These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Teams and Revamp of Industry in EVE Online

First post First post First post
Author
Klyith
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#61 - 2014-07-09 05:45:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Woo Mi wrote:

And if the answer is : cooperate with other players or stay out of the market, then WTF?

Work together.

Or pick up your operation and move around Empire all the time chasing the teams for your production line vs avoiding the high demand systems with elevated costs.

Or sit still in a backwater area where you don't have teams to use but don't have competition pushing up the job costs, and spend extra time freightering your stuff to Jita.

Or put in bids for the more neglected teams that produce low-value items, try to make up the cost with volume and corner a market for a month.

Or do any other thing you like other than sit in a single station within 1-4 jumps of Jita and do the same thing over and over with no real interaction with any other player. Industry is now a multiplayer game.


Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
If you suggest that groups will spring up like incursion groups, you are sadly mistaken, because there is still massive competition and lack of cohesiveness even amongst incursion groups operating in a small amount of systems.

Incursion runners were cooperative until they got popular enough and perfected clearing sites so well that there wasn't enough supply to go around. Low & nullsec incursions were choked off because they weren't worth doing compared to highsec's machine. Then they started turning on each other. Maybe industrialists will do the same?

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2014-07-09 06:03:34 UTC
Klyith wrote:
Woo Mi wrote:

And if the answer is : cooperate with other players or stay out of the market, then WTF?

Work together.

Or pick up your operation and move around Empire all the time chasing the teams for your production line vs avoiding the high demand systems with elevated costs.


"Work together" said the spider to the fly. Lol. Back in the days of yore, there were extensive (well some) high sec industrial alliances banding together to share resources (POSes) and costs. One can see the game logic in the pos modules including the lab modules. Of course, these were attractive war dec targets and one doesn't see cooperative high sec alliances anymore. There is more incentive NOT to do this than to do this. High sec is broken and 0.0 alliances profit from changes such as these.

Banding together post 7/22 will be more the same. I speculate that 'Burn Jita' is but an initial variation on a theme because now there is an additional incentive to grief high sec beyond just the ability to shut down mining. Or, perhaps it will be more like a Marmite thing with high sec industrial types permanently dec'd with their systems camped? Perhaps, we just need to flip some terms around and call "high sec" "lower sec". Maybe we can change war decs to allow the dropping of caps in high sec?

Risk is good and makes for fun, but arbitrarily changing the rules to favor the view ... well there's what you say and what you do. One will have a bigger impact than the other.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#63 - 2014-07-09 06:43:45 UTC
El Zylcho wrote:

As observed elsewhere in the numerous prior comments in related devblogs, the NASH index / effect / phenomena, whereby the most expensive producer of an item sets the market price will have the downstream effect of devaluing the game time played by the user who engages in an activity that produces isk.


Gave me a good laugh. In EVE, the person with the lowest production cost sets the price, not the other way around. And not even that is true in all cases because there are trolls, arbitrarily de- or increasing prices.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2014-07-09 06:48:43 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
El Zylcho wrote:

As observed elsewhere in the numerous prior comments in related devblogs, the NASH index / effect / phenomena, whereby the most expensive producer of an item sets the market price will have the downstream effect of devaluing the game time played by the user who engages in an activity that produces isk.


Gave me a good laugh. In EVE, the person with the lowest production cost sets the price, not the other way around. And not even that is true in all cases because there are trolls, arbitrarily de- or increasing prices.


Disagree. I'd say the effect is more like the producer who knows his bottom line is more likely to race to the bottom. Obviously, outliers exist and some folks will not produce in the first place if they understand they can not do so competitively. It's hard to account for those. But, how does the lowest cost producer set his (her) price then? Give me example of that in Jita. I certainly do not. Why throw away profit?
Klyith
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2014-07-09 07:50:28 UTC
El Zylcho wrote:

"Work together" said the spider to the fly. Lol. Back in the days of yore, there were extensive (well some) high sec industrial alliances banding together to share resources (POSes) and costs. One can see the game logic in the pos modules including the lab modules. Of course, these were attractive war dec targets and one doesn't see cooperative high sec alliances anymore. There is more incentive NOT to do this than to do this. High sec is broken and 0.0 alliances profit from changes such as these.

