These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#101 - 2012-01-10 01:28:19 UTC
So last night, trying to get reality out of my head so I could go to sleep instead of on a rampage, two topics were in my head:

Bots and RMT
Incursions and Vanguards and the ISK fountain

Then it occured to me: CCP is trying to kill botting.


You see, if RMT is serious business, and there are mafioso types running it, then changing game mechanics to hit botting really hard (such as removing local in 0.0) and perhaps all but cripple it might earn CCP a horses head in their beds. Those Icelandic ponies are cute and we would hate to see that happen.

Then there are those ISK pumps.

If ISK flowed like a mighty river from every pore of game content, would there be a need for bots and RMT? Sure there are some slugs out there who are so lazy that running incursions for an afternoon to pay for a week of PVP (or less if they JUST HAVE TO HAVE an uber-pimped ship to camp and blob noobs with) is still too much time, but they could comprise a small minority of players.


If the ISK pump was shut off, this could mean the only way to get large quantities of it would be through bots or RMT. The RMT operations could own the game and with more money at stake against doing anything about it, the chances of RL violence increase. If someone is making say a few thousand on RMT and you nerf their methods, no big deal. A few hundred thousands and some guys named Vito and Anthony show up to lean on you (a little).

Or I am paranoid.


I am no fan of ISK pumps. In my opinion, it's dumb to let the Sansha mother sit there while the sites are farmed. That mother should have a despawn timer and if it's not destroyed, NOBODY gets their ISK and LP rewards for that incursion. This would make things very very interesting.

Speaking of CSM representation - as an explorer in this game, and no dedicated ship for it like everybody has for the way they play, I feel like a Ron Paul supporter in RL watching a pole result where Ron is 2nd place and the media shows 1st, 3rd, 4th.... Spank makes a good point about the CSM on this that I cannot deny if CSM representation were directly related to the location of the best ISK pumps.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#102 - 2012-01-10 01:28:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Caellach Marellus
Selinate wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:


I'm also calling your bluff. T1 pug fleets find themselves muscled out by groups like SSO and ISN who contest their sites, win, and move on to clear other ones before forcing them out again, they're certainly not making billions quickly.

Of course you're going to make billions eventually, but of course you weren't being pedantic to the level of "I've been doing this for months and made a couple of billion" because L4 missioning pays out better than that.


Now you're just full of it.

you are WRONG


And you are bulls##ting. But of course if you're not going to actually refute the argument with anything other than putting your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG" then this is a waste of time.

Running vanguards Blameston tonight there were 3 shield faction fleets and 1 armour faction fleet, as well as a shield Slepneir fleet and a Legion fleet running NCOs.

3 of those fleets left the area because of the hot contestation and sites were clearing faster than they spawned. PuG fleets were getting muscled out and served little purpose than giving other fleets faster payout.

But of course you've got a system all to yourself where your T1 BS fleet is probably chaning outpost sites like there's no tomorrow and never get rolled by a shiny fleet right?



Jaigar wrote:
Its so funny that I warned people of this exact problem back in January of last year. Its not the people in T1 BSs who are cranking out the 150 mil per hour, its the people in their "elite" shiny fleets. Most people in incursions get 60-80 mil per hour tops just because their fleets don't run smoothly (can't find a logi, long wait times between sites, etc).

Now to nerf incursions because the top percentage is apparently making large amounts of ISK severely punishes those who are barely making more than level 4 missions. Hell, a lot of people do it because its an easy way to get a bit of fleet and social interaction in EVE with low risk.


This, very much this. The majority of people doing Vanguards are not the people pulling in the 150+ mil an hour, unlike others seem to think and claim.


Quote:
I am no fan of ISK pumps. In my opinion, it's dumb to let the Sansha mother sit there while the sites are farmed. That mother should have a despawn timer and if it's not destroyed, NOBODY gets their ISK and LP rewards for that incursion. This would make things very very interesting.


Now this I approve of. Motherships should despawn a lot sooner than they currently do.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Endeavour Starfleet
#103 - 2012-01-10 01:41:24 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



I seriously hope you are not considering nerfing it.

And the CSM is so skewed towards nullsec I would be surprised if it is nothing but a sea of "NERF INCURSIONS NAO!!!!!"

Seriously CCP you have to understand. The nullsec alliances HATE incursions. Incursions compete with their vision of complete control over their members. Forced CTAs, No incentive to share moon goo, No incentive to treat new members as anything but dirt and cannon fodder.

Look at many alliances alliance mail. You will notice this phrase in many different ways "This is a mandatory CTA join or log off" WIth Incursions people can run alts when they don't want to circle a gate or be cannon fodder for the good ole boys club. It gives incentive for alliances to have ship replacement policies and other efforts to urge players to go out.

The CSM is not I REPEAT NOT a good place to get feedback that is accurate on Incursions. Even going to places like BTL Pub is not because a number of incursion runners WANT nerfs to things like vanguards to drive away anything but shiny fleets so their LP value is higher. Utter bias on both fronts.

The CSM may paint a picture of "Incursion Inflation" yet in reality you can make more skillfully blitzing lvl4s with 2-3 accounts. It is just that for once you implemented a feature that TRUELY encourages grouping in hisec and that has the other groups miffed.

If you do ANYTHING leave hisec incursions EXACTLY as they are and increase the spawn rate for nullsec.

This will do two things.

#1 It will allow blues and renters to work together in PVP like setups that will help to encourage grouping on PVP ops and other activities bigger than "This corp dis system"

#2 Gets big nullsec alliances to want to pop them instead of waiting it out. They "wait it out" currently because they don't want to introduce their members to anything that is an alternative of their mandatory CTAs.
Alina Wize
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-01-10 02:49:38 UTC
Do you guys even listen to what the csm says about incursions? The current csm loves incursions and wants ccp to implement more pve content like it.

This thread is full of tinfoil.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#105 - 2012-01-10 02:56:28 UTC
CSM, CSM, CSM, CSM, CSM, CSM, CSM, CSM, CSM

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
gfldex
#106 - 2012-01-10 03:05:53 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Or I am paranoid.


You are but that doesn't need EVE nor any reasoning. It could still explain that you (and plenty of other armchair game designers) ignore the fact that CONCORD LP eats 75% (IIRC) of the ISK you just earned. If you compare it to lvl4 missions the ISK faucet in highsec are still missions.

If Incursions are getting players out of sanctums and missions the ISK moved into the economy is lowered instead of increased. I find it quite amusing to see all the whining about Incursions given how heavy the value of CONCORD LP have degraded. You used to get about 8000ISK/LP when they where all nice and fresh. Nowadays ppl just cache in on navy ships, what didn't do mission runners any good.

Assuming that ISK moved into the system increases just because some players with way above average SP _can_ earn 100M/h would requite said players to spend the same amount of time shooting NPCs then they used to in missions. There are a few who keep running for no real reason, most players just stop when they have the ISK they need. If they would earn less, they would run longer.

The only party that is hurt by Incrusions are CEOs who see their members having logistic alts in some one men highsec corp getting around corp tax. Well, they don't really care either. Moon goo seams to pay for the bills quite nicely. But that's a different story all together.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#107 - 2012-01-10 03:06:44 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
In my opinion, it's dumb to let the Sansha mother sit there while the sites are farmed. That mother should have a despawn timer and if it's not destroyed, NOBODY gets their ISK and LP rewards for that incursion. This would make things very very interesting.



There is a despawn timer and a day or so after the Incursion goes into withdraw the lp does go poof. So the FC's start their MOM fleets usually immediately after it hits withdraw.
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'
Endeavour Starfleet
#108 - 2012-01-10 04:05:30 UTC
Alina Wize wrote:
Do you guys even listen to what the csm says about incursions? The current csm loves incursions and wants ccp to implement more pve content like it.

This thread is full of tinfoil.


Show proof.

Show me proof that CSM has stated that they want incursions to be anything but nerfed.

Nerf statements include.

"OMG rebalance vanguards!"
"Less Incursions in hisec"
"Force players into other types of incursions"
"Make incursions more a threat to logis"
"Tweaks to incursions"

etc..
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#109 - 2012-01-10 04:11:00 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Look at many alliances alliance mail. You will notice this phrase in many different ways "This is a mandatory CTA join or log off" WIth Incursions people can run alts when they don't want to circle a gate or be cannon fodder for the good ole boys club. It gives incentive for alliances to have ship replacement policies and other efforts to urge players to go out.

The CSM is not I REPEAT NOT a good place to get feedback that is accurate on Incursions. Even going to places like BTL Pub is not because a number of incursion runners WANT nerfs to things like vanguards to drive away anything but shiny fleets so their LP value is higher. Utter bias on both fronts.

The CSM may paint a picture of "Incursion Inflation" yet in reality you can make more skillfully blitzing lvl4s with 2-3 accounts. It is just that for once you implemented a feature that TRUELY encourages grouping in hisec and that has the other groups miffed.

If you do ANYTHING leave hisec incursions EXACTLY as they are and increase the spawn rate for nullsec.

This will do two things.

#1 It will allow blues and renters to work together in PVP like setups that will help to encourage grouping on PVP ops and other activities bigger than "This corp dis system"

#2 Gets big nullsec alliances to want to pop them instead of waiting it out. They "wait it out" currently because they don't want to introduce their members to anything that is an alternative of their mandatory CTAs.


The bitter and ignorance are both vying for the upper hand here. I think ignorance has it though.
Endeavour Starfleet
#110 - 2012-01-10 04:11:42 UTC
I said show proof that the CSM supports grouping in hisec. Not runarounds.
Endeavour Starfleet
#111 - 2012-01-10 04:22:06 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

So my questions:
What's your take on highsec incursions?

If you think they need to be rebalanced, do you have any ideas on how to do so?

edit: y u hate wromhols?


I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit. And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.

So I'm in favor of Hisec incursions being profitable, as at least humans are profiting from them instead of bots, and they drive social interaction between players rather than being a mindless, boring, awful solo activity. Missions bore the hell out of me and I can't imagine doing them for any length of time. Hell, even Incursions get repetitive, but at least you can chat while you do them.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29569&find=unread

If he means it... And that is the general view of the CSM. I will gladly take back my comments about the CSM in this matter. However, Saying things on the forum and talking to CCP are two different things.
Selinate
#112 - 2012-01-10 04:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Selinate
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Selinate wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:


I'm also calling your bluff. T1 pug fleets find themselves muscled out by groups like SSO and ISN who contest their sites, win, and move on to clear other ones before forcing them out again, they're certainly not making billions quickly.

Of course you're going to make billions eventually, but of course you weren't being pedantic to the level of "I've been doing this for months and made a couple of billion" because L4 missioning pays out better than that.


Now you're just full of it.

you are WRONG


And you are bulls##ting. But of course if you're not going to actually refute the argument with anything other than putting your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG" then this is a waste of time.

Running vanguards Blameston tonight there were 3 shield faction fleets and 1 armour faction fleet, as well as a shield Slepneir fleet and a Legion fleet running NCOs.

3 of those fleets left the area because of the hot contestation and sites were clearing faster than they spawned. PuG fleets were getting muscled out and served little purpose than giving other fleets faster payout.

But of course you've got a system all to yourself where your T1 BS fleet is probably chaning outpost sites like there's no tomorrow and never get rolled by a shiny fleet right?





You're still wrong. I run incursions with a T1 battleship with other people in T1 battleships and make billions in pugs (in a short amount of time). It happens. Get the **** over it. You're acting like a child here.
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2012-01-10 05:08:52 UTC
Admiral Pelleon wrote:
mkint wrote:
Admiral Pelleon wrote:
Many empire bears in here.

Adorable.

As soon as your gravy train is threatened, you all come out of the woodwork to post. HTFU and move out of your trade hubs.

*quoted for irony*

As if the nullbears aren't trying to protect their RMT interests by trying to kill incursions.


Nullsec has risks. Highsec has none. If you'd like to play your 99.9% safe hello kitty online, be prepared to pay for it with less income.


what risk does nullsec have that highsec doesn't again?
nullsec, all alone doing whatever
neut or red in local
warp/cloak
success

highsec local is jammed.. doing your thing and bam, suicide gank, fail RR or any of the other things that happen in highsec that nullbears seem to ignore.

the only issue with incursions is it prints isk.
if it gave out LP it would be better. but it would have to be a lot of LP to compensate for the isk ( note: usually LP= isk sink)
HAMBER BOGAN
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2012-01-10 05:11:54 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.



No

Its the fact that, if you endure the hard life of nullsec, PVP and loose ships to claim space for your corp/alliance, spend months upgrading the systems you now own and have to defend on a daily basis. You still earn about 2x isk/hour running incursions in safe highsec.

High sec incursions need to be nerfed. Low sec incursions are cool, but there needs to be more incentive for fleets to try kill other fleets.
Null sec incursions are ok too, but incursions still add a lot of isk to the economy.

Best Bogan

EVE Down Under - Australian EVE Community www.evedownunder.com
Selinate
#115 - 2012-01-10 05:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Selinate
Herping yourDerp wrote:


what risk does nullsec have that highsec doesn't again?
nullsec, all alone doing whatever
neut or red in local
warp/cloak
success

highsec local is jammed.. doing your thing and bam, suicide gank, fail RR or any of the other things that happen in highsec that nullbears seem to ignore.

the only issue with incursions is it prints isk.
if it gave out LP it would be better. but it would have to be a lot of LP to compensate for the isk ( note: usually LP= isk sink)


I dunno about the rest of you, but for me personally, if I go out to null sec in anything other than a cloaky, I usually get shot at, no matter if I'm in a fleet or alone.

Just sayin'....

But really, let's say just for arguments sake that an incursion popped in goon space. I would have a field day with goons trying to run the incursion by trying to pop their RR's while in a fleet.

Believe it or not, without RR in an incursion, whatever fleet you're in would drop pretty quick no matter how well tanked they are, especially with extra DPS on them, it's the same as running sleeper sites in a fleet. You are vulnerable when engaging these NPC's. Very vulnerable.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#116 - 2012-01-10 07:39:48 UTC
- Vanguards probably pay too much per hour, or rather:
- The more difficult sites definitely pay too little per hour, which is why everyone just runs vanguards
- Rewards in null/low could probably stand to be boosted up a bit to make them competitive with anoms, 5x sounds high

The red vs blue bar representing how far along the players are at fighting back the incursion should matter. It should control how fast and furious the sites pop up, the maximum number which can appear at any one time (6-10 at once if the bar is empty, down to only 1-2 at a time if the bar is full), and how long after one is killed before another one pops up (immediately early on, up to a 2-3 minute delay at the end). So as they get killed off, there should be a natural incentive (not enough sites spawning fast enough) to go after the mothership or the other site types.

There needs to be an upper bound on how fast the bar can change from all red to all blue. No faster then 2% per hour (which is about 50 hours) if sites are being run as fast as they spawn, but no slower then about 0.5% per hour as a base rate of decay. So if everyone runs the vanguards dry, they can either stand around and fight over that single vanguard site that spawns because the bar is all blue, or they can go after the other systems which still have some red in the bar. And even if they try to leave the mothership alone, the sites are going to dry up and the incursion will automatically end after a few days.

More payment in LP instead of ISK would be a start on reducing the ISK faucet effect.

Or giving those NPCs loot drops like tags, random uncommon meta 3/4 items, and normal salvage drops in exchange for a reduction in the ISK payout.
Endeavour Starfleet
#117 - 2012-01-10 07:47:06 UTC
No...

All of that is completely unneeded. Incursions do not need to be touched.

There are many factors that quickly add up to make isk/hr less than running IVs. Thus nerfing them is not needed nor wanted.
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#118 - 2012-01-10 08:31:59 UTC
Tore Vest 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


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


We're not all in big alliances. And we certainly don't want to get rid of incursions.

Incursions are a great collaborative PvE experience, it brings people together in highsec (which is a good thing), gives some focus points where pvp can happen in lowsec as well as providing some much needed reward boost there, etc. So, no, we don't want to get rid of Incursions, they are a good thing.

The questions that need to be looked at as far as I'm concerned are:
- whether there are enough incursions or not. I believe they go away too fast in highsec, forcing continuous migration which isn't a good thing
- whether the overall rewards are appropriate. I believe the rewards are a tad too high in highsec, and fairly good otherwise, a bit on the low side in 0.0 but 0.0 has other income sources (or should have).
- whether sites are balanced (they're not, vanguards are too easy to do, the other sites are too annoying/long), diversity is good in terms of content, but the overall reward/time could use some harmonization.

If anything, we asked for more similar content, because it generates the kind of behavior (people getting together) and fun experience/gameplay that is beneficial to the game, so stop worrying :p

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#119 - 2012-01-10 08:55:38 UTC
P42ALPHA wrote:
This thread is priceless. Went from a good old fashion Incursion cry, straight to the old "CSM/Mega Alliances are killing the game."

Epic win...Epic

I think that Grayscale derailed this thread faster then any forum troll could have ever dreamt of.




Quoting for truth and fixed for accuracy.
Well put, P42ALPHA. Totally derailed.

I'm with Tippia on this one. Incursions should be more about the LP's, not large amounts of ISK.

COO - Bene Gesserit Chapterhouse  CEO - Sanctuary Pact Alliance
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#120 - 2012-01-10 09:11:48 UTC
Admiral Pelleon wrote:
mkint wrote:
Admiral Pelleon wrote:
Many empire bears in here.

Adorable.

As soon as your gravy train is threatened, you all come out of the woodwork to post. HTFU and move out of your trade hubs.

*quoted for irony*

As if the nullbears aren't trying to protect their RMT interests by trying to kill incursions.


Nullsec has risks. Highsec has none. If you'd like to play your 99.9% safe hello kitty online, be prepared to pay for it with less income.



Hello Mr Man, you do realise that in deep sov territory, 0.0 is pretty much as safe as can be from external threats?

Viz the fleets of RMT botting Tengus

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log