These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP - End Highsec Incursions

First post First post
Author
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1521 - 2015-11-28 02:17:45 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
but the problem is how badly you null players want them nerfed.


Are you seriously saying that the truth of their statements doesn't matter, just because of who is saying it?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#1522 - 2015-11-28 02:34:09 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
So you didn't read the article at all did you. It was from a year ago. The author attacked that very argument head on with the way the stats were set up. Same number of NPC kills, same amount of time, Null sec had less deaths.

It's very easy to produce something that looks convincing on the surface, but that is driven by bias to prove a point that has already been concluded.

That particular study has some pretty major shortcomings, on top of it's flawed basis to begin with.

It's unfortunate because it would be great if he'd taken a more serious and measured approach to the design of his analysis. That would have produced something of value to us all.


It was flawed, mainly in my mind because it dodn't measure the thing it was trying to measure: danger. Danger in this game is "the chance of suffering a ship loss".

That's how we do it in real life. That's why if you have a city with 1000 people and 100 murders, and another city with 100 people and 11 murders, the city with 11 murders is more dangerous, because the chance of dying is higher. For the bloggers analysis to work he would have needed to know how many people were in the systems under consideration in the 1st place (hint, there will be more people in high sec mission running systems than in null sec ratting systems).

Also, the price tags of the ships prove the opposite of the of the blogger in the exact same way high sec incursions do. In the past people have linked 5 bil isk incursion ship killmails as proof that incursions were dangerous. They didn't understand that the existence of 5 billion isk pve ships proves the space is safer than null...because you can use 5 bil isk pve ships and expect to survive. Likewise you can't use maraduers in null, and while some of the kills were carriers, most were 'throwaway' ishtars and VNIs and some Gilas.

If Null were as safe as high sec partisans want you to believe, the price tags of the ships killed wold be uniformly higher.

At the end of the day, what we have is another case of MMAing . Inamed for Market McSelling Alt, it is the practice of linking something thinking it supports your argument when in reality it disproves your argument, like he did when he linked a graph showing incursion runners generated the 3rd largest isk faucet after he admitted that few people run incursions (a situation recently confirmed by CCP Quants postings). Or like the time when he linked another graph he thought showed that high sec was more dangerous but that really showed that more value is killed in null sec overall.

Don't be an MMA...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1523 - 2015-11-28 02:39:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
like he did when he linked a graph showing incursion runners generated the 3rd largest isk faucet after he admitted that few people run incursions (a situation recently confirmed by CCP Quants postings).


That was hilarious. If anything guaranteed an incoming nerf to incursions, it was showing that such a tiny percentage of the community generates such a hugely disproportionate amount of the isk. (And hell, incursions don't just give isk)

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1524 - 2015-11-28 02:51:35 UTC
The sad part is incursions don't need a nerf per se. When we started incursions right after release, ship losses were common and we had to balance the value of the ship to expected losses. We lost ships due to the unknown, stuff catching us and would have to adapt, but ship still died. Was fun. A 15 minute vanguard was considered good. HQs could take up to an hour iirc. Lower dps, needing specialized tackle, and patience to maintain control and observe were the factors. With this in mind, isk wasn't really that great, but the unpredictable and active/reactive nature made them fun enough to be sustainable.

So really, sansha do not need the nerf, they need a reinvention. Once bugs are out of the drifter AI, that is a potential. It opens up CCP to make for reactive ships in the incursions. Same sites, but without the same predictable nature. This means fleets will need to be more diverse to account for the unknown. That means better FCs, and a return of risk. In reality, it would drop income, but from a gameplay perspective, be a buff.

If people have an issue with no longer being able to farm, I point you in the direction of facebook where there are more farming games than you can shake a stick.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#1525 - 2015-11-28 03:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Markus Reese wrote:
The sad part is incursions don't need a nerf per se.

We could probably use any of a number of different terms: nerf, balance pass, update, redesign, etc.

Opinion here about what the outcome should be, irrespective of what it's called, is consistent to either: 1. stop trying to nerf highsec; and 2. adjust the risk:reward balance so their is more risk or less reward.

The only thing certain is that eventually CCP will come around to looking at Sansha incursions again. The active development that CCP put into the game means that it's inevitable.

Of late, CCP appear to have been moving more towards evidence driven/data driven design and a lot of what we've seen with adjustments like the new NPE, identification of ships to rebalance, sov changes, etc. has involved CCP collecting log data to inform their decisions.

As a result, when CCP Quant posts this:

"You can see some interesting and unexpected things like the fact that only 1.5% of players run Incursions and 13.8% of players engage in PVP on any given day. The former is especially interesting considering the fact that incursion payouts were the 3rd largest ISK faucet in September, at 8.3T ISK, which you'll see this later in this blog, and on top of this is the added value of Concord LP payouts for clearing incursions."

Even though he isn't a dev, I'm fairly confident that when CCP do rebalance incursions, the data that Quant found unexpected and interesting, is exactly the same data that the dev team will use when they look at making changes.

So for all our discussions here, of the choices between status quo, making incursions an even larger ISK faucet, or toning them back; I think CCP will choose to tone them down.

There's a lot more data that I hope CCP also use when they make these decisions, but from all I see from devs and designers like Nullarbor, Punkturis, Karkur, Rise, Fozzie, etc., they are all pretty smart people.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#1526 - 2015-11-28 03:19:33 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
The sad part is incursions don't need a nerf per se.

We could probably use any of a number of different terms: nerf, balance pass, update, redesign, etc.

Opinion about what the outcome should be, irrespective of what it's called, is consistent to either: 1. stop trying to nerf highsec; and 2. adjust the risk:reward balance so their is more risk or less reward.

The only thing certain is that eventually CCP will come around to looking at Sansha incursions again. That active development that CCP put into the game means that it's inevitable.

Of late, CCP appear to have been moving more towards evidence driven design, or data driven design and a lot of what we've seen with adjustments like the new NPE, identification of ships to rebalance, sov changes, etc. has involved CCP collecting log data to inform their decisions.

As a result, when CCP Quant posts this:

"You can see some interesting and unexpected things like the fact that only 1.5% of players run Incursions and 13.8% of players engage in PVP on any given day. The former is especially interesting considering the fact that incursion payouts were the 3rd largest ISK faucet in September, at 8.3T ISK, which you'll see this later in this blog, and on top of this is the added value of Concord LP payouts for clearing incursions."

Even though he isn't a dev, I'm fairly confident that when CCP do rebalance incursions, the data that Quant found unexpected and interesting, is exactly the same data that the dev team will use when they look at making changes.

So for all our discussions here, of the choices between status quo, making incursions an even larger ISK faucet, or toning them back; I think CCP will choose to tone them down.

There's a lot more data that I hope CCP also use when they make these decisions, but from all I see from devs and designers like Nullarbor, Punkturis, Karkur, Rise, Fozzie, etc., they are all pretty smarty people.


I hope they look at pve in a holistic way. The big problem has been CCP adding features (that have rewards) without understanding how those will interact. The PVEr in me says it's because they tend to be pvp focused and don't really understand the what motivates people beyond wanting to get kills or 'tears'.

Incursions aren't the only things that need reinventing. Missions, anomalies, FW, all of it needs a rethink, and they need input from the PVErs who aren't selfishly concerned only about their own wallets (or their hatred of all things outside of high sec) but who actually love PVE (across the whole game) as an activity in and of itself.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#1527 - 2015-11-28 03:31:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
but the problem is how badly you null players want them nerfed.


Are you seriously saying that the truth of their statements doesn't matter, just because of who is saying it?



I only said that because most (if not all) the complaints against hi-sec incursions stems from null sec players. I've been re-reading all the posts in this forums and can clearly see that incursions are broken. But I've yet to read a proper post stating how to fix them without destroying them. And still waiting.........

Edit: So what if they are broken. I can't see the harm in one little broken aspect of Eve being this big a problem since it's only run by a very small commute. Even if they are changed the only thing I can see happening is that null alts would find something else to grind isk for other than farming anoms 23/7.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1528 - 2015-11-28 03:36:16 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:

I only said that because most (if not all) the complaints against hi-sec incursions stems from null sec players. I've been re-reading all the posts in this forums and can clearly see that incursions are broken. But I've yet to read a proper post stating how to fix them without destroying them. And still waiting.........


And that requires asking yourself the question: "Are Incursions redeemable, does anything justify their existence in the face of how broken they are?"

And for a lot of people that answer is no. I would argue that carebear tears alone are the only reason incursions were ever allowed to exist past the first year.


Quote:

Edit: So what if they are broken. I can't see the harm in one little broken aspect of Eve being this big a problem since it's only run by a very small commute.


That's not a saving grace. It's yet another condemnation, that incursions are so absurdly lucrative that a tiny, tiny portion of the population makes so goddamn much money.

So what if they're run by a small amount of people? Broken is broken. If it did not generate assets into the game world, it would not such an imperative, but it does(and tons of it at that). It harms the game's economy, and the game itself basically is the economy.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1529 - 2015-11-28 03:42:34 UTC
This will start a bit off topic, but hear me out. I am in a kind of abstract mindset processing this, so sorry if I get a bit repetitive or all over the place.

On the tweetfleet, myself and another were debating about the jump fatigue. I made mention about force projection. After much banter on the topic, it got brought up the issue of supplying being the real kind of hate on. Suddenly, at least for this discussion, it became clear. Nullsec lives off highsec. Not unknown, but the nullsec did not want to be self sustaining, nor was it really feasable. Highsec industrials, highsec manufacturing, and then add in isking to buy it from the marketeers plus plexing. Nullsec cannot survive in.. nullsec.

How does this relate to incursions? Plex, while ending RMT has been the big change to dynamics. Not much we can do about that. It is isk pure and simple. The only way to change this is to make nullsec and other areas more reliant on their area for non isk income. It is odd really, but a flow of resource map is required. Isk influx needs to be maintained to prevent pools, and is the only means of open trading. Contracts of course being a closed trade.

LP really is the best reward that eve has. The LP market contains everything players would need to fit ships. Mining and mission salvage gets the rest. Mining again, does not inject isk into the system, but still has value and subject to isk vs risk. So, what does this all lead to?

Isk should not be a main form of income in any direct sense. If you are a new player running missions, LP should be a major means to get the basic stuff. Ship insurance acts as a bit of an injector. Surplus gets used to sell. But here is where it gets important.

More localization of the rewards. A smaller income of isk means that the isk is used in your own LP store, or to buy what is needed from other people. A player then becomes more self sustaining. Isk can be used for essentially other faction things, but if you want that new ship, you will have the LP well before you have the isk. Surplus LP converts into items that other factions might want, etc. Not everything available from one source, or sometimes better stuff from another faction.

For example, lets say you are a minmatar player. Building a tough ship, but some of the shield stuff from caldari is better. As such, surplus LP will go to stuff the minmatar specialize in and that would go for sale. The isk from that sale, and your more moderate isk from pve will go to buying caldari shield tech. Flipside, if you are caldari, well the minmatar have more powerful missiles and ammo lets say. Gallente blasters, amarr passive armor, etc. It would be a very complex tree.

Now we can expand it. The Sansha incursions. Gimp the isk out big time, but dramatically up the LP. However, change exchange rate or remove the LP exchange? Concord get's its own LP store. Suddenly, the LP is what is used to get new stuff and upgrade ships. What it offers? Well the higher end implants, etc to make one more combat effective and sort of universal. However now since the LP is restricted, you cannot just farm it to get the iskies for plex. Tons of farming means a flooded market, and as such, self regulating. When it reaches a certain level, farmers will go elsewhere.

This notion again can be expanded to other areas. Improved negative pilot security and pirate faction standings. Have piracy earning lp so if you are working for a particular faction, it becomes more that you will fly and fit there stuff. Want to FOTM, going to have to run for that different faction, or hope that your sales of pirate specialized gear does well on market. Out in nullsec, the mining and such would need to be changed to make factory style production of T1 and T2 ships the best bet for your war efforts.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1530 - 2015-11-28 03:45:42 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
[quote=Daniela Doran]but the problem is how badly you null players want them nerfed.

Edit: So what if they are broken. I can't see the harm in one little broken aspect of Eve being this big a problem since it's only run by a very small commute. Even if they are changed the only thing I can see happening is that null alts would find something else to grind isk for other than farming anoms 23/7.


Issue is that it is a negative attribute for new players. It is a closed and disinteresting part of eve gaming and as such, will turn off potential long term subs. In addition, the higher wealth it generates creates a mentality that high value is the norm. I could never afford a T3 doctrine style pvp. If there is SRP, how does the alliance support it? In the end, the higher the wealth, the more exclusive stuff becomes. Eve is a sandbox, there is no new player area. The more exclusive stuff becomes, the more unattainable higher end play is to more entries. That is lost subs.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#1531 - 2015-11-28 04:02:46 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
but the problem is how badly you null players want them nerfed.


Are you seriously saying that the truth of their statements doesn't matter, just because of who is saying it?



I only said that because most (if not all) the complaints against hi-sec incursions stems from null sec players. I've been re-reading all the posts in this forums and can clearly see that incursions are broken. But I've yet to read a proper post stating how to fix them without destroying them. And still waiting.........

Edit: So what if they are broken. I can't see the harm in one little broken aspect of Eve being this big a problem since it's only run by a very small commute. Even if they are changed the only thing I can see happening is that null alts would find something else to grind isk for other than farming anoms 23/7.


I don't like your attitude that something you know is broken is ok to leave broken. I heard the EXACT same thing with high sec lvl 5s (CCP acknowledged it was a bug but took 3 years to fix it).

Broken is broken. This broken thing affects people like me because it creates upside down incentives (ie I'm more encouraged to keep an alt in high sec to make safe isk than I am to move that alt to null to help me make isk and defend my ratting space).

And It creates an 'indestructible funnel" of wealth from high sec to null/low sec pilots to use. Income at that level should be attackable without needing a mom popping fleet. Point blank, if you want the kind of isk people get form incursions, you should have to take a risk.

To your credit, and unlike most, at least you did admit they are broken.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1532 - 2015-11-28 04:11:32 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


I don't like your attitude that something you know is broken is ok to leave broken. I heard the EXACT same thing with high sec lvl 5s (CCP acknowledged it was a bug but took 3 years to fix it).

Broken is broken. This broken thing affects people like me because it creates upside down incentives (ie I'm more encouraged to keep an alt in high sec to make safe isk than I am to move that alt to null to help me make isk and defend my ratting space).

And It creates an 'indestructible funnel" of wealth from high sec to null/low sec pilots to use. Income at that level should be attackable without needing a mom popping fleet. Point blank, if you want the kind of isk people get form incursions, you should have to take a risk.

To your credit, and unlike most, at least you did admit they are broken.



The L5 thing is kind of funny actually. While yeah, the getting them in highsec chaining did make for some nice isk, the bigger part of it I found was that I needed to call a couple buddies to do them, and they needed logi. By that note, they were perfect for highsec in a gameplay standpoint. Have same strength NPCs, but some randomization to their behavior and a perfect highsec tool to getting players accustomed to ship loss and fleet combat. Vital tools and a bit of bait for nullsec lifestyle.

That is what highsec needs to be. A bit of flavour of what we want nullsec to play like. Exclude attitudes and politics, But highsec should be a teaser, with pve versions of pvp. No, I am not talking burner missions. Visual flavour. Burner missions are badly done and super boss npcs that are all strength, no skill are usually considered a sign of poor game design. Mission risk should be lots of lasers to make the call for reps, then gaining a foothold. That way people will want to logi pvp, will want to fleet, etc. On the flipside, there can develop a solo play style more like burner missions, but without the metagame play to get people wanting to do piracy and small/agile ship combat.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.

Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#1533 - 2015-11-28 05:51:40 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:

I only said that because most (if not all) the complaints against hi-sec incursions stems from null sec players. I've been re-reading all the posts in this forums and can clearly see that incursions are broken. But I've yet to read a proper post stating how to fix them without destroying them. And still waiting.........


And that requires asking yourself the question: "Are Incursions redeemable, does anything justify their existence in the face of how broken they are?"

And for a lot of people that answer is no. I would argue that carebear tears alone are the only reason incursions were ever allowed to exist past the first year.


Quote:

Edit: So what if they are broken. I can't see the harm in one little broken aspect of Eve being this big a problem since it's only run by a very small commute.


That's not a saving grace. It's yet another condemnation, that incursions are so absurdly lucrative that a tiny, tiny portion of the population makes so goddamn much money.

So what if they're run by a small amount of people? Broken is broken. If it did not generate assets into the game world, it would not such an imperative, but it does(and tons of it at that). It harms the game's economy, and the game itself basically is the economy.


You want to remove incursions from game altogether? If content if this caliber is remove from the game then it needs to be replace with either better content or equal content quality than the former. Otherwise there be would a risk of say 3-4k players unsubbing because you removed their content from the game without compensation for lack of this content.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#1534 - 2015-11-28 06:03:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Jenn aSide wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:
but the problem is how badly you null players want them nerfed.


Are you seriously saying that the truth of their statements doesn't matter, just because of who is saying it?



I only said that because most (if not all) the complaints against hi-sec incursions stems from null sec players. I've been re-reading all the posts in this forums and can clearly see that incursions are broken. But I've yet to read a proper post stating how to fix them without destroying them. And still waiting.........

Edit: So what if they are broken. I can't see the harm in one little broken aspect of Eve being this big a problem since it's only run by a very small commute. Even if they are changed the only thing I can see happening is that null alts would find something else to grind isk for other than farming anoms 23/7.


I don't like your attitude that something you know is broken is ok to leave broken. I heard the EXACT same thing with high sec lvl 5s (CCP acknowledged it was a bug but took 3 years to fix it).

Broken is broken. This broken thing affects people like me because it creates upside down incentives (ie I'm more encouraged to keep an alt in high sec to make safe isk than I am to move that alt to null to help me make isk and defend my ratting space).

And It creates an 'indestructible funnel" of wealth from high sec to null/low sec pilots to use. Income at that level should be attackable without needing a mom popping fleet. Point blank, if you want the kind of isk people get form incursions, you should have to take a risk.

To your credit, and unlike most, at least you did admit they are broken.



I say leave the broken piece alone for now because this broken piece has been instilled into Eve for a long time now. If you remove it forceably then you risk a collapse in unforseen places in Eve. Unless their is a fixed piece already prepared in advance to replace the broken piece, the broken piece should be left alone.

I imagine that Drifter Incursions is this fixed piece CCP is preparing in place of the (broken) Sansha Incursions once the Drifter AI situation has been sorted, just need to be patient.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1535 - 2015-11-28 06:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Daniela Doran wrote:

You want to remove incursions from game altogether?


I'm explaining that position, anyway.

Incursions should preferably be replaced by something that has some significance in current lore, that is neither easily farmed or absurdly lucrative.


Quote:

Otherwise there be would a risk of say 3-4k players unsubbing because you removed their content from the game without compensation for lack of this content.


Yeah, carebears have been wholeheartedly advocating for the deletion of entire playstyles for a while now, so you can't even claim moral high ground on that.

Second, if you think three or four thousand people run incursions, or care whether they exist, you're nuts. They didn't even get that many unsubs when they finally got rid of the ISBoxer cheaters.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#1536 - 2015-11-28 09:18:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Daniela Doran wrote:

You want to remove incursions from game altogether?


I'm explaining that position, anyway.

Incursions should preferably be replaced by something that has some significance in current lore, that is neither easily farmed or absurdly lucrative.
Huh, kinda sounds like the Drifter Incursions.

Content that pays slightly less, is not currently farmable and has the capacity to be tuned as players do figure them out, and ties directly into the ongoing lore of New Eden. Group PvP content that is both challenging and dynamic like the original Incursions we suppose to be.

The gravy train that is the Sansha Incursions is about to derail - CCP Affinity practically said so at Eve Vegas. They have certainly taken their time, but CCP has finally gotten around to fixing these broken incursions. It is only a matter of months until the switch is thrown and the current Sansha ones are taken out of highsec and replaced fully with the Drifter ones.

It seems like the Drifter ones are much more balanced and in line with the orginal intent of Incursions. I predict many less threads like this one once the Drifters are the only game in town, and a more active low/null as the army of farming alts currently abusing incursions migrate back home.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1537 - 2015-11-28 09:27:27 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Huh, kinda sounds like the Drifter Incursions.


It kinda does, huh? The second I heard about those, I knew the writing was on the wall for the current incursions. They even call it the same name for goodness sakes.

There's no point defending that particular golden goose anymore, it's going to get the axe.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#1538 - 2015-11-28 12:02:59 UTC
You could always employ the CODE Incursion Permit Alliance to handle the problem.
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#1539 - 2015-11-28 12:19:45 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
nerfing it will cause nullsec players to not bother with them and the people who really want to do them will have more chance and less waiting, whats the issue?


Hmm, a good point, but the problem is how badly you null players want them nerfed. And if they do get nerfed, will something else in hi-sec get targeted?


I feel like this is a good example of "us and them" mentality at work. You paint the people calling for a nerf to payouts as "mean nullbears" and yourself as part of a group of "victims" and by doing so you turn the argument into something bigger than the actual issue we are discussing. You've also got a slippery slope argument in there which is based on nothing but your own fear of other groups.

I have been all over eve (and currently live in highsec btw), and I keep on coming back to incursions as there is simply nothing else out there that pays as well. Something needs to be done and since income is all relative the simplest answer is nerfing incursion income somewhat. I have put forward a number of 17.5m per HQ site as a starting point, works out as 80m/hr (15min/site) with good groups (10min/site) getting up to 104m/hr maximum. Obviously vanguards and assaults will need to be scaled in line with the new values.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.

Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#1540 - 2015-11-28 14:07:08 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Second, if you think three or four thousand people run incursions, or care whether they exist, you're nuts. They didn't even get that many unsubs when they finally got rid of the ISBoxer cheaters.


First Incursion runners are 1.5% of the population. If we are to believe people like you and Jenn who think the game is fine and isn't shedding subs, then that would make them well over 4000 accounts/players

Second I thought the defense to why half the game is gone and never logs in anymore is because of ISBoxer changes? At least that was one of the 20 excuses to why we are only averaging 19k online now.

Get your story straight.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.