EVE Search - Invention and the removal of T2 BPOs

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

Invention and the removal of T2 BPOs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gantrithor105 Caldari Acerbus Vindictum	Posted - 2008.04.16 15:47:00 - [1] Alright, many of you probably know that invention is hard to do with significant profit. I've run numbers on many items and often I show very little to no profit to mitigate the variability inherent in the invention cycle. I would propose a removal of T2 BPOs while compensating the owners with roughly a years worth of profit from each BPO. That way T2 prices can be more determined by invention (which 95% of us have to use) than the 5% who own the T2 bpos and can research them to ME100 while we're using ME-1 or lower.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.04.16 16:15:00 - [2] Your idea is flawed in several ways: It's difficult to arrive at a fair figure for a year's profit Many BPOs are sold for far more than a year's worth of profits What about people who have paid such a premium in the hope that someone else will pay an even more absurd price, and just want to manufacture with their BPO for a while before selling it on? Even if inventors were only competing against each other, they would still drive down margins on anything in demand until the returns approached nil, or on a par with T1 production. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Gamer4liff Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2008.04.16 16:16:00 - [3] Edited by: Gamer4liff on 16/04/2008 16:17:20 Yeah remove all T2 BPOs, that will make EVE a better place where T2 prices will drop like a stone and Oveur will give everybody great big bear hugs! what Kindly sod off, T2 BPOs are not the reason invention is so unprofitable right now. Removing T2 BPOs is also suicide if you ever want cheap T2. A lot of items are produced only by BPO owners. EDIT: moreover taking ANY blueprint to ME 100 would be a supreme waste of resources, I'm not sure you understand the diminishing returns aspect of ME research.
Gridwalker Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.16 17:10:00 - [4] I swear, I could be in a brand new "remove t2 BPO" thread every day. Invention is hard to do with significant profit because inventors over saturated the market for many products. Removing T2 BPO's won't help with that. Fact is, some items have relatively low demand. When you have 20 inventors cranking out 250k units of an item/month when there is only a market for about 10k units, you're going to have a hard time making profit. There are plenty of items that even T2 BPO holders don't produce anymore because it simply isn't worth the bother. That said, I make plenty profit with invention. A ton of profit. More profit than half my T2 BPO's. Not sure why you can't. Perhaps you're trying to invent stuff that has a very low profit margin? Try doing some market research before inventing something. You'll make a lot more isk that way. -Grid
Greenbolt Minmatar Un4seen Development	Posted - 2008.04.16 17:21:00 - [5] Edited by: Greenbolt on 16/04/2008 17:22:03 My experience with invention. I picked a couple test cases ... 2 ships 2 modules. I had average success rate on inventing the modules..steller on one ship.abysmal on the other..(just the luck of the die based on a limited test case). (Farmed the Datacores from my R&D agents but factored their rough buy order cost up into my calculations) I then did a bit of shopping about to buy the cheapest advanced materials I could...researched bpos up and built the components then built the ships and modules. Only buying raw minerals and the npc goods (robotics, construction blocks and the same). End of the day. I made a profit over the 4 production lines. The downside is..not alot profit for my time. If I was to continue research and run more production lines on select items..it could become a major isk making machine... but it involves being fairly dedicated to the market path. For the idle inventor or someone just testing the waters..Its not the major isk maker people think it is. You can get 10-20 percent returns on your investments even with my casual attempts..but you have to factor in hauling time and market analysis. Now the kicker is..that hauling time and market analysis (I own a freighter and the trips i made were rarely more than 20 percent of my cargohold) doesnt change much if your running 2 production lines or 5-6 + so my analysis - for the casual inventor..invent for your own use for slightly cheaper eq/ships but dont expect to make isk for the dedicated builder/inventor..its a steady income if you enjoy it. Personally I hate hauling and will stick to invention and missions.
Dave Borland Einherjar Incorporated	Posted - 2008.04.16 17:41:00 - [6] Invention just needs to be able to compete with T2 BPO holders, we need a way to pick up the ME/PE of a T2 BPC that isn't static like the decryptors. I've said it before and I'll say it again, let the T2 bpc mirror a 5%/10% ME/PE value increase of the T1 BPC's ME/PE value. Then and only then, will invention be able to start competing with BPO holders on a profit margin level.
Athanasios Anastasiou The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.16 17:56:00 - [7] Originally by: Dave Borland Invention just needs to be able to compete with T2 BPO holders, we need a way to pick up the ME/PE of a T2 BPC that isn't static like the decryptors. I've said it before and I'll say it again, let the T2 bpc mirror a 5%/10% ME/PE value increase of the T1 BPC's ME/PE value. Then and only then, will invention be able to start competing with BPO holders on a profit margin level. T2 BPO owners invested 10+b of isk into their BPOs which can be used in 1 manufacturing slot. Its been a while since I invented ships, but I remember spending less then 1b to get started. So, why do you think you deserve to have the same margins?
