Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The "good reason" is that they don't actually cause a problem, and, by default, you don't change something without a very good reason for changing something.

Essentially, the burden of proof is on the person arguing for change. Your argument is, "Because I'm jelly."




CCP can quite easily do what every sensible inventor does and pretend like they don't exist.

...not in any meaningful way, they aren't. They're effectively "worked around" merely by the fact that their impact on their respective markets is essentially meaningless, and mechanically, they're no different than any other BPO. Beyond considering a few small details (e.g., "What do we do with the copy time on these when we reduce copy time across the board?"), they're a pretty small concern.



As is typically the case, I'm pretty sure that if you were capable of actually articulating any specific argument about them, you would do so, but you can't, so instead you say uselessly generic things like, "getting in the way of improving the gameplay!"

You mean other than the fact that they produce the same item type, and any changes performed on the BPC will directly affect he BPO?

LOL. I already did state a specific argument, and you chose to ignore that completely. At the end of the day, CCP are clearly going to be nerfing them into the ground or removing them completely, so get over it. They are already going to make invented BPCs have a positive ML, which will nuke the profit margins of a T2 BPO, and come winter time when they iterate on invention mechanics they'll need to revisit them again. The are a deprecated mechanic and CCP have made that clear.

Honestly, if you want to bury your head in the sand and say it can;t be so, I really don't care. The arguments for their removal are sound, and if the best you can come up with to counter them is "but the owners paid so much for them!" and "Some of them have little economic impact!" then it's no surprise that CCP seem intent on moving forward with nerfing them.

...Lol? "Produces the same item type" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a change to one DB type affects the other. Decryptors alone make it quite obvious that it's possible for them to generate BPCs with arbitrary stats. The framework for that mechanic already exists.



I didn't say it can't be so - I said, in brief, that you have to be a mathematically incompetent ****-wit to really be concerned with them.




Never said that.




No, virtually all of them have little-no economic impact. Funny how you have to be so brazenly manipulative, no?

Yes, they can change the ML and PL. I guess you've cracked it. don;t worry CCP, you can do everything through those stats alone, no need to improve gameplay, call it a day!


In that case, you've give absolutely no reason to keep them.

I'd stick with "some" until I've seen evidence. Though even if that's the case, then the economy will not be affected by their removal.

This is a largely fictional problem that you've invented.

The only tie-in is the BP basetype. This really just sets some baseline stats, most of which are irrelevant to invention:

Research times: Not relevant to invention, because you can't research BPCs anyway.

Efficiency stats - these are always defaulted to 0 on the basetype. For invention, these are set during the invention process. They have to be set during the invention process, because they vary by invention job thanks to decryptors, so again, not actually a concern.

Really, the ONLY stats that have ANY relevant overflow between the BPOs and BPCs are:

-Production time.
-Bill of materials.

I don't really see any practical scenario where they would say, "Well, we want the BPO to have a different baseline BOM or build time than the invented BPCs" - after all, altering those stats is the whole point of the efficiency levels.

So, in short: Your concern is largely bull ****. There are some very few areas where they have to really take BPOs into consideration with respect to invention. Off the top of my head, the most significant one I can think of is copy times.

Incidentally, this actually has nothing to do with a direct invention change, either! The industry upgrade is revamping copy times to make copyBPO->ProduceFromCopy the new "optimal". The problem with this is that applying those changes to T2 BPOs (which have a much longer copy time than build time) would amplify their production capabilities, which is probably undesired.

So... is this a, "SEE? SEE? BPOS are a HUGE development problem!" issue? No, pretty obviously not. At absolute MOST it's one update query to increase the copy time on the T2 BPO base items (which would affect absolutely nothing else, since T2 copy times only matter to T2 BPOs).

So, in short, like most of the intellectually dishonest BPO whiners, you're exaggerating the **** out of an extremely minor concern.

So why are you guys getting so defensive? If nothing changing, and CCP aren't going to remove T2 BPOs then it's not a problem, right? If you're so sure it's just bull, and that CCP devs practically stating their removal is in the long term are lying, then surely there's no problem, right?

The fact is, you find it to be a minor concern, CCP seems to disagree. And since there's absolutely zero gameplay reasons to keep in a deprecated mechanic, I doubt they will keep them around just because the owners are whining about their entitlement.

And what's funny is your saying "look at the stats on the existing mechanics" as examples on how those mechanics could change. Who knows what they could do with T2 BPCs if the BPOs didn't exist. They could choose to go in a totally different direction for invention, who knows where they'll want to take it when they iterate. The idea is to diversify gameplay so that industry is interesting, yet you seem to be thinking along the lines of "everything will remain exactly as it is".

There is none. You are feeding the troll.


CCP PLZ LOCK THAT THREAD

Sigh, well speak to CCP. Clearly nothing I say is going to appease you, since you are absolutely adamant that there is no problem, so go ask CCP why they've made it pretty clear that they are going to be nuked into the ground. At the end of the day you too are looking at it from a point of view that the only iteration they want to do on invention is tweaking the blueprint stats. If that was the case, I'm sure it wouldn't have been left out of the first iteration of the industry mechanics.

Yes, they did say they wouldn't "just take them away", which is why it's not just a line of SQL. But they said in the same sentence that there would be a "transitional plan". So a transitional plan to what? Generally when you say "I'm not going to do X, I've got a transitional plan", it means the result of X is still the same, but the method is broken down into steps to make the change less jarring.

So if it's just some stat changes, why is the invention mechanic purposely separated out? If it was just stat changes they could do that tomorrow.