| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
539
   |
Posted - 2014.12.12 01:53:48 -
[181] - Quote
Glad to see that this poorly implemented feature will be removed, until such time as it can be properly designed. There was simply no good reason to rush this into Crius.
With the more frequent 6-week release cycle, no new feature or major change should ever need to be forced to meet a specific release time. If it takes a year to get right, then let it take a year. Or more.
It is just unfortunate that the other bad industry overhaul features of Crius cannot also be easily reversed, so that CCP can recover the many casual industry players who left the game and took their sub money elsewhere. |
Peter VonThal
Raygun Technologies
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 16:25:54 -
[182] - Quote
Jake Rivers wrote:When teams came out I was under the impression that there would be no way to compete for the good teams and since then I never looked at them again, until I seen this post.
So since reading this yesterday I looked at teams again and have hired a few to try out. They were easy to get, I didn't get sniped in the auction, and landed a team that has actually saved me materials in a big way.
If a certain amount of people in eve are using this feature, I just do not understand your reasoning for yanking it out. Now that I have been successful at landing a team, I would use them more often.
I did look at the time saving teams and it was funny that a fancy team could save you an hour on a 2 day production, why bother when you are better off having teams to save on material.
I still don't understand the removal either. I think, like in your case, a large portion of the community never saw the benefit a good team can have. Many probably had a look shortly after teams were introduced and saw a wall of mostly 1% TE teams with no bids and and a few of the best ME teams going for hundreds of millions and never bothered to look into teams again.
It worries me that CCP is going to remove an optional mechanic that is available to anyone not because of negative, detrimental effects on the larger mechanics, but just because people haven't bothered to understand it, try it, and run some numbers.
That said, I don't think teams will ever have a mass adoption. The casual producers won't invest that upfront cost or move their production to another system because of a team hidden behind a few clicks of the UI. However, removing teams from the game because of those people's lack of interest just doesn't make sense to me. |
Oriella Trikassi
Trikassi Enterprises
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 17:34:27 -
[183] - Quote
As minor but dedicated industrialists we bid for Teams on our two biggest lines. The Spreadsheet has calculators that tell the CEO (me) when to stop bidding. Most times we lose due to sniping, but we win often enough to make it worth trying. There is presently only one other Industrial Corp in our busy home system that uses teams, for stuff we don't manufacture ourselves.
From our point of view they are an added complexity that doesn't really add anything to the fun. If they are taking up Dev time then meh, by all means scrap them. |
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio
249
|
Posted - 2014.12.12 17:34:28 -
[184] - Quote
I noticed a few people ***** because they claim its hard to tell the difference between typing 1000000 (1mil) or 1000000000 (1bil) I mean this has been eve forever and if you can't take the time to figure out how to count a few zero's you have no one to blame but yourself for that. Learn to type and count and bids like the one I noticed today just will not happen. It certainly is not an reason to ditch a interesting part of the game.
http://i.imgur.com/Ffa35au.png
Senex Legio
|
Soltes
Nullsec Logistics
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.13 00:45:27 -
[185] - Quote
I like the fact that teams give an edge to those that are prepared to do the work calculating if they're worth it. However, I think teams in general are a pretty frustrating mechanic. It's annoying to have to set an alarm, it's annoying to be sniped at the last second.
I'd much prefer to see a system such as having to hire a new "recruit" team that sits in the station/hangar. The more jobs of a type you do the more skilled that team becomes. Perhaps higher quality teams (that have a higher potential) can be found through missions/sites etc. Oh and these teams would only work for you or your corp! |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
168
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:27:16 -
[186] - Quote
Any update on this, or do they really plan to do away with the ONLY Crius feature that didn't suck?
What about offsetting some materials because in the words of "Greyscale" teams are there to merge with the new ME/TE levels. Well, if you take away teams, is anything going to be done to materials?? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
168
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 17:31:23 -
[187] - Quote
Excerpts fromt he Teams DEVBLOG:
A specialized team resides in a solar system and can be used by anyone doing a job in that system, including in POSes. The teams thus act as a counter-balance to the cost scaling GÇô the presence of a good team can offset the increased cost in operating in an active system.
The dramatic changes to the cost of industry jobs, as outlined by CCP Greyscale in his dev blog, adds another layer to the landscape, one that will rival the distance to market and security level in shaping the industrial landscape. In fact, if we do nothing but the cost scaling changes, weGÇÖre encouraging players to spread industry activity out as much as they can, which is not ideal. That is where the team system comes in.
