These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Incursion changes

First post
Author
eidenjunior
Perkone
Caldari State
#341 - 2012-05-19 19:30:38 UTC
so the million dollar question, will CCP do anything after all this feedback?
Cambarus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#342 - 2012-05-20 00:03:24 UTC
Not going to dive into the lengthy discussion here, but I do feel the need to point out some hypocrisy here because it's so bad it's actually funny:
Simi Kusoni wrote:

The problem with asking incursion FCs about incursion changes is that the replies will inevitably be along the lines of "you went too far, we want more isk/hour".

You cannot expect CCP to rely on a source of information that is so blatantly biased.


Simi Kusoni wrote:

As for people not running incursions any more, that is your problem. The reason they are not running them is because they were just doing it for the ISK, many players now seem to have moved back to wormholes or null sec which is quite simply how it should be. The idea that there were null sec players with high sec alts because high sec was more profitable is ridiculous.


Simi Kusoni wrote:
[Dual boxing that would be giving me nearly a billion in pure ISK an hour, even triple boxing wormholes I don't make that much.


The guy who multiboxes wormholes claims that the rewards of incursions is too high compared to wormholes, and also claims that CCP shouldn't listen to the people actually running incursions because they're obviously biased.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#343 - 2012-05-20 00:25:00 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
Not going to dive into the lengthy discussion here, but I do feel the need to point out some hypocrisy here because it's so bad it's actually funny:

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer, you cannot expect CCP to rely solely on a source of information that is so blatantly biased. As highlighted by posters like DarthNefarius my point is quite valid:

DarthNefarius wrote:
make the OTA's payouts triple what they are now (...) NCN since they aree rarely touched instead of tripling though maybe 1.5 to 2X payouts (...) bring the old NCS preload spawn back for more excitment so its not so tedious and a lil bit quicker. (...) there is asite that should pay more in HQ's its the TCRC


Other incursion runners have been considerably more objective, and I have agreed with their points as can be seen in a number of my posts:

Simi Kusoni wrote:
Serge, just like to say I like your suggestion. Changing the incursion bar seems pretty reasonable.


I've also agreed on the current imbalance between the rewards for low sec and null sec incursions, which were even pre-nerf rarely worthwhile for the extra effort required. Now that even more logistical effort is required to run them they are to my knowledge more or less dead.


Cambarus wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
[Dual boxing that would be giving me nearly a billion in pure ISK an hour, even triple boxing wormholes I don't make that much.


The guy who multiboxes wormholes claims that the rewards of incursions is too high compared to wormholes, and also claims that CCP shouldn't listen to the people actually running incursions because they're obviously biased.

What exactly is your point? In my time in Eve I've done a considerable range of PvE activities including exploration, farming sanctums, mission running, c1-c4 wormholes, station trading and yes, there was a time when I dual boxed incursions.

My point was not that I am specifically a wormhole runner, I am not. My point was that the suggested payout increase would render incursions many, many times higher value than a different PvE activity in considerably more dangerous space.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#344 - 2012-05-20 06:42:04 UTC
Cambarus wrote:


The guy who multiboxes wormholes claims that the rewards of incursions is too high compared to wormholes, and also claims that CCP shouldn't listen to the people actually running incursions because they're obviously biased.

the guy who is risk adverse and also carebears want his isk faucet back so he can grind, buy shinies and jerk off looking at it
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#345 - 2012-05-20 08:50:09 UTC
Cambarus wrote:

The guy who multiboxes wormholes claims that the rewards of incursions is too high compared to wormholes, and also claims that CCP shouldn't listen to the people actually running incursions because they're obviously biased.


Are you comparing High Sec Incursions with wormholes? Lol Remove CONCORD from Incursion systems in High Sec and you'll begin to have an argument, otherwise that's just stupid.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#346 - 2012-05-20 16:38:14 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Xorv wrote:
Cambarus wrote:

The guy who multiboxes wormholes claims that the rewards of incursions is too high compared to wormholes, and also claims that CCP shouldn't listen to the people actually running incursions because they're obviously biased.


Are you comparing High Sec Incursions with wormholes? Lol Remove CONCORD from Incursion systems in High Sec and you'll begin to have an argument, otherwise that's just stupid.


Oh yes the inevitable remove Concord from HI SEC meme which of course if ever implemented will be soooo beneficial to the game Roll
just watch the majority of the 70 odd percent living in HI sec unsub... that too will even out the numbers of those living in HI/LO/NULL/WH's making last year's layoffs at CCP seem like a retirement party
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'
Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#347 - 2012-05-20 16:52:49 UTC
You want mad ISK? You need to accept mad (or at least some) risk.

There is zero risk in running Incursions outside of suicide ganking or fleet infiltration both of which can easily be avoided.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#348 - 2012-05-20 17:59:41 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Xorv wrote:
Are you comparing High Sec Incursions with wormholes? Lol Remove CONCORD from Incursion systems in High Sec and you'll begin to have an argument, otherwise that's just stupid.
Oh yes the inevitable remove Concord from HI SEC meme which of course if ever implemented will be soooo beneficial to the game Roll
just watch the majority of the 70 odd percent living in HI sec unsub... that too will even out the numbers of those living in HI/LO/NULL/WH's making last year's layoffs at CCP seem like a retirement party

He isn't suggesting Concord should be removed from high sec, he is pointing out why wormhole income is not much use for comparing with high sec incursion income. Because, in case you didn't know, there is a distinct lack of Concord in wormhole systems.

Read what people have said more carefully before you rage post.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2012-05-20 18:22:18 UTC
I live in whs. It used to be so much more profitable than it is now due to market. Therefore, I must whine until everyone who's not me is suitably nerfed.Roll

You do realize that Incursions is the only significant t3 sink in game, right? SP loss alone is enough to keep pvp t3 sink small, suicide gank is insignificant on the large scheme of things. Did you not notice the reversal of t3 price drop as incursions ramped up, and market reactions following the vanguard nerf? The mark of a moron = It's okay to screw myself, so long as it also screw others.Cool
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#350 - 2012-05-20 18:45:53 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
I live in whs. It used to be so much more profitable than it is now due to market. Therefore, I must whine until everyone who's not me is suitably nerfed.Roll

What, we've been asking for incursion nerfs for ages. Even when ribbons where 8m a piece (or whatever it reached when -A- started with the Tengu doctrine).

In fact the incursion nerfs are probably the cause of the price decrease in ribbons, and we still agree with the incursion nerfs.

sabre906 wrote:
You do realize that Incursions is the only significant t3 sink in game, right? SP loss alone is enough to keep pvp t3 sink small, suicide gank is insignificant on the large scheme of things. Did you not notice the reversal of t3 price drop as incursions ramped up, and market reactions following the vanguard nerf? The mark of a moron = It's okay to screw myself, so long as it also screw others.Cool

Well, you got the source of the deflated price correct (incursion nerfs), but probably not the mechanism by which it has changed. You may be interested in knowing that the number of T3s sold daily has not really altered, this would suggest that the change in the price of ribbons is not due to decreased demand it is due to increased supply.

As I, and others, have observed in numerous threads there is a notable increase in the number of people running wormholes. Similarly I have seen more people mining in null/whs since the drone regions nerf, this is not a bad thing and please do not insinuate we believe it to be.

Despite your claims we are happy to accept diminished income for the health of Eve's economy. Now if only incursion runners were all so community spirited.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#351 - 2012-05-20 18:49:44 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Simi Kusoni wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Xorv wrote:
Are you comparing High Sec Incursions with wormholes? Lol Remove CONCORD from Incursion systems in High Sec and you'll begin to have an argument, otherwise that's just stupid.
Oh yes the inevitable remove Concord from HI SEC meme which of course if ever implemented will be soooo beneficial to the game Roll
just watch the majority of the 70 odd percent living in HI sec unsub... that too will even out the numbers of those living in HI/LO/NULL/WH's making last year's layoffs at CCP seem like a retirement party

He isn't suggesting Concord should be removed from high sec,.



Nope Xorv does not advocte removeing Concord nor have a running meme about it https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1062147#post1062147

Here's a quote from the above link:
"1) Remove CONCORD " Roll
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'
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#352 - 2012-05-20 19:06:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Simi Kusoni
DarthNefarius wrote:
Nope Xorv does not advocte removeing Concord nor have a running meme about it

Jesus man, stop trying to derail these threads. Would you like a quick English lesson?

Xorv wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
(1) The guy who multiboxes wormholes claims that the rewards of incursions is too high compared to wormholes, and also claims that CCP shouldn't listen to the people actually running incursions because they're obviously biased.


(2) Are you comparing High Sec Incursions with wormholes? Lol(3) Remove CONCORD from Incursion systems in High Sec and you'll begin to have an argument, (4) otherwise that's just stupid.

I have highlighted and numbered the relevant sections, and explained in full below:

1) The original poster is comparing wormhole income with incursions.
2) Xorv questions the validity of comparing high sec incursions with wormholes.
3) Xorv highlights his reason for the lack of validity in comparing wormholes with incursions
4) Xorv points out that the comparison is stupid, for the aforementioned reason.

Point number three is notably different from your chosen interpretation, due to the added "and you'll begin to have an argument, otherwise that's just stupid". Clearly illustrating the motive for the comment, and referencing the previous sentence to which it alludes.

Anyway, now we are done with that Mr. Nefarius I would recommend you take further classes. If English is not your first language, I would like to say you are doing very well but could improve. If English is your first language, well then, may God have mercy on us all.

DarthNefarius wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1062147#post1062147

Here's a quote from the above link:
"1) Remove CONCORD " Roll

And of course I couldn't go without commenting on this gem.

A selectively quoted two week old comment 40+ posts deep in a random thread now constitutes a recurring meme? The full quote just makes you look even more stupid Mr. Nefarius:

Xorv wrote:
Those are two good ones, Local certainly would be on my list, and the gates might very well make third place.

It's really tough to put what change I wanted in a simple statement about a single mechanic, as it would be made with the goal of making all gameplay either player Sandbox driven or Lore driven, or both, but no more Themepark rides. If there was a single mechanic to change toward that goal it would have to be....

1) Remove CONCORD and Crimewatch. CONCORD could stay on as a Faction and have ships slightly better than Sleepers/Sansha but the days of stifling the Sandbox would be at an end. Faction Navy could stay on, albeit also somewhat weakened and who's reaction are based off character relations to them rather than CCP trying to police player behavior in order to handhold Themepark players.

So excluding the obvious fact that you cut off "CONCORD could stay on", and that you chose to ignore mentioning the context of the quote. Oh and that you forgot to mention that Xorv's quote had nothing to do with removing Concord in incursion systems, or even completely removing concord at all.

Well, I am afraid I will have to fail you for this one Mr. Nefarius. Even by your standards, it was pretty stupid.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Xenvin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#353 - 2012-05-21 10:48:22 UTC
I am replying only to the thread and consequentially some of the peers I run incursions with. I am an incursion FC and have done it all. SO, when it comes to experience there's really not much else to be had. Now, with my credibility out of the way (?) I have to suggest the the nerf to incursions has been on the agenda for a while now and it has caused lot's of different player to rage, ****, and whine in the ugliest of manners. 0.0 folks, the majority of them anyway, were angry because they thought thet isk making encroached on the market and reward/risk factors. This also applies to a vast majority of the Worm hole community.

What I don't understand is that.. a lot of 0.0 guys are making tons of money and are controlling the market. Incursion runners are a minutely small community in comparison to the vast legions in null space. It can be argued that previous to the patch we were making too much money in the time it was being made. Yes, I can agree with that to a degree, but to be fair there was a lot of risk associated with this gain. Yes, people choose to bring their shiny ships out and risk them, but.... but they also sacrificed countless hours and time experimenting to get those ships, the knowledge required to run the sites efficiently, and the ISK per hour level we reached. It's not as if it were handed to us. We simply improved on the initial formula. Also, it was inevitable that once we had a solid formula people were going to start grinding the high sec incursions and make a lot of isk, but nothing in comparison to what the large 0.0 sov holding alliances have. They (0.0 folks) have claimed that we as incursion runners were ruining the market. Guess what... we were always too small of a community to have a significant impact on the market. Yes, we make good money, but we are hardly a moving fraction when it comes to EVE's economy.

While the nerfs stood to rectify the outrageous blitzing that was happening, the incursion bar timer was definitely the straw that broke the camels back. We could have all dealt with the VG nerf and randomization seen throughout the sites, but to do so when the incursion bar is lingering in the most haunting of manners is... insanity. WE MAKE LESS MONEY THAN MISSION RUNNERS WITH the high influence. If a site takes 40 people an hour or more to finish and make 30 million isk... this is simply terribly under-balanced. CCP you brought incursions here to bring people together and get us working together whether we be in high-sec, low, or null. Well, with all the nerfs combined.. we are surely dwindling and many folks have quit because of the disgusting amount of time it takes to get the incursion bar down to sane levels in order to mitigate the losses in the already dangerous sites we frequent. CCP if you want this community to thrive and bring the players together, make it so it's viable to run these sites. A lot of us like doing incursion, but not when it's... like ... work. Translation - They have become a tedious, stressful task, and fun has almost been thrown out the window. My suggestion? Consider that it takes a fair amount of effort to run these sites - So, reward us by making it so we can run them efficiently since our blitzing abilities have already been torn asunder. We can't make the crazy is we used to, just give us the ability to run them efficiently (like anyone else who runs PVE sites in general has the ability to) and I'm sure there will be far less complaining to be logged.
Serge SC
The Valhalla Project
#354 - 2012-05-21 11:12:28 UTC
Durzel wrote:
You want mad ISK? You need to accept mad (or at least some) risk.

