Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3950
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:06:00 -
[61] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:You don't need to remove T2 BPO's, and I have yet to hear a decent reasons why they should be removed.
I've yet to hear a decent reason why they shouldn't be.
Again:
Quote: GÖª They are unique assets people strive to ascertain. Similar to AT Tourney ships, and special edition rare ships. They are excellent collector and investment items.
GÖª They provide low-volume products at cheaper prices.
GÖª They create an uneven topography within the market system, which opens up interesting supply demand situations.
GÖª They have value to those who own them, which they worked hard to ascertain
Your rebuttals: There impact is minimal: In some cases they have minimal impact, in other cases they have l larger impacts. In either case, they are still an interesting aspect to the game.
Quote:A unique asset isn't a gameplay reason. Besides, they could keep the item but remove their functionality. This way they remain collectors items but are removed from the live mechanics.
AT ships and special edition ships often have unique abilities that make them very potent and desirable, and that is often very reasonable. Furthermore, do you understand what game play is in this game? This is a sandbox, and T2 BPO's create a shitload of content. People attempt to steal them, destroy them, buy them, corner markets with them, use them as investment devices, and more. The content surround them is very much a GAME PLAY reason for keeping them.
Quote:So what if they have value? Everything that's ever been nerfed had value that people have put in hard work to ascertain. What makes T2 BPOs so special that they should be ringfenced from changes that remove their value?
We're not talking about changes to their value, which is market determined and cost-bubbled to some stupid level. The proposal you and others are suggesting is ELIMINATING their value and eliminating their utility. Just like proposals to Eliminate SOV or Eliminate Titans; such a move is very stupid because of its extreme. When people spend thousands of man hours and years of game play to achieve a major objective, removing it from the game causes major resentment and ire. If they are out of balance, you retool them, repurpose them, and alter their place in the game in such a manner that you don't completely alienate your long-term playerbase. And guess what, T2 BPO's are NOT a problem, and you have yet to adequately explain how they are.
As such, given the culmination of effort and value they represent, with a change as dramatic as eliminating them, the onus for explaining why CCP should undergo such an extreme course of action is on you.
Can you explicitly state why they should be removed? |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3439
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:15:00 -
[62] - Quote
Sigh, I've already stated time and time again and each and every time you guys pull out a single sentence, say "NOPE" then tell me how jealous I must be. I get it though, they must stay because T2 BPO holders are entitled little snowflakes that must be looked after (yet those same people are usually quick to say HTFU when other people get everything they work for nuked into the ground, funny that). Well tough luck buddy, the winds of change are blowing and T2 BPOs will be blown away. They are deprecated and surplus to requirements, so there no reason for CCP to keep them no matter how much you kick up a fuss.
Now I'm done back and forthing with you. We're getting nowhere with this, so I'm just gonna be the bigger man and walk away. Go buy up all the T2 BPOs you can if you're so sure about their safety. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
650
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:17:00 -
[63] - Quote
Quote:Sigh, I've already stated time and time again and each and every time you guys pull out a single sentend
I pretty meticulously ripped your concerns apart, demonstrating that the technical aspects that you've made such a big deal over are essentially nonexistent, with the only "edge case" pertaining to the copy system, and not invention. You offered absolutely no counterargument.
I then asked you to even so much as provide an EXAMPLE of the type of change that would actually carry any of the technical concerns you feel are so important, and you couldn't do that.
You keep blathering on about how hard BPOs make it to update invention, but you haven't been able to actually support that argument. Apparently you've mistaken repetition for reasoning, hoping that if you repeat the same false argument enough times, it will magically become true.
Quote:Go buy up all the T2 BPOs you can if you're so sure about their safety.
Pretty sure nobody said that, either. Are you even capable of posting without lying about what anyone else said? |
Cave Ciliatum
Super Heroes In Training
20
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 20:37:00 -
[64] - Quote
Troll defeated? |
Faceless Enemy
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 22:40:00 -
[65] - Quote
Was hoping someone from CCP would chime in.
They know it's a problem, as they even stated they would be removed.
Why wait?
We are in the middle of an industry expansion.
There is a stated need to lure in new players and get players excited about industry - what better way than making sure their invention efforts truly matter? |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
371
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:00:00 -
[66] - Quote
I can and have owned T2 BPOs so don't try to pull any of that 'jelly' **** on me.
