These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP - End Highsec Incursions

First post First post
Author
Joe Atei
Aes Dei Asher
#181 - 2015-04-27 20:11:09 UTC
I'm pretty sure you guys could just kill them.

I don't run incursions and I never will. I think they're fine. Limiting someone's fun because you feel as if you are right about something abstract as balance in a video game is what's wrong in my opinion. The markets have already balanced out with the introduction of incursions and everyone is living their lives just fine. I feel as if you're shouting fire when there is no fire.

CCP has all the data. They know weather something is broken or not. Unfortunately, to keep good face, CCP has to listen to people who are children emotionally/mentally. Similar to a politician who wants to raise minimum wage so that a minority of people could benefit for only a temporary amount of time ignoring the majority who lose purchasing power (ie. quality of life goes down), increasing inflation, and making more people unemployed. This isn't just some theory. There's precedence. And it has always gone the same way.

Meanwhile, they're praised as heros and when everything finally catches up, the public blames whoever happens to be in office at the time. Funny how that works. All because of a populace that is uneducated with economics.

While I'm off topic, a better solution would be to tax people who make over $450k in a year 95% of their income above 450k. Because what may happen is people like that CEO from amazon might just slash his paycheck and reinvest it into the compnay, this way their workers could have air conditioning in their warehouses and not suffer from heat strokes. But hey, emotions. Personally, I believe people need to evolve past a currency based system and move on to some sort of manifest destiny where they're trying to help all humans out. But that's just fantasy.

Anyway, forgive me for the rant, I'm in a bad mood today. Regardless, I think incursions are fine. If they really do become a problem CCP will nerf them, but while I have been in the game, I haven't noticed an issue with people who do them. If that's all they do, that's because it's the only thing they find interesting in this game. You take their cake, they'll leave to get their cake else where. Not all of them would obviously and some would leave later rather than sooner. Regardless, CCP should know what's best for their company, fans, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I disagree with you. I think they're fine.
Solecist Project
#182 - 2015-04-27 20:22:56 UTC
Why do you connect fun with income?
The fun should be shooting them and fleeting up ...
... not the amount of ISK you make.

That's the core issue. If CCP halved the income of incursions ...
... there might be a chance that only those run them ...
... who actually do it for the "challenge" (ha) !

Fun equalling income only exposes you as an uncaring greedy person.

And as Pedro pointed out it's CCP themselves who say payouts are too high.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#183 - 2015-04-27 20:59:16 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Other than that, HTFU and stop attacking people for being successful at EVE.


I'm pretty sure most of us don't measure success by trivial things like ISK or KB stats.

To me, the most successful people in the game are those who venture to lowsec, nullsec, or WH space, and take great risks in the name of high space adventure. There will be lossmails. Hilarity will ensue.

However, it is an injustice that these play styles can't support losses as well as Hi Sec can. That just doesn't make sense at all from any position. Areas with more risk should have more potential income available. They don't. Plant the seeds of content today by removing Hi Sec Incursions and adjusting L4s.




Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Estella Osoka
Perkone
Caldari State
#184 - 2015-04-27 21:03:14 UTC
I challenge CCP to put a moratorium on all hisec incursions for 3 months, and only allow lowsec and nullsec incursions. Then see how many of these hisec incursion runners have the balls to man up and run incursion in orher areas.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#185 - 2015-04-27 21:18:06 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
I challenge CCP to put a moratorium on all hisec incursions for 3 months, and only allow lowsec and nullsec incursions. Then see how many of these hisec incursion runners have the balls to man up and run incursion in orher areas.


Just reduce the payouts to 60mil/hr and watch all of these content lovers rant and rave over the loss of their isk printers.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2015-04-27 21:27:43 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
I challenge CCP to put a moratorium on all hisec incursions for 3 months, and only allow lowsec and nullsec incursions. Then see how many of these hisec incursion runners have the balls to man up and run incursion in orher areas.

What would that actually prove? If the point is that people prefer the safety of highsec, we already know that, else this thread wouldn't exist.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2015-04-27 22:03:43 UTC
Hmmm.... please bear with me as I know nothing of incursions (and red crosses in general, I prefer colored squares)...

What if CCP made incursions (or some of them at least) wildly unpredictable?

In N. of rats, strength, ewar, etc... Like -50% to +100% of the usual, randomly generated.

More risk, less boredom, larger fleets needed (for backup) so ISK/person dialled back a bit.

Makes sense?

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2015-04-27 22:13:41 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Hmmm.... please bear with me as I know nothing of incursions (and red crosses in general, I prefer colored squares)...

What if CCP made incursions (or some of them at least) wildly unpredictable?

In N. of rats, strength, ewar, etc... Like -50% to +100% of the usual, randomly generated.

More risk, less boredom, larger fleets needed (for backup) so ISK/person dialled back a bit.

Makes sense?


Incusrsions are balanced around a certain player count in each fleet and payouts fluctuate when you deviate from those set numbers. As such forcing more players to be in a fleet likely won't occur. There was some mild randomness when last I ran them but nothing worth noting, could be dialed up quite a bit IMHO.

The primary issue though, as with all PvE, is that it's designed to be an income source and thus routinely beaten with a few minimum investments of effort. It pays well because despite the low barrier, that barrier is still several times above most other PvE encounters.
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#189 - 2015-04-27 22:45:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Violet Hurst
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
WH selling to NPC orders and Null ratting are both VASTLY larger Isk Faucets.

umm...
Even if we assumed that 90% of all sold commodities were WH loot and 50% of all ratting bounties were from Null sec (which would be quite a claim), the term "VASTLY" seems inappropriate here.


EDIT: I don't have exact numbers handy at the moment, but when I look at the bar for agent mission payouts and consider the respective bounties using DPS as an example of highsec missions, that doesn't exactly leave much of the bounties bar for Nullsec ratters (or anyone else for that matter).

EDIT2: DPS == Dread Pirate Scarlet
Pelle Wittewoa
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2015-04-27 22:46:18 UTC
It makes you wonder why it is soo hard to get ppl to fleet up. Thats the core problem. The core reson isnt that easy to definyAttention
Kiandoshia
Likely Suspects
RAZOR Alliance
#191 - 2015-04-27 23:25:30 UTC
The thing with incursions is, unless I have something surpemely backwards (which is entirely possible), they only pay out so much ISK to so many people. In the end, the amount of people getting rich off of incursions are few compared to the masses that are AFKtaring in 0.0 or running missions in Apancake or wherever it is they go these days.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#192 - 2015-04-27 23:28:26 UTC
Violet Hurst wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
WH selling to NPC orders and Null ratting are both VASTLY larger Isk Faucets.

umm...
Even if we assumed that 90% of all sold commodities were WH loot and 50% of all ratting bounties were from Null sec (which would be quite a claim), the term "VASTLY" seems inappropriate here.


EDIT: I don't have exact numbers handy at the moment, but when I look at the bar for agent mission payouts and consider the respective bounties using DPS as an example of highsec missions, that doesn't exactly leave much of the bounties bar for Nullsec ratters (or anyone else for that matter).

EDIT2: DPS == Dread Pirate Scarlet

Well over 50% of those bounty payouts are from Null according to some posts made in the German forums a while back, something like 75-80% of NPC kills are made in Null overall, the map can give a false idea because it's spread between over 3000 systems in Null and concentrated in a dozen or so systems in high on average. And given Null bounties are normally more than high sec bounties that gives them at least that large a slice of the pie. Dread Pirate Scarlet is NOT representative of the standard mission in the slightest. And I consider several trillian and 33% difference for WH loot to be worthy of the word vastly. Let alone the NPC Bounties.

So yes, Incursion Isk is not a significant contributor to any isk inflation. Though I wouldn't particularly object if the ratio was changed assuming concord isk at 1k LP to more LP. But when the Op of this thread outright lied about incursion income, and most of the 'nerf it' crowd are ignoring what the real average income is for an individual pilot, using the best case figure ignoring wait times.... Yea, I'm most definitely against any nerfs to it's overall income.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#193 - 2015-04-27 23:30:35 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Other than that, HTFU and stop attacking people for being successful at EVE.


I'm pretty sure most of us don't measure success by trivial things like ISK or KB stats.

To me, the most successful people in the game are those who venture to lowsec, nullsec, or WH space, and take great risks in the name of high space adventure. There will be lossmails. Hilarity will ensue.

However, it is an injustice that these play styles can't support losses as well as Hi Sec can. That just doesn't make sense at all from any position. Areas with more risk should have more potential income available. They don't. Plant the seeds of content today by removing Hi Sec Incursions and adjusting L4s.

Most areas with more risk do have greater income potentials if the numbers gathered by others around here are to be believed. The issue, which has always been and always likely will be, is the capacity to pursue maximum efficiency and likely go uninterrupted that highsec allows. If it were possible in other securities they would dominate highsec isk/hour.

Though reducing income has no bearing on loss sustainability when operating in an area where 0 losses is a real possibility.
Violet Hurst
Fedaya Recon
#194 - 2015-04-28 00:00:26 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Well over 50% of those bounty payouts are from Null according to some posts made in the German forums a while back, something like 75-80% of NPC kills are made in Null overall, the map can give a false idea because it's spread between over 3000 systems in Null and concentrated in a dozen or so systems in high on average. And given Null bounties are normally more than high sec bounties that gives them at least that large a slice of the pie. Dread Pirate Scarlet is NOT representative of the standard mission in the slightest. And I consider several trillian and 33% difference for WH loot to be worthy of the word vastly. Let alone the NPC Bounties.

So yes, Incursion Isk is not a significant contributor to any isk inflation. Though I wouldn't particularly object if the ratio was changed assuming concord isk at 1k LP to more LP. But when the Op of this thread outright lied about incursion income, and most of the 'nerf it' crowd are ignoring what the real average income is for an individual pilot, using the best case figure ignoring wait times.... Yea, I'm most definitely against any nerfs to it's overall income.


Before i'm counted as a proponent of one side of this argument or the other, i'd like to point out that i haven't completely made up my mind yet and am currently just argueing Nevyn's point of incursions not being a noteworthy ISK faucet.

Speaking of which: 33% is vast while 20% is insignificant... that's an interesting scale.
As to the real ratios of NPC bounties between the different security sectors i'll have to try and get myself some reliable numbers tomorrow, same goes for missions. If you could link your source for the 75-80% statement, i'd appreciate that.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#195 - 2015-04-28 00:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Decoy
Decoy's Simple (quoted) Rules for Thread Survival:

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

I've cleaned the last couple pages and trust you'll take this as a friendly reminder before continuing to post in this thread... Twisted

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#196 - 2015-04-28 00:52:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
baltec1 wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Never understood the QQ about PVE content rewards. If you think its fantastic, go do it. There is literally nothing stopping you from doing it. At all. Always amazes me that folks will whine about **** that others do when they can do it themselves. If Incursions were so awesomesauce than they would be the #1 source of ISK entering the game, but they aren't that crown goes to NS Ratting/Anoms.


Why leave highsec for more risky space if you are earning the same or more in highsec?

As for that "#1 source of isk" tidbit you are quoting it wrong. While null activities inject the most isk income levels for ratting is far below that of incursions. An incursion pilot will earn upwards of twice as much as your average anom ratter in null.


This is the thing the "income deniers" will never understand, and you can see them try to deflect with that "well, null sec injects isk" thinking. It irritatingly stupid.

No one is saying that Incursions is injecting the most isk, hell there is a hard cap on how many people can run incursions of all types at one time. Null spews liquid isk because in Dominon CCP made the unwise idea of making anomalies the center of the systems military upgrade scheme when anoms are a poor choice for that.

The truth is that on an INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, high sec incursions are incredibly broken. Less so than other things maybe, but broken is broken.

And anyone can test if for themselves. Set up an incursion ship. Pick a community. Start counting from the time you waitlist/x up. Go for 4 hours. Calculate your isk per hour.

Thake the SAME HULL to sov null. Do pve there for 4 hours. Repeat this activity in both high and null over the course of a week to get your averages. Works the same in low and wormhole space, but I doubt you want to try a solo mach/vindi/nightmare in a wormhole.

Then post your results here, and then try to lie about the imbalance that YOU just observed. mine are 120ish mil in high sec incursions (late EUTZ is when I start playing and there is loads of waitlist traffic there) vs about 75 ish mil in null (and yes including escalations).

Of course this is presupposing that one is interested in the truth of the matter rather than trying to preserve an unbalanced cash cow that provides them with easy PLEX isk....


The only combat pve more unbalanced than high sec incursions is faction warfare missions.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#197 - 2015-04-28 00:55:08 UTC
Violet Hurst wrote:

Before i'm counted as a proponent of one side of this argument or the other, i'd like to point out that i haven't completely made up my mind yet and am currently just argueing Nevyn's point of incursions not being a noteworthy ISK faucet.

Speaking of which: 33% is vast while 20% is insignificant... that's an interesting scale.
As to the real ratios of NPC bounties between the different security sectors i'll have to try and get myself some reliable numbers tomorrow, same goes for missions. If you could link your source for the 75-80% statement, i'd appreciate that.

Not a direct reference, I believe it was CCP Karkur on the German forums but I don't speak german well enough to put together a search string.
Given Fozzie has also come out and said Null earns plenty enough isk, that reinforces the likelyhood that most of those bounties do come from Null.

Anyway, back to incursions and some fun maths.
Lets assume LP adds enough value to bring that average up to 10 Trillion per month for incursion income overall. Exact maths actually depends on the internal breakdown of VG's to HQ's from memory. And that all of this income is in high, we know for sure that low & null incursions do get run occasionally but we will assume that the percentage this adds to overall income is negligible.
And lets assume a 30 day month as an 'average' length month.
This means that there are 720 individual man hours in the month.

If we guess at a true average income of 100 Mil/Hour for an incursion pilot the following occurs.
10,000,000,000,000/100,000,000 = 100,000 Hours of income.
100,000/720 = 138(.88) pilots per hour supported.

Now I believe it's fair to say that Incursions are pretty much fully utilised with contests in HQ & VG's being common enough. And more people being involved would simply result in more contests and more pilots getting 0 income, rather than more fleets making full income.
So..... we have an activity that can at any one time support only 140 pilots give or take a few at 100 Mil/Hour. Unless Null & Low start packing out their incursions. This may be 500-700 pilots a day if we assume 6 hour play sessions which doesn't seem that unreasonable, or maybe as high as 1000 a day if we drop to 3 hour play sessions which is short.
Is it unreasonable for 1000 pilots who have mastered co-operation in a fleet, typically using deadspace fittings, pirate/T2 hulls, and are under a good FC, to make 100/Hour. These are not people solo farming, there is real risk even from the NPC's themselves let alone player intervention in the sites, even if we are just talking High sec.

If you find that number of players supported at that income unreasonable given the skills and co-operation involved, well, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, the fun part about those numbers, if you claim 150/Hour income as the normal, those numbers drop to 600 pilots globally supported across an entire day. And under 100 pilots at any one time.
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#198 - 2015-04-28 01:02:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Vic Jefferson wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:


And it is perfectly possible and acceptable for any pilot to engage in these activities. So again I am not sure what the issue is. If you want to suckle on the teet you only need to open your mouth. Elsewise its nothing but whining. If you want to live in 0.0 and only play in 0.0 cool, not everything is fair in EVE. Nothing at all stopping you from heading to HS every now and then to milk the cow. Seems like a bad case of entitlement to me.


The problem is that you are not getting rewarded for taking on more risk and effort. If CCP wants smaller corps and alliances out in nullsec then they are going to have to make it worth moving out there.


This is, of course, dead on. It's a sandbox - High Sec shouldn't be for making money so you can go spend it in areas that are for shooting at each other. This just results in the current syndrome where many areas are totally empty of content. All the sovereignty rebalances are for naught if you have secure, untouchable, incursion level income in high sec: why join up with something in null when the income is worse, you will be vulnerable all the time, and you have to defend or lose your holdings?



+1. That's why this didn't work. CCP didn't take into account that people could just make isk with their pve toons elsewhere. End result was the sov null they actually expected to liven up with fighting turned into a renters desert where not-so-smart people could rent and make less isk than blitzing lvl 4 missions or running incursions.
Jenn aSide
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#199 - 2015-04-28 01:07:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Violet Hurst wrote:

Before i'm counted as a proponent of one side of this argument or the other, i'd like to point out that i haven't completely made up my mind yet and am currently just argueing Nevyn's point of incursions not being a noteworthy ISK faucet.

Speaking of which: 33% is vast while 20% is insignificant... that's an interesting scale.
As to the real ratios of NPC bounties between the different security sectors i'll have to try and get myself some reliable numbers tomorrow, same goes for missions. If you could link your source for the 75-80% statement, i'd appreciate that.

Not a direct reference, I believe it was CCP Karkur on the German forums but I don't speak german well enough to put together a search string.
Given Fozzie has also come out and said Null earns plenty enough isk, that reinforces the likelyhood that most of those bounties do come from Null.

Anyway, back to incursions and some fun maths.
Lets assume LP adds enough value to bring that average up to 10 Trillion per month for incursion income overall. Exact maths actually depends on the internal breakdown of VG's to HQ's from memory. And that all of this income is in high, we know for sure that low & null incursions do get run occasionally but we will assume that the percentage this adds to overall income is negligible.
And lets assume a 30 day month as an 'average' length month.
This means that there are 720 individual man hours in the month.

If we guess at a true average income of 100 Mil/Hour for an incursion pilot the following occurs.
10,000,000,000,000/100,000,000 = 100,000 Hours of income.
100,000/720 = 138(.88) pilots per hour supported.

Now I believe it's fair to say that Incursions are pretty much fully utilised with contests in HQ & VG's being common enough. And more people being involved would simply result in more contests and more pilots getting 0 income, rather than more fleets making full income.
So..... we have an activity that can at any one time support only 140 pilots give or take a few at 100 Mil/Hour. Unless Null & Low start packing out their incursions. This may be 500-700 pilots a day if we assume 6 hour play sessions which doesn't seem that unreasonable, or maybe as high as 1000 a day if we drop to 3 hour play sessions which is short.
Is it unreasonable for 1000 pilots who have mastered co-operation in a fleet, typically using deadspace fittings, pirate/T2 hulls, and are under a good FC, to make 100/Hour. These are not people solo farming, there is real risk even from the NPC's themselves let alone player intervention in the sites, even if we are just talking High sec.

If you find that number of players supported at that income unreasonable given the skills and co-operation involved, well, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
However, the fun part about those numbers, if you claim 150/Hour income as the normal, those numbers drop to 600 pilots globally supported across an entire day. And under 100 pilots at any one time.


He does this so much, we should call it the Nevyn Auscent Deflection Syndrome (I just added the S because it makes the acronym "NADS").

The way it works is that you pretend that the numbers of people doing something that is unbalanced is important, and that if not enough people do it, it's not unbalanced. It's basically denying fact by conflating the specific issue with some other 'macro' level concern, in this case, it's the overall economy (of which incursion income is too small to hurt).

Despite having every opportunity to do so, Nevyn Auscent hasn't spent a single second actually testing the situation in game, his entire reason for posting is to defend high sec.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#200 - 2015-04-28 01:19:55 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

He does this so much, we should call it the Nevyn Auscent Deflection Syndrome (I just added the S because it makes the acronym "NADS").

The way it works is that you pretend that the numbers of people doing something that is unbalanced is important, and that if not enough people do it, it's not unbalanced. It's basically denying fact by conflating the specific issue with some other 'macro' level concern, in this case, it's the overall economy (of which incursion income is too small to hurt).

Despite having every opportunity to do so, Nevyn Auscent hasn't spent a single second actually testing the situation in game, his entire reason for posting is to defend high sec.

And here we see the Jenn anti highsec Tirade, or JAHT for short, who doesn't bother to actually look at any of these numbers, but tries to compare apples to oranges and then complains it's unfair that a solo risk adverse null pilot who docks whenever a neutral enters system and only uses an ishtar doesn't make as much as a pilot using a multi billion isk ship who is reliant on an entire fleet of similar ships for their income. While ignoring the fact that if the same fleet ran in Null they would be making 42% more than highsec while running.

If you want higher income, you take the risk that comes with it. The solo ishtar docking on neuts is virtually no risk because of your chosen risk management style and you have 100% control on those risks.
The Highsec incursion pilot is at risk from site alpha, gankers, loosing contests and fleet mates failing.
The Null Sec incursion fleet is at risk from all of the above, plus hostiles.

Absolutely, the Null incursion fleet faces significant risks, and if you bothered to read earlier Jenn, I suggested pushing for CCP to continue their experiment with VG's onto all the sites allowing Null to field fleets that are 50% larger than High, to account for the fact that mitigating risks requires less optimal fits such as having points, additional logi, and higher tank to deal with hostiles. But trying to compare an incursion fleet to a solo anom farmer really doesn't hold water.