These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Incursion fixes/feedback thread

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Captain Rivel
SKEET ELITE
#141 - 2012-01-24 05:46:36 UTC
PART 1:

The incursion system launched very successfully and treated EVE players to a game mechanic that was long overdue. Just like any well thought out project, the launch is always just the beginning. The original concept of incursions brings players together to overcome the greatest pve challenge in game. This mechanic was also designed to reward all types of eve players: carebears, pirates and pvpers alike. Just like any good project, there needs to be an active oversight to continue and expand upon the initial launch.

Incursions 2.0 is not a plan to nerf or modify incursions, it's designed to expand incursions into something better. CCP has taken a leap forward by introducing Incursions. To limit its growth by "nerfing/adjusting" it will ruin Incursions forever. This type of action need to be in the foreground, they can't be allowed to sit on the back burner and be forgotten like so many features in EVE have been before.

In order to explain what Incursions 2.0 is, the issues with incursions as they are now need to be identified. Only then can they be fixed.

Incursion Issues -
1. ISK per hour is backwards:
The quickest, smallest fleets are making more then the larger fleets.

2. Motivation to complete larger sites are lacking:
Fewer fleets are actively taking down larger sites, several factors cause this.

3. Larger fleets are harder to maintain:
Larger fleets sometimes have to pause running after every site to replace pilots.

4. Sites were made as a testing sample:
Many kinds of sites to run, but they haven't been modified/replaced.

5. Site mechanics need to have variables:
The same site does the same thing every single time.

6. Site difficulty doesn't scale correctly (fleet comp):
Some fleets find sites challenging while others breeze through them.

7. Incursion completion requirements are broken:
A single fleet can end an incursion regardless of previous involvement.

8. ISK is a primary reward:
Rewarded with income rather then goods in which the player market can place a value on.

9. Loyalty Points are almost guaranteed:
Almost never are high sec incursions not completed. The LP pool isn't at risk.

10. Risk vs Reward isn't balanced:
Compared to the difficulty of incursions over other EVE mechanics, the reward out-weighs the risk.


Incursion fixes -

- Revamp the reward system

Addresses: 1, 2, 8, 9, 10

Solution: ISK is the primary medium in which products in EVE are exchanged. It has a fairly standard exchange rate with products giving it an implied value. When an NPC spawns ISK as a reward, it gives those players the implied value of ISK. This would be fine if the amount of ISK matched the difficulty in which the task was completed. In the case of incursions, this is skewed which causes problems with the value of ISK. The counter to ISK is products, these products can be valued by players and will exchange them for ISK. Thus leaving the value of incursions up to the market. The amount a fleet is rewarded is also skewed in relation to the fleet size and time it takes to complete a site. The reward per hour is backwards and doesn't scale properly. Head Quarter fleets should receive the highest reward per hour, not Vanguards. The way to fix these problems are to change the primary payout to something other then ISK (LP, item drops, etc.) and then increase the payouts for Assaults and Headquarters. Thus fixing the imbalance of ISK and backwards growth as sites increase.

- Revamp the Sites/AI
Addresses: 2, 4, 5, 6

Solution: Every single site needs to be reviewed and modified as needed. There are several sites that should be either removed, or replaced, with a completely new one. The sites that are currently in play look like a sample tray on a menu. Sites need to play more into the lore of incursions giving players better insight and more/new objectives to complete. Similarly, site spawns need to have some variables within them, no site should have the same exact spawns every single time in the same order, nor should they be completely random. Have different types of waves spawn with different roles. These roles could be attack focused, defensive/avoid focused, ewar focused etc. This requires the fleet to pay attention and react based on whats in front of them, not just go through the motions like they are now. The site difficulty should scale within a fleet size, meaning there should be Hard/Harder/Hardest sites for each of the fleet sizes (Vanguards/Assaults/HQs). Right now fleets can be tailor made to run from site to site with ease, while more standard fleets struggle. Having certain sites that spawn for only the strongest fleets gives normal running fleets less issues finding sites.

continued in part 2
Captain Rivel
SKEET ELITE
#142 - 2012-01-24 05:46:58 UTC
Part 2

- Reformat Incursion system
Addresses: 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10

