These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

T2BPO why they should be removed and how.

First post
Author
Salo Aldeland
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#181 - 2012-04-28 16:54:14 UTC
Kara Books wrote:
Its pretty obvious there are 20 or so people offering constructive input while 5 or so (alts?) people are desperately trying to hold onto their unfair disadvantage by trolling a thread with comments like "Moaning" this isnt a forum about ****, and the childish insults only further point out to disrespectful and irresponsible hands that hold onto Tech 2 Blueprint originals.



Oh god, you're killing me. I nearly died. Please, stop it.

Clearly, it's ludicrous to imagine that people that don't own T2 BPO's have examined the facts and find them completely inoffensive. Forum alts is the only thing that makes sense. Because otherwise, it would mean that there could be something flawed in your own interpretation. Maybe there's something you missed or just don't quite understand. And that would mean that all these people are dropping hints vis-a-vis the relative sharpness of certains tools and sheds because just maybe, to people in possession of all their faculties, you come off as petulant cry babies, idiots, or both.

No, couldn't be. Must be alts.
shar'ra matcevsovski
Doomheim
#182 - 2012-04-28 18:05:06 UTC  |  Edited by: shar'ra matcevsovski
Kara Books wrote:

people are desperately trying to hold onto their unfair disadvantage by trolling a thread with comments like "Moaning" this isnt a forum about ****, and the childish insults only further point out to disrespectful and irresponsible hands that hold onto Tech 2 Blueprint originals.


do you think this is:

A: constructive dispassionate input fort the current siutation
or
B: more or less the definiton of "moaning"


Quote:
unfair disadvantage

joke aside that you meant advantage, please do me a favour and explain exactly, why it is "unfair" to own a T2 BPO or purchase one. And again, please drop the idea that only chosen people got elected to own them, they are fairly traded goods
on the open market.

shar'ra phone home

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#183 - 2012-04-28 19:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kara Books
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Kara Books wrote:


Its pretty obvious there are 20 or so people offering constructive input while 5 or so (alts?) people are desperately trying to hold onto their unfair disadvantage by trolling a thread with comments like "Moaning" this isnt a forum about ****, and the childish insults only further point out to disrespectful and irresponsible hands that hold onto Tech 2 Blueprint originals.


its only an unfair advantage(i take it you ment advantage, not disadvantage) if was impossible to get hold of they.. but you can, anyone can. the sales forum is full of them.

isnt it disrespectful to the people that worked hard in game to buy them(like anyone can) just to get them removed due to a few peoples inability to put in the same hard work?


Yes that was a typo on my end, apologies.

I also worry that reimbursing such valuable items, not to mention the headache of transporting them (the original owners had/have/will have to bear) would not be a simple matter, if the dev's do consider actually taking this step seriously they must first and formost make sure the time and care is taken to carefully consider every one.

This may indeed be a hot topic, in terms of strong beliefs, but its definitely not something small to toy with considering the great impact of T2 BPO's on the EvE economy, simply putting them in or simply taking them out must be planned out from multiple perspectives, from Social to multiple levels within the economy, I.E. alliance infrastructure, impact on Industrial aspects and the consumer of the final product.

It may just come down to one question, is such a large undertaking worth the benefits?

(edited to correct grammar)
sodney
Tactical Feed.
Pandemic Horde
#184 - 2012-04-28 20:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: sodney
Kara Books wrote:

This may indeed be a hot topic,


This is indeed not a hot topic, it is rather deep-frozen. CCP hasn`t ever mentioned anything about removing them in the past 7 years, nor will ever do in the future. I would bet any isk-cent I have on that.

So keep crying or deal with it.
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#185 - 2012-04-29 00:35:30 UTC
sodney wrote:
Kara Books wrote:

This may indeed be a hot topic,


This is indeed not a hot topic, it is rather deep-frozen. CCP hasn`t ever mentioned anything about removing them in the past 7 years, nor will ever do in the future. I would bet any isk-cent I have on that.

So keep crying or deal with it.


Yeah but T2BPO is a bad advert for eve it goes against everything that CCP states the game is. It is good to keep T2BPO in the spot light to show potential subscritptions and other partys that they exist.
Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#186 - 2012-04-29 09:13:32 UTC
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
sodney wrote:
Kara Books wrote:

This may indeed be a hot topic,


This is indeed not a hot topic, it is rather deep-frozen. CCP hasn`t ever mentioned anything about removing them in the past 7 years, nor will ever do in the future. I would bet any isk-cent I have on that.

So keep crying or deal with it.


Yeah but T2BPO is a bad advert for eve it goes against everything that CCP states the game is. It is good to keep T2BPO in the spot light to show potential subscritptions and other partys that they exist.



it shows everything that is right in eve.

'if you work you can achive what only a few can, you can own pieces of a long rich history, you can do it all. EVE'

i should work in marketing, not really a fan of coke though, hurts my nose

OMG when can i get a pic here

Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#187 - 2012-04-29 12:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Brewlar Kuvakei
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
sodney wrote:
Kara Books wrote:

This may indeed be a hot topic,


This is indeed not a hot topic, it is rather deep-frozen. CCP hasn`t ever mentioned anything about removing them in the past 7 years, nor will ever do in the future. I would bet any isk-cent I have on that.

So keep crying or deal with it.


Yeah but T2BPO is a bad advert for eve it goes against everything that CCP states the game is. It is good to keep T2BPO in the spot light to show potential subscritptions and other partys that they exist.



it shows everything that is right in eve.

'if you work you can achive what only a few can, you can own pieces of a long rich history, you can do it all. EVE'

i should work in marketing, not really a fan of coke though, hurts my nose



If you work hard by knowing a dev you can get stuff given to you for free? If you work hard enought knowing a dev you can have the workings of an illigitimate lottery given to you?

At no point has anyone worked hard to be gifted a T2BPO lets just clear that up right now. Yes a few people did work hard and bought them with ISK from an EVE pet player, Kudos to them, they will be refunded their loss if t2bpo are to be removed.
shar'ra matcevsovski
Doomheim
#188 - 2012-04-29 13:59:15 UTC
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:


At no point has anyone worked hard to be gifted a T2BPO lets just clear that up right now.

Lets clear it up that you have clearly not been aorund playing this game when that happaned because its just wrong. despite whatever rumours you might have picked up,nobody has ever recieved a gifted T2 BPo from a dev (plz dont bring up the old and already corrected story about a Sabre BPO and BoB)

If you realy think that is the issue you think to have right now and Dev`s would risk their job to give certain players an advantage, you might aswell look for a different game.

Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:

Yeah but T2BPO is a bad advert for eve it goes against everything that CCP states the game is. It is good to keep T2BPO in the spot light to show potential subscritptions and other partys that they exist.


please explain to me what Eve stand for then. reset any advantage players managed to earn them selves over years of playing?

shar'ra phone home

Smoking Blunts
ZC Omega
#189 - 2012-04-29 14:45:39 UTC
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Smoking Blunts wrote:
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
sodney wrote:
Kara Books wrote:

This may indeed be a hot topic,


This is indeed not a hot topic, it is rather deep-frozen. CCP hasn`t ever mentioned anything about removing them in the past 7 years, nor will ever do in the future. I would bet any isk-cent I have on that.

So keep crying or deal with it.


Yeah but T2BPO is a bad advert for eve it goes against everything that CCP states the game is. It is good to keep T2BPO in the spot light to show potential subscritptions and other partys that they exist.



it shows everything that is right in eve.

'if you work you can achive what only a few can, you can own pieces of a long rich history, you can do it all. EVE'

i should work in marketing, not really a fan of coke though, hurts my nose



At no point has anyone worked hard to be gifted a T2BPO lets just clear that up right now. Yes a few people did work hard and bought them with ISK from an EVE pet player, Kudos to them, they will be refunded their loss if t2bpo are to be removed.


reread what you wrote..... at no point did anyone work hard........ yes a few worked hard...

you make me lol in rl, little troll you.

OMG when can i get a pic here

Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#190 - 2012-04-29 16:33:40 UTC
shar'ra matcevsovski wrote:
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:


At no point has anyone worked hard to be gifted a T2BPO lets just clear that up right now.

Lets clear it up that you have clearly not been aorund playing this game when that happaned because its just wrong. despite whatever rumours you might have picked up,nobody has ever recieved a gifted T2 BPo from a dev (plz dont bring up the old and already corrected story about a Sabre BPO and BoB)

If you realy think that is the issue you think to have right now and Dev`s would risk their job to give certain players an advantage, you might aswell look for a different game.

Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:

Yeah but T2BPO is a bad advert for eve it goes against everything that CCP states the game is. It is good to keep T2BPO in the spot light to show potential subscritptions and other partys that they exist.


please explain to me what Eve stand for then. reset any advantage players managed to earn them selves over years of playing?


Yes because lets all deny that T20 ever happened or that people were given T2BPO for nothing. Lets pretend that they never dropped from Rats during events aimed at certain players. Lets all live in lala land where T2BPO is fair and the players that have been gifted them somehow worked for them and the fact that they can not be stolen and never expire is not a problem at all.
shar'ra matcevsovski
Doomheim
#191 - 2012-04-29 18:45:55 UTC
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Yes because lets all deny that T20 ever happened or that people were given T2BPO for nothing

-T20 was a guy, not a Event, plus it got corrected already, as I said. research better
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Lets pretend that they never dropped from Rats during events aimed at certain players

-lower BPO´s dropped from rats but were not aimed to certain people
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
the fact that they can not be stolen

-T2 BPO´s can be stolen, and it happaned already numerous times
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
and never expire is not a problem at all.

-t1 BPO`s don't expire aswell, ban them right?

shar'ra phone home

Kara Books
Deal with IT.
#192 - 2012-04-29 19:29:32 UTC
shar'ra matcevsovski wrote:
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Yes because lets all deny that T20 ever happened or that people were given T2BPO for nothing

-T20 was a guy, not a Event, plus it got corrected already, as I said. research better
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
Lets pretend that they never dropped from Rats during events aimed at certain players

-lower BPO´s dropped from rats but were not aimed to certain people
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
the fact that they can not be stolen

-T2 BPO´s can be stolen, and it happaned already numerous times
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
and never expire is not a problem at all.

-t1 BPO`s don't expire aswell, ban them right?


T2 BPO's can be replaced with Research.

Tell us Why are T2 BPO's important? What makes them better then Research that would involve the 100% (99%+1%)

Whats good do T2 BPO's bring me, my friend over there and the rest of eve online?
Kakaka Bukandara
Doomheim
#193 - 2012-04-30 03:17:53 UTC
CCP did create invention in order to generate T2 production. Now that people can generate T2 BPCs, it's appropriate that the originals should be removed and T2 production require inventn for everyone.
shar'ra matcevsovski
Doomheim
#194 - 2012-04-30 04:25:24 UTC
Kakaka Bukandara wrote:
CCP did create invention in order to generate T2 production. Now that people can generate T2 BPCs, it's appropriate that the originals should be removed and T2 production require inventn for everyone.


happy first post ! ...bit obvious but I appreciate the effort.


Quote:
Whats good do T2 BPO's bring me, my friend over there and the rest of eve online?


To you? Since you dont own one, not much besides slightly cheaper T2 ships/mods.

Also since they are already in the game, it clearly doesnt matter why we should "bring" them in, rather what it would cost to remove them. The Answer is apparently "too much" wich everyone (including CCP) seems to get but you two in this thread ;)

shar'ra phone home

Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#195 - 2012-04-30 15:31:58 UTC
Get rid of them without reimbursement, imo.

They shouldn't exist in the game while invention also exists in the game. Either make T2 BPOs available on the market just like T1 BPOs are, or else get rid of all of them and have done with it. If T2 BPO owners believe that it's unfair to go without reimbursement, they need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

Haulie Berry
#196 - 2012-04-30 15:36:15 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Get rid of them without reimbursement, imo.

They shouldn't exist in the game while invention also exists in the game. Either make T2 BPOs available on the market just like T1 BPOs are, or else get rid of all of them and have done with it. If T2 BPO owners believe that it's unfair to go without reimbursement, they need to take a long hard look in the mirror.


I think this guy's entire NAV should be arbitrarily deleted because his avatar is ugly. If he doesn't like that, he needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.
VaMei
Meafi Corp
#197 - 2012-04-30 17:24:02 UTC  |  Edited by: VaMei
shar'ra matcevsovski wrote:
rather what it would cost to remove them. The Answer is apparently "too much" wich everyone (including CCP) seems to get but you two in this thread ;)


What is would cost is the trust hi-end investors place in the future value of their investments. It's bad enough when high value items get nerfed by needed gameplay changes (e.g. the effect of the super cap nerfs on the investments of manufacturers, pilots & character sales), but to outright remove something of high value from the game? There's a load of trust being flushed down the drain to do that, and every investor out there is going to be wary of any future investment of time & money.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#198 - 2012-04-30 17:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Copy-pasting the reply made in the other "T2 BPOs are evil" thread, with a few additions

...

First rule of EVE : EVE IS INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED TO BE UNFAIR TO SOME DEGREE.
The particular complaint regarding the mere continued existence of T2 BPOs characterizing them as "unfair to exist" is very much akin to complaining that suicide-ganking is allowed, or that 100 battleships can attack a single freighter at the same time if they want to.

The question of whether T2 BPOs are "unfair" is a wholly irrelevant one, as they're SUPPOSED to grant some advantage.
And they do grant one. But it's NOT really an unfair advantage, just like suicide-ganking or alpha-ing is not an unfair advantage either (at least within the bounds of allowed and even desired EVE advantages).

Invention was NOT supposed to completely and utterly REPLACE the T2 BPOs, just supplement them wherever a need existed.
And they did that spectacularly well, or don't you remember 30 mil T2 cap rechargers or 700 mil Hulks back in the day when all moongoo was still stupidly cheap ?
For newer items, they could be made to be the only source, so they were. That's not acknowledging T2 BPOs are bad, that's just acknowledging there's no good way to distribute NEW ONES without much scandal.

If CCP really wanted invention to even start to be directly competitive with T2 BPOs, they would not keep all invented things at mostly negative ME/PE levels !!!
Do you even realize THIS much ?

...

Besides, the OP's idea to revert all T2 BPO trades by reverting the flow of ISK alongside the many hands some T2 BPOs have changed and then reimbursing the original winner with the RP is completely untenable for many reasons, the MOST important two reasons being that it's almost guaranteed to be a complete nightmare to untangle, and if you do manage to untangle it, it will most likely end up with a lot of people going into negative wallet balances.
So that particular reimbursement proposal is unrealistic.

...

The relevant questions are:
1) Would the game improve by ONLY removing T2 BPOs and changing nothing else ?
*1b) For whom ?
*1c) And for how long ?
2) How exactly do you plan to compensate current T2 BPO owners for the loss of the BPO in case of a removal ?
*2b) If you say no reimbursement, how would you feel if a large portion of your NAV was wiped out just because somebody else felt it's not ok for you to have it ?
*2c) Would you differentiate between lottery winners and current owners that purchased them (and how) ?
*2d) How would that reimbursement affect the rest of the economy (domino effect) ?
3) What else (other than touching anything regarding T2 BPOs) can be done to improve the game in the areas people seem to be complaining about when they ask for a removal of T2 BPOs ?
*3b) Would improvements in the output of invention (runs, ME/PE levels) in certain conditions not be more appropriate instead ?
*3c) How about an uncapping of all moongoo production from the fixed max level we're currently living with ?

Also, this : http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1360780
The horse has been beaten to death, cloned, beaten to death again, reanimated and beaten to death again so many times it's not even funny anymore.
Brewlar Kuvakei
Adeptio Gloriae
#199 - 2012-05-01 02:16:18 UTC
With the planned changes to moon mining and data cores CCP has the perfect opportunity to either remove T2BPO or just make them irrelevant by buffing invention to exceed T2BPO in ME. Hopefully T2BPO's get the long needed nerf or removal finally.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#200 - 2012-05-01 03:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Brewlar Kuvakei wrote:
remove T2BPO

No.
Quote:
or just make them irrelevant by buffing invention to exceed T2BPO in ME.

Yes, to some degree anyway.

All they really need to do is buff base invention values to 0/0 ME/PE, let T1 BPC ME/PE levels influence T2 BPC ME/PE levels (at, say, 1/20 strength) and buff chance of invention success, number of runs and decryptor bonuses, then add new ways to obtain moongoo that depend on player invested time rather than territory held.

...

What would you want to bet they're not buffing invention at all, nor removing any T2 BPOs ?