EVE Search - Announcement:Industry Teams - Current Plans

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

Announcement:Industry Teams - Current Plans

» 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 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)

CCP RubberBAND CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance 375	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:08:24 - [1] - Quote Hello Industrialists, As part of the Crius Industry release, a feature was added that most of you are probably familiar with called Teams. This feature allows you to hire teams of specialist NPC workers to boost your industry jobs for a price. Since then we have been closely tracking all related Industry metrics and dials and it is apparent to us that since going live usage of the feature on TQ has been very low relative to its goals (with single figure percentage use in manufacturing jobs and near nonexistent use in research). So while we definitely think that the core idea behind the feature is a good one and brings value to the game and you, in its current state it is adding the wrong type of complexity. We have done some initial investigation and It is clear that bringing it up to the quality standards you should expect of us is a large project. A project which at this time is not the highest priority for us against some of the other things we are looking at. Given this, we believe the right thing for EVE and itGÇÖs players is to remove the Teams feature from the game over the next few months until such a time as we can properly revisit it. Our rollout plan for this would be to disable the seeding of new teams by the end of 2014, and to disable the UI features in one of the first releases of 2015. That being said, we want your input and feedback on what is ultimately a fairly unprecedented course of action for us. While we feel we have done our due diligence additional context from you is always appreciated. Thanks for reading, Team Game of Drones Feel free to poke me on: Twitter

Calorn Marthor Standard Fuel Company Galactic Skyfleet Empire 36	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:16:44 - [2] - Quote Oh. Sad to see the feature go. :-( I believe that the low usage is not due to the idea not being appealing, but because teams have a very limited scope of usability. 1. the bonuses are not that big (understandable, because there is an easy-to-calculate advantage which is a no-brainer once the team is available). 2. you need to specialize on one item or a very narrow group to see any effect and produce high volume 3. the auction mechanism is total crap. Either you go for a non-interesting team no one competes for OR you have to be online in the very second the auction ends AND type fast (try this with a typical nullsec system and their cryptic names while the competitor only has to spell "JITA" 3 secs before end of auction - caused me some frustration) 4. because specific teams do not spawn all the time, you need to have the specialized production running for a longer time.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1019	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:20:49 - [3] - Quote perhaps they just need too be more impactful .. buff bonuses, i imagine a big problem here is still the over usage of jita , perhaps an option is to disallow any teams near jita entirely and try too force people too move too get a stronger bonus and thus profit.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
Desert Ice78 Gryphons of the Western Wind 432	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:20:56 - [4] - Quote What exactly is the issue here - the Teams feature or nul-sec industry in general? I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Canenald Rubella Solaris Test Alliance Please Ignore 15	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:23:49 - [5] - Quote Might be better to just leave them for the players that actually do want to bother using them for the small bonuses they provide. Wouldn't be the first feature in EVE that was left in "as is" state even though it didn't work as intended.
Kolb Novaku Inc Novaku Alliance 5	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:24:36 - [6] - Quote Why remove the functionality and penalize those people that are using them before you have a chance to revisit them? That, the feature isn't where you want it to be quality wise doesn't seem like a good reason to just remove it from the game outright.
Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4386	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:24:54 - [7] - Quote It's a shame that the feature is being removed, but with the low usage, and the problems with it, it's better to remove it until a team has the time to work on it properly, rather than leaving it in a half working state. Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1019	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:26:19 - [8] - Quote removing standings from trade/taxes etc.. might also help Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
Abramul StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome. 25	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:27:45 - [9] - Quote Two suggestions: - Team bidders get a commission on team use fees, split between bidders. I'd go with 10% of the team cost modifier, so 0.5%-1.0% of install cost generally ... but higher could work. - If teams are available for a job, display potential material / time savings in red by the team icon. This should give incentive for people to install teams in industry systems where there are none, even if they themselves aren't building.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1019	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:30:15 - [10] - Quote Steve Ronuken wrote: It's a shame that the feature is being removed, but with the low usage, and the problems with it, it's better to remove it until a team has the time to work on it properly, rather than leaving it in a half working state. or with the fast releases .. just keep tweaking it a little rather than disband it for god knows how long like so many things that get released and ignored for years before being redone or fixed buff the bonuses they give by 50% each time until people use them, find other ways too discourage the use of jita so heavily etc.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please

