EVE Search - IMP / VC vs BOB

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

IMP / VC vs BOB

» 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 .. 14 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Mochalatte	Posted - 2006.04.28 06:48:00 - [181] SO NOW ANOTHER 2-3 BOB SPEW THE SAME STUFF ABOUT HOW YOUR NUMBERS WORK OUT DIFFERENTLY.ITS CLEAR TO ALL THAT READ YOUR GETTING PWNED IN THIS DEBATE.YET KEEP TRYING MAYBE IF YOU POST ENOUGH QUOTES AND SPAM PEOPLE WILL OVER LOOK BAUNS POSTS.
Nelson Vandermark	Posted - 2006.04.28 06:49:00 - [182] Edited by: Nelson Vandermark on 28/04/2006 06:55:00 LoL, this is awesome. p.s again there is no imp in aridia for the record. -
drunkenmaster	Posted - 2006.04.28 06:51:00 - [183] Originally by: Prydeless Lets just stop the smack. We hate you, you hate us, yaaay its all out in the open. I don't hate you, why do you hate me? .
Prydeless	Posted - 2006.04.28 06:56:00 - [184] Well I dont hate some of you...like all my fans in BOB, you guys are ok. But for the most part, I dont like alot of your alliance...
Scalor Valentis	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:05:00 - [185] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Erm, I was going to type something profound but then a goddamn milipede ran across my keyboard. Fearing that exposure to milipede droppings will give me several strains of the herpes virus, I'll keep it simple. Hypocricy sucks! \o\ \o/ /o/ (anti-herpes dance) Your in same corp as Siddy. Your bound to have herpees >__> [23] Member: BoB Alt Originally by: IcedBach Jr BOB are continuing their "ruin of EVE" campaign.
Boonaki	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:14:00 - [186] Originally by: Mochalatte TRUE SOMETIMES MY CAPS LOCK TURNS ON AND ILL BE DAMNED TO FIND IT A SECOND TIME.THE FACT STILL REMAINS YOUR COMING UP WITH GREAT GAME FACTS AND ECONOMICAL FACTS.YET YOU STILL GET 2-4 POSTING RIGHT AFTER YOU ALL TRYING TO ARUGE YOUR UNARGUABLE FACTS.EITHER BY THEIR MADE FACTS COMPARING WHAT THEY COULD OR DO DO.THEN OFC THE SMACKER RIGHT AT THE END TO TOP OFF THE BOB FORUM BRIGADE.SPAM,SPAM,SPAM,SMACK.I CALL IT PWNED BECAUSE THATS WHAT BOB SAY WHEN ONE OF THEM MAKES A GOOD FACT BASED STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO SOMEONE ELSES STATEMENT. For those that do not wish to read the above I'm to stupid to find the caps lock (in game stupid) Okay I've gone through the post 4 times trying to translate from retardish to english, haven't been able to, someone else want to try? Fear the Ibis of doom!
Boonaki	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:17:00 - [187] Originally by: Nelson Vandermark Edited by: Nelson Vandermark on 28/04/2006 06:55:00 LoL, this is awesome. p.s again there is no imp in aridia for the record. Correction, there are no IMP in Aridia that are a threat to anything bigger then a shuttle, and sometimes not even then. Fear the Ibis of doom!
Kraph Kreyghal	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:26:00 - [188] Baun, you make it sound like having the most isk wins EVE. In that case, sure, your points are valid. Our corps lose isk on selling low priced to members. But we aren't out to make the most money in EVE. We pvp. Low ship cost to members, equals less time spent making money, more out in the field. Sure our corp lose that amount of isk, 160 mill or so. But it's irrelevant, cause our corps have enough money to do whatever we like basicly. We gain a force that spend more time fighting with tech 2 equipment and less time NPCing/mining. Where is the downside from our POV? You can argue the total cost etc, as much as you like, it still doesn't change the fact. Don't you get tired of bringing this up in every thread the hac-loss-thing come up? To me it seems you have more of a personal vandetta to make us look bad, then to "let the public know" whats right from your POV.
