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 betterAs 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;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
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
|
|
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS.
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:08:43 -
[31] - Quote
So we're removing this not-used, not functioning as intended, feature but we're leaving the abomination that is captains quarters in, with no updates in 2 years now? That makes perfect sense.
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.-á He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
|
Dunamis55
NER Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:09:10 -
[32] - Quote
For me personally, I like the idea of teams as a conceptual idea, but I found the whole auction system a huge turn-off.
I've never felt the need to attempt to bid, simply because I knew that I'd probably be outbid at the last minute. |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
78
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:14:29 -
[33] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:So a few general topics people are hitting on here: Just do X or add Y to make them betterAs 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;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
When you added the build teams at the same time you increased the material requirements on capitals and supercapitals which is all well and good but since you're removing teams again now does it mean you'll revisit build requirements because thats a huge hit.. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1349
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:17:29 -
[34] - Quote
The auction mechanism could REALLY use a re-think, also I think the teams selection is split up into a few desirable, and a whole heap of undesirable teams, with those who bother to use them only going after the good ones. With the other ones, people who would use them cant be bothered with the 7 day auction period, or understanding the savings.
Turning the auction system into a closed auction, where no-one can see any bids except the bid they specifically have placed in systems for a team would completely eliminate the sniping. You'd put up what you are willing to pay. If someone else was willing to pay more, you wouldn't get the team, so you'd put up what it was worth to you, or risk not getting it trying to save a dime. I'd also shorten the auction period to 3 days =/ |
Tarpedo
Incursionista
1426
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:17:29 -
[35] - Quote
Could you, please, somehow remove the scanning mini-game too? I bet almost nobody would play it if it was optional. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
282
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:17:29 -
[36] - Quote
Biggest problems with Teams for me was that you had no way to see on which teams you had bid and on which of those bids you where outbid. It made Teams such a hassle to use that acquiring them isn't worth the effort.
Baddest poster ever
|
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1349
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:18:56 -
[37] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:
When you added the build teams at the same time you increased the material requirements on capitals and supercapitals which is all well and good but since you're removing teams again now does it mean you'll revisit build requirements because thats a huge hit..
Slight mistake here. When CCP added build teams, at the same time they increased the amount of minerals you can get from a unit of ore. The increase in capital mineral usage I believe was to help offset this increased mineral supply, not the addition of teams. |
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
81
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:22:44 -
[38] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:It seems to me like convoluted system that'll do very little in the end. Hah, called it. |
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company Galactic Skyfleet Empire
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:24:05 -
[39] - Quote
Tarpedo wrote:Could you, please, somehow remove the scanning mini-game too? I bet almost nobody would play it if it was optional.
Also please remove all NPCs from sites - I bet almost nobody would fight them if he could just scoop up the loot instead. |
The Ironfist
Nordbot Capitals Northern Associates.
78
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:26:55 -
[40] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:The Ironfist wrote:
When you added the build teams at the same time you increased the material requirements on capitals and supercapitals which is all well and good but since you're removing teams again now does it mean you'll revisit build requirements because thats a huge hit..
Slight mistake here. When CCP added build teams, at the same time they increased the amount of minerals you can get from a unit of ore. The increase in capital mineral usage I believe was to help offset this increased mineral supply, not the addition of teams.
You only get more now if you got a Tier2 or Tier3 Minmatar outpost so thats a really wired justification. Highec refine you actually get LESS now.. Lowsec POS you get the same you used too.... |
|
Calorn Marthor
Standard Fuel Company Galactic Skyfleet Empire
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:30:08 -
[41] - 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
meh...
Can't you just put the thing on kickstarter? Other people even manage to sell features for nonexistant games there.
(on a more serious note: I like the feature even as it is, but I would not unsub if it went away and you promise that it makes the rest of the development significantly easier) |
Makhpella
Temet Nosce Ex Astra
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:30:44 -
[42] - Quote
If you remove teams then there will be no depth in industry. Its going to be plain and stupid. |
Kolb
Novaku Inc Novaku Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:32:32 -
[43] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote: 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.
That's exactly (and freakishly nearly verbatim) what my thought is on this. |
TeeKay Latef
Birds of Steel Codex Aevum
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:32:56 -
[44] - Quote
Sad to see it go, but it was flawed in many ways. I just hope they bring Teams back someday...
The thing that was most annoying for me, was i couldnt use them remotely. If they ever come back add an "Project Management" Skill, with prequesite Advanced Industry V maybe. 2 Jumps per level to invite teams to your system. Or make them actual in game items, so you can trade them and ship them around. my2 cents |
Kel hound
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
113
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:35:40 -
[45] - Quote
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
- Leave them as is (yes it would be cool to do X or Y, but realistically we cannot)
- Remove them
Would removing teams potentially help alleviate some of the lag associated with using the industry window? I know of some capital producers that use teams so I think keeping them could hold some value. However aside from a few nich cases I don't think anyone will be truly sorry to see them go. Pitty, but a cool idea improperly or inadequately implemented is really just a meh net feature. I'm curious how far onto the back-burner Teams is being thrown though. Are we talking a few development cycles, a few dozen development cycles, or a period of time yet to be determined? |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:37:10 -
[46] - Quote
There are limitations of the current team mechanics, but it's not fundamentally flawed.. leave them as is if it's not that much extra effort to maintain, maybe?
You'll also probably find that some kinds of teams are used (high value item, high % difference), and others are not. As others have mentioned, this is probably an indication that the initial scope was too wide.
Having said that, I won't miss them if they're done. They were just another unnecessary level of complexity. |
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace Unsettled.
171
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:38:33 -
[47] - Quote
It's a nice feature and shame if it will be just disabled like this.
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
393
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:40:47 -
[48] - Quote
If you investigated the issue, what did you find? What is it that keeps people from using teams?
(My guess would be that it's mostly UI related) |
BoBoZoBo
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
502
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:45:02 -
[49] - 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.
What is sad, is that a admittedly 1/2 baked feature made it into the game.
But sometimes you have to try things to know better and Kudos to CCP on recognizing the reasonable player disenfranchisement of it, and removing it until a better implementation of the goal gets fully baked.
Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite
|
Nyjil Lizaru
Aideron Robotics
34
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:47:44 -
[50] - Quote
Teams seemed like a nice idea, and I did look into them occasionally. But they added just a little bit too much complexity for my tastes - though I admit to being a rather casual industrialist.
Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law: -á "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity."
|
|
Macker Momo
The Big Moe
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:51:19 -
[51] - 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.
Yes. At this point teams benefit only a select few. Good luck with the revamp.