Banding together post 7/22 will be more the same. I speculate that 'Burn Jita' is but an initial variation on a theme because now there is an additional incentive to grief high sec beyond just the ability to shut down mining. Or, perhaps it will be more like a Marmite thing with high sec industrial types permanently dec'd with their systems camped? Perhaps, we just need to flip some terms around and call "high sec" "lower sec". Maybe we can change war decs to allow the dropping of caps in high sec?

Risk is good and makes for fun, but arbitrarily changing the rules to favor the view ... well there's what you say and what you do. One will have a bigger impact than the other.

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.


(If your entire vision of your place in this game is as hapless hopeless prey, why do you play? Plenty of people have achieved things in this game by nutting up and taking their chances. They delt with the same problems. But you doom yourself because you won't even try.)
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2014-07-09 09:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: El Zylcho
Klyith wrote:
El Zylcho wrote:

"Work together" said the spider to the fly. Lol. Back in the days of yore, there were extensive (well some) high sec industrial alliances banding together to share resources (POSes) and costs. One can see the game logic in the pos modules including the lab modules. Of course, these were attractive war dec targets and one doesn't see cooperative high sec alliances anymore. There is more incentive NOT to do this than to do this. High sec is broken and 0.0 alliances profit from changes such as these.

Banding together post 7/22 will be more the same. I speculate that 'Burn Jita' is but an initial variation on a theme because now there is an additional incentive to grief high sec beyond just the ability to shut down mining. Or, perhaps it will be more like a Marmite thing with high sec industrial types permanently dec'd with their systems camped? Perhaps, we just need to flip some terms around and call "high sec" "lower sec". Maybe we can change war decs to allow the dropping of caps in high sec?

Risk is good and makes for fun, but arbitrarily changing the rules to favor the view ... well there's what you say and what you do. One will have a bigger impact than the other.

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.


(If your entire vision of your place in this game is as hapless hopeless prey, why do you play? Plenty of people have achieved things in this game by nutting up and taking their chances. They delt with the same problems. But you doom yourself because you won't even try.)


And you call my post speculation :-) That's a big IF and yours alone. I merely suggest your feedback is shaped by your interests. You do pose the existential question though. To the extent a game redesign forces the question, the game designer has missed the mark. Why I chose to play should always be self-evident.

But, more to the point of the blog, my gripe is one about lack of a feedback mechanism. The rhetoric of what the vision is for the future is not attached to the detail provided. The industry survey really was not a feedback mechanism. Granted the game is not a democracy but the ability to give meaningful feedback is missing. The CSM mechanism does not represent consensus as can be seen by many other posts.

Ultimately, I have enjoyed Eve immensely in the past, my kids play Eve and my friends play Eve. But after reviewing my options to continue do what I want, I probably will take a long break once my subscriptions wind down. "The light that burns twice as bright" I suppose.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2014-07-09 09:39:37 UTC
Lady Zarrina wrote:
I don't know why people are so against these changes. These changes should make industry much more dynamic. Might have to actually break out a spreadsheet or calculator again.

More things to learn and figure out. Good times ahead. Who knows I might become an industry pirate, floating from system to system, taking advantage of the great bonuses.


The day I have to start learning how to use a spreadsheet to play an online game is the day I give my laptop to my grandkids and buy a console.

I left school over 40 YEARS ago..I still work 10 hour shifts so when I get in I just want to chill with a few beers and some game time, not sit a sodding math exam every day!

I seriously think that the Devs and CSM have totally lost any idea of what most players want out of a game, and that's sad Sad

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#68 - 2014-07-09 10:10:09 UTC
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
For all of you whining like the world is coming to an end, have you actually done the math? It's really not that bad - and definitely nothing like what the more ridiculous of naysayers are spouting.

