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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2008.10.08 19:10:00 - [241] Edited by: Le Skunk on 08/10/2008 19:11:06 Originally by: Black Scorpio Originally by: CrayC Originally by: Gamer4liff Congrats, you're part of the problem. No, I am not. If I built anything T2, then yes, I would be part of your problem. But even when it comes to T1 stuff, there are people who thinks that the minerals they mined or recycled from loot is free. So they don't care about selling lower than actual buildcost, going by what you would have paid to buy the minerals on the market, since they conjured up the minerals out of thin air, instead of spending money on buying them. So it really doesn't matter if there's a BPO present or not, there are always stupid people that will sell at a lower price, simply to make money faster. They are the problem... I just don't know why people who sell lower are called stupid in this game. For me it's a simple matter of liquidity. If i need the isk NOW i sell lower obviously, and can take a certain cut on my profit in order to get the isk now. If i don't really need the cash inflow now, i can relax and set it at market price and wait a bit longer. In this case though the poster is referring to the fact that whomever mined the minerals could have sold them on the market for 85 million isk. Instead of building a raven and then selling it for 84 million isk. The same applies to inventors who get "free datacores" from their agent, so sell invented products cheap. SKUNK
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:23:00 - [242] Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane Words 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. Inventors can also adapt to the market enviroment, switching production to fill demand, and have a much lower startup cost and a shorter roi. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Removing BPOs would not dramtically change the end price of popular items, but it would stiffle availability of lower demand, marginal profit items. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:26:00 - [243] Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane The problem with T2 BPOs is that for T2 BPOs owners that price is always lower than it is for inventors. Due to the way markets are (and are implemented) this means that T2 BPO owners will always be able to undercut inventors. Make less profit, but still competing (against each other). Inventors can't compete with this advantage, and since they can't realistically acquire a T2 BPO, this means that these markets are permanently skewed against them. Just buy all the BPO produced items and resell them at your invention price. The volume is finite, so it is possible. Reselling can be very profitable, trust me. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:32:00 - [244] 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.
Vigilant Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:34:00 - [245] Place tech 2 bpo's on market just like tech 1, problem solved. Seriously, this not the first thread on this issue. People have whined. Invention in its current state just sucks, revamp it for people who can not afford to purchase the bp from market.
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:40:00 - [246] Originally by: Malcanis You're leaving out the part of the analogy that equates to invention. Invention - as has been pointed out repeatedly - does have advantages over BPO production; you can switch to producing other ship types, you can expand your scale of production, and the up-front investment is vastly lower. That is because it is not a choice between on or the other. a T2 BPO holder can also invent, a Inventor cannot hold T2 BPO's. The concession holder can conquer free 0.0 space, but not the reverse. The analogy holds fine. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
Anglo Minmatar Astral Mexicans	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:46:00 - [247] i have a profit of 10 mill pr ishtar i pump out.. not much. compaired to before invention... so wtf..
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:48:00 - [248] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane Just buy all the BPO produced items and resell them at your invention price. The volume is finite, so it is possible. Reselling can be very profitable, trust me. Avon, I generally respect your opinion, but it seems you are simply being obtuse now and defending an irrational position. Items that don't have enough t2 BPO producers to meet demand sell at invention prices. Hence you cannot buy and resell them at invention prices, because they are already selling at that price point. Items that do have enough t2 BPO producers to meet demand are selling below invention prices. However, since t2 BPO production capability exceeds demand, trying to resell such items will only line pockets of the T2 BPO producers, who are operating below maximum capacity anyway because of low demand. As such, your suggestion is nonsense. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 20:51:00 - [249] 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.
Barbicane TGUN Industries	Posted - 2008.10.08 21:03:00 - [250] 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? As for me selling my T2 BPOs, I did auction some of them not too long ago. I have others, but I don't want to list them on the forum for competition reasons. If you are seriously interested in buying some, send me a mail listing what BPOs you are looking for and indicative prices. If I have any on your list and the prices are not too far off market value, we can start a negotiation. Of course, it would be more efficient for you if you posted your list on the WTB forum.

KhaniKirai	Posted - 2008.10.08 21:09:00 - [251] The problem with invention is, that the decryptors dont work like RAM TECHS. Now they only worth on the BIG Stuff, where there are no t2 bpo's of. For simple mods and smaller ships, decryptors became too expensive.
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 21:21:00 - [252] 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.
Barbicane TGUN Industries	Posted - 2008.10.08 21:49:00 - [253] Originally by: Catherine Frasier Originally by: Barbicane 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. Thanks. I think I understand your position better now. 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?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 21:55:00 - [254] 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.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.10.08 21:58:00 - [255] Originally by: Venkul Mul Because the ship is perceived as having lesser quality and so people is willing to pay less, not because of BPO. As I explained that is not true. With invention offer is as flexible as demand. If prices starte to drop because people perceive a ship as inferior offers will diminush and compensate this trend. That is the case with HICs. That is NOT the case with command ships. Guess what is teh difference. Quote: Why the Phobos sell at less than a Onyx (for both there isn't a BPO)? and a broadsword at even less, barely covering production costs? Perceived quality of the different HIC, not production cost. Where have you looked the market? Amarr: Onyx 89 millions, Devoter 80. 11% difference, with a build cost of about 78-80 millions for both. That prices are "about the same" for you? First, your costs are way off. The build cost of a HIC, through invention is around 70M ISK tops. Second, 11% is a resonable difference and can be accounted to market fluctuations. The 50%+ difference which is the case between the popular and non popular ships for which there iIS a bpo is NOT reasonable. It an artificial phenom born on this artifacts that should have gone a long while ago, called T2 bpos. A mistake that should be fixed ASAP. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:04:00 - [256] Edited by: Avon on 08/10/2008 22:04:11 Originally by: Catherine Frasier 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. 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. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Makhan	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:08:00 - [257] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Originally by: Venkul Mul Because the ship is perceived as having lesser quality and so people is willing to pay less, not because of BPO. As I explained that is not true. With invention offer is as flexible as demand. If prices starte to drop because people perceive a ship as inferior offers will diminush and compensate this trend. That is the case with HICs. That is NOT the case with command ships. Guess what is teh difference. Quote: Why the Phobos sell at less than a Onyx (for both there isn't a BPO)? and a broadsword at even less, barely covering production costs? Perceived quality of the different HIC, not production cost. Where have you looked the market? Amarr: Onyx 89 millions, Devoter 80. 11% difference, with a build cost of about 78-80 millions for both. That prices are "about the same" for you? First, your costs are way off. The build cost of a HIC, through invention is around 70M ISK tops. Second, 11% is a resonable difference and can be accounted to market fluctuations. The 50%+ difference which is the case between the popular and non popular ships for which there iIS a bpo is NOT reasonable. It an artificial phenom born on this artifacts that should have gone a long while ago, called T2 bpos. A mistake that should be fixed ASAP. So the nearly 200m gulf between the highest and lowest marauder class ships (in the region I'm in anyway[Tash-Murkon]) is because of ________?
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:13:00 - [258] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane The problem with T2 BPOs is that for T2 BPOs owners that price is always lower than it is for inventors. Due to the way markets are (and are implemented) this means that T2 BPO owners will always be able to undercut inventors. Make less profit, but still competing (against each other). Inventors can't compete with this advantage, and since they can't realistically acquire a T2 BPO, this means that these markets are permanently skewed against them. Just buy all the BPO produced items and resell them at your invention price. The volume is finite, so it is possible. Reselling can be very profitable, trust me. Won't work in the long run, it's the infinity raising bet at a roulette wheel scheme; eventually you either run out of money, or you hit the banks limit (bit of a lame example, but you know what I mean). Moreover, and this is more important, other T2 BPO owners are not limited in anyway in their ability to undercut you, even if only by 0.01 Isk, again depressing the market. They are just as cut-throat as you are. And if you don't want to remain with your goods, you have no choice but to follow at one point. Reselling can be very profitable, I don't need to trust you, I know from experience, but only for a short period of time, or for the amount of Isk you can pour into your attempt to keep it up. And there's always the possibility of someone with deeper pockets showing up. Eventually, by any means, the market will self-correct. And no, I don't want to take away reselling, I think speculation is actually very healthy for a market. One man's loss is another man's gain. Bubbles burst, it's what they're supposed to do. Anything artificial that keeps them alive should be removed. Let the chips fall where they may, and all that. Not to mention it relies on the size and rationality of the market. In general terms, large markets (lots of buyers and sellers) make for more rational markets, as it reduces the effect of irrational trades (law of large numbers). So, while this may (and actually does) work in Jita, it doesn't almost everywhere else (notable exceptions for some commodities). In smaller markets (where demand is much lower, and irrational behaviour has much more of an effect) it doesn't. But all of this doesn't negate the fact that T2 BPO provide an inherently false, or lob-sided advantage. And so the argument is the same as for the transferability of T2 BPOs (which I still maintain is not realistic), it doesn't matter if it reduces the effect in certain circumstances, it still is an unfair advantage the 'haves' have over the 'have nots'. It has been said before, but it bears repeating. If arguing about the size of the effect T2 BPOs have, there are two options: It either has a negligible or no effect, or it has a profound effect. If the effect is negligible, then the removal of T2 BPOs has no consequences for the market, but would put players on a more equal footing of competition. An admirable goal you'd have to agree. If the effect is profound, T2 BPOs have to be removed to ensure a free and efficient market, with the additional benefit of putting players on a more equal footing, as I said, an admirable goal. It seems to me, you are arguing to what extend the effect is profound, or that to some extent the effect is tempered by circumstance. The only thing I'm saying is that any effect is profound, notwithstanding the fact that a game should provide equal opportunity for all. -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:14:00 - [259] Originally by: Avon 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. You could that for ammo for a long time and you still can for hybrids. Thus the price crash on T2 ammo. There are a few other T2 bpos that have low copy times, which completely invalidate invention for these items. But that is besides the point. The point is even without copies T2 bpos distort the market in deleterious ways, and in all the amrkets they are harmless they are nothingbut an unecessary artifact from the past. Originally by: Makham So the nearly 200m gulf between the highest and lowest marauder class ships (in the region I'm in anyway[Tash-Murkon]) is because of ________? That is a characteristic of the market you are in. In weak market you will always see lots of fluctuations. Look up in any big trade hub, though, and you will see that it is not the case. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:29:00 - [260] Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 08/10/2008 22:04:11 Originally by: Catherine Frasier 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. 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. Or you can run your own invention jobs in those slots and still make more profit. Either way you win while inventors without T2 BPOs lose. And there's nothing inventors can do to change that. The volume argument is flawed. Selective quoting ftl. -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Barbicane TGUN Industries	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:30:00 - [261] Originally by: Avon What we really need are some accurate metrics on the volumes and production methods of T2 items. That's a very good point.
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:31:00 - [262] Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane Or you can run your own invention jobs in those slots and still make more profit. Either way you win while inventors without T2 BPOs lose. And there's nothing inventors can do to change that. The volume argument is flawed. Selective quoting ftl. So your arguement is that to compete with the potential profits of inventors, BPO owners could always turn to invention? Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:42:00 - [263] Originally by: Avon I agree that some T2 items are probably under produced, but then they aren't the targets of invention either, and in those cases the T2 BPOs are probably a requirement just to keep the items on the market. If there's money to be made, someone will show up to make it. It's how economies work. Originally by: Avon High demand items put the BPO owners at a disadvantage, because they can't increase production past the BPO limit in order to meet it, and are vulnerable to reselling. There's nothing keeping T2 BPO owners from running a couple of invention jobs. Volume restriction is not an argument. Quote: Removing BPOs isn't going to make inventors rich - it won't increase their profits at all in all likelyhood. All it does is remove the supply of low demand items, and "punish" people who invested billions in long term industrial investments. This isn't about making inventors rich, it never was. It's about making the market free, efficient, and provide an opportunity for all. And the 'poor' T2 BPO owners have had years to gain back their 'industrial investments'. And where they haven't, they've made a wrong investment. Finance has no pity, someone's gotta lose sometimes. Quote: What we really need are some accurate metrics on the volumes and production methods of T2 items. I doubt that BPO production accounts for the majority - certainly not of the ones that hit the market anyway. No metrics will change the basic fact that T2 BPO provide an unfair advantage for their holders in comparison with inventors. The only thing they'll allow us to do is to calculate the effect of removal. And that's only interesting to CCP in order to make adjustments to invention, when and where necessary. Face it, you have no basis on which to make these types of predictions. T2 BPO delenda est -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Avon Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:46:00 - [264] Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane No metrics will change the basic fact that T2 BPO provide an unfair advantage for their holders in comparison with inventors. Define unfair? Some people invest 10's of billions of ISK on BPO's with 4 or 5yr roi's. Unfair would be removing them because you don't want to invest, the advantage is earned. Eve-Online: The Text Adventure
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:52:00 - [265] Originally by: Avon Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane Or you can run your own invention jobs in those slots and still make more profit. Either way you win while inventors without T2 BPOs lose. And there's nothing inventors can do to change that. The volume argument is flawed. Selective quoting ftl. So your arguement is that to compete with the potential profits of inventors, BPO owners could always turn to invention? No, the argument is that T2 BPO owners have the option to maintain their advantage by turning to invention. The problem is that inventors don't have the option to turn to T2 BPOs to gain that advantage. The potential profits of inventors will always be lower that that of T2 BPO owners. I though we'd established that already (several times over). Production volume is not an issue, never has. Keep at it though ... T2 BPO delenda est -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:53:00 - [266] 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.
Bartholomeus Crane Gallente The Crane Family	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:53:00 - [267] Originally by: Barbicane Originally by: Avon What we really need are some accurate metrics on the volumes and production methods of T2 items. That's a very good point. How would it change the fact that T2 BPO owners can always produce at lesser cost than inventors? T2 BPO delenda est -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.10.08 22:55:00 - [268] Originally by: Makhan Tash-Murkon is not a "weak" market, it's the second most active market in Amarr space. Yes, Tash-Murkon is a pathetic and weak market. Quote: Even in Amarr itself prices on the ships fluctuate wildly. A cursory glance of the paladin sale data shows a significant variation on prices. The difference between the average price on the 4th and the 3rd of this month was about 50m. Between the different types of ships also vary highly from day to day. 50m in a ship whose build price is around 600m is a perfectly acceptable fluctuation. Quote: Without BPOs these markets are highly volatile, no such "balance" that you speak of exists. Small markets are volatile on their own. Especially regarding high value items. Why exactly do you think people goto Jita to buy factions and deadspace items? T2 Battleships fall on the same category. They are luxury items, extremelly expensive with very low demand. If you want to buy them for stable values you should go to bigger hubs. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2008.10.08 23:01:00 - [269] Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 08/10/2008 23:02:06 Originally by: Avon Define unfair? Some people invest 10's of billions of ISK on BPO's with 4 or 5yr roi's. Unfair would be removing them because you don't want to invest, the advantage is earned. Some people invested billions of ISK in invention tools, just to have their efforts undermined by the increase in interface bpo availabilty by ccp. Some people invested billions of ISK in nanofitted battleships a couple years ago and speed implants just to have them nerfed and turned into dust. Some people invested billions of ISK and time in Datacore acquisition, just to see it turned into dust when ccp cut by 10 the rp price of datacores. The unfairness is the fact that bpo holders think their investments should be protected by ccp when nobody else is. Quote: What we really need are some accurate metrics on the volumes and production methods of T2 items. The permanence of T2 bpos is wrong by principle. The production volume won`t change that. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Catherine Frasier	Posted - 2008.10.08 23:02:00 - [270] 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.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: 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.