These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thoughts on GOON Manipulation of T2 BPOs

First post
Author
Otti Ottig
Hesso Business
#61 - 2014-05-15 07:04:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Otti Ottig
Lucas Kell wrote:
lol, well that quote does not say what you seem to think it says, those are 2 totally separate statements.


exactly, all the blabla about something I didnt even say. 2 totally separate statements, when talking about quoting = missquoting.

also I think this discussion should has found it's natural end since this happened https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4587658#post4587658
wich made pretty clear that all assumptions regarding a removal were wrong ( I know, nobody said that anyway)

now have fun backpedalingBig smile
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#62 - 2014-05-15 07:47:23 UTC
Who needs to backpedal? One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. "Currently no plans" != "We will not do this", it simply means they have no actual plans in place to remove them. It's clear that long term they will either be removed or non functional, and since they can take 10+ years to become profitable, it's the type of thing you need to consider when buying now. Amusingly they've already planned a nerf by slowing down their research times and removing negative ME from invention, so they will take even longer to become profitable.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

TijsseN
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2014-05-15 10:51:04 UTC
The whole issue i have with the T2 BPO stuff is that some people got lucky in the past and that they apparenty have received and "ISK printer", which makes manufacturing T2 stuff easier and more profitable than the normal way of invention + BPC generation. This is not a level playing field for an starting industry player, knowing that I can never catch up time wise and money with the "old money" which has T2 BPO's and ME 200 T1 BPO's. I applaud the industry changes to level the playing field so new industry players can catch up and actually compete with the jita 4-4 establishment without paying "tribute" for higly researched T1 BPO's and rare T2 BPO's.

Having T2 BPO's in game is like having apartheid form the "haves"against the rest of the community. This should be corrected so that there is a level playing field for everybody. Although removal may be a bit harsh, but adjusting the ME values or invention decryptors so that costs are comparable would resolve the issue of this unleveled playing field.



Danny Centauri
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2014-05-15 11:57:31 UTC
Personally I don't worry about T2 BPOs I just stick to things where they only effect a small part of the total output. Just avoid building things like cap rechargers and their effect is minimal.

EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players.

Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-05-15 12:19:26 UTC
TijsseN wrote:


Having T2 BPO's in game is like having apartheid form the "haves"against the rest of the community.


I dunno about anyone else, but I've never owned a T2 BPO, I don't plan to and I sure as **** don't feel oppressed.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 

Volar Kang
Kang Industrial
#66 - 2014-05-15 13:20:22 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Amusingly they've already planned a nerf by slowing down their research times and removing negative ME from invention, so they will take even longer to become profitable.


Can you point me to the source for the removal of negative ME? In the dev blog I only see this line that applies:

"For transitioning negative ME blueprints, we're just multiplying by 10, while for negative TE we're subtracting 1 and multiplying by 20, which keeps both values roughly the same before and after for the reasons outlined above."

I cant seem to find anything that says negative ME is being removed. I honestly could have missed it with all 6 blogs having so much information.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#67 - 2014-05-15 13:34:29 UTC
Volar Kang wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Amusingly they've already planned a nerf by slowing down their research times and removing negative ME from invention, so they will take even longer to become profitable.


Can you point me to the source for the removal of negative ME? In the dev blog I only see this line that applies:

"For transitioning negative ME blueprints, we're just multiplying by 10, while for negative TE we're subtracting 1 and multiplying by 20, which keeps both values roughly the same before and after for the reasons outlined above."

I cant seem to find anything that says negative ME is being removed. I honestly could have missed it with all 6 blogs having so much information.
Sure, it's here. Specifically it says:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)

We are going to unify ME and TE per-level research times on all blueprints. Currently it looks like most T2 and capital BPOs have different TE and ME times. We're planning on kicking T2 BPO times up to the higher of the two values, and capital ones down to the lower of the two.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Shoogie
Serious Pixels
#68 - 2014-05-15 15:24:57 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We are currently of a mind to shift invented BPCs so they have positive (or at worst 0) ME and TE figures. This a) prevents the removal of extra materials giving invention an extra-hard kick, and in particular b) prevents every invented T2 item from requiring two of the relevant T1 items (due to always rounding up materials). This will probably put all invented BPCs in the 1-5% ME/2-10% TE range, with decryptors adjusted to match. We may adjust T2 build costs upwards across the board to put the net T2 resource usage roughly where it is currently, so we don't end up nerfing the demand for T2 components. (This obviously also serves to close the gap somewhat between invention and T2 BPOs; this is not a goal here but it's an acceptable side-effect.)


