These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Easy solution to tech 2 BPO issue

First post
Author
Jajas Helper
#81 - 2012-05-08 13:38:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jajas Helper
Morgan Dinn wrote:
Lara Dantreb wrote:
Morgan Dinn wrote:
You do know that if you use the "****** card" you loose the depate out right? Twisted


So that there is a debate we need debaters, there is no debate, only a series of baseless charges.

As mentioned earlier, this has been debated to death for years, but when people do not want to hear the facts, it is good to show them what their methods are similar

Now tell me again we are the infamous T2 bpo holders and the inventors are the honest guys who are victims of our greed Smile

BTW today it's May, 8th, does that date meaningful to you?


no meaning what so ever on this current day.

And no I do not see the T2 bpo owners as bad people I see the game mechanics that are no right and I wanna do something to that.

Alse it seems that this matter is still ongoing cause everyone posts about it. So mayby CCP should look into it and say... ok this is what we will do and stand by it and not just ignore it.

And everyone wants to hear facts there are just not much facts here. Loads of asumbtions, pointing and other stuff.

One fact tough is that invention is not profitable enough on those modules which have bpo counterparts.


I make 600mil with 1 toon(11 prodcution slots- 10 lab slots) per month on T2 inventions... you mean i should make more?

ohyah the T2bpo is in the game aswell because my corp member has it and he sells his monthly build stock in 1- 2 days without undercutting anyone, all in jita.

me thinks you have not done your homework well ;)

Inferno do _stuff _with _stuff _to imitate the _stuff _you could do faster with the old stuff

-stuff-

Salo Aldeland
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2012-05-08 14:04:15 UTC
Morgan Dinn wrote:
Alse it seems that this matter is still ongoing cause everyone posts about it. So mayby CCP should look into it and say... ok this is what we will do and stand by it and not just ignore it.

And everyone wants to hear facts there are just not much facts here. Loads of asumbtions, pointing and other stuff.

One fact tough is that invention is not profitable enough on those modules which have bpo counterparts.


The only thing that is still ongoing is that week after week people who have no idea what they're talking about get the wrong idea and then refuse to face the facts when they're presented to them. T2 BPO's are ignored because every time they're looked into by people who have even a hobbiest level of knowledge on the subject the same conclusion is reached; there's nothing that needs changing about T2 BPO's.

What do you mean 'not profitable enough'? Are you saying a BPO owner makes more ISK / hour on a single slot than an inventor building and selling the same item on a single slot? Correct! Gold star! Are you saying that inventors can't make millions of ISK an hour producing and selling the exact same items? Incorrect! Dunce cap! Are you saying that an inventor can't make more ISK / hour on a single slot than that BPO holder by choosing a different product? Incorrect! Repeat the eighth grade!
Morgan Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#83 - 2012-05-08 14:13:10 UTC
Salo Aldeland wrote:
Morgan Dinn wrote:
Alse it seems that this matter is still ongoing cause everyone posts about it. So mayby CCP should look into it and say... ok this is what we will do and stand by it and not just ignore it.

And everyone wants to hear facts there are just not much facts here. Loads of asumbtions, pointing and other stuff.

One fact tough is that invention is not profitable enough on those modules which have bpo counterparts.


The only thing that is still ongoing is that week after week people who have no idea what they're talking about get the wrong idea and then refuse to face the facts when they're presented to them. T2 BPO's are ignored because every time they're looked into by people who have even a hobbiest level of knowledge on the subject the same conclusion is reached; there's nothing that needs changing about T2 BPO's.

What do you mean 'not profitable enough'? Are you saying a BPO owner makes more ISK / hour on a single slot than an inventor building and selling the same item on a single slot? Correct! Gold star! Are you saying that inventors can't make millions of ISK an hour producing and selling the exact same items? Incorrect! Dunce cap! Are you saying that an inventor can't make more ISK / hour on a single slot than that BPO holder by choosing a different product? Incorrect! Repeat the eighth grade!


Well lets hear the facts then. Start typing please. I will admit that I'm wrong if you present your case so that there are no way of seeing the other way. Please try.

And please stop being an idiot while posting something.
Jajas Helper
#84 - 2012-05-08 14:23:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jajas Helper
Morgan Dinn wrote:
Salo Aldeland wrote:
Morgan Dinn wrote:
Alse it seems that this matter is still ongoing cause everyone posts about it. So mayby CCP should look into it and say... ok this is what we will do and stand by it and not just ignore it.

And everyone wants to hear facts there are just not much facts here. Loads of asumbtions, pointing and other stuff.

One fact tough is that invention is not profitable enough on those modules which have bpo counterparts.


The only thing that is still ongoing is that week after week people who have no idea what they're talking about get the wrong idea and then refuse to face the facts when they're presented to them. T2 BPO's are ignored because every time they're looked into by people who have even a hobbiest level of knowledge on the subject the same conclusion is reached; there's nothing that needs changing about T2 BPO's.

What do you mean 'not profitable enough'? Are you saying a BPO owner makes more ISK / hour on a single slot than an inventor building and selling the same item on a single slot? Correct! Gold star! Are you saying that inventors can't make millions of ISK an hour producing and selling the exact same items? Incorrect! Dunce cap! Are you saying that an inventor can't make more ISK / hour on a single slot than that BPO holder by choosing a different product? Incorrect! Repeat the eighth grade!


Well lets hear the facts then. Start typing please. I will admit that I'm wrong if you present your case so that there are no way of seeing the other way. Please try.

And please stop being an idiot while posting something.


1- run numbers on T2 passive hardeners

2- pick any T2 ammo... run your numbers on those (if you find one that isn't profitable take any other T2 ammo because the one you picked first isn't used by people because it sucks - T2 ammo issue not T2bpo or invention issue)

3- compare your profits

4-now see why some T2 bpos are useless but still cost a few billion

5- compare a few T2 ammo types and check their profits according to the flavor of the month and swap your inventions accordingly

6- looking at 5, laugh at the poor fello who has a T2 bpo wich isn't making much profit because of market priceflux


or you could train spreadsheet lvl5 and work yourself into modules, but it seems you are to lazy to actualy look into things before posting **** about inventions and profits...


nuff said

Inferno do _stuff _with _stuff _to imitate the _stuff _you could do faster with the old stuff

-stuff-

Sutskop
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2012-05-08 15:21:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Sutskop
Morgan Dinn wrote:

One fact tough is that invention is not profitable enough on those modules which have bpo counterparts.


If it is half as profitable as the BPO you can use two invention lines and draw even. Invention is easily scalable with the number of lines you have on your character(s), while T2 production is limited by the amount of BPOs you have.
So you could easily do 10 inventions per timeframe and character, thus multiplying the profit. Not that easy with T2 BPOs (check their copy time).

I wish people would grasp that concept and finally stop moaning about T2 BPOs being more profitable than invention. This is utter garbage.
Jajas Helper
#86 - 2012-05-08 15:40:44 UTC
Sutskop wrote:
Morgan Dinn wrote:

One fact tough is that invention is not profitable enough on those modules which have bpo counterparts.


If it is half as profitable as the BPO you can use two invention lines and draw even. Invention is easily scalable with the number of lines you have on your character(s), while T2 production is limited by the amount of BPOs you have.
So you could easily do 10 inventions per timeframe and character, thus multiplying the profit. Not that easy with T2 BPOs (check their copy time).

I wish people would grasp that concept and finally stop moaning about T2 BPOs being more profitable than invention. This is utter garbage.


though i have no issues with T2bpos, you're neglecting the fact you can produce from invention on 10 other slots and build from a bpo on the other ^^

however, that is not going to change much on the T2bpo having influence on the market ( if the market has the trade volume)


anyway, people who are shortsighted about t2bpos and fail to invent with profit wont understand anyway... so I'm just going to +1 you :D

Inferno do _stuff _with _stuff _to imitate the _stuff _you could do faster with the old stuff

-stuff-

Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2012-05-08 22:17:46 UTC
There's nothing like coming back to eve and seeing a discussion on how to fix the BPO problem.


IMO I still think that invention should improve the meta level of a BP by 1 and with enough research you'd have a T2 BPO eventually. If you do it right, some of the items needed for upgrading a BP would make for a good money sink. Think having to buy a datacore from the loyalty store instead of using research agents.
Lara Dantreb
Reisende des Schwarzschild Grenze
#88 - 2012-05-09 00:08:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Lara Dantreb
As "Remove T2 bpos" threads are spammed, I post this here also :

Invention was profitable, you can see a picture of my saved Excel spreadsheet below, used for the last time on 2009, June 14th

You can see sorted by margin what to invent and how.

