Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Fifth Blade
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:53:44 -
[91] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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
I hope you realise that the consequence of removing teams and leaving in index costs is that you make medium - large scale industry unprofitable. Your options with industry will now be limited to producing one tormentor and going home or face losing isk. sigh
While i appreciate that the feature wasn't going to be fixed anytime soon (this was the only time since 2003 that industry has had any real improvement). Removing teams (the only way to compensate for index costs) and leaving index costs will leave it more broken than ever. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
390
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 19:58:28 -
[92] - Quote
I just had a look at my recent industry jobs, over the last 3 months I used teams on 88.9% of the 1,550 manufacturing jobs I've started.
Whilst the majority of people may not use teams as they haven't put the effort in to work out their benefit, I would think that many large producers do make extensive use of them.
The main problem with teams at the moment is the weak auction system. The rest of the team system is basic but workable, and adds a little more depth to industry.
I don't see such extensive issues with it, even the auction system, that would make removing it improve the game in any way; it'll just make the industry experience flatter and less interesting again.
my teapot is ready
|
Kahawa Oban
New Groton Industrial Works
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 20:00:56 -
[93] - Quote
I fully understand the x or y decision. My vote would be to keep them in as is. Even though apparently a small number of people are using the teams they do add a layer of player interaction. I understand and support the need to spend development resources elsewhere.
There are null sec alliances that bid up the premium teams; and the decision for smaller corp builders is to decide if it is worth it to bid against a major null block.
Yes, the issue of sniping teams is a concern but it is part of the game play. You can always bid what you think the team is worth and let that stand. Additionally you can throw low bids on marginal teams to see if you get them. The team pricing does get very astronomically high on the premium teams; with that last additional percent or 1/2 a percent drawing a large premium.
The teams do add a pull to the push created by the installation cost for busy systems.
If they get taken out then, shrinking the header to the UI would be an improvement.
This post was good; please give us as much advance notice as possible once the decision is made. |
Alphaomega21
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 20:03:57 -
[94] - Quote
I have only one question CCP why do you hate us so much? Teams have been an enormous success in Deklein and have enabled us to build a very large number of our ships and modules locally just like you wanted despite not giving us the resources locally to do it. Without the added edge of collaboration with fellow alliance mates to buy teams and reduce the cost for everyone it is going to make it that much harder to compete with people in Jita with access to unlimited resources.
What did we ever do to you CCP? |
Sixx Spades
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 20:25:05 -
[95] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND, your current problem with Teams is freeridership. The largest problem with the auction system is the amount of investment a single person or corp has to put in to purchase the right to use a team in a specific system said corp or person has stationed themselves in. Due to teams having those cost reducing bonuses, they are supposed to be balanced when other people and corps migrate to said system in order to utilize the team. However, that still leaves the person or corp who originally ordered the team with the invested cost while everyone else is raising the build index without contributing to the auction itself.
In the current system, if you want to get around the freerider problem, you'd have to talk and organize with your community in order to get everyone to contribute. This requires people to socialize and organize at a level that can't be properly expected in Highsec, which is where you're obviously drawing your metric of success from. In CFC space, it makes sense that we're organizing teams in such a way that we're making a profit on them. That's why you see a lot of CFC guys saying that at least 85% of their industry jobs have a Team component to them.
It's not in my taste of posting to repeat slogans that have been uttered repeatedly before, but don't nerf organization. If you want solo industrialists, of which the major market share is composed of in Highsec, to have a great amount of input in purchasing teams, you need to fix the freerider problem. Here are a couple suggestions you could look at to help the situation make it more open for everyone and desirable for purchase even on a small scale:
- Using an Opt-In program, have the initial auction continue to be a single or corp purchase. Instead of a direct payment that immediately goes into the ether, have that value stick around as an initial deposit. If more people wish to use a team in a system, they could Opt-In to using this team by paying a deposit of their own, which would reduce the deposit cost of the first person or group that bought it. At the end of the month, everyone pays their fair share which reduces the initial cost for team use for everyone.
Pros: Reduces the freeridership, helps alleviate problems caused by the production index when more people come to use the teams. Cons: Will require a look at what can be done to stop people from joining into a large megacorp so that there's a reduction on what they have to pay as their "fair share".
- Have the initial investor for the auction recoup some of their costs by adding another small percentage on top of the regular team usage. If it's a busier system, they could potentially earn a profit by providing teams to denser production areas while reducing the risk of being the only person or group investing into said team.
Pro: Turns teams into a gamble for initial investors rather than a sunk investment which, in turn, can earn them profit or remain a sunk cost. Should drive up team leasing Con: Making money on a system designed to be an isk sink. It should technically still remove money from the system, but I obviously don't know enough about the math behind it.
Maybe it seems biased to advocate for a system that has obviously benefited the larger corporations, alliances, and coalitions in the game to continue to remain in the game, but outright stripping said content because it didn't work the first time is a rather defeatist way of looking at it. I understand that it may have to leave now because you might be considering one of these suggestions that got listed. However, the true nature of the problem needs to be understood:
Teams, for small corps or solo producers which likely make up the majority of the market, cannot justify the auction cost to lease a team only to have freeriders jump into their production system and raise the production index. Larger groups are working outside of the game to organize in such a way to reduce freeridership, which gives them an inherent advantage even while dealing with higher production indexes.
Thank you for reading this.
Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1021
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 20:25:41 -
[96] - Quote
Alphaomega21 wrote:I have only one question CCP why do you hate us so much? Teams have been an enormous success in Deklein and have enabled us to build a very large number of our ships and modules locally just like you wanted despite not giving us the resources locally to do it. Without the added edge of collaboration with fellow alliance mates to buy teams and reduce the cost for everyone it is going to make it that much harder to compete with people in Jita with access to unlimited resources.
What did we ever do to you CCP?
@CCP RubberBAND @CCP Greyscale @CCP Fozzie
there such bastards!!! .. they raise up your hopes...
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
|
Psy Smythe
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 20:49:07 -
[97] - Quote
While the auction system can be annoying to use; I would still say keep the teams in the game. While they might not be used if people are only doing small production runs; due to the cost savings of using a team might not be enough to justify their price. I feel that most large scale industrialist are using teams; due to the cost savings that they can provide; when you ramp up production and build in larger quantities.
Psy |
LuisWu
Ammunition Deliveries
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:03:53 -
[98] - Quote
I'm using them with my alt, and based in how the good teams reach offers of hundred of millions I would say there are more people using them.
In my opinion the main problem is bidding system and the fact that 90% of the team are useless (0.5% TE building tools is just sad) and the other 10% usually have some capital oriented bonus that makes them reach auction prices beyond what a medium industrial can pay.
Just make another bid system and separate bonuses so the guy interested in a recon team doesn't have to compete with the capital builder and problem solved.
F*** This Game
|
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union
181
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:07:04 -
[99] - Quote
I was always using Teams when they were available in the systems I was building in, and it did adjust my decision making based if they were available. We had multiple corporations bidding for teams in our alliance sov space and we organized to obtain them. That said, I was fairly casual at doing Industry so I didn't commit a lot of resources for obtaining Teams for every planned set of manufacturing runs.
I do think there is a lot of work that needs to go into Teams to make it a better feature, and if you aren't willing to commit the resources to it right now, then you should disable the feature until you are ready to revisit it. You can't just ignore the feature and leave in problems like auction sniping, and lack of in-game features to collaborate on bidding on teams. This especially impacts capital ship builders where the scale of industry makes teams almost a necessity.
The downside of this is that you planned for this level of complexity in Industry, and removing it and adjusting for the loss will probably take quite a bit of work. If you didn't realize how much additional work was going to be committed into maturing the feature, that is pretty disturbing as the original goals for revamping industry was even more aggressive. I am glad that rather than leaving an unfinished feature in-game, we are discussing better options however.
TLDR: If you are removing Teams,then you need to rebalance Industry based on the variables Teams were designed to fill:
- Teams are the only way to reduce ME requirements. General build ME/TE requirements should be reduced by 2-5%.
- Teams were planned to be the replacement for using Meta items for adjusting success rates for invention. If this isn't being implemented then revert back to allowing Meta items to be used in the Invention process, or rebalance appropriately. Adjust success rates to make inventing T2 ships more balanced without Teams as well.
- The Invention process changes was already scaled back on release to not include multiple outcomes. The Invention process that did come out didn't adjust success rates to adjust for this (to my knowledge). Make sure this is accounted for.
- The removal of Interfaces in the Invention process still hasn't been adjusted for in Data Site loot drops.
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
Peter VonThal
Raygun Technologies
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:12:48 -
[100] - Quote
If people don't want to use teams, then let them not use them. I have a hard time believing that the teams mechanic was put into the game with the small-scale, casual, weekend industrialist in mind. If specialists and mass-producers find use with them to shave a few ME or hours off and are willing to invest in managing the poor auction system and costs, then let those people continue to use teams.
I really don't see any similar replacement system or future revamp that would "fix" teams to make them more widely used except for improving the auction system and perhaps trimming the large amounts of useless teams cluttering the system.
A casual builder will never invest millions to relocate a team to their system or pick up his operation and move it 8 jumps away because of a team. However, I see enough teams in my area of production go for tens and hundreds of millions of isk to know that some of us place a significant value on what a good team can offer.
Please consider leaving them in. |
|
Andy Koraka
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
47
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:18:44 -
[101] - Quote
TBH it's not like they hurt Industry in any way, you're free to ignore teams completely. If you want them to be used it's pretty easy to have an intern tweak a few numbers to make them more compelling.
Personally I think it would be cool to have strong ME teams with a build time drawback proportional to the ME savings. Likewise have High TE teams (like 25-30% faster) with a minor ME drawback. It would be a real choice to pick between a much better margin built slowly and a smaller margin with much higher production volume. |
Callic Veratar
648
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:26:56 -
[102] - Quote
The main reason I never used teams was that I was operating independently as a manufacturer and never manufacture in quantities that would make the extra cost of hiring a team efficient. The auction system kept it permanently out of my reach as the random chance as I was never willing to wade into it.
Reintroducing teams as they exist now would be very valuable. The primary change should be the removal of the auction system to replace it with a deterministic system.
My proposal is the introduction of a new set of PI modules that allow a player to set up a team in a system or constellation. Much like POCOs, the player gets to set the price and the rates so to make a competitive team, you'd need to set up a base that, based on it's configuration, would allow specialization of specific types of research, whether it's manufacturing of guns or researching hulls or whatever.
To make it not passive, give it a fuel system, whether it's PI goo or fuel blocks or whatever, it doesn't matter. As long as it has fuel, research can be started using the team.
More stuff done by players is better. Give us the power to make the teams. (Maybe even stocking them with people or slaves or whatever from the market). I'd gladly maintain a team in my system if it meant I would get a cut of the profits. |
Cae Lara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:28:44 -
[103] - 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?
'Should' is not the same as 'do'. People do expect CCP to leave things in a shambles and let the players sort it out with 3rd party tools and sheer obstinance. They've evidently decided to go in a different direction to try and earn some higher expectations from their playerbase. They had some specific effect in mind and teams aren't really affecting the metrics they want them to so they're nixing the project until they can make sure it does..
Which feels odd for eve..
EVE players will somehow manage to make lemonade if they're given lemon shaped rocks. Seeing CCP go and snatch a few people's crappy lemon rocks is strange. It's doubly strange because we've already seen stories emerge from the team mechanic...
