I get a strange feeling when I see players (Weasilor, Aryth, ElectronHerd Askulf, etc.) having a better understanding of the economics than the Devs. It's a partly warm feeling, partly sick feeling.

Also, Eve Online's economics still make it the best game. Thank you CCP.

MDD

In 1), this is only true if the market size is absolutely fixed, which seems implausible.

In 2), it doesn't matter any time soon at least because most of those markets are not going to significantly expand any time soon

In 3, yes this is the problem case, but I'm not aware of any markets (except possibly recons and command ships) where this is true.

So yes, it always "matters" for a given value of "matters", but my concern is "when does it matter enough in practice that we actually need to change something", and the answer seems to be "very rarely".

(To be clear, we're still considering not adjusting T2 BPOs and/or adjusting them less, but the above reasoning still largely holds IMO :))

Personally, I think there are a few large, low-volume items (i.e. unpopular ships) where the 6.25% _might_ make a difference (barring the issue with scarcity of items required for copies).

Modules, guns, drones, I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Prices might move a bit, but invention profit margins are good enough to absorb it.

The sky isn't falling, but now I'll never get rid of these goddamn claw prints.

They will have to copy at a NPC station to reduce the risk, which means that the copy speed limits their production.

Could you explain why that is for Goons T2 BPO's.

it turns out there's no high-quality t2 module bpos for sale

Same here.

I was thinking it was too good to be true anyway. Outpost changes were bound to come along and scupper it all.

Fair point. However that still won't make a significant dent in the demand for those ships. Invention still provides the vast majority of the stock on the market, and would continue to do so.

Actually, you not a mere capital producer. You are also "Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division".

And, regardless of what other players say about you personally, and about the Goons, you folks are, without a doubt, the absolute best at financially exploiting any changes that CCP makes to the game, particularly those changes for which CCP has not fully considered all of the possible ramifications or domino effects.

So, quite honestly, any change of which you approve, probably deserves a much closer examination by the CCP devs.... :)

You and the other "cabal" members exploited the FW loophole and earned some massive ISK with the "FW Forex" scandal, you complained for tens of pages about how unfair it was that CCP punished you.

In fact CCP, instead of perma banning the whole Goonswarm top hierarchy involved in the exploit, they decided you were Too Big To Fail (imagine the protest risking CCP to lose 10k players in few days: does not happen) so they only removed the exploited stuff.

You still had it for days and created threadnaughts about that.


Now you dare the hypocrisy to shut off one person who worked within perfectly allowed game mechanics, invested for years and created his own successful operation?

Why is that? Because I owe nothing to anyone except to myself? Because you hate that when you do your market manipulations I hop in them and squeeze out ISK meant for you?

I am not scared by cheaters. I am not scared by CCP either, they setup the game with certain rules and faithfully playing within those rules somebody could get disgustingly rich without any cheat. And so I did.

Now CCP can't just kill the progress, the competitive advantage patiently grown throughout the years with a blink of the eye. Otherwise they may as well change EvE in a "gear reset" theme park, where when people advance to end game they implement some mechanism to make them restart from the base.

I don't laugh when you post, as you are the exception that is worth having respect to (closely followed by Mynna) the most.
If you think different about me, then... too bad.




I recall Mynna being neither happy nor so actively supportive. But hey, I am just an old fart, what can I recall.




Well, glad to know you like to share profits for free!

Well, actually, I will tell you one thing here, in private, where nobody else listens: I wish you actually issued shares and investments. Of course not the kind of "give us 500M and..."

Yet you don't mock them.

Ok, I went through about ten pages and was not going to read it all.

In regards to the over researched BPOs, instead of some sort of abuse able token i would like to see a sheering effect where multiple BPOs are generated. Lets say i had a BC BPO at 100, instead of getting a single "perfect" BPO and some time token things, i would get 10 perfect BPOs. Of course some sort of limiting mechanic based on existing BPO researching multipliers should be used. IMO this would offset my profit per unit, that was lost to someone who spent 10% of my time researching, by increasing my productivity. i will leave the exact math to better educated minds but i think the idea is sound.

I'm updating my big-ass spreadsheet to link T1 and T2 typeIDs so I can run the math on making copy time 80% of build time in all cases and then setting invention time to "(build time / 2) - copy time"; while I'm working on it, does anyone think this is going to make their head explode?

Another thing to think about - if we mess with the invention math so we can kick max run counts up without breaking a bunch of things (including making sure we scale job time correctly against output runs), does the potentially large increase in practical invention throughput risk breaking the market? If you could put in 24 hours' worth of invention in one go, are we going to see a destructive glut of T2 BPC supply?

Or make T2 BPos only copyable in a POS (eg: require an advanced lab for T2 BPO copy jobs)

Someone correct me if i'm wrong about this but


currently T2 BPO's have unlimited runs with an advantage to material cost due to being able to research them with BPC'S having a crappy limited run per invention with a disadvantage to material cost

Reasons why Invention is inconvenient:

1. clickfest
2. clickfest
3. clickfest
4. optimisation. in order to make a lot of money from invention you need to optimize a lot of things. copying, invention and building all run on different timers and quite a lof of thinking is required to reduce downtime on your slots (character wise).

the interface changes you have planned will drastically reduce the amount of clicking necessary to start an invention job. that is very very convenient and will probably increase the amount of people that are willing to actually get involved with invention. it will also potentially change their behaviour, especially the use of meta items (expected price drop because of the refining changes for quite a few of them combined with easy usage) that change by itself will increase supply without increasing demand and therefore decrease prices

most modules run on 30 minute invention timers. change that to 20 hours and you will make a LOT of people VERY happy. But be careful not to increase the amount of BPCs that can be produced with that kind of job by the same factor.

time x40
bpcs x6

that should put invention in a situation where you can expect an active inventor to produce the same amount of T2 BPCs per day. at the same time, all those who don't like restarting jobs every 30 minutes will be able to produce more. that is significant for the market but probably won't cause a massive crash. some people may move from ships to modules which is good for the ships market.

please keep in mind that ~20 hour timers are awesome (start jobs at the end of a play session so that they are ready at the beginning of the next)

tl;dr

increased invention times ? yes please
massively increased supply of T2 BPCs ? nope

I think I love you so what am I so afraid of?