These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tore Vest
#141 - 2012-01-10 16:24:42 UTC
I guess CSM just wanted SC adjusted a little TAD allso....

Look what CCP did.....

No troll.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#142 - 2012-01-10 17:42:14 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:

The fact that incursions vary in location is a good thing, but it's a question of the frequency of the move. If they stay a decent amount of time after spawning, a more "casual" type of people could give them a shot. As it is by the time you get your friends organized, they're gone.

This also ties with the reevaluation of the non-vanguard sites, the more near-identically profitable sites, the more concurrent group can run them.


Yeah, I would put it at - if the incursion is over in less then 48 hours, that's too short of a window for all but the dedicated few. Something in the 72 hour range feels a bit more reasonable, maybe with 96 hours at an upper end. That gives time for the casual runners to get out to the location (which usually takes an hour of travel) and be in place for the next day's play session.

A mechanic where it takes 12-24 hours for the incursion sites to really start popping (maybe the bar starts all blue initially, then changes to red over the first 12-24 hours) would give more casual incursion runners time to get to a new location before it hits its peak. Then about 24-48 hours in (randomly), spawn the mothership and make the bars start decaying towards blue faster.
colay Starwolf
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#143 - 2012-01-10 17:56:17 UTC
just add more isk sinks to high sec so the people that stay in high sec spend more money. Also change it so the lowest level type of site does not pay the most.

EvE is a big mmorpg ( Many Men Online Role Playing Girls) game
Endeavour Starfleet
#144 - 2012-01-10 18:48:58 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
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


*I bolded the bad stuff in this.

Ya this is as I expected. Is the CSM REALLY trying to hide disdain for incursions by mixing nerf attempts in piles of so called "improvements and harmonization" ??

You have CCP's ear and now its time to "git 'dem damn incursion runners out and back to mAh endless CTAs to defend mah moon gooz!"

Incursions are fine as is. We have to risk very expensive ships to run these sites you claim are too easy, too high, and imbalanced. When in nullsec NAPed systems with sanctums in there get buffs with virtually no risk.

What I love is how the shiny fleet fools in BTL Pub support the nerf effort. They seriously think you CSM wont come for them next (Or first) If they wont call against this nerf effort I can only hope you alliance folk will start blasting the moms and ending their runs as well. As nerfing Vanguards will virtually drive away all non shiny fleets leaving many to return to lvl IVs and removing the reason to group. Which is exactly what the shiny fleet fools want as it means better LP prices.


Now now, don't put words in my mouth... Especially since I don't do endless CTAs to defend my non-existent moon-goo... Do a little bit of research ;-)

If you read my post, instead of criticizing what you think I wrote, I say that I believe the rewards to be a TAD too high. I don't go "cut the rewards in HALF!!!!1!!one". tad...
2nd, I talk about balancing the sites, which means aligning vanguards and others towards a closer gain/time, that means decreasing a tad the vanguards, and improving significantly the others.
Also, you may notice I mention a desire to extend the duration of the sites, meaning that even if the value/hour decreases a tad, you have more content to profit from, instead of having to run every which way to find the next incursion, thereby increasing your revenue/hour.



I will admit I was a tad too direct with my post. Yet it is hard not to be when you have piles of fools demanding nerfs to incursions because they dare not come to their CTAs, or dare come in anything but a shiny ship.

You need to clarify what "tad" is then. Why not do what you mentioned earlier of reducing the ability to blitz by target priority in certain vanguards instead of cutting payout by even a small percent which harms the normal fleets the most?

I like the idea of increased times on incursions. If you make the mom spawn delayed it will help reduce the effect of groups wanting to screw with incursion runners. However if this "tad" thing comes out to some 25 percent end nerf on nonshiny fleets I request the reverse so that shiny fleets can be driven out of their "NERFz vanguard so mah LP is betterZ. F non shiny fleets" runs.
LacLongQuan
Doomheim
#145 - 2012-01-10 19:18:04 UTC
Jaigar wrote:
Admiral Pelleon wrote:

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.


I was unaware that null sec had any risk, IE local spike, GET TO THE POS ASAP!!!.

All jokes aside, EVE is extremely safe no matter what kind of space you are in. Even W-Space is super-safe from risk if you pay attention ( you cannot sneak by combat probes no matter how hard u try).

To be fair though, the isk ammount for HS vs, low/null is scewed. In high sec you will see more shiny ships, more shield vindicators fitting their CN invuls, faction webs/guns, etc.. These guys will end up running incursion sites faster than null/low sec for sure, and by a lot. I wouldn't go for an overall HS incursion ISK nerf as much as a null/low sec buff (5-10% buff)

And incursion running has been made even easier with T2 ganglinks (I know, I went there again). I see Scimitars get by in vanguards now tanking solely with ganglink bonuses and a single invul 2. More Tracking links fitted, more DPS, faster sites, more ISK.

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.

you bears should get out of hisec to learn about risk
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#146 - 2012-01-10 20:17:58 UTC
Just allow some way for players to side with the Sansha against the farmers without CONCORD interference, then the profitability can remain high without throwing rsk vs reward out the window. Failing that just remove Incursions from High Sec altogether.
Tore Vest
#147 - 2012-01-10 20:24:11 UTC
LacLongQuan wrote:

you bears should get out of hisec to learn about risk


Why ?

There is nothing for us out there.

We are carebears.... not pvp'ers Bear

No troll.
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#148 - 2012-01-10 22:19:15 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
I wouldn't advocate incursion constellations staying up for weeks, but when they stay up less than 48 hours after spawning, it's a bit too short.


That's less of an occurrence than them spawning and sitting for too long, but a valid point. Imo incursions should last between 3-5 days. Put a 3 day hold before the Mom can be accessed from the spawn of an incursion, and then give it a 24-36 hour period before it goes.

Quote:
The fact that incursions vary in location is a good thing, but it's a question of the frequency of the move. If they stay a decent amount of time after spawning, a more "casual" type of people could give them a shot.


This would be better fixed by increasing the spawn rate of the plexes as opposed to the duration length. I've often seen systems with no plexes active, or 3 shiny fleets fighting over the last NMC like hungry dogs with a bone. Casuals don't get a look in then.

Quote:
This also ties with the reevaluation of the non-vanguard sites, the more near-identically profitable sites, the more concurrent group can run them.


Agreed, but it's a measure of how you equal them out, as I said you need to counter the blitz of vanguards, not the payout.

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.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#149 - 2012-01-10 22:49:36 UTC
Tore Vest wrote:
LacLongQuan wrote:

you bears should get out of hisec to learn about risk


Why ?

There is nothing for us out there.

We are carebears.... not pvp'ers Bear


carebear is not an synonym for not pvp´er ..
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#150 - 2012-01-11 00:24:15 UTC
Also, if the sites were more distributed across systems rather then all vanguards in system X, all assaults in system Y, it would force the incursion runners to check other systems to see whether all the vanguards have migrated elsewhere.

Maybe a 75% chance that the site will respawn in the same system, but a 25% chance that it will respawn in a different system in the constellation.
Alastanir
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2012-01-11 00:56:20 UTC
Nullsec alliances have become complacent in their "superiority" over other EVE players. Perhaps there needs be Jove incursions in null to put them in their place. You want to nerf ISK making in high-sec? Then nerf the flow of ISK in null as well.
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#152 - 2012-01-11 07:50:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Magosian
Alastanir wrote:
Nullsec alliances have become complacent in their "superiority" over other EVE players. Perhaps there needs be Jove incursions in null to put them in their place. You want to nerf ISK making in high-sec? Then nerf the flow of ISK in null as well.


Not sure I agree with this, and I think this thread got derailed long ago.

Isn't the potential issue that incursions are nothing more than isk-printing machines, injecting unbacked value into the market at an unprecented rate? Seriously, who gives a damn about highsec or lowsec or nullsec? I think there is reason to believe it's hurting all of us. LP value is down and wallets are fat and possibliy losing true buying power. Despite our playing preferences, we ALL depend on the market. If incursions are threatening the true value of ISK, everyone suffers.

Focus, people.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#153 - 2012-01-11 09:23:36 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
BOO HOO I DONT THINK THE CSM REPRESENT HIGH SEC SCRUBLORDS THATS THE ONLY REASON HIGH SEC IS NOT AS LUCRATIVE, I CANT ACCEPT THAT PERHAPS I AM WRONG BUT TRYING TO DELUDE MYSELF BECAUSE I AM TOO COWARDLY TO LEAVE THE TRAINING GROUNDS.


They don't represent anyone other than nullbear empires.



Which nullbear empire does Trebor represent? His alliance is based in W-space I believe.

Or are you just scoring lazy talk-radio style points in lieu of actually having a discussion about the facts?


Let the listeners decide!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Juliana Stinger
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2012-01-11 10:18:03 UTC
Seriously i don't understand where's balance??? Why pve fitted expensive ships do not fly in low sec where cheap PVP fitted pilots could have make some ISK and easy kills!!!! The life must be very risky and hard for everyone but pvp players!!! This PVE Pilots are cowards!!!! They don't want to play the game the way i like it!!!!! Fix this CCP!!!!! I like to play PVP, everyone else should like this too!!!!! I simply DEMAND THIS!!!!! *emorage*
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#155 - 2012-01-11 10:38:57 UTC
Juliana Stinger wrote:
Seriously i don't understand where's balance??? Why pve fitted expensive ships do not fly in low sec where cheap PVP fitted pilots could have make some ISK and easy kills!!!! The life must be very risky and hard for everyone but pvp players!!! This PVE Pilots are cowards!!!! They don't want to play the game the way i like it!!!!! Fix this CCP!!!!! I like to play PVP, everyone else should like this too!!!!! I simply DEMAND THIS!!!!! *emorage*

Its a pvp game. Why are people upset about having to pvp?

I say everyone pour support into the skunkworks and similar groups to drive the risk of incursions up to match the rewards, til CCP does it for us.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Xuko Nuki
Heralds of Darkness
White Sky.
#156 - 2012-01-11 10:45:02 UTC
Magosian wrote:
Alastanir wrote:
Nullsec alliances have become complacent in their "superiority" over other EVE players. Perhaps there needs be Jove incursions in null to put them in their place. You want to nerf ISK making in high-sec? Then nerf the flow of ISK in null as well.


Not sure I agree with this, and I think this thread got derailed long ago.

Isn't the potential issue that incursions are nothing more than isk-printing machines, injecting unbacked value into the market at an unprecented rate? Seriously, who gives a damn about highsec or lowsec or nullsec? I think there is reason to believe it's hurting all of us. LP value is down and wallets are fat and possibliy losing true buying power. Despite our playing preferences, we ALL depend on the market. If incursions are threatening the true value of ISK, everyone suffers.

Focus, people.


Prices are determined by manufacturing costs which revolve around base mineral value. Tell me why the price of mods would rise because of Incursions, please.
Elisha Starkiller
EU Industrials
#157 - 2012-01-11 10:52:24 UTC
Xuko Nuki wrote:


Prices are determined by manufacturing costs which revolve around base mineral value. Tell me why the price of mods would rise because of Incursions, please.



I too am keen to know the answer to this, I keep seeing people say it...

im not an economist or some fancy city money type, anyone who can explain this principle will win the day and get a like :D
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#158 - 2012-01-11 11:00:51 UTC
Xuko Nuki wrote:
Magosian wrote:
Alastanir wrote:
Nullsec alliances have become complacent in their "superiority" over other EVE players. Perhaps there needs be Jove incursions in null to put them in their place. You want to nerf ISK making in high-sec? Then nerf the flow of ISK in null as well.


Not sure I agree with this, and I think this thread got derailed long ago.

Isn't the potential issue that incursions are nothing more than isk-printing machines, injecting unbacked value into the market at an unprecented rate? Seriously, who gives a damn about highsec or lowsec or nullsec? I think there is reason to believe it's hurting all of us. LP value is down and wallets are fat and possibliy losing true buying power. Despite our playing preferences, we ALL depend on the market. If incursions are threatening the true value of ISK, everyone suffers.

Focus, people.


Prices are determined by manufacturing costs which revolve around base mineral value. Tell me why the price of mods would rise because of Incursions, please.


You're forgetting that not everything on the market is primarily sourced from minerals. T2 ships/mods, LP store items, deadspace items, PI-derived goods.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Xuko Nuki
Heralds of Darkness
White Sky.
#159 - 2012-01-11 11:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Xuko Nuki
Malcanis wrote:
Xuko Nuki wrote:
Magosian wrote:
Alastanir wrote:
Nullsec alliances have become complacent in their "superiority" over other EVE players. Perhaps there needs be Jove incursions in null to put them in their place. You want to nerf ISK making in high-sec? Then nerf the flow of ISK in null as well.


Not sure I agree with this, and I think this thread got derailed long ago.

Isn't the potential issue that incursions are nothing more than isk-printing machines, injecting unbacked value into the market at an unprecented rate? Seriously, who gives a damn about highsec or lowsec or nullsec? I think there is reason to believe it's hurting all of us. LP value is down and wallets are fat and possibliy losing true buying power. Despite our playing preferences, we ALL depend on the market. If incursions are threatening the true value of ISK, everyone suffers.

Focus, people.


Prices are determined by manufacturing costs which revolve around base mineral value. Tell me why the price of mods would rise because of Incursions, please.


You're forgetting that not everything on the market is primarily sourced from minerals. T2 ships/mods, LP store items, deadspace items, PI-derived goods.


You're not answering why Incursions would effect any of those. If anything Incursions would mean cheaper LP store items.
Gothikia
Le Goobers
#160 - 2012-01-11 11:06:16 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
Some people run low sec incursions because they enjoy the opportunity for PVP that they present. Cowards stay in high sec with the rest of the scrubs.

If you think there is too much money to be made, or too many people running them then do something different. It's rather hypocritical to complain about how much money they make when you happily run them yourself. I assume you are complaining about the ISK rewarded, your rant was pretty incoherent.


I just totally agreed with a Lady Spank post... Shocked

But yeah, what LS said...

<3 Gothie