These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why does it cost ISK to Research and Manufacture in the POS?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#101 - 2014-07-27 20:22:31 UTC
Maduin Shi wrote:
It now takes hundreds of days, generally, whereas pre-patch it was, as the above poster noted, about a month. So we have automatically the privileged group that has the last % in-hand regardless of whether or not it is worthwhile to have it (usually it is) which was my point.
Yes, ok. Slight point of confusion there. It wasn't “about a month” before the patch. It was about a month per level of research. This quickly amounts to the same (or more) “hundreds of days” as we have now.

Getting, say, a Moros to ME6 required 6 months… or, well, closer to 9 actually since we have to take that “about” part into account. I say ME6 because for the Moros, that was “perfect” ME. Starting next week, getting a Moros BPO to perfect ME will take four months. Perfect, in this case, is ME9 since ME10 won't provide any additional benefits (unless you consider having to bid on, wait on, and pay for teams for a very minute increase in margin beneficial).

Quote:
I won't hijack this thread further... suffice is to say that doing an eve central search and running the industry window calculator is not the same as buying all the components/researching the BPO and building the ship in real-time with prices changing throughout.
The thing is, we can actually remove prices as a factor and just look at component requirements. The story becomes a lot simpler, both to calculate and to understand, but the end result remains the same: getting to a point where you can earn money and compete with maxed-out BPOs isn't nearly as hard as many assumed pre-patch.
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
True Reign
#102 - 2014-07-28 01:21:05 UTC
This is the first thread that has made me miss EVE since I stopped playing; I'm resubbed for a month because I had to do something with the stock I have in my old corp. The industry side of the game and the logistics were always what I liked, though I did pvp and all sorts of other stuff too. I have such a love / hate relationship with this game. Usually when I read the forums I come away glad that I don't play anymore. And I do read the forums from time to time because I want to know how things are going.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#103 - 2014-07-28 01:48:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
CCP Greyscale wrote:
[quote=Antihrist Pripravnik]


I'd also like to protest that the rules of the system are entirely static: what's changing is the landscape, which is entirely driven by the action of other players, and to us that's the absolute heart of "the sandbox" in a multiplayer context.





Mark this quote, and this day. Here is THE definition of sandbox. It's not about rules to be petitioned for or against or gamed, it's the landscape and its propensity to change.


Any time someone goes "HURF BLURF! It's a Sandbox! GBTWLOLNOOBPHAG!!!" to justify some dumb action or idea they have, or someone is calling on turning this into Tea and Crumpets Online because someone made their day difficult, all you need is that quote from a dev of CCP to shut down such arguments and we can all nod and go back to playing the game.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
#104 - 2014-07-28 02:14:25 UTC
Ten Bulls wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
and to what degree we want people to be maxing blueprints sequentially vs taking a "old one to 9, new one to 9, old one to 10"-esque approach (over n blueprints, not just over two).


As a sideline to this, did CCP consider having a decimal place, why does it have to be whole numbers ?

If your going to stick with these really long research times (like 1 year to research freighter from 9 to 10) would it be terrible if it was done a month at a time instead of one continuous length of time.

But why use whole numbers to start with, why not have a BP that gives say a 9.2% reduction in materials ?


While this would be fun to see (in a way), it wouldn't add anything useful to the game. If you notice the difference between ME 9 and ME 10 for most capital blueprints, the material requirement is 1 component more here and there. While those are tens of millions of ISK in difference and it may be providing additional profit, you can't use decimal places when the difference is measured in single units (of capital components), since you can't have a material requirement of 0.37 Capital Drone Bays (for example).
Ten Bulls
Sons of Olsagard
#105 - 2014-07-28 06:00:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ten Bulls
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:


While this would be fun to see (in a way), it wouldn't add anything useful to the game. If you notice the difference between ME 9 and ME 10 for most capital blueprints, the material requirement is 1 component more here and there. While those are tens of millions of ISK in difference and it may be providing additional profit, you can't use decimal places when the difference is measured in single units (of capital components), since you can't have a material requirement of 0.37 Capital Drone Bays (for example).


One of the changes in this latest patch is that material requirements are rounded per job rather than individual run, but there is a minimum of 1 per run.

So if there was a requirement of 1.25 drone bays, and you do a job with 4 runs, you would need exactly 5 drone bays, an average of 1.25 per run.

But the fractional research is more for a situation where it takes a year to research a freighter from 9 to 10, say after 51 weeks you get war deced, if you stop the job to protect the BP you would lost 51 weeks of research.

Previously the longest you needed to commit a research job for a T1 BPO is about 50 days AFAIK (not sure about titans though), these changes make it much much harder for new players to get BPO's to the same level that old players have now.
Maduin Shi
MAGA Inc
#106 - 2014-07-28 06:13:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Maduin Shi
Tippia wrote:
Maduin Shi wrote:
It now takes hundreds of days, generally, whereas pre-patch it was, as the above poster noted, about a month. So we have automatically the privileged group that has the last % in-hand regardless of whether or not it is worthwhile to have it (usually it is) which was my point.
Yes, ok. Slight point of confusion there. It wasn't “about a month” before the patch. It was about a month per level of research. This quickly amounts to the same (or more) “hundreds of days” as we have now.


No the complaint was about the granularity of the research job times. The total length in both new and old cases is about the same in terms of the effects on inputs but the old system was more granular with a fixed research time and more 'levels'. You therefore only had to sacrifice a month or so of production on the BPO to get it through a ME research job whereas now, to improve the ME above a certain level, the job now takes forever and that = lost income because the scaling is now more geometric while the old system was linear and more granular. It was better to improve the BPO in smaller steps while you were say, on vacation or while the market wasn't profitable etc. Especially if the BPO was going (quietly) to a POS for the job. That isn't possible anymore and if the job times aren't practical then the mechanic is pointless and gives a competitive advantage to those who got the research done under the old system.


Tippia wrote:
Maduin Shi wrote:
I won't hijack this thread further... suffice is to say that doing an eve central search and running the industry window calculator is not the same as buying all the components/researching the BPO and building the ship in real-time with prices changing throughout.
The thing is, we can actually remove prices as a factor and just look at component requirements. The story becomes a lot simpler, both to calculate and to understand, but the end result remains the same: getting to a point where you can earn money and compete with maxed-out BPOs isn't nearly as hard as many assumed pre-patch.


You do not understand ISK/hr vs. competing isk-making activities. But if 200 mil for an archon is an optimal use of your time, or its for fun and not seriouz biznezz, you're welcome.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#107 - 2014-07-28 08:07:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Maduin Shi wrote:
No the complaint was about the granularity of the research job times. The total length in both new and old cases is about the same in terms of the effects on inputs but the old system was more granular with a fixed research time and more 'levels'. You therefore only had to sacrifice a month or so of production on the BPO to get it through a ME research job whereas now, to improve the ME above a certain level, the job now takes forever and that = lost income because the scaling is now more geometric while the old system was linear and more granular.
…and that's where the argument goes off the rails, because no, the job does not take forever and the lost income is the same as (or less than) before. The more I hear of it, the entire complaint seems to boil down to “onoz, it takes X amount of days — waaah!” without any thought or consideration of what this number actually means or what it does. The research times are no more impractical or impossible than before, in part because you don't have to push them as high to be competitive and in part because it's simply faster (by a fairly huge margin) than before.

By the way, the old scaling was just as geometric, but at the other side of the equation. It used to be the benefits that took longer and longer to get using a fixed time interval; now it's the benefits that are fixed, but are acquired through a longer and longer time interval. End result: much the same (except it's faster now, so you lose less production time).

Quote:
You do not understand ISK/hr vs. competing isk-making activities.
Incorrect, and irrelevant.
Remember what the argument is before trying to use an ad hominem to utterly fail to respond to it.

