Missions & Complexes

Yes. People used to bring in ecm boats to reduce incoming dmg early on after Incursions got implemented. Not so much anymore.

People will continue to bring their most expensive ships simply because the system can be gamed. Triggers are designated and spawns are set. Almost all sites are a controlled environment.

Except for NCN's
My favourite site, and yet very unfortunate due to the out of proportion completion time when compared with the other assault sites.

Each room of each site has a varied spawn.

If you want to make it a t1 ship meat grinder all sites need random spawns with random triggers. That's the only way to actually provide the 'risk' necessary to account for a loss.

I suspect and hope that this will be the direction they go, especially after being surprised at the new level 4 Dread Pirate Scarlet mission.

Well written post Sturmwolke, but that won't solve everything.
Look at what you just wrote:

Assaults/HQ's take more work than vanguards. Yes!! Then they should be paying out more because more effort is going into them.
Even if one stuck only to NMC's one would still be able to make more isk than HQ's and assaults. If anything, vanguard would be needing a massive nerf.
Sure that would perhaps make vanguards, assaults and headquarters equal in completion time and isk/hour, however why would anyone go through the hassle to do larger sites when the same isk can be earned in smaller sites?
They need to be more rewarding than vanguards again because they require more effort.

The only incentive would be (and currently is) to avoid annoying competitions between fleets.

Ammzi, my dear fellow, you need to read better.
Spend the time properly.

I dont know if enyone suggest it....
but maybe....
removing incursions from hi sec will solve the problem?

And no one will run them, further negating the entire amount of work by the developers spent on it because there is less hassle of someone interfering because the aggressor is always at the advantage. Lulsec basement dwellers generally do not PVE, cause its boring! to them. Then factor that when a constellation glows on the map, attracts people to run them, that further attracts aggressive "piwates" and making it incredibly difficult to even get there when deep in lowsec....yeah great suggestion. People still generally do not run level 4s in lowsec (PVE or PVP, you can't do both!) and only the brave few attempt level 5, lets not forget that PVE ships do not even remotely fit like PVP ships (PVE lacks scrams, web, buffer putting the entire favor in the aggressor) and that sansha still out Alpha-DPS anything compared to what players can put out short of a Titan Doomsday.

You know whats a better suggestion to fix all the problems everyone b*tches about....TURN OFF THE F****** SERVER! Bam! Done deal. No more complaints about the safety of highsec vs risk and reward, no more moaning to CCP to buff Hulks, no more groaning about FW being broken or overpowered super carriers cause you can't kill it yet lack the will to train and bring your own super. No ******* source of complaints, nothing that needs fixing. See, no one wins and everybody looses....or everybody wins and nobody is the looser? Damn, hard to figure out.

Oh, here is another suggestion. How about you go run incursions and make untold billions, nothing actually stops you but your own choice to not run them. Nothing wrong with you joining the party and benifitng from it. Or you could go make your billions running missions. Or scamming. Or Market trading. Or conquering a region ala BoB vs Goonwar '09 and selling moon goo. There is no physical risk to your person at all outside geting carpal tunnel syndrome in EVE as its all just virtual pixels stored on a hard drive in London and the rewards you reap are just varying levels of challenge to aquire it. Everyone just doesn't like how someone else is making pixelated space bucks, its all "Och! I worked up grid both ways against oncomming rogue asteroids and I liked it Sonny boy. It was grueling I tell you and you should suck it up because it should be grueling to you as well." How about this for, "Adapt or Die" and adapt to how this incursion system could be benifitual to you...be it pulling in massive iskies or causing grief. Who the f*ck cares how profitable it is for someone else, you should be thinking What I get out of it or what else can I do in EVE cause what they are doing isn't really affecting you personally, except I see alot "I just got a grudge sized chip on my shoulder that failed to get a movie script so someone else should suffer because of it!"

Your mad?
Are vanguards still to hard for you, should we increase income of scout? (Which btw could really need a small buff)

I like your thoughts

I'm amazed at incursions and how well their implementation was engineered. They are indeed quite risky and also have the power to change the face of the game dramatically. At their core they acknowledge basic game theory that cooperation produces more than it consumes. They are an accurate simulation unlike the contrived conflict that seems to go nowhere but downhill without added input of content by CCP.

I like how the game resources scale well with the game and network resources. Sometimes in systems we approach blob warfare lag onset and it gets dangerous from discoes and slower keyboard response but usually some overheat and good fcing can pull it out.

I didn't like the Sanctum and level 4 nerfs that were required to push people into this side of the game (incursions) but making high sec income competitive with null sec income uses vastly more of the games potential than null. Perhaps null can become the barren wasteland of capital ship battles and lawlessness and ensuing economic collapse that goes with the destruction of social consequence. Sure would be cool if High sec corps could enter the null arena on their own terms instead of the terms of the sov holders.

That said, Incursions have enormous capacity to influence many people. Before one starts looking at a product changes, one should look at what one wishes to accomplish. Before you can do that you have to go even further back and ask the question WHO?

Who are you wishing to affect? What group(s) do you want to make the game better for. If you want to make the game worse for certain groups, is that good for the game overall? My own example, null sec, do we really think easier access to null is good overall or is the game served better by the current power and material supply chains being in place?

Each side of a transaction has benefits as well as costs. Say I want a tech moon and I get it. I bet the price of t2 goes up cause I'm less efficient than an experienced alliance and my logistics to get it to Jita are less regular and reliable causing price volatility. So even though a nice moon would be good for me, is it good for the game as a whole?

But if you keep me out of nullsec by nerfing the game for a thousands of other people, does that outweigh a t2 price increase. Thousands and thousands of people have skillpoints that require big isk to utilize. This is potential demand, this affects people that could supply t3, faction or t2 ships and shiney fittings, THey can't make money if we have none to spend.

Who do you want to nerf and and how will that effect others and the future of the game itself?

My personal suggestion are to buff rather than to nerf.

Buff Scouts to make that t1 meat grinder someone mentioned, its good for industry and training ground for fc's for future pvp.

Leave vanguards for small groups that need quick isk injections so they can have fun. Do we Need a solution still for isk grinders? It can be a big part of the game just to build and collect ships. I see no problem with working for material goods for their own sake. It like keeping score.

Buff income for assaults HQ's but also change payouts to FC's and WC's to reflect the extra work they do and to encourage more Assault FC's. More Assault FC's can absorb more players so people don't have to wait to get in fleet. Maybe they can take extra advanced t1/sub optimal players also.

Continue to limit beacons to the number a system can support without lagging until we max out constellation utilization with the added assault fleets.

My two cents but ya know, we incurrsion runners have a few more than most. Sorry for such a long post but I finally learned to CandP before I hit the post button :)

1. Make Staging sites more difficult. Right now, there is too large a divide between sites you can solo in a T1 frigate or T1 cruiser (Staging) and the sites you cannot do without a fleet (Vanguards).

2. After making Staging sites more difficult, buff their rewards to make them at least sort of worthwhile for beginning incursion-runners.

3. Leave Vanguards as-is.

4. Leave Assault sites as they are, but buff their rewards to make them a worthy upgrade from Vanguards. Right now, they don't give anywhere near enough rewards for the amount of time you spend killing the sites. I'd almost go so far as to say the current payout for killing the supercarrier (63M ISK and 14K LP if I recall correctly) should be the payout for Assault sites. That 's probably a bit too high though.

5. I've only run the Kundalini Manifest sites in Headquarters systems, so I don't know about the others. However, based on the payouts for KM, those should be buffed as well.

That's my two cents anyway...