EVE Search - People's whiplash to Tech 2 BPOs

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

People's whiplash to Tech 2 BPOs

» 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)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.05 17:58:00 - [1] Originally by: Venkul Mul So again, look the BPO and the time requirements before doing this kind of statements. Clearly he shouldn't have said "perfect", or "nearly perfect". Perfect or nearly perfect doesn't matter. What matters is that BPOs can be, and have been researched to be much, much more efficient than any invented BPC can ever be. Since you're so keen on looking at the number, lets look. Cruiser: Base waste factor 10%. The most efficient invented BPC has ME -1. That puts waste at 20% Let's assume that you only run your BPO through 3 lab (POS) cycles of 1 month each, that gives it an ME of 21. Doing the actual math with actual (current, local) component prices for an actual t2 cruiser; at ME -1 material costs are 36,415,764.60. After three month's research (21 ME) costs from the researched BPO are 30,484,409.00. That's a straight up 5.9Misk undercut on every single unit produced. The above also ignores the cost of invention. Both one-time costs like acquiring your data interface and the repeated costs like datacores and decryptors which are paid, not per BPC, but per BPC attempt. The costs/values of these items can run to well over 100M isk per invention attempt. Sticking to the cruiser example, where the base invention success rate is 25%, that means you must multiply those costs by about 4 and add that amount directly to the per-unit advantage of BPO holders. Where the decryptors decrease success rates in order to improve ME multiply by 5. So, no, BPOs do not "ruin the market" or anything apocalyptic like that. But, yes, they present a significant, constant and permanent disadvantage to those people not lucky enough to have them. A disadvantage that, unlike everything else in the game, cannot be overcome through patience, or hard work, or skill or underhanded sneakiness. So, they should go. Not because they're "ZOMGWTFAWFULL!!11one1!" but because they represent a small, but very real unfair advantage which cannot be overcome, ever.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.05 20:32:00 - [2] Originally by: El Yatta Drones are another example. Mining crystals are perfect - hundreds and hundreds sell each day in the Forge, but it would take an inventor a week to produce 50 So it would take dozens (or even hundreds) of inventors to meet the need. Since there are (far more than) hundreds of inventors and potential inventors, where is the problem? Yes, some prices would go up a little bit. So what? It would not be the start of some inflationary cycle, just a one time slight upward adjustment.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.05 20:54:00 - [3] Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 05/10/2008 20:54:58 Originally by: Barbicane Thus, Inventors hoping to make more isk if T2 BPOs are gone will become very disappointed. Wonderful, except that you're "proving" this with hypothetical math using numbers you just pulled out of your butt. Yes, a new equilibrium would be reached. Yes, it's likely that prices would increase a little bit, and inventor's profits slightly less so. But it would be a fair and level playing field, and that matters. Originally by: Barbicane There will be plenty of other elements of "unfairness" to complain about once the T2 BPOs are gone. Yes, probably. So this would be one less. That's worth doing. Originally by: Barbicane I really hope CCP doesn't cave in to these whines because it will be the first step on the path to destruction of a great game. Naw, no hyperbole there.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.05 21:46:00 - [4] Originally by: Gamer4liff Quote: Wonderful, except that you're "proving" this with hypothetical math using numbers you just pulled out of your butt. Logic does not require numbers and his argument is entirely logical. Logical? Maybe. Certain? Not at all. He claimed that expenses would increase more than prices would increase. The more is a value entirely made up to suit his purposes. I can just as well assert that expenses would increase in exactly the same proportion as prices or to a lesser extent. (He also ignored the fact that the BPO produced units artificially drive prices down, removal of which would tend to compensate for those increased expenses.)
