These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Incursions : Revisiting Assaults .

Author
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#41 - 2014-02-10 21:52:04 UTC
Kodavor wrote:
Look at it this way . If something works then it is used . if it does not then it is not used . NCN's are not used . It does not matter what the intentions of the developers were when they designed the site . What matters is that they are not used . What matters also is that a very simple and small change would make them used . Best regards Kodavor .


It is not being used (at least not often) because it doesn't fit into the optimal isk/hr ratio that all Incursion FCs use. So basically this boils down to the fact that it cuts into your incursion effiecincy rating, so you don't do the site. The site CAN be done, you Incursioners just choose not to do it becaue it isn't optimal.

With that reasoning scout sites, losec incursions, nullsec incursions should be gotten rid of too; and any other activity that isn't used often.

Posting in a stealth buff incursions thread.
Ireland VonVicious
Vicious Trading Company
#42 - 2014-02-10 21:59:13 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Kodavor wrote:
Look at it this way . If something works then it is used . if it does not then it is not used . NCN's are not used . It does not matter what the intentions of the developers were when they designed the site . What matters is that they are not used . What matters also is that a very simple and small change would make them used . Best regards Kodavor .


It is not being used (at least not often) because it doesn't fit into the optimal isk/hr ratio that all Incursion FCs use. So basically this boils down to the fact that it cuts into your incursion effiecincy rating, so you don't do the site. The site CAN be done, you Incursioners just choose not to do it becaue it isn't optimal.

With that reasoning scout sites, losec incursions, nullsec incursions should be gotten rid of too; and any other activity that isn't used often.

Posting in a stealth buff incursions thread.



-1 for lack of reading comprehension
James Tzashi
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Pandemic Horde
#43 - 2014-02-10 22:00:48 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Kodavor wrote:
Look at it this way . If something works then it is used . if it does not then it is not used . NCN's are not used . It does not matter what the intentions of the developers were when they designed the site . What matters is that they are not used . What matters also is that a very simple and small change would make them used . Best regards Kodavor .


It is not being used (at least not often) because it doesn't fit into the optimal isk/hr ratio that all Incursion FCs use. So basically this boils down to the fact that it cuts into your incursion effiecincy rating, so you don't do the site. The site CAN be done, you Incursioners just choose not to do it becaue it isn't optimal.

With that reasoning scout sites, losec incursions, nullsec incursions should be gotten rid of too; and any other activity that isn't used often.

Posting in a stealth buff incursions thread.


Both Lowsec and nullsec incursions are ran more often then you think although i do agree scout sites should gotten rid of they serve no purpose
Lyra Jedran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#44 - 2014-02-11 00:58:38 UTC
James Tzashi wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:
Kodavor wrote:
Look at it this way . If something works then it is used . if it does not then it is not used . NCN's are not used . It does not matter what the intentions of the developers were when they designed the site . What matters is that they are not used . What matters also is that a very simple and small change would make them used . Best regards Kodavor .


It is not being used (at least not often) because it doesn't fit into the optimal isk/hr ratio that all Incursion FCs use. So basically this boils down to the fact that it cuts into your incursion effiecincy rating, so you don't do the site. The site CAN be done, you Incursioners just choose not to do it becaue it isn't optimal.

With that reasoning scout sites, losec incursions, nullsec incursions should be gotten rid of too; and any other activity that isn't used often.

Posting in a stealth buff incursions thread.


Both Lowsec and nullsec incursions are ran more often then you think although i do agree scout sites should gotten rid of they serve no purpose


Nah they should buff scout sites so that they pay out 3-4 mln with an equivalent amount of lp to be done by 5-6 pilots. That way you will have a 5-6 man fleet that can do scouts which can then upgrade to vg 10-12 man fleet which can then upgrade to assaults and hqs as pilots trickle in. Right now if you do not have enough pilots online for a VG fleet all you can do is spin in station and wait for numbers to arrive whereas if scout sites were slightly interesting to do (though not as good as vgs), you could run those until you had the numbers.
Tarpedo
Incursionista
#45 - 2014-02-11 03:13:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarpedo
Nice idea and won't take much work time on CCP side. Maybe just couple years to think about its implementation, couple minutes to code, couple hours to test.
luapseirffej1989
Mateber Haulage
#46 - 2014-02-11 12:22:17 UTC
+1

Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2014-02-11 12:29:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
Estella Osoka wrote:
All Incursion sites are useful. It is thay FCs can't be arsed to have their people reship to fit the site conditions. Need more sites like the NCN. Noobs do not have to be new players in particular. Not every player trains up to fly a BS with T2 guns. Some train straight for a T3 cruiser as it is less of a train.


Just for your interest the site isn't doable in any time effective way by newer players and even with reshipping it is the slowest site by far. In fact it puts the highest pressure of any assault site on dps and logis in the last pocked if you run it with any kind of efficient setup. That means HQ style dps intake on a 35k EHP tier 3 BC or 19k EHP logis with only halve the logis on grid.


Quote:
It is brokenly out of step with the other assault sites, especially with the forced reshiping to t3/t1BC/HAC for 1/6-1/3 your DPS depending on how well or badly your fleet did its logistics (Really mean hauling and homework.). The best possible t3s and attack BCs are putting out ~1200 DPS for double digit billions in deadspace and officer mods, while the average vindi pilot is putting out 1500+ with a t2 fit, and similar application ranges.


Um, the Oracle I fly for Dinc puts out 1380 dps, the Talos setup is close to 1790 dps. That is without silly stuff like officer damage mods.

Quote:
In short, the mechanic is bad. It was likely designed to force fleets to take newbies, but has ended up forcing people out of the site type entirely. When you look at the EHP/isk ratios, the other two assault sites take top prize, with the sniper heavy


I would agree here, if you don't have high skilled guys on the cruiser site you better off doing VGs, what means you need high skilled dps pilots that can fly and bring multiple hulls plus a very proficient logi team to not lose your glass cannon setups in the last pocket.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#48 - 2014-02-11 15:45:27 UTC
The site is doable. People just CHOOSE not to do it because it is not optimal. Ya'll just complaining because it cuts into your profit margins when you dont have enough people to run HQs, and there is a wall of NCNs.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#49 - 2014-02-11 15:49:47 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
The site is doable. People just CHOOSE not to do it because it is not optimal. Ya'll just complaining because it cuts into your profit margins when you dont have enough people to run HQs, and there is a wall of NCNs.


And that means it's broken. I don't care personally as i've never had any trouble getting into an HQ or VG fleet, but it's sad that what could be good incursion content goes virtually unused because CCP won't fix it to work like the entire rest of the Incursion system. Assaults are about as worthless to the incursion community as Scouts are.
James Tzashi
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Pandemic Horde
#50 - 2014-02-11 16:17:09 UTC
It's very clear that there is something wrong with assaults if there wasn't why do you see a system that has all NCNs and next to no one in the system. NCNs are the sole problem and they need to be changed we have been waiting long enough just do something to make them on par with the other sites.
Garak n00biachi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2014-02-11 17:27:07 UTC
99% of the PVE in this game needs attention but the EVE trillionairs club aka the caravan of isk want their **** fixed so they can get richer, fine....any fix of incursions should also come with the removal of it from highsec......move it to lowsec...it needs it.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#52 - 2014-02-11 21:20:05 UTC
Garak n00biachi wrote:
99% of the PVE in this game needs attention but the EVE trillionairs club aka the caravan of isk want their **** fixed so they can get richer, fine....any fix of incursions should also come with the removal of it from highsec......move it to lowsec...it needs it.


Totally agree with this statement. The Risk vs Reward for Incursions needs fixing more than anything else. Fix that and I could get behind this "Make My Incursions Easier" thread.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2014-02-11 22:48:00 UTC
James Tzashi wrote:
It's very clear that there is something wrong with assaults if there wasn't why do you see a system that has all NCNs and next to no one in the system. NCNs are the sole problem and they need to be changed we have been waiting long enough just do something to make them on par with the other sites.

I think this is more of an indication that there is something wrong with the players that run incursions. Just accept slightly slower site completion times for the other sites and run the NCNs with your properly balanced fleet of BS/T3/Logi. Or don't do assaults.

I run assaults more than any other type of site personally. Is the ISK/hr as good? No. But that's not what I am looking for when I run incursions. For people that are looking to maximize their ISK/hr then assaults are a bad choice. It's almost like this game is about choices.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#54 - 2014-02-12 01:05:13 UTC
Garak n00biachi wrote:
99% of the PVE in this game needs attention but the EVE trillionairs club aka the caravan of isk want their **** fixed so they can get richer, fine....any fix of incursions should also come with the removal of it from highsec......move it to lowsec...it needs it.

Because 'It's broke don't fix it' is always a great way to approach things.

Trillionairs? Really? You don't know anything at all about Incursion running do you? Just assuming that since there's ISK to be made it must be easy, risk free and plentiful. Ships that would make a PVP'er weep for not being on a kill-board die every day in Incursions. Yes, usually due to the fault of the pilot (But that's no different than anywhere else in eve), it's expensive replacing these ships and downgrading reduces the chance of getting into fleet. For the most part I find Incursion runners to be the most altruistic players in Eve I have members that give away billions to help someone get into the right ship and fit. Not fake giveaways like ISK doublers, actually giving the ISK away and telling the recipient to pay it forward.

It makes absolutely no sense at all, 'Move it to low sec'? There's already a metric ton of unused content in low sec? And every time we do a Low Sec it's a small group the grinds to the MOM and then leaves immediately. So your solution is add more useless PVE and make it pay less overall?

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#55 - 2014-02-12 01:06:04 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
Garak n00biachi wrote:
99% of the PVE in this game needs attention but the EVE trillionairs club aka the caravan of isk want their **** fixed so they can get richer, fine....any fix of incursions should also come with the removal of it from highsec......move it to lowsec...it needs it.


Totally agree with this statement. The Risk vs Reward for Incursions needs fixing more than anything else. Fix that and I could get behind this "Make My Incursions Easier" thread.

Lamb.

Do either of you actually FC Incursions.

Who is asking to make it easier? All they were asking is to modify the current content so more people can be included in the use of the content.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#56 - 2014-02-12 01:06:51 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
James Tzashi wrote:
It's very clear that there is something wrong with assaults if there wasn't why do you see a system that has all NCNs and next to no one in the system. NCNs are the sole problem and they need to be changed we have been waiting long enough just do something to make them on par with the other sites.

I think this is more of an indication that there is something wrong with the players that run incursions. Just accept slightly slower site completion times for the other sites and run the NCNs with your properly balanced fleet of BS/T3/Logi. Or don't do assaults.

I run assaults more than any other type of site personally. Is the ISK/hr as good? No. But that's not what I am looking for when I run incursions. For people that are looking to maximize their ISK/hr then assaults are a bad choice. It's almost like this game is about choices.

Currently half of the Incursion expansion is unused, Scout sites pay so little they are less profitable than belt hopping and killing Roid Rats in 1.0, Assaults come to a full stop when the NCN wall hits, the lower pay is not what's stopping them from running the sites, it's the cruiser requirement. All of them can fly Cruisers, most of them fly Cruisers better than they do BS's, the problem is the duration of an Incursion is so short that taking the time to fly 30js to get there then 60js to go get a cruiser to accomplish one site out of 10 is just not worth it.

Adding the gate privilege to allow BS's or even a limited number of BS's (Say 2 or 3)would make an assault fleet feasible as a long term fleet solution, meaning less bored players, less boredom Mom Pops, and more access for the people waiting to participate.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2014-02-12 03:14:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
Goldiiee wrote:
Currently half of the Incursion expansion is unused, Scout sites pay so little they are less profitable than belt hopping and killing Roid Rats in 1.0, Assaults come to a full stop when the NCN wall hits, the lower pay is not what's stopping them from running the sites, it's the cruiser requirement. All of them can fly Cruisers, most of them fly Cruisers better than they do BS's, the problem is the duration of an Incursion is so short that taking the time to fly 30js to get there then 60js to go get a cruiser to accomplish one site out of 10 is just not worth it.

Adding the gate privilege to allow BS's or even a limited number of BS's (Say 2 or 3)would make an assault fleet feasible as a long term fleet solution, meaning less bored players, less boredom Mom Pops, and more access for the people waiting to participate.

So have some people bring a T3 and not a BS. That solves the 60 jumps problem. A T3 is perfectly usable in VGs and HQs if fit and flown properly. Its not optimal, but it still works just fine. Which of course is the problem. People are so focused on "optimal" that they cannot do anything else. Because if anyone did bring a T3 and not a BS they would never get an invite to a VG or HQ fleet. Hence the "Wall of NCNs" created by player behavior.

I agree with you that the current design is bad though and I feel that literally anything would be better than the current situation. Including just saying "**** it!" and removing the gate restrictions without making any other changes. However I would like to reiterate what I said on page 2 of this thread:

Quote:
I agree. The mechanic is very bad. It would make more sense to allow BS hulls into both sides of the NCN and then restrict VGs to BC hulls and smaller. And then modify the difficulty and the rewards of Assault and VG sites accordingly so they are about equally hard and equally rewarding if run with a proper fleet. Then people can decide which style of game play they prefer and join the appropriate fleet type.

I would rather see smaller hulls made useful by the nature of the targets in a site than through gate restrictions. But I can't think of a good way to do that without nerfing the web bonuses on the Vindi and Bhaalgorn. Bonuses which I feel give them unique and legitimate roles in other areas, like PVP.

There is probably some other, and quite possibly better, way to fix it and I am open to suggestions from people such as yourself who have more incursion experience than I do. I would just like to see it fixed in a way that still allows for more variety in fleets than just logi and BS hulls. But for now anything would be better than the current state of things.
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2014-02-12 11:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
That is nonsense, even 2 years ago in Ludus fleet we reshipped for NCNs(this was the high time of the Legion, and everybody did fly one), for Assaults you did bring a sniper fitted BS. What you do, in fleets that actually work, is you bring both(or in my case 10+ ships to every Inc) and reship if needed.

The reason why T3 cruisers are not flown much outside of TDF is that they are not really effective ships for VGs, even less for Assaults and HQ, outside of specific roles. Before the web changes, a full fleet of paladins was faster even on frig kills than a Legion gang of the past while dealing 80% more dps(or 100% more for TDFs Legion standards). Currently I can kill Frigs faster in my dual web, dual painter Nightmare(I also have a armor version of this setup) and a vindicator is even faster for that task. For NCNs other channels fly nearly exclusively tier 3 BCs, not because they can't fly T3 cruisers, but because it is faster.

Go ahead show me a Assault fleet just with Legions(I flown last year in a zero slot tank Legion fleet on the Island Incs, even with 4 HS, 2 TEs and 4 meds to play with you can't get over 10 sites per hour), that doesn't disband within a hour because everything takes ages and people that can fly her hulls well switch to VGs or HQs. I would be more than happy to bring my own maxed out HG slaved beam legion, just to see it. I still remember Britannic Lord moaning in TDF TS, that people should bring a sniper fitted BS, not her VG Legion. He didn't say that for nothing.

Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:

I would just like to see it fixed in a way that still allows for more variety in fleets than just logi and BS hulls. But for now anything would be better than the current state of things.


The problem is that CCP content is designed to not give medium hulls a advantage. Speed hardly matters at all, spawns close in super fast, ships that deactivate the mwd can't be dpsed down for nearly 30s because sansha ships have ridiculous mass stats and her cruisers feel like the first nano BS in 2007(you need dual 90% webs to slow them down before they would de accelerate by herself). You can't utilize a lot of quick movement because spawns are so overloaded on EHP that BS can comfortable move to the required location before the next spawn appears and there are not enough frig sized targets where a Legion could slightly outdo a BS.

NCOs of the past where good because it did push communities to work together(your OTA and NMC fleet was very slow at doing NCOs, so was the Legion fleet for OTAs and NMCs). You could even redesign the hole NCN site into a complete sub BS style engagement, as long as it would be doable a bit quicker in that sub BS hulls than the other sites for specific fleets at least one channel will build a fleet concept around it, so other channels don't run into NCN walls.

Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
I run assaults more than any other type of site personally. Is the ISK/hr as good? No. But that's not what I am looking for when I run incursions. For people that are looking to maximize their ISK/hr then assaults are a bad choice. It's almost like this game is about choices.


Assaults are not bad for ISK per hour, ISN can do them in 11 minutes, I even seen under 10 minute sites with Dinc, if everybody is focused and you have the pilots to run a optimal dps and logi setup. This are actually very good numbers, given the warp time changes for BS, the extra LP over VGs and next to no bouncing compared to VG or HQ systems, because of the much lower competition. The problem is that even for the channels that did invest a lot of time into making running Assaults productive have problems with the NCNs that are not completely solvable by fittings or tactics, but require a change in game mechanics to make them less restrictive(allowing to run them without reshipping) or in my opinion preferred actually a useful site type if you go the extra mile and reship into the optimal setup.

Edit: It is quite similar to the old situation with OTAs, a good fleet could still do them, but the other sites where faster for most and a average fleet that didn't had the alpha to take down the maras quick or specific char just to hack the site did struggle big time. That did result in the OTA walls. By removing the maras and bringing the hacking tower closer, as suggested by many of the people that done a lot of Incs, it is a fairly popular site again and the VG environment became interesting and doable by all kind of fleets again.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#59 - 2014-02-12 11:58:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldiiee
Haha; Had a random thought, set mass limits on the gate (Like Wormholes), so any combination of ships not to exceed xxx,xxx,xxx mass can enter, after that the gate self destructs. It would make it a requirement to go in light or bring a few cruisers, but unfortunately that would eliminate contest and the occasional rescues so it wouldn't work but the idea was kinda funny.

Rework Scout sites, make them require 3 ships and pay 2 mil for 4 to 5 minutes of work, No BS's allowed.
Rework Assaults NCN site, allow 2 BS's in the cruiser side (Where my mass idea came from) or any number of cruisers (Like it is now) then a group that couldn't reship could still accomplish it but at a handicap due the two BS's mass restriction.

Edit; I don't have a solution any better than Kodavor's. But I do agree something should be done, I just don't know what.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Kodavor
Iz Doge Korp .
#60 - 2014-02-12 13:08:15 UTC
Many of the ideas proposed are good ones but do keep in mind this is CCP that we are dealing with . One of the main reasons for promoting only a ship restriction lift from the gates is that it should not be technically difficult and should be doable fairly soon and would fix the issue . Yes the sites would still be slow and ****** but people would do them because they would not have to drag a whole separate ship along with them to do it .
Greater content changes such as removing pocked mixing spawn adding something would ( judging by past experiences ) take up to 2 years or more leaving the NCN 's the most undesirable sites in the whole incursion content .