The Ironfist Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates. 78	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:34:19 - [11] - Quote That is going to make everything capitals and above even more expansive... The BPO changes were not that bad because of the build teams if you take em away that is an increase of about 10% build cost for everything capital and higher. They might not be used a lot for T2 and subcaps but for capitals and supercapitals they are used A LOT!
Makari Aeron The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium 145	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:34:55 - [12] - Quote I didn't bother using them because they always became too expensive for what I wanted to do. I don't manufacture constantly because I'm in nullsec and I don't always want to go to hisec to get moon goo or random parts needed for anything higher than T1 manufacturing. Thus bidding on a team is in my best interest. I would have wasted my money on a team I didn't end up using too often and I would have taken a team someone else in EVE could have used better. it was a great idea, but I feel there should have been more teams and that they should be more impactful to manufacturing. CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty. CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
AeonOfTime Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate 41	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:35:24 - [13] - Quote I'm glad to see the feature go for now, and that you reacted so quickly instead of leaving it in. Funnily enough, the reasons you are removing it mirror my initial fears exactly from back when the feature was announced in detail. Which, I suppose, is just a fancy way of saying I told you so. Doesn't change anything though, I still love the game and what you're doing with it :D
Red Teufel Mafia Redux 402	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:35:35 - [14] - Quote I'd use them but I blew up all my isk. also add commission to who won the bid. and please don't remove them.
Veda Blade Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:35:53 - [15] - Quote i get that it doesn't get used much, but why the removal? i fail to see what benefit that has, just have that single digit % use their teams and fix it later?
Neugeniko Insight Securities 48	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:36:14 - [16] - Quote While your reviewing crius industry changes have a look at cost indices calculations. Rather than being based off the square root of job hours make it a bit more linear. Spread the industrialist out a bit and see if teams become more viable. I can just see the headlines "Industrial Action in the Forge - Workers Strike due to overcrowded conditions". Then we can import teams to reduce labour cost maybe? Neug Indices/Mining Simulator V3.5 UPDATED Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.3 Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3
Makhpella Temet Nosce Ex Astra 3	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:40:10 - [17] - Quote Yeah lets remove all the things ppl dont use... like half of the null sec system. Unbelievable.
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 384	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:45:12 - [18] - Quote Teams would be 1000% more useful if you'd just fix sniping. It's not like we don't know how that's done, you implement an ebay style auction. But between having no iterations on teams and not having them at all I suppose shutting them down until you fix it isn't a terrible move.
Jarnis McPieksu Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 563	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:48:00 - [19] - Quote Why removing them before first trying to fix the STUPID auction system? I used them all the time, made good chunk of extra profit too. Problems I could see with them; - Large number of utterly worthless teams (1% off building probes. CCP plz) - Worthless bonuses for non-manufacturing tasks (so if you deep six research/copying teams, I won't shed a tear over that) - Large percentage of available teams having very small bonus (0.5% bonus... not quite worth the :effort:) and very hard to grab the valuable teams (2%, 3% etc) without alarmclocking for auction end times - Too few teams for T2 component building (having to pay off large slice of the profit for a good component team since there are so few of them compared to how many manufacturers need them) - Terrible auction system
Calorn Marthor Standard Fuel Company Galactic Skyfleet Empire 36	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:51:00 - [20] - Quote I used teams, i like them and I don't want to see the feature go away, although I have to admit the proposed course of action sounds sensible from CCP's point of view. Different proposal: 1. Scrap the auction mechanism. 2. Spawn teams randomly, but with a bias towards actual industry activity. 3. players can bid ISK incentives to have teams spawn in specific locations. When they do so, they have to select a specific item category (broad or narrow) from a list. 4. optional: you may use teams that are not in your current location, but the salary then goes up drastically with distance. ad 3: this means if a team is spawned with say specialties for "Capital construction parts" and "Small Ships" then the likelyhood for this team to spawn in a given system is higher if a system has had a high production of that item types in the recent past (those guys are intelligent and seek to work where there is actually work to be done) Pseudocode: 1. roll team abilities randomly (as before) 2. for all systems determine relevant production of last 30 days per item category 3. for all systems do ISK incentive sum up all ISK incentives for this planet for the given abilities (e.g.: Jita - Small ships - 10m ISK) 4. roll team home system based on (base chance + relevant production bonus + relevant ISK incentive bonus - teams already present malus) Why is this better than the situation now: - you don't have the snipering any more - players still have the ability to affect the dynamic space-scape with their actions - ISK incentives require a meaningful decision - it's not 0.01 ISK more than the one before or 1 second later than someone else - the "pull" mechanism has a passive self-organizing component because teams are more likely to spawn where the actual production happens. Which means the spacescape gets bent by your actions anyway. More sandboxy than ever. OK, this proposal would need some ressources etc to be implemented, but what do you think about the idea?

Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1212	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:56:15 - [21] - Quote This makes me pretty sad because I was working on a shiny website to help folks wrangle teams. :( That being said, this is not entirely a surprise GÇö I got the feeling this was gonna happen a while ago. Still, sad to see them go. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

CCP RubberBAND CCP Engineering Corp CCP Engineering Alliance 380	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:58:38 - [22] - Quote So a few general topics people are hitting on here: Just do X or add Y to make them better As mentioned in the original post to do Teams properly would require a not insignificant amount of work and the Development team wants to do this properly. At the moment however taking on such a project does not align with some of the priorities we are discussing for the next few releases. Unfortunately we are always choosing from a series of things to do next and we sometimes have to push things back. Also as this thread expands a number of people are already raising numerous issues that we are aware of need tackling to really make Teams as good as they need to be, but this also highlights the scope of the project, as mentioned is not small. Why not leave them in? This is a complex question to answer and one we have been debating for a long time internally. The honest answer is that everything we add to the game is one more thing to support and maintain. Trimming is good for the health of the game both for it's players and the developers, we would not pursue this course of action if we did not believe it was the most valuable thing for the game in the long term and we'd rather not let the feature languish as this makes it increasingly harder to revisit in the future. As a result the removal should impact a minimal number of players, and allow us to focus our efforts where it counts. To be clear, we are not never going to follow up on the feature, but this course of action will make it easier for us to do when we can. We want to be more flexible in how we react to features that are not meeting player or developer expectations and that should hopefully include sometimes removing a feature until such a time as it can be revisited. TL;DR In summary we can only realistically look at two options here: Leave them as is (yes it would be cool to do X or Y, but realistically we cannot) Remove them Feel free to poke me on: Twitter

SpaceSaft Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club 105	Posted - 2014.12.04 13:59:56 - [23] - Quote Hm that's a shame, I agree that it was a cool idea. I wrote something a while back about why I thought nobody uses teams. Please check it out if there are any doubts to the 'why'. The thread isn't long and most reponses are worth reading and add to the discussion. EDIT nvm, didn't see the dev post before mine. Sound reasoning. Still somewhat sad to see it go...
Nomistrav Aliastra Gallente Federation 274	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:00:06 - [24] - Quote Kolb wrote: Why remove the functionality and penalize those people that are using them before you have a chance to revisit them? That, the feature isn't where you want it to be quality wise doesn't seem like a good reason to just remove it from the game outright. Kind of agree here. If people aren't using them, there stands to be no benefit toward those people for removing them either. Much in the same sense the only thing that removing the feature accomplishes is penalizing those players who do use the provided teams. I dunno, really, only thing I ever did was manufacture ammunition for myself (basically free with refined salvage). The one time I ever tried to use a team (reduced material cost) that was near my base location was when the team was apparently located in a system where none of the stations had any manufacturing services. That might have been from my lack of knowledge into how the whole system worked though. But, yanno, if it works for people, let them use it. No sense in even spending the time removing the feature if at least someone is using it and there absolutely no benefit in removing the feature entirely. Third Place Winner Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
Efraya Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels 268	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:02:33 - [25] - Quote They are a great feature which will be a shame to see go. They needed better explanation ingame and the auction mechanism needed to be changed. Maybe it needs to be a shorter time to auction to make it more viable. The UI around the system selection isn't the greatest IMO. Apart from that, keep up the good work. [b][center]WSpace; Dead space.[/center] [center]Lady Spank for forum mod[/center][/b]
350125GO Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 144	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:02:55 - [26] - Quote I think the issue with them is that because the benefits are so low, and the pricing gets a bit high, they're only of use to full-time industrialists. When you first started reporting about the crius industry changes you said that most people dabble in industry, and for that type of player there's no benefit to bidding on teams. If there happens to be a team available they might use it. But when you've invented one blueprint you're not going to bother bidding on a team because there's no value in it. You're young, you'll adjust. I'm old, I'll get used to it.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1212	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:03:56 - [27] - Quote Another reason I'm sad to see teams go is the fact that they allowed for an unprecedented level of intelligence gathering about industry. Teams led to the events described in http://www.themittani.com/news/crius-factories-and-racketeering . Without teams, this never could have happened. Taking away one of the best tools to reach out and touch someone is a damn shame. This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1448	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:05:08 - [28] - Quote Please dont just buff teams to make them more viable. Their main problem isn't so much their efficiency. It is the complexity associated with calculating the potential gain in relation to the bid cost and added tax cost, and the burden of having to secure your team by being online for the last few seconds of the auction. Add to that the fact of having to put a hold on your production as you wait for the auction to finish, the sheer amount of macro-categories and micro-categories, and you've got all the reasons in the world not to use them. Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
Nomistrav Aliastra Gallente Federation 274	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:06:19 - [29] - Quote CCP RubberBAND wrote: So a few general topics people are hitting on here: Just do X or add Y to make them better As mentioned in the original post to do Teams properly would require a not insignificant amount of work and the Development team wants to do this properly. At the moment however taking on such a project does not align with some of the priorities we are discussing for the next few releases. Unfortunately we are always choosing from a series of things to do next and we sometimes have to push things back. Also as this thread expands a number of people are already raising numerous issues that we are aware of need tackling to really make Teams as good as they need to be, but this also highlights the scope of the project, as mentioned is not small. Why not leave them in? This is a complex question to answer and one we have been debating for a long time internally. The honest answer is that everything we add to the game is one more thing to support and maintain. Trimming is good for the health of the game both for it's players and the developers, we would not pursue this course of action if we did not believe it was the most valuable thing for the game in the long term and we'd rather not let the feature languish as this makes it increasingly harder to revisit in the future. As a result the removal should impact a minimal number of players, and allow us to focus our efforts where it counts. To be clear, we are not never going to follow up on the feature, but this course of action will make it easier for us to do when we can. We want to be more flexible in how we react to features that are not meeting player or developer expectations and that should hopefully include sometimes removing a feature until such a time as it can be revisited. TL;DR In summary we can only realistically look at two options here: Leave them as is (yes it would be cool to do X or Y, but realistically we cannot) Remove them Removal insinuates that it will never be revisited, let's not beat around the bush there. There aren't many (if any) features that actually make it back into the game after they've been removed. If anything, it'd actually become more difficult if not just as difficult to re-implement it later on as the game evolves. The only difference is with it's removal there's now a lack of motivation to bring it back at all and what few people did use it get penalized unnecessarily. This isn't to chastise you guys at CCP, it's just looking at things with a certain perspective. I'm sure that there are certain rigs that aren't often used but we're not removing them from the game based on the fact that they aren't up to par... It might take a year and half, maybe longer, but eventually - as long as it's there - it'll get revisited. Third Place Winner Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1019	Posted - 2014.12.04 14:07:43 - [30] - Quote its akin too saying well Captains Quarters didn't achieve its goal so lets remove it even though some people still like too use them just too save resources even though we plan on putting it back in later.. so in reality what are you actually saving in the long term?? and you know if you take it out there is no incentive too put in back in as you will always have something else more urgent in priority too do it. just take the hit and spend a little time fixing it now and then some later if needed.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please



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

Copyright © 2006-2024, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,09s, ref 20241122/0028
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.