There is zero risk in running Incursions outside of suicide ganking or fleet infiltration both of which can easily be avoided.


Although somewhat true, this statement is under the consideration of full trust and reliance on capable pilots. But I assure you, none would bring their 2bill Machariel or Nightmare into a fleet if you didn't trust who you're flying with. The moment your support ships, mainly, the logistics ships, fail, the rest are in danger.

Incursions are as safe as they are done by the fleet. If the fleet/FC/support is not up to the task, ships die; panic spreads, mistrust appears and more ships go down, repeating the vicious cycle.

Serge SC Le Frenchman Friendly FC

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#355 - 2012-05-21 11:20:44 UTC
Xenvin wrote:
I am replying only to the thread and consequentially some of the peers I run incursions with. I am an incursion FC and have done it all. SO, when it comes to experience there's really not much else to be had. Now, with my credibility out of the way (?) I have to suggest the the nerf to incursions has been on the agenda for a while now and it has caused lot's of different player to rage, ****, and whine in the ugliest of manners. 0.0 folks, the majority of them anyway, were angry because they thought thet isk making encroached on the market and reward/risk factors. This also applies to a vast majority of the Worm hole community.

You forgot the low sec community. Low sec, null sec and wormhole players were all a bit pissed at the fact that they could make more ISK in high sec with less risk than they could in their respective home space.

Xenvin wrote:
What I don't understand is that.. a lot of 0.0 guys are making tons of money and are controlling the market. Incursion runners are a minutely small community in comparison to the vast legions in null space.

Well this is kind of the point, you were a minutely small community that was generating a third of the income of the bounties from high sec, low sec and null sec combined. And you were doing it in high sec.

Xenvin wrote:
It can be argued that previous to the patch we were making too much money in the time it was being made. Yes, I can agree with that to a degree, but to be fair there was a lot of risk associated with this gain. Yes, people choose to bring their shiny ships out and risk them, but.... but they also sacrificed countless hours and time experimenting to get those ships, the knowledge required to run the sites efficiently, and the ISK per hour level we reached.

When I first ran incursions I brought along a very shiny webbing loki, I could afford this because as an older player I have pretty much unlimited resources. I was instantly invited instantly to a nice shiny fleet filled with pirate faction battle ships, and I must confess I was a bit nervous.

I didn't bother to tell them I'd never run incursions before, and they didn't even notice. That is how steep the learning curve is. Within a few days I was capable of taking over fleets whenever an FC had to leave, so the fleets didn't fall apart and we could keep going.

This is valid on two points:

1) Incursions were not difficult, and the "shiny" ships were never really at risk. I saw a few ships die in my time running incursions, but it was rare and usually down to a Leeroy (Or, in one particularly amusing case an active fit Tengu in a HQ who had posted a fake fit).

2) They were not difficult to run, or to FC. Sure there were a few tricks that could get you even higher ISK/hour, but they weren't really necessary unless you were competing for a site. Average fleets could run sites without even having an FC, everyone knows what to do anyway.

3) The people who "sacrificed countless hours and time experimenting" were not the people who came in and benefited from it. I never lost a ship due to experimenting in incursions, I came in after they'd been "solved" and farmed the hell out of them. Many others were the same.

Xenvin wrote:
It's not as if it were handed to us. We simply improved on the initial formula. Also, it was inevitable that once we had a solid formula people were going to start grinding the high sec incursions and make a lot of isk, but nothing in comparison to what the large 0.0 sov holding alliances have. They (0.0 folks) have claimed that we as incursion runners were ruining the market. Guess what... we were always too small of a community to have a significant impact on the market. Yes, we make good money, but we are hardly a moving fraction when it comes to EVE's economy.

While the nerfs stood to rectify the outrageous blitzing that was happening, the incursion bar timer was definitely the straw that broke the camels back. We could have all dealt with the VG nerf and randomization seen throughout the sites, but to do so when the incursion bar is lingering in the most haunting of manners is... insanity. WE MAKE LESS MONEY THAN MISSION RUNNERS WITH the high influence. If a site takes 40 people an hour or more to finish and make 30 million isk... this is simply terribly under-balanced. CCP you brought incursions here to bring people together and get us working together whether we be in high-sec, low, or null. Well, with all the nerfs combined.. we are surely dwindling and many folks have quit because of the disgusting amount of time it takes to get the incursion bar down to sane levels in order to mitigate the losses in the already dangerous sites we frequent. CCP if you want this community to thrive and bring the players together, make it so it's viable to run these sites. A lot of us like doing incursion, but not when it's... like ... work. Translation - They have become a tedious, stressful task, and fun has almost been thrown out the window. My suggestion? Consider that it takes a fair amount of effort to run these sites - So, reward us by making it so we can run them efficiently since our blitzing abilities have already been torn asunder. We can't make the crazy is we used to, just give us the ability to run them efficiently (like anyone else who runs PVE sites in general has the ability to) and I'm sure there will be far less complaining to be logged.

I actually agree with you on the incursion bar, it doesn't seem to scale very well when you take into account that the number of people running the incursion at any one time is variable.

That said, please do not pretend you are too small a community to have a significant impact on anything. You were contributing 9 trillion ISK to the economy. Whilst not as much as the amount added via bounties, for the size of your community that is a terrifying amount of ISK.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#356 - 2012-05-21 11:23:46 UTC
Serge SC wrote:
Durzel wrote:
You want mad ISK? You need to accept mad (or at least some) risk.

There is zero risk in running Incursions outside of suicide ganking or fleet infiltration both of which can easily be avoided.


Although somewhat true, this statement is under the consideration of full trust and reliance on capable pilots. But I assure you, none would bring their 2bill Machariel or Nightmare into a fleet if you didn't trust who you're flying with. The moment your support ships, mainly, the logistics ships, fail, the rest are in danger.

Incursions are as safe as they are done by the fleet. If the fleet/FC/support is not up to the task, ships die; panic spreads, mistrust appears and more ships go down, repeating the vicious cycle.

I'm guessing Durzel was talking about there being no real risk in vanguards, which is/was completely accurate.

I do remember ships popping every now and then in your HQ fleets (your HQ fleets were awesome btw Serge, thank you for them), but even then it was relatively rare. Hehe, actually come to think of it I think the Tengu I mentioned in my above post was in one of your fleets Lol

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]

Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#357 - 2012-05-21 15:52:45 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:

That said, please do not pretend you are too small a community to have a significant impact on anything. You were contributing 9 trillion ISK to the economy. Whilst not as much as the amount added via bounties, for the size of your community that is a terrifying amount of ISK.

well said, you pointed out everything I wanted to say, small community accounts for 1/3 of bounty is freaking scary
Herr Ronin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#358 - 2012-05-22 11:01:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Ronin
Xenvin wrote:
I am replying only to the thread and consequentially some of the peers I run incursions with. I am an incursion FC and have done it all. SO, when it comes to experience there's really not much else to be had. Now, with my credibility out of the way (?) I have to suggest the the nerf to incursions has been on the agenda for a while now and it has caused lot's of different player to rage, ****, and whine in the ugliest of manners. 0.0 folks, the majority of them anyway, were angry because they thought thet isk making encroached on the market and reward/risk factors. This also applies to a vast majority of the Worm hole community.

What I don't understand is that.. a lot of 0.0 guys are making tons of money and are controlling the market. Incursion runners are a minutely small community in comparison to the vast legions in null space. It can be argued that previous to the patch we were making too much money in the time it was being made. Yes, I can agree with that to a degree, but to be fair there was a lot of risk associated with this gain. Yes, people choose to bring their shiny ships out and risk them, but.... but they also sacrificed countless hours and time experimenting to get those ships, the knowledge required to run the sites efficiently, and the ISK per hour level we reached. It's not as if it were handed to us. We simply improved on the initial formula. Also, it was inevitable that once we had a solid formula people were going to start grinding the high sec incursions and make a lot of isk, but nothing in comparison to what the large 0.0 sov holding alliances have. They (0.0 folks) have claimed that we as incursion runners were ruining the market. Guess what... we were always too small of a community to have a significant impact on the market. Yes, we make good money, but we are hardly a moving fraction when it comes to EVE's economy.

While the nerfs stood to rectify the outrageous blitzing that was happening, the incursion bar timer was definitely the straw that broke the camels back. We could have all dealt with the VG nerf and randomization seen throughout the sites, but to do so when the incursion bar is lingering in the most haunting of manners is... insanity. WE MAKE LESS MONEY THAN MISSION RUNNERS WITH the high influence. If a site takes 40 people an hour or more to finish and make 30 million isk... this is simply terribly under-balanced. CCP you brought incursions here to bring people together and get us working together whether we be in high-sec, low, or null. Well, with all the nerfs combined.. we are surely dwindling and many folks have quit because of the disgusting amount of time it takes to get the incursion bar down to sane levels in order to mitigate the losses in the already dangerous sites we frequent. CCP if you want this community to thrive and bring the players together, make it so it's viable to run these sites. A lot of us like doing incursion, but not when it's... like ... work. Translation - They have become a tedious, stressful task, and fun has almost been thrown out the window. My suggestion? Consider that it takes a fair amount of effort to run these sites - So, reward us by making it so we can run them efficiently since our blitzing abilities have already been torn asunder. We can't make the crazy is we used to, just give us the ability to run them efficiently (like anyone else who runs PVE sites in general has the ability to) and I'm sure there will be far less complaining to be logged.



Quote:
Now, with my credibility out of the way


As soon as i got to that point i just lost interest.

I must be more Famous than you, Cause i haven't heard of your name, Please enough of all the E-Peen on the topic at hand, Its getting rather old.

Before i go, Regarding the Blitzing, There is no such thing, nor will there be, Simple answer, Stop crying a run Missions, Read the blogs, You are like the 99.9% of the community of Incursions, CCP are aware that there is a problem, All the things you have stated have been said, They are looking into it? Why repost a post?

No go outside and cut the Grass.

I'll Race You For A Amburhgear

yugi272
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#359 - 2012-05-22 11:04:30 UTC  |  Edited by: yugi272
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Xenvin wrote:
I am replying only to the thread and consequentially some of the peers I run incursions with. I am an incursion FC and have done it all. SO, when it comes to experience there's really not much else to be had. Now, with my credibility out of the way (?) I have to suggest the the nerf to incursions has been on the agenda for a while now and it has caused lot's of different player to rage, ****, and whine in the ugliest of manners. 0.0 folks, the majority of them anyway, were angry because they thought thet isk making encroached on the market and reward/risk factors. This also applies to a vast majority of the Worm hole community.

You forgot the low sec community. Low sec, null sec and wormhole players were all a bit pissed at the fact that they could make more ISK in high sec with less risk than they could in their respective home space.



Wait so what your saying, we chose to risk our multi billion ships to get the task done sooner in highsec with a fair amount of risk involved, and the guys in wormholes don't invest into mods and their isk/h ratio is sucky then ours in highsec?
Well i still think their isk/h would improve by at least 20-30% if they were using shiny ships, but all they used are rr tengus without any faction mods (most of them at least). Im sure a normal pug fleet which would only use t2 modules would surely have a harder time completing sites then the one thats faction fitted.

Not really a comparison :/

Besides, not to mention they are safest in their wormholes..
Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#360 - 2012-05-22 11:50:23 UTC
yugi272 wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Xenvin wrote:
I am replying only to the thread and consequentially some of the peers I run incursions with. I am an incursion FC and have done it all. SO, when it comes to experience there's really not much else to be had. Now, with my credibility out of the way (?) I have to suggest the the nerf to incursions has been on the agenda for a while now and it has caused lot's of different player to rage, ****, and whine in the ugliest of manners. 0.0 folks, the majority of them anyway, were angry because they thought thet isk making encroached on the market and reward/risk factors. This also applies to a vast majority of the Worm hole community.

You forgot the low sec community. Low sec, null sec and wormhole players were all a bit pissed at the fact that they could make more ISK in high sec with less risk than they could in their respective home space.



Wait so what your saying, we chose to risk our multi billion ships to get the task done sooner in highsec with a fair amount of risk involved, and the guys in wormholes don't invest into mods and their isk/h ratio is sucky then ours in highsec?
Well i still think their isk/h would improve by at least 20-30% if they were using shiny ships, but all they used are rr tengus without any faction mods (most of them at least). Im sure a normal pug fleet which would only use t2 modules would surely have a harder time completing sites then the one thats faction fitted.

Not really a comparison :/

Besides, not to mention they are safest in their wormholes..

stop abusing the word "risk" please, only use it if you know what it means, really!!!!!!

big carebear like you have no idea how wh is shouldn't talk about it at all, live there for at least a month then start talking