|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 26 post(s) |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
241
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 15:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
We are still going through all the Incursion feedback and we share your concerns about the Incursion changes during the escalation patch. We are very interested in hearing your feedback and suggestions and will continue discussions with the Incursion Community.
We want to make sure we have all the feedback and time to discuss solutions with you all so we will aim to fix this in June or July - after Inferno. CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kiyarii Oskold wrote:Really, 3+ months turn-around for what was once a full expansion's main feature? Too little, too late?
Learn to 'little & often', CCP. Less knee-jerk panic, your instincts have been terrible.
We want to avoid making a knee jerk panic decision.. so we are reading all the feedback before making a change. We are only talking short term changes, we will consider long-term redesigns after the Summer. CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:04:00 -
[3] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:I'm digging back through the recent last official thread on this and will edit/post in some choice summaries asap. I will ask this though, what's CCP's position on a mechanic limiting the isk/lp reward Concord will give a single character per day? It seems having a limit might well tackle several (previous) problems at once.
- Sub-par fits & newer low SP players had to wait hours to get a spot in fleets when they were popular.
- Dedicated channels with min-maxed blitz fits could equally have few people running for many hours making that often-quoted theoretical too-damn-high isk/hour.
- People can often only play for a few hours a day at most, yet many were upset about the theoretical isk rate when not accounting for waiting for a place in fleet & moving around all of highsec to get to incursions.
(Nullsec and w-space loot logistics are easier, see previous thread/learn basic jumpdrive & static cycling mechanics)
By saying Corcord will only give a player x many isk/lp/site payout per 24hours from Incursions, you'd make people stop at their fair share from the watering hole. They could make more by running multiple accounts, but that would probably be far less common when they have the alternatives of having a char in w-space/nullsec/doing lvl4s 23.5/7. You'll never get away from min-maxers, you certainly need to address site-specific issues such as Scout sites, Command Ship restrictions, particular alpha threats, RR range & amounts etc, but in general if incursions were put back to how they were or even improved, having a specific isk-throttling mechanic might be deserved for highsec at least.
The short term fixes in June will be just to react to the feedback on the escalation changes. Long term, we will see how the community feel after the Summer changes and consider some longer-term goals for the feature.
CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
243
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:CCP Affinity - What is CCP's goal for incursions in regards to hi/lo? Where does CCP see Incursions in regards to other isk making activities. Do you want to reward it more based on risk or group participation? Do you see a spot for very new players in Incursions or just older players with billion isk ships?
Long term we would like to balance all PvE income on a risk vs reward basis and make sure it all falls in line with other income in EVE. Incursions should be one of the higher end incomes in PvE, in my opinion, but we have to make sure we scale the risk to reflect that. I definitely see a spot for new players in Incursions and we need to ensure we have content that meets both new players and shiny fleets needs. This is definitely a long term plan. CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
243
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1258191#post1258191 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1257089#post1257089https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1257525#post1257525Andochas wrote:The Detailed Answer: CCP Soundwave wrote: Making NPC groups dynamic and stopping blitzing works as intended for Vanguards. I'm considering reversing the 10% income change, to increase their value slightly again.
"works as intended" - Wrong. The crushing Vanguard nerfs are killing the Incursion communities. If it weren't for the dedication of FCs in exclusive channels, and of the public channel "The Valhalla Project", Incursions would be dead. BTL Pub has gone from posted fits to a chat channel, and armor fleets are gone. CFC (Goons) have already said low sec/null sec incursion fleets are dead. Asmodes Reynolds wrote: As a part of the incursion group you are speaking of I can confirm this CFC incursion group has has been shut down until something changes.
