| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
   |
Posted - 2008.05.14 15:00:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Soulita
But there is a slight difference in turning off the server argument and that of the removal of t2 bpos.
Yes. The hyperbole was a bit strong. But the point remains. Sides of specific issues that are not beneficial to the game are going to have a hard time gaining traction with a council that thinks things over.
Quote:
Also, it would not be hard to find someone arguing in favour of the conversion of t2 bpos to long run bpcs, if at least one of the CSM candidates would be willing to read through the threads dealing with this problem and having a look at both sides of the argument.
A lot of us have read through those threads and have looked at both sides of the argument.
The only argument towards removing them that has traction is that the original lottery was flawed and a foolish decision. But that decision has been fixed.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 15:37:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Soulita
But there is a slight difference in turning off the server argument and that of the removal of t2 bpos.
Yes. The hyperbole was a bit strong. But the point remains. Sides of specific issues that are not beneficial to the game are going to have a hard time gaining traction with a council that thinks things over.
Quote:
Also, it would not be hard to find someone arguing in favour of the conversion of t2 bpos to long run bpcs, if at least one of the CSM candidates would be willing to read through the threads dealing with this problem and having a look at both sides of the argument.
A lot of us have read through those threads and have looked at both sides of the argument.
The only argument towards removing them that has traction is that the original lottery was flawed and a foolish decision. But that decision has been fixed.
Ok, lets forget the turn off server comparision 
And yes, it is currently true that the pro t2bpo removal faction will have a hard time of being represented in the CSM.
I am still not sure if candidates see the CSM in the same way I would like to see them though. I would like to see the CSM as a council, not so much as a lobby.
In a council it would be good if at least one of the candidates understood what the pro-removal points are, and if she/he would be able to present them fairly.
In a lobby on the other hand this would be unneccessary. Do you see the CSM as more of a kind of lobby? Do not think so, but just making sure.
On the other point you made, glad to hear you read through some or all of the threads concerning that issue.
As far as I understand an argument you found pro removal t2 bpos was:
"...that the original lottery was flawed and a foolish decision."
Then you say for you this is not a point, because "...that decision has been fixed."
A counteragrument would be to say that the t2bpo-lottery caused problems have in fact not been fixed due to the continued existance of the t2bos which were won in said lottery.
Another pro-removal argument would be that the t2 bpos are "isk printing machines" with "built in" advantages compared to invention. These advantages would be the possibly higher material efficiency and the non existance of "failed" production.
Furthermore one could argue that the t2 bpo owners have a possibility to always undercut inventors prices if neccessary while still running a slight profit.
This ability could be used to drive inventors without t2 bpos off the market, and does give t2 bpo owners an unfair advantage.
Personally, I see the main problem with the t2bpos in the way they were introduced into the game. With a not risk-reward oriented flawed lottery system that was open to fraud, and which has been proven to have been abused in at least one instance.
GoonSwarm will remember that occurance, since goonswarm like most others in the community were very vocal about it when it happened.
So here you have some more pro arguments. Of course there will be counter arguments as well.
A proposed solution which compromises between both sides of the argument could be to have the t2 bpos fade out. Turned into very long run bpcs, to not destroy peoples investment in them. Also the market would not have a sudden reaction on the removal, but instead the t2 bpo influence would fade out, with the markets having time to react according to the normal supply-demand principle of most economies.
At the same time, the last - but most important - left overs of a flawed system would essentially be gone. I would also recommend CCP looks further into the invention system. The system was introduced with the plan to keep on fine tuning it. If the t2 bpos were to be eventually expired, some adjustments in the invention system might be useful.
Ok, much text, but just an example of how I could imagine a candidate representing the issue to CCP.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:31:00 -
[33]
Quote:
"...that the original lottery was flawed and a foolish decision."
Then you say for you this is not a point, because "...that decision has been fixed."
I fully agree that the T2 Lottery was bad in the first place. I have expressed this several times before.
Quote:
A counteragrument would be to say that the t2bpo-lottery caused problems have in fact not been fixed due to the continued existance of the t2bos which were won in said lottery.
Problem is justifying removing them, taking away these things from people.
Quote:
Another pro-removal argument would be that the t2 bpos are "isk printing machines" with "built in" advantages compared to invention. These advantages would be the possibly higher material efficiency and the non existance of "failed" production.
