These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Incursion fixes/feedback thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#41 - 2012-01-23 18:58:27 UTC
Reppyk wrote:
Sansha gatecamps in high sec, but with a message popup when you're about to jump inside the constellation.


As long as the sansha gatecamps do not scram/tackle, that would be fine, as many of the incursions take place along travel bottlenecks. CCP would have to add more bypass routes between constellations before they could make the gate camps more then a minor annoyance.
Teroh Vizjereij
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-01-23 19:02:31 UTC
Classy McSucksalot wrote:


In order to rectify this situation, I recommend reducing the ISK payout from incursions, and adding decent drops and salvage to the Sansha rats to balance it out. This also has the side benefit of allowing PvP in incursion sites in the EvE tradition of loot ninjaing.


While i can follow your thought process .. you missed one big thing : Those sites are run in fleets with 10-40 people.

So you'd either have a clickfest like on Diablo2 baalruns about who gets the loot or you would need to implement a personalized drop system ( which i doubt is possible in the current underlying systems )
Heo Hyungie
Chimaerazz
#43 - 2012-01-23 19:03:02 UTC
Ninavask wrote:
Here is what should happen:

-Lower Sansha Influence gets less sites till when the mothership appears only the mothership site exists. Similar to if you were actually pushing back the Sansha, not just farming them.

-Lower Sansha influence get more violent the sites get, increasing spawns and such by 10-15 percent.

-Lower isk payout for vanguard sites by 30-40 percent and boost headquarters sites by 30-40%

--Include Sansha pirates on gates incresing per system, make them act like belt rats. Also have them over planets and any other celestial beacon.

-Boost mothership takeout rewards so people have the sense to actually kill it.

-Increase CONCORD LP by 30-50%, focus more on LP then on cash.



I support ninvask's Smile ..also suggesting the boss kill loots dropped in container accessible only to winning fleet FC ( optional )
if some players cries n tears bout this , oh well ...just let anyone loot it as always ..i dont care anyway.

More incursion spawns rate in low/null sec .... maintain current spawns rate in high sec.

Bout increasing the payouts for HQ sites , might as well add a mini-boss too ..like a carrier or dreadnought for the fleet to fight against as last wave in each site. More fun too. Hell why not put a boss in assault sites too lol.
Wyte Ragnarok
#44 - 2012-01-23 19:06:44 UTC
*obvious alt is obvious*

Anyway, I've run a few incursions. I don't do them for too long like all the silly incursion bears, earning billions of isk. I've taken part in 3 or 4 incursions. In each incursion I ran vanguards for about 2-3 hours each. Yes I've earned enough to buy me a nice shiny ship in that time (I already had the isk to do so anyway), but incursions provided a nice bit of isk and a change from the boring mission running. Sure I agree, vanguards need to be made a little harder and perhaps take a 10-20% hit in isk payouts, perhaps increase LP, like some others mentioned.

Another idea (and I don't know how you lot will view this), is put a limit on how many sites a single pilot can run. I enjoyed the incursions I ran and I don't want to see them nerfed to buggery. If you made them on par with level 4's, barely anyone would run them. If you perhaps put an isk limit or something on how much one pilot can earn then it might stop the whole idea of "farming" them. And will promt people to do different sites or complete the incursion. Or put a cap on the total isk paid to pilots by concord. Either way, I think there needs to be a cap of some sort. But then, putting a cap on the total isk will just force elitist groups to farm them until the cap is reached, not leaving any for other pilots, making incursion running something for higher SP pilots with shiny ships.

Anyway, flame on I guess. New Eden is bound to complain at my suggestion :P
Jiltan
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-01-23 19:14:55 UTC
How about incursions only spawning in low sec?

Would require more coordination, which is a good thing. Ganking an incursion fleet should be very hard to do.

Would allow people abusing incursion mechanics to be regulated by player driven fleets.

Would encourage low sec population growth.

Would give low security space a purpose.


just a thought
Thrallok K'tarr
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2012-01-23 19:17:34 UTC
I love incursions. They allow me to socialize late night, while pulling in good ISK. I consider a good shiney fleet one that pulls in 60M IKS/hr or more. They are always good fun.

