These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Possibly too far with balancing Incursions?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2012-04-26 22:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Myz Toyou wrote:
Just stealing a quote from a different thread:

"Despite the numerous claims that Incursions were all about the social aspect and fleeting up and having fun, nobody wants to run them now that they don't pay as well and people might actually lose ships."

How can you lose ships now that they are easier, though much longer, than they were before?
Liliana Rahl
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#202 - 2012-04-26 23:32:24 UTC
lose*
Templar Nato
#203 - 2012-04-26 23:33:27 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Myz Toyou wrote:
Just stealing a quote from a different thread:

"Despite the numerous claims that Incursions were all about the social aspect and fleeting up and having fun, nobody wants to run them now that they don't pay as well and people might actually lose ships."

How can you loose ships now that they are easier, though much longer, than they were before?


The Incursion nerf made the sites harder, not easier. Not sure where you're getting your information from.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2012-04-26 23:37:57 UTC
Templar Nato wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Myz Toyou wrote:
Just stealing a quote from a different thread:

"Despite the numerous claims that Incursions were all about the social aspect and fleeting up and having fun, nobody wants to run them now that they don't pay as well and people might actually lose ships."

How can you loose ships now that they are easier, though much longer, than they were before?

The Incursion nerf made the sites harder, not easier. Not sure where you're getting your information from.

Apparently not the same source your info is coming from. I've been hearing that they are just longer from a VG perspective. Don't know anyone who runs assaults, but to that point I suppose I am at folly for using hearsay instead of going out and finding the results directly.
Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#205 - 2012-04-26 23:39:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Apolyon I
xVx dreadnaught wrote:
Xorv wrote:
xVx dreadnaught wrote:

Incursions are incursions. Null, Low or High security systems... they are still the same incursions.


High Sec Incursions do not have to deal with potential player threats like those in Null and Low, so no they're not the same. Likewise your question regarding C5s, there's substantial risk in operating in Wormholes, there's barely any in High Sec Incursions. But yes there was no need to nerf Null and Low Sec Incursions.


Suicide ganking logi's and logi griefing are not risks... Oh thank the stars I never realised how easy we had it.

Fact is in the null and low sec incursions you are set up primarily for PVP and any threat you face you form up a fleet to fight. With your countless scouts that cover all the systems leading into the incursion areas.

Us in hi-sec need to form pug fleets now and again... and even in our established and trusted community some people can turn around and grief people just for the lols or to make a quick bit of pocket change.

So I'd say yes we do take risks... because we're not all part of the same alliance... Also I've done low-sec incursions a couple of times. I know they are a lot more secure than people make out... if they weren't so profitable why are they doing them is the obvious point to make.

As for the C5's i already essplained in another post... They have their system in lockdown before they start farming, camps on every wormhole leading in with bubbles up and most likely the hole sitting on critical. So the chances of them actually being attacked by a force that could do damage to them is highly unlikely. Also to the fact of if someone wanted to attack them they'd have to go through several other wormholes before finding a connection to the C5. Several holes deep. So the chances of a random roaming fleet finding you that far into the rabbit hole it's almost non existent risk.

If someone wants to grief a high-sec incursion fleet, they only have to open up their journal and set destination to the nearest one.


all you need is random connection open into you. not only wh corp like to kill farming caps, even NC kill them too.

stop being clueless, would you??
Gonzo TheGreat
Donuttown
#206 - 2012-04-27 00:35:28 UTC
xVx dreadnaught wrote:
As for the C5's i already essplained in another post... They have their system in lockdown before they start farming, camps on every wormhole leading in with bubbles up and most likely the hole sitting on critical. So the chances of them actually being attacked by a force that could do damage to them is highly unlikely. Also to the fact of if someone wanted to attack them they'd have to go through several other wormholes before finding a connection to the C5. Several holes deep. So the chances of a random roaming fleet finding you that far into the rabbit hole it's almost non existent risk..


You can get incoming wormholes from other people opening their statics or wormholes.

Over the top of my head , I can name like 10 corps that roll only C5s in their prime time to find fleets running sites and fights.

Here is how it works, For example you have a C5 static connection, this means that at anytime there will be a wormhole signature in your system that will point to another C5 via a H296 connection.

Now, what people do is,

1. you assemble your pvp fleet.

2. you scan the static wormhole connection. or crash the one you already have by putting enough mass through it. A C5-C5 (H296) is a 3 billion kg mass hole so it will collapse if 3 billion mass is put through it. The crashing can be done with a Dread and one orca jumping in an out (or other combinations),

3. Then you have a new connection, you scan it down,

4. PvP fleet warps to the new connection, scout jumps in and checks for wrecks/ships on D-Scan.

5. If there is a site running fleet, they have like 1 minute before you scan them down in a site (less if in an anomaly), your whole fleet jumps and goes for the kill.

6. If you don't get a good hole, scout jumps back and you crash it.

7. GOTO 2

This process take like 5-10 minutes per rolling.

Now add it to the fact that caps (dreads/carriers) won't be able to move in siege/triage (and they can't cancel the cycle immediately) and sleepers point randomly.
Templar Nato
#207 - 2012-04-27 07:07:02 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Apparently not the same source your info is coming from. I've been hearing that they are just longer from a VG perspective. Don't know anyone who runs assaults, but to that point I suppose I am at folly for using hearsay instead of going out and finding the results directly.


My information is from first hand experience. Whilst there is obviously still a formula to run sites successfully, the incoming DPS in some of them has been increased significantly and is more lumpy, therefore making the sites harder.
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#208 - 2012-04-27 07:43:43 UTC
Myz Toyou wrote:
Just stealing a quote from a different thread:

"Despite the numerous claims that Incursions were all about the social aspect and fleeting up and having fun, nobody wants to run them now that they don't pay as well and people might actually lose ships."


for about the dozenth time... Yes they are more social and enjoyable than missions... which is why I still choose to do them, I was running assaults last night.

The fact is, there is a great group of people coming together and working as a group to meet a goal, that goal should be rewarded since we are all working and taking risks together.

The money is not everything, but it's a part of it. It's the part that brings new people in. And we need new people in.

Before mission runners would think

"why am I doing these on my own when I could be doing incursions with other people and make a bit more money"

Now there is no initial incentive for the lvl 4 mission runner to come out and join us. Even if they had a pay degrading system. Where your pay was reduced slightly over the number of sites you'd completed that day. So your pay would start at 10.5 mill, then after 10 sites it would drop to 9.7 mill and after 30 sites 8.5 mill and then it would stay at 8,5 mill till next downtime.

This would discourage blitz fleets and cash grinders without taking away from the casual incursion runner.
Tenris Anis
Schattenengel Clan
#209 - 2012-04-27 07:50:33 UTC
Templar Nato wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Apparently not the same source your info is coming from. I've been hearing that they are just longer from a VG perspective. Don't know anyone who runs assaults, but to that point I suppose I am at folly for using hearsay instead of going out and finding the results directly.


My information is from first hand experience. Whilst there is obviously still a formula to run sites successfully, the incoming DPS in some of them has been increased significantly and is more lumpy, therefore making the sites harder.


But is this really a big deal? As long as the encounters are overall still easy. Twice close to zero risk from npcs is still close to zero risk. And it is not like the site actually got twice as hard, they just got harder compared to mind numbing easy. Which is important for the risk vs reward equation, but not so much for the feel of the sites.

Remove insurance.
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#210 - 2012-04-27 07:56:46 UTC
Apolyon I wrote:


all you need is random connection open into you. not only wh corp like to kill farming caps, even NC kill them too.

stop being clueless, would you??


As you said "random connection"

People actually have to work to find you in the first place... and my point was it's a lot more work for someone to find a C5 fleet farming than it is for griefers to find the nearest hi-sec incursion... to which you've not given any argument

Gonzo TheGreat wrote:


You can get incoming wormholes from other people opening their statics or wormholes.



yes, and what's the probability on that... I remembered watching a Clarion call video where they did the math on finding a specific C6 system. Now if I remember right the math worked out at something like a 0.9% chance of finding the specific C6, now since there are more C5's than C6's I'd assume that number is a lot lower.

So the probability of someone finding your C5 is a lot lower than finding a hi-sec incursion fleet to grief isn't it? and the multi billion ships in the hi-sec incursion are just as expensive as your C5 fleet if not more in some cases. Especially if you were to hit a mach/nightmare fleet in the second wave of an OTA, use a couple of T1 caldari frigs (think the Heron gets the bonus to ECM) to suicide jam out their logi for a couple of cycles. And bam, you'll have a few juicy losses. to loot and steal from.

Like I said before... if the C5's are not worth doing because you're constantly being attacked. why are you doing them???

It makes no sense unless there is profit.

But still, if they made the Sleeper sites as hard as incursion NPC's and doubled the length of completion in some cases and reduced the amount of isk you were likely to make doing them, would you be happy to just sit back and make a lot less than you used to?
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#211 - 2012-04-27 08:58:35 UTC
Tenris Anis wrote:
[quote=Templar Nato]

But is this really a big deal? As long as the encounters are overall still easy. Twice close to zero risk from npcs is still close to zero risk. And it is not like the site actually got twice as hard, they just got harder compared to mind numbing easy. Which is important for the risk vs reward equation, but not so much for the feel of the sites.



Actually, I was hanging out with a fleet yesterday while they were running I was just sitting in wait list, and heard them lose an Oneiros in an NCO... Apparently he got webbed to hell and then the new harder hitting DPS popped him quicker than the logi's reps could cycle.

So yeah, the new sites are much harder.

It's not just the Vangaurds though... it is all the different types of sites that are harder. So the Assaults and HQ's are more difficult and take a lot longer to complete. I wouldn't have minded if they had made HQ's more profitable than the others, that would be our equivalent to 8/10 - 10/10 or C5's and C6's (where of course the Vanguards are entry level) The problem is there is no isk/hour increase as you go up the different size sites. So there is no incentive to do the bigger sites... and this is why people have just farmed Vanguards, because they had no reason to do bigger riskier sites for less isk.

If they made the bigger sites pay out more per hour then more people would want to form up Assaults and HQ's
Templar Nato
#212 - 2012-04-27 09:00:15 UTC
Tenris Anis wrote:
But is this really a big deal? As long as the encounters are overall still easy. Twice close to zero risk from npcs is still close to zero risk. And it is not like the site actually got twice as hard, they just got harder compared to mind numbing easy. Which is important for the risk vs reward equation, but not so much for the feel of the sites.


The difference is significant enough that I was watching tanked T3s explode before reps hit (with a booster running in sys). I wouldn't say the sites are twice as hard, just incoming DPS is a lot more lumpy. I actually think it's a good thing since it keeps logi pilots awake and makes the sites a challenge, however dropping effective rewards to less than mission bounty+ payout is harsh. It's hard to keep a community together when there is greater reward and far less risk running a L4 mission where it's rare that you're even pointed and can manage aggro by sequencing the triggers.
Templar Nato
#213 - 2012-04-27 09:05:25 UTC
xVx dreadnaught wrote:
The problem is there is no isk/hour increase as you go up the different size sites. So there is no incentive to do the bigger sites... and this is why people have just farmed Vanguards, because they had no reason to do bigger riskier sites for less isk.

If they made the bigger sites pay out more per hour then more people would want to form up Assaults and HQ's


I would have really liked to see the Assaults buffed as stated in some of the information released before the patch and perhaps the HQs as well. They're obviously a more challenging site to run, not just from the standpoint of the fleet required to run the site, but the logistics required to keep a fleet that size together and running as people come and go. It would make sense to me that those increased efforts would translate to more ISK/ hr for everyone involved just as the rewards are greater in more dangerous wormholes, to cite the examples listed previously in this thread.
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#214 - 2012-04-27 09:14:49 UTC
Templar Nato wrote:
xVx dreadnaught wrote:
The problem is there is no isk/hour increase as you go up the different size sites. So there is no incentive to do the bigger sites... and this is why people have just farmed Vanguards, because they had no reason to do bigger riskier sites for less isk.

If they made the bigger sites pay out more per hour then more people would want to form up Assaults and HQ's


I would have really liked to see the Assaults buffed as stated in some of the information released before the patch and perhaps the HQs as well. They're obviously a more challenging site to run, not just from the standpoint of the fleet required to run the site, but the logistics required to keep a fleet that size together and running as people come and go. It would make sense to me that those increased efforts would translate to more ISK/ hr for everyone involved just as the rewards are greater in more dangerous wormholes, to cite the examples listed previously in this thread.



Well that's my point... why would a corp move into a C5 if a C2 was just as profitable as the C5 with a lot less risk to losing ships.

CCP seem to have forgotten this when planning our the incursion price scaling. Last night we had a couple of close calls in the Assaults, but one thing we did confirm is that T1 BC's can activate the Cruiser gate on the NCN sites. So harby's are now an option for fleets. And the Shield fleets can take drakes... cos we all know how much they love drakes.

Although I have to say, the cruiser side of NCN's is a lot quicker than before, we were sniper heavy and the cruiser side (my side) were clearing up with only 4 T3's and 1 Myrmidon a lot faster than the BS side... At least it means you can have more BS in your fleets for higher DPS in the other sites.

(so a standard fleet isn't completely gimped if all there are left are NCN's)
Keith Planck
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2012-04-27 09:49:51 UTC
THIS THREAD IS SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL!!!

I love how after a topic reaches 2 pages it just contains no useful conversation at all xD
Oh and obligatory pony:

http://mylittlefacewhen.com/f/2948/

♞
Herr Ronin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#216 - 2012-04-27 11:17:29 UTC
rareden wrote:
Courtesy of The Skunkworks,


Our work here is done



So are you guys still bollocks at high sec warfare, Still dropping out of corps running away from carebears?

Oh no! That's rite, You gank retards, Yes, You are very successful.

Good Job!

I'll Race You For A Amburhgear
Hans Momaki
State War Academy
Caldari State
#217 - 2012-04-27 11:18:03 UTC
Well, it's just another fail from CCP.

Instead of fixing Incursions at once, they just nerfed VG's.
There needs to be an incentive to upgrade to Assault/HQ's, and this is still missing. It's just not worth to have the hassle (and the increased risk compared to Lv 4's) of an Assault/HQ - side, if you can make nearly same ISK/hour in Lv 4's.

Many incursion runners mentioned on various occasions that there needs to be a better incentive to upgrade, but all what CCP did was listening to scrubheads. Good job. No fix at all, just some pissed players and probably some accounts less. \o/

/facepalm
Herr Ronin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#218 - 2012-04-27 11:24:11 UTC
DJ N00B wrote:
The truth here is that some fleets could make 160 mil/hr but that is only during peak optimal conditions. We're talking shiny blitz fleet catered to do OTA's, running nothing but OTA's in that hour. having no competition, not having to wait for sites to spawn, and not having to swap anyone out in fleet. How often does that happen? Rarely. Now that is for shield fleets. Legion fleets could make that and more doing NCO's, but again we are talking optimal conditions here.

The reality is that most decently run fleets were making about half that. Pug fleets were making even less. Then when you factor in taking breaks, keeping fleet comp together, site competition, waiting for site spawns, etc etc. All those things drop the isk/hr substantially and it only gets worse during peak times or when there are fewer incursions availble. Then you add in the fact that more and more people were running incursions and this again was already reducing the isk/hr due to more frequent over crowding. So again the reality here is that most incursion runners were only making on average 60-100 mil isk/hour. That is really nothing go all QQing about. There are many other places you can make that kind of isk and more.

I think most people agree that the blitzing fleets making 160/mil an hour needed to stop. Granted again that is only during peak optimal conditions but still, that isk/hour potential is far greater than many other isk earning opportunities in the game. However CCP has gone WAY to far with this nerf.

First off lets talk potential isk/hour. As it stands today, If you were to optimize your fleet to run only NCO's you can do them in about 5min. So in total peak optimal conditions you might be able to make 120 mil isk/hour. The problem with that is your fleet is going to be totally screwed in other sites where nmc's might take you 10min and OTA's will take you much longer than that. So that isk/hour number is rarely going to happen. So even with optimal conditions (shiny fleet, no competition, no breaks/waiting) your maximum isk potential is about 70mil isk/hour. The reality is that you will have breaks etc, so you fleets will only be making about 50-60 mil isk/hour. Now those numbers are for nice shiny/experienced fleets. Pug fleets are going to make half that. The end result here is where are talking about a earnings potential reduction upwards of 50%. Sure, many who run incursions love the community aspect and this is a big part of it. However the fact is that we all need to make isk and these drastic cuts in earning potential is forcing people to make the decision to go elsewhere.

So what has this done.....

- Many of the incursion groups/channels have gone quiet. Experienced incursion runners, as well as a number of fc's, have seen their isk/hour drop so dramatically that they have decided to go do other things in eve because they can make more isk/hour.

- Those who are still interested in running incursions are spending hours trying to find fleets and this includes those with nice shiny ships.

- Those fleets that are running have got wait lists so long that most people end up dropping off before they even get into a fleet, and those people will likely end up just giving up on incursions all together becuase it just takes too long to get in to a fleet.

- PUG fleets are non existant. Again, the isk/hour has dropped so low for these groups that they just can't be bothered with them anymore. Plus, with the added focus fire of npc's, as well as time it takes to remove dps off the field, vanguards have become much more risky for these groups and the risk/reward is far too great for them to be worth doing.

- Without PUG fleets, new pilots/incursion runners no longer have an avenue to get into running incursions. The end result is that the talent pool for pilots will VERY quickly dry up.

The end result of all of this is that CCP has effectively destroyed incursions and the incursion community. You will have a scattering of shiny fleets that might still run vg's as well as some that might move to assaults. For many though, the risk vs reward just isn't worth it to make the move. You'll have the usual suspects that currently run as/hq's that will continue to do so. But, eventually the talent pool will dry up and even those with large and experienced communities will start finding it hard to maintain their fleets with the resulting impact on isk/hour causing many to just give up on incursions all together.

CCP, you stated that incursions were one of the best things to come to eve and that community aspect was something you wanted to maintain. Then you turn around and destroy it. GREAT JOB CCP!




Yes cause ISN never used to earn more than 100 million a hour before the Nerf, Noooo not a all.

Maybe the problem was the community you where in, We had no problems finding people to replace and our waiting list was allways full.


You have stated some good points, In a few months BTL will go dead, Pug fleets are earning 30 million a hour, Which is just not worth it, In this sense BTL and other communitys like it that don't have a strong member base that could possibly "Blitz" will die, Due to the Nerf the better the ship fitting and skills with the T2 guns will make such a huge difference.

Currently we are doing Assaults and making 80 million a hour, Which in my opinion still doesn't cut it, CCP have really messed around with the Incursion communitys, You never know, They might Fix what they have done.


Who knows..

I'll Race You For A Amburhgear
Nemo deBlanc
Resource Acquisition Unlimited
#219 - 2012-04-27 11:52:08 UTC
Herr Ronin wrote:


Currently we are doing Assaults and making 80 million a hour, Which in my opinion still doesn't cut it, CCP have really messed around with the Incursion communitys, You never know, They might Fix what they have done.



What you fail to realize is that your opinion really only matters to you, and a few other select entitled carebears. It's the overwhelming opinion of nearly every serious player that incursions were broken. They utterly invalidated any reasons to go to null isk-wise, made low sec seem like even more of a joke, etc etc. 80 mil/hr in highsec is plenty. You probably also aren't factoring in your LP either. (I presume) What do missions make if you don't count LP? 30 mil/hr? 40?

Stop being an entitled fu­ck only caring about yourself, and actually consider the overall health of the game. This nerf had to happen. Just like Tech needs to be rebalanced. Just like lowsec needs income buffs. Just like local needs nerfing. Just like the dronelands needed nerfing. Just like Titans needed nerfing. Just like SC's needed nerfing. Just like loot from 4's got nerfed. Just like nano needed nerfing. The list goes on and on.

You're bit­ching and moaning like you're the first guy that ever got nerfed. The reason there's so many people laughing at you is because most of them understand that overall game balance is more important than some mega-bears overinflated isk stream.

TL;DR: Cry more, nobody sensible cares.
Herr Ronin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#220 - 2012-04-27 12:05:42 UTC
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
Herr Ronin wrote:


Currently we are doing Assaults and making 80 million a hour, Which in my opinion still doesn't cut it, CCP have really messed around with the Incursion communitys, You never know, They might Fix what they have done.



What you fail to realize is that your opinion really only matters to you, and a few other select entitled carebears. It's the overwhelming opinion of nearly every serious player that incursions were broken. They utterly invalidated any reasons to go to null isk-wise, made low sec seem like even more of a joke, etc etc. 80 mil/hr in highsec is plenty. You probably also aren't factoring in your LP either. (I presume) What do missions make if you don't count LP? 30 mil/hr? 40?

Stop being an entitled fu­ck only caring about yourself, and actually consider the overall health of the game. This nerf had to happen. Just like Tech needs to be rebalanced. Just like lowsec needs income buffs. Just like local needs nerfing. Just like the dronelands needed nerfing. Just like Titans needed nerfing. Just like SC's needed nerfing. Just like loot from 4's got nerfed. Just like nano needed nerfing. The list goes on and on.

You're bit­ching and moaning like you're the first guy that ever got nerfed. The reason there's so many people laughing at you is because most of them understand that overall game balance is more important than some mega-bears overinflated isk stream.

TL;DR: Cry more, nobody sensible cares.



"What you fail to realize is that your opinion really only matters to you."

That is a bit Ironic? Who says i am "Crying" I think you need to take your madness to another topic, Internet spaceships is serious business after all.

I'll Race You For A Amburhgear