Mochalatte	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:34:00 - [189] saying things others say with few different words exchanged dont make you right.when bob posts about fights or ships losses and things like that must of cost alot etc.it means nothing.wrong!!! it applies and is how you judge certain things in eve.losing a raven and a navy raven big difference.any way you look at it takes longer to build hacs so look it as losing more rare ships if needed.all still applies quit trying to glossy coat it.isk is used to measure alot in eve ok.so when there is other more accurate ways of measuring then post this type of none sense.then it will be a bit more believable
TheHerbster	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:41:00 - [190] Originally by: Mochalatte SO NOW ANOTHER 2-3 BOB SPEW THE SAME STUFF ABOUT HOW YOUR NUMBERS WORK OUT DIFFERENTLY.ITS CLEAR TO ALL THAT READ YOUR GETTING PWNED IN THIS DEBATE.YET KEEP TRYING MAYBE IF YOU POST ENOUGH QUOTES AND SPAM PEOPLE WILL OVER LOOK BAUNS POSTS. Mochalatte I can see the letters you typed but all I read is blah blah blah blah whinge whinge. Either your just naturally retarded or just a child... either way no-one can read, or wants to read your un-educated gibberish. Learn to read, write and phase your arguments correctly. Maybe your going blind sat at your computer for some reason which makes you type in CAPS all the time. Do us all a favour, unplug your keyboard child, and go back to playing in your sandpit with the rest of the nursery. Don't worry sir!! They couldn't hit an elephant at this ra.....

Sun Ra	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:46:00 - [191] lol was a 7 page thread really needed here, everyone know imp/vc cant really do anything against bob, then again bob dont need to spam so much on this thread trying to prove this, everyone knows Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas'
DoctorGonzo	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:49:00 - [192] Originally by: Sun Ra lol was a 7 page thread really needed here, everyone know imp/vc cant really do anything against bob, then again bob dont need to spam so much on this thread trying to prove this, everyone knows /me pokes Sun Ra in the eyes Get Your BoB Protection Kit Here
Silvero	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:49:00 - [193] Edited by: Silvero on 28/04/2006 07:53:20 Ok Baun, "Imagine" the following, BoB have 16 zealots bpo's we produce as much as we can and sell it to the open market. the demand meet the supply and the prices are stable at 80 mil. But since the demand are increasing we thinks hmm redirect 8 of those bpo's to internal production, the supply can't meet the demand and the price is skyrocketing to 200 mil per/hac. So now we are producing the same amount of hac's but earn more then twice the amount of isk per hac sold to the open market. And we still have 50% of the produced hac's keept. So in reality we could let alliance members have a zealot and give em 40 mil for fittings and still earn the same amount of isk as we did with all bpo's concentrating on the open market. Sry to say that we don't have 16 zealot bpo's but you can clearly see that if the demand is high enough withdrawing a bpo from the open market to produce for the alliance isn't necessary a bad thing. Im not saying that BoB has forced the prices to the lvl they are today singelhandedly but a few % is because of us, and for each % we have uped the prices when tied a bpo to internal production we gain on the still "free" bpo, hence a hac loss for us is not equal to a hac loss for thoses who dosent have the bpo's. Debate !
Kinsy	Posted - 2006.04.28 07:55:00 - [194] WTF Its simple. HAC = huge laugh, fun to fly ISK = make believe money Eve = game. Noone more than me (5th Zealot in a month) thinks it is seriously homosexual that BoB owns a load of HAC bpos and thereby indirectly push up the market prices to where they are today, thereby making them a pretty stupid ship to fly by anyone who has to buy from market these days, but wouldn't you do the same? Oh and Woody > Wizie.
KamiCrazy	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:01:00 - [195] Originally by: Baun Originally by: Sochin Whatever "opportunity loss" we're suffering by keeping HAC production internal and cheap is greatly outweighed by the efficiency and convienance of being able to quickly provide members with new HACs are extremely low prices. We're not out to be big industrialists, we're out to provide for our war machine. Everything goes into that. This needs to be clarified. The argument is NOT about whether your system of producing internally is good or bad. Its just about the contention that losing a HAC is meaningless to you. The system is very good for your combat effectiveness (presuming HACs suppliment this) but even so, the value of the isk loss when someone kills a BoB HAC is the same as when they kill anyone elses' HAC. The only difference is who is taking the loss. What you are not realising Baun and what I was trying to explain. Is that your zero sum calculations only work on a theoretical level. If I lose a HAC and it cost me 100m. Then I lose a HAC which cost me 100m. If my corp sells it to me for 100m. And they charge no one else a greater price (because they restrict supply to others). Then they have effectively lost nothing. Or what if the corp never knew about market price? what if they thought you could only sell for 5m? Lets take for example. That concord forces everyone to only sell HAC's to caldari's. Demand drops and hence price drops. The realised price, is the market price for the good, given the limited market. The theoretical price is higher, because technically the market could be bigger. It is not bigger however, demand is restricted. What the corp loses out on can't be considered because there was no opportunity cost after they decided not to provide HACs to the open market. Your land value example is not entirely accurate because land value a) rarely drops in volatile price and b) is taxed on perceived value. If I buy shares in a stock and never sell them. I haven't made any capital gains. I still only have X number of shares and nothing else. They could be losing value or turn around and skyrocket to record profits. It doesn't matter until the transaction is realised. So lets take the reverse example here. Lets assume that I buy a HAC from the corp for 1b. Then I go lose it. How much did it cost the corp from me losing the HAC? How much did it cost me? What was the opportunity cost to the corp?
