EVE General Discussion

Just tried it, doesn't work. "interference" cited.

So that leaves ganking and wardecs.
And wardecs don't work.

this is one thing i never get my head around with some people in this game why the hell would you ask for something like making is to be nerfed!

Removed some off topic posts. Keep it on topic and civil. No more warnings.

^^ok.

As to the OP, incursion income is out of whack in HS, related to other activities.
I would increase the risk, and leave income potential at the current levels.
Remove Concord response in incursion systems. Let the players dictate the risk levels.

then you might as well go to lowsec.


honestly most players risk billion isk+ ships to run incursions, but if they don't ever lose them then I guess that isn't much of a risk. but that risk gets hard to quantify as not losing a ship depends on other players doing their role.

most of my incursion experience was running VGs at off peak hours, and as far as that goes I'd rather just run lv4 missions. maybe these days the communities are better and you can do HQs/Assaults or whatever you do at more hours so that would be one thing, but also that HQs have a double? payout of VGs.

and then there are scouts which got "buffed" but apparently to a state where they are useless.

Some good points here. Players are risking their ships, and they depend on their fleet mates to do their jobs. If people don't do their jobs people die. Sadly some folks in this thread believe risk should only be applied in a player to player aspect and that risk from NPCs to Players is not applicable.

Essentially they want CCP to either allow them to come in and roll the incursion runners with any amount of ships they think is needed, OR They want the rewards reduced if they can't.

Interesting conundrum, how does one define risk. Is fielding a multibillion ISK fleet against rats that can wipe it if people lose focus not any more risky than fielding the same against players who can wipe it if people lose focus?

Surely putting something on the line and trusting in others is risk. Just because it is down to a science doesn't make it any less risky, and there is no I win button like in most PVP encounters where Super or Titans can be deployed like PL did to HERO coalition anytime they were going to lose, or like NC. is doing to Provi right now.

Risk is Risk no?

Well, there is one way, killing the mom.

I guess disrupt needs defined, killing the incursion in under a day seems pretty disruptive. If defining it as successfully killing the runners, not sure that needs addressed. Not really much reason a 100k EHP ship with logi support needs to be more likely to die in an incursion than anywhere else in the same circumstance.

Was there another for of disruption you had in mind?

No?

I wish I could quantify, but since I do not have exact numbers, I guess we have to stay in the realm of qualitative observations. The fact that is is down to a science does make it less risky. You do see occasional PvE losses of shiny incursion ships, and people are going to get a good laugh out of those, but by and large, they are probably rare; the amount of loss to incursion rats compared to the net wealth they generate is a horribly tilted ratio, largely because it IS worked to a science. The science itself here significantly lowers the risk - take an incursion fleet lead by someone who knows the sites better than the back of his hand, versus a fleet with fits not specifically tailored for it, and without a-priori knowledge of the site. This may seem absurd, but over time, the doctrines, fits, knowledge base, etc, have continually refined the 'science' of incursions, whereas I'm sure there were lots of horrible and hilarious experiments early on. Since rats are 100% predictable, once the science is known, risks are basically mitigated entirely. Since there is no player risk in hisec, no actual threat to the point where it becomes meaningful, this science basically ensures as close to 100% safety as possible.

Compare that to people working the streets of sov null. How many miners, Ishtars, and other ratting ships die out there, and in the process, how much content (you know, what keeps people interested in the game) do they create, while theoretically also making people some money to fight with. Maybe anoms are broken, but at least they make player content, whereas the incursions never really pose any risk, because science lets you trump the rats almost without fail.

Again, I wish I could get quantitative here, but at least anecdotally, I would be willing to bet my ISK that HS incursion runners have the best gain to loss ratio out there, or at least significantly higher than other forms of ratting. Wormholers face horrible risks. Its a systematic problem that HS incursion is at all competitive with it, without the risk. Any sane person is going to take the easy, risk free way to the same ISK/hr. If I was new, and had a choice of venturing into a C3, or doing incursions, I'd pick incursions all the time - all ISK, no RISK. If you want an exciting game where content is being made, you have to tie risk to reward.

So you refuse to acknowledge that "popping the mom" does not have anything to do with interference,
but is actually ending the incursion? Because that's what it does. It ends it.

It's only interference in the eyes of the greedy people who want to keep milking it.

Yes, you're an incursion runner and thus a rather questionable person to discuss this with.


Anyways.

Feel free to read through the whole thread.
There is no need to keep repeating the same things over and over again.

Once you have done that and educated yourself on the "why's" and "how not's"
we can keep talking.

I repeat:
There is absolutely no need to keep repeating the same **** over and over again,
just because there are people who do not want to do so.

You can try this stupid trick with other people.