How can you remove this single important element of industry and not tweak the other parts to compensate?? |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 08:15:37 -
[188] - Quote
Jake Rivers wrote:I noticed a few people ***** because they claim its hard to tell the difference between typing 1000000 (1mil) or 1000000000 (1bil) I mean this has been eve forever and if you can't take the time to figure out how to count a few zero's you have no one to blame but yourself for that. Learn to type and count and bids like the one I noticed today just will not happen. It certainly is not an reason to ditch a interesting part of the game. http://i.imgur.com/Ffa35au.png
Who says that was a mistake? Maybe he wanted to pay 1 bill for the team. It is a 2.5% component team that saves quite a bit on minerals for a capital.
Calculate what a team is worth for you and and how much profit you can make with one, then use some of that profit to buy the team and voila 9 out of 10 times you get that team.
If you are complaining about snipers then you just havent bid enough, simple as that. Stop lowballing a team with 50 mil isk when it saves you 500 mil a week. Throw in 500 mil and look you have gotten yourself a team. It takes 1 week to make that back and the other 3 weeks of production will grant you a nice 1.5 bill bonus |
Red Ora
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 15:34:37 -
[189] - Quote
Yes, we need teams, CCP should implement a foremen and a managers to hire too. They of course need to be in different systems and once in a blue moon you can actually hire them. Yes that would be awesome?!
Stop making Eve more and more complicated and read your bug reports.
|
Vladdy Tepes
Still Water Intergalactic Holdings
Orderly Misconduct
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 22:37:47 -
[190] - Quote
The main problem with teams is that they never appear in the system i do Industry in. Let the teams be hired from say 5 systems away and then we can use them. I'm not moving my whole industry setup 2 systems away to where the teams are. |
|
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
14
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 22:40:05 -
[191] - Quote
Vladdy Tepes wrote:The main problem with teams is that they never appear in the system i do Industry in. Let the teams be hired from say 5 systems away and then we can use them. I'm not moving my whole industry setup 2 systems away to where the teams are.
Hire them to come to you.
Simple. |
Matcha Mosburger
Manu Fortius
Bleak Horizon Alliance.
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 16:30:59 -
[192] - Quote
For me the issue is just scale. Unless you are a Corp or Alliance with a large Indy hub, it's generally not worth it. Most teams that provide useful bonuses auction for more than the savings they would yield for most single player manufacturers.
The problem is if you make the bonus bigger, it makes Teams mandatory for some times, but will also just drive the Auction cost up which makes a negative feedback loop for profit margins of anyone but large Bloc manufacturing hubs (blue donut). Going the opposite way you'd have to cap the price to keep them low enough to be usual for many players, which basically turns the system into a "buy out" your team as soon as it spawns game.
Unfortunately I have no solutions or ideas on how to balance the feature that would/could lead to more player usage. I think the low numbers seen no are because teams are out of the reach of most solo or small corp manufacturing, either by price of auction, or number of runs needed to make it useful - so no one uses them.
I don't see a reason to remove them per say, as they work just fine. However, since they are not used as often as intended and CCP wants to fix them. I am very glad that they are just removing it now before it becomes more ingrained. I think they are right in their assertion that this will make it easier to fix later since they wont be stuck with legacy system/code. |
Jon Rackham
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 17:55:06 -
[193] - Quote
Perhaps if I better understood the intended purpose of teams I would have a better sense of why they aren't fulfilling that purpose.
For my part, I use them a lot. Mind you I never actually bid on them, but I've actually enjoyed jumping a couple of extra systems away from Jita to get that 2.5% savings on a big job. I feel it makes medium scale indy a lot more interesting.
That said, I can understand why only a narrow group of players are using them (like me). Industry dabblers aren't going to worry about teams because they don't want to bother learning the system and they get very little benefit, and that's fine. Really large scale industrial corps aren't going to worry about teams because it's too much of a hassle to relocate 10B ISK of industry to get a slight increase, and that's fine too.
Anyway, I'll be sorry to see them go. It'll make my supply chain a lot easier to manage, but I'm not sure that's going to be as much fun. 
Edited: Yes, every single time saving bonus is pointless. |
Chisa May
All-Out
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 19:12:40 -
[194] - Quote
As a new player that hasn't really delved into Industry yet, I'm a bit worried that features are being removed from the game rather than added...
Does it signal a plan on dumbing down the game to make it easier for new players like me to get into?