Eve releases are coming so quickly, I had to start wearing a seat belt.
|
Valterra Craven
406
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:51:26 -
[52] - Quote
I think removing something in game that is working but not used very much is an ill conceived idea and sets a very bad precedent for the future. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:52:58 -
[53] - Quote
Damn I loved my teams. Will be sad to see them go. It was very good for ship production. I have to admit that I did not use them often for module production, but module production is usually an on the spur of the momemnt thing and the delay in aquiring teams makes that kinda hard.
But yeah for capital ships there was some real competition going on getting teams as they would save you alot of money. Also it fucks up my spreadsheets not having teams, that is annoying :( |
Beaver Retriever
Reality Sequence
234
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:10:59 -
[54] - Quote
There is no reason to remove teams. All you need to do is to fix the auction mechanic so that additional bids extend the auction time. Sniping makes competing for teams a complete crapshoot.
Fix auctions, don't just remove a feature because it didn't work the way you wanted to.
If the rest of the dev team followed this logic, there wouldn't be much Eve left.
I look forward to the post announcing the removal of POSes, PI and sentry drones since those have remained unfixed for years. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2578
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:16:45 -
[55] - Quote
I have two major gripes with teams them selves. 1. There scope it too large, a team with a 2% reduction to TE should effect all time related factors of the blueprint, not just one sub portion. 2. The public aspect of them after you win a bid makes them less personal and therefore less desirable to bid on from the start.
Bid sniping is a problem but not as much of a deal breaker as these two. |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1350
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:17:39 -
[56] - Quote
The Ironfist wrote:Arronicus wrote:The Ironfist wrote:
When you added the build teams at the same time you increased the material requirements on capitals and supercapitals which is all well and good but since you're removing teams again now does it mean you'll revisit build requirements because thats a huge hit..
Slight mistake here. When CCP added build teams, at the same time they increased the amount of minerals you can get from a unit of ore. The increase in capital mineral usage I believe was to help offset this increased mineral supply, not the addition of teams. You only get more now if you got a Tier2 or Tier3 Minmatar outpost so thats a really wired justification. Highec refine you actually get LESS now.. Lowsec POS you get the same you used too....
No.
From http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/reprocess-all-the-things/
"Decreasing reprocessing efficiency as a whole affects the outcome of mining, which really doesnGÇÖt need to be nerfed right now. As such, to keep ratio fairly identical, we are going to boost all minerals and ice products gained by reprocessing ores and ices approximately by 38.1% (1/0.724)."
Perfect highsec STATION refine is 0.72358, so the moment you use a highsec pos to refine, you get more than you did before, let alone using a null/lowsec pos, or ANY upgraded nullsec outpost. |
Mara Kell
Herrscher der Zeit Test Alliance Please Ignore
34
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:20:48 -
[57] - Quote
Thank god this "feature" gets removed.
Those teams were one of the reason that made me stop any industrial production since Crius. Complexity is the reason why i still play and love this game, but teams did not add complexity they added randomness and unpredictability.
Now that teams will finally rip, can we maybe have a second look at rounding of material input numbers and the ME formula? The new Crius formula still gives irrational results for researched capital ship blue prints. |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
328
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:24:56 -
[58] - Quote
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:
Problems I see with them;
* Large number of utterly worthless teams (1% off building probes. CCP plz), so if your metric is related to how many of the teams are a month make me piles of ISK)
* You generally overestimate how useful a time bonus is. I don't care if the job takes 2d 15 hours or 2d 13 hours really... Now if the job takes 1d 15h instead of 2d 15h, I'm interested...
* 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.
* Terrible auction system. No sniping rules whatsoever. Look at online auction sites and learn something before implementing.
I am not kidding, I literally just looked at teams last night for the first time ever and noticed these issues right away. So mamy slills already give bonuses to build time, another 2-3 hours is meaningless to me. I get to play around the same time every day from r a few hours. Any bonus that shrinks something by less than 24 hours is meaningless to me. It will still be done by the next time I log in either way.
I hoped that since you guys are now shafting us so much on recoverable minerals that there would have been larger bonuses to material costs. But even though I haven't done the math it doesn't look like the current team material bonuses are worth the cost of the team. The margins are so low I cant see it being worth it unless you are making hundreds or thousands of units. What is the point of saving money on materials if you spend it on a team instead and get your goods 2 hours earlier?
The auction system appears worthless as well. I am not setting an alarm to wake up and hire one. |
Ereshgikal
Pigs and Sows Tactical Narcotics Team
47
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:27:22 -
[59] - Quote
I've used teams once or twice since I am a very casual industrialist. However, I love the complexity the teams brought in and have set up the proper spreadsheets/tools to find out where I would break even on a team in terms of units produced. To me, making tools is more fun than doing the industry in-game.
Please, leave the teams in and revisit the existing flaws later when resources allow for it. If you remove it the cost of re-introducing it will be much higher and take more energy from you and the community since I bet the developer when that happens wants to leave "their mark" on the feature...meaning additional costs.
To those that find teams too complex to use, the margin you do gain from using teams is not insignificant but they are not a necessity to use to be able to make a profit. You can continue to ignore the teams.
I view teams as a faction/officer mod of industry. It is horribly expensive and you better know when/how to use it. I see no one calling for the removal of "worthless" officer mods. Ok, analogy might be a bit flawed, but it is close to how I view it. |
THOR LIGHTING
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:32:21 -
[60] - Quote
I understand the issues with teams not being used as much as expected and perhaps adding a bit more complexity to a already complex industry but isnt there a better way to deal with this other than just removing them?
I am a low sec capital builder. With Crius launching many low sec capital builders sold all their assets and moved on because of the rather large buff to capital building that null sec was getting. In order to compete with this CCP launched the Thukker array which reduced the materials needed and time. Which was great it had its intended affect but the truth is that in null sec you can build a dread at similar cost and take 4-5 days what takes me 12 days to build in low sec.
Teams greatly reduced this for me. I am building on average 30 dreads per month. If i won a 2.5% ME reduction to capital components team along with a 2.5-5% ME reduction Dread/carrier/capital hull building team I could reduce the price of building a dread by almost 150 mil. On average the teams were saving me 4.5bil isk in materials a month. I loved them and would set timers on my phone so that i would be active and ready to bid when good teams when they became available.
For low sec capital builders teams are a HUGE difference so please don't forget about us as we've already been gimped |
|
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... |
|
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. |
|
Silenar
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:15:27 -
[121] - Quote
I actually enjoy teams, but it's situational that they're actually useful. The 0.5% and 1% ME cap building teams can trim off a bunch of parts due to how rounding works with materials. Likewise, discounts affecting things built in large quantities, such as fuel blocks or cap parts, are great.
Other teams, such as drone teams, for example, are terrible. Because of how ME is calculated, a 2% material reduction doesn't actually result in a 2% reduction in cost for T2 drones, and 2% off of T1 drones means that to make enough off of the team to justify paying the *minimum* bid you'd have to create a few months sales worth of T1 drones.
