These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

[Proposal] Make Incursions less farmable

Author
Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#1 - 2012-01-09 09:34:25 UTC
I personally have no issues with the isk/hr given by incursions, what I don't like is that there is an UNLIMITED NUMBER of sites that players can farm to their hearts content at ALL TIMES.

You can do incursions for an infinite number of sites per day, the sites are always the same with little variation or diversity, making them easy to and quick to do.

No other pve gets that. Nullsec, Lowsec, Wormholes all have sites that can be done only once before they disappear, leaving you the rest of the day to do nothing.

Incursions can be run all day long, never ending until the incursion runners decide to kill the mom site, which requires a significant fleet to do.

What I propose is that there should be a limit of the number of sites given per day.

Make incursions so that there is only one incursion for each security level of space.

1 each for highsec, lowsec, and nullsec.

Make it so that incursions only of have a certain number of each type of sites. If there are no more vanguards then the players must do HQ's and Assaults in order to make money.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-01-09 15:43:09 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
I personally have no issues with the isk/hr given by incursions, what I don't like is that there is an UNLIMITED NUMBER of sites that players can farm to their hearts content at ALL TIMES.

You can do incursions for an infinite number of sites per day, the sites are always the same with little variation or diversity, making them easy to and quick to do.

No other pve gets that. Nullsec, Lowsec, Wormholes all have sites that can be done only once before they disappear, leaving you the rest of the day to do nothing.

Incursions can be run all day long, never ending until the incursion runners decide to kill the mom site, which requires a significant fleet to do.

What I propose is that there should be a limit of the number of sites given per day.

Make incursions so that there is only one incursion for each security level of space.

1 each for highsec, lowsec, and nullsec.

Make it so that incursions only of have a certain number of each type of sites. If there are no more vanguards then the players must do HQ's and Assaults in order to make money.


So what you propose is the massive overcrowding of incursion site (not sites) in each security zone and Imply they are run solo.

You really don't think these things through do you?

Very poor troll with very poor common sense.

-9/10

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Goose99
#3 - 2012-01-09 16:08:38 UTC
No.

And Sanctums and moon goo should be moved to highsec.Cool
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#4 - 2012-01-09 17:53:04 UTC
Nerf high sec Incursions somehow

Some changes are needed.

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Goose99
#5 - 2012-01-09 19:17:23 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Nerf high sec Incursions somehow

Some changes are needed.


No, nerf you instead. Some changes are needed for you, not me.

^See? That's what it's all about.Cool
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#6 - 2012-01-09 20:46:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
Drake Draconis wrote:

So what you propose is the massive overcrowding of incursion site (not sites) in each security zone and Imply they are run solo.

You really don't think these things through do you?

Very poor troll with very poor common sense.

-9/10

If I remember correctly multiple fleets can go in the same incursion site and whichever fleet is the most effective wins the reward. Yes it would be crowded in highsec but you could still get a fleet up and run an incursion normally. You just wouldn't be guaranteed that it would always pay out all of the time.

I have seen a lot of "lets move carebears into lowsec" threads and I think incursions are a perfect way to do that. Reduce highsec to one incursion region every once in a while and make lowsec the place where there are two to three constant incursions up at a time.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-01-09 21:23:01 UTC
Wolodymyr wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:

So what you propose is the massive overcrowding of incursion site (not sites) in each security zone and Imply they are run solo.

You really don't think these things through do you?

Very poor troll with very poor common sense.

-9/10

If I remember correctly multiple fleets can go in the same incursion site and whichever fleet is the most effective wins the reward. Yes it would be crowded in highsec but you could still get a fleet up and run an incursion normally. You just wouldn't be guaranteed that it would always pay out all of the time.

I have seen a lot of "lets move carebears into lowsec" threads and I think incursions are a perfect way to do that. Reduce highsec to one incursion region every once in a while and make lowsec the place where there are two to three constant incursions up at a time.


Then make sure theres at least 1 incursion in EACH empire....limiting it to 1 in high sec is just plain stupid.

Incraesing them as they head out towards low sec to 0.0 however IS reasonable....even perhaps making them low sec/0.0 only.

Won't happen however...kinda breaks the whole point of an incursion.

But that's not gonna change my stance on this thread.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Parsee789
Immaterial and Missing Power
#8 - 2012-01-10 01:53:25 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:


So what you propose is the massive overcrowding of incursion site (not sites) in each security zone and Imply they are run solo.

You really don't think these things through do you?

Very poor troll with very poor common sense.

-9/10


You're just mad because you're probably a big incursion carebear. The problem with highsec vanguard incursions are that it trivializes the much more dangerous ways of making isk in low/null/wh space.

Highsec incursions are simply unbeatable when it comes to isk/hr to the risk involved.

Logi's disconnect? Well what your logi disconnects in a WH site? What if your mission ship disconnects while taking heavy fire. This is an invalid excuse for risk.

Gankers, Griefers? In Non-highsec areas there is NO CONCORD, therefore You can be killed and griefed with much greater ease than highsec. There are Griefers and Gankers in ALL SPACE, this excuse is therefore invalid.

Which means that there is VIRTUALLY NO RISK in highsec incursions for the fairly high isk/hr.

Therefore highsec vanguard incursions should be limited or made more dangerous.
CaleAdaire
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#9 - 2012-01-10 03:23:31 UTC  |  Edited by: CaleAdaire
Parsee789 wrote:
I personally have no issues with the isk/hr given by incursions, what I don't like is that there is an UNLIMITED NUMBER of sites that players can farm to their hearts content at ALL TIMES.

You can do incursions for an infinite number of sites per day, the sites are always the same with little variation or diversity, making them easy to and quick to do.

No other pve gets that. Nullsec, Lowsec, Wormholes all have sites that can be done only once before they disappear, leaving you the rest of the day to do nothing.

Incursions can be run all day long, never ending until the incursion runners decide to kill the mom site, which requires a significant fleet to do.

What I propose is that there should be a limit of the number of sites given per day.

Make incursions so that there is only one incursion for each security level of space.

1 each for highsec, lowsec, and nullsec.

Make it so that incursions only of have a certain number of each type of sites. If there are no more vanguards then the players must do HQ's and Assaults in order to make money.

Then nerf Low Sec and 0.0 Moneymakers. Is it unfair that those groups get Moon Goo and Sanctums and Ice Mining AND Incursions and etcetera etcetera etcetera? If it's unfair for people to get money in High Sec, then its unfair for Low Sec and 0.0 to get everything they get.

Stop trolling with stupid, ludicrous, and whiny posts about how its unfair that CCP paid attention to its High Sec members.

People who live in 0.0 get tons of toys, and all of CCP's attention. To the point that Mittani ran a boycott that got CCP to release an entire expansion, complete with ships and nerfs and buffs galore, all for the gratis-faction of 0.0 dwellers. Seriously, a small group gets all of the attention and love from CCP and yet they have the nerve to complain that the realistic isk generator in Highsec needs to be nerfed?

HTFU and stop complaining, you don't hear Incursionists bitching and griping about how the CSM ignores High Sec, or about how only Low Sec and 0.0 get moon mining and ABC' ores or Mercoxit.

Trust in God, Have Faith in Fusion.

CaleAdaire
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#10 - 2012-01-10 03:31:34 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:


So what you propose is the massive overcrowding of incursion site (not sites) in each security zone and Imply they are run solo.

You really don't think these things through do you?

Very poor troll with very poor common sense.

-9/10


You're just mad because you're probably a big incursion carebear. The problem with highsec vanguard incursions are that it trivializes the much more dangerous ways of making isk in low/null/wh space.

Highsec incursions are simply unbeatable when it comes to isk/hr to the risk involved.

Logi's disconnect? Well what your logi disconnects in a WH site? What if your mission ship disconnects while taking heavy fire. This is an invalid excuse for risk.

Gankers, Griefers? In Non-highsec areas there is NO CONCORD, therefore You can be killed and griefed with much greater ease than highsec. There are Griefers and Gankers in ALL SPACE, this excuse is therefore invalid.

Which means that there is VIRTUALLY NO RISK in highsec incursions for the fairly high isk/hr.

Therefore highsec vanguard incursions should be limited or made more dangerous.

AAAANND! Alliances NAP it up in 0.0 space and lock down their systems (excluding the occasional afk cloaker) and run mining sites and sanctums with.... (drumroll) NO FREAKING RISK!!!!

Shut up. You're an idiot of most epic proportions.

Trust in God, Have Faith in Fusion.

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#11 - 2012-01-10 10:04:49 UTC
Couldn't you just make it so, that once you get the mothership site to spawn the number of site spawns will slowly dwindle down to a low minimum or even finally end. Basicly just change it from a large inifinite farmable resource for the duration of the incursion to a much more limited resource as more farming is done. It makes farmin incursions a non-issue and is much better for incentivizing competition, since every site done by others is a resource not available to you and the supply is now much more limited after the incursion has passed a certain point. It also creates a strong incentive to attack the mothership and end the incursion, since a dwindled down incursion can't possibly supply enough sites to keep every farmer busy.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-01-10 10:23:51 UTC
CaleAdaire wrote:
AAAANND! Alliances NAP it up in 0.0 space and lock down their systems (excluding the occasional afk cloaker) and run mining sites and sanctums with.... (drumroll) NO FREAKING RISK!!!!

Shut up. You're an idiot of most epic proportions.


Explain that to White Noise.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#13 - 2012-01-10 11:48:07 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
CaleAdaire wrote:
AAAANND! Alliances NAP it up in 0.0 space and lock down their systems (excluding the occasional afk cloaker) and run mining sites and sanctums with.... (drumroll) NO FREAKING RISK!!!!

Shut up. You're an idiot of most epic proportions.


Explain that to White Noise.


Explain that to TEST... Every try to rat in fountain? >.>

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2012-01-10 15:12:14 UTC
Parsee789 wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:


So what you propose is the massive overcrowding of incursion site (not sites) in each security zone and Imply they are run solo.

You really don't think these things through do you?

Very poor troll with very poor common sense.

-9/10


You're just mad because you're probably a big incursion carebear. The problem with highsec vanguard incursions are that it trivializes the much more dangerous ways of making isk in low/null/wh space.

Highsec incursions are simply unbeatable when it comes to isk/hr to the risk involved.

Logi's disconnect? Well what your logi disconnects in a WH site? What if your mission ship disconnects while taking heavy fire. This is an invalid excuse for risk.

Gankers, Griefers? In Non-highsec areas there is NO CONCORD, therefore You can be killed and griefed with much greater ease than highsec. There are Griefers and Gankers in ALL SPACE, this excuse is therefore invalid.

Which means that there is VIRTUALLY NO RISK in highsec incursions for the fairly high isk/hr.

Therefore highsec vanguard incursions should be limited or made more dangerous.


Awww..look at that...the nooblet carebear thinks I live in High Sec....isn't that cute.

Get over yourself... this proposal is a troll and everyone knows it...

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-01-10 15:13:37 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
CaleAdaire wrote:
AAAANND! Alliances NAP it up in 0.0 space and lock down their systems (excluding the occasional afk cloaker) and run mining sites and sanctums with.... (drumroll) NO FREAKING RISK!!!!

Shut up. You're an idiot of most epic proportions.


Explain that to White Noise.


We tried...they didn't bother showing up...let alone saying anything.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#16 - 2012-01-10 20:54:52 UTC
CaleAdaire wrote:

AAAANND! Alliances NAP it up in 0.0 space and lock down their systems (excluding the occasional afk cloaker) and run mining sites and sanctums with.... (drumroll) NO FREAKING RISK!!!!

Shut up. You're an idiot of most epic proportions.

So alliances actively maintain and defense sovereignty and SHOULDN'T reap the best rewards?

Put together a group and go out there and contest some if you've got a problem with their mining and ratting. From experience, it doesn't take many people to drop some SBUs and put a pretty big slope in an alliance's PVE activities.

In nullsec, you're free to stop anybody from doing anything. That's not the case with highsec incursions, and you bloody well know that. Stop making foolish arguments.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-01-10 21:13:58 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
CaleAdaire wrote:

AAAANND! Alliances NAP it up in 0.0 space and lock down their systems (excluding the occasional afk cloaker) and run mining sites and sanctums with.... (drumroll) NO FREAKING RISK!!!!

Shut up. You're an idiot of most epic proportions.

So alliances actively maintain and defense sovereignty and SHOULDN'T reap the best rewards?

Put together a group and go out there and contest some if you've got a problem with their mining and ratting. From experience, it doesn't take many people to drop some SBUs and put a pretty big slope in an alliance's PVE activities.

In nullsec, you're free to stop anybody from doing anything. That's not the case with highsec incursions, and you bloody well know that. Stop making foolish arguments.




I suggest Heading out to "Vale of the silent"

Should't be hard for you to carve a niche out of WN. space. :)

*going with floppies ever logical suggestion thought train*

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#18 - 2012-01-11 06:40:46 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
CaleAdaire wrote:

AAAANND! Alliances NAP it up in 0.0 space and lock down their systems (excluding the occasional afk cloaker) and run mining sites and sanctums with.... (drumroll) NO FREAKING RISK!!!!

Shut up. You're an idiot of most epic proportions.

So alliances actively maintain and defense sovereignty and SHOULDN'T reap the best rewards?

Put together a group and go out there and contest some if you've got a problem with their mining and ratting. From experience, it doesn't take many people to drop some SBUs and put a pretty big slope in an alliance's PVE activities.

In nullsec, you're free to stop anybody from doing anything. That's not the case with highsec incursions, and you bloody well know that. Stop making foolish arguments.




I suggest Heading out to "Vale of the silent"

Should't be hard for you to carve a niche out of WN. space. :)

*going with floppies ever logical suggestion thought train*


You're just mad because you are getting too many riches off the WNDOT campaign Shocked

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#19 - 2012-01-11 09:05:47 UTC
All these buttmad people fail to realize that in one thread CCP has already stated that Hi Sec Incursions are under review because they generate too much isk.

Can't wait for that patch, the rage will be worse than the Anom nerf over the summer.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-01-11 10:22:16 UTC
Let them farm to their hearts content, just drop the payouts to around 25% of theit curent amount in hisec.

Make lowsec and nullsec incursions the place wheer the money is. Risk should always = more isk and hisec incursions are no risk.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

12Next page