That's really unattractive. I'm drawn to Eve because of its complexity! |
ashton conners
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.18 22:37:29 -
[195] - Quote
I might have a heart attack... First the skills training change then the clone change now the removal of a feature... I can't say I'm all that disappointed. In fact I think I'll take this opertunity to say THANK YOU! Finally tackling some of the issues with EVE. Good or bad things are changing. I know I appriciated the lift on the 24 hour skill limit and the change to clones I'm neutral to. On one hand it takes away the death without a proper clone penalty. On the other it saves people loads of wasted time if they are poded with a less than optimal sp clone at the ready. Now the removal of a feature is ultra rare but I never knew anyone that used it anyway and I myself like the idea of teams for indy but there are loads more improvments that can make the game more immersive and diverse than teams. I'm just glad to see CCP finally taking some bold steps to improve the game.
Your doing GREAT! Fix the nightmare texture please with the new PBR lighting it looks a bit dull. The ishkur on the other hand is so shiny I think I can see my reflection while I'm sitting at my computer, I love it. Thank you for Thera by the way.
Chisa May,
Don't worry industry will still be plenty complex for you to tackle without teams. As for the other stuff to me those are huge changes which help EVE overall. Some features have been dumbed down a bit yes but those that have been dumbed down were things that really shouldn't be that complex to begin with. The market is hugly complex, null sec and all the things that go with that are complex, ship fitting (provided you don't use a site to get fits from) is complex just to name a few. The initiative from CCP to add ships recently has been amazing and very sorly needed. With every ship pvp, pve, and all things in between become more complex and fun to play with. So don't worry EVE will continue to be a complex game with plenty of content to keep you intrested for a long period of time. Remember if you ever get board in high sec just come to NULL! |
Captain Zorg
Capitoline Research and Development
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 00:09:24 -
[196] - Quote
I have three or four income streams going at one time. To maximise my profits I use a POS and set myself up in a pretty empty system.
I have never found teams to be relevant to what I am doing in a meaningful way. If the profit gain was significant then fair enough, but it isn't ever going to be under the current system.
I make money without the hassle. Make the hassle worth it. |
Thodir
Ferrous Infernum
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 23:18:35 -
[197] - Quote
I looked at a lot of the responses, and while I have nothing unique to contribute I wanna add in my 2 isk.
For production, if you want to squeeze all the isk that you can out of a job, finding the right team for what you want and hauling all the goods can be a pain in the ass. For research, I lamented that most of the teams I found for what I was researching gave a measly 1% to this or 2% to that, and the say 20% to frigate research time (with another 5% to small class) was so rare that I briefly considered buying up a few frigate BPOs just to research them with the bonuses.
My two cents is thus-
Increase the 1% and 2% to a minimum of 5%. That's how skills work, that's how higher meta/tier modules work, and that's how so many other things work. If you don't have Skill V, and only have skill IV, the higher meta this or that will make up for it, and give the equivalent of an extra level of skill cooked into its bonuses.
With the difference between 28d 14 hours and 28d 1 hour is significant (I get that done a whole half a day earlier), it doesn't FEEL significant. Moreover, if it would finish in the dead of night while I'm sleeping... we're back to Old Legacy (TM) skill queues from way back when. Set alarm for 1AM.
The 1-2% bonus for 10% extra isk never feels worth it, and I think the reason that nobody uses it is because they know that. They did the napkin math and it's going to negatively impact their bottom line.
For chartered teams, I haven't looked into it much but I keep seeing sniping issues. Get it 1 second before it closes and you win. Same deal as above- set alarm for 2AM.
I'm seeing the problem that the teams only seem to be set towards medium size industry applications that can get a profit out of the 2.5% savings, but not so big that relocating assets would run the risk of being shot. Too small, and the savings is too miniscule. Too big, and they already own POSes anyway.
I suggest a larger range (not just system or station, but perhaps 1-4 jumps) and bigger base bonus. Bring up the 20%s more often! |
Thodir
Ferrous Infernum
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 23:20:15 -
[198] - Quote
Chisa May wrote:As a new player that hasn't really delved into Industry yet, I'm a bit worried that features are being removed from the game rather than added...
Does it signal a plan on dumbing down the game to make it easier for new players like me to get into?
That's really unattractive. I'm drawn to Eve because of its complexity!
Not really. I think it was because the feature in and of itself was used so rarely that it wasn't worth the dev time and programming time. less than 5% of people used teams for research, and a lot of people had issues with charters expiring EXACTLY at 4:14, and if you're not on in the last 3 seconds to swoop in and bid, you're screwed. |
Jon Rackham
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 23:51:54 -
[199] - Quote
Thodir wrote:
I'm seeing the problem that the teams only seem to be set towards medium size industry applications that can get a profit out of the 2.5% savings, but not so big that relocating assets would run the risk of being shot. Too small, and the savings is too miniscule. Too big, and they already own POSes anyway.
Although I don't consider myself an expert, this is exactly what I see as the biggest problem with teams as currently implemented.
Unfortunately, I am a medium scale industrialist, so I will miss teams terribly.
Another problem is the same issue of false choice that is being addressed with named modules now. Hardly anyone is going to use 0.5-1.5% savings teams, and it's really tough to sort through all of the trash teams to find the decent 2.0-7.5% savings opportunities. (Yes, I know that 7.5% savings teams are really 7.375% savings teams)
|
Soltes
Nullsec Logistics
10
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 20:54:24 -
[200] - Quote
Well.. I'm a pretty new manufacturer, with teams my spreadsheet tells me I was making 1130m / month. Probably peanuts to a lot of people on these forums, but I was a bit liquidity starved.
Without teams (and this is the only difference), profit dropped from 1130m / month down to 352m / month. I had only spent about 20 mill on teams and that was factored into the quoted 1130m.
I've no doubt the 352m / month will start to increase a bit after prices stabilise, but I don't expect to see anything close to the 1b+ mark again. So for now I'm packing up. Maybe I'll start things up again if I get a larger working capital or if prices change more than I expected them to, but right now it's simply not worth the time/risk invested. |
|
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 23:07:34 -
[201] - Quote
I like the near complete lack of dev responses outside of what, a single post saying "we are doing this cause Reasons".
They say they were being removed because of issues (most of which were present during testing and ignored, as per CCP's usual testing and feedback policy one can presume) as well as due to lack of use.
But what CCP never comes out to say, did they try to find out why they weren't being used? Seems that should have been a first step in this process, to find out why people weren't using teams. But in none of these posts/blogs/threads did they ever say they found out why people weren't using them.
They should have found out why people weren't using them and then made appropriate tweaks while the code was still fresh in developers minds. Did the change improve frequency of use, yes/no? Ok, try making more of change or change something else, etc etc.
"CCP Fozzie expressed that the desire was to make it easier to use the current system so that they can get more targeted feedback for any actual changes the underling system needs." - I believe that was direct at ship skins in the CSM minutes.
Sounds like something they should have applied to Teams as well. You know, inform people about them and make them easier to understand and interact with so that actual and more directly helpful feedback for the core feature itself can be gathered. Instead of just tossing them up as a new tab on a freshly redesigned window with very little information about how to use them.
How about they apply this type of development style to CQ, it didn't get the response they wanted, hasn't been improved, so why not just remove that feature entirely as well?
Further, they never updated their plan for fixing the things that they broke when they put teams in with the promise of more teams to fix them? Like T2 invention among others... Teams were supposed to fix what they admitted to breaking with Invention, so now that teams won't be fixing that, what will? |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
159
|
Posted - 2015.02.19 19:10:53 -
[202] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:I like the near complete lack of dev responses outside of what, a single post saying "we are doing this cause Reasons".
They say they were being removed because of issues (most of which were present during testing and ignored, as per CCP's usual testing and feedback policy one can presume) as well as due to lack of use.
But what CCP never comes out to say, did they try to find out why they weren't being used? Seems that should have been a first step in this process, to find out why people weren't using teams. But in none of these posts/blogs/threads did they ever say they found out why people weren't using them.
They should have found out why people weren't using them and then made appropriate tweaks while the code was still fresh in developers minds. Did the change improve frequency of use, yes/no? Ok, try making more of change or change something else, etc etc.
"CCP Fozzie expressed that the desire was to make it easier to use the current system so that they can get more targeted feedback for any actual changes the underling system needs." - I believe that was direct at ship skins in the CSM minutes.
Sounds like something they should have applied to Teams as well. You know, inform people about them and make them easier to understand and interact with so that actual and more directly helpful feedback for the core feature itself can be gathered. Instead of just tossing them up as a new tab on a freshly redesigned window with very little information about how to use them.
How about they apply this type of development style to CQ, it didn't get the response they wanted, hasn't been improved, so why not just remove that feature entirely as well?
Further, they never updated their plan for fixing the things that they broke when they put teams in with the promise of more teams to fix them? Like T2 invention among others... Teams were supposed to fix what they admitted to breaking with Invention, so now that teams won't be fixing that, what will?
***CRICKETS*************
Greyscale's Ghost is laughing his behind off at us right now. |
Calvin Broadus
Georgia Department of Transportation
Eve Engineering
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 14:10:38 -
[203] - Quote
too many half-arsed features already.
why they keep adding the new stuff instead of just fixing what aint been fixed, needed fixing, for so ruddy long.
walking in stations, anyone?
first-person cockpit view?
corp interface?
alliance pos access?
give me back my drones. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4957
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 18:16:41 -
[204] - Quote
Calvin Broadus wrote:too many half-arsed features already.
why they keep adding the new stuff instead of just fixing what aint been fixed, needed fixing, for so ruddy long.
walking in stations, anyone?
first-person cockpit view?
corp interface?
alliance pos access?
give me back my drones.
You know that the corp interface is being updated, right?
And that you're not in a cockpit, but in a hydrostatic pod?
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Jon Dekker
Dekker Corporation
37
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 21:13:01 -
[205] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Calvin Broadus wrote:too many half-arsed features already.
why they keep adding the new stuff instead of just fixing what aint been fixed, needed fixing, for so ruddy long.
walking in stations, anyone?
first-person cockpit view?
corp interface?
alliance pos access?
give me back my drones. You know that the corp interface is being updated, right? And that you're not in a cockpit, but in a hydrostatic pod?
I'd love to be able to walk around a ship and explore, or chat with NPC crew members, but I doubt CCP would be willing to spend the $100k plus it would take to implement that.
Still though, being stuck in a hydrostatic pod seems a bit lame considering Dust & Valkyrie get to walk around like normal people. It might be cool to see your avatar change into a pod suit and climb into it when you exit the station, and then the pod can be transferred to your ship (you can of course skip this sequence, or disable it entirely), and a "inside pod" view were possible, where it shows you a HUD with controls and a wide angle view of your surroundings as if you were inside a cockpit. That would be sick.
Same goes for docking animations and transitions - I really think that CCP should look into adding those. Modular hangars too, where you can walk around, and see all of your ships lined up in actual size. Tech bots working, and other NPC techs doing stuff.
Not only would this give some life, but would also reduce server load when people are watching cutscenes, because while many might skip the scene, I'm sure that many still would watch them each time.
Adding camera angles to switch between (think Grand Theft Auto, with a cinematic camera) would be awesome.
I can't wait to see what they do with the dynamic loading, when they don't need to bundle everything up with the client, and it's all loaded on-demand. It will really open up the content that they can include I think.
Yes, I know Andi said that WIS was off the table, but I think they should still work on it secretly, and when a foundation is ready, launch it, and then iterate on it adding more things in each release. |
Jon Dekker
Dekker Corporation
37
|
Posted - 2015.02.21 21:20:48 -
[206] - Quote
Whoops, sorry I realized after I posted the above that this thread is actually discussing industry teams. My bad! :) |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers
Project Wildfire
399
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:42:46 -
[207] - Quote
Why is this even still a sticky since they were just removed anyway?
my teapot is ready
|
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID
Takahashi Alliance
886
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 09:43:07 -
[208] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Calvin Broadus wrote:too many half-arsed features already.
why they keep adding the new stuff instead of just fixing what aint been fixed, needed fixing, for so ruddy long.
walking in stations, anyone?
first-person cockpit view?
corp interface?
alliance pos access?
give me back my drones. You know that the corp interface is being updated, right? And that you're not in a cockpit, but in a hydrostatic pod?
Also, given the scale of the ships we fly, the majority of said ships would have a Bridge, not a cockpit - and probably do because there are still some crew in many ships, even with a capsuleer in command.
Friends
|
Calvin Broadus
Georgia Department of Transportation
Eve Engineering
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 00:06:43 -
[209] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Calvin Broadus wrote:too many half-arsed features already.
why they keep adding the new stuff instead of just fixing what aint been fixed, needed fixing, for so ruddy long.
walking in stations, anyone?
first-person cockpit view?
corp interface?
alliance pos access?
give me back my drones. You know that the corp interface is being updated, right? And that you're not in a cockpit, but in a hydrostatic pod?
It's always being updated. Nothing really gets fixed.
And why, at this point, can I not allow alliance members to use my pos labs and factories?
Pod, bridge, whatever. Give me a forward view from a cockpit or center bridge position. Let me FLY the ship, not this lame steering thing they added.
|
miguel Manjarrez
RREZ
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 23:09:02 -
[210] - Quote
Allow work Teams to be available to the industrialist that has a need for them . Taking them out is taking an aspect of the game that is an interesting game part. That needs some polish to make it alluring to the Eve community. They only need a few things that might make players take a second look. If not allow them to be sold to the players that have use for them. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |