These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#381 - 2012-05-04 06:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: xVx dreadnaught
Everyone that is complaining saying "Incursions are too much isk" are getting it wrong... "Vanguards too much isk" yes that's possibly right.

But just because the only instances of incursion running you have done or your friends have told you about are overpowered and easy to do, don't assume that the much harder and more effort to complete Assault and Headquarter sites are the same. It would be like me saying, "Oh I did one of those 3/10 DED sites. They are so easy, they should nerf all DED sites"

When we did Headquarters sites the other day, it took on average 40 minutes to complete at 31.5 mill pay per site. so that's 46/47mill per hour roughly. For Headquarters... 40 man fleet, in which some pockets have enough incoming DPS to take out a heavily tanked BS in around 10-15 seconds.

I can make more Isk on my own... I have 2 toons with lvl 4 agents, both with the same corp, so I could take missions on both and blitz them duel boxed. Would save myself the effort of finding another 39 people to do HQ sites with. But I find the Incursions more enjoyable. I just wish there was a bigger reward for doing the Assault and Headquarters sites.

Also for those that think the AI for the Incursion NPC's is easily beaten... it's not. They do rapid target switches and alpha strikes. we had several close calls and even lost ships because they would spread fire throughout the groups then suddenly focus fire on one ship. The logi's would struggle to get reps, because they are cycling off of the previous targets.
RabbidFerret
Target Practice Inc.
#382 - 2012-05-04 08:37:32 UTC
xVx dreadnaught wrote:

Also for those that think the AI for the Incursion NPC's is easily beaten... it's not. They do rapid target switches and alpha strikes. we had several close calls and even lost ships because they would spread fire throughout the groups then suddenly focus fire on one ship. The logi's would struggle to get reps, because they are cycling off of the previous targets.


It's a pretty daily occurring to watch someone drop into or near armor on shield fleets. Perhaps not for a perfect fleet, but common fleets often feel the pressure of listening to your logis overheat on a BS. It's often the skill of the pilots around you that keep the fleet from chaos.

A few days before the nerf we had a node drop. Half of our fleet DCed during an OTA. Luckily, 2 basis stayed online. We had them close to burning out all of their mods but they managed to save the fleet. After 8 years of playing Eve, I have never relied so heavily on the skill and aptitude of another player. That was a moment of sheer camaraderie among complete strangers; an example of why CCP should model more of it's mechanics around Incursions.

xVx dreadnaught wrote:

But I find the Incursions more enjoyable.


This.
Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#383 - 2012-05-04 09:21:31 UTC
RabbidFerret wrote:
xVx dreadnaught wrote:

Also for those that think the AI for the Incursion NPC's is easily beaten... it's not. They do rapid target switches and alpha strikes. we had several close calls and even lost ships because they would spread fire throughout the groups then suddenly focus fire on one ship. The logi's would struggle to get reps, because they are cycling off of the previous targets.


It's a pretty daily occurring to watch someone drop into or near armor on shield fleets. Perhaps not for a perfect fleet, but common fleets often feel the pressure of listening to your logis overheat on a BS. It's often the skill of the pilots around you that keep the fleet from chaos.

A few days before the nerf we had a node drop. Half of our fleet DCed during an OTA. Luckily, 2 basis stayed online. We had them close to burning out all of their mods but they managed to save the fleet. After 8 years of playing Eve, I have never relied so heavily on the skill and aptitude of another player. That was a moment of sheer camaraderie among complete strangers; an example of why CCP should model more of it's mechanics around Incursions.

xVx dreadnaught wrote:

But I find the Incursions more enjoyable.


This.

I feel bad for you, need 8 years to get to play real eve.

time to get out of HS??
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#384 - 2012-05-04 09:38:37 UTC
Apolyon I wrote:

time to get out of HS??


And what... Join some massive corporation/alliance and work for them. Make them all stinking rich while working my ass off. To be told that if you don't attend CTA's and other operations that you'll be kicked out?

I can understand the appeal... But I like my corp and my corp doesn't want to join with any big null block, we also have no intention in holding SOV. So the whole Null-sec thing isn't so appealing to us.

We prefer to do a some wormhole stuff and generally take things at our own pace.
Comy 1
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#385 - 2012-05-04 12:02:24 UTC
There are these nifty areas of null sec you can't take sov in. Rumors say the systems are NPC controlled and anyone can dock in the stations.

If it's a small tight group you want to roll with, why not take said group to one of those areas?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#386 - 2012-05-04 12:25:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
xVx dreadnaught wrote:
Apolyon I wrote:

time to get out of HS??


And what... Join some massive corporation/alliance and work for them. Make them all stinking rich while working my ass off. To be told that if you don't attend CTA's and other operations that you'll be kicked out?
.


This goes to show the fundemental problem with the incursion "community", and why it's good CCP nerf Incursions.

The incursion people in high sec are getting something for nothing (and got so used to it that they are crying on the forums). Incursion runners (and everyone else) in low and null sec and WHs have to deal with everything the high sec runners do, but with no concord. And for what? slightly better isk per hour maybe?

In order to do what I do in null, I have to put up with being in an alliance, have to put up with non-consensual pvp or the risk thereof, have to deal with logistics (ie own a carrier and another account for a cyno) ect ect.

Trying to reframe the debate into solo pve vs group pve is non-sense, the only common metric that applies is individual pilot isk per hour, period. and no, no matter the activity, if it involved shooting at NPCs a pilot should not be making anywhere near as much in high sec/concord protected space (no matter is the sites have names like "vanguard" or "HQ") than he can in null, low or WH space.

CCP fixed an un-eve-like imbalance and I pray that they stick to it.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#387 - 2012-05-04 12:25:49 UTC
Comy 1 wrote:
There are these nifty areas of null sec you can't take sov in. Rumors say the systems are NPC controlled and anyone can dock in the stations.

If it's a small tight group you want to roll with, why not take said group to one of those areas?


-EFFORT-
Galerak
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#388 - 2012-05-04 12:27:53 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


We are talking about individual player income really. And dude in high sec protected from non-consensual pvp (with the exception of suicide ganks and withled reps lol) by concord should not make the same isk/hour as a player who had to join a null sec alliance (and contribute to that alliances defense of it's space) and is not protected from non-consensual pvp by concord.

Incursions should be balanced with the rest of the game. Until now, they weren't.



Your logic is completely faulty. First of all, you're trying to compare oranges to watermelons. Stop trying to compare solo anom farming in null to Incurions anywhere. One is a group oriented activity and the other isnt. Secondly, nobody put a gun to your head an made you join a null sec alliance. Any risk to you or your possessions in null is something you consented to when you made the choice to live there. Dont try to use that as some kind of justification for why Incursions in high sec should pay less than you can make per hr solo in null. Simply put your reward for the risk of null sec is the freedom of null sec. And since you brought up the topic of entitlement, why does your choice to live in unsecured space somehow magically entitle you to be at the top of the isk/hr pile?As far as I know Incursions in null still pay more than incursions in high sec, and anoms in null pay far higher than missions, and null sec ore is still worth more per m3 than the ore in high sec belts. So quit calling everyone else 'entitled' when your own entitlement is obvious. As for Concord there is risk there as well... i cant tell you how many accidental friendly-fire incidents i have witnessed. And having a couple shiny dps or one of your logi get concorded can really wreck your fleet.

The bottom line is that Incursions reward you for relying on your fleetmates and making a coordinated effort to complete your objectives regardless of any theoretical or implied risks and regardless of security status. Risk is almost completely irrelevant to this particular thread. The topic being discussed is essentially, "the challenges of operating a 10-12 man fleet vs compensation after the changes".
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#389 - 2012-05-04 12:47:20 UTC
RabbidFerret wrote:

I'm well-aware of bounty mechanics and you are wrong. More people means that you are running through those sites exponentially quicker.


Which does not matter to the individual pilot lol. Getting anomalies done quicker doesn't do anything for you.

Let me give you an example.: I rat with a ship and make 15 mil ticks. My buddy comes in with a ship that does less dps, we complete anoms faster, but get 12 mil each per tick. The anoms are pumping mre isk in to the game with 2 of us yes (24 mil per 20 minutes as opposed to the 15 mil I was doing solo), but MY share has decreased do to the current "even split" mechanic.

The even split mechanic punishes anom runners grouping up (unless you are the guy with the lower dps, then grouping up with a more powerful buddie allows you too bascially still isk from the other guy) unless (as I do) both ships belong to one actual person. Incursion Runners (and to a lesser extent, Mission Runners) don't even notice this because in addtion to bounties, Incursions/Missions give LP, so "running the sites faster" makes sense.

Quote:
Were you aware that they would drop below lvl 4 income? Have you run incursions post nerf or are you now arguing a point without any concrete base besides what you have experienced in the past? I welcome a debate on this topic but there is simply no way that incursions are now "balanced".


Yes, i've run them post nerf, just like I did anoms post nerf. My buddies corp was working on the best way to do Assaults last night.

The problem wasn't the nerfs, it was the "less than creative people". After the anom nerf, many people with anom running alts went back to empire because their "sanctums and havens" were gone. Me, I learned to live off (pre-buff) Forsaken Hubs and Forsaken Rally points and scoffed at the idiots that ran.

Same thing here. Hell there are now new incursion videos on youtube from people who are figuring it out. Unlike people like you, who seem to have given up and who now demand CCP basicaly fix it for you.

Quote:

And your mach and tengu is evidence of the risk in 0.0?


Yes, because I need a TWO THOUSAND TOON Alliance behind me to make that possible. Incursion runners fly more expensive fits than I do and have concord to prevent all but the most suicidal non-consensual pvp other than wardecs..

Quote:

5 years in 0.0 and I never came close to losing a ratting ship. Its the same as incursions: use you're head and you'll come out alright.


Yes, your head and 2000 of my closest friends lol.


Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#390 - 2012-05-04 14:26:55 UTC
Galerak wrote:


Your logic is completely faulty. First of all, you're trying to compare oranges to watermelons. Stop trying to compare solo anom farming in null to Incurions anywhere. One is a group oriented activity and the other isnt. Secondly, nobody put a gun to your head an made you join a null sec alliance. Any risk to you or your possessions in null is something you consented to when you made the choice to live there. Dont try to use that as some kind of justification for why Incursions in high sec should pay less than you can make per hr solo in null. Simply put your reward for the risk of null sec is the freedom of null sec. And since you brought up the topic of entitlement, why does your choice to live in unsecured space somehow magically entitle you to be at the top of the isk/hr pile?As far as I know Incursions in null still pay more than incursions in high sec, and anoms in null pay far higher than missions, and null sec ore is still worth more per m3 than the ore in high sec belts. So quit calling everyone else 'entitled' when your own entitlement is obvious. As for Concord there is risk there as well... i cant tell you how many accidental friendly-fire incidents i have witnessed. And having a couple shiny dps or one of your logi get concorded can really wreck your fleet.

The bottom line is that Incursions reward you for relying on your fleetmates and making a coordinated effort to complete your objectives regardless of any theoretical or implied risks and regardless of security status. Risk is almost completely irrelevant to this particular thread. The topic being discussed is essentially, "the challenges of operating a 10-12 man fleet vs compensation after the changes".

it's not entitlement, it's the core of this game, risk vs reward, since forever.

Galerak wrote:

i cant tell you how many accidental friendly-fire incidents i have witnessed. And having a couple shiny dps or one of your logi get concorded can really wreck your fleet.


this only proves only how brainless incursion runners are, in other term, stupid.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#391 - 2012-05-04 15:20:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Galerak wrote:
[
Any risk to you or your possessions in null is something you consented to when you made the choice to live there.


Just like lower isk making potential is what you consent to when you live in the highest security space.

This is why a mission in an 0.5 system pays more than a mission in a 1.0 system. Incursions (before now) violated this principle, the core principle of what is supposed to be a pvp-centric risk vs reward game..

It's not really different from the old "gunmining vs mining" problem CCP also just fixed (and that some people who benifiteed form the old way complained about). CCP understood that you just shouldn't have been able to mine "better" with a gun than you can with a mining laser, thus the end to drone poo. Well, a person in less risky space should accept that if they WANT more, they have to RISK more.

Quote:

Dont try to use that as some kind of justification for why Incursions in high sec should pay less than you can make per hr solo in null. Simply put your reward for the risk of null sec is the freedom of null sec.


The "freedom of CTAs and hotdrops lol.

Quote:

And since you brought up the topic of entitlement, why does your choice to live in unsecured space somehow magically entitle you to be at the top of the isk/hr pile?As far as I know Incursions in null still pay more than incursions in high sec, and anoms in null pay far higher than missions, and null sec ore is still worth more per m3 than the ore in high sec belts. So quit calling everyone else 'entitled' when your own entitlement is obvious.


Someone needs a dictionary. Something you EARNED (by taking it, by having to defend it) is not an entitlement.

This is what I hate about hi-sec dwellers, they don't want to go to the trouble, face the frustrations and risk as those of us who venture out from under the loving embrace of high sec, yet they still want all the goodies. It's like high sec people = the Welfare hoodrats of real life lol.

In the recent past, CCP has shown some wisdom in this regard, nerfing anomalies so that all null space isn't the same, killing gunmining so real miner can thrive, and nerfing incursions out from under the coddled minority calling itself the "Incursion Community". I just hope their bravery doesn't waver.

Sure, make incursions worthwile, but keep to the Risk vs Reward spirit of the game.
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2012-05-04 15:58:38 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

Sure, make incursions worthwile, but keep to the Risk vs Reward spirit of the game.


You keep rambling on about risk vs reward as if there is this massively greater risk when ratting in null vs running hi-sec incursions.

null:

dead end ratting constellations with 10-20 bubbles on gates = near 0 risk, your only real risk is an awoxer. Which will be burnt as soon as it's used to tackle you.

supers running anoms in null = virtually 0 risk unless your stupid (or get awoxed)
They will always align to pos as soon as they hit the anom, and anyone enters local and they warp out to safety

The only real risk is if you are jumping around loads of systems that isn't part of a bubbled dead end.



hi-sec incursions:

pub fleets = med-high risk, it's a bit pot luck, end up in a fleet with greifers or just bad pilots and you've a good chance of losing your ship

efficient inc fleets = low risk, but there is still a risk due to loads of scramming frigs and you still need to count on others who may discon etc.


Sure, leave incs as they are, nbd, but CCP please then balance out the isk vs reward side of things and spawn npc HICs in the better 0.0 anoms

...

Galerak
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#393 - 2012-05-04 16:19:01 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Galerak wrote:
[
Any risk to you or your possessions in null is something you consented to when you made the choice to live there.


Just like lower isk making potential is what you consent to when you live in the highest security space.

This is why a mission in an 0.5 system pays more than a mission in a 1.0 system. Incursions (before now) violated this principle, the core principle of what is supposed to be a pvp-centric risk vs reward game..

It's not really different from the old "gunmining vs mining" problem CCP also just fixed (and that some people who benifiteed form the old way complained about). CCP understood that you just shouldn't have been able to mine "better" with a gun than you can with a mining laser, thus the end to drone poo. Well, a person in less risky space should accept that if they WANT more, they have to RISK more.

Quote:

Dont try to use that as some kind of justification for why Incursions in high sec should pay less than you can make per hr solo in null. Simply put your reward for the risk of null sec is the freedom of null sec.


The "freedom of CTAs and hotdrops lol.

Quote:

And since you brought up the topic of entitlement, why does your choice to live in unsecured space somehow magically entitle you to be at the top of the isk/hr pile?As far as I know Incursions in null still pay more than incursions in high sec, and anoms in null pay far higher than missions, and null sec ore is still worth more per m3 than the ore in high sec belts. So quit calling everyone else 'entitled' when your own entitlement is obvious.


Someone needs a dictionary. Something you EARNED (by taking it, by having to defend it) is not an entitlement.

This is what I hate about hi-sec dwellers, they don't want to go to the trouble, face the frustrations and risk as those of us who venture out from under the loving embrace of high sec, yet they still want all the goodies. It's like high sec people = the Welfare hoodrats of real life lol.

In the recent past, CCP has shown some wisdom in this regard, nerfing anomalies so that all null space isn't the same, killing gunmining so real miner can thrive, and nerfing incursions out from under the coddled minority calling itself the "Incursion Community". I just hope their bravery doesn't waver.

Sure, make incursions worthwile, but keep to the Risk vs Reward spirit of the game.


Did you even read half of what you quoted here? Risk vs Reward is why low and null sec incursions pay more than high sec. Thats not an issue. Trying to say that a ten man fleet in high sec should make less isk/hr than a solo pilot in null is just ludicrous. And yet this makes us 'entitled' cause we believe it was over-tuned a bit? Unless you have something to say related to the actual topic of the thread please stop trolling. You're only making it harder for feedback to be passed along.
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#394 - 2012-05-04 16:19:11 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


This goes to show the fundemental problem with the incursion "community", and why it's good CCP nerf Incursions.

The incursion people in high sec are getting something for nothing (and got so used to it that they are crying on the forums). Incursion runners (and everyone else) in low and null sec and WHs have to deal with everything the high sec runners do, but with no concord. And for what? slightly better isk per hour maybe?



How often are null sec NPCers or WH sleeper fleets Griefed from within?

Because I've already stated that there's over 250 incidents been recorded and people blacklisted for attacks against incursion runners in sites.

Also not everyone is a 23/7 player. I wasn't always as active before. I used to be part of a Null sec alliance back in the day. And I would log in and find out the fleet was 30+ jumps away I'd jump in a ship and start making my way to join in. Then get there and it's all over time to go home... And I was told that I had to be more active and be on every operation otherwise the Directors would be pissed at me... so I quit the corp. Because being a casual player I didn't want someone dictating to me when I'd be active and what I'd be doing while I was active.

Just because I don't want to belong to a nullsec alliance/corp doesn't mean I should be denied the ability to make some isk. And I'm not saying "Vanguards" were balanced. What I am arguing is that Assaults and Headquarters sites are dramatically underpaid.

But I just had the epiphany today, the reason why non of the null-bears comment on my problem of HQ and ASS sites paying out less is that when they grinded incursions, they abused the broken Vanguards and got as much isk as they could before CCP fixed it.

So when they think "Incurison runners get paid too much" they don't realise that in a headquarter fleet you'd be lucky to make 46 mill per hour. which is about 1/3 of what vanguards used to pay and still less than 1/2 of what they pay now.

Assaults and HQ's need more isk/hour.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#395 - 2012-05-04 16:22:01 UTC
TheSkeptic wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Sure, make incursions worthwile, but keep to the Risk vs Reward spirit of the game.


You keep rambling on about risk vs reward as if there is this massively greater risk when ratting in null vs running hi-sec incursions.

null:

dead end ratting constellations with 10-20 bubbles on gates = near 0 risk, your only real risk is an awoxer. Which will be burnt as soon as it's used to tackle you.

supers running anoms in null = virtually 0 risk unless your stupid (or get awoxed)
They will always align to pos as soon as they hit the anom, and anyone enters local and they warp out to safety

The only real risk is if you are jumping around loads of systems that isn't part of a bubbled dead end.



hi-sec incursions:

pub fleets = med-high risk, it's a bit pot luck, end up in a fleet with greifers or just bad pilots and you've a good chance of losing your ship

efficient inc fleets = low risk, but there is still a risk due to loads of scramming frigs and you still need to count on others who may discon etc.


Sure, leave incs as they are, nbd, but CCP please then balance out the isk vs reward side of things and spawn npc HICs in the better 0.0 anoms


Hard to believe there are so many obtuse Incursion Runners, no wonder y'all can't figure out how to make the new system work for you and need ccp to hold your hands. You should be embarrased.

High Sec is the games "safe"-ish zone. By staying there instead of venturing out to less secure space where people have an easier time of killing you or forcing you to group up for self defense, you are tacitly agreeing to lower income across the board.

In order to be "safe"-ish in null tkaes a massive effort by a lot of people (with a lot of other people trying to make you unsafe). part of that effort is joining a corp, making frineds, joining an alliances, following someone else rules, fighting against others ect. You don't have to really do ANY of that in high sec or high sec incursions (or just about any other activity in high sec).

CCP should put it's foot down and continue to say "you want better, go forth into the wilderness". Even as they stand right now, High sec incursions are wrong for this kind of game. I enjoy them, the game needed group pve content, but that doesn't make them any less wrong.

I accept that many people are too weak willed (even in a video game) to put real effort into something, but I really wish CCP would stop handing them more stuff for them to get spolied by, even if ccp is trying to stay in business.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#396 - 2012-05-04 16:31:05 UTC
Galerak wrote:

Trying to say that a ten man fleet in high sec should make less isk/hr than a solo pilot in null is just ludicrous.


And who escatly is saying that? I'm saying the individuals in that 10 man fleet shooting npcs should make less isk per hour than an individual shooting npcs in space not protected by CONCORD. 1 guy should make more than 10 people lol.

The solo pilot in null either went out there on his own and is squatting, or joined a corp/alliance that holds space. Why should 10 random people in HIGH SEC make more isk/hr than hundreds of people who have to stop ratting to defend their space?



Quote:

And yet this makes us 'entitled' cause we believe it was over-tuned a bit?


Yes, because at the core of it, you think people in "coddled space" should make comparable isk/hr as people who worked for their income ("worked" meaning jumping through all the hoops you have to to get to null/low/WH space in the 1st place). High Sec Incursions are Welfare for eve players lol.

Quote:

Unless you have something to say related to the actual topic of the thread please stop trolling. You're only making it harder for feedback to be passed along.


Boo Hoo, I pay my subs like you do, I will continue to speak out against the stupidity that is high sec entitlement (in this case incursions). Let people play in high sec, no skin off my back (and the economy needs high sec players, to build stuff for people like me to blow up), but I wish they'd understand that they can't have everything, low/null/WHs are also vital to this game.
Galerak
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#397 - 2012-05-04 17:01:29 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

In order to be "safe"-ish in null tkaes a massive effort by a lot of people (with a lot of other people trying to make you unsafe). part of that effort is joining a corp, making frineds, joining an alliances, following someone else rules, fighting against others ect. You don't have to really do ANY of that in high sec or high sec incursions (or just about any other activity in high sec).

CCP should put it's foot down and continue to say "you want better, go forth into the wilderness". Even as they stand right now, High sec incursions are wrong for this kind of game. I enjoy them, the game needed group pve content, but that doesn't make them any less wrong.

I accept that many people are too weak willed (even in a video game) to put real effort into something, but I really wish CCP would stop handing them more stuff for them to get spolied by, even if ccp is trying to stay in business.


For high sec incusions, those fleets you're whining about making more isk than you, those are the guys, that either joined a corp JUST for incursions, or developed a solid reputation in the community and worked their way into an incursion network like BTL, DTM, SAQD, ISN etc. ALL of which work hard at protecting their fleets without outside support, which means having rules to follow, keeping a blacklist, and always having the eye out for those griefers. And the sad thing is you act like you cant BOTH live in null and run high sec incursions. I did that with jump clones for a long time before i decided i was sick of CTAs and pos bashes. Pretty much the only thing holding sov garuntees you is the right to shoot anyone for any reason. Trying to imply that also entitles you to make more isk than anyone else regardless of conditions is about as 'entitled' as it gets. I can promise you that every member of an incursion fleet works harder for that isk than you do in null. Running incursions is way harder than any pve i ever did in null, and i will even go so far as to say that flying 9 2-5bil isk ships in high sec is a hell of a lot more of a risk to fly than a 60-70mil isk bc in null. I think it's fairly obvious that you hate living in null and just want everyone else to be as miserable as you are.
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2012-05-04 17:14:56 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

In order to be "safe"-ish in null tkaes a massive effort by a lot of people (with a lot of other people trying to make you unsafe). part of that effort is joining a corp, making frineds, joining an alliances, following someone else rules, fighting against others ect. You don't have to really do ANY of that in high sec or high sec incursions (or just about any other activity in high sec).


Or a dead end pocket, 2 accounts, 1 tower and about 10 anchorable bubbles.

Your argument is totally flawed, not sure you even read my post before sperging your reply. I don't really care about the incursions, I'd like to see a better balance of the risk vs reward you speak of especially in null.

Anyone who argues there is no risk with running hi-sec incs obviously doesn't run them... Sure with a competent group there is less risk, just like you say about how you believe you make null safer. You need to build a network of friends in order to make it safer. But it's PvE risk, not PvP risk. Unlike null where the PvE is low risk, it's PvP you need to be careful of.

The risk is still there, just a different aggressor.

...

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#399 - 2012-05-04 17:18:10 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
We will be monitoring the feedback and looking at the stats over the next couple of months, comparing them to the stats we had pre-escalation, to see how things look once everyone has settled into the new changes.


In other words you will do a post mortem after you'vekilled an entire community. Cry
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#400 - 2012-05-04 17:20:42 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Apolyon I wrote:
RabbidFerret wrote:
xVx dreadnaught wrote:

Also for those that think the AI for the Incursion NPC's is easily beaten... it's not. They do rapid target switches and alpha strikes. .



A few days before the nerf we had a node drop. Half of our fleet DCed during an OTA. Luckily, 2 basis stayed online. We had them close to burning out all of their mods but they managed to save the fleet. After 8 years of playing Eve, I have never relied so heavily on the skill and aptitude of another player. That was a moment of sheer camaraderie among complete strangers; an example of why CCP should model more of it's mechanics around Incursions.


This.

I feel bad for you, need 8 years to get to play real eve.

time to get out of HS??

Go **** yourself
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'