These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Incursion Site Exploit Notification
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kagar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-01-18 20:26:33 UTC
Quote:
Good evening internet spaceship captains.

We would like to inform you all that after thorough investigation, the GM Team have come to the decision that loitering in completed Incursion sites with the intent of preventing further continuation of the Incursion is now considered an exploit.

Any players found engaging this activity will be dealt with according to our policies on exploits.


Will this new policy also apply to FW plex / sites?
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#2 - 2013-01-18 20:50:03 UTC
Interesting question.
But I think CCP will decide that the mechanics are different, in FW, one plex not getting done will not affect the balance of power much, if at all...


Signature removed - CCP Eterne
Kagar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-01-18 20:52:50 UTC
Beekeeper Bob wrote:
Interesting question.
But I think CCP will decide that the mechanics are different, in FW, one plex not getting done will not affect the balance of power much, if at all...




If the cap status of a system reaches 100% it would be easier to keep one ship in the last three plex that spawned then to abandon them and defend new ones that would spawn whilst your shooting the Ihub.
Myrissa Kistel
Planetary Logistics
#4 - 2013-01-18 21:01:47 UTC
Kagar wrote:
Quote:
Good evening internet spaceship captains.

We would like to inform you all that after thorough investigation, the GM Team have come to the decision that loitering in completed Incursion sites with the intent of preventing further continuation of the Incursion is now considered an exploit.

Any players found engaging this activity will be dealt with according to our policies on exploits.


Will this new policy also apply to FW plex / sites?



Can't you just shoot the person loitering in the FW plex? They are all in low sec.
Rengerel en Distel
#5 - 2013-01-18 21:03:55 UTC
Myrissa Kistel wrote:
Kagar wrote:
Quote:
Good evening internet spaceship captains.

We would like to inform you all that after thorough investigation, the GM Team have come to the decision that loitering in completed Incursion sites with the intent of preventing further continuation of the Incursion is now considered an exploit.

Any players found engaging this activity will be dealt with according to our policies on exploits.


Will this new policy also apply to FW plex / sites?



Can't you just shoot the person loitering in the FW plex? They are all in low sec.


Which is why they didn't mention FW plexes I believe.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Kagar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-01-18 21:17:07 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:


Which is why they didn't mention FW plexes I believe.



Sounds like a valid reason, would be nice though if CCP would clarify it. Would save them some petition to proces I think.
Myrissa Kistel
Planetary Logistics
#7 - 2013-01-18 21:31:36 UTC
Kagar wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:


Which is why they didn't mention FW plexes I believe.



Sounds like a valid reason, would be nice though if CCP would clarify it. Would save them some petition to proces I think.


Here is a quick way to send that petition, CTRL+Right Click the ship, press F1.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#8 - 2013-01-18 22:38:07 UTC
Incursions are still relevant?

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-01-18 23:13:43 UTC
You do realize this thread is going to get locked, right?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-01-18 23:30:30 UTC
The more obvious answer is that incursions simply have no place in highsec.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tarpedo
Incursionista
#11 - 2013-01-18 23:40:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarpedo
Andski wrote:
incursions simply have no place in highsec.


How do you know? I suspect your last visit to high-sec was so long time ago you could meet dinosaurs there...
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2013-01-18 23:44:42 UTC
Tarpedo wrote:
Andski wrote:
incursions simply have no place in highsec.


How do you know? I suspect your last visit to high-sec was so long time ago you could meet dinosaurs there...

Highsec is where he makes his isk.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2013-01-18 23:45:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Andski wrote:
The more obvious answer is that incursions simply have no place in highsec.

Any time someone says this all I can think of is that for some reason people think PUG's only belong in places where they will never be used.

Edit: Or that maybe they just hate PUG's now that I think about it.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2013-01-18 23:48:12 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Andski wrote:
The more obvious answer is that incursions simply have no place in highsec.

Any time someone says this all I can think of is that for some reason people think PUG's only belong in places where they will never be used.

Edit: Or that maybe they just hate PUG's now that I think about it.

Or maybe PUGs simply shouldn't be ridiculously profitable for almost no risk at all.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tesal
#15 - 2013-01-18 23:53:47 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Andski wrote:
The more obvious answer is that incursions simply have no place in highsec.

Any time someone says this all I can think of is that for some reason people think PUG's only belong in places where they will never be used.

Edit: Or that maybe they just hate PUG's now that I think about it.

Or maybe PUGs simply shouldn't be ridiculously profitable for almost no risk at all.


Why don't you add incursions to your already long "nerf hi-sec" list?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2013-01-18 23:54:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Andski wrote:
The more obvious answer is that incursions simply have no place in highsec.

Any time someone says this all I can think of is that for some reason people think PUG's only belong in places where they will never be used.

Edit: Or that maybe they just hate PUG's now that I think about it.

Or maybe PUGs simply shouldn't be ridiculously profitable for almost no risk at all.

Then the thing to do would obviously be to balance highsec incursion income, right (which in CCP's opinion may have already been largely done)? If removing them is the the obvious option then there must be something wrong with the nature of the content and it's emphasis on assisting in grouping unaffiliated people.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#17 - 2013-01-18 23:57:55 UTC
I wasn't the one who said they should be removed.
In any case they were already nerfed, so I think they're mostly fine now.
It's lvl 4 missions and industry that really needs to be looked at.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#18 - 2013-01-19 00:31:43 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I wasn't the one who said they should be removed.
In any case they were already nerfed, so I think they're mostly fine now.
It's lvl 4 missions and industry that really needs to be looked at.


the nerfs were almost entirely undone

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-01-19 00:34:48 UTC
Andski wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I wasn't the one who said they should be removed.
In any case they were already nerfed, so I think they're mostly fine now.
It's lvl 4 missions and industry that really needs to be looked at.


the nerfs were almost entirely undone

The most substantial and effective of them, the prevention of blitzing by requiring all spawns be destroyed, is still wholly intact at last check.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-01-19 00:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Then the thing to do would obviously be to balance highsec incursion income, right (which in CCP's opinion may have already been largely done)? If removing them is the the obvious option then there must be something wrong with the nature of the content and it's emphasis on assisting in grouping unaffiliated people.


The problem is that hisec incursions are just watered down versions of what they are in lowsec, but the payout difference is marginal. You have no scramming rats, you have no gate rats. CCP can't make them too hard because they don't want hisec incursions essentially shutting systems down until they're completed - people continue moving freighters through there just fine and agents and CONCORD work perfectly.

They had the opportunity to add attractive content to lowsec that would attract PvP, but they realized that it'd exclude their risk-averse hisec carebears, so they added dumbed-down incursions to hisec.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
12Next page