Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 21:21:00 -
[241] - Quote
Andski wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:[quote=Mata1s]Thread is full of QQing high-sec carebears crying that their low risk high reward isk farms are gonna get balanced.
Risk vs Reward. carebear publord~
To you thats Mister carebear publord
|
Scalar Angulargf
Rayn Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 21:47:00 -
[242] - Quote
Letrange 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 So, what you're saying is that the CSM (which consists of prety much only 0.0 leaders) was bitching that their pilots were up in high sec running incursions instead of being in their fleets in 0.0 like they want.
Wow you're thick. Why would we run incursions in High Sec. Low Sec is where it's at.
|
Cellethen
Kickass inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 22:07:00 -
[243] - Quote
After reading the thread, my opinions are essentially as follows:
1. Incursions are healthier for the game than easily bottable content, and while the isk/hour might be a tad high, I'd rather the high-profit activities available in EVE be the ones that require actual player interaction, not botting.
2. Nullsec is a hilariously safe place to farm, I've lived there for years in various sectors. I have been caught farming once and that was because I was being an idiot and watching pro Starcraft while farming. It's honestly more of a risk to your ship to pub an Incursion than it is to farm an anom in nullsec.
So what do I think should be done about highsec incursions? Very little - perhaps a reduction in the isk/hr of vanguards to deal with the inflation issue, and an increase to other types of sites to balance out the isk/hr in comparison to vanguards. Yada yada, been said before, nothing new. What I do think is even more important, however, is this: creating new, riskier, more profitable nullsec activities that cannot be easily botted. That's a pretty tall order - after all, making things risky in nullsec is hard without removing local completely, and I don't agree with that step (my personal opinion is that CovOps frigates shouldn't show up in local unless they aggress someone or speak in local, but that's not likely to happen I feel). But if you made it risky enough to be tougher than the highsec carebearing while also making it profitable enough to be worth the possibility of losing ships - well, then we'd actually be back to a good balance between highsec and nullsec. At the moment, neither of them is particularly risky, and nullsec does not grant a particularly improved stream of income for individual pilots (tech moons are another story, but corporate economics isn't something I've studied up on, so I'm not qualified to comment on it.)
In summary: Highsec risk is about right (seriously, try getting pub logi in your incursion fleet sometime - it's a crapshoot as to whether or not your faction BS is goign to get smoked), nullsec is too safe, highsec isk/hr is either slightly too high or about right, nullsec isk/hr is too low to make it worth the effort of farming it.
Buff exploration isk/hr please :( I want to use my probes again and not feel like it's a novelty. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1518
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 22:19:00 -
[244] - Quote
what I don't get is concord protection in incursion systems
why yes the system is full of pirate NPCs but concord reacts all the same, what |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1277
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 22:43:00 -
[245] - Quote
Andski wrote:what I don't get is concord protection in incursion systems
why yes the system is full of pirate NPCs but concord reacts all the same, what
true enough ...It does not make sense. However its high sec. so CONCORD "retribution" is expected.. Altho their response time could be a lot higher .. in case of running Incursion .. i mean higher then in 0.5 system...
So the perceived safety is still there but if someone really want to hurt incursion runners they will have an chance..
Just an thought.
Still the "mechancis" beyond Incursion should be changed anyway.. So it wont be farmed but it will be played as it was originally intended. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
537
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 22:48:00 -
[246] - Quote
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:Andski wrote:what I don't get is concord protection in incursion systems
why yes the system is full of pirate NPCs but concord reacts all the same, what true enough ...It does not make sense. However its high sec. so CONCORD "retribution" is expected.. Altho their response time could be a lot higher .. in case of running Incursion .. i mean higher then in 0.5 system... So the perceived safety is still there but if someone really want to hurt incursion runners they will have an chance.. Just an thought. Still the "mechancis" beyond Incursion should be changed anyway.. So it wont be farmed but it will be played as it was originally intended.
No thanks. It would harm a feature that inspires grouping in hisec to appease a few gankers who don't want to spend the money needed to gank incursion craft like any other craft.