drunkenmaster	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:03:00 - [196] Originally by: Kinsy WTF Its simple. HAC = huge laugh, fun to fly ISK = make believe money Eve = game. Noone more than me (5th Zealot in a month) thinks it is seriously homosexual that BoB owns a load of HAC bpos and thereby indirectly push up the market prices to where they are today, thereby making them a pretty stupid ship to fly by anyone who has to buy from market these days, but wouldn't you do the same? Oh and Woody > Wizie. Homosexual? Do explain. .
Baun	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:07:00 - [197] Edited by: Baun on 28/04/2006 08:07:19 Originally by: Silvero snip Yes, removing your BPO from the market increases prices. I already covered this aspect. The value of each HAC is still the same since the introduction of individual HACs to the market does not change the price. If you shift to market production the price would fall AND the amount of isk lost when a HAC is destroyed would fall. P.S Couldnt sleep. Damn Starbucks. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:12:00 - [198] Originally by: Kraph Kreyghal Baun, you make it sound like having the most isk wins EVE. In that case, sure, your points are valid. Our corps lose isk on selling low priced to members. But we aren't out to make the most money in EVE. We pvp. Low ship cost to members, equals less time spent making money, more out in the field. Sure our corp lose that amount of isk, 160 mill or so. But it's irrelevant, cause our corps have enough money to do whatever we like basicly. I'm not acting as if anything of the sort is the case. I am simply refuting the idea that many people in your alliance are presenting; that losing when they lose a HAC they only lose the production cost of it because you own the BPO. Quote: We gain a force that spend more time fighting with tech 2 equipment and less time NPCing/mining. Where is the downside from our POV? You can argue the total cost etc, as much as you like, it still doesn't change the fact. It still doesnt change what? The downside is that you are not making money off of the BPO. The upside is that your players get cheaper ships and increased willingness to lose them and higher theoretical combat efficiency. None of this changes the market value of the ships and the oppurtunity cost of not selling them on the market. Quote: Don't you get tired of bringing this up in every thread the hac-loss-thing come up? To me it seems you have more of a personal vandetta to make us look bad. What does this have to do with you? I don't care if we are talking about Joe Schmo from Acme Corp who keeps telling people losing ships doesnt matter to him. Am I insulting you guys by pointing out that you are wrong? If anything I am trying to prevent you from making yourselves look bad by positng dilusions on the value of the losses you sustain. The Enemy's Gate is Down
DoctorGonzo	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:21:00 - [199] The only lost isk when a BoB HAC is destroyed is the production cost. This is because we've made the decision not sell on the market prior to the ship being destroyed. It's that simple - destroying a BoB HAC does not equate to a Market value loss. We had a plan to aquire as many T2 ship bpo's as we could get our hands on, so that our members didn't have to pay market value for the best kit. So as Blacklight pointed out, every HAC used by a BoB pilot is money saved not money lost. Whether you agree with it or not Baun, this is how we see the situation and we're perfectly happy with it. You can post your view as much as you like, you will not change our opinion. Get Your BoB Protection Kit Here
Fetor	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:22:00 - [200] Originally by: Kinsy WTF Its simple. HAC = huge laugh, fun to fly ISK = make believe money Eve = game. Noone more than me (5th Zealot in a month) thinks it is seriously homosexual that BoB owns a load of HAC bpos and thereby indirectly push up the market prices to where they are today, thereby making them a pretty stupid ship to fly by anyone who has to buy from market these days, but wouldn't you do the same? Oh and Woody > Wizie. Eve = game - I agree then you use the word 'homosexual' as a bad referance to somthing. You need to be banned now you small minded idiot.

Baun	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:23:00 - [201] Originally by: KamiCrazy What you are not realising Baun and what I was trying to explain. Is that your zero sum calculations only work on a theoretical level. If I lose a HAC and it cost me 100m. Then I lose a HAC which cost me 100m. If my corp sells it to me for 100m. And they charge no one else a greater price (because they restrict supply to others). Then they have effectively lost nothing. This is getting a bit silly. If they sell you something at 100m which they could sell for 200m THEY LOSE 100M. The only difference here is that when you lose your HAC you are talking only 50% of the loss. The other 50% was absorbed the moment it was sold to you for 100m. Quote: Or what if the corp never knew about market price? what if they thought you could only sell for 5m? It doesn't matter if people "know" what the market price is. There is a market for HACs. Supply and demand sets the price and therefore the market value. If you lose a HAC you lose the market value of that HAC. Its really that simple. Quote: Lets take for example. That concord forces everyone to only sell HAC's to caldari's. Demand drops and hence price drops. The realised price, is the market price for the good, given the limited market. The theoretical price is higher, because technically the market could be bigger. It is not bigger however, demand is restricted. This is entirely irrelevant, not to mention needlessly convoluted. Quote: What the corp loses out on can't be considered because there was no opportunity cost after they decided not to provide HACs to the open market. Yes thats right. The oppurtunity cost IS not providing HACs on the open market assuming the HACs they sell are sold for less than the market price. Quote: Your land value example is not entirely accurate because land value a) rarely drops in volatile price and b) is taxed on perceived value. Its not completely analgous because each piece of land isn't exactly the same, while each HAC is. Therefore HACs have a much more well defined market price than any piece of land would. I only used the example because it was an easy to understand way in which market value of something increases even when you have no intention of entering the item onto the market. Quote: If I buy shares in a stock and never sell them. I haven't made any capital gains. I still only have X number of shares and nothing else. They could be losing value or turn around and skyrocket to record profits. It doesn't matter until the transaction is realised. Terrible analogy. The real analogy here is if you had 100 shares of stock in a company which you bought for $100 total. The market value of the stock, however, is really $200 total. Instead of selling the stock on the market you sell it to your friend for $100. You have forfeited the profit you could have made. Quote: So lets take the reverse example here. Lets assume that I buy a HAC from the corp for 1b. Then I go lose it. How much did it cost the corp from me losing the HAC? It costs the corp nothing.You might as well be a member of any other corp who bought it on the open market. Quote: How much did it cost me? It cost you whatever the market value of the ship and fitting is minus the insurance you get. Lets not complicate things by assuming you are paying over market value. Quote: What was the opportunity cost to the corp? Nothing assuming they sold it to you at market value. If they sold their product at the highest price the market can bear (which is also the optimal price assuming a perfectively competitive market, which this is not) then they sacrificed nothing in selling the ship to you. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:26:00 - [202] Originally by: DoctorGonzo The only lost isk when a BoB HAC is destroyed is the production cost. This is because we've made the decision not sell on the market prior to the ship being destroyed. It's that simple - destroying a BoB HAC does not equate to a Market value loss. What are you not understand here? The oppurtunity cost is precisely the decision not to sell on the market. Quote: We had a plan to aquire as many T2 ship bpo's as we could get our hands on, so that our members didn't have to pay market value for the best kit. So as Blacklight pointed out, every HAC used by a BoB pilot is money saved not money lost. Money saved by the PILOT, money lost by the CORP. Quote: Whether you agree with it or not Baun, this is how we see the situation and we're perfectly happy with it. You can post your view as much as you like, you will not change our opinion. There is no "opinion". When you sell something a below market value you are losing the isk you could have made selling it at market value (this case is somewhat more complicated because each BPO does not qualify for the small firm approximation, but this is an ancillary consideration). You can hold this "opinion" if you want but its factually incorrect. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Kinsy	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:29:00 - [203] Originally by: Fetor You need to be banned now you small minded idiot. Go away alt. Edit just for you. Noone got a sense of humour this morning?
Kraph Kreyghal	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:30:00 - [204] Originally by: Baun Am I insulting you guys by pointing out that you are wrong? If anything I am trying to prevent you from making yourselves look bad by positng dilusions on the value of the losses you sustain. Excuse me, but what makes us more wrong then you on the subject? We don't care about the isk. We are not an industrial alliance. Making money isn't what does it for us. You say we gain a higher theoretical combat efficiency. So all this stuff about tech 2 being better than tech 1, that is a theory? Man, all those ppl paying 200 mill for a theoreticly better ship, when a prooven good, tech 1 ship, costs only 4-7 mill. They must feel really stupid. You seem to refuse the fact that BoB is not here to make isk. Why is this so hard to understand? We don't care about the lost profit. For us, our point is very valid. A HAC loss doesn't really matter that much. Just another ship to 40 mill.
Baun	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:36:00 - [205] Originally by: Kraph Kreyghal Originally by: Baun Am I insulting you guys by pointing out that you are wrong? If anything I am trying to prevent you from making yourselves look bad by positng dilusions on the value of the losses you sustain. Excuse me, but what makes us more wrong then you on the subject? We don't care about the isk. We are not an industrial alliance. Making money isn't what does it for us. What makes you wrong is that you are asserting something to be true which is in fact false. That incidentally has been the entire point of this back and forth, which you probably need to re read. If you don't care about losing the isk thats fine. I'm not interested in whether you care about it or not, I am interested in the fact that you assert that you are not losing it when you, in fact, are. Quote: You say we gain a higher theoretical combat efficiency. So all this stuff about tech 2 being better than tech 1, that is a theory? Man, all those ppl paying 200 mill for a theoreticly better ship, when a prooven good, tech 1 ship, costs only 4-7 mill. They must feel really stupid. Alot of people would argue that one is usually better off in a BS than a HAC. This is really a secondary discussion though and I only talked about the theory of it as an aside. Quote: You seem to refuse the fact that BoB is not here to make isk. Why is this so hard to understand? And you seem to refuse to read what I am saying or understand what this argument is about. Your people are saying that losing a HAC is less significant than losing a BS. This is false. Quote: We don't care about the lost profit. For us, our point is very valid. A HAC loss doesn't really matter that much. Well you seem to be conceding the point here. You ARE losing the profit. So ... don't misrepresent things by saying otherwise. Quote: Just another ship to 40 mill. Well apparently you are not conceding the point. Its only another 40mil to the pilot. Its actually another ~160mil to the corporation. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Silvero	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:36:00 - [206] Originally by: Baun Edited by: Baun on 28/04/2006 08:07:19 Yes, removing your BPO from the market increases prices. I already covered this aspect. The value of each HAC is still the same since the introduction of individual HACs to the market does not change the price. If you shift to market production the price would fall AND the amount of isk lost when a HAC is destroyed would fall. P.S Couldnt sleep. Damn Starbucks. But that market price increase aren't affecting us since we are the ones inflicting it. 1) We produce 100 hac's a month and the demand puts the market price to 150 mil/hac Total sellvalue 15 bil 2) We retract 50 of those hac's from the market and the demand sets the market price to 200 mil/hac Total sellvalue 10 bil But now we have a restproduct of 50 hac's internaly, that's only is worth 5 bil or 100 mil/hac. 3) Our hac's are therof worth 100 mil while your's is worth 200 mil. No i don't think our production has this huge impact on the market but for every % we increase the market price we can count of our own hac's.
Baun	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:43:00 - [207] Edited by: Baun on 28/04/2006 08:46:58 Originally by: Silvero The supply / demand isn't linear. Over time? No its not linear. If you take a snapshot of the market I think it would almost certainly be linear. I do not, however, see how this is relevant. You can still judge elasticity without appealing to simple curves. P.S gonna give sleep another shot. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Top Hat	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:49:00 - [208] Originally by: Sun Ra lol was a 7 page thread really needed here, everyone know imp/vc cant really do anything against bob, then again bob dont need to spam so much on this thread trying to prove this, everyone knows Stfu, ISSN nub! Baun - Give it a rest with the oppurtunity loss argument, sure we could be making a mint from the bpo's but we like to keep our members stocked up with the latest technology, to kick your rear end with. Thank you.
Avon	Posted - 2006.04.28 08:55:00 - [209] Baun, you would do better if you refined your terminology. Not making 100mil ISK profit is not the same as losing 100mil ISK. Don't confuse the two. The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
Fetor	Posted - 2006.04.28 09:10:00 - [210] Edited by: Fetor on 28/04/2006 09:11:15 Originally by: Kinsy Originally by: Fetor You need to be banned now you small minded idiot. Go away alt. Edit just for you. Noone got a sense of humour this morning? Yes i have a very good sense of humour, its just when people are offensive about things like that (which i am) then i do get offended. Call me what you want it doesnt bother me, but make out that being homosexual is bad and i will get very very annoyed. I dont tell straight people that being straight is bad, i dont expect them to try to imply being homosexual is wrong either.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: 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.