These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#201 - 2015-04-28 01:44:01 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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.


So your brilliant plan to fix the fact that high sec incursions or unblanaced is to change some aspect of null sec incursions that most null sec constellations won't see in a single year.

Brilliant. You should be a doctor, so you can claim bandaids are the proper treatment in cases of decapitation lol.

It's not just null. You have to move up past Class 5 wormholes (the most dangerous space eve has) to start surpassing the isk per hour you can make in high sec incursions protected by CONCORD and dedicated logistics ships. To make the same or more in low or null sec for the average pilot, you need a CARRIER.

the Ishtar part of you post is the most special, as I've said over and over again that you can test it for yourself (as you would if you actually cared about the truth) with the SAME HULL you'd use for incursions (mach/vindi/nightmare).

I know why you don't test it yourself, the results would challenge your world view, and we can't have that. Just don't pretend your on the right side here.
ashley Eoner
#202 - 2015-04-28 01:56:07 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's not just null. You have to move up past Class 5 wormholes (the most dangerous space eve has) to start surpassing the isk per hour you can make in high sec incursions protected by CONCORD and dedicated logistics ships. To make the same or more in low or null sec for the average pilot, you need a CARRIER.
If you really believe that and aren't trolling I'm sorry to say but you're bad at the isk game.

Carriers are cheap and class 5s shouldn't be so underestimated in earnings. I do giggle at you calling class 5 wormholes to be the most dangerous space in eve...
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#203 - 2015-04-28 01:57:52 UTC
Actually I don't test it because I don't live in Null currently, therefore any day trip results to an area of space I'm not currently familiar with the residents & camps in would certainly look bad. But I'm not disputing your figures either. What I am disputing is your use of your figures to claim there is an issue.

You are using apples & oranges.
One activity you are looking at is a solo activity that can be farmed 24/7 in the same system.
The other is a fleet activity where you have to travel to chase them, assuming that there is even one up at the moment.
You even try to claim that the fact null incursions travel is a reason to not look at them in null, yet high incursions travelling is irrelevant. Sure it's less an issue, but still incursions don't occur in the same high sec constellation constantly also.

So yes, I do believe high sec incursions are fine as they stand generally speaking. Because they are a co-operative fleet venture, and fleet ventures should reward good income, and we could use more fleet ventures that reward income across all of EVE, rather than most PVE being solo.
ashley Eoner
#204 - 2015-04-28 02:05:32 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually I don't test it because I don't live in Null currently, therefore any day trip results to an area of space I'm not currently familiar with the residents & camps in would certainly look bad. But I'm not disputing your figures either. What I am disputing is your use of your figures to claim there is an issue.

You are using apples & oranges.
One activity you are looking at is a solo activity that can be farmed 24/7 in the same system.
The other is a fleet activity where you have to travel to chase them, assuming that there is even one up at the moment.
You even try to claim that the fact null incursions travel is a reason to not look at them in null, yet high incursions travelling is irrelevant. Sure it's less an issue, but still incursions don't occur in the same high sec constellation constantly also.

So yes, I do believe high sec incursions are fine as they stand generally speaking. Because they are a co-operative fleet venture, and fleet ventures should reward good income, and we could use more fleet ventures that reward income across all of EVE, rather than most PVE being solo.
I would like to add that the occasional rage close campaign occurs with highsec incursions which results in almost no isk being made for months at a time. In null I occasionally had a neutral but it was amazingly rare so I could grind isk at any hour. Made more then enough a month to pay for my accounts AND cover the rental cost while leaving billions to pvp with. Don't even get me started on what I made doing cap escalations in a c5 with what felt like no real risk.

It feels like jenn is comparing semi-realistic null income against unrealistic highsec incursion income. Yeah sure some fleets made 200m an hour for well an hour maybe an hour and half. Over the course of a day? much lower maybe half of the peak number. The reality is that between contests and downtime filling positions you don't make optimal isk per hour doing HQs over a long term. You also have other factors in play like time spent moving to new sites, converting and selling LP, etc. When running HQs a significant amount of income is from the LP which does require time and effort to convert to isk. The positive of this is that it creates an isk faucet as it costs isk to convert LP.

My recommendation to anyone that believes incursions are too profitable is that they start a gank campaign. In order to make the big isk you've got to run very little tank and that makes them an easy target for big isk drops. Stop being lazy and demanding CCP do stuff you are perfectly capable of doing.
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#205 - 2015-04-28 02:15:12 UTC
I'm not against Hi Sec. I'm for the rest of the game.

Simply put, much of the potential content the rest of the game could host is stifled so long as Hi Sec maintains the monopoly on accessible income. Population density is a zero sum game. If you want space to be filled with things waiting to be happen, you have to make that space worth something. At least for me, it's not a rabid, toxic, hate of highsec that wants to see HS incursions go, but rather a desire to see the rest of the game take shape as a dynamic and vibrant stage.

Who's more likely to bring new blood into the fray? Someone who logs in his big'ol vindicator once a month and shoots Tama Cerebellum for a few hours, gets his plex, and logs for the month? Or someone who took a chance, lost ships, betrayed someone, got betrayed by someone, made allies, made enemies...etc? I mean they are not mutually exclusive perhaps, but you stand a far greater chance of having interesting things happen when the 'cheese' in the sand box is limited, in a dangerous place, or even better, both.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#206 - 2015-04-28 02:15:39 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

You even try to claim that the fact null incursions travel is a reason to not look at them in null, yet high incursions travelling is irrelevant. Sure it's less an issue, but still incursions don't occur in the same high sec constellation constantly also.



You have access to all of highsec so all of its incursions. What do you think is going to happen if N3 or PL try to run an incursion in Dek?
Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#207 - 2015-04-28 02:19:51 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
My recommendation to anyone that believes incursions are too profitable is that they start a gank campaign.


This is seriously harder than you think it is. Sure, you will generate a few ALODs from dingleberries who go AFK on gates or autopilot through Uedama/Niarja in their incursion boat, but actually ganking people in the sites isn't all that easy.

Now...if the rats didn't shoot people with high Sansha's Nation standings...Oh yes.Twisted

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#208 - 2015-04-28 02:22:51 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

My recommendation to anyone that believes incursions are too profitable is that they start a gank campaign.


Good luck finding 100+ gankers who are wiling to blow these things up at a massive loss.
Joe Atei
Aes Dei Asher
#209 - 2015-04-28 02:33:53 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
My recommendation to anyone that believes incursions are too profitable is that they start a gank campaign.


This is seriously harder than you think it is. Sure, you will generate a few ALODs from dingleberries who go AFK on gates or autopilot through Uedama/Niarja in their incursion boat, but actually ganking people in the sites isn't all that easy.

Now...if the rats didn't shoot people with high Sansha's Nation standings...Oh yes.Twisted


This would be pretty awesome.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2015-04-28 02:45:00 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
I'm not against Hi Sec. I'm for the rest of the game.

Simply put, much of the potential content the rest of the game could host is stifled so long as Hi Sec maintains the monopoly on accessible income. Population density is a zero sum game. If you want space to be filled with things waiting to be happen, you have to make that space worth something. At least for me, it's not a rabid, toxic, hate of highsec that wants to see HS incursions go, but rather a desire to see the rest of the game take shape as a dynamic and vibrant stage.

Who's more likely to bring new blood into the fray? Someone who logs in his big'ol vindicator once a month and shoots Tama Cerebellum for a few hours, gets his plex, and logs for the month? Or someone who took a chance, lost ships, betrayed someone, got betrayed by someone, made allies, made enemies...etc? I mean they are not mutually exclusive perhaps, but you stand a far greater chance of having interesting things happen when the 'cheese' in the sand box is limited, in a dangerous place, or even better, both.

The guy who logs his vindi in is a non-factor in that analogy. The more important question is do "boring" players suddenly become more interesting when their one reason to log in goes away in the portrait you paint? I'm not seeing it, though maybe I'm wrong. What contributes even more to that players irrelevance is the fact that it actually doesn't stand in the way of others doing the other things you describe. They were going on before incursions got here and level 4's were killing the game, they still happen now that incursions are killing the game.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#211 - 2015-04-28 03:04:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
baltec1 wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

You even try to claim that the fact null incursions travel is a reason to not look at them in null, yet high incursions travelling is irrelevant. Sure it's less an issue, but still incursions don't occur in the same high sec constellation constantly also.



You have access to all of highsec so all of its incursions. What do you think is going to happen if N3 or PL try to run an incursion in Dek?



Kudos for still trying to reason with the unreasonable.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#212 - 2015-04-28 03:06:26 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's not just null. You have to move up past Class 5 wormholes (the most dangerous space eve has) to start surpassing the isk per hour you can make in high sec incursions protected by CONCORD and dedicated logistics ships. To make the same or more in low or null sec for the average pilot, you need a CARRIER.
If you really believe that and aren't trolling I'm sorry to say but you're bad at the isk game.

Carriers are cheap and class 5s shouldn't be so underestimated in earnings. I do giggle at you calling class 5 wormholes to be the most dangerous space in eve...


Wormhole space is the most dangerous in EVE, it is no one elses fault if you don't understand that.

Carriers. You need CARRIERs, in the single most dangerous par tof EVE space, to match or exceed what can be made in HIGH SEC protected by concord while using su caps.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.
Dradis Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2015-04-28 03:07:02 UTC
All I have read is "I dont like people doing this part of the game so CCP make it stop."

I like incursion runners. someone has to buy my shinny S**T

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#214 - 2015-04-28 03:12:51 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually I don't test it because I don't live in Null currently, therefore any day trip results to an area of space I'm not currently familiar with the residents & camps in would certainly look bad. But I'm not disputing your figures either. What I am disputing is your use of your figures to claim there is an issue.


We've been talking about this for years. you've had YEARS to try it for yourself. Years to day trip via wormholes and see for yourself.

And you haven't. You know why, it's because you don't want to know. It's the lie smack dab in the middle of your incorrect opinion, and you don't want to know that you are wrong.

Quote:

You are using apples & oranges.
One activity you are looking at is a solo activity that can be farmed 24/7 in the same system.
The other is a fleet activity where you have to travel to chase them, assuming that there is even one up at the moment.
You even try to claim that the fact null incursions travel is a reason to not look at them in null, yet high incursions travelling is irrelevant. Sure it's less an issue, but still incursions don't occur in the same high sec constellation constantly also.

So yes, I do believe high sec incursions are fine as they stand generally speaking. Because they are a co-operative fleet venture, and fleet ventures should reward good income, and we could use more fleet ventures that reward income across all of EVE, rather than most PVE being solo.


lol, the "fleet venture" defense. Null anomalies in upgraded systems require WAY more than any incursion fleet ever will, sov in a system represents hundreds of dead ships and years of conflict. And yet you can make more in NPC space (high sec) with one ship than you can with TWO in space you actually had to put in some effort to acquire (and in which you are at risk at).

You are entitled to your point of view, your point of view is ignorant (and ignorance you could cure with a little bit of effort and honesty) and incorrect.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#215 - 2015-04-28 03:15:10 UTC
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
All I have read is "I dont like people doing this part of the game so CCP make it stop."

I like incursion runners. someone has to buy my shinny S**T



I'm an incursion runner (every few months, it's so damn boring I can't do it for more than a couple weeks), and even I know it's unbalanced.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2015-04-28 03:15:20 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's not just null. You have to move up past Class 5 wormholes (the most dangerous space eve has) to start surpassing the isk per hour you can make in high sec incursions protected by CONCORD and dedicated logistics ships. To make the same or more in low or null sec for the average pilot, you need a CARRIER.
If you really believe that and aren't trolling I'm sorry to say but you're bad at the isk game.

Carriers are cheap and class 5s shouldn't be so underestimated in earnings. I do giggle at you calling class 5 wormholes to be the most dangerous space in eve...


Wormhole space is the most dangerous in EVE, it is no one elses fault if you don't understand that.

Carriers. You need CARRIERs, in the single most dangerous par tof EVE space, to match or exceed what can be made in HIGH SEC protected by concord while using su caps.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Maybe something is being missed here but why the fixation on carriers? Why do they have some sort of increased income expectation to you? By that logic should supercarriers be the ultimate ratting machines? Also I think it was stated somewhere that even C3's could match the isk/hour of incursions without caps, granted with significantly more limited farming potential.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#217 - 2015-04-28 03:51:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

It's not just null. You have to move up past Class 5 wormholes (the most dangerous space eve has) to start surpassing the isk per hour you can make in high sec incursions protected by CONCORD and dedicated logistics ships. To make the same or more in low or null sec for the average pilot, you need a CARRIER.
If you really believe that and aren't trolling I'm sorry to say but you're bad at the isk game.

Carriers are cheap and class 5s shouldn't be so underestimated in earnings. I do giggle at you calling class 5 wormholes to be the most dangerous space in eve...


Wormhole space is the most dangerous in EVE, it is no one elses fault if you don't understand that.

Carriers. You need CARRIERs, in the single most dangerous par tof EVE space, to match or exceed what can be made in HIGH SEC protected by concord while using su caps.

Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Maybe something is being missed here but why the fixation on carriers? Why do they have some sort of increased income expectation to you? By that logic should supercarriers be the ultimate ratting machines? Also I think it was stated somewhere that even C3's could match the isk/hour of incursions without caps, granted with significantly more limited farming potential.
4

You are aware that carriers are capital ships that requires WAY more training than a pirate battleship, right?

And yea, you can under the right conditions make incursion style isk in c3 and 4 womrholes, till you run out of anoms. With a c5 and up you make more (till they run out) which get syou closer to matching the per day potential of your average incursion runner....

....but only if you have CAPITAL ships.

And note for the future, it is unhelpful when trying to make a point to display gross ignorance. Super Carriers ARE the ultimate ratting machines. Hell, with only a 20 BILLION isk investment, you too can go to null, rat in a super carrier and make a whopping 50-70 mil isk per hour more than you can with a 2 bil pirate battleship (my incursion mach is an 'intermediate' build, Im not spending 5 bil on a ship like that).

PS, thanks for mentioning super carriers, further helping me make my point about how ridiculous the high sec incursion income imbalance is.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#218 - 2015-04-28 03:55:47 UTC
End high-sec Incursions and what, move them to low-sec? Low-sec is a wasteland and beyond salvation, so if this is a stealth buff low-sec/nerf high-sec suggestion it gets a -1. If this a suggestion to improve low-sec it gets a -1. Actually, it just gets a -1 regardless.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2015-04-28 04:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Jenn aSide wrote:
4

You are aware that carriers are capital ships that requires WAY more training than a pirate battleship, right?

And yea, you can under the right conditions make incursion style isk in c3 and 4 womrholes, till you run out of anoms. With a c5 and up you make more (till they run out) which get syou closer to matching the per day potential of your average incursion runner....

....but only if you have CAPITAL ships.

And note for the future, it is unhelpful when trying to make a point to display gross ignorance. Super Carriers ARE the ultimate ratting machines. Hell, with only a 20 BILLION isk investment, you too can go to null, rat in a super carrier and make a whopping 50-70 mil isk per hour more than you can with a 2 bil pirate battleship (my incursion mach is an 'intermediate' build, Im not spending 5 bil on a ship like that).

PS, thanks for mentioning super carriers, further helping me make my point about how ridiculous the high sec incursion income imbalance is.

I'm aware of the increased training, but not aware of the expectation of significant increases in isk making potential. I'm not seeing the promise of increase, especially when capitals tend to move away from PvE efficiency on their own, requiring significant support to be effective, often from subcaps in WH's.

Also, how does that supercarrier compare to a normal carrier? Are they pulling several times their smaller counterparts? I'm genuinely curious about your results because otherwise the whole idea of them being in support of your claim makes no sense.

Edit: Maybe I'm off in my knowledge here but at last check you were looking at ~50% on carrier vs super earnings, less if competent in a normal carrier per some claims. Do you suggest otherwise?
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#220 - 2015-04-28 04:07:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaldi Tsukaya
Drop Concord protection in incursion systems.
Leave the income as is.
Need no other changes to the incursion mechanics.
Make your 200+ isk/hr, now you deserve it.

Conversely, you could drop the security rating of the system to .4 for the duration of the incursion.