These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Srsly, something has to be done about incursions.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#121 - 2012-01-10 09:14:50 UTC
This is ridiculous. In sov you have to hold your territory against every other player in Eve. If you're safe, it's cause your alliance makes you that way.

Everywhere else in Eve you're taking risks with all your assets to make money.

Down with free money for carebears.
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#122 - 2012-01-10 09:57:40 UTC
And up with free money for nullbears...?

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#123 - 2012-01-10 10:29:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale


For the love of god, if you're going to revisit the feature and fix the issues people complain about, treat the actual problems and not the symptoms. The main two problems I see in the feature are, that there is a large number of infinitely respawning sites and there is no reason to try to end the incursion in highsec until at the very last minute.

The fixes should simply be to create a mechanic that reduces the number of sites as the incursion matures and the amount of site farming increases and create reasons to kill the mothership and ending the incursion as soon as possible. The diminshing site respawn mechanic addresses the farming problem by simply limiting the resource to the point it can't sustain a large number of farmers for an extended period of time. Both these changes combined create a situation where after an initial farming period, people have a strong motivation to end the incursion, since there isn't enough sites to satisfy all farmers and doing the final site gets you or gives a chance of getting you some kind of a jackpot.
Tore Vest
#124 - 2012-01-10 10:44:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tore Vest
Srsly... If CCP is nerfing highsec incursion cause some CSM is whining about it...

CCP is listening to the wrong ppl

Edit: Again

No troll.
Endeavour Starfleet
#125 - 2012-01-10 10:49:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
Tore Vest wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale


Shocked

Never listen to CSM.
They are all in some big alliance.... and will offc. get rid of incursion.
They want theyr players back Bear


We're not all in big alliances. And we certainly don't want to get rid of incursions.

Incursions are a great collaborative PvE experience, it brings people together in highsec (which is a good thing), gives some focus points where pvp can happen in lowsec as well as providing some much needed reward boost there, etc. So, no, we don't want to get rid of Incursions, they are a good thing.

The questions that need to be looked at as far as I'm concerned are:
- whether there are enough incursions or not. I believe they go away too fast in highsec, forcing continuous migration which isn't a good thing
- whether the overall rewards are appropriate. I believe the rewards are a tad too high in highsec, and fairly good otherwise, a bit on the low side in 0.0 but 0.0 has other income sources (or should have).
- whether sites are balanced (they're not, vanguards are too easy to do, the other sites are too annoying/long), diversity is good in terms of content, but the overall reward/time could use some harmonization.

If anything, we asked for more similar content, because it generates the kind of behavior (people getting together) and fun experience/gameplay that is beneficial to the game, so stop worrying :p


*I bolded the bad stuff in this.

Ya this is as I expected. Is the CSM REALLY trying to hide disdain for incursions by mixing nerf attempts in piles of so called "improvements and harmonization" ??

You have CCP's ear and now its time to "git 'dem damn incursion runners out and back to mAh endless CTAs to defend mah moon gooz!"

Incursions are fine as is. We have to risk very expensive ships to run these sites you claim are too easy, too high, and imbalanced. When in nullsec NAPed systems with sanctums in there get buffs with virtually no risk.

What I love is how the shiny fleet fools in BTL Pub support the nerf effort. They seriously think you CSM wont come for them next (Or first) If they wont call against this nerf effort I can only hope you alliance folk will start blasting the moms and ending their runs as well. As nerfing Vanguards will virtually drive away all non shiny fleets leaving many to return to lvl IVs and removing the reason to group. Which is exactly what the shiny fleet fools want as it means better LP prices.
okst666
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-01-10 10:53:33 UTC
Destination SkillQueue wrote:


For the love of god, if you're going to revisit the feature and fix the issues people complain about, treat the actual problems and not the symptoms. The main two problems I see in the feature are, that there is a large number of infinitely respawning sites and there is no reason to try to end the incursion in highsec until at the very last minute.

The fixes should simply be to create a mechanic that reduces the number of sites as the incursion matures and the amount of site farming increases and create reasons to kill the mothership and ending the incursion as soon as possible.



Wait, wat? You want to reduce the amount of sites?

Hell no.. Double them! There are not enough sites for all people who want to fly them...there isn't even enough fleets..

Yesterday I spent 2 hours again posting fittings in the Incursionchannel among 400 others that did not make it in a fleet.

We need much more sites and more fleets!

[X] < Nail here for new monitor
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#127 - 2012-01-10 10:55:03 UTC
take a few friends and kill the mothership. \endoffarming

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2012-01-10 10:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarnis McPieksu
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale


:RED ALERT:

Nerfbat uncloaking off the port bow!

We cannot repel a nerfbat of that magnitude!

Twisted

(In all seriousness, there is a problem: EVE needs profitable group PvE content and Incursions are that but at the moment they completely overshadow any non-highsec activity, messing up with the all-important risk-vs-reward and leading to a deserted 0.0 where few large factions fight over some Technetium moons and not much else...)
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#129 - 2012-01-10 12:03:32 UTC
im happy on the most part with incrusions as they are now though i would like to suggest a larger veriety of sites for all levels of incrusion and higher spawn rate.
Shawnm339
Ministry of Furious Retribution
Fraternity.
#130 - 2012-01-10 12:08:30 UTC
Treks Shadow wrote:
everyday the same threads. im glad you guys spend 15 dollars a month to keep talking about the same stuff. day in day out month aftet month, year after year, priceless


well why not instead of whining create some forum content? id rather read stuff like this than your crap
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#131 - 2012-01-10 12:19:26 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
Tore Vest wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale


Shocked

Never listen to CSM.
They are all in some big alliance.... and will offc. get rid of incursion.
They want theyr players back Bear


We're not all in big alliances. And we certainly don't want to get rid of incursions.

Incursions are a great collaborative PvE experience, it brings people together in highsec (which is a good thing), gives some focus points where pvp can happen in lowsec as well as providing some much needed reward boost there, etc. So, no, we don't want to get rid of Incursions, they are a good thing.

The questions that need to be looked at as far as I'm concerned are:
- whether there are enough incursions or not. I believe they go away too fast in highsec, forcing continuous migration which isn't a good thing
- whether the overall rewards are appropriate. I believe the rewards are a tad too high in highsec, and fairly good otherwise, a bit on the low side in 0.0 but 0.0 has other income sources (or should have).
- whether sites are balanced (they're not, vanguards are too easy to do, the other sites are too annoying/long), diversity is good in terms of content, but the overall reward/time could use some harmonization.

If anything, we asked for more similar content, because it generates the kind of behavior (people getting together) and fun experience/gameplay that is beneficial to the game, so stop worrying :p


*I bolded the bad stuff in this.

Ya this is as I expected. Is the CSM REALLY trying to hide disdain for incursions by mixing nerf attempts in piles of so called "improvements and harmonization" ??

You have CCP's ear and now its time to "git 'dem damn incursion runners out and back to mAh endless CTAs to defend mah moon gooz!"

Incursions are fine as is. We have to risk very expensive ships to run these sites you claim are too easy, too high, and imbalanced. When in nullsec NAPed systems with sanctums in there get buffs with virtually no risk.

What I love is how the shiny fleet fools in BTL Pub support the nerf effort. They seriously think you CSM wont come for them next (Or first) If they wont call against this nerf effort I can only hope you alliance folk will start blasting the moms and ending their runs as well. As nerfing Vanguards will virtually drive away all non shiny fleets leaving many to return to lvl IVs and removing the reason to group. Which is exactly what the shiny fleet fools want as it means better LP prices.


Now now, don't put words in my mouth... Especially since I don't do endless CTAs to defend my non-existent moon-goo... Do a little bit of research ;-)

If you read my post, instead of criticizing what you think I wrote, I say that I believe the rewards to be a TAD too high. I don't go "cut the rewards in HALF!!!!1!!one". tad...
2nd, I talk about balancing the sites, which means aligning vanguards and others towards a closer gain/time, that means decreasing a tad the vanguards, and improving significantly the others.
Also, you may notice I mention a desire to extend the duration of the sites, meaning that even if the value/hour decreases a tad, you have more content to profit from, instead of having to run every which way to find the next incursion, thereby increasing your revenue/hour.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Caellach Marellus
Stormcrows
#132 - 2012-01-10 12:49:51 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
- whether there are enough incursions or not. I believe they go away too fast in highsec, forcing continuous migration which isn't a good thing


Constant migration is part of the mechanic, if anything sites are currently up for far too long. I understand the frustration when you've had a good staging area that's a couple of jumps from the major market hubs and you suddenly have to relocate to the arse end of highsec where there's little support.

The nomadic feel of shifting across space, as well as the temporary population of a lot of quieter regions (I've travelled to some places I'd never otherwise have bothered going to thanks to incursions) is a good pacing mechanic. Any isk printing issue would be made worse by the fact that you can sit in the same system for weeks and not have to relocate your logistic wing.

Quote:
whether the overall rewards are appropriate. I believe the rewards are a tad too high in highsec, and fairly good otherwise, a bit on the low side in 0.0 but 0.0 has other income sources (or should have).


For the average fleet income they're not much better than L4 blitzing in highsec unfortunately. It's just the range from the 80 mil/hour pug fleets to the shiny fixed fleets making double that is a huge gap. Of course reaching the upper threshold (post 150mil/hour) requires a lot of co-ordination and a bit of luck, but it's finding a way to cap off the upper limit from being too excessive without nerfing the general payout. Otherwise a lot of people not in the upper tier will revert back to L4's.

Quote:
whether sites are balanced (they're not, vanguards are too easy to do, the other sites are too annoying/long), diversity is good in terms of content, but the overall reward/time could use some harmonization.


Vanguards need a couple of tweaks, not so much to increasing the damage but just countering the blitz. For example in OTAs making both the Augas and the Deltoles a fixed requirement to clearing as opposed to the current DDD blitz slows down shiny fleets, where pug fleets will shoot them anyway to ease on the incoming damage.

Other sites need to be made more attractive across the board though. I'll agree with that.

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.
Elisha Starkiller
EU Industrials
#133 - 2012-01-10 14:53:44 UTC
Jarnis McPieksu wrote:


(In all seriousness, there is a problem: EVE needs profitable group PvE content and Incursions are that but at the moment they completely overshadow any non-highsec activity, messing up with the all-important risk-vs-reward and leading to a deserted 0.0 where few large factions fight over some Technetium moons and not much else...)


The problem with null sec is not people being drawn out by incursions..... the problem with null sec is that if your not in one of the big 3 coalitions there is no point in being in null sec as you are a mear steamrollering away....

null sec is stagnant because there are not enough people banding together to take back a chunk of it.... and this wont happen as the big power blocks have too much power, this will never change now either......

i have had 5 good eve friends quite eve in the last 2 weeks, all of them over 4 years old in this game.... because they are bored, I would be more worried about this than anything else...






Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#134 - 2012-01-10 15:23:49 UTC
Bumblefck wrote:
And up with free money for nullbears...?


You read my post but didn't comprehend.

HS can't give better reward for the risk than NS or W-space. It breaks the game. HS incursions need toned down.
Sakurako Kimino
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#135 - 2012-01-10 15:28:13 UTC
Elisha Starkiller wrote:


i have had 5 good eve friends quite eve in the last 2 weeks, all of them over 4 years old in this game.... because they are bored, I would be more worried about this than anything else...



content is driven by players if your friends got board then they needed to do something about it, go on a roam, gank high sec haulers with cheep t1 bc, start your own alliance and fight other alliances or make a merc corp take on other peoples fights.

as to incruions just make them take a little longer to run in high sec and better rewards for low sec

eve is about sin

fuer0n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2012-01-10 15:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: fuer0n
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
Tore Vest wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale


Shocked

Never listen to CSM.
They are all in some big alliance.... and will offc. get rid of incursion.
They want theyr players back Bear


We're not all in big alliances. And we certainly don't want to get rid of incursions.

Incursions are a great collaborative PvE experience, it brings people together in highsec (which is a good thing), gives some focus points where pvp can happen in lowsec as well as providing some much needed reward boost there, etc. So, no, we don't want to get rid of Incursions, they are a good thing.

The questions that need to be looked at as far as I'm concerned are:
- whether there are enough incursions or not. I believe they go away too fast in highsec, forcing continuous migration which isn't a good thing
- whether the overall rewards are appropriate. I believe the rewards are a tad too high in highsec, and fairly good otherwise, a bit on the low side in 0.0 but 0.0 has other income sources (or should have).
- whether sites are balanced (they're not, vanguards are too easy to do, the other sites are too annoying/long), diversity is good in terms of content, but the overall reward/time could use some harmonization.

If anything, we asked for more similar content, because it generates the kind of behavior (people getting together) and fun experience/gameplay that is beneficial to the game, so stop worrying :p


*I bolded the bad stuff in this.

Ya this is as I expected. Is the CSM REALLY trying to hide disdain for incursions by mixing nerf attempts in piles of so called "improvements and harmonization" ??

You have CCP's ear and now its time to "git 'dem damn incursion runners out and back to mAh endless CTAs to defend mah moon gooz!"

Incursions are fine as is. We have to risk very expensive ships to run these sites you claim are too easy, too high, and imbalanced. When in nullsec NAPed systems with sanctums in there get buffs with virtually no risk.

What I love is how the shiny fleet fools in BTL Pub support the nerf effort. They seriously think you CSM wont come for them next (Or first) If they wont call against this nerf effort I can only hope you alliance folk will start blasting the moms and ending their runs as well. As nerfing Vanguards will virtually drive away all non shiny fleets leaving many to return to lvl IVs and removing the reason to group. Which is exactly what the shiny fleet fools want as it means better LP prices.


Now now, don't put words in my mouth... Especially since I don't do endless CTAs to defend my non-existent moon-goo... Do a little bit of research ;-)

If you read my post, instead of criticizing what you think I wrote, I say that I believe the rewards to be a TAD too high. I don't go "cut the rewards in HALF!!!!1!!one". tad...
2nd, I talk about balancing the sites, which means aligning vanguards and others towards a closer gain/time, that means decreasing a tad the vanguards, and improving significantly the others.
Also, you may notice I mention a desire to extend the duration of the sites, meaning that even if the value/hour decreases a tad, you have more content to profit from, instead of having to run every which way to find the next incursion, thereby increasing your revenue/hour.



"you have" not "we have" and "your"says it all really.

let's hope ccp are reading and noting the fact someone who obviously has no interest in doing incursions is offering an opinion and it should be treated as such.

i just hope they have their own people out there gathering feedback not just listening to people who have something to gain from it.


edit : since i posted i'll throw in some feedback. it was busy in a hi sec incursion the other night and FC didnt want to make an assault fleet so we ended up on a low/null roam, nothing noone could afford not to lose few of us even jumpcloned. everyone there had fun. not bad from a group of randoms who would have prolly been soloing/dual boxing lvl4's. good job ccp.
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#137 - 2012-01-10 15:57:12 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi everyone,

We're in the process of scheduling some developer time to review the Incursion content, and make adjustments as needed. We've got a stack of feedback from the CSM, and we'll hopefully be blogging about it in the near future.

Thanks,
-Greyscale


That might have translated to the was is over but this is of course EVE. The war is never over.
Xuko Nuki
Heralds of Darkness
White Sky.
#138 - 2012-01-10 16:00:59 UTC
The D1ngo wrote:
Admiral Pelleon wrote:
mkint wrote:
Admiral Pelleon wrote:
Many empire bears in here.

Adorable.

As soon as your gravy train is threatened, you all come out of the woodwork to post. HTFU and move out of your trade hubs.

*quoted for irony*

As if the nullbears aren't trying to protect their RMT interests by trying to kill incursions.


Nullsec has risks. Highsec has none. If you'd like to play your 99.9% safe hello kitty online, be prepared to pay for it with less income.



When your master's gravy train is threatened a CTA comes out of the wood work. Boy, don't you scurry when he calls....


Does nullsec even have CTA's anymore? It's not like you have to go to those unless you want to anyway.

I honestly don't think forgetting to check local or intel is a 'risk' warranting exclusive access to EVE riches.
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#139 - 2012-01-10 16:05:49 UTC
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
- whether there are enough incursions or not. I believe they go away too fast in highsec, forcing continuous migration which isn't a good thing


Constant migration is part of the mechanic, if anything sites are currently up for far too long. I understand the frustration when you've had a good staging area that's a couple of jumps from the major market hubs and you suddenly have to relocate to the arse end of highsec where there's little support.

The nomadic feel of shifting across space, as well as the temporary population of a lot of quieter regions (I've travelled to some places I'd never otherwise have bothered going to thanks to incursions) is a good pacing mechanic. Any isk printing issue would be made worse by the fact that you can sit in the same system for weeks and not have to relocate your logistic wing.

I wouldn't advocate incursion constellations staying up for weeks, but when they stay up less than 48 hours after spawning, it's a bit too short.

The fact that incursions vary in location is a good thing, but it's a question of the frequency of the move. If they stay a decent amount of time after spawning, a more "casual" type of people could give them a shot. As it is by the time you get your friends organized, they're gone.

This also ties with the reevaluation of the non-vanguard sites, the more near-identically profitable sites, the more concurrent group can run them.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#140 - 2012-01-10 16:06:51 UTC
I like the part where the developer said they were going to review incursions and make adjustments as necessary, and the incursion bears came out of the wood work to protest a nerf even though the developer never said how they were being adjusted.

For all the incursion bears know, CCP might have a mind to buff incursions, yet they're in this thread en masse collectively yelling 'Don't nerf my gravy train, bro!'.

Deep down inside, I think even the incursion bears know 10 mil every 4 minutes is ****** up.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.