|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
376
   |
Posted - 2012.06.13 08:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
I don't think anyone would begrudge rollbacks on some of the low and Null Sec Incursion Nerfs, but risk free High Sec Incursions should be receiving more nerfs or better yet have Incursions removed entirely until such a time Incursions can be reintroduced in such a way that makes sense both in terms of lore and risk vs reward balance.
"Incursion community" is pure nonsense, it disappeared because most of them were just players bandwagoning onto the best risk/effort vs reward Isk making activity. The remainder are Themepark type PvE raiders who's gameplay needs are incompatible with a Sandbox PvP game such as EVE and should have been shown the door at the first opportunity. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
Going by Selene's latest blog post the CSM and CCP discussed some of the real problems with Incursions (full article here: http://seleenes-sandbox.blogspot.com):
Quote:
* The Incursion story line - will this ever end? There's no real sense of danger. **** needs to get real.
* "NPC" space doesn't feel very alive. There are no convoys anymore, etc... Why don't the NPCs react to all of this bad stuff going on in their space?
* If the Sansha are invading, wouldn't CONCORD be busy dealing with that and not capsuleers? (totally legit question)
This is what CCP should be working on fixing with Incursions, particularly the last point. Either Incursions in High Sec lose CONCORD protection or High Sec should lose Incursions. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
379
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Xorv wrote:This is what CCP should be working on fixing with Incursions, particularly the last point. Either Incursions in High Sec lose CONCORD protection or High Sec should lose Incursions. Incursions that loose Concord protection are inherently not highsec incursions. Either way you are asking for the same thing. I think he knows 
Yes, in terms of CONCORD mechanics they're largely the same thing, but in a broader sense they are not. High Sec could have Incursions which drop security to the same as Low Sec or NPC Null sec for the duration, but that would not make those Incursions identical in experience to Incursions in already existing Low or Null Sec as it's both temporary and more dynamic.
As general design philosophy I believe CCP should abandon principally defining space by the degree of NPC/game mechanic security provided, and instead think of of it terms of Player Controlled or NPC Controlled. A more pure sandbox player generated politics vs Lore based NPC politics, but neither should automatically mean more safety for the player. The idea mostly proliferated by players themselves of a near or absolutely safe High Sec should be publicly dispatched by CCP in such a way that such treachery against the spirit of Sandbox MMOs may never resurface here again. Mostly safe trade areas, fine. Safe newbie starter zones fine. However, all desirable resources, the "farms and fields" should be found in dangerous space whether that space is NPC or player controlled. They can start with Incursions!
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
404
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 19:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:More broken promises...
Back in June 13th...
DarthNefarius wrote:
The partial un nerf (rollback) does not address the real issue which floored the Vanguards: OTA's are now too dificult and are stacking like pancakes.
I've unsubscribed and my subscription time runs out in under 24 hours
Indeed! |
|
|
| |
|