| Author |
Topic |
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 18:23:00 - [ 1]
There are two threads here about the removal of T2 BPOs from the game.
All candidates who replied to these threads were against the removal of T2 BPOs.
If there is a candidate in favour of removing the T2 BPOs, please raise your hand. |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 18:42:00 - [ 2]
... so we can eliminate him from the "to vote for" list fast, for the simple reason of being unable to understand basic game mechanics (like invention and supply/demand).
|
zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan |
Posted - 2008.05.05 18:46:00 - [ 3]
 Originally by: Akita T
... so we can eliminate him from the "to vote for" list fast, for the simple reason of being unable to understand basic game mechanics (like invention and supply/demand).
 |
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 18:46:00 - [ 4]
Edited by: Soulita on 05/05/2008 18:46:38 Originally by: Akita T
... so we can eliminate him from the "to vote for" list fast, for the simple reason of being unable to understand basic game mechanics (like invention and supply/demand).
If you want to discuss the topic please use one of the two existing discussion threads. This is simply a question, as I would be interested to know if any candidate is in favour of removing T2 BPOs. Thank you for your understanding. |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 18:49:00 - [ 5]
Edited by: Akita T on 06/05/2008 12:23:01Oh, I was just warning them  P.S. (for post below) This is not a discussion, this is a statement from a VOTER, not a CANDIDATE. I am not running for CSM. I was simply explaining to you why no candidate would be careless enough to say he is in favor of removing T2 BPOs. Or, in case he is daft enough to say that... well... he has been warned. At least (s)he has balls. P.P.S. Found you one : Ma Zhiqiang. |
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 18:54:00 - [ 6]
Edited by: Soulita on 05/05/2008 19:28:13I agree, whichever CSM candidate raises his hand here has major balls. That candidate might appeal to a niche group of players such as inventors or people who are of the opinion T2 BPOs should have never entered the game the way they did, and as such should be removed. So, anyone? PS (for post above) : Changed my reply since you are not a CSM candidate, Akita T. |
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 20:06:00 - [ 7]
Originally by: Soulita
That candidate might appeal to a niche group of players such as inventors or people who are of the opinion T2 BPOs should have never entered the game the way they did, and as such should be removed.
I agree (like most did during the time it was running) that the lottery process was flawed. But I don't think that in itself is reason enough to remove them completely. Since invention, the advantage a T2 BPO owner has had in the market has been greatly diminished, and this is reflected in T2 market prices across the board. Nowadays I look at T2 BPOs as little more than a unique commodity, those with a finite quantity that will never be increased, such as harvester drones or anything Tyrrax Thorrk flies. Are you against such diversity of product in the game in general, or is your beef specifically with T2 BPOs for some other reason? /Ben |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Ammatar Free Corps
Curatores Veritatis Alliance |
Posted - 2008.05.05 20:09:00 - [ 8]
Originally by: Soulita
That candidate might appeal to a niche group of players such as inventors or people who are of the opinion T2 BPOs should have never entered the game the way they did, and as such should be removed.
The BPOs have already been traded to other players and it wouldn't be just to punish the people that bought them. As for inventors, I'm all for making more T2BPOs available through a increadibly rare invention chance. http://evajobse.net/TakeCare/issueindustry.php |
Soulita
Gallente
Inner Core
|
Posted - 2008.05.05 20:34:00 - [ 9]
Edited by: Soulita on 05/05/2008 20:55:50Edited by: Soulita on 05/05/2008 20:35:36 Originally by: Ben Derindar
I agree (like most did during the time it was running) that the lottery process was flawed. But I don't think that in itself is reason enough to remove them completely. Since invention, the advantage a T2 BPO owner has had in the market has been greatly diminished, and this is reflected in T2 market prices across the board.
Nowadays I look at T2 BPOs as little more than a unique commodity, those with a finite quantity that will never be increased, such as harvester drones or anything Tyrrax Thorrk flies. Are you against such diversity of product in the game in general, or is your beef specifically with T2 BPOs for some other reason?
/Ben
Ben, since there already is two threads discussing T2 BPOs I do not want to get into any further discussion about them now and here. It does give me a positive impression of you however that you ask why specifically some people may think they should be removed. Shows an open mind and a whish to get to the core of issues. Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
The BPOs have already been traded to other players and it wouldn't be just to punish the people that bought them.
As for inventors, I'm all for making more T2BPOs available through a increadibly rare invention chance.
Ankhesentapemkah, like I mentioned to Ben, I would like to not discuss the matter here since there is already two threads involved in this discussion, and a third thread on this discussion might be a bit too much. I do have to mention to you though that the notion that all T2 BPOs have been traded to other players is plain and simply false, even if it is often stated. Nevertheless, best of luck to both of you in the elections. |
All Channels
Simple question
Screenshots & Art
