DUST Search - Announcement:Statement on BPO Removal

All Channels

General Discussions

Announcement:Statement on BPO Removal

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

General Discussions

Announcement:Statement on BPO Removal

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Kristoff Atruin Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1249	Posted - 2013.10.21 22:58:00 - [121] - Quote I think BPOs should be able to be traded. Trade or no trade, their impact on the economy will be about the same. The real story here is that people are using BPOs constantly when they have the skills to use better gear. I used to rarely use my blueprints, but when 1.4 deployed with the hit detection fixes, without rolling back the damage buffs that were put into place to correct for bad hit detection, my more advanced gear became next to worthless. What is the point of complex armor or shield modules, if you can't tank any damage? Why throw 30k isk of gear onto a suit that doesn't help you survive any longer? Ok, so you don't use that stuff. Then...if you're not using higher level modules why do you need the higher level suit? You don't! Ok, downgrade to STD...well, I have a BPO for that. Might as well use it. Other people do the same, and now a STD AR is all you really need. We've got BPOs for those too....might as well use it. And so it goes, until people are using mostly BPOs to make really cheap suits. The drastically reduced TTK did this. Return Dust to the longer TTK game it was in 1.3 and before, and BPO use will drop, and the economy will recover. This is like Eve nerfing all subcaps until they're about as tanky as a noob ship, and then start talking about restricting the use of noob ships so that people are forced to use expensive ships that will die just as quickly.
Matticus Monk Ordus Trismegistus 591	Posted - 2013.10.21 23:15:00 - [122] - Quote I really hope that CCP is reading this thread and taking these ideas and concerns to heart. I don't want to be on the receiving end on this and just hear what the outcome is as opposed to using the community dialogue to come to the best solution: "we'll let you know when we decide" = not cool. Personally I can see the issues with trading BPO's (at the same time having multiple copies it kind of bothers me that I may not be able to do anything with them.) I'm all for increasing TTK to make higher level gear more useful, as well as implementing EVE style manufacturing (or just making BPO suits cost some nominal amount of ISK to simulate the manufacturing costs until the system is put in place).
Winsaucerer The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 223	Posted - 2013.10.21 23:15:00 - [123] - Quote Just reposting my thoughts from another thread here, so they're at the relevant location. Good discussion to have, and you (CCP) will need to deal with the fact that some of us have duplicates, and that your system allowed for purchase of duplicates, with knowledge of the sort of game CCP makes (that is, one that allows trading). What other conclusion were we, as EVE players, to conclude given the fact multiples can be owned? However, I am inclined to agree that BPO's in this current form are a bad thing. Most obvious example of a problematic BPO -- LAV's. Here's my thoughts on some possible actions that could be taken: What would benefit me the most: Forced full refund of BPO's at the peak AUR price. Of course, this would upset many people who paid money just to get the BPO's and now are being forced to have AUR instead to buy other things they may have no interest in. They spent real money to get BPO's, and may have no interest in anything else. So I don't think this is a great option. What would maybe benefit many in the community the most: No new BPO's, but allow existing ones to freely be traded with players, so that players can in the future still get BPO's (I imagine there's enough BPO's around that the ISK price wouldn't be crazy high, and people will sell them). What is maybe the best option: Have a very generous optional trade-in scheme for any BPO, and prohibit any trading between players. If you make it generous enough, you will remove many blueprints from the game, and you remove the sting of no trading being allowed, and also handle duplicates gracefully. Not my preferred option (Since I'd like the chance to buy an LAV BPO off someone else because I won't buy it), but I suspect best for the game overall. What is a terrible option: Disallow trade between players, and do nothing else.
Evicer THE HECATONCHIRES 24	Posted - 2013.10.21 23:45:00 - [124] - Quote Fw must NOT have Isk payouts and therefore gives players the ability to get some use out of these suits again .Instead of proto stomping noobs.With the projected changes to FW people will burn up there ISK if they continue to Proto stomp in FW.The only advantage these suits will have at that point will be there own proficiencies.New players will use Militia and buy boosters to skill but stay in the game. If you have to lock them lock them to players (IMO) then do so.All Factions have had a BPO offered, if players chose not to buy them then unfortunately that is there own fault....................You CCP do realize that those of us that bought these are actual paying customers right?That you risk loosing paying customers.......You do understand this yes?Why would a person now buy anything from you?If you go ahaead with this.
Zeylon Rho Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2811	Posted - 2013.10.22 00:51:00 - [125] - Quote They should be tradable, as you made it very easy to get multiples. I know I have multiples of things like Dragonfly Scout suits and Toxin SMGs, which mind you were the only way to get certain expendable items at the time as well (fused locus, etc.). Making them untradable seems to needlessly penalize both the players that gave you money and new players that can never get a hold of them either. I don't see it as being a large balance issue considering you haven't issued things better than standard.
David Spd Isuuaya Tactical Caldari State 75	Posted - 2013.10.22 01:31:00 - [126] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: The reason why BPOs aren't working as intended is they are having a large negative impact on the ingame economy. For the economy to function properly, items need to be consumed in battle. With BPOs, no items are consumed, which breaks this fundamental requirement. As far as trading of BPOs, that's not decided yet. I will be taking your feedback though. We'll let you know when we come to a decision. Free to play games need permanent alternatives. Worrying about how much ISK is floating around @ endgame seems like a very short-sighted focus for a game that had a product casual players enjoyed and ACTUALLY SPENT MONEY ON.CCP further shitting on players that just want to sit back and enjoy a F2P fps without having to stress and playhardcore serious mode. Graves are typically only six feet deep. Why are you still digging yours?
Disturbingly Bored The Strontium Asylum 821	Posted - 2013.10.22 01:52:00 - [127] - Quote Bucktooth Badger wrote: The annoying thing is this could have all been resolved many moons ago with a refund at release (or switch from closed to open beta, I forget which) that was originally suggested but withdrawn as a few might make a few extra AUR profit The problem there is that "a few extra AUR profit" was actually going to be "hundreds of dollars worth of AUR profit". CCP was going to refund the BPOs people bought for 30AUR at a price of 3500AUR. If you bought 20,000AUR for $9.99 and snagged 666 BPOs for 30 AUR, you'd get a refund of 2,331,000 AUR, which is $1,165 worth of digital muneez. CCP's accounting would have to write a $1,155 liability on their ledgers for every $10 players spent on BPOs. And then any reasonable CFO would make the streets of Iceland run red with the blood of the idiots who went ahead with the refund. See why they didn't, and won't ever, do it?
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 1673	Posted - 2013.10.22 02:28:00 - [128] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Shotty GoBang wrote: To CCP: You could offer a reasonable sum of AUR or ISK through a "buyback" effort. Mercs will readily part with the BPOs they don't use, so you'll have fewer BPOs in circulation. Not gonna happen. Too many players back in closed beta purchased hundreds of BPOs for dirt cheap (100 AURUM +/-50) and then later on CCP jacked up the prices to as much as 12,000 AUR a piece. A closed beta player who spent 50,000 AUR to get 500 BPOs will be in a position to gain 500,000 AURUM with 450,000 of that amount coming from thin air (no cash input for CCP). That is the equivalent of the US Mint printing out trillions of dollars and then handing them out for free to anyone who walks by. It will completely devalue the AURUM itself and cause a massive influx of players proto-stomping in AURUM gear for a very long time. If they offered a RESPEC system that was given with AUR and an optional buy back of AUR BPOs after the secondary market opened I think it would solve the ISK sink dilemma as well as any AUR devaluation you fear. Solves two birds win one stone. Then they could actually fix the in game reward system to incentivize fierce competitive matches and EVERYBODY would be happy.
J-Lewis edimmu warfighters Gallente Federation 311	Posted - 2013.10.22 02:41:00 - [129] - Quote Thank you CCP.
Skihids Bullet Cluster 2302	Posted - 2013.10.22 03:08:00 - [130] - Quote Disturbingly Bored wrote: Bucktooth Badger wrote: The annoying thing is this could have all been resolved many moons ago with a refund at release (or switch from closed to open beta, I forget which) that was originally suggested but withdrawn as a few might make a few extra AUR profit The problem there is that "a few extra AUR profit" was actually going to be "hundreds of dollars worth of AUR profit". CCP was going to refund the BPOs people bought for 30AUR at a price of 3500AUR. If you bought 20,000AUR for $9.99 and snagged 666 BPOs for 30 AUR, you'd get a refund of 2,331,000 AUR, which is $1,165 worth of digital muneez. CCP's accounting would have to write a $1,155 liability on their ledgers for every $10 players spent on BPOs. And then any reasonable CFO would make the streets of Iceland run red with the blood of the idiots who went ahead with the refund. See why they didn't, and won't ever, do it? They know what you bought them for, so they could refund for the original purchase price.

SirManBoy Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 314	Posted - 2013.10.22 03:20:00 - [131] - Quote Reposting from another thread as feedback was requested for posting here: I have spent over $500 supporting Dust 514, including the purchase of around 10 merc packs (I have several copies of the same BPOs as a result), the veteran pack, the elite pack, and my recent pre-order purchase of the EVE Second Decade anniversary collection. Most of my motivation for these purchases was to obtain BPOs, boosters, and AUR (for purchasing more boosters). What more do you want from me, CCP? Shouldn't I be able to use my property however I see fit, including the ability to gift, trade, and sell these items? What are you guys thinking?! If you really want BPOs removed from the market then it's up to you to offer an open-ended and totally voluntary option for disposing of said BPOs that comes with an attractive perk like free omega boosters. Perhaps you can give us the option of converting BPOs to a large number of sellable BPCs. The boosters would be our reward for helping bring the economy in better balance by converting an unlimited run item into a number of consumable items. However, no BPO should ever be taken away from a player involuntarily. Never ever, CCP! I plan on keeping several of my BPOs forever!
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 1070	Posted - 2013.10.22 04:22:00 - [132] - Quote Banning Hammer wrote: I know this may sound simplistic and not complicated enough .... But ,why can we just use ISK to restock BPO's ?.... i will be happy just having the cosmetic look. Maybe just a bit less ISK to restock them. This
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION 1070	Posted - 2013.10.22 04:30:00 - [133] - Quote Introduce player trading and make the bpo use up new salvage. Have the battles drop modules and broken modules as salvage and the with a small fee the bpo will consume some salvage and produce a suit or two. We need stuff like alchemy and player trading.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 4658	Posted - 2013.10.22 05:11:00 - [134] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Shotty GoBang wrote: To CCP: You could offer a reasonable sum of AUR or ISK through a "buyback" effort. Mercs will readily part with the BPOs they don't use, so you'll have fewer BPOs in circulation. Not gonna happen. Too many players back in closed beta purchased hundreds of BPOs for dirt cheap (100 AURUM +/-50) and then later on CCP jacked up the prices to as much as 12,000 AUR a piece. A closed beta player who spent 50,000 AUR to get 500 BPOs will be in a position to gain 500,000 AURUM with 450,000 of that amount coming from thin air (no cash input for CCP). That is the equivalent of the US Mint printing out trillions of dollars and then handing them out for free to anyone who walks by. It will completely devalue the AURUM itself and cause a massive influx of players proto-stomping in AURUM gear for a very long time. If they offered a RESPEC system that was given with AUR and an optional buy back of AUR BPOs after the secondary market opened I think it would solve the ISK sink dilemma as well as any AUR devaluation you fear. Solves two birds win one stone. Then they could actually fix the in game reward system to incentivize fierce competitive matches and EVERYBODY would be happy. Can you clarify this with numbers? Are you saying that CCP should pay us with ISK for bpo items in this buy back deal? Even if aurum is given at a marked down price for bpo buy backs, the veterans who were here since closed beta stand to legally exploit a massive gain of extra AUR. CCP will have to pay 100 AUR per item to compensate.
Phazoid the unholy legion of darkstar DARKSTAR ARMY 79	Posted - 2013.10.22 05:15:00 - [135] - Quote yes, please make them tradeable
Ghural The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 162	Posted - 2013.10.22 07:32:00 - [136] - Quote 1. Change BPOs so that they require actual materials to create the items. 2. Add weapon fragments to salvage table 3. Add ability to reprocess weapon fragments and weapons we don't want 4. Materials are used to create new items.
Ryme Intrinseca Seraphim Auxiliaries 135	Posted - 2013.10.22 07:34:00 - [137] - Quote I see a lot of people saying that CCP should make BPOs function like they do in Eve, so you just have the license to manufacture and still have to pay the manufacturing costs. Can I just say that this is a shooter on PS3, and lots of people who play it have never played Eve. For these people BPOs work very nicely at present as they're simple and save you the hassle of restocking, which is something that I think is offputting for some about this game. Making BPOs work the same way as Eve might cater well to existing CCP fanbois but it is no way to grow a console FPS playerbase. Surely the idea was that Eve would deal with the manufacture side of things and leave us to shoot stuff? The other thing about this is that BPOs are only for standard (and militia) gear at present. I think most players would not consider using them if there was a cost involved in using them - if they're paying anyway, they'd sooner use advanced or proto. So attaching a cost to BPO use would have similar results to removing them from the game with no compensation. If there is a cost attached I think BPOs would have to be bumped up to advanced to be at all viable. But in that case they would probably have more of an impact on the market than they presently do. I think it's just best to leave the BPOs already in the game as they are, and make them tradeable.
dustwaffle The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 605	Posted - 2013.10.22 08:00:00 - [138] - Quote Put your hands together for your new ex-EA executive producer, ladies and gentleman. /golfclap
excillon united we stand x 89	Posted - 2013.10.22 09:13:00 - [139] - Quote I swear if anything happens to alter my BPO's from what they are now, and how they are used or stats, there's gonna be a class action lawsuit I'm sure. If for nothing else than the principle of the matter. I like my BPO's, A LOT. I don't even plan on selling them, I'm keeping them all. You don't really think a causal player, or even a weekend guy like me, is going to spend AUR on something like a Killswitch or Codewish. No thanks. BPO's offer a sense of tangibility. Something permanent you get for spending your hard earned money. You say you don't like the effect it has on the economy, what did you really think was going to happen, honestly? Of course people are going to use what they paid for. I for instance run an almost full BPO loadout. Primary gun, secondary, suit and all I pay for is nanos and mods when in pubs. And because of that, I've been able to stockpile hundreds of Duvolles, GEK's, and ck 0's for PC eventually. Add modules to the weapons. Move the damage modifier to the weapon, create say, 3 slots. An accuracy module slot, rate of fire slot, and damage slot. Just treat them like dropsuit mods, adding more consumables to the loadout. Now, offer over/under attachments like grenade launcher/shotgun for the AR, flame unit/rocket launcher for the forge/HMG, etc. People will buy those up when they realize their naked AR won't compete with a decked out one. You should have let users create BPO's. Say they must have a specific blueprint generator skill, be maxed out in the weapon they make (a guy only maxed in MD can only make MD's). You get the idea. I don't see why BPO people should have to suffer because they bought and use what they paid for. No offense, but you guys really have your priorities screwed up. You can't fix issues like vehicle balancing, red line sniping, MD abuse, etc. but you are worried about BPO's? Let's fix the game, then see how BPO's affect it. Because if you put out a quality product, MORE people would buy the packs for the BPO's, and it would mean more money for CCP. And you could introduce new ones every 6 months, and they'd sell like mad. Like I said, priorities guys.
Beeeees KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 272	Posted - 2013.10.22 11:07:00 - [140] - Quote excillon wrote: You don't really think a causal player, or even a weekend guy like me, is going to spend AUR on something like a Killswitch or Codewish. No thanks. BPO's offer a sense of tangibility. Something permanent you get for spending your hard earned money. I am legitimately sorry that you have to pay real money for ingame items to win a game or two, but this sounds like a major case of not-HTFU. Have you ever considered playing by, y-¦know, the same rules everybody else does? And while we are at it, please answer a question if you got the time. Why do you play a challenging game, and then put down real money to make it less challenging? This concept seriously boggles my mind.

