These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#121 - 2014-04-30 13:31:56 UTC
Will there be any spawn weighting? I.e will lower bonused ones be more likely to spawn than high bonused ones? Will there be any caps? IE only 1 Passive Armour Broad in game at a time?

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Iorga Eeta
Hekatonkheires Industries
#122 - 2014-04-30 13:32:11 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.


The small system will have lower setup costs and the cost benefit of doing industry in their own POSs. They can bid for available lower quality teams and get similar benefits for much lower cost. Think of it as meta level 3 modules for manufacturing, you'll get more bang for the buck grabbing lower quality teams.

Plus the larger system has the coordination problem to work out. How are you getting those 60 players to pick the same team? CCP is pushing the normally solo industrialist into communicating with each other. The "best" benefit teams, numerically, are going to be narrowly focused. Are all 60 industrialists in a big system going to want a team that is focused on frigates, or will they want a team with broader, but lesser bonuses.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#123 - 2014-04-30 13:32:16 UTC
virm pasuul wrote:
What is CCP trying to achieve with all the changes?

What confuses me a little:
This team thing sounds fun - but I'm getting mixed messages from CCP. Some changes seem designed to encourage spreading out of players, other changes seem to be designed to do directly the opposite and clump players together. Which is it you are trying to encourage? Or are you trying to encourage a more dynamic map? A map that shifts and changes over time, as players are continually adjusting trying to chase optimal conditions for profit?


The cost scaling acts as a push - it encourages people to spread out. The teams encourage you to operate where the good teams are, so they act as a pull. Together it creates a dynamic landscape that changes over time. This was the goal. What it also does is reduce the predictability of the system. This is also intended.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#124 - 2014-04-30 13:32:24 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Bad Bobby wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
What are the sort of broad/narrow specialties when it comes to non-ships (or are ships the only thing that teams boost)? How narrow or broad are they (e.g. is narrow like "small lasers", "lasers" or "mega beam laser IIs only" and is broad like "mods", "armor mods" or "active armor taking mods")?


The teams cover everything possible to manufacture, the Ship type was just used as an example. To give you a bit better idea for the specialties, there are 135 of them total (40 broad, 95 narrow). An example is Armor, a broad specialty. It has three narrow specialties under it - Armor Active Modules, Armor Passive Expanders and Armor Passive Resistance.

Could you give us an example for ammunition?


Right now it is Ammo as the broad specialty, with Bombs, Crystals, Hybrid Ammo, Missiles & Rockets and Projectile Ammo as the narrow specialties. We could break it out further (like have separate narrow specialties for tech I and tech II ammo), but we're trying to keep the total number not too high Smile

For ammo, which is often considered to be a new-player friendly product, keeping to this relatively small number of narrow specialities is probably a positive.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2014-04-30 13:32:34 UTC
Berluth Luthian wrote:
I feel like the spawn engine for teams, seeding based on 'the amount of manufacturing/research jobs performed per broad category' might be good.

if you had each of the 6 team groups spawn an equal amount, you're likely going to get an abundance of strucutre teams, and too few ship/equipment teams.


too few means competition. competition means possible interaction. possible interaction should be a massive design goal
Laendra
Universalis Imperium
Goonswarm Federation
#126 - 2014-04-30 13:33:20 UTC
While I think I see what you are trying to do here, ultimately, this moves us backwards, where NPCs are more important than Players (like when they controlled many market items, etc.). That's like the GM having the NPCs, in any RPG, do all the important stuff, while the Players are watching events unfold, as if watching a movie.

Instead, Players should be Active Participants...the heroes of the story, if you will. NPCs should only be the standard, default, non-bonused, workforce.

If EVE is all about playing as a group, teams should be groups of Players, who get together and provide extra bonuses to other jobs.

For instance, if I wanted to offer my manufacturing capability out for sale, I could....it would limit my ability to produce on my own, but it would be both a source of income and a boon to whomever was willing to pay for those services, gaining extra ME or TE based on my skills/specializations. The more people that you were able to bring in, the better your results.


That is the basis for what I feel Teams should have been.
Chris Thiesere
IonTek LLC
#127 - 2014-04-30 13:33:54 UTC
virm pasuul wrote:
What is CCP trying to achieve with all the changes?

What confuses me a little:
This team thing sounds fun - but I'm getting mixed messages from CCP. Some changes seem designed to encourage spreading out of players, other changes seem to be designed to do directly the opposite and clump players together. Which is it you are trying to encourage? Or are you trying to encourage a more dynamic map? A map that shifts and changes over time, as players are continually adjusting trying to chase optimal conditions for profit?

If you are going to try and encourage a more nomadic moving lifestyle among the players you're going to have to look at how players work. I'm as small a minnow as you could probably get inventing and manufacturing T2 in high sec. If you made the system next door 10% cheaper I might consider moving - but moving is a massive job. When all these exciting changes land, I am most likely to stay where I am because I have so much stuff and moving it all would be a nightmare. Even with significant financial incentive I doubt I could be bothered to move more than once a year. I'm not criticizing, I like the look of a lot of the stuff on the horizon, some I know I don't understand, and some I am a bit sceptical of, but I will give it a proper chance before making my mind up. I just think IF CCP is trying to make us chase our cheese around Eve, bear in mind for some of us, moving might not be worth the effort in a practical sense.


So much this! They wanted to make industry gameplay cleaner and hasslefree. Now we have to move every week to catch the best system? Sure not.Ugh
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#128 - 2014-04-30 13:34:03 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
Will there be any spawn weighting? I.e will lower bonused ones be more likely to spawn than high bonused ones? Will there be any caps? IE only 1 Passive Armour Broad in game at a time?


Level 5 efficiency is less likely than level 1 efficiency, so there is a weight yes. There are no spawn rules on min or max number of specialties. This means that at any given time, there could 10 teams with a given narrow specialty and two months later there could be only 1, or vice versa.
sloany
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#129 - 2014-04-30 13:34:08 UTC  |  Edited by: sloany
So the materials needed to build something will change each time the job is installed, depending on the teams availability in the system?
Way to be a pain to keep track of.

Sure you can not choose to use a team, but you'd be silly not to if it's cost effective. Just another thing to calculate. Will the UI changes assist here?
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#130 - 2014-04-30 13:35:31 UTC
Chris Thiesere wrote:

So much this! They wanted to make industry gameplay cleaner and hasslefree. Now we have to move every week to catch the best system? Sure not.Ugh


Why wouldn't the same systems win every week?

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#131 - 2014-04-30 13:36:44 UTC
Cool Stuff. +1

The Tears Must Flow
Chris Thiesere
IonTek LLC
#132 - 2014-04-30 13:37:29 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
virm pasuul wrote:
What is CCP trying to achieve with all the changes?

What confuses me a little:
This team thing sounds fun - but I'm getting mixed messages from CCP. Some changes seem designed to encourage spreading out of players, other changes seem to be designed to do directly the opposite and clump players together. Which is it you are trying to encourage? Or are you trying to encourage a more dynamic map? A map that shifts and changes over time, as players are continually adjusting trying to chase optimal conditions for profit?


The cost scaling acts as a push - it encourages people to spread out. The teams encourage you to operate where the good teams are, so they act as a pull. Together it creates a dynamic landscape that changes over time. This was the goal. What it also does is reduce the predictability of the system. This is also intended.


it also kills any potential fun to be had in industry. yay.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2014-04-30 13:38:32 UTC
What happens to the isk bidded by auction losers? Will it be returned to them or is it sunk?

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Grapillon
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#134 - 2014-04-30 13:38:36 UTC
So as a Producer I have to decide on variants:


  1. Build in JITA at 5% reduced material cost but with increased installation costs
  2. Build not in JITA with reduced installation costs but without a good team


Quote:
Teams have a home location when they are created and the minimum is higher the further away the team’s home is. This represents a relocation cost and gives a small amount of geographical differentiation without it being too stifling.


Whats keeping me from simply bid for all teams in Jita and transferring them wherever I want ? If everybody teams up all teams go to jita and are transferred away since the cost for transfer is not too stifling?
Darin Vanar
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2014-04-30 13:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Darin Vanar
CCP SoniClover wrote:
virm pasuul wrote:
What is CCP trying to achieve with all the changes?

What confuses me a little:
This team thing sounds fun - but I'm getting mixed messages from CCP. Some changes seem designed to encourage spreading out of players, other changes seem to be designed to do directly the opposite and clump players together. Which is it you are trying to encourage? Or are you trying to encourage a more dynamic map? A map that shifts and changes over time, as players are continually adjusting trying to chase optimal conditions for profit?


The cost scaling acts as a push - it encourages people to spread out. The teams encourage you to operate where the good teams are, so they act as a pull. Together it creates a dynamic landscape that changes over time. This was the goal. What it also does is reduce the predictability of the system. This is also intended.


It does not act as a pull unless it can replace the default working team on the same work level.

See my previous post for a long winded explanation.
Eurynome Mangeiri
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2014-04-30 13:39:46 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
virm pasuul wrote:
What is CCP trying to achieve with all the changes?

What confuses me a little:
This team thing sounds fun - but I'm getting mixed messages from CCP. Some changes seem designed to encourage spreading out of players, other changes seem to be designed to do directly the opposite and clump players together. Which is it you are trying to encourage? Or are you trying to encourage a more dynamic map? A map that shifts and changes over time, as players are continually adjusting trying to chase optimal conditions for profit?


The cost scaling acts as a push - it encourages people to spread out. The teams encourage you to operate where the good teams are, so they act as a pull. Together it creates a dynamic landscape that changes over time. This was the goal. What it also does is reduce the predictability of the system. This is also intended.

sorry, but thinking that ndus ppl wil actually move all their installation is dumb, they just won't, and just show, if necessary, that CCP has absolutely NO IDEA how eve is played.

this is especially true since now it will be POS based.

so what this whole update will do, is create massive inflation, putting the profit in the hand of the entitys which have the isk, and cutting the others from their already thin profits.

this will bring a good ground for cartels, who will rise even more the prices, generating more inflation.

now more inflation will be a deterrent for the players, so sooner or later, they will just leave the game.

i know you are hoping that this inflation will make ppl buy more plex, so you make more $$, but it will not work.

you are shooting yourself in the foot repetedly, and you don't even see it
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#137 - 2014-04-30 13:40:52 UTC
Grapillon wrote:
So as a Producer I have to decide on variants:


  1. Build in JITA at 5% reduced material cost but with increased installation costs
  2. Build not in JITA with reduced installation costs but without a good team


Quote:
Teams have a home location when they are created and the minimum is higher the further away the team’s home is. This represents a relocation cost and gives a small amount of geographical differentiation without it being too stifling.


Whats keeping me from simply bid for all teams in Jita and transferring them wherever I want ? If everybody teams up all teams go to jita and are transferred away since the cost for transfer is not too stifling?


Teams cannot be transferred.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2014-04-30 13:41:04 UTC
Quote:
this will bring a good ground for cartels, who will rise even more the prices, generating more inflation.

now more inflation will be a deterrent for the players, so sooner or later, they will just leave the game.


you have absolutely no idea what inflation is
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#139 - 2014-04-30 13:41:07 UTC
Chris Thiesere wrote:
So much this! They wanted to make industry gameplay cleaner and hasslefree. Now we have to move every week to catch the best system? Sure not.Ugh

Unlikely.

Because there are going to be a lot of teams (4000+) and only a small number of broad specialities (40) and narrow specialities (95), there will be a lot of teams available for each need.

People like myself will pull a bundle of teams to our hi-sec production locations and create a honeypot for all the less established industrialists to cluster around. Unless, that is, those less established industrialists wish to choose a different approach to the problem, like producing in a quiet area for lower costs.
Iorga Eeta
Hekatonkheires Industries
#140 - 2014-04-30 13:41:40 UTC
Seith Kali wrote:
What happens to the isk bidded by auction losers? Will it be returned to them or is it sunk?


Soniclover said the money goes into escrow. It sounds like the losers get their money back.