These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 sites kept open on purpose
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#221 - 2013-01-20 11:03:16 UTC
Holy ****. Time to occupy some damn HQ sites! Big smile
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#222 - 2013-01-20 13:00:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Aramatheia
Herr Wilkus wrote:
I've never done this, but I applaud the people who do.
Costs?

Well, PLEXing an account costs 500-600M ISK per month.
So, we are looking at about 15-20M per day, per account for the noob char.

Also, if you use a noobship char in this way you can't use that account for anything else.
And you can't go AFK, because a noobship could be suicide ganked, closing the mission.

So it costs in both ISK, time and opportunity to do something else.

And, as we all know from the barge threads - suicide ganking costs 'nothing' when gankers are doing it.
Oh wait.......now suicide ganking is now 'too costly' a solution to this problem, when carebears are told to do it.
Gee, It gets confusing, having different rules for different classes of players......

Also, it sounded like the 'extortionist' gave the OP an out. He wasn't griefing at all, as he offered to leave for a reasonable ISK payment.

Rather than pay, however, the OP chose to cry. CCP runs, as always, with a babybottle full of milk and an exploit notice.




a mining barge costs isk, the fittings cost isk, the capacity to fly a mining barge requires at minimum like 1 week of training time. Ganking a mining barge incurs noticable loss onto the victims, between a few to 100m+ isk.

a rookie ship costs nothing. its fittings cost nothing, the skill to fly it is lready given to every 0.00000000001 second old alt.

ganking the 2 are entirely unrelated, mining barge ganks are to "anger" the miners and make them "cry". Ganking 0.000001 second old alts in free ships with free fittings makes the camper/griefer kiddie "lol" nothing more.

You suck hard at making comparisons
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#223 - 2013-01-20 13:52:50 UTC
Ok let me try, I will take a mackinaw to a belt and sit there doing nothing, but for 15mil i will turn off the tank if someone wants to gank me they can have the chance for 15 mil. Trust me?

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
Dzajic
#224 - 2013-01-20 15:53:17 UTC
Virtual machines, IP maskers, running multiple trial accounts in parallel is possible and common occurrence.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#225 - 2013-01-20 23:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
This whole thing is kind of amusing to me.

Lately I've been living in one of the constellations that's on the Incursion list, and I spent a week there during the last time it had one. As such, I've got a little firsthand experience with Incursions (more specifically with Incursion fleets) that makes the joke actually work. Here, I'll explain it:

An Incursion starts in Constellation X. The Incursion fleets move in, bringing their multibillion-ISK ships with them. So far everything is working as intended. However, rather than finishing the Incursion within a couple of days (we'll say that three days is reasonable, for the sake of argument), the Incursion fleets don't attempt the mom spawn until the very end, keeping the Incursion open for the whole week.

The effect? Miners, missioners, explorers et al, who live in that constellation and have their resources all set up in that area are denied the ability to participate in their regular content. Most people seem to hold their patience and remain understanding about it for a while, approximately those three days I arbitrarily mentioned before. Patience, naturally, only lasts so long however and someone inevitably speaks up. However, when anything is said to the Incursion fleets, that person is told:


  • "If we end the Incursion early, we lose ISK."
  • "If it bothers you so much, then join an Incursion fleet and participate"
  • "Try to gank us then. Otherwise HTFU and deal with it."
  • "Pay us [insert amount of ISK] and we'll close the Incursion so you can go back to carebearing."
  • "Go mission/mine somewhere else and stop crying that you can't do it here."


The last two items on that list are what really make the joke work, since that's what we've got going on here now with Incursion runners being denied the ability to do what they want where they want to do it and being told to either pay for the ability to continue as normal or go do it somewhere else.


TL;DR - Hisec Incursion fleets hold constellations hostage for their own profit and mock others who are "crying" about it, but when the roles are reversed and sites are held hostage, Incursion runners prove they actually cry louder and harder than anyone else. Hilarious.
Dzajic
#226 - 2013-01-21 02:28:47 UTC
Been there done that.

Remember last winter? CCP asked for advice, haters spoke. Incursions got nerfed in the ground. No one done them. Very minor buff, people trying to make some isk barely against all odds.
Nadia Gallen
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#227 - 2013-01-21 03:34:55 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
This whole thing is kind of amusing to me.

Lately I've been living in one of the constellations that's on the Incursion list, and I spent a week there during the last time it had one. As such, I've got a little firsthand experience with Incursions (more specifically with Incursion fleets) that makes the joke actually work. Here, I'll explain it:

An Incursion starts in Constellation X. The Incursion fleets move in, bringing their multibillion-ISK ships with them. So far everything is working as intended. However, rather than finishing the Incursion within a couple of days (we'll say that three days is reasonable, for the sake of argument), the Incursion fleets don't attempt the mom spawn until the very end, keeping the Incursion open for the whole week.

The effect? Miners, missioners, explorers et al, who live in that constellation and have their resources all set up in that area are denied the ability to participate in their regular content. Most people seem to hold their patience and remain understanding about it for a while, approximately those three days I arbitrarily mentioned before. Patience, naturally, only lasts so long however and someone inevitably speaks up. However, when anything is said to the Incursion fleets, that person is told:


  • "If we end the Incursion early, we lose ISK."
  • "If it bothers you so much, then join an Incursion fleet and participate"
  • "Try to gank us then. Otherwise HTFU and deal with it."
  • "Pay us [insert amount of ISK] and we'll close the Incursion so you can go back to carebearing."
  • "Go mission/mine somewhere else and stop crying that you can't do it here."


The last two items on that list are what really make the joke work, since that's what we've got going on here now with Incursion runners being denied the ability to do what they want where they want to do it and being told to either pay for the ability to continue as normal or go do it somewhere else.


TL;DR - Hisec Incursion fleets hold constellations hostage for their own profit and mock others who are "crying" about it, but when the roles are reversed and sites are held hostage, Incursion runners prove they actually cry louder and harder than anyone else. Hilarious.


Incursions are normally run from it is established in the journal to it is in withdrawl. And then the Mothership is attacked and destroyed and the incursion communities move on to battle the next one.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#228 - 2013-01-21 05:44:43 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:


The last two items on that list are what really make the joke work, since that's what we've got going on here now with Incursion runners being denied the ability to do what they want where they want to do it and being told to either pay for the ability to continue as normal or go do it somewhere else.



GMs plainly didn't want to ban this, and IMO had the originator used a bricked battlecruiser (or for even more carebear hilarity a bricked skiff) then this event probably would not have come to pass.

Quote:


TL;DR - Hisec Incursion fleets hold constellations hostage for their own profit and mock others who are "crying" about it, but when the roles are reversed and sites are held hostage, Incursion runners prove they actually cry louder and harder than anyone else. Hilarious.


If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#229 - 2013-01-21 09:13:12 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:


[quote]

TL;DR - Hisec Incursion fleets hold constellations hostage for their own profit and mock others who are "crying" about it, but when the roles are reversed and sites are held hostage, Incursion runners prove they actually cry louder and harder than anyone else. Hilarious.


If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.


I was going to post that same thing! Also an extension of what you said, if the original inhabitors of a constellation really want the incursion to just go away they dont have to farm it like the mainstream community does, they can beat it till the mom spawns and kill the incursion all in less than a day. Might cause a bit of unhappyness with the main incursion runners but closing an incursion by spawning and killing the mom isnt breaking any rules or the spirit of the game!
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#230 - 2013-01-21 09:51:13 UTC
Aramatheia wrote:


I was going to post that same thing! Also an extension of what you said, if the original inhabitors of a constellation really want the incursion to just go away they dont have to farm it like the mainstream community does, they can beat it till the mom spawns and kill the incursion all in less than a day. Might cause a bit of unhappyness with the main incursion runners but closing an incursion by spawning and killing the mom isnt breaking any rules or the spirit of the game!


Absolutely true, but that wasn't really the point I was making.
Mexan Caderu
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#231 - 2013-01-21 12:52:28 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:


the point I was making.

apples=oranges ?
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#232 - 2013-01-21 15:44:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Mexan Caderu wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:


the point I was making.

apples=oranges ?


Not at all.

Missioners and miners are unable to do what they want to do and they cry about it. Incursioners mock them.

Incursioners are unable to do what they want to do and they cry about it.

Quote:
If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.


To be fair, incursions essentially do last the maximum amount of time (being farmed until the moment the incursion's going to despawn on its own is effectively the "maximum") and highsec incursion runners are carebears just like missioners and miners.

Also, during the Incursion of my current home constellation, there was a lot of talk about deliberately not letting system penalties fall below 90%. While I can't pretend to know why anyone would want the penalties high, apparently someone does.
goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#233 - 2013-01-21 16:29:28 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Mexan Caderu wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:


the point I was making.

apples=oranges ?


Not at all.

Missioners and miners are unable to do what they want to do and they cry about it. Incursioners mock them.

Incursioners are unable to do what they want to do and they cry about it.

Quote:
If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.


To be fair, incursions essentially do last the maximum amount of time (being farmed until the moment the incursion's going to despawn on its own is effectively the "maximum") and highsec incursion runners are carebears just like missioners and miners.

Also, during the Incursion of my current home constellation, there was a lot of talk about deliberately not letting system penalties fall below 90%. While I can't pretend to know why anyone would want the penalties high, apparently someone does.


Over the last few months several different Incursion communities have gotten strong enough to 'Take down the Mom' this has resulted in most Incursions lasting 2 to 4 days before one group or another gets bored and completes the Mom site. Prior to this turn of events incursions were kept up till they went into withdrawl (the final stage before they despawn naturally). So yes though you are right about how they were run, I haven't seen one go into withdrawl in a few months now.

The attempt to keep the Incursion at 90% would be someone trying to keep the MOM from spawning so they could farm it, this tactic would have little to no chance of succeding as it would only take a hour to move the constelation controll to 100% and then end the incursion anyways.

I would add that the next time an Incursion pops up in your home system you could join in, if not with a ship then possiblly a supplier. Most Incursion Runners will go through a ridiculous amount of ammo (800 Mach will use 1mil ISK worth of Repubic Fleet EMP every 6 minutes) supplying that and drones (another throw away, or forgotten in space Item) should net you a decent income while the Incursion is in your nieghborhood.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
#234 - 2013-01-21 16:51:36 UTC
a good quarter of the incursion runners have low or null sec alts and this funds their habits or corporate ops.
Dzajic
#235 - 2013-01-21 18:16:53 UTC
ORCACommander wrote:
a good quarter of the incursion runners have low or null sec alts and this funds their habits or corporate ops.


And that must not be allowed. Only legal sources of income are tech, ganking freighters in niarja and jita scamming.
Mellisa 'Pixie' Clarke
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2013-01-22 08:21:34 UTC
This has now been deemed as an exploit by CCP. So OP 1 > leet space pvprs 0.
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#237 - 2013-01-23 15:35:46 UTC  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
Ember Klahan wrote:
goldiiee wrote:

TLDR: The fact that one toon has the ability to deny others access to a game feature at no risk to himself and at no perceptible loss to himself is an exploit and it is griefing. Any argument to the contrary is just Trolling.



This is an OK argument (except I think you meant one person; one toon would just be able to hold open one site). I'm still completely unconvinced that this is an exploit, and I think it's using the current game mechanic to profit - not greifing - but it is pretty reasonable, given the simplicity and accuracy with which you explained the problem, to say it is a broken mechanic.

The question is - how can it (and can it) be fixed? Make it so sites always despawn once completed, regardless of the ship type in the site? This disrupts the currently-functional low/null mechanic, although there are good arguments for doing it. Cause noobships and pods to be unable to hold open sites? This is a partial solution, for sure: the ships have to be purchased and in some cases moved to the target location, and they aren't free. In reality, though, it's really easy to move a bunch of frigates, and the cost of t1 frigates is functionally pretty much as free as noobships. Cause sites to automatically despawn once completed, but only in highsec, or in incursions? I don't know if that would be an easy change or a really hard change, and it would need to be discussed pretty heavily before being put into effect. The worst option, in my mind, is for CCP to say "it's an exploit, don't do it", start banning people who do, and not change the mechanic in any way.

Thoughts?


a few minutes after the completion (how much to be defined), make some rats pop.

those rats will not drop loot, will not give SS nor bounty (this prevent any farming).

make them strong enought so a noob ship or poorly fitted T1 frig is not enought (or escalate, at first 1 frig, then 5, then cruisers etc...).

as for the loots / noctis, they will just require a light escort in the form of a BC to protect em and would probably be done looting before the reinforcement become too strong to handle
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#238 - 2013-01-24 11:29:46 UTC
Tauranon wrote:
If the runners did not come and run the incursion - the incursion would last for its maximum amount of time, and the system penalties would be maximised at all times. Also if a group of carebears living in a system want the incursion gone, they can close it themselves, and IMO the runners make that easier, not harder, because they kill off the system penalties and the like.


As if the runners don't already have agreements in place to, well, keep the incursion up for the maximum amount of time?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#239 - 2013-01-24 11:49:09 UTC
Andski wrote:
As if the runners don't already have agreements in place to, well, keep the incursion up for the maximum amount of time?

They do, but people who find it convenient not to follow them obviously don't do that. As of late, incursions don't really live long.
Even if they do, having Sansha influence minimized by running (as opposed to being at 100%) is kind of a big deal for residents (bar miners who still face belt Sansha).

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become