Player Features and Ideas Discussion

yeah and i said in game deflation has only started to happen recently and not by very much, its wasnt 'massive'. get a clue.



CCP already said its not a problem...

High plex prices may be bad for ppl trying to pay for the game with plex, but its good for ppl trying to sell plex. Neither demographic should really be favoured over the other. CCP say they wont interfere depending on the tactics ppl are using to sell plex.

Because the claim was made that we need to nerf high sec "farming" income because it is flooding eve with too much Isk. The counterpoint was made that the growth in stuff is outpacing the growth in ISK, and the proof of that is Plex inflation coupled with Eve deflation. What this means is that there is absolutely no reason to nerf incursion income.

My point here was simply that whether they're paying with PLEX or $$, they still are paying for what amounts to an entertainment service. The fact that they're not satisfied with that service is a problem and this is their forum to state that and to propose ideas to fix it. The alternative would be for them to stop paying and leave the game. A valid option, but one that in the end hurts the entirety of Eve. The question that stands is which is the greater hurt: them leaving (and taking their money with them) or making changes to the point where they stay?

I advocate leaving the answer to that question to CCP for the simple reason that they have tools at their disposal to see New Eden with a much greater scope than any of us do - regardless of how experienced we may be.

Well I don't think that it can be solved long therm by a solution like this but it would probably give interesting options to prevent mom sites to spawn for specific reasons(like simply moving the spawn to another TZ). However I don't think that it would work if you not can de spawn a already spawned mom site with it again.

I don't believe there should be outrages penalty's for this kind of sites, just don't give out LP/ISK for it to make it purely a option for channels to actively deny a option to another channel or forcing them to run sites to/field multiple fleets to work against it. The penalty of running under red bar are actually considerable, while it is hardly more risk for a well organized channel, it means a lot longer site times.

Overall I don't think that it will be a permanent solution to the mechanic and it's use by the community. A option could be to prevent the mom site to spawn within the first 24h of a Inc, for high sec only ofc to limit the ability of single channels to go around and close everything at once, especially if the spawn is outside of her TZ. That would also make the situation better for people outside of EU TZ, since most Incs spawn and get closed during the EU TZ by her high player count, what makes it easier for the channels to do the mom around this times and makes it even harder for people outside of this time zones to run sites in times like this.

Seriously dude...look what the Grrr Goons....Amyclass wrote one page ago...

"Enough isk lost travelling and waiting? You're not in a position to even speak about loss. What you really mean is opportunity cost.

People running level 4 SOEs are exposed to pvp in low and null-sec, incursions are not. And you are a significant source of isk that is difficult to stop. That is why you need nerfs.

Everything in EVE is connected. The mining permits I sold in high-sec today paid for my naglfar blueprint copies. The incursion isk made today could end up as an enemy titan on the field tomorrow. It is bad for the game for any part of it to exist isolated from the rest of EVE, because ultimately, it isn't. Any isk fountain affects the rest of the game. Botted isk dilutes everyone else's market power. The whole faction warfare fiasco was goonrushed because it was valuable, and difficult to stop. If there is any way to get any advantage, it will be exploited to the last drop."


But my claim was a "lie." It's a word that gets thrown around a lot on the forums, I've noticed, and apparently many people, such as yourself, struggle with the definition of a lie. Here, as a threshold matter, may claim was TRUE, hence my comment cannot be a "lie." I do indeed pay with Plex, but since I only have 1 account, and also have 25 billion ISK in my wallet, the drama has a very limited effect on me. Yet another wild and unsubstantiated assertion by you - do you see the pattern here? It's too bad that in your bluster and bravado you could not be bothered to read and comprehend the comments on this thread. Perhaps instead of spending your time smearing people as liars and dripping contempt, you could try actually reading the posts on the forum before bloviating? Just a suggestion, buddy.

Seriously? Did you read his post? He clearly wanted to nerf highsec incursion income...not just farming. Why not just admit you were wrong, apologize, and move on? If you would make the basic effort to read through the thread, and pay attention to whom I was responding, you would have realized that our local Goon, and many other people in other threads have claimed that Incursions are flooding Eve with ISK, and driving up the price of Plex. It is perfectly reasonable to explain how the real deflation occurring negates that hypothesis. There is no need to get riles up - control your temper, respond rationally, and move in. Getting emotionally involved does not assist your arguments.

Personally I think that incursions were in a good place before this mom popping spree. All I'm asking for is for CCP to give us the tools to restore them to their former glory. Enough said.

where incursions originally designed to be farmed till to the last minute? I assume if they would be they would have added the mothership site as regular site and not let it close the incursion - but i could be wrong.

You are welcome. but truth is truth and we rarely know the real person behind the character or what motivates them to do whatever it is they do here in EVE.


An interesting thought but I wonder do you think this is the truth? or is this another of your off the cuff posts about something you know nothing about?

It is technically possible to suicide gank someone when your sec status is this low but considering the hassle a player would face I wonder if it could happen. Maybe another member here has experience in this and can answer.
Basically once you have reached a -5 sec status you are fair game to anyone and everyone in the game if you enter high sec. With sec status this low or lower concord will not respond if you are attacked because they consider you a criminal. And not only can every player in high sec attack you without fearing reprisal from concord the empire navies and empire police forces will hunt you relentlessly and shoot at you at every opportunity until you leave high sec. So as I said it is technically possible to suicide gank with -10 sec status in reality it would be extremely difficult and would require some considerable coordination of resources and other players.

i can assure you -10 sec status is not a major obstacle to gankers. Criminal =/= outlaw and CONCORD do not pursue outlaws outside of CONCORD sov. So its only slow and terrible empire NPC's that go after you for being -10.

gank by -10 players arent uncommon.

Regardless of the macro-economics, incursions are enough of an isk fountain to give people like you 25B in their wallets. If you ever got your act together, that is price of a super. Money is not just inflation, money is power.

I believe that kind of income is too much power to be gained for too little pvp-risk in high-sec.