EVE Search - Sticky:Dev Blog: Team Up: Industry Work Teams

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev Blog: Team Up: Industry Work Teams

» 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 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 25 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 45 post(s)
Darin Vanar Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2014.05.01 10:22:00 - [541] - Quote Dirk MacGirk wrote: Scarlett LaBlanc wrote: Dirk MacGirk wrote: The idea that winning bids allow public access to these teams seems odd. Why should the random player who didn't help bring a team to a particular solar system be allowed the derive any benefit at all? Bids should be placed on behalf of a corporation, maybe an alliance. Or, if you want to allow for random players to work together to win a bid, then allow for both public and private ownership. If a single player/corp/alliance wants to lure a team to their location, let them bid to do so. Otherwise this is just going to lead to other players riding the coattails of the players willing to put in the cost and effort to win a bid. The idea is that the star system is bidding to bring this team to the system. Once the Team arrives they put them selves out for hire at a set price. The team would want as many jobs as they could get. This IS cooperative industry, just not they way most of us expected. You get to cooperate with the rest of the star system to get the team, then everyone gets the benefit. I love the fact it forces you to cooperate with your competition! The idea may be that the solar system is bidding, but the reality is probably more that just a few players coordinated to make that happen. Then after the fact, outsiders can move in and reap the benefits. I'm just saying that its OK to provide a public option, but it is equally OK to allow players/corps/alliance to make private bids as well. Cooperation should be a choice. Allowing freeloaders should be a choice. But the option should always be available to bid high enough to gain the benefit for you and you alone as a form of advantage. You can't look at this from a singular perspective. You have to look at this in the perspective of the previous two dev blogs as, that in the context of the mess they have created. You can't look at teams as a separate entity from the whole system. The past dev blogs have introduced a cost scaling mechanic to systems that is public. You can't isolate yourself from it, and you can't insulate yourself from it either. Therefore, by the rules of the system they have created, neither should the benefits be private or made individually exclusive to entities contributing to the same public factors they introduced earlier. Think of it as pollution. If you work in a system with high pollution (scaling installation costs), that is a contributing factor from everyone. If you have a system that cleans up pollution (teams in this case, a mechanic that scales down other production costs), that also benefits everyone. The wording they have chosen makes you think that you can separate these two things, but you can't. Teams are in context to the cost scaling mechanic and as they described it, a push/pull synergy to the system as a whole. Having something private for corporations or individuals, that they can buy would have to be added as extra to this current push/pull system. Myself, I just don't like the implementation. Too much money down for small scale operation. You would really need a large scale operation to outscale your costs and increase your profit margin by a much larger amount. It's bad for the small industrialist, good for people who have lots of capital to lay down as it is. It just screams power gaming to me. And we all know where the power in EVE comes from and that is PLEX + highsec or Alliance + nullsec. If you're not one of those two entities, you are better off in the current system not the new one.
BlackTalon BlackTalon Mining Corp 38	Posted - 2014.05.01 10:24:00 - [542] - Quote leave things a lone ccp why change stuff that worked for years
BlackTalon BlackTalon Mining Corp 38	Posted - 2014.05.01 10:31:00 - [543] - Quote Jesus CCP you got to be joking on this team stuff please wake up in time don't deploy this crap. What an load off xxxx never heard some think so silly in any game just let us build like we do silly team idea its worked for last 10 years leave it lone
drummendejef maaktnietuit Active Fusion Cold Fusion. 5	Posted - 2014.05.01 10:57:00 - [544] - Quote When we (me and corp people) saw the name of the Dev Blog 'Teams' we hoped, well, we were almost certain, that we would be able to have serveral pilot's assisting each other on manufacturing/researching. Maybe Offtopic: I think it would be cool if we would be able to help each other making something. Research a BPO with serveral pilot's, to speed up the research time. A system where you help making 1 capital ship. Everyone chooses a part they make, and everyone can see how long it will take to see what parts are needed. How much from the parts are already done ect ect. Ontopic: For what I understand, slots get more expensive, the more people are using them in 1 system. The big systems will probably have most of the teams, because they have more people/iskies. I'm afraid the slot prices in the systems with the teams will be higher, making the teams useless. But I probably didn't understand the Dev Blog this well. Summer will show what it will look like :)
Seith Kali GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 11	Posted - 2014.05.01 10:59:00 - [545] - Quote zyathussi wrote: what if these inferno drugs actually were a producable item, and teams would flock to the one providing them with them? Nothing about players producing materials to sell to npc's is good for depth of economy. This is not the Eve way. Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privalage.-á
Maduin Shi Breakwater Testing Inc Aegis Requiem 5	Posted - 2014.05.01 11:05:00 - [546] - Quote The NPC team idea is a good one, but it will be offset by price changes so it is very possible that the net effect will be zero. It would be more interesting if these teams could be replaced by players. Wouldn't it be awesome to have, say for example, a new booster line (Inferno Industry boosters?) and implants that would allow you to essentially "copy yourself" into a jump clone made specifically to do industry jobs? Let me explain: Say instead of an NPC team, players were given the ability to use jump clones to impart similar or better bonuses vs. NPC laborer to industry jobs through the use of booster consumables and implants. Then a player would "install" his jump clone to do the industry job and then clone jump into another jump clone to do other stuff (PvP, mining, hauling, etc). Players in the same corporation or alliance would also be able to "install" their jump clones to augment or add various bonuses to the industry job. This could be done after the initial installation of the job. Jump clones that were on boosters to enhance bonuses would suffer various penalties after a period of time or after the completion of the job, or the clones would simply "die" and be biomassed for extreme cases - like building a Titan. Jobs that are located at POSs or outposts that get destroyed would also result in the loss of the installed clones. For small corporations and alliances, NPC teams would still be available at either a slightly lower bonus or slightly higher cost. This idea would require perhaps some change or addition to the lore, in that, you would have to say a capsuleer would be "copying himself" for a period of time, instead of only being incarnated in one clone at any given time. And there could be various implants that would allow this to happen, at least temporarily. There may be a "carrying" penalty that follows the player through clone jumps to sustain the "copy" of himself that is doing the industry job. I think this would be a great idea, although I'm not sure how easy it would be to code.
Cultural Enrichment Jenkem Puffing Association 35	Posted - 2014.05.01 11:15:00 - [547] - Quote Seith Kali wrote: zyathussi wrote: what if these inferno drugs actually were a producable item, and teams would flock to the one providing them with them? Nothing about players producing materials to sell to npc's is good for depth of economy. This is not the Eve way. No, but an alternative way to get teams by combining PI products (the actual workers) and booster productions (gaz harvesting and reactions), resulting in a team you could decide to deploy where you want instead of biding on a public one (after all, a team you'd make yourself would be free) could be a way to tie closer two red-haired childs of industry (gaz/boosters and PI) to the rest of the system. But that's sterile discussion, nothing else related to industry is going to get released for at least 4 years now.
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 29	Posted - 2014.05.01 12:02:00 - [548] - Quote Eve already has the richest (and most complex) crafting element of any MMO I'm aware of. The last thing it needs is more complexity. Also this is an MMO, so why the focus on adding more NPC's? Especially when those NPC's have no more character than a couple of numbers in a spreadsheet. You know when folks describe Eve as a spreadsheet game with a spaceship UI, that's not a compliment. Eve already has NPC's. They are the little red crosses we shoot at, and they have been totally broken in their design and implementation for the entire life of Eve. They sit there dumbly while you slaughter their mates 20km away and when they do attack they have no AI at all. They don't remote rep, they don't try to warp off when they are nearly dead, and EWAR either by or on NPC rats either does nothing at all or has a simulated pretend behaviour that has no relation to real player ewar. Please, fix the stuff that's been totally broken for 10 years before adding more fluff. If you want to do something to promote industry, then why not implement PI in wspace? That would mitigate the logistics hell of supporting a manufacturing POS in wspace. Or improve the contract system perhaps.
