|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
80
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Setsune Rin wrote:what about a tweak to OTA's? make them bearable for fleets other then the ones that blind you with shiny stuff (remove that stupid repping tower and/or the hacking requirement)
that might restore it some some form of popularity, instead of stopping vanguards alltogether after there is nothing but OTA's
I fly through too many OTA only systems in incursions with about 3 people in local so its obvious fleets are not running them.
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote:We are listening to the feedback about OTA and we are taking it seriously but that is a change we will have to look at for a future expansion, not one we can squeeze in now. We also don't want to make any further changes right now, please read my previous post about small steps
Well until you fix OTAs your changes will mean virtually nothing. I use to run Vanguard sites alot. The day after the nerf I tried to run an OTA 3 hours later we finished the 3rd site. I never went back to vanguards. I trained half my corp on how to run vanguards and then the nerf and no one ever ran a vanguard site again after I explained about the new OTA setup. It's just not worth the effort and frustration. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
cBOLTSON wrote:[quote=Simi Kusoni]
This is very true, a large portion of incursion runners I ran with were either pvp chars or obvious nullsec alts.
No i wouldnt say they are at all, its the big nullsec battles, the things individual corporations and even a single man can do in the game that really drive the story. Incursions were more like a mutual benifactor for everyone involved. A lot of times i saw 0.0 enemies together in the same incursion fleet.
Yes I also totally agree with you about the community, hence why when incursions droped out of favour, mass portions of the so called 'incursion community' went back to what ever they did before.
I for one would personally love it if it was the members collecting resources for thier corp / alliance. Similar to how resources are gathered in a RTS. Ive allways seen eve more as a real time strategy game than a space combat sim. Obviously has elemnts of both. Incursions were at least something half decent to do pve wise.
I remember fleeting up with Reds on several occasions. Even someone I had killed recently. He told me in fleet chat he was looking forward to a rematch and was planning on using the incursion funds to pay for ships to do it in. I was doing the same thing saving up isk to buy stuff to support my null sec agenda(CAPs and a POS and POCOs and new drakes to get blown up in)
|
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:I personally think whatever changes made to hisec incursions should be completely separate from low/nullsec incursions.
CCP did the lazy and dumb blanket nerf that made low/null incursions bad to the point that its not even worth running anymore.
Low and Nullsec incursions should have their sites and mechanics back to pre-escalation to inferno level.
I definitely agree that lowsec and null sec incursions need to be changed. There mechanic as to restriction of a fleet size makes the a random lottery of isk that is only available to the group that controls that space. Primarily in null sec if a constellation is SOV for a group and they control it and have intel channels up they can safely run them with little fear of being interrupted by an opposing force without forewarning. But if the incursion area is not thoroughly controlled it is a death trap. Fleet sizes to run incursion sites are limited by the payout. The reward is worthless if you bring too many ships to a site. Pirates know the optimum fleet sizes and can easily estimate it's capability so its simple to bring in a gank fleet that can counter it. Even if a incursion fleet is setup for PVP they are still limited to the size of fleet by the reward of the site. So low sec vanguards are going to have at most 10-12 ships. A gank gang needs to plan for that and they can easily scan down or scout out a fleet in a site and jump them with sufficient numbers and the right capabilites and get lots of kill mails. thus the only realistic way to run low sec incursions is to bring a massive force and camp out the area. Now it devolves into a simple numbers game, which takes away alot of the point. There is no community aspect. People have to join up before hand to be able to run these sites then and organize at a level that is well beyond the scope of the pickup fleets of high sec incursions. This may be the intention of low sec incursions, but there just aren't enough people willing to risk decent ships enough to profitably run incursions. The payouts are not in line with the risk involved. And thus they are nearly unused.
That is one of the key things that need to be understood. The threshold of risk versus reward. If null sec has less risk or equal risk to low sec and more reward then what is the point of low sec? Also if low sec and null sec incursions are near suicidal to run without a massive alliance to run, then only those massive groups can run them. So its more profitable in the long run to stay in high sec with a very limited chance to get killed versus 15-20% better rewards to a much greater chance of getting killed. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
84
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
To continue out my risk versus reward line of reasoning and bring in the next part of my argument--opportunity cost.
The new OTAs are a great example. They are exceedingly difficult to run. They can be ran with a hacker ship or by a very shiny fleet setup that can alpha through the reps. The time it takes to assemble a fleet that is capable of doing OTAs and then accomplishing the sites can give you a reasonable guess of expected 50-60 million isk per hour once you get the fleet going, but delays and repping and rest breaks and corp taxes can bring that down to earth pretty quickly as well. To about the point of chain running Level 4 missions or null sec ratting/plexing and much less set up time required to start generating isk. Yes I understand really shiny fleets can make even more isk per hour and they wouldn't have that concern, which leads me to yet another major factor in Eve online--barriers to entry.
How much does a good pirate faction battleship cost? How much to fit it out with faction gear? Officer gear? How much does the average new player have available? How many level 4 missions does it take to make that much? How much does it hurt if you lose that faction battleship before you earned back the isk you invested in it?
There is a simple example of barriers to entry. To be able to get into a fleet that can make isk better than running Level 4s costs more than the average player can get ahold of easily. All this circles back around to the risk versus reward. How likely is a player going to risk an expensive ship that they cannot easily replace? How likely is that carebear mission running player going to risk his several billion isk ship on incursions? How likely is that player to go into low or null sec? How likely is that person going to risk going into a low sec or null sec incursion site?
Do you see what I'm getting at? People follow basic economic principles based on their own level of risk taking. If something is very risky the reward has to be equal or greater to the risk before normal people will want to do it. And there are risk thresholds as well. If I had you roll a 20 sided die and gave you $20 if you got a 20, but you had to pay me $10 dollars if you rolled a 1 ad you could roll as many times as you liked. You would play alot and I would pay out alot, but if I gave you 1 million dollars for a 20 and I killed you if you rolled a 1 I don't think I would get too many interested people.
If CCP tries to buck these fundamental rules then they will get unused game content |
|
|
|