[quote=Aliventi]
Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention.

Again, for any item where invention is currently worth-while, BPOs are insignificant and don't control anything. New players getting into T2 manufacturing will have it just as easy to make a profit as people who are currently doing it GÇö viz. very easy. They will also be helped by the improved mechanics and (hopefully) an improved UI to make their lives even easier.

So you want it to be a press button recieve bacon situation?

That no matter how over-produced a specific T2 item is, it should always be profitable to produce for the new player and even more profitable to produce for the experienced player?

How is that ever going to work in a free market sandbox?

Doesn't that go totally against everything EVE is about?

What you need is for CCP to keep up with the continuous rebalancing effort, so that more and more T2 products become usefull and all T2 prices are set by the inventors.

GǪwhich won't be able to produce any faster than the BPO already could.

That Invuln II blueprint will go from taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and, what, 500 hours(?) to make a 100-run copy to taking 213 hours to produce a batch of 100 and taking 200 hours to make a 100-run copy GÇö not enough to dominate any markets, but enough to make it worth-while to use the copies in a production POS.

Sure, you could make 10 10-run copies instead and run those 10 copies in parallel. It'll still take 200 hours to do so and while the end product comes out quicker during the production step, you are then idling while the next batch of copies is being researched. The number of runs you can squeeze out of the BPO per time period won't really change.

GǪthe cap will be pretty much exactly the same.

Well that clearly isn't true. At least think about what you post.

What about the truely massive opportunity cost of having a T2 BPO rather than it's value in isk?

Eh, no. The opportunity cost doesn't go away GÇö they still have the opportunity to just turn that BPO into liquid cash. Moreover, many current BPO holders were not around for (or did not win) the lottery and had to buy them later.

In many cases, because people are bad at maths and don't understand opportunity costs. You don't have to look around much to find BPOs for sale, nor do you have to do much maths to notice that it'll take you half a decade or more to earn them backGǪ and yet people buy them.

Exactly this. I just mentioned this a page back and it went unanswered and unnoticed.

This is one of the biggest change as it will have a dramatic affect on the material cost of many invention items. The only reason I can think people wouldn't be discussing this is because the ones who have noticed are busy buying up the T2 items which are going to be massively affected by this.

ME -4 which is the standard T2 BPC you get from an invention job will be unviable in the new system for many T2 items as it will double the extra material requirement.

In the end it would balance out if supply from T2 BPOs remains constant. Although it means that T2 items in general will increase in price. And T2 BPO holders will be able to make more profit by manufacturing from them.

This could entice more T2 BPO holders to start using them for manufacturing though instead of just as an investment.

...and if all of this is true it will be extremely good for the game.

The tradeoff for the advantages that CCP is trying to give nullsec is risk. Risk, risk, risk.

If people do more stuff in lowsec or nullsec because it is advantageous, they are forced to take a risk. Pos can be shot, ships moving items can be shot*, stations can be shot and captured, people's space that they have upgraded can be shot at and destroyed or captured, transport and travel within nullsec and between points in nullsec can be harassed, detained, or otherwise interfered with (also through shooting) and so on. It is correspondingly much harder to do most of these things in highsec -- shooting pos requires wardecs and long hours, shooting ships requires the same (or expensive suicide ganking which was nerfed in the past year), and stations are much more difficult to interfere with.

I think you'll find that members of your purported "nullsec cartel" in general favor a gameplay style that rewards risk-taking and support any idea which increases both the risks and the rewards of nullsec. (Hell, one of Goonswarm's own CSM candidates favors destructible stations -- hardly a fantastic idea for an alliance with a hundred trillion ISK of assets locked up in VFK-IV.)

The reason that these players support risk is that risk creates content. If you take a risk, it means that someone else can come shoot at you and that is the draw for these players. CCP's goal isn't to create a progression from highsec to nullsec necessarily -- it is to motivate players willing to take risks to do so and thereby create more content as people fight over nullsec's resources.

* Jump freighters, and more generally any capital which can dock at a station, are currently quite difficult to interfere with. They are key to life in nullsec right now but if all of these changes go through as planned and lead to nullsec having a more sustainable economic model then changing them should be on the table for the same reasons.

I agree with.... both of you.

The current standing mechanic was a bit crappy. For a larger corp it's pretty hard to get the right standings and for Industry char's who maybe did one mission and messed up corps standings it was a nightmare. Still, I believe they were an important factor in owning a POS and provided an interesting dynamic. For example, your POS being attacked during a war was a big deal if you didn't have the standings to simply take it down and put it up again. It required you to work towards that goal and plan carefully. It used to be an intelligent strategic decision.

I think it should have been reworked to something more sensible... something that encourages INTERACTION and GROUP activity. Maybe allow faction standings to be shared more easily, maybe add tags like with sec status, maybe lower the requirement or allow more ways to raise faction standings that the corp could do as a group. Maybe all of the above but complete removal of those requirements is absurd.

