These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

The real solution to "Mom Popping" in Incursions

Author
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#1 - 2014-09-10 18:11:23 UTC

Incursions encourage group play in a manner beyond corp / alliance ties. This is a very good thing for our community, as it is our relationship with others that generally drive game retention. With this in mind though, I am hesitant to support an arbitrary "keep the mom alive longer so we can farm" situation. There is too much entitlement here, and that needs to stop. I'm going to go beyond the I'm entitled to grind isk to PLEX my account crowd, and focus on the aspect of EvE that makes it great: Other players actions impact your game play.

That is one of the beauties of popping the Mom, that one group can have a pretty adverse effect on another group. This drives conflict: It encourages wardecs, suicide ganks, and straight up PvE competition. Conflict between players is a cornerstone of this game, and for incursion runners, the most meaningful outlet for resolving their conflicts is to simply destroy the mom and prevent all from enjoying the spoils. I agree that having only this "nuclear war" option is counterproductive. With that in mind, I support a change to the Mom spawning mechanics. However, I do NOT support an arbitrary "keep her alive longer" mantra.

Instead, it should be another form of conflict. Give the communities a means of preventing the mom from spawning.

Group A works to spawn the Mom and end the incursion. Give Group B a mechanic to keep the Mom from spawning. You find this tug and pull options in Sov warfare, in Faction Warfare, lets add it to incursions.

It is pretty simple:
Add a new type of site that INCREASES the incursion influence bar, and ultimately inhibits the Mom site from spawning.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2 - 2014-09-10 19:08:56 UTC
I could get behind this. Make it an assault site, with annoying mechanics similar to the NCN, so that it isn't done casually, and rewards something other than CONCORD LP. Perhaps it reduces the LP you have stored in the pool for the current incursion, and pays out more ISK, at about the normalized going rate for LP. Maybe reduce sec status slightly and have you shooting the CONCORD Support structure, because it can't all be jovian produced battleships with CONCORDOKEN guns if Sansha can push it back at all. Make each such site worth 2-2.5 times the influence drop of an HQ site, so 8-10% infleunce

Reasons for these suggestions:

  1. This allows smaller, VG communities to run it in combination, or by actually stepping up.
  2. CONCORD obviously wants the sansha gone, so they wouldn't support the prolonging of such a threat in the heart of highsec.
  3. This allows HQ communities with a good FC team to run multiple such sites at once
  4. This means a well coordinated effort with effective doctrine can prevent the mom from spawning against a slightly superior set of people trying to run the incursion.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#3 - 2014-09-10 19:30:33 UTC

James Baboli wrote:
I could get behind this. Make it an assault site, with annoying mechanics similar to the NCN, so that it isn't done casually, and rewards something other than CONCORD LP. Perhaps it reduces the LP you have stored in the pool for the current incursion, and pays out more ISK, at about the normalized going rate for LP. Maybe reduce sec status slightly and have you shooting the CONCORD Support structure, because it can't all be jovian produced battleships with CONCORDOKEN guns if Sansha can push it back at all. Make each such site worth 2-2.5 times the influence drop of an HQ site, so 8-10% infleunce

Reasons for these suggestions:

  1. This allows smaller, VG communities to run it in combination, or by actually stepping up.
  2. CONCORD obviously wants the sansha gone, so they wouldn't support the prolonging of such a threat in the heart of highsec.
  3. This allows HQ communities with a good FC team to run multiple such sites at once
  4. This means a well coordinated effort with effective doctrine can prevent the mom from spawning against a slightly superior set of people trying to run the incursion.


I like your addendums, although I don't know if these sites should be "annoying" because of the NPCs.

1.) Running a pro-sansha site should provide larger changes to the influence bar than running the equivalent VG, Assualt, or HQ site. This will potentially allow a balance to be achieved where groups can slow, stop, or even reverse the Sansha influence.

2.) The rewards for running the pro-sansha site should be a bit different... So, instead of Concord LP, maybe Sansha LP with better to-pirate-LP conversion rates, or simply more Isk instead of concord LP?

3.) Running the pro-sansha site should be a double edged sword with various feedbacks so incursion communities find farming these sites less than ideal. Increasing the influence bar that also increases incursion penalties is a good start, but not enough by itself. I really like your loss of sec status idea, although PvE'ing yourself into criminal status seems wrong on some level (shoot pods damnit)!
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#4 - 2014-09-10 19:34:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
A site like this should noticeably raise the influence bar when completed. It shouldn't just be a "complete site, print ISK for longer" switch. It should be a "complete site, print ISK for longer at the cost of pissing everybody off" switch.