Gridwalker Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.16 19:01:00 - [8] Originally by: Dave Borland Invention just needs to be able to compete with T2 BPO holders, we need a way to pick up the ME/PE of a T2 BPC that isn't static like the decryptors. I've said it before and I'll say it again, let the T2 bpc mirror a 5%/10% ME/PE value increase of the T1 BPC's ME/PE value. Then and only then, will invention be able to start competing with BPO holders on a profit margin level. You're not getting the point, though... In markets that are not over-saturated, the T2 BPO holders are NOT competing with you. You can build MUCH faster than a T2 BPO holder can, so really you are the one setting the price, not the T2 BPO holder. In markets that ARE over-saturated, the T2 BPO holders are just as screwed as the inventor. More so, because we can't just switch markets with that BPO like you can with invention. There are currently markets where there are NO T2 BPOs, and there never were, and those markets are just as saturated and have just as low profit margins as the markets where there are T2 BPO holders. My point is, if you're not making a profit, why are you in that particular market? You can invent anything you want--why choose a market that is already so saturated that you can't make a profit? -Grid
Avalira Caldari Pax Minor Expiscor Pario Addo	Posted - 2008.04.16 19:17:00 - [9] Or better yet, make the T1 BPC ME count towards the T2 ME BPC. That way we could have higher than -1 ME invented BPC's and compete with BPO owners. It solves the low ME problem by reducing waste. The only additional cost would be datacores and decryptors for invention.
Gridwalker Amarr	Posted - 2008.04.16 20:39:00 - [10] Originally by: Avalira Or better yet, make the T1 BPC ME count towards the T2 ME BPC. That way we could have higher than -1 ME invented BPC's and compete with BPO owners. It solves the low ME problem by reducing waste. The only additional cost would be datacores and decryptors for invention. You see a perceived inequality and start worrying about "competition," but the fact is, anywhere that inventors aren't making a profit T2 BPO holders probably aren't making much of one, either. Many of the T2 markets are completely saturated, which isn't conducive to making profit for anyone. I don't think your idea would have much of an effect on the basic problem of the profit margins of inventors. Honestly, if all T2 BPC's had a default ME and PE of 100, and invention was free, the problem would STILL exist. -Grid

Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.04.16 20:46:00 - [11] Not this **** again. . . Eve-search is your friend, and the reason that you can't get ahead inventing is because there are 15 other guys inventing the same thing and ALL of them want to offload their stock, when 10 of them could supply the entire demand for it. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
AKULA UrQuan Caldari STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2008.04.16 21:52:00 - [12] Invention alone was enough to take away the insane profits T2 BPO owners where makeing. Now the people makeing all the isk are moon miners. Hate them. The old BPO owners do serve the function of keeping a steady flow of product comming to the market. When the price of a T2 item gets high enough the invention bandwagon comes along and fixes it.
Khatred ReallyPissedOff Guinea Pigs	Posted - 2008.04.16 22:19:00 - [13] Pay attention when you read this and try to comprehend: Next time you shoot yourself in the foot , blame yourself.
Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.16 22:20:00 - [14] The only thing the T2 market needs in an increase in the supply of decryptors, and then it's pretty much knocked the BPO owners into making less profit than many T1 BPOs by a large margin.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.04.17 00:15:00 - [15] I'd personally prefer to see a profession become more useful (invention), even if prices do rise a bit when BPO's go out the window. The alternative that would still alleviate the problem is just to leave the BPO's in but to put in a work-around that just devalues the T2 BPO's. This could be either the introduction of T3 gear (harder to do), or just simply make invention easier/take less materials (easy). There are a variety of ways to make it so invention can better compete with the BPO's. I'd probably go with the simplest way - calculating a set value for the BPO (however accurate that might be) and just removing them and reimbursing the owners with some ISK. It's not a perfect solution, but it's not good imo to have a profession where players are on a completely different footing and yet trying to compete on the market. It's one thing if skills seperate players (higher sp is an attainable goal), but when it's an item that no longer is available (unattainable except for investing a few years profits on the secondary market), then that to me is a problem. If CCP was going to remove the mechanic that created the BPO's, the BPO's should have gone with it imo. Meh. In the meantime, I'll do other things than invention, haha. I'm sure there's profit to be made anyways, but I'd prefer to see the deck stacked less against inventors. Just my $0.02, take it for what it's worth, haha.
KIAMoonZ	Posted - 2008.04.17 00:28:00 - [16] Invention does need a small tweak to make it more successful, or the cheaper datacores from agents maybe might work.