Medalyn Isis Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 170	Posted - 2014.05.01 13:14:00 - [549] - Quote CCP SoniClover wrote: Lilliana Stelles wrote: Invention details PLEASE. Does the ME bonus apply to invention jobs? Does it reduce datacores required or does it boost the ME output of the copy? Invention teams are coming later in a point release, so we haven't nailed down how they will work. They might work similar (or even replace) decryptors. Please do not remove decryptors. They add to the complexity and make it an interesting challenge which is unique to T2 manufacturing.
Green Gambit Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 61	Posted - 2014.05.01 13:15:00 - [550] - Quote drummendejef maaktnietuit wrote: When we (me and corp people) saw the name of the Dev Blog 'Teams' we hoped, well, we were almost certain, that we would be able to have serveral pilot's assisting each other on manufacturing/researching. It can be though... several pilots can assist each other in bidding for a team - and can then all reap the benefits from reduced production costs.

Sgt EVE Garage Bagage 2	Posted - 2014.05.01 13:23:00 - [551] - Quote this is by far the worst change I've seen for a long time. I was hoping teams would be player-based and you could use the skills and blueprints ME / TE levels of other players if they would share it for money. the NPC-**** here is pointless , unfair and easy exploitable. I will send the best teams to empty WH-¦s where nobody can use them for months just to point out how ridiculous stupid this new system is. now anyone can eliminate the competition by sending the remaining specialized teams of his product at the middle of nowhere. this .... was never thought out thoroughly and will be exploited to hell.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5244	Posted - 2014.05.01 13:53:00 - [552] - Quote Neutrino Sunset wrote: Also this is an MMO, so why the focus on adding more NPC's? Especially when those NPC's have no more character than a couple of numbers in a spreadsheet. You know when folks describe Eve as a spreadsheet game with a spaceship UI, that's not a compliment. These NPCs aren't really NPCs, they're just tokens. What they represent is a way for players to buy temporary upgrades for their production systems. They are consumable items just like boosters (though boosters are produced by players). "Teams" aren't NPCs: they are boosters for space stations. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players
Soldarius Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore 656	Posted - 2014.05.01 14:09:00 - [553] - Quote I, too, would like to see teams produced by players, for players. It would require some new content and iteration upon w-space, which would be a good thing, since w-space hasn't seen any iteration since it's introduction. New gas available in w-space. This can be made into the Inferno drug via a POS reaction and a Drug Lab. The "NPCs" could be made from PI. Combine them and you get a team with various attributes. It would be useful if one could predict the outcome based on inputs so that they could produce specialized teams on a regular basis. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Neutrino Sunset Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 29	Posted - 2014.05.01 14:18:00 - [554] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Neutrino Sunset wrote: Also this is an MMO, so why the focus on adding more NPC's? Especially when those NPC's have no more character than a couple of numbers in a spreadsheet. You know when folks describe Eve as a spreadsheet game with a spaceship UI, that's not a compliment. These NPCs aren't really NPCs, they're just tokens. What they represent is a way for players to buy temporary upgrades for their production systems. They are consumable items just like boosters (though boosters are produced by players). "Teams" aren't NPCs: they are boosters for space stations. I don't disagree with you, in fact that's kind of my point. As this is supposed to be a game, I'd expect a bit of effort to be made to model some behaviour and character into the representation of any NPC's in it. If you aren't going to do that, then really why bother having them at all? Keep in mind, that I'm not suggesting that CCP should model these industry NPC/bonus tokens better, rather that they should instead fix the crap NPCs that are already in the game first, before adding more that are even worse.
Jessika Atreides Elysian. Heiian Conglomerate 0	Posted - 2014.05.01 14:46:00 - [555] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Sigh.... You guys at CCP really don't get it, do you. What industrialists want, in real life or otherwise: 1. Cost certainty 2. Minimized risk for return (both in capital investment and getting shot at) 3. Minimizing non-productive time (you know, like what you are supposedly addressing with the UI changes) In all 3 areas, you have managed to create the exact opposite. bunch of stuff .... Its not about what industrialists want (based on your comments - easy mode) its about making the game play for industry more rich and dynamic. So take #1 and #2 off your list because that doesn't make game play more interesting, and you are left with #3 the change they actually made.
Sgt EVE Garage Bagage 2	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:05:00 - [556] - Quote Jessika Atreides wrote: Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Sigh.... You guys at CCP really don't get it, do you. What industrialists want, in real life or otherwise: 1. Cost certainty 2. Minimized risk for return (both in capital investment and getting shot at) 3. Minimizing non-productive time (you know, like what you are supposedly addressing with the UI changes) In all 3 areas, you have managed to create the exact opposite. bunch of stuff .... Its not about what industrialists want (based on your comments - easy mode) its about making the game play for industry more rich and dynamic. So take #1 and #2 off your list because that doesn't make game play more interesting, and you are left with #3 the change they actually made. seriously you think the industry is based on the interesting gameplay. I've always thought it's about profit.
Olari Vanderfall Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 110	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:13:00 - [557] - Quote I don't think Sisters of Eve would allow such teams to be exploited in such an obvious way.
AFK Hauler State War Academy 1008	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:46:00 - [558] - Quote I get the feeling that some of you who like these proposed changes are not thinking this new mechanic through, or are not industrial-based characters who manufacture regularly for game play. Example: Say I want a TEAM in my system to build X, which is out of the way and low population. I bid and win the TEAM, and I'm off to the races. I get the TEAM in my system for the month, so I'm happy.... So I think that I can recover my costs for winning the auction because I got a TEAM that reduces my construction costs by material use. I calculated that I need to build for 24 of the 28 available days to make excellent profit. Things are going smoothly for the first 5 days of my build cycle, but then I notice that my station costs are starting to go up... Apparently others who I was bidding against for the TEAM really needed to save on their costs, so they migrated to the system and began to start building their X. After day 12 my profit window has been pushed to 34 days to recover the auction costs and higher station costsGÇª By day 17 I need to stop manufacturing in my system because to cost of starting a job with the TEAM is at the market value for the item being manufactured. Because my competition did not pay for the TEAM, they do not have an additional cost associated with their manufacturing and can continue to build with profit. /example It is not unreasonable to expect that uncertainty in manufacturing with result in uncertain market conditions. Adding in a 4th in-game market mechanic to purchase a global commodity will introduce more complexity and uncertainty where stability is needed. I say needed because this takes time an effort to keep the war machine turning. If there is no planning for the scale necessary to accomplish the mission, then what happens when the wheel stops turning? If your desire is to shake out industrial characters from their comfort and force them to PvP in the auction market and system migration of goods to a new build site, then you will simply have a void in the game space from the departure of those characters. There is a specific reason stability is needed when planning industrial operations GÇô it takes real time to complete. It is not like running a mission, bashing a POS with timers, taking a stationGÇª ItGÇÖs more like hell camping. You need to make sure you have the resources, the skills, the people, the logistics, and the market opportunities. None of those factors can be directly manipulated/controlled by in-your-face aggression typical of EVE. ItGÇÖs not bashing a POS, itGÇÖs building a POSGÇª totally different mechanic. Very few, if any, GÇ£endeavorsGÇ¥ are undertaken without consideration to profitability in EVEGÇª even gankers considers profitability before execution. I know several activities are popular without profit (RvB), but I cannot think of anyone in the game that can continue to lose ISK and still fly what they want. If I break even flying an Atron, then I wonGÇÖt be able to afford to fly and lose a Megathron without making profit somewhere, somehow. This mechanic will not drive conflict GÇô period. Forcing industrial characters to the in-your-face EVE aggression mechanic (we have come to love) is not wise. ItGÇÖs not like IGÇÖve spent 50M SP in combat related skills to build X. I spent 50M SP in industry related skills to manufacture, not fight. IGÇÖm not going to risk moving my materials, BPCs, and logistics team to a new system every 28 days. The risk of losing billions to save millions is not something that can be quantified and relied upon for profit forecasting. Incarna (curse the name) revealed a serious disconnect between the players and CCP. It was obvious that the developers missed to point of EVE and needed to be reminded that this is a game of blowing up space ships. I love to blow up space ships. However, if I cannot make or afford to make said ships, then I have no ability to pay for my love of space carnage. I left EVE at (expansion that shall not be named) and returned at Crucible. IGÇÖm getting the feeling that CCP has lost connection with the players again. Why would a developer say they intend to simplify a perceived complex task by making it more complex? Not only is this more complex, but it is also unreliable and unpredictable. Unreliable and unpredictable are great aspects to space combat and in-your-face aggression, not GÇ£simplifiedGÇ¥ manufacturing. /rant
Sgt EVE Garage Bagage 2	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:48:00 - [559] - Quote Olari Vanderfall wrote: I don't think Sisters of Eve would allow such teams to be exploited in such an obvious way. i hope it too ... but i-¦m pretty sure they don-¦t have thought about it. the cost to bid on a team, must be low to allow a profit. in this case, however, the costs are also too small as that they are not exploited. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Green Gambit Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 61	Posted - 2014.05.01 16:28:00 - [560] - Quote AFK Hauler wrote: I get the feeling that some of you who like these proposed changes are not thinking this new mechanic through, or are not industrial-based characters who manufacture regularly for game play. Example: Say I want a TEAM in my system to build X, which is out of the way and low population. I bid and win the TEAM, and I'm off to the races. I get the TEAM in my system for the month, so I'm happy.... So I think that I can recover my costs for winning the auction because I got a TEAM that reduces my construction costs by material use. I calculated that I need to build for 24 of the 28 available days to make excellent profit. Things are going smoothly for the first 5 days of my build cycle, but then I notice that my station costs are starting to go up... Apparently others who I was bidding against for the TEAM really needed to save on their costs, so they migrated to the system and began to start building their X. After day 12 my profit window has been pushed to 34 days to recover the auction costs and higher station costsGÇª By day 17 I need to stop manufacturing in my system because to cost of starting a job with the TEAM is at the market value for the item being manufactured. Because my competition did not pay for the TEAM, they do not have an additional cost associated with their manufacturing and can continue to build with profit. You example sounds to me like you made a bad business decision in the first place. Realistically I wouldn't expect you to make the decision to go ahead in that situation. The business-case is that you're going gain some cost savings - let's say 7.5% of the costs. Now you say the break-even point is at 24 of the 28 days, so you only make that extra profit for 4 (14%) of the days. That makes your overall cost-saving from bidding for the team as only 1% in your scenario. Now you've already identified that there are some risks involved with having a team in your system - that your build costs will go up etc etc. You should be able to work out a worse-case cost scenario for your particular system, and calculate what that value is as a percentage of your build cost. There are other risks to consider (that I'm not going to list here) but you'd attempt to quantify these in a similar way. Having worked out all your best/worst/likely cases, you make a business decision on whether to continue. Yes sometimes you're going to get it wrong - but that's just a matter of being in business. Every serious industrialist posting on the forums here will have had a case when they made a bad call and ended up writing off millions of ISK. The aim of the game is to call those decisions right more often than wrong.

Iorga Eeta Hekatonkheires Industries 4	Posted - 2014.05.01 16:34:00 - [561] - Quote Lena Lazair wrote: Iorga Eeta wrote: Let's pretend you are in the room with Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin in 2006. Steve: Sergey, let's not compete for each others workers. It'll drive up costs for both of us! Sergey: That's a great idea Steve! Let's not allow normal market forces affect the cost for our workers. Steve: Not just our workers, our agreement will likely cause sticky wages for all Silicon Valley workers. Wait, was this a joke? You are aware that pretty much exactly this happened and it's a big controversy right now? I'm never sure just how meta people are being... It is just a real life example of a Non-aggression Pact in the Silicon Valley labor market. It certainly makes for unfulfilling market PvP for the players in that system.
Cultural Enrichment Jenkem Puffing Association 35	Posted - 2014.05.01 16:53:00 - [562] - Quote AFK Hauler wrote: Things are going smoothly for the first 5 days of my build cycle, but then I notice that my station costs are starting to go up... Apparently others who I was bidding against for the TEAM really needed to save on their costs, so they migrated to the system and began to start building their X. After day 12 my profit window has been pushed to 34 days to recover the auction costs and higher station costsGÇª By day 17 I need to stop manufacturing in my system because to cost of starting a job with the TEAM is at the market value for the item being manufactured. Because my competition did not pay for the TEAM, they do not have an additional cost associated with their manufacturing and can continue to build with profit. /example Then dont bid for the team. Be the one who moves. Or dont even move and produce without the team, since, according to your scenario, hiring them isnt profitable.
AFK Hauler State War Academy 1008	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:08:00 - [563] - Quote Green Gambit wrote: AFK Hauler wrote: I get the feeling that some of you who like these proposed changes are not thinking this new mechanic through, or are not industrial-based characters who manufacture regularly for game play. Example: Say I want a TEAM in my system to build X, which is out of the way and low population. I bid and win the TEAM, and I'm off to the races. I get the TEAM in my system for the month, so I'm happy.... So I think that I can recover my costs for winning the auction because I got a TEAM that reduces my construction costs by material use. I calculated that I need to build for 24 of the 28 available days to make excellent profit. Things are going smoothly for the first 5 days of my build cycle, but then I notice that my station costs are starting to go up... Apparently others who I was bidding against for the TEAM really needed to save on their costs, so they migrated to the system and began to start building their X. After day 12 my profit window has been pushed to 34 days to recover the auction costs and higher station costsGÇª By day 17 I need to stop manufacturing in my system because to cost of starting a job with the TEAM is at the market value for the item being manufactured. Because my competition did not pay for the TEAM, they do not have an additional cost associated with their manufacturing and can continue to build with profit. You example sounds to me like you made a bad business decision in the first place. Realistically I wouldn't expect you to make the decision to go ahead in that situation. The business-case is that you're going gain some cost savings - let's say 7.5% of the costs. Now you say the break-even point is at 24 of the 28 days, so you only make that extra profit for 4 (14%) of the days. That makes your overall cost-saving from bidding for the team as only 1% in your scenario. Now you've already identified that there are some risks involved with having a team in your system - that your build costs will go up etc etc. You should be able to work out a worse-case cost scenario for your particular system, and calculate what that value is as a percentage of your build cost. There are other risks to consider (that I'm not going to list here) but you'd attempt to quantify these in a similar way. Having worked out all your best/worst/likely cases, you make a business decision on whether to continue. Yes sometimes you're going to get it wrong - but that's just a matter of being in business. Every serious industrialist posting on the forums here will have had a case when they made a bad call and ended up writing off millions of ISK. The aim of the game is to call those decisions right more often than wrong. You missed that word "excellent" in front of profits in my post...
AFK Hauler State War Academy 1008	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:12:00 - [564] - Quote Cultural Enrichment wrote: AFK Hauler wrote: Things... Then dont bid for the team. Be the one who moves. Or dont even move and produce without the team, since, according to your scenario, hiring them isnt profitable. You missed the Dev post... CCP SoniClover wrote: Medalyn Isis wrote: Also I would consider teams lasting more than a month, I think 3 months would be more suitable. 1 month is nothing when you are making even short term industry decisions. 4 weeks may be too short. That's the number we're working with right now, but it can be adjusted of course if the need arises. We have to be mindful of several different things here, for instance the longer a team stays in a system the more people will be compelled to move to that system and we are wary of encouraging nomadic behavior too much. You are suggesting exactly what the Devs are "trying" not to let happen. It is obvious that this will cause unintended consequences that seem not to be considered by CCP.
Cultural Enrichment Jenkem Puffing Association 35	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:15:00 - [565] - Quote AFK Hauler wrote: Cultural Enrichment wrote: AFK Hauler wrote: Things... Then dont bid for the team. Be the one who moves. Or dont even move and produce without the team, since, according to your scenario, hiring them isnt profitable. You missed the Dev post... CCP SoniClover wrote: Medalyn Isis wrote: Also I would consider teams lasting more than a month, I think 3 months would be more suitable. 1 month is nothing when you are making even short term industry decisions. 4 weeks may be too short. That's the number we're working with right now, but it can be adjusted of course if the need arises. We have to be mindful of several different things here, for instance the longer a team stays in a system the more people will be compelled to move to that system and we are wary of encouraging nomadic behavior too much. You are suggesting exactly what the Devs are "trying" not to let happen. It is obvious that this will cause unintended consequences that seem not to be considered by CCP. ok my bad i'll never use a gate again to not present a nomadic behaviour the devs dont want to encourage, thanks for bringing that to my attention.
LHA Tarawa Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 947	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:42:00 - [566] - Quote Systems with lots of good teams. Excellent place for gank fest and market manipulations. Mark up your minerals in the system, and gank any freighter moving minerals into the system and take their drops and put it up for sale at a markup. Doubt many manufacturers check KB stats for systems they are moving into/through. I bet the goons could keep a 23.5 hour per day lock-down on a system that has only one way in/out. Alway, gotta love a new gank opportunity whenever CCP create one... intended or not.
Volar Kang Kang Industrial 152	Posted - 2014.05.01 18:00:00 - [567] - Quote So highsec POS's are going away after the change... We can build cheaper in stations a few jumps from trade hubs AND now we will have to follow the teams to get the best manufacturing. Is there going to be any reason to have a highsec POS after these changes besides the whopping 5% reduction in manufacturing costs?
Green Gambit Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 61	Posted - 2014.05.01 18:04:00 - [568] - Quote AFK Hauler wrote: You missed that word "excellent" in front of profits in my post... If you care to quantify what "excellent profits for 24 days of a 28 day bonus" actually means I can re-work the example. However, I'll have an attempt at quantifying with some numbers based on what I've seen in the devblogs (with apologises in advance, for missing something as as I'm doing this off the top of my head.) The best bonuses from teams are being proposed as a 7.5% reduction in build-costs. You're talking about an increase in build-cost over 17 days going from "excellent profits" to "market value". Now the worst-case build-cost is going to start at around 15% of item value, and the best is practically nothing (even in high-sec). Realistically this is highly unlikely, but let's assume that you're starting with a best-case system, and it changes to the worst case the next day. The system works on a 28-day rolling average, so after 17 days you're just past half-way from seeing the full effect. So you're talking about a worst case 9% swing in overall cost in the 17 days. If that 9% swing is taking your cost to market value, that means that your "excellent" profits couldn't have been more than 9% gross. If you take the team you bid for out of the equation, you were running at less than 1% gross before you bid for the team. That worst-case though is extremely unlikely. Are you really going to make your system the busiest manufacturing hub just from a bonus to 1 (of a hundred types of) product. An awful lot of manufacturers aren't going move operations just for a bonus, and even then it's going to take some days for the move to happen. More realistically you're looking at a 1% or 2% swing in costs. Which makes your "excellent" profits only 2% of gross. And means that the product is actually a 5.5% loss before you bid for the team. This isn't looking like a great opportunity to me...
Green Gambit Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 61	Posted - 2014.05.01 18:10:00 - [569] - Quote Volar Kang wrote: So highsec POS's are going away after the change... We can build cheaper in stations a few jumps from trade hubs AND now we will have to follow the teams to get the best manufacturing. Is there going to be any reason to have a highsec POS after these changes besides the whopping 5% reduction in manufacturing costs? 1) Follow the teams for at best a 7.5% reduction in manufacturing costs - if there's a team available with the bonus. You may not be able to access such a good team, and may have to settle for a smaller team bonus. On top of that you've got time/costs of moving manufacturing operations every 28 days. 2) Setup a POS for a 5% reduction in manufacturing costs. Add in fuel-costs etc. However you've got a more stable base of operations. That's actually making it look a closer call than you're making out...
Banko Mato Republic University Minmatar Republic 7	Posted - 2014.05.01 18:15:00 - [570] - Quote Green Gambit wrote: [quote=AFK Hauler]...So you're talking about a worst case 9% swing in overall cost in the 17 days.... Might again be worth to note, that for most T2 products those numbers mean next to nothing, since they consume too few of each input material besides morphite for such a reduction to have any impact, as reduction of input is subject to rounding.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 .. 25 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE 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 EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online 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, EVE-Search.com. 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.