Just 3 points:

1) Say no to the haters. Listen to those who fly these and love them. Lol Bore us and we will play Skyrim / facebook etc. Evil

2) Get rid of MOMs, give incursions a set time limit. Shocked Yes, nice drops, but hard to divide up fairly, and MOMs are always run on a european timezone... Thus after 3 or 4 months of incursions I have only run one ever. BRICK fleet sucks. Even if we pvp it there are issues with MOMS going down for days at a time.

3)I don't see a big problem ISK/ risk is fairly blanced. . Maybe lower payments on VGs: by 20% and boost Assaults and HQs so that with the best ships in the game and great skills 60M ISK/hr is a definite possibility. +40% to HQs should do it. Something similar for Assaults. Right now: not a chance. It takes time for fleets to form up, etc.

I will be happy to see the sites evolve and more missions and chances for pickup co-op with decent isk come out of this.
And I am glad you are listenign to the players. When I heard that a board of lo sec leaders was putting in all the input on incursion changes it made me sick.
Wolfteox
Demonic Wolf Pack
#47 - 2012-01-23 19:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolfteox
Being a fairly new to these i have found that VGs are so much a wast of my time and the VG farmers are messing things up for those of use that prefure to do AS and HQs. Mainly cause it gives a more dinamic to running the sites and less like a rat race.

The mom sould not show up till two factors have happen first being the pass of a 48hour game time and then have the influnce taken down as well after that time has passed before it shows.

By all means make the VGs harder and pay less.

What is also funny is all these people crying about the ISK being made are doing the vary same thing themselves and at times are even coming to Highsec to join in on this while crying foul at the same time.

Inprove the Tagging system for those that take the time to go though the time to run them.

One other thing i would love to see is a boost to Standing for going after the mom when its shows so that you are not just doing a bigger HQ and smaller standing boosts to the HQ sites posibly.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2012-01-23 19:25:12 UTC
Teroh Vizjereij wrote:
Classy McSucksalot wrote:


In order to rectify this situation, I recommend reducing the ISK payout from incursions, and adding decent drops and salvage to the Sansha rats to balance it out. This also has the side benefit of allowing PvP in incursion sites in the EvE tradition of loot ninjaing.


While i can follow your thought process .. you missed one big thing : Those sites are run in fleets with 10-40 people.

So you'd either have a clickfest like on Diablo2 baalruns about who gets the loot or you would need to implement a personalized drop system ( which i doubt is possible in the current underlying systems )


or you join a group with a dedicated noctis following and sharing the loot later (more socialising = better game !)
Vistus Geyer
VSGY CORP
#49 - 2012-01-23 19:33:39 UTC
Jita Joe2 Jones wrote:
People do incursions to make money to pvp, plex their accounts etc., if you eliminate the reward then no one will do incursions.

Currently there are only 2 incursions running both in low sec , therefore 100's probably 1000's of CCP customers are bored , bored CCP customers play wow :.)

I would definately be for more variety and difficulty in running the incursions sites.

The Idea that "too many" people are participating and making "too much" money, and presumably having too much fun as well, is ridiculous , are you sure we want less people making money and having a good time ? seems like a poor buisness plan to me.

An Incursion should last 3-7 days , the mom should appear and all other ites stop working , and the incursion should end. followed by a respawn no later than the next Down time.
the reason Vanguards pay better is they take fewer people . THe assualts take 20 people and you cant get 20 people all doing the same thing as easily as getting 10 people . I propose all site take 10 people. and vary the difficulty of the site. or have the sites difficulty vary with the number of people doing them.


This sums it up very well, I personally run incursions a so that I can plex my account and then it pays for all the nice ships that my m8's get blown up
" An Incursion should last 3-7 days , the mom should appear and all other ites stop working , and the incursion should end. followed by a respawn no later than the next Down time."
Also make the 20 man fleets pay out more taking away the isk from doing incursions will kill it people just wont do them.
If you live in null and like the fact that people can make isk in high sec stop crying about it and come to hi sec....... we play how we want to you play how you want to, but when you take away the ability of pilots to earn isk to buy ships and plex its only going to push people away to maybe go play that other space mmo.

Yes there are people griefing incursion fleets and those that claim to be killing moms for a political reason are very much hypocrits as many of them do hi sec incursions on their main toons and have made a crazy amount of isk to me its them saying HA !!! we have bajillions sorry boys but we dont want to share our cake with you.
Choi Xao Evotori
Euphoric Enterprise
#50 - 2012-01-23 19:37:40 UTC
Incursions work very nicely as they are right now. Unfortunately they are subject to early closures. Please extend the incursion spawn time and impliment a mechanic which ensures that there are always an even number of HighSec and Low/Nullsec Incursions running at any given time.

Thank you for your efforts and best wishes,

- Choi
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-01-23 19:43:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
Introduce more variety in individual sites to make them more unpredictable and interesting to run.

Nerf VG payouts by 20% or so, and impose a cap on how quickly individual sites can be completed, possibly by having timed waves or requiring that more ships be killed.

Do something about that one assault site that requires a very specific mix of BS and cruiser-sized DPS to make it less of a pain in the ass to form up an assault fleet.

Introduce mechanics to make it easier to merge fleets - it's pretty crazy that in busy incursions, you'll often have several sub-optimal VG fleets chasing the same sites while two systems over, the assaults go begging. Mechanics that make it easier to form and maintain bigger fleets would encourage people to tackle the bigger sites more often.

Introduce mechanics that put pressure on players to clear an incursion promptly rather than farming it for as long as possible. However, also increase the amount of time required to make the mothership spawn - it's crazy that an incursion can be spawned, farmed to the point that the mothership site appears, and killed all within the space of 6 hours or so.
Endeavour Starfleet
#52 - 2012-01-23 19:49:08 UTC
Change Vanguards so they cant be blitzed which is giving the shiny fleets a huge advantage. Leave payout and LP reward the same.

Put mothership spawn timer 24-48 hours after the bar is completely blue.

Increase amount of site spawns per incursion.

One incursion per major empire.

A way to quickly prove relevant skills such as logis showing cap and logi level without having to resort to API.
okst666
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2012-01-23 19:49:41 UTC
Automatically disband corps and alliances, then ban users that shoot the mothership before a certain amount of the smaller sites (lets say 5000) have been accomplished. then they are free to go.

Also incursions should spawn at a much faster rate than now...and they should "infect" more and more systems and grow over a short amount of time. This is barely an invasion...

Additionally - to take care of the lack of fleetcommanders - give us the possibility to have NPC-Fleets to join.

The NPC-FC should automatically tag the right targets. And NPC-Fleetmembers should follow them too.
Also NPC-Fleetmembers should be able to listen and follow to the "NEED SHIELD, NEED ENGERY" orders the human fleetmembers give in the fleetwindow.
It would be nice if they have sleeper AI .. they automagically repair eachothers...so the code is allready there..it should be easy to implement incursions NPC-Fleets too.



[X] < Nail here for new monitor
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#54 - 2012-01-23 19:53:50 UTC
Ninavask wrote:
Here is what should happen:
-Lower isk payout for vanguard sites by 30-40 percent



Cool

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
Paddlefoot Aeon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2012-01-23 20:02:06 UTC
The biggest complaint people have about incursions is Money. Money is used to buy Things... which is why people want money.

However, adding more money into a closed system devalues the money already in the system, creating inflation. At the core, this is the major complaint of all those yelling "nerf incursions".

Lets look at some other complaints:

1 - Incursions are too safe - the risk-vs-reward ratio is messed up

Solution: significantly increase the payouts for doing incursions under-manned. The current reward curve looks like a normal distribution (bell curve). Change the curve so that is either linear with a decent downwards slope, or a log curve. People will risk their ships for higher rewards by going into incursions undermanned... resulting in more popped "shiny" ships.

2 - Too much money enters the system - highsec incursions get farmed

Solution: Decrease the payouts from highsec sites. A vanguard pays, at max levels, 10.5million per pilot. Drop that to 6. Increase the lowsec payout, and have the null-sec payout higher still. As risk (in terms of space) goes up, so do the potential rewards.

3 - Incursions can be farmed - they don't despawn for a long time.

Solution: Tweak the timers on incursions. Highsec incursions pay less.... and last for 4-5 days max. Lowsec pay "middle"... and last for 3-4 days. Nullsec incursions pay highest, but only last for between 1 and 3 days.

4 - Waaaaaaa. I can't use all my new money to buy THINGS!

Solution: Significantly increase loyalty point payouts, bringing NEW THINGS into existence without increase the ISK available in the system.

As a part of this, new items should be added to the CONCORD store. Armor and shield reppers/boosters, hardners, concord ammo.... all slightly better than Faction items... perhaps on the level of low-end deadspace stuff or weak officer level stuff.

As in Faction stores, you will need ISK and LP to make a purchase... but I think that we should use criminal tags in addition to certain items. As you need Caldari Navy tags to buy items in the Fed Navy LP store... you should need Guristas, Angels, Serpentis, Sansha or Blood Raider tags in order to buy these new CONCORD faction items.

The highest-end items should require officer tags.... something like a CONCORD capital ship BPC for a stupid amount of ISK, an insane amount of LP and several tags from each and every officer (3 Brynn, 2 Estemel, 1 Thon, etc).


For the TL:DR crowd:
More LP, less ISK, increase risk or lower reward in highsec, more items in Concord LP store, and use pirate tags (Serpentis, etc) as requirements for items.

So, your thoughts?
Joe SMASH
You Got A Purty Mouth
#56 - 2012-01-23 20:04:30 UTC
okst666 wrote:
Automatically disband corps and alliances, then ban users that shoot the mothership before a certain amount of the smaller sites (lets say 5000) have been accomplished. then they are free to go.

Also incursions should spawn at a much faster rate than now...and they should "infect" more and more systems and grow over a short amount of time. This is barely an invasion...

Additionally - to take care of the lack of fleetcommanders - give us the possibility to have NPC-Fleets to join.

The NPC-FC should automatically tag the right targets. And NPC-Fleetmembers should follow them too.
Also NPC-Fleetmembers should be able to listen and follow to the "NEED SHIELD, NEED ENGERY" orders the human fleetmembers give in the fleetwindow.
It would be nice if they have sleeper AI .. they automagically repair eachothers...so the code is allready there..it should be easy to implement incursions NPC-Fleets too.





Literally the worst idea I have ever read on these forums... If you want more NPCs, you are in the wrong game. Eve should keep on the path of LESS NPC interaction in all facets of gameplay.
Haqar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-01-23 20:06:52 UTC
okst666 wrote:
Automatically disband corps and alliances, then ban users that shoot the mothership before a certain amount of the smaller sites (lets say 5000) have been accomplished. then they are free to go.

Also incursions should spawn at a much faster rate than now...and they should "infect" more and more systems and grow over a short amount of time. This is barely an invasion...

Additionally - to take care of the lack of fleetcommanders - give us the possibility to have NPC-Fleets to join.

The NPC-FC should automatically tag the right targets. And NPC-Fleetmembers should follow them too.
Also NPC-Fleetmembers should be able to listen and follow to the "NEED SHIELD, NEED ENGERY" orders the human fleetmembers give in the fleetwindow.
It would be nice if they have sleeper AI .. they automagically repair eachothers...so the code is allready there..it should be easy to implement incursions NPC-Fleets too.






OR.....you fc yourself....Blink
Faelyn L'Darcassan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#58 - 2012-01-23 20:10:45 UTC
While I am not a regular incursion runner, I did run several incursions. To reiterate some of the issues that I see:

- Role-playing incentives for running Incursions

From a role-playing player perspective, current incursion effects are somewhat limited since right now, there is no incentive to actually kill an incursion. Incursion penalties include constellation-wide decreased bounties, resistances, damage, cyno jamming. None of these seem to be good reasons to end an incursion from a simple player perspective, since it goes away in a couple of days anyway. While it primarily disrupts mission running, missioners can easily go somewhere else or gang up and earn even more ISK/LP by running the incursion. Thus an incursion is actually a BONUS and not a penalty. This corresponds with the current rage of players when there are no high-sec incursions (if an incursion was a bad thing, everybody would be relieved instead of raging, right?).

Also the overall footprint that an active incursion has on the universe is significantly limited and goes away once it is finished (i.e., quickly). Compared to a real-world scenario, a large scale invasion/incursion into peaceful territory usually has significant longer term effects. While mission (incursion) runners could not be bothered less to kill an incursion, other players currently have even less reason to end an incursion as their activities are not significantly disrupted. Perhaps stronger rats in belts could be the only reason for a handful of miners, but even these can either go a couple of jumps away or wait till next week anyway.

- Site difficulty and payout balance

The overall balance of sites is weird. Scout sites can be soloed even in low-skilled battlecruisers. Although vanguard sites can be solo tanked by some ships (e.g. tech 3s with pure t2 fits), and even be run with a small fleet of t3s (4 are enough), going into vanguard sites with less skilled people using t1 ships is very difficult compared to scout sites. With a decent fleet, vanguard sites however can be blitzed very quickly for very easy ISK and little risk.

Not having played assault sites, but being in several mothership fleets, these seem to require a lot of coordination and cooperation in large fleets. While it may not take long to actually run a site like this, it takes long to prepare and assemble a fleet for a major site significantly reducing effective payouts.
The result being that it pays more to grind low-end incursion sites than actually kill an incursion.

- Global impacts and relation to other eve activities

The amount of ISK that can be earned in incursions seems to be far higher that other eve activities in ISK/hour ratios and even more so, if slack time or risks are included in other activities (e.g. null sec complexes, wormhole anomalies, and the associated logistics issues and POS costs). It seems to be pulling people from other activities back into high-sec incursions whereas the general rule should be that more money is made in low/null sec with higher risks, which seems to be broken right now.

The increasing prices may or may not be due to incursion induced ISK (Concord seems to be printing ISK like mad); while it may just be a regular economic cycle, still the prices seem crazy these days and may be the result of people doing mostly incursions (more ISK supply) instead of other things (resource shortage) resulting in price spikes and inflation.
Leaving the inflation aspect aside, it seems plausible that high-sec incursions are drawing more people back into high sec from other places mostly due to overly high payouts with minimal risks (who would otherwise want to voluntarily grind the same vanguard site every 2-5 minutes?).

So what do you guys think? Any other issues one might have with incursions, before we try to find suitable solutions?
HolaJita
Ain't Nobody Got Time For Tax
#59 - 2012-01-23 20:12:50 UTC
I agree that compared to other sites vanguard payouts are really high and should be lowered by a quarter at least. Even nerfing high sec payouts makes sense but you have to fix how an incursion ends.

Incursions ending in 3-4 hours with a cooldown of 24 hours just doesnt make any sense. Either remove them totally or fix it so any incursion will be up for at least equal to the cooldown of a new one spawning.

I have 4 accounts, i am using 2 of them for incursions, 1 of them for pvp and other is for just derping around. If the current situation goes on, i wont have the isk to pay for all of them, so i ll either have to spend more time on money making and less on pvp or close 2 of them. which i have no use but incursions.
supersexysucker
Uber Awesome Fantastico Awesomeness Group
#60 - 2012-01-23 20:18:00 UTC
Nerf moons, 0.0 has no effort moons, highsec has effort incrusions... you want to nerf incrusions... then get around to them moons too...

Takes what, 1 falcon to screw a whole fleet in an incrusion... billions in loses... takes um what, 1000 people to even try to attack a tech moon. Can't really say risk vs reward now can we?

Also nerf chain ratting if that is still around since all these 0.0 bears seem to want to nerf HS more danger isk.

rofl.