Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1651
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:59:58 -
[61] - Quote
Man, we had a whole targeting system in development. I liked teams. Ah well.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Lquid Drisseg
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:01:48 -
[62] - Quote
I have never used teams. If I sound dumb, that is why. Its totally not because I'm dumb.
Some problems with teams:
- They are the bad kind of randomness
- They are effectively double or triple taxed
- They broadcast your activities to the entire world
Some things to look into:
[list=1] Remove Teams from places like Jita. Make people who want to cost save move their stuff into a trade hub. Make some small subset of teams always available in each career agent hub system. Allow people to renew a team for a fixed price hike over their previous price. Remove the lore about us supposedly killing these people when they are apparently never used. Do they die of boredom or are they just snorting too much Crash? Some other comments:
You setup a bidding system for the improvements a team will give AND then you also tax on each job that is entered. Combined with the complete randomness of the benifits of teams and their low impact (4% ME max I have seen, in combination with 16% extra tax... wat? ), there is literally 0 reason to be broadcasting what I do in a system unless I am then ALSO paying for some kind of active protection for my assets. Most people would rather disregard 2% more productivity/profitability for the ability to make sure a giant crosshair does not appear on their wallet and preferred style of play. Teams encourage active players to "play" less, not more.
None(approaching 5% or less, I would guess) of your non-indy playerbase cares at all about TE. It's a massive waste of character job time for people who occasionally make things. If serious people need more thing faster, they roll a new alt for 2 months and skill up more slots, not spend their other alts slots and time into bumping a BPOs TE to max when those chars could be copying for more production. Rolling new characters is more effective then using in-game mechanics. |
Vincenzo Arbosa
Locust Assets
66
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:20:19 -
[63] - Quote
I'd rather see "Teams" as an add-in to manufacturing that is a producible item via Planetary Industry.
A colony is added to a temperate planet. Fed things like Wheat, Cigarettes, Spirits, and Exotic Dancers ((college life yo)).. and out comes a team that when added as an optional add-in to a production line adds a bonus similar to the teams currently in use.
^^Being facetious about the inputs of course but something similar to that and perhaps inputs that use existing worthless commodities.
This would boost the use of PI a bit, keep teams in, yadda yadda.
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."-á
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
4399
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:22:55 -
[64] - Quote
On the largest job I've done, 3.5 billion research cost, a team would have reduced the time by a matter of few days, and added over 200 million in research costs.
Just not worth it.
I liked the idea of teams, but the implementation was highly flawed, from auction sniping to not really useful bonuses. |
Bagehi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
279
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:27:01 -
[65] - Quote
I tried to use teams a bit after it came out on TQ. The UI is putzy. It took a fair amount of reading for me to figure out how to use the UI. Then, it became apparent how teams work, which would require me to either be running a continuous production run of a specific thing, or do some pretty significant planning ahead. The benefits to teams are fairly weak for their costs, unless again, you are just constantly cranking out the same item over and over again. Lastly, using any of the capital production teams would effectively lead to your system/station being camped, because it doesn't take a lot of effort to find where those teams are being deployed.
Over all, I think teams could be good. I think the downsides need to be addressed, or CCP has to accept that they will only potentially be used by the few industrialists who are constantly producing specific things where the teams would provide them some benefit that would make it worth the effort. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
167
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:33:57 -
[66] - Quote
5% of the teams were awesome 10% were good
The rest friggin SUCKED
How many 2% ME from station component teams do you need. There were 9 listed 3 days ago.
Teams offset the rising cost of BPO materials as well as cost indicies
Teams are very useful and although, i would alarm clock at 4am to buy one, I also had a team of US/EU/AU in the same system so we would all go in on them together and decide what we would pay and the person awake bid on them
All that said, an eBay style system would be so much better, or even a SILENT bid system, where nothing is known about them until bidding is over
PLEASE don't remove them, just make them not suck |
Maxwell Smiles
Exiled Kings The Fearless Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:52:37 -
[67] - Quote
1) Learn complicated Industry mechanic and create spreadsheets 2) Learn new slightly less complicated mechanic that now has even more complicated teams mechanic that requires new spreadsheet. 3) Learn new invention mechanics and update spreadsheets 4) Redo spreed sheets to remove teams mechanics 5) Figure out what will make a profit in the new year when there are no teams or isoboxer fuel/minerals
6) Redo spreadsheets when CCP introduce "Fairy Dust 514" into the manufacturing process in Feburary. |
Callduron
Officer Training School The Bastion
615
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:58:06 -
[68] - Quote
There's a Tragedy of the Commons effect.
We all recognise it would be good if someone paid for a team at the places we make stuff.
We all recognise it would be best if that person were someone else, not me.
The Officer Training School is recruiting. Join channel OffTS.
I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/
I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
http://i.imgur.com/LftttGz.jpg
|
Rocco Grawe
Journey. Alternate Allegiance
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:59:24 -
[69] - Quote
The research and copy teams are ok at the present time, A small buff would be nice. I haven't used manufacturing teams yet and from looking at their bonuses. They need a buff to make them worth using. |
Mackenzie Nolen
Xyjax
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:05:15 -
[70] - Quote
Kolb wrote:Why remove the functionality and penalize those people that are using them before you have a chance to revisit them?
I think there is a bit of "missing the forest for the trees" issue going here.
Teams were originally envisioned as a counter-balancing force to the "spread out and move around" pressure being introduced in Crius with "lumpy landscape" industry vis a vis escalating system cost indices. Remember back to the original discussion on the meta behind the industry changes?
The important question here is not whether teams are well-implemented or not. The important question is whether teams are accomplishing the original mechanics goal of balancing pressures to "stay put" over "chase the best system indices". Even perfectly implemented teams would be a BAD IDEA and should probably be removed if they don't meet this purpose.
And realistically I think we all agree teams are not accomplishing that goal at all and NEVER WILL. The real pressures that keep us from chasing the best system cost indices are "moving all my materials and BPOs is annoying, time consuming, and incredibly risky", "setting up my mfg POS again makes me want to kill myself", and "how many more jumps to JIta is this going to add"?
In short, there are already a lot of natural pressures to stay in one spot as it is. We don't need an artificial/mechanical one on top of them in the form of teams. As a result I'm happy to see teams go despite being a capital producer that actually has benefited from the margins teams can provide.
IF CCP decides that more "stay put" forces are needed to balance things out down the road, I would much rather see it take the form of POS revamps (easier to evict offline ones, etc.), real mechanics-based benefits in working with other PLAYER industrialists, and other gameplay along those lines. |
|
Paradox Draco
SergalJerk Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:09:21 -
[71] - Quote
Awwwwwh, I would love to see em stay. I mean, I haven't used them much, but I do like the tiny extra dimension to industry they added. |
Mac Chicovski
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:27:11 -
[72] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:TL;DRIn 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
I'd suggest leaving them in, normalize all teams to have a static, average buff to whatever they do (that is, make the worst teams better, make the best teams a little worse, decide what to really do with it in the future), which I would think ought to be a smaller and less impactful change than removing them altogether. |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
163
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:31:25 -
[73] - Quote
For me, the numbers rarely worked. And the few times I seen something interesting, I was not prepared to sit on the team auction screen. I put in a bid and that was it. So obviously I never got any the low-ball bids I placed the few times I checked it out. Mind you I am more of a generalist when it comes to manufacturing.
But I do like the idea and intent.
EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
|
Jalebi
Economic Stimulus Corp
41
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:32:13 -
[74] - Quote
Wowowow are you serious?
Teams are the BEST feature of Crius and is one of the new features that makes industry an actual game to play. They are a vital part for large scale industry -- namely capital production and above -- and removing them from the game would be terrible! Just because the rest of the player base is too dumbo to realize the value of teams doesn't mean you should penalize the smart industrialists. |
zyathussi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:49:34 -
[75] - Quote
as the margin that my production is earning me is to be seen in relation to other players, i don't care if they are or not, but as a somewhat nomadic industrial player (i don't bid on teams but relocate when the team in the current location expires) i somehow enjoy the need to relocate my pos every two to three weeks, do the math, indu.index + team.bonus vs distance from tradehub etc pp.
maybe it's my imagination, but i think i start to whitness that indeed there are some systems (around jita) developing into specialized indu centres, and i think that it would be sad to kill this so soon - let the sandbox evolve, plz.
also, if you plan to revisit the feature someday, wouldn't it be best to leave it and collect the data/feedback to make better development decisions? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
167
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:56:34 -
[76] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:For me, the numbers rarely worked. And the few times I seen something interesting, I was not prepared to sit on the team auction screen. I put in a bid and that was it. So obviously I never got any the low-ball bids I placed the few times I checked it out. Mind you I am more of a generalist when it comes to manufacturing.
But I do like the idea and intent.
Then you didn't build enough....
The more you build, the more the numbers worked.
We paid 2.7 billion for a team and it was worth 10 times that amount in savings.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
115
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:06:33 -
[77] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:So a few general topics people are hitting on here: 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;DRIn 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
If you leave them in and do nothing, what is there to maintain? How much actual work is there in doing nothing? If some people are using them, but most aren't, so be it. Unless its actual work and not just, "Hey, that thing is still there," why not just leave it even if in languishes. It doesn't seem like its game breaking, if in fact it only relates to a minority anyway. I think the bigger issue is whether or not it is an eyesore for the majority who don't use teams, and perhaps the New(er) Player Experience in learning about industry. But v0v |
Mirkali Maricadie
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:09:52 -
[78] - Quote
I'm not really an industrial guy, but I know the industrial honchos in our coalition were excited about this feature, and how to leverage it against our opponents. They're really on-board with features like this that were able to allow them to give a competitive edge to the development of our budding industrial complex in Null.
Now, with that said, I do applaud this type of decision making. Proactive management of the game's features is a great thing. But... I find the explanation given currently lacking. It's a "The reasons are complex, but we need to save dev resources" explanation. I can accept that you guys have good reasons to get rid of it, but I want more info. The nitty gritty. We're EVE Online players afterall.
Considering the time that went into designing and coding this system, and the attempts to explain and promote this system... perhaps we can get a devblog, sometime around the end of 2014 or early 2015 near when you begin to wind down and remove the system. The devblog can explain in more detail about how the system failed to do its job, how the quick fixes really wouldn't fix the real problem, and how you guys projected what a real fix to the system would look like. Y'know, throw in some metrics and graphs.
Of course, I'm a guy that reads a fair amount of game industry post-mortem articles. In fact, it'd be great if EVE Online Feature Post-Mortem devblogs became standard procedure with the removal of a system. Something we can all learn from.
Is that a thing we can have, CCP RubberBAND? |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
393
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:14:16 -
[79] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:If you leave them in and do nothing, what is there to maintain? How much actual work is there in doing nothing? If some people are using them, but most aren't, so be it. Unless its actual work and not just, "Hey, that thing is still there," why not just leave it even if in languishes. It doesn't seem like its game breaking, if in fact it only relates to a minority anyway. I think the bigger issue is whether or not it is an eyesore for the majority who don;t use them, and perhaps the New(er) Player Experience in learning about industry. But v0v Code and design depreciate over time. Any future designs and implementations must factor this into the equation, because it doesn't exist inside a glass bubble - it's connected to the game at large. You have to test how new features interact with it, and you have to make considerations with an obsolete system in mind. And the older it gets, the more stuff will break, and the harder it will be to fix it.
See also; POSes |
Bakkhai
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:15:52 -
[80] - 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. Are there problems with it? |
|
Nicole Hastings
Caldari Research Corporation
20
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:21:55 -
[81] - Quote
Some important questions that I feel need to be answered:
Were blueprints balanced around the use of teams at all? The margins for manufacturing certain BPOs are razor thin right now. Obviously the market will fluctuate, but is this the case with all items?
Have you considered just buffing them instead? That would definitely increase usage.
Will teams make a return?
I liked and hated the concept of themes. It made my production spreadsheets an absolute ***** because I had to factor in the cost of the team and the impact it would have, and then spread that out over a month... assuming I had 100% efficiency in installing jobs, which I definitely did not. However, the bonuses gained from the few teams that were actually worth bidding on were quite enormous (4+2% on capital ME was HUGE when combined with a component blueprint that took off 2.5%).
Easily the two worst parts about teams are the auction system and the fact that 90% of teams are not worth using (5%+ or bust, at least in terms of the capital production I do). I feel like experimenting with buffing them might not be a terrible idea, but the auction system is probably the worst thing in Eve because it forces you to do stupid things like wake up at 3AM for a video game.
I'm kind of glad they're going because it has not been profitable for me to produce what I make without them, and I can't win auctions half the time, but are BPO requirements going to change at all? Perhaps my case is very niche, but perhaps not.
Caldari Research Corp: Blueprint Research and Copying on Request!
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
255
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:30:59 -
[82] - Quote
"We will bring teams back right after we fix the Rorqual"
(aka never) |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
115
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:52:41 -
[83] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:If you leave them in and do nothing, what is there to maintain? How much actual work is there in doing nothing? If some people are using them, but most aren't, so be it. Unless its actual work and not just, "Hey, that thing is still there," why not just leave it even if in languishes. It doesn't seem like its game breaking, if in fact it only relates to a minority anyway. I think the bigger issue is whether or not it is an eyesore for the majority who don;t use them, and perhaps the New(er) Player Experience in learning about industry. But v0v Code and design depreciate over time. Any future designs and implementations must factor this into the equation, because it doesn't exist inside a glass bubble - it's connected to the game at large. You have to test how new features interact with it, and you have to make considerations with an obsolete system in mind. And the older it gets, the more stuff will break, and the harder it will be to fix it. See also; POSes
Yeah, I do hear that. They must be thinking it is entirely busted and need reworking from the ground up. And it does really need to be re-evaluated from the ground up. Teams aren't for the casual industrialist unless they are riding the coattails of those who will benefit on a large enough scale to warrant the time and ISK to acquire them. And why should anyone be able to ride those coattails? Teams are a higher-level industry construct, which is good for those who want to take it to the next level of analysis and competitive advantage. Those players, along with some who don't know what they are doing, are probably the minority using it. Makes sense. I don't expect they will ever be a major factor on a per-player basis if they are done in a way that is both challenging and effective. |
roxtarr
Xolti Sect
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:04:47 -
[84] - Quote
reduce the total number of available teams by alot, eliminate the specializations, and increase the bonuses
or just get rid of them |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1388
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:05:08 -
[85] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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.
I don't understand this line of reasoning.
Leaving teams in game forces you to keep this feature compatible with the rest of your codebase even if you don't change any functionality. One would think that this would make it easier to revisit it in the future.
Whereas very soon the prospect of merging 2-3 year-old code into your then-current codebase might very well be daunting enough to drop the idea of revisiting teams altogether ("... until we have time for a full rewrite", aka never).
.
|
DaReaper
Net 7
1404
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:08:47 -
[86] - Quote
i will add...
to supplement what the dev said, look around eve, how many features are there that we use daily that are incomplete or don't work as well as they should. Yes we use them, yes we got used to them, but I know like me, that a lot of you most likely want to shove an ice pick in your eyes then deal with it again.
I would much prefer a feature be complete or nearly complete before being released and ones that are not be removed and fixed instead of left to riot
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
1026
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:22:51 -
[87] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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. If I may ask: Which standards have we come to and should expect from you? You left the Sov System untouched for years, you left the Corporation system untouched for years, you left the Alliance as a Non-Entity in the game, you left the Type sorting of items broken and untouched for years, you left the POS system untouched for years and even pressed more players into the hell the POS system is ... and yet we should expect a "standard of quality" from you?
Why is it being removed? Because it is not used as much as you'd hoped to? Because it is confusing to Newbies? Are you kindly kidding me? |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1021
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:34:48 -
[88] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: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. If I may ask: Which standards have we come to and should expect from you? You left the Sov System untouched for years, you left the Corporation system untouched for years, you left the Alliance as a Non-Entity in the game, you left the Type sorting of items broken and untouched for years, you left the POS system untouched for years and even pressed more players into the hell the POS system is. You add new stuff to the game while stuff is broken. You are expanding the NES while stuff is broken. You do not focus on fixing stuff that is broken ... and yet we should expect a "standard of quality" from you? Why is it being removed? Because it is not used as much as you'd hoped to? Because it is confusing to Newbies? Are you kindly kidding me?
leaving it in half broken is actually you're standards, you then move on to adding other stuff and possibly fixing some stuff whilst breaking other stuff or adding more broken stuff.. its like you have a ratio of broken, half broken and fixed stuff too maintain
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
|
HarlyQ
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:38:10 -
[89] - Quote
What would you do with the UI if you remove the current one? Please do not go back to that horrible UI from before. |
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
58
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:50:14 -
[90] - Quote
Eve is a game of (multiple) options. Why not let it for those who use it? I don't think it will impact your infrastructure... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |