Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tehg Rhind
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 04:57:00 -
[1]
The following CSM candidates support the removal of T2 BPOs and have therefore identified themselves as being far too stupid to have any decision making abilities.
This is from the Vote Match system and is an aggree/disagree system for the following statement
"All existing Tech II BPOs should be converted into high run BPCs."
Statements from the candidates are included where relevant.
Strongly Agree - The dumbest of the pack
Mitanni - "Death to T2 BPOs, they were a terrible thing and are a terrible thing"
Vile Rat - "Yes, T2 BPOs were a mistake only made worse by their continued existence"
Roc Wieler - "Yes, I completely agree with this, not only will it diminish and balance the economic power structure but it will give more players an oppurtunity to engage in the market."
Alsyth
Cyeres - "Agree, make the market a fair place for everyone, not just the veterans"
Dracco Lassa
Agree - May be just as dumb since this in an ordinal data set
Helen Highwater - "T2 BPOs need to be phased out"
Issler Daines
Serious Internet Politician
Ripard Teg - "Profitable T2 production should not be the sole domain of EvE old money and RMTers"
Mike Azzariah - "There will be screams and ragequits as the bitter vets loose their isk printing process"
Bruce Blacky - Lots of words and not transcribing them. Boils down to "not fair to new players"
Socrates - "I do wish for them to be fixed some day, I just don't know how"
Imigo Montoya - "T2 BPOs need to either be available to be obtained by all players or ultimately be removed. Encourage active play"
General Windypops
Striker City
Arden Elendul
K'Smith'Y
[b]Butch Leupold
[b]Tinak Genry - "T2 BPOs are no longer allowed to be in game. Old BPOs should be converted to level the playing field."
|
Misty McGinnity
Mystify Trading Company
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 05:01:00 -
[2]
cool story, bro!
also nice name.
|
khai88
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 08:47:00 -
[3]
I strongly disagree with above statement it cost 20b + isk to buy a T2 heavy drone BPO and even if it convert to very high run it WILL NOT recover our lose, thos that agree to remove it it just bunch of cry baby then can't affort them
|
Gothmog
Villasen Innovations
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 09:51:00 -
[4]
I make profit from t2 bpc so could they. they the sort that assume a t2bpo = mega isk. they do not, profit margin still slim.
also most t2 bpo owners were not the people who go them in 1st place. many owners bought them from others with isk they made. just seems to many people to lazy to make the isk needed themselves.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:04:00 -
[5]
Originally by: khai88 I strongly disagree with above statement it cost 20b + isk to buy a T2 heavy drone BPO and even if it convert to very high run it WILL NOT recover our lose, thos that agree to remove it it just bunch of cry baby then can't affort them
Equally, Technetium should never be nerfed because that would be unfair to anyone holding stocks based on assumptions they made about the future trajectory of the economic side of the game. Peoples' assumptions must always be borne out by CCP.
|
Khanid Voltar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:10:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Khanid Voltar on 10/03/2011 10:16:12
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: khai88 I strongly disagree with above statement it cost 20b + isk to buy a T2 heavy drone BPO and even if it convert to very high run it WILL NOT recover our lose, thos that agree to remove it it just bunch of cry baby then can't affort them
Equally, Technetium should never be nerfed because that would be unfair to anyone holding stocks based on assumptions they made about the future trajectory of the economic side of the game. Peoples' assumptions must always be borne out by CCP.
Only problem there is that it isnt an assumption, CCP have consistently said that they have no plans to remove T2 BPOs from the game and hence there has been a lot of speculative purchases based upon such statements.
On the other hand CCP has been fiddling intermittently with moongoo and I expect all of us anticipate another change at some point in the future.
No speculative investment is entirely risk free however in the two examples above the former is significantly lower risk than the latter.
edit - in my opinion the only reason the T2 lottery is unfair is that it stopped. If it carried on, say re-releasing destroyed prints and issuing new BPOS for new items (eg T2 Battleships), then noone could complain that they didnt have a chance to win. Invention would still minimise the markup that could be made. 'Everyone' would still have a chance to win new prints. Datacores would probably climb a bit as people decided whther to cash in RP or save it up in the hope of winning the lottery.
|
RAW23
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:16:00 -
[7]
Edited by: RAW23 on 10/03/2011 10:17:56
Originally by: Khanid Voltar
Originally by: RAW23
Originally by: khai88 I strongly disagree with above statement it cost 20b + isk to buy a T2 heavy drone BPO and even if it convert to very high run it WILL NOT recover our lose, thos that agree to remove it it just bunch of cry baby then can't affort them
Equally, Technetium should never be nerfed because that would be unfair to anyone holding stocks based on assumptions they made about the future trajectory of the economic side of the game. Peoples' assumptions must always be borne out by CCP.
Only problem there is that it isnt an assumption, CCP have consistently said that they have no plans to remove T2 BPOs from the game and hence there has been a lot of speculative purchases based upon such statements.
On the other hand CCP has been fiddling intermittently with moongoo and I expect all of us anticipate another change at some point in the future.
No speculative investment is entirely risk free however in the two examples above the former is significantly lower risk than the latter.
Sure. And I don't mean to provide an argument for the removal of T2 BPOs. I just think the 'no fair' argument against removing them is not a good one. As you say, they are a low risk investment based on CCP's statements but no one should expect CCP to never change their stance on this issue simply because they have made such statements in the past.
Edit - The assumption I refer to is that CCP will not change their minds.
|
DzarkMoneyMaker
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:18:00 -
[8]
Originally by: khai88 I strongly disagree with above statement it cost 20b + isk to buy a T2 heavy drone BPO and even if it convert to very high run it WILL NOT recover our lose, thos that agree to remove it it just bunch of cry baby then can't affort them
T2 BPO lottery was removed a long time ago and as such their future has been uncertain for sometime now. Anyone who was serious about risk management would not invest in something with a 3 year + pay off , when the future of it is very uncertain. When CCP decide to change/ review the current T2 BPO's situation, anyone holding any that have not paid for themselves is a by-product of bad risk management and not a reason to keep things that spawned from something everyone including CCP agree was a terrible mechanic. Banking on anything with a multi year pay back in an MMO is very risky at best
|
Khanid Voltar
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:33:00 -
[9]
Originally by: RAW23 I just think the 'no fair' argument against removing them is not a good one.
I completely agree and likewise I think the 'no fair' argument against keeping them is equally invalid. Not that I am saying you are saying that.
|
Cergorach
Amarr The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 10:48:00 -
[10]
IF CCP were to remove t2 BPOs, they shouldn't be converted to high run BPCs, give back the isk that those BPOs were bought for or set a high value for each BPO and give isk to those folks who bought it. CCP gave back skill points when they removed Learning Skills, why not isk for BPOs?
Sure, it would generate a huge influx of isk, but really high running BPCs won't solve the 'problem' for years to come.
ps. I don't own a T2 BPO and probably never will.
|
|
Fulbert
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 11:20:00 -
[11]
0/10.
Agressive, useless troll. ____________________________________ Fulbert Industrialist - Casual Trader EVE Online, the best browser MMO of them all |
Lynx Australis
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 11:24:00 -
[12]
Well, T2 blueprints were okay during the lottery. But CCP made bad choice when they decided to keep them with invention. CCP has been harsh towards players before, but keeping T2 BPOs was just stupid, just like learning skills.
|
Sjugar
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 12:01:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Sjugar on 10/03/2011 12:01:59 Fair or unfair doesn't matter that's just a matter of opinion.
What I do feel matters is that T2 BPO's corner the market. In a high-volume market their effect will be negligible but in lower volume markets where T2 BPO's can cover most of the demand they make it practically impossible to get into with invention.
But you also have the economy. And one of the cornerstones of every successful economy is ownership. Someone has something and you can't just take that away. That will destroy confidence in the market and ultimately destroy it. That's why T2 BPO's should not be destroyed or changed.
So what now? Well, like in any market what's good today might not be tomorrow. Because for instance of new technologies. What I always found weird is that sleepers dropped like parts for nice T3 ships but not T3 modules.
T3 modules would "fix" the current situation without taking anything from anyone. A T2 BPO is an investment and with any there's a chance it's less worth tomorrow or not. That's the risk of investing.
So, CCP, bring out T3 modules asap.
|
Gillaboo
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 12:09:00 -
[14]
Nerf the T2 BPO's and bust open moon mining to include WH moons. RAWWWWWR !! -------------------------------------------------------- This space For Rent. |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 12:48:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Sjugar ...
But you also have the economy. And one of the cornerstones of every successful economy is ownership. Someone has something and you can't just take that away. That will destroy confidence in the market and ultimately destroy it. That's why T2 BPO's should not be destroyed or changed.
...
however, T2 BPO do get destroyed, but don't get replaced. how far from the truth would be to assume that CCP already decided procrastination is appropriate "solution" for this issue? ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel - [jedi handwave] "There is no spoon." |
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 13:38:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Fulbert Agressive, useless troll.
Far from useless; I appreciate the list of people I should vote for!
|
Sea Sharp
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 13:41:00 -
[17]
Originally by: khai88 I strongly disagree with above statement it cost 20b + isk to buy a T2 heavy drone BPO and even if it convert to very high run it WILL NOT recover our lose, thos that agree to remove it it just bunch of cry baby then can't affort them
Even more reason to remove them from the game. It'll be funny watching you cry on the forums if it ever happens!
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari T2 Technologies Unlimited SRS.
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 13:41:00 -
[18]
Crap, the Remove T2 BPO dogfight has spilled out from S&I into MD.
Buy my shares | Investor Relation |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 13:46:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Fulbert Agressive, useless troll.
Far from useless; I appreciate the list of people I will not vote for!
Joint Venture Conglomerate |
Roguehalo
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 15:57:00 -
[20]
T2 bpos are just vanity items these days.
|
|
Lokas Dvinn
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 16:22:00 -
[21]
Oh, good. I think I'll vote for the Mittani. Tech 2 BPOs SUCK. Unless you have one of course. It makes the playing field completely unfair for those who have to deal with T2 BPCs. And as far as compensation: be glad to get anything. It's not like people haven't been screwed out of pretend assets by CCP before: 1 examples out of about a million: Y-T8 MWDs. They used to sell for ~10M. Since CCP increased the drop rate massively they sell for a few K. Perhaps all of those traders that got screwed holding them should get compensated by CCP? That's ******ed. There should be risk in everything in this game. There is not with T2 BPOs. Diversify and get over it.
To hell with your T2 BPOs.
|
Kethas Protagonist
Protagonist Ventures
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 16:30:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Tehg Rhind Bruce Blacky - Lots of words and not transcribing them.
I found whom I'm voting for!
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 16:52:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Kethas Protagonist abortion. There are some intelligent, nuanced arguments to be made either way,
No there aren't.
Originally by: Kethas Protagonist 2) If you consider yourself a T2 BPO abolitionist: do you think that forced conversion of T2 BPOs into high-run BPCs (or their outright removal) would harm the players currently holding them, presumably greatly diminishing the value of their investment through essentially political fiat, when their only fault was to take CCP at its word?
This is a regularly updated MMO, people get screwed by changes all the time. People lost lucrative businesses (such as Mothership production) due the badly worded dev blog. Another example is the introduction of tractor beam BPOs. Then there's the screw-up with the POS modules last summer. On a more personal level, the introduction of remaps screwed me over, because I had chosen my attributes on the assumption that I could never change them, whereas others were whining they didn't think ahead. Now that invention is here and working properly, T2 BPOs can be removed. Too bad, that some people will get screwed by that, I'm sure they'll rich enough to survive.
|
Tutskii
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 16:53:00 -
[24]
I do not think that CCP promised that they would exist for perpetuity. The investment in them is a gamble that assumes their price will rise, but it is by no means the responsibility of CCP to protect that investment.
Saying that it is is the same as saying that CCP may make no change that may change the value of anything.
The main argument for keeping them I see is that speculative investors haven't got their money back yet. Tough, there are plenty of times I make no profit or even lose due to changing conditions. CCP doesn't come to my aid to guarantee my investment or preserve mechanics for that.
What's next a Tech lobby group to prevent changes to moons?
|
Tehg Rhind
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 16:58:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Brock Nelson Crap, the Remove T2 BPO dogfight has spilled out from S&I into MD.
I spent a while trying to figure out where to put it. The reason I decided here was better was that:
1) s&i is more populated with noobie industrialists who fail to understand oppurtunity cost and would therefore support this
2) the people market versed enough to understand how wrong this is would be in MD
3) this is more a matter of understanding eve economic philosophy than having anything to do with industry, therefore it makes more sense here.
That said I'm still not convinced this is the right location. Maybe s&i is more appropriate.
PS. There's not really a dogfight on this topic. This is more of a turkey shoot.
|
Tasko Pal
Spallated Garniferous Schist
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 17:01:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Tasko Pal on 10/03/2011 17:04:11 Edit: I've long been a T2 BPO supporter almost from the moment I read arguments against them.
Originally by: Kethas Protagonist
1) If you consider yourself a T2 BPO supporter: do you think that the initial lottery implementation was a mistake in that it rewarded luck over effort or skill,
I consider it a bad mechanism due to the combination of luck-based acquisition and the value of the assets. Luck based rewards aren't that big a deal, invention and exploration work out nicely despite the luck-based component. But assets of this level of value being handed out by luck, that is a problem.
I think this question is a non sequitur because it tells us nothing about whether or not to keep T2 BPOs. So T2 BPOs were introduced imperfectly. It is irrelevant now.
Quote: and do you think that new players (here defined as "not yet owning enough capital to purchase their own T2 BPO") suffer through no fault of their own because of the reduced profitability of invention?
No. Among other things. invention is quite profitable with a much better ROI than T2 BPOs.
|
Plasmatiq
Caldari Malicious Destruction
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 17:12:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Plasmatiq on 10/03/2011 17:12:25 Better solution would be to increase invention BPC runs. Reward effort and give the market more competition without taking anything away from anybody.
But I heard that there's an issue with moon distribution\stranglehold on certain moon type products. So you wouldnt be alleviating a problem just moving it.
|
Babyface Eighteen
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 17:27:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Tasko Pal Edited by: Tasko Pal on 10/03/2011 17:04:11 No. Among other things. invention is quite profitable with a much better ROI than T2 BPOs.
So if I invest like 15bill into invention. My ROI will be higher than with a T2 BPO?
An interesting and very valid comparison.
|
Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 17:37:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Jagga Spikes
however, T2 BPO do get destroyed, but don't get replaced. how far from the truth would be to assume that CCP already decided procrastination is appropriate "solution" for this issue?
Not only that, I'm pretty sure meanwhile a couple of them is also dormant on inactive accounts.
Sooner or later, the T2 BPOs will cease to exist in a "natural" fashion. -- EVEWalletAware - an offline wallet manager |
Kethas Protagonist
Protagonist Ventures
|
Posted - 2011.03.10 17:44:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Estel Arador
Originally by: Kethas Protagonist abortion. There are some intelligent, nuanced arguments to be made either way,
No there aren't.
Ngh. Okay, can we at least agree it'd probably be a mistake to change this into an abortion discussion?
Originally by: Estel Arador
Originally by: Kethas Protagonist 2) If you consider yourself a T2 BPO abolitionist: do you think that forced conversion of T2 BPOs into high-run BPCs (or their outright removal) would harm the players currently holding them, presumably greatly diminishing the value of their investment through essentially political fiat, when their only fault was to take CCP at its word?
This is a regularly updated MMO, people get screwed by changes all the time. People lost lucrative businesses (such as Mothership production) due the badly worded dev blog. Another example is the introduction of tractor beam BPOs. Then there's the screw-up with the POS modules last summer. On a more personal level, the introduction of remaps screwed me over, because I had chosen my attributes on the assumption that I could never change them, whereas others were whining they didn't think ahead. Now that invention is here and working properly, T2 BPOs can be removed. Too bad, that some people will get screwed by that, I'm sure they'll rich enough to survive.
Er, you aren't actually disagreeing with me. You give several examples of where players have lost out, competitively, not through lack of skill or foresight but through changes to the game. I'm asking that T2 BPO abolitionists acknowledge that, for current T2 BPO holders, losing their investment would be one such loss. It's fine, even commendable, for conditions to change based on in-game circumstances - war in nullsec making moon materials more expensive, say - but I think that imposing arbitrary change from outside the system is a) unpredictable b) unfair c) unfun. This would make current T2 BPO holders' loss a downside of a potential change. There would be upsides, and it may even be that a potential T2 BPO change would be net positive, but I'm asking T2 abolitionists to at least acknowledge that this aspect of it, taken in isolation, would be a downside.
Originally by: Tasko Pal Edited by: Tasko Pal on 10/03/2011 17:04:11 Edit: I've long been a T2 BPO supporter almost from the moment I read arguments against them.
Originally by: Kethas Protagonist
1) If you consider yourself a T2 BPO supporter: do you think that the initial lottery implementation was a mistake in that it rewarded luck over effort or skill,
I consider it a bad mechanism due to the combination of luck-based acquisition and the value of the assets. Luck based rewards aren't that big a deal, invention and exploration work out nicely despite the luck-based component. But assets of this level of value being handed out by luck, that is a problem.
I think this question is a non sequitur because it tells us nothing about whether or not to keep T2 BPOs. So T2 BPOs were introduced imperfectly. It is irrelevant now.
Oh, I absolutely agree that it's a non sequitur. You're right that "whether or not the initial method of T2 BPO distribution was fair" is largely irrelevant to how we deal with them now. I just make a point of it because I see people attempting to defend what I see as an indefensible position - that removal of T2 BPOs would be unjust as the initial, lucky players would lose out (when new players have no chance to be "lucky").
(cont., out of characters)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |