EVE Search - 75 bill for a BPO, Wake up CCP?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

75 bill for a BPO, Wake up CCP?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 01:45:00 - [1] Originally by: Eilie The supply would still be limited in this system due to the limit of RP/day that you can make. It would take years for the rarer items to become sold at near cost prices. By than, T3 should already be out so it wouldn't matter. If you read the devblog they referenced a NON-RP way to get datacores. There will be SOME cap to the supply but it wont be as low as you think. Quote: If they release T3 through the same system... well let's not think about that. What else are they going to do? Its better to randomnly distribute them then to hand limited resources to power gamers. People who grind should be buying these BPOs (and they are) not being handed them for grinding. There isn't a better system than the lottery because randomness with limited ways to improve your chances is the most fair way you can do things. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 01:47:00 - [2] CCP should try to figure out when the market is becoming unstable due to highly increased demand and try to stabilize it by seeding more BPOs. If this is done right then the value of the BPOs will remaind constant at whatever level, as will the price. Demand is continuously increasing and invention is the only way to increase supply. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 04:09:00 - [3] Originally by: Extreme 1. Lotteries are never fair In what sense are free lotteries never fair? Someone who gets a research agent has to pay nothing to continue to acquire RP. He has a small initial startup cost in time and effort and thats it. If the system works as purported everyone has a chance to win based on the number of RP they have. The semi-unique valuable assets are handed to those who have a very minimal ability to control their probability of receipt. While some people seem to think that this is what makes the lottery unfair, it is precisely what makes the lottery fair. No one can improve their odds of receiving a BPO enough to ensure receipt. This means that the most valuable assets in game are not just handed to the power gamers. Instead, joe schmo noob has a comparable chance of receiving a BPO as Mr. Awesome T2 producer with 500billion isk. If joe schmo wants to produce with it he can, or he can exact a large amount of isk out of whoever is willing to pay. This is the essence of fairness. Those with more time to devote to EVE can only minimally improve their odds of getting a BPO. Therefore these people have to pay quite a bit in order to acquire the BPOs; Quid pro quo. What would be more fair? People are conflating different issues. T2 being expensive does not have to do with how fair the lottery is or is not. The BPO is potentially as valuable in the hands of the person who originally owned it as it is in the hands of the person who paid an exhorbitant amount for it. What you are really arguing about is the number of BPOs seeded, not the method of their delivery. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 05:34:00 - [4] Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2006 05:42:56 Originally by: Akita T So, what, now you claim "free lotteries" ARE sometimes fair ? Lotteries are NEVER fair, period. Anything involving luck isn't "fair", ever. That makes absolutely no sense. If everyone has essentialy the same chance to get a given reward, how is it not fair? No one is being rewarded for anything that they can or cannot control, no one is being penalized for anything they can or cannot control. More to the point, no one is being rewarded more than they should be for playing the game more than someone else. It would be quite a bit more unfair if it were NOT based on luck. In that case everyone would have a legitimate reason to *** and whine about how agent ***s were being unjustly compensated for grinding all day long by CCP, and how this was really just a way to encourage people to play more and get more accounts. As it stands now there is only a slight reward for establishing many high lvl research agents. You increase your chances to win but you are assured of nothing. I have a character with lvl5 science skills and 6 research agents. I don't feel like I am being cheated because I can't assure myself of a BPO. If the system is not bugged and is actually working like a lottery (some reason to believe it didn't always) then I have no problem with it, CCP is not biasing it towards anyone. I will try to state this as simply as possible; If CCP's goal is in implimenting the lottery system was to distribute the T2 BPOs without creating further rewards for heightened gameplay while providing an avenue for those interested to increase their chances, then they have succeeded. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 05:39:00 - [5] Originally by: Trem Sinval Third, the system for invention is at least as complicated as current t2 production, in skills and procedure, if not moreso. Invention is a good step, but doesn't go far enough to entice people into using it (one spends exorbinant amounts of ISK for the mere possibility of a BPC). Releasing BPO's, on the other hand, is a very large (and guaranteed) opportunity to either produce one's own supplies, or to make profits. To state this again, the question of how many BPOs should be seeded has abolustely nothing to do with the lottery. It makes alot of sense for CCP to look at the stability of the T2 market as it faces increasing demand and seed more BPOs in order to mitigate price increases. It seems that they are at least going to see how much invention impacts the situation before they think about doing this. To put it succinctly, people should not conflate the question of supply with the question of BPO allocation. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 05:45:00 - [6] Originally by: Reiisha Edited by: Reiisha on 23/10/2006 05:39:52 Originally by: infraX The supply of t2 items is far behind the demand, hence the hyperinflation. The demand is constantly growing while the supply has stayed the same. The next one who uses 'inflation' and 't2' in the same sentence gets a ban as far as i'm concerned. Inflation is a way to value money, and not a way to determine whether a monopoly is present or not. Quite. Look at a "common basket of goods" ;P to establish inflation. Things like minerals and BSs etc show that there is no inflation. BS prices are highly constant and it might even be the case that macro miners are deflating the value of minerals. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 05:55:00 - [7] Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2 what they need to do is simply make it so that anyone who wants to get one can get one, caveat all of them are like 20 run limited bpo and people can constantly get as many as they want, then get rid of all the unlimited runs. This way active producers can keep a supply going, and people will move to where the market prices are highest to keep the prices level. Adding a few more wont change anything, the problem is the fact the system right now has limited bpos meaning either you got lucky and got one or you never getting one IE monopoly time. Limited supply does not create a monopoly. If someone either owned all the BPOs or set the prices on them for a specific item, then all that would happen is that the prices would go up and volume would go down. Under some circumstances its possible to make more money this way, but given that there are very few essential T2 items its is doubtful that this would be profitable. Of course I am sure someone can make a compelling analogy to the international diamond cartel that explains how you can make alot of money by branding non-essential items and jacking the price up by limiting supply. High prices exist because of static supply and high demand. The way to regulate prices is to seed more BPOs. You can't change the goalposts now and try to give free access to T2 production. You probably can, however, seed more BPOs in order to regulate supply against ever increasing demand. This wouldn't effect current BPO values, it would just prevent them from increasing except during the times between seedings. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 06:06:00 - [8] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Reiisha Edited by: Reiisha on 23/10/2006 05:39:52 Originally by: infraX The supply of t2 items is far behind the demand, hence the hyperinflation. The demand is constantly growing while the supply has stayed the same. The next one who uses 'inflation' and 't2' in the same sentence gets a ban as far as i'm concerned. Inflation is a way to value money, and not a way to determine whether a monopoly is present or not. So, are you arguing there ISN'T much more ISK in the game "per capita" as there was, say 1 year ago ? That's inflation, by definition itself. Inflation is purchasing power. Purchasing power of isk has not changed as far as tech 1 items go. Quote: Having people that KEEP buying "monopolistic-priced" products to a point where the monopol-holders CAN NOT EVEN MATCH the demand (in spite of insane prices) only due to their own production-line limitations, that's another SIGN of inflation. Increasing demand and static supply means increasing prices. That has nothing to do with inflation, it has to do with the availability of products. Quote: Right now, insurance payouts create money. Insurance premiums destroy money. Overall, more money gets created than destroyed REGARDLESS of insured ship (I sincerely doubt less than 30% of 100%-level insured ships blow up, and even uninsured ships still give you a 40% "generation"). All in all, insurance GENERATES much more ISK as it destroys. That may or may not be true, but it hasn't caused inflation. BSs costs the same as they did two years ago. Every tech1 ship and module that is produceable has reached a steady equilibrium. Quote: It doesn't help AT ALL that people that quit playing usually GIVE their ISK away to friends or their corps. In most other games it is true that people tend to leave alot of assets on their characters when they quit. In EVE this does not happen as much so there is less dead isk. This is somewhat problematic, but it hasn't caused inflation probably because of macro miners. Quote: So yeah, inflation (as in ISK/capita ratio) is on the loose, and T2/officer/faction prices are the best INDICATOR of just how rampant the inflation really IS. Thats like saying that the price of a limited production line ferrari is the best indication of the purchasing power of the dollar. The price of goods of limited availability is determined by the availability relative to demand not the purchasing power of isk. You measure inflation by a common basket of goods. In EVE since everything common is based on minerals, you measure inflation by looking at minerals and their dervitative tech 1 products. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 06:10:00 - [9] Originally by: zeKzn beat you I'm tired no fair. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 06:17:00 - [10] Originally by: Trem Sinval Originally by: Baun To put it succinctly, people should not conflate the question of supply with the question of BPO allocation. That's just silly, supply has nigh everything to do with allocation, and vice versa. If there are builders, but no BPO's, production doesn't occur. Random allocation of necessary materials ensures only that a few individuals will receive the blessings of CCP to influence the player economy. It also assures that no one has an appeciably (or dare I say unfairly) greater chance to recieve BPOs then anyone else. Supply has nothing to do with BPO allocation because CCP has reseeded BPOs that are in dead accounts. They have assured that the number of BPOs that were seeded are the number being used. Supply is solely based on the number of BPOS seeded and has nothing to do with how they were handed out. Quote: BPO distribution should not be decided by lottery or chance (or Ouiji boards at CCP). They shouldn't be dribbled into the economy to keep prices consistent (and by extension, high). BPO distribution should be decided by the willingness of the userbase to embrace production of t2 items (ie, they should be available to all, at cost, just as t1 BPO's are now). That might have been possible 2+ years ago. Now it is not. People have sunk tons of money into T2 BPOs because of their scarcity. People whine about T2 because of the supply related prices. The solution to this is for CCP to look at the market and manage the supply by seeding more BPOs. At this point, it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with how the BPOs are seeded since they are not biasing the distribution toward any priveleged group. Quote: Then, cost of t2 items in the market is determined by the supply of components for the BPO's (just as t1 items are now), not by the capricious whims of the few holders of the key to production. T2, for whatever reason, was designed as a paradigm shift as far as T1 was concerned. The money in T1 was in mining for the minerals not in building what everyone else could build. Now the money is in the building. Producing components is like mining and preserves some of its value because it is alot more labor intensive. I suppose wait-n-see is a prudent course to take, but from here it looks like much ado about nothing. - Trem The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 06:21:00 - [11] Originally by: Akita T Lots of misunderstood economic theory Inflation is the decrease in purchasing power of currency. If there were substantial inflation in EVE then EVERYTHING would cost more. As it stands now the only things that ever increase over the long term are those things for which there is static supply and increasing demand. To put it as simply as possible, if the basis for price increases is the changing of the intersection of supply and demand and not the increasing amount of money, then there is no inflation. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 06:28:00 - [12] Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2006 06:31:09 Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2006 06:29:38 Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Baun Thats like saying that the price of a limited production line ferrari is the best indication of the purchasing power of the dollar. The price of goods of limited availability is determined by the availability relative to demand not the purchasing power of isk. You measure inflation by a common basket of goods. In EVE since everything common is based on minerals, you measure inflation by looking at minerals and their dervitative tech 1 products. Ha, this is where you're slightly wrong. In the end, the price of MASS-PRODUCED TOP OF THE LINE goods IS TIED CLOSELY to the purchasing power of a currency ! Inflation is measured IRL by the price of things like bread, milk, water etc, not by brand items much less items of inelastic supply like Porsche GT1s and 400 foot Yachts. Quote: The common REPRESENTATIVE basket of goods is HARDLY composed of minerals. If anything, the common basket of goods is represented by an assortment of ships and modules that the regular player would LIKE TO BUY. What makes a good "common" is that its supply is not inelastic. Quote: Note here the use of "want/like" as opposed to "does". The difference is between demand (want/like) and supply. You are trying to make your argument fit the definition instead of actually understand what you are arguing about. If there were actually inflation then minerals prices would be higher. Since mineral prices are not higher there is no inflation. When you start paying 200mil for a megathron then there is either a supply issue with the minerals or inflation. If you recall this is exactly what happened in castor. The belt rats went nuts, very few people figured out how to mine in 0.0 for weeks, supply of high end minerals dried up and BS prices sky rocketed. There was no inflation, however, because this had nothing to do with the supply of money. It had to do with the availability of the goods. You are paying 200mil for an ishtar because there is a supply issue with the production of the ishtar. If inflation were responsible for high t2 prices then you would also see high t1 prices. Since you don't see high t1 prices, inflation is obviously not responsible for high t2 prices. Are you starting to get it now? The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 06:38:00 - [13] Originally by: Akita T But you're missing the point completely. Sadly, its you that is missing the point. This is evidenced rather clearly by the fact that you are complaining about supply of T2 goods while simultaneously claiming inflation is causing the price increase. You simply have no idea what inflation means. Quote: Point being, while you (on one side) consider that inflation is indeed a decrease in purchasing power of goods, you fail to realise that supply-and-demand dictated levels of prices FOR "USUAL" GOODS (where "usual" is defined as "whatever you see people flying/fitting in these days usually"), REGARDLESS of absolute value for supply OR demand itself, IS actually the TRUE measure of inflation ! What? Inflation is supposed to measure the devaluation of currency by using a price index of goods for which there is very little change in supply and demand. How exactly do T2 goods with inelastic supply and continuously increasing demands fall into that category? Quote: So on one side you state that T1 ship/module prices have stayed the same in a long time, but fail to connect the fact that T1 ship/modules are NO LONGER the "norm" nowadays, but mostly regarded as "newbie stuff". The reason T2 prices have gone up is because they have become more and more used. You are conflating "common" in an economic sense with "common" in a colloquial sense. A common economic good is something of steady supply and steady demand. The purchasing power of people's isk relative to T2 goods has decreased because there is increase demand which increases the price. The price increases are not paralleled by global price increases so there is no inflation. Quote: In order to get a sense of inflation, you have to look at the AVERAGE player and what the AVERAGE player's ship+fitting costs. If we were trying to establish a formula for adjusting wages to the cost of living you might be on point, but we are not. We are trying to establish whether there is actually a global decrease in the purchasing power of goods relative to static market conditions. There isn't Quote: HOW CAN YOU CLAIM YOU DO NOT SEE INFLATION WITH THE NAKED EYE ? Because as it stands now the only goods that are increasing in price are those with static supply and increasing demand. The prices of those goods is driven by market force not by the valuation of currency. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 06:42:00 - [14] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 23/10/2006 06:37:02 Know why "common good" prices don't go up in price IN SPITE of rampant inflation ? FRACKING SUBSIDIES, THAT'S WHY ! And you know what form subsidies are present in EVE ? That's right, INSURANCE PAYOUTS. If anything, the fact that T1 stuff is NOT GOING DOWN in price is a clear sign of inflation ! uhh have you gone off the deep end? The fact that there is no deflation is a sign of inflation? Your argument is that because people are, in your mind, being given free isk, the fact that prices aren't going up is a sign that the value of currency is going down? What the **** are you smoking? The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 14:29:00 - [15] Originally by: Reiisha First ask yourself why the inflation is so selective. He gets it. Inflation cannot be selective. "Selective inflation" as people are thinking is just demand driven price inrease. If there were inflation everything would be more expensive. There is not inflation, there are supply problems. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.10.23 16:59:00 - [16] Edited by: Baun on 23/10/2006 17:03:32 Originally by: FireAnt if you look at the money people used to make doing pve when the hacs came out i would say the average player makes 3 times as much as a player back then. i mean bounties are much high now than 2 to 3 years ago. i mean 30 years ago you could buy a brand new car for 7000 dollars. now the same type car cost 45000 dollars. same goes for the amount that people made, people make 35k a year now where as they only made 5k 30 years ago. same thing is happening in eve. People ARE making more money but this hasn't changed the prices of everything. T1 prices are steady. T2 prices are demand driven. Its possible that demand wouldn't be so high at given prices if people were not so wealthy, but that does not mean that there is inflation because it is not a global effect. Inflation the increase in prices without any corresponding change in supply and demand. The Enemy's Gate is Down

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.