These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave J Hunter
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2012-05-05 23:31:53 UTC
The main problem before is that you had everybody just doing the vg sites. Both shiny and kitchen sink fleets competing for the same site. no one really did scout AS sites because vg payout was considered to be the best.

I think ccp really need to ask themselves who should be running these different sites and try to ballance it that way.

I would change all the sites so they appeal to all types of players. For e.g.

Scouts sites.
Increase payout and makes these harder.
Designed for noobs in small fleets. 3 - 5 ppls

VG sites
Restore payout and reballance OTAs
Designed for kitchen sink fleets. 5 - 10 ppls


AS sites
Increase payout to attracted shiny ships.
Designed for shiny fleets. 10 - 20 ppl
ExceII
Perkone
Caldari State
#102 - 2012-05-05 23:58:31 UTC
The real question is do you want a high sec co-op missions (incursions) to be profitable.

IF YES:

Most people, including myself, can understand the reduction of payouts but don’t understand why it’s considered to be a bad thing if you have over 30 billion worth of ships blitzing them. It was competition that bread envy so manage the payout not the site spawns. (From the old spawn system) Take away 5 mil from the VG and add 10-15 mil for assaults… so simple to me but having played many MMOs in my life time I can only expect overreaction like this by now.

IF NO:

Get rid of it completely…

To be honest, I’ve already given up on incursions until heads are pulled out of posteriors. There is no reason I should risk my shinny ships for mission equivalent isk while jonny-meta-one-guns pretends he is doing dmg.

(We already know what null-bears want so don’t bother)
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#103 - 2012-05-06 02:25:32 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hey guys

We're looking into the Incursions right now. Our changes had varying degrees of success and this is my view on it currently:

Making NPC groups dynamic and stopping blitzing works as intended for Vanguards. I'm considering reversing the 10% income change, to increase their value slightly again.

For assaults, I think the NPC groups work fine as well, but the difficulty might have gotten a little too high.

Comments?


Boost income on Null and Low Sec Incursions if you want, but until there's a real PvP risk in High Sec Incursions you need to nerf them more not less!

High Sec Incursions could be awesome if you removed CONCORD from Incursion systems and gave some means for players to side with the Sansha. It would feel then like a real event, would be dynamic gameplay, and would also justify high rewards. If you're not willing or able to put in the effort to make Incursions live up to their potential the best thing you could do for EVE is to remove them altogether from High Sec.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#104 - 2012-05-06 06:42:51 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Many Incursion communities are on life support CCP has killed a few already. I'd say CCP may have well have moved the Incursions to lo/null sec too but from what I hear those died first with the nerf.
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'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#105 - 2012-05-06 06:56:33 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Katy Ling wrote:
CCP Affinity wrote:
Just an update, I am reading through all this feedback and we will be making a more detailed post next week about our own findings. I have also had some really valuable feedback, both while the changes were on SISI and now they are on TQ, from the owner and co-owner of BTL pub and other long-term Incursion runners. I have even run Incursions on SISI with them to see how they felt about the changes live.

I don't have anything concrete to tell you right now, but I just wanted to make an update post to let you all know I am still reading this and we do care!

I fully understand that a lot of you are angry but if we could all try and aim for constructive feedback from now on, it will help quicken this process a lot.
''I HATE IT ALL!! YOU SUCK'' <-- an example of a post that isn't going to help.

To dispel any myths - The changes on SISI and TQ were exactly the same, this isn't even up for debate as it's just a fact and it's just how our development process works.




Where is this quote from? Has a single real armor veteran been questioned?
BTL is only a shield channel for all intensive purposes.
What TDF ( The Ditanian Fleet: the main armor fleets ) council member was consulted?
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'
Annunaki soldier
Perkone
Caldari State
#106 - 2012-05-06 07:53:05 UTC
EI7FPB 3 wrote:
HI,
My Incursions income has gone down by around 50%, Sites take longer + less pay.

What is the acceptable income level for a Incursion runner ?

When I look back over the lest 5 months, My income was ( ABOUT ) 1/2 a bil pre day, 2Bil a week easy, Where is it all gone ?

I'm a FC, I need my ships at peak performance, My Ship + OGB, I supply Ore, Drones, and some time parts for the fleet.
YES, I did earn billions pre week, But I spent billions pre week on the fleet. after 5 months my ships are where I need them to be ( SHINY ships, Faction, Officer, and deepspace MODS ), Now is the time for me to sit back and earn some ISK.
I have invested billions in my Incursions career, I wound like to see a NICE return.

Blitzing is over, Good, I was falling asleep, with the new spawn list and Kill order, you need to be awake, The FLEET needs to be awake, it is sorting the MEN form the BOYS.
No more EASY ISK, the guys need to invest in their ship, Time, ISK and Skill, personal skills are in play, NO more PRESSING F1 and wait for the next Deltole Tegmentum to spawn.

Changes I would like to see
Reversing the 10% income change.
Remove the Mara Paleo for the spawn kILL list.

Yes, we will go back to earning some NICE ISK, Yes we will have to work for it.

Incursion should NOT be, join a fleet for a few days, earn 2 -3 billions, then go back to PVPing or what ever.
It should be a career.



This. Teamwork should be rewarded . No point of doing VG when you earn near that on lvl 4 missions. But the true problem is that you are killing the incursion community promoting the solo pve game . Larger fleets have very long wait times that most of the times you get bored of waiting and just leave fleet for something else.

p.s. To all those people that are thinking low sec vs high sec , have you ever concidered that people actually invest to incursion to spend that money for your pvp ? Would you prefer to stop seeing them at your area , or start seeing them with cheap ships - fits ?

Ride hard, live with passion 
Rigg
Red Eyed Knights
#107 - 2012-05-06 07:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rigg
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hey guys

We're looking into the Incursions right now. Our changes had varying degrees of success and this is my view on it currently:

Making NPC groups dynamic and stopping blitzing works as intended for Vanguards. I'm considering reversing the 10% income change, to increase their value slightly again.

For assaults, I think the NPC groups work fine as well, but the difficulty might have gotten a little too high.

Comments?

Well as many have said the nerf was a bit overdone, unless your intension was to reduce the number of people in incursions by 60 or 70 percent. If you had just reduced the payout by 10% or even 20% almost no one would have complained. But instead one top of the payout decrease the site mechanics were changed in such a way to vary widely the time involved for the different VG sites.

Currently I doubt many are too worried about the NMC or NCO sites. If the OTA took about the same time people would be a lot happier. To do reasonablea resonable time you need a perfBasicallyet. Basicly you have to have long range ships with enough dps to kill the Mara which gets a crazy amount of reps. I have flown in totally shinny fleets which have two vindi's to kill the frigs and the rest of the fleet dps concentrates first on the Mara. And on more then one occasion, before they can kill the Mara the two Vindi's have killed all of the other required spawns in the wave. IE the Auga's and Deltoles and theinducingn induceing Tama's. If you wasomethingrf someting nerf the damn Mara. I can't imagine what happens with a haphazard fleet pulled out of public.

Sadly nothing you changed made the sites more challenging it just made them Previouslyer. Peviously the only challenge was when blitzing a OTA on the last wave you had a ton of dps arranged against your fleet and you logi theiro be on thier toes. Now you kill all the dps so there is less of a challenge, just more of a time sink.

A side effect of the change due to the reduction in people in incursion systems wanting to run in fleets is its much harder to even find a fleet. So players end up with a lot of downtime while trying to get enough people together to form a fleet. This also reduces the amount of income recieved. So basicly it was a three fold nerf.

1. 10% decrease pay.
2. Longer time required for completion.
3. Large increase in downtime due to drastic reduction in participation of players, makeing fleets hard to build and maintain.

Overkill.
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#108 - 2012-05-06 08:27:12 UTC  |  Edited by: xVx dreadnaught
Nar' alk Breau wrote:
My 2 cents worth:

People did incursions for the isk and to a lesser extent the communal effect. It took a little time to get a fleet of 10 people together, but after you did, you made good isk. Along with that you got the opportunity to talk to other people via eve-voice, teamspeak or some other voice app. Now maybe the amount of isk made was a little much, but a lot of the people I flew with were PVPers and they took that isk, bought ships and went back to low sec for PVP. It also got to be quite tedious running site after site, knowing what to expect. In fact the only reason why I kept doing it was because I needed the isk.

It's been a couple of weeks since I've done an incursion, but last I seen, killing every ship of every wave sucked. Again we know what to expect, payout has been reduced, and the time to finish a site takes much longer. I've since quit doing incursions. Some may say I should start doing Assault sites as they are the new VG's, but it takes time to get and keep a fleet together, and the bigger the fleet the harder it is to sustain. VG's were good because fleets weren't overly difficult to sustain.