Solution: This one is the big one and requires some extra explaining. It also ties in with the previous solutions to make Incursions now a meer shadow of what Incursions 2.0 offers. Sansha currently takes control of a constellation claiming a single system as its head quarters and branches out from there. Once the influence bar for the whole constellation reaches a certain point, the flagship spawns and a single fleet strong enough to take it down can end the Incursion. Mechanicly this is a poor system designed to end incursions very quickly and story wise it makes Sansha look like an idiot. Incursions are a foothold and if Sanshas current plans aren't working he would expand on them. The incursion itself will fight to stay there and it will require players to work together in order to bring them down. Incursion footholds would still take over an entire constellation, but instead of every system have a certain type of incursion site, they all start off as Vanguards, (Sansha has the stronger beacons cloaked). The first fleets on the scene start taking down sites and small 10 man fleets wipe out waves and waves of sites. Eventually the vanguard sites in a given system stop spawning and Assault sites take over. If small gang fleets wish to continue running Vanguards they need to find another system in the constellation. Eventually all Vanguard sites with in the constellation will be completed and only larger sites will remain. This forces fleets to merge and take on larger challenges. Once the Assault sites stop spawning Headquarters will eventually spawn bringing in even larger fleets and merging more fleets. By this time there are several large fleets taking down sites or even competing compared to a single Assault/HQ fleet running in incursions like it is currently. Each system will have its own special site, either a mothership site or something simular which only spawns once the headquarters are finished. When the special site is completed that entire system locks down and no incursion sites will spawn for several hours. Forcing players to move to another system within the constellation and continue their fleets there. If enough systems with in the constellation are locked down Sansha will bring in their flagship, this will either be a Mothership site, or something new, and only once this site is finished will there be an end to the incursion. Now if a system lock down timer expires before the final site is finished, the system resets back to vanguards and the process needs to start over. This makes it far more difficult for a community to take down an incursion, impossible for a single fleet.


- Overall effect/Closing notes:

With the combination of these changes players are rewarded with fun and challenging content with high value, but fair rewards that turn incursions into an actual event rather then a mindless farm. Incursions being completed would no longer be a guarantee, and the high value loyalty points will be at risk. This forces teamwork and coordination in order to get rewarded for the time invested. It also protects players who invest their time from having the reward taken away as easly as it can be now. This may not be the perfect fix for incursions, but it is thought out and it will make them far better. Don't 'fix' a problem by making small changes and nerfs when the game mechanic itself is broken. CCP should have contacted its players sooner about incursions as it will take a lot of time and effort to make changes to this well deserving mechanic to EVE Online.

- Disclaimer

These suggestions are made by a single incursion vet, while supported by others it does not, nor claims to, represent the incursion communities thoughts on how to change incursions. If you support this suggestion or any other suggestion posted on this forum, make sure you let CCP know.
Keith Planck
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#143 - 2012-01-24 05:53:05 UTC
AND MY AX!

♞
Jas Dor
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#144 - 2012-01-24 06:03:41 UTC
Valentine V wrote:

The people running Level 4 missions can pull about, don’t know from personal experience but from reading from other people asking, about 30-40Mil. Looking at the math an ok Vanguard FG can pull about 5-6 VGs in an hour, with Bio and refilling the fleet on players. That comes out to 50-60Mil, and with the added benefit of what CCP wanted with bringing people together. Missions can be done AFK, and done on auto pilot. If someone messes up and doesn’t follow the FC, the entire fleet can fall due to NPC’s out DPSing the logi.


With a T2 fit sentry domi (AB no MWD) and negotiations and security connections at III, I can pull around 30-40m hour in a level IV. Probably can pull it a bit more as of raising those skills to IV but I haven't had a chance to try them out yet (maybe Friday). Right now I'm doing industry and just running missions for a bit of petty cash, if I get more into missioning I'll probably add some faction gear.

Yeah I have bittervett level SPs, just not in agent skills.
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#145 - 2012-01-24 06:04:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
Captain Rivel - as always, you have nailed it!!!

I might have missed it - LP payout at mom death of some other event,,, DT?
Captain Rivel
SKEET ELITE
#146 - 2012-01-24 06:08:55 UTC
Bump Tremor wrote:
Captain Rivel - as always, you have nailed it!!!

