These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Post-escalation Incursion Changes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Herr Ronin
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2012-05-10 21:05:46 UTC
Apolyon I wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:


The truely INSANE null sec ratting done I beleive in the "Forsaken Hubs (?)" by super CAP Titans was netting 200-300 million an hour.
NULL SEC ISK generation ( and W-Space ) dwarfed Incursions in many many areas

have you seen losses while pveing in wh space???

http://rooksandkings.com/killboard/?a=kill_related&kll_id=36059

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=13256025

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=13142589

can this happen in HS incursion??



Come on, Let's keep this topic on the main thing at hand, Incursions, We do not care about your WH adventures, All other threads have turned into mush, Lets keep it Incursion related, There is other Forums for that.

The one thread that CCP reply's to you, Make the most of it.

I'll Race You For A Amburhgear
Apolyon I
Shadow of ISW
#102 - 2012-05-10 21:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Apolyon I
Herr Ronin wrote:
Apolyon I wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:


The truely INSANE null sec ratting done I beleive in the "Forsaken Hubs (?)" by super CAP Titans was netting 200-300 million an hour.
NULL SEC ISK generation ( and W-Space ) dwarfed Incursions in many many areas

have you seen losses while pveing in wh space???

http://rooksandkings.com/killboard/?a=kill_related&kll_id=36059

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=13256025

http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=13142589

can this happen in HS incursion??



Come on, Let's keep this topic on the main thing at hand, Incursions, We do not care about your WH adventures, All other threads have turned into mush, Lets keep it Incursion related, There is other Forums for that.

The one thread that CCP reply's to you, Make the most of it.

in my defense, I've been keeping this thread clean until Darth pull wh in.

anyway, as Herr said, incursion is fine as it is now!!!!!!

reverse the payout nerf and we'll see people leave all other activities, go back to farming incursion.

the ISN guys can adapt it, why can't others do it??

one more thing, the payout should be VG < AS < HQ. that way it'll encourage shiny fleet to run high end sites, leaving low earning VG sites for newbie and non-shiny fleet to experience incursion
CCP Affinity
C C P
C C P Alliance
#103 - 2012-05-10 21:36:57 UTC
Yup, back on topic guys.. If the thread derails like the others I will lock it and I have absolutely no intention of starting a third thread because people can't behave.

♥ CCP Affinity ♥

Follow me on Twitter

Game Designer for EVE Online

Team Astro Sparkle
Asmodes Reynolds
Rayn Enterprises
#104 - 2012-05-10 22:14:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Asmodes Reynolds
The best, and only solution that I can see to this problem is to compromise: I proposed two options:

#1. For high-sec incursions Suspend Concorde/faction police response in incursion systems, while leaving all the rest of the penalties (sec status, GCC, ), and make them function exactly the same as low sec/null sec but a minor difference in pay out somewhere between 90-100% of what you would get in low-sec.

This would add virtually the same risk but still allow for additional safety (do to the one hit kill guns on stations and Gates) and you can give one of the fancy messages saying that Concorde will not protect you when you try and jump into the Consolation.

#2: the high-sec incursions as they are currently, as far as payouts are concerned

-Reduce Concorde's response to the point that they can be tanked, with a reasonable amount of logistics (old Concorde -Someone remind me which patch that changed that.. it's been too long. The rest of Concorde is busy trying to defend the surrounding area and they can't ask for more support ships because of the system being jammed. If the fluff is what you're concerned about.

- This would allow there to be a measurable amount of risk in comparison to the low sec/null sec counterparts, while still giving a reasonable of amount of additional safety. While still allowing up a determined and well organized player force to disrupt operations. (To keep servers from crashing limit the amount of NPC's that can spawn in the system at one time.)

- give a fancy message when people try and jump into hi sec incursion system about the reduced presence of Concorde

Both options, would allow incursions to become a True event with far-reaching consequences (trade routes would have to be redirected . Depending on where the incursion spawned possibly cutting off safe access whole sections of hi sec from each other. Crating interesting short-term market/industrial Opportunities for quick acting opportunistic player.

I personally think option #2 would be the more dynamic and balanced option, I believe was a little bit of tweaking, you could reasonably balance the risk versus reward situation. While Creating creating interesting and dynamic environment that can be found nowhere else in the in the universe.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#105 - 2012-05-10 22:31:43 UTC
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
The best, and only solution that I can see to this problem is to compromise: I proposed two options:

#1. For high-sec incursions Suspend Concorde/faction police response in incursion systems, while leaving all the rest of the penalties (sec status, GCC, ), and make them function exactly the same as low sec/null sec but a minor difference in pay out somewhere between 90-100% of what you would get in low-sec.

This would add virtually the same risk but still allow for additional safety (do the one hit kill guns on stations and Gates) and you can give one of the fancy messages saying that Concorde will not protect you when you try and jump into the Consolation.

#2: the high-sec incursions as they are currently, as far as payouts are concerned

-Reduce Concorde's response to the point that they can be tanked, with a reasonable amount of logistics (old Concorde -Someone remind me which patch that changed that.. it's been too long. The rest of Concorde is busy trying to defend the surrounding area and they can't ask for more support ships because of the system being jammed. If the fluff is what you're concerned about.

- This would allow there to be a measurable amount of risk in comparison to the low sec/null sec counterparts, while still giving a reasonable of amount of additional safety. While still allowing up a determined and well organized player force to disrupt operations. (To keep servers from crashing limit the amount of NPC's that can spawn in the system at one time.)

- give a fancy message when people try and jump into hi sec incursion system about the reduced presence of Concorde

Both options, would allow incursions to become a True event with far-reaching consequences (trade routes would have to be redirected . Depending on where the incursion spawned possibly cutting off safe access whole sections of hi sec from each other. Crating interesting short-term market/industrial Opportunities for quick acting opportunistic player.

I personally think option #2 would be the more dynamic and balanced option, I believe was a little bit of tweaking, you could reasonably balance the risk versus reward situation. While Creating creating interesting and dynamic environment that can be found nowhere else in the in the universe.

this is not a good idea. if concord is not strong enough to protect the incursion runners, there is no effective difference between running hisec and lowsec incursions, so you may just as well remove them from highsec. if on the other hand concord IS strong enough, there will be a constant battle between the incursion runners and gank fleets sacrificing alts in noob ships to draw the concord fleet where they want it to be.

I should buy an Ishtar.
CCP Affinity
C C P
C C P Alliance
#106 - 2012-05-10 23:14:25 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
The best, and only solution that I can see to this problem is to compromise: I proposed two options:

#1. For high-sec incursions Suspend Concorde/faction police response in incursion systems, while leaving all the rest of the penalties (sec status, GCC, ), and make them function exactly the same as low sec/null sec but a minor difference in pay out somewhere between 90-100% of what you would get in low-sec.

This would add virtually the same risk but still allow for additional safety (do the one hit kill guns on stations and Gates) and you can give one of the fancy messages saying that Concorde will not protect you when you try and jump into the Consolation.

#2: the high-sec incursions as they are currently, as far as payouts are concerned

-Reduce Concorde's response to the point that they can be tanked, with a reasonable amount of logistics (old Concorde -Someone remind me which patch that changed that.. it's been too long. The rest of Concorde is busy trying to defend the surrounding area and they can't ask for more support ships because of the system being jammed. If the fluff is what you're concerned about.

- This would allow there to be a measurable amount of risk in comparison to the low sec/null sec counterparts, while still giving a reasonable of amount of additional safety. While still allowing up a determined and well organized player force to disrupt operations. (To keep servers from crashing limit the amount of NPC's that can spawn in the system at one time.)

- give a fancy message when people try and jump into hi sec incursion system about the reduced presence of Concorde

Both options, would allow incursions to become a True event with far-reaching consequences (trade routes would have to be redirected . Depending on where the incursion spawned possibly cutting off safe access whole sections of hi sec from each other. Crating interesting short-term market/industrial Opportunities for quick acting opportunistic player.

I personally think option #2 would be the more dynamic and balanced option, I believe was a little bit of tweaking, you could reasonably balance the risk versus reward situation. While Creating creating interesting and dynamic environment that can be found nowhere else in the in the universe.

this is not a good idea. if concord is not strong enough to protect the incursion runners, there is no effective difference between running hisec and lowsec incursions, so you may just as well remove them from highsec. if on the other hand concord IS strong enough, there will be a constant battle between the incursion runners and gank fleets sacrificing alts in noob ships to draw the concord fleet where they want it to be.


I'm not convinced removing concord is something I want to do ;) Definitely not for the short term june/july fix and probably not long term either. However, keep your suggestions and feedback coming, want to get as much as possible.

♥ CCP Affinity ♥

Follow me on Twitter

Game Designer for EVE Online

Team Astro Sparkle
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#107 - 2012-05-10 23:34:26 UTC
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
The best, and only solution that I can see to this problem is to compromise: I proposed two options:

#1. For high-sec incursions Suspend Concorde/faction police response in incursion systems, while leaving all the rest of the penalties (sec status, GCC, ), and make them function exactly the same as low sec/null sec but a minor difference in pay out somewhere between 90-100% of what you would get in low-sec.

This would add virtually the same risk but still allow for additional safety (do to the one hit kill guns on stations and Gates) and you can give one of the fancy messages saying that Concorde will not protect you when you try and jump into the Consolation.

#2: the high-sec incursions as they are currently, as far as payouts are concerned

-Reduce Concorde's response to the point that they can be tanked, with a reasonable amount of logistics (old Concorde -Someone remind me which patch that changed that.. it's been too long. The rest of Concorde is busy trying to defend the surrounding area and they can't ask for more support ships because of the system being jammed. If the fluff is what you're concerned about.

- This would allow there to be a measurable amount of risk in comparison to the low sec/null sec counterparts, while still giving a reasonable of amount of additional safety. While still allowing up a determined and well organized player force to disrupt operations. (To keep servers from crashing limit the amount of NPC's that can spawn in the system at one time.)

- give a fancy message when people try and jump into hi sec incursion system about the reduced presence of Concorde

Both options, would allow incursions to become a True event with far-reaching consequences (trade routes would have to be redirected . Depending on where the incursion spawned possibly cutting off safe access whole sections of hi sec from each other. Crating interesting short-term market/industrial Opportunities for quick acting opportunistic player.

I personally think option #2 would be the more dynamic and balanced option, I believe was a little bit of tweaking, you could reasonably balance the risk versus reward situation. While Creating creating interesting and dynamic environment that can be found nowhere else in the in the universe.


These are more or less reasonable suggestions.

I think it would be better if there was CONCORD and Local Navy ships in the system, but they're the equivalent of Sansha ships, not the buffed you automatically lose versions in the rest of HS.

Also if there are Security hits they should not be based on the systems regular security rating, but considerably lower to account for the new security status.

In addition players should be able to side with the Sansha and gain Sansha LPs for killing CONCORD, Navy, and Incursion runner ships. Would be even more awesome if Sansha generated wormholes that link Sansha NPC Null to every active Incursion system or constellation. That way players can live out in Sansha space with -10 security and still invade High Sec alongside their Sansha alies without stooping to the usual shenanigans required for outlaws to operate in High Sec.

This would be exciting gameplay for all involved, be lore/story driven, and also justify the high rewards High Sec Incursioners feel they need without crapping in the Sandbox and screwing over the rest of the playerbase.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#108 - 2012-05-10 23:42:51 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:

I'm not convinced removing concord is something I want to do ;) Definitely not for the short term june/july fix and probably not long term either. However, keep your suggestions and feedback coming, want to get as much as possible.


So how are your going to balance High Sec Incursions benefit of being largely risk free due to CONCORD protection with Income sources from other areas of the game, Low Sec, Null and WH space that have no such security? Surely this would require further nerfs to High Sec Incursion income, not reversals of the recent moderate nerfs?
CCP Affinity
C C P
C C P Alliance
#109 - 2012-05-10 23:46:13 UTC
Xorv wrote:
CCP Affinity wrote:

I'm not convinced removing concord is something I want to do ;) Definitely not for the short term june/july fix and probably not long term either. However, keep your suggestions and feedback coming, want to get as much as possible.


So how are your going to balance High Sec Incursions benefit of being largely risk free due to CONCORD protection with Income sources from other areas of the game, Low Sec, Null and WH space that have no such security? Surely this would require further nerfs to High Sec Incursion income, not reversals of the recent moderate nerfs?


That is a discussion we will have at a later date - a change as drastic as removing CONCORD is not one I would take lightly and definitely not for the short-term fixes this thread is about. After we have those out of the way I will start a long-term re-design thread and we can pick this topic back up.

♥ CCP Affinity ♥

Follow me on Twitter

Game Designer for EVE Online

Team Astro Sparkle
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#110 - 2012-05-10 23:58:55 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
Xorv wrote:

So how are your going to balance High Sec Incursions benefit of being largely risk free due to CONCORD protection with Income sources from other areas of the game, Low Sec, Null and WH space that have no such security? Surely this would require further nerfs to High Sec Incursion income, not reversals of the recent moderate nerfs?


That is a discussion we will have at a later date - a change as drastic as removing CONCORD is not one I would take lightly and definitely not for the short-term fixes this thread is about. After we have those out of the way I will start a long-term re-design thread and we can pick this topic back up.


That's understandable, as the changes I imagine would be a lot of work on CCPs part. However, that still does not justify leaving High Sec Incursions income out of balance with the rest of the game in the meantime. I hope you take that into consideration in any short term fixes you implement. Perhaps you can reverse the nerfs on Null and Low Sec Incursions, and leave the changes to HS Incursions in place and perhaps add a few additional downward adjustments in income there.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2012-05-11 00:19:44 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
The best, and only solution that I can see to this problem is to compromise: I proposed two options:

#1. For high-sec incursions Suspend Concorde/faction police response in incursion systems, while leaving all the rest of the penalties (sec status, GCC, ), and make them function exactly the same as low sec/null sec but a minor difference in pay out somewhere between 90-100% of what you would get in low-sec.

This would add virtually the same risk but still allow for additional safety (do to the one hit kill guns on stations and Gates) and you can give one of the fancy messages saying that Concorde will not protect you when you try and jump into the Consolation.

#2: the high-sec incursions as they are currently, as far as payouts are concerned

-Reduce Concorde's response to the point that they can be tanked, with a reasonable amount of logistics (old Concorde -Someone remind me which patch that changed that.. it's been too long. The rest of Concorde is busy trying to defend the surrounding area and they can't ask for more support ships because of the system being jammed. If the fluff is what you're concerned about.

- This would allow there to be a measurable amount of risk in comparison to the low sec/null sec counterparts, while still giving a reasonable of amount of additional safety. While still allowing up a determined and well organized player force to disrupt operations. (To keep servers from crashing limit the amount of NPC's that can spawn in the system at one time.)

- give a fancy message when people try and jump into hi sec incursion system about the reduced presence of Concorde

Both options, would allow incursions to become a True event with far-reaching consequences (trade routes would have to be redirected . Depending on where the incursion spawned possibly cutting off safe access whole sections of hi sec from each other. Crating interesting short-term market/industrial Opportunities for quick acting opportunistic player.

I personally think option #2 would be the more dynamic and balanced option, I believe was a little bit of tweaking, you could reasonably balance the risk versus reward situation. While Creating creating interesting and dynamic environment that can be found nowhere else in the in the universe.


These are more or less reasonable suggestions.

I think it would be better if there was CONCORD and Local Navy ships in the system, but they're the equivalent of Sansha ships, not the buffed you automatically lose versions in the rest of HS.

Also if there are Security hits they should not be based on the systems regular security rating, but considerably lower to account for the new security status.

In addition players should be able to side with the Sansha and gain Sansha LPs for killing CONCORD, Navy, and Incursion runner ships. Would be even more awesome if Sansha generated wormholes that link Sansha NPC Null to every active Incursion system or constellation. That way players can live out in Sansha space with -10 security and still invade High Sec alongside their Sansha alies without stooping to the usual shenanigans required for outlaws to operate in High Sec.

This would be exciting gameplay for all involved, be lore/story driven, and also justify the high rewards High Sec Incursioners feel they need without crapping in the Sandbox and screwing over the rest of the playerbase.

I still don't see how, for all the work it would seem to entail as compared to the participation these modified "highsec but not really" incursions would receive. There are risks of cutting off parts of empire and people who want nothing to do with incursions suddenly finding themselves trapped in a pocket of effectively lowsec. In the end you wind up with incursions more dangerous than lowsec but pay the same or less and a far more significant disruption to the reasons people choose to live in highsec space distributed at random.

The profitability of highsec incursions was and is now more so a combination of the efforts and teamwork of those who run them. If that isn't worth rewarding just because the content is in a "safe" area then I'd prefer to see them just removed from highsec rather than intermittently ruining other forms of game play there while limiting the capacity to escape or avoid it.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#112 - 2012-05-11 00:30:56 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The profitability of highsec incursions was and is now more so a combination of the efforts and teamwork of those who run them. If that isn't worth rewarding just because the content is in a "safe" area then I'd prefer to see them just removed from highsec rather than intermittently ruining other forms of game play there while limiting the capacity to escape or avoid it.


Are you implying that the means of earning ISK in Null and Wormholes does not also require effort and teamwork? Because that would be a strange statement to make as I'm pretty sure they require significantly more effort and teamwork than High Sec Incursions.

If you're just comparing High Sec Incursions to High Sec missions, then ok. However, the answer there is simply to reduce the income of missions in High Sec, so that Incursions remain slightly higher than what can be attained in Level 4s. This way you will have balanced High Sec internally, and balanced High Sec as a whole with the rest of EVE.

As to your comments on removing CONCORD etc, save it for the future thread that will talk about long term changes, we can argue about it then. Blink
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2012-05-11 00:46:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Xorv wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The profitability of highsec incursions was and is now more so a combination of the efforts and teamwork of those who run them. If that isn't worth rewarding just because the content is in a "safe" area then I'd prefer to see them just removed from highsec rather than intermittently ruining other forms of game play there while limiting the capacity to escape or avoid it.


Are you implying that the means of earning ISK in Null and Wormholes does not also require effort and teamwork? Because that would be a strange statement to make as I'm pretty sure they require significantly more effort and teamwork than High Sec Incursions.

If you're just comparing High Sec Incursions to High Sec missions, then ok. However, the answer there is simply to reduce the income of missions in High Sec, so that Incursions remain slightly higher than what can be attained in Level 4s. This way you will have balanced High Sec internally, and balanced High Sec as a whole with the rest of EVE.

As to your comments on removing CONCORD etc, save it for the future thread that will talk about long term changes, we can argue about it then. Blink

I'm not arguing that highsec needs to make the same as null/low/WH for similar activities. I do however feel that having highsec incursions on a per person basis compare or exceed the reward of running nullsec anoms solo, taking the average in both activities, is not a bad thing. I think there should be a significant divide between activities that require constant teamwork and those that require none or only require some initial investment of cooperation.

I also believe balance based on high end earners is flawed, especially if the range from high to low end is quite wide or the high end is rather far from the average. I expect Affinity knows far more there than I do though.
ChemicalQueen
Perkone
Caldari State
#114 - 2012-05-11 00:51:23 UTC
My thoughts:

Short term
Hisec: lower overall isk/hr compared to low/null sec. Should be low enough to encourage people to try lowsec incursions.
Lowsec: lower the time required to do them, increase the isk/hr.
Nullsec: lower overall isk/hr compared to lowsec. Higher overall isk/hr compared to hisec. Lower the time required to do them.
Miss Yanumano
Cadence Industrial Syndicate
#115 - 2012-05-11 00:55:35 UTC
Many have already said a lot of good points about Incursions and their problems, but there is one suggesting I don't see;

Make it so that a maximum of two active Incursions can be in high sec at any given time, move it to say low sec instead, so we get 3-2-2 instead of todays 3-1-3, it'll help with the inflation and maybe even get more people in low sec.

More competition in high sec might make for people daring to go to low sec, and try their luck there instead.
Asmodes Reynolds
Rayn Enterprises
#116 - 2012-05-11 01:02:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Asmodes Reynolds
Daniel Plain wrote:

this is not a good idea. if concord is not strong enough to protect the incursion runners, there is no effective difference between running hisec and lowsec incursions, so you may just as well remove them from highsec. if on the other hand concord IS strong enough, there will be a constant battle between the incursion runners and gank fleets sacrificing alts in noob ships to draw the concord fleet where they want it to be.


Daniel Plain (and whoever shares Daniel's opinion) the point of the compromise was to balance the risk versus reward situation in a way that both the hi-sec community and the Low-sec/null-sec communities can agree on. Where All sides sides get these a bit of what they want. Both Sides are never going to agree on one system because they want very different things, because they played a game in drastically different ways. So I try to give both sides a little bit of what they wanted.

In order to break this down so that this thread doesn't turn into anarchy, I'm going to try and break this down into what each community wants and their points of contention. There are some overlap, on both things we have problems with and things that we agree on. I've just taken a lot of time and effort to read through 98% of these threads and siphon out, the trolls, the garbage and the ridiculous (I feel for the CCP employees, that have to do this on a regular basis) and am only bothering because I like this feature so much.

I believe there's a couple things that we can all agree on:

1. The concept of incursions is a good one engaging group based PvE is more engaging, more social, and a better future.
2. It should be worth more then the solo PVE opportunities available in that particular sec status ( hi sec ,low sec, null sec)
3. They are more difficult to run and keep a running because of the amount of people required in fleet therefore justifying they are reward increase.

However there are some points of contention:

- How much they pay out for each character should be for each site depending on their respective security status (hi sec ,low sec, null sec)
- How many people should be required to run each type of site.
- How long those sites take to run.
- And how much money can may can be made by one character, per hour in relation the other PVE activities available in their to spacesrespective security status (hi sec ,low sec, null sec)

The null sec/low sec communities have some issues with the following: (I am part of the this community but I am no means an expert or can't speak for the community as a whole.)

- The sites are not profitable enough to justify the logistics, and effort to organize a fleet so far away from home, this is in relation to a we can currently make in our home space (Upgraded sovereignty space)
- Some of the sites require too many people to run constantly in a high threat zone is just not logistically feasible.
- The hi-sec incursion sites pay out too much in comparison to the other activities available available in low sec/null-sec
- The hi-sec incursion can be run 23/7 without the risk un-consensual PvP where in low sec/nullsec they cannot therefore making the profit margin much higher.
- There are there probably are more.. so feel free to add to my list if you're part of this community.

The hi-sec community seems to be concerned about the following (I am not part of this community, but this is what I've observed from the forums)

- First and foremost they are concerned about isk per hour... being higher than level 4 but not having missions Nerf to the ground (with this I agree with wholeheartedly, hi sec people have a hard enough when it comes to making money.)
- They had complaints about the difficulty of the sites.
- They wish the sites to be more dynamic and fun.
- And they wish to maintain the lack of un consensual PVP and safety that hi sec allows them.
- And they are very concerned about the community aspect
- Some of the community seems to want to drop the risk versus reward balancing aspect of Eve Favoring a group based reward system. (Changing one of the most basic arthest reaching game mechanic)

If I missed something, please mention it, if you disagree with something please mention it stay on topic. After all

CCP Affinity wrote:
Yup, back on topic guys.. If the thread derails like the others I will lock it and I have absolutely no intention of starting a third thread because people can't behave.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#117 - 2012-05-11 01:09:23 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

I'm not arguing that highsec needs to make the same as null/low/WH for similar activities. I do however feel that having highsec incursions on a per person basis compare or exceed the reward of running nullsec anoms solo, taking the average in both activities, is not a bad thing. I think there should be a significant divide between activities that require constant teamwork and those that require none or only require some initial investment of cooperation.

I also believe balance based on high end earners is flawed, especially if the range from high to low end is quite wide or the high end is rather far from the average. I expect Affinity knows far more there than I do though.


Your comparison to running nullsec anoms solo, is flawed in that there is a great deal of effort and teamwork far exceeding anything in High Sec Incursions to create the environment that they can run anoms solo. Nullsec residents require constant teamwork to maintain that environment and they do so against other players not NPCs. Same is true of Wormhole space. There's simply no way your going to be able to justify High Sec Incursions earning remotely that of PvE activities in areas of space more open to PvP.

The high end earners must be considered, and part of why they can earn so much is that they can go out in very expensive pimped out ships without serious risk of losing them as would be the case in Lowsec, Nullsec and WH space.
Azura Solus
Rules of Acquisition
#118 - 2012-05-11 01:20:42 UTC
Lets all Agree to disagree that no one can agree on how much People believe high sec incursions should give. We can go back and forth for days Arguing each sides poingt If Anyone here CareBears NullBears LowBears PVP'ers or Piratres wanna see any changes that ANY of the changes we actually wanna see implemented can we please get beyond commenting on each others post about how wrong they are and just post your opinions. That way we can get a positive short term fix and then we can debate the long term of it.


Cant say you didnt have a chance Here it is now dont mess it up
MrWacko
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2012-05-11 01:39:13 UTC
I'd comment more on past posts, but I'm already going to write a wall of text, and I don't want to spend two hours looking for the good posts.

CCP Affinity wrote:
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:
I think a lot of us would like a simple yes/no answer on the subject of NCNs....is there a plan to re-do them? As is, fleets completely avoid them when possible, and once a system is full of them, the fleet either slows down drastically or simply disbands.

I recommend, at the very least, re-configuring them to single rooms rather than parallel ones, with the whole fleet staying together. Splitting them up drastically lowers the fleet's efficiency, and creates logistics headaches. Tweaking the number of sniper targets would help as well, particularly in the last room.


As I said, I hope to look at an overall Incursion design after we fix the immediate issues. The NCNs would come under that.


Yes you've address NCN's need to be redesigned. I thought I'd point it out again. We hate them. High-sec, low-sec, shields, armor, we all universally agree this site needs to die painfully.

Janoun wrote:
I think low-sec Incursions took an unintended hit from the nerf bat with the recent incursion changes.

It used to be worth it to run Vanguard sites in low-sec if you knew what you were doing. Armor HACs in proper PvP setups would generate better income than a highsec fleet and when you did get into fights you stood a good chance. As it stands now, VG sites aren't worth running and Assaults are simply impractical for low-sec. To exceed the income levels you can reach doing them in highsec you must use faction fitted pirate Battleships. Not only are their PvE fits ill suited for PvP, they're a much bigger bullseye, they're riskier to move around between systems, you need to change fleet comps for one of the sites and finally logistics is a bigger problem because Battleships fill up a Carrier real quick.

Basically, it's not worth it to travel to low-sec Incursions anymore.


Once upon a time, I also ran with some folks to do low-sec incursions. Some were CFC, most were from the HS HQ community (The Valhalla Project, TVP for short). Assaults and HQ's even, when we got enough folks. The influence change completely ended this. Right now, we simply lament the lost opportunities, and hope it gets better. We have difficulty keeping the influence manageable in high-sec, with hundreds of players running fleets round the clock.

As for high-sec, we're, well, coping. I guess. The Shield HQ/AS community based in TVP has grown significantly since the patch, but it seems and feels less like actual growth, than simply us being the only safe haven available. We're effectively taking in refugees. Frankly we'd be suffering too, if it weren't for having something resembling stable leadership, and running the least nerfed sites. The double/triple nerf to almost all incursion sites is way beyond what was needed or expected. As other incursion community leaders have stated already, the communities are suffering. I wrote an extensive opinion and response to most changes and sites in the prior thread made by CCP Soundwave. I'll link it below, as by the time I posted, trolls had overrun the thread.

Post 1, and Post 2, immediately after post 1. I ran out of space to type.

In short:
- Incursion influence gain is brutal, especially for null/low.
- Move OTA hack point closer
- Reduce spawns slightly in VG's
- Remove NCN's. Then roast them over a slow burning fire.
- Don't have us shoot every dam ship.
- Reduce time it takes to complete TPPH site. Perhaps remove a room.

Somehow, I suspect I've forgotten one angle, but oh well. If needed I'll remember it then post. Or talk to a few folks I know. Or both.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#120 - 2012-05-11 01:43:35 UTC
Azura Solus wrote:
[...]can we please get beyond commenting on each others post about how wrong they are and just post your opinions. That way we can get a positive short term fix and then we can debate the long term of it.


Opinions are worthless if not also backed by reasoned argument. That's what's going on here, reasoned argument. It won't last though as when reason fails, we'll get back to flinging **** at each other. I don't know why you think a load of opinions that aren't backed up will help in anyway to get a positive short term fix.