Couple of clues:
- many of the modifiers in this industry overhaul are to job cost, and not ME, which is a relatively small fraction of the total cost.
- I already have to move stations every once in a while cause right now the finite number of lines gets used up and I don't want to have to wait 7 days to manufacture 2 jumps from jita when 3 will do
- Usage of teams can be stretched to almost 2 months for many things made (depending on run times and number of runs possible)
- stuff made in nullsec will still have to be transported to highsec, and that cost is not trivial

Conjecture and heresay are useless. If you have some numbers to back up your claims, post em.. else go fiddle with Excel some.


Please let me know how to do all this since you can't bid on teams on the test server at the moment.

But while we are on the subject of numbers, please do prance on over there and figure out for yourself how a hound costs +17% to produce from the exact same blueprint I have today. I am sure that will go over real well once the people crying about PLEX prices figure it out.
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#69 - 2014-07-09 10:31:12 UTC
I still can't see WTF the inputs are, when are we going to get Labels on that stuff seriously, NOT EVERYONE REMEMBERS THE ******* ICONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Slicr
#70 - 2014-07-09 10:39:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Slicr
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Woo Mi wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:

Teams can work on all jobs in a system. And the bids are pooled at a system level. So folks in, say, highsec, get the benefit of shared bidding.


Can somebody point me to a post explaining what problem was solved by introducing teams and the bidding mechanic?
Was there not enough competition?
I can't imagine there were complaints that industrial entrepeneurs were staying too long in the same location.



It's not a problem being solved. It's another knob to twiddle in industry.

The cost mechanic acts to push people apart.

The teams act to pull them together (especially at corporation levels)


So it is not just one player getting shafted but many?
It would make better sense to have players fulfill that role since a lot of other avenues are being closed.
For example, reprocessing - did a test on the test server and boy oh boy - was it crap!

Make a contract system that players could use to get industry enjoyable again - have the npc teams in null and players deal with hi and low secs.

I believe in being Pro-Active as Opposed to Reactive. Reactive tends to be more costly in time and money.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#71 - 2014-07-09 11:09:32 UTC
Bessa Miros wrote:
The best specialists will go to the CFC/N3PL blocks for building capitals and modules for their fleets while their member alliances (fidelas constas, nulli, etc) pull in the 2nd best... all paid by massive amounts of rent ISK. Rents go up too because now they offer teams as incentives - and the cold war cycle continues.

Meanwhile Faction war areas, rich industrialists, and dedicated shipyards either move get the left-leftovers. Low Sec pirates might use teams as a draw for easy prey.

In all cases (except maybe in Providence - save us Chribba!) the teams look like a gift to ISK heavy populations. Loyal casual players that work solo (for years now) are left out pretty much.

Is there a counter view to this?


Hisec industry has more than enough money to dominate the market in teams. Leveraging this will require more co-operation and collaboration than currently exists. We're pretty hopeful that, once the initial shock of change has worn off, at least one system in hisec will realize this and lead the way for everyone else, leading hisec industry to be a much more casually collaborative activity, which we think adds a lot of value for all those players. This doesn't require a huge amount of formal co-operation, just an agreement on what teams you want to target and how much everyone is willing to chip in.

We will be keeping an eye on this, and if it ends up not working out and hisec industry remains completely resistant to any kind of social interaction with other players, we'll revisit this.

Bessa Miros wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Woo Mi wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:

Teams can work on all jobs in a system. And the bids are pooled at a system level. So folks in, say, highsec, get the benefit of shared bidding.


Can somebody point me to a post explaining what problem was solved by introducing teams and the bidding mechanic?
Was there not enough competition?
I can't imagine there were complaints that industrial entrepeneurs were staying too long in the same location.



It's not a problem being solved. It's another knob to twiddle in industry.

The cost mechanic acts to push people apart.

The teams act to pull them together (especially at corporation levels)


This is what I dont understand - so 2 pressures (one to move away from others, the other to move together). This is a hopeless balance that constantly shifts. Who wants to risk assets chasing this balance? There must be come scenario I'm not seeing

Sorry to be negative about this.

I suggest you use teams to reward NRDS areas of the game (and NPC nullsec too). NBSI areas of nullsec are not risky areas. Then it makes sense - risk v reward.


Deliberately a balance that constantly shifts, in order to drive two consistent questions: when do I follow (weighing the bonuses available from a move against the costs of doing so and predictions of future fluctuations), and what can I do to make that less frequent (bid for teams).

Kynric wrote:
Can teams be hired to wormhole systems? Is the industrial intel displayed for kspace systems on the map available anywhere for wormhole systems? Can I see what teams are available/were hired to wormholes that I do not have a structure in?


Yes, you can hire to wormhole systems. We do have a solution for how we're exposing this through the API/CREST, I believe, but the people who know what that solution is aren't at their desks right now.

PaulsAvatar wrote:
I'm just surprised that there is no outcry against CCP's plan to require 50 of the small arrays to be online to get max bonus and can only imagine it is because sisi is still bugged to give max bonus to just 1.

That or people are just so tired of this already they've stopped caring about the game.


There's no "max bonus" per se; the caps listed are just the number of arrays of that type you can fit at an optimal tower, and we've then reverse-engineered the bonus quantities to be in the ~20-30% range for that optimal tower setup.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#72 - 2014-07-09 11:20:40 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Yes, you can hire to wormhole systems. We do have a solution for how we're exposing this through the API/CREST, I believe, but the people who know what that solution is aren't at their desks right now.

So we will need a third party tool to get this information that is not accessable via in-game means. Really? Just after taking NPC kills away for exactly that reasoning? Please tell I missunderstood that.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#73 - 2014-07-09 11:40:07 UTC
Shilalasar wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Yes, you can hire to wormhole systems. We do have a solution for how we're exposing this through the API/CREST, I believe, but the people who know what that solution is aren't at their desks right now.

So we will need a third party tool to get this information that is not accessable via in-game means. Really? Just after taking NPC kills away for exactly that reasoning? Please tell I missunderstood that.


OK, so two things:
- Firstly, you can always see this info in facilities you have access to, the question was whether you can get API data for these things
- Secondly, I was wrong about what we're doing with CREST/API, we had discussed doing some special-casing but it turns out we decided against exposing any wormhole industry information through these channels at this time.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#74 - 2014-07-09 11:43:23 UTC
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.

We've just had another discussion about this system as-implemented, and based on your feedback, the technical challenges involved in implementing it in a fully user-friendly way, and the somewhat limited upsides of the feature, we've decided to cut it from Crius.

Having multiple starbase structures of the same type at a starbase will no longer grant you any bonus above those inherent in the structure itself

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.

We are looking into what we can do to mitigate the expected glut of labs resulting from this change; more info as we work through this process :)

Thanks for all your feedback,
-Greyscale
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#75 - 2014-07-09 11:47:09 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
El Zylcho wrote:

As observed elsewhere in the numerous prior comments in related devblogs, the NASH index / effect / phenomena, whereby the most expensive producer of an item sets the market price will have the downstream effect of devaluing the game time played by the user who engages in an activity that produces isk.


Gave me a good laugh. In EVE, the person with the lowest production cost sets the price, not the other way around. And not even that is true in all cases because there are trolls, arbitrarily de- or increasing prices.



The person who manufactures the modules at the lowest price, which satisfies the market's requirements sets the price.

If I can make 100 things at 1 isk each, but the market requires 10,000 (in the time it takes me to make the next 100), I don't set the price. The people who make the rest of the 10,000 do.

That's why T2 BPOs (in the current system) only make invention unprofitable in a very small number of markets, where they're able to fufil the whole market by themselves.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#76 - 2014-07-09 12:07:47 UTC
I see the round table suggestion to get industry stats on the map, has made it in, very nice to see feedback getting implemented!

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2014-07-09 12:13:00 UTC  |  Edited by: El Zylcho
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
El Zylcho wrote:

As observed elsewhere in the numerous prior comments in related devblogs, the NASH index / effect / phenomena, whereby the most expensive producer of an item sets the market price will have the downstream effect of devaluing the game time played by the user who engages in an activity that produces isk.


Gave me a good laugh. In EVE, the person with the lowest production cost sets the price, not the other way around. And not even that is true in all cases because there are trolls, arbitrarily de- or increasing prices.



The person who manufactures the modules at the lowest price, which satisfies the market's requirements sets the price.

If I can make 100 things at 1 isk each, but the market requires 10,000 (in the time it takes me to make the next 100), I don't set the price. The people who make the rest of the 10,000 do.

That's why T2 BPOs (in the current system) only make invention unprofitable in a very small number of markets, where they're able to fufil the whole market by themselves.


Again, at the risk of getting off topic, I'd say it's the person who *sells* at the lowest price. That's an important distinction. For Eve, I'd say the person who can adjust his items for sale the most often controls the pace of how pricing varies. It's not demand as much as it is velocity. The person selling 10,000 units in one order has less sway over one person selling 20 units across 4 orders if both are actively changing orders as often as they can to remain in the lowest spot. Now if one of the bidders disengages and waits, your point picks up weight.

It gets fuzzy :-) but the reference to the NASH equilibrium is that each player will maximize the amount he can make from a transaction, which includes passing along the costs for inflation, and never pricing solely based on his cost, but on the existing market price. This is implied by the very changes being discussed. Ostensibly the person paying higher fees will have see less profit than an optimized setup.

Put this into contrast with the idea of people collaborating to concentrate on production of an item type. Why would I want to collaborate with my competitor to make ships in a system?

If you export sell orders repeatedly over a short period of time to see how frequently orders change based on order id, I think you'd see your example in a different light.

p.s. I'm having a firesale on T2 advanced small ship assembly arrays. I suddenly have too many!
TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#78 - 2014-07-09 12:34:01 UTC
This seems to be the team landscape that will be around > image

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

DoToo Foo
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2014-07-09 13:05:44 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

Update on multiple-structure bonuses for starbases.
...

The only substantial downside to this is that it makes it much easier to weaponize an industry tower, so we are considering upping lab/array fitting costs substantially in a later release. We likely will not do this in Crius itself as people will need time to reconfigure their setups.
...
-Greyscale


This concerns me somewhat. We currently run multiple lab slots because of pilot demand, but we also run weaponised POS with industry on the side. Crazy wormhole industrialists I know, but we do exist.

I fully expect that a highsec POS would be able to do more with a smaller POS due to relying on Concord for initial defense (at least until the wardecs happen.

I also would understand a mild increase in cpu/power grid for modules. I will no longer be running as many labs as I do now, so doubling (or even a little more) the requirements does make sense.

Please be aware that the primary use of LSAA's for many wormhole corps is secure storage and not ship building.
Doubling the fitting requirements LSAA's (without creating a very large corp hanger array as an option) may cause some forum angst.

http://foo-eve.blogspot.com.au/

Soldarius
Brand Newbros
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#80 - 2014-07-09 13:15:56 UTC
Quote:
We added API support, giving third party tools the data required for active teams, teams in auction and so on.

We added filtering options in the starmap, allowing players to filter by industry activity and cost. This helps greatly in giving players an overview of what is happening where.


Taken separately, I read the above two statements as "There will be an API endpoint for teams. But all the industry activity info is limited to the in-game starmap."

1. Any chance the quote actually means that the activity information will also be available from the API? This would greatly aid industrialists in making informed cost analysis decisions, rather than having to do it and then see if they make a profit.

2. While having multiple POS modules give an added bonus seems like a good idea, because of the potential for abuse I'm glad to see it go. If you can make it work without the potential for abuse, then I'd fully support the idea.

3. To all the babies crying about how they're screwed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvM7av1o1Q


http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY