EVE General Discussion

Actually I didn't. I stated directly that would be superior to your idea, but even before that I conceded they could use an income nerf.

As far as the type of player route your taking, let me get ahead of that game by saying that's an evaluation I couldn't care less about. IMHO if being the right kind of player is a core concern of yours you may have missed some of the point of this being a sandbox game. And if you think the ships you've lost or could be made to lose are your value as a player I have no interest in your thoughts on the matter.

That was back in a different post though, so I suppose it's lost in the shuffle now, but consider the above my updated thought regarding priority of the 3 ideas.

I prefer neither. Nerfing profits to what extent. They can cut profit in half, is still more than mission running making it still the number one in isk to risk.

I have a few options that does not spoil the enjoyment for people legitimately wanting PvE but does disrupt the farm. 1, give pirates (sansha incursion rats) the ability to "scan" out ships in deadspace. Ergo, the offgrid boost which gives so much tank and logi rep to the bling. huge tank boost is huge reduction to risk.

Second, have a base penalty for system, but add a random additional penalty to the site similar to how wormholes can have different penalties.

Thirdly, let us randomize the spawns and where they can spawn in.

lastly, some sort of random or procedural site layout to remove that bit of predictability.

That will reduce the isk earning while enhancing a non farmer style gameplay.

I really don't understand why people think it shouldn't be more rewarding to organize and lead 40 man fleets
against sansha incursion rats that are quite capable of killing these blinged out ships . All it takes is a few seconds lapse in concentration. The income varies massivly. Between 60 mil/hour to 150(very very rarely). Average is probably 85 mil/hour
i used to make 70 - 80/hour in null on my own. You have to move about from site to site(always at risk of being ganked), sometimes you can be waiting an hour to get into a fleet... none of this being factored into the above isk/hour.

However i would say that all the organization is done by the incursion community leadership so it would make some sense if some of the rewards from incursions were shifted somehow so that more of it goes their way, rather than to random peaople who just show up and fire their guns/reps.

Well for the record I've come a lot closer to losing my incursion machariel than i ever came to losing my nullsec mach.
in null sec you watch local, non blue enters you dock up. No real risk.
Incursion you watch the rats, they start targeting you, you broadcast for reps. There is a small risk that logi doesn't catch you in time on a hard switch.
Also i'm only running incursions in high sec while i decide which null sec alliance i want to join.




Guilty lol

I'm all for shaking things up with the drifter stuff. I just think a lot of the people shouting for nerfs are clueless
ignorants who believe everything some braggart incursion runner tells them about their isk per hour.
250 mil/hour. Yeah maybe you managed that once with a perfect fleet comp and 7 tcrc spawns in a row.
I once killed a faction rat and it dropped and 500 mil isk implant should i claim i make 500 mil/minute in nullsec?

Incursions should have the option for sanshas loyalists to provide defensive support to the npc's, creating pvp oppourtunities and you know a little risk.

I dont understand why pve'ers are so hellbent about the difference between a npc and a player, they are both in theory red crosses, pve'ers complain that the pve is too easy, so why not change the predictability of npc's by adding players into the game because that is the most diverse and challenging opponent you can really have.

How can you possibly limit the difficulty then though?
If 100 players can just derp a fleet why would anyone run them?
making them pvp will just mean no one runs them, making them pointless.

I understand that for some it is repetitive and boring, imo they are missing the point.
It's about being on comms with a good community having a bit of a laugh and cooperating with other
players in pve, while making good isk. Is the isk too good? maybe, in my experience it's not as huge as people make out.
I do agree that it is good practice for future pvpers especially logi pilots, like a pvp light experiance to get used to you're roles in.

All incursion sites have a warp gate and so does a lot of missions. Grinding them in caps will be hard but blingy caps will definately be a thing.

That is a very good point. Why shouldn't a cohesive fleet make more? Well two bits to it. The isk is huge, but the LP makes it just explosively high.

The ideal way to portray this would be a proper cost analysis chart. I kinda can visualize it in my head. There are many ways to earn isk, markets and all that as well. They can be excluded because they do not add isk to the system. Reason market trading is high is because people have money to spend. Markets are a slight isk sink. If the rate of isk generation was lower, so would all profits related to industry and trade.

That out of the way, I try to visualize and sketch out the three components to isk generating task.

1. Recommended SP requirements and actual player skill (a good active player can get by with less SP)
2. Recommended level of investment (ship cost, ammo, replacements, etc)
3. Gross earning per hour est. (including LP and loot)

The chart of progression, how I view it here I will sort by general player skill, so criteria one based on what I consider Isk generating means. It can be contentious in that I have LP in earnings as LP is essentially industry. However since it is a part of the task and requires no side input, I feel it is a valid part of Gross earnings. Salvaging and loot I am not considering so much because isk earning vs the isk from salvage averages out, or even reduces the per time earning. I left out Epic arcs because of their inability to be consistently ran, same with Cosmos. Exploration isk is mainly in the loots so is inflation connected.

1. highsec belt ratting
2. L1 missions
3. L2 Missions
4. Lowsec belt ratting
5. L3 Missions
6. L4 Missions
7. L5 missions
8. Incursions
9. Nullsec Ratting

I had a discussion about risk and risk management in terms of motorcycles. How majority of risk comes from risk management. In reality, the main risks can be negated via attentiveness or responsibility. If something is managed and just becomes part of standards and process, does the risk exist anymore? Walking on two legs in all reality is quite dangerous. Our height means a simple trip is deadly from head injury. But we do not consider it life and death, or even at all. Evolution means that we habitually manage it and would have to make a conscious effort to actually make it a valid risk. When young and learning to walk however... Just stating this because it will be a valid consideration shortly.

Now for the visualization, imagine the three considerations for each as a bar graph.

1,2 and 3 would be fairly balanced on the risk, isk and sp size. A nice progression up.
4, player risk means we have a spike here.
5 and 6 are once more pretty back in part.
7, nobody runs. They require too much time and isk investment for an incredibly high risk from pvp.

Pause here. The lowsec stuff? That risk is manageable, but then the isk is spread to those other pilots. As such, instead of being a risk spike, is an isk low spot.

Now to the incursions, In it's raw, it has a higher SP requirement and risk which drops the earning. For the first while, and from a damage output and NPC abilities, it fits in line quite nicely. But back to what we mentioned before.

Missions and stuff, we can know everything, gotten used to and built skills. But even if you have never ran the mission before or not solid on concepts, a player can manage them. Isk fluctuation and skill/sp are pretty much aligned to each other. Incursion on the other hand was entirely risked by lack of knowledge. Like learning to walk, we learned incursions. the SP and skill of players has little effect on the isk earning. As such, instead of being in line, realistic earning is a large spike in an otherwise smooth progression.

As it stands now, it is all scripted. The risk is managed to the point of non existence. "threat" of gank exists, but it is quite rare. Even still, the difference between a gank tempting target and an effective incursion ship isn't much and the isk per hour between a solid fleet representative of skills and sp above L4 status and the bling fleet.

People say it isn't the PvE, and that it isn't risky. It is risky. Just ask the guys how it was when everything was unknown? Early fleets, skilled logistics and FCs had a sort of fee. It was expected for fleet members to toss them isk for their hard work and management. Nowadays, they just want a free handout to pay for an OGB. The risk is just managed now to the point where it is no longer able to consider it a risk. The OGB by the way, essentially adding +2 to the fleet in size without actually being on grid.

Ergo, the fix isn't dramatic gameplay change or faux bypassing of mechanics. It all comes down to the root cause. The risk is too easily managed. The best way is to make it so that it is always like a new feature. Fully random spawns. I would start with a small pool of generic premade spawns. Subsequent re-enforcements would be reminicent of the Homeworld 2 NPCs which try to counter.

Don't make the mistake of understating the effect. A guaranteed BS loss is an extreme step away from any current form of PvE when done correctly. I'm not stating that these incursions will be done less, I'm saying they won't be done because, as we've both agreed, they aren't worth it compared to pretty much anything else. That includes other highsec activities like lvl 4 missioning, very likely reducing any planned exodus out of high, as that was the core complaint activity prior to incursions.

That's why your position seems so paradoxical. You state they wouldn't work on it without the intention to use it more widely, but agree with the idea that they would want it to go unused? I'm not sure how to reconsile those 2 viewpoints. The only thing I can think of is that you believe seeing ignored incursions around the HS map is a better use of effort in CCPs eyes than a single event with greater loss potential.

Regarding the idea of groups becoming more engaged, why would they? How does less profit and more logistical headaches lead to a more involved community? We saw those communities collapse back when their income got a slight nerf, but want them to band together tighter with an even worse nerf? The pot will have to be greatly sweetened with this activity to make this worthwhile enough to counteract the normal chase to the lowest risk+effort:reward activity.

I just don't see it working for any of the goals you state save ending HS incursion running. Beyond that, tighter groups and moving people back to null seem like the same pipe dreams they always are when you look beyond that single mechanic.