Assembly Hall

Large payout reduction for highsec is already in effect. Rest is convoluted and unneeded changes that serve no purpose. Not supported.

In effect as in TQ. There's the lower reward in both isk and LP, plus lack of mom bpc drop in highsec.

ok i think that you have missed my point by a large margin to boot.

first of all:
the current LP / ISK payout for a HS VANGUARD site is (presuming maximum of 10 in fleet)

10.5 million ISK
2500 concord LP

this is what it was at incursion release and this is what it is at now (payouts have not been NERFED)

and as stated in my opening post people run an average of 8 of these sites in an hour.

the primary objective of this proposal is to address the lack of Risk over the rewards gained


thus the below change would first and foremost address the fact that an ob-seen amount ISK is being printed (all-be it through combat) at little to no risk to the player

the ISK payout for the 3 types incursion profiles would also change:

high sec would be half of current payout (ISK)
low sec would take on the current high sec payout profile (ISK)
null sec would remain unchanged (ISK)

No one in this thread is telling incursioners to do anything else. No one is saying "play Eve my way" or anything like that.

People are making over 100M isk per hour in highsec vanguards. That's the same level of income one can get in much more dangerous nullsec activities. THAT is why we have a problem with highsec incursions. They are imbalanced and pay out rewards that do not reflect the risk and effort that goes into them. This in a game that for eight years has portrayed itself as one where risk is REQUIRED before reward.

You do realize that number is only partial pay, right? Go to lowsec if you want to see full pay. And no, half of what is already partial pay in highsec is too low, and putting current highsec partial pay in lowsec is too low. Stop trying to nerf everything that you don't understand, and stop trying to dedicate how others play when you don't understand.

Yeah so this is more of the same null-sec codswallop that translates as "carebears get paid too much for risking so little."

Greater risk in NO way shape or form ENTITLES you to greater reward, it just entitles you to greater risk.

Why not pay everyone the same and you stop looking for null-sec welfare or stealing candy from carebears because you CHOSE to live in a ******, dangerous neighborhood? If you want the ease of high-sec, move to high-sec and quit whining about how much they get paid and how much they don't spend smoking ships like an addict smokes crack.

Null-sec: "Boo hoo we want more money because we chose to live in a ******, dangerous neighborhood and the cost of living is SOOO high and that's SOOO unfair...but if you won't give it to us at least steal it from those carebears who chose to live someplace safer and save their money..."

High-sec: "You could just move to high-sec."

Null-sec: "No way you silly carebear, null-sec is where all the cool kids are..."

High-sec: "Whatever, I'm going to go relax and have a beer."

Null-sec: "Hey...can you give me tree fiddy?"

may i please refer you to my previous post.

im not a NULL bare

that is all

I couldn't care less what you are. This is more of the same "punish the carebears and reward the non-carebears" as if by playing a game differently you are somehow special and deserve something extra. You aren't special because you like pvp or live in low/null-sec. Those are lifestyle choices and they are SUPPOSED to be less pleasant, less economically viable places to live. This is more "we want low/null-welfare and we want the carebears to pay for it"

You just want tree fiddy...

This is a game, remember? It's purpose is to entertain the people who play it.

People sing the praises of the dark, dangerous, gritty, realistic sandbox that is EVE when they are busily screwing other people over and stealing their stuff, (yes it's part of the game and i have no trouble with it at all in principle), but when confronted by the dark, dangerous, gritty reality of economics, for example, a stronger capital base and greater buying power in high-sec, people go running to CCP waving their poop filled diapers crying about risk/reward ratios.

Negotiate and enforce better treaties with your neighbors and reduce the amount of fighting and you will have more money. If all you are about is the fighting then we don't need EVE at all, we just a ladder/tier system so people can do nothing but fight 24/7/365.

Maybe CCP could slow down resource renewal speed across the board, that might help reduce the "spaceships are EVE crack" mentality that a lot of people seem to have as they burn through ship after ship.

I thought you guys were all for that dark, dangerous, gritty realism? Like fighting harder for fewer resources in relatively lawless areas, you know, where there will be more danger and less money and stuff to go around, a clockwork orange and mad max and all that?

"We should get greater rewards for greater risks." Since when is THAT any sort of model of dark, dangerous, gritty reality?

That is nothing but welfarebear, pure and simple...

What's that you say? It's not as entertaining? You don't feel like you are getting the reward you feel you are entitled to for taking greater risks as though greater risk brings anything other then greater risk?

It's a game and so it should be EASIER, (meaning more carebear), right? You do remember this is game and the relatively higher risks are something you volunteered for and can get away from at any time you want, right?

You make it sound like low risk/high payout is a bad thing. Oh wait it IS a bad thing if one is not reaping the benefits from it.

Quit patting yourselves on the back for voluntarily living a third world lifestyle when you don't have to, especially when you turn around and try to get welfare from or punish carebears for being smart and behaving like most humans would if EVE were a "real" world--making more money more safely.

Pick up your low/null-welfarebear cards on the way out...

There you go again! Don't you read what others say here?

You are dictating what people do in EVE. You just said it again!



So because people are smart enough to band together with people they know and promote team work to make things easier for themselves, you want to punish them for this??? Are you nuts?

Again, this is just a stealthwhine that carebears earn more in hi sec with good teamwork than you do in low sec. Your own posts confirm this.

As previously posted before, if you don't like this, move back to hi sec, join one of these 2 channels and make some new friends whilst earning isk. It's that easy.

ok gainking in HS is a compleatly different matter.

the effort of moving to a different incursion system is totaly on the player. the fleet that he will most likely join is already running incursions and when he gets there he will join a fleet from one of the INCURSION channels and hay presto hes now making bank for minimal effort.

in actuality when a dedicated incursion runner will remain in one constellation for the duration of the incursion (sticking to 1-3 systems for vanguards). when that incursion dies the CHANNEL moderators pick new incursion focus's for their respective tanking choices and travel to the designated constellation. they will rinse and repeat this. so travel times don't relay factor in to it all that much.

as stated B4 a change to payout of the ISK would bring incursions in line with other HS pursuits while still retaining the edge in ISKPH

NOTE: that i dont want to change PL payouts (if anything i would increase all LP rewards by 25%) after all CONCORD LP is the most versatile non transferable asset in game.