They aren't isk printers anymore. They used to though(I have expressed dissatisfaction with that too)
Quote:
Furthermore one could argue that the t2 bpo owners have a possibility to always undercut inventors prices if neccessary while still running a slight profit.
That isn't always bad. It stabilizes the market.
Quote:
This ability could be used to drive inventors without t2 bpos off the market, and does give t2 bpo owners an unfair advantage.
The markets are easily manipulatable, and the output from T2 BPO's are by NO MEANS enough to supply the market. Thus, invention price will set the price.
Quote:
Personally, I see the main problem with the t2bpos in the way they were introduced into the game. With a not risk-reward oriented flawed lottery system that was open to fraud, and which has been proven to have been abused in at least one instance.
Again, I do agree with this.
But nothing at this point, can really justify removing them, as long as they aren't harming the game.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:40:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Soulita
A counteragrument would be to say that the t2bpo-lottery caused problems have in fact not been fixed due to the continued existance of the t2bos which were won in said lottery.
No, invention fixed those problems.
Quote:
Another pro-removal argument would be that the t2 bpos are "isk printing machines" with "built in" advantages compared to invention. These advantages would be the possibly higher material efficiency and the non existance of "failed" production.
Invention at current market returns will produce more than an equivalent t2 BPO for the majority of production per character. Ergo, it cannot be an effective isk printing machine when invention is a faster machine.
These "advantages" would only be relevant if prices were not high enough to easily support the less efficient production.
The system is gone. And anyone wanting to produce more is doing it via invention. The amount of production in t2 BPO compared to invention is tiny.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:46:00 -
[35]
Good replies.
Before going further into countering the counter arguments  ,
the last part of your post that I quoted I would like to ask the same about keeping the t2 bpos in game.
Originally by: LaVista Vista
...But nothing at this point, can really justify removing them, as long as they aren't harming the game.
What could realy justify keeping the t2 bpos in the game?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:47:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Soulita
What could realy justify keeping the t2 bpos in the game?
If it turned out that the T2 BPO lottery was one big fraud, and only friends of CCP got T2 BPO's.
That is the only thing I can think of.
|
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:58:00 -
[37]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Soulita
What could realy justify keeping the t2 bpos in the game?
If it turned out that the T2 BPO lottery was one big fraud, and only friends of CCP got T2 BPO's.
That is the only thing I can think of.
This is a definite possibility, unlikely, but possible.
The lottery was played behind closed doors, so we will never be able to rule this out completely.
But I was asking which reason made it so important to keep the t2 bpos in game?
Why can they not be removed?
If there is no unresolveable problem when removing the disputed t2bpos, why would you like to keep them in game?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:59:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Soulita
If there is no unresolveable problem when removing the disputed t2bpos, why would you like to keep them in game?
The fact people have spend billions isk, buying these BPO's.
The fact T2 BPO's stabilizies the market.
The fact they aren't hurting anybody.
|
Karrakas
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:00:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Soulita
A counteragrument would be to say that the t2bpo-lottery caused problems have in fact not been fixed due to the continued existance of the t2bos which were won in said lottery.
No, invention fixed those problems.
It's not really a fix or a solution. It's more an alternative way. And at the moment still both exist.
|
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:13:00 -
[40]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Soulita
If there is no unresolveable problem when removing the disputed t2bpos, why would you like to keep them in game?
The fact people have spend billions isk, buying these BPO's.
The fact T2 BPO's stabilizies the market.
The fact they aren't hurting anybody.
"The fact people have spend billions isk, buying these BPO's."
There is ways to compensate. Long run bpcs would be one such way.
"The fact T2 BPO's stabilizies the market."
I think that is untrue. Even if it were true, it would be an artificial market stabilization. Shuttles used to limit (stabilize) the price of tritanium artificially, this was changed by CCP. In fact, if the t2 bpos realy undermine the normal supply-demand logic, this might be an argument pro-removal.
"The fact they aren't hurting anybody."
Some inventors might disagree, as well as those people who are of the opinion that the t2 lottery mess should finaly be resolved and brought to a clean end.
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:36:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Scagga Laebetrovo on 14/05/2008 17:38:01
Originally by: LaVista Vista
The fact people have spend billions isk, buying these BPO's.