The complete sheet has 456 lines and the xls file weights 8,6 Mo. Each combination to invent and produce T2 ship is examined, weighted and sorted according to all invention costs (datacores, decryptors) and production costs All prices are loaded from EVE-Central daily.

It was ultimate weapon to invent with a profit, I strongly recommend to each inventor to build similar sheet before to come and whine about how it's unprofitable to invent

I don't use it anymore due to lack of interest for invention , but this is the proof that :

I invented much (my corpmates also, tens of inventors involved)
I know what I'm talking about and did all the maths to make it profitable business
Even If I had tens of T2 ship bpos at this moment, I was inventing also for great profits.
T2 bpos and invention are no antinomian but complementary

What to invent and how sorted by margins

Probability Matrix Used

Edit : added ship prices (Jita, 2009/06/14) : T2 ship prices

Edit : added minerals/datacore/decryptor/advanced materials prices : Price Index

---   Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005  ---

Lara Dantreb
Reisende des Schwarzschild Grenze
#89 - 2012-05-09 14:30:41 UTC
You asked for numbers, here they are.

I did my homework and updated my spreadsheet database (which was pre Dominion) and prices from EVE-Central (Jita)

This is what is the rank list for TODAY of what is profitable to invent

What to invent - ships

Invention is profitable no need to accuse T2 bpos to kill the market.

Just not be dumb and invent wisely

---   Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005  ---

Haulie Berry
#90 - 2012-05-09 15:33:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Lara Dantreb wrote:
You asked for numbers, here they are.

I did my homework and updated my spreadsheet database (which was pre Dominion) and prices from EVE-Central (Jita)

This is what is the rank list for TODAY of what is profitable to invent

What to invent - ships

Invention is profitable no need to accuse T2 bpos to kill the market.

Just not be dumb and invent wisely


Invention IS profitable, but many of your numbers are inappropriately optimistic at best and outright faulty at worst. Consider, for example, the Golem which, at -1 ME, you give a production cost of 959.1 million with a per-unit profit of 337.93 million.

While it's true that the low sell price in The Forge presently sits at 1.297 billion, the peak daily high for the last month is 980 million, which tells us that the units presently for sale - both of them ( Lol ) - are set at hail-mary prices hoping for a desperate buyer during a supply shortage. They might yield that profit margin, but it would not be a wise investment option for an invention job. They have been climbing in price to match the increasing production costs, but 1.3 billion is substantially above the current price curve (which sees an increase in the daily average of about 4.5m per day over the last 30 days).

Since the current price disparity is not the result of a sudden demand spike, a more realistic margin prediction would be closer to 30-60 million which, while still profitable, is probably not worth the copy, invention, and production time.

This, of course, is not the fault of T2 BPOs, as none exist for the item in question.

Also, line 20: Sabre ME -3 - obtained by Thrasher BPC 1-run and nothing.

Here kids, you can have one for free: Modulated strip miner IIs are pretty good right now. They have a strong mix of margin and volume that yields good profitability in both absolute terms and in slot-hours. So, for the would-be inventor who doesn't know his head from his ass, there's a pretty good starting point.

One small caveat: Deep Core Miner Is have a highly volatile price right now. While I would usually recommend against building your own components, in this case, it's warranted as the current market price is ludicrously out of bounds. They build fast. Hell, build some extra and see if you can capitalize on the volatility, if you want - just be cautious about it, as deeply out-of-bounds prices tend to correct suddenly and viciously. Twisted

Pro tip: Due to the breakdown of materials that go into this item, it is almost completely unaffected by efficiency. For maximum effect, sacrifice a tiny (TINY) slice of your margin and go ahead and build these in a rapid assembly array.

Additionally, I would recommend going JIT on these and taking them to market ASAP. I wouldn't characterize the price as "volatile", but it's definitely going through a period of adjustment. It doesn't appear to be in danger of plummeting, but it will likely come down a bit yet as the mining changes settle in and Hulkageddon draws to a close.
Lara Dantreb
Reisende des Schwarzschild Grenze
#91 - 2012-05-09 17:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Lara Dantreb
Haulie Berry wrote:
Lara Dantreb wrote:


Invention IS profitable, but many of your numbers are inappropriately optimistic at best and outright faulty at worst. Consider, for example, the Golem which, at -1 ME, you give a production cost of 959.1 million with a per-unit profit of 337.93 million.

While it's true that the low sell price in The Forge presently sits at 1.297 billion, the peak daily high for the last month is 980 million, which tells us that the units presently for sale - both of them ( Lol ) - are set at hail-mary prices hoping for a desperate buyer during a supply shortage. They might yield that profit margin, but it would not be a wise investment option for an invention job. They have been climbing in price to match the increasing production costs, but 1.3 billion is substantially above the current price curve (which sees an increase in the daily average of about 4.5m per day over the last 30 days).

Since the current price disparity is not the result of a sudden demand spike, a more realistic margin prediction would be closer to 30-60 million which, while still profitable, is probably not worth the copy, invention, and production time.

This, of course, is not the fault of T2 BPOs, as none exist for the item in question.

Also, line 20: Sabre ME -3 - obtained by Thrasher BPC 1-run and nothing.



Of course you must know a market before to feed it : Marauders, Electronic Attack frigates are in low demand. All prices are taken from Jita sell prices and about the Golem, you are true there is only one for sale, which is overpriced.

We invented and produced ships for 2 years in my corp, our output was > 1200 T2 ships per month (mainly cruiser hulls), including 20 Jump freighters at production peak, this sheet is solid. We used to make a stack of each bpc when invention cost was low/production cost high. Thus we were the firsts to place our ships on the market when an opportunity appeared.

The Sabre ME-3 was typo only, of course Operation Handbook must be used. Interdictors were added lately to the sheet and not completely tested (it was not profitable to produce them in 2009...), and exhumers are still missing.

The numbers are not optimistic nor faulty, they are a snapshot of Jita market sell prices. So, you must not produce blindly, but know the market. And place buy orders... Instead of criticizing the flaws which are due to a speculative market, watch the positive input of that sheet :

If I was inventing still today, I would make a batch composed of:
Jaguar+, Wolf++, Sabre+, Rapier++, Scimitar+++, Falcon+++. (all ships that have T2 bpo btw..) ---> this is guaranted profit because these ships are in high demand.

I would ignore Electronic Attack Frigates and Marauders. (which have no T2 bpo funny irony, isn't it ?)

The prices change everyday, so the opportunities. I may post from time to time that list updated

There is no T2 bpo issue : there is an issue with invention costs and advanced material costs (Technetium). Instead of asking for a T2 bpo nerf that will change nothing to the fate of the inventors, ask for cheaper decryptors, datacores and advanced materials. Invention costs and waste cost are hurting invention profits]

---   Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005  ---

Cap James Tkirk
Capsuleer Outfitters
Bad Intention
#92 - 2012-05-09 18:04:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cap James Tkirk
eaiset way to fix t2bpo is leave the owners alone stfu and deal with the fact they have a toy you dont and get over it like everyone has beat to death like a pinyata at a fat kids party the numbers show that inventors hold the bigger share of the market for t2 sales sooooooo go drink a flask of acid and do everyone a favor
Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#93 - 2012-05-09 18:20:17 UTC
Lara Dantreb wrote:
There is no T2 bpo issue : there is an issue with invention costs and advanced material costs (Technetium). Instead of asking for a T2 bpo nerf that will change nothing to the fate of the inventors, ask for cheaper decryptors, datacores and advanced materials. Invention costs and waste cost are hurting invention profits]

I agree with the rest of your post, but then you added this last paragraph in which you are mistaken. Invention costs and waste do not hurt inventor profits. Inventors pass all of their costs on to their customers.

All items which have high enough demand to invent, will have an equilibrium price which is based upon the cost to invent. BPO owners also sell their goods at this price. Why would they ask for less profit?

If the price of technetium goes down, then inventors realize they have more room to lower their prices and still make a profit. The prices of the finished goods will go down as inventors 1 isk each other.

Conversely, if the price of datacores goes up, then every inventor needs to increase their prices to cover their costs. The prices of all items based on that datacore will go up as inventors are less willing to push the prices down.


It is really hard to get this through to people. Decreasing invention cost or waste will:
1. Lower the profits made by the primary producers (miners, PI farmers, moon miners, datacore farmers, etc.)
2. Lower the prices that consumers pay.
3. Nerf the profitibality and ROI of T2 BPOs, since the difference between the cost of invented goods and BPO produced goods will be less.

However, it will not greatly affect invention profits!
Haulie Berry
#94 - 2012-05-09 19:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Shoogie wrote:



It is really hard to get this through to people. Decreasing invention cost or waste will:
1. Lower the profits made by the primary producers (miners, PI farmers, moon miners, datacore farmers, etc.)
2. Lower the prices that consumers pay.
3. Nerf the profitibality and ROI of T2 BPOs, since the difference between the cost of invented goods and BPO produced goods will be less.