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.04.17 03:08:00 - [17] Originally by: Boz Well The alternative that would still alleviate the problem is just to leave the BPO's in but to put in a work-around that just devalues the T2 BPO's. They did that. It is called invention. Originally by: KIAMoonZ Invention does need a small tweak to make it more successful, or the cheaper datacores from agents maybe might work. Tell me, which way have datacore prices (Mech E Cores in particular) been trending since the day invention came out? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.04.17 04:51:00 - [18] Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 17/04/2008 04:51:58 An expensive way of seeding T2 BPO's needs to happen, maybe it's hugely ramped up costs of invention with a BPO for a chance of making a T2 BPO (read: thousands of datacores and at least a month in the oven). TBH, that's the only way T3 will ever work unless there's some stupid system instigated where a T1 BPC somehow makes a T3 BPC.... As for the current value of T2 BPOs, well, I wouldn't wipe my behind with a T2 BPO tbh, they're far too overpriced as "collectors items" Improve Market Competition!
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.17 06:15:00 - [19] look at invention items that dont have a T2 BPO sins for 400m keres for 10m ? as long as these inventors flood the market there is not much profit to be made in invention even hulks for 90m arnt worth the work and the invention slots you cant blame the t2 bpo holders, now you need to blame the inventors and their price calculation _______________________________________________ Mining Crystal II BPC Pricelist EVEpedia[Deutsch]
Corporati Capitalis Tollan Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.17 06:29:00 - [20] I absolutely agree with this here thread! Those damn BPO holders are killing my profits. The BASTARDS! I suggest the first BPOs to be removed to be the heavy interdictor ones - the damn BPO owners are selling those below invention cost! ...oh, wait

Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.17 06:44:00 - [21] Originally by: Kylar Renpurs An expensive way of seeding T2 BPO's needs to happen No, just no, the worst possible way of doing it It would kill invention. Removing T2 BPOs would be far far better, even that's not necessary.
Guvante GALAXIAN	Posted - 2008.04.17 07:33:00 - [22] How dare someone who invested Billions in creating an item be able to create it better than me, its proposterious I say!! And before you say they could have won it through the lottery, well I dunno about you, but chosing not to sell an item worth billions is pretty equivalent to buying it IMHO. BTW, invention pwns, if you understand how to actually look for where there is a profit to be made. And that is something as an inventor that you will always have over the BPO holder, item A not selling well, start producing item B, etc. All at no cost other than some training time, how neat Please please please learn the mechanic before posting stuff like this, and another thing, do you realize how much this would spike the price of T2?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.17 07:35:00 - [23] Apparently people love the thought of buying hobgoblins at 1 milllion each. Maybe it is time to stockpile.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.04.17 08:11:00 - [24] Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 17/04/2008 08:14:12 Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 17/04/2008 08:12:32 Quote: No, just no, the worst possible way of doing it It would kill invention. Removing T2 BPOs would be far far better, even that's not necessary. Sure, it probably would kill invention of T2 BPC's, but it would still have a tactical purpose (quickly acquiring a small supply of T2 BPCs to fit out necessary ships, rather than going through the lengthy, expensive or both method of acquiring a T2 BPO). Further, it would be far from the death of invention if the ME and PE of the T1 BPC used in invention actually meant something (and this would not draw away from the use of decryptors). Further, how else would you propose to introduce T3 without T2 BPOs? I'm not disagreeing that T3 (assuming T3 is more useful than T2) shouldn't be expensive, but expecting all T3 BPC's to be invented from invented T2 BPC's is plain *******, and inventing T3 from T1 BPC's is even more so. Any other way of intelligently implementing T3 without* implementing T2 BPO's would require the mechanics of invention to greatly change. On the side, any claim that keeping T2 BPOs the way they are because "Someone who spends billions deserves to have an advantage" needs to realise that all it does is prevent any sensible expansion of tech levels. I agree with the sentiment, but it only works in the sense of faction mods etc..
Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.17 08:31:00 - [25] Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Sure, it probably would kill invention of T2 BPC's Yes it would completely kill it off, rather quickly, a method they put in the game deliberately not ONLY to solve the price pressures but also that give an industry for many to particpate in. For some players this is what they do now, some people mine, some people rat, they invent. This is exactly what CCP want, not only does it fix something, but it gives people more things to do. Just seeding BPOs would kill that off. Quote: Further, how else would you propose to introduce T3 without T2 BPOs? I'm not disagreeing that T3 (assuming T3 is more useful than T2) shouldn't be expensive, but expecting all T3 BPC's to be invented from invented T2 BPC's is plain ******, and inventing T3 from T1 BPC's is even more so.** Why? It makes perfect sense to invent T3 from T1 BPCs, with some added materials into the process. T3 isn't going to be all that much better than T2, it's simply going to be T2 that handles heat better. I would be very very surprised if T3 wasn't invented from T1 BPCs. There's no reason that it can't be. Remember T2 already is, and T3 is not going to be all that differnt from T2.