So again: getting to the point where you can earn money and compete with a maxed-out BPO isn't nearly as hard as many assumed pre-patch. You get there faster; you don't actually need to max most of them out; earning back the research costs is fairly trivial; and guess what… those BPO holder have to take the same market fluctuations into consideration and operate on the same margin as you do. There is no magical divide between old and new BPOs. This is not a matter of market savvy but of simple maths.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#108 - 2014-07-28 09:11:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Getting, say, a Moros to ME6 required 6 months… or, well, closer to 9 actually since we have to take that “about” part into account. I say ME6 because for the Moros, that was “perfect” ME. Starting next week, getting a Moros BPO to perfect ME will take four months.


Now, that's complete bull.

Getting a Moros to ME7 incorporating pre-patch knowledge (there IS no conversion to ME6, FYI), required researching it to old ME2. We're talking about abusing the conversion system here.

Getting a PERFECT ME10 BPO of any kind required inserting a ME5 BPO into research and making sure research ends after the patch. I'm sure other than with your Moros there are BPOs out there where that ME10 makes a difference.

THAT is the kind of shenanigans that was allowed - or rather encouraged - and what we're talking about here.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#109 - 2014-07-28 09:34:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Getting a Moros to ME7 incorporating pre-patch knowledge (there IS no conversion to ME6, FYI), required researching it to old ME2.
Good thing that I never said anything of the kind, then. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully before calling something “bull”, hmm…?

Quote:
We're talking about abusing the conversion system here.
No. We're talking about the difference between the old and the new system when it comes to researching your BPOs to a competitive, or even “perfect” level.

Quote:
Getting a PERFECT ME10 BPO of any kind required inserting a ME5 BPO into research and making sure research ends after the patch.
You know, if would help you immensely if you read the patch notes before trying to correct me on things (even the things I never actually said). No, getting a ME10 BPO from the conversion required a bit more than that.

Would you like to comment on this passage in the “Character Migration” section?
Crius 1.0 Patch Notes wrote:
• For ME, ME0 blueprints become ME0%
• ME1 becomes ME5%
• ME2 becomes ME7%
• ME3 and ME4 become ME8%
• ME5 through ME9 become ME9%
• ME10 and above becomes ME10%
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#110 - 2014-07-28 09:39:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
I think they were referring to how the ME level from research is added after the BPO is converted. Specifically, your BPO is converted first, while the job's "add X levels of ME" is unchanged and applied to the BPO after the research job ends.


So a ME5 (with 1 level in research to in progress when Crius hits) turns into a ME9 BPO, and when it finishes research, it will be ME10.


Obviously most of those BPOs are still in their research job (they are now ME9 with a job that will add one more level), for those that put it in just before Crius.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Thomas Harding
Doomheim
#111 - 2014-07-28 09:51:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nexus Day wrote:
At some point CCP will figure out that creating a perception that the rewards are increasing for some security sectors and decreasing in others will lead people to move in that direction just doesn't work. But hey, I will let the numbers speak for me.


The numbers show that near no industry happens in null. How is it bad that CCP are fixing industry so that there is a reason to leave highsec?


When they don't do (yeah, there's talk, but talk is cheap) anything else to null, all I see this doing is even more stagnated null. And even more iskies to big coalitions. And I can't see that being a very good thing.

On the other hand. If you get all the empty space rented and THEN get rid of agreement that prevents you to attack each others renters, well, that would be hilarious. Don't see that happening though.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#112 - 2014-07-28 09:55:35 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
I think they were referring to how the ME level from research is added after the BPO is converted. Specifically, your BPO is converted first, while the job's "add X levels of ME" is unchanged and applied to the BPO after the research job ends.
Ok, that makes a bit more sense.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#113 - 2014-07-28 09:57:27 UTC
Thomas Harding wrote:
On the other hand. If you get all the empty space rented and THEN get rid of agreement that prevents you to attack each others renters, well, that would be hilarious. Don't see that happening though.

