These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Woo Mi
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2014-07-08 19:31:34 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:


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)


Yup, I understand it is another knob to twiddle.
And the push/pull part was also made clear in the devblog.

The question still remains : why was this introduced?
People were playing the game in a way not intended by the designers?
Not enough dynamism in the market?
Simply introducing extra complexity for complexities sake can't be it.
And if the answer is : cooperate with other players or stay out of the market, then WTF?
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#42 - 2014-07-08 19:56:04 UTC
Woo Mi wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:


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)


Yup, I understand it is another knob to twiddle.
And the push/pull part was also made clear in the devblog.

The question still remains : why was this introduced?
People were playing the game in a way not intended by the designers?
Not enough dynamism in the market?
Simply introducing extra complexity for complexities sake can't be it.
And if the answer is : cooperate with other players or stay out of the market, then WTF?




currently industry is a spreadsheet. they want to add variation to that cause ccp thinks that eve isn't just a skin for a large excel workbook.
Dibble Dabble
Spaghetti Cannon
Sentinels Amongst Warriors
#43 - 2014-07-08 20:22:31 UTC
What a load of round spherical objects. (I am of course referring to planets, honest).

Your making empire industry into a full time job and as I have said many times before I have a full time job and other interests, eve is secondary and should be a bit of fun for an hour or two here and there.

5 accounts now suspended, 3 POS are down and a **** load of assets to dispose of when I can be arsed.

Eve is now for meta gamers, there is no place for casual players. Nerf after nerf and bloody nerf.

Player count continues to drop, Dust is a disaster / joke and new games coming on-line over the next 6 months and this is how CCP want to compete.

The CSM who have worked on this have their own agenda which is to basically screw high sec but I guess that's what you get when you have block votes and lemmings voting.

I am not so vain as to admit these changes may work, pigs may fly and England may win the World Cup in 4 years. I fear though that the decline in Eve is not related to industry although I suspect 1000's of industry accounts are already mothballed with more to follow. Eve is just to old, the gap between old and new is immense and too many people just enjoy killing noobs rather than helping. We were happy for noobs to use our locked down BPO's and access the POS to build stuff. That's no longer possible due to the changes. The changes to industry wont fix anything, simply make for more targets.
PaulsAvatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2014-07-08 20:54:28 UTC
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.
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#45 - 2014-07-08 22:01:18 UTC
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.


Personally I can't believe they insist on implementing this. It got a really poor reception the first time. I was hoping they may have fine tuned it, especially with the delay. Yet here we are with the same nonsense.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#46 - 2014-07-08 22:13:43 UTC
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 has been an outcry over this issue with many people pointing out how bad a concept it is. Unfortunately CCP Greyscale has said to not have this idea would be 'boring' & 'uninteresting' and will not hear a word against the concept or entertain any other ideas such as additional skillbooks to learn to receive additional tax bonuses at POSes. Sad

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#47 - 2014-07-08 22:15:10 UTC
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
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.


Personally I can't believe they insist on implementing this. It got a really poor reception the first time. I was hoping they may have fine tuned it, especially with the delay. Yet here we are with the same nonsense.



you should know better than that, this is ccp we are talking about. If the thread didn't get over 100 pages of complaints in F&I they don't change
GreasyCarl Semah
A Game as Old as Empire
#48 - 2014-07-08 22:26:37 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
GreasyCarl Semah wrote:
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.


Personally I can't believe they insist on implementing this. It got a really poor reception the first time. I was hoping they may have fine tuned it, especially with the delay. Yet here we are with the same nonsense.



you should know better than that, this is ccp we are talking about. If the thread didn't get over 100 pages of complaints in F&I they don't change


One of the reasons I keep coming to these forums is that my expectations are set incredibly high and the trip here brings me back to reality in short order.
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#49 - 2014-07-08 23:05:31 UTC
industry just got awesome wow GJ ccp. With the changes to 0.0 and jump ranges I assume will happen you bears will be actually important to an alliance O_o. Its a good time to be a carebear.
Circumstantial Evidence
#50 - 2014-07-08 23:17:57 UTC
Removing slots from science and industry would cause a crash in market value of POS arrays, since only one of each type is needed on patch day. A huge number of POS arrays would have been dumped on the market. To preserve some of the investment in the arrays players already have, a new benefit to same-type POS arrays was created. The benefit seems to be smaller than some players might think.

The cost savings for stacking arrays was looked at in this player comment and dev reply, here. More good reading in the next few posts after the linked one.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#51 - 2014-07-08 23:20:10 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Dread Nanana wrote:
Having teams per system instead of private makes absolutely no sense, unless you live in conquerable null sec in which case it would be equal to private.

That's all.



Why?

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.


You do realize that only the organized in a tight group will benefit from any bidding process.
Please enlighten me how 100, or 1,000, independent industrialists in one high sec system will co-ordinate and compete with ONE group operating in a null sec system, with incredibly tight controls on what is produced, who produces it, when, and in what quantity.

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.
Qmamoto Kansuke
Killing with pink power
Penguins with lasorz
#52 - 2014-07-08 23:27:37 UTC
You all seem to forget that 0.0 doesn't produce everything, large alliances have specific items they build and most of them are ships, so yes that part of the industry should be cheaper for them and expensive for hi-sec because there needs to be more incentive to move into zero space.But that still leaves large part of eve industry to hi-sec because lets face it even with the blue donut people don't go to 0.0 to build stuff,they are there for the pew pew.
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#53 - 2014-07-09 02:27:24 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Edit: Since I see someone is putting up information for accounting. 2 POS's down, 1 Cap line down, 2 accounts expiring. From the number of POS mod's flooding into Jita looks like a flood to me....
Lady Zarrina
New Eden Browncoats
#54 - 2014-07-09 02:31:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Zarrina
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.

EVE: All about Flying Frisky and Making Iskie
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2014-07-09 02:34:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Awkward Pi Duolus
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.
Edward Perry
Signs of Life
#56 - 2014-07-09 03:28:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Perry
Been doing industry for ~4 years now, I don't see how all this makes Industry more exciting, and seems to make the game more complex for this new and old player. Like everything in the game is geared towards the big alliances.

1: Teams so far seems like the craziest idea. I don't get it and frankly don't like the bidding part of it at all.
2: The new flashy indy screen does seem like it is nice but don't think it was worth all the work.
3: The changes to stations, I don't see the risk vs reward. NULL sec is the safest place for Indy in a big alliance. LOW sec is the riskiest, Hi Sec don't carry too expensive stuff they will gank you.
4: I have not seen more then a couple of positive reviews of what is going on.
5: Hope I can finish my Moros before this goes in to effect. I think I might stop Indy all together.
6: I still do not see any comments on how they will deal with High Value ME/TE researches that spent years researching and ISK
7: Scares the bejeezus out of me the lack of testing.


CCP DID YOU NOT LEARN ABOUT MAKING CHANGES A COUPLE YEARS AGO. When people started leaving cause you did not care about people opinions.

Oh Aurum too (Burn Jita comes to mind)


If anything all these changes are too Drastic, the idea of lots of little releases is not a full blown change of the game in one swing. This could have been implemented in smaller changes. I know it might have been harder to do but this really sucks
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2014-07-09 03:39:19 UTC
Mackenzie Nolen wrote:
Robert Almart wrote:
Does this mean you are going to tax me for researching at a POS as well as making me fuel the POS? What is the point of a high sec POS if there is no benefit to having a POS.


Installation cost is not tax. POS manufacturing is free from the additional 10% NPC tax that is added to installation costs. It also gets a 2% material benefit with the assembly arrays.


In this instance, without further consideration such as skill reducing modifiers, the distinction between install cost and tax is trivial because both are arbitrary forms of inflation that do no create value. Reprocessing the item made does not recover the isk associated with the install fee or tax. This would be different from say increasing the (virtual) material goods required to make an end product by an amount equal to tax / install fees. Either the fee or tax become a disincentive to produce an item. In fact, the install fee might be worse because some of the game taxes are not realized until a formal sales / buy process.

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. For example, unless missioning payouts increase the same percentage, the time and by associated money paid (divide your monthly subscription by the number of minutes in a month) also nets you less of a return for the same amount of work. It's virtual usury :-)
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#58 - 2014-07-09 03:51:02 UTC
Bessa Miros wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
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?


Not every activity in EVE should be just as efficient solo as it is in groups?

In addition, many items currently profitable to build are not confined to the category of capital ships and parts, etc. There are also a number of well organized, wealthy high sec groups who will be able to pour a lot of isk into teams that benefit their own industrialists.

Plus, if less people do industry as a result of the changes, it only gets more profitable for those who do. On the other hand, if more people do industry, then ways of specializing, such as teams, becomes more beneficial. Seems win/win

There are a lot of problems with null/sov, but this doesn't seem like one of them...

Thanks for the counter.

Based on what Steve Ronuken wrote above - I see now what CCP might be trying to do.

Give reigns of the economy to nullsec. Allow them to manipulate prices by hiring in all teams that have to do with so and so. section of markets.


It doesn't even have to be that sophisticated. Check the numbers here Fleeing to 0.0 renter space hands the alliances a huge win with their 1b monthly minimums. Fuel costs, rental costs, logistical costs, install fees, taxes, etc... not to mention the risk of staying in high sec... war decs, loss of money spent in subscriptions working up standings to drop poses etc... 0.0 interests win even without a sophisticated attempt to control teams.

WH may be an option as long as we don't get hit with scan probe graphic bugs again :-)
El Zylcho
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2014-07-09 04:00:21 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
KIller Wabbit wrote:
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

Edit: Since I see someone is putting up information for accounting. 2 POS's down, 1 Cap line down, 2 accounts expiring. From the number of POS mod's flooding into Jita looks like a flood to me....


I literally could not *give* away my high sec moon location to industry neighbors with whom I shared systems for 2+ years now. And, [(time to get standing to drop POS) x (monthly fee)] ... vaporized.
Malice Redeemer
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#60 - 2014-07-09 05:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Just what eve industry needed, temporary random crap to deal with, thanks for the unnecessary complications.
*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.