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.05 21:52:00 - [5] Originally by: Delichon I mine my own minerals - thus they are free. They are "free" only in terms of isk. They cost you time and effort. That's why you can sell them for isk: they have value. Treating them as free is throwing away that value.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.05 22:10:00 - [6] Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 05/10/2008 22:12:04 Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 05/10/2008 22:10:30 Originally by: Malcanis Nice argument: "CCP should take your stuff for no good reason, because I can't have it as well" How about this then: CCP should take your stuff because they should never have given it to you in the first place. It was a mistake. Since they cannot go back in time and unmake that mistake, and since the unfair and unbalancing effects of that mistake continue to accumulate as time goes by they should immediately "take your stuff". You were lucky to have it in the first place. (Lucky, not deserving.) You were lucky to have it as long as you did. (Lucky, not deserving.) "Taking your stuff" now will not somehow wipe out that luck since we are not proposing merely taking it, but also giving back something else and at the same time allowing you to keep everything you earned over the years with your lucky item. Is it a perfect solution? Of course not, but it is, by far, the lesser of two evils. CCP just needs to bite the bullet and yank the damn bandage off in one quick motion. Every day that passes the accumulated advantage (which will not ever be erased) increases.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.05 22:40:00 - [7] Originally by: Taedrin Anyone with half a brain will realize that for the vast majority of the T2 market, removing T2 BPOs won't do ANYTHING to the market. The amount of market share that a T2 BPO is capable of maintaining is so low compared to the rest of invention. T2 BPOs these days make mere millions of ISK per day. Assuming that we accept your claims about "mere millions" (which I don't), what you're saying that it's unfair, just that it's not as unfair as some people might think? Does that actually sound to you like a reason to leave things as they are, that it's just a bit unfair? Unfair is unfair. Fix it. "It could be worse" is not a solution.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.05 23:14:00 - [8] Originally by: Gamer4liff Take the BPOs, skyrocket the prices. I don't see why (even if true) higher base prices is inherently "bad for the game". Originally by: Gamer4liff It is for the good of the game that T2 BPOs remain. Says the completely unbiased T2 BPO owner.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 01:46:00 - [9] Edited by: Catherine Frasier on 06/10/2008 01:46:52 Originally by: Gamer4liff I invent, I make stuff with T2 BPOs, I know what I'm talking about, what have you done in the T2 market? I don't question your experience (although there's certainly no reason we should believe such claims either). I merely question your grasp of basic economics, disagree with your assertions and conclusions and suspect that you are arguing only to protect you own BPOs.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 03:36:00 - [10] Originally by: Cpt Branko Buy it. Most of today's BPO holders bought them. He can buy one. Just like most other BPO owners did. Just buy it. Just like most other BPO owners did. You can just buy one. Most other BPO owners did. They can just buy one to remove the unfair advantage. Just like most other BPO owners did. Fix it yourself, buy one. Just like most other BPO owners did. As has already been pointed out, repeatedly, that's not possible. I can only buy one if one of the people who owns one of the BPOs I wish to buy is willing to sell. If not, I can not and your "fix" fails. That's the problem. If your "fix" was an actual "fix", if we could actually buy a T2 BPO whenever we had the money this would not be a problem. Further there is nothing to say that even if I can buy a BPO I can buy one at a rational price. If the player holding the BPO wants a price such that I would have to produce back-to-back runs of the item and sell them at the best possible market value without interruption for the next twenty years before I break even then "buy one" is not a solution, it's a scam. Originally by: Cpt Branko Seriously, the argument goes like "I cannot buy a T2 BPO. Therefore, people who did buy their T2 BPOs should have them removed, because I cannot afford one." Nobody said "because I cannot afford one". Seed them on the NPC market at rational prices and see how damn fast that particular silliness about "not being able to afford them" gets disproved. Giving out T2 BPOs was a huge mistake. That recognized, CCP stopped doing it. Now they need to undo the damage that mistake caused. If this requires CCP to "buy back" the BPOs in an eminent domain kind of maneuver, then what's the problem?

Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 03:45:00 - [11] Originally by: Vabjekf change all t2 bpc into bpo I'm guessing/hoping you meant that t'other way around? Otherwise some of us would find themselves completely overflowing with BPOs.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 04:20:00 - [12] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa If somebody has Tech 2 BPOs and you do not, and you acquire your Tech 2 prints through invention, then that is your method of doing it. Sleight of hand with the word "prints" there. If someone has T2 BPOS and I do not then I do not acquire T2 BPOS with invention. I acquire dramatically inferior BPCs through a constant and expensive series of invention attempts. This was introduced to reduce the unfairness somewhat which, I fully admit, it did. (But only somewhat.) Originally by: Siigari Kitawa People worked for their prints and earned them by having lots and lots of points in the research lottery. So because they have them now and you don't, CCP should not have to remove them from the game. Actually there is nothing about "earned" in this. Some people had lots and lots of points in the research lottery and "earned" bugger all for it. Other people "earned" BPOs with relatively few points. Earned is simply not the right word. Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Look at people that have really nice ships. They shouldn't get REMOVED because you don't have access to a method to get them This isn't the same thing at all. Unlike any ship in the game a T2 BPO is simply a money faucet. And unlike a ship there's no risk involved to the BPO in using it. Originally by: Siigari Kitawa You guys are just upset that some people have the ability to make ISK easier than you do No. We're upset that some people have the ability to make isk easier than everyone else can. Originally by: Siigari Kitawa If you inventors are inventing and you continue to do so, you are PROBABLY PROFITING OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T CONTINUE TO DO IT. Sure I profit, what's that got to do with anything? Some people are actually concerned about game balance and fairness instead of just their own personal gain. Originally by: Siigari Kitawa SO SAVE YOUR ISK AND FIND THE TECH 2 BPO AND STOP. YOUR. WHINING. That "just buy one" shit has been debunked repeatedly, please stop repeating it. Sorry, I mean: STOP. REPEATING. IT.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 07:19:00 - [13] Originally by: Venkul Mul If they are so good buy them. The are sold every day. Yeah right. If they're not that good then I'll swap any T2 BPO you can find for the corresponding T1 BPO and a data interface. As to this "They are sold every day" crap that people keep offering: Is that really the best you got? Well then stop flirting and fill in the actual details: How many are "sold every day"? Who exactly is selling them and to whom? How many T2 BPOs are out there in the first place? Unless you know then you're just waving your hands and making loud noises. Originally by: Venkul Mul But you don't want to spend the effort to gather the isk to buy the BPO What BPO?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 07:21:00 - [14] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa By removing tech 2 BPOs from their owners (the elite) and bringing them down to the level of everyone else (non-elite) you create a communist environment, where everyone is equal, rather than having a capitalist situation, where those who have the BPOs can become more wealthy than the guy without the BPOs. Economic theory: You're doing it wrong.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 20:40:00 - [15] Originally by: Barbicane Quote: Quote: There will be plenty of other elements of "unfairness" to complain about once the T2 BPOs are gone. Yes, probably. So this would be one less. That's worth doing. So you admit that the reason you are campaining so hard against T2 BPOs is that other people are making more money than you are, and that makes you jealous. Ok, I'm glad we settled that. Nice try but no. This is not, and never has been about jealousy. It's about fairness. I have my billions, I have my stations, I have my caps, I'm doing quite well thanks. It remains though that the playing field is not level. That should be addressed regardless of how or if it affects me personally. This is about the game and all the people in it, not about my wallet. Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane Yes, I do own a couple. I bought them for money I made from trading and grinding missions, just like most other T2 BPO owners did. What's stopping you from doing the same? Do you think they are too expensive? Exactly how much are you currently selling them for?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 21:08:00 - [16] Originally by: Gamer4liff While I personally find it unacceptable that there is no way to get 'fresh' T2 BPOs, pulling the T2 BPOs in use now would have a devastating effect on the market. Oh please! The markets without BPOs underpinning in them are functioning just fine. Do you hear hordes of people screaming that we must have new BPOs seeded immediately because the markets are broken? No, neither do I. Try to guess why.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 21:20:00 - [17] Originally by: Gamer4liff Can you not see this from the T2 consumer's perspective? The prices for ships without T2 BPOs are horrible compared with the ones that have them. Prices are what the markets dictate, as it should be. That's the entire point of the exercise. But even if it were true that some sort of artificial stabilizer was needed it would still be unfair for that to directly benefit only a tiny handful of players. If (and words cannot express how terrible I think this idea is) there were some need for manipulating the market like you suggest it would be better handled by having limited price stabilizing items offered by NPCs, not by a tiny group of lucky players.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 21:24:00 - [18] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Every time they produce a BPC, their sale is a kneejerk hoping to milk every bit out of it they can until they can produce their next one. The question is: How is that bad for Eve? Further: Why will that not change due to competition as more and more people start producing said ships to try and cash in on the "horrible" profits?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 21:38:00 - [19] Originally by: Del Narveux A few T2 BPOs are good, it guarantees that stuff like logistics that dont have very much demand are somewhat affordable to the few people who do use them. So by "good" you mean good for the buyers. That's a pretty one-sided analysis, don't ya think?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 21:48:00 - [20] Originally by: Gamer4liff But I don't suppose you care about the consumer, do you? Certainly not more than the producer. Both are players and the market is PvP. (If inventors want too much profit for your taste, invent your own.)

Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 22:03:00 - [21] Originally by: Gamer4liff I refuse the notion the market interaction is "PvP" PvP refers to fighting, which market competition is not. Incorrect. PvP is quite explicitly "player versus player". Market competition fully qualifies even if you don't understand or don't like the idea. Originally by: Gamer4liff This is a game, a game that has to be "fun" to a certain extent, raising all the prices to terrible amounts by removing BPOs (which you now seem to accept) would make the game much less fun for the users of the T2 You have failed to grasp fundamental economics. All else being equal where there are enormous profits because demand outweighs supply more suppliers will appear to take advantage of the situation. When they do appear the combination of competition and of closing the gap between supply and demand will inevitably lower prices. Market forces at work. There is absolutely no need for artificial mechanisms, and there is certainly no need for artificial mechanisms that also unfairly reward a select few. Or, if you want to look at it in the personal greed way I keep hearing about: If I am smart enough to be producing an item that is rare and in great demand then who the hell are you to artificially cut into my profits?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 22:17:00 - [22] Originally by: Gamer4liff Not a very "authoritative" source I know, but there isn't exactly an authority on the topic, and the rebranding of PvP is something 100% unique to EVE. The very next line of that article you quote is: "PvP can be broadly used to describe any game, or aspect of a game, where players compete against each other" Cherry picking quotes ftw, eh? Originally by: Gamer4liff Yes there is, to protect the consumers. Free markets are imperfect. And if you want to cut back on the "rewards" those forced in to steady production reap, invent what they are making, steal the profit. Protect the consumers? Nonsense. Show me the need to do so. (Other than, you know, the fact that you're a consumer and you really want to be protected. ) Originally by: Gamer4liff But CCP should cut in on your profits for the sake of market stability and fun for the end users of the products by not having them be prohibitively expensive. I'm an end user too, ya know? And (since you don't seem to get this) is prices are "prohibitive" then I don't make any money. If I price too high, you don't buy. If I lower the price until you buy then prices are not "prohibitive" any more. Thus market forces balance prices. You are proposing a solution without a problem.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.06 23:42:00 - [23] Originally by: Gamer4liff The broad secondary definition in no way invalidates the primary definition, which requires combat. No, it doesn't invalidate it, it complements it. Originally by: Gamer4liff CCP has a duty to provide the best game possible, allowing prices to run rampant is not in the interests of the game. As everyone keeps telling you prices will not "run rampant". (Unless you're gonna redefine that too. Maybe "more than you feel like paying"?) Originally by: Gamer4liff If the Market for Mauraders and Black Ops ships is your idea of a "balanced" market, well then I don't even know what to think Clearly. Originally by: Gamer4liff Only because you refuse to acknowledge that too high prices would be a detriment to the game at large. Yes, I do, mostly because they would not be. Originally by: Gamer4liff Indeed, and that is why I am of the opinion they should make a system to distribute T2 BPOs again. Right, cause if you find yourself in a hole: keep digging!