I can understand their logic to a certain extent. I would much rather see a proper rework or a removal of a feature as opposed to some sloppy quick-fix. And being willing to remove a feature that doesn't work is a good sign... But in this instance I think they should just leave teams untouched until they have the resources to devote to a rework. |
EMT Holding
EMT Holding Corporation
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:29:20 -
[104] - Quote
Fifth Blade wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: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
I hope you realise that the consequence of removing teams and leaving in index costs is that you make medium - large scale industry unprofitable. Your options with industry will now be limited to producing one tormentor and going home or face losing isk. sighWhile i appreciate that the feature wasn't going to be fixed anytime soon (this was the only time since 2003 that industry has had any real improvement). Removing teams (the only way to compensate for index costs) and leaving index costs will leave it more broken than ever. This. Many times this. Having a large scale industry operation drives the index so high that you can get to the point where some/all items are just unprofitable. The economy doesn't run on people dipping their toes in industry, it relies on big players to produce large volumes of items. Teams at least helped claw some profit back.
Eve Manufacture Tool - making industry easy
|
Intaktus
Girl Friends Please Ignore Ev0ke
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:01:03 -
[105] - Quote
Another vote to keep the teams at least as they are |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
620
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:05:37 -
[106] - Quote
Leave it in.
Sometimes the teams are useful, for those few industrialists that go the extra step.
And wasnt there a case of someone blowing up a 40bil tower over a POS fuel cost reduction team or something?
Leave it in, even if feature sees only marginal use, still its a feature.
The basic problem is that bonuses are too marginal. 5-6% here and there is not much of a bonus. |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:20:01 -
[107] - Quote
Pretty disappointed with this change. Teams give people who have the foresight to plan a month in advance an edge. It lets you specialize into certain industries, but it also locks you into your choices to a certain extent. What if you blow a ton of isk on a team only for that item to sink in profitability for a month? That's the risk. What if your system index goes too high and you need to move? Another risk. On the other hand, you could be producing items for 5% less if you make the RIGHT choices and plan ahead. You can also make terrible choices and actually lose isk. I think this is great.
There is also a PVP element. You can, for the first time, see where your competition is coming from. For example, using teams, I have identified the production systems of two super heavy producers. I have unironically been considering using an altcorp or merc corp to wardec them and demand they stop production in my field. This isn't possible without teams.
You can also simply spam bids on teams to block everyone else at a huge expense to yourself - but maybe it's worth it to you. Again, more interesting potential choices.
Removing teams removes a lot of choice from production, and industry goes back to very linear gameplay - ie. is X item profitable or not -> pick cheapest station to build in.
They also have a huge positive effect on nullsec industry. With distances comes cost. In Deklein, our freighter service costs are around 300-400isk/m3. This means that a battleship costs 15-18mil to export for sale. Even with T2, importing essential moon materials, low end minerals and invention materials costs a significant amount of isk that isn't even remotely a factor in highsec. I know other nullsec regions are much further and therefore much less viable for production due to import costs. Teams make up for this huge drawback by lowering material requirements and helping the margin. The other problem with nullsec is the limited number of production systems in a region, which causes much higher indexes in certain systems than you might see in a typical highsec system.
The only thing I'd like to MAYBE see changes is the auction system - sniping kind of sucks. But even there - it could give the little guy the chance to snipe a bargain team that the big guys fell asleep on - a more structured auction system would disable that. And if you really want the team, you don't need to try to lowball snipe it. Drop your wallet on the table and pay up properly. The distribution of teams could also get a rebalance - there seem to be way too many TE teams, and certain teams ike components are lacking.
If people aren't using the teams, it's their fault for failing to realize the potential. You can get low-mid range teams for very cheap - there are enough of them that anyone should be able to get a benefit. |
Bytestorm
Liga der hessischen Gentlemen
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:33:29 -
[108] - Quote
I didn't use teams because I have a job to do. I want to do this job now. Not in two weeks, when the auction finishes. And after two weeks I lost the auction and have to try another one. Which I also loose. So I wait week after week in the hope to finally start the job I have all my resources ready.
Teams only work for industrials that run full-time-production rebuilding the same items for weeks or months. I don't think thats the majority.
My solution? Seed teams randomly to systems. And increase their bonuses by 100-200% to make it worth running after them. |
X ATM092
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
442
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:38:27 -
[109] - Quote
Don't remove teams, fix auctions. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5225400#post5225400
With the increased build costs getting punitive in some areas teams are the only way to offset that and reward centralised industry. |
Fifth Blade
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
37
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:40:19 -
[110] - Quote
I agree with a lot of what oodell pointed out, but to expand on this specific part:
oodell wrote: If people aren't using the teams, it's their fault for failing to realize the potential. You can get low-mid range teams for very cheap - there are enough of them that anyone should be able to get a benefit.
