| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
579
   |
Posted - 2014.09.21 06:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Trin Javidan wrote:With T2 prices stabilizing. How much did you lose on your T2 bpo's? It's too early to tell.
On one side, I'd expect to take at least a 200B haircut if I tried to part with my T2 BPO collection right now.
On the other side, the profitability of my collection is up 250% on pre-crius.
CCP Greyscale had the odd philosophy of ignoring T2 BPOs for the purpose of BPO balancing, so he ended up massively buffing some T2 BPOs and massively nerfing others. As a result of this, invention got nerfed into the ground on some items. A strange thing to do, particularly since it was directly at odds with their stated aims.
Before Crius it would have been perfectly viable for CCP to follow a sensible plan of iterating invention to make it not awful and balancing all the T2 end products so that there aren't any dud items that nobody uses. This would have made T2 BPOs a non-issue for inventors without actually removing or gutting them. That would be a fairly uncontroversial win-win for inventors, T2 BPO owners and CCP. It would also have been consistent with the ongoing balancing effort. But the Crius changes appear to have made this work harder and more urgent.
So either CCP Greyscale's approach is short sighted and incoherent, in that he's made his own life harder with the Crius changes, or CCP Greyscale's approach is short sighted and incoherent, in that he's planning to remove/gut T2 BPOs and face the alienation of loyal entrenched players, the dumbing down of industry and the undermining of a fairly unique and interesting part of EVE's sandbox economy. In the face of that it's hard to be optimistic, but I'm still hoping that when CCP reveal their actual plans they are better than currently expected.
For me, after the discussion at the fanfest industry panel that kicked this all off, I've had the most significant motivation to participate in EVE's industry system removed. It's not because my T2 BPO collection is in peril, but because I now have far fewer options for longer term investment of the profits generated by my activities. I've got very little motivation to make more isk than I already have, because when I ask myself the question: "What am I going to do with another XXXB isk", the answer is sadly to "Buy more PLEX" or "Add it to the big pile of idle isk". That's a lot less compelling than growing my collection of T2 BPOs. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
579
|
Posted - 2014.09.21 10:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:... and all I can do to give a sense to that, is to wait to give away ISK to PLEX for Good initiatives. That bothers me though, because I don't want my enjoyment and motivation in game to be dependant on the suffering of real life people.
Sure, if I ever do decide to completely quit EVE I will absolutely be liquidating everything and throwing the lot at PLEX For Good, but for now I'd rather have CCP stop persistently undermining all the limited edition content that I and others like to collect.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
580
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 04:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:Bad Bobby wrote: The profitability of my collection is up 250% on pre-crius. Is this due to an increase in production throughput, or profit margin?
A large amount of increased production throughput, a small amount of increased profit margin.
Prices are still falling though, so it's a very temporary buff. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
580
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 16:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Trin Javidan wrote:While we're at it anyway, looking at the history of game implenmentations, current ones and the plex prices; i think ccp's operation "Old isk cleansing" is well under way. If it isnt achievable by clothes, hyperinflation- & deflation by gamedesign will do the job $$ +1 for CCP! I will see your tinfoil and raise you my diversified portfolio. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
583
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 05:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tinu Moorhsum wrote:
However... and this is the point with respect to T2 BPO's, I believe that every team, no matter when they started playing EVE should have the same potential end-game in sight as all other teams. Of course they have to earn it, of course they have to want it, of course they have to work for it. But that's not the case with T2 BPO's. Either you got one in the lottery (or the dev fraud) or you didn't.
BPOs are not "Bind on Pickup". You could buy them and get "the same potential end-game" etc. etc. Many who started playing well past T2 BPOs lottery had been "phased out" still got their BPOs fill.
+1
I bought my T2 BPOs from contracts and forum sales. Anyone else could have done the same.
I was around when the lottery was happening, but I was a fairly new and casual player and wasn't paying attention. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
583
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:just simple statements of facts. You are not that stupid, you know the difference between facts and opinions, so let us not pretend otherwise.
Lucas Kell wrote:Some of the owners of T2 BPOs though just sit around screaming about how they deserve compensation because they chose to pay ridiculous sums of isk for an outdated item. The level of entitlement coming off of T2 BPO owners is astounding. We're not in General Discussion. There has been none of that in this thread. Why not keep it that way.
For myself, I just want what is best for the game.
We can all grow attached to our virtual assets, our characters, our corps, our alliances, whatever. But if the game dies then all of that goes with it.
I think that EVE's longevity is dependent on the sandbox. It's strength is in catering for a wide variety of interests and playstyles. Cutting out playstyles and forcing players to choose between a "variety" of similarly contrived grind mechanics is, I feel, the wrong way to go.
T2 BPOs are far from perfect, like pretty much everything in EVE. I'd say they need change, like pretty much everything in EVE. But I'd like to see that change be pro-sandbox and pro-EVE. I certainly don't think that whatever happens should be decided on the basis of forum whining of any kind. I'm concerned that CCP will do something stupid, because there are many examples of CCP doing stupid things, but I hope they do something clever, because there are also many examples of them doing clever things.
Time will tell, either way. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
583
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:T2 BPOs and invention can't really co-exist. You're always going to have some items dominated by one and some dominated by others.
I disagree. Even within the current system, it's entirely possible for T2 BPOs to supply a small portion of a market and for invention to supply the rest.
Unfortunately that isn't currently the case in all markets. Some products are duds, some markets are small, some T2 BPOs are massively overproductive. But those issues can all be fixed. Indeed, even if T2 BPOs were removed entirely the issues of dud products and small markets would still be there and fixing those issues would still be beneficial.
It is CCP's stated aim to cyclically rebalance everything. That's all we really need.
Lucas Kell wrote:But CCP have already chosen, invention is here to stay, and when T2 BPOs get in the way of that, they will come off worse.
I've got no problem with invention staying. I've got no problem with T2 BPOs getting nerfed. It's a playstyle I want to preserve, not a historical profit margin. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
586
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 17:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Potentially they could sit there and individually tweak all of the BPOs to try to fit them into a niche, but why would they? Because it's their job. Because it will improve the game. Because leaving the game to go derelict is not a sensible option.
It doesn't matter if you remove T2 BPOs or leave them in. T2 needs rebalancing either way.
Lucas Kell wrote:What is it that makes people think that T2 BPO owners are so deserving of special treatment? I don't know, you'll have to ask them.
Lucas Kell wrote:Bad Bobby wrote:I've got no problem with invention staying. I've got no problem with T2 BPOs getting nerfed. It's a playstyle I want to preserve, not a historical profit margin. The playstyle continues to exist in the form of T1 manufacture, since T2 BPOs are that exact same system with different materials. That is pretty far from being true.
We've reached the stage where your posts are just inflamatory nonsense. So I'll drop out of this and pop back if you decide to post something coherent.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
586
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 18:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:with no possible counter There are just as many, if not more, counters to T2 BPOs as there are to invention.
Moreover invention has more and bigger advantages over T2 BPOs than the other way around.
Generally speaking, T2 BPO owners disadvantage themselves by buying them instead of taking other opportunities with the same resources.
But some people buy them to collect them because they are rare, or desirable, or valuable, or offer some other appeal.
Some people buy them to re-sell them because trading things is fun and profitable.
Some people buy them to manufacture from them, because for reasons of profit, effort, time, taste or whatever they would rather use a T2 BPO instead of inventing. In most cases the profit advantage has recently been reduced by a fair step and we are likely to see further reductions in the profit advantage up to (and maybe well past) the point of parity with invention.
We were already at the point where T2 BPO owners were paying a massive premium for tiny advantages and we're moving towards the point where the profit advantage just isn't going to exist anymore. All that will be left will be the playstyle dependant advantages, the taste advantages, the collectors value, the re-selling value... really all stuff that doesn't really hurt anyone... least of all the inventors.
So my point is: once CCP finish making invention non-terrible, there is really no need to remove the T2 BPOs. Invention will be cheaper, more scaleable, with a lower cost of entry and plenty more besides.
After that, removing T2 BPOs only does damage. If nothing else, it's spiteful. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
587
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 19:55:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:By no counter, I mean that the advantage a T2 BPO owner gets, the guaranteed profit margin, it cannot be challenged by another player.
Yes, that small advantage cannot be directly challenged. Because of that CCP has already taken steps to reduce that advantage and are likely to take further steps in that direction. Once that advantage is removed completely, we're at the point I was advocating for:
A situation where T2 BPO owners produce at the same price as inventors, except they have the added cost of the BPO to account for. Making inventing more competitive in every market relevant way.
But the T2 BPO owner gets to own the BPO, gets to click slightly less during production and gets whatever other feel good bonus they derive from BPO ownership.
Inventors buffed, T2 BPOs nerfed, no playstyles ruined.
Whereas you propose overkill with a side order of baby out with the bathwater. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
589
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 04:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:It's about removing the remnants of a deprecated mechanic so the invention mechanics can be played with without having to constantly ask the question "how will T2 BPOs affect or be affected by this change".
And when the argument is reduced down to that, we're left deciding whether that reduction in support and development complexity is worth the loss of depth in the game.
But we players do not have the means to gauge how much that reduction in support and development complexity is worth or how much we stand to gain from it.
We can gauge the value of the loss of depth in the game, but that will be a matter of personal taste, which cannot really be debated.
But at least we've completed another turn around the ballroom and come to the same place. A difference of opinion based on taste and weakly founded speculation. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
589
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 07:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
Big Lynx wrote:Eve works well for about 8y with t2bpos. I don't think we want to point towards the last 8 years of EVE industry as some kind of paragon.
Sure, what we've had for the last 8 years has worked (more or less) and has been interesting, but it could and really should have been a lot better. The recent and upcomming industry iterations are long overdue and well short of the mark, in my opinion.
But I do agree, T2 BPOs of the last 8 years have not been anywhere near as bad as some people claim. In fact, I probably wouldn't still be playing right now if things like T2 BPOs didn't exist.
|
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
589
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 08:06:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:T2 BPO do not add depth. They give a select number of players the ability to bypass invention in favour of using T1 mechanics, so if anything, they remove depth.
They give every player the ability to own, collect and trade limited edition industrial assets. They give every player more things to aspire to or work towards, if they so desire. They add positive and interesting aspects to the game that otherwise would not exist.
But you don't like them, so apparently none of that matters. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
590
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 10:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:I just don't think the positives outweigh the negatives.
A matter of taste, which is pointless to argue over.
Lucas Kell wrote:Removing their ability to produce most certainly has no impact on the depth of the game and they can still be collected.
Must you be so persistently disingenuous?
|
| |
|