That is a HUGE nerf to T2 BPOs.

Currently as an inventor, I use 50% more of each non-extra material in every T2 item I produce. In the future, their advantage over me will only be in the 5% to 9% range.

Then consider all of the other industry changes that will affect material requirements.

In the future, using the correct decryptors, work teams, and facilities, it will be possible for inventors to have lower material costs than the perfect BPO holder who is afraid to move it out of the station in which it has been locked for the last 10 years.
sodney
lllIlIIIlIIlllI
#69 - 2014-05-16 05:49:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. .



actually it means quite a lot what A Dev says(who reprents CCP, not his opinion in this case) . at least more than what 1000 ppl like you think/guess/mumble
Nex Killer
Perkone
Caldari State
#70 - 2014-05-16 07:25:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Nex Killer
sodney wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. .



actually it means quite a lot what A Dev says(who reprents CCP, not his opinion in this case) . at least more than what 1000 ppl like you think/guess/mumble

What one dev says doesn't mean anything at all. I remember CCP Falcon commenting on reddit about the rumor of World of Darkness being canned and him saying:
Quote:
This is nothing more than a rumor with no basis of fact. Hope that's enough of a confirmation for you guys. :)


Not even a week later they canned the game and people on both reddit and the forums called him out on how he just lied to everyone. He even commented on both reddit and the forums about being called out :
Quote:
As I've said to other replies, feel free to call me out on this, but out of respect for those who have been let go in Atlanta, and their families, I wasn't prepared to let rumors build over the weekend before we could speak to people, and whoever was posting information was wholly irresponsible and completely wrong in doing so.

There's a time, a place, and a proper procedure for doing stuff like this, and that involves not being disrespectful and rumor mongering.


So don't believe what one Dev says or sometimes what CCP even says.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/22td7a/storm_on_the_horizon_wod_appears_to_be_cancelled/cgq9los

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/230cnr/ccp_games_halts_development_of_world_of_darkness/cgs4z85
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#71 - 2014-05-16 07:52:36 UTC
sodney wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. .
actually it means quite a lot what A Dev says(who reprents CCP, not his opinion in this case) . at least more than what 1000 ppl like you think/guess/mumble
What Nex said.

Also, if you don't believe it, then please, buy all of the T2 BPOs you can. Your bad investments are not an issue for me. But when they get nerfed into non-existence, you damn well better not be back here crying about it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Aluka 7th
#72 - 2014-05-16 08:02:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
Lucas Kell wrote:
sodney wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
One dev stating something like that to stop rumours means absolutely nothing. .
actually it means quite a lot what A Dev says(who reprents CCP, not his opinion in this case) . at least more than what 1000 ppl like you think/guess/mumble
What Nex said.

Also, if you don't believe it, then please, buy all of the T2 BPOs you can. Your bad investments are not an issue for me. But when they get nerfed into non-existence, you damn well better not be back here crying about it.


Basically when CCP dev with beer in his hand on fan fest says something you like to hear about T2 BPO, if you drag it out of context, then that is "the truth" and some individuals make news items and fill blogs with that "truth" of sky falling for T2 BPOs. But if CCP dev writes on forum something to explain the context (and that you got it wrong) and says something you don't like to hear then we should take his words with grain of salt and/or he is lying. Facepalm.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#73 - 2014-05-16 09:44:20 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
Basically when CCP dev with beer in his hand on fan fest says something you like to hear about T2 BPO, if you drag it out of context, then that is "the truth" and some individuals make news items and fill blogs with that "truth" of sky falling for T2 BPOs. But if CCP dev writes on forum something to explain the context (and that you got it wrong) and says something you don't like to hear then we should take his words with grain of salt and/or he is lying. Facepalm.
lol, he didn't have a beer in his hand, he was in the industry panel, specifically answering a question about T2 BPOs. Yes, I take more from what he says that a dev who is stopping rumours on the forum with a snippet of text. Perhaps if he made an announcement post it would hold more power.

And the removal of T2 BPOs makes sense. They are an old mechanic which is no longer used and they make it difficult to work with invention mechanics as they have to watch how it affects T2 BPOs. So the options are separate them or remove them. Well separation was suggested in the panel and they outright stated that they would not be doing that. They also explicity stated that T2 BPO value would be goign down, and stated that there would be a "transitional plan" rather than just taking them away and saying "screw you". You can go watch this yourself if you want and make your own conclusions. But all of that leads me to believe their time is limited, and with them taking years to become profitable that's something people will want to consider sooner rather than later.

But honestly, if you don't want to believe it and you want to bury your head in the sand, then go right ahead. I don't actually care where you invest your isk, but if they remove them and you lose billions, then don't come crying on these forums about how mean it is, since you were given adequate warning.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Aluka 7th
#74 - 2014-05-16 10:05:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Aluka 7th
Lucas Kell wrote:
Aluka 7th wrote:
Basically when CCP dev with beer in his hand on fan fest says something you like to hear about T2 BPO, if you drag it out of context, then that is "the truth" and some individuals make news items and fill blogs with that "truth" of sky falling for T2 BPOs. But if CCP dev writes on forum something to explain the context (and that you got it wrong) and says something you don't like to hear then we should take his words with grain of salt and/or he is lying. Facepalm.
lol, he didn't have a beer in his hand, he was in the industry panel, specifically answering a question about T2 BPOs. Yes, I take more from what he says that a dev who is stopping rumours on the forum with a snippet of text. Perhaps if he made an announcement post it would hold more power.

And the removal of T2 BPOs makes sense. They are an old mechanic which is no longer used and they make it difficult to work with invention mechanics as they have to watch how it affects T2 BPOs. So the options are separate them or remove them. Well separation was suggested in the panel and they outright stated that they would not be doing that. They also explicity stated that T2 BPO value would be goign down, and stated that there would be a "transitional plan" rather than just taking them away and saying "screw you". You can go watch this yourself if you want and make your own conclusions. But all of that leads me to believe their time is limited, and with them taking years to become profitable that's something people will want to consider sooner rather than later.

But honestly, if you don't want to believe it and you want to bury your head in the sand, then go right ahead. I don't actually care where you invest your isk, but if they remove them and you lose billions, then don't come crying on these forums about how mean it is, since you were given adequate warning.


Ah, then I guess THANK YOU guys and specially Goons for so many warnings not to invest in T2BPO. Usually people from corps most active through these T2 BPO threads are not that helpful regarding other things but people change and I'm glad you are giving back to community. Let me know when you start doubling my ISK.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#75 - 2014-05-16 11:04:52 UTC
Aluka 7th wrote:
Ah, then I guess THANK YOU guys and specially Goons for so many warnings not to invest in T2BPO. Usually people from corps most active through these T2 BPO threads are not that helpful regarding other things but people change and I'm glad you are giving back to community. Let me know when you start doubling my ISK.
lol, such sarcasm.
I love how people are so dead set against the CFC, that everything we do must be a manipulation. What people fail to realise is that if we were manipulating, we could be doing it either way. I mean we might be purposely telling you the truth aggressively so you'll think we are manipulating so you do the exact opposite and start buying T2 BPOs, right? That's just as reasonable an assumption as us wanting to get people selling. Of course, there is also the possibility that we don't actually care either way, but want to ensure people are 100% definitely aware that T2 BPOs are a bad investment so that when people invest in them and lose out we can say "but you were told right here [link]".

In truth though, it doesn't matter. You've got all the info, you've heard all the opinions, now make your own decisions. If you think T2s are a good investment, buy, if not, don't. That's entirely your choice.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#76 - 2014-05-16 13:07:22 UTC
In addition to the above, in the other thread an interesting point was shown. CCP Eterne has now edited the anti-rumour post. Note that the word "immediate" was added, so there are no "immediate" plans to remove T2 BPOs. That's even more telling than had it said "immediate" originally, since it indicates a conscious decision to go back and make that part clear.

Still think that post is strong enough to encourage you to invest in T2 BPOs?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Cave Ciliatum
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2014-05-16 15:01:31 UTC
Why the heck you dare to discuss with lucas? Don't you know he's always right?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#78 - 2014-05-16 15:36:00 UTC
Cave Ciliatum wrote:
Why the heck you dare to discuss with lucas? Don't you know he's always right?
Certainly not always, but I tend to post when I'm sure of something. Besides, I could be wrong here, they might never do anything, right? So go invest in T2 BPOs.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Otti Ottig
Hesso Business
#79 - 2014-05-16 22:03:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Otti Ottig
Lucas Kell wrote:
Certainly not always, but I tend to post when I'm sure of something. Besides, I could be wrong here, they might never do anything, right? So go invest in T2 BPOs.

eh?
you sure about what? the removal? really? even after CCP stated in the easiest and clearest words they would ever do that they won't do that

but yea reading between all these lines I know you have found the truth about their real intentions.

I mean right now the water is up to your chest and you didnt understand that the ship is lost.Big smile

Nex Killer wrote:

What one dev says doesn't mean anything at all. I remember CCP Falcon commenting on reddit about the rumor of World of Darkness being canned and him saying:


right, so what one DEV said in the offcial Forums... even with the very clear words (rare for CCP) "An FYI to cease the rumor mongering that is happening in this (and other) threads:" Means absolutely nothing because it already happened once that a another CCP dev said on a external and unrelated forum and changed his mind a week later.

So when they are playing oposite day all the time they might even boost all T2 BPO's and nerf invention to the ground, did a DEV ever controverted it? probably true then.


Lucas Kell wrote:
Your bad investments are not an issue for me. But when they get nerfed into non-existence, you damn well better not be back here crying about it.

pretty harsh to call something a bad investment that cost me about 10% of what it's worth now and has prolly made 500% profit of the invested isk by nowEvil
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#80 - 2014-05-17 02:14:49 UTC
Otti Ottig wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Certainly not always, but I tend to post when I'm sure of something. Besides, I could be wrong here, they might never do anything, right? So go invest in T2 BPOs.

eh?
you sure about what? the removal? really? even after CCP stated in the easiest and clearest words they would ever do that they won't do that

but yea reading between all these lines I know you have found the truth about their real intentions.

I mean right now the water is up to your chest and you didnt understand that the ship is lost.Big smile
OK, so explain exactly why CCP Eterne, who is the only person to state that T2 BPOs would not be removed (which itself is counter to what was said in the industry panel) felt the need to change "we have no plans" to "we have no immediate plans"? Seems to me that the only reason you would make that change is if it was pointed out that those plans do exist long term. If you have an alternate reason though, feel free to let me know.

Otti Ottig wrote:
right, so what one DEV said in the offcial Forums... even with the very clear words (rare for CCP) "An FYI to cease the rumor mongering that is happening in this (and other) threads:" Means absolutely nothing because it already happened once that a another CCP dev said on a external and unrelated forum and changed his mind a week later.

So when they are playing oposite day all the time they might even boost all T2 BPO's and nerf invention to the ground, did a DEV ever controverted it? probably true then.
Actually, invention is the way forward that will be iterated, which they've stated multiple times. It won't be in the first industry releases but will be in the second set we are told. That said, they;ve already announced plans to nerf T2 BPOs by upping the build costs on all T2 items and giving invented BPCs a positive ME, which will shrink the profit margins of a BPO considerably.

Otti Ottig wrote:
pretty harsh to call something a bad investment that cost me about 10% of what it's worth now and has prolly made 500% profit of the invested isk by nowEvil
That entirely depends on when you bought it. Years ago it wasn't a necessarily a bad investment. For anyone buying them now though, it is. And for anyone holding onto them now, it is. Their value will go down. I find it funny that someone that thinks they have such a good investment though would have no idea what their actual profit is and would just guess at percentages. I smell a bullshitter.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.