Shintai Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.04.17 09:12:00 - [26] Just change default invention to ME and PE 0 Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2008.04.17 10:50:00 - [27] Ok, I dont see why T3 invention would not be based on T2 BPC's. This favors the invetors actually. They can create a T2 bpc way faster than you can from a T2 BPO. As for teh price, most moduels can be inveted at price of less than 5M for a standard 10 run BPC (Thats less than 500k pr run which is good.) Even if the T2 to T3 invetion step ups the cost four fold that is still faily cheap pr run for each module, taking that T3 will be high price item in the begining anyways. Now as ME/PE is not affected as invention with a -4/-4 invented BPC is not worse than using a BPC made from a BPO. The only thing CCP need to look at is the runs factor, as you cant make a max run module T2 BPC from invention, but I suspect that number of runs in T3 invention will rely mostly on decryptor stats anyway (like ships for T2) so that might not be that much of a problem. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.17 11:48:00 - [28] Originally by: Qual Ok, I dont see why T3 invention would not be based on T2 BPC's. Does it really matter any if it's based off T2 BPCs or based off T1 BPCs? As long as the requirements are the same as the T2 invention + some, there's not really any difference other than an extra step. It would also be a further kick down for T2 BPOs, the less versitile they are the less wind the 'remove them' arguement has. I think to a certain extent they're looking to avoid the Improved Cloak / Covert Ops cloak fiasco, but who really knows, it's fairly pointless to speculate on an addition that may never even make it ingame.
Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.17 11:55:00 - [29] Originally by: Shintai Just change default invention to ME and PE 0 Unfortunately that would destroy the variance in the decrptors, there's a huge difference between ME-4 and ME-1 (50% vs 20% waste!) and not so much between ME0 and ME3 (10% vs 1.25%). There is probably some scope for them to 'maybe' change it to ME-2 or ME-3 at most. That last 10% doesn't really mean very much, especially given all the things that are not affected by the waste. On the other hand, if they ever did make them affected by the waste (and introduce the 'round up always' rule, they may need to up the ME).
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.04.17 12:01:00 - [30] Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 17/04/2008 12:03:17 Quote: Yes it would completely kill it off, rather quickly, a method they put in the game deliberately not ONLY to solve the price pressures but also that give an industry for many to particpate in. What, so seeding T2 BPOs in some fashion would suddenly make T2 expensive? And how would seeding T2 BPOs not give people an industry to participate in? Truth of the matter is T2 BPOs are not worth the insane prices people are paying. For any semi-decent industrialist, one billion isk is not a difficult task, and in reality many of the sub-standard T2 BPO's are worth only that, even less in an environment with the BPOs seeded (and price regulated by the goods needed to obtain them), and the very good BPOs tipping 5-10 billion. That's a pretty well staggered industry,, with the most expensive non-capital (and even then, only supercaps don't come under this) BPO's costing about 1 billion, T2 BPO's starting at 1 billion and ranging up to 10 billion or so (maybe even 20 for big demand ones). So what've we got? Sample industry career path. 1. You train up skills for efficient mass production of cheap T1 goods. The killer of the bigger, more expensive T1 BPO's (and in some cases, more profitable) (read: Battleship BPO's) is the massive amount of logistics needed to manufacture them. If you need to manufacture T2 at this stage, you cook up BPCs, but it's not an exercise in profit making. 2. You've hit the 1 bil BPOs and have massive logistical commitment. You've trained some science skills to make T2 BPCs, and now you've further trained those skills so you can invent most T2 BPCs. 3. A little more training and you invent T2 BPOs. Why? They deliver about the same profit as your existing lines, but require a fraction of the logistics. As you acquire BPOs, some you keep in manufacturing, others (with some more science skills under the belt) you being copying and using to invent T3 BPCs. Further, T2 manufacturing still requires T1 base components, so demand is still there for the T1 parts. Likewise, people are inventing T3 goods, and maintaining a demand for T2 base equipment. The best part? Someone with some isk under their belt who's bored of ratting/pirates/pvp etc can turn around and enter straight at the T2 level and produce T3. Lets even be silly and realistic for a moment, what the heck is invention? Well, www.dictionary.com says: Quote: "U.S. Patent Law. a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship." Important point there being "Something that did not exist previously." Maintaining "invention" of T2 when T3 enters the world is ridiculous, it's like if I went out now, got some scraps of wood and stuff together and invented a horse and car. Nobody would give a toss because we've got cars now. Improve Market Competition!



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.