So, with the above in mind:

- reinstate the %10 for VG's
- get rid of the "kill every ship" trigger.

and the one that I think would really sell

- incorporate human interaction on the side of Sansha. Reward them with isk if they manage to kill or stop a human fleet. Not only would that introduce the element of surprise, but you would be creating a second community of player. While they wouldn't actually fly the Sansha ships as this would probably lead to cheating, they could pre-plan some things. I.E.

1. Allow them to pre-plan the defense for the Sansha fleet
- They pick which human ships to kill for priority (basi first, then battleships)
- They define the composition of the Sansha fleet, which ships and how many (within limits)
- They can pick the ship(s) that are trigger(s)
- They dictate the fitting of individual Sansha ships with modules (jammers, neuts, etc...)

The best plans get saved and CCP could reuse them for incursions in general. This line of reasoning could also be applied elsewhere in the game (lvl 4 missions, sleeper sites, etc...)

2. Let people control the logistics arrays. If they see a Deltole going down, they can focus repping power on it. If they do nothing with it, then it simply falls back to being AI controlled.

These are just a couple of examples, but the potential is there to increase the original popularity by a significant margin.


But then all that would spawned in OTA's are Mara's and Niarja's Because no fleet could kill it. Would be way OP... I would say however the mom-site this would be a decent idea... having the "Flagship" manned by a capsuleer/dev
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#109 - 2012-05-06 08:32:02 UTC
Annunaki soldier wrote:

p.s. To all those people that are thinking low sec vs high sec , have you ever concidered that people actually invest to incursion to spend that money for your pvp ? Would you prefer to stop seeing them at your area , or start seeing them with cheap ships - fits ?


Yes I have considered it, I'm pretty sure just about everyone that has criticized High Sec Incursions has done so as well. What you describe..players PvEing safely to buy shiny stuff to PvP with in a separate zone is Themepark MMO gameplay. It isn't appropriate for game that describes itself as both Sandbox and PvP and I and many others don't want it in this game. All the good farms must be in areas fully susceptible to PvP, anything less than this is going to negatively effect Risk vs Reward balance in EVE and be viewed as a failure on the part of CCP in delivering their game as advertised.

If this means you use cheap ships that's fine, that's your choice. If it means you don't play at all, that's fine to, better to lose a few players than turn EVE into Space WoW.
Rigg
Red Eyed Knights
#110 - 2012-05-06 08:32:28 UTC
Found a post in the locked thread that would have been a lot more fun and made a lot more sense from the basic storyline of the game.

xVx dreadnaught posted
Quote:



The thing I was hoping CCP would do and something that would be supported storyline would be...


Sansha are running low on resources, they realise that they cannot sustain these assaults against Concord and the Capsuleers

So He sells off the tech to the other pirate factions, so that they may be able to Invade Constellations using similar wormhole tech.

This would bring great variety and each Pirate faction would have slightly different problems to overcome.

Angel TP more and be higher DPS than current incursion NPC's

Dark Blood Neut more and have harder tanks

Shadow do high DPS at close range as well as dampen

Gursista use more ECM and have most flexible range for DPS.

The difference in what to expect in each type of incursion would mean needing to plan it differently and would remove the "cookie cutter" fleets. So all machs and all legions. Wouldn't just be the answer. You'd be forced to overcome different obstacles






Would have sure been nice if they had just reduced the payout some and done something like this to change things up a bit.
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#111 - 2012-05-06 08:42:41 UTC  |  Edited by: xVx dreadnaught
I've said from the start "Vanguards are making too much ISK" This was back when I first joined a PUG fleet from TDF and was making 80 mill an hour before the patch that made OTA's really quick.

Still no one seems to be able to answer me on why Assaults and Headquarters are drastically underpaid. I have used the comparison for everything else in eve. The more effort and danger in a task, if it's mining or missions or anoms or DED sites... The bigger more dangerous tasks make a lot more isk per hour. lvl 4 missions make a staggering amount more per hour than lvl 3's and lvl 2's yet incursions, as you scale up into the more difficult sites you make less.

Why is a HQ fleet taking 40 people 35-40 minutes with 10 logistics pilots, long range, close range, webbers and TCRC sites need the MTAC's dropped... All these efforts and additions to the task and you make on average 50 mill an hour?

Why should anyone do Headquarters sites, when there is enough alpha to take out a faction fitted BS in 2 shots and never make enough isk to replace it?
PDP11
ExoGen Foundation
New Miner's Union
#112 - 2012-05-06 09:47:13 UTC
Scout sites need attention due to their trivial reward. The lowest level incursion site should be designed for solo pilots in T1 Battlecruisers. Other sites should increment the difficulty/payout and build to suit small groups in the range of (2-11). Reshape the Vanguards payouts per pilots function to allow the largest viable Scout fleet to be larger than the smallest viable Vanguard fleet, and the largest viable Vanguard fleet to run as the lowest viable Assault fleet. The idea is to make it seamless to move to the next highest site.
xVx dreadnaught
modro
Northern Coalition.
#113 - 2012-05-06 10:02:49 UTC
PDP11 wrote:
Scout sites need attention due to their trivial reward. The lowest level incursion site should be designed for solo pilots in T1 Battlecruisers. Other sites should increment the difficulty/payout and build to suit small groups in the range of (2-11). Reshape the Vanguards payouts per pilots function to allow the largest viable Scout fleet to be larger than the smallest viable Vanguard fleet, and the largest viable Vanguard fleet to run as the lowest viable Assault fleet. The idea is to make it seamless to move to the next highest site.


I believe the system they went with is that 2 Vanguards meld into one Assault, 2 Assault meld to make a Headquarters and 2 Headquarters fleets form to MOM-sites.

It isn't hard to recruit for Assaults, we usually start with a Vanguard fleet and we keep recruiting in a second wing. then once we have the snipers and extra logi's we just go into the Assault system.

We do the same when going up to Headquarters
Annunaki soldier
Perkone
Caldari State
#114 - 2012-05-06 10:07:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Annunaki soldier
Xorv wrote:
Annunaki soldier wrote:

p.s. To all those people that are thinking low sec vs high sec , have you ever concidered that people actually invest to incursion to spend that money for your pvp ? Would you prefer to stop seeing them at your area , or start seeing them with cheap ships - fits ?


Yes I have considered it, I'm pretty sure just about everyone that has criticized High Sec Incursions has done so as well. What you describe..players PvEing safely to buy shiny stuff to PvP with in a separate zone is Themepark MMO gameplay. It isn't appropriate for game that describes itself as both Sandbox and PvP and I and many others don't want it in this game. All the good farms must be in areas fully susceptible to PvP, anything less than this is going to negatively effect Risk vs Reward balance in EVE and be viewed as a failure on the part of CCP in delivering their game as advertised.

If this means you use cheap ships that's fine, that's your choice. If it means you don't play at all, that's fine to, better to lose a few players than turn EVE into Space WoW.



Where is the wrong about that ? So taking your concideration , everyone on this game should try and have fun of the game like you do ? How about turning this upside down and make the game pve and of course if this mean lose some people that pvp ...

Be open minded. It is a game and CCP need to have people paying for it. After is it is a company. Thats why wow have the largest community and money income to blizzard. They try to improve aspects of the game that are either pvp and pve (failgame for me when it comes to content and how things are there but still respect to a company that changed a lot at mmo setting the game as a standar to compare)

Ride hard, live with passion 
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#115 - 2012-05-06 10:39:07 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Seriously how the hell has not CCP listened to what we've been saying? I've been jumping up & down the forums, filing petitions, filling out bug reports and am getting a run around. The CSM's are by almost all accounts NULL & W-space only ( I've had contact with one whom told me the NERF went too far & he's the one who almost all in the incursion community would be surprised to say this ) and yet HI sec is what 70% of EveQuestion I just talked to the armour FC's of the 95% of them I've talked to you have not consulted 1 of them I will not be surprised if at the end of my survey it'll be 100%.
I'm sorry but DEV's obviously here were out of touch. You had a sticky in General discussions but it sounds like it was flat out ignored by anyone actually doing incursions in so many ways.
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'
Solomunio Kzenig
Incursions Missions and Mining
#116 - 2012-05-06 11:59:46 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Seriously how the hell has not CCP listened to what we've been saying? I've been jumping up & down the forums, filing petitions, filling out bug reports and am getting a run around. The CSM's are by almost all accounts NULL & W-space only ( I've had contact with one whom told me the NERF went too far & he's the one who almost all in the incursion community would be surprised to say this ) and yet HI sec is what 70% of EveQuestion I just talked to the armour FC's of the 95% of them I've talked to you have not consulted 1 of them I will not be surprised if at the end of my survey it'll be 100%.
I'm sorry but DEV's obviously here were out of touch. You had a sticky in General discussions but it sounds like it was flat out ignored by anyone actually doing incursions in so many ways.


Dude, this is €€P we are talking about remember? same crew who said 'we don't care about what our customers want, they are wrong, waaahh, waaaahh we're not listening to you...etc, etc....' , the same crew who only woke up when subs started falling like flies (myslef included) after that steaming pile of horse manure they called Incarna was released. From what I can see €€P is falling back into its old ways, and Mr Soundwave is yet agian at he forefront of a deeply unpopular change.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#117 - 2012-05-06 12:25:13 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:
Seriously how the hell has not CCP listened to what we've been saying? I've been jumping up & down the forums, filing petitions, filling out bug reports and am getting a run around. The CSM's are by almost all accounts NULL & W-space only ( I've had contact with one whom told me the NERF went too far & he's the one who almost all in the incursion community would be surprised to say this ) and yet HI sec is what 70% of EveQuestion I just talked to the armour FC's of the 95% of them I've talked to you have not consulted 1 of them I will not be surprised if at the end of my survey it'll be 100%.
I'm sorry but DEV's obviously here were out of touch. You had a sticky in General discussions but it sounds like it was flat out ignored by anyone actually doing incursions in so many ways.

For one thing, a lot of players are just as passionate in their agreeance with CCP having nerfed incursions. In fact most people I know in game honestly wish incursions had never been introduced.

For another, you are filing petitions and bug reports in order to QQ over incursions? I honestly think you should be banned for that, those are not the proper channels for that kind of a grievance and all you are doing is helping to degrade customer service for people with genuine issues.

[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
#118 - 2012-05-06 16:34:47 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Simi Kusoni wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Seriously how the hell has not CCP listened to what we've been saying? I've been jumping up & down the forums, filing petitions, filling out bug reports and am getting a run around. The CSM's are by almost all accounts NULL & W-space only ( I've had contact with one whom told me the NERF went too far & he's the one who almost all in the incursion community would be surprised to say this ) and yet HI sec is what 70% of EveQuestion I just talked to the armour FC's of the 95% of them I've talked to you have not consulted 1 of them I will not be surprised if at the end of my survey it'll be 100%.
I'm sorry but DEV's obviously here were out of touch. You had a sticky in General discussions but it sounds like it was flat out ignored by anyone actually doing incursions in so many ways.

For one thing, a lot of players are just as passionate in their agreeance with CCP having nerfed incursions. In fact most people I know in game honestly wish incursions had never been introduced.

For another, you are filing petitions and bug reports in order to QQ over incursions? I honestly think you should be banned for that, those are not the proper channels for that kind of a grievance and all you are doing is helping to degrade customer service for people with genuine issues.


Most people I know disagree with you. You think I should be banned for filing petitions & bug reports? WOW are you stupid as your posts are in real life. I can hardly believe Your trolling is believed by CCP but then again look at what CCP's aux paus have been like the past year

Tippia although I disagree with I respect in her numbers based arguements. You have not made a cogent arguement based on a verifiable statisic yet
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
#119 - 2012-05-06 16:52:25 UTC
DarthNefarius wrote:

Most people I know disagree with you. You think I should be banned for filing petitions & bug reports? WOW are you stupid as your posts are in real life. I can hardly believe Your trolling is believed by CCP but then again look at what CCP's aux paus have been like the past year

Tippia although I disagree with I respect in her numbers based arguements. You have not made a cogent arguement based on a verifiable statisic yet

Of course most people you know would disagree with me, from what I have seen you literally do nothing but run incursions. That doesn't exactly open you up to a varied Eve online demographic.

As for numbers based arguments, I believe me and Tippia repeatedly smashed your attempts to use statistics in your silly wormhole QQ thread. The fact that you were incapable of performing, or understanding, simple statistical evaluations didn't help your case at all.

And yes, you should be banned for using the petitions and bug report systems to spam CCP with tears over incursions. That is not what the petition or bug report systems are there for.

[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
#120 - 2012-05-06 17:16:29 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
Simi Kusoni wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:

Most people I know disagree with you. You think I should be banned for filing petitions & bug reports? WOW are you stupid as your posts are in real life. I can hardly believe Your trolling is believed by CCP but then again look at what CCP's aux paus have been like the past year

Tippia although I disagree with I respect in her numbers based arguements. You have not made a cogent arguement based on a verifiable statisic yet

Of course most people you know would disagree with me, from what I have seen you literally do nothing but run incursions. That doesn't exactly open you up to a varied Eve online demographic.

As for numbers based arguments, I believe me and Tippia repeatedly smashed your attempts to use statistics
.


I'm sure you don't believe in the statistics supporting global warming have been 'smashed' too huh? 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'