Science & Industry

all the above concerns may sound "legit" from a documented (and ofc side'ed) point of view... nevertheless option is option no matter the (lack of) reason...



you seems to ignore the "dont care" choice - which, IMO, would gather way more then the "pro" or "against" options...
and you also seems to ignore the "i have no clue / interes - i wont waste my time with this poll" - also a valid option...
anyway: a vote IS a vote no matter the reasons behind it... no matter the colaterall arguments, this kind of poll would eventually make it clear about the stream and it should be considered... even for the main purpose of ruling out the most unlikely possibility of an 30k participants outcome with 25k "against"...



i (myself that is) dont need a poll at all, any kind of poll... my mind is made long ago but i have a single vote and the option to cast it or not... ccp might need the poll... ccp might need the info about the no and type of ppl who actually care about the T2BPOs... one way or another...

well Sir, looks like we have some kind of misunderstanding here (which i even cant blame you for as long as this is not a 2 man debate but a forum with many posts / opinions and having to answer many "one guy" things may get mixed sometimes)...
pls be so kind to notice i have never said T2BPOs harm the game in any way!!!... you may check my posts if neccesary - i've allready done it (just to be absolutely sure that, at some point, i havent said something just to annoy a ill-mannered person - i've done that now and then, but not in this thread)... even more: i have always agreed with arguments saying t2bpos are to be ignored when we consider global eve economy... and even more: i've made it clear somewhere that "as an 11 slots inventor / manufacturer as well as bpo owner i dont give a ... errrr... i dont care about the bpos... i do not even bother to waste a manuf slot for the bpo " - maybe not the exact words but that was the spirit...
that being said i cannot be asked "to present solid evidence that T2BPOs harm the game" as long as its very clear i dont belive that...
i have to say that you (and maybe others aswell) got me all wrong... my "pro bpo removal" opinion / atitude comes from some twisted sense of justice/ fairness... same thing that makes me "hate" scammers and highsec gankers... same thing makes me consider the exploration buff to actually be a nerf for me because it ruined my well planed and hardworked exclusivity... same thing that makes me consider any "on the run gameplay change" to be unfair except some sort of compensation is offered for those who made their plan considering some rules inplace and sudently find themself, more or less, one way or another, spoiled to some degree by the new rules...

again: (and in bold) i am aware of the obvious fact that some things need to be changed for the overall benefit - but changing rules on the run sometimes literarlly means screwing plans, rendering strategies to be useless, moving months of training time directly into the trashcan... all those situations needs to be carefully considered and compensations should be offered accordinglly whenever the changes are more then resonable "tweaking"

so: in my book bpos should be removed because of their unfair way of seeding and because the lottery was removed and ppl dont have the "chance" of geting one anymore... from the same book of course compensations should be adequatly offered for the current legit owners...

if you Sir could say those are not valid, meaningfull and resonable arguments then i'd have to agree i am a fanatic...

At least they have something very strong in common - neither of those will ever be removed

Where in CCP's marketing have you ever seen the word "fair" or "just"?

Exactly. You're saying you want T2BPOs removed because they're not "Fair" yet in the next breath you agree that CCP never advertised the game as "Fair." Why are you complaining about a concept that you understand?

Extending your logic,
T2BPOs aren't Fair > Delete them
EvE isn't Fair > Delete it

My reasoning
T2BPOs aren't fair > Deal with it
EvE isn't fair > Deal with it harder.

yea look, the 2-3 Crusaders and their alts itt might gave you the illusion that there's a Revolution going on with several thousands of people backing you up, but there really isn`t. Considering there been these 2-3 misguided dudes per year (in the last 8 years or so) getting confused by T2-BPOs, Akita T`s comment is accurate enough.

anyway, I wouldn't quite compare this situation with the victory of the democrathy over the monarchy, rather with Simba and Nala didnt understand why lions shouldn`t go to the hyena`s place.

What drop in subs? The average users online has risen every year (bottom of the incarna slump was still just over when the online users was the year before), and the Subscriber numbers have also risen every year.

T2BPOs have been around for a very long time, surely if there were going to be a drop in subs we'd have seen in by now?

Same goes for ganking. It's been around in large, well organized, player run, events since m0o's camp in early 2003. And the subs keep rolling in.

I see no justification to get rid of them atm; if CCP Diagoras or EyoG could delve into how many T2 BPOs exist at the moment and what level of impact they have on the Invention market, I would consider that enough information to make a decision.

errr... looks like you forgot to mention its a trade'able item and you could sell it anytime you want or you see fit to... so stop crying about the huge ROI time: investment is there anyway... all the "return" is pure proffit...

and since you allready mentioned the "passive" magic word: that was a good enough reason for nerfing datacores... now that they start the "NO to passive" crusade maybe, just maybe, ccp would care to look into ALL the "passive" endeavours with the same "lets screw it" eyes...

That's easy to answer : just because something is next to meaningless at the big picture level doesn't mean it's meaningless to the individual with a stake in it.

In the grand scheme of things, T2 BPOs might not affect the overall economy by much.
However, they DO lower prices of less popular ships and modules. They would become far more expensive and therefore become even less popular (to the point of maybe even vanishing from the game for practical intents and purposes) if T2 BPOs for them were ever removed.
Not just that, but also, due to them providing a less lossy manufacture method for a portion of the market, they enable more T2 stuff to be made out of a limited amount of bottleneck moongoo, which means they lower the costs of ALL T2 items that contain the bottleneck material, so removing them will most likely raise prices of all other T2 items slightly.
Also, they are a high-value low-ROI investment for their owners. The ISK value of any individual T2 BPO might be insignificant compared to total ISK in-game, but that can be said about the wallet content of 99+% of the game's population too. Don't tell me people would take it well if all of it would be gone overnight, no matter how little it was.


That assumes you can unload the investment at a similar price later, which is not always the case.
And what about higher RoI investments that also are easily resellable ? Supercapital BPC creation for instance, overall RoI is often at about the same level as T2 BPO ownership, it requres less effort, and is probably more easily re-convertable into ISK. In fact, come to think of it, can you name any initial investment in EVE other than skills that can not be re-converted into ISK after you decide you no longer wish to take part in the activity ?


Funny you should say that, because passive datacore harvesting WAS NOT REMOVED from the game - it just got an efficiency reduction alongside an alternate production method. And it's not even guaranteed to really translate into an income reduction for all datacore types either, since some of them might just increase in price to compensate.
Also, you know, it's pretty much the same way T2 BPO income was drastically reduced when invention was introduced.