Northern Associates is just too powerful man, we wouldn't dare.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#114 - 2014-07-28 09:59:04 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
I think they were referring to how the ME level from research is added after the BPO is converted. Specifically, your BPO is converted first, while the job's "add X levels of ME" is unchanged and applied to the BPO after the research job ends.
Ok, that makes a bit more sense.

Actually since a lot of people brought their BPOs to 5, expecting to get a ME9 BPO, when they found out...

yep, tossed it in for one more level just before patch. Time will show how much the ME10 archon BPOs will acrually change things though (archon saves like 0 or maybe 1 capital drone bay)

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Thomas Harding
Doomheim
#115 - 2014-07-28 10:21:21 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Thomas Harding wrote:
On the other hand. If you get all the empty space rented and THEN get rid of agreement that prevents you to attack each others renters, well, that would be hilarious. Don't see that happening though.

Northern Associates is just too powerful man, we wouldn't dare.


Nah, you just love iskies too much.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#116 - 2014-07-28 12:52:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Getting a Moros to ME7 incorporating pre-patch knowledge (there IS no conversion to ME6, FYI), required researching it to old ME2.
Good thing that I never said anything of the kind, then. Maybe you should read a bit more carefully before calling something “bull”, hmm…?


Well, you were the one invalidating my claim that the BPO market is poisoned by bringing up the Moros as an example, claiming it took the same (approximate) time to research it pre patch than afterwards, even if it's not a very good example, since it doesn't require perfect ME.

Since my criticism is NOT about the new research times, but SOLELY about the manner in which old BPOs were converted, I adapted your example to the facts of life - i.e. prople DID have knowledge how the conversion was to be made WAY before the patch.


Also, since i meant to answer this, but forgot - although i did write it before:

Tippia wrote:

And what “should” they be?


Research time should have been (or be retroactively) converted 1:1. That's the 'currency' that people paid, so they should get the result their currency can buy after the patch.

Coincidentially that would mean a NORMAL industrialist with your examplary ME6 Moros BPO would be largely unaffected by the conversion, while those abusing the patch would no longer profit inappropriately.

Even if some BPOs lose ME levels in that context, people should be glad they could use them with higher ME levels than they would have been entitled to, if BPOs had been implemented sensibly in the first place. (And IMO the new system is much more sensible than the old one, even though i still maintain they should reduce BPOs to pure level, instead of ME/TE.)
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#117 - 2014-07-28 13:56:50 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
Greyscale, just admit it. Its the cost of Obamacare taxation (this joke only works for Americans)


:P

Super spikinator wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Just woken up so not reading the whole thread (I know, I'm awful), but:

Ultimately, you're paying fees in your starbase because that's the balance tradeoff for unlimited slots for everyone. If we take slots away we need some form of substitute (pseudo-)scarcity so that everyone in the universe doesn't just build in Jita 4-4, which would be bad for various reasons but primarily because it removes a whole lot of interesting decisions and makes the rest of the map an industrial wasteland, which is not a thing we want. We felt that scaling fees were a good solution to this, as fees were already a thing (even though they were essentially irrelevant) and because ISK is kinda the nexus of decision-making for serious industrialists. If we're going to use fees, we pretty much have to apply them everywhere, including starbases because they scale too well otherwise and we don't want to re-add pseudo-slots to stop them from being too powerful.

The lore reason is just something to the effect that (Abraxas has the real version, if I was in the office I could look it up but I'm not) CONCORD has stopped paying worker costs for capsuleer industrialists, so now you have to pay them instead. We deliberately talk in terms of workforce fees to try and reduce the cognitive dissonance of "why do I have to pay in my starbase" and "why is it the same all over the system", but obviously it's am imperfect fix.

We totally understand why people are having this reaction, though - it's your tower, why are you having to pay extra? - and it's probably an area of the design that could be adjusted to give a better result, but not obviously without trading off against reduced ease-of-use. We could, f.ex, require "workers" to be put into labs and assembly arrays as fuel, which are purchased for ISK, so you're not paying money on the job but you are paying the equivalent amount on the back end... but then you have more fuel to haul around and people generally hate doing that. Swings and roundabouts.


Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.


Anyway, like I said, just got up, trying to help, may be some crazy in the above I'm not spotting currently, sorry :)


Is the lore reason that I would pay extra in Amarr that the slave owners are asking for more Salary/Bribery or else they will relocate the workforce elsewhere?


I'd have to ask Abraxas, but I'd find it reasonably likely that the people doing your work are not slaves but rather extremely well-paid professionals. Not everything in Amarr runs on slave labour, and capsuleer industry is one of the most demanding jobs available.

General Nusense wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.





Thanks for taking the time to make prices rise without buffing income streams. Not everyone is in a mega blob alliance that gets spoon fed ships. Most, well some, of us actually have to grind isk. Unless your ultimate goal is to make players buy PLEX. Prices for ships are already rising, and this is just the beginning.


It should settle before too long. Prices rise, demand, drops, prices drop again, it just needs to shake its way the whole way through the chain.

Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Pretty good clarification. Thanks.

However, I still think that the old blueprint holders have a significant advantage - at least by having blueprints that probably already stepped beyond the "high-bar" that new researchers are not willing to invest above. Especially when there are copies of those high quality blueprints flooding the market after copy speed changes.


Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.



Makes perfect sense now. Smile Thank you for taking time to extensively communicate with the community about this.

I have read the devblogs and resources that were available about the changes, but there is nothing better than direct Q&A. [:)


No worries, I always enjoy having reasonable conversations with people about what we're doing and why :)

Nexus Day wrote:
At some point CCP will figure out that creating a perception that the rewards are increasing for some security sectors and decreasing in others will lead people to move in that direction just doesn't work. But hey, I will let the numbers speak for me.


No, we know rewards are only part of the equation, and that in a lot of current situations the risk profile is the limiting factor, not the reward. That said, the perception that most of the Crius changes (excepting reprocessing) are a measurable incentive to move to nullsec is probably just...
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#118 - 2014-07-28 13:57:23 UTC
Keyran Tyler wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
Pretty good clarification. Thanks.

However, I still think that the old blueprint holders have a significant advantage - at least by having blueprints that probably already stepped beyond the "high-bar" that new researchers are not willing to invest above. Especially when there are copies of those high quality blueprints flooding the market after copy speed changes.


Yes, they do. We had a straight-up trade-off: we could make the blueprint economy more stable in the long run, and nerf everyone's blueprints in the process to varying degrees, or we could accept we're giving a lot of people a leg up but ensure that people are generally getting a good deal in the short term. Our general tendency is towards the longer-term play, but in this instance we were already making seismic changes to industry gameplay, and we were concerned that a straight-up blueprint stats nerf would cause enough additional negative sentiment to discourage large numbers of industrialists and prevent the feature as a whole gaining momentum out of the gate, which could have significant negative consequences for anyone who likes to buy things. We don't like doing short-term-oriented changes but in this case the risk of "damn the torpedoes" was that they might actually sink us.

Keyran Tyler wrote:
Did you considered that we play industrial precisely because we appreciate to be able to control and predict the outcome of our operations? A sandbox with rules changing constantly is not funny.


Yes, and this was another big tension throughout development. We have been trying to make industry more fulfilling by increasing the number of decisions that are made, but we're still waiting to see how many people want their industry to be fulfilling vs just want to make low-mental-effort money for various reasons. The hope is that, as the system starts to really pick up and run, people figure out where the optimizations are and we fine-tune a few things, a strong core of industrially-minded players find the new status quo keeps them strongly engaged and creates an interesting landscape for everyone else to play in, industrialist or otherwise. If it doesn't work out, we'll need to reassess.

There is also, though, a degree to which this is representative of one of the fundamental driving forces of EVE: we know that players know that the optimal setup requires perfect stability, and we try really hard to ensure that stability can never quite be achieved, because at that point you've won and the game is essentially over. I'd also like to protest that the rules of the system are entirely static: what's changing is the landscape, which is entirely driven by the action of other players, and to us that's the absolute heart of "the sandbox" in a multiplayer context. It's not interesting because you're allowed to go off and play in your own corner without regard for anyone else, it's interesting because the actions of other players keep throwing up interesting new challenges, be that through direct PvP combat or extremely indirect market dynamics. A static game gets soved and a solved game has no longevity.


Thank you for replying, your point of view is much clear now. I'm supporting your intention to make the game more attractive and fulfilling.
I still think there is something wrong with POS. System index cost is a very good idea for station and outpost but for POS it's a weird design. Let me do an analogy.

In real life you are owning a field, an house, and choose to build a swimming pool. You pay materials, fitter, water, chimical, maintenance, town tax, tax everything you buy ... and enjoy the pool every time you want!
With your system, it's like I put a steward next to your swimming pool, and you need to pay every time you want to use it. Of course the price is adjusted according to the use that all your neighbors are doing of their own pool. Without forgetting public pool.. It's sound like communist system?

So with POS, if I'm paying about 400M for a month of fuel, it was mainly to not depend of station slot availability. Now, we have just a poor bonus on required time and materials. It's not enough to compensante the price of fuel and risk-taking now imposed for the BPO.
I don't have a good solution to provide but I think you need to compensate more that nerf on POS.

Capital BPO need to be fixed too, time and price of research is a joke...


We totally understand that, yeah. It is weird. We may revisit it later, but we may not!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#119 - 2014-07-28 14:16:58 UTC
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Well, you were the one invalidating my claim that the BPO market is poisoned by bringing up the Moros as an example, claiming it took the same (approximate) time to research it pre patch than afterwards, even if it's not a very good example, since it doesn't require perfect ME.
You're confusing two different conclusions there: one is that getting to perfect ME takes about as long as it always has. The other is that you don't even need perfect ME any more.

Combine the two, and I question the notion that this very minute section of the BPO market is “poisoned”. It takes a very short time to get a completely fresh BPO into competitive territory; in many cases it's hellalot faster than it were before, so how on earth does this poison the market!?

And if the Moros isn't a good example, what is? My first random grab got me the Archon, which (as all carriers) aren't particularly affected by research, but that just highlights the point: even in the supposed high-end capital BPO segment, an entire category cannot possibly be “poisoned for years” since nothing about them requires that much time. If dreads aren't a good example either, we now have two categories that don't qualify as poisoned. The segment of the market that is supposed to be broken by all this is shrinking rapidly…

Quote:
Research time should have been (or be retroactively) converted 1:1. That's the 'currency' that people paid, so they should get the result their currency can buy after the patch.
Then the same people would have had the same research levels as they got anyway.

Quote:
Coincidentially that would mean a NORMAL industrialist with your examplary ME6 Moros BPO would be largely unaffected by the conversion, while those abusing the patch would no longer profit inappropriately.
Not really, no. It would just have moved back the “abuse” (Lol) a couple of weeks and everyone would have ended up exactly where they are today.

Quote:
Even if some BPOs lose ME levels in that context, people should be glad they could use them with higher ME levels than they would have been entitled to, if BPOs had been implemented sensibly in the first place.
But that's just it: no-one would really lose any ME levels on their BPOs because for the most part, they're the same. For the vast majority, they'd gain levels. Even for trivial stuff — T2 components and the like, where the time to perfect was really really short — a direct translation of research time would pretty much guarantee that anyone with even a slightly researched blueprint ended up with perfect ones.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#120 - 2014-07-28 14:40:47 UTC
Antihrist Pripravnik wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


Oh, and as to the "this extra cost hurts me", that should cancel out economically, because everyone's paying the same extra cost in a given location so prices ought to rise accordingly.


So you are artificially creating inflation, forcing consumers to grind more ISK in order to pay for stuff and devaluing ISK in the process...



HE is not creating inflation because he is REMOVING isk from the market. The reduced ammount of isk will make isk more valuable. That specific job might become more expensive, but somewhere int he economy that price will be paid and no inflation will be generated.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"