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 00:05:00 - [24] Originally by: Barbicane Tell me, what will be your next quest after this one? A) Dysprosium Moons in every system B) Bring Arkonor back into high sec C) State Issue Ravens to all mission runners after their 100th mission Still don't grasp it eh? The issue is fairness, not charity. Originally by: Barbicane Originally by: Catherine Frasier Exactly how much are you currently selling them for? Give me an offer. If you pay enough, I will sell. So you're not actually selling them (quelle surprise), but if I figure out that you have them (through magic maybe?) and offer you more than you can make using them... Think that through. Originally by: Barbicane To summarize: There is no problem with T2 BPOs. They are accessible for all who want one and are willing to put som effort into it. Most significantly, and as has been mentioned, the Devs do not agree with you. Perhaps because they recognize that the BPOs are "accessible" only when and if some other player feels like giving you access to one. Until that time there is simply nothing you can do. Despite your protestations no amount of mission-running will gain you a T2 BPO unless some other player decides to let you have one. That's antithetic to the basic sandbox nature of the game. Originally by: Barbicane Complete Fairness and equality will never be achievable in this game without turning it into Hello Kitty Online. If you think about it, you may realize that it's the various little bits and pieces of "unfairness" that make the game challenging and fun to play for most people. You clearly don't understand the concept. We're discussing fairness of opportunity. Flexing your epeen about silly "Hello kitty" vs uber-tough-guy "Pretend Internet Spaceships" just shows how confused you are about the underlying issue. It's not a question of harsh or gentle it's a question of being harsh to everyone equitably. Even if, as you claim, perfect fairness is not achievable that does nothing to forgive ignoring unfairness that is fixable.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 00:28:00 - [25] Originally by: Avon Sandboxes do not automatically spawn more buckets and rakes just because more people come to play in it. Sandbox is a phrase commonly used to mean non-linear, open-ended, undirected gameplay. It doesn't mean the game is actually like playing in a sandbox. However if you really like that "spawn more buckets" metaphor then why does it only apply to T2 BPOs. Nothing else in the game works that way. Anything else you have I can take, or break, or get one of my own.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 00:40:00 - [26] Originally by: Kransthow Originally by: Catherine Frasier Still don't grasp it eh? The issue is fairness, not charity. As I further explained: Quote: We're discussing fairness of opportunity. And in this area Eve is not but could and should be.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 01:41:00 - [27] Originally by: Kransthow Originally by: Catherine Frasier And in this area Eve is not but could and should be. I don't think so Well thanks for sharing.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 01:47:00 - [28] Originally by: Rellik B00n Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Which? The OP or all the arguments and refutations in the following four pages?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 04:03:00 - [29] Originally by: Kransthow Should your neighbour have his winnings removed? No. But what's that got to do with anything?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 18:23:00 - [30] Originally by: Kransthow Sigh I guess you don't understand metaphors Guess again. I also (and this is more on point) understand analogies. I understand them well enough to recognize a bad (not to mention self-serving) analogy, like that one. Originally by: Kransthow Should your friend have his T2 BPO removed? Yes. Not for the implied, petty "me vs him" jealousy though, but because it's fundamentally unbalanced. If you want an apt analogy then ask Chribba what would happen if he used the Veldnaut in empire combat. His (and a few other high-sec cap owner's) special status is only permitted as long as they do not use it in competition with the rest of us. Likewise if you want to keep your BPOs as collector's items (but never, ever use them) I would retract my objection.

Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 18:30:00 - [31] Originally by: Venkul Mul From your posts it appears that the only way to buy a T2 BPO that you will find acceptable or know how to use is a market offer. Well then that goes to show how appearances can be deceiving. Unless those BPOs are on the market because they are available to everyone then I would be no more accepting of that then I would of any other method. The issue is not the method by which those BPOs which are traded are traded.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:32:00 - [32] Originally by: Avon Lots of words, but they don't seem to address the fact that production from BPOs is volume restricted. Sure you might make a bigger profit per item, but you can't make many of them. Inventors, however, can produce higher volumes, but at a lower per item profit. How does that possibly matter? As you said: "You can produce bigger profit per item". That's it, that's the point. If that's not enough (and it is) You can also (while I'm running the invention attempts to generate my inferior BPCs) bang off copies of your researched BPO and then run them in parallel. If that doesn't make you happy you could (as has been pointed out) run invention yourself in your other slots plus your BPO runs, giving you a definite net advantage over anyone else. Originally by: Avon Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Of course they do. But taken as a whole one is clearly far superior to the other. We don't see "crappy" Domination BPOs selling for Eighty Five Billion isk because they're no better than invention. There's simply no honest way to paint T2 BPOs as anything but advantageous.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:51:00 - [33] Originally by: Anglo i have a profit of 10 mill pr ishtar i pump out.. not much. compaired to before invention... so wtf.. It used to be much, much worse, that's true. That doesn't mean it's now fixed.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 21:21:00 - [34] Originally by: Barbicane Originally by: Catherine Frasier a.k.a. Bartholomeus Crane You clearly don't understand the concept. We're discussing fairness of opportunity. You're right. I don't understand your concept of fairness of opportunity or how it applies to T2 BPOs. Could you explain in simple words? Sure. There is nothing else in the game for which I need some other player's permission to get or do. Anything you can do, I have the opportunity to do (or to try) for myself, except this. You can just sit on your BPO and there's not a single thing I can do about it. I can't out-compete you economically for it nor beat you militarily for it nor can I just get my own from the game.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 21:55:00 - [35] Originally by: Barbicane It seems your view is that most T2 BPOs are still in the hands of the original owners who won them in the lottery. Is that correct? Nope, I don't think so. Although I don't believe anyone knows exactly how many exist, are or are not in the hands of the original owners, or have been destroyed, it doesn't actually matter.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:53:00 - [36] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Catherine Frasier You can also (while I'm running the invention attempts to generate my inferior BPCs) bang off copies of your researched BPO and then run them in parallel. Except you can't do that. It takes longer to per run to copy a T2 BPO than it does to produce the item, precisely to prevent what you describe. Interesting definition of "can't". Something like "can but it's not efficient"? Regardless, if you want to consider the effects of BP vs BP (1 slot at a time) BPOs are vastly more efficient than invented BPCs. If you want to complicate matters by running multiple slots at the same time then consider both producers running an exactly equal number of invented BPCs. Then replace 1 of the BPCs with a BPO. This immediately translates into a clear advantage both in that one slot and overall.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 23:02:00 - [37] Originally by: Avon Unfair would be removing them because you don't want to invest, the advantage is earned. As I've repeatedly said I have no argument with buying them back to compensate (or help compensate) for any possible initial investment. And stop putting the phrase "don't want to invest" in our mouths. It's either completely dishonest and misleading or it means you aren't even bothering to read our actual objections and concerns.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.09 22:46:00 - [38] Originally by: Barbicane The Anti-BPO arguments I've seen so far are: T2 BPOs are too expensive and thus not accessible for everyone who wants them. Therefore they should be removed. Buying T2 BPOs takes a lot of effort. Therefore they are "unfair" and should be removed. Noobs are confused by T2 BPOs. Therefore they have to be removed. T2 BPOs drive down market price beyond the point of competition for inventors. Therefore they have to be removed. Familiar with the term "straw man"? That's when you intentionally misrepresent someone's argument and then refute that made up version. You should really become familiar with the term if you're going to continue using it as a tactic. To put it another way: If that's what you've seen, you haven't been looking very hard.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.10 19:10:00 - [39] Originally by: Aeco Feife T2 BPOs were not distributed randomly, the lottery was among characters with the appropriate research points. T2 BPOs were distributed randomly. That the individuals involved had unequally weighted chances or that not all players were among the possible recipients doesn't change that fact. Originally by: Aeco Feife Most of yall are saying ôI assert Eve should be fair in this dimension, but harsh in that oneö and arguing over preferences. The opposite of fair is not harsh, it's unfair. Eve can be, should be, and in most cases is both fair and harsh. You should have the same opportunities to succeed as anyone else in the game but if you fail or if you're beaten then that's just too damn bad. What's wrong with that?

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.