Missions & Complexes

The logistics of running security is effort, usually people are paid for that alone. Second, even then people lose ships because of siege and triage, there are cap kills daily.

This is why no one has any problems with LS or NS incursions having the same or greater payouts as old incursions, because people have the ability to kill your ****.

My 2¢: suspending CONCORD in high-sec incursions by itself probably would have been enough. At the very least, the killmails would be hilarious and the tears delicious. Beyond that,just decrease the payouts for VGs.

Once they stop killing titans. :p

To those advocating the removal of concord from incursion systems:

Do you honestly think that people will still do them? I'm seriously asking. To me it seems pants on head ******** to go to a series of (effectively) lowsec systems with such easy access to highsec and almost guaranteed to be camped to hell. Anyone with half a brain who still had any interest in them would probably be better off doing the incursions in normal lowsec than trying to PvE in the gankfest those locations would become.

This is of course ignoring the technical difficulty which could be involved in making sec status and penalties dynamic in the first place. Add to that the implications on highsec route plotting/auto piloting. The concept seems simple but I'd be willing to bet the implementation is anything but.

Good god some of you idiots actually think that the "smart AI" rats in Incursions constitute "risk."

ITT: pubbies think hisec incursions are high-risk

News at 11.

I don't even mind the VG nerf...they were supposed to be entry-level sites, so it's working as intended now. But why the hell did they nerf HQs?

fixed



Moving it to lowsec makes no sense, but making those systems into lowsec makes even less sense. It would be a constant disruption to trade routes, and you'd have people log off in highsec only to find themselves camped in station in a lowsec system when they relog, or worse, log in from space and land in the middle of a gatecamp. Not so bad if you're in a BC....pretty awful if you're in a freighter or somesuch.

Because incursions exist solely in highsec...

Also, at some points, incoming dps in specific incursion sites can top 10,000 incoming dps, peaking at about 13k in a tcrc. You don't have numbers like that and not have a bit of risk, especially if you're a logi. It might not be other players shooting at you, but you're still depending on a group of logis who sometimes need machine-like efficiency to keep you alive. The same risk as running through gatecamps in nullsec? Not so much. But compared to ratting in your thanatos with nothing but blues for 30 jumps? I'm not so sure.

Yes, logistics DCing isn't that common an error. But when you think of how many sites that are run with an incursion fleet to those of an alliance organised C5 fleet.

I've heard some certain well known groups won't let you fly Triage carrier for them unless the spec of your machine meets their minimum standard, even so asking that you have your eve install on a SSD. So yes, with Alliances and corp fleets it's much easier to enforce a doctrin set up. And if you know one guy has a fairly unstable connection you just don't let him fly the carrier...

But in incursions you can't always vet your pilots so carefully, running many sites continually, you just need a DC in one bad situation to cause a real problem.

I've been in fleet when we've had logi's DC and had several narrow escapes, usually because the spare hi-slots on our BS have additional logistics support. I've even been in a fleet where I lost a Bhaalgorn and a Paladin in incursions, but it doesn't really bother me because incursions paid for those loses and then some. Just like your C5 sites will pay for your loses and then some.

In case you don't get the point I'm making... don't be telling other people they can't shamelessly farm isk when you know that wormhole farming in your C5 is a lower risk:reward ratio.