The fact T2 BPO's stabilizies the market.
The fact they aren't hurting anybody.
Not singling you out as being alone in this, Lavista, but some of your post consists of unsubstantiated points.
This is quoted from one of your earlier posts:
Quote:
In fact, there is a connection between the amount of T2 components being used in an item, and the amount of time it takes to invent it. So if we assume that the more T2 component an item uses, the more a T2 bpo can stabilize the market.
Thus, the longer time invention takes for a certain item, the more of a stabilizing effect a T2 bpo of that kind, has. This is good, in order to keep markets from fluxuating too much.
Honestly, from what you've written, I don't really understand how your conclusion is reached. I don't see how invention time is a definite link to market stability where volume is never depleted. You have stated that it is, and with much confidence. Is this backed up by studies, such as those by Dr Eyjog? Or is it a guess? Do you do much inventing and compare notes with a sizeable number of T2 bpo owners or something of the like?
You also mentioned that T2 bpos make little or no isk. Could you provide figures to substantiate this? If invention is so profitable, how can having a T2 bpo be less profitable?
Quote:
If we start seeding T2 BPO's in some way, invention will be worthless.
Then surely, if we remove T2 bpos in some way, invention will become worth much more. Isn't that logical? Perhaps T2 bpos are hurting inventors working with failed attempts cutting into their margins in the cut-throat eve economy, so maybe t2 bpos are hurting people, making the third point from the first text quoted from you false.
Quote:
I see no reason why you would want a T2 BPO, other than personal gain. You need to look at the overall problem you wanna solve, not that you want a T2 BPO so that you can get rich.
You know, just the other day I saw someone bid 75.9 BILLION isk for a Hulk bpo. I've seen many others in the 30-50bil region. Come on, you can't say every bid like that is for 'personal gain'.
Quote:
Problem is justifying removing them, taking away these things from people.
It's not good to 'create' proceedural problems when you said that the real problem was justifying removing them.
Other things I'd like you to consider: T2 Bpos can provide virtually cost free production of T2 bpcs, invention cannot. T2 bpos can operate independent of invention facilities, such as in 0.0. Invention cannot.
Imbalances that need to be addressed to provide players with the ability to have the same game experiences. E.g. Player a to player b: you can pay 100mil for a raven, I can too. You can pay 1bil for a raven bpo and produce ravens, I can do the same. You might have won a t2 bpo because you started playing eve before me, I need to pay 20billion to get one IF it's being sold. Until then, I must invent, and will always have a lower profit margin than you! - It cannot be talked away as eve players having the same oppurtunities.
San Matari Official forums |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:37:00 -
[42]
Quote:
So no, T2 BPO's aren't an isk printing machine. Anybody who knows a bit about the market, would tell you that.
Logically, this doesn't mean that T2 BPO's aren't isk printing machines.
San Matari Official forums |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:46:00 -
[43]
Quote:
Honestly, from what you've written, I don't really understand how your conclusion is reached. I don't see how invention time is a definite link to market stability where volume is never depleted. You have stated that it is, and with much confidence. Is this backed up by studies, such as those by Dr Eyjog? Or is it a guess? Do you do much inventing and compare notes with a sizeable number of T2 bpo owners or something of the like?
You also mentioned that T2 bpos make little or no isk. Could you provide figures to substantiate this? If invention is so profitable, how can having a T2 bpo be less profitable?
Because T2 BPO's uses less T2 components than invented BPC's, the difference in price which can come with fluxuation in the T2 component price, it will have a stabilizing effect, to the degree the T2 BPO's can supply the market(Not a lot, but well).
Nothing was back by Dr. Eyjog. It's all just fairly simple math, which you can do yourself.
I do invention myself indeed. And I know quite a few people with T2 BPO's, and I actively surf the sell forums to see trends in the T2 BPO market.
Anybody from the market discussion forum will tell you this. If you buy a T2 BPO, you will be getting around 3% ROI per month.
Quote:
Then surely, if we remove T2 bpos in some way, invention will become worth much more. Isn't that logical? Perhaps T2 bpos are hurting inventors working with failed attempts cutting into their margins in the cut-throat eve economy, so maybe t2 bpos are hurting people, making the third point from the first text quoted from you false.