Ku Shala Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 611	Posted - 2013.10.22 11:39:00 - [141] - Quote +1 for ability to trade BPO's already uber upset about race specific BPO's like raven which became useless to many players, now you want to change something you already sold? again?
D34NOS MAZDA Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 174	Posted - 2013.10.22 11:51:00 - [142] - Quote +1 for ability to trade BPO's already uber upset about race specific BPO's like raven which became useless to many players, now you want to change something you already sold? again? copied your text ku shala just saved time
Aran Abbas Goonfeet Top Men. 293	Posted - 2013.10.22 12:08:00 - [143] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: The reason why BPOs aren't working as intended is they are having a large negative impact on the ingame economy. For the economy to function properly, items need to be consumed in battle. With BPOs, no items are consumed, which breaks this fundamental requirement. As far as trading of BPOs, that's not decided yet. I will be taking your feedback though. We'll let you know when we come to a decision. You did sell BPOs with the explicit claim that having them would mean players could be free of isk costs. Now if you go ahead and introduce isk costs to them, in whatever form, you'll be betraying the trust of your customers. It would be like selling 30 day boosters and then downgrading them to 7 days because you didn't like the effect.
Beeeees KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 272	Posted - 2013.10.22 13:14:00 - [144] - Quote Aran Abbas wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: The reason why BPOs aren't working as intended is they are having a large negative impact on the ingame economy. For the economy to function properly, items need to be consumed in battle. With BPOs, no items are consumed, which breaks this fundamental requirement. As far as trading of BPOs, that's not decided yet. I will be taking your feedback though. We'll let you know when we come to a decision. You did sell BPOs with the explicit claim that having them would mean players could be free of isk costs. Now if you go ahead and introduce isk costs to them, in whatever form, you'll be betraying the trust of your customers. It would be like selling 30 day boosters and then downgrading them to 7 days because you didn't like the effect. Or they could simply introduce a new build "due to hardware limitations" and "refund the inventory". And there-¦s nothing you could do about it. There was talk about no future character wipes, nobody ever said anything about inventory wipes.
Drapedup Drippedout G.U.T.Z 33	Posted - 2013.10.22 13:24:00 - [145] - Quote CCP, the problem is not that you introduced BPO's to the game, its that there is nothing worth buying with the ISK I make... The problem is that win or lose in a match you award the same amount of isk. Win or lose, there is no incentive once I've hit SP cap. So why pull out my more powerful equipment that costs isk??? BPO's are a great idea, and a HUGE moneymaker for you guys. Yeah the booster's are nice, but I guarantee people buy your packs just as much for the BPO's as they do for the boosters. (I certainly did). Maybe if you tripled the isk payout for a win or even derive a payout system based on WP, you might restore balance to the economy. You have to encourage people to spend isk. You will get rid of BPO's only to find people will run the starter fits. We do this because it is expensive to proto stomp, with PC broken, there is nothing to spend isk on. I fully understand that one possible solution is to force us to spend isk by removing all BPO's from the marketplace, but really guys? That's as creative as you can get? How about a Free-For-All mode where you have to ante in to a match, 50,000 isk/player. Top 3 places pay out. People pay isk, run bigger expensive suits, higher reward if you win, nothing if you lose. Look at COD- Black ops and their contract system. FFS, we are mercenaries, give us some MERC Contracts! Make them a gamble. Some contracts can have ISK rewards, some have equip rewards. All cost ISK to obtain, you lose the ISK if you fail to complete said contract. You're welcome for the unoriginal ideas. I got plenty more, just ask.
Beeeees KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 274	Posted - 2013.10.22 13:35:00 - [146] - Quote Your payout is determined according to your time in battle, your place on the scoreboard, if your team won or not, and the total amount of isk burned through by both sides in the battle.
Drapedup Drippedout G.U.T.Z 34	Posted - 2013.10.22 14:14:00 - [147] - Quote Beeeees wrote: Your payout is determined according to your time in battle, your place on the scoreboard, if your team won or not, and the total amount of isk burned through by both sides in the battle. Thanks, I did not know that it pooled isk from both sides.
KenKaniff69 Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 740	Posted - 2013.10.22 14:54:00 - [148] - Quote +1 for trading BPO's on the player market.
Aran Abbas Goonfeet Top Men. 294	Posted - 2013.10.22 17:03:00 - [149] - Quote Beeeees wrote: Aran Abbas wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: The reason why BPOs aren't working as intended is they are having a large negative impact on the ingame economy. For the economy to function properly, items need to be consumed in battle. With BPOs, no items are consumed, which breaks this fundamental requirement. As far as trading of BPOs, that's not decided yet. I will be taking your feedback though. We'll let you know when we come to a decision. You did sell BPOs with the explicit claim that having them would mean players could be free of isk costs. Now if you go ahead and introduce isk costs to them, in whatever form, you'll be betraying the trust of your customers. It would be like selling 30 day boosters and then downgrading them to 7 days because you didn't like the effect. Or they could simply introduce a new build "due to hardware limitations" and "refund the inventory". And there-¦s nothing you could do about it. There was talk about no future character wipes, nobody ever said anything about inventory wipes. Tell me, do you knees hurt from being on them all day long, having CCP's dong in your mouth?
Kristoff Atruin Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 1257	Posted - 2013.10.22 17:32:00 - [150] - Quote The one way of limiting the impact of BPOs I'd be ok with would be to make them manufacture consumable, untradeable copies of items every day / week or whatever. Still being able to trade the blueprint if you don't want it anymore, but it would give them a clearer value in ISK terms and limit their impact on the economy. If my exile blueprint gave me say...50 exile rifles per week, without cost, then I'd probably be ok with that as long as higher level tiers of gear were more worthwhile to use.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.