The death of vanguards means the influence bars stay red during weekdays, only to move on weekends. Those influence bars are visible to all players. With a quick check of the Incursions tab, a player can decide whether they want to make the 20 or so jumps to the current Incursion, or do something else. Right now, the answer is, "do something else." CCP Soundwave and CCP Affinity, do NOT be afraid to read the walls of text in this thread and the locked thread of comments from SiSi. The leaders in the Incursion community have given their honest feedback. You'd do well to get their feedback directly. Herr Ronin (#26)nomatech (#43)Keith Planck (#63)Serge SC (old #12)Serge SC (old #60)EI7FPB 3 wrote: Incursion should NOT be, join a fleet for a few days, earn 2 -3 billions, then go back to PVPing or what ever. It should be a career.
A bad ending to an otherwise good post. I strongly disagree. Incursions are the bridge from PvE to PvP. Incursions are the way for a player to transition from a high sec missioner to a valuable member of a null sec corp. Incursions can motivate a player to train leadership skills to learn how to FC. Becoming an FC involves focus, social skills, multitasking, and possibly personal growth - something that can only be good for the EVE playerbase. Incursions are inclusive. The lure of the high payout of the Elite Vanguard fleets drew solo players into the EVE community. The lure of high sec Incursions brought null sec players' alts to fleet up with their main character's enemies. Incursions are the way I fund my null sec covert ops roams, especially as I only get to play about a dozen hours a week (not 12 hrs/day). EVE is rich in Things To Do. No player *has* to do only one thing. I can have research agents all over the universe, mine for minerals to assemble items from blueprints, do missions for standings, roam null sec in a fleet, or fine tune my skills with the best group of pilots I can find in Incursions. I play EVE because I'm not limited to a "class" of doing one thing well and everything else poorly. I run Incursions because I enjoy the community and the challenge of optimal performance with different players. CCP has about a week from this post to correct the imbalance in Incursions. Final exams are starting in most universities, and the readjustment needs to be in place when the students come back to EVE. HardinSalvor is a great example of the young blood EVE needs to attract and keep interested. He created the Incursion Guide that was the basis for Incursion running. EVE needs more young players - to create the fan sites that CCP wants and values, and to grow the playerbase. CCP has tried to focus on bringing more players into New Eden; now more than ever with the impending release of DUST. Don't drive away players by killing what was one of the most interesting components of EVE: Incursions.
I have already been in talks with Ronin and Serge and quite a few other people within the community - it's been a really good learning experience for me :) CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
243
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:CCP Affinity , before this thread gets out of control, I have questions for you;
What does CCP intend incursions to be?
Do you want them to draw conflict between null-sec and low-sec entities or low sec and high sec entities or both?
If your intention was to draw Null-sec entities into low sec, then you did the opposite
The CFC as a whole has abandoned them, and to my knowledge we were the only 0.0 entities bothered to run them in the first place. Pre-patch we could easily make 80-100 mill/hour running them one after another. We Only run Vanguards, Because of the logistics of moving ships and keeping the required number of people in Fleet over the long term. Post-patch the most you can make is about is about 80 mil/hour I think it averages out to be about 60 may be 65mil an hour . Which the average null sec dweller can easily make that by running anomalies in there home space. So why bother with the logistics to move ships and organize a fleet sometimes 40 jumps from home?
If your intentions were to to create conflict between high-sec entities and Losec entities.
Then you will need to widen the Profit margin between high sec incursions and Losec incursions while keeping it below what someone can make doing anomalies in sovereignty space. You need to make it enough to justify the logistics issues and the danger increase. Or my personal favorite just remove them from high sec entirely. (If Concord with a 200 man fleet of goon/test tornados In under One minute Then such invaders should be no problem lol)
do you intend them to be just an alternate activity to the existing PVE mechanics or do you wish them to pay out more?
Where do you intend that the bulk of the incentives to run these to come from?
I look forward to your responses, and I hope my comments are helpful.
The original goals for Incursions were to provide group game play, high end PvE opportunities and high risk content. I would like them to eventually be at a point where they have a high enough risk to warrant a high end reward. I would also like the incentives to come from a growing community but a place to experience a PvP like style of gameplay within a storyline setting. I will provide more info on this after we sort out the short-term problems.
CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
243
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
Just Alter wrote:CCP Affinity wrote:
I have already been in talks with Ronin and Serge and quite a few other people within the community - it's been a really good learning experience for me :)
Holy s*it! I can believe what i am reading!! A dev actually talking with players and not hiding behind "csm blah blah yada yada". Also you choose good people to talk to. I must say that after these few post of yours you seem one of the best dev around and i personally like your style. Keep it up, you could do grand things.
Thanks! Feel free to post again ;) CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
243
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Discussions shouldn't be private. Obviously certain individuals are experienced in the topic, and these forums are terrible for productive debate, but the key points need to be acknowledged to be recieved by CCP, less they just keep getting repeated in every vaguely related thread. Some other points from my experience & observations:
- Min-maxing will happen. AFAIK it is accepted for missions, nullsec player vs rats isk sources, and sleepers. And those things can be run be each specific character near 100% of the time for their max rate, while incursions do move, have wait-lists and most importantly Contests.
- Running the min-maxed channel of players & fits is effort. Most people happily give some of their reward back to those running these, of course they are also benefitting from the higher isk rate of their existance, but paying FCs, booster alts and ore droppers is a thing.
- Disconnects happen, suicide ganks happen in and between incursions, hauling ships about highsec is more effort than earning isk in null & w-space.
Solo ratting tengus/machs/(super)cap ships in null are terrible gameplay. Group sleepers farming is mechanical but at least a fleet op and with the unstoppable risk of sieged/triaged blinged-out cap ships being caught out. Incursions were the best PvE content I've ever experienced in Eve. Running a 20man fleet is harder to create & sustain than 2x 10man fleets. Reward for all should reflect this. What happened to the idea of Scout sites spawn first, then VGs, then Assaults, then finally the Mom? Why the hell is there only 1 lowsec incursion? Lowsec's terrible enough as is for doing anything but passing through or being a risk-averse pirate. If there were 3+ lowsec incursions at a time, a channel could at least run without 1 spy letting some gankers know the 1 place to go each time to ruin their day. Nullsec incursions could be run by whoever lives near, highsec ones are chased about by all, but lowsec is just the worst place to put only 1 bullseye for PvEers to sit in. I understand people would take cheap PvP fleets to do them, e.g. armour hacs, but still, just 1 incursion at a time seems blind to the realities of Eve.
I agree completely and that is what I am trying to do with this thread. It does also help me to hear from key members of the community though, it's been very rewarding.
Also, thank you for your feedback CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:55:00 -
[9] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Lyron-Baktos wrote:Regarding new players, I have only done Scout belt ratting and not the actual Scout sites, if they exist, but you could buff those and put a limit on the ship types.
I ran it with a Harbinger and one other player and it was so boring and the payout was awful. I'd rather watch TV than kill a few rats for 50K isk plus LP -beef up the rewards to about half of what a VG site would pay. maybe about 3-6 minutes of work for just a couple million ISK -put a ship restriction on the acceleration gate, probably BC and lower - this. please ramp up the difficulty and payout of scout sites. the way they are now, they are a waste of server resources. something along the lines of 4/10 to 5/10 DED sites with isk/hr that are between lvl3 and lvl4 missions would be optimal imo.
I really hope to be able to do something awesome with scout sites in the future - watch this space CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
COMM4NDER wrote:Well I would look into the LPs on this instead of pure isk. Putting some more stuff into the Concord LP store would also be something interesting. How about the new modules from the test server? (Adaptive Hardener, the shield booster with cap injectors etc.)
Random spawns are great, but why remove the blitzing of sites. I for once loved the fact that you could blitz OTAs with nice fleet but with the higher danger of dying. Flying in a faction ship jumping to hull dmg just as the final trigger is dead and Sansha warps away. now that was something. This should be for all sites, make it possible to blitz but with a _bigger_ risk of dying.
This is where good FCs will shine and make it more interesting to do incursions apart from other PVE experiance.
Issues with AS/HQ is that it need _allot_ of work from the FC and the players to make actually something worth the play. One thing would be to have a dynamic of payout with different sites.
Here is a thought, why not to have some kind of ratio between [Scout]-VG-AS-HQ The more the lower end sites are done the more they loose the ISK/LP reward "to some point" and the higher end sites gain in ISK/LP reward. This will make the HQ/AS more attractive.
TLDR For the short run: In short terms look over the blitzing for all sites but with the higher risk of dying (risk/reward). Check the balance of the isk/lp reward vs time on all sites both on highend fleet comp but also with lower end T1 ships. Long run? More LP stuff! More sites of each category with more variation maybe not just sansha? Think about lowering the sec status to .5 on each incursion system?
Some thoughts some good i think some less good. Also revisit lowsec and highsec incursions check from both the nullbears and highsec bears, only seeing incursion as one whole is bad.
Couldn't agree more on the need to flesh out the LP store - but this is not a short term, fix it by June project :) CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 21:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
ChemicalQueen wrote:Levy Break wrote:CCP Affinity wrote: I have already been in talks with Ronin and Serge and quite a few other people within the community - it's been a really good learning experience for me :)
I'd also recommend contacting Electric Shoe ( https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Electric%20Shoe ). He was our de-facto logistics coordinator, Everything in this post pretty much sums up our experience with incursions. Please contact shoe. He was our thankless incursion leader, and was quite disappointed when he announced we had to disband.
I will definitely do that, thanks! CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
249
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 00:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
Total hypothetical talk here.. but how would you feel about, long-term, Scouts being proper training grounds - mirroring vanguard type risk with more hints/tutorials and less reward? Geared towards settling new members into the community. CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
249
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 00:32:00 -
[13] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:WARNING WALL-O-TEXT Quote: The original goals for Incursions were to provide group game play, high end PvE opportunities and high risk content. I would like them to eventually be at a point where they have a high enough risk to warrant a high end reward. I would also like the incentives to come from a growing community but a place to experience a PvP like style of gameplay within a storyline setting. I will provide more info on this after we sort out the short-term problems.
First offf to CCP affinity Thanks for the quick responses and the clarifacation on what you intend incursions to be> This topic has been debated and beat in the ground worse then the dead horse. Anywho Copying my opinions on The incursion changes from ccp soundwaves post. Heres my 2 cents on it. I have ran incursions since December , Both Pug groups ,elitist groups. and i have ran my own high end incursion channel. Through out all this ill admit the amount of is i was getting Was Insane. In which i was able to turn around and spend that isk to pay for my accounts and buy some damn nice pvp ships. Now ill be the first to admit that the amount of isk The High end groups would make in Vg;s was a bit un balanced, But I also believe that you took the Nerf way too far CCP. As has been stated many times before currently its just not worth it to do it. and honestly it could have been a really easy fix but was beaten till as stated its not worth it with exploration wh's and lvl 4's being a more viable option for people. Some claim they ran incursions for the social aspect of it and that's great. Some was only in it for the money. Which ever case it may be It made it possible, at least for me to plex my accounts and pay for my pvp. TLDR; What i believe would be a decent fix for incursions is the following Scout sites: Make them worth it to do them Ie lvl 4 payouts for all fleet members VG:'s Make sites take around 5-8 Minutes 5 Being Shiny fleets 8 being pug fleets. and remove the payment reduction Nco: Pretty decent as they are may remove some augas NMC : Bring the mara in closer Ota's: Take the mara and the hacking unit out Assaults: These need to drastically increase in payouts. IMO around 25 mil per site And take around 10-16 minutes to complete NCN's : Completely overhaul the site remove cruiser side make it multiple gate room. ( lighten up a bit on the neuts) OCF's : Remove the ninja nerf where you put more spawns in there.( Fyi you didn't make them faster) NCS's : Same as above.** HQ's : Make them pay around 35-40 mil And take 23-30 minutes to complete: Now i dont know much about the sites but i do know one was ninja nerfed like the ocf's and ncs's Come on ccp Really we do see when this happens. Anyhow there's my 2 cents Edit : One of the biggest gripes pre escalation was how crowded the vg systems was I believe that Focusing on Buffing the Scout assualt, and Hq sites will do alot more for the game And incursion runners as a whole Then just slamming a nerf bat down Edit 2: After reading your statement on what you intend incursions to be i still stand by most of the completion times i stated But can also agree with making the risk worth the reward. Also still stand by the fact the Vg's just need minor tweaking at this point. Real focuses should be on Scouts and assaults primarily along with the Hq's but others are more knowledgeable then me on those
Thanks for the feedback. NMC : Bring the mara in closer - this is something I have heard a lot! CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
249
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 00:35:00 -
[14] - Quote
Also a huge thank you to everyone who has posted so far - this is exactly the kind of thread I wanted! Useful feedback and carefully thought out posts. You guys are awesome :) CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
250
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 00:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
ISN Spy spizors wrote:CCP Affinity wrote: I have already been in talks with Ronin and Serge and quite a few other people within the community - it's been a really good learning experience for me :)
Should have talked to Noble Ranger instead, hes the one actually running and keeping ISN alive :/
I am also talking with him :) Talking with Noble Ranger, Ronin and Kodavor CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
256
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 16:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:I think a lot of us would like a simple yes/no answer on the subject of NCNs....is there a plan to re-do them? As is, fleets completely avoid them when possible, and once a system is full of them, the fleet either slows down drastically or simply disbands.
I recommend, at the very least, re-configuring them to single rooms rather than parallel ones, with the whole fleet staying together. Splitting them up drastically lowers the fleet's efficiency, and creates logistics headaches. Tweaking the number of sniper targets would help as well, particularly in the last room.
As I said, I hope to look at an overall Incursion design after we fix the immediate issues. The NCNs would come under that. CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
256
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 16:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Col Ostomy wrote:CCP Affinity please consider reviewing the mail sent to you from Electric Shoe. The information he provides is invaluable and is dead on how low sec runners feel things can be fixed.
Thanks for listening.
Have already read it - will reply to him tomorrow CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
259
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 21:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Yup, back on topic guys.. If the thread derails like the others I will lock it and I have absolutely no intention of starting a third thread because people can't behave. CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
261
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:14:00 -
[19] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Asmodes Reynolds wrote:The best, and only solution that I can see to this problem is to compromise: I proposed two options:
#1. For high-sec incursions Suspend Concorde/faction police response in incursion systems, while leaving all the rest of the penalties (sec status, GCC, ), and make them function exactly the same as low sec/null sec but a minor difference in pay out somewhere between 90-100% of what you would get in low-sec.
This would add virtually the same risk but still allow for additional safety (do the one hit kill guns on stations and Gates) and you can give one of the fancy messages saying that Concorde will not protect you when you try and jump into the Consolation.
#2: the high-sec incursions as they are currently, as far as payouts are concerned
-Reduce Concorde's response to the point that they can be tanked, with a reasonable amount of logistics (old Concorde -Someone remind me which patch that changed that.. it's been too long. The rest of Concorde is busy trying to defend the surrounding area and they can't ask for more support ships because of the system being jammed. If the fluff is what you're concerned about.
- This would allow there to be a measurable amount of risk in comparison to the low sec/null sec counterparts, while still giving a reasonable of amount of additional safety. While still allowing up a determined and well organized player force to disrupt operations. (To keep servers from crashing limit the amount of NPC's that can spawn in the system at one time.)
- give a fancy message when people try and jump into hi sec incursion system about the reduced presence of Concorde
Both options, would allow incursions to become a True event with far-reaching consequences (trade routes would have to be redirected . Depending on where the incursion spawned possibly cutting off safe access whole sections of hi sec from each other. Crating interesting short-term market/industrial Opportunities for quick acting opportunistic player.
I personally think option #2 would be the more dynamic and balanced option, I believe was a little bit of tweaking, you could reasonably balance the risk versus reward situation. While Creating creating interesting and dynamic environment that can be found nowhere else in the in the universe. this is not a good idea. if concord is not strong enough to protect the incursion runners, there is no effective difference between running hisec and lowsec incursions, so you may just as well remove them from highsec. if on the other hand concord IS strong enough, there will be a constant battle between the incursion runners and gank fleets sacrificing alts in noob ships to draw the concord fleet where they want it to be.
I'm not convinced removing concord is something I want to do ;) Definitely not for the short term june/july fix and probably not long term either. However, keep your suggestions and feedback coming, want to get as much as possible.
CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
261
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:46:00 -
[20] - Quote
Xorv wrote:CCP Affinity wrote: I'm not convinced removing concord is something I want to do ;) Definitely not for the short term june/july fix and probably not long term either. However, keep your suggestions and feedback coming, want to get as much as possible.
So how are your going to balance High Sec Incursions benefit of being largely risk free due to CONCORD protection with Income sources from other areas of the game, Low Sec, Null and WH space that have no such security? Surely this would require further nerfs to High Sec Incursion income, not reversals of the recent moderate nerfs?
That is a discussion we will have at a later date - a change as drastic as removing CONCORD is not one I would take lightly and definitely not for the short-term fixes this thread is about. After we have those out of the way I will start a long-term re-design thread and we can pick this topic back up. CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
262
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 10:31:00 -
[21] - Quote
Crest Cutty wrote:*This post got longer than I hoped, so compulsory wall of text warning*
I think some input from CCP as to what they envisioned Incursions to be would help the community wrap our heads around what's going on.
end game empire content for shiny ships w/ t2 guns? an intro to pvp tactics (rr/shooting primaries...) ? a vehicle to put the M's back into eve MMO, corp focused or PUG? RP event? supplemental income for low-sec/0.0 dwellers? PvE w/ risk (many a machariel is just shiny space junk thanks to incursions)
The isk generation problem was terrible when you have a guy with 3-4 alts in the same vanguard fleets, that's comparable to ratting in a titan and 4 tengu alts is significantly cheaper.
It is the beast that is eve. Some people will spend the time on sisi to perfect something and some people will show up in the public incursion fleet screaming about a drake lfsf, it is very difficult to balance these two competing dogmas (0.0 v. empire) given access to the same resources. Reminds me of trying to design a D&D adventure for a group with one power guy using every supplemental rule book he could find as well as some guy who builds his character around a rp concept.
I personally would love to see them as end-game empire content. Shiny fleets strap on your brass ones and you could potentially earn 0.0 carrier ratting isk. Make them require near constant focus (the addition of neuts would help, truly random spawns, more ewar, coordinated alpha strikes, you know...harder). If you show up in a random blob you earn lvl 4 isk (40m hour, regular person lvl 4 isk, not super spreadsheet)
Make assaults noob friendly, much easier to find 25 dudes w/ t1 guns in B.C's. Make vanguards for more experienced players, say t1 bs w/ t2 guns and turn the scout sites into elite small gang warfare, high risk while requiring very specialized ships. Reward FC's somehow (boss of fleets get some bonus LP?)
This approach would address multiple problems: -reduce the multiple toon problems breaking the bank -allow the more experienced pilots not have to roll their eyes at all the terrible fits -smaller gangs can be challenged beyond throwing more dps/rr at them -reduction in time needed to form up "good" fleets. Increasing the pool of pilots who can fly in the fleets that require more numbers should reduce form-up times -FC bonus would allow veteran FC's to not loose on isk/hr by running with the noobs -dividing players by skills, thus allowing proper control of rewards and away from the, regular fleet makes 40m/hr ISN makes 140m/hr
I'm sure there would be further impact of these changes but I think this would be a big step in the right direction.
tl;dr
Things are broken the way they are now and instead of trying to cover it up with a band-aid that will soon be painfully ripped off by psychotic, ocd eve spreadsheet junkies at the expense of the casual players more innovative solutions need to be examined.
Thanks for the feedback :) The issue of what CCP see Incursions as - I answered on page 2 :)
CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
262
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 11:09:00 -
[22] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:In my opinion, you said your talking to key figures within the community but Eve is not about the single person. You should listen to everybodys points and take them on board? For example speaking to Ronin is all well and good but have you spoken to LadyTomohawk? he is a key figure head within Incursions.
Incursions went from good to awful the change was far far too drastic.
Work load increased exponentially for a far less ISK LP reward. The reason you did this was because of all the null sec alliance whine bags...whining. You know thats true?
The biggest playerbase and therefore largest paying percentage of EVE players are highsec based yet your determined to take everything away from empire players.
There is a great saying here for this situation - Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
If you continue to take everything decent from empire you will lose subs and plex sales, an awful lot of them.
What percentage of Incursions are being done now compared to before the change? How long are the MOMS staying up?
I think those figures will speak for themselves
[and I dont even live or fly in empire]
That is why I am also on the forums - reading everything and replying. I am only 1 person, I cannot possibly talk individually to every single person in the Incursion Community but I have spoken to quite a few and am making myself available on the forums and anyone is welcome to EVE mail me. I think you could benefit from reading through the thread again to see that we are aware of the issues and we do plan to do something about it.
CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
263
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 11:26:00 -
[23] - Quote
Keep the discussion on topic - short term fixes CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
263
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 14:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:CCP Affinity wrote:Keep the discussion on topic - short term fixes This seems to suggest that there needs to be a [/i]fix[/i]. With people in shiney ship organized "communities" adapting to the situaiton already, STILL pulling in 100 mil an hour, any "fix" bears a high risk of simply reverting to the protected high sec super shiney isk printing that you were trying to fix in the 1st place. That's what happened with null sec anomalies, you guys "fixed" them to the point where people fled to the (at the time insane) high sec incursions, only to re-fix them into the (in the case of forsaken hubs) super titan isk prining machines. It's ok now because of the titan nerf....now it's super carriers in those anoms lol. (Side note, the occaisional NPC Interdictors in null sec anoms triggered randomly by the entry of a super cap might be a good idea, pass it on :) ) I know incursions are not perfect as is, but please tread carefully (and i'm sorry, talking with members of a farming community isn't all you should be doing, eve is one game, not a series of "special interests", you should think about non-incursion folks too), especially with regards to the high sec incursions. The goal should be to encourage people to places other than high sec (where consumption good for the economy happens), not giving them incentive to stay there or flock back to it.
Again, this is why I am on the forums listening to the opinion of everyone who wishes to post CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
263
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 14:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Xorv wrote: Your comparison to running nullsec anoms solo, is flawed in that there is a great deal of effort and teamwork far exceeding anything in High Sec Incursions to create the environment that they can run anoms solo. Nullsec residents require constant teamwork to maintain that environment and they do so against other players not NPCs. Same is true of Wormhole space. There's simply no way your going to be able to justify High Sec Incursions earning remotely that of PvE activities in areas of space more open to PvP.
The high end earners must be considered, and part of why they can earn so much is that they can go out in very expensive pimped out ships without serious risk of losing them as would be the case in Lowsec, Nullsec and WH space.
Perfectly said (underlined the most important part), and I it troublesome that ccp is just talking to professional incursion people when talking about fixes, Incursion content MUST be balanced with everyhintg else, and on a per character basis. I'm a casual incursion runner, I want them to be good, but too good anyhting is bad in a game like this.
I'm pretty sure I've said this already but we are going to balance them vs other PvE, not just based on other Incursion sites. I am also not just talking to professional Incursion runners, I am talking to an entire forum of people :) CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
266
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 19:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
Thanks for all the contributions. I have read all your thoughts and some of you had some really valid points. I have also spoken to people within the shield and armour communities and will continue to do so. If you have any further detailed feedback to give me, feel free to EVEmail me. Also, to clear up any misunderstandings, just because I have not replied directly to everyone in the thread does not mean I did not read every single contribution and as I stated before, you are welcome to EVE mail me if you have anything constructive to add. CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
|
|