These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Team Up: Industry Work Teams

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#61 - 2014-04-30 12:35:01 UTC
Quintessen wrote:
Two major concerns:
2) When a team arrives people will likely shift production to their specialties for that system? How is that not likely to produce an oversupply for all involved meaning that using a team actually means less profit and not more? One of my first instincts is going to be seeing if using teams actually hurts a local system.

Put the team in low, null, or a WH.
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#62 - 2014-04-30 12:36:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Zifrian
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.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder
Rust Connor
Industrias PapaCapim
#63 - 2014-04-30 12:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Rust Connor
Random comments:
1) Legacy
- "Legacy" sounds great but I'm affraid we could make a situation where rich people will get even richer and others can't compete.

2)Team ownership
- "Team ownership" sounds cool but please dont put it on PI. Give a new set of skill for that! Maybe an academy on POS!

3) Tem example and cumulative bonus
- You can have a team like this?
- Small Ships(ME specialist 5),= -2.5%
- Frigate (ME specialist 5) = -5%
Those bonus are cumulative? I'll pay 7.5% less material per frigate, for example?

4) Increase in complexity to find the best place.
- All those changes.... Calculating the best place to produce is looking harder and impossible without some kinda of tool. I hope you are planning releasing an API to calculate everything because I dont want to manually check every system to balance specialist teams, ocupation, distance to trade hubs, ...

5) Bid snipping
Cant you put a simple: increase time to X minutes if a bid is made when timer is less then X? So a bid must be the highest for at least X minutes....
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#64 - 2014-04-30 12:37:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
Zifrian wrote:
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.

I was hoping teams was player generated though. Ie cooperative gameplay. This isn't it IMO.

This won't just benefit NS, it will benefit LS and WHs as most free loaders wont easily be able to set up any meaningful operation. So imo a very good change in this regard.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#65 - 2014-04-30 12:40:52 UTC
Quintessen wrote:
Two major concerns:

1) How is this not simply going to go to whomever has the most coordinated effort to attract them and who already has the most money (major null-sec alliances).

2) When a team arrives people will likely shift production to their specialties for that system? How is that not likely to produce an oversupply for all involved meaning that using a team actually means less profit and not more? One of my first instincts is going to be seeing if using teams actually hurts a local system.


Valid concerns, the way to aim to address both is by having a lot of teams active. As there are only so many teams you need, lots of teams mean more people have access to them. As for people shifting production based on team availability, I don't think this will be a major issue, as this assumes you already have the blueprints and the logistic chain setup to take advantage of the new team. I don't think this will be the case all that often.
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
#66 - 2014-04-30 12:41:16 UTC
Quote:
The team becomes immediately available for hire in the winning system.

I can't send a few bits and bytes to my POS in system anymore, but a bunch of people travel without the help of a capsuleer halfway across the galaxy? Harumpf.

It seems to me like convoluted system that'll do very little in the end. Big alliances will just buy up the teams and that'll be the end of it.
Olari Vanderfall
Perkone
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-04-30 12:41:31 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Olari Vanderfall wrote:
Time saving is pretty much irrelevant for most items

I can see you are not a competent industrialist by this statement.



I can see you don't have a concept of a real life. When my 10 run T2 BPC takes 12 hours or 13 doesn't matter.
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#68 - 2014-04-30 12:42:18 UTC  |  Edited by: handige harrie
Started reading the Devblog thinking Teams would be a something a small group of players could form to tackle more complicated tasks.

Left confused, but satisfied.

The idea still seems nice though, the PI stuff should just be added, it could be awesome. Just make sure to add a PI specilization to it with some new skills and new PI structures etc.

Baddest poster ever
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#69 - 2014-04-30 12:42:49 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Zifrian wrote:
I was hoping teams was player generated though. Ie cooperative gameplay. This isn't it IMO.

This won't just benefit NS, it will benefit LS and WHs as most free loaders wont easily be able to set up any meaningful operation. So imo a very good change in this regard.

It looks like it has the potential to benefit any person, or group of people, that make something in one location for a period of time. I expect you'll see co-operative gameplay emerging from it and, unlike corps and alliances, it's a lot more flexible and provides much simpler safety measures.
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries
Forgers United
#70 - 2014-04-30 12:43:55 UTC
Ok, althought this sounds like something interesting, I must confess I was expecting CCP plans to finallz make industry a bit more group playing activity. Like when few players get together, they receive some manufacturing time or material bonus or so. I really hope CCP plans to also introduce teams made from players. It would definitelly make more sence a nd would be more fun. Please consider it.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#71 - 2014-04-30 12:46:22 UTC
Olari Vanderfall wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Olari Vanderfall wrote:
Time saving is pretty much irrelevant for most items

I can see you are not a competent industrialist by this statement.



I can see you don't have a concept of a real life. When my 10 run T2 BPC takes 12 hours or 13 doesn't matter.

My friend, you are not a competent industrialist if you cannot see the value of time saving for manufacture limited BPs, for which there are a lot with much longer build times than the 13 hour example which you just picked out of thin air in an attempt to make your argument look valid.
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#72 - 2014-04-30 12:46:46 UTC
Bad Bobby wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Zifrian wrote:
I was hoping teams was player generated though. Ie cooperative gameplay. This isn't it IMO.

This won't just benefit NS, it will benefit LS and WHs as most free loaders wont easily be able to set up any meaningful operation. So imo a very good change in this regard.

It looks like it has the potential to benefit any person, or group of people, that make something in one location for a period of time. I expect you'll see co-operative gameplay emerging from it and, unlike corps and alliances, it's a lot more flexible and provides much simpler safety measures.

Yeah, we'll see. I'm a null player myself but I do most T2 in highsec. So I'll find out soon enough. I do like that different teams may upset expected profits from typical items. I'm just concerned about how robust the competition will be to prevent free ridership from having a negative effect on the positive, dynamic market effects I like. I'm also probably thinking too hard lol.

Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder
DEFANDER
CSV - Like in politics - rules apply differently
#73 - 2014-04-30 12:47:01 UTC  |  Edited by: DEFANDER
I just have one question.


So... Were teams end up is based on who wins the auction, right ?
Well let's say we have a system with 5 stations ( and all have manufacturing ), in witch there are over 100 players ( not accounts ) doing industry . And they are all biding on the same team ( or 60 of the 100 are biding on the same team ).


Then, how can say a corporation of 10 guys, that is doing "some" industry in a dead end system (that everyone forgot about) with no stations - less attractive to X% of the player base - using 1 or 2 towers.


That 10 member corp will have no chance in hell of wining a team auction, unless they are biding 10 times more per character then the 100 players ( say on average 300 characters ) that are living in the "big" system.


There should be a % based system. Say:
- In the first system 300 bids totaling 400mil
- In the other one 9 bids totaling 10mil

With the way i see it now, the 400mil total bid will win every time.

So, make it a % .. like 400mil / 300 bids ( individual bids ) = 1.33 AND 10mil / 9 individual bids = 1.11

Sure with there exact bids the 300 bidders will still win, but let's say they didn't bid 400mil, but 300 ( that's a 1.00 ratio ), or the 9 guys took it up to 50mil ( that would make it 5.56 ). Either way the 9 guys would win that team over.


This would also apply to some random dude living in a C1, that would like to attract say a AS +10% team in that C1, because he only manufactures Assault Frigates .


Just keep this all in mind.


EDIT: Also - VERY IMPORTANT - The current bit on any given team needs to be HIDDEN.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2014-04-30 12:49:30 UTC
It might be an idea to tie team capabilities to 'invention' i.e train team member by putting them through the invention process using the science skills that would be used in their specialty.. Successful invention boosts their ability, unsuccessful and you kick them out (they failed the exams, couldn't take inferno, spent to much time online playing the Earth space combat simulator game)
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#75 - 2014-04-30 12:50:21 UTC
DEFANDER wrote:
I just have one question.


So... Were teams end up is based on who wins the auction, right ?
Well let's say we have a system with 5 stations ( and all have manufacturing ), in witch there are over 100 players ( not accounts ) doing industry . And they are all biding on the same team ( or 60 of the 100 are biding on the same team ).


Then, how can say a corporation of 10 guys, that is doing "some" industry in a dead end system (that everyone forgot about) with no stations - less attractive to X% of the player base - using 1 or 2 towers.


That 10 member corp will have no chance in hell of wining a team auction, unless they are biding 10 times more per character then the 100 players ( say on average 300 characters ) that are living in the "big" system.


There should be a % based system. Say:
- In the first system 300 bids totaling 400mil
- In the other one 9 bids totaling 10mil

With the way i see it now, the 400mil total bid will win every time.

So, make it a % .. like 400mil / 300 bids ( individual bids ) = 1.33 AND 10mil / 9 individual bids = 1.11

Sure with there exact bids the 300 bidders will still win, but let's say they didn't bid 400mil, but 300 ( that's a 1.00 ratio ), or the 9 guys took it up to 50mil ( that would make it 5.56 ). Either way the 9 guys would win that team over.


This would also apply to some random dude living in a C1, that would like to attract say a AS +10% team in that C1, because he only manufactures Assault Frigates .


Just keep this all in mind.

This is why they are spawning 4032 teams globally of varying qualities.
Chris Thiesere
IonTek LLC
#76 - 2014-04-30 12:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Chris Thiesere
I'm super disappointed with this team stuff. The rest of the industrial changes are well needed and i can agree to most of them (grrr bpo @ pos). But this team stuff.. Seems just like a stupid isk sink to me.
Why do i want to buff my competitors with the teams i spend isk for at the actions. They also seem to totally offset the intended changes with the scaling costs if we really 'act as a counter-balance to the cost scaling the presence of a good team can offset the increased cost in operating in an active system'. So the best teams will always be in jita, and everyone is happy building **** at 4-4?

Also newer industrial players have to depend on others buying them, and thus have to always move shop to systems with some of them. Total showstopper for me.
Lilliana Stelles
#77 - 2014-04-30 12:52:10 UTC
Will teams benefit invention? Higher quality bpcs please?

Not a forum alt. 
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2014-04-30 12:54:19 UTC
Quote:
1) How is this not simply going to go to whomever has the most coordinated effort to attract them and who already has the most money (major null-sec alliances).


there is absolutely nothing wrong with that
DEFANDER
CSV - Like in politics - rules apply differently
#79 - 2014-04-30 12:55:13 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
DEFANDER wrote:
I just have one question.


So... Were teams end up is based on who wins the auction, right ?
Well let's say we have a system with 5 stations ( and all have manufacturing ), in witch there are over 100 players ( not accounts ) doing industry . And they are all biding on the same team ( or 60 of the 100 are biding on the same team ).


Then, how can say a corporation of 10 guys, that is doing "some" industry in a dead end system (that everyone forgot about) with no stations - less attractive to X% of the player base - using 1 or 2 towers.


That 10 member corp will have no chance in hell of wining a team auction, unless they are biding 10 times more per character then the 100 players ( say on average 300 characters ) that are living in the "big" system.


There should be a % based system. Say:
- In the first system 300 bids totaling 400mil
- In the other one 9 bids totaling 10mil

With the way i see it now, the 400mil total bid will win every time.

So, make it a % .. like 400mil / 300 bids ( individual bids ) = 1.33 AND 10mil / 9 individual bids = 1.11

Sure with there exact bids the 300 bidders will still win, but let's say they didn't bid 400mil, but 300 ( that's a 1.00 ratio ), or the 9 guys took it up to 50mil ( that would make it 5.56 ). Either way the 9 guys would win that team over.


This would also apply to some random dude living in a C1, that would like to attract say a AS +10% team in that C1, because he only manufactures Assault Frigates .


Just keep this all in mind.

This is why they are spawning 4032 teams globally of varying qualities.



I still don't see it working. The very good teams will still be taken over by the huge majority.

And also, considering that there is no limitation on the number of team that can be "taken" by a specific system, who's to say thouse 4k team ( say 10% of them really good and worth biding on in a serious manner ) will still be monopolized by the majority.
Hagan Sirius
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#80 - 2014-04-30 12:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Hagan Sirius
What I missing is corporation based teams. There was said teams will be randomly created. What about some security measures. For example I dont want to give info about my activites to anyone. But will have the team members information about production? I guess they will. Where is a security. When I hire team of developers or specialized workers in real life I can force them to keep informations by some agreements and can punish them by law, but in game? Here I see problem. Most of industry guys its not interested about leaking internal informations about what are they doing etc. Ok, make public teams, why not, some freelancer can get hired for money, I am happy with that, but also, make available internal production teams. Also, it will again bring more to big guys. It might be good idea, but think also about smaller entities. Not everything have to be controlled by 3 powerlblocks or like some paranoic people said by 1 entity. Now moons and industry around them are controlled by few, ok, its about firepower of owner. T3 is bit out of this, because of WH existence and difficulty to "controll" them. But let something to smaller entities or we end up in system where small group have role of chinese kuli while big ones have to take all goodies. Systém is same for everybody, but it not have to be controlled by few.