The two major issues with this are, imo:
- The interface isn't very discoverable and
- Auctions are a pain
Auctions could easily be fixed - literally copy the method used for contracts and provide a watchlist of the teams you have bid on, so that you can track them. The interface discoverability is something that can be fixed over time. This certainly is not a good argument for removing the entire system, which works in a number of interesting ways.
Finally, as no alternative has been mentioned, this would leave an incredibly broken half-system behind which relied on teams existing to function (indexes preventing industry at any non-minimal scale). So you could just remove indexes too, right? Wrong. Lets say you remove both teams and indexes? Then you go back to the old scramble for a Jita POS, with no reason to distribute production throughout the universe. Incredibly broken.
tl;dr Removing an imperfect system for an entirely broken one is a bad idea.
|
|
X ATM092
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
444
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 22:54:40 -
[111] - Quote
Also I think it's kind of hilarious that CCP are now looking at their past work and going "Does this actually work as intended? Did we implement this really badly? Do any of our design choices here make any kind of sense?". That's not what eve is about. EVE is about, as the man above excellently put it, making lemons out of the lemon shaped rocks CCP throw at the player base. If you're actually going to try and be good at your jobs then God help us all, there is next to nothing in EVE which works as it should and teams are actually on the fruity end of the lemon shaped rock spectrum. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1021
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:00:30 -
[112] - Quote
X ATM092 wrote:Also I think it's kind of hilarious that CCP are now looking at their past work and going "Does this actually work as intended? Did we implement this really badly? Do any of our design choices here make any kind of sense?". That's not what eve is about. EVE is about, as the man above excellently put it, making lemons out of the lemon shaped rocks CCP throw at the player base. If you're actually going to try and be good at your jobs then God help us all, there is next to nothing in EVE which works as it should and teams are actually on the fruity end of the lemon shaped rock spectrum.
indeed CCP would have too pull so many things that don't work as intended it wouldn't be worth playing anymore there wouldn't be much left .. oh SOV isn't working as intended remove it ... etc 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
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5579
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:03:44 -
[113] - Quote
What about blind auctions with punters contributing to a pool per system?
Thus if I place a bid for Team X with 2% off material costs of cruisers in Eystur, that bid goes into a pool bidding for Team X in Eystur.
This is how i thought the system was supposed to work :(
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
Javajunky
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:26:48 -
[114] - Quote
+1 for opening up and saying something I mean really that's just a solid move. It would be nice if some of the other developers had that kind approach.
Moving on... Teams are a solid concept but I didn't feel like the % adjustments were worth it. While finding out where the Fuel Block teams were lead to a few hilarious pos kills, (hint don't buy the best fuel block team and put up a bond in markets with the same character), I wasn't really that jazzed about making the investment. In a null sec, keeping the materials flowing to get full benefit of the team rental is pretty difficult (especially with the space AIDS everyone gets now with jump drives).
How about teams to improve Null Sec Systems? Say I-Hub teams that can modify to get better grav sites, anomalies, WH or DED Complexes, the mechanics that would normally be improved with low security level ratings. There's so much useless null sec space out there, you could use this as a way to modify that and I could see those being rather competitive and really turn it into an ISK sink.
Team (A) -0.2 Team (B) -0.4 Team (C) -0.6
Just a thought... |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
797
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:33:02 -
[115] - Quote
Without support for true bidding wars this was a useless feature that only padded the pockets of those rich from sources outside of manufacturing
CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff
CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Qvar Dar'Zanar
Dirt 'n' Glitter
308
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:43:08 -
[116] - Quote
I don't like this. The teams idea is fine and cool. The problem is the implementation. There are many things wrong with teams, and that's why they aren't used:
1. They are hard to bid for. It took me several minutes to notice the drop-down, and I already knew what I was looking for.
2. The bids system is ridicolous. They should be short and regular auctions, with blind bids. Right now it's all about being on-line when an auction ends. There's no point on bidding if you're not able to do that.
3. Most bonuses are pointless. I'm not going to bid for a 1% research time team unless I plan to research multiple multiple-months-long BPOs. Which I usually don't, and I'm one of those weirdos who does production. Most people in EVE don't even produce. So you are looking at a small fraction of an already small fraction. Hell, if I planned to do that much research I would pay for a decent team, not that bunch of losers.
4. The one time I tried to bid on a team to check it out, I won the bid... Then POF, the team vanished out of existence. It wasn't on active teams (yes I set all parameters open) and neither it was in active biddings. Obviously I didn't know if I had to wait for it to be delivered to station, so it was even more confusion. This hasn't increased my willingness to try again. |
Juli Paris
The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:44:26 -
[117] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote: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
Pls no.
Get off my teams and get out, go do something else. They are lovely.
You are basically saying 'people are too silly to recognise how good they are, and so we are deleting them'.
The problem here does not lie with the teams being or not being in the game, but lies with education on how to use them and their benefits, especially in particular circumstance.
The changes made recently, including the team dynamic, have returned me and others I know to industry to a large scale, and I fear that especially for big industry players who rely on small margins on great values, that without teams, it simply will not be worth the effort.
Take a large industrial guy running in a system, with say, several builders. The installation costs through the value of his product soar, and this can be countered by the clever use of teams. By adding scaling production costs in the form of increasing install costs, and not allowing a counterbalance, it reaches a stage where large scale industry becomes pointless for the isk/hr it generates when compared to less important for the game things, like ratting or incursions.
Please consider a different approach of education and awareness, instead of scorched earth madness. |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:59:27 -
[118] - Quote
Juli Paris wrote:CCP RubberBAND wrote: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 Pls no. Get off my teams and get out, go do something else. They are lovely. You are basically saying 'people are too silly to recognise how good they are, and so we are deleting them'. The problem here does not lie with the teams being or not being in the game, but lies with education on how to use them and their benefits, especially in particular circumstance. The changes made recently, including the team dynamic, have returned me and others I know to industry to a large scale, and I fear that especially for big industry players who rely on small margins on great values, that without teams, it simply will not be worth the effort. Take a large industrial guy running in a system, with say, several builders. The installation costs through the value of his product soar, and this can be countered by the clever use of teams. By adding scaling production costs in the form of increasing install costs, and not allowing a counterbalance, it reaches a stage where large scale industry becomes pointless for the isk/hr it generates when compared to less important for the game things, like ratting or incursions. Please consider a different approach of education and awareness, instead of scorched earth madness.
Agreed. After I explain the benefit of teams to people they quickly realize the potential. There is an accessibility/education gap.
Teams have added a lot of dynamic to otherwise linear gameplay (Other than system index which is easily avoided in highsec, and unavoidable in nullsec)
I see only two problems.... 1) Auction system isn't great (but does have some merits) 2) There are way too many useless 1% TE teams and not enough worthwhile ones. Some teams go for 2-3bil regularly. Others have no bids at all.
I don't think it would be hard to redistribute teams based on demand metrics? Massively buffing the TE teams would be a good start, as no one in their right mind is going to use a 5% TE team over a 5% ME team.
In any case, I'd rather have this system with room to improve later than just pull it altogether, especially when combined with system indexes as they are today. |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
620
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 00:20:55 -
[119] - Quote
I just used the jita team to save 2% on materials to manufacture high-grade implants.
I saved about 10mil all in all.
HANDS OFF MY TEAMS DAMMIT! |
Firestorm Delta
Aphotic Machina
44
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 00:56:54 -
[120] - Quote
I will say up front that I have never used teams, nor will I anytime soon. All the same I learned a lot simply reading through the posts here. I can see that removing teams simply because they aren't quite what was planned is silly. They are part of a system, and removing one piece of the system will probably have greater consequences than leaving the not quite perfect piece in there.
Keep them so I can learn how useful they are in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |