These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Incursions update

First post
Author
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#81 - 2012-06-12 21:20:11 UTC
if you want to make incursions interesting and fun again make it more realistic like pvp instead of a isk grinding activity which it mostly is you do vanguards in shiny fleets and ignore all others.
you wouldn't use battleships to kill frigs i mean who thought of that?.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
#82 - 2012-06-12 21:31:02 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Just what is the issue with OTAs? Why are they so hated?

Some fleets, namely armor fleets, have managed to combat that issue by fitting microwarp drives to each and every ship and then moving everyone to the hacking locations. That however essentially means that half of the fleets are completely unable to do the same, unless they nerf their fits so badly that they're practically unable to do anything else.


Any change that kills those anomination we saw such as shield tanked Navythron is a good one in my book. People were shield tanking ships that had no business being shield tanked, due to the fact the sites were so badly designed no movement was needed.

Any change that brings a need to move in Incursion, thus making them closer to "real" combat, is a good one.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#83 - 2012-06-12 21:43:39 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
if you want to make incursions interesting and fun again make it more realistic like pvp instead of a isk grinding activity which it mostly is you do vanguards in shiny fleets and ignore all others.
you wouldn't use battleships to kill frigs i mean who thought of that?.

The idea of shiny frigate fleets is lovely.

WTB smartbombs.

[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]

Meytal
Doomheim
#84 - 2012-06-12 21:49:41 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Perhaps because wormholes are supposed to be inherently more dangerous than k-space?

Good explanation for why payouts and rewards in W-space should be higher than in K-space.

Richard Desturned wrote:
And because nullsec is inherently more dangerous than hisec?

I have to take my hat off to you, sir, for the ability to say that with a straight face.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#85 - 2012-06-12 21:52:33 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
And because nullsec is inherently more dangerous than hisec?

I have to take my hat off to you, sir, for the ability to say that with a straight face.

Ever tried PvEing in syndicate? It's fun.

[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]

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2012-06-12 22:01:23 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout.

Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2012-06-12 22:07:09 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Step 1: Remove incursions from hisec

It was my impression that incursions were partially developed with highsec in mind. There was talk of promoting interaction and learning of basic fleet mechanics which people in low/null would be expected to have.
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2012-06-12 22:12:45 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
These are just short term fixes to get us back to a place where people are happier with Incursions. We will look at further changes in the future - one step at a time.

Several months ago when CCP said it wanted to adjust incursions, you (i.e. CCP) announced a 10% cut to payouts. Somewhere between that announcement and the actual nerf, however, many other additional things were added into the nerf. What happened in that interval is the problem. Not sure what went down, but it does reinforce the impression that CCP doesn't really look before they leap. So yeah, you've been focusing on FIS since the riots last summer, the problem imo is you're spread too thin and simply don't have enough people working on all this stuff.

If you had adjusted only the payouts a couple of months ago - one step at a time - then this next iteration could have been the last. But no, now you're retreating into a defensive fallback position and kicking the can down the road. Again. Good job.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#89 - 2012-06-12 22:15:07 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout.

Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong?

IIRC the difference is a little over 30%, which is nominal given the additional effort required to form a fleet and get ships to location. You also cannot use the same "shiny" fleets, unless you are very certain of how secure the area is, and a noticeable increase in NPC deaths will very quickly bring people to the system to check on you.

Basically if you think waiting a little while for a fleet in high sec is bad, try forming a low sec incursion fleet.

[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]

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2012-06-12 22:30:30 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout.

Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong?

IIRC the difference is a little over 30%, which is nominal given the additional effort required to form a fleet and get ships to location. You also cannot use the same "shiny" fleets, unless you are very certain of how secure the area is, and a noticeable increase in NPC deaths will very quickly bring people to the system to check on you.

Basically if you think waiting a little while for a fleet in high sec is bad, try forming a low sec incursion fleet.

I would have thought the form-up wait would be lower as you have a closed pool of allies and should relatively quickly know if/how/when you are running. Some highsec groups have this convenience as well, others not so much. The group I run with has alot of downtime during certain parts of the day often from a lack of pilots.

As far as the numbers, I believe the highsec sites have a 0.7 multiplier of the null/low values. I don't shiny fit so I have no clue as to how much more effective it makes the ship, but I've seen nullsec players claim to do quite well facerolling NCO's in legions prior to the change.

There is the concern of the dangers of those areas, but what is the "fair" multiplication factor in accounting for this? Too low and it's not worth it, but the fact that they were done before means to someone it was worth it, and too high and the income level becomes broken. Maybe that needs revisited?
Challu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2012-06-12 22:34:07 UTC
I don't think nerfing of the the 10% VG payouts was a major issue in plummeting interest - as someone pointed out, if a site takes 3-4x time to do, that's a 60-70% nerf.. And it's not like the influence does not hit 0% in the one that the community chooses to focus on these days. You'll very probably find that this roll-back will have minimal influence on how many VGs are run, and how the community responds through its actions.

The reason is because earlier, VGs were FUN to run. Small fleets, fast paced action, space for intelligent use of ships and tactics even when not blitzing. Now, it's just a grind. Kinda like WoW. And that is simply not fun.

In an ideal world, you could spawn a second class of incursions where the 10% reduction in bounty and influence difficulty remain, but the sites are more interesting to do. Either through the reintroduction of the trigger, or even better, random spawns or random triggers. I think you'll find much more interest in those sites, even as risk is aligned with reward.

What is sad about this nerf is that it also decimated the great incursion community that had formed. Please take away what caused that demise, and incursions will make sense again.
ISeeDeath
Cogs and Sprogs Starship Mechanics
#92 - 2012-06-12 23:01:21 UTC
I would like seeing the communities running VG back up running again.

Question is what will it take to restore that part of the game. 10% un-nerf of a nerf that was above 50% prolly will not make it. Talking to friends who used to run incursions indicates that its not sufficient.

I hope that in this case CCP will listen to those who actually did run incursions instead of listing to the jeoleus people who didn't do incursions and never will do incursions. Their smack talk is only there to try to make their favorite occupation in game in favor instead of the incursions.

I ran incursions because I like the social part of it but I cant do it when everybody thinks the effort is not worth the ISK. And they are right. I can make more ISK solo compared to doing incursions as they are now and that is still the case with the 10 % un-nerf.

Dear CCP listen to those who enjoyed the incursion part of the game instead of a lot of people smack talking incursions. After all you do the rework for the benefit of those enjoying that part of the game and nobody else.

Look at my post above to find my few cents on what further work (rework) you need to do.

ISeeDeath
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2012-06-12 23:04:24 UTC
I have this odd feeling that I'm the only one who likes OTA's now...
ISeeDeath
Cogs and Sprogs Starship Mechanics
#94 - 2012-06-12 23:06:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I have this odd feeling that I'm the only one who likes OTA's now...


You prolly are. They are doable but wears out the fleetmembers very fast. People dont want them as they are now.

Move the Mara closer ... remove the bi-spawns... remove a few ships from all the sites ... then we are talking VG back up running.
DJ N00B
National Order Of Bastards Yearning
#95 - 2012-06-12 23:13:29 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ N00B
Very quick and to the point.

The changes are a start but I don't feel they really are enough to get people running vg's again. They also don't address the biggest issue, that being the ota's. OTA's are too hard for fleets other than super shiney ones. So the end result is going to be stacking OTA's in systems with very few, if any, fleet running them.


Honestly, I'd be happier if the OTA's were changed and everything else was left the same.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2012-06-12 23:17:51 UTC
DJ N00B wrote:
Very quick and to the point.

The changes are a start but I don't feel they really are enough to get people running vg's again. They also don't address the biggest issue, that being the ota's. OTA's are too hard for fleets other than super shiney ones. So the end result is going to be stacking OTA's in systems with very few, if any, fleet running them.


Define supershiny. I've been in a system where they stacked because they took longer, but not because they were impossible and the fleet was a mix of ships including a tech 1 BS, a few navy and pirate BS's and a couple of T3's and not everyone was shiny fit, some only running T2 mods. Even then it wasn't particularly painful.
DJ N00B
National Order Of Bastards Yearning
#97 - 2012-06-12 23:21:40 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
DJ N00B wrote:
Very quick and to the point.

The changes are a start but I don't feel they really are enough to get people running vg's again. They also don't address the biggest issue, that being the ota's. OTA's are too hard for fleets other than super shiney ones. So the end result is going to be stacking OTA's in systems with very few, if any, fleet running them.


Define supershiny. I've been in a system where they stacked because they took longer, but not because they were impossible and the fleet was a mix of ships including a tech 1 BS, a few navy and pirate BS's and a couple of T3's and not everyone was shiny fit, some only running T2 mods. Even then it wasn't particularly painful.



I'm not saying they can't be done. I'm saying that because they take so damned long to do that people just don't want to bother. They can make better money running missions for crying out loud or doing what many others have and that's just go run as/hq's.
CCP Affinity
C C P
C C P Alliance
#98 - 2012-06-12 23:25:43 UTC
Lyron-Baktos wrote:
Borlag Crendraven wrote:
The problem in that will be that you wont see much if any changes in the way people run (or rather don't run) incursions if you don't change it so that people actually want to run the sites again. Sure, for null sec players that influence bar change will change it for the better, but for the low sec and high sec players it will mean very little, same with that 10% isk reward. The whole thing just seems so backwards done that it's not even funny, right from the start when you nerfed them to the way you're backtracking on the wrong things.

Incursioners for the most part would be content with smaller reward, but incursioners for the most part will be looking for other activities if the fleets don't run. That's something you haven't adressed at all with this announcement. You basically have content that no one wants to use, where's the sense in that?


This is it exactly

CCP
It's mentioned that VG's fell to the floor after your last change but you are not asking "why did they fall to the floor and what was the biggest reason they fell to the floor?" You are not drilling down to the real root cause.

Now, if changing the OTA's is not a simple fix and one you can't get to right now, so you are adjusting the issues you can fix in hopes it will work is all you can do, then that is fine. Just be honest. At least I don't hope you are really counting on the new fixes to fix the issueShocked



Just to clear this up again, as people seem to be confused. We weren't happy with the outcome of the changes so we are rolling back. This has absolutely nothing to do with fixing Incursions or making right or wrong changes in the future .. it is simply that once the changes hit TQ, we didn't feel they sent Incursions in a direction we want to take them - so we are reverting them. Now we will have an almost pre-escalation slate to start from and make the right changes. I have several threads of feedback and have spoken with many people about the future of Incursions and we will make a lot more threads about the changes as they progress.

♥ CCP Affinity ♥

Follow me on Twitter

Game Designer for EVE Online

Team Astro Sparkle

Pseudo Ucksth
Camellia Void Cartographics
#99 - 2012-06-12 23:36:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Pseudo Ucksth
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

There is the concern of the dangers of those areas, but what is the "fair" multiplication factor in accounting for this? Too low and it's not worth it, but the fact that they were done before means to someone it was worth it, and too high and the income level becomes broken. Maybe that needs revisited?


We don't need to talk multiples, we need to talk straight isk/hour. The payouts were too high, and now they're too low. Even though we do have a closed pool of allies to draw from, not everyone is available to run 23/7, especially during deployments.

Lowsec & nullsec incursions should be balanced to pay out about as much per individual as high-end solo ratting, or else everyone is just going to go hide in their sanctums with their tengus instead of coming out to socialize.

Currently, in Fountain, doing anomalies with a tengu that has fighters assigned to it can make upwards of 90m/hr. Many people who don't have a carrier have a second tengu and can make even more.

CCP: We don't care what the missions are or what flaming hoops we have to jump through to get the payouts, as long as it's balanced with other forms of income.

The magic number is between 80-90.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#100 - 2012-06-12 23:43:10 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
Just to clear this up again, as people seem to be confused.
...
Now we will have an almost pre-escalation slate to start from and make the right changes.
But your devblog only says you're changing the system influence and 10% Vanguard reward. Nothing about the changes to site content & triggers. Without addressing those failed changes, it seems the problems will not be solved, incursions won't be worth the effort of maintaining fleets & communities, despite their value to the playerbase compared to other equivalent or superior isk/hour activities. Question