EVE General Discussion

It seems people (ie those against this idea) are forgetting one key feature. Sansha aren't looked into targets, they can and will switch. Anyone looking for PvP could simply find themselves popped in a second from the Sansha aggro.


That is why this is a great idea. It is nothing like attacking ratters in a belt, because the belt rats ignore you if they locked the ratter.


Also, to the current standard Incursion fleet for vanguards it would take less than few seconds after lock time to pop 5-10 blackbirds (cheap logi interrupters).

I have never done an incursion, and I could really care less, but why is everyone so whiny about them? The amounts involved are large, but are they really that much compared to no-effort Tech Moon goo?

Or is this really about 0.0 leadership being unhappy that people can make good money in Highsec?

Well for one travel through high sec to the incursion would be completely risk free (unlike travel in low or null). You can't bubble up the gates, you can only effectively camp one side of the gates these factors significantly reduce ones ability to secure the Incursion site from the random bottom feeders interested in 0 risk PVP (which is what attacking PVE ships is).

But the biggest issues would be of trust and attitude.

Null and low runners are generally going to be alliance or coalition members who are on the same "team" so to speak, as such you can generally be pretty confident that you're relatively safe from your fleet mates. In highsec you'll see more mixed operations with NPC corpies and all sorts of alliances and corporations.

Null and Low sec denizens are also more prepared and experienced with PVP circumstances while in many cases the high sec bears are not at all prepared for surprise PVP as such you'll see a severe drop of people running incursions and going back to the more secure yet still lucrative L4s.

The thing is that for the most part high sec players aren't all that interested in PVP, if they were then they wouldn't be high sec denizens. If you try to force those people into PVP by making removing security from high sec incursions they aren't going to suddenly become interested in ship on ship combat they'll simply either move to other activities or find another game to play.

Personally I've never understood the hate directed towards carebears, they are the ones who keep the servers online and pay the developers pay checks. They are a steady reliable source of subscription revenue and thus development resources. It's no skin off my back if some guy wants to log in for a couple hours after a long day at the office and shoot npc pixels. They don't affect my game play other than providing a market for me to sell stuff to.

The important thing about Incursions IMO is that they encourage group play, something that outside of PVP has been mostly missing in this game. The payout of Incursions in high sec creates an incentive for people to group up and work together. Doing this creates social bonds and an attachment to the game.

Because in the end the glue that holds an MMO together is not it's mechanics or it's graphics or even it's gameplay. It's the social bonds that are created. Incursions encourage players to leave their comfort zone of solo PVE and build those bonds.

You make Incursion sites PVP flagged then most of that goes away.

The most valuable commodity in EVE Is Trust. In low and null Trust is created and built upon common goals and interests. This doesn't generally exist in high sec. Concord protection in high sec Incursions reduces the need to have trusting relationships to start. It creates trust by force and thus opens the door for more meaningful social bonds to develop (along with real trust) .

You remove that enforced trust and the result will be no one will be using that content.

I mean how many PUGs do you see running null and low sec Incursions? That answer I suspect is something approaching nill.

High sec on the other hand has this sort of thing regularly, diverse groups from multiple corporations (including NPC corps) forming up together for a common goal. This is a good and healthy thing for the game.

Because as people build these social relationships they'll be exposed to different mind sets they'll learn that their gameplay is far more rewarding than when done solo. In doing so they'll be exposed to players who also do other activities and will be exposed to more information and attitudes. Some percentage of those will get over their fear of ship loss and move out to less secure space, resulting in more potential targets in the long run.

I wonder what genetic defect makes people this stupid.

No it would not do anything of the sort. For one there wouldn't be all that much mercs could do to defend it anyway. You can only defend the Incursion side of the in gates, you can't bubble them and you wouldn't have intel channels or the ability to use scouts to see enemies coming in advance as you can in null or low. The first clue you'd have is when the blob shows up on the empire side of the gate to jump in, in null or low you would have scouts several jumps out (plus your intel channels) to see any threat approaching in advance.

Additionally those sites do not pay that much. Not enough to cover the costs of mercs and provide enough reward to incentivize people to run incursions rather than stick to L4s.

Come on, before making stupid statements you could at least TRY to think your idea's through to their logical conclusions.

Rather like the idea of this, would mean actual competition over sites rather than who can do the most DPS in their shiney shiney ships

+1

Add a sansha faction that can gain high sec access to the incursion zones. Essentially turn those systems into an extension of low sec to reflect the suppression of concord.

+1

+1

love this idea , makes people think about there surroundings , rather than just farming incursions for isk with no risk

No, they are not. Network issues, mass DCs and misclicks can easily happen in anoms and you're dead.

People fly pimped faction ships in incursions because they are risk-free.

I like the claim that possible disconnects mean a player is taking a risk. Lol.