Even in HQ systems, it shouldn't require anything above T1 battleships with T2 mods, so that literally anyone can form a fleet and mess with the incursionbears. If I want to form up a fleet and push that influence bar back to full blue, it should be possible.

Anything to ruin the Incursion community's day - forever.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#5 - 2014-09-10 19:47:41 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
A site like this should noticeably raise the influence bar when completed. It shouldn't just be a "complete site, print ISK for longer" switch. It should be a "complete site, print ISK for longer at the cost of pissing everybody off" switch.

Even in HQ systems, it shouldn't require anything above T1 battleships with T2 mods, so that literally anyone can form a fleet and mess with the incursionbears. If I want to form up a fleet and push that influence bar back to full blue, it should be possible.

Anything to ruin the Incursion community's day - forever.


lol, I'm imagining a "reset the incursion bar to full" option. The amount of bling destroyed with such an action could be epic. At the same time, to be properly balanced, bug increases to the influence bar should also include big side effects to those that increased it.

To seriously address your idea: Incursion communities drain that incursion bar very fast. It'll go from full blue to no blue in 2-4 hours, perhaps faster with dense activity. I honestly figured a counter-grind would be the pragmatic response. But your suggestion offers a lot of potential opportunity. What do you consider a reasonable obstacle, as well as a reasonable drawback or side effect for those that would dramatically increase the incursion bar? A sec status decrease akin to illegally podding someone?

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#6 - 2014-09-10 19:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
A sec status decrease on par with podding someone means that the site won't get touched. Incursion bears are a festering disease but they're not worth going outlaw over.

Possibly a standings hit to the empire they're in, but I personally would be fine with a site that simply pays little and serves mostly to counteract the bar being drained.

CCP can call it "Nation Tear Extraction Facility" or something else a bit more witty.
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#7 - 2014-09-10 19:59:34 UTC
Good motivation, terrible idea.

Incursions stop 'local' pve players for doing their thing. At no point should players be able to prolong that kind of disruption. This is a variation of the "I should be able to fight for Sansha" suggestions of the past, there is a reason why all of those get shot down.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#8 - 2014-09-10 20:07:56 UTC
I could support something like this. I would enjoy a new site to run, and higher influence definitely makes running incursions more challenging.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#9 - 2014-09-10 20:13:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Good motivation, terrible idea.

Incursions stop 'local' pve players for doing their thing. At no point should players be able to prolong that kind of disruption. This is a variation of the "I should be able to fight for Sansha" suggestions of the past, there is a reason why all of those get shot down.


Ultimately, I agree. There should be significant motivation to end the Incursion as quickly as possible. You should actually lose reward for letting the Incursion go on too long, IMO. LP should begin draining from your pool after a certain point and payouts overall should decline down to nothing, encouraging a swift conclusion to the Incursion in line with CCP's original idea for them.

Basically, an incursion that has been allowed to go into withdrawal naturally should yield absolutely zero rewards, no matter how long and hard you've been farming until that point. In the end, if the Incursion has gathered enough new slaves to leave on its own, you didn't protect anyone or accomplish a damned thing; why should CONCORD reward you for failing?

However, this thread isn't about that and so that's why we're all talking about refilling the red bar and making those multi-billion-ISK ships more vulnerable than they want to be.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#10 - 2014-09-10 20:19:12 UTC
Couple notes:

  1. Full blue is the "good" status. At full blue, ships function like they would outside incursion systems.
  2. Full red provides approximately a 50% reduction in damage per shot fired, and a 25% effectiveness hit to resist mods IIRC, so the initial speed of fleets is much lower, due to the extra tank needed and lower DPS.
  3. Since sec status and concord standing have been decoupled, it might be a good idea to take a hit to concord standing, and going too far pushes you out of concord SOV, meaning no turning in CONCORD LP.
  4. CONCORD LP currently cannot be converted to any pirate faction, nor to Sanctuary LP (the nullsec SOE corp) .


The reason I suggested an assault site is that currently there are two viable "real" incursion sites, and CCP has mostly confirmed that NCNs are a problem by artificially capping the number of NCNs that spawn. Replacing NCNs with a similarly "out of line" site attacking concord auxillary forces that aren't capsuleers has a nice "lore driven" feel that works with the proposed mechanics, while giving a decent reason for the site to be on par (difficulty wise) with things like ancient jovian relics (sleepers) and the cream of the crop of a massive pirate empire which has technology that required unethical R&D to develop (incursions).

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#11 - 2014-09-10 20:20:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
A sec status decrease on par with podding someone means that the site won't get touched. Incursion bears are a festering disease but they're not worth going outlaw over.

Possibly a standings hit to the empire they're in, but I personally would be fine with a site that simply pays little and serves mostly to counteract the bar being drained.

CCP can call it "Nation Tear Extraction Facility" or something else a bit more witty.


If you are at 0 Sec status, and you POD a +5 Target in a 1.0 System, your sec status will drop to -2.625. At that level, you will be attacked by navies in 1.0 and 0.9, but you will not be an outlaw.

Incursion runners all have a +5 sec status from shooting NPC's all day.
At 5, they would drop to -1.667 (no penalties) with the first podding.
They would then drop to -3.887 (Penalties in 0.7 to 1.0 systems, where only NPC navies and no players will be shooting you)

If a site suddenly bounced the bar to full red, these penalties are very reasonable.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#12 - 2014-09-10 20:27:00 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
A sec status decrease on par with podding someone means that the site won't get touched. Incursion bears are a festering disease but they're not worth going outlaw over.

Possibly a standings hit to the empire they're in, but I personally would be fine with a site that simply pays little and serves mostly to counteract the bar being drained.

CCP can call it "Nation Tear Extraction Facility" or something else a bit more witty.


If you are at 0 Sec status, and you POD a +5 Target in a 1.0 System, your sec status will drop to -2.625. At that level, you will be attacked by navies in 1.0 and 0.9, but you will not be an outlaw.

Incursion runners all have a +5 sec status from shooting NPC's all day.
At 5, they would drop to -1.667 (no penalties) with the first site.
They would then drop to -3.887 (Penalties in 0.7 to 1.0 systems, where only NPC navies and no players will be shooting you)


This is all well and true, but don't forget that you'll need to run that site more than once to have any useful effect on the influence bar. Also don't forget that not everyone who feels like messing with incursioners are incursioners themselves.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#13 - 2014-09-10 20:28:29 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
As a refinement to my initial suggestion, make it a sharp hit to CONCORD standing, meaning if you run them enough, you can't easily get into CONCORD stations, as IIRC a majority of them in highsec are in 1 system CONCORD sov pockets. This means you end up (eventually) cut off from the LP income of incursions, but doesn't end up pushing people deeply into negative sec status quickly, with a sec status hit equivalent to illegal aggression but not a pod killing. Its an elegent solution IMO, as it means that you can still PVE yourself into a criminal status, but must work hard at it, rather than being the express route to -10, which I am told is a mark of distinction for some players. Thus the incursion bears have to really want to do such a thing, while people wanting to mess with them are much less effected.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#14 - 2014-09-10 20:32:15 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
As a refinement to my initial suggestion, make it a sharp hit to CONCORD standing, meaning if you run them enough, you can't easily get into CONCORD stations, as IIRC a majority of them in highsec are in 1 system CONCORD sov pockets. This means you end up (eventually) cut off from the LP income of incursions, but doesn't end up pushing people deeply into negative sec status quickly, with a sec status hit equivalent to illegal aggression but not a pod killing. Its an elegent solution IMO, as it means that you can still PVE yourself into a criminal status, but must work hard at it, rather than being the express route to -10, which I am told is a mark of distinction for some players. Thus the incursion bears have to really want to do such a thing, while people wanting to mess with them are much less effected.


What would be the point? If you can't cash in LP's no one will bother running the sites, and they will just sit empty.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#15 - 2014-09-10 20:36:24 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
As a refinement to my initial suggestion, make it a sharp hit to CONCORD standing, meaning if you run them enough, you can't easily get into CONCORD stations, as IIRC a majority of them in highsec are in 1 system CONCORD sov pockets. This means you end up (eventually) cut off from the LP income of incursions, but doesn't end up pushing people deeply into negative sec status quickly, with a sec status hit equivalent to illegal aggression but not a pod killing. Its an elegent solution IMO, as it means that you can still PVE yourself into a criminal status, but must work hard at it, rather than being the express route to -10, which I am told is a mark of distinction for some players. Thus the incursion bears have to really want to do such a thing, while people wanting to mess with them are much less effected.


What would be the point? If you can't cash in LP's no one will bother running the sites, and they will just sit empty.

I know several people with millions of unused concord LP, waiting for the next thing like the mindlinks where 10k/lp was possible for a brief window. Incursions still provide 100m/hr of being active with little effort at the line pilot level, which is similar to the income for the closest comparable PVE (C4/C5 daytripable doctrines) for less actual risk.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#16 - 2014-09-10 20:36:45 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
As a refinement to my initial suggestion, make it a sharp hit to CONCORD standing, meaning if you run them enough, you can't easily get into CONCORD stations, as IIRC a majority of them in highsec are in 1 system CONCORD sov pockets. This means you end up (eventually) cut off from the LP income of incursions, but doesn't end up pushing people deeply into negative sec status quickly, with a sec status hit equivalent to illegal aggression but not a pod killing. Its an elegent solution IMO, as it means that you can still PVE yourself into a criminal status, but must work hard at it, rather than being the express route to -10, which I am told is a mark of distinction for some players. Thus the incursion bears have to really want to do such a thing, while people wanting to mess with them are much less effected.