I agree the things need to go. I find it hilarious how the T2 BPO owners are acting like whiny, entitled, spoiled brats and can't give any reason for keeping their prints other than 'wah wah I paid 10 years profits on this thing expecting it to be an isk printing machine'. Some of these dudes are the same people who told me to HTFU when more Scorpion Ishukone Watch editions were released - well, I got out of that bubble, and maybe you guys should get out of the T2 BPO bubble before it's too late. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3950
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 23:58:00 -
[67] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:I can and have owned T2 BPOs so don't try to pull any of that 'jelly' **** on me.
I agree the things need to go. I find it hilarious how the T2 BPO owners are acting like whiny, entitled, spoiled brats and can't give any reason for keeping their prints other than 'wah wah I paid 10 years profits on this thing expecting it to be an isk printing machine'. Some of these dudes are the same people who told me to HTFU when more Scorpion Ishukone Watch editions were released - well, I got out of that bubble, and maybe you guys should get out of the T2 BPO bubble before it's too late.
Several reasons for keeping t2 BPO's in the game have been presented. Furthermore, since they are ALREADY in the game, the onus is on the opposition to explain why they should be removed. So far, a logical argument beyond QQ, they are producing and selling a few select low-volume t2 items below invention production costs, hasn't been presented. And why does anyone care if they produce those few select items more cheaply?
|
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
501
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 01:15:00 -
[68] - Quote
Ah, this thread again. I love the idiots, who can't do math, complaining about how T2 BPOs are ruining the game and should be removed. I also love the T2 BPO holders holding on to the idea that the only way their BPO can/should go is up. Tulip mania, and the Greater fool theory, should get you folks straightened out.
(P.S. I don't own a T2 BPO and if I was offered one I'd refuse even if it was free. I dont want to be the bagholder.) "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
371
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 01:42:00 -
[69] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote:Ah, this thread again. I love the idiots, who can't do math, complaining about how T2 BPOs are ruining the game and should be removed. I also love the T2 BPO holders holding on to the idea that the only way their BPO can/should go is up. Tulip mania, and the Greater fool theory, should get you folks straightened out. (P.S. I don't own a T2 BPO and if I was offered one I'd refuse even if it was free. I dont want to be the bagholder.) Gave you a +1 for referring to the Greater Fool theory and T2 tulips... I mean BPOs |
Utremi Fasolasi
La Dolce Vita
392
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 03:11:00 -
[70] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
There are plenty of gameplay reasons to keep them: GÖª They are unique assets people strive to ascertain.
I think you might want to look up the word "ascertain".
Pretty sure the word you are looking for is either "obtain" or "attain".
At any rate T2 BPOs can still retain their value as rare collector's items in a deactivated or decommissioned state. |
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
470
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 16:02:00 -
[71] - Quote
Faceless Enemy wrote:PETITION: remove T2 BPOs from the game entirely.
1. They fundamentally undermine an entire existing mechanic.
2. They heavily distort the market results of said mechanic.
3. Per Fanfest, they are already slated to go at some point.
4. This is supposed to be an industrial overhaul; let's overhaul.
5. People defending them either own them or are part of organizations which own them. My, you must have spent some time on that post. I'll try to match that effort with my response.
1) So did invention.
2) So did invention.
3) No, because at no point was any statement made that they would go. Rebalancing them, rather than removing them, is still a possibility and one that any reasonable person should prefer.
4) Yes, I agree.
5) I don't feel they are defensible, they need to be changed. I am a T2 BPO owner that is part of an organization that owns a motherload of them though, so take from that what you will. |
Faceless Enemy
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 16:11:00 -
[72] - Quote
Mines were an awful mechanic.
They are still collector's items in game.
I am happy with T2 BPOs performing a similar cosmetic function. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
470
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 16:32:00 -
[73] - Quote
My view would be to make T2 production a POS only activity.
You can keep T2 BPOs as a collectors item in station if you want, at no risk, but they don't get to make anything (not even copies). But if you want to risk their destruction or theft you can manufacture with them at a POS, or copy them at a POS.
I'd make the same apply to invention, because making money from the safety of the station is what T1 is for. You inventors should all be out at the POS anyway, it's where all the cool kids hang out.
Then I'd make all destroyed T2 BPOs re-issue through invention, to inventors, who will benefit from the reduction in clickfest that they offer. This should happen automatically on an ongoing basis.
This would also remove any issues with 0.0 outposts interacting with T2 BPOs.
With that and the changes CCP have already announced, I'd be happy both as a person who values good gameplay, conflict drivers and a healthy economy and as a T2 BPO owner.
|
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3448
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 17:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:My view would be to make T2 production a POS only activity.
You can keep T2 BPOs as a collectors item in station if you want, at no risk, but they don't get to make anything (not even copies). But if you want to risk their destruction or theft you can manufacture with them at a POS, or copy them at a POS.
I'd make the same apply to invention, because making money from the safety of the station is what T1 is for. You inventors should all be out at the POS anyway, it's where all the cool kids hang out.
Then I'd make all destroyed T2 BPOs re-issue through invention, to inventors, who will benefit from the reduction in clickfest that they offer. This should happen automatically on an ongoing basis.
This would also remove any issues with 0.0 outposts interacting with T2 BPOs.
With that and the changes CCP have already announced, I'd be happy both as a person who values good gameplay, conflict drivers and a healthy economy and as a T2 BPO owner. I'd say that alongside the invention ME changes due, this would be pretty agreeable. I'd assume T3 manufacture would fall into the same restriction. While it might be difficult to destroy a BPO before the owner evacs it, it would give a way for people to disrupt the manufacturing process through wardecs.
Aside from the obvious result of creating possibilities for combat and content generation, I'd imagine it would do a lot to promote the use of a POS in high sec, which will complement the opening of moons, since the removal of station slots and the charging of the use for a POS line at the same rate as stations in the system makes a POS in highsec less appealing. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
471
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 17:21:00 -
[75] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:My view would be to make T2 production a POS only activity.
You can keep T2 BPOs as a collectors item in station if you want, at no risk, but they don't get to make anything (not even copies). But if you want to risk their destruction or theft you can manufacture with them at a POS, or copy them at a POS.
I'd make the same apply to invention, because making money from the safety of the station is what T1 is for. You inventors should all be out at the POS anyway, it's where all the cool kids hang out.
Then I'd make all destroyed T2 BPOs re-issue through invention, to inventors, who will benefit from the reduction in clickfest that they offer. This should happen automatically on an ongoing basis.
This would also remove any issues with 0.0 outposts interacting with T2 BPOs.
With that and the changes CCP have already announced, I'd be happy both as a person who values good gameplay, conflict drivers and a healthy economy and as a T2 BPO owner. I'd say that alongside the invention ME changes due, this would be pretty agreeable. I'd assume T3 manufacture would fall into the same restriction. While it might be difficult to destroy a BPO before the owner evacs it, it would give a way for people to disrupt the manufacturing process through wardecs. Aside from the obvious result of creating possibilities for combat and content generation, I'd imagine it would do a lot to promote the use of a POS in high sec, which will complement the opening of moons, since the removal of station slots and the charging of the use for a POS line at the same rate as stations in the system makes a POS in highsec less appealing. Yeah, it's an idea I feel has many benefits. The limited number of moons around the population hotspots would force an extra incentive to spread out too.
My only real question is, how many inventors are currently station bound and are there any compelling reasons for them to remain so. If it comes down to bad POS functionality and corp roles, then it'll come when those get fixed and they're already on the fairly near term agenda.
Obviously many of the more risk adverse T2 BPO owners will be whincing at this idea. But supercapital builders have to put their dicks into a vice every time they press build. You can handle a little risk. |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
330
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 17:33:00 -
[76] - Quote
An alternative idea for T2 BPOs that has been rattling around in my head is "damage". I know that CCP is removing damage for tools (R.A.M. things), but the same mechanic still applies to T2 crystals. Why not apply it to T2 BPOs? Each run or copy does some small amount of damage to the blueprint.
MDD |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
472
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 17:44:00 -
[77] - Quote
MailDeadDrop wrote:An alternative idea for T2 BPOs that has been rattling around in my head is "damage". I know that CCP is removing damage for tools (R.A.M. things), but the same mechanic still applies to T2 crystals. Why not apply it to T2 BPOs? Each run or copy does some small amount of damage to the blueprint.
Edit: the damage concept might be interesting as a replacement for "runs" on copies. CCP could then add POS modules/skills/whatever that affect the damage rate, which would allow the blueprint durability (now called "runs") to be manipulated up or down.
MDD I don't know, that seems to me to be just like runs on copies but a little more difficult to comprehend. |
Gamer4liff
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
94
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 18:29:00 -
[78] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:My view would be to make T2 production a POS only activity.
You can keep T2 BPOs as a collectors item in station if you want, at no risk, but they don't get to make anything (not even copies). But if you want to risk their destruction or theft you can manufacture with them at a POS, or copy them at a POS.
I'd make the same apply to invention, because making money from the safety of the station is what T1 is for. You inventors should all be out at the POS anyway, it's where all the cool kids hang out.
Then I'd make all destroyed T2 BPOs re-issue through invention, to inventors, who will benefit from the reduction in clickfest that they offer. This should happen automatically on an ongoing basis.
This would also remove any issues with 0.0 outposts interacting with T2 BPOs.
With that and the changes CCP have already announced, I'd be happy both as a person who values good gameplay, conflict drivers and a healthy economy and as a T2 BPO owner.
This is a pretty solid idea, A+. Would make competition a lot more visceral if you could find your competitor's factories and shut them down forcefully. A comprehensive proposal for balancing T2 Production: here |
Otti Ottig
Sushi Social Society
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 19:48:00 -
[79] - Quote
Oh Lucas did you really just do that? still so mad at the riches? (Oh no I know, you are never mad and actually couldnt care less about T2 BPO's but 3 hours typing about it a day ain't nothing) |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3448
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 20:14:00 -
[80] - Quote
lol, how about you go ahead and join in the conversation or just **** off? Seriously, is following me around whining at me the best use for your time? Really? The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. |
|
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
376
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 21:06:00 -
[81] - Quote
Bad Bobby wrote:My view would be to make T2 production a POS only activity.
You can keep T2 BPOs as a collectors item in station if you want, at no risk, but they don't get to make anything (not even copies). But if you want to risk their destruction or theft you can manufacture with them at a POS, or copy them at a POS.
I'd make the same apply to invention, because making money from the safety of the station is what T1 is for. You inventors should all be out at the POS anyway, it's where all the cool kids hang out.
Then I'd make all destroyed T2 BPOs re-issue through invention, to inventors, who will benefit from the reduction in clickfest that they offer. This should happen automatically on an ongoing basis.
This would also remove any issues with 0.0 outposts interacting with T2 BPOs.
With that and the changes CCP have already announced, I'd be happy both as a person who values good gameplay, conflict drivers and a healthy economy and as a T2 BPO owner.
I like this idea |
Big Lynx
Do you even Exist. Darwins Lemmings
429
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 21:17:00 -
[82] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:lol, how about you go ahead and join in the conversation or just **** off? Seriously, is following me around whining at me the best use for your time? Really?
Massive butthurt detected.
CCP PLZ LOCK THIS FRED |
Mos7Wan7ed
Hardcore Industries
34
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 21:25:00 -
[83] - Quote
Are they NEEDED? No! T2 BPOs are relics that hold back game mechanics iteration.
They potentially place artificial caps and limits on the value of the entire invention process from the invention material to the market value.
No invention materials are used in the creation of items built with T2 BPOs. Because of this, T2 BPOs place a cap on invention materials. If BPOs were no longer used then more items would be produced using invention materials. The market for invention materials would become more valuable. It would also be able to drive T2 market profit and prices.
Make the BPOs collectible items and they will still have value just like the dozens of trillion ISK collector ships in the game.
If you think it is a bad idea to remove them it is because you either don't understand the game or you benefit from their existence.
|
Gamer4liff
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
94
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 21:31:00 -
[84] - Quote
Mos7Wan7ed wrote:
Make the BPOs collectible items and they will still have value just like the dozens of trillion ISK collector ships in the game.
There are a lot of stupid people in this game, but I don't think there are enough stupid people to make defunct small proton smartbomb 2 bpos "collector's" items on any meaningful level.
Anyway a ME adjustment at minimum is what we can probably expect from CCP in the near-mid term. The current T2 production model (purely from a systems standpoint) is BPO-centric... only there's no way to get more BPOs. Logically, they need to shift the model to be Invention-centric by making it the preferable way to produce. A comprehensive proposal for balancing T2 Production: here |
Mos7Wan7ed
Hardcore Industries
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 21:48:00 -
[85] - Quote
Gamer4liff wrote: I don't think there are enough stupid people to make defunct small proton smartbomb 2 bpos "collector's" items on any meaningful level.
Don't pick an item that has such a minimal impact as your one true example. Pick interceptors or strip miners or drones or exhumers or command ships.
Show me how CCP could make invention outshine a BPO so that it improves the invention process from RnD to Production but also do it in a way that tiptoes around BPOs and allows them to make the same margins they currently do. You can't. BPOs sit in the middle of the invention chain and caps and stabilizes everything. We don't need stabilization any more. Hundreds of thousands of eve pilots have RnD agents and have the skills to invent.
Modifying the BPO affects invention at the sametime since invention creates BPCs of the BPO. The idea you had is pointless. You nerf the invention at the same rat as BPOs. Try again. It has no affect on the cap BPOs have on caps and limits placed on invention. I thought you would no this but I guess not.
The point of this thread is not to make invention better while keeping BPOs alive. BPOs are not required. The removal of BPOs prevents the need for CCP to tiptoe around T2 BPOs. It is the only way CCP can make real changes to improve the invention process. |
Gamer4liff
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
94
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 22:02:00 -
[86] - Quote
Mos7Wan7ed wrote:Gamer4liff wrote: I don't think there are enough stupid people to make defunct small proton smartbomb 2 bpos "collector's" items on any meaningful level. Don't pick an item that has such a minimal impact as your one true example. Pick interceptors or strip miners or drones or exhumers or command ships. Uh, yeah, no. They still won't become collectors items in any meaningful way, regardless, I sincerely doubt CCP would ever do something like that, leaving the items in while destroying the manufacturing property.
Quote: Show me how CCP could make invention outshine a BPO so that it improves the invention process from RnD to Production but also do it in a way that tiptoes around BPOs and allows them to make the same margins they currently do. You can't. BPOs sit in the middle of the invention chain and caps and stabilizes everything. We don't need stabilization any more. Hundreds of thousands of eve pilots have RnD agents and have the skills to invent.
This is literally what I do in the thread linked in my sig, so yes, I can. Just because you don't have the capacity to think of scenarios where BPOs and invention co-exist does not mean they do not exist. And the number of R&D agents has little to do with invention, btw.
Quote: The point of this thread is not to make invention better while keeping BPOs alive. BPOs are not required. The removal of BPOs prevents the need for CCP to tiptoe around T2 BPOs. It is the only way CCP can make real changes to improve the invention process.
Who said anything about tiptoeing around T2 BPOs? Nerf them, destroy the value, give them a new role. But merely taking them out of the game without considering how they could become a worthy addition to a new manufacturing schema is a mistake, and I'm pretty sure CCP knows this. Your assertion that CCP can't make meaningful changes to invention while BPOs exist is laughably false too, by the way, you can see the changes happening right now, the gap between BPO ME and invention BPC ME is closing, and more changes will occur in the futrue. A comprehensive proposal for balancing T2 Production: here |
Otti Ottig
Sushi Social Society
8
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 22:07:00 -
[87] - Quote
Mos7Wan7ed wrote:Gamer4liff wrote: I don't think there are enough stupid people to make defunct small proton smartbomb 2 bpos "collector's" items on any meaningful level. Don't pick an item that has such a minimal impact as your one true example. Pick interceptors or strip miners or drones or exhumers or command ships. Show me how CCP could make invention outshine a BPO so that it improves the invention process from RnD to Production but also do it in a way that tiptoes around BPOs and allows them to make the same margins they currently do. You can't. BPOs sit in the middle of the invention chain and caps and stabilizes everything. We don't need stabilization any more. Hundreds of thousands of eve pilots have RnD agents and have the skills to invent. The point of this thread is not to make invention better while keeping BPOs alive. BPOs are not required. The removal of BPOs prevents the need for CCP to tiptoe around T2 BPOs. It is the only way CCP can make real changes to improve the invention process.
cool. please, define "needed" and "required" in a computer game... how are tourny ships and other rare things more "required" than (for example) T2 BPO's?
YOU NEED endgame goal's in a the game to keep it interesting after a year or two... why not T2 BPO's for the indy guys just like the tourny ships for the pvp'ers? they don't hurt anyone (no they don't, if you think u know that better, plz go ahead and provide us some evidences for an item that is actually getting sold) Even if u make invention cheaper than BPO's... the cake is not getting bigger, more ppl will run invnetion jobs and will cut your profits a lot more than BPO's ever did.
BTW: without rare items you wouldnt get to read the tears of all these "people"(sup Lucas o/).A good reason to buff T2 BPO's actually. |
Mos7Wan7ed
Hardcore Industries
36
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 22:42:00 -
[88] - Quote
capping T2 BPO ME at 1-3 ME levels less than the maximum possible invention ME
The main problem witch you fail to grasp...
BPOs allows mass production and completely avoids all the invention materials, fees, and real time investments inventors undertake. This means that BPOs depress the value of the entire invention process from RnD to production.
BPOs were created to do what shuttles did when CCP seeded them in stations. If the demand for trit was too high then they would buy shuttles, reprocess them and balance out the market. If T2 invention started to spiral then BPOs would level it out.
It might have been a good idea the first to keep the T2 market viable, but now it strangles it. Not what the BPOs were intended to do. BPOs act as a ceiling that inventors can't break because BPOs will always be able to undercut by avoiding materials, invention fees, and RL time commitments required. We have enough pilots capable of invention to keep the market stocked without BPOs.
To fix it, CCP needs to prevent T2 BPOs from being used in build and copy jobs. They than effectively become collector items just like the multi-billion ISK ships. |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
376
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 00:10:00 -
[89] - Quote
While not the case with everyone, there are certain people who seem to only purchase T2 BPOs for the express purpose of repricing them higher and selling them on to the Greater Fool. For instance, buying a mining crystal blueprint for 7b and then putting it back up on contracts for 75b. I'd venture to say that these types of people are the ones yelling the loudest about T2 BPOs nerfs and removal. Although I haven't name-checked anyone and probably won't, I've already noticed people sock-puppeting using alts, especially in in-game chats. Making it seem there is more support for the status quo than there actually is. I'd also venture to say that this type of behavior HURTS industry in a very real way. It is selfish and purely due to greed and a desire to keep others from achieving success. Why should the game as a whole suffer due to a small minority of already super-rich players who have no use for the prints but to hoard them? Even if the prints were removed, I doubt it would seriously affect their spacewealth in any meaningful way, and if it did, well, that is their fault for speculating in a bubble and expecting the situation to never change. Don't put all of your eggs in one basket, etc. Oh, and HTFU. |
Otti Ottig
Sushi Social Society
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.24 05:57:00 -
[90] - Quote
Mos7Wan7ed wrote:NEED: "they don't hurt anyone" " if you think u know that better, plz go ahead and provide us some evidences" 1. BPOs avoid the need for any of the invention materials. Players make ISK gathering invention material and are hurt by the fact BPOs avoid the invention process. 2. Time an inventor takes to gather materials and fees paid to start invention processes. These are investment that BPOs avoid. Inventors are hurt by this. 3. BPCs that come from invention have lower material levels and take more materials to build. BPOs have very good material levels because they have been researched. Less materials mean T2 component builders have less demand on their components, they too are hurt by BPOs. 4. Devs difficulty and unwillingness in improving invention because of the existence of player owned BPOs.
So that shows 3 segments of the invention market that are directly affected by BPOs.
.
http://k162space.com/2012/03/08/t2-bpo-returns/ plz read that
yep, thanks for pointing out what everybody knows. BUT you seem to ignore that the number of BPO's are limited in the game. for example there aren't even 20 of each ship BPO's in the game and even less are actually active (inactive, banned, destryoed, lazy ppl). Even if all existent BPO's were building 24/7, BPO's simply can't provide anything but a very low percentage of the overall demand. This doesnt cut the profit of a T2 BPO as such, but makes the point of T2 BPO's undercutting invention absurd. And since the number of produced items keeps going up, the influence of BPO's will go down by natural law. Not to mention that anything that isnt getting seeded anymore, will be out of the game sooner or later regardless.
Mos7Wan7ed wrote: Considering how much BPOs cost, they only get purchased by people with ISK to burn not expecting a return on their purchase for YEARS. These are not necessarily industrial end goals. .
goal in a computer game = something worth playing for you could also say you could buy 2000 Ospreys for one etana, nobody wants an etana |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |