These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Srsly, something has to be done about incursions.

First post First post
Author
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
RONA Directorate
#41 - 2012-01-09 18:13:07 UTC
iirc low sec incursion especailly vans pay out nearly 20 mill for each site.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.

CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#42 - 2012-01-09 18:17:44 UTC
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale
Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#43 - 2012-01-09 18:26:57 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale

Man CCP... you guys have a lot on your plate lately. I'm already getting excited about the next expansion. Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...

mkint
#44 - 2012-01-09 18:36:36 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale

You mean your CSM that wants to reduce the resources that any potential competitors may acquire? Yes, let's develop the game so that your CSMs stay rich and their alliances in control.

EVE: If your alliance doesn't have a member on the CSM, don't bother playing.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Letrange
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-01-09 18:46:31 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale

So, what you're saying is that the CSM (which consists of prety much only 0.0 leaders) was bitching that their pilots were up in high sec running incursions instead of being in their fleets in 0.0 like they want. I predict an incoming hard nerf since the squeaky whines are coming from the CSM this time.
Jack bubu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-01-09 18:50:15 UTC
mkint wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale

You mean your CSM that wants to reduce the resources that any potential competitors may acquire? Yes, let's develop the game so that your CSMs stay rich and their alliances in control.

EVE: If your alliance doesn't have a member on the CSM, don't bother playing.

Just biomass your characters allready.
noone wants to read your gibberish
Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#47 - 2012-01-09 18:51:49 UTC
mkint wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale

You mean your CSM that wants to reduce the resources that any potential competitors may acquire? Yes, let's develop the game so that your CSMs stay rich and their alliances in control.

EVE: If your alliance doesn't have a member on the CSM, don't bother playing.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not fan of the CSM principal reps atm, but I don't think this is accurate at all. Most of the CSMs represent big alliances, yes, but what are those alliances actually doing, exactly? A whole lot of NOTHING from what I've seen. PL used to be a major player in sov warfare and now they just float around looking for fights seemingly arbitrarily. The Goons are just screwing with miners in empire and practicing random acts of asshattery. TEST just bombs around null laying siege on random corps for no apparent reason and then forgetting about them... I've never seen the alliances of EvE as apathetic to sov as they are right now. It's not about REMOVING resources... it's about distributing them in non-conformal and unique ways. It's about giveing alliances a REASON to fight. They don't want to deny anyone anything necessarily. They want to tighten up the allocation of resources to keep alliances from sprawling. If a finite amount of high-quality resources are in a few systems, and those systems support the alliance, than the thinking goes there will be an upper limit to how far laterally an alliance will sprawl before the diminishing returns at the periphery of alliance controlled space cause corps to revolt against their keepers! If CCP were to make the resources something that can be sustainability harvested OR gutted for a quick payday and than depleted, alliances may form that just roll around and crush others. Incursions have nothing to do with it. At all. You're way off.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

mkint
#48 - 2012-01-09 19:06:20 UTC  |  Edited by: mkint
Gogela wrote:
mkint wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale

You mean your CSM that wants to reduce the resources that any potential competitors may acquire? Yes, let's develop the game so that your CSMs stay rich and their alliances in control.

EVE: If your alliance doesn't have a member on the CSM, don't bother playing.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not fan of the CSM principal reps atm, but I don't think this is accurate at all. Most of the CSMs represent big alliances, yes, but what are those alliances actually doing, exactly? A whole lot of NOTHING from what I've seen. PL used to be a major player in sov warfare and now they just float around looking for fights seemingly arbitrarily. The Goons are just screwing with miners in empire and practicing random acts of asshattery. TEST just bombs around null laying siege on random corps for no apparent reason and then forgetting about them... I've never seen the alliances of EvE as apathetic to sov as they are right now. It's not about REMOVING resources... it's about distributing them in non-conformal and unique ways. It's about giveing alliances a REASON to fight. They don't want to deny anyone anything necessarily. They want to tighten up the allocation of resources to keep alliances from sprawling. If a finite amount of high-quality resources are in a few systems, and those systems support the alliance, than the thinking goes there will be an upper limit to how far laterally an alliance will sprawl before the diminishing returns at the periphery of alliance controlled space cause corps to revolt against their keepers! If CCP were to make the resources something that can be sustainability harvested OR gutted for a quick payday and than depleted, alliances may form that just roll around and crush others. Incursions have nothing to do with it. At all. You're way off.

All the lackadaisical alliances have already "won" EVE. They own it. They control it. (I'm sure more than a few pay their mortgages from it.) If their only potential threat is from people grinding incursions for the resources to challenge them, they will pursue incursion nerfs. After all, if you can't win legitimately, find a dev to cheat for you.


edit: The OP does make some good points. Incursions need to be balanced... 6 months ago. And the balancing they need is the isk/hour of larger sites needs to be better than smaller sites, plus more variety in the sites themselves. (I lament that incursions are such a huge time sink... you can't jump in, do 1, and call it a day like you can with missions, but imo, that's fair.) And then come the null/low bears who are too big of pussies to do the null/low incursions that pay damn near double the highsec ones, who would rather whine like little b!tches that there is fair competition in the game. In comes Grayscale, the LAST dev I want to hear is working on it. He has done nothing that wasn't aimed at cementing the powerbloc RMT income, with only token public discourse, putting his fingers in his ears and going "la la la" whenever someone calls him on his bullshit. Grayscale will kill EVE. He may already have.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2012-01-09 19:09:02 UTC
Ocih wrote:
LOL, yes low sec alt, CCP should nerf high sec incursions so you have an advantage.

Lets also be very clear.

There is no hard in EVE
There is no hard in EVE
There is no hard in EVE
There is no hard in EVE

Say it with me?

You can or you can't. Plain and ******* simple. Once you know how to do something you can do it a million times. It's the flaw of computer code. There is nothing CCP can do about it. Stop crying

High sec ISK farmers will still sit in high sec and farm ISK. They won't come to low sec and be your cow. They are Alts, you know that, I know that. Likely Alts from your own alliances, deal with it.


They can invent one of many available AIs.. but than it would become unplayable because everyone include null powerblocks would be eaten by NPCs.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#50 - 2012-01-09 19:38:39 UTC
Some people can be so negative and jaded. Why can't we all just be friends?

CCP responds to post with positive statement that it is being looked into, and something will be done.

Bittervet syndrome descends.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2012-01-09 19:40:15 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
Some people can be so negative and jaded. Why can't we all just be friends?

CCP responds to post with positive statement that it is being looked into, and something will be done.

Bittervet syndrome descends.


Friend = another enemy which has got the superior position, because he knows a lot about you, your weaknesses and you dont pay attention enough.
Chandaris
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#52 - 2012-01-09 21:09:26 UTC
As a pretty experienced incursion runner I agree with the following

- payouts for vanguards should be substantially reduced
- payouts for HQ's and assaults should be upped
- payouts for lowsec and nullsec incursions should be dramatically increased (like 5x) -- the risk running them is enormous
mkint
#53 - 2012-01-09 21:16:17 UTC
Chandaris wrote:

- payouts for lowsec and nullsec incursions should be dramatically increased (like 5x) -- the risk running them is enormous

No. No, no, no.

nullbear mega-blox RMTers do not need more monopolies. One alliance dumping all it's people into one low/null constellation and grinding half a billion isk per individual per hour is bad. 1 vg system supports approx 50 people... the nullbear alliances do not need the power to grind 1 super per hour per system with what adds up to be essentially NO risk. It would be trivially easy for asshat fucktards like goons to trigger uncontrollable inflation effectively removing everyone else from the game.

post less stupid next time.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#54 - 2012-01-09 21:29:18 UTC
mkint wrote:
Chandaris wrote:

- payouts for lowsec and nullsec incursions should be dramatically increased (like 5x) -- the risk running them is enormous

No. No, no, no.

nullbear mega-blox RMTers do not need more monopolies. One alliance dumping all it's people into one low/null constellation and grinding half a billion isk per individual per hour is bad. 1 vg system supports approx 50 people... the nullbear alliances do not need the power to grind 1 super per hour per system with what adds up to be essentially NO risk. It would be trivially easy for asshat fucktards like goons to trigger uncontrollable inflation effectively removing everyone else from the game.

post less stupid next time.

I think I'm starting to get your thought process. Whereas most players take a look at the system overall and try to find a way they can adapt their play style to the game and the other players to reach their goals, you have a play style that is set in stone and you want eve to conform to you. Sounds lazy. I would make some kind of argument trying to convince you that half the fun is overcoming the challenges of the game, but I don't care anymore. Recycle your char. is my only advice.

Signatures should be used responsibly...

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#55 - 2012-01-09 21:33:39 UTC
NULL SECers once again crying because someone in HI SEC can make some ISK... Want to make REAL ISK with no RISK get a TECH MOON! I say NERF the TECH MOONs and say have drones poop techtanium dollups so its not just a NULL SEC passive farm item. At least HI sec Incursions are not a passive way to make you rich
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Morganta
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
#56 - 2012-01-09 21:42:49 UTC
Letrange wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale

So, what you're saying is that the CSM (which consists of prety much only 0.0 leaders) was bitching that their pilots were up in high sec running incursions instead of being in their fleets in 0.0 like they want. I predict an incoming hard nerf since the squeaky whines are coming from the CSM this time.


I got to say this sounds more likely than anything else
Morganta
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
#57 - 2012-01-09 21:44:31 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
NULL SECers once again crying because someone in HI SEC can make some ISK... Want to make REAL ISK with no RISK get a TECH MOON! I say NERF the TECH MOONs and say have drones poop techtanium dollups so its not just a NULL SEC passive farm item. At least HI sec Incursions are not a passive way to make you rich


spoken like someone who has never enjoyed a good book or movie while running logi on vanguards

sure its not PI, but it sure as hell isn't work either
Tore Vest
#58 - 2012-01-09 21:48:48 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale


Shocked

Never listen to CSM.
They are all in some big alliance.... and will offc. get rid of incursion.
They want theyr players back Bear

No troll.

mkint
#59 - 2012-01-09 21:50:52 UTC  |  Edited by: mkint
Gogela wrote:
mkint wrote:
Chandaris wrote:

- payouts for lowsec and nullsec incursions should be dramatically increased (like 5x) -- the risk running them is enormous

No. No, no, no.

nullbear mega-blox RMTers do not need more monopolies. One alliance dumping all it's people into one low/null constellation and grinding half a billion isk per individual per hour is bad. 1 vg system supports approx 50 people... the nullbear alliances do not need the power to grind 1 super per hour per system with what adds up to be essentially NO risk. It would be trivially easy for asshat fucktards like goons to trigger uncontrollable inflation effectively removing everyone else from the game.

post less stupid next time.

I think I'm starting to get your thought process. Whereas most players take a look at the system overall and try to find a way they can adapt their play style to the game and the other players to reach their goals, you have a play style that is set in stone and you want eve to conform to you. Sounds lazy. I would make some kind of argument trying to convince you that half the fun is overcoming the challenges of the game, but I don't care anymore. Recycle your char. is my only advice.

Since we're talking about personal playstyles... I'll admit, maybe I don't want to adapt to certain changes... But I know that's my own issue, and I never make the argument "it's too hard for me to change." The argument I make, and will always make until it changes, is that life is too easy for nullbears. AFK empires should fall. Lazy empires should fall. Holding the same sov for more than a year should be a rarity. Change is life, permanence is death. Every change that has ever happened in nullsec has lead toward permanence, stagnation. Until nullsec is made permanently volatile (i.e. fresh), the ONLY viable long term careers in EVE is "nullbear stooge" and "nullbear RMTer" everything else being a dead end, and thus EVE being a dead end. That is why I will ALWAYS argue in favor of those who might topple the lazy afk RMTing behemoths, as those are the only changes that can stop EVE from dying. The only motivation I can think of for arguing (much less developing) in favor of the RMTing behemoths is if you stand to personally profit from their RMT. And if development heads even further in that direction, EVE is already dead but just doesn't know it yet.

Oh, and to frame my goon jab, I accept that they have a right to be dickheads, but I'm irritated that they are constantly rewarded for it instead of punished. That's not gamebreaking though, except for when it is (as is reflected in my argument against the five fold increase in null/low incursion payments.)

edit: I would be in favor of a change to incursion payouts to favor corps over individuals... To get current (or maybe even buffed) payouts in incursions, all fleet members must be in the same corp, else it's 10-20% lower than current rates. Perhaps even a sliding scale... 50% of fleet is in corp, and there's 50% of the corp bonus to the fleet. I would support this, even though it would nerf my own income, as I've only ever flown incursions with 1 corp member once.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Gogela
Krigmakt Elite
Safety.
#60 - 2012-01-09 22:00:09 UTC
mkint wrote:
Since we're talking about personal playstyles... I'll admit, maybe I don't want to adapt to certain changes... But I know that's my own issue, and I never make the argument "it's too hard for me to change." The argument I make, and will always make until it changes, is that life is too easy for nullbears. AFK empires should fall. Lazy empires should fall. Holding the same sov for more than a year should be a rarity. Change is life, permanence is death. Every change that has ever happened in nullsec has lead toward permanence, stagnation. Until nullsec is made permanently volatile (i.e. fresh), the ONLY viable long term careers in EVE is "nullbear stooge" and "nullbear RMTer" everything else being a dead end, and thus EVE being a dead end. That is why I will ALWAYS argue in favor of those who might topple the lazy afk RMTing behemoths, as those are the only changes that can stop EVE from dying. The only motivation I can think of for arguing (much less developing) in favor of the RMTing behemoths is if you stand to personally profit from their RMT. And if development heads even further in that direction, EVE is already dead but just doesn't know it yet.

Oh, and to frame my goon jab, I accept that they have a right to be dickheads, but I'm irritated that they are constantly rewarded for it instead of punished. That's not gamebreaking though, except for when it is (as is reflected in my argument against the five fold increase in null/low incursion payments.)

I agree about the AFK empires... that's what Empire space is for. I also agree that holding space for that long should be rare, but not impossible. The reason the alliances can hold space for that long is because 1) they can indefinitely sprawl their empire laterally because all of space is pretty much the same moon goo aside and 2) (also because space is all the same) nobody wants to fight for another alliances space because they can just pick up and go somewhere else.

Also: I don't see how goons get rewarded for their asshattery other than getting to keep their scam money. They are just an alliance in my view. Neither good nor bad. They just play the game. Nothing wrong with that.

I still don't see what any of this has to do with adjusting the way incursions work.

Quote:
EVE is already dead but just doesn't know it yet.

I think I read that back in 2006. Longest. Death. Ever.

Signatures should be used responsibly...