I don't think the problem with teams not being used that CCP is seeing is because teams in general are bad, its because the majority of team types aren't worth it. And industry guys, more than almost anyone else in eve, are looking at the bottom line. If it doesn't turn me a profit, why bother with it?
|
Sharon Tate
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 03:02:39 -
[122] - Quote
Not sorry to see them go to be honest:
- Auction system is terrible - Way too many useless teams.
Yeah, I could factor in what was worth it vs what wasn't, but to be honest, for the stuff I build, most of the time the gains were minimal. I never bothered with TE bonus teams because if I kick off a build before bedtime, what's the difference if it finishes 2 hours before I wake up or hour? I'm still asleep...
Edit: To be honest, I'd rather see dev efforts thrown in to fixing the buggy industry UI. It's slow, buggy, and while infinitely easier to use than the old Industry UI, could use a lot of improvement. |
Sharon Tate
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 03:09:52 -
[123] - Quote
Also... I think one problem with teams is that they're probably best used when figuring out what's most profitable to build, versus how they might actually be used.
For example, I'll use various tools and so on to figure out what I want to be building. I don't factor teams into this (unless in the rare case there happens to be one in system). Once I have the item figured out, then I'll go look for a team.
This is where the auction sucks. If I don't find a team available in the next couple of hours, I move on. I might look again if I remember. Maybe it's because the auction interface is terrible. Who knows.
Why not do it the other way? Find a really good team and then find something to build with it? Effort, to be honest. If you figure isk per hour of effort, figuring teams adds way too much effort. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S Northern Associates.
356
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 03:29:52 -
[124] - Quote
Given the large post count on this thread it seems that my earlier thread should have been posted to S&I instead F&ID https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5234185
Caldari 5 wrote:Was chatting at Eve Down Under with CCP Rise about this.
Apparently Teams aren't being used enough on Jobs
So here's a couple of Ideas to add to it: - Increase the number of low level Teams, like the 0.5% and 1.0% Improvement Teams.
- Change the way bids are placed to an option to Auto Bid style where you set a max that you are willing to put in and the bids put in auto bid against each other in increments till there is a winner, have this happen when the team is at final stage of bidding, giving a nerf to the snipping that happens atm.
Caldari 5 wrote:Was waiting for the flight home and thought of a different solution to the Sniping issue, if the Auction has less than 30min remaining and a bid it made, increase the time remaining to 1hour (Time frames used are just an indicator to the main idea)
I still haven't read the entire thread, But I have read the Blue posts.
As a though I wonder how many people are "Casual Industrialists" verses "Hardcore Industrialists" and the usage of Team based on that. Because a casual guy might only use a team if it is already in system because they aren't planning ahead of what they are manufacturing or researching, whereas the hardcore guy would. I know that I probably tend toward the casual side on manufacturing and towards the hardcore guy on research.
Not to mention the teams that rarely get bid on eg time reduction teams for manufacture(these teams rarely have any effect on the casual guy) |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
316
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 04:15:33 -
[125] - Quote
I would say keep them in game as they are, with a disclaimer that they won't be improved any time soon (expect maybe do a few improvements to the bid system). Some people use teams, and they get a small benefit from it. Most people don't, and obviously won't be affected either way. Removing them negatively impacts some players while does not impact most, while keeping them in game positively impacts a few players while does not impact most... I, for instance, use teams on a few specific items I manufacture. So unless you can point to specific harms that would be created by keeping teams that outweigh the benefit of the player base that uses them, there's no good reason to remove them. |
Talsha Talamar
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 04:28:01 -
[126] - Quote
Teams are actually essential for ship invention to be reasonably profitable. Without teams many ships sit well below 200k isk/h per slot.
The main problem with teams is how the auctioning was implemented. Acquiring teams is not only a question of having the means to buy them. It requires the player to adapt his real life to the auction cycles. That goes a bit far.
Another problem is that it is impossible to analyze the teams and their availability in game without going through every single entry.
If teams are just removed, ship prices will probably go up by quite a bit.
Also with slots being universally available, teams are one of the few variables that allow a dedicated industrialist to get an edge over his casual competition.
Improve the auctioning System or remove it, but keep the teams.
Suggestion It is rather late night here, but allow me to sketch out an idea:
The number of Teams is reduced to a couple of dozens, Teams are ad-dons that can be attached to a system for a minimum of 4 weeks by paying a fee.
The fee is based on a prediction of the profits the could would create for its specific basket of products. So the fee will be a relevant amount of money.
Example: A team for HACs results in average reduced costs of 5 mio ISK per Slot/Day. For one Character with 10 Slots over 30 days that amounts to 1,5 Billion ISK. The Fee to hire that team is then set to a reasonable percentage of that amount, factoring in variables like underproduction because of the impact of real life on slot management. The percentage should still be high enough, that disruption of production would result in a meaningful loss of investment. If we assume that percentage is 30%, then the Fee for hiring said team for 4 weeks would be 450 Million ISK.
Each team has a basis range of stats, that are modified randomly to a certain degree after they are hired. The type and quality of the base stats, the fee and the potential range of the random modification define the individual teams.
The map shows where teams exist. Everyone in a system can use the teams present.
This idea allows dedicated industrialists to invest money into the creation of production centers that give them a competitive advantage. It creates a topography of loci of production in the game world. The random modification of the base stats provides competitive momentum between the production centers. It ensures that your investment is worth it, but prevents one from always having the best. The fact that everyone in a system can use the teams creates opportunities for economic cooperation: If you hire team A, I will hire team B ... A production center with lots of money invested in teams, becomes not only more efficient but also more vulnerable. Since a meaningful amount of money is invested any disruption of production actually costs the industrialist money. Waging war and defending ones investment become actually part of industrial life.
|
stummerman
WOLIMAZO INC Northern Associates.
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 07:15:25 -
[127] - Quote
The idea of teams wasn't bad but its came at the wrong time.
Their introduction came when there was so much change that production has been turned upside down.
Some teams are useless because the items they modify currently sell for less than their mineral costs so not point building said item.
Markets were totally screwed overnight and it will take many months still for them to resettle. Because of this , many industrialists ceased all production.
Right now many new and continuing Industrialist will not invest time in non profitable production which is why they are not used.
Last minute sniping is the only way to secure a useful team.
If you want people to bid on a team, use a secret ballot bid system so when the time is up, all bids are revealed.
Will eliminate sniping.
Whether you remove them or amend, it will take a long time for markets to adjust due to stock piled items from rich market manipulators and windfall T2 bpc owners. |
BugraT WarheaD
147
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 08:00:22 -
[128] - Quote
Man that's such a shame.
Yes the feature certainly need change, but it isn't broken and doesn't need complete removal.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
157
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 10:38:57 -
[129] - Quote
The heavy industry players who are bidding billions to save even more billions, are probably few in number, compared to the amount of explanation required to new players & small producers - to help them understand the feature, and discover their personal savings might not be enough to justify the work involved in hauling materials to where the better teams are installed. |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 13:13:53 -
[130] - 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.
I thought that was CCP's philosophy.....as a number of "features" are in a half working state. |
|
J3ST3R
Dark Light Inc Caretakers
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:08:36 -
[131] - Quote
Great so now with it off the table Your team can now work on "bulk corp votes for locking and unlocking bpo's" |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
62
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:08:30 -
[132] - Quote
Aww. I had just finished writing an Android app to automatically set up alarms for my team-sniping needs. It's a bit surprising to hear the part about single-figure percentage use in manufacturing though, when my personal profit margin consists of pretty much just team bonuses. |
Ydnari
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
391
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:21:32 -
[133] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:Aww. I had just finished writing an Android app to automatically set up alarms for my team-sniping needs. It's a bit surprising to hear the part about single-figure percentage use in manufacturing though, when my personal profit margin consists of pretty much just team bonuses. I put some development effort into writing a web-based tracker too based on the CREST API data, it's a bit galling that there's a possibility it's going to be wasted effort.
my teapot is ready
|
SJ Astralana
Syncore
78
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:52:34 -
[134] - Quote
Blast. I made 14bil net gain on teams. The only part of the team system that seemed really bad is it let me really put the screws to the small producers, but then I saw a couple small producers get quite large using teams themselves. I liked the market pvp aspect of it. I don't know who operates out of Zatsyaki, but his two 6.5% hull teams stand there like flag with a big f-you emblem.
Hyperdrive your production business: Eve Production Manager
|
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID Takahashi Alliance
875
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:54:54 -
[135] - Quote
I for one am actually fairly happy with Teams.
The only things I would like to see change are as follows:
- Bid Tracking - this needs to be much simpler and intuitive. - Team Ability Sorting - I would like to be able to sort Teams by the type of bonus they give (Material cost or Build time) as well as the bonus amount. - Link Teams to individual 'Facilities' rather than systems - This would include POS's, so if you wanted to personally benefit from a Team, you could hire them to work in your POS, rather than a local station.
On a side note, to encourage the use of POS's for industry, why not apply a bonus for the use of teams in POS manufacturing arrays? Lets say a 33% increase in Team effectiveness?
Friends
|
Sma Zakalwe
Zetetic Ammunition and Kinetic Supplies
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 22:25:35 -
[136] - Quote
WTF? I just won my first team auction, with a decent impact on profit margin... |
oodell
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 23:03:52 -
[137] - Quote
Please reconsider removing this feature.
It's entirely avoidable for people that do not wish to utilize the teams, and super useful for those who wish to add complexity and planning for a small or medium benefit.
|
Sarai Adina
Adult Beverages
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 23:38:56 -
[138] - Quote
Never liked the feature or the concept. Likewise adding additional cost fluctuation over times in the same systems when using POS or station is bothersome.
Both are bad features that make calculation of profit a PIA. Get rid of them and fix the lag and hanging in the industry tool.
Remember the retooling was to reduce complexity on production. In reality, adding dynamic features increases complexity.
Too many half baked ideas and comments coming out of CCP these days. |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
62
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 00:02:24 -
[139] - Quote
Oh wait, I forgot to include this in my original post.
I am frankly appalled by the removal of teams from the game, as this means I will actually have to start caring about the system cost index, which will probably drive me back to running out of 8 POSes instead of 1. How will I put PLEXes on my all of my characters' plates??
From a game design point of view though, it makes absolute sense. Teams were envisioned as one opposing force in a "push and pull" dynamic industrial landscape. Right now they "pull" only a tiny bit, but mostly serve to completely negate the "push" (increased system cost index) by those who actually read the devblog on cost indices and understand how absurd it is to that station modifiers are applied outside the square root.
And though I'm always going to miss the Hyperion days, when the industry UI worked perfectly and I had 40,000 BPCs neatly containered inside a single faction POS, it was pretty ridiculous. At my peak, I estimated myself at ~0.2% of the total number of manufacturing jobs installed in Eve, despite most of those jobs being 24h+. I doubt that's the kind of gameplay you want to encourage.
Edit: #yolo; 1bil to the first person to eve message me the name of the system I operate out of. It should be pretty simple to track down, and I'm curious if anyone actually reading this thread Bragging is fun. |
Juli Paris
The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 06:57:38 -
[140] - Quote
Need blue post to confirm our tears are too great to remove teams. Clearly it's obvious that we don't want you to take them, from feedback here in this thread.
All the suggestions on how to actually fix the problem are great, too. Like fixing the ****** bidding and removing all the ****** teams nobody bothers using etc, while educating and expanding awareness. |
|
Kym Sorenson
Lone Wolf Union Yulai Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 14:19:55 -
[141] - Quote
So because something's only being used by a small community of the game, it's getting removed? When will titans be removed, then? Just because it's not used by everybody doesn't mean it should go. It's been a great boost to nullsec industry and helped us compete with highsec along with the other Crius changes. Plus, bidding is fun! Don't remove it, just leave it alone! |
Tryaz
Improvised Tactics
91
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 14:48:06 -
[142] - Quote
What the Hell! I haven't even had a chance to try these out yet! Just because not everyone is madly spamming them doesn't mean they need removed surely? Why the cold feet CCP? ECM fucks me over less than 10% of the time when I pvp but I don't see you removing that
Oh well, I don't really know enough to comment on teams, just annoyed at the removal of a feature that intrigued me.
Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
|
Tryaz
Improvised Tactics
91
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 14:55:09 -
[143] - Quote
Also, under 10% seems fairly high to me. I don't hear you saying under 10% of miners, or under 10% of pvpers, use links so we're removing them from the game.
PS Please remove links
Narrator of Chronicles of New Eden, the EVE audiobook series. Listen at www.soundcloud.com/chroniclesofneweden
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
3344
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 15:14:56 -
[144] - Quote
If it is not working, why bother removing it before having an alternate plan?
I smell rats. No company spends money and resources undoing what does nothing...
...unless that thing is actually doing something which the company deems so potentially troublesome that they'll rather remove the feature completely before anyone notices what it does.
What's broken with teams, CCP? Maybe there's a gold-doubling glitch...? Maybe something related to EVEs' troublesome relation to integers going beyond a threshold and becoming negative integers? (Real case: it used to be possible to disrupt tracking and effective range below 0 thus becoming negative tracking and distance and that gave the ships 100% tracking over infinite distance...)
That, or some developers have a fragile ego and can't stand to see their brainchild flop day after day after day...
The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
|
Haffsol
30
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 16:16:59 -
[145] - Quote
Teams are a childbirth of a horrible mind. Don't just remove them, let them burn in a fire.
Kudos CCP ;) |
CraZeDnz
Mythic Inc Northern Associates.
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 17:06:08 -
[146] - Quote
Used them once, never used again, Couldn't see a point to them, and the advantage was neg-liable with most jobs.
CraZeD
Kiwi with Atitude.
|
Sturmwolke
595
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 17:22:51 -
[147] - Quote
Good to see it gone. It overcomplicated manufacturing/research that I can honestly say that it wasn't worth the time and effort to bid and/or move towards the successful ones. Waste of time when you take into account the transportation overheads. Neither would you want to stay at the same spot since everything shifts. It's a fail mechanic when put into practice.
It is also a rather lopsided mechanic that favor economies of scale, rather than small and medium enterprises. If you want REAL players to populate this game, you have to give them a reason to exist and be competitive. Think of a mechanic that drives this. Geo location matters very little as the universe will auto-adjust like the market. "Forcing" a geo-location lock (i.e. teams) was possibly the wrong approach in the first place. What may (or may not) work is encouraging agglomeration as organicly as possible via market forces i.e. prices get cheaper the more you manufacture the same stuffs in a particular system. This is attributed by the streamlining of the supply chain by support industries - just like in RL. At a certain point in the scale, it can even be expanded into area or region e.g. the Mobit constellation is known as a famous region for jump freighter construction where a lot of jump freighters gets built - just like in RL e.g. vineyards region in France.
On a different track, while you're still at it, please consider adding a materials tab* to the industry UI. This is a major sore point to possibly most industrialist as you have to hunt down your stocks in the assets list before making any decisions - even before Crius. That's 2 different windows you have to use to access the information 1. Industry 2. Assets/Corp Assets. Since most of the industry work flows have been consolidated under Industry in Crius, it begs the question why this hasn't already been implemented?
* Its aim is to provide an overview of ALL valid manufacturing materials (even a packed ship) and should also be fully customizable to allow players to include/exclude these items if needed.
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
917
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 18:45:20 -
[148] - Quote
Putting it too the level where its beneficial for all ment alot of invested time. So ccp could let it sit there and fade out. Or act in line of gheir current measures, like clone penalty , take it out, and out it back once its at the level that fits cco and players standards.
That time , aftehr a large indie patch, and with the upcmming null sec occupncy levels, isnt available now. So the removal, and the reshuffling of resources that get freed up, makes alot of sense.
Its a disccison made out of choice between stuff that can be done with limited resources. Not one that said the team idea sucks, as ccp stands behind that. |
Tora Bushido
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
1511
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 18:49:45 -
[149] - Quote
Just convert it to mercenary teams.
TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC
YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
|
EMT Holding
EMT Holding Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 18:53:05 -
[150] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Putting it too the level where its beneficial for all ment alot of invested time. So ccp could let it sit there and fade out. Or act in line of gheir current measures, like clone penalty , take it out, and out it back once its at the level that fits cco and players standards.
That time , aftehr a large indie patch, and with the upcmming null sec occupncy levels, isnt available now. So the removal, and the reshuffling of resources that get freed up, makes alot of sense.
Its a disccison made out of choice between stuff that can be done with limited resources. Not one that said the team idea sucks, as ccp stands behind that. Sorry, I do not buy for one minute that it's even remotely similar to clone penalties. No one benefits from clone charges. It is only a negative effect that when used, becomes neutral. Teams have a benefit. There are industrial types around new eden who are making use of them already and they have a positive effect for them. Removing them because they're "not being used enough" is an absurd reason from where I'm sat.
As others have said, what about all the other things that are rarely used also. Should they also be removed? Should ships that aren't used be removed while they're balanced? No and I don't think anyone would agree with that. Leave them in until a better solution is found. There will be some people who like them as they are.
Eve Manufacture Tool - making industry easy
|
|
Juli Paris
The Valhalla Project Boosters and Insurance Ltd.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 18:59:04 -
[151] - Quote
EMT Holding wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Putting it too the level where its beneficial for all ment alot of invested time. So ccp could let it sit there and fade out. Or act in line of gheir current measures, like clone penalty , take it out, and out it back once its at the level that fits cco and players standards.
That time , aftehr a large indie patch, and with the upcmming null sec occupncy levels, isnt available now. So the removal, and the reshuffling of resources that get freed up, makes alot of sense.
Its a disccison made out of choice between stuff that can be done with limited resources. Not one that said the team idea sucks, as ccp stands behind that. Sorry, I do not buy for one minute that it's even remotely similar to clone penalties. No one benefits from clone charges. It is only a negative effect that when used, becomes neutral. Teams have a benefit. There are industrial types around new eden who are making use of them already and they have a positive effect for them. Removing them because they're "not being used enough" is an absurd reason from where I'm sat. As others have said, what about all the other things that are rarely used also. Should they also be removed? Should ships that aren't used be removed while they're balanced? No and I don't think anyone would agree with that. Leave them in until a better solution is found. There will be some people who like them as they are.
I find this argument both absurd (for the above reasons quoted), and, disappointing, because it came from a CSM.
Honestly, get off teams, they are lovely.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
1036
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 20:15:05 -
[152] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Putting it too the level where its beneficial for all ment alot of invested time. So ccp could let it sit there and fade out. Or act in line of gheir current measures, like clone penalty , take it out, and out it back once its at the level that fits cco and players standards.
That time , aftehr a large indie patch, and with the upcmming null sec occupncy levels, isnt available now. So the removal, and the reshuffling of resources that get freed up, makes alot of sense.
Its a disccison made out of choice between stuff that can be done with limited resources. Not one that said the team idea sucks, as ccp stands behind that. Limited resources? Limited resources?! My gosh! Scrap the NES and CCP has more than enough resources to introduce a fully developed feature to the game. What's next going to be introduced to the game in a beta status not labeled as beta? New POS system? New Sov/System Claim system? |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 21:44:07 -
[153] - Quote
So whats happenign to the "Push/Pull effect" of industry that Crius was all about. Now we just have a push effect with Index and no more pull effects to draw people to a place.
Teams are pretty amazing, I dont do that much high sec industry as its mostly in nullsec, But when ever I build in highsec I always looked where what teams are available and what the index is, then compare that to the range from jita and find a nice spot to build. And not beeing afraid to move around when better teams show up in a system with lower Index.
People say its hard to move industry around? Is it really? You use up the minerals and move your bpo's. BPO's are easy to move. The minerals are a pain yes, but you just need to import new ones and use up the old ones at your old location.
Now in the new system all i get to look at is index and that isnt nearly as fun or interesting |
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
491
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 23:45:09 -
[154] - Quote
Great. I've been ignoring teams anyway.
YK |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
62
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 00:53:27 -
[155] - Quote
Firvain wrote:So whats happenign to the "Push/Pull effect" of industry that Crius was all about. Now we just have a push effect with Index and no more pull effects to draw people to a place.
Teams are pretty amazing, I dont do that much high sec industry as its mostly in nullsec, But when ever I build in highsec I always looked where what teams are available and what the index is, then compare that to the range from jita and find a nice spot to build. And not beeing afraid to move around when better teams show up in a system with lower Index.
People say its hard to move industry around? Is it really? You use up the minerals and move your bpo's. BPO's are easy to move. The minerals are a pain yes, but you just need to import new ones and use up the old ones at your old location.
Now in the new system all i get to look at is index and that isnt nearly as fun or interesting
The problem is that in high-sec, teams completely nullify the cost index "push" if you take advantage of station modifiers. For example, you can build as much as you want in Nonni and the cost index will never rise above 4%. Ever. And that's just one example. In contrast, if you build in a stationless system, your cost index quickly rises to 6, 7, eventually 8%.
A 4% cost index turns into a 1% cost index if you have a -2.5% team, which is the worst-case scenario. Teams make it so that large-scale, informed, industrialists don't have to worry about cost index. I'm turning over about 40bil of raw->finished materials per day out of a single POS, at a good profit, and I'm not even running at my peak. That's broken.
A "pull effect" is not the same thing as the complete elimination of any "push effect". |
Burl en Daire
M.O.M.S. Corp
82
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 01:59:08 -
[156] - Quote
I like the idea but never used them.
For me to want to use them I would want them to be more like the manufacturing, research and copying slots. Have each system with a station have unlimited teams in that station but the price to use them go up and effectiveness go down as more and more are employed.
POSs could have a module added that had a certain type or number of team for pilots living out of POSs to use.
TL;DR Treat teams like industry slots and have them cost more based on usage.
Yesterday's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why.
Hunter S. Thompson
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
3978
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 03:48:59 -
[157] - Quote
Sad to see them go, and I definitely want them back once they are iterated upon.
Teams are an excellent source of intel on what is being built and where - information that starts fights in all areas of space. They are also a way of seeding false intel - if you want a rival's strategically important system to be attacked but can't do it yourself, just put a Titan team in there, then seed intel that they are building Titans there.
I will miss using the teams interface to search for good highsec POSes to ransom.
Edit: One issue with them is that the % production time modifiers are underpowered, and the % material cost modifiers are comparitively very powerful. And production is too fast in New Eden in general now so it's not advisable to just dial up the numbers on the % production time teams.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Krevnos
Bert and Ernie's Jihadi Militants Drop the Hammer
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 04:09:32 -
[158] - 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
Hi CCP RubberBAND,
I am actually familiar with the Teams system, but had significant problems using the feature (UI issues, difficulty telling how much you were actually bidding for a team and last second sniping were commonplace). Moreover, the system itself was a little too cumbersome to identify teams which would actually suit the jobs I would be performing, which could take extensive lengths of time in itself.
I'm sorry that the feature didn't work out (it did appear like a great concept on paper), but I'm glad you and your team are able to take the brave step to accept that not every brilliant idea comes to fruition as, perhaps, you had anticipated. But hey, every development cycle will have its ups and downs.
I must say I'm very happy with EvE's development of late. Since the new system of 6-weekly release schedules the game is taking a significant turn in both its focus, and in what is being achieved. The game feels more dynamic and like somebody actually cares about where's it's headed. You're all doing a great job of making EvE an exciting and ever-evolving universe to be our playground. I'm telling you this now because I certainly didn't think this way a few years back in the dark days of Incarna.
Thanks CCP! |
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
188
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 07:57:16 -
[159] - Quote
>>> LoL <<<
so much time spent on revamp and add new features in the industry process. Finally few month later...you plan to only keep the unlimited slots.
good work! keep wasting time!
Keeping active account just to shitpost
there's so many thing to fix in eve.... and they fix forum ! GJ! but ok i like it !
CCP Fozzie : AFK cloaking, however, is an entirely social form of power
|
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1481
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 08:52:23 -
[160] - Quote
Good riddance.
Glad they're on their way out. Unneeded complexity to an already complex feature.
Hope the teams don't get hid by an airlock on their way out. |
|
DoToo Foo
Setenta Corp AL3XAND3R.
37
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 11:38:38 -
[161] - 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.
I disagree about removing things that have a low usage.
If you are removing it to make way for new changes, then great. But if only a few are using it, but it does no harm? Leave it in.
I am one for added complexity and subtlety in decision making, and am somewhat sad to see their loss.
All of that said, I do not use teams, and do not intend to start.
I am nervous enough with leaking information about what I do and where. Teams are like faction mods on POS, a way of screaming 'loot is here'.
I already know what loot I have and where. No need to put up signposts. Teams were signposts
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor The Gorgon Spawn
1591
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 13:34:02 -
[162] - Quote
Here's what I posted when teams were introduced: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4531250#post4531250
Quote:Seems to me like there will be a big free rider problem here. If anyone can use the teams in a system, then why would I ever buy one? I guess because you are competing globally and it only applies to systems, so there is competition there, but I'm not sure people are going to plink down isk to get a benefit - especially if they can get that benefit from someone else's effort.
I'm not sure how this will play out over time. It seems like this will be a very niche benefit for null sec, where you can control who builds what, but in empire I don't get it. Seems like a private or corp/alliance auction system where only you get the benefits if won might be needed but then that will just allow larger entities from pushing out the smaller ones. Keep it open and you have free riders. We'll see I guess.
This will make the market much more dynamic, which i think is great. I was hoping teams was player generated though. Ie cooperative gameplay. This isn't it IMO. It seems like this played out like I thought. I also had issues with the auction system, since it seemed obvious that the sniping effect could happen easily. I'm not sure why you didn't see this coming either.
Ultimately though I am frustrated by this because I feel like this wasn't a well thought out idea but really could have been implemented well. Now I (and others) have spent time using all the 3rd party dev support to update our apps for nothing. While I can understand you wanting to fix it, just turning it off because you can't work on it and don't have the resources is really disappointing. I understand Industry doesn't get the interest from devs (omg PVP rulz!) but you might want to consider how many people do industry that would use teams instead of the actual number of people using them. The demand is there, the implementation is the issue.
The number one issue with teams is the auction system. Sure people will complain about the bonuses but I bet those could be easily updated by adjusting your RNG for what teams it spits out. You could also duplicate bonuses on different teams so more people can get what they want.
Anyway, as others have said, leave in the teams - fix the auction system.
GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
62
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 14:23:49 -
[163] - Quote
Keep teams in the game. Create an authed CREST API endpoint that allows players to bid on teams from outside of the game. 10min cache timer. Extend the deadline of team auctions by 15 minutes every time the highest bid changes from one system to another.
There. You've solved the problem of team sniping. You've solved the problem of team auctions ending when interested parties are asleep. You've done it with minimal coding on your part (though likely not on FoxFour's part). And you no longer have to worry about the state or look, or even existence, of the in-game auction interface. The rich continue to get richer by abusing the flaws inherent in the current system. Everyone's happy. |
Gandralfr
Fot Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 17:35:58 -
[164] - Quote
Why remove somthing that works even thou few people use it ?
By that logic many things shold be removed from the game... |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
225
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 18:10:42 -
[165] - Quote
From Missy_Z in the TMC comments section:
Quote:How about having "teams" be actual teams of players who can all contribute to an industry job, or help it out in some way. Seriously, that would be fun and encourage indy corps. Maybe even make skills to go with it, something where you can only reasonably specialize in one thing to help boost the industry job so it encourages multiple people with different specializations to all go in to really get a boost on a job. I dunno. Something better then "pay for this and get an almost insignificant boost!"
CCP - please consider this. Giving industrialists - and industrial corps - a way to flex their muscles beyond 'we have fleets of miners' is not exactly a bad idea. Where EVE really shines and generates the most buzz is in its cooperative/competitive gameplay. (Let's face it, fleet combat is both.) Bring that to industry, please. |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
62
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 18:12:38 -
[166] - Quote
Apparently this is not actually common knowledge:
[spoiler] Post in removal of teams thread From: Censored Name Sent: 2014.12.07 01:10 To: probag Bear
Hi,
In this thread, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5278623#post5278623 , you state that you can build as much as you want in a station in Nonni and the index would never rise above 4%. I was under the impression that the index was based off the worth of jumps running in that system, regardless of where they are installed. Have I missed something really obvious and you're now going to make me feel stupid?
Re: Post in removal of teams thread From: probag Bear Sent: 2014.12.07 01:42 To: Censored Name
Appendix 2: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-industry-all-you-want-to-know/
Basically, the fact that station modifiers are applied after the square root function is a major flaw. Starting several hundred jobs per day in Nonni would raise the cost index from 2.6% to 3.1%. Doing the same in a dead-end system would raise the cost index from 0% to 4.5%.
Re: Post in removal of teams thread From: Censored Name Sent: 2014.12.07 09:46 To: probag Bear
Well I totally missed that when I read it the first time but I'm not understanding how it "caps" the index at 4%. A station has a 0.95 install cost modifier but without doing the maths, surely that would still leave a POS with its material savings as the best place to build things?
Re: Post in removal of teams thread From: probag Bear Sent: 2014.12.07 14:11 To: Censored Name
A station doesn't modify just its install cost modifier. It modifies the install cost modifier of everything in the system. And it stacks multiplicatively with every other station.
You need to move 0.89% of New Eden's manufacturing to Nonni in order to raise its cost index above 4%. Which would never happen, since people would start moving out when the index got above 3.5%. I know from experience.
4% in a dead-end system on the other hand only needs 0.16% of New Eden's manufacturing. That's a difference of a factor of 5. And 0.16% is easily achievable by a single person; I've been at 0.23% over the last week.
Re: Post in removal of teams thread From: Censored Name Sent: 2014.12.07 16:00 To: probag Bear
So the more stations a system has, the lower index rise a single job introduces? If I were to build from a POS in Nonni, would i see a lower install cost rise assuming the same number of jobs when compared with a dead-end system?
Re: Post in removal of teams thread From: probag Bear Sent: 2014.12.07 16:28 To: Censored Name
Yes, by a huge amount. Like I wrote earlier: if you were to install a few hundred (~360?) jobs per day for the next month, the cost index in a dead-end system would go from 0% to 4.5%. The cost index in Nonni would go from 2.6% to 3.1%. Which is 1/9th of 4.5%.
Now clearly Nonni isn't the best system or I wouldn't be using it as an example.
Get the staOperations and staStations tables from the data dump, the cost indices from CREST's /industry/systems/, and do a back of the envelope calculation on how many jobs you install per day, and you can easily spit out a table of systems, sorted by which would give you the lowest cost index. Nonni will probably be top 25 even if you only have a few industry alts.
This might help; it was a bit tedious to copy-paste all that stuff from Appendix 2:
dapp={ "Factory, Shipyard, Assembly Plant, Foundry, Construction Plant, Biotech Production":0.95, "Warehouse, Chemical Storage, Academy, School":0.97, "Testing Facilities, Reprocessing Facility, Chemical Refinery":0.97 }
I've reread that post you linked me and I'd managed to skim over the relevant sentence. WTF. I had no idea that applied to highsec.
Time to use those tables you mentioned, for the first time ever. Picking a system to build in just got a whole lot more interesting! Something tells me that all the moons in Nonni are filled, I should check though!
I can't believe I missed that. I don't recall ever seeing that particular post so I probably assumed that I'd read everything already.
Thank you for your patience explaining this to me. [/spoiler] |
Tear Jar
Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch
189
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 03:29:37 -
[167] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:From Missy_Z in the TMC comments section: Quote:How about having "teams" be actual teams of players who can all contribute to an industry job, or help it out in some way. Seriously, that would be fun and encourage indy corps. Maybe even make skills to go with it, something where you can only reasonably specialize in one thing to help boost the industry job so it encourages multiple people with different specializations to all go in to really get a boost on a job. I dunno. Something better then "pay for this and get an almost insignificant boost!" CCP - please consider this. Giving industrialists - and industrial corps - a way to flex their muscles beyond 'we have fleets of miners' is not exactly a bad idea. Where EVE really shines and generates the most buzz is in its cooperative/competitive gameplay. (Let's face it, fleet combat is both.) Bring that to industry, please.
The main issue is "How do you do this without just encouraging people to use an army of alts?". Real players are suboptimal for this. |
Venix
An Eye For An Eye AN EYE F0R AN EYE
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 05:58:49 -
[168] - Quote
Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?
Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.
Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer? |
Fu Qjoo
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 06:21:41 -
[169] - Quote
Can you please remove Guardian-Vexors and Silver Magnates? They are not used that much as well .... |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 10:12:05 -
[170] - Quote
Venix wrote:Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?
Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.
Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer?
I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end. |
|
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
187
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 18:17:36 -
[171] - Quote
Killing teams is a bad idea. Teams are not bad complexity, they are good complexity. If the system is flawed, just leave it until you have time to fix it. I was just starting to get into using teams. I'm bummed. Not being commonly used is not a justification for getting rid of a feature. If that were the case, bounty hunting would be removed.
The only reason to remove teams would be if they were hurting the economy for the average player. For instance, margins are lower except for the super smart rare people who have figured out teams, who end up being the only people who can make a buck. If that's the case, so that the average player can't make money in manufacturing, then sure, get rid of them. However, that reason wasn't stated.
If nobody uses them because the system isn't very good, just leave them. Fix them in a couple years or something. I mean we didn't get rid of the captain's quarters, did we? We still hope the door will open some day.
And please don't call them bad complexity. Screwed up industry UI was bad complexity. Skill point loss is bad complexity. I get that. Bad complexity is an annoyance that doesn't offer choice or player options.
Teams offer choice. They offer options. They are good complexity. Perhaps the choices and options suck right now so nobody uses them. So, leave them to be used by the very few who like them and when there's time, fix them.
Again, the only reason to actually get rid of teams would be because they are jacking up the economy for the majority of players. Outside of that, just leave them in game as a kind of crapy feature that might get fixed at some point. We all know Eve has enough of those.
They're fine. Leave them in. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 20:22:04 -
[172] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:Venix wrote:Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?
Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.
Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer? I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end.
They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill? |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 20:30:38 -
[173] - Quote
Firvain wrote:probag Bear wrote:Venix wrote:Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?
Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.
Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer? I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end. They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill?
I had to temporarily lower my profit margin for a week while I waited for the next team. |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 20:54:01 -
[174] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:Firvain wrote:probag Bear wrote:Venix wrote:Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?
Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.
Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer? I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end. They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill? I had to temporarily lower my profit margin for a week while I waited for the next team.
So instead of halting production, you chose to activly lose money? Seems like a smart thing to do |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 21:00:44 -
[175] - Quote
Firvain wrote:probag Bear wrote:Firvain wrote:probag Bear wrote:Venix wrote:Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?
Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.
Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer? I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end. They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill? I had to temporarily lower my profit margin for a week while I waited for the next team. So instead of halting production, you chose to activly lose money? Seems like a smart thing to do
Re read that. He sold at a lower profit margin than he would of normally meaning he missed out on 7.5bil in profits. He still got profit from everything just not maximum profit
|
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 21:45:04 -
[176] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Firvain wrote:probag Bear wrote:Firvain wrote:
They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill?
I had to temporarily lower my profit margin for a week while I waited for the next team. So instead of halting production, you chose to activly lose money? Seems like a smart thing to do Re read that. He sold at a lower profit margin than he would of normally meaning he missed out on 7.5bil in profits. He still got profit from everything just not maximum profit
So isntead of massive profit he got a bit less profit.. So he didnt lose anything he just didnt gain as much... |
Fifth Blade
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
38
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 22:00:38 -
[177] - Quote
Firvain wrote:So isntead of massive profit he got a bit less profit.. So he didnt lose anything he just didnt gain as much...
"In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
What is economics? You can't explain that! |
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 22:31:46 -
[178] - Quote
Fifth Blade wrote:Firvain wrote:So isntead of massive profit he got a bit less profit.. So he didnt lose anything he just didnt gain as much... "In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost What is economics? You can't explain that!
Oh god, not this opportunity cost thing again... |
Nomistrav
Aliastra Gallente Federation
275
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 22:55:58 -
[179] - Quote
I mean, seriously, why is Industry Teams being singled out for this removal process based on low usage? I mean, if that were the case, wouldn't Dust 514 have already been nyxxed?
Oh wait...
Third Place Winner
Pod and Planet Fiction Contest YC114
|
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio
249
|
Posted - 2014.12.11 16:51:26 -
[180] - Quote
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.
Senex Legio
|
|
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. |
|
miguel Manjarrez
RREZ
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 04:10:31 -
[211] - Quote
With maintaining the aspect of work teams in EVE allow work teams to be like a player made items or bought at the EVE game markets or the Eve store. Allow the Player base market to prove or disprove of Work Teams in the EVE world. Work Teams have a place in EVE the idea and potential of Work Teams is their. Work Teams it is an aspect of the game that adds and does not take from EVE. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1197
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 19:16:21 -
[212] - Quote
I hate to do it.... must... resist... can't aARGHH!!!
I TOLD YOU SO I TOLD YOU SO I TOLD YOU SO
More needless complexity dies a dark cold death.
*heavy breeathing*
Ahem. Sorry.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 22:08:15 -
[213] - Quote
If you ever bring back the Teams feature, you should have where a drop down list from the inject slot with preset bonuses available from any industry service.
Bonuses should contain only increase to either time or material savings at the cost of the other and not to a percentage in isk. So if a corp. is running out of something or a inflated market price you can do some quick runs at the cost of a few more materials. But, if you have all the time in the world you can increase your profit margin by saving a few materials. A system like this is simple and straight forward which will result in a feature that everyone will use. |
EMT Holding
EMT Holding Corporation
9
|
Posted - 2015.04.25 14:06:08 -
[214] - Quote
Something tells me we're never going to see the return or iteration of this. Those who do mass industry in a single system will continue to be punished with harsh install costs.
Eve Manufacture Tool - making industry easy
|
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Phoebe Freeport Republic
1631
|
Posted - 2015.05.03 20:44:42 -
[215] - Quote
I'd just like to know what is going to happen with this for sure. I'd like to remove my team logic or keep it in IPH but this "we are going to revisit teams" isn't helpful to me. I have a feeling it's never coming back so can you just make that call now for us? Even if it's not going to be something done in two years from now that'd be nice to know.
GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Destiny Dain2
Your Destiny Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.09 23:54:01 -
[216] - Quote
I was not really into industry at the time of Teams. But, here is why I never used them.
1.) It was confusing. Do I have to build there to be able to use them or was it a consumable that I had to pick up and bring back to my station to use? Whatever, no point because of the next reason.
2.) Profit margins are tight and if you are not aware of the numbers you can lose money, now you have a team asking for 5-10%. Unless your building larger items, it would be foolish to use them.
Make it a special decryptor that has bonuses to manufacturing that you redeem in the teams tab at any facility. I would use decryptors, maybe.
Just keep it basic. This is one of those cases where "more is less". |
Chichax
ExoGen Foundation
1
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 00:01:01 -
[217] - Quote
My reasons for not using teams was not the teams itself, but the amount of red tape required to get one.
1. There was zero feedback from the client that an auction was about to close. Notification support for industry in general is poor. 2. The amount of applicable teams were very small. At any one time there was about 5 worthy teams and of those 3 were closing out side my timezone. The others were either very expensive or closing severals days later and with the UI forgotten. 3. The UI also failed to notify that a usable team was available so sometimes I just forgot the the system had one cabable for the job.
I truly feel that with some UI updates and quantity updates the system would have worked much more like intended. Also now there is more harm working along your corpmates as there is no collecting force to offset the industry index tax.
Second request Could we please have both the production and research slots number show at the same time. With maybe hilighting the type currently selected (to help newbies). I hate to have to click something else just to see what my current slot use is. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |