These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

make high sec incursion sites pvp zones

Author
Renturu
In Glorium et Decorum
#61 - 2012-01-20 10:51:06 UTC
Andski wrote:
Renturu wrote:
Sounds good. Now, you face the massive Blobs taking over the incursions or you get popped for being in their territory and the focus is then taken away from incursions and more to 0.0 PVP.
Why not limit daily incursion runs per char? say 5 per day, which level you choose is up to you but only 5 then no more. That way you stifle the "farming" so people aren't pulling in ridiculous amounts of isk. IDK... Just a thought.


that'd be unfair to incursions. I can run anoms all day if I want, if someone is bored enough to run incursion sites for 8 hours straight, fine by me. the issue is blitzing.


I agree. Too simple now that the mechanics have been figured out. They (CCP) need to step it up or limit numbers through the gate if they don't allow PVP in the incursion zones then.

By the orders of PlunderBunny: ☻/ /▌ / \ This is Bob, post him into your forum sig and help him conquer the forums.

Endeavour Starfleet
#62 - 2012-01-20 10:53:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Signho wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:
If you want to compete with people in highsec incursions, get a fleet together and outgun them.

Simple.


you are missing the point of the OP.


No I'm not. I know exactly what the OP is wanting here, I'm just telling them that they should probably try the current game mechanics to put risk in before poking and whining and demanding that someone else's game is broken.


There is no risk under the current mechanics...


Drunk logi, Fake Logi, Crap FC, Network issues, Mass DCs, Module misclicks, on and on.

Compared to easy mode Anoms and Tech moons Incursions are downright risky. Especially with a pimped ship.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#63 - 2012-01-20 10:58:47 UTC
Endeavour wrote:


Drunk logi, Fake Logi, Crap FC, Network issues, Mass DCs, Module misclicks, on and on.

Compared to easy mode Anoms and Tech moons Incursions are downright risky. Especially with a pimped ship.


Please do not troll this thread. No one is this thick.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

Endeavour Starfleet
#64 - 2012-01-20 11:01:24 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
Endeavour wrote:


Drunk logi, Fake Logi, Crap FC, Network issues, Mass DCs, Module misclicks, on and on.

Compared to easy mode Anoms and Tech moons Incursions are downright risky. Especially with a pimped ship.


Please do not troll this thread. No one is this thick.


I am not trolling tho I don't know what to say about you considering you posted this #1 In the wrong forum #2 Crap idea to completely ruin an ENTIRE EXPANSION so that nullsecers can force people back into CTAs again. (Because that is all you will be helping with this)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#65 - 2012-01-20 11:03:02 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


Drunk logi, Fake Logi, Crap FC, Network issues, Mass DCs, Module misclicks, on and on.

Compared to easy mode Anoms and Tech moons Incursions are downright risky. Especially with a pimped ship.


My AFK bomber causes more risk than you will ever face in a high sec incursion
Endeavour Starfleet
#66 - 2012-01-20 11:19:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
baltec1 wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


Drunk logi, Fake Logi, Crap FC, Network issues, Mass DCs, Module misclicks, on and on.

Compared to easy mode Anoms and Tech moons Incursions are downright risky. Especially with a pimped ship.


My AFK bomber causes more risk than you will ever face in a high sec incursion


Ah you saw my topic about adding balance to AFK cloaking I see. Just in case any fool still thinks I have not had serious experience with the various imbalances in nullsec such as AFK cloaking being +1 Advantage for large alliances.

So that is a very poor comparison for you to make because an AFKer with no indication he has returned is a serious risk. Tho that is another argument altogether.

I have stated just some of the reasons why Incursions are risky. Ignoring them in my opinion just shows willful ignorance on how they operate.
My Postman
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-01-20 11:28:17 UTC
How do you think this will work?

Should the whole constellation should be like 0.0? No regulare citizen nor any "incursioner" will undock/come to said constellation as there would be millions of gankers, camping the gates and the stations, looking for easy kills.

No.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#68 - 2012-01-20 11:40:00 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


Ah you saw my topic about adding balance to AFK cloaking I see. Just in case any fool still thinks I have not had serious experience with the various imbalances in nullsec such as AFK cloaking being +1 Advantage for large alliances.

So that is a very poor comparison for you to make because an AFKer with no indication he has returned is a serious risk. Tho that is another argument altogether.

I have stated just some of the reasons why Incursions are risky. Ignoring them in my opinion just shows willful ignorance on how they operate.


Because none of the things you listed can happen to every single other bit of pve activityRoll Your other argument on CTAs is also rather laughable considering goons can mass 1600 at the drop of a hat to go fight something.

The only reason you dont want this is because you are a coward who doesn't want thier isk waterfall turned off.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#69 - 2012-01-20 11:41:03 UTC
My Postman wrote:
How do you think this will work?

Should the whole constellation should be like 0.0? No regulare citizen nor any "incursioner" will undock/come to said constellation as there would be millions of gankers, camping the gates and the stations, looking for easy kills.

No.


Just the sites, everything else in the system would be as they are now.
Bischopt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2012-01-20 11:50:45 UTC
Only real problem I can see with OP's idea is that it would make low sec even more dead than it is now.
Everyone would flock to high sec incursions for their pvp.

Other than that sounds good to me.
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
HIDDEN LEAF VILLAGE NINJA AssAssIn SQUAD eSports
#71 - 2012-01-20 12:16:20 UTC
+1 Great idea, risk vs reward, I dont think I have ever seen an Incursion Logi with ECCM, would be nice to see people having to fit ships to do the task properly.
Juliana Stinger
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2012-01-20 13:24:48 UTC
Low sec is profitable as well, but it looks filled with criminals AFKing in stations or farming some rats in untouched asteroid belts, it looks empty and dead. Your idea is to spread this "plague" in to high sec, do you really believe pve pilots will risk flying there with ships worth billions? What will be a risk for pvp pilots? loosing a 50mil ship?

"Risk vs Reward" is a very stupid and idiotic excuse i've ever heared, because Rewards isn't covering this RISK.
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
#73 - 2012-01-20 13:36:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Deviana Sevidon
I support the idea of NERFING passive and risk free Technetium Moon Goo income.Roll

Also the OP idea is stupid, risk vs. reward yes right, a small group of douches with blackbirds that cost almost nothing disrupting one incursion site after another, even risk free because their ships cost almost nothing, while their targets have to deal with the sanshas and the douches are likely to lose billions.

Your idea of making incursions another thing that is farmed to death by a handful of 0.0 alliances and dead to everybody else is noted.

....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.

Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2012-01-20 14:05:12 UTC
Juliana Stinger wrote:
Your idea is to spread this "plague" in to high sec, do you really believe pve pilots will risk flying there with ships worth billions? What will be a risk for pvp pilots? loosing a 50mil ship?

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2012-01-20 14:09:58 UTC
I thought space that an Incursion was involved with did not have CONCORD support anywhere but gates and stations? If that is the case than it is already a PVP zone and nothing needs to change. If you are trying to make it so there is no sec status lost for killing someone then NO...you are just trying to make it easier for piracy in highsec to take place with no consequences.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

TheButcherPete
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#76 - 2012-01-20 14:10:06 UTC
Freelance Services wrote:
INCURSION SHOULD RESULT IN SYSTEM SEC STATUS DROP

Common CONCORD, you set the security status for a system dont you? You have a full scale invasion and you don't drop the sec status?

All incursion systems should have their sec status drop to low security [with 24hours notice]. Why should people be able to do PI and feel 100% moving thier cargo around in a system where an incursion is taking place? [without risk[


I like this idea.

[b]THE KING OF EVE RADIO

If EVE is real, does that mean all of us are RMTrs?[/b]

Tore Vest
#77 - 2012-01-20 14:13:38 UTC
Some good troll posting in this thread Smile

I counterpost with
Nerf highsec gankers...
Make sec.status grinding harder...
and..
more concord on High/low gates Bear

No troll.

Alexandra Delarge
The Korova
#78 - 2012-01-20 15:31:33 UTC
Kind of like an instanced PvP arena in Hisec where players get to fight over the rewards. Sounds good to me. I don't see why CCP can't do this sort of thing using other pirate factions tbh.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#79 - 2012-01-20 16:02:20 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
Whatever tech Sansha are using to circumvent CONCORD and Navy effectiveness should extend to capsuleers.

Not only does this make sense in an immersive way but it also places high sec incursion income in line with that of low sec (and null to a lesser extent) but it also provides opt-in PvP for high sec dwellers in lieu of the Dec shield mechanics that nullify a lot of high sec PVP opportunity.

For those that don't like the inherent risk of PvP there are still decent income sources available in safer empire.

Edit: This provides a suitable risk versus reward considering L4 missions earn a conservative 20m per hour but incursions give a conservative 60-70m per hour.


Better write this down, Spank.

Mr Epeen thinks you have finally posted something that is not a completely moronic, attention grabbing troll.

This idea has merit. It needs fine tuning, of course, but not a bad start.

There are a lot of players that want nothing to do with incursions, but just happen to live in an area that one spawns in. So to cut down the collateral damage (rage quits) you'd need to define just one system in the affected constellation as temporarily lawless. And there would need to be some warning so the fearful could vacate to an adjacent area not so hostile and to just let pilots being caught up in something they don't want to be caught up in get out fairly intact.

You can't simply toss out the rules of engagement that have been in place since near day one. But incursions need to be worked on from what I read. Never bother with them myself, but I'm often in a constellation that has one going on and there is sheer panic in local as regular Joes think they are doomed.

Anyway credit where credit is due. Good idea, Spank.

Mr Epeen Cool
Skex Relbore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-01-20 16:11:03 UTC
Andski wrote:
nerf all highsec income



You realize that doing so would nerf null income as well right? I mean who else is going to by those X-type modules for fat iskies but high sec bears with more isk than sense?

To the OP, you know if you want to hunt Incursion runners you could always find some in Low or Null right?

Of course that would mean you'd be facing people who would be prepared to fight back.

Seriously bad idea, if the isk is really a problem (I don't think it is) then lower the payouts. This is just another low sec gank bear "I can't find easy targets so force people to feed me killmails" whine.

Just like all the "move L4s to low sec" it's predicated on the fallacious idea that the bears will just continue along their normal behavior rather than adapting (moving to more secure income streams or use less costly ships).

I say leave the high sec bears their safe income stream, I need a market for my wares so I can afford expensive non-doctrine ships to get blown up (we don't share the Goonies wonderfully liberal reimbursement plan ).