No, not really. Invention largely controls the price, but T2 BPO's keeps the price from spiking too much at any given time.
Quote:
You know, just the other day I saw someone bid 75.9 BILLION isk for a Hulk bpo. I've seen many others in the 30-50bil region. Come on, you can't say every bid like that is for 'personal gain'.
Do the math. How much profit are these people going to make?
Hint: It's not a lot
Quote:
Other things I'd like you to consider: T2 Bpos can provide virtually cost free production of T2 bpcs, invention cannot. T2 bpos can operate independent of invention facilities, such as in 0.0. Invention cannot.
You are implying time != money.
It requires items to copy a T2 BPO too.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:47:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Quote:
So no, T2 BPO's aren't an isk printing machine. Anybody who knows a bit about the market, would tell you that.
Logically, this doesn't mean that T2 BPO's aren't isk printing machines.
If that is true, then a BS BPO is a isk printing machine. It can make more profit than most T2 BPO's I have seen for sale.
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:48:00 -
[45]
Quote:
Lets implement a new rule: You can't answer a post before you have proved that you understood what the other person said. Sounds fun?
Do as I say, not as I do, eh Lavista? 
San Matari Official forums |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:58:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Karrakas
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Soulita
A counteragrument would be to say that the t2bpo-lottery caused problems have in fact not been fixed due to the continued existance of the t2bos which were won in said lottery.
No, invention fixed those problems.
It's not really a fix or a solution. It's more an alternative way. And at the moment still both exist.
Just because its not your solution doesn't mean it is not a solution. The problem caused by t2 BPOs, that players were unable to enter the t2 production game except by luck, was solved.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:58:00 -
[47]
I honestly think both sides of this discussion have good arguments.
I have been talking about the t2bpo issue occasionally, as well as I did about the t2 lottery while it was still in place.
The main reason why I am posting quiet a lot on this subject is that there seems to be no candidate willing to bring this issue up with CCP.
If the issue was unresolveable, then I would not care.
But I am of the opinion that it would be possible to solve this issue.
I a way that would be fair to all involved.
This is why I hope that at least one of the candidates is willing to present this issue to CCP. With my hope being it can be resolved.
|
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 17:59:00 -
[48]
Quote:
Nothing was back by Dr. Eyjog. It's all just fairly simple math, which you can do yourself.
When I ask for an explanation, I don't expect an exercise. Please show it to me yourself if you know the answer, that's how you can gain my confidence.
Quote:
Anybody from the market discussion forum will tell you this.
Again, this does not mean it is true. I don't work with word of mouth, I work with FACTS.
Quote:
If you buy a T2 BPO, you will be getting around 3% ROI per month.
So, how much is that in isk for an example of say, a hac bpo of your choice?
Quote:
No, not really. Invention largely controls the price, but T2 BPO's keeps the price from spiking too much at any given time.
Out of interest, did you support price caps on trit or do you really want a dynamic Eve economy where prices were REALLY supported by supply and demand? Do you think we should have dyprosium sold by npcs? Because following the same logic you espouse as good for keeping t2 bpos...
Quote:
Do the math. How much profit are these people going to make?
Hint: It's not a lot
You do the maths or nothing you say is substantiated. I'm the member of the masses and you're the visionary who knows the answer, right? Proof or stfu kind of statement on my part.
Quote:
You are implying time != money.
So what? Time to produce expensive items is proportional and volume movement is lower. When you have a very large, staggered set of people producing T2 via invention, supply is kept more stable. Furthermore, if people are supposed to spend so much time INVESTED in inventing an item, surely it should be more expensive and rewarding instead of a t2 bpo owner making not worth their time?
San Matari Official forums |
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves
Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:08:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 14/05/2008 18:08:15
Originally by: Soulita
As such I find it worrying, that not a single CSM candidate is willing to, or able to, bring up this issue from the pro-removal side. Even more concerning is that the issue might not even be brought up at all.
I find it reassuring that not a single CSM candidate has jumped in on the pro removal side yet. Assuming that the candidates DO have a better understanding of the game than the regular players (which we definitely should), this is a strong indication that T2 BPOs are only an issue for select people, but not for the game as a whole.
You want ME for the CSM!
