These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2012-06-12 23:43:43 UTC
Pseudo Ucksth wrote:
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.

That was a comment about the ratio of highsec to nullsec payouts to make doing them in low/null worth it compared to high, not highsec worth it compared to other activities. Keeping in mind that so long as the ratio exists it will scale to the actual values the sites pay out at, this number remains entirely relevant to making sure Null/lowsec incursions are and remain worth the extra risk. All sec bands being less than worthwhile now (according to the consensus on the forums) is a separate issue.
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#102 - 2012-06-12 23:47:17 UTC
Meytal wrote:
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.


Which was, prior to Escalation, untrue!

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.


When's the last time you were locked out of being able to access any of your assets in hisec?

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#103 - 2012-06-12 23:48:51 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?


It's not even close to 50%.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2012-06-12 23:51:42 UTC
Richard Desturned 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?


It's not even close to 50%.

I may be wrong about the multiplier then. My math came out to a ~42% increase going from high to low.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#105 - 2012-06-12 23:56:19 UTC  |  Edited by: DarthNefarius
CCP Affinity wrote:
We are listening to the feedback about OTA and we are taking it seriously but that is a change we will have to look at for a future expansion, not one we can squeeze in now. We also don't want to make any further changes right now, please read my previous post about small steps


To put it bluntly without changes to the OTA's you are NOT going to see a change in the Vanguards flooring. I can't believe you are looking at the statistics and not see how they stack and kill the Vanguard fleets.
Since you are so adament in not making any further changes right now and actually listen to the feedback that has been presented the past 1 and a half months I don't see the point in running Incursions and sadly watching my communities lingering death. Unsubscribing now

I know for a fact you never communicated with the head of the Armour Incursion Community "The Ditanian Fleet"( Cozmic Cowboy https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Cozmic%20Cowboy ) and these 2 rollbacks will really not help anyone except the shiney HQ shield fleets to continue to be viable as the rest of the communities wither. From what I'm seeing in the feedback here your communications & listening to the dead NULL/LO SEC communities was either nonexistant or tossed out of hand.
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'
Gunny Fury
Giant Fiery Chipmunk
#106 - 2012-06-12 23:57:07 UTC
Would like to say that I wish to see the vgs be turned into a intro to pve fleet action, seeing as most people would be coming in from solo mission running and be doing L3s/L4s when they begin to seriously attempt this kind of thing

which means likely a drake, or at the most a BC or low skill BS at the most.


i would suggest to tone these VG sites to be able to be ran by BCs and be blitzed with competent players, but be paid at BEST (blitzing and what nots) as a slow L4 or L3 type of income in the same sec status.

great acting as introduction and get more people doing them.
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2012-06-12 23:57:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I may be wrong about the multiplier then. My math came out to a ~42% increase going from high to low.


That'd make sense if people were flying shiny fleets outside of hisec.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2012-06-13 00:00:53 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I may be wrong about the multiplier then. My math came out to a ~42% increase going from high to low.


That'd make sense if people were flying shiny fleets outside of hisec.

Which goes back to my question, how much higher is right?

Also apparently I'm the only one who likes OTA's AND doesn't shiny fits (in highsec).
Challu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#109 - 2012-06-13 00:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Challu
CCP Affinity wrote:

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.


Thank you for this important clarification.

Unfortunately, your confidence in "reverting them ... [to an] ... almost pre-escalation slate to start from" may be materially misplaced.

In the hierarchy of factors that have changed the nature of incursions, what you are rolling back pales in significance to the impact of the trigger changes. To genuinely make incursions "almost pre-escalation" would require a roll-back that reinstates the triggers and removes the WoW-like dungeon grinding.

Do note, I'm not necessarily advocating that rollback, just pointing out the potential hole in your assumption.
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2012-06-13 00:51:29 UTC
I believe they do know that the OTA's are the problem but they can't quickly fix them so they are doing these easy changes to try to help mitigate the issue.

or at least I hope
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#111 - 2012-06-13 01:07:30 UTC
Challu wrote:
CCP Affinity wrote:

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.


Thank you for this important clarification.

Unfortunately, your confidence in "reverting them ... [to an] ... almost pre-escalation slate to start from" may be materially misplaced.

In the hierarchy of factors that have changed the nature of incursions, what you are rolling back pales in significance to the impact of the trigger changes. To genuinely make incursions "almost pre-escalation" would require a roll-back that reinstates the triggers and removes the WoW-like dungeon grinding.

Do note, I'm not necessarily advocating that rollback, just pointing out the potential hole in your assumption.

Wait, I am in support of these current rollbacks, but what exactly was not like wow dungeon grinding with pre-escalation incursions? In fact from memory I only played it briefly, but wow raids were actually considerably more difficult than pre-escalation incursions.

[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]

Sturmwolke
#112 - 2012-06-13 01:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Sturmwolke
Nothing much to say, as per expected. The bar's change is significant as fleets can run at 100% nominal sooner - whether that's enough to help populate multiple incursion constellations (for high-sec), that depends on the adjustment. Else, folks will just keep running them by focusing on one constellation at a time post Inferno.

These changes might pull some VG runners back, though whether that will achieve critical mass, remains to be seen.

Also did you do a stealth change to the spawn balance for high-sec incursions? Unless it's a temp glitch, it's spawning as it should now.
More towards the Amarr region than others (due to empire size). Certainly less painful over gallavanting across the 4 regions taking turns like clockwork.

Edit: Ultimately, since the bar and players (completing sites) is a dynamic metric, you would probably need to come up with some sort of dynamic periodic compensation ala the insurance scheme. Auto-adjust up when the rate is too low, auto-adjust low when the rate it too high. The aim is to keep it near constant so that the other metrics that you're measuring aren't coloured by it.
mumkill3r
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#113 - 2012-06-13 03:01:03 UTC
Something needs to change to make them worth doing again. Come on give me a reason to dust off the Vindy and make some serious isk.
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2012-06-13 03:28:06 UTC
mumkill3r wrote:
Something needs to change to make them worth doing again. Come on give me a reason to dust off the Vindy and make some serious isk.


read: "I want my risk-free isk fountain back"

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Kreeia Dgore
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2012-06-13 04:14:46 UTC
I really wonder why they needed to tweak the incursions in the first place, besides from listening to "good friends goons". Even Dr. economist at fanfest said incursions only have a minor impact on the whole isk situation ... But hey, if CCP gets lobbed and screws something, I am glad they are capable of changing their decisions.
So it is a good thing in the end.
Lysaeus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2012-06-13 04:18:36 UTC
reversing these nerfs needs to be done very very carefully. Though I really wouldn't mind the return of the mom killing fleets.
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#117 - 2012-06-13 04:30:34 UTC
Kreeia Dgore wrote:
I really wonder why they needed to tweak the incursions in the first place


being completely unbalanced, for instance

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2012-06-13 04:55:53 UTC
oh, wow, great.

let's keep on nerfing lvl 4 missions and not roll back the nerfs but un-nerf incursions because the alts of some nullsec alliances can no longer make enough isk in a reasonable ammount of time.

yay, way to go.
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2012-06-13 05:07:57 UTC
Dalilus wrote:
alts of some nullsec alliances


this would be dismissed as tinfoil if it wasn't utterly true

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#120 - 2012-06-13 05:29:10 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
eidenjunior wrote:
Can we get to see some stats about incursion, pre-inferno and post-inferno?


Not sure I can give the exact numbers, but the use of Vanguards basically floored.


Interesting last march the numbers were available on March the 3rd for February:
http://twostep4csm.blogspot.com/2012/03/its-econmony-stupid.html

yet are not available now mid June for May.
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'