No need to change CONCORD response. |
Draco Llasa
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 23:04:00 -
[247] - Quote
ok well i haven't had the time to sit and read all 13 pages of this but i want to say a few things.
Of "the CSM Feedback" 80-90% came from me. Most of my feedback was based on extensive conversations with leaders of the public incursion running communities (like BTL) and outreach attempts on public incursion forums, and the feedback was not 0.0 overlords saying 'nerf incursions' cause they are high sec babies or anything like that so get over it. To be totally honest your favorite overlord to hate (The mittani) sat back and didnt say a word other than stating goons ran them for a while and liked them so you can all relax the conspiracy theories.
The fact is incursions are very profitable, and I stated they should be. The issue specifically with the ISK payouts is that they need to be properly balanced with the other class sites. i doubt im gonna be able to follow this thread closely but if you haev a specific concern regard the CSM and Incursions you can contact me. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
537
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 23:10:00 -
[248] - Quote
Draco Llasa wrote:ok well i haven't had the time to sit and read all 13 pages of this but i want to say a few things.
Of "the CSM Feedback" 80-90% came from me. Most of my feedback was based on extensive conversations with leaders of the public incursion running communities (like BTL) and outreach attempts on public incursion forums, and the feedback was not 0.0 overlords saying 'nerf incursions' cause they are high sec babies or anything like that so get over it. To be totally honest your favorite overlord to hate (The mittani) sat back and didnt say a word other than stating goons ran them for a while and liked them so you can all relax the conspiracy theories.
The fact is incursions are very profitable, and I stated they should be. The issue specifically with the ISK payouts is that they need to be properly balanced with the other class sites. i doubt im gonna be able to follow this thread closely but if you haev a specific concern regard the CSM and Incursions you can contact me.
Can I ask you then if you and CSM Member Meissa Anunthiel are in agreement about this? And you aren't out to reduce the payout or make it harder for nonshiny fleets to complete a site?
Edit: Sorry I need to be clear about this. I mean payout as in stated payout not isk/hr. As in shiny fleets cant blitz a site as an advantage over nonshiny fleets.
Quote:No, the changes I'd like are: - Vanguards to be non-blitzable. If you want to use shiny fleets, do so, they'll provide more safety and most likely efficiency over non-shiny but overall this will lengthen the time it takes to complete them to people who blitz them and get the income/hour to reasonable levels. People who don't blitz them ideally shouldn't see an impact on their hourly income. - I'd like non-vangard sites to be reevaluated in terms of gain/time. Either by decreasing the time, increasing the rewards or a combination thereof. Variations in terms of difficulty are fine, it's just the payout/time I'd like streamlined. - I'd like incursions to take longer to reach 100% in highsec, probably by a factor 1.5 to 2, so more casual type of people can participate in incursions instead of seeing them despawn by the time they get on site. This, combined with decent profitability for the other sites means more people can participate.
Also, but not in the "balancing" category per se, I'd like to see more types of incurions, other races than sansha or more sansha content, I'll leave that to the content guys at CCP to decide, but more content that encourages the type of gameplay we've seen here and was previously absent from highsec. Ideally that content would be accompanied by "story" events like we've seen with sansha, in order to get the storyline evolving again and give the RPers some much-needed "fuel".
As far as incursions in low/null are concerned, I don't want any change at all for the time being. |
Draco Llasa
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 23:37:00 -
[249] - Quote
yea Meissa and i tend to agree on things overall, and with what you have quoted there i mostly agree. The only thing i differ on slightly is that i think the risk in some of the sites should be balanced with the reward.
For example if the risk running VGs was a bit higher, and by this i mean if there was a real risk of loosing a ship if everyone is not completely on the ball, some may give it a second thought when taking in a 1-2+ bil isk ship. They still can if they want to risk it and and if they trust their fleet mates,and in turn may get the sites done faster because of it but it will carry a bit more risk.
This is an area i saw (and you will see more details in the summit minutes) as one that can help a lot of areas of incursions including population and site competition. it will all be in the minutes when they come out. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
537
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:00:00 -
[250] - Quote
The issue with that is that it will vastly harm nonshiny fleets compared with shiny fleets.
They have the advantage of being able to clear the spawn faster anyway. So if you increase damage potential they will just remove it faster than the nonshiny fleet can and already reduce the risk. Add to that they can afford greater resist and buffer potential and you end up with yet again advantage shiny.
In my opinion the far bigger fix would be just to force the site to be completed and not blitzed. That will even the playing field a great deal and increasing rewards in higher sites should yield nonshiny fleets a majority in VGs again.
Also keep in mind the people who often pay the price for mistakes are logis. Logis are by far the weakest link as far as buffer potential and it shows in the amounts lost. Changing things will end up with more and more logis saying "F this I am shiny fleet only" And that will continue to harm the nonshiny fleets.
Would you reconsider the part about increasing risk of defeat atleast until smaller changes are implemented and have time to show data? |
|
Draco Llasa
Thundercats Initiative Mercenaries
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:25:00 -
[251] - Quote
I'm not opposed to your suggestions and as its been mentioned many times we (CSM) are not game designers. What we do (and in this case did) is layout players concerns and offered up a few suggestions (some which have not been noted) at the end of the day its up to CCP to take this info and implement it as they see fit. Then we (CSM) come back out with more feedback.
My main reason for posting here was to dispell the idea that the CSM was all 0.0 advocates set on wrecking Incursions.. as that could not be farther from the truth. |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
743
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:33:00 -
[252] - Quote
Feed back from the armor community in general is this - pay outs do need to be adjusted so that assaults and hq pay outs are in line with vanguards.
especially hq's because setting up 40 man "pug" fleets is actually really hard to do sometimes. Especially when most are strangers to each other and have never flown with each other.
Also the true creations research center, yeah that needs to have a look at, its the one site no one runs. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
537
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:37:00 -
[253] - Quote
Understood Draco. and again I apologize for assuming that you were in the days past. And thank you and the other members of the CSM who take the time to talk to the people you represent. The players.
I look forward to CCP announcing their plans for incursion changes and to debating with them on how they should be implemented. I am at the moment opposed to making any risk based changes to incursions at this time yet I am not saying they should never be considered. It is my hope that CCP will allow good time for testing of incursions inside sisi so that they can get good data on how shiny and nonshiny fleets handle them. My main will of course be there ready for testing when the time comes.
I just hope that open and honest communications between the players, CSM, and CCP are not fouled by those who want incursions to be nerfed for all the wrong reasons. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
112
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:50:00 -
[254] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Amy Elteam wrote:Sure you can argue that the CSM is representing its constituents, you can tell yourself that they're just jealous, you can convince yourself that they just want to keep hi-sec poor.
And then you can go and look at the PLEX price, and the inflation of mineral values and realise that maybe the endless fountain of isk coming from farming incursions is not the best thing for the Eve economy right now. You can't argue with the numbers. What numbers? Where is your PROOF that incursions are flooding the economy with isk? Here is a hint. WIth dual or tri boxing and shiny fits you can make much more than 100M an hour doing lvl4s with ease. Anoms you can single box almost 100M an hour and even more if you have a alt with noctis handy. Do you seriously think the so called "isk flooding" is going to stop just because incursions are nerfed? No people will just go back to doing boring Lvl4s and CCPs reputation will fall because the FUN is with grouping. And a CSM member in this topic seems to like incursions. So I guess they don't agree with your pretend numbers.
If you tri box L4s you can make 70-80M not 100 and those are to be split per account => 80M / 3 = 26.6M per hour per account. Also, blitzing L4s (the most profitable way) scales bad with increasing accounts.
If you join an incursion you get >= 100M with ONE account. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
537
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 01:04:00 -
[255] - Quote
Maybe for you. Not for those flying 2-3 2-3B isk ships.
And division by account matters not. You can plex an account or two in a single day running 4s. The rest of the month is pure profit. And you don't have the risks of a drunk logi or other crap that ends up with your ship a smoldering pile of junk.