The sand is being drained away from the sandbox. That's all I'm saying. Eve is slowly starting to look like a theme park with no barriers of entry, no cooperation or interaction required to achieve serious results or goals.

Thank you for an interesting point, however I think it doesn't negate my argument.

If miner corp wants to be efficient they would need to do something about it. They would need to either ask their friends with a POS for refining/compression - or buy a a corp with standings from players - or find a corp with a tower near them and offer them a deal for those services. If an individual miner wants to be efficient he'll have to find a good corp to join or work really hard and try to get it all himself. They would need to setup networks and find contacts in different locations to move the compressed ore about HS. If they refused to work together in such manner they can always just sell their ore on the Market and other entrepreneurs will gladly buy, compress and re-sell it.

All those possibilities for interaction, enterprises and group activities have been slimmed down to those who are ignorant of the mechanics or don't have time to run a POS themselves. And those type of people usually just sell to the market and don't add any meaningful interaction to the game.

As far as nullsec bears are concerned, their HS miners would need to either follow the same logic, or they can buy it on the market or they can always mine it locally or find corporations in HS and make deals with them instead of ganking them. The flavors of interaction were much more varied.

With standing requirement gone, anyone who just created a 1 man corp can setup a POS and run his own show without ever interacting with anyone, and that's what I don't like about it. POS used to be a goal you strive for, now they turned it into an expensive mobile structure. Things in the game have value because they're hard to attain. The concept of owning a POS just got devalued from a corp wide effort to a cost of a battleship for a single pilot.

Lastly about the code.... really? With everything wrong with the POS, I'm sure standings are their least concern. Unless they're planning to re-do it by thinning it down to a stick in space first.

lol... this is always the same defence made by T2 BPO owners... over and over again. But, only a small handful of the T2 BPOs which were seeded by the lottery have ever been made publicly available for trade over the years; most of them remain a perk of the original owners and/or their friends.

And, if the T2 BPO's "aren't all that what people make them out to be", then why always the objection to removing them from the game?

Accept that you have already received full value for the use of T2 BPOs over the years, and accept that certain old features should be removed, when long past their time of productively contributing to the game. And, please stop your whining. You should be grateful that you have been able to milk this feature for so many years.

Far less of it happens than used to happen. CCP decided to give the ganker free kills when we lost hidden grav sites (Because god forbid the ganker have to employ :effort: to find targets). Then, when they still couldn't kill off nullsec mining they gave them instant align, fast warping, interdiction nullified, tacklers.

...I guess it might be too much to ask for disenfranchised, antisocial highsec dwellers to actually have to engage with the community.

Are you going to dispute that moon mining, gas harvesting, drug manufacturing, ore mining (when it happens), exploration, ratting, plexing, salvaging and npc missions are massively and overwhelmingly more profitable in nullsec?

Are you also going to dispute that in order to be "massively and overwhelmingly profitable" in S&I that I have to put orders of magnitude more isk on the table than any of those activities in nullsec?

I await your meager defense with baited breath.

-snip to save space-

Stop eliminating player choice, Mmmkay? It's bad.

carrots don't force you to do anything, besides whine on forums, and ccp clearly doesn't need to smack you with anything

the worst part is the next blog is the UI one which is likely to have the least info about balance changes and more be bizwoops and whizgigs that do not affect the bottom line :argh:

As you mention it... since CONCORD is not able to provide direct chat access in W-space, how is the SCC or any other NPC corp (assuming that the fees for jobs are paid to these NPC entities) supposed to collect the fees from W-space POS? Of course, it's just a game and logic only goes so far; but how could the SCC reach W-space to collect fees when it's mighty mother company CONCORD cannot access W-space?

@CCP: What's going to be the new m3 of the compressed ore blocks?

Another aspect keep in mind is that currently slots have a hard limit once they are full they are full you have to wait. This limits the amount of production at any given time. Now by removing that hard limit and essentially giving stations and infinite number of slots but with a sliding cost scale that is It removes a hard constraint on production. Given that supply currently can be severely limited due to the limitations on slots it stands to reason that prices currently may be higher than they would be with an infinite slot model using a sliding scale cost adder.

To see the effect I am talking about draw a downward sloping demand curve then draw an upward sloping supply curve that at a certain point goes vertical. Now move the demand curve so that is intersecting on the vertical part of the supply curve any further increases in supply will result simply an higher prices no additional production. In this case adding infinite slots even with an increasing cost factor could very well result in lower prices than the current situation.

Of course this assumes that the number of slots are all being fully and totally utilized everywhere and also to the extent that this is not true then this scenario is not a factor. However, in that case it also means that having a sliding cost scale to an infinite slot model will have little impact on final prices.