I could be wrong, but I thought that repairing Concord Standings is rather difficult as there are no Concord agents to run missions for. While a temporary block from concord LP payouts may be reasonable, I have an issue if there is no way to reverse it.

I think Sec Status loss for running the pro-sansha sites is an elegant solution. Balancing the sec status loss with the influence increases is the hard part.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#17 - 2014-09-10 21:09:55 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
As a refinement to my initial suggestion, make it a sharp hit to CONCORD standing, meaning if you run them enough, you can't easily get into CONCORD stations, as IIRC a majority of them in highsec are in 1 system CONCORD sov pockets. This means you end up (eventually) cut off from the LP income of incursions, but doesn't end up pushing people deeply into negative sec status quickly, with a sec status hit equivalent to illegal aggression but not a pod killing. Its an elegent solution IMO, as it means that you can still PVE yourself into a criminal status, but must work hard at it, rather than being the express route to -10, which I am told is a mark of distinction for some players. Thus the incursion bears have to really want to do such a thing, while people wanting to mess with them are much less effected.


I could be wrong, but I thought that repairing Concord Standings is rather difficult as there are no Concord agents to run missions for. While a temporary block from concord LP payouts may be reasonable, I have an issue if there is no way to reverse it.

I think Sec Status loss for running the pro-sansha sites is an elegant solution. Balancing the sec status loss with the influence increases is the hard part.

It is hard, and requires a strong bit of work for the empire factions. This is why I suggested it, as being chased by faction police (the concord ones do NOT CONCORDOKEN, but do arrive much faster and are nastier than normal faction police) in CONCORD space is a suitable hassle which does not effect the vast majority of people who are not incursion runners while providing a hassle back for those who would hassle the rest of the incursion community from within. This puts incursions back towards the upper end content they seem designed as. It also means that doing this gives you a reason to be a more diverse player, as the empire and SOE epic arcs are the fastest way to repair concord standing.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-09-11 05:48:24 UTC
No.

If you propose something like new level 6 type of missions that are team focused - fine but not this.

Incursions were designed to be competitive. If you can't compete with someone going after the top target - that's your problem and not a game design issue.
Varsua Demilia
Doomheim
#19 - 2014-09-14 00:18:23 UTC
While I agree to a degree that high sec incursions have become the ultimate risk-free "isk faucet" in a certain sense, the ongoing drama between the incursion communities I think have skewed the original concept of what CCP intended for incursions. With eve being a sandbox style game, theres always a balance in returning the favor to a player who does wrong against you. Almost everything has a balanced way or kicking sand back to someone. However with the early popping of the moms by certain communities, what options are there to kick back sand to these groups. These groups who are essentially protected by the governing mechanics within the game. Aside from suicide ganking, and/or hiring mers, what recourse does another group have against the one doing the sand kicking? I agree to a point with the original post....there should be a way within the incursion system to counter the spawning of the mom. On the other side of things, the idea is to close the incursion as quickly as possible (concord's belief, right?). Most people that run incursions are in npc corps, which remove them from the war dec option. And if you have group 1 popping the mom early...how much isk would it take to hire a merc corp large enough to wipe their fleet? 10-20 bill just to continue to participate in a certain aspect of gameplay?



I like the - No mom for high sec incursions idea (let them last a random time from 24-96 hours?, or a set time after the conflict bar is held blue for X amount of time)


Before anyone wants to flame me for this post...I understand its not CCP responsibility to "fix" incursions because of player manifested drama...but again, there should be a way to counter balance 1 group from kicking sand at everyone without the need to suicide gank their fleets by another community or by mercs.
Ele Rebellion
Fat Dragon Mining Co.
Darwinism.
#20 - 2014-09-14 00:51:04 UTC
The actions of few affect many.

If you want the mom to stay alive longer... well then its simple. Stop Running With ISN
Right now the mom popping is retaliation to the actions of an ISN FC. Had this person shown a little respect, (the respect that the other communities would have shown him had the roles been reversed) then there would be far less mom popping going on.

For those that have not read The End Game know that TVP is popping moms only as ISN undocks their fleets. If ISN stops undocking fleets, then TVP will stop popping moms.

Btw, I highly recommend visiting TVP's website and reading the top article here http://thevalhallaproject.info/news.html to understand why things currently are as they are.
Instead of asking CCP to "fix" this.. lets fix the problem ourselves as is the way the game intends for problems to be solved.
123Next pageLast page