These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Industry Teams - Current Plans

First post First post
Author
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2014-12-04 13:56:15 UTC
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 — 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
#22 - 2014-12-04 13:58:38 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP RubberBAND
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
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-12-04 13:59:56 UTC  |  Edited by: SpaceSaft
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... Glad to see you focus though, it's a rare case that we get to see behind the curtains to this degree.
Nomistrav
Unitas Nusquam Est
VINDICTIVE
#24 - 2014-12-04 14:00:06 UTC
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.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Efraya
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#25 - 2014-12-04 14:02:33 UTC
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
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#26 - 2014-12-04 14:02:55 UTC
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
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2014-12-04 14:03:56 UTC
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
Tactical-Retreat
#28 - 2014-12-04 14:05:08 UTC
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

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Nomistrav
Unitas Nusquam Est
VINDICTIVE
#29 - 2014-12-04 14:06:19 UTC
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
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


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.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#30 - 2014-12-04 14:07:43 UTC
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..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders
#31 - 2014-12-04 14:08:43 UTC
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.  He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Dunamis55
NER Industries
#32 - 2014-12-04 14:09:10 UTC
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.

Director, NER Industries

Now Recruiting!

The Ironfist
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#33 - 2014-12-04 14:14:29 UTC
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
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


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
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#34 - 2014-12-04 14:17:29 UTC
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
#35 - 2014-12-04 14:17:29 UTC
Could you, please, somehow remove the scanning mini-game too? I bet almost nobody would play it if it was optional. Bear
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#36 - 2014-12-04 14:17:29 UTC
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
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#37 - 2014-12-04 14:18:56 UTC
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
#38 - 2014-12-04 14:22:44 UTC
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
#39 - 2014-12-04 14:24:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Calorn Marthor
Tarpedo wrote:
Could you, please, somehow remove the scanning mini-game too? I bet almost nobody would play it if it was optional. Bear


Also please remove all NPCs from combat sites - I bet almost nobody would fight them if he could just scoop up the loot instead.
The Ironfist
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#40 - 2014-12-04 14:26:55 UTC
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....