Mostly ? Very busy at my day-job.

...

The maelstrom of arguments so far basically boil down to something very simple.

On one hand, producing from a T2 BPO is always cheaper, but has a much higher initial cost (which can be recovered, sometimes lower, sometimes higher) and has a maximum production volume.
For items with low demand, the max production volume from T2 BPOs is sufficient to satisfy the entire demand, so invention can't compete because equilibrium price is below invention breakeven (and many times, barely above T2 BPO breakeven).
However, the overall total value of those items is relatively small, even if by pure item TYPE count they represent the majority.

On the other hand, production from an invented T2 BPC is always more expensive, but has a very small initial cost (recurring and non-recoverable) and is as good as unlimited as far as production volume of any particular item goes.
For items with high demand, T2 BPOs can't possibly match demand, so price rises, quickly surpassing invention breakeven, so demand for invented items starts existing. The more popular the item, the higher the demand, the more slice of the pie inventors have.
The overall total value of those items is very high, even if by total item count they're a minority.
T2 BPO owners *COULD* significantly undercut inventors if they wanted, but it would generally be a very stupid thing to do, because it would further decrease the already pathetically small RoI of the T2 BPOs.

Arguments about not being able to get new ones or items without any are not really all that relevant, barely more than demagoguery and rhetoric.

...

To me, this looks like a decent compromise (far from perfect, but given the time evolution and time's irreversibility, doubtful to have any overall better alternatives).
You can always get what you want, and stuff only a few people want is dirt cheap ; T2 BPO profit is capped by whatever the added invention costs are for the corresponding item, as opposed to it being it free to soar, while RoI remains very low ; inventors can quickly switch to whatever the "item of the month" might be, whereas T2 BPO owners have a very high inertia (due to difficulty of switching T2 BPO type, having to go through long-duration sale/purchase periods and find willing counterparts).
Also, CCP has specifically "pre-nerfed" invention heavily, then slightly buffed it from time to time. If they wanted to make invention more on par with T2 BPO production, they would have had ample occasions to buff it even further, BUT THEY DID NOT, because they don't feel like the current situation is a problem. This really says most of what needs to be said.

To Brewlar Kuvakei, it looks like "UNACCEPTABLE levels of unfairness" because he can't accept radically different production chain methods for the exact same items, and because he feels too many of the current owners (for HIS taste) have obtained the BPOs as too much of a good deal (in his opinion), so he is perfectly willing to sacrifice the older alternative production method in pursuit of that illusory fairness, and damn the consequences.
He used to agree that buffing invention to further limit the advantage of BPOs would be a decent middle ground concession, but he dropped that much more CCP-palatable alternative a short while after. I can't help but suspect that he doesn't actually want to achieve anything practically achievable anymore, but is mainly just upset by the situation and is on a crusade for the Holy Grail.

...

And that's pretty much it, in a nutshell.
--T.

Ah, now we get to why Brewlar's mad. He lost money on invention because he didn't look at the market first.

If you pick your invention without doing your market research and loose all your money, that's your fault.

Mans got a point, Why arent new T2 BPO's being introduced or New T3 BPO's?

Perhaps im wrong?

Nope Kara your spot on. T2BPO was a massive mistake that needs rectifying. I myself am contemplating a move to Serenity server where T2BPO's do not exist because there is one thing I do agree with T2BPO supporters and owners is that I doubt they are going to be fixed any time soon.

:facepalm:

sure, if you are desperately looking for analogies and want to take CCP decisions that have actually nothing to do With T2 BPO`s as a argument, you could ask that. BUT since we are trusting CCP now in their decisions, we could also ask why they simply havent removed the BPO`s yet, can't we?

to clear this up:

current T3 Ships are not an advancement of any other ships, like its the case inT2 mfg. they are designed as a unique ship type (No Base item/BPO)

there are only 4 ]different T3 items/ships in the game yet, while there thousands of T2 items and ships.

there is not just 1 way to manufacture things...T1, T2, T3, Drugs and Capitals have all their unique parts of manufaction to keep the game more exciting and create different professions.

they didn`t decide to use the invention system either, wich makes the question for a BPO even more pointless


what do you mean with "this" ? just the whole thing again or do you have anything concrete this time?


absolutely

Very professional post, Oversimplified, almost compelling, still doesn't provide any kind of answer to a problem.

What do I mean? I believe I was pretty clear as to what I meant, in plain English.
I dont know if they will ever remove T2 BPO's but the fact still stands, no new T2 or T3 BPO's are being introduced..

CCP should take the forum whine and the unsubs which will quickly be replenished by new players, higher player retention and of course new subs for invention alts.

Now you need even more subs/invention chars to achieve the same profit

Is there a problem?

I'm new to this debate so forgive me if this idea has already been suggested. I don't own any T2 BPOs, but there might be a way to compromise, rather than just removing them altogether.

What if these T2BPOs were given some sort of regenerating number of runs? By that I mean, perhaps a certain one would have 50 runs available every week, and another only 10 runs per week. The available runs would regenerate every Tuesday or something like that.

Those are just random numbers I threw in there, but ideally the number of runs would be based on what is an attainable number of runs from invention, obviously dependent on the item type. Also the time frame for regeneration could be something else, I just picked weekly.

I think this could help reduce the power of the T2 BPOs by limiting the amount of items they could produce, yet still allow the owners to bypass the god awful invention process and thus still be worth something.

Any thoughts?

I probably should have rephrased that part, but I was imagining the number of runs being based on some percent of what's attainable via invention.

That may still end up doing what you said, though. I'm not really familiar with the scope of the problem nor the breakdown of production from invention versus that of BPOs, just thought I'd chime in.

For now, disregarding the specifics I mentioned, do you think the idea could ever be used to achieve a compromise? Do you think limiting the production capabilities of the t2 BPOs is even worth considering?

For now, disregarding the specifics I mentioned, do you think the idea could ever be used to achieve a compromise? Do you think limiting the production capabilities of the t2 BPOs is even worth considering?

thats how it is right now, dude...with just ONE invention char you can out-perform any T2 BPO by the pure number that you can build. If you want to read up, Akita actually didput a lot of effort into sheets and did the numbers very carefull with the result that T2 BPO`s are no Problem for Inventions

tbh. at the moment its just about beeing bu**hurt and 1-2 desperate haters that simply ignore all facts and numbers and just want them removed JUST to win this argument, justified or not.

the other thing is that brewlar keeps saying that most or many BPO`s were gifted to certain players wich would really just be bull** and I think nobody would argue that these players along with their donators should be fined/banned. Allthough, so far we havent seen any proof of that, yet.

You cant,
Thank you.

You cant,
Thank you.

LOL...did you really just double Post to get this one liner again? not as cool as you might think it is...


btw. talking about beeing specific... "you cant" does not really explain that much.
IF your refer to that 1 char cant out-perform a T2 BPO... please go ahead and throw us some nombers or a example (first time in your live).

I still think Nerfing is not the way to go, if CCP could play this card into their hand to gain more subscriptions, somehow without hurting the T2 BPO holders, I think every one would be more then happy.

Nope no problem actually great for the game. T2 Price will rise slightly and even increase T1 profits too. Removing T2BPO would be nothing but a positive for the game placing it back into the sandbox where it belongs instead of scripted by CCP and controlled with gifted legacy content such as T2BPO.

To Brewlar Kuvakei, it looks like "UNACCEPTABLE levels of unfairness" because he can't accept radically different production chain methods for the exact same items, and because he feels too many of the current owners (for HIS taste) have obtained the BPOs as too much of a good deal (in his opinion), so he is perfectly willing to sacrifice the older alternative production method in pursuit of that illusory fairness, and damn the consequences.
He used to agree that buffing invention to further limit the advantage of BPOs would be a decent middle ground concession, but he dropped that much more CCP-palatable alternative a short while after. I can't help but suspect that he doesn't actually want to achieve anything practically achievable anymore, but is mainly just upset by the situation and is on a crusade for the Holy Grail.

Mans got a point, Why arent new T2 BPO's being introduced or New T3 BPO's?
Clearly this is a problem, 100% fact undeniable in every way possible.

Not really.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1519417#post1519417
Already answered in the very next post of mine under that you fully quoted, before you did the quoting.