What needs to happen is eventually IVs and Vs need to be moved into an incursion like grouping system. Hisec moving into a grouping stance will benefit EVE as a whole because it will reduce botting and teach behaviors that can benefit people going into other areas of the game.
Edit: You mentioned 100M an hour with one account. That and the 150 figure assumes everything is PERFECT and that you are running them again and again and again with no downtime for people to change ships or change members of fleets. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1518
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 02:03:00 -
[256] - Quote
if you can't understand the core of the problem, 150M/hr in high-sec when you can't even make that running -1.0 anoms with infinitely more risk, you are dumb |
Jonny Frost
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:10:00 -
[257] - Quote
I know this a pointless post as nobody reads posts without a "CSM" or "DEV" tag however...
Easy fix:
- Lower VG pay out by maybe 10%
- Increase Assaults and HQ to fit
- Fix uncomeptitive Assault and HQ sites.
- Sansha will warp disrupt every ship in the site, so if **** hits the fan - you lose the whole fleet, not just one ship. (Everyone has to be on the ball, all the time)
|
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
744
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:11:00 -
[258] - Quote
dont say 0 risk. I have seen total fail cascades in incursions before because of spawn triggers gone wrong. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4337
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:12:00 -
[259] - Quote
Jonny Frost wrote:I know this a pointless post as nobody reads posts without a "CSM" or "DEV" tag however... Easy fix:
- Lower VG pay out by maybe 10%
- Increase Assaults and HQ to fit
- Fix uncomeptitive Assault and HQ sites.
- Sansha will warp disrupt every ship in the site, so if **** hits the fan - you lose the whole fleet, not just one ship. (Everyone has to be on the ball, all the time)
GǪand, more importantly, shift more (most?) of the rewards to LP rather than pure ISK. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Jonny Frost
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:13:00 -
[260] - Quote
Andski wrote:if you can't understand the core of the problem, 150M/hr in high-sec when you can't even make that running -1.0 anoms with infinitely more risk, you are dumb
The problem you seem to not understand fully is this 150M/hr is not a standard. It's a spreadsheet calculation. Yes, it's possible and some fleets may run it, but, then it's a dedicated group or organisation which is surly what CCP wanted with EVE. People grouping together to play a game.... |
|
Jonny Frost
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:14:00 -
[261] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Jonny Frost wrote:I know this a pointless post as nobody reads posts without a "CSM" or "DEV" tag however... Easy fix:
- Lower VG pay out by maybe 10%
- Increase Assaults and HQ to fit
- Fix uncomeptitive Assault and HQ sites.
- Sansha will warp disrupt every ship in the site, so if **** hits the fan - you lose the whole fleet, not just one ship. (Everyone has to be on the ball, all the time)
GǪand, more importantly, shift more (most?) of the rewards to LP rather than pure ISK.
Why would you do that? The LP is practically worthless anyways. Maybe if the +6% wern't riddiculous there would be more demand. +6 attributes? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4337
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:19:00 -
[262] - Quote
Jonny Frost wrote:Why would you do that? A couple of reasons.
It reduces the influx of ISK (obviously) and instead replaces it with a larger ISK sink (the LP store) GÇö that alone is a good change since more ISK needs to be siphoned out of the economy rather than being added to it. It also creates a second-level competitive element to the rewards that makes them scale with size. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:22:00 -
[263] - Quote
Andski wrote:if you can't understand the core of the problem, 150M/hr in high-sec when you can't even make that running -1.0 anoms with infinitely more risk, you are dumb
Wow. This number keeps getting higher and higher the more it is talked about.
|
Killstealing
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
341
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:23:00 -
[264] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:dont say 0 risk. I have seen total fail cascades in incursions before because of spawn triggers gone wrong. no that would be because the players were completely ********. DPS in incursions = clicking what is broadcasted by the FC, Logi = locking everyone and just mashing reps, FC = follow flowchart and broadcast ****
This is of course for VG sites only, which are coincidentally both the easiest, quickest (maybe mining with prebought ore but **** ore) and best isk/hr sites.
Make effort and risk equal payment again. VG sites are literally doable by small kids without any prev. experience (I made a 10 yo play logi once, I just told him to press the F buttons when yelling came from the speakers until the yelling stopped) and are risk-free (it takes about 10 maels to alpha a logi, jamming don't work with ECCM mods, good luck getting a gank done when there's usually concord present in system already).
Don't start blabbering about the risk of losing a ship due to a drunk logi because even with the most obnoxious group of incompetent jackasses, incursions are a ******* breeze. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:25:00 -
[265] - Quote
Killstealing wrote:Obsidian Hawk wrote:dont say 0 risk. I have seen total fail cascades in incursions before because of spawn triggers gone wrong. no that would be because the players were completely ********. DPS in incursions = clicking what is broadcasted by the FC, Logi = locking everyone and just mashing reps, FC = follow flowchart and broadcast **** This is of course for VG sites only, which are coincidentally both the easiest, quickest (maybe mining with prebought ore but **** ore) and best isk/hr sites. Make effort and risk equal payment again. VG sites are literally doable by small kids without any prev. experience (I made a 10 yo play logi once, I just told him to press the F buttons when yelling came from the speakers until the yelling stopped) and are risk-free (it takes about 10 maels to alpha a logi, jamming don't work with ECCM mods, good luck getting a gank done when there's usually concord present in system already). Don't start blabbering about the risk of losing a ship due to a drunk logi because even with the most obnoxious group of incompetent jackasses, incursions are a ******* breeze.
Holy **** you are pretty pissed off. Just relax ok?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1519
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:30:00 -
[266] - Quote
fhc poster marlona sky, ladies and gentlemen |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:44:00 -
[267] - Quote
Andski wrote:fhc poster marlona sky, ladies and gentlemen
I'm flattered you keep following my every word in every post on every forum, but it is kinda creepy.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1519
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 03:46:00 -
[268] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Andski wrote:fhc poster marlona sky, ladies and gentlemen I'm flattered you keep following my every word in every post on every forum, but it is kinda creepy.
i just saw a few bad posts and i realized you're bad at posting |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
538
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 04:10:00 -
[269] - Quote
Killstealing wrote:Obsidian Hawk wrote:dont say 0 risk. I have seen total fail cascades in incursions before because of spawn triggers gone wrong. no that would be because the players were completely ********. DPS in incursions = clicking what is broadcasted by the FC, Logi = locking everyone and just mashing reps, FC = follow flowchart and broadcast **** This is of course for VG sites only, which are coincidentally both the easiest, quickest (maybe mining with prebought ore but **** ore) and best isk/hr sites. Make effort and risk equal payment again. VG sites are literally doable by small kids without any prev. experience (I made a 10 yo play logi once, I just told him to press the F buttons when yelling came from the speakers until the yelling stopped) and are risk-free (it takes about 10 maels to alpha a logi, jamming don't work with ECCM mods, good luck getting a gank done when there's usually concord present in system already). Don't start blabbering about the risk of losing a ship due to a drunk logi because even with the most obnoxious group of incompetent jackasses, incursions are a ******* breeze.
Ya I don't think you have ever been in a serious incursion fleet.
And too bad on the cost to gank. Working as intended. A 100+M ship should not fall to a couple of catalysts before concord arrives.
And yes drunk dc logis are a big issue when you have a 2B isk fit on the line. Pretending otherwise does not help your point. |
Lady Spank
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
957
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 04:10:00 -
[270] - Quote
Andski wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Andski wrote:fhc poster marlona sky, ladies and gentlemen I'm flattered you keep following my every word in every post on every forum, but it is kinda creepy. i just saw a few bad posts and i realized you're bad at posting
It normally just takes one post. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ http://getoutnastyface.blogspot.com/ ~ (a¦á_a¦â) -áGÖÑ New Years Resolution ~ Cease thy Smacktalk GÖÑ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |