These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1461 - 2015-11-27 14:15:21 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Solution seems simple. Dont bring down higsec, instead raise nullsec?

Yet people crying about highsec shows what this trollfest is about.


Doesnt really seem logical to change everything around an issue when you can just change the issue itself, id love for you work for me seems like you would do more work than required.

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Valacus
Streets of Fire
#1462 - 2015-11-27 14:15:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Valacus wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
I don't honestly get it.


I do.

Carebears always project.

In this instance, they project their fundamental selfishness and dishonesty onto whomever they're arguing with. They have a selfish ulterior motive for wanting incursions to stay, so they assume you must have one if you want them gone.


Hahaha, oh please. "Elite" PvPers are just as big of babies. "Waaaaaaaah! I can't force them into places where I can kill them easily!" The only one projecting here is you, because you're the one trying to force people to play or do what you want them to because you don't like what they do now. Well, it ain't up to you. Get used to it.


I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything.

I just think risk should equate to reward.

You clearly think you are entitled to all the reward and zero risk. You're wrong.


And you clearly think you're entitled to all the reward with your comparable risk, as it has been discussed to length that ratting in nullsec ain't all that scary.
Aquilan Aideron
Wardecs go here
#1463 - 2015-11-27 14:18:14 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Solution seems simple. Dont bring down higsec, instead raise nullsec?

Yet people crying about highsec shows what this trollfest is about.


Doesnt really seem logical to change everything around an issue when you can just change the issue itself, id love for you work for me seems like you would do more work than required.

Well, I wouldnt hire you for sure. You are not keen on getting the true task done. Which, in this case, is a boost for null.
Valacus
Streets of Fire
#1464 - 2015-11-27 14:19:39 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Solution seems simple. Dont bring down higsec, instead raise nullsec?

Yet people crying about highsec shows what this trollfest is about.


Doesnt really seem logical to change everything around an issue when you can just change the issue itself, id love for you work for me seems like you would do more work than required.


Because you have the issue wrong. The issue is nullsec is lame. Removing a few things in high sec does not make null sec suddenly cool. It does not make people want to live in nullsec more. It just makes them change from one high sec activity to another. CCP has repeatedly refused to change nullsec for the better, so players have repeatedly chosen to avoid it. People are under this asinine assumption that if you just remove all the good activities in high sec, null sec will suddenly be a happening place. I'd wager many people would just quit then, as opposed to being forced into a region they don't wanna be in because no one is interested in fixing it. Right now, the only thing I enjoy about null is the fights, and even those can be really, really lame as everyone just blobs and drops capitals on you. I prefer living in low sec, where smaller fights are much more common, way more than I like living in null sec, where it's run at least 40 deep with 10 logi and links or bust.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1465 - 2015-11-27 14:21:34 UTC
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1466 - 2015-11-27 14:25:10 UTC
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Avvy wrote:

Why would you want to stop something that brings players together?


Why not? CCP has done much the same thing to salvaging, what once used to need two characters(which was a great way to introduce newbies to the game by having them salvage for you) is now completely replaced by the MTU.

They've set a precedent of doing that before, and for far less reason than they have to deal with incursions, which break the game on a number of levels.


You comparing the act of salvaging to the act of forming 40 man pickup fleets for the purpose of completing challenging tasks... well that just about says how shallow your argument is doesn't it?


My argument begins and ends with incursions breaking risk vs reward, and thereby income across the game. I'm merely saying that the claim that it should somehow be immune to risk vs reward merely because it's a group activity is entirely foolish, which it is.

Go bite someone else's ankle.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1467 - 2015-11-27 14:26:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Valacus wrote:

And you clearly think you're entitled to all the reward with your comparable risk, as it has been discussed to length that ratting in nullsec ain't all that scary.


So what? No matter how safe you wish to dishonestly claim that null is, the fact of the matter is that highsec is far, far safer.

And the safety inherent in highsec should always result in second rate income. Otherwise, one of the basic premises of the game is broken.

Valacus wrote:

Because you have the issue wrong. The issue is nullsec is lame. Removing a few things in high sec does not make null sec suddenly cool.


Wrong.

Income (and earning power) is relative, always.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Aquilan Aideron
Wardecs go here
#1468 - 2015-11-27 14:27:54 UTC
Lan Wang wrote:
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Yes, but why did they put a high profit gig like incursions under the protection of Concord? Wouldnt you think there is a purpose to that decision?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#1469 - 2015-11-27 14:30:19 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Yes, but why did they put a high profit gig like incursions under the protection of Concord? Wouldnt you think there is a purpose to that decision?


so a decision can't be wrong?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1470 - 2015-11-27 14:30:50 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Yes, but why did they put a high profit gig like incursions under the protection of Concord? Wouldnt you think there is a purpose to that decision?


They've said as much in the past, there was none. People were intended to defeat the Sansha in order to get rid of the NPCs who might attack them, their being farmed is wholly unintentional.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1471 - 2015-11-27 14:41:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Valacus wrote:
The issue is nullsec is lame. Removing a few things in high sec does not make null sec suddenly cool.

In what way is nullsec lame and if you were to fix it, what would you do to make it not lame?

It's an easy claim to make, that it's lame. But the content in null is the same content you find in other places, which would kind of imply that if null is lame, then other security space is too?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1472 - 2015-11-27 14:42:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Yes, but why did they put a high profit gig like incursions under the protection of Concord? Wouldnt you think there is a purpose to that decision?


They've said as much in the past, there was none. People were intended to defeat the Sansha in order to get rid of the NPCs who might attack them, their being farmed is wholly unintentional.


They could probably start by just "fixing" this by making the incursion close after 2 hours of full blue bar. It still leaves time to form up the bigger fleet to complete it but no more 3 days of farming. From there, who knows exactly how it would change how they are run.

They could potentially spawn faster after a kill if CCP think they should always be available but at least a larger portion of the sites would be ran with some red bar which technically are at least a little bit harder... It also adds more time spent travelling to the equation.
Anize Oramara
WarpTooZero
#1473 - 2015-11-27 15:22:35 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Yes, but why did they put a high profit gig like incursions under the protection of Concord? Wouldnt you think there is a purpose to that decision?


They've said as much in the past, there was none. People were intended to defeat the Sansha in order to get rid of the NPCs who might attack them, their being farmed is wholly unintentional.


They could probably start by just "fixing" this by making the incursion close after 2 hours of full blue bar. It still leaves time to form up the bigger fleet to complete it but no more 3 days of farming. From there, who knows exactly how it would change how they are run.

They could potentially spawn faster after a kill if CCP think they should always be available but at least a larger portion of the sites would be ran with some red bar which technically are at least a little bit harder... It also adds more time spent travelling to the equation.

Going from 72 hours to 2 hours seems a bit extreme don't you think? I mean I don't agree with the farming concept but you're talking about reducing it to less than 3%. DO you think that's a good number?

A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1474 - 2015-11-27 15:31:31 UTC
Anize Oramara wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Yes, but why did they put a high profit gig like incursions under the protection of Concord? Wouldnt you think there is a purpose to that decision?


They've said as much in the past, there was none. People were intended to defeat the Sansha in order to get rid of the NPCs who might attack them, their being farmed is wholly unintentional.


They could probably start by just "fixing" this by making the incursion close after 2 hours of full blue bar. It still leaves time to form up the bigger fleet to complete it but no more 3 days of farming. From there, who knows exactly how it would change how they are run.

They could potentially spawn faster after a kill if CCP think they should always be available but at least a larger portion of the sites would be ran with some red bar which technically are at least a little bit harder... It also adds more time spent travelling to the equation.

Going from 72 hours to 2 hours seems a bit extreme don't you think? I mean I don't agree with the farming concept but you're talking about reducing it to less than 3%. DO you think that's a good number?


If another one respawn? Sure. Just move to the next one.
Aquilan Aideron
Wardecs go here
#1475 - 2015-11-27 15:31:55 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Yes, but why did they put a high profit gig like incursions under the protection of Concord? Wouldnt you think there is a purpose to that decision?


so a decision can't be wrong?

Sure it can. But thats not determined by a rararacarebearsinHSproject thread. Dont kill the messenger

How this fits in with the purpose and needs of EvE is for the devs to decide. Perhaps it needs tweaking? Perhaps it serves as another source of isk to keep more people in Null going?

Cheers
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#1476 - 2015-11-27 15:36:24 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:


How this fits in with the purpose and needs of EvE is for the devs to decide. Perhaps it needs tweaking? Perhaps it serves as another source of isk to keep more people in Null going?


It does serve as another source of null isk. That's the point it's so good we're doing them. And when we do, we freeze out others who might want to do them (because any FC is going to pick a null alts bling boat over some casual high sec dudes t2 maelstrom).

No one in high should ever be forced to go anywhere, but people who live in null should make their isk in null. Fixing incursions might hurt the fat cat farmers, sure, but they open things up for more people (and for my part, they free me from the chain that is high sec incursions that are too damn good to let go).
Aquilan Aideron
Wardecs go here
#1477 - 2015-11-27 15:47:46 UTC
Make your isk in high and be a bad boy in null, I suppose. Thats the deal. How well would incursions work in Null? Why should Highsec get nerfed, for everyone gets shot in Null because EvE?

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#1478 - 2015-11-27 15:51:07 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Make your isk in high and be a bad boy in null, I suppose. Thats the deal.


That's the wrong deal.

Quote:

How well would incursions work in Null? Why should Highsec get nerfed, for everyone gets shot in Null because EvE?



1.5% of players on any given day are not "high sec". And bringing incursions into line with the rest of EVE would actually be a buff to high sec, because mission runners would get more value from thier LP, (because they would be less CONCORD LP converted into multi-run BPCs from LP stors the mission runners had to actually grind standings for).
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#1479 - 2015-11-27 15:54:24 UTC
I shall file this - again! - under 'G', for 'Get A Room'

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#1480 - 2015-11-27 16:08:29 UTC
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Aquilan Aideron wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
not just talking about nullsec here we are talking about null and low and the risks compared to just doing it in highsec

Yes, but why did they put a high profit gig like incursions under the protection of Concord? Wouldnt you think there is a purpose to that decision?


so a decision can't be wrong?

Sure it can. But thats not determined by a rararacarebearsinHSproject thread. Dont kill the messenger

How this fits in with the purpose and needs of EvE is for the devs to decide. Perhaps it needs tweaking? Perhaps it serves as another source of isk to keep more people in Null going?

Cheers


In the end it is for the devs to decide yes. It's our "job" as forum posters and players to get our opinions out there for CCP to see so they can make the most informed decision possible. We might not always agree with each other because eve is a very broad game with several player groups who are in competition with each other. However we should be mature enough to put aside our differences and have a proper discussion where we are all just players, and not just descend into "us" and "them" insult throwing and close-mindedness.

The argument put forward by many forum regulars is that incursion income is too damn high compared to other areas of space and something should be done. If you disagree with this statement then you should post the reasons why you disagree in the hope that CCP see sense in them.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.