However, it will not greatly affect invention profits!


All very true, and it's probably the point that separates the actual industrialists from the jealous clowns who have never once plugged in a blueprint.

I'm all for anything that would increase the profitability of invention. I'm not going to argue with more money in my wallet.

Most of the suggestions that are so often repeated, though, won't result in more money in my wallet. They might result in less income for BPO holders, but why should I want that? Schadenfreude, maybe, but since I'm over the age of twelve, I don't exactly get a lot of mileage out of that.

It also takes a particularly unique brand of stupidity to be incapable of grasping that the arbitrary destruction of asset value to the benefit of absolutely nobody would be extremely detrimental to the game as a whole. "Come to New Eden, invest thousands of hours building your net worth, see it arbitrarily deleted to quell the whining of some imbecilic child who can't do basic arithmetic," is not exactly strong marketing material.

And we've reached a point, now, where the anti-BPO crowd, having been shown the numbers, is essentially saying, "Hm, yes, I see that the math clearly shows that my argument has no basis in reality, and, no, I cannot offer any figures of my own to contradict those points, but I'm STILL not going to budge from my position because it never had anything to do with facts anyway. I just want to deprive other people of their stuff because I am jealous."
Sutskop
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2012-05-10 08:23:36 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:

This, of course, is not the fault of T2 BPOs, as none exist for the item in question.


Then why in heaven are you bringing this up in a T2 BPO discussion thread?
One thing tho: There are enough (newer) items without T2 BPOs so if people really think they suffer from BPO dominance they can always move to building those items.
Lara Dantreb
Reisende des Schwarzschild Grenze
#96 - 2012-05-10 09:10:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lara Dantreb
Shoogie wrote:
I agree with the rest of your post, but then you added this last paragraph in which you are mistaken. Invention costs and waste do not hurt inventor profits. Inventors pass all of their costs on to their customers.


Exactly. But think one step beyond. Customers are not NPC customers, they have limited funds to sink in daily PvP.

PLEX price is the golden standard now and everyone refers to this reference the price it pays.

Higher T2 prices, lower demand. Customers will prefer T1 or faction or even T3 if T2 prices continue to spike. On a wider market more profits would be made by all inventors., even if net profit per item is lower, more sales will do more income.
And cheaper T2 combat ships will make them more popular : newcomers would skill up more for them, market would grow instead of capping or decreasing.

As a PvPer, I don't like T2 combat ships at this moment, they cost too much, are too shiny and get primaried too often.

As a ship producer from T2 bpos, I prefer less profit but easier sales, and less capital invested into buy orders for materials, component manufacturing and ship manufacturing. At this moment, to make 1 Bil profit from my T2 bpos, I need to invest 7 Bil into production processes (which makes 14% return on invested materials per month), depriving other investments.


Shoogie wrote:

It is really hard to get this through to people. Decreasing invention cost or waste will:
1. Lower the profits made by the primary producers (miners, PI farmers, moon miners, datacore farmers, etc.)
2. Lower the prices that consumers pay.
3. Nerf the profitibality and ROI of T2 BPOs, since the difference between the cost of invented goods and BPO produced goods will be less.

However, it will not greatly affect invention profits!


Of course I don't want a nerf to the profit of anyone, just to make T2 invention easier.
Before Dominion Dysprosium was the bottleneck, now it's Technetium, but not for the same reasons. There were not enough Dysprosium for the demand. There is enough Technetium but it is the subject of rampant speculation.

if there is no attempt to play down the profits of any person, the status quo will remain, and inventors continue to feel that their profits are insufficient, and will continue to accuse the owners of T2 BPOS.

---   Buying T2 ship bpos since 2005  ---

CCP Guard
C C P
C C P Alliance
#97 - 2012-05-10 12:01:26 UTC
Cleaned up some off topic posts and personal attacks. Please keep personal bickering off the forums and focus on the discussion. Thank you! :)

CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer | @CCP_Guard

Callic Veratar
#98 - 2012-05-10 14:25:32 UTC
I've said it many times before and I'll say it again. T2 BPOs are on the market. If you really hate them, save your pennies, buy them, and trash them. No new T2 BPOs a being created, given time and some cash, eventually they'll all be gone.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#99 - 2012-05-31 18:32:24 UTC
nm