I might have missed it - LP payout at mom death of some other event,,, DT?


LP would still be paid out once the incursion ends, the point is to make ending an incursion far more difficult
Bump Tremor
Writing Memoirs
#147 - 2012-01-24 06:32:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Bump Tremor
Good, my antennae went up when I read reverting back to VGs. By not getting the payout till the mom dies, the incentive is there to kill and not just keep reverting back to VGs ad infinitum - Well done!

Of course, it is not as good as MY plan - but there are 5000 players out there right now saying the same thing! Your plan gets me more of what I would like than any other plan out there. Plan is loosely stated for everything else - most are just shouted slogans rather than anything approaching a plan.

If we do not galvanize behind a sensible plan, even if it fits no one totally, but most to a good degree, then we stand a good chance of splintering off into 5000 groups of one, we will just be a mob. We would lose our chance at shaping change in the form we could be happy and which is moving in the direction we would like to go.

I'm not much for mob rule, a lot of good ideas get shouted down and kicked aside.

I certainly hope the incursion community - that is those with the best interests of improving a great game feature - will get behind sound plans and look somewhat orgainzed so CCP can figure out which plan features are most wanted by the players and then they can choose the best parts of the few plans which can then be developed into a lasting and satisfying type of game experience - all the while recognizing that the game is a living thing and constantly evolving based on player input. Not the loudest player, but the largest player base. Too bad we don't a system which can faithfully and honorably recongize and then represent the desires of the player base. But that is another broken game mechanic which needs addressing in another forum.
Glomondon
Doomheim
#148 - 2012-01-24 06:40:12 UTC
1. - Increase payouts for assault and HQ sites
2. - Decrease payouts for vanguards

Its not "healthy" when 10 pilot fleets earns sooo much more than 20-40 man fleets.
Tore Vest
#149 - 2012-01-24 06:59:33 UTC
I dont understad those that says that vanguards are to easy...
Yes... vanguards are easy when you have your fleet rigth... and do things rigth
But things can go wrong realy fast...
Someone not do what told.. maby not looking,someone dc, and billions go poof...
Myself... I have lost billions in ships on incursions... ( played it since start tho)

So...highsec incursions are NOT risk free isk.. Bear

And then we have those gankers... Roll

No troll.
Sheol Duncan
Perkone
Caldari State
#150 - 2012-01-24 07:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Sheol Duncan
I read the first half of the thread and I bring something that none those posts had. I run, full time, null and low security incursions and I want to share a little bit of our experience. As we operate very differently than those that run high security incursions.

There are a lot of people that are saying that incursions should be nerfed to payout in accordance with level four missions. I think this is wrong. Group pve content should always be rewarded more than solo pve content. This is an MMORPG, where there is emphasis on playing with a group, therefore group content should be inventivized. Additionally, there is a lot more effort and coordination that goes putting together an active fleet for running incursions. That effort should be rewarded or people aren't going to be willing to put the effort in. It's a lot easier for me to run sanctums in nullsec than to travel around lowsec bouncing between incursions, but the added money incursions bring in makes it worth it. Assault and Headquarters sites should be buffed to reflect the increased logistics required to run them with increased fleet sizes.

There should be risk. Lowsec incursions come with a great deal of risk. We fly expensive ships and are always at risk of running into gangs, we take steps to minimize this risk but we can never eliminate it entirely. It's not that uncommon for us to lose ships. High sec incursion runners are able to run without any of this risk which leads to the "shininess" of their fleets, we would never fly the sorts of gangs you find in high security. full of faction battleships and such, as its too much to risk losing. I'd encourage devs to place rats similar to those found in lowsec and nullsec incursion on gates, that is a simple way of making it more dangerous for those not paying attention. Additionally, the security status of incursion systems should be lowered to 0.5 to make ganking those shiny ships easier.

Please don't put motherships on a timer. In nullsec, incursions cause all sorts of logistical problems for alliances. They deactivate jump bridges, they cyno jam systems, and generally make the lives of people who do alliance logistics (people who already should be considered saints) miserable. There have been many incursions where we have had to run down and headshot the mothership because it was causing problems. We've headshot incursions that were in inconvenient locations in order to force the spawn of a new one. We've had other alliances headshot our incursions and ruin our fun. Additionally, I think that having the ability to deny people incursions adds an interesting layer of politics to the game. We've recently seen Brick Squad holding ransom the incursion runners for whatever the weird demands they were making were. This is cool, it adds realism to the game; people can make decisions that effect other people. To allow high sec runners to be able to defend their incursions, I'd suggest deactivating Concord in the mothership site. That way they would be able to organize and engage a fleet trying to kill the mothership. As of now they have no defense.

Give us random spawns, while it's nice to be able to know exactly what you need to do to blitz the site, it's mind-numbing doing it for hours. Random spawns will allow some manner of variance between sites, which I'd embrace.

Balance the sites within each level of encounter. Mining Colonies are by far the slowest vanguard site, there have been other complaints about the Assault sites being unbalanced. They should all take about the same amount of time, and therefore give the same reward.

Don't refocus rewards on LP rather than isk. The LP markets have already crashed, it's practically worthless and any additional increase in the amount of LP will only further that. We would all simply be exchanging LP for the highest valued item and liquidating it for isk, please don't add another step into the process.

Adjust the distribution of incursion sites to be 3 in nullsec, 2 in lowsec, 1 in highsec. Devs seemed to want to place an emphasis on lowsec incursions by making it the only region where the Sansha Supercap BPC drops. This was the right idea. But it doesn't make sense that there are more incursions in highsec than there are in lowsec. I don't argue that incursions should be removed from highsec as everyone should be able to choose how they play, but there should be a draw towards the riskier regions of space.
Endeavour Starfleet
#151 - 2012-01-24 07:09:17 UTC
Wow Captain... That is a well thought out idea! Many times better than the calls to "NERF INCURSIONS NAO!!!"

Now maybe we can have a real discussion on fixing this instead of the BS others are pushing in the name of "fixing it" trying to disguise a desire to kill incursions completely.
Frank Pannon
Emerald Swine Escavations
#152 - 2012-01-24 07:13:58 UTC
I support Captain Rivel's elaborate plan. Really well thought out and explained. Can only second, do not nerf, but improve and make it an even better experience for players.

One addition:

It seems silly to me that you can pass through these incursion system unharmed without getting any problems at the gates. Incursions should have a bigger effect on economy, by also disrupting transport routes. Rats at gates would require even more collaboration between players to ensure trade flow through these systems.
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2012-01-24 08:49:15 UTC
I always thought that the problem with hisec incursions is the absurd risk:reward ratio? why all this complex solution? the more changes and the more complex the changes should be, the more issues that will come out later on and the same rage towards incursions will pops out. People will always find a way around changes in mechanics for the amount of isk incursions generate. Why not address the problem directly and let players decide how it will be?

Remove CONCORD from Incursion staging sites.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#154 - 2012-01-24 09:19:50 UTC
Darius III wrote:

... I think that no group of players should have that much power over so many people, by exerting such little effort....


Null Roll

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2012-01-24 09:24:09 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
I appreciate what you're trying to do, CCP Grayscale, but you do know that this thread will only draw every single troll, incursion-hater, and whining incursion-runner that have until now been starting their own threads, right? I don't expect very much "thoughtful" discussion, myself.

However, I will contribute what is my layman's perspective (never having run incursions). The main issue appears to be people being able to "extend" incursions to farm Vanguard sites over and over, which have very high payout. For an activity done in high-sec, and with little risk of losing your ship to unexpected circumstances (no PvP), the amount of money is too high. "Too high" as in "higher than most other activities in all regions of space, including those with a significant degree of risk of sudden pew pew".

A simple fix would be to have incursions "dry up". CONCORD doesn't print money just to pay capsuleers (hopefully) and it makes no sense for Sansha to keep sending troops into the meatgrinder of Vanguard sites if they are getting utterly destroyed. Have the CONCORD rewards for a particular site decrease with the number of those types of sites that have been run in the incursion, or have the number of site spawns decrease. That would give people a reason to kill the mothership and allow a new incursion to respawn elsewhere.

Sorry I can't offer "little things", as I don't do incursions myself yet. I just trained Logi though, so who knows, I might get into it.


OK, to apply that across the board... how many times would the 'damsel in distress'' get kidnapped by the same bloke who you have killed over and over but just seems to come back....

Those things that come to mind... broaden them a little
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2012-01-24 09:36:15 UTC
gfldex wrote:
One player told me he used to bot before Incursions. So Incursions is even better then botting.


Oh dear.. the nasty sansha incursions actually stopped someone botting? that cant be a good thing...
Glomondon
Doomheim
#157 - 2012-01-24 09:56:12 UTC
Stop incursions. save the bots !!!!!
Blade Murderhorn
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#158 - 2012-01-24 10:42:31 UTC
My suggestions as follows:

1# Make the payout equal accross the board, 50-60mil an hour seems like a good figure, this would mean lowering the payout on VG and upping it on the harder sites, also make the scout site worth doing, up the reward (allowing smaller fleets to get in on the action will make them even better), all of these sites should be run not just the vangards. people fleeting up and running incursions has been the best thing to happen in highsec other then the live events (also do more live events!)

2# the mother ship should be on a timer not a percentage done, at the moment casual players are missing out because sites are being closed quickly (since the incursions griefing started i have not managed to do an incursion at all due to limited playtime and i bet im not the only one...), this should be a feature that all players can use casual and hardcore alike! this time should be around 4 days? this would allow sufficient time for people to get there and enjoy it.

3# sansha should spawn at the belts, gates and the stations, killing these rats should earn a little LP this would mean that you would get small groups securing the systems as such so that people can still pass through, this would be a bonus to the RP side. these rats should not be as hard as in the sites but should still be a challange (also of course they shouldent scram in highsec or be able to alpha a hauler...)


for all of the people saying get rid of highsec incursions this is a silly idea, incursions have been the best thing to happen to highsec ever... It gets people to together changing this would be a step backwards....
John Maynard Keynes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#159 - 2012-01-24 10:54:20 UTC  |  Edited by: John Maynard Keynes
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Hi,

I'm making this thread on behalf of CCP Bettik, who is a very shy and retiring dev and doesn't like to post much on the forums Smile

As mentioned in the CSM minutes, we're looking into making various adjustments to Incursions in the coming months.

This thread is primarily to collect suggestions for "little things"-style fixes we can make to Incursions to make the user experience better.

Additionally, if you have any especially well thought-out feedback about the feature as a whole, and particularly about specific things you feel are wrong with the current implementation, go ahead and share those too!

CCP Bettik will be reading every single page of this thread in the coming weeks, but he doesn't like to make the posts - don't worry if there's a lack of visible dev presence in the thread, your opinions will be heard regardless Smile

Thanks for listening,
-Greyscale


Why do high sec carebears go to low-, null-sec and WH? Because of the higher income despite the hifher risk! (ok null is actually safer than high-sec)

However, highsec incursion destroy the incentives to move out of high. I know many 0.0 dweller who go to hifg-sec to farm incursions and come only to pvp. This is ridiculous!

Solution:
Make incursons a low-sec only event (you can make it even more rewarding then). Furthermore, make sanshas within sites attack capsuleers with criminal flag first! So that it becomes difficult to gank inurson fleets within sites but still possible to catch people at the gates and so on.
+ gives an enormous and much desired boost to low sec
+ pirates get someone to play with
+ Carebears who want to have a higher income will have to learn to pvp or to hire mercs who would protect their farming op.
- bitter tears from some high sec carebears who think eve is WoW in space and that incursions are raids.
+ For CCP: You distinguish your product from all the 08/15 MMOs where you simply grind stuff all day long. Which means less competition.
+ for Factional Warfare: FW Alliances will (sometimes) compete with null-sec gangs who will certainly try to farm low-sec incursions.
+ FW alliances will get additional inflow of members who want to run incursions but lack a proper organisational structure

And before people start to cry. For some reason people were happy to farm WHs even though it is quite risky.

P.S: It would actually solve many problems in this game.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#160 - 2012-01-24 10:56:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Baneken
To me an incursion should be a race of who gets the mom first and the rest should be just a bonus of working towards finding the mothership through increasingly difficult sites, not just farming vanguards with full steam ahead and glazed eyes.