end items.
Wendi Watson	Posted - 2010.12.21 17:37:00 - [8] Yet another thread to beat this dead horse?
Greg Huff	Posted - 2010.12.21 19:22:00 - [9] Originally by: Berikath I would be concerned about this "breaking" invention (particularly in relation to decoders). While I think having some sort of transference of research to T2 BPCs makes sense, it seems to me that doing it in a kind of "threshold" way or with diminishing returns makes sense. My first thought was to limit the possible bonus to about +3 levels (making the max. possible ME from invention 2, which seems a good level; right about at the break-point where expensive items start to see cost decreases in the same kind of range as decoders). After thinking about it, I thought it might make more sense to have the bonus be the log (base 10) of the ME/PE level. In that case, it would work out to bonuses of: 1- 1 research level 2- 10 levels 3- 100 levels 4- 1000 levels Just a thought though, take it or leave it. I agree that it should not make decryptors obsolete or eliminate them. Limiting the ME bonus seems appropriate, especially when considering larger ships. Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow Decriptors are a good game play idea, but there are only a few of them that are commonly used, and even then almost exclusively for ships. Since using decriptors in module invention is almost always less profitable than going without, one possibility would be to dedicate some of the decriptors to the invention of modules only and giving them x2 or x3 runs with appropriate ME losses. Decriptors cost advantage could be buffed by allowing them to have multiple uses; i.e. R.A.M. Some that today are out of favor might see more use if they were high durability. Introducing new decriptors that yield positive stats on the BPC would be a nice improvement for the invention of high end items. I like the type-specific idea. Even if the decryptors are not overly abundant their price would be (relatively) held in check due to their nature. Current decryptors can bear heavy price tags because larger ships make them an easy ROI. Ones that could only be used for modules or ammo would not sell at such high prices. By having both BPO research and decryptor bonuses people would definitely have great variety of combinations to work with. A heavily researched BPO could buffer the ME hit from decryptors with high probability multipliers.
Lirinas	Posted - 2010.12.21 19:45:00 - [10] One train of thought I've had recently about the invention process is that it doesn't take time into account. Almost every aspect of EVE has time as a limiting factor. With invention, the only real time factor is in the crafting of the T1 BPC's. The actual invention job is only a fraction of the overall time. What if time could be used as an additional factor in the Invention process. A player could choose to improve various aspects of the resultant T2 BPC by having the job take more time. Improving the odds of success, increasing the ME/PE/# of Runs on the BPC's? Perhaps even mix-and-match various modifiers. Spend enough time on an invention job, and perhaps you could produce a BPC that would be comperable to that of a T2 BPO. Positive ME and/or PE, a decent number of runs, and little chance of failure, but the job may take a couple months to complete.
Voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2010.12.21 19:47:00 - [11] Edited by: Voogru on 21/12/2010 19:49:24 There's only one fair way to remove the T2 BPO's. Convert them into patents, every time one of those items is sold on the market, theres a 10-15% royalty that gets split among the active account holders of the patents. They can't produce from them, but they retain some value by being able to generate income and inventors no longer have to claim "OMG WE HAVE TO COMPETE WITH THEM OMG COMPETITION IS BAD" I must warn you though, it will never increase profitability of invention. So if your goal is profitable invention, this isn't the way to do it. You want profitable invention? Make it POS only. Want really profitable invention? Low-sec POS only. You have to add RISK into the mix. Having an alt churn out items from invention is not risky. Hate Farmers? Click Here
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.21 19:54:00 - [12] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/12/2010 19:54:04 Originally by: Voogru I must warn you though, it will never increase profitability of invention. So if your goal is profitable invention, this isn't the way to do it. I return to my previous statements: what really matters in a game is that the competition is fair or perceived as fair. T2 BPOs don't fulfill either requirement - regardless of invention profitability. Quote: You want profitable invention? Make it POS only. Want really profitable invention? Low-sec POS only. I agree - low sec is actually a good answer to making invention profitable. High Sec, 0.0, and Wormhole spaces are all very defensible in their own ways. -Liang Ed: Also, your "patent" idea is pretty ludicrous. -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2010.12.21 19:59:00 - [13] Originally by: Liang Nuren I return to my previous statements: what really matters in a game is that the competition is fair or perceived as fair. T2 BPOs don't fulfill either requirement - regardless of invention profitability. And where does it say that EVE has to be 'fair'? When invention first came out, it was wildly profitable, and it remained that way for a little bit of time until they boosted invention TEN FOLD. When they boosted it ten fold, the profitability fell like a rock. As far as your comment on the 'patent' idea, I find your opinion that they should just be removed or replaced with 10 run BPC's (or otherwise), ludicrous. Hate Farmers? Click Here
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.21 20:04:00 - [14] Originally by: Voogru And where does it say that EVE has to be 'fair'? The part where its a 'game'. Quote: When invention first came out, it was wildly profitable, and it remained that way for a little bit of time until they boosted invention TEN FOLD. When they boosted it ten fold, the profitability fell like a rock. Yes, and I'm appreciative that the price for consumers went down. I like T2 fitting my T1 cruisers. Quote: As far as your comment on the 'patent' idea, I find your opinion that they should just be removed or replaced with 10 run BPC's (or otherwise), ludicrous. I don't think that 10 runs is a "high run" BPC. But maybe you do. /shrug -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2010.12.21 20:17:00 - [15] Originally by: Redistributionist Troll The part where its a 'game'. If EVE was fair, it wouldn't be any fun. The whole freaking point is to get an UNFAIR advantage over your enemies. You can get an unfair advantage just like I did. I didn't win any good prints in the lottery. I got an unfair advantage, used it to make money, then used my intelligence to predict future flavor-of-the-months and did good. Since I used my brain, I had an unfair advantage. Originally by: Redistributionist Troll I don't think that 10 runs is a "high run" BPC. But maybe you do. /shrug -Liang Every suggestion that I've seen with replacing them with 'high' run BPC's is usually equivalent to a weeks worth of production (when it comes to modules), and 2-3 months production when it comes to ships. Really, the root goal of these people is they want invention to be more profitable, I don't understand why they think making invention more accessible will increase profitability, it won't. T2 BPO's are such a small portion of the market that their impact is negligible and as time goes on these prints naturally die out anyway due to inactivity. Even my own prints were inactive for a time because I was too busy with life to micro-manage a bunch of production slots. Hate Farmers? Click Here
Greg Huff	Posted - 2010.12.21 20:25:00 - [16] Originally by: Voogru There's only one fair way to remove the T2 BPO's. That's a subject for a different thread. Originally by: Lirinas One train of thought I've had recently about the invention process is that it doesn't take time into account. Almost every aspect of EVE has time as a limiting factor. With invention, the only real time factor is in the crafting of the T1 BPC's. The actual invention job is only a fraction of the overall time. What if time could be used as an additional factor in the Invention process. A player could choose to improve various aspects of the resultant T2 BPC by having the job take more time. Improving the odds of success, increasing the ME/PE/# of Runs on the BPC's? Perhaps even mix-and-match various modifiers. Spend enough time on an invention job, and perhaps you could produce a BPC that would be comperable to that of a T2 BPO. Positive ME and/or PE, a decent number of runs, and little chance of failure, but the job may take a couple months to complete. Since the T2 BPC's have a Max Run you would be limited to that, but it would be nice to see some of those run numbers actually achievable. The bonus modifiers received for multiple cycles should be a decreasing gain - similar to ME/PE research. A couple extra cycles could be a nice trade off, but the required cycles to get a major boost would be disheartening. If the extra cycles only affected probability and/or runs that would allow ME/PE research on the BPO's to have a pass-though affect. Decryptors would still be viable because their bonuses would not be dependent upon running extra cycles.
Voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2010.12.21 20:33:00 - [17] Originally by: Greg Huff Originally by: Voogru There's only one fair way to remove the T2 BPO's. That's a subject for a different thread. In that case, your ideas for making invention even easier will just make profit margins even more slim. Your root cause is to make invention more interesting and, more profitable. If you make it easier and or cheaper to invent, you will be able to profit for a few days until other inventors ruthlessly undercut you to the new floor, which is just above what it cost them to invent (or they are even taking a loss). You need to weed out the inventors that don't know what they are doing, the inventors that have to buy GTC's just to keep inventing. The way to do that is to implement more risk with invention and making it harder. Hate Farmers? Click Here
Draconus Lofwyr Gallente Omber Company Legion of Honor	Posted - 2010.12.22 00:01:00 - [18] Edited by: Draconus Lofwyr on 22/12/2010 00:02:31 Originally by: Wendi Watson Yet another thread to beat this dead horse? proverbial dead horse would quit being beaten if it would quit kicking and screaming. The fact that this topic keeps coming up means that there is an unresolved issue that needs to be addressed in some way. The haves obviously do not want to get rid of what they have, and don't want the havenot's to have said have. The havenot's perceive an impossible to overcome advantage that the have's have. CCP saw a flaw in the lottery process and chose to get rid of half the problem. that leaves us with half a problem and half a solution. No new t2 bpo's are being created, and some people still have t2 bpo's, I know they are still in game and being used, I have seen them. usually in possession of some of the oldest and most powerful corps in the game. while invention creates these copies at a distinct disadvantage, bpo's start ad me/pe zero, invented copies start and me/pe -4 (i'm sure there's some twisted logic there). I feel this is rather screwy that something we know exists, can be built and torn apart on many occasions, has to be "reinvented" every time (cant someone figure out how to write with a pen? ) How about a middle ground. dont reinstate the lottery, but enable the inverters to invent a BPO, with MUCH higher skills, cost, and time invested. perhaps add a few original ships to the invention process and multiple lvl V skills to the soup to have a chance an popping out a bpo? there are some rare items in game gifted to people who "won" competitions. there are a lot of unique items in game that are no longer useful, but still exist ( now where did that mine go?) but anything in game that has an advantage can be created again, except t2 bpo's. Typical bpo's sell in the range of the price of titan's, but at least a titan can be rebuilt. Either give everyone a mechanism to work to level the playing field, or make something else that gives that same advantage without a titanium ceiling. DL
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.22 00:25:00 - [19] Originally by: Voogru Originally by: Liang Nuren The part where its a 'game'. If EVE was fair, it wouldn't be any fun. The whole freaking point is to get an UNFAIR advantage over your enemies. The whole freaking point of a game is to compete with others. The excitement and fun of a game comes from them having the opportunity to develop an advantage over you, and this is the part that T2 BPOs do not allow. When one party devises the rules of the game in such a manner that one party is unfairly handicapped, they tend to find that nobody will play with them. You can learn this by visiting any preschool or kindergarten. To claim that the whole point of a game is to have an unfair advantage - I suppose you think its also great fun to play FPS's with aim bots, and wall+speed hacks. Look how stupid you are. Quote: Every suggestion that I've seen with replacing them with 'high' run BPC's is usually equivalent to a weeks worth of production (when it comes to modules), and 2-3 months production when it comes to ships. I haven't seen anyone put a number to what a 'high run' BPC is, but ultimately that number is really meaningless. What is important is that there comes a time when the T2 BPO goes away. I am completely game for reimbursing them in a somewhat fair manner - which is notably far more sportsmanlike of me than they are being by employing God Mode in a multiplayer game. Quote: Really, the root goal of these people is they want invention to be more profitable, I don't understand why they think making invention more accessible will increase profitability, it won't. I seem to be one of "these people", and yet that is not my goal. Quote: T2 BPO's are such a small portion of the market that their impact is negligible and as time goes on these prints naturally die out anyway due to inactivity. In many markets, they are 100% of the market. I guess that is a "small portion". Quote: Even my own prints were inactive for a time because I was too busy with life to micro-manage a bunch of production slots. And this right here illustrates exactly why T2 BPOs are incredibly overpowered God Mode tools. If it's too much work for you to employ T2 BPOs (lol), then how much more work is it for someone to run dozens of characters on many accounts to compete with you. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Nahkep Narmelion Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE	Posted - 2010.12.22 01:33:00 - [20] Quote: T1 BPO ME/PE levels affect the resulting T2 BPC Not necessarily a direct match (i.e perfect ME BPO = perfect ME BPC) as I think that's too much of a boost. Translating the ME level to a percentage of perfect ME, then a percentage of that as a bonus to the BPC. Or applying the research as a boost to success chance. This: * Would reward inventors for spending time to research their BPO's * Add thought to the contract market as inventors would want to consider more than just the lowest price for a BPC * Does not punish T2 BPO owners except by giving them more competition Competition would drive T2 prices even lower. It does punish T2 BPO owners as they now have a longer horizon in which to recoup their investment...possibly infinite if prices drop low enough--i.e. they'll never recover it.
Nahkep Narmelion Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE	Posted - 2010.12.22 01:43:00 - [21] Quote: And this right here illustrates exactly why T2 BPOs are incredibly overpowered God Mode tools. If it's too much work for you to employ T2 BPOs (lol), then how much more work is it for someone to run dozens of characters on many accounts to compete with you. Rolling Eyes Don't be ridiculous, you don't have to do invention with dozens of characters across dozens of accounts. I've made a respectable profit at invention with 4 characters. One of which I logged in every few days to change out copy jobs. The rest I logged in for maybe a couple of hours to install jobs and take care of building materials. Of course, the latter part the T2 BPO owner has to deal with as well. The bulk of my time was doing things like manufacturing the various inputs and transporting raw materials. Installing jobs was easy and fast. Considering the owner of the BPO has similar requirements I find this complaint vapid.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.12.22 03:36:00 - [22] Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion Don't be ridiculous, you don't have to do invention with dozens of characters across dozens of accounts. Of course not, but its one of the few options you can do with a similar ISK investment that keeps you even remotely on parity with a T2 BPO owner. The "math" (inasmuch as it was done) was done in the other thread by Akita T. Quote: I've made a respectable profit at invention with 4 characters. Of course you did. There aren't T2 BPOs for all items, afterall. Furthermore, some markets are so large that the T2 BPO owners can't possibly fill the entire thing and get lost in the masses. That doesn't make the competition any less rigged, however. Quote: Considering the owner of the BPO has similar requirements I find this complaint vapid. A T2 BPO owner doesn't have to run multiple accounts to achieve the kind of profit you did. -Liang -- Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire On Twitter - Blog got deleted when Evepress died -
Daddy's Princess The Player Haters Corp	Posted - 2010.12.22 06:14:00 - [23] Originally by: Voogru Edited by: Voogru on 21/12/2010 19:49:24 I must warn you though, it will never increase profitability of invention. So if your goal is profitable invention, this isn't the way to do it. And this is what is so comical about these whines. Like they expect this will be some uber buff to them. Prices of t2.... everything... would move by about, oh let me estimate... 0%? In summary, every t2 BPO whine is misguided envy.
Carniflex StarHunt R.A.G.E	Posted - 2010.12.22 07:19:00 - [24] The fairest thing would be looking up what amount and what RP were given up when accepting one and now giving the owner the corresponding amount of datacores of the proper type. Those who did not got offer after all got exactly that. Number of datacores. Served to us by the CCP as the next best thing after sliced bread, regardless of doing the same amount of work that BPO lottery winnder did. Well at least those winners that did not have dev friend helping them "winning".
looking great	Posted - 2010.12.22 07:26:00 - [25] Just remove T2 BPO, We could not have two system. Wounder what people could say if someone could build a titan 50 % cheaper than everyone in eve. Maybe own a allians. Same as for t2 some people can buld things without the cost of datacore. But its diffrent when it comes to t2 bpo "because" people have invested in them.... People could know that when invent was relesed it could be the end of T2 BPO. Give use same rules for everyone. Else i want the only one that could build t3 modules and when people say -hey its unfair that he is the only that could build t3 modules I only say.... -Its a investment.
Ten Bulls Minmatar	Posted - 2010.12.22 08:25:00 - [26] Originally by: Tasko Pal Akita T has a long thread asking people for legitimate reasons for changing the T2 BPO system. No answers yet, but a lot of noise. LOL, you should have said; Akita T decided long ago T2 BPO's are good, (s)he created a thread to centralize peoples complaints so they could be more easily ignored.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.12.22 08:28:00 - [27] You mean... CCP decided long ago T2 BPO's are good enough, Akita T created a thread to make people take a different direction with their misguided whineage that WILL be ignored by CCP. FOR INSTANCE, whine about moon mineral bottlenecks and the wasteful nature of the invention process, THAT at least has some chance of being at lest remotely palatable. _ Make ISK\|\|Build\|\|React\|\|1k papercuts _
AstarothPrime	Posted - 2010.12.22 10:01:00 - [28] Let T2 BPOs stay BPOs. Make them -4 ME so that they are balanced with BPCs. OR !!!! Let T2 BPCs be researched. Waste of 50M ISK per certain produced high end commodity (ships in particular) is just insane. OR !!!! Introduce new decryptor +4 ME and let hisec beltrats drop them so that they cost 100k ISK / piece. End of story. Regards I.
Nahkep Narmelion Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE	Posted - 2010.12.22 19:07:00 - [29] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 22/12/2010 03:55:56 Of course you have made a profit with invention. My contention is not that invention is not profitable. My contention is that T2 BPOs represent an unfair distribution in costs and effort, and can potentially lead to outright "monopolies" of smaller markets. You will never do profitable invention in one of these markets. As to the comment about buying dozens of characters across many accounts - that math and contention was covered in the other thread with Akita T. Amusingly, many people seemed to think it was the right way to go to compete with a T2 BPO owner. So if you find the argument vapid... well frankly so did I. Obviously the playing field should be more even and the Guy With The Golden Gun And Aimbot should give up his Cheaty McGoo toys. -Liang 1. You don't need dozens to compete. Even a single character will provide competition and an income stream. Maybe not as much, having multiple characters is simply away of making more isk faster. The advantage a T2 BPO owner has exists, but is not that significant. For example, setting aside issues of copying BPCs (i.e. assuming you have already done this or have a low SP character for copying) the rate of output isn't that different. Going by something I used to invent (and by memory here), light neutron blasters, I would produce 10 off of an invented BPC in just under a day. With a single character with lvl 4 skills, I would have an invention success rate of just under 50% (lets call it 50% to make things a bit easier). Installing 10 jobs in an hour I'd have 5 T2 BPCs on average and over the course of a 2-3 hour invention session I'd crap out lets say 12 t2 BPCs a day. That means I could build roughly 700 a week (with a couple left over so if I took a day off or two I wouldn't lose out too much). A guy with a T2 BPO and who is also inventing could probably beat me by 20%, that is he'd produce say 840 and some of those at a lower cost. So yeah, he'd make more money than me, but he also has a significantly higher investment...i.e. he has isk tied up in something that eventually I stopped making cause profits just weren't as good as they once were. 2. With invention monopolies (or more accurately cartels) can no longer form. Even if they did, they'd have a competitive fringe keeping prices down. That is, even if a T2 BPO owner was able to monopolize a given segment of the market there is really no effective barrier to entry, so if prices start to rise inventors enter the market driving prices back down. So, this too is simply wrong. So, all I see is you whining about things that I don't see as that big a deal. Yeah, some guy is making more isk than a pure inventor, he also has billions tied up in that endeavor meaning he'll be doing it no matter what hoping to get his investment back. The pure inventor can always shift to inventing something else or even another activity entirely.
lateralvelocity	Posted - 2010.12.22 19:19:00 - [30] NOT BROKEN MORONS

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.