Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Mechanics...hmm. There are quite a few things that do not need to be messed with. But there is something that can be looked at. Blobbing a site. I have seen this happen in VG, Assaults and now Headquarters. Granted the griefing tactic is quite entertaining but gets vary annoying.

I have seen a 40 man shield fleet win a contest against a 60 man shield fleet. As you look at the numbers its obvious the 60man should have won. There are many factors that contribute to their lose. I will not bore you with the details how they lost it.

What I think should change in the mechanics of incursion running. There are legal fleet sizes and illegal fleet sizes. Legal get paid where illegal fleet size does not. Now if the illegal fleet wins the site no one gets paid.

Idea 1
An illegal fleet should be penalized even more. Take incursion running for instant. You got an illegal fleet killing sites no pay outs. Each pilot should be fined set amount of isk over or under the legal fleet limit. Using the base normal payout and then adjust it from there as the fine. The formula is rather simple. Increase the fine the more they are short or over legal fleet limit.

Idea 2
If its a contest where you have 2 or more fleets and one is an illegal fleet who wins the site. All the DPS they put out should be forfeit and the DPS put out by the other fleet/s should be looked at which would have won and that fleet gets a payout.

Idea 3
Combination of Idea 1 and Idea 2


The blobbing tactic that Chardass created. This can be looked at many ways. Enough people petitioning CCP will fill their mugs with tears or they will go and do something about it. Who knows maybe something will happen and all the CCP guys are sitting back munching on popcorn watching like they did with burn Jita.

[/quote] However, what I proposed would alleviate the problems, and make there be no reason to close all high sec incursions.

Of course, he's likely to close them himself if ISN kills a mom (even if there are other high sec ones open, he likes to close the rest when ISN kills a mom)

So I suppose the real solution that is needed, is to get people to realize they shouldn't be in fleets with him.



Odds are that DIN/TVP are going to blob when the next one spawns. Odds are that ISN is going to force it closed.
The blob might contest and win, but the incursion will still close.
ISN almost never hits the 80 person cap that causes reduced payout, even with leach boxes. I see no reason a combined ISN + Armor fleet couldn't do the mom together (since you can do the mom with a standard 40 ship HQ fleet), so that both groups at least get 2 HQ sites worth of payouts.
Of course, there will be a window for getting paid, when the VGs are being run to grind down penalties and make the mom show up.[/quote]


Well I know an armor FC that did 20 man MOM armor fleets, to get these people back to the gentelman's agreement after they broke thier own agreements. But he got blacklisted from TDF even though, he suceeded in getting TVP back to the table with Armor pilots. You dont get a paid out with a fleet this low. He was blacklisted and well, I am sure he was the drone Bunny for this ISN Mom's last site.

Now some angry german with his 16 boxes is using an beginners community to shield his hatred and ambition for personal eve power.

Right also this fc, used t1 armor bs hulls so it was not a shiny fleet at all. Just well disciplined and fitted. He dc'd on gate and we did the whole site without him. He got banned :). Blacklisting and banned means well ISN gains more people and in the long term makes you look bad. TVP allied with DIN will be the end of the community because DIN is out for himself and his sixteen boxes. ISN took the MOM after it went to its own incursion and left the other communities alone. I personally plan on being in every ISN MOM fleet that is reacting to TVP/DIN griefing. Because as with armor, it is the only way to bring them to the table. But TVP and ISN still take less MOM sites then DIN does combined so who is the angry one a 16 box fleet or hundreds of other players who prefer to make their isk and invest it as they see fit in eve.

Rival Incursion fleets are competing over E-Peen, and King of the hill.
Most Incursion Runners have thier own corp (or three) so war decs are easily dodged by corp hopping.
One guy has led the charge on denial of service tactics and is teared up about his plan backfiring.
All the high sec Incursions were completed and left Incursion runners nothing better to do than come and troll these forums for your entertainment.

Please tip your waitresses they work hard for their money....

+2, but I won't tip.

IMHO, To any group that snipes incursion mom sites are only hurting themselves. A blob incursion fleet is as acceptable as a "miner bumper," nothing is glitched.

CCP has the incursion mechanics setup so that it doesn't reward incursion blobbers isk so it hurts the blob fleet because they aren't getting isk at all

They also have it setup so the mom can be completed many days before the incursion despwans once influence reaches 0%, afterwords nobody can run sites, so no isk if no highsec incursion is up and the runners don't want to go into lowsec/null if there is an incursion in those regions.

Suicide ganking also exists, you shoot somebody in highsec with no kill rights or wardec, etc and their ship pops. If a gang of them blows up a freighter before they get shot, should CCP change the mechanics to punish gankers even though they get killed; should blob fleets get punished even though they won't get payouts?

Contesting happens at every other level of incursions. Why should Hq's be any different. The issue here is one angry German and his 16 box fleet. TVP stops flying with DIN and the rest of his community will fall. TVP has already began to be hard for ISN to contest. But TVP leadership is too angry at ISN to see what their community has done.

Why let a 16 box fleet leader stop hundreds of others from making isk because he is mad and wants uncontested HQ's for his box armies.

Yes, as I've acknowledged, working as intended is a definite possibility here.

"He doesn't like getting contested just as much as you don't like getting blobbed."
This suggestion would make both cases irrelevant, if your above statement is true, then everyone would be happy.
Of course, gameplay changes shouldn't happen just because someone is unhappy. However, that doesn't mean gameplay changes should never happen... otherwise we'd still have AoE doomsdays... If the mechanics make for bad gameplay, they should be changed.

So my question is.. do the mechanics make for bad gameplay?
Blobbing is normally considered bad gameplay... its a major criticism of fights in null. Hence, my suggestions to further discourage it.

To you pirates out there... do you want fleets flying around in Pirate BSs, or blobs of Maelstroms and Rokhs...
Which do you want the mechanics to encourage ?

Of course, 16 boxes do not make a blob... the ideal solution would still be to get the incursion community to realize that Charadrass is having a negative impact on the incursion community as a whole.


ISN has been around for quite a while... and they can all verify for themselves that they were still able to make quite a good income. Then Charadrass gets a following demonizing ISN, and what do we get? him rage killing all remaining moms when ISN closes a Mom instead of DIN/TVP/TDF (who seemingly unilaterally claimed the right to all moms in high sec).... when those tactics brought negatice consequences... he manages to get nearly 100 people together to waste their time and make no isk for hours on end... because... they don't like ISN... because sometimes they miss a payout when ISN wins a contest...


No gameplay mechanic changes would be desirable to me if people would stop being stupid and volunteering to be serfs to "the angry German".

I read about halfway through the second page and then just gave up. So much drama.

"When ISN enters a site, enter a different site" sounds an awful lot like "When ISN comes in to contest your site, abandon it and go to a different one."

If this interpretation is accurate, then my feelings are that ISN should be denied as much ISK as possible. Apply economic pressure until they either go to lowsec Incursions or cant handle their own rage and fracture into a million little officer-fitted pieces.


There is absolutely no reason to change game mechanics in order to solve your pathetic high-school drama.

Oh hey - It's this thread again.

To answer all of your questions really really simply... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvM7av1o1Q

Yes, it annoys me that ISN doesn't want to work with those of us in other communities, but such is life. We move on.

Incursions are the way they are, to keep them different from the other PVE elements of the game.

Don't like that? go run the other PVE elements.

Simple.

What I meant was that all you need to do is wait for ISN to start a site, and then go to a different one.

ISN rarely leaves mid site to go contest, as there are scrams on field that routinely spawn.
The only exception is TPPHs, where there are 2 rooms that may be cleared relatively fast before the tower bash.

If ISN is able to finish its site, and then come to yours and win the contest... (which is rare, but running TPPHs increases this possibility), well thats pretty bad.

Basically, if you don't want to contest, just time your entry into sites a bit better, when your fleet takes >20 minutes to finish a site... that shouldn't be an issue.

One thing also that you have to remember is that the majority of ISN's members have other income streams as well as incursion running. Not having high sec incursions up will hurt DIN/TVP more than it does ISN because the pilots there have most likely become reliant on there always being an incursion up and a fleet to run them.

Its simple, this is a war of attrition, whomever folds first loses, my money is on ISN coming out on top.

PS: I should start a gambling pool to see who will win this little engagement =)