There is no 'n' in turret
There is no 'r' in faction
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:13:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Furthermore, if people are supposed to spend so much time INVESTED in inventing an item, surely it should be more expensive and rewarding instead of a t2 bpo owner making not worth their time?
This will only happen if there is a very low demand. Let me assure you that is not going to happen any time in the future. And when there is, you can just invent elsewhere.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:14:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 14/05/2008 18:08:15
Originally by: Soulita
As such I find it worrying, that not a single CSM candidate is willing to, or able to, bring up this issue from the pro-removal side. Even more concerning is that the issue might not even be brought up at all.
I find it reassuring that not a single CSM candidate has jumped in on the pro removal side yet. Assuming that the candidates DO have a better understanding of the game than the regular players (which we definitely should), this is a strong indication that T2 BPOs are only an issue for select people, but not for the game as a whole.
I do find it disturbing that their reasoning for this is frequently based on broad, non-factual statements when it related to this kind of a matter.
If there are candidates that support 'dynamism' in eve online, joining the pro-removal group is instilling 'dynamism' in the eve economy. My personal opinion (which I'm sharing, but I admit is of no value) is that increasing player created content as a proportion of items in the game (esp. economy) is part of what make this game enjoyable. For example, I am sure many players are happy that we can build our own stations, I'm sure most are happy that we can invent our own t2 (bar the oligarchs). Please remember that part of what we enjoy is the realism in this game, that blowing up someone's ship and podding them can HURT. While Eve can have pvp unparalleled by any of the mmorpgs I've seen, it's economy doesn't match up to the degree of advancement I see in pvp. T2 Bpos are one facet of this and need to be removed to make this game more competitive and 'hardcore'.
San Matari Official forums |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:15:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Furthermore, if people are supposed to spend so much time INVESTED in inventing an item, surely it should be more expensive and rewarding instead of a t2 bpo owner making not worth their time?
This will only happen if there is a very low demand. Let me assure you that is not going to happen any time in the future. And when there is, you can just invent elsewhere.
Yes, and if you would include in your quote the sentence just before, you will find I have taken this into account, Goumindong. I did also state that items that have higher time investment usually have higher cost and lower volume movement. If I am totally mistaken, I would like to be provided with facts and stand corrected.
San Matari Official forums |
Karrakas
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:22:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Karrakas on 14/05/2008 18:27:15
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
I find it reassuring that not a single CSM candidate has jumped in on the pro removal side yet. Assuming that the candidates DO have a better understanding of the game than the regular players (which we definitely should), this is a strong indication that T2 BPOs are only an issue for select people, but not for the game as a whole.
that's not quite correct. Ankhesentapemkah posts, that she would like to find a new way to handle out t2 bpo, which means like removing them a solution for the issue.
What Is true: That the circumstances in this election might not represent the circumstances of the community
|
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:26:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 14/05/2008 18:08:15
Originally by: Soulita
As such I find it worrying, that not a single CSM candidate is willing to, or able to, bring up this issue from the pro-removal side. Even more concerning is that the issue might not even be brought up at all.
I find it reassuring that not a single CSM candidate has jumped in on the pro removal side yet. Assuming that the candidates DO have a better understanding of the game than the regular players (which we definitely should), this is a strong indication that T2 BPOs are only an issue for select people, but not for the game as a whole.
Hehehe. The arrogance is strong in this one.
Yes, you are better than the rest of us. And more wise.
Is it a coincidence that I have heard the same from a t2 bpo producer before?
Originally by: Gamer4liff
...Anyway We T2 producers know the ins and outs of the T2 markets, so as much as you shout "biased" at us, you should listen to us...
But thanks for voicing your opinion.
Always good for voters to know where you as a candidate stand.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:28:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Yes, and if you would include in your quote the sentence just before, you will find I have taken this into account, Goumindong. I did also state that items that have higher time investment usually have higher cost and lower volume movement. If I am totally mistaken, I would like to be provided with facts and stand corrected.
Actually, before we go on with this discussion i would like to know what this sentence has to do with anything we are discussing.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:28:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Assuming that the candidates DO have a better understanding of the game than the regular players (which we definitely should), this is a strong indication that T2 BPOs are only an issue for select people, but not for the game as a whole.
When you assume you make an ass out of u and me.
Originally by: Karrakas
What Is true: That the circumstances in this election might not represent the circumstances of the community
This is a very cogent reply. What I would love to see would be candidates disclose their wallet histories for themselves, their alts over the period of the election and tenure of their candidacy and membership. I.e. all donations are declared  , and we will know who's a crony to who!
San Matari Official forums |
Scagga Laebetrovo
Delictum 23216
San Matari.
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:32:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
Yes, and if you would include in your quote the sentence just before, you will find I have taken this into account, Goumindong. I did also state that items that have higher time investment usually have higher cost and lower volume movement. If I am totally mistaken, I would like to be provided with facts and stand corrected.
Actually, before we go on with this discussion i would like to know what this sentence has to do with anything we are discussing.
I would like to point out that if you fully read the post you've just quoted, you would understand. You have quoted a post you've misread, that is explaining part of a previous post that you've also misread.
San Matari Official forums |
Black Kat
Caldari
Seven Deadly Sinz
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:42:00 -
[58]
Since none of the Canidates can see from the other side, removal of t2bpo, then I agree with the earlier statements. Obviously this is an issue. And the CSM should be able to bring up the point, wheather they agree or not. They are suppose to be supporting the player base not just their own opinions of what is correct or incorrect.
Now for my opinion on the matter. T2 Bpo are way better to have then invention. I don't own one or invent due to the cost of obtaining one or creating. But my small corp has tried to acquire t2 Bpo. And if they are not a huge cash cow why do they cost in excess of 30bil to buy? Invention can not produce 100% all fo the time as a t2bpo can. the resources required needed for a t2 bpo owner to create a copy is not the same that a inventor needs to create the same copy. So the bpo owner even if it is only a 3%/month is gonna come out ahead of the inventor every time. So having the bpo is better. My corp started after the lottery but we produce most of all our own ships, ececpt our t2 ships, which currently we use only for pve, but we can not ever get our hands on a t2 bpo. Sure I been playing when the lottery was available but since I was new didn't understand the concept. So since I didn't understand the concept and now never have the opurtunity to get one makes the prices insane. My ships, Vulture, is pretty pricey for me to use. Granted I can buy them when needed but I won't take one to a pvp fight cause I can't afford to replace that often. But since I am small should I be penalized for that? I am sure the answer will be join a large alliance. I hear it often. Trust us we have tried. But who wants a 7 man corp to join, even though we can create our own capitol ships. So to me and my corp removing of the bpo is the answer. To me makes it more compeling to invent cause now I have more control over market and what ships/parts/etc that is put out without the possibility of someone one day printing a "GRIP" of copies from a bpo to control the market and sale dirt cheap. If t2 bpo weren't as powerful as you state, they wouldn't cost in excess of 20bil.
BK
CEO 7DS
Command Ship Pilot Extraordinaire
Fleet Commander
Command Skills Guide |
Omber Zombie
Gallente
Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:42:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Soulita
Omber Zombie, what you describe above is the normal supply-demand relationship in current market economies. Many see the supply-demand relationship as a positive or even as one of the main advantages of free, open markets.
I doubt you disagree with that principle, but please say if you do.
No, what I described is a fixed supply market with no room for new technology to emerge. In the Real WorldÖ when something is too expensive to be worthwhile producing, people either find ways to reduce it's production cost or invent something that fulfils the same role at a cheaper price or with added value to make the price more palatable. Neither is possible within the eve universe currently.
As I said above, by removing BPO's all you do is reduce the amount of available gear. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is really up to the playerbase and CCP. I personally think it's bad thing, but it has nothing to do with a 'free, open market'
The market is open and free, you just have to purchase an existing BPO if you think there is profit to be made in the area that invention cannot compete in.
----------------------
CSM 08 Blog | 1st Campaign Vid |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.14 18:43:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo
I would like to point out that if you fully read the post you've just quoted, you would understand. You have quoted a post you've misread, that is explaining part of a previous post that you've also misread.
No, it would not. Inefficient production pushing prices up in the absence of efficient production has nothing to do with the current situation where the efficient production method is insufficient to meet the meet demand allowing inefficient production to fill in the gaps.
Go read the economists blog and look at how much volume invention does relative to BPOs. BPOs wouldn't even register on a scale to be considered abuse if a single person owned them all.
Shoot, just look at the price and volume changes of dyspro in the last two years.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |