These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cave Ciliatum
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2014-05-17 05:16:15 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
I smell a bullshitter.


Yeah. Take a shower plz lukas
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#82 - 2014-05-17 11:25:14 UTC
Cave Ciliatum wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
I smell a bullshitter.
Yeah. Take a shower plz lukas
Wow, such a witty retort! Same we're not in school really.

And how about you respond to the actual post. If I'm the one here talking BS, why did the "we have no plans" post get changes to say "no immediate plans"? If there's no long term plans, the original text would have held. The only reason for the change is if they were told in the background that there are in fact long term plans to remove T2 BPOs. It really doesn't matter how much you kick and scream and try to attack me personally (poorly), the facts will not change.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Otti Ottig
Hesso Business
#83 - 2014-05-17 17:20:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Otti Ottig
Lucas Kell wrote:

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).

lol... why don't you explain exactly how it counters anything that has been said on the industry panel? nobody said anything baout a removal and that's exactly what eterne pointed out. It's only your opinion that they hinted it and you simply don't want to understand that even after a offical confirmation.

Lucas Kell wrote:

f I'm the one here talking BS, why did the "we have no plans" post get changes to say "no immediate plans"?.


really is that all you got, now? We can't see what he has edited but both versions mean pretty much the same thing. And as the sentence stands right now, they've made the most clear statement about a not coming removal.


Lucas Kell wrote:

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.

judging by your rage against us T2 BPO owners you can't have made too much profit yet so I'll let that pass. the profit u've made in 8 years is quite hard to put in numbers and totally unrelated for this discussion....but yea totally a sign that i'm the bullshitter.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#84 - 2014-05-17 19:43:28 UTC
Otti Ottig wrote:
lol... why don't you explain exactly how it counters anything that has been said on the industry panel? nobody said anything baout a removal and that's exactly what eterne pointed out. It's only your opinion that they hinted it and you simply don't want to understand that even after a offical confirmation.
Maybe you should actually watch the industry panel, then it might make sense. He clearly stated they would go down in value. He clearly stated they don;t wnat to take them away and say screw you, there would be a transitional plan. Take that in context. He means a transitional plan to take them away. Or maybe you though he meant "we wont take them away and just say screw you, there will be a transitional plan into keeping them around forever, so no transitional plan at all". Seriously guy, I shouldnt have to walk you step by step though common sense.

Otti Ottig wrote:
really is that all you got, now? We can't see what he has edited but both versions mean pretty much the same thing. And as the sentence stands right now, they've made the most clear statement about a not coming removal.
Actually, thanks to eve-search we can see exactly what was edited. And no, the 2 statements do not mean the same thing, and if they did, why edit them? IT was edited because "we have no plans" is false. They have no plans to do it right now, but they certainly have long term plans to do it.


Otti Ottig wrote:
judging by your rage against us T2 BPO owners you can't have made too much profit yet so I'll let that pass. the profit u've made in 8 years is quite hard to put in numbers and totally unrelated for this discussion....but yea totally a sign that i'm the bullshitter.
L O L
I have no "rage" against T2 BPO owners, I couldn't care less what you want to invest your isk in. For most T2 BPOs, if the same isk was invested in plex, the profits would be far superior, since they take so long just to eek out some profit. Anyone getting on the bandwagon in the past few years was making an incredible mistake.

All I'm doing here is pointing out the facts. If T2s weren't holding back changes to invention ( a live mechanic) I wouldn't really care less about them. But you are filled with rage here, because you are scared that your already crappy investments are going to love value, and they will, CCP stated that in the industry panel quite clearly (go check).

And by the way, if you've made investments into T2s, and you don't know you own profit margins off of them, then you are hardly an authority on long term economics. I've had a look through your posts. All you tend to do is jump into posts and badmouth people with for the most part complete nonsense arguments. If you want to actually address any of the points made in this thread, go ahead, but just going "NOPE!" then babbling off paragraphs of schoolyard style arguments in broken English isn't really proving any kind of point.

Then finally, like I've said multiple times. If you don;t believe me, then by all means invest in as many T2 BPOs as you want. I really don't care if you investment value drops to zero because you were too dumb to read what CCP are quite clearly stating. when they do remove them and you start spewing off mountains of sperg rage at them, I'll be able to link you back to your own posts here and say "told you so". So thanks for that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

DeODokktor
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
#85 - 2014-05-19 08:08:14 UTC
Yawnnnn...
Same story, every year...

New people posting...

Tech2 bpo's are not the problem, users are.

If CCP changes waste on Invention from 10% to 0%, people will just change their price and then moan that tech2 bpo holders are holding them back.

If you dig through the forums you will find Invention-Only items sometimes cursed by those tech2 bpo owners that do not exist.

I have some tech2 bpo's that have NEVER seen a profit since the day Invention rolled out.

If CCP would change tech2 to be 100% refineable then that would be a huge change to the existing market. I used to purchase some tech2 gear daily to move and resell, I was making more buying and moving than I was with producing. Basic Mathematics is where the problem is, not tech2 bpo's.

Mine have been sitting idle now for over 12 months (about 19 I think) and the world has not changed. My 19 AuroraS bpo's are still not worth using, My hawks still sell like crap, 50mm plate II's are not popular, large cap bat II's are laughable...

But I guess it's all my (and the other owners) fault for those horrible markets.

CCP has not stated how many of the bpo's are in game, I bet a lot of you would be both surprised at how many were in game, how many are in game now, and how many have been used over the past year. I know of hundreds of prints that exited the game years ago in one single event, a lot of new events have taken place since then.

Tech2 bpo's are not the problem, producers are the problem.
The market is clear to see, if YOU invent something that has negative income and then undercut the competition, then the blame shouldn't be on "someone else"....
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#86 - 2014-05-19 09:13:40 UTC
DeODokktor wrote:
Tech2 bpo's are not the problem, users are.

If CCP changes waste on Invention from 10% to 0%, people will just change their price and then moan that tech2 bpo holders are holding them back.
Nobody is saying T2 BPOs are "the problem", at lease not in the way you mean. The issue is that changes to invention mechanics that affect the BPCs will also affect T2 BPOs, so CCP have to carefully work around them. Removing them is the simplest way to separate out invention short of making the BPOs and BPCs not affect each other (which CCP said they definitely will not do).

And they are cutting invention waste from 50% to between 2% and 5%. Expect invented BPCs to become considerably more competitive.

DeODokktor wrote:
Mine have been sitting idle now for over 12 months (about 19 I think) and the world has not changed. My 19 AuroraS bpo's are still not worth using, My hawks still sell like crap, 50mm plate II's are not popular, large cap bat II's are laughable...

But I guess it's all my (and the other owners) fault for those horrible markets.
So you made a bad investment. Nobody is saying anything is your fault, and theres no blame being cast about. The idea of removing T2 BPOs is not a personal crusade against the owners, it's simply the way forward. Invention is the new mechanic for T2 production, and the BPOs are going to become redundant at some point.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kylar Renpurs
Dusk Blade
#87 - 2014-05-19 09:17:49 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
DeODokktor wrote:
Mine have been sitting idle now for over 12 months (about 19 I think) and the world has not changed. My 19 AuroraS bpo's are still not worth using, My hawks still sell like crap, 50mm plate II's are not popular, large cap bat II's are laughable...

But I guess it's all my (and the other owners) fault for those horrible markets.
So you made a bad investment. Nobody is saying anything is your fault, and theres no blame being cast about. The idea of removing T2 BPOs is not a personal crusade against the owners, it's simply the way forward. Invention is the new mechanic for T2 production, and the BPOs are going to become redundant at some point.


This a million times over.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#88 - 2014-05-19 12:44:51 UTC
DeODokktor wrote:
Yawnnnn...

I have some tech2 bpo's that have NEVER seen a profit since the day Invention rolled out.



So it is invention's fault you have terrible BPOs?

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

Otti Ottig
Hesso Business
#89 - 2014-05-19 19:46:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

I couldn't care less even tho I keep posting the same trash over and over again...


Fact != what you wish somebody wanted to say
Profit margin of a product != total profit of over 100 prints in 7 years

I couldn't say anything that I havent said before and since I don't feel repeating myself over and over again => hf/gl with ur ragecrusade
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#90 - 2014-05-19 21:14:11 UTC
Otti Ottig wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:

I couldn't care less even tho I keep posting the same trash over and over again...


Fact != what you wish somebody wanted to say
Profit margin of a product != total profit of over 100 prints in 7 years

I couldn't say anything that I havent said before and since I don't feel repeating myself over and over again => hf/gl with ur ragecrusade
lol
Seriously guy, how many times are you going to come back with the same stuff with still absolutely zero backing it. Every day CCP posts more and more to state the decrease in T2 BPO value and their inevitable demise and you continue to bury your head. It's got to the point now that I honestly can;t wait for the day they nuke them into the ground, just so I can see you freak out all over the forum, and I'll simply say "I told you so".

And no, that's not the profit margin of a product, but that's not what were talking about is it? We're talking ROI. Most T2 BPOs would take years to gain a substantial return, so if they only have, lets say for example, 2 years remaining, the chances are any T2 BPO now would never break even. You guys overly inflated these products, and with the industry release, the T2 BPOs will be around 5% better material efficiency than invented BPOs (compared to the current 50%). Can you seriously not see how that might affect their value, and the level of profit they can sustain?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Gamer4liff
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#91 - 2014-05-19 21:31:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Gamer4liff
Lucas Kell wrote:

So you made a bad investment. Nobody is saying anything is your fault, and theres no blame being cast about. The idea of removing T2 BPOs is not a personal crusade against the owners, it's simply the way forward. Invention is the new mechanic for T2 production, and the BPOs are going to become redundant at some point.

I'd like to correct some of your history/implied history here:

There is nothing particularly 'new' about invention, it's closing in on a decade itself. Moreover, whole rounds of T2 BPOs were seeded after invention debuted, so it's not like there was a clean break when it came out. it's worth pointing out that Invention was certainly not created to be the 'normal' way of T2 production, it was created to be a deliberately finicky and annoying system to curb the power of cartels and bring T2 prices down. It's ironic, I suppose then that T2 BPOs, by virtue of their lower build costs and steady production are keeping prices down in certain markets these days. Anyway it was only later that Invention would become the primary means of T2 production, because CCP scrapped the lottery, and did not replace it with alternate means of acquiring T2 BPOs. We'd be having a very different conversation if BPOs had been allowed to continue as the norm, it's a testament to CCP's (no offense CCP) negligence of industry (until now of course) that the primary means of T2 production is so annoying, click intensive, and inefficient. It's right up there with not adjusting any slot counts for population growth, though this won't be a problem anymore, obv.

Anyway, just some T2 food for thought. People should be mad at the fact that they can't get T2 BPOs of their own from the game, and that CCP never fully gave invention the tools/systems it should have had to be the primary means of T2 production, not mad at T2 BPO holders.

E: 'Simply the way forward' is a good bumper sticker quote but it has no place in a debate with the vast economic stakes of T2 production.

A comprehensive proposal for balancing T2 Production: here

Yakuza Yubitsume
Yakuza Cartel
#92 - 2014-05-20 05:42:46 UTC
Removing T2bpos is the most idiotic idea ever. But the mads and poors will never understand that.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#93 - 2014-05-20 07:17:56 UTC
Gamer4liff wrote:
There is nothing particularly 'new' about invention, it's closing in on a decade itself. Moreover, whole rounds of T2 BPOs were seeded after invention debuted, so it's not like there was a clean break when it came out. it's worth pointing out that Invention was certainly not created to be the 'normal' way of T2 production, it was created to be a deliberately finicky and annoying system to curb the power of cartels and bring T2 prices down.
Yes, it's an old mechanic, but it's the new way forward. Now that they've finally got around to changing industry mechanics, they've chosen invention and the primary method for T2 production.

Gamer4liff wrote:
it's a testament to CCP's (no offense CCP) negligence of industry (until now of course) that the primary means of T2 production is so annoying, click intensive, and inefficient. It's right up there with not adjusting any slot counts for population growth, though this won't be a problem anymore, obv.
Absolutely, that's the whole industry system. The whole thing is clunky beyond belief, and if you do it on a high scale you easily find the RSI setting in.

Gamer4liff wrote:
Anyway, just some T2 food for thought. People should be mad at the fact that they can't get T2 BPOs of their own from the game, and that CCP never fully gave invention the tools/systems it should have had to be the primary means of T2 production, not mad at T2 BPO holders.
Again, we're not "mad" at anyone. And if we wanted T2 BPOs, the sell orders forum always has them up for sale. T2 ownership isn't an exclusive club, its pretty easy to go and buy something that someone else has for sale. The only reason T2 owners get any jip is because they are so entitled. A single mention of nerf to their BPOs and they start shrieking about how everyone's jealous. It's quite pathetic really. And it changes nothing. T2 BPOs are a defunct mechanic, a redundant idea. Do you really think CCP should keep in old mechanics, crippling their ability to freely work with the new(er) mechanic, just because some people will freak out if their precious items are nerfed?

Gamer4liff wrote:
E: 'Simply the way forward' is a good bumper sticker quote but it has no place in a debate with the vast economic stakes of T2 production.
Of course it does. Things get nerfed when the situations around them change. In this instance, invention is being iterated and to do that effectively, T2 BPOs will need to go. The way forward is invention, the redundant system is T2 BPOs. Besides, T2 BPO holders like to tell everybody how little their BPOs affect the T2 production economics, so removing them will have a minimal impact.

Yakuza Yubitsume wrote:
Removing T2bpos is the most idiotic idea ever. But the mads and poors will never understand that.
Why?
Give me a reason that removing an old mechanic that is n longer used is "the most idiotic idea ever". Let's face it, the reason is "I WANT MY T2 BPOs!", it's got nothing to do with what is good for the game, it's because you guys feel like you're entitled to keep them. Things get nerfed buddy, get over it.

And for the record, I'm neither mad or poor, just spending billions on an investment that takes 10 years to clear itself is pretty much the prime example of a bad investment, which is why I don't own a T2 BPO. You think you're special because you can find a forum post in sell orders? Lol.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Big Lynx
#94 - 2014-05-20 07:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Big Lynx
Hmm, Lucas, I am not convinced yet. Will T2 BPOs be removed? What do you say? (Don't pay attention to devs' statements)
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#95 - 2014-05-20 07:51:10 UTC
Big Lynx wrote:
Hmm, Lucas, I am not convinced yet. Will T2 BPOs be removed? What do you say? (Don't pay attention to devs' statements)
Removed or devalued to practically removed, yes.

By the way, which CCP statement were you thinking about? There's been like 6, and the one that said they wouldn't be removed was edited to say "wouldn't be removed immediately".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Gamer4liff
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#96 - 2014-05-20 12:09:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Again, we're not "mad" at anyone. And if we wanted T2 BPOs, the sell orders forum always has them up for sale. T2 ownership isn't an exclusive club, its pretty easy to go and buy something that someone else has for sale. The only reason T2 owners get any jip is because they are so entitled. A single mention of nerf to their BPOs and they start shrieking about how everyone's jealous. It's quite pathetic really. And it changes nothing. T2 BPOs are a defunct mechanic, a redundant idea. Do you really think CCP should keep in old mechanics, crippling their ability to freely work with the new(er) mechanic, just because some people will freak out if their precious items are nerfed?

You're putting words in my mouth, I fully support CCP bringing T2 BPOs in line with invention, or vice versa. All I am trying to provide is historical context, and point out that there are benefits to having T2 BPOs continue in some respects. Such as continuous supply keeping prices reasonable, and giving manufacturers a solo endgame. I personally think BPOs should be nerfed to the point where the only benefit they offer over invention is less clicks, and inventors have a (extremely small though compounded with repeated efforts) chance to get them though their normal invention process. Merely removing T2 BPOs entirely would be a waste of what could be a more rewarding system for inventors.
Quote:

Of course it does. Things get nerfed when the situations around them change. In this instance, invention is being iterated and to do that effectively, T2 BPOs will need to go. The way forward is invention, the redundant system is T2 BPOs. Besides, T2 BPO holders like to tell everybody how little their BPOs affect the T2 production economics, so removing them will have a minimal impact.

Nah, not buying it. There's nothing 'redundant' about T2 BPOs, the argument you should be making is that they cause disruption in potential markets for invention. Should that aspect be reduced? Yeah probably, though you're going to have a hard time finding people to make certain items without BPO influence.

A comprehensive proposal for balancing T2 Production: here

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#97 - 2014-05-20 12:35:52 UTC
Gamer4liff wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth, I fully support CCP bringing T2 BPOs in line with invention, or vice versa. All I am trying to provide is historical context, and point out that there are benefits to having T2 BPOs continue in some respects. Such as continuous supply keeping prices reasonable, and giving manufacturers a solo endgame. I personally think BPOs should be nerfed to the point where the only benefit they offer over invention is less clicks, and inventors have a (extremely small though compounded with repeated efforts) chance to get them though their normal invention process. Merely removing T2 BPOs entirely would be a waste of what could be a more rewarding system for inventors.
T2 BPOs are hardly endgame. Their a pretty terrible investment now and certainly not something that a serious industrialist should be aiming for. As for the markets, they would balance themselves. There's no way supply would drop enough to cause a noticeable gap before someone flew in and filled it with invented product.

There's no way they'll ever go back to chance based BPO distribution, they've said that very clearly. The way I see it the options are:
- Make them defunct collectors items
- Remove them
- Seed them on the market and make invention risky a way to produce a superior BPC.
Keeping them in and reasonable for use just means that when they want to change invention mechanics they get held back by "how will this affect the T2 BPOs?".

Gamer4liff wrote:
Nah, not buying it. There's nothing 'redundant' about T2 BPOs, the argument you should be making is that they cause disruption in potential markets for invention. Should that aspect be reduced? Yeah probably, though you're going to have a hard time finding people to make certain items without BPO influence.
Of course they are redundant, the old system of distribution is gone, and their existence is surplus to requirements. If they removed them tomorrow, other than the constant wailing of the owners, nothing would be different.

Now as for the markets, if you believe what T2 BPO owners have been harping since they stopped the lotteries, T2 BPOs have no effect on the market as their production volumes are too low.

Like I said above, the issue is that it ties there hands when making changes to invention, which is the preferred system. And again like I said above, there no way that a gap in the market would open up without being filled by someone.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#98 - 2014-05-20 23:43:45 UTC
Personal attack post removed.

Forum rule 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL

ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#99 - 2014-05-21 00:00:45 UTC
Rumor mongering is not allowed. Topic locked.

Forum rule 31. Rumor mongering is prohibited.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL