These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
DoToo Foo
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2014-12-07 11:38:38 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
It's a shame that the feature is being removed, but with the low usage, and the problems with it, it's better to remove it until a team has the time to work on it properly, rather than leaving it in a half working state. Sad


I disagree about removing things that have a low usage.

If you are removing it to make way for new changes, then great. But if only a few are using it, but it does no harm? Leave it in.

I am one for added complexity and subtlety in decision making, and am somewhat sad to see their loss.

All of that said, I do not use teams, and do not intend to start.

I am nervous enough with leaking information about what I do and where. Teams are like faction mods on POS, a way of screaming 'loot is here'.

I already know what loot I have and where. No need to put up signposts. Teams were signposts

http://foo-eve.blogspot.com.au/
Zifrian
The Frog Pond
Ribbit.
#162 - 2014-12-07 13:34:02 UTC
Here's what I posted when teams were introduced: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4531250#post4531250
Quote:
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.

It seems like this played out like I thought. I also had issues with the auction system, since it seemed obvious that the sniping effect could happen easily. I'm not sure why you didn't see this coming either.

Ultimately though I am frustrated by this because I feel like this wasn't a well thought out idea but really could have been implemented well. Now I (and others) have spent time using all the 3rd party dev support to update our apps for nothing. While I can understand you wanting to fix it, just turning it off because you can't work on it and don't have the resources is really disappointing. I understand Industry doesn't get the interest from devs (omg PVP rulz!) but you might want to consider how many people do industry that would use teams instead of the actual number of people using them. The demand is there, the implementation is the issue.

The number one issue with teams is the auction system. Sure people will complain about the bonuses but I bet those could be easily updated by adjusting your RNG for what teams it spits out. You could also duplicate bonuses on different teams so more people can get what they want.

Anyway, as others have said, leave in the teams - fix the auction system.

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

Import CCP's SDE - EVE SDE Database Builder
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#163 - 2014-12-07 14:23:49 UTC  |  Edited by: probag Bear
Keep teams in the game.
Create an authed CREST API endpoint that allows players to bid on teams from outside of the game.
Change the cache timer of /industry/teams/auction/ to 10 minutes.
Extend the deadline of team auctions by 15 minutes every time the highest bid changes from one system to another.


There. You've solved the problem of team sniping. You've solved the problem of team auctions ending when interested parties are asleep. You've done it with minimal coding on your part (though likely not on FoxFour's part). And you no longer have to worry about the state or look, or even existence, of the in-game auction interface. The rich continue to get richer by abusing the flaws inherent in the current system. Everyone's happy.
Gandralfr
Fot Corp
#164 - 2014-12-07 17:35:58 UTC
Why remove somthing that works even thou few people use it ?

By that logic many things shold be removed from the game...
Arrendis
TK Corp
#165 - 2014-12-07 18:10:42 UTC
From Missy_Z in the TMC comments section:

Quote:
How about having "teams" be actual teams of players who can all contribute to an industry job, or help it out in some way. Seriously, that would be fun and encourage indy corps. Maybe even make skills to go with it, something where you can only reasonably specialize in one thing to help boost the industry job so it encourages multiple people with different specializations to all go in to really get a boost on a job. I dunno. Something better then "pay for this and get an almost insignificant boost!"


CCP - please consider this. Giving industrialists - and industrial corps - a way to flex their muscles beyond 'we have fleets of miners' is not exactly a bad idea. Where EVE really shines and generates the most buzz is in its cooperative/competitive gameplay. (Let's face it, fleet combat is both.) Bring that to industry, please.
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#166 - 2014-12-07 18:12:38 UTC
Apparently this is not actually common knowledge:

[spoiler]
Post in removal of teams thread
From: Censored Name
Sent: 2014.12.07 01:10
To: probag Bear

Hi,

In this thread, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5278623#post5278623 , you state that you can build as much as you want in a station in Nonni and the index would never rise above 4%. I was under the impression that the index was based off the worth of jumps running in that system, regardless of where they are installed. Have I missed something really obvious and you're now going to make me feel stupid?

Re: Post in removal of teams thread
From: probag Bear
Sent: 2014.12.07 01:42
To: Censored Name

Appendix 2:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/eve-industry-all-you-want-to-know/

Basically, the fact that station modifiers are applied after the square root function is a major flaw. Starting several hundred jobs per day in Nonni would raise the cost index from 2.6% to 3.1%. Doing the same in a dead-end system would raise the cost index from 0% to 4.5%.

Re: Post in removal of teams thread
From: Censored Name
Sent: 2014.12.07 09:46
To: probag Bear

Well I totally missed that when I read it the first time but I'm not understanding how it "caps" the index at 4%. A station has a 0.95 install cost modifier but without doing the maths, surely that would still leave a POS with its material savings as the best place to build things?

Re: Post in removal of teams thread
From: probag Bear
Sent: 2014.12.07 14:11
To: Censored Name

A station doesn't modify just its install cost modifier. It modifies the install cost modifier of everything in the system. And it stacks multiplicatively with every other station.

You need to move 0.89% of New Eden's manufacturing to Nonni in order to raise its cost index above 4%. Which would never happen, since people would start moving out when the index got above 3.5%. I know from experience.

4% in a dead-end system on the other hand only needs 0.16% of New Eden's manufacturing. That's a difference of a factor of 5. And 0.16% is easily achievable by a single person; I've been at 0.23% over the last week.

Re: Post in removal of teams thread
From: Censored Name
Sent: 2014.12.07 16:00
To: probag Bear

So the more stations a system has, the lower index rise a single job introduces? If I were to build from a POS in Nonni, would i see a lower install cost rise assuming the same number of jobs when compared with a dead-end system?

Re: Post in removal of teams thread
From: probag Bear
Sent: 2014.12.07 16:28
To: Censored Name

Yes, by a huge amount. Like I wrote earlier: if you were to install a few hundred (~360?) jobs per day for the next month, the cost index in a dead-end system would go from 0% to 4.5%. The cost index in Nonni would go from 2.6% to 3.1%. Which is 1/9th of 4.5%.

Now clearly Nonni isn't the best system or I wouldn't be using it as an example.

Get the staOperations and staStations tables from the data dump, the cost indices from CREST's /industry/systems/, and do a back of the envelope calculation on how many jobs you install per day, and you can easily spit out a table of systems, sorted by which would give you the lowest cost index. Nonni will probably be top 25 even if you only have a few industry alts.

This might help; it was a bit tedious to copy-paste all that stuff from Appendix 2:

dapp={
"Factory, Shipyard, Assembly Plant, Foundry, Construction Plant, Biotech Production":0.95,
"Warehouse, Chemical Storage, Academy, School":0.97,
"Testing Facilities, Reprocessing Facility, Chemical Refinery":0.97
}

I've reread that post you linked me and I'd managed to skim over the relevant sentence. WTF. I had no idea that applied to highsec.

Time to use those tables you mentioned, for the first time ever. Picking a system to build in just got a whole lot more interesting! Something tells me that all the moons in Nonni are filled, I should check though!

I can't believe I missed that. I don't recall ever seeing that particular post so I probably assumed that I'd read everything already.

Thank you for your patience explaining this to me.
[/spoiler]
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#167 - 2014-12-08 03:29:37 UTC
Arrendis wrote:
From Missy_Z in the TMC comments section:

Quote:
How about having "teams" be actual teams of players who can all contribute to an industry job, or help it out in some way. Seriously, that would be fun and encourage indy corps. Maybe even make skills to go with it, something where you can only reasonably specialize in one thing to help boost the industry job so it encourages multiple people with different specializations to all go in to really get a boost on a job. I dunno. Something better then "pay for this and get an almost insignificant boost!"


CCP - please consider this. Giving industrialists - and industrial corps - a way to flex their muscles beyond 'we have fleets of miners' is not exactly a bad idea. Where EVE really shines and generates the most buzz is in its cooperative/competitive gameplay. (Let's face it, fleet combat is both.) Bring that to industry, please.


The main issue is "How do you do this without just encouraging people to use an army of alts?". Real players are suboptimal for this.
Venix
An Eye For An Eye
Phoebe Freeport Republic
#168 - 2014-12-08 05:58:49 UTC
Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?

Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.

Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer?
Fu Qjoo
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
#169 - 2014-12-08 06:21:41 UTC
Can you please remove Guardian-Vexors and Silver Magnates?
They are not used that much as well ....
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#170 - 2014-12-08 10:12:05 UTC
Venix wrote:
Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?

Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.

Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer?


I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end.
Paynus Maiassus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#171 - 2014-12-08 18:17:36 UTC
Killing teams is a bad idea. Teams are not bad complexity, they are good complexity. If the system is flawed, just leave it until you have time to fix it. I was just starting to get into using teams. I'm bummed. Not being commonly used is not a justification for getting rid of a feature. If that were the case, bounty hunting would be removed.

The only reason to remove teams would be if they were hurting the economy for the average player. For instance, margins are lower except for the super smart rare people who have figured out teams, who end up being the only people who can make a buck. If that's the case, so that the average player can't make money in manufacturing, then sure, get rid of them. However, that reason wasn't stated.

If nobody uses them because the system isn't very good, just leave them. Fix them in a couple years or something. I mean we didn't get rid of the captain's quarters, did we? We still hope the door will open some day.

And please don't call them bad complexity. Screwed up industry UI was bad complexity. Skill point loss is bad complexity. I get that. Bad complexity is an annoyance that doesn't offer choice or player options.

Teams offer choice. They offer options. They are good complexity. Perhaps the choices and options suck right now so nobody uses them. So, leave them to be used by the very few who like them and when there's time, fix them.

Again, the only reason to actually get rid of teams would be because they are jacking up the economy for the majority of players. Outside of that, just leave them in game as a kind of crapy feature that might get fixed at some point. We all know Eve has enough of those.

They're fine. Leave them in.
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#172 - 2014-12-08 20:22:04 UTC
probag Bear wrote:
Venix wrote:
Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?

Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.

Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer?


I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end.


They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill?
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#173 - 2014-12-08 20:30:38 UTC
Firvain wrote:
probag Bear wrote:
Venix wrote:
Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?

Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.

Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer?


I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end.


They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill?


I had to temporarily lower my profit margin for a week while I waited for the next team.
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#174 - 2014-12-08 20:54:01 UTC
probag Bear wrote:
Firvain wrote:
probag Bear wrote:
Venix wrote:
Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?

Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.

Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer?


I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end.


They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill?


I had to temporarily lower my profit margin for a week while I waited for the next team.


So instead of halting production, you chose to activly lose money? Seems like a smart thing to do
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#175 - 2014-12-08 21:00:44 UTC
Firvain wrote:
probag Bear wrote:
Firvain wrote:
probag Bear wrote:
Venix wrote:
Are we going to be able to reopen petitions about this broken system then?

Many people have lost a lot of ISK due to the really subpar interface that came with the bidding system. I know that I lost hundreds of millions due to a simple typo and there was no safety measure or cancelation feature built in like there is in every other system.

Overall, how about some refunds for the much wasted isk that those of us who wanted to test this live feature out had to suffer?


I lost about 7.5bil because my team was bugged, and disappeared 7 days before its stated retirement time. I got a 100mil GM refund without even asking though, so everything worked out in the end.


They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill?


I had to temporarily lower my profit margin for a week while I waited for the next team.


So instead of halting production, you chose to activly lose money? Seems like a smart thing to do



Re read that. He sold at a lower profit margin than he would of normally meaning he missed out on 7.5bil in profits. He still got profit from everything just not maximum profit
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#176 - 2014-12-08 21:45:04 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Firvain wrote:
probag Bear wrote:
Firvain wrote:


They refunded the cost for the team. So how did you end up losing 7.5 bill?


I had to temporarily lower my profit margin for a week while I waited for the next team.


So instead of halting production, you chose to activly lose money? Seems like a smart thing to do



Re read that. He sold at a lower profit margin than he would of normally meaning he missed out on 7.5bil in profits. He still got profit from everything just not maximum profit


So isntead of massive profit he got a bit less profit.. So he didnt lose anything he just didnt gain as much...
Fifth Blade
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
#177 - 2014-12-08 22:00:38 UTC
Firvain wrote:
So isntead of massive profit he got a bit less profit.. So he didnt lose anything he just didnt gain as much...


"In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

What is economics? You can't explain that!
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Wildly Inappropriate.
#178 - 2014-12-08 22:31:46 UTC
Fifth Blade wrote:
Firvain wrote:
So isntead of massive profit he got a bit less profit.. So he didnt lose anything he just didnt gain as much...


"In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

What is economics? You can't explain that!



Oh god, not this opportunity cost thing again...
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2014-12-08 22:55:58 UTC
I mean, seriously, why is Industry Teams being singled out for this removal process based on low usage? I mean, if that were the case, wouldn't Dust 514 have already been nyxxed?

Oh wait...

"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
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#180 - 2014-12-11 16:51:26 UTC
When teams came out I was under the impression that there would be no way to compete for the good teams and since then I never looked at them again, until I seen this post.

So since reading this yesterday I looked at teams again and have hired a few to try out. They were easy to get, I didn't get sniped in the auction, and landed a team that has actually saved me materials in a big way.

If a certain amount of people in eve are using this feature, I just do not understand your reasoning for yanking it out. Now that I have been successful at landing a team, I would use them more often.

I did look at the time saving teams and it was funny that a fancy team could save you an hour on a 2 